AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP · AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP Independent Development Evaluation Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation – Ghana (2004‐2014) Inception Report

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP

Independent Development Evaluation

Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation – Ghana (2004‐2014) Inception Report

Draft, revised 06 December 2015

Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation – Inception Report Ghana (2004‐2014) Page 2

Contents

List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. 4

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5

2 Overview of Ghana’s Development Context ............................................................................. 6

2.1 Development Context in Ghana ............................................................................................ 6

2.1.1 Political Context ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Economic Context .................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.3 Social Context ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Key Development Challenges ................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Government of Ghana Development Strategies ................................................................... 8

2.4 Progress toward the Millennium Development Goals .......................................................... 9

3 Overview of Bank Support to Ghana ...................................................................................... 11

3.1 The Bank’s Country Strategies in Ghana ............................................................................. 11

3.2 Bank Corporate Policies and Strategies .............................................................................. 14

3.3 The Bank's Portfolio in Ghana ............................................................................................. 16

3.3.1 Lending operations ................................................................................................................ 17

3.3.2 Non‐lending activities ............................................................................................................ 20

3.4 Theory of Change for the Bank’s Activities in Ghana since 2002 ........................................ 20

3.5 Evaluability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 23

4 Evaluation Design and Methodology ...................................................................................... 23

4.1 Rationale and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 23

4.3 Evaluation Issues and Questions ......................................................................................... 24

4.4 Evaluation Matrices ............................................................................................................. 25

4.4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................... 25

4.4.2 Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................... 26

4.4.3 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 33

4.4.4 Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 34

4.4.5 Cross‐Cutting Themes ............................................................................................................ 35

4.4.6 Design and Delivery ................................................................................................................ 36

4.4.7 Management for Results ........................................................................................................ 37

4.5 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................... 38

4.5.1 Desk Review ........................................................................................................................... 38

4.5.2 Interviews with Key Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 40

4.5.3 Site Visits / Case Studies and Project Results Assessments ................................................... 41

4.6 Project Sampling and Classification ..................................................................................... 43

4.6.1 Sampling Criteria .................................................................................................................... 43

4.6.2 Sampling Process.................................................................................................................... 43


4.6.3 Result of Sampling Process .................................................................................................... 44

4.7 Rating and Aggregation ....................................................................................................... 46

4.7.1 Rating ..................................................................................................................................... 46

4.7.2 Aggregation ............................................................................................................................ 47

4.8 Outputs ................................................................................................................................ 47

4.9 Challenges, Limitations and Risks ........................................................................................ 48

5 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................. 49

5.1 Evaluation Schedule and Deliverables ................................................................................ 49

5.2 Detailed Task Description .................................................................................................... 50

5.2.1 Data Collection and Field Work .............................................................................................. 50

5.2.2 Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................................. 50

5.3 Mission Plan ........................................................................................................................ 51

6 Communication & Outreach Strategy ..................................................................................... 54

6.1 Target Audience .................................................................................................................. 54

6.2 Communication Tools .......................................................................................................... 54

6.2.1 Primary Internal Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 54

6.2.2 Secondary Internal Stakeholders ........................................................................................... 55

6.2.3 External Stakeholders Groups ................................................................................................ 55

7 Evaluation Organisation, Management and Quality Control ................................................... 55

7.1 Organisation ........................................................................................................................ 55

7.2 Management and Quality Control ....................................................................................... 56

8 References ............................................................................................................................. 56

Annex A – Ghana’s Progress Against MDG Indicators..................................................................... 58

Annex B ‐ The Bank's Portfolio in Ghana (2002‐2014) .................................................................... 60

Annex C ‐ List of Key Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 62

Annex D – Data Collection Tools .................................................................................................... 65

D1 – Project Assessment Framework ............................................................................................ 65

D2 – Desk Review Template .......................................................................................................... 66

D3 – Interview Guide ..................................................................................................................... 67

D4 – Interview Notes Template ..................................................................................................... 68

Annex E – Detailed Evaluation Schedule ........................................................................................ 69

Annex F – Mapping of Documents for Evaluation .......................................................................... 70

Annex G – Summary Profiles of Evaluation Team Members ........................................................... 73


List of Acronyms

AfDB African Development Bank BTOR Back to Office Report CEDR Comprehensive Evaluation of Development ResultsCODE Committee on Operations and Development EffectivenessCPIA Country Policy and Institutional AssessmentCSO Civil Society Organisation CSP Country Strategy Paper CSPE Country Strategy and Program EvaluationDAC Development Assistance CommitteeDP Development Partner ECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesEQ Evaluation Question ESW Economic and Sector Work GDP Gross Domestic Product GHFO Ghana Field Office GoG Government of Ghana GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction StrategyGSGDA Ghana Shared Growth and Development AgendaGSS Ghana Statistical Service HIPC Highly Indebted Poor CountryIDEV Independent Development EvaluationMDA Ministry, Department, AgencyMDG Millennium Development GoalMSME Micro, Small and Medium‐sized EnterprisesNACAP National Anti‐Corruption Action PlanNGO Non‐Governmental OrganisationOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPCR Project Completion Report PMU Project Management Unit PRA Project Results Assessment RIPS Regional Integration Policy and StrategyRISP Regional Integration Strategy PaperRMC Regional Member Country RMF Results Measurement FrameworkSME Small and Medium‐Sized EnterprisesToC Theory of Change TVET Technical and Vocational Education and TrainingTYS Ten Year Strategy UA Unit of Account WSS Water Supply and SanitationXSR Extended Supervision Report


Inception Report – Ghana CSPE

1 Introduction

At the request of the African Development Bank’s (“the Bank”, AfDB) Committee on Operations and Development Effectiveness (CODE), the Independent Development Evaluation function (IDEV) is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the Bank’s development results (CEDR) over the period of 2004‐2014. As part of this initiative, IDEV identified a purposive sample of 15 countries which represent nearly 60% of the Bank’s approvals over this period, for which Country Strategy and Programme Evaluations (CSPE) are undertaken, both to inform the overarching analysis for the CEDR and to serve as standalone country level evaluations which will inform the future decision‐making and the development of the next Country Strategy Paper (CSP) of the respective country covered. Ghana is one of the countries selected for the CSPE. Against the above background, the purpose of the Ghana CSPE is threefold, namely to:

Provide credible evaluative information on the development results of the Bank’s engagement in Ghana over the period of 2004‐2014;

Generate lessons and recommendations from the performance of the Bank’s support to Ghana over the period of 2004‐2014 to inform the implementation of future strategies and operations, including the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy; and

Provide credible, independent and evidence‐based information to stakeholders outside the Bank to inform future development strategies and initiatives.

BKP Development Research & Consulting (BKP) in partnership with Economisti Associati (EA) have been awarded the contract to undertake the CSPE Ghana in collaboration with IDEV. The contract was signed on 13 November 2015, with an immediate start of operations and a contract period of four months. Outputs of the evaluation are required to submitted earlier (in January 2016), however, in order to feed into the CEDR process; and the final report is scheduled to be submitted by 29 February 2016. This inception report establishes the scope, design, methodology and implementation plan for the Ghana CSPE. It draws heavily on other inception reports for recent CSPEs, notably those for Ethiopia and Zambia.1 The report is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the developmental context for Bank operations in Ghana. In turn, Section 3 summarises the Bank’s key policies, country and sector strategies as well as provides a brief descriptive analysis of the Bank’s portfolio in Ghana. Section 4 presents the proposed evaluation design and methodology, and Section 5 follows with a description of the implementation plan. Finally, Section 6 presents the communication strategy. The annexes provide more information on Ghana’s progress against the MDG indicators, the Bank’s portfolio in Ghana, the tools to be used in the evaluation, and summary profiles of evaluation team members.

1 Economisti Associati 2015: Consultancy Services for Country Strategy and Program Evaluations – Ethiopia and Tanzania. Draft Inception Report Ethiopia, 05 May 2015; AGRER 2015: Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and Programme for Zambia (2002‐2014), September 2015.


2 Overview of Ghana’s Development Context

2.1 Development Context in Ghana

2.1.1 Political Context

Ghana has experienced more than 20 years of uninterrupted democratic rule and political stability and is considered today to be one of West Africa’s most resilient democracies. Ghana’s well‐functioning democratic institutions and good governance have played a key role in the country’s economic and social progression. The constitution, which was approved by referendum in 1992, provides for a multi‐party, liberal, democratic political context with a clear separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers. In recent years, Ghana has made further progress in democratic dividends that has contributed to peace and political stability in the country. The peaceful adjudication of the 2012 Presidential election court case served to further consolidate Ghana’s democratic governance. In November 2014, the government launched the National Anti‐Corruption Action Plan (NACAP), which had been under development since 2011. Ghana was ranked 7th out of 54 countries in the Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s Ibrahim Index of African Governance 2014, receiving in particular a high rating for political and human rights (2nd out of 54 countries).

2.1.2 Economic Context

Ghana has achieved robust economic growth over the last 10 years (Figure 1), with an average GDP annual growth rate of 7.2% over the 2004‐2014 period, which is higher than the average in Sub‐Saharan Africa during the same period (5.2%). Ghana’s economy has however slowed down in recent years: it is expected to slow down for the fourth consecutive year to an estimated 3.9% growth rate in 2015, due to a severe energy crisis, unsustainable domestic and external debt burdens, and deteriorated macroeconomic and financial imbalances. Figure 1 – Ghana’s annual GDP growth rate, 2004‐2014 (%)

Source: World Development Indicators.

High growth rates in recent years have indeed been accompanied by the build‐up of macroeconomic imbalances. In 2014, current account and fiscal deficits widened to 9.2% and 10.4% of GDP respectively, and the rate of inflation averaged 17.0%; in 2015 (until August), inflation remained at

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ghana Sub‐Saharan Africa


17%, but the fiscal deficit is expected to improve to 7.3% by the end of 2015 (IMF 2015). Another challenge facing the country is currency devaluation: the domestic currency, the Cedi, depreciated by over 30% in nominal terms in 2014 and a further 23% until June 2015. It has, however, appreciated since then. As shown in Figure 2, Ghana’s economy, which until 2005 was dominated by agriculture, is now led by services (49.8% in 2014), followed by industry (29.5%) and agriculture (20.7%). However, agriculture remains the mainstay of Ghana’s economy in terms of food security and employment (employing about 50% of Ghana’s labour force). Figure 2 – Share of services, industry and agriculture in Ghana’s economy, 2004‐2014 (as % of GDP)

Source: World Development Indicators.

2.1.3 Social Context

Ghana’s economic growth has largely been broad‐based and contributed to substantial poverty reduction, helping the country achieve the first MDG goal of halving extreme poverty (the poverty rate fell from 51.7% in 1991/1992 to 24.2% in 2012/2013, one of the best records in poverty reduction in Sub‐Saharan Africa). However, despite the overall reduction in poverty, income inequality has been on the rise, widening from the Gini coefficient of 0.353 in 1992 to 0.428 in 2013. Moreover, inequality between Southern and Northern regions and between rural and urban areas increased, thus undermining the impact of the robust economic growth the country has achieved over the years. Ghana is experiencing a low rate of unemployment (5.2% according to the latest Ghana Living Standards Survey GLSS6) as the population benefits from jobs created in the service sector and agriculture. However, much of the employment generated is in the informal economy (which accounts for 88% of total employment) and vulnerable employment remains high at 68.6% (Ghana Statistical Service 2014).

31,4 31,6

48,8 50,2 48,6 47,4 49,4 47,7 47,5 48,8 49,8

27,1 27,5

20,8 20,720,4 19,7

19,8 26,2 28,9 28,8 29,5

41,5 40,9

30,4 29,1 31,0 32,9 30,826,0 23,6 22,4 20,7

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Services Industry Agriculture


2.2 Key Development Challenges

As mentioned in the Terms of Reference, Ghana’s key development challenges can be summarised as follows: Environmental sustainability and climate change: In addition to minerals and oil, Ghana’s

economy relies heavily on climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture and forestry (e.g. cocoa, oil palm, rubber and timber production), fisheries and tourism. The country’s heavy reliance on these sectors poses risks in developing sustainable livelihoods, reducing poverty and increasing economic growth. In this context, ensuring sustainable development is one of the key priorities of the Ghanaian government. Ghana launched in July 2014 a National Climate Change Policy, which highlights the need to develop adaptive measures to address climate change issues instead of the reactive measures that had so far been implemented.

Business environment: Several reforms are required to improve the environment in which Ghanaian firms operate. Although Ghana still ranks among the top 10 African countries in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings, its overall worldwide ranking dropped, owing to slow pace in reform measures.

Skills development: The current supply of labour in key sectors remains inadequate and this skills gap affects the productivity of Ghanaian enterprises. In this context, there is a need to strengthen the skills base and competencies of the country’s human capital.

Infrastructure gap: Ghana’s infrastructure deficit presents a major threat to growth and international competitiveness and remains a major impediment to growth. Ghana’s infrastructure gap is estimated at about 7% of GDP, half of which being associated with shortfalls in the power sector alone. Significant shortfalls in transport – such as the limited coverage of the railway system or the delays and congestion of the Ghana’s two ports at Tema and Takoradi – have also been identified.

2.3 Government of Ghana Development Strategies

The Government’s strategy was guided during the period under review by successive medium‐term development policy frameworks: The Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy – GPRS I (2003‐2005); The Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy – GPRS II (2006‐ 2009); The Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda – GSGDA I (2010‐2013); The Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda, Phase II – GSGDA II (2014‐2017). The first Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (Government of Ghana 2003) was formulated following the application to the Enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) facility in 2001 and implemented over the period from 2003 to 2005. A key objective was to realign the distorted macroeconomic environment and improve the conditions for implementation of sectoral policies designed to promote sustainable economic growth and reduce the high incidence of poverty prevalent in the country. The strategy also focused on human development with measures designed to improve access of Ghana’s population to basic needs and essential services (e.g. basic education, safe water and improved health and environmental sanitation). While GPRS I reflected a policy framework that was directed primarily towards the attainment of the anti‐poverty objectives of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the strategic direction of the GPRS II (Government of Ghana 2006), implemented from 2006 to 2009, was to accelerate economic growth and poverty reduction by supporting the private sector to create wealth. Accordingly, emphasis was placed on the implementation of policies and measures, which have the potential to fundamentally restructure the economy by diversifying the export base, and increasing agricultural productivity, processing and storage, thereby contributing national food security and rural incomes.


Under GPRS I and GPRS II substantial progress was made towards the realisation of macroeconomic stability and the achievement of poverty reduction goals. However, structural challenges also emerged, characterized by large fiscal and balance of payment deficits mainly as a result of fiscal over‐runs and external shocks including upsurge in crude oil and food prices. The first Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA; Government of Ghana 2010), which was implemented from 2010 to 2013, anchored on the continued pursuit of macroeconomic stability and the sustainable exploitation of Ghana’s natural resource endowments in agriculture, minerals and oil and gas supported by strategic investments in human capital, infrastructure, human settlements, science, technology and innovation to drive industrialisation, in particular manufacturing. The latest and current medium‐term national development policy framework is the GSGDA II (Government of Ghana 2014), which is implemented from 2014 until 2017. GSGDA II is the operational framework of the President’s Coordinated Programme of Economic and Social Policies, 2014‐2020 – An Agenda for Transformation, which was submitted to Parliament in December 2014. The strategic direction of GSGDA‐II is a continuation of GSGDA‐I priorities and thematic areas that aim at laying the foundation for the structural transformation of the economy within the decade ending 2020, but at the same time seeks to draw lessons from GSGDA I’s successes and challenges. For example, GSDA II acknowledges that Ghana’s accelerated economic growth has not resulted in the expected levels of job creation and that poverty at the subnational level remains high, especially in the three northern regions. In this context, a major objective of the transformation agenda is to create a significant number of quality jobs whilst promoting decent work, especially in the informal sector.

2.4 Progress toward the Millennium Development Goals

The latest MDG Progress Report for Ghana (UNDP/Republic of Ghana 2015), which assesses progress as of 2014, indicates that Ghana’s progress towards achieving MDGs has been mixed. Some targets can be considered to have been attained, such as: Reduction by half of the proportion of people in extreme poverty (MDG 1A): The latest Ghana

Living Standards Survey (Ghana Statistical Service 2014) indicates that approximately 24.2% of the population were living in poverty in 2012/2013 versus 51.7% in 1991/1992 (the target was achieved already in 2006);

Universal primary education (MDG 2A): The net and gross enrolment ratio in primary school were respectively 89.3% and 107.3% in 2013/2014 up from 45.2% and 72% in 1990/1991, while the primary completion rate reached 112.4% in 2012/2013 up from 86.3% in 2008/2009;

Gender parity in primary school (MDG 3): The gender parity index was 0.99 in 2013/2014 up from 0.96 in 2008/2009 (which was already quite high and close to parity);

Reduction by half of the proportion of people without access to drinking water (MDG 7B): the proportion of households with access to improved drinking water sources rose from 56% in 1990 to 78.6% in 2013.

Furthermore, substantial progress has been made on the following targets: Reduction of HIV prevalence (MDG 6A): Expanded access to antiretroviral therapy has

contributed greatly to fewer HIV and AIDS‐related deaths and mother‐to‐child transmission. Ghana has halted the rise in prevalence and is on track to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS: HIV prevalence went from 3.6% in 2007 to 1.3% in 2013 for adults and from 2.6% in 2007 to 1.3% in 2012 for youths (although regional disparities persist);

Increase of access to ICT (MDG 8F): Mobile and cellular phone penetration in Ghana increased from about 1.26 per 100 inhabitants in 2001 to about 115 per 100 inhabitants in 2014, outstripping both Africa and world rates (mobile‐cellular subscription per 100 inhabitants stood


at 71.2 in Africa and 96.1 globally in 2014). Whereas internet access was extremely limited in 1995, access and usage increased to 10.6% of the population in 2012 then surged to 18.9% in 2014, equaling Africa’s average but still less than half the global average (40.6%);

Reduction of the proportion of people suffering from hunger (MDG 1C): Ghana has made considerable progress in improving the nutritional status of children, close to achieving the MDG target for stunting and surpassing MDG targets for wasting and underweight (the proportion of stunted children in the county declined from 33% in 1993 to 19% in 2014, compared to the MDG target of 16.5%; the prevalence rate of underweight children also declined, from 23% to 11% as against a target of 11.5%; the prevalence rate of wasting dropped by more than half from 14% in 1993 to 5% in 2014).

On the other hand, only slow progress has been made on several targets such as: Full and productive employment (MDG 1B): Ghana has a high employment‐to‐population ratio,

implying high job‐creation ability but mostly low‐quality jobs. The prevalence of low‐quality employment (vulnerable employment remains high at 68.6%) and considerable numbers of working poor (working poverty rates have declined nationally but remain high in the three northern regions) are still causes for concern;

Equal share of women in non‐agriculture wage employment, and women’s involvement in governance (MDG 3): Very limited progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in productive employment over the last 25 years: women’s access to wage employment in non‐agricultural sectors rose from 25.4% in 2006 to 30.5% in 2013, but barely exceeded levels already observed in 1991 (29.8%). Furthermore, women’s participation in decision making remains very low: the proportion of women Members of Parliament rose marginally from 8.3% in the 2008 elections to 10.9% in 2012;

Reducing under‐5 and child mortality (MDG 4): In spite of a considerable gains made in child health since 1990, the targets for infant and under‐5 mortality are unlikely to be met and signal the need for accelerated progress (under‐5 mortality rate improved from 122 to 82 per 1,000 live births between 1990 and 2012, but this was well short of the MDG target of 40 per 1,000 live births; infant mortality fell marginally from 57 to 53 per 1,000 live births between 1994 and 2012 but was short of the target of 22 deaths per 1,000 live births);

Reducing maternal mortality (MDG 5): The institutional maternal mortality ratio fell from 216 to 144 per 100,000 live births in 2014, short of the global target of 54 per 100,000 live births in 2015. Overall maternal mortality (which also considers non‐institutional maternal deaths) is thought to be higher: an official survey in 2008 reported an average maternal mortality ratio of 451 deaths per 100,000 live births for the seven preceding years;

Halt and reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases (MDG 6C): Malaria remains a public health concern as the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in Ghana, especially among children under 5 years and pregnant women. It is a leading cause of poverty and low productivity, accounting for about 32.5% of all outpatient attendance and 48.8% of under‐5 admissions;

Reversing environmental resource loss and improving sanitation (MDG 7): Ghana lost 33.7% of its forest cover between 1990 and 2010, representing a 2.03% average annual loss over the period: while the country stepped up the afforestation effort in recent years, depletion of forest cover continues at an alarming rate (1.37% in 2012). Furthermore, poor sanitation remains pervasive: 84% of the population was without access to improved sanitation in 2012 while the target for 2015 is 48%. Lack of access to basic sanitation is in particular prevalent in rural areas.


3 Overview of Bank Support to Ghana

3.1 The Bank’s Country Strategies in Ghana

The Bank’s lending and non‐lending operations in Ghana over the period of 2004‐2014 have been guided by three Country Strategy Papers (CSPs):

1) the 2002‐2004 CSP; 2) the CSP 2005‐2009 and its 2010 update, extending the CSP until 2011; and 3) the 2012‐2016 CSP.

