Brief description, overall objective and project objectives with indicators

Transcription

1 Establishment of a Microfinance Bank/The First MicroFinanceBank - Afghanistan Ex post evaluation OECD sector BMZ project ID Project executing agency Consultant / Formal sector financial intermediaries (investment) The First MicroFinanceBank Afghanistan HORUS Development Finance Year of ex-post evaluation report 2011 (sample 2011) Project appraisal (planned) Ex-post evaluation (actual) Start of implementation Q (I) Q (I) Period of implementation 39 months (I) 39 months (I) Investment costs -/- -/- Counterpart contribution -/- -/- Financing, of which Financial Cooperation (FC) funds EUR 3.5 million EUR 3.5 million Other institutions/donors involved AKFED/IFC AKFED/IFC Performance rating 1 Relevance 1 Effectiveness 1 Efficiency 1 Overarching developmental impacts 1 Sustainability 2 Brief description, overall objective and project objectives with indicators The project aimed at founding and developing The First MicroFinanceBank Afghanistan (FMFB-A). The grant under review here, which was onlent by the Afghan Ministry of Finance to FMFB-A, was to enable it to refinance its lending business. The project objective was to provide financial services, particularly for private micro and small enterprises (target group) from all sectors. FMFB-A was founded in 2004 as a fullylicensed commercial bank and public limited company under Afghan law based in Kabul. Shareholders are the Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance (AKAM) with 51%, KfW as trustee on behalf of the Federal Government with 32.3% and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) with 16.7%. The project objective was the provision of financial services especially for private micro and small enterprises (target group) from all sectors as a contribution to generating

2 employment and income and developing a formal financial sector in Afghanistan (overall objective). Indicators for measuring overall objective achievement were the establishment of FMFB-A as an operational financial institute after five years and a satisfactory return on equity earned by the assisted enterprises. Indicators for project objective achievement were: (i) The outstanding loan portfolio amounts to at least US$ 14 million after 5 years; (ii) the number of customers amounts to at least 20,000 after five years; (iii) the share of impaired loans (interest or redemption arrears > 90 days) does not amount to more than 10% of the loan portfolio; (iv) breakeven is achieved after five years. Project design/major deviations from original planning and main causes FMFB-A was founded in 2003 by the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (AKFED) and began business in May IFC and KfW (as trustee on behalf of the Federal Government) contributed their equity in 2004 and 2005 respectively. The AKFED shares were transferred to the Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance (AKAM) in Current liable equity capital amounts to about US$ 6.5 million. Together with the above-mentioned fiduciary holding and the complementary measure, the project aimed at founding and developing The First MicroFinanceBank Afghanistan (FMFB-A). The grant under review here, which was onlent by the Afghan Ministry of Finance to FMFB-A, was to enable it to refinance its lending business. The interest differential funds are booked onto a segregated account in the Finance Ministry and earmarked for promoting the microfinance sector. On completion of 5 years of grace, the first repayments are due this year. No decision has, however, been taken yet on the application of funds. Key results of impact analysis and performance rating The main result of the project as intended at appraisal was to provide access to formal financial services for the MSE segment, which is immensely important for economic development in Afghanistan. The indirect aim was to generate beneficial income and employment effects and support the transition of Afghanistan from a war to a normal economy with formal institutions. As the findings of the evaluation indicate, the project proved fully capable of achieving the planned results. The following risks were identified in project planning: high uncertainty concerning political stability, security situation and legal framework, inflation and currency fluctuations. For the most part, these risk assessments proved accurate. The security situation has deteriorated again, particularly in the last 2-3 years, and hampers or prevents an expansion of FMFB-A to all provinces and into rural areas. Despite these adverse general conditions, FMFB-A has a record of stable development. This is to the credit of the high quality of management and the supervisory bodies but also to - 2 -

3 individual personnel and their motivation and standard of work, even if there is still scope for improvement here. Based on the facts and background information cited, we assess the developmental efficacy of the project as follows: Relevance: A major obstacle to economic development in Afghanistan was the absence of a formal banking sector at project appraisal and the resultant core problem of private sector inability, above all MSEs and SMEs, to obtain loans for investments to generate income and employment. Lack of access to formal financial services for private enterprises remains a major constraint on development and growth today in at least half the provinces and in rural areas. The postulated results chain (support for private enterprises through the provision of basic financial services for greater investment, higher production, more jobs and additional income) thus remains plausible. Given the absence of a banking sector at project appraisal, founding a bank and providing it with refinancing facilities was of paramount relevance and thanks to its market penetration FMFB-A can be classified today as of systemic relevance for the microfinance sector. The objective of the project conformed with the developmental goals and guidelines of BMZ, the goals of the other shareholders of FMFB-A and the strategies of the Government of Afghanistan. Donor coordination in FMFB-A operates well. Altogether, the relevance of the project is assessed as very good (Subrating 1). Effectiveness: The indicators for measuring project objective achievement were correctly selected and adequate at project appraisal and ambitiously defined in the context. All indicators have been met and well surpassed for several years, although the risks assessments at project appraisal proved to be almost completely warranted. Altogether, the effectiveness of the project is assessed as very good (Subrating 1). Efficiency: The indicators for the bank, the depreciation ratio, portfolio at risk, return on equity and market penetration both for loans and savings accounts have been excellent for years compared with all other MFIs. There is certainly still scope for improving productivity (more loans per personnel) and the attendant reduction of costs per loan. This will, however, only be possible if the political and economic framework improves and the security situation permits the expansion into other provinces and rural areas. With a microloans ratio of around 92% in the overall portfolio and low portfolio at risk, allocative efficiency is assessed as very good. Considering the very difficult general conditions, project efficiency is rated as very good (Subrating 1). Overarching developmental impacts: The indicators for measuring overall objective achievement have been met. FMFB-A has been established as an operational financial institute. As it serves both the microfinance market segment and also the MSE or SME sector as the only fully-licensed bank, it can provide its customers long-term support for company growth, from the one-man business to the small enterprise with several - 3 -

