• Greater progress in compliance with project completion reporting is evident, but timeliness remains a substantial issue: Changes introduced into the PCR preparation process had a number of desirable results. Compliance with requirements to produce and submit PCRs in a timely fashion both improved markedly. To some extent, this gain may reflect the fact that Management was especially attentive to PCR production during this period and provided some resources — on a one-time basis — to facilitate that production. Whether the improvement holds up when attention and resources are less focused on implementing the changes will need to be tracked

• PCRs are of good quality, but further improvement is needed: The quality of PCRs reviewed was high and better compared to 2003-05. While the PCR quality was strong on project design and implementation analysis, the review identified weaknesses in the quality of data and analysis used to support the PCR assessments and draw lessons learned."

• Modest project development outcome perform-ance:There are many successesin AfDB projectsand programs. However, only 58 percent of the projects in the cohort achieved satisfactory development outcomes, and there is some evidence that on this measure, performance may have declined since the last report in 2007 covering the 2003-05 cohort. Further, only about half of the project achievements are expected to last. The development outcome performance largely mirrors that of Bank and Borrower performance. These results vary widely by such factors as sector department, region, financing instrument and loan amount. The share of satisfactory development outcomes was the same for projects in fragile and non-fragile states. The project performance results are indicative of the limited effectiveness of the recent AfDB reforms on the performance of the projects reviewed. More than two-thirds of these projects exited the AfDB’s portfolio before the reforms became effective. For the remainder of the projects reviewed, it was too early for reforms to have fed through into better development results.

• Modest Bank and Borrower performance: Bank and Borrower performance also need to be strengthened, as Bank performance was satisfactory in only about half of the projects, and Borrower performance in only about one-third.. However, there is some evidence that more recent projects have done better on Bank performance than older ones. Bank performance was particularly weak on risk assessment and analysis, and on monitoring and evaluation (M&E). On Borrower performance, areas of special weakness resources are allocated to Operations Complexes for PCRs

• Timeliness of PCR reviews has been enhanced, but needs further improvement. The review found several areas where OPEV itself can improve, par-ticularly in meeting deadlines for review of PCRs. While timeliness in this area has increased with the new process, there is room for further improvement. Also, there were inconsistencies between the overall ratings of PCR quality and the ratings on individual quality criteria.

• projects could be strengthened by investing more attention at the design stage to potential risks.risk assessment is an area of weakness in about half of Bank projects. This lesson, therefore, has important implications for the performance of the Bank in producing satisfactory project outcomes, and by extension, development impacts. As a corollary, lack of adequate preliminary studies may result in design flaws and subsequent implementation problems. This lack of adequate preparation, through risk assessment and preliminary that are disaggregated to take account of gender and other issues, thereby allowing for estimates of differential impacts

• project implementation suffers where there are many complex Bank and country administrative procedures in place. This complexity can take the form of multiple loci of project leadership and oversight, lack of harmonization of procedures among financiers and implementing organizations, or excessive conditions for effectiveness.

• project supervision is more effective when it is regular and carried out by teams with the proper skill mix. A recurring theme in many projects is that lack of adequate supervision often leads to implementation problems and failure to meet objectives. Clearly, not all projects require the same frequency or intensity of supervision, but regularity of supervision appears to have positive benefits, especially when carried out by teams with a skill mix that matches the project’s objectives and socio-political and economic conditions

• community participation is beneficial to project implementation. Experience demonstrates that stakeholder consultation and involvement – from project identification and preparation through implementation – reinforces community support, commitment and ownership. This has proven to be a key factor in project success, in terms both outcomes and sustainability.

• a needs assessment can be key to designing projects that address cross-cutting gender, social, economic and environmental issues. Such an assessment can aid not only in developing project components, but also in identifying M&E indicators are designed and carried out within institutional stovepipes.

• social sector projects with civil works or equipment components require mechanisms and systems to ensure adequate maintenance. This is applicable to all sectors, but such issues are sometimes not sufficiently appreciated in the design and implementation of projects in the social sector

• insufficient evaluation of the capacity of the country and the executing agency to carry out the project, meet conditionalities, and achieve the national contribution has negative implications for project success. Failure to take account of on-the-ground capacity means that the project status is likely at risk from the outset.

• long delays in acquisition of goods and services threaten project outcomes. While delays are often signs of trouble in all sectors, in infrastructure projects they frequently mean that labor and materials arrive at the wrong time or in the wrong sequence for successful completion of the project, raising costs and increasing the ,risk of unsatisfactory outcomes

• infrastructure projects can benefit by exploiting opportunities to link with other projects in the same or related sectors within the country. Infrastructure projects could often provide greater developmental impact if they were better coordinated with other projects in terms of physical construction, timing and appropriate linkages. Frequently these potential benefits are lost because projects are designed and carried out within institutional stovepipes.

• lack of sufficient supervision and oversight contributes to a poor level of success in the sector. This is consistent with the findings of the recent Bank-International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) evaluation, which found a “lack of attention to rigorous portfolio management such as termination of non-performing projects before the closing date

• lack of clear project objectives leads to less than satisfactory outcomes. Projects in the sector frequently have objectives that are unclear or ambiguous, with implications for design and implementation that affect project performance negatively.

• greater attention to gender issues could improve project outcomes. Women have an important role in the sector, but projects often fail to take adequate account of gender issues at the design and implementation stages. This contributes to the poor record of performance in the sector

Recommendations to the Bank:

• Enhance support for monitoring and evaluation capacity development for Borrowers and and Bank staff, especially with regard to improving human capacity and strengthening project M&E systems and results management

• Publicize examples of good practice, with attention to lessons learned on all aspects of project performance, including M&E

• Complete work on improving systems for upfront risk analysis for projects and programs, and ensure consistent implementation of the changes required

• Review the new PCR format with a view to adopting accepted MDB-ECG operational definitions of key evaluation criteria, including development outcomes, efficiency, Borrower performance, and risks to development effectiveness

• Continue monitoring of PCR timeliness and requirements, while ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to Operations Complexes for PCRs

• Improve the effectiveness of Management review process of PCR quality

• OPEV needs to undertake some internal improvements. In particular, it should further improve the timeliness of PCR reviews by holding evaluators accountable for meeting the target of 90 percent on-time performance. In addition, OPEV should review possible inconsistencies between overall ratings on PCRs and the ratings on individual quality criteria