Figure 3 outlines the strategic objectives of these CSPs mapped against the contemporary national development strategies. It also shows the evolution of objectives and priority areas over time. Over time, the Bank’s strategy in Ghana has shifted from a broader approach including social sectors (health and education, social infrastructure), agricultural development, and a broad set of crosscutting issues (governance, gender, environment, and private sector development) to a more focused approach prioritising economic growth through a two‐pronged approach: first, infrastructure development, particularly roads, power generation and power supply, and second, an improved business environment for the private sector and strengthened economic governance. This emphasis complements the gradual shift in Ghana’s national strategies toward a focus on economic growth and diversification through infrastructure development.


Figure 3 – 2002‐16 CSP strategic pillars and objectives vs. Ghana’s Development Strategies

Sources: AfDB (2003; 2005; 2010; 2012); Government of Ghana (2003; 2005; 2010; 2014).

Bank Strategy National Development Strategies

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) 2003‐2005Strategic ObjectiveTo ensure sustainable equitable growth, accelerated poverty reduction and the protection of the vulnerable and excluded within a decentralized, democratic environmentAreas of Emphasis Infrastructure development; Modernised agriculture based on rural

development; Enhanced social services with emphasis on health

and education; Good governance; Private sector development.

2002‐2004 Country Strategy Paper

Strategic Objective

Poverty reduction and sustainable development

Areas of Emphasis

PBO: Maintain Sound Macroeconomic Framework, Structural reforms, and governance;

Agriculture and rural development; Basic infrastructure development (esp. roads,

water and sanitation), also energy Social sector (education and health) Private sector development


Strategic Objective

Poverty reduction through growth

Areas of Emphasis

Improvement of the investment environment: expand road network, enhance power, water and telecommunications infrastructure, institutional reform in the agricultural sector

Promotion of pro‐poor and gender equitable policies: access to health and education services

2005‐2009 Country Strategy extension 2010‐2011Strategic ObjectiveSee aboveAreas of Emphasis See above


Strategic Objective

Inclusive growth with job creation

Areas of Emphasis

Improved productivity of Ghanaian businesses through development of energy and road infrastructure, as well as development of skills and technology

Improved business environment through strengthening of key economic policy oriented and oversight institutions

GPRS II 2006‐2009Strategic ObjectiveTo attain middle income status by 2015 within a decentralized, democratic environment, complemented with sustained poverty reductionAreas of EmphasisGrowth‐inducing policies and programmes: Continued macroeconomic stability; Accelerated private sector‐led growth (develop

private sector, diversify export base and increase agricultural productivity and rural incomes);

Human resource development; Good governance and civic responsibility

Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA) 2010‐2013Strategic ObjectivePoverty reduction through shared economic growth, employment creation, attainment of the MDGs and social protectionAreas of Emphasis Ensuring and sustaining macroeconomic stability; Enhanced private sector competitiveness; Accelerated agricultural modernisation and natural

resource management; Oil and gas development; Infrastructure, energy and human settlements dev.; Human development, employment & productivity; Transparent and accountable governance.

GSGDA‐II 2014‐2017Strategic ObjectiveTo leverage Ghana’s natural resource endowments, agricultural potential and the human resource base for accelerated economic growth and job creation through value addition, especially manufacturingAreas of Emphasis See GSGDA 2010‐2013


CSP 2002–04 The CSP covering the period 2002–2004 was approved by the Bank’s Board on 07 May 2003 (AfDB 2003) and updated in August 2004 (AfDB 2004). The CSP responded largely to the Government’s 2002 Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2003‐05) and the lessons from the implementation of the Bank’s CSP for 1999‐2001. The 2004 update reviewed progress made during the CSP period and expanded assistance, based on the good performance shown and Ghana’s rating as a very low risk country, from a base‐case lending scenario to a high‐case scenario (AfDB 2004: 8ff.) The Bank’s strategic objective for its 2002‐2004 CSP was poverty reduction and sustainable development through improvement of social and economic infrastructure, and creation of an enabling environment for the private sector, while emphasising the cross‐cutting issues of gender, the environment and good governance. This objective was to be achieved through a two‐pronged approach: At the macroeconomic level, policy‐based operations were to support the Government’s ongoing economic reforms, especially in the area of fiscal management, financial reforms and addressing the debt overhang. At the sector level, three priority sectors were identified: agriculture and rural development; basic infrastructure; and social sectors. Cross‐cutting issues of gender, good governance, the environment, and private sector development were mainstreamed across the sector work. CSP 2005–2009 (extended to 2011) The CSP 2005–2009 (AfDB 2005) was approved in July 2005 and aligned it overall objective fully with the Government’s development strategy at the time, the GPRS 2003–2005, i.e. to achieve poverty reduction through promoting economic growth and developing basic infrastructure; improving governance; improving access and quality in the provision of social and public services; and mainstreaming crosscutting issues such as HIV/AIDS, gender, and environment. The CSP foresaw the Bank’s contribution to this overall objective through two pillars: first, through improving the investment environment in Ghana to increase growth; and second, through supporting pro‐poor pro‐gender equity policies by expanding service delivery, in order to improve the quality of life of Ghanaians and facilitate the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Under the first pillar, Bank support aimed at reducing the cost of starting and doing business, improving the regulatory framework, improving access to land and land rights, as well as removing infrastructure bottlenecks and reducing high costs especially for agricultural production. Under the second pillar, the focus was on increased access to basic education, improved basic health services, and improved access to safe water and sanitation. In 2010, the CSP 2005–2009 was extended to the end of 2011, primarily to ensure continued alignment with the Government’s policies. At the time of the original expiry of the CSP in 2009, the GPRS II had also expired, but its successor had not yet been formulated. During the CSP extension period, the objectives and priorities of the original CSP 2005–2009 remained valid (AfDB 2010). CSP 2012–2016

The CSP 2012–2016 (AfDB 2012) was approved on 13 June 2012. The strategy’s overall goal is “to support inclusive growth that generates economic opportunities. To achieve this, the Bank will focus on two pillars namely (i) improving productivity in Ghanaian enterprises and, (ii) supporting economic and structural reforms aimed at improving the business environment.” The Strategy is aligned with the GSGDA 2010‐2013, with the underlying objective of transforming Ghana into a middle income country by 2020.


Under pillar 1, the Bank supports the GoG’s efforts aimed at improving infrastructure and integration to regional markets, with a focus on energy (and, to a more limited extent, roads), and developing priority skills and technology for private sector growth, both in agribusiness and industry (e.g. through an expansion and improvement of technical and vocational education and training, TVET). Under pillar 2, the Bank concentrates on supporting key economic policy‐oriented and oversight institutions. The CSP also foresees the catalyzing priority investments in the key priority areas as well as mainstreams cross‐cutting issues, in particular Ghana’s green growth objectives, given the important role of agriculture and agribusiness development.

3.2 Bank Corporate Policies and Strategies

Over the full evaluation period (2004‐2014), the Bank’s activities in Ghana have also been guided by a series of macro, regional, sector and thematic policies and strategies with which the Bank's interventions are expected to be consistent. One part of the evaluation process will involve determining the extent to which the Bank’s operations in Ghana have been aligned with these key documents. At the macro‐level, the Bank’s interventions have been guided by the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy (TYS; 2013‐2022), Medium Term Strategy (MTS; 2008‐2012) and the Strategic Plan of the AfDB Group for 2003‐2007, adopted in 2002. The purpose of these documents is to outline the Bank’s strategic objectives as well as the operational priorities which are then applied to the Bank’s operations in Regional Member Countries. In addition to these strategies, the Bank has also identified an organization level Results Measurement Framework (RMF) to help assess the Bank’s contribution to Africa’s development at various levels. The current version of the One Bank Result Measurement Framework (2013‐2016), was adopted in 2013. A brief overview of these macro‐level documents is provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Key Macro Policy Documents of the African Development Bank Group (2004‐2014)

Document Key Policy / Strategic Directions

Ten Year Strategy (2013‐2022)

Introduction of two strategic objectives for the Bank's operations: (i) inclusive growth; and (ii) green growth.

Identification of five operational pillars for which the Bank has a comparative advantage (infrastructure, regional integration, private sector development, skills development and governance) as well as crosscutting areas of emphasis, including gender, agriculture and fragility.

Emphasis on operational mechanisms for maximizing the Bank's value, including: (i) selectivity; (ii) leveraging; (iii) dialogue; and (iv) results based management

Medium Term Strategy (2008‐2012)

Identified poverty reduction through stronger and more equitable economic growth as a core objective for the Bank's operations.

Introduced greater selectivity in sectoral operations targeting infrastructure, governance, private sector, higher education, technology and vocational training.

Strategic Plan for the AfDB Group (2003‐2007)

Identified four core objectives for the Bank's operations: (i) productivity growth and poverty reduction; (ii) Development results within the MDG framework; (iii) Stronger partnerships with multilateral, bilateral and regional agencies; and (iv) Increased market access and economic diversification.

One Bank Results Measurement Framework (2013‐2016)

A management tool for tracking progress against the Bank's strategic objectives at the corporate level.

Assisting the Bank to deliver better value for money while tracking results and development effectiveness throughout the project life cycle.


With regard to regional‐level operations, the Bank’s activities have been guided by the current Bank Group Regional Integration Policy and Strategy (RIPS; 2014‐2023) as well as the Regional Integration Strategy (RIS; 2009‐2012) and the Strategic and Operational Framework for Regional Operations (2008), described in further detail in Table 2. Table 2 – Key African Development Bank Group Regional Policies and Strategies

Document Key Policy / Strategic Directions

Bank Group Regional Integration Policy and Strategy (2014‐2023)

Identifies the creation of larger, more attractive markets and supporting infra‐African trade as the strategic objective for the Bank's regional operations.

Delineates pillars of operation, including: (i) supporting regional infrastructure development; (ii) enhancing trade and industrial development; and (iii) strengthening country and regional mechanisms and institutional capacities.

Regional Integration Strategy (2009‐2012)

Identifies four strategic outcomes underpinning the Bank's regional operations: (i) increased economic competitiveness; (ii) enhanced intra‐African trade and African presence in the global marketplace; (iii) establishment of a regional African "voice;" and (iv) more efficient provision of regional public goods.

Identifies two main pillars of operations: (i) regional infrastructure; and (ii) institutional capacity building.

Strategic and Operational Framework for Regional Operations (2008)

Identifies a clear need to address donor funding gaps for regional development issues and the development of regional institutions.

Proposes a strategic niche for the Bank in terms of addressing regional infrastructure needs as well as capacity development for the provision of regional goods.

At the sub‐regional level, the Bank has also identified a Regional Integration Strategy Paper (RISP) for West Africa 2011‐2015 (AfDB 2011) which covers 12 Regional Member Countries: Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia

and Zimbabwe. The RISP is aligned with the ECOWAS Vision 2020 whose overall objectives are to be supported through two main RISP pillars: (i) linking regional markets through improvement and expansion of the regional transport (road, waterways) infrastructure, transport and trade facilitation, and integration of regional energy markets; and, (ii) capacity building for effective implementation of the regional integration agenda, notably in relation to regional policy and project implementation, financial sector integration and regional research and training capacity. With respect to sectoral and thematic strategies and policies, a set of nearly 30 documents have been identified which are relevant to the Bank’s operations in Ghana. These documents are presented below. Table 3 – AfDB Thematic and Sectoral Strategies

Thematic Area Strategy / Policy Document

Infrastructure AfDB Group Energy Sector Policy (2012)

Policy for Integrated Water Resources Management (2012)

Transport Sector Policy (1993; currently being revised)

Agriculture Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa (2010)

2010‐2014 Bank Group Agriculture Sector Strategy

Improving Statistics for Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, and Rural Development ‐ An Action Plan for Africa (2011‐2015)

Agriculture and Rural Development Sector AfDB Group Policy (2000)

Social AfDB Human Capital Strategy for Africa 2014‐2018

Strategy for Higher Education, Science and Technology (2006)


Thematic Area Strategy / Policy Document

Education Sector Policy Paper (ESPP) (1999)

Private Sector Private Sector Development Policy of the AfDB Group (2013)

AfDB Group Private Sector Development Strategy (2012‐2017)

Microfinance Policy and Strategy for the Bank Group (2006)

Multi‐sector and Governance

Bank Group Strategy on Program‐Based Operations (PBOs) (2012)

Governance Strategic Framework and Action plan (GAP II) (2014‐2018)

Governance Strategic Directions and Action Plan (GAP) 2008‐2012

Strengthening Country External Audit Systems in Africa ‐ A Joint Strategy of the African Development Bank and the World Bank (2010)

Bank Group Policy on Good Governance (1999)

Bank Group Policy on Poverty Reduction (2004)

Gender 2014‐2018 Bank Group Gender Strategy.

Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: An Updated Gender Plan of Action 2009‐2011.

Checklist for Gender Mainstreaming in the Water and Sanitation Sector (2010)

Checklist for Gender Mainstreaming in Governance Programmes (2010)

Checklist for Gender Mainstreaming in the Infrastructure Sector (2009)

Checklist for Gender Mainstreaming in the Education Sector with the Special Focus on Higher Education, Science and Technology Sub‐Sector (2009)

Environment Environmental Safeguards Policy (2004)

Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) 2011‐2015

3.3 The Bank's Portfolio in Ghana

Ghana is a major country of operation for the Bank. Operations and as of end 2014 the total value of loans and grants approved stood at about UA 1.8 billion. This makes Ghana the thirteenth largest recipient of Bank assistance, and the third largest in West Africa, after Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire. Figure 4 – Bank Group Loan and Grant Approvals, major recipients, cumulative 1967‐2014 (UA Billion)

Note/source: Figures refer to national projects and are taken from AfDB (2015: Annex I).

Two types of interventions can be distinguished in the Bank’s portfolio in Ghana: lending operations, which involve investments in projects and programs; and non‐lending operations, which include studies (referred to as economic and sector work), training and capacity development, partnership, and policy dialogue.


3.3.1 Lending operations

3.3.1.1 National operations

Between 2002 and 2014, the Bank’s Board approved a total of 59 projects in Ghana amounting approximately to UA 1,019.1 million, excluding cancellations and multinational operations (Table 4). Of the 63 projects approved, more than half (38) are completed or closed, 19 are ongoing and the remaining 6 have been approved but are not yet effective or implementation has not yet started. Table 4 – Breakdown of the Bank's Portfolio in Ghana by sector, 2002‐2014

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Bank data. See list of projects in Annex B.

Over the evaluation period, the majority of the Bank’s commitments have been Multi‐sector, Transport and Agriculture operations (Table 4 and Figure 5). In value terms (Figure 5a), Multi‐sector (UA 283M or 28% of total budget) and Transport operations (UA 241M/23%) account for more than half of the total budget, followed by Agriculture (UA 191M/19%). In terms of the number of projects implemented (Figure 5b), Agriculture leads (19 projects/30% of total), followed by Social sector and Transport (10 projects/16% each). Figure 5 – Bank projects in Ghana by sector, approved 2002‐2014

a) By value of net loans (UA M) b) By number of projects approved

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Bank data.

The Bank’s national portfolio in Ghana fluctuated over time (Figure 6): under the CSP 2002–2004, the number of approved projects was relatively high, but the average size of projects small. Under the CSP 2005–2009 (including the extension period to 2011), the number of approvals per year was lower than in the previous CSP period and relatively steady, but average project size was higher.

Sector Appr Ongo Compl

Value of net

loans (UA M)

No

projects

Value of net

loans (UA M)

No

projects

Value of net

loans (UA M)

No

projects

Value of net

loans (UA M)

No

projects

Agriculture 3 3 10 180.2 16 20.9 5 99.5 6 59.8 5

Finance 0 2 1 28.3 3 3.5 1 10.6 1 14.2 1

Ind/Min/Quar 0 1 0 12.8 1 0.0 0 12.8 1 0.0 0

Multi‐Sector 1 1 6 283.4 8 69.1 2 204.0 4 10.3 2

Power 2 2 1 43.3 5 0.0 0 27.6 2 15.7 3

Social 0 2 8 144.6 10 41.3 5 33.3 3 70.0 2

Transport 0 3 7 240.9 10 37.4 5 203.5 5 0.0 0

Water Sup/Sanit 0 4 2 60.1 6 9.8 1 49.4 4 0.9 1

Total 6 18 35 993.7 59 182.1 19 640.7 26 170.9 14

2002‐2014 2002‐2004 2005‐2011 2012‐2016

Agriculture; 180.2; 18%

Finance; 28.3; 3%

Ind/Min/Quar; 12.8;

1%Multi‐Sector; 283.4;

29%

Power; 43.3; 4%

Social; 144.6; 15%

Transport; 240.9; 24%

Water Sup/Sanit; 60.1; 6%

Agriculture; 16; 27%

Finance; 3; 5%

Ind/Min/Quar; 1; 2%

Multi‐Sector; 8;

14%

Power; 5; 8%

Social; 10; 17%

Transport; 10; 17%

Water Sup/Sanit; 6; 10%


Finally, although the number of approvals remained largely constant in the CSP 2012–2016 period, the average size of approved projects dropped sharply, leading to an equally sharp drop in the total value of approved projects in 2013 and 2014. Figure 6 – Ghana project approvals by year


Comparing the sector composition of approved projects over time, i.e. the three CSP periods, does not reveal clear trends (Figure 7). In general terms, the composition of newly approved projects in the three CSP periods by sector has remained remarkably constant (Figure 7a), with some exceptions: the share of Power has consistently increased over time, whereas the Transport sector has decreased. In terms of the value of approved projects, volatility has been high (Figure 7a), with the most striking changes over time being the reducing shares of Multi‐sector projects and Transport, and the increasing shares of Agriculture, Finance and Power; as well as large fluctuations in the Social sector’s share. Agriculture has been the most important sector throughout all CSP periods in both value terms and number of projects approved.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of projects

Value (UA M

)

Value of projects approved (UA M) Av project value

No of projects approved


Figure 7 – Change in sector composition of projects approved over time (CSP periods)

a) by number of projects

b) by net loan value of approved projects


3.3.1.2 Multinational operations

The Bank also financed several multinational operations involving Ghana. Over the period 2002 to 2014, 12 such projects with a total commitment value of UA 94.9M were approved (Figure 8). Although most of these projects were in the Agriculture sector (4 projects or 34% with a net loan value of UA 26.2M or 28%), they were fairly evenly spread across all sectors with the exception of Transport and Water Supply and Sanitation, whose importance was rather limited (5% and 1% of the total, in value terms). Particularly the low share of regional Transport projects is surprising, given the Bank’s priority for developing regional transport infrastructure.

5 6

5

11

1

01

02 4

2

0

2

3

53

25

5

01

41

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002‐04 2005‐11 2012‐16

Water Sup/Sanit

Transport

Social

Power

Multi‐Sector

Ind/Min/Quar

Finance

Agriculture

20.9 99.5

59.83.5

10.6

14.2

0.012.8

0.0

69.1204.0

10.30.0 27.6 15.7

41.333.3

70.037.4

203.5

0.09.8 49.40.9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002‐04 2005‐11 2012‐16

Water Sup/Sanit

Transport

Social

Power

Multi‐Sector

Ind/Min/Quar

Finance

Agriculture


Figure 8 – Multinational operations involving Ghana, by sector, approved 2002‐2014

a) By value of net loans (UA M)

Total: UA 94.9M

b) By number of projects approved

Total: 12 projects


3.3.2 Non‐lending activities

In addition to its lending operations the Bank was involved in several non‐lending operations in Ghana at both national and multinational levels. Most of this work has been closely related to loans and until recently Economic and Sector Work (ESW) has not been separately reported by the Ghana Field Office. In addition, the Bank actively engaged in policy dialogue with the various MDAs (Ministries, Department, and Agencies), in particular since the GHFO was established in 2006.

3.4 Theory of Change for the Bank’s Activities in Ghana since 2002

In order to structure the evaluation and facilitate the aggregation of findings from the project level evaluation into country‐level findings, IDEV has prepared a Theory of Change (ToC) for the Bank’s operations during the evaluation period. The ToC is based on the following sources of information:

a file review of the project portfolio, i.e. the intervention logics of individual projects;

the Bank’s corporate policies and strategies; and

the Ghana CSPs covered by the evaluation. The ToC illustrates the main activities, outputs and outcomes associated with each of the major sectors of the Bank's intervention along with an indication of how each of the results levels contribute to higher level results and changes. It distinguishes five main levels going from specific activities and associated outputs (to the left) to the ultimate development goals for Ghana (to the right). The first three levels concern directly the Bank’s priorities and operations, and their (expected) short‐term and medium‐term outcomes, while the other two levels show how the strategic pillars of interventions are supposed to contribute to the overall strategic goals. Contributions and linkages in the results chain are identified moving from the level of activities to ultimate outcomes, but it is also possible to identify horizontal relationships among the outcomes as well as feedback loops. The ToC does not allow depicting in a clear manner the chains of effect for cross‐cutting issues, since these are typically embedded into most of interventions (e.g. gender mainstreaming).

