DOC

Possible Revised PCR Format

By Bruce Greene,2014-12-23 12:39
8 views 0
Possible Revised PCR Format

    PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT (PCR)

    What? Project Completion Reports (PCRs) provide a useful record of what has been achieved by your project and

    of key lessons for future application. They are required for all projects costing ?500,000 or more.

    Why? PCRs, like Output-to-Purpose Reviews (OPRs), are part of the sequence of reports which chart project

    progress, achievement and impact, and so contribute to good Project Cycle Management; and they contain

    lessons which may well be valuable when designing projects with similar characteristics.

Who? You and your colleagues know more about this project than anyone else in DFID. Share your knowledge!

    Evaluation Department stores all PCRs received on a central database and submits an annual synthesis

    report to the Projects and Evaluation Committee (PEC). PCRs are also used in evaluation studies. In due

    course, access to PCRs will be available through PRISM.

How? The form attached provides the basic format for PCRs, recording the minimum information required.

    ? Consult your colleagues and project partners

    ? Complete the form in full, including the spaces provided for comment

    ? Use the scoring system outlined below for rating all aspects of performance

    ? If you wish, attach a supplementary report or supporting papers to provide more detail

    ? Return the completed form to Evaluation Department

Guide to Performance Ratings: Any questions?

    ? Consult Evaluation Very Good: fully achieved, very few or no shortcomings

    Department Satisfactory: largely achieved, despite a few shortcomings

    Fair: only partially achieved, benefits and shortcomings finely

    balanced

    Poor: very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings

    Failure: not achieved

    Too Early: too soon to give an adequately reliable rating forecast (for

    Goal and

     Sustainability only, and then only when absolutely necessary)

     PCR Form Version 2.1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

    SECTION I: BASIC DATA (to be completed from Project Header Sheet apart from last three rows)

COUNTRY: ZIMBABWE SECTOR (INC. CODE): CODE(S): 073-786-006 MIS

    82710

    PROJECT/PROGRAMME TITLE: EXPANSION OF THE AGRIBUSINESS ENTREPRENEUR NETWORK AND TRAINING (AGENT II) PROJECT MANAGED BY (DFID DEPT/OVERSEAS OFFICE) : EDD/DFID-CA

    BRIEF DESCRIPTION: TO ESTABLISH A NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT SELF-SUSTAINABLE AGRI-BUSINESS AGENTS IN TWO PROVINCES, PROVIDING AGRI-INPUTS TO SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN THE COMMUNAL AREAS

    POVERTY AIM MARKERS (PAM): FOCUSED

    POVERTY OBJECTIVE MARKERS (POM): POLICES AND ACTIONS WHICH PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS

    02,25 POLICY INFORMATION MARKERS (PIMS): PRINCIPAL (P)

    OR SIGNIFICANT (S)

    EPUTY HODD DLEVEL APPROVED BY:

    16/01/97 DATE APPROVED:

    UNE 1999 JCOMPLETION DATE ORIGINALLY ENVISAGED:

    ECEMBER 1996 DDFID FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FINALLY APPROVED

    (I.E. AFTER ANY AMENDMENTS):

     DFID FINANC’L COMMITMENT ORIGINALLY

    APPROVED (IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE):

     JUNE 1999 ACTUAL COMPLETION DATE (DD/MM/YYYY) :

     ?430,000 ACTUAL DFID EXPENDITURE:

     87% ACTUAL DFID EXPENDITURE AS % OF FINALLY

    APPROVED COMMITMENT:

    NOW USE THE SPACE BELOW TO EXPLAIN OR COMMENT BRIEFLY ON ANY NOTEWORTHY ASPECT OF THE DATA GIVEN ABOVE (In particular recording

    and explaining any formal changes in financial, time or other constraints which were made during the course of the

    project/programme):

In June 2000, a no-cost extension was approved up to June 2001. CIDA has funded a further three year phase during which AGENT will be

operationalised in Masvingo, Manicaland and Midlands, and it was agreed that the DFID funds remaining - approx. ?60,000 - would be used to

cover the cost of the input supply fund (ISF) component of the project.