4 employees. No information is available to allow a calculation for measuring the satisfactory return on equity indicator for the borrower enterprises. The very good portfolio quality of the bank would, however, indicate that this indicator has been met. The impact of the overall project (fiduciary holding, credit line and complementary measure) on creating income and employment opportunities is more pronounced than anticipated at project appraisal. With estimated unemployment at 35%, every job created has a beneficial effect on political stability, peacebuilding and poverty reduction. As a whole, the overarching developmental impacts are assessed as very good (Subrating 1). Sustainability: The adverse general climate and the deteriorating security situation pose risks for the future continuation of the bank, which it cannot influence. In economic terms, sustainability prospects have improved on the one hand. At least as long as the general conditions do not deteriorate further, refinancing facilities for the FMFB-A in local currency also are very likely assured through MISFA. In-house financing of customer deposits is now the most important source of refinance. On the other, the legal requirement for FMFB-A to double equity capital by mid-2012 could threaten its survival, as there is no visible strategy so far for meeting this. The bank s good key financial indicators underscore its positive development in recent years. Considering the sometimes high inflation, the results must, however, be treated with caution. As the future economic development and macroeconomic stability of Afghanistan is difficult to predict, accounting for average terms and loan amounts, loan interest would seem comparatively low and makes the bank vulnerable to volatile inflation. Under the present very uncertain circumstances, it is difficult to assess the actual risk to the bank, but FMFB-A has proved its ability in the past to advance to become the industry leader under the most difficult conditions. FMFB-A was accorded the credit rating of BBB- by Microfinanza in July 2008, a good rating in the adverse climate. Altogether, the bank can be expected to meet the demand for its products in future as well, even if a significant risk remains. Despite the risks, the sustainability of the project is still assessed as good altogether (Subrating 2). Weighing up the individual evaluation criteria above and accounting for the lower sustainability rating due to the security risk, the project is assessed as very good in all (overall assessment: Performance rating 1) General conclusions In a post-conflict country lacking a formal banking sector, founding a bank under international ownership to concentrate in particular on lending to private enterprises is a suitable measure to support the development of the banking and business sector and with that the creation of income and employment, thus making a contribution to national stability

5 Notes on the methods used to evaluate project success (project rating) Projects are evaluated on a six-point scale, the criteria being relevance, effectiveness (outcome), overarching developmental impact and efficiency. The ratings are also used to arrive at a final assessment of a project s overall developmental efficacy. The scale is as follows: 1 Very good rating that clearly exceeds expectations 2 Good rating fully in line with expectations and without any significant shortcomings 3 Satisfactory rating project falls short of expectations but the positive results dominate 4 Unsatisfactory rating significantly below expectations, with negative results dominating despite discernible positive results 5 Clearly inadequate rating despite some positive partial results the negative results clearly dominate 6 The project has no positive results or the situation has actually deteriorated A rating of 1 to 3 denotes a positive assessment and indicates a successful project while a rating of 4 to 6 denotes a negative assessment and indicates a project which has no sufficiently positive results. Sustainability is evaluated according to the following four-point scale: Sustainability level 1 (very good sustainability) The developmental efficacy of the project (positive to date) is very likely to continue undiminished or even increase. Sustainability level 2 (good sustainability) The developmental efficacy of the project (positive to date) is very likely to decline only minimally but remain positive overall. (This is what can normally be expected.) Sustainability level 3 (satisfactory sustainability) The developmental efficacy of the project (positive to date) is very likely to decline significantly but remain positive overall. This rating is also assigned if the sustainability of a project is considered inadequate up to the time of the ex post evaluation but is very likely to evolve positively so that the project will ultimately achieve positive developmental efficacy. Sustainability level 4 (inadequate sustainability) The developmental efficacy of the project is inadequate up to the time of the ex post evaluation and is very unlikely to improve. This rating is also assigned if the sustainability that has been positively evaluated to date is very likely to deteriorate severely and no longer meet the level 3 criteria. The overall rating on the six-point scale is compiled from a weighting of all five individual criteria as appropriate to the project in question. A rating of 1 to 3 indicates a successful project while a rating of 4 to 6 indicates an unsuccessful project. It should be noted that a project can generally only be considered developmentally successful if the achievement of the project objective ( effectiveness ), the impact on the overall objective level ( overarching developmental impact ) and the sustainability are considered at least satisfactory (rating 3)