Agriculture; 26.2; 28%

Finance; 9.8; 10%

Multi‐Sector;

16.4; 17%

Power; 14.9; 16%

Social; 22.0; 23%

Transport; 4.6; 5%

WSS; 1.1; 1%

Agriculture; 4; 34%

Finance; 1; 8%

Multi‐Sector; 2;

17%

Power; 1; 8%

Social; 2; 17%

Transport; 1; 8%

WSS; 1; 8%


It is important to underline that given the comprehensiveness of the evaluation – which covers ten years, three CSPs, and more than 40 projects across various sectors, as well as the lack of theories of change developed for the individual CSPs – the ToC necessarily constitutes a compromise between the need for completeness and the focus on the main aspects of the Bank’s interventions. In particular, the need to use this ToC as a guiding tool for the evaluation has been duly taken into account (i.e. using the Bank’s sector definitions for clustering operations). Another compromise had to be made to capture the Bank’s shifting priorities over time. The ToC is presented in Figure 9. At the highest level, the ToC envisages that the Bank’s support in Ghana contributes to poverty reduction and inclusive and sustainable growth through economic diversification, transparent and accountable governance and enhanced health and wellbeing of Ghana’s population at large, with reduced regional disparities. As mentioned above, over time, the strategy has shifted from a broader approach including social sectors, agricultural development and a broad set of crosscutting issues (governance, gender, environment, and private sector development) to a more focused approach prioritising economic growth through infrastructure development and an improved business environment for the private sector and strengthened economic governance. Considering the Bank’s sectors of operation, these contribute to the three ultimate outcomes in varying degrees (as shown by the different colours in the figure). Thus, governance and budget support contribute, inter alia through strengthened public finance management, to enhanced governance, but also to enhanced regulations for business. Agriculture and private sector support are expected to lead to, among others, increased productivity and trade (including intra‐regional trade), improved food security, and increased incomes and employment. Activities in the social sectors (including health and education) as well as water supply and sanitation, are aimed at improving access to basic services, improving health and education, and reducing regional disparities. Finally, infrastructure work (including power and transport) also contribute to reducing regional disparities and improving access to markets and services.

Figure 9 – A theory of change for the Bank’s assistance to Ghana since 2002

Inclu

sive an

d Su

stainable G

rowth an

d Poverty R

eduction

Increased tax revenues

Enhanced Health and Wellbeing

Reduced Maternal, Child and Infant Mortality

Accountable and transparent governance

Increased employment & incomes

Increased agricultural productivity

Increased business development

Enhanced PFM Capacity

Reduced Skills Gaps

Enhanced Local Governance Capacity

Reduced Incidence of Water‐borne Diseases

Increased access to markets

Increased use of good agricultural practices

Improved irrigation systems

Reduced VOC and travel time

Enhanced PFM capacity

Decentralization of service delivery

Enhanced land title frameworks

Decentralized governance functions

Increased access to health and education services

Enrollment in vocational training

Business development services

New / refurbished power generation infrastructure

Provision of technical assistance

New / refurbished roads

New legislation established

Implementation of PFM systems

Internal audit and procurement authorities created

Training of service providers

Vocational Programs Established

Local Development Plans

Improved road networks

Enhanced trade and regional integration

Activities / Outputs Immediate Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Ultimate Outcomes

Infrastructure Agriculture

Governance Social

Provisions of Lines of Credit

Direct financing of investments

Delivery of risk management training

Improved food security

Enhanced Access to Basic Services

Water Supply and Sanitation

Economic growth and diversification

Increased access to finance

Use of new technologies

Private Sector

Business enabling environment

Increased power diversification

Decreased service delivery costs

Increased generation capacity

Enhanced business regulatory frameworks

Increased Access to improved water sources and sanitation systems

Delivery of training

Establishment of farmers clubs

Rehabilitation of feeder roads

Establishment of market and agroprocessing facilities

Land registry system developed

New / refurbished water sourced

New / refurbished sewage infrastructure

Training provided

Reduced Regional Disparities

Strengthened accountability

New /refurbished transmission lines

Refurbished schools and health clinics

3.5 Evaluability Assessment

The CSPE is based on a bottom‐up approach whereby the evaluation of projects is the starting point. Overall evaluability thus depends on the evaluability of the individual projects being considered under the CSPE. A review of documents and intervention logics available for these projects has shown that certain documents which would be needed for the CSPE have not been accessible to the evaluation team during the inception period (see Annex F), and some projects lack an explicit theory of change or intervention logic. The evaluation team nevertheless expects that such shortcomings can be overcome during the evaluation period, and all projects selected in the sample (see section 4.6) can be evaluated.

4 Evaluation Design and Methodology

4.1 Rationale and Objectives

The Evaluation is linked to the Comprehensive Evaluation of the Bank’s Development Results currently carried out by the Bank’s Independent Development Evaluation Department at the request of the Board’s Committee for Operations and Development Effectiveness. The CEDR serves a dual function, aiming at: (i) providing an independent, credible and evidence‐based assessment of the Bank’s development results and, in particular, of the extent to which the Bank’s interventions have made a difference and why or why not (“accountability function”); and (ii) identifying lessons and recommendations to strengthen the operationalization of the Bank’s ten‐year strategy and to maximize overall development results in Africa (“learning function”). Against the above background, the purpose of the Evaluation is threefold, namely to:

Provide credible evaluative information on the development results of the Bank’s engagement in Ghana over the period of 2004‐2014;

Generate lessons and recommendations from the performance of the Bank’s support to Ghana over the period of 2004‐2014 to inform the implementation of future strategies and operations, including the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy; and

Provide credible, independent and evidence‐based information to stakeholders outside the Bank to inform future development strategies and initiatives.

4.2 Scope

The Evaluation covers the Bank’s lending and non‐lending operations in Ghana over the period 2004‐14. The lending assistance to be evaluated will include both public and private sector loans and grants, while the non‐lending activities will include the development of strategies, policy dialogue and advice, knowledge management, and outreach and partnership with the Government of Ghana. The Evaluation covers the Bank’s interventions under three CSPs, namely:

The 2002–2004 CSP;

The 2005–2009 CSP (extended to 2011); and

The 2012–2016 CSP. The universe for this evaluation includes all projects approved between 2002 and 2014 which were not terminated, cancelled or abandoned. As noted above, this includes a total of 59 domestic


operations and 12 multinational operations with activities in Ghana (see full list of projects to be considered as part of the evaluation in Annex B). These projects will be examined via a three‐step approach (see section 4.2). First, the full portfolio will be subject to a document review which assesses project design quality, quality of project implementation, and the achievement of results – especially outputs and outcomes. Second, selected projects will be subject to more detailed assessments, including interviews with key stakeholders. Third, a number of projects will be further examined through site visits and case studies. In addition to these projects, the evaluation will consider the quality of non‐lending activities, including policy dialogue and economic and sector work (knowledge and analytical work).

4.3 Evaluation Issues and Questions

The Evaluation will primarily be guided by the OECD‐DAC Criteria for International Development Evaluation, focusing on the issues of: (i) relevance; (ii) effectiveness; (iii) efficiency; and (iv) sustainability.2 In order to allow for an assessment of the Bank’s organizational effectiveness, this evaluation will also assess the Bank’s management and operating practices, including the adoption of (v) cross‐cutting themes, (vi) design and delivery mechanisms, and (vii) management for results, and how these have contributed to the achievement of results. The evaluation issues and questions are identified in Table 5.3 Table 5 – Evaluation Questions – Ghana CSPE

Evaluation Issue Specific Evaluation Questions

1. Relevance EQ#1.1: To what extent are the Bank’s Country Strategies and operations for Ghana aligned with the development needs, challenges and priorities of the country as well as the needs of the expected beneficiaries?

EQ#1.2: To what extent are the Bank’s Country Strategies for Ghana aligned with the Bank’s own strategies, priorities and policies?

EQ#1.3: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions in Ghana aligned with the Bank’s Country Strategies for Ghana?

2. Effectiveness EQ#2.1: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions achieved their objectives is terms of the delivery of outputs?

EQ#2.2: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions contributed to the achievement of development results in terms of expected outcomes?

EQ#2.3: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions contributed to the achievement of development results for Ghana, including intended and unintended impacts?

EQ#2.4: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions benefitted target group members?

3. Efficiency EQ#3.1: To what extent were the Bank’s interventions delivered in an efficient and economical manner (were resources economically converted into outputs?)?

EQ#3.2: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions implemented in a timely manner which is consistent with best practices?

EQ#3.3: To what extent did the Bank’s intervention achieve good value for money (cost‐benefit)?

4. Sustainability EQ#4.1: To what extent are the results achieved likely to continue once the Bank’s interventions are completed?

EQ#4.2: To what extent has the Bank sought to mitigate risks to the sustainability of results

2 It is not foreseen that sufficient time of resources will be available to fully assess the impact of the Bank's operations. 3 The evaluation questions and their structuring slightly differ from those in the ToR. However, in order to ensure coherence with other CSP evaluations the Ghana CSPE will apply the structuring of evaluation questions used in recent CSP evaluation (notably, Zambia).


Evaluation Issue Specific Evaluation Questions

as part of the project design and implementation process?

5. Cross‐cutting Themes

EQ#5.1: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions inclusive in terms of geography, age and gender?

EQ#5.2: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions environmentally sustainable and support the transition to green growth?

6. Design and Delivery

EQ#6.1: To what extent has the quality of CSPs been satisfactory? Are the Bank’s interventions coherent and well‐coordinated internally?

EQ#6.2: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions been selective and strategic?

EQ#6.3: How has the Bank adapted its interventions to implementation challenges within the country?

EQ#6.4: To what extent has the Bank’s engagement been informed by policy dialogue with national actors, development partners and other interested stakeholders?

EQ#6.5: How well has the Bank leveraged its financial resources within Ghana through mechanisms such as productive partnerships and co‐financing?

EQ#6.6: To what extent has the Bank acted as a knowledge broker, advisor and convener? To what extent have the Bank’s interventions been informed by the Bank’s analytical work as well as that of other development partners?

EQ#6.7: To what extent has the Bank cooperated with other development partners to ensure complementarity and reduce overlaps?

7. Management for Results

EQ#7.1: To what extent has the Bank's supervision of its interventions been effective?

EQ#7.2: How has the Bank used supervision and results information to guide the management of its interventions?

EQ#7.3: To what extent has the Bank successfully implemented a performance measurement strategy which focuses on the achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts?

EQ#7.4: To what extent have lessons learned been identified and incorporated into subsequent CSPs?

EQ#7.5: How has the Bank worked with the Government of Ghana to enhance its own systems of Results‐Based Measurement?

EQ#7.6: To what extent has the Bank identified and monitored potential implementation risks?

4.4 Evaluation Matrices

The ratings assessed for each of the evaluation criteria will be based upon a series of indicators and judgement criteria corresponding to each evaluation question. To the extent possible, these indicators have been harmonized with those used in other IDEV CSPEs as well as the One Bank Results Measurement Framework and the requirements of the PRA process and CEDR synthesis. For each evaluation issue, the available qualitative and quantitative evidence from primary and secondary sources will be triangulated to identify findings, conclusions, lessons learned and appropriate evaluation ratings. These indicators and criteria are presented in the evaluation matrices below.

4.4.1 Relevance

Rationale and Approach

The relevance of the Bank’s assistance will be assessed at both the project and country levels along three dimensions: (i) alignment of projects and the CSP with demonstrable development needs; (ii) alignment of the CSP with the Bank’s corporate and sector‐level strategies; and (iii) alignment of projects with the CSP and with Regional Integration Strategies. Evidence from each of the evaluation questions will be triangulated to provide an overall rating on a 6‐point scale from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory.


Evaluation Question Indicators Data Sources

EQ#1.1: To what extent are the Bank’s Country Strategies and operations for Ghana aligned with the development needs, challenges and priorities of the country as well as the needs of the expected beneficiaries?

Thematic consistency of the Bank’s CSPs with the Government of Ghana’s strategic framework for development and priorities.

Degree of consistency between the Bank’s interventions at the sector level with Ghana’s sector development strategies and action plans (incl. gaps and weighting).

Degree of consistency between the Bank’s strategies and development needs identified in the available literature.

Consistency between Bank strategies and country development needs as perceived by beneficiaries.

Desk review:

National development strategies (GRSP I + II, GSGDA I + II)

Ghana’s sector‐level development strategies

Bank CSPs for Ghana Available literature Interviews:

MDA, PMU, AfDB4

Beneficiaries

EQ#1.2: To what extent are the Bank’s Country Strategies for Ghana aligned with the Bank’s own strategies, priorities and policies?

Degree of consistency between the Ghana CSPs and the strategic priorities of the Bank.

Degree of consistency between the Bank’s interventions and the Bank’s strategic priorities at the sector level.

Desk review:

Bank Policy and Strategy documents

Bank CSPs for Ghana Interviews:

AfDB EQ#1.3: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions in Ghana aligned with the Bank’s Country Strategies for Ghana?

Degree to which project approvals over each CSP period reflect the Bank’s Country Strategy

Desk review:

File review of project information

Bank CSPs for Ghana Interviews:

PMU, AfDB

4.4.2 Effectiveness


Effectiveness will be examined at the project, sector and CSP levels. In practice, the assessment of effectiveness will follow the results chain described in the ToC (at the respective level) and will centre upon the achievement of both outputs and immediate outcomes. The achievement of intermediate outcomes will be considered where credible data are available. This examination of the Bank’s effectiveness will be based on a triangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence from both primary and secondary sources to inform a robust and credible assessment. First, each project will be rated on a six‐point scale ranging from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory. Next, a rating will be provided for each sector based on the extent to which the collection of projects are found to have contributed to sector‐level outcomes, identified below. Finally, a global rating will be provided based on the extent to which the projects are found to have contributed to country level outcomes identified in the theory of change for the CSP. As outlined in the ToC, the overall impact of the Bank’s interventions can be linked back to the achievements in a series of key sectors and thematic areas. For this reason, the effectiveness evaluation matrix below is structured by sector of intervention. The last section (multi‐sector) includes also cross‐sectoral and country‐level objectives and indicators.

Evaluation Question Data Sources

EQ#2.1: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions achieved their objectives is terms of the delivery of outputs?

Desk review:

4 The distinction of stakeholder groups here is in line with the interview guide, Annex D3: PMU: Project Management Units, including the Bank’s Task Manager; MDA: Ministries, Departments, Agencies; AfDB: African Development Bank staff, other than Task Managers; DP: Development Partners


EQ#2.2: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions contributed to the achievement of development results in terms of expected outcomes?

Supervision reports and project monitoring information

PCRs, XSRs, BTORs and mid‐term reviews

Available country statistics Interviews:

Project level: PMU, MDA, AfDB;

CSP level: MDA, AFDB

Interviews and/or surveys of beneficiaries as possible

Site visits

EQ#2.3: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions contributed to the achievement of development results for Ghana, including intended and unintended impacts?

EQ#2.4: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions benefitted target group members?

Sector and sector goal Indicators at Various Intervention Levels

Agriculture

Sector objective: To contribute to the reduction of rural poverty and food insecurity

Ultimate outcomes

Inclusive economic growth and diversification

Reduced poverty and enhanced food security in rural communities Intermediate outcomes

Increase incomes and employment

Increased agricultural productivity

Economic growth and diversification

Increased trade Immediate outcomes

Increased access to microfinance

Increased access to markets and agroprocessing facilities

increased capacity for livestock management

Increased use of good agricultural practices

Increased use of improved irrigation systems

Increased business development capacity

Reduced tsetse fly populations

Improved forestry management Outputs

New and rehabilitated access roads

Construction of market and agroprocessing facilities

Delivery of training in good agricultural practices

Establishment of farmer, fisheries and livestock clubs

Implementation of improved irrigation systems

Tree planting

Release of sterile male tsetse flies

Provision of business development services Indicators

Calorie intake in targeted areas

Meat offtake / milk uptake

production of key crops

per capita food production

tsetse fly population

# of hectares with improved irrigation systems

Contribution of Agriculture to GDP

Reduction in number of districts that are food Insecure

Number of farm clubs

Amount of credit extended to farmers clubs

Number of farmers clubs trained

km of feeder roads rehabilitated

Export earnings for agricultural products Challenges

Deforestation and land degradation

Weak research‐extension‐farmer linkages



Weak producer organizations

Inefficient marketing systems

High incidence of crop and livestock pests and diseases

Poor access to markets

Prevalence of rain‐fed production in areas with erratic rainfall and resulting water insecurity for crop production

Seasonal destruction of rangelands by bush fires

Lack of infrastructure and irrigation/agro processing equipment

Limited access to finance and low investment in agro‐processing

Limited capacity to comply with quality standards and food safety requirements

Land tenure system not favorable to the poor

Low productivity of agricultural production, in particular of smallholder farmers

Environmental degradation and climate change

Finance & Industry/Mining

Sector objective: Contribute to economic growth to reduce poverty through private sector development, with an emphasis on SME development

Ultimate Outcomes

inclusive economic growth

poverty reduction Intermediate Outcomes

increased regional trade and investment

increased taxation revenues

private sector growth and diversification Immediate Outcomes

increased incomes and employment

increased use of new business technologies

SME growth and increased revenues

increased SME lending

improved SME lending terms

improved risk management capacity among financial institutions Outputs

provision of risk management training and technical assistance

provision of financial resources for SME development

corporate loans provided to investments

provision of financial risk management systems Indicators

number of jobs created (local jobs and jobs for women)

% increase in SME lending portfolio among target institutions

% increase in SME loan amounts (proportion for women)

time required for loan approvals

# of new SMEs financed

government tax revenues as a share of GDP/Expenditure

% of NPLs

average increase in annual business revenues Challenges

low levels of SME lending across sectors

low capacity for risk management and the provision of lending services among local banks

low productivity in the productive and export sectors

high interest rates

Poor incentive to lend to SMEs

Power

Sector objective: Increased and

Ultimate Outcomes

Reduced poverty and improved standard of living



sustainable access to affordable electricity services to support economic growth and reduce poverty

Inclusive economic growth Intermediate Outcomes

increased tax revenues

enabling business environment and increased business development

enhanced regional integration

improved sustainability of power supply Immediate Outcomes

increased access to electricity

reduced generation and service delivery costs

increased energy diversification

increased electricity generation capacity

increased job creation (for women and local population) Outputs

refurbishment and construction of power generations sources

transmission lines built and refurbished

sub‐stations built and/or extended

provision of capacity development assistance

Improved tariff structure

establishment of a renewable energy regulatory body Indicators

power supply capacity in MW

national electrification rate

number of jobs created during construction and operation (for women, youths and local population)

average hours of forced power cuts

average hours of system loss

length of transmission line built or upgraded

number of substations built or extended

number of ESMP/RAP activities implemented

power consumption by businesses and households

number of new connections

% energy generated from renewable sources

net tons of carbon emissions equivalents avoided each year Challenges

Limited coverage of power distribution

Inadequately maintained energy generation facilities

Existing power deficit limits access to electricity for business and domestic purposes

Energy deficit is identified as a major barrier to economic development

Existing energy infrastructure is insufficient to address energy needs and leverage existing natural resources

High power tariff and inability to pay by poor segment of population

Social

Sector objective: To contribute to the reduction of people living in poverty and improve access to basic social services

Ultimate Outcomes

Inclusive economic growth

Poverty reduction and enhanced wellbeing Intermediate Outcomes

Increased employment and incomes

Equitable and decentralized delivery of basic services

Reduced regional inequalities in health and education outcomes

Decreased infant, child and maternal mortality Immediate Outcomes

Strengthened local governance capacity

Increased enrollment in secondary education



Increased access to health services

Strengthened health and education infrastructure

Reduction of skills gaps

Increased access and participation in vocational training

Improved implementation of local development plans

Increased local business development Outputs

Refurbishment of schools

Provision of training to teachers and health care providers

Refurbishment of hospitals

Implementation of local development plans

Equipment provided to training institutes

Provision of local governance technical assistance

Budget allocations to district councils

Budget allocations to health and education service delivery among districts

Provision of microfinance Indicators

Maternal, child and infant mortality by district

Basic health care coverage by district

# of schools refurbished

# of teachers trained

# of health workers trained

# of hospitals refurbished

# of local development plans drafted

Textbook to student ratio

# teachers guides distributed

Enrollment levels in secondary and vocational studies

Budget allocations to district councils

Budget allocations to health and education service delivery among districts

Amount of microfinance provided

# of businesses supported

# of jobs created

# of students graduating with technical qualifications Challenges

Regional disparities in access to health and education services

Inadequately equipped schools and hospitals

Low enrolment in senior secondary schools

Low survival rates in education

Inadequately trained teachers and health personnel

Inadequate maintenance of equipment and facilities

Ineffective school selection mechanisms

Insufficient social protection mechanisms for the poor

Weak planning capacities of local authorities

Transport

Sector objective: Improved transport system which links centres of economic activity, enhances socioeconomic development, and promotes poverty reduction and regional integration