    SECTION II: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

     Rating Guide

    Very Good: fully achieved, very few or no shortcomings Poor: very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings

    Satisfactory: largely achieved, despite a few shortcomings Failure: not achieved

    Fair: only partially achieved, benefits and shortcomings finely balanced Too Early: too soon to give an

    adequately reliable rating forecast (Goal and Sustainability only)

    LogFrame Level Achievement Rating Comments

     ( forecast only) Some difficulties with measurement due to the lack of baseline data GOAL (state below, then provide a rating

    (hence the crucial need for an effective Impact Assessment component in forecast with commentary) : Satisfactory the next phase). Overall farmer incomes seem to have improved but Improved access to agri-inputs for stronger poverty criteria needed to assess this impact. The project has a smallholder communal farmers wider effect through the demonstration effect (eg; the new Zimbabwe

    Fertiliser Company agent network). Generally encouraging performance

    given adverse wider economic circumstances.

    Performance has been 99 AGENTS operating independently versus a PURPOSE (state below, then rate & Satisfactory

    target of 125 - 79% of target. (Note that a total of 151 AGENTs were comment) :

    selected). Reasons for this slight underacheivement are: slow start to the Establish a network of agri-business project, learning process regarding optimal model, fraud case, and the agents in Mashonaland East and Central wider economic and political situation in the 3rd year. It is important to

    note that AGENTs may drop out of the programme due to reasons

    beyond the programme’s control.

    Likely to be Given the economic situation the project has made very good progress WHETHER SUSTAINABLE (provide

    towards being sustainable at the AGENT level due to the commercial forecast & comment) :

    nature of the supplier/AGENT relationship. At present 70% of selected

    AGENTS have independent commercial links with suppliers. There are

    however risks, the greatest of which is the very adverse economic

    environment which may undermine the consignment system used by the

    suppliers in providing supplies to AGENTs. Alternative models may have

    to be considered in this eventuality, and are already being tested in other

    areas. Also, the deteriorating purchasing power of the Grain Marketing

    Board could necessitate broadening the number of inputs as cropping

    patterns change - less maize being grown.

In the follow-on phase in Masvingo there are plans to bring the private

    sector in more closely which could increase the sustainability of the AGENT concept, this is especially the case as commercial suppliers are increasingly seeing smallholders comprising the bulk of their market in the future, given expected changes in land ownership patterns. CARE could facilitate this process by undertaking in-depth market research to

    segment and better understand the smallholder market.

    Performance Assessment Section continued……

    LogFrame Level (&c) Performance Rating Comments

     Measuring AGENT sales levels has OUTPUTS (list the main outputs below, rate against each, then give an overall been complicated by rapid inflation, rating) :

     but sales targets have been fully 1 V Good 1 AGENTS selected and operational. achieved. The figure of 70% of all

    AGENTs having set up sustainable 2 V Good 2 Linkages with suppliers established. linkages with suppliers is a good 3 Satisfactory one; it is also important to 3 Graduation of AGENTs to supplier credit lines.

    understand the reasons why 4 V Good 4 AGENT's product range and knowledge increased AGENTs fail to graduate (reasons 5 Satisfactory could be outside the programme’s 5 AGENT programme has a substantial 'demonstration' effect by inducing control, such as adverse economic 6 <-- Please Rate -->

    private sector actors to enter the market with their own personnel situation and personal 7 <-- Please Rate --> circumstances). Case studies 6 should investigate this in the follow-8 <-- Please Rate -->

    on phase. 8 9 <-- Please Rate -->

    Overall the range of products offered 10<-- Please Rate --> by AGENTs has increased well,

    encouraged by the promotion activities. However, more could have been done in this regard. In V Good the future CARE should consider Overall Assessment of Output Delivery :- working with the private sector to

    provide TA to AGENTs regarding

    livestock and a broader range of

    crops

    The demonstration effect of the

    programme seems very good, but it

    is too early to give definite figures;

    measurement of this effect is also

    extremely difficult. In the next phase

    CARE will bes undertaking a study to

    investigate the measurement of the

    demonstration effect.

