![Background to the Workshop ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à Fm ws report
Similaire à Fm ws report (20)
Plus de FIDAfrique-IFADAfrica
Plus de FIDAfrique-IFADAfrica (20)
Fm ws report
- 3. Background to the IFAD ESA portfolio ESA Loan & DSF Grant Portfolio
- 4. Background to the IFAD ESA portfolio ESA Portfolio by type
- 5. Background to the IFAD ESA portfolio Disbursements 2009/10 - USD 121 million (36% increase)
- 9. Background to the IFAD ESA portfolio Assessment of 41 Audit Reports received: 1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
Notes de l'éditeur
- Host project/ logistics – SHOMAP Draft ppt – Robert (RFP, ZM)/ Farida + Grace (CAAIP, UG)
- To put the portfolio into context….. The top 3 countries: Ethiopia Uganda Tanzania 16 out of 21 countries in region borrowing, Botswana to make 17. 53 projects – 49 highly concessional terms. 11% in grants, up from 2% 3 years ago
- Increase in portfolio size of 19% from 2009 Significant increase in 3 year country programme for 2010-2012 (45%/ USD 197m) 59% Agricultural Development/ Rural Development, increase in rural development and marketing projects Fewer, larger investments – average financing size $17.2m – $19.9m 5 new projects and 5 supplementary loans in 2009/10 totalling $219m Average project life – 7.6 years. Oldest – 13.5 yrs (VODP) – shortest 5.1 yrs (8003KM)
- TZ SWAp – $26.4m (32% increase without TZ SWAp) TZ – 26% disbursements Highest flows in project (excl SWAps) – NAADS ($9.1m) Improvement: bolstering of resources in Nairobi loan admin hub fruits of capacity building with project teams more familiarity with CPMs and assistants Key role by Country Offices, above all where quality checks are conducted at in-country prior to dispatch to Nairobi, such as in Madagascar Best performing country in terms of quality and speed of processing WAs – MG MG – 91 WAs KE – 87 RW - 86 Rwanda showed the most improvement in terms of WA quality and adherence, attributable to proactive project staff and close monitoring by the CPM. Burundi, Eritrea and Kenya also noted good quality submissions. On the downside, Mozambique showed long processing times, due to delays in processing the two SWAp WAs submitted in the period, and also associated with the special account reconciliation issues noted for the 622-MZ, which have now been resolved. The Tanzania SWAp similarly suffered from delays in the one annual disbursement from the three associated loans, held up by discussions with Finance about whether underlying disbursement conditions had been satisfied. Disbursement delays in Comoros were caused by inadequate understanding of the replenishment requirements by project staff. Training has now been carried out and the project is beginning to gain momentum. Common issues: Reconciliation of Special Account WAs not fully supported Problems understanding the mechanism for grants – based on justification of the 75% of the advance & subsequent year’s AWPB Exchange Rate issues Using the wrong forms Delays in responding to queries, submitting WAs with unsigned SOEs, using wrong forms especially summary sheets, etc
- Accounting packages 10/42 projects use spreadsheets 60% of projects with accounting software use TOMPRO
- Merge national requirements + IFAD minimum fiduciary disclosures so only one set of reporting and audit performed
- Regional FM resource packs – hard copy/ pendrives
- 2010 portfolio review – fiduciary ratings – subjective Financial management Disbursement rate Counterpart funds – best performing area Compliance with Loan covenants Procurement – 2 nd worst Audit - worst
- 2010 portfolio review – fiduciary ratings – subjective Financial management Disbursement rate Counterpart funds – best performing area Compliance with Loan covenants Procurement – 2 nd worst Audit - worst