Ultimate Outcomes


Poverty reduction and enhanced wellbeing Intermediate Outcomes

Enhanced regional integration and trade

Increased employment and incomes

Creation of a business enabling environment Immediate Outcomes

Increased tourism

Increased access to social services, markets and business inputs



Decreased vehicle operating costs and travel time

Reduced road safety incidents

Improved road maintenance capacity Outputs

Implementation of axle load stations

Roads built and refurbished

Market areas established

Feeder roads built and refurbished

Technical assistance delivered

HIV/AIDS sensitization provided

ESMP plans implemented Indicators

trade volumes (regional and international)

level of transit traffic

vehicle operating costs

transit time

tourism levels

# of job created during construction and operation

annual number of road accidents and fatalities along corridor

number of people trained

length of road rehabilitated

length of road built

number of axle load stations built Challenges

Capacity limitations in relation to infrastructure planning, financial management, project management, road safety and environmental issues

Poor state of transport infrastructure (notably roads)

Overloading

Limitations in resources for infrastructure construction and maintenance


Sector objective: Improved health and well‐being of Zambians through sustainable, reliable and affordable water and sanitation

Ultimate outcomes

Improved health and standard of living

Poverty reduction Intermediate outcomes

Improved quality and delivery of water and sanitation services

Improved sustainability of rural water supply facilities

Reduced infant and maternal mortality Immediate outcomes

Reduced incidence of diarrhea diseases and worm infestation in infants and children in rural communities

Increased access to improved water sources in target areas

Increased access to improved sanitation sources

Improved management of water and sanitation services

Improved awareness of personal hygienic practices

improved sewage and sanitation infrastructure Outputs

Water supply infrastructure constructed or rehabilitated

Sewage Infrastructure constructed or rehabilitated

Implementation of sewage treatment plants

Provision of management and maintenance training

Sanitation and hygiene promotion Indicators

Number / proportion of people with access to safe water and sanitation facilities



Number of cubic meters of water supplied annually

Water supply and sanitation facilities constructed

km of sewage piping implemented

Incidence of water borne diseases

Number of water points rehabilitated

Proportion of water tests meeting standards

Average water consumption per user

Average distance between homes and water sources

Water pricing and rate of non‐payment by area

Number of hours of water service per day

Number of persons with access to safe individual/communal toilets

Percentage of people observing good health and hygiene practices

Sewage treatment rate by area

Number of water and sanitation facilities in operational condition Challenges

Poor state of infrastructure

limited access to safe water and sanitation facilities

Distance to water sources

Limited maintenance capacity

Poor hygiene practices

Lack of sewage treatment infrastructure

High incidence of water borne diseases

Multi‐Sector / Governance

“Sector” objective: To contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction through private sector development, enhanced public finance management (PFM), and decentralization

Note: this sector mostly includes PBS; hence, the chain of results is poorly applicable. Conventionally, ultimate goals contain overarching indicators of national growth and poverty reduction, while lower‐level indicators relate more specifically to the Governance component of Multi‐sector interventions. Ultimate goal


Poverty reduction and enhanced well‐being Intermediate outcomes

Accountable and transparent Public Financial Management

Equitable and Enhanced access to basic services

Creation of a business enabling environment Immediate outcomes

Improved budget management systems

Increased efficiency of the public service

Improved access to information

Strengthened accountability and oversight functions

Improved land title management systems

Increased privatization and decentralization of service delivery

Strengthened regulatory frameworks for business development

Strengthened monitoring capacity for national poverty reduction strategies. Outputs

Key legislation implemented (Access to information act, Local government service bill, Public Procurement Act)

Budget allocations delivered to identified transparency bodies

Implementation of IFMIS system

Implementation of land registry system

Establishment of decentralized public procurement entities

Establishment of internal audit entities Indicators

Budget allocations to key poverty reduction measures

Budget allocations to key transparency bodies



Degree of implementation for key legislative changes

# of annual reviews produced for national poverty reduction strategies

gross educational enrollment

school levies

# of days to start a business

CPIA scores

PEFA scores

DB scores

Budget deviations in core ministries

service delivery tariff levels relative to cost of service

Public entities with internal audit and procurement capacity

Poverty incidence

Global Competitiveness Index

Resource Development Index

Real GDP growth

IIAG score

Ease of Doing Business Indicators

Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment Indicators

Challenges

Weak PFM and public procurement systems

Weak capacity within government for: implementation of reforms; procurement; PFM oversight

Weak Government M&E systems

High fiduciary risks which could lead to weak accountability

Increased public expenditure without corresponding revenue, depending on electoral cycles

High oil and commodity prices

4.4.3 Efficiency


The assessment of efficiency will involve three dimensions, namely: (i) the effective use of resources for the delivery of planned outputs; (ii) the timeliness of implementation; and (iii) the extent of the results achieved relative to cost and implementation time (cost‐benefit, value for money). The assessment will primarily be carried out based on the basis of Bank’s documentation. Interviews with relevant GHFO staff will be carried out to be gather qualitative evidence allowing to identify key hindering/enabling factors behind the Bank’s performance along different dimensions, while interviews with representatives of the national counterparts will mainly aim at assessing their degree of satisfaction with the adequacy of budget allocations and the speed and timeliness of the Bank’s operations at different stages. Value for money analysis will also require a comparative review of the available literature as well as interviews with other development partners. A rating will be provided for each dimension using a six‐point rating scale from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory, depending on the availability of adequate data. In addition, a global rating will be provided for efficiency of the Bank’s operations in Ghana over the evaluation period.


EQ#3.1: To what extent were the Bank’s interventions delivered in an efficient and economical manner (were resources economically converted into outputs?)?

Share of allocated funds actually committed to projects and programs

Spending deviations (in particular, cost overruns)

Implementation Progress Ratings (IPRs)

Desk review:

Project Completion Reports Interviews:

PMU & MDA

EQ#3.2: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions implemented in a timely manner which is

Level of deviation of planned versus actual implementation time at the project level

Desk review:

Project Completion Reports Interviews:


consistent with best practices? Time for approving operations

Satisfaction of stakeholders with the Bank’s timeliness

PMU & MDA

EQ#3.3: To what extent did the Bank’s intervention achieve good value for money (cost‐benefit)?

Extent to which the chosen project approach has yielded results at less cost relative to other potential approaches.

Economic Internal Rate of Return (where available)

Financial Internal Rate of Return (where available)

Desk review:

File review of project documents

Project Completion Reports

Review of available literature

Interviews:

PMU & MDA

4.4.4 Sustainability


The assessment of sustainability will be conducted via two streams of analysis: (i) the extent to which the project design has adequately examined and addressed critical elements to promote the long‐term sustainability of the project; and (ii) the demonstrated long‐term viability and sustainability of project outputs and outcomes. The assessment will primarily focus on the first stream of analysis. The second stream of analysis will be used to inform sector‐level and global ratings depending on the availability and credibility of relevant data. A rating for sustainability will be provided at both the project and program levels against a six‐point scale from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory.


EQ#4.1: To what extent are the results achieved likely to continue once the Bank’s interventions are completed?

Desk review:

Project documents

Readiness Reviews Interviews:

AfDB, PMU, MDA, beneficiaries Site visits

Judgement Criteria Indicators

Technical Soundness

Extent to which the technical design of the project was supported by extensive analytics.

Extent to which maintenance requirements and operational risks have been identified in the project design.

Extent to which the technical design of the project is based on mechanisms and methods which have a demonstrated track record of success.

Financial and Economic Viability

Extent to which adequate public resources or user fees are available to support the continued operation and maintenance of the investment.

Extent to which private sector operations demonstrate long‐term profitability

Extent to which long‐term financial and technical support has been secured from partners and co‐financers.

Institutional Sustainability

Use of country systems for implementation (where feasible).

Identification and implementation of necessary institutional reforms and mechanisms.

Extent of policy dialogue and national ownership in implementing necessary policy and institutional reforms.

Ownership and Partnerships

Extent to which interventions have been implemented in consultation and partnership with local authorities, CSOs, other donors and the private sector.

Resilience Degree of project resilience to exogenous factors, including climate and economic shocks


EQ#4.2: To what extent has the Bank sought to mitigate risks to the sustainability of results as part of the project design and implementation process?

Desk review:

Project documents

National statistics (where available) Interviews:


AfDB, PMU, MDA, beneficiaries Site visits

Sector Indicators

Agriculture Evidence of regular maintenance conducted for infrastructure investments (e.g. rural roads, irrigation schemes, storage facilities)

Implementation of identified agricultural sector reforms

Village and district development plans funded and implemented

Finance & Industry Economic and financial performance of selected projects (profitability)

Retention rate of trained staff Repayment rate for financial support to SMEs

Growth of loans to MSMEs

Power Evidence of regular maintenance for infrastructure investments

Share of electrical distribution systems and transmission lines properly functioning

Long‐term financial sustainability of maintenance schemes

Technical and financial capacity for maintenance and operation among local officials

Implementation of identified policy reforms

The extent of line losses (technical and non‐technical) Deviation between unite cost and average tariff

Social Share of targeted institutions and training facilities operational and maintained

Retention of specialized faculty and trained staff Financial sustainability of targeted training and educational facilities

Transport Evidence of regular maintenance for infrastructure investments

Long‐term trends is travel times and Vehicle Operating Costs

Long‐term financial sustainability of maintenance schemes

Implementation of identified policy reforms


Share of infrastructure investments appropriately maintained and still operational

Share of water‐supply schemes which are financially self‐sustainable

Technical and financial capacity for maintenance and operation among local officials.

Multi‐Sector Extent of implementation of targeted reforms

Extent of reforms appropriately supported by public funds

Retention of trained staff Demonstrated use and maintenance of improved systems

4.4.5 Cross‐Cutting Themes


The assessment of cross‐cutting themes will involve an examination of the extent to which the themes of inclusive (including gender balanced) and green growth have been incorporated into the design and delivery of each project. Information required to assess the Bank’s performance in supporting inclusive and green growth will be mainly based on the portfolio review. Interviews with the GHFO staff will provide complementary evidence, especially on internal measures adopted by the country team to ensure that the twin objectives were adequately taken into account in the design and monitoring of Bank’s interventions. Interviews with other respondents will capture external perceptions on the adequacy of gender equality and environmental sustainability mainstreaming into the Bank’s interventions. A global assessment will be provided for the Bank’s portfolio in Ghana against a six‐point scale ranging from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory.


EQ#5.1: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions inclusive in terms of geography, age and

Degree and depth of gender analysis in the design and delivery of projects

Share of interventions with specific components addressing gender inequality

Share of projects utilizing gender checklists and gender‐

Desk review:

Project documents

Available PCRs/XSRs

Interviews:


gender? informed design

Extent of institutional capacity development support provided for the identification and management of gender disparities.

Share of bank interventions which explicitly consider or address regional disparities

AfDB, PMU, MDA

Interviews with task managers, local government stakeholders and implementing partners

Site visits EQ#5.2: To what extent are the Bank’s interventions environmentally sustainable and support the transition to green growth?

Share of infrastructure projects which integrate environmental protection measures

Share of new projects designed using climate checklists, environmental experts and climate‐informed design

Existence of mechanisms for monitoring and addressing environmental impact

Extent of support provided for institutional capacity development surrounding environmental management and climate change

4.4.6 Design and Delivery


This assessment will involve consideration of the extent to which the Bank has successfully implemented strategic operating mechanisms to promote the achievement of sustainable development results and maximize its value as a development partner. These mechanisms, identified in corporate strategies such as the TYS and the MTS, include:

implementing high‐quality strategies which are informed by dialogue and consultations with RMCs;

ensuring selectivity in operations;

providing innovative solutions to development challenges;

providing knowledge and technical advice;

leveraging financial resources through convening co‐financers, including other development partners and the private sector; and

Maintaining effective partnerships with other development partners. A global rating will be provided for management of the Bank’s portfolio in Ghana against a six point scale ranging from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory. The rating will be made based on a triangulation of evidence from project documents, interviews with key stakeholders and site visits.


EQ#6.1: To what extent has the quality of CSPs been satisfactory? Are the Bank’s interventions coherent and well‐coordinated internally?

Extent to which CSPs have been identified as Satisfactory through reviews of Quality at Entry

Extent of linkages among operations in different sectors.

Desk review:

CSP documents

Government Development Strategies

Available literature

Reviews of Quality at Entry

Readiness Reviews

Review of ESWs and knowledge products


Interviews:

AfDB, PMU, MDA, DPs

EQ#6.2: To what extent have the Bank’s interventions been selective and strategic?

Degree of concentration of the Bank’s activities in selected focus areas

Evidence of demonstrated expertise and comparative advantage within selected focus areas

Extent of complementarity with the activities of other donors and partners

EQ#6.3: How has the Bank adapted its interventions to implementation challenges within the country?

Evidence of ongoing analysis of implementation challenges and limitations

Share of projects utilizing innovative design approaches and instruments

Share of projects addressing emerging development needs

EQ#6.4: To what extent has the Bank’s engagement been informed by policy dialogue with national actors,

Evidence of ongoing and strategic policy dialogue with the Government of Ghana

Evidence of appropriate stakeholder mapping and engagement with potential partners in the design of


development partners and other interested stakeholders?

programs and projects

EQ#6.5: How well has the Bank leveraged its financial resources within Ghana through mechanisms such as productive partnerships and co‐financing?

Share of projects which utilize co‐financing Evidence of strategic engagement with partners to identify opportunities for co‐financing

Evidence of strategic selection of projects as candidates for partnership and co‐financing

EQ#6.6: To what extent has the Bank acted as a knowledge broker, advisor and convener? To what extent have the Bank’s interventions been informed by the Bank’s analytical work as well as that of other development partners?

Extent and quality of sector and thematic analyses

Evidence of ongoing research and ESW to inform program and project design

Evidence of technical assistance provided to inform necessary policy and institutional reforms

Evidence of ongoing policy dialogue with government stakeholders to identify opportunities for analytical support and partnership.

EQ#6.7: To what extent has the Bank cooperated with other development partners to ensure complementarity and reduce overlaps?

Evidence of donor mapping to inform the Bank's strategic positioning

Extent to which the Bank's interventions overlap with those of other development institutions

Share of the Bank’s interventions co‐financed by other development partners

Degree of collaboration with other development partners in project design, analytical work, monitoring and reviews

Extent of participation and leadership in donor partnership groupings

4.4.7 Management for Results


A final rating will be provided at the country level based on an assessment of the extent to which the Bank has successfully implemented a rigorous performance measurement regime and used this information to manage risks, guide implementation and inform the development of new projects and country strategies. In addition, this assessment will involve an examination of the Bank's efforts to develop capacity for results based management within Zambia. A global rating will be provided based on a 6‐point scale ranging from Highly Satisfactory to Highly Unsatisfactory based on a triangulation of evidence from project documents, interviews and site visits.


EQ#7.1: To what extent has the Bank's supervision of its interventions been effective?

Extent to which projects have been supervised on an annual basis

Extent to which supervision has been supported by field offices

Share of projects which underwent a mid‐term review of progress

Desk review:


Review of PCRs, XSRs, mid‐term reviews and BTORs

Interviews:

AfDB, PMU, MDA Site visits

EQ#7.2: How has the Bank used supervision and results information to guide the management of its interventions?

Evidence that supervision reports have been used to inform ongoing implementation

Evidence of implementation and design changes made in response to ongoing supervision and monitoring

EQ#7.3: To what extent has the Bank successfully implemented a performance measurement strategy which focuses on the achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts?

Share of projects with an appropriate results measurement framework, including clear targets

share of projects possessing appropriate baseline data

Evidence of regular data collection against established results indicators


EQ#7.4: To what extent have lessons learned been identified and incorporated into subsequent CSPs?

Extent to which evidence from PCRs/XSRs, Mid‐term reviews and evaluations have been incorporated into CSPs

Evidence of incorporation of lessons learned into the design of new projects

EQ#7.5: How has the Bank worked with the Government of Ghana to enhance its own systems of Results‐Based Measurement?

Conduct of a needs assessment to identify capacity challenges for results based management

Implementation of regular dialogue or capacity development support to promote ongoing management for development results.

EQ#7.6: To what extent has the Bank identified and monitored potential implementation risks?

Evidence of identified implementation risks and mitigation measures

Evidence of ongoing risk monitoring

Use of risk monitoring information to inform project design and implementation

4.5 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis

The conduct of the CSPE for Ghana will involve the analysis of primary and secondary sources of information, both qualitative and quantitative, which will be triangulated to address the evaluation questions. Primary sources of evidence will include, inter alia:

The Bank’s CSPs for Ghana;

Ghana’s relevant policy documents;

Project documents;

Interviews with key stakeholders both within the Bank as well as country counterparts;

Site visits of selected projects; and

To the extent possible, focus groups or surveys of beneficiaries for selected projects. Secondary sources of evidence will include:

Additional documentary evidence, including Bank policies, strategies and country development plans;

Official statistics available at country level;

Project supervision and completion documents; and

Relevant literature, including evaluations conducted by other development partners and structural development indicators compiled by other organizations (e.g. CPIA assessments).

4.5.1 Desk Review

4.5.1.1 Coverage and Data Collection

The desk review will be used to identify, verify and analyse all the qualitative and quantitative information that can be drawn from written sources. Conducting an accurate desk research is extremely important since it allows to duly exploit all information available (thus reducing gaps or duplications) and to triangulate among various sources, i.e. cross‐checking the information provided by interviewees with hard, factual evidence and vice versa. The anticipated scope of the desk review is presented in Table 6. With respect to the Bank's portfolio, the document review will serve as a first level of analysis applied to the entire range of projects. This phase will be particularly important for examining projects which have recently been approved or which are still in the early stages of implementation.


To the extent possible, the document review will be conducted using structured templates that allow for the coding of relevant information against the evaluation issues, questions and indicators. The corresponding template is presented in Annex D2. Table 6 – Proposed scope of the desk review

Type of Document Document Examples

Project Documents Appraisal Reports

Loan Agreements

ADOA Assessments

Supervision Reports

Project Completion Reports and Extended Supervision Reports

AfDB Operational Policies, Strategies and Assessments

Corporate Strategies (e.g. Ten Year Strategy)

Country Strategies

Regional Strategies

Sector Policies and Strategies

Readiness Reviews

Quality at Entry Assessments

National Development Strategies and cooperation frameworks

National development strategies and frameworks valid during the evaluation period

Sectoral strategies and program documents

Development partner cooperation frameworks and country strategies

Annual national policy dialogue reports

Development strategies of partner organizations

Evaluation documents and studies

Previous AfDB country and sector evaluations relevant to Ghana

Evaluations conducted by other development partners

Government of Ghana evaluation and monitoring reports

Available studies and Economic and Social Work

Development research and literature

Data sets, statistics and rating schemes

National Datasets

Sectoral and regional level statistics

MDG indicators

International rating schemes (Country Policy and Institutional Assessments, Doing Business, Perceived Corruption Index, Mo Ibrahim)

4.5.1.2 Document and Data Analysis

For the analysis of the mass of evidence gathered from the above‐illustrated secondary sources, three different tools with specific purposes will be used, and namely:

Portfolio review. This activity aims at (i) gaining an overall understanding of the Bank’s interventions, in terms of general and specific objectives, implementation modalities, etc., (ii) retrieving whatever data or qualitative information on the results achieved is available (mostly in terms of outputs), and (iii) extrapolate from project‐focused outcome evaluative processes to draw conclusions about the aggregate results of Bank’s assistance in a given sector/area. The exercise (already started during the Inception Phase) involves the review of all the relevant documents produced by the Bank services through the various stages of the ‘project cycle’. In order to gain a full understanding of the factors that may influence performance, the analysis may need to be extended to other documents, such as background documents (e.g. feasibility studies) or documents describing the strategy and operating modalities of beneficiaries (as in the case of agencies).

Statistical data review. This tool consists of exploiting the statistical datasets available in the country for measuring the changes occurred and the possible outcomes and impacts of the Bank’s assistance. Largely, the review will focus on indicators measuring outcomes explicitly addressed by projects or sectoral clusters of projects. To this end, the raw data will be


retrieved ‐ when feasible ‐ from the source (e.g. GSS) and treated so as to maximize their compliance with interventions’ indicators. More general indicators, such as structural indicators and/or international indexes will be collected with a view to measure through appropriate counterfactual analysis methods the possible contribution of the Bank to observed changes.

Meta‐evaluation data review. This tool consists of a desk review process that synthesizes and critiques the vast body of reports, evaluation studies and reviews that was produced by the Bank, the GoE and DPs over the years. This kind of analysis will not only to avoid repetition, but provide a baseline against which the further progress made can be assessed. As a rule of thumb, the results and conclusions of previous evaluations will not be simply reported as they are, but will undergo a scrutiny to test their reliability.

The desk review is a continuous task, which started during the Inception Phase and will finish at the end of the analysis phase. The full list of the documents consulted will be included in a bibliographic annex to the Technical Report.