Performance Assessment Section continued……

    LogFrame Level (&c) Performance Rating Comments

     The budgetary allocation was appropriate given the INPUTS/ACTIVITIES (see footnote*) : original model, but became less so as the model was (a) DFID Satisfactory (a) Appropriateness (quality) : adapted in line with lessons learned over time. The (b) Partner Satisfactory TA provided by DFID as part of the 1999 OPR was

    very helpful in terms of improving the programme (a) DFID Satisfactory (b) Sufficiency (quantity) : design. (b) Partner Satisfactory There were some funding shortfalls in terms of

    (a) DFID Satisfactory (c) Efficiency (timeliness &c) : vehicle and staff requirements.

    (b) Partner Satisfactory In terms of efficiency, more OPRs would have been

     helpful. Also, DFID-CA staff were often difficult to get OVERALL ASSESSMENT*: hold of. (a) DFID Satisfactory (b) Partner Satisfactory

     OPRs should have been carried out annually. MONITORING AND REVIEW (give an overall Overall Rating: Satisfactory

    rating for the standard of monitoring and

    Year Outputs Purpose output-to-purpose reviewing; then, where

    Score Score Score available, list the project/programme OPR

    dates (year) along with the corresponding 1999 2

    scores at output and purpose levels) :

    (*) including conditionality aspects where relevant

     SECTION III: LESSONS LEARNED

Please summarise below any lessons arising from this project that may help DFID perform better in future(if none please state):

i. Project/Programme Level Lessons

    ; The AGENT selection process is crucial - good AGENTs can be ensured by building in a charge for training (eventually aiming for full cost recovery), plus a security deposit to secure commitment, aswell as selecting AGENTS on the basis of their business potential.

    ; AGENTs must have clear incentives to graduate - by graduating they should be able to get improved terms with the supplier.

    ; Graduated AGENTs should be involved in training new AGENTs. ; Both shop owners and managers should be offered AGENT training. ; The private sector should be involved in the project at an earlier stage, particularly with a view to working out how the AGENT network will be taken over by the private sector in the future.

    ; It is important that the original model design be flexible, to allow for innovation over time to make the model more appropriate for private sector involvement. In practice this has meant less involvement by the project in the AGENT/supplier relationship.

    ; A more effective and longitudinal Impact Assessment component should have been built into the project - database of key client and AGENT statistics.

    ; The graduation process needs to be more clearly defined and thus better understood by CARE, AGENTs and suppliers. It is important to avoid the perception that CARE remains the linkage after graduation has taken place. ; A balance of both agricultural and business skills are needed among the project staff. ; Marketing problems faced by farmers are linked with input supply issues; farmers need adequate income from their crops in order to be able to afford to buy inputs.

ii. Sector Level or Thematic Lessons

    ; Projects like this must be more in touch with external economic and political environment, paying particular attention to issues that have a direct bearing on the activities; for example, changes in government policies, price subsidisation, trade tariffs, ability of govt to set floors on agricultural output prices and to purchase at those prices. ; Projects like this must be much more engaged with the private sector from their inception; though it is difficult to get the private sector interested without a period of demonstrated effect.

    ; A key problem for poor farmers not addressed in this phase is the difficulty they face in getting credit references. This needs to be addressed in the next phase.

iii. General Developmental Lessons

    ; There is a need for better co-ordination between different donors involved in single projects, and also between different projects involved in similar activities.

    ; This project demonstrates that an entrepreneurial approach can be extremely effective in improving pro-poor market development. ; The wider macro-economic situation to a large extent controls the success or failure of projects like this, as market functioning depends so inherently on it.

    iv. Finally, do you think there are issues arising from this project or programme which would make further research (e.g. an ex-post evaluation) useful? Yes

    If your answer is yes, please give brief reasons below:

    It should be noted that small residual amount (US$88,500) is being carried over to a no-cost extension of the project in collaboration with CIDA. These limited funds will provide an ISF for the CIDA project as there are restrictions prohibiting the use of Canadian funds for such a purpose. DFID is strategically extending this very small residual amount due to the potential lesson learning for the DFID Zimbabwe programme, its possible upscaling in the future, ensuring that the CIDA project benefits from DFID's experience, and providing a useful source of new project ideas for further development. Please see attached sheet for a list of recommendations for the next phase. A copy of the partner’s own assessment of the project to date is also attached.

     PCR FINALISED BY: Annie Harper PCR APPROVED BY: Gill Wright

     DATE (dd/mm/yyyy): 24/01/01

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com