4.5.2 Interviews with Key Stakeholders

Interviews with key stakeholders will be used to gain a deeper understanding of the context and rationale underpinning the Bank’s interventions. It will also be used to collect and assess information about the perspectives, expectations and experiences of key informants and stakeholders within the Bank, the Government of Ghana and other development institutions. At the project level, stakeholders will be interviewed only for a sample of projects (Group 2 and Group 3 projects; see section 4.6). The potential informants to be consulted include a vast and heterogeneous array of stakeholders, ranging from staff directly involved in the execution of project activities (project implementation or management units – PMU), to ultimate recipients of the possible benefits of the intervention, such as the communities living in the project areas. Table 7 presents a summary of potential interviewees, classified into groups. A more detailed list of stakeholders to be interviewed is presented in Annex C. Table 7 – Potential Stakeholder Groups to be Interviewed

Stakeholder Group Potential Interviewees

Bank Staff Task Managers

Sector Managers

Field Office Staff

Country Economists

Country Team Members

Public Sector Representatives

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

National Development Planning Commission

Ministry of Lands and Forestry

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Ministry of Trade and Industry

Ministry of Roads and Transport

Ministry of Fisheries

Ministry of Energy

Ministry of Women's and Children's Affairs

Ministry of Manpower, Youth and Employment

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Works


Stakeholder Group Potential Interviewees

Environmental Protection Agency

Bank of Ghana

Ghana Statistical Service

Ghana Audit Service

Public Procurement Authority

Ghana Revenue Authority

Private Sector Representatives

SME and Microfinance Organizations

NGOs and CSOs

Farmer's associations

Business organizations

Local Communities Local service providers

Community organizations

Other Development Partners Multilateral and bilateral donors

IFIs and other development partners

Project Management Units PMUs in each of the sectors

Since the roles and levels of information of the various stakeholders vary, it is important that the questions for them are targeted and corresponding to their specific role and level of knowledge. For this purpose, the selection of questions for stakeholder groups will be informed by an interview guide (Annex D3). The interviews will then be conducted using in a semi‐structured form which addresses the issues, questions and indicators identified in the evaluation matrices, using interview note templates (Annex D4). The interview notes will then be transcribed and coded against the evaluation indicators to contribute to the analysis.

4.5.3 Site Visits / Case Studies and Project Results Assessments

4.5.3.1 Coverage and Data Collection

Finally, for a narrower sample of projects (Group 3; see section 4.6) desk research and interviews will be complemented by site visits, and case studies, respectively Project Results Assessments (PRAs)5, will present in‐depth assessments of the development results achieved for these projects. The case studies will include in‐depth interviews with stakeholders and focus groups or surveys with the project beneficiaries. The list of entities to be interviewed during fieldwork will obviously depend upon the nature of the project, but in general it is expected to include a blend of (i) MDAs – not only the executive agency but also other central and local authorities involved, with special focus on PMU members; (ii) Bank staff (GHFO and other units as applicable); (iii) target group representatives, such as local committees, water user associations, rural financial institutions, and the like – as well as the contractors involved, where applicable; (iv) stakeholders representatives (sector business associations, NGOs – e.g. for women empowerment, for environmental protection, etc.); and (v) other DPs, either co‐financing the project or otherwise active in the sector. Overall, each sampled project is expected to consist of about 6 to 8 in‐depth interviews, plus possibly focus groups with representatives of project’s end‐beneficiaries. The interviews will be complemented by a thorough desk review of relevant documents. This will not be limited to the Bank’s project documents but will encompass also other relevant sources produced

5 I.e., for each project in Group 3 either a case study or a PRA will be prepared. The distinction is further elaborated in section 4.8 below.


by national authorities and/or other donors (e.g. internal reports and evaluations). As much as possible, these materials will be collected prior to fieldwork, but in various instances (especially, in the case of unpublished documents) the identification of relevant documents will be possible only during field interviews.

4.5.3.2 Contribution Analysis

Case studies and PRAs will use contribution analysis to the extent possible in order to help ensure that credible evaluative information is available about the achievement of results at the level of outcomes to inform the CEDR. All projects in Group 3 will be subject to a contribution analysis of the achievement of results, implemented via the following five stages:6

1. Identification of a project logic which identifies how the project is intended to work and details: (i) the project context; (ii) the anticipated activities, outputs and outcomes; (iii) the intended beneficiaries. The initial project logic will be identified through a review of project documents.

2. Gathering of additional secondary evidence as well as interviews with key stakeholders in order to: (i) confirm or adjust the project logic; (ii) identify necessary assumptions underlying the project logic; and (iii) identify alternative explanations or contributing factors for the achievement of desired outcomes.

3. Interviews and focus group meetings with beneficiaries and key informants in the field and observe the project in operation in order to: (i) assess the extent to which activities have been implemented and outputs have been delivered; (ii) assess the extent to which expected outcomes have been achieved; (iii) test the underlying assumptions and of the project logic; and (iv) determine the extent to which alternative explanations and factors have contributed to the achievement of results.

4. Create a performance story based on the available evidence and identify potential limitations and data gaps.

5. Seek out additional evidence as necessary to modify and strengthen the performance story. The means through which the contribution analysis is implemented will depend on the availability of credible comparative information against which to assess the achievement of results.7 Where possible, it is expected that the assessment of results will proceed by assessing the results achieved against an appropriate counterfactual, such as a similar region which did not benefit from the intervention under consideration. However, where an appropriate counterfactual does not exist or where such a comparison would be impractical (e.g. where there is no other feasible factor which could contribute to the achievement of results), the evaluation team may use a before‐and‐after assessment to assess the extent to which results have been achieved. Use of this approach is subject to the availability of appropriate baseline data. Should neither appropriate baseline data nor an appropriate counterfactual be available, the evaluation team will rely on in‐depth key informant interviews and focus groups to assess the achievement of results as well as the contribution of alternative explanations. In each case, the methodology chosen will be justified based on the availability of credible data.

6 This approach is consistent with the one outlined in Mayne (2001). 7 This approach is consistent with the methods outlined in White, Sinha and Flanagan (2006).


Implementation of the contribution analysis will be structured by using a project assessment framework (Annex D1).

4.6 Project Sampling and Classification

Although the entire scope of the Bank’s portfolio between 2004 and 2015 will be assessed as part of the evaluation, each project will be subject to a different depth of analysis depending on their characteristics. The first group of projects will be subject only to a review of project documents, including the appraisal report, loan agreement, project reports and any supervision information. The second group of projects will be subject to both a review of project documents and interviews with key stakeholders. The final group of projects will be subject to a review of project documents, interviews with key stakeholders and site visits. This final group includes, as a sub‐group, those projects which will be subject to a Project Results Assessment.

4.6.1 Sampling Criteria

Projects have been assigned to the three groups using the following rationale and criteria (Table 8):

Group 1 (Document Review Only) includes all grants as well as projects with net loans amounting to less than 1,000,000 UA;

Group 2 (Document Review + Stakeholder Interviews) includes projects which are ongoing or approved with net loans amounting to more than 1,000,000 UA, as well as closed and completed projects which are less than 50% disbursed, and projects approved before 2004; and

Group 3 (Document Review + Stakeholder Interviews + Site Visits) includes all projects approved after 2003 which are closed or completed and which have a disbursement ratio of at least 50%. Projects which meet all of these three criteria will be subject to a Project Results Assessment as part of the CEDR.

Table 8 – Formalised overview of criteria applied for sampling

Group Criterion 1: Size Criterion 2: Implementation

status

Criterion 3: Disbursement

rate

Criterion 4: Approval year

Group 1 Less than UA 1M

Or

Grant

Group 2 At least UA 1M and Ongoing/approved

Or

At least UA 1M and Completed/closed and Less than 50%

Or

At least UA 1M and Completed/closed and At least 50% and <2003

Group 3 At least UA 1M and Completed/closed and At least 50% and >2003

A further requirement for the sample is that all sectors must be represented in Group 3.

4.6.2 Sampling Process

The sampling exercise was undertaken in three stage procedure: data preparation, application of sampling criteria, and final classification. Step 1: Data preparation First, the universe of 59 national and 12 multinational projects approved since 2002 (listed in Annex B) was cleaned up by:

Removing projects appearing twice (both as Ghana and multinational projects);


Removing multinational projects with no or marginal interventions in Ghana; and

Combining projects covered by several files but with the same rationale and project number.

These steps led to a list of 47 projects for the sampling exercise. Step 2: Application of sampling criteria Application of the criteria defined above yields 9 Group 1 projects; 28 Group 2 projects and 10 Group 3 projects (for all of which PRAs would have to be prepared). However, Group 3 thus composed would only include Agriculture, Multi‐Sector, Social and Water/Sanitation interventions. As a result of this, Group 3 had to be expanded in order to ensure a more representative sample in terms of sector composition. Step 3: Final sampling and classification The classification of projects resulting from step 2 was adapted as follows:

One Group 1 project which was terminated (Tema Osonor Power Plant), was included in Group 2;

Two Group 3 (with PRA) projects are already covered by another evaluation and were therefore assigned to Group 2 (Rural Water and Sanitation Programme; Improved Sanitation and Water Supply)

Nine Group 2 projects were assigned to Group 3 in order to expand Group 3 sector coverage and representativeness. For this reassignment, preference was given to large interventions with high disbursement rates as well as projects considered as strategic.8

4.6.3 Result of Sampling Process

The final project sample list is presented in Table 9. Of the 47 interventions, eight are in Group 1, 22 in Group 2 and 17 in Group 3, of which eight are PRA projects. Figure 10 provides the composition of the project sample by sector and Group. Figure 10 – Composition of project sample

8 The following projects were reassigned: LINE OF CREDIT TO CAL MERCHANT BANK; CAL BANK LOC II; KEMPINSKI HOTEL PROJECT; POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN; TAKORADI II EXPANSION POWER PROJECT; HEALTH SERVICES REHABILITATION PROJECT III (HSRP III); DEVELOPMENT OF SENIOR SECONDARY EDUCATION PROJECT; TEMA‐AFLAO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT; UEMOA ‐GHANA‐PROGRAMME ROUTIER 1.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

3‐PRA

3

2

1


Table 9 – Ghana CSPE Project Sample

Group Long name Sector No. Name Status Approv. Date

Netloan Disb. Ratio

1 AVIAN FLU EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE Agriculture P‐GH‐AA0‐032

Ghana COMP 05.04.06 354,233 0.00

1 GRANT FOR PREPARATION‐ENGAGING LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDD+/EN

Agriculture P‐GH‐AAD‐002

Ghana APVD 15.11.11 177,117 100.00

1 GRANT FOR PREPARATION ‐ ENGAGING LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDD+/


Ghana COMP 25.06.13 0 0.00

1 GRANT FOR PREPARATION‐ENGAGING LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDD+/EN


Ghana APVD 22.01.14 3,200,000 4.06

1 GHANA MSME BUSINESS LINKAGE PROGRAM

Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐KB0‐003

Ghana APVD 27.04.14 708,466 0.00

1 DESIGN FOR RE‐USE Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐EAZ‐001

Ghana COMP 28.07.10 399,141 100.00

1 REOPTIMIZATION STUDY OF AKOSOMBO &KP DAM

Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐EAZ‐002

Ghana OnGo 02.08.10 1,467,371 72.65

1 IMPROVED SANITATION AND WATER SUPPLY SER

Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐E00‐008

Ghana COMP 18.09.09 1,586,144 100.00

1 A BUSINESS APPROACH FOR IMPROVED SANITATION IN GHANA – ORGAN

Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐EBZ‐001

Ghana OnGo 16.05.13 869,213 24.90

2 COMMUNITY FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PROJECT


Ghana CLSD 03.07.02 6,917,569 100.00

2 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT Agriculture P‐GH‐A00‐001

Ghana COMP 12.12.02 7,479,485 100.00

2 GHANA OIL PALM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Agriculture P‐GH‐AAG‐002

Ghana CLSD 12.12.02 5,722,621 100.00

2 NERICA DISSEMINATION PROJECT ‐ GHANA

Agriculture P‐Z1‐AA0‐070

Ghana/ Mult

COMP 26.09.03 2,580,175 100.00

2 NORTHERN RURAL GROWTH PROGRAM Agriculture P‐GH‐AA0‐030

Ghana OnGo 17.12.07 40,000,000 59.77

2 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT III Agriculture P‐GH‐A00‐015

Ghana OnGo 19.12.12 26,690,000 2.81

2 UT BANK GHANA TRADE FINANCE LINE OF CREDIT

Finance P‐GH‐HAB‐002

Ghana OnGo 22.05.13 14,169,323 100.00

2 Statistical Capacity Building ‐ ICP Multi‐Sector P‐Z1‐K00‐012

Mult Closed 08.09.04 14,750,000 99.89

2 GHANA INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM TO OVERSIGHT AND PRIVATE

Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐KF0‐001

Ghana OnGo 10.09.12 9,590,000 12.63

2 GHANA ‐ TOGO ‐ BENIN POWER INTERCONNECT

Power P‐Z1‐F00‐030

Ghana/ Mult

OnGo 04.04.07 14,870,000 94.53

2 POWER SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PROJECT

Power P‐GH‐F00‐003

Ghana OnGo 28.11.07 27,600,000 79.48

2 TEMA OSONOR POWER PLANT Power P‐GH‐FAA‐001

Ghana TERM 15.10.08 0 0.00

2 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT AND EXTENSION

Power P‐GH‐F00‐005

Ghana APVD 26.02.14 28,600,000 0.00

2 GENDER RESPONSIVE SKILLS & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Social P‐GH‐ID0‐003

Ghana COMP 19.12.07 5,950,000 34.79

2 DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS FOR INDUSTRY PROJECT (DSIP)

Social P‐GH‐IAE‐001

Ghana OnGo 20.06.12 45,000,000 3.86

2 AKATSI‐DZODZE‐NOEPE ROAD UPGRADING PROJECT

Transport P‐GH‐D00‐009

Ghana COMP 20.12.02 9,958,141 100.00

2 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 2003 Transport P‐GH‐D00‐008

Ghana COMP 17.09.03 12,868,262 100.00

2 AWOSHIE‐POKUASE ROAD PROJECT Transport P‐GH‐DB0‐012

Ghana OnGo 14.10.09 53,590,000 64.69

2 FUFULSO‐SAWLA ROAD PROJECT Transport P‐GH‐DB0‐016

Ghana OnGo 24.11.10 109,720,000 73.63

2 RURAL WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAMME

Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐E00‐003

Ghana COMP 08.09.04 9,818,540 100.00


Group Long name Sector No. Name Status Approv. Date

Netloan Disb. Ratio

2 ACCRA SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ASIP)

Water Sup/ Sanit

P‐GH‐E00‐004

Ghana OnGo 26.04.06 46,000,000 70.46

3 LINE OF CREDIT TO CAL MERCHANT BANK Finance P‐GH‐HA0‐006

Ghana CLSD 10.07.02 3,542,331 100.00

3 CAL BANK LOC II Finance P‐GH‐HAB‐001

Ghana OnGo 24.07.08 10,626,993 100.00

3 KEMPINSKI HOTEL PROJECT Ind/Mini/ Quar

P‐GH‐BC0‐003

Ghana OnGo 27.09.10 12,752,391 100.00

3 POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐K00‐007

Ghana CLSD 22.10.03 34,546,023 100.00

3 TAKORADI II EXPANSION POWER PROJECT

Power P‐GH‐FD0‐002

Ghana OnGo 11.07.12 15,727,949 93.21

3 HEALTH SERVICES REHABILITATION PROJECT III (HSRP III)

Social P‐GH‐IBD‐001

Ghana COMP 30.10.02 16,334,670 100.00

3 DEVELOPMENT OF SENIOR SECONDARY EDUCATION PROJECT (EDUCATION

Social P‐GH‐IAC‐001

Ghana COMP 24.09.03 19,924,288 100.00

3 TEMA‐AFLAO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT

Transport P‐GH‐DB0‐004

Ghana COMP 17.04.02 12,384,096 100.00

3 UEMOA ‐GHANA‐PROGRAMME ROUTIER 1

Transport P‐Z1‐DB0‐014

Mult COMP 19.11.03 57,339,938 100.00

3 PRA

GHANA ‐ CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE TSETSE ERADICATION PROGRAM

Agriculture P‐Z1‐AZ0‐007

Ghana/ Mult

COMP 08.12.04 6,639,395 100.00

3 PRA

EXPORT MARKET AND QUALITY AWARENESS PROGRAM

Agriculture P‐GH‐AA0‐027

Ghana CLSD 13.07.05 14,994,377 100.00

3 PRA

AFRAM PLAINS DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Agriculture P‐GH‐AA0‐015

Ghana COMP 31.05.06 19,133,396 100.00

3 PRA

COCOBOD Agriculture P‐GH‐AA0‐033

Ghana CLSD 16.09.09 24,796,316 100.00

3 PRA

POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN II Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐K00‐008

Ghana COMP 07.09.05 43,983,522 100.00

3 PRA

POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN ‐ PRSL III

Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐KA0‐003

Ghana COMP 17.09.08 90,000,000 100.00

3 PRA

POVERTY REDUCTION AND BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM

Multi‐Sector P‐GH‐K00‐012

Ghana COMP 13.07.11 44,000,000 100.00

3 PRA

URBAN POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT Social P‐GH‐IE0‐003

Ghana COMP 12.10.05 25,000,000 77.21

Note: The 3 supplementary loans (P‐GH‐DB0‐013, P‐GH‐DB0‐014, P‐GH‐DB0‐013) will be assessed as part of the TEMA AFLAO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT

4.7 Rating and Aggregation

4.7.1 Rating

Consistently with all other IDEV’s CSPEs, it is proposed to adopt a six‐tiered rating scale for the synthetic assessment of EQs and the related judgment criteria. This means that, in the case of primary collection of opinions from stakeholders, the Consultant will use a six‐tier numerical scale, which would indeed allow the respondents to express their views with more precision. In the assessments of the degree of achievement of a quantitative target, the six‐tier scale will be used (Table 10). For PRAs and country templates for the CEDR Synthesis, further guidance on rating is provided in the Guidance Notes (IDEV 2015; 2015a), which will be applied by the evaluation team. The six‐tiered rating approach is not completely consistent with the Bank’s approach to rating the performance of projects, which is typically conducted on a 4‐point scale. Accordingly, where necessary, any existing performance ratings or quantitative targets assessed on a 4‐point rating scale will be converted to a 6‐point rating as provided in Table 10.


Table 10 – Proposed Conversion of Rating Scales

6‐Point Rating System 4‐Point Rating System

Rate Description Quant. target achievement

Corresponding rate (range)

Description

6 Highly Satisfactory More than 90% 4 (3.4 – 4) Highly Satisfactory/Very good

5 Satisfactory 70% to 90%

3 (2.7 – 3.3) Satisfactory/good 4

Moderately Satisfactory

50% to 70%

3 Moderately

Unsatisfactory 40% to 50%

2 (1.5 – 2.6) Unsatisfactory/fair

2 Unsatisfactory 30% to 40%

1 Highly Unsatisfactory Less than 30% 1 (less than 1.5) Highly Unsatisfactory/poor

4.7.2 Aggregation

The aggregation the evaluation ratings for individual projects to derive overall performance ratings will not be simply based on a compilation of individual project evaluations, but it will duly take into account synergies across operations and aggregate learning impacts. The Evaluation will comment on the performance and impact across the portfolio at large and the achievement of one single round‐number rating for the whole portfolio will not be derived by calculating the arithmetic average of the individual ratings for each project. Instead, it will be based on the evaluation team’s own judgement, attaching different importance to different projects, judgment criteria and indicators. In some cases, which will be duly flagged in the evaluation matrix, a weighting system will be used to aggregate judgments on aspect of different importance. More specifically, some indicators comparatively less relevant for evaluation purposes will be given a 0.5 coefficient when aggregating to others, while, in the case of projects, the value of operations will be considered as an important weighting factor.

4.8 Outputs

The evaluation will produce a number of outputs as identified in the ToR and contract. In addition to this inception report, the following main outputs will be produced.

Project Results Assessments: For each of the eight closed and completed projects approved after 2004 a Project Results Assessment (PRA) will be prepared. PRAs will be conducted in accordance with the approach recommended in the Evaluation Cooperation Group’s “Big Book on Evaluation Good Practice Standards,” including an assessment of the causal chain in relation to the needs of the target population in collaboration with stakeholders and experts; an examination of the critical risks and assumptions and expectations inherent in the project's design; use of available research evidence and practical experience to compare the project with projects based on similar concepts; and observation of the project in operation, focusing on interactions that were expected to produce the intended outcomes. PRAs will be based on the template prepared by IDEV (see IDEV 2015).

CEDR Synthesis Country Report (Country Operating Mechanisms Synthesis Report): In order to support the CEDR synthesis, evidence from the CSPE will be used to support an assessment of the extent to which various operating mechanisms are contributing to the Bank’s development effectiveness. The evaluation team will use the CSPE evidence to complete a template which identifies the various contextual factors which have contributed to the Bank’s performance as well as the extent to which various operating mechanisms have


been applied, including, but not limited to: (i) selectivity; (ii) leveraging; (iii) engagement and dialogue; and (iv) strategic partnerships. The CEDR Synthesis Country Report will be based on the template prepared by IDEV (2015a).

Case Studies and Sector Reports: For each of the nine projects in Group 3 where no PRA is required, a (shorter) case study will be prepared, based on the structure of the Project Assessment Framework Template (Annex D1). These case studies will be an important input to the Sector Reports, to which they will be annexed.

CSPE Technical Report: The Technical Report will be prepared in draft and final versions and synthesise all analyses and findings of the evaluation at all levels. The report will include an executive summary, a main text, and annexes as needed. The main text will be structured against three key sections, namely (i) a background and context on the country, the Bank’s operation, and the CSPE; (ii) a presentation of the results of the analysis, aggregated at country level and with sector specificities; and (iii) key lessons to be drawn from the evaluation results, as well as recommendations aiming at strengthening the operationalization of the Bank’s present and future operations.

CSPE Synthesis Report: This report will provide a summary of the evaluation findings.

4.9 Challenges, Limitations and Risks

IDEV and the BKP evaluation team anticipates a number of challenges and limitations in the conduct of the evaluation which may frustrate timely delivery or limit the quality of the report. An effort has been made to identify these issues in advance and identify measures for mitigating their impact (Table 11). Table 11 – Evaluation challenges and mitigation measures

Challenge / Risk / Limitation

Description and Mitigation Strategy

Data Quality and Availability

Each of the data sources identified for the evaluation is subject to data quality concerns. With respect to project documents, logical frameworks and data provided may be of poor quality (or not be available) and supervision data may not be available. Stakeholder interviews are subject to the availability of the appropriate interlocutors as well as recollection bias. In order to address these concerns, the evaluation team will triangulate all available data to identify evaluation findings and conclusions and mitigate the impact of data gaps and quality issues. In addition, all evaluation findings will be verified against the available literature subject to being finalized.

Available Time and Resources

The evaluation must be implemented utilizing minimal time and resources based on the constraints associated with IDEV’s work program, the CEDR and the CSP renewal process. In particular, the time line for preparing the CEDR Synthesis Report is extremely tight. As such, the evaluation team will be hard pressed to deliver the evaluation in a timely manner while meeting internal quality requirements. In order to address this challenge, BKP has overhauled the original methodology proposed (which was based on a six‐month evaluation period) and will resort exclusively to an in‐house evaluation team. In addition, it is hoped that the coordination of data requests in advance of field missions will help ensure that time in the field is used efficiently and that data collection is targeted to the gaps identified.

Lack of Available Baseline Data

A review of project documents indicates that, although performance targets have been established for many projects, baseline data is not consistently available. This may affect the ability of the evaluation team to implement rigorous contribution analysis.


Challenge / Risk / Limitation

Description and Mitigation Strategy

To the extent possible, any lack of baseline data will be addressed through the use of appropriate counterfactuals and the identification of alternative secondary data sources, assuming that they are available. Should these alternatives not be available, the evaluation team will attempt to address this gap through additional key informant interviews.

Shift in Program Philosophy

As previously indicated, the Bank’s assistance to Ghana has undergone a significant thematic change since the beginning of the evaluation period. In particular, recent commitments have been made in the power, finance and WSS sectors which are still far from completion. Despite the importance of these interventions to future CSPs, there may be limited information available to contribute to an assessment of effectiveness. In order to address this challenge, the project sampling has been structured in a way to adequately cover all sectors, and in particular those which are of strategic importance for the Bank. This approach is intended to maximize the amount of relevant information available to inform the development of the next CSP.

Generalizability of the Project Sample

Because the evaluation utilizes a purposive sample to assess the results achieved, strictly speaking, none of the analysis conducted at any stage can be generalized to the remainder of the portfolio. This is particularly relevant in the case of projects sampled into Group 3, which will be subject to an in‐depth analysis. Despite the resulting limitation, this approach was necessary to ensure that resources are targeted to projects for which it is more likely that results information is available. Appropriate coverage has been ensured by subjecting all completed or closed projects covered by the evaluation period to an in‐depth assessment.

5 Implementation Plan

5.1 Evaluation Schedule and Deliverables

The evaluation will be conducted in four phases:

(i) Inception; (ii) Data collection and field work; (iii) Data analysis and reporting; and (iv) Dissemination.

This inception report addresses the implementation of the second and third phases. The inception phase has been completed, and the dissemination activities for this evaluation will be planned in greater detail by IDEV's Knowledge Management, Dissemination and Capacity Development division.

These phases are described in greater detail below. Table 12 provides a summary of the evaluation schedule; a more detailed schedule is presented in Annex E.

Table 12 – Summary Implementation Schedule and Deadlines for the Ghana CSPE

Evaluation Phase Activity/Output Indicative Timeline/Deadlines

Inception Phase Output: Inception Report 06 December 2015

Data Collection and Field Work

Desk review Until 15 January 2016

Field missions (site visits and interviews) 25 November 2015 – 18 December 201504 January 2016 – 08 January 2016

Analysis and Reporting Phase

Project analysis Output: PRA Reports

21 December 2015 – 15 January 201615 January 2016

Preliminary country analysis Output: CEDR Synthesis Country Report

21 December 2015 – 15 January 201615 January 2016


Evaluation Phase Activity/Output Indicative Timeline/Deadlines

Aggregation of project evaluation into sector analysis

Output: Sector reports with case studies

11 January 2016 – 29 January 2016 29 January 2016

Draft final reporting Output: Draft CSPE Technical Report

01 February 2016 – 15 February 201615 February 2016

Final reporting Output: Final CSPE Technical Report Output: Synthesis Report

23 February 2016 – 29 February 201629 February 2016 29 February 2016

5.2 Detailed Task Description

5.2.1 Data Collection and Field Work

The objective of the Data Collection and Analysis Phase is to collect of primary data to complement the review of project documents and to fill identified data gaps. Subsequently, all available data will be triangulated against the approved evaluation matrix to identify evaluation findings and conclusions. The field mission in Ghana is scheduled to take place over the period 25 November 2015 to 18 December 2015. A more detailed schedule is presented in section 5.3. The main two types of activities during the field work are: 1 – Key informant interviews: The Team Leader and Researcher/Local Expert will be in charge of the initial briefing, country level and horizontal meetings. Project level interviews will be distributed among the evaluation team on a sector basis. Meetings with GoG are scheduled to take place towards the end of the mission and will be under the responsibility of the Team Leader. 2 – Site visits for Group 3 projects: Site visits will be conducted in cooperation with, and participation of the IDEV Task Manager and the IDEV evaluation Team and will aim at the collection/verification of information through direct observation, interviews and/or surveys as appropriate. The agendas for the site visits will be agreed in advance with IDEV and contacts with the various stakeholders will be established through appropriate channels. While in principle a well‐defined work program is necessary to ensure a smooth implementation of field work, due to time constraints a certain degree of flexibility will have to be retained.

5.2.2 Data Analysis and Reporting

The analysis and reporting phase aims at (a) validating the preliminary findings and identifying evaluation recommendations; and (b) preparing the various technical and synthesis reports. In general terms, the analysis and reporting will follow a bottom‐up approach, starting with project level analysis and ending with the country level analysis. An exception to this approach, due to external constraints, is the preparation of the CEDR Syntheses Country Report. For each report to be submitted, that sequence of activities will be as follows: First, preliminary findings will be presented to IDEV staff (and key stakeholders, if possible) for discussion and the identification of recommendations. Next, detailed technical reports will be drafted to present the available evidence and analysis to support each evaluation finding. Finally, the IDEV evaluation team will produce a synthesis report which summarises the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations for presentation to Bank management. The findings of the analysis will be presented in the following reports, to be submitted consecutively:


1 – Project Results Assessments. Following the data collection phase, findings and information will be transcribed into the PRA template. In fact, the resulting data will be used to complete a results template wherein a rating is provided for various dimensions of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and a detailed justification is provided. 2 – CEDR Synthesis Country Report. Simultaneously with the project‐level analysis, the evaluation team will analyse country‐level information to support the CEDR synthesis, which will be drafted by the Team Leader, based on the template developed by IDEV. Similar to the PRA, this report will be based on data collected during the mission and complemented and triangulated by follow‐up desk work. 3 – Sector Analysis and Reports. Following interviews and site visits (and possibly only after the submission of the PRAs), the evaluation experts will work on the (Group 3) project case studies within their sector. This phase will also include data coding and analysis. The aim of this task is to collect primary data to complement the review of project documents and fill identified data gaps. Subsequently, all available data will be triangulated against the approved evaluation matrix to identify evaluation findings and conclusions. Sector Reports compiling findings on identified data gaps and recovered data will be prepared by the experts. 4 – Presentation of preliminary findings to stakeholders. Subsequent to data collection and template completion, the consultant team will produce a presentation of emerging findings to support a consultative workshop with IDEV staff, management, peer reviewers and a Bank reference group. This will foster discussion and the identification of recommendations. A one‐day workshop will be organized in Accra under the joint coordination of the Team Leader and the IDEV Task Manager. 5 – Preparation of Draft Technical Report. The evaluation team will then incorporate comments from stakeholders and propose evaluation recommendations taking also into account the feedback received. With the sector input from all team members the Team Leader will prepare the draft technical report. 6 – Finalisation of Technical Report and Synthesis Report. The draft technical report will undergo an internal peer‐review as well as external expert review. The peer‐reviewers will focus on methodology and on the quality and soundness of the conclusions and recommendations. The feedback provided by the peer reviewers (both internal and/or external) will be used to refine the planning documentation and final draft of the evaluation, as required. In addition, the evaluation will be reviewed by the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG). The Team Leader will submit a Final Technical Report consolidated from the revisions following the comments on the Draft Technical Report. Finally, the IDEV evaluation team will produce a finalised synthesis report which will summarise the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations for presentation to Bank management. This will also include the production of a draft and final summary report. It will also be the Bank’s task to proceed with the dissemination and communication activities of all outputs, as per the Bank’s requirements.

5.3 Mission Plan

The field mission in Ghana is scheduled to take place over the period 25 November 2015 to 18 December 2015. The planned organization of the mission is as presented below. Dates Team Members Activities / Interviews

November 25‐27

Madhu and Erika

Kick‐off meeting

Interviews with task managers at GHFO


Dates Team Members Activities / Interviews

Daniel o Mohamed Umaro Tabi Karikari (Agriculture) o Nanette Derby (Private Sector) o Efua Amissah‐Arthur (Social Development) o Mam Tut Wadda o Sheila Akyea (Transport) o Rees Mwasambili (WSS) o Moses Ayiemba (Procurement) o Wilberforce Maiki (Country Economist ‐> Budget support) o Jemima Tettey‐Cofie o Philip Doghle (Financial management specialist)

Phone interviews with other task managers o Matila Mothobi o Tilahun Temesgen (PRSL III & IV) o Mulle Chikoko o Lydie Ehouman o Patrick Agboma o Jean Ndenzako o Mohamed Balayah

November 30

Madhu, Erika, Daniel

Meetings with GHFO/task managers

December 1‐3

Madhu, Erika, Daniel

Interviews

Project Implementation Units

Development Partners: tbd

December 7‐11

Agriculture (Madhu + Daniel)

Site Visits:

COCOBOD: Accra

Afram Plain Agricultural Development: Afram Plains

Export Market Development: Volta, Greater Accra Interviews ‐ Government:

Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Ministry Of Fisheries And Aquaculture Development

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development


Environmental Protection Agency Interviews: Civil Society & Private Sector:

1. Crops Research Institute 2. Association of Rural Banks 3. Agricultural Research Institute

Interviews – DPs:

IFAD

FAO

Social Sector (Erika + Emmanuel)

Site visits:

Urban Poverty Reduction: Accra, Kumasi, Tano, Sekondi‐Takoradi, Koforidua, Akimoda, Swedru, Apau, Kasoa, Wendi, Agogo, Ho

Health Services Rehabilitation III: Wasa West, Amansie, Accra, Sekondi‐Takoradi, Kumasi, Tamale, Ho

Senior Secondary Education: Accra

Transport Sector (Enrico + Derk)

Site Visits:

Tema Aflao Road: Tema (Multiple)

Uemoa‐Ghana Route: TBD Interviews ‐ Government:

Ministry of Roads and Highways

Ministry of Transport

Ghana Highways Authority



Ghana Road Fund Interviews – DPs:

Tbd

WSS (Derk + Valentin)

Interviews

Ministry of Water Resources, Works & Housing

Community Water and Sanitation Agency (Executing Agency RWSSI)

Accra Metropolitan Assembly (Executing Agency ASIP)

Water Resources Commission

Ghana Water Company Limited (formerly Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation)

Public Utilities Regulatory Commission

Water Sector Restructuring Secretariat (now dissolved?)

December 14‐18

Multi‐sector, Governance and RMC stakeholders (Erika, Madhu, Derk, Daniel, Enrico, Emmanuel, Valentin)

Interviews ‐ Government



Bank of Ghana

Ghana Statistical Service

Ghana Audit Services

Internal Audit Agency

Public Procurement Authority

Ghana Revenue Authority

Parliamentary Service Interviews ‐ Civil Society & Private Sector

Ghana Anti‐Corruption Coalition

Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE),

Private Enterprise Foundation (PEF)

National Board of Small Scale Industries (NBSSI) Interviews – Development partners

DfID

IFC

AFD

USAID

IMF

World Bank

ILO

DBSA

EU

EIB

KfW

GIZ

SECO

CIDA

Danida

JICA

Netherlands Partner Interviews:

ECOWAS

Others that could not be met 01‐04 Dec

04‐08 January 2016

Private Sector, Industry/ Finance and Power (Erika +

Site Visits:

CAL Merchant Bank LOC I and II: Accra

Kempinski Hotel: Accra

Takoradi Power Extension: Takoradi Interviews – Government (finance/industry/social/power):



Emmanuel) Ministry of Trade and Industry

Ministry of Energy and Petroleum

Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation

Ministry of Gender, Children and social protection



Ministry of Health Interviews: Civil Society & Private Sector:

Association of Ghana Industries

Association of Small‐scale industries

Ghana Microfinance Institutions Network

Ghana Investment Promotion Centre

Ghana National Association of Teachers

Ghana Export Promotions Council

Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters

Christian Health Association of Ghana Interviews – DPs:

Tbd

Agriculture (Madhu + Daniel)

Site Visits:

Sustainable Tsetse fly: Northwestern Ghana Interviews – DPs:

Tbd

6 Communication & Outreach Strategy

6.1 Target Audience

In addition to the Bank’s Board, the target audience for this evaluation will include:

The governments of both Ghana and non‐regional member countries who may use these evaluations to account to their constituents and inform their future interactions with the Bank;

Bank management and staff who may utilize the findings, recommendations and lessons learned identified in the report to inform their work; and

Beneficiaries in Ghana, who may use the evaluation to hold their government to account.

6.2 Communication Tools

Given that the target audience for this evaluation includes both internal and external stakeholder groups, dissemination and communication tools will be tailored to the needs of these groups, as necessary. Proposed means of dissemination for each stakeholder group are described in greater detail below.

6.2.1 Primary Internal Stakeholders

The primary internal stakeholders of the Ghana CSPE include the Bank’s Committee on Operations and Development Effectiveness as well as the Bank’s Board and Executive Directors. It is anticipated that these stakeholders will use the evaluation to inform a range of executive decisions, including the approval of the next CSP as well as new projects to be implemented in Ghana.

The results of the evaluation will be communicated to these stakeholders through targeted meetings, consultations and workshops as well as print and electronic distribution of the final report.


6.2.2 Secondary Internal Stakeholders

The secondary internal stakeholders of the CSPE include Bank operational managers and staff. It is anticipated that these stakeholders will use the report for learning purposes. For example, key lessons from the report may be used to inform the development of operational policies and strategies as well as projects.

The evaluation will be disseminated to this stakeholder group through learning events such as Evaluation Community of Practice (ECOP) meetings and “Evaluation Week,” workshops, online tools such as the Evaluation Results Database (EVRD) as well as print and electronic distribution of the final report.

6.2.3 External Stakeholders Groups

External stakeholder groups for this evaluation include beneficiaries in Regional Member Countries, academics, media and the general public. It is anticipated that this stakeholder group will use the evaluation for both accountability and educational purposes. For example, the evaluation may be used to hold both regional and non‐regional member governments to account for development activities and funding decisions and to learn more about evaluation and development activities in Africa.

The evaluation will be disseminated to these stakeholders through print and online distribution of the final and inception reports as well as through press releases and academic conferences. In 2015‐16, IDEV will also identify new ways of leveraging social media to reach these stakeholders, including the use of twitter and Facebook to share informative infographics about the evaluation and draw attention to its webpage.

7 Evaluation Organisation, Management and Quality Control

7.1 Organisation

The evaluation will be undertaken by a BKP/EA team of six evaluation experts in close collaboration with IDEV (Figure 11). Each evaluation expert will be responsible for one or two sectors. Figure 11 – Organisation of Evaluation

Evaluation Team LeaderDerk BIENEN(Multi‐sector)

Deputy Team LeaderEnrico GIANNOTTI

(Transport)

Local Evaluation ExpertDaniel KWAGBENU

(Agriculture)

Evaluation ExpertEmmanuel BAUDELET

(WSS, Power)

Evaluation ExpertValentin GEROLD

(Social)

Evaluation ExpertTimothée PICARELLO(Finance, Industry)

BKP/EA

IDEV

Principal Evaluation Officer

MadhusoodhananMAMPUZHASSERIL

ConsultantErika Ismay MACLAUGHLIN

Division ManagerSamer HACHEM

Evaluation Stakeholders

AfDB

Government of Ghana

Project Implementers(PMUs)

Development Partners

Beneficiaries

Other Stakeholders


Summary profiles of the evaluation team members provided by BKP are presented in Annex G.

7.2 Management and Quality Control

The Ghana CSPE will be carried out under the guidance and supervision of Samer HACHEM, Manager, high level evaluations. Mr. Hachem will retain responsibility for the final quality review and approval of all deliverables. The evaluation will be subject to a series of other quality control mechanisms. The final inception report and draft synthesis report will be reviewed by a team of internal IDEV peer‐reviewers as well as an external expert. These reviewers will comment on the quality and rigour of the report and the soundness of the conclusions and recommendations in accordance with the OECD‐DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation (www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation) and ECG Good Practice Standards for Country Strategy and Program Evaluation and the ECG guidance on evaluating private sector operations.9 In addition, the inception and synthesis reports will be reviewed by a Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG). The SRG for this evaluation will comprise:

IDEV peer reviewers and management;

Bank Management and stakeholders from relevant AfDB sector departments and country offices; and

External stakeholders within RMCs as appropriate.

This group will be asked to provide comments and suggestions on the inception report, preliminary findings and draft synthesis reports as well as to correct any factual inaccuracies.

8 References

Key documents consulted in the preparation of this inception report are:

AfDB 2003: Ghana – Country Strategy Paper 2002‐2004, ADB/BD/WP/2003/20, 16 April 2003.

AfDB 2004: Ghana – Country Strategy Paper 2002‐2004. Update 2004, ADB/BD/WP/2003/20/Add.1, 04 August 2004.

AfDB 2005: Ghana – Country Strategy Paper, 2005‐2009, ADB/BD/WP/2005/81, 22 June 2005 (and ADB/BD/WP/2005/81/Corr.1, 08 July 2005).

AfDB 2010: Ghana – 2010 Update of the 2005‐2009 Country Strategy Paper and Request to Extend Validity to 2011, July 2010.

AfDB 2011: Regional Integration Strategy Paper for West Africa 2011‐2015, March 2011.

AfDB 2012: Ghana – Country Strategy Paper, 2012‐2016, ADB/BD/WP/2012/57/Rev.1, 7 August 2012.

AfDB 2015: Annual Report 2014, May 2015.

Ghana Statistical Service 2014: “Ghana Living Standards Survey Round 6 (GLSS6) – Poverty profile in Ghana 2005‐2013”, August 2014.

9 ECG Big Book on Evaluation Good Practice Standards


Government of Ghana 2003: Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy 2003 – 2005. An Agenda for Growth and Prosperity. Volume 1: Analysis and Policy Statement, Accra, 19 February 2003.

Government of Ghana 2005: Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) (2006 – 2009), National Development Planning Commission, Accra, November 2005.

Government of Ghana 2010: Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA), 2010‐2013. Medium‐Term National Development Policy Framework. Volume 1: Policy Framework, National Development Planning Commission, Accra, December 2010.

Government of Ghana 2014: Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA) II, 2014‐2017. Medium‐Term National Development Policy Framework, National Development Planning Commission, Accra, December 2014.

IDEV 2015: “Project Performance Assessment for Public Sector Project. Rating Guidance Note,” Draft of 12 June 2015.

IDEV 2015a: “CEDR Synthesis. Country Template. Guidance Note,” 21 September 2015.

Mayne, John 2001: “Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly,” in: The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol 16, No 1, Pages 1‐24.

UNDP/Republic of Ghana 2015: Ghana Millennium Development Goals 2015 Report, September 2015.

White, Howard/Sinha, Shampa/Flanagan, Ann 2006: “A Review of the State of Impact Evaluation,” http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/37634226.pdf.


Annex A – Ghana’s Progress Against MDG Indicators

Legend: Achieved Not achieved, but on the way to be achieved / significant progress Not achieved Indicator Status Target

Indicator 1999

(or earlier) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

2013/ 2014

2015

Goal 1 ‐ Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

Proportion of population below upper poverty line (%) 51.7 (1993)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 31.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.2 25.8

Proportion of population below lower poverty line (i.e. extreme poverty) (%)

26.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 18.5

Proportion of children who are underweight (%) 23

(1993) ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 ‐ 14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11 11.5

Proportion of children who are stunting (%) 33

(1993) ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 ‐ 28 ‐ ‐ ‐ 19 16.5

Proportion of children who are wasting (%) 14

(1993) ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 7

Goal 2 ‐ Achieve Universal Primary Education

Gross enrolment ratio in primary education (%) 72.7 (1990)

79.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 92.1 95.0 94.9 96.4 96.5 107.3 100

Net enrolment ratio in primary education (%) 45.2 (1991)

‐ ‐ ‐ 55.6 81.1 88.5 77.8 81.7 84.1 89.3 100

Primary Completion / Survival Rate (%) 63

(1990) 63 ‐ ‐ ‐ 85.4 85.5 86.3 91.6 93.7 112.4 100

Goal 3 ‐ Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

Ratio of females to males in primary schools ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.92 0.77 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00

Ratio of females to males in junior secondary schools ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.93 1.00

Share of women in wage employment in non‐agricultural sectors (%) 24.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30.5 50

Proportion of seats held by women in the national parliament (%) 9.0 ‐ 9.5 9.5 9.5 10.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 10.9 10.9 50


Indicator Status Target

Indicator 1999

(or earlier) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

2013/ 2014

2015

Goal 4 ‐ Reduce Child Mortality

Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 66

(1993) ‐ ‐ ‐ 64 ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 41 22

Under‐5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 119

(1993) ‐ ‐ ‐ 111 ‐ 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 40

Goal 5 ‐ Improve Maternal Health

Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) in health facilities (Institutional)

‐ ‐ 260 204 205 197 201 164 174 152 155 54

Overall maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) (Survey) 760

(1990) ‐ ‐ ‐ 503 ‐ 451 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 185

Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 44

(1998) ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 48 59 ‐ ‐ ‐ 73.7 100

Goal 6 ‐ Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases

National HIV prevalence rate (% of population ages 15‐49) 15.0 ‐ 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 ≤1.5

Goal 7 ‐ Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Land area covered by forest (million ha) 7.45 (1990)

6.09 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.52 ‐ 4.94 ‐ ‐ 4.64 ≥7.45

Proportion of the population using an improved drinking water source (%)

56 (1990)

‐ ‐ ‐ 69 ‐ 84 81.6 ‐ ‐ 78.6 78

Proportion of the population using an improved sanitation facility (%)

5 (1998)

‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 12.4 14 16 16 ‐ 52

Goal 8 ‐ Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Net ODA as % of GDP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.1 4.6 5.4 4.7 4.5 2.8 n.a.

Cellular users (% population) ‐ ‐ 1.26 1.95 3.93 8.14 50.07 71.87 85.27 101.0 115 n.a.

Internet users (% population) ‐ ‐ 0.2 0.83 1.19 2.72 4.27 5.44 7.80 10.6 18.9 n.a.

Source: UNDP/Republic of Ghana 2015: Ghana Millennium Development Goals 2015 Report, September 2015.


Annex B ‐ The Bank's Portfolio in Ghana (2002‐2014)

Table 13 – Bank projects in Ghana approved 2002–2014

No. Finance project Long name Status Sector Name Approval date Netloan Disbursement %

1 P‐GH‐DB0‐004 TEMA‐AFLAO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT COMP Transport 17.04.2002 12,384,096 100.00

2 P‐GH‐AAD‐001 COMMUNITY FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PROJECT CLSD Agriculture 03.07.2002 6,917,569 100.00

3 P‐GH‐AAD‐001 COMMUNITY FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PROJECT CLSD Agriculture 03.07.2002 735,671 100.00

4 P‐GH‐HA0‐006 FIRST LINE OF CREDIT TO CAL BANK CLSD Finance 10.07.2002 3,542,707 100.00

5 P‐GH‐IBD‐001 HEALTH SERVICES REHABILITATION III COMP Social 30.10.2002 16,334,670 100.00

6 P‐GH‐IBD‐001 HEALTH SERVICES REHABILITATION III COMP Social 30.10.2002 603,907 100.00

7 P‐GH‐A00‐001 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT COMP Agriculture 12.12.2002 7,479,485 100.00

8 P‐GH‐A00‐001 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT COMP Agriculture 12.12.2002 91,616 100.00

9 P‐GH‐AAG‐002 GHANA OIL PALM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CLSD Agriculture 12.12.2002 5,715,658 100.00

10 P‐GH‐D00‐009 AKATSI‐DZODZE‐NOEPE ROAD(AKATSI‐AKANU) COMP Transport 20.12.2002 9,958,141 100.00

11 P‐GH‐D00‐008 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 2003 COMP Transport 17.09.2003 12,868,262 100.00

12 P‐GH‐D00‐008 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 2003 COMP Transport 17.09.2003 573,520 100.00

13 P‐GH‐D00‐008 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 2003 COMP Transport 17.09.2003 1,601,780 100.00

14 P‐GH‐IAC‐001 DEV.OF SENIOR SECOND EDUC.PROJECT III COMP Social 24.09.2003 19,924,288 100.00

15 P‐GH‐IAC‐001 DEV.OF SENIOR SECOND EDUC.PROJECT III COMP Social 24.09.2003 4,392,872 100.00

16 P‐GH‐IAC‐001 DEV.OF SENIOR SECOND EDUC.PROJECT III COMP Social 24.09.2003 62,915 100.00

17 P‐GH‐K00‐007 POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN CLSD Multi‐Sector 22.10.2003 34,546,023 100.00

18 P‐GH‐K00‐007 POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN CLSD Multi‐Sector 22.10.2003 34,546,023 100.00

19 P‐GH‐E00‐003 RURAL WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAMME COMP Water Sup/Sanit 08.09.2004 9,818,540 100.00

20 P‐GH‐AA0‐027 EXPORT MARKET AND QUALITY AWARENESS PROG CLSD Agriculture 13.07.2005 14,994,377 100.00

21 P‐GH‐K00‐008 POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN II COMP Multi‐Sector 07.09.2005 43,983,522 100.00

22 P‐GH‐IE0‐003 URBAN POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT COMP Social 12.10.2005 25,000,000 77.21

23 P‐GH‐AA0‐032 AVIAN FLU EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE COMP Agriculture 05.04.2006 354,271 0.00

24 P‐GH‐E00‐004 ACCRA SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ASIP OnGo Water Sup/Sanit 26.04.2006 46,000,000 56.89

25 P‐GH‐AA0‐015 AFRAM PLAINS DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL DEVEL COMP Agriculture 31.05.2006 19,133,396 100.00

26 P‐GH‐F00‐003 POWER SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PROJECT OnGo Power 28.11.2007 27,600,000 75.99

27 P‐GH‐AA0‐030 NORTHERN RURAL GROWTH PROGRAM OnGo Agriculture 17.12.2007 40,000,000 43.56

28 P‐GH‐ID0‐003 GENDER RESPONSIVE SKILLS & COM. DEV PROJ COMP Social 19.12.2007 5,950,000 34.79

29 P‐GH‐ID0‐003 GENDER RESPONSIVE SKILLS & COM. DEV PROJ COMP Social 19.12.2007 2,360,000 54.95

30 P‐GH‐HAB‐001 CAL BANK LOC II OnGo Finance 24.07.2008 10,628,122 100.00

31 P‐GH‐KA0‐003 POVERTY REDUCTION SUPPORT LOAN PRSL III COMP Multi‐Sector 17.09.2008 90,000,000 100.00

32 P‐GH‐FAA‐001 TEMA OSONOR POWER PLANT (FIRST LOAN) TERM Power 15.10.2008 0 0.00

33 P‐GH‐DB0‐013 SUPPLEMENTARY LOAN FOR LOT 2 OF TEMA AF OnGo Transport 16.12.2008 25,400,000 89.45

34 P‐GH‐DB0‐014 SUPPLEMENTARY LOAN FOR LOT 2 OF AKATSI A COMP Transport 16.12.2008 10,527,843 100.00

35 P‐GH‐DB0‐015 SUPPLEMENTARY LOAN FOR LOT 2 APAASO KINT COMP Transport 16.12.2008 4,275,661 100.00

36 P‐GH‐AA0‐033 COCOBOD CLSD Agriculture 16.09.2009 24,798,951 100.00

37 P‐GH‐E00‐008 IMPROVED SANITATION AND WATER SUPPLY SER COMP Water Sup/Sanit 18.09.2009 1,584,214 100.00

38 P‐GH‐DB0‐012 AWOSHIE POKUASE ROAD & COMMUNITY DEV OnGo Transport 14.10.2009 53,590,000 60.77

39 P‐GH‐EAZ‐001 DESIGN FOR RE‐USE OnGo Water Sup/Sanit 28.07.2010 398,655 100.00

40 P‐GH‐EAZ‐002 REOPTIMIZATION STUDY OF AKOSOMBO &KP DAM OnGo Water Sup/Sanit 02.08.2010 1,465,586 72.65

41 P‐GH‐BC0‐003 KEMPINSKI HOTEL PROJECT OnGo Ind/Mini/Quar 27.09.2010 12,753,746 100.00

42 P‐GH‐DB0‐016 FUFULSO‐SAWLA ROAD PROJECT OnGo Transport 24.11.2010 109,720,000 58.16

43 P‐GH‐K00‐012 POVERTY REDUCTION & B.E. SUPPORT PROGRAM COMP Multi‐Sector 13.07.2011 44,000,000 100.00

44 P‐GH‐K00‐012 POVERTY REDUCTION & B.E. SUPPORT PROGRAM COMP Multi‐Sector 13.07.2011 26,000,000 100.00

45 P‐GH‐AAD‐002 GRANT FOR PREPARATION‐ENGAGING LOCAL COM APVD Agriculture 15.11.2011 177,135 100.00

46 P‐GH‐IAE‐001 DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS FOR INDUSTRY PROJ OnGo Social 20.06.2012 45,000,000 2.84

47 P‐GH‐IAE‐001 DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS FOR INDUSTRY PROJ OnGo Social 20.06.2012 25,000,000 5.46

48 P‐GH‐FD0‐002 TAKORADI II EXPANSION POWER PROJECT OnGo Power 11.07.2012 15,729,621 93.21

49 P‐GH‐KF0‐001 ISP TO OVERSIGHT AND BUSINESS SUPPORT OnGo Multi‐Sector 10.09.2012 9,590,000 4.00

50 P‐GH‐A00‐015 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT II OnGo Agriculture 19.12.2012 26,690,000 0.50

51 P‐GH‐A00‐015 RURAL ENTERPRISES PROJECT II OnGo Agriculture 19.12.2012 23,000,000 6.48

52 P‐GH‐EBZ‐001 IMPROVED SANITATION IN GHANA OnGo Water Sup/Sanit 16.05.2013 868,156 18.04

53 P‐GH‐HAB‐002 UT BANK TF LOC OnGo Finance 22.05.2013 14,170,829 100.00

54 P‐GH‐AAD‐005 GRANT FOR PREPARATION ‐ ELCIR+ COMP Agriculture 25.06.2013 0 0.00

55 P‐GH‐AAD‐002 GRANT FOR PREPARATION‐ENGAGING LOCAL COM APVD Agriculture 22.01.2014 3,200,000 2.66

56 P‐GH‐AAD‐002 GRANT FOR PREPARATION‐ENGAGING LOCAL COM APVD Agriculture 22.01.2014 6,908,279 0.00

57 P‐GH‐F00‐005 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORC APVD Power 26.02.2014 0 0.00

58 P‐GH‐F00‐005 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORC APVD Power 26.02.2014 0 0.00

59 P‐GH‐KB0‐003 GHANA MSME BUSINESS APVD Multi‐Sector 27.04.2014 708,541 0.00


Table 14 – Multinational Bank operations in Ghana

Note: The allocation of an operation as “Ghana” or “multinational” is not always clear in the system, and sometimes projects appear twice, both as a national and multinational operation. For the purpose of the evaluation, such duplications have been eliminated.

No. Project Name Sector Approval Year Net Loan Status Disbursement %

1 NERICA DISSEMINATION PROJECT ‐ GHANA Agriculture 2003 2,580,175 Completed 100

2 ECOWAS PEACE & DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROJECT Social 2004 10,000,000 Closed 87.1

3 INVASIVE AQUATIC WEEDS ‐ GHANA Agriculture 2004 1,367,843 Completed 100

4 GHANA ‐ CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE TSETSE A Agriculture 2004 6,639,395 Completed 100

5 PROGRAMME COSCAP EN AOC (RENFORCEMENT DES Transport 2005 4,600,000 Closed 100

6 PROGRAMME FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Multi‐Sector 2005 1,670,000 Ongoing 89.27

7 FARA ‐ PROMOTION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLO Agriculture 2006 15,581,000 Ongoing 65.92

8 Atlantic Coast Regional Fund LLC (ACRF) Finance 2007 9,770,650 Ongoing 79.53

9 GHANA ‐ TOGO ‐ BENIN POWER INTERCONNECT Power 2007 14,870,000 Ongoing 78.95

10 STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING ICP‐AFRICA Multi‐Sector 2008 14,750,000 Completed 99.89

11 VOLTA HYCOS WSS 2009 1,060,295 Ongoing 66.67

12 SUPPORT TO AUST & 2IE PROJECT Social 2009 12,000,000 Ongoing 47.24


Annex C ‐ List of Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder Group Stakeholders

Field Office Staff

Marie‐Laure Akin‐Olugbade, Resident Representative

Samuel Turay, Country Program Officer‐

Mam‐Tut Wadda, Transport Engineer

Jonathan Nyamukapa, Regional Fin. Mgmt Coordinator

Rees Mwasambili, Water Sanitation Engineer

Lawal Umar, Livestock Specialist

Moses Ayiemba, Regional Proc Coordinator

Tabi Karikari, Agriculture Specialist

Nanette Derby, Private Sector Specialist

Daniel Osei‐Boakye, Procurement Officer

Eline Okudzeto, Macroeconomist

Sheila Akyea, Transport Infrastructure Specialist

Philip Doghle, Financial Management Specialist

Efua Amissah‐Arthur, Social Development Specialist

Peter Assem, Finance/Administrative Officer

Jemima Tettey‐Cofie, Disbursement Assistant

Mensah Agbessitse, Mensah Agbessitse

Headquarters Staff

Tatsuo Harada, Principal Transport Engineer, OITC2 Rhoda Limbiani Mshana, Senior Investment Officer, EARC

Angela Nalikka, Division Manager, OPSD3

Amadou Bamba Diop, Principal Environmental Specialist, OSAN3

Serring Jallow, Senior Advisor to the Vice President, OSVP Gabriel Negatu, Director, EARC Marlene Kanga, Director, ORCE

Alex Rugamba, Director, ONEC

Aymen Ali, Chief Transport Engineer, OITC2

Noel Kulmeka, Chief Socio‐Economist, ONEC3

Patrick Opoku‐Darkwa, Principal Transport Engineer, ORNG Justin Murara, Chief Poverty Alleviation Officer, OSHD1

Themba Bhebhe, Chief Operations Officer

Jacob Mukete, Director, OSGE

Kelello Ntoampe, Principal Environmentalist, ONEC3

Moses Ayiemba, Chief Regional Procurement Officer, GHFO

Orision Amu, Chief Regional Program Officer, GHFO

Sunita Pitamber, Acting Director, OSHD

Mohamed El Azizi, Director, OWAS

Government of Ghana



Ministry of Lands and Forestry/ Natural Resources Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development


Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Private Sector Development

Ministry of Roads and Highways

Ministry of Transport

Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development

Ministry of Energy

Ministry of Women's and Children's Affairs



Ministry of Health

Ministry of Works



Ministry of Water Resources, Works & Housing

District Assemblies

Environmental Protection Agency

Bank of Ghana Ghana Statistical Service Ghana Audit Services Internal Audit Agency Public Procurement Authority

Ghana Revenue Authority Ghana Highways Authority Ghana Road Fund Volta River Authority Electricity Company of Ghana

Ghana Grid Company

Northern Electricity Department

Bui Power Authority Community Water and Sanitation Agency

Accra Metropolitan Assembly

Water Resources Commission

Ghana Water Company Limited (formerly Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation)

Public Utilities Regulatory Commission

Ghana Export Promotions Council

Ghana Investment Promotion Centre

Project Implementation Units

AfDB Desk Office – Ministry of Finance

Transport o Godwin Brocke – Director, Ministry of Roads o Richard Kudjawu – Fufulso‐Sawla Road o Akua Sakyibea Van der Pallen – Awoshie‐Pokuause Road

Water & Sanitation o STEPHEN ACKON ‐ Accra sewerage Improvement Project

Social sector – Development of Skills for Industry Project o Mr Matthew Dally‐ Project Coordinator o Paul Adjei‐ Procurement Specialist

Agriculture o Felix Daramaani , Northern Rural Growth Programme o Kwasi Attah Antwi ‐ Rural Enterprise Programme o Mawuli Agboka ‐ Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project o Kofi Tweneboa ‐ Afram Plains District Agriculture Development Project

Multi‐sector o K. Dankyi Darfoor ‐ Multi‐Sector – Ghana Institutional Support Program o Ghana Business Linkage: OPSD Contact: Dennis Ansah (ext 6655)

Power o Andrew Barfour, Energy – Power Systems Reinforcement; and Electricity

System Distribution ad reinforcement extension Project o Francis Kyere, Ghana‐Togo‐Benin Interconnection Project o Takoradi Expansion Power Project OPSD Contact: Raubil Durowoju (ext

2322) – [email protected]

Industry/Private Sector o Kempinski Hotel project OPSD Contact: Hussein Iman (ext 2488) –

[email protected]

Finance o UT Bank and CAL Bank: OPSD Contact: Dennis Ansah (ext 6655) –

[email protected]



Civil Society Organizations

Crops Research Institute Agricultural Research Institute Ghana Anti‐Corruption Coalition Ghana National Association of Teachers Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters Christian Health Association of Ghana

Private Sector Organizations

Private Enterprise Foundation (PEF) Association of Ghana Industries National Board of Small Scale Industries (NBSSI)

Association of Rural Banks Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE), Ghana Microfinance Institutions Network

Development Partners (Partners who have worked with the Bank on specific projects in Ghana)

Embassy of Canada/ CIDA

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) ECOWAS

European Union (EU) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) World Bank/International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW)

Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Embassy of Switzerland/SECO

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) World Health Organization (WHO)

European Investment Bank (EIB)

Embassy of the Netherlands/Dutch Development Agency (FMO)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Department for International Development (DfID)

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

French Development Agency (AFD)

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)


Annex D – Data Collection Tools

D1 – Project Assessment Framework

CSPE Ghana – Project Assessment Framework/Case Study

Note: Fill in this template (i) for all Group 3 projects to the extent possible, based on desk work undertaken but before the interviews and site

visit; and (ii) for all Group 3 projects for which no PRA is prepared, after the completion of the field work and analysis; it will then become the

“case study”

Project: [Name & number]

Reviewer: [Name]

Date: [Date]

1 Overview

[Project context]

[Brief description of the project]

2 InterventionandProjectLogic/TheoryofChange

Level Description of Outcomes (Potential) Indicators Baselines & Targets Assumptions

Ultimate Outcomes [Fill in based on project documents, notably appraisal report]

Intermediate Outcomes

Immediate Outcomes

Outputs

Activities Mechanisms

Observations: [only for pre‐interview version]

[List]

3 ComparatorsorCounterfactuals

[Describe, if available, suitable comparator projects and/or counterfactual situation]

4 KeyLinesofInquiry[onlyforpre‐interviewversion]

Issue Lines of Inquiry / Criteria / Assessment / Contribution Analysis

Relevance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Sustainability

Cross‐cutting Themes

Design & Delivery

Management for Results

5 OtherKeyIssuesforDiscussion[onlyforpre‐interviewversion]

[list other issues to be discussed in interviews or followed up during the site visit that have emanated from the desk review]

6 KeyFindingsandRating[onlyforfinalversion]

Level of achievement & issues encountered Rating

Ultimate Outcomes [1‐6]

Intermediate Outcomes [1‐6]

Immediate Outcomes [1‐6]

Outputs [1‐6]

Activities Mechanisms

N.a.

7 LessonsLearntandRecommendations[onlyforfinalversion]

8 InformationSources

Document Review

[list documents consulted]

Data/statistics

[list statistical sources/databases consulted]

Interviews

[list stakeholders (to be) interviewed]

Site Visits

[provide brief summary of site visit and activities (to be) undertaken]


D2 – Desk Review Template

Ghana CSPE ‐ Document Review Template

Project:

Project documents reviewed:

[List here]

Reviewer:

Date:

Relevance Criteria ‐ Projects Evidence

Alignment of project objectives with the Bank's CSP.

Alignment of project objectives with the country's sector strategies.

Alignment of project objectives with RMC development strategies

Alignment of project objectives with beneficiary needs

Extent to which project outputs and outcomes are clearly stated

Quality and realism of the project logic

Extent to which implementation considered the prevailing conditions and made appropriate changes.

Relevance Criteria ‐ CSP Evidence

Alignment of CSP with RMC development challenges and beneficiary needs.

Alignment of the CSP with the Bank's strategies, priorities and policies.

Alignment of the CSP with RMC development plans and strategies.

Effectiveness ‐ Project Evidence

Extent to which project outputs were achieved (against targets).

Extent to which outcomes and impacts were achieved (against anticipated results chain).

Extent to which the project resulted in unintended development impacts.

Extent to which the project benefitted the target beneficiaries

Efficiency ‐ Project Evidence

Extent to which Economic Rate of Return has met initial targets.

Extent of Financial Performance against Cost of Capital.

Extent to which project has demonstrated cost effectiveness.

Extent to which the project was/has been implemented on schedule.

Extent of Implementation Progress.

Sustainability ‐ Projects Evidence

Extent to which the project is technically sound: (i) based on analytical work which (ii) identifies relevant maintenance and technical risks and (iii) utilizes methods with a demonstrated track record of success.

Extent to which the project is financially and economically viable: (i) fund sources available to sustain operation; (ii) operations demonstrate long‐term profitability; and (iii) long‐term financial and technical support has been secured by partners, co‐financers.

Extent to which there is sufficient institutional support to sustain results: (i) use of country systems; (ii) Identification / implementation of institutional reforms; (iii) extent of national ownership and policy dialogue

Extent of consultation and partnership with local authorities, CSOs, other donors and the private sector.

Degree of resilience of project results against exogenous factors.

Evidence that project results are likely to continue after completion of the intervention

Cross‐cutting Themes ‐ Project Evidence

Evidence of gender analysis supporting project design and delivery

Use of gender‐checklists and gender‐informed design

Evidence of institutional capacity building targeting gender disparities.

Consideration of regional disparities and inequalities

Integration of environmental protection measures

Use of climate checklists, environmental experts and climate ‐informed design

Evidence of institutional capacity surrounding environmental management.

Cross‐cutting Themes ‐ CSP Evidence

Extent to which gender and regional disparities were considered in CSP design.

Extent to which environmental sustainability issues were considered in CSP design.

Design and Delivery ‐ project Evidence

Evidence of analysis of / adaptation to implementation challenges and limitations

Evidence that design was informed by policy dialogue with national actors, development partners and other interested stakeholders.

Extent to which opportunities for partnerships, co‐financing were explored and leveraged.

Extent to which appropriate technical and institutional support has been provided.

Design and Delivery ‐ CSP Evidence

Extent to which the Quality of the CSP has been satisfactory

Extent of selectivity and Strategic Approach in Interventions

Extent to which interventions

have been informed by ongoing policy dialogue with RMC, other development partners.

Extent to which knowledge work has been incorporated into the design of the CSP.

Evidence of cooperation with other development partners to improve complementarity.

Management for Results ‐ Project

Evidence

Extent of project supervision.

Extent to which supervision information has been used to guide management.

Extent to which a performance measurement strategy has been implemented.

Identification and incorporation of lessons learned.

Monitoring of implementation risks.

Management for Results ‐ CSP Evidence

Successful implementation of a performance measurement strategy ‐ tracking of results.

Institutional Capacity Building for Performance Measurement

Extent to which lessons learned have been identified, incorporated into CSPs

Key issues for follow‐up/interviews:


D3 – Interview Guide

GHANA CSPE – INTERVIEW GUIDE The table below details the core issues to be discussed with counterparts and stakeholders. Discussions will take place in the context of in‐depth one‐to‐one interviews, focus groups, electronic surveys, or case studies. The various core issues are classified according to the key evaluation criteria – i.e. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, cross‐cutting themes, design and delivery, and management for results – and a distinction is made between issues to be assessed (i) at the project level or (ii) at the CSP level. Furthermore, the table identifies the type of respondent with whom the issues will be discussed. Five categories of respondents have been identified: Project Management Units, including the Bank’s Task Manager (PMU): discussions with these

stakeholders will focus on the evaluation of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of interventions at the project level;

Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDA) including the Executive Agencies as well as other public authorities that oversee policy development and program implementation in given sectors: these are the direct counterparts of Bank’s intervention and therefore will be involved in the discussion of nearly all evaluation criteria, obviously differentiated by sector and level of involvement;

African Development Bank staff, other than Task Managers (AFDB): the Bank’s staff will be consulted mostly on themes related to the management of Bank’s intervention and on cross‐cutting themes, generally at the CSP level;

Development Partners (DP): they will be consulted in particular on issues related to the design and coherence of the Bank’s intervention and of course also on aid coordination;

Other Stakeholders (Others), namely business associations, farmers, traders and transporters group, local committees for utility management and NGOs (especially in the fields of gender and environmental protection): they will be a major source of external evidence of project performance, particularly useful for the assessment of effectiveness and sustainability.

PMU MDA AFDB DP Others

1a. Relevance Criteria – Project

Alignment of project objectives with the Bank’s CSP X X

Alignment of project objectives with the country's sector strategies

X X X

Alignment of project objectives with Ghana’s development strategies

X X X

Alignment of project objectives with beneficiary needs X X X


X X X

Quality and realism of the project logic X X X

Extent to which implementation considered the prevailing conditions and made appropriate changes

X X X

1b. Relevance Criteria – CSP

Alignment of CSP with Ghana’s development challenges and beneficiary needs.

X X X X

Alignment of the CSP with the Bank's strategies, priorities and policies

X

Alignment of the CSP with Ghana’s development plans and strategies

X X X


2. Effectiveness – Project

Extent to which project outputs were achieved (against targets)

X X X X

Extent to which outcomes and impacts were achieved (against anticipated results chain)

X X X X

Extent to which the project resulted in unintended development impacts

X X X X


X X X X

3. Efficiency – Project

Extent to which Economic Rate of Return has met initial targets

X

Extent of Financial Performance against Cost of Capital X

Extent to which project has demonstrated cost effectiveness X

Extent to which the project was/has been implemented on schedule

X X

Extent of Implementation Progress X X

4. Sustainability – Project

Extent to which the project is technically sound: (i) based on analytical work which (ii) identifies relevant maintenance and technical risks and (iii) utilizes methods with a demonstrated track record of success

X X X

Extent to which the project is financially and economically viable: (i) fund sources available to sustain operation; (ii) operations demonstrate long‐term profitability; and (iii) long‐term financial and technical support has been secured by partners, co‐financers

X X X


X X X

Extent of consultation and partnership with local authorities, CSOs, other donors and the private sector

X X X X X

Degree of resilience of project results against exogenous factors

X X X


X X X

5a. Cross‐cutting Themes ‐ Project


X X X

Use of gender‐checklists and gender‐informed design X X

Evidence of institutional capacity building targeting gender disparities

X X X

Consideration of regional disparities and inequalities X X X

Integration of environmental protection measures X X X


X X

Evidence of institutional capacity surrounding environmental management

X X X


5b. Cross‐cutting Themes – CSP

Extent to which gender and regional disparities were considered in CSP design

X X X

Extent to which environmental sustainability issues were considered in CSP design

X X X

6a. Design and Delivery ‐ Project


X X X

Evidence that design was informed by policy dialogue with national actors, development partners and other interested stakeholders

X X X X X

Extent to which opportunities for partnerships, co‐financing were explored and leveraged

X X X

Extent to which appropriate technical and institutional support has been provided

X X X

6b. Design and Delivery – CSP

Extent to which the Quality of the CSP has been satisfactory X X

Extent of selectivity and Strategic Approach in Interventions X X

Extent to which interventions have been informed by ongoing policy dialogue with Government of Ghana, other development partners

X X X

Extent to which knowledge work has been incorporated into the design of the CSP

X X

Evidence of cooperation with other development partners to improve complementarity

X X X

7a. Management for Results ‐ Project

Extent of project supervision X X

Extent to which supervision information has been used to guide management

X X

Extent to which a performance measurement strategy has been implemented

X X

Identification and incorporation of lessons learned X X

Monitoring of implementation risks X X

7b. Management for Results ‐ CSP

Successful implementation of a performance measurement strategy ‐ tracking of results

X X


X X


X X


D4 – Interview Notes Template

Ghana CSPE – Interview Notes Template

Organisation:

Interviewee Name(s):

Project(s):

Reviewer:

Date:

Context:

Relevance Criteria ‐ Projects Evidence

Alignment of project objectives with the Bank's CSP.

Alignment of project objectives with the country's sector strategies.

Alignment of project objectives with RMC development strategies

Alignment of project objectives with beneficiary needs


Quality and realism of the project logic

Extent to which implementation considered the prevailing conditions and made appropriate changes.

Relevance Criteria ‐ CSP Evidence

Alignment of CSP with RMC development challenges and beneficiary needs.

Alignment of the CSP with the Bank's strategies, priorities and policies.

Alignment of the CSP with RMC development plans and strategies.

Effectiveness ‐ Project Evidence

Extent to which project outputs were achieved (against targets).

Extent to which outcomes and impacts were achieved (against

anticipated results chain).

Extent to which the project resulted in unintended development impacts.


Efficiency ‐ Project Evidence

Extent to which Economic Rate of Return has met initial targets.

Extent of Financial Performance against Cost of Capital.

Extent to which project has demonstrated cost effectiveness.

Extent to which the project was/has been implemented on schedule.

Extent of Implementation Progress.

Sustainability ‐ Projects Evidence

Extent to which the project is technically sound: (i) based on analytical work which (ii) identifies relevant maintenance and technical risks and (iii) utilizes methods with a demonstrated track record of success.

Extent to which the project is financially and economically viable: (i) fund sources available to sustain operation; (ii) operations demonstrate long‐term profitability; and (iii) long‐term financial and technical support has been secured by partners, co‐financers.


Extent of consultation and partnership with local authorities, CSOs, other donors

and the private sector.

Degree of resilience of project results against exogenous factors.


Cross‐cutting Themes ‐ Project Evidence


Use of gender‐checklists and gender‐informed design

Evidence of institutional capacity building targeting gender disparities.

Consideration of regional disparities and inequalities

Integration of environmental protection measures


Evidence of institutional capacity surrounding environmental management.

Cross‐cutting Themes ‐ CSP Evidence

Extent to which gender and regional disparities were considered in CSP design.

Extent to which environmental sustainability issues were considered in CSP design.

Design and Delivery ‐ project Evidence


Evidence that design was informed by policy dialogue with national actors, development partners and other interested stakeholders.

Extent to which opportunities for partnerships, co‐financing were explored and leveraged.

Extent to which appropriate technical and institutional support has been provided.

Design and Delivery ‐ CSP Evidence

Extent to which the Quality of the CSP has been satisfactory

Extent of selectivity and Strategic Approach in Interventions

Extent to which interventions have been informed by ongoing policy dialogue with RMC, other development partners.

Extent to which knowledge work has been incorporated into the design of the CSP.

Evidence of cooperation with other development partners to improve complementarity.

Management for Results ‐ Project

Evidence

Extent of project supervision.

Extent to which supervision information has been used to guide management.

Extent to which a performance measurement strategy has been implemented.

Identification and incorporation of lessons learned.

Monitoring of implementation risks.

Management for Results ‐ CSP Evidence

Successful implementation of a performance measurement strategy ‐ tracking of results.



Other observations/issues for follow‐up:


Annex E – Detailed Evaluation Schedule


Annex F – Mapping of Documents for Evaluation

Status: 06 December 2015

Group Sector Name Long name Appraisal Report

Loan Agreement

PCR / XSR BTOR / Aid Memoire

IPRs ESIACredit Risk Notes

ADOA Framework

Executing agency(GoG progress & completion

reports

1 Agriculture Avian Flu Emergency Assistance

1 Agriculture Grant For Preparation‐Engaging Local Communities In REDD+/EN

ongoing

1 Agriculture Grant For Preparation ‐ Engaging Local Communities In REDD+/

1 Agriculture Grant For Preparation‐Engaging Local Communities In REDD+/EN

ongoing

1 Multi‐Sector Ghana MSME Business Linkage Program

ongoing

1 Water Sup/Sanit Design For Re‐Use

1 Water Sup/SanitA Business Approach For Improved Sanitation In Ghana – Organ

ongoing

1 Water Sup/SanitImproved Sanitation And Water Supply Ser

Y

1 Water Sup/SanitReoptimization Study Of Akosombo &KP Dam

ongoing

2 Agriculture Community Forestry Management Project

Y Y Y

2 Agriculture Rural Enterprises Project Y Y

2 Agriculture Ghana Oil Palm Development Company

Y

Y

2 Agriculture Nerica Dissemination Project ‐Ghana

Y Y Y

2 Agriculture Northern Rural Growth Program Y ongoing

2 Agriculture Rural Enterprises Project III Y ongoing

2 Finance UT Bank Ghana Trade Finance Line Of Credit

ongoing



Loan Agreement



ADOA Framework


reports

2 Multi‐Sector Statistical Capacity Building ‐ ICP Y

2 Multi‐Sector Ghana Institutional Support Program To Oversight And Private

Y

ongoing

2 Power Ghana ‐ Togo ‐ Benin Power Interconnect

Y Y ongoing

Y

2 Power Power System Reinforcement Project

Y Y ongoing

2 Power Tema Osonor Power Plant Y Y Y

2 Power Electricity Distribution System Reinforcement And Extension

Y

ongoing

Y

2 Social Gender Responsive Skills & Community Development Project

Y Y

Y

2 Social Development Of Skills For Industry Project (DSIP)

Y

ongoing

2 Transport Akatsi‐Dzodze‐Noepe Road Upgrading Project

Y Y

2 Transport Road Infrastructure Project 2003 Y

2 Transport Awoshie‐Pokuase Road Project Y Y ongoing

2 Transport Fufulso‐Sawla Road Project Y ongoing

2 Water Sup/SanitRural Water And Sanitation Programme

Y Y

2 Water Sup/SanitAccra Sewerage Improvement Project (ASIP)

Y Y ongoing

3 Finance Line Of Credit To CAL Merchant Bank

Y Y Y

3 Finance CAL Bank LOC II Y ongoing Y

3 Ind/Mini/Quar Kempinski Hotel Project Y ongoing Y Y

3 Multi‐Sector Poverty Reduction Support Loan Y Y

3 Power Takoradi II Expansion Power Project Y ongoing Y Y

3 Social Health Services Rehabilitation Project III (HSRP III)

Y

Y Y Y

3 Social Development Of Senior Secondary Y Y Y



Loan Agreement



ADOA Framework


reports

Education Project III

3 Transport Tema‐Aflao Road Rehabilitation Project

Y

3 Transport Uemoa ‐Ghana‐Programme Routier 1

Y

3‐PRA Agriculture Ghana ‐ Creation Of Sustainable Tsetse Eradication Program

Y Y Y Y

3‐PRA Agriculture Export Market And Quality Awareness Program

Y Y

3‐PRA Agriculture Afram Plains District Agricultural Development Project

Y Y

3‐PRA Agriculture COCOBOD Y Y

3‐PRA Multi‐Sector Poverty Reduction Support Loan II Y Y Y

3‐PRA Multi‐Sector Poverty Reduction Support Loan ‐PRSL III

Y Y Y

3‐PRA Multi‐Sector Poverty Reduction And Business Environment Support Program

Y

3‐PRA Social Urban Poverty Reduction Project Y Y Y


Annex G – Summary Profiles of Evaluation Team Members

Derk Bienen (Team Leader). One of the two founders and managing partners of BKP Development.

Since 1993, he has been both an expert in and project director of numerous technical assistance

projects particularly in the area of trade policy, investment promotion, and private sector

development. He has in‐depth experience in project cycle management, focusing on monitoring and

evaluation. Derk also lectures on trade, regional integration, competition and industrial policy, and is

Adjunct Honorary Professor at the Department of Economics at Addis Ababa University. Specific skills

relevant for the evaluation include the evaluation of policies and complex and large programmes

(e.g. Sub‐Saharan Africa, 2013: Final evaluation of ATMS IV; East Africa, 2012, 2014 and 2015: Annual

review 2012, 2014 and 2015 of TradeMark East Africa; EU, 2010‐12: Evaluation of EU trade defence

instruments). Derk also has in‐depth knowledge of African trade and private sector issues, including

the region’s economic, political, social and environmental context, based on numerous projects

implemented since 2003. His experience in West Africa includes Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and

Cape Verde. Derk holds a PhD in Economics, University of Göttingen (Germany). He also studied

Economics and Political Science at the University of Tübingen (Germany) and the University of the

Andes in Mérida (Venezuela). He is fluent in German, English and Spanish, and has knowledge of

French and Portuguese.

Enrico Giannotti (Deputy Team Leader). Senior economist and financial analyst with more than 10

years of experience. He joined Economisti Associati in 2002, where he has been responsible for

economic research and consulting assignments for international organizations (World Bank, IFC,

EBRD, European Commission, etc.), government bodies and private clients. Substantial experience in

SME development and PSD initiatives, focusing on access to finance, investment climate reform,

investment and export promotion. Solid experience in the evaluation of IFI/donor programs, mostly

responsible for portfolio reviews, the quantification of impacts and effectiveness analyses (e.g.

counterfactual impact assessment of credit line and BDS initiatives in Moldova, impact assessment of

investment climate reform projects in six African countries, evaluation of EU macro‐economic

financial assistance to Georgia, etc.). Wide geographical experience, having worked in over 30

countries across Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. Enrico is currently coordinating the Ethiopia

AfDB Country Strategy Programme for Economisti Associati. Holds a Master in Development

Economics, from the School of Development, Innovation and Change ‐ University of Bologna (Italy)

and was a visiting student in economics and business at Université Paris VIII – St. Denis. In addition to

Italian, he speaks fluent English and French, and some Spanish.

Daniel Kwagbenu (Researcher/Senior Local Expert). Daniel is a Ghanaian national and has been a

BKP Associate since 2006. Daniel is an SME and private sector development expert. He has over 30

years of experience in Ghana and throughout Africa including the EAC region and Rwanda in

particular. He has worked for the World Bank Group, UN Agencies and the EU. He possesses a wealth

of experience in undertaking participatory project design, formulation, management, and Monitoring

& Evaluation missions. Daniel has practical knowledge of the DAC methodology for monitoring and

evaluation as well as the concept of “Theory of Change” with respect to development evaluations. He

has undertaken several program evaluations on behalf of development partners.


Timothée Picarello (Evaluation Expert). Development economist with more than 10 years of

experience in the field of trade, regional integration and private sector development including access

to finance and industrial development. Timothée joined BKP in 2009 and has been focusing on

project / programme evaluation since joining BKP. Recent assignments undertaken by Timothée

include the Final Evaluation of the Framework for public offerings in Trinidad and Tobago for the

Inter‐American Development Bank (10‐12/2015), the External mid‐term evaluation of SECO Public

Financial Management Strategic Partnerships (08/2014 ‐ 01/2015); Mid‐term Evaluation of the

Programme “Support of the ISO Action Plan for Developing Countries During 2011‐2015” (12/2014 ‐

02/2015); Annual reviews 2012 ‐ 2014 of TradeMark East Africa (yearly reviews from 2012 to 2015);

Evaluation of the European Union’s trade defence activities (2011 ‐12). In the context of these

projects, Timothée has acquired extensive experience and practical knowledge of the DAC

methodology for monitoring and evaluation as well as the concept of “Theory of Change” with

respect to development evaluations. Timothée last travelled to Ghana in January 2015 in the context

of the Evaluation of the Programme “Support of the ISO Action Plan for Developing Countries During

2011‐2015”. In addition to specific experience in Ghana, Timothée possesses extensive experience in

Sub‐Saharan African countries. Timothée holds a Masters in Economics, University of Montreal

(Canada). He also studied Economics and Political Science at Mc Gill University (Canada). He is fluent

in French and English and has knowledge of Spanish and German.

Emmanuel Baudelet (Evaluation Expert). Emmanuel has been an associate with BKP Development

since 2009. He has more than ten years of experience in the implementation of development co‐

operation projects funded by various donors (EU, World Bank, African Development Bank, bilateral

donors, etc.), both as technical expert and as project director. Emmanuel has specific expertise in the

field of private sector development and international trade and substantial experience in Sub‐

Saharan Africa. He also has experience in carrying out reviews or evaluations of large technical

assistance programmes, having inter alia participated in the annual reviews 2012, 2013 and 2015 of

the TradeMark East Africa programme. Emmanuel holds a Masters in Management from Audencia

Nantes and a Masters in Development Economics from the University of Paris XII. He is fluent in

English, French and German and has a working knowledge of Spanish.

Valentin Gerold (Evaluation Expert). Valentin has been a full time associate with BKP Development

since 2010. He has ten years of experience in the field of economic development and has been

involved in the implementation of numerous projects funded by various donors, including the

European Commission, the African Development Bank, the World Bank and others. His main area of

expertise is private sector development with a geographic focus on sub‐Saharan Africa. Recently he

has been involved in several evaluation assignments, notably the mid‐term review of the SECO Public

Financial Management Strategic Partnerships (2014) and the Annual Review of the TradeMark East

Africa Programme (2015). Valentin holds a Master of Science from the London School of Economics

and is fluent in French, English and German with good knowledge of Spanish.