Madagascar - Public-private Partnership And Information Management For Regional Development Project

 ICRR 11669 Report Number : ICRR11669 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 01/08/2004 PROJ ID : P062628 Appraisal Actual Project Name : Public-private Partnership Project Costs 4.6 0.3 And Information US$M ) (US$M) Management For Regional Development Project Country : Madagascar Loan/ Loan US$M ) 5.1 /Credit (US$M) 0.3 Sector (s): Board: PS - Sub-national Cofinancing government administration US$M ) (US$M) (100%) L/C Number : C3331 Board Approval 0 FY ) (FY) Partners involved : Closing Date 12/31/2004 02/28/2003 Prepared by : Reviewed by : Group Manager : Group : Elliott Hurwitz Kris Hallberg Kyle Peters OEDCR 2. Project Objectives and Components a. Objectives The objective of this LIL was to assist the Government of Madagascar (GOM) and the country's economic regions to develop model methodologies and tools to promote regional development and facilitate investment programming . b. Components 1. Pilot public-private partnership for regional planning and investment programming; 2. Regional information and knowledge management; 3. Dissemination of the model to other regions . c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates While the project was approved in March, 2000, it did not become effective until May, 2001. In October, 2002, the Government decided to close the project, which was accomplished in February, 2003. Just US$0.3 million was disbursed out of an envisioned US$ 5.1 million. In addition to credit funds, project identification was supported by a PHRD grant of US$515,000, which was completely disbursed . 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives: The project did not achieve any of its objectives 4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts: The project did not have any significant outcomes 5. Significant Shortcomings (including non-compliance with safeguard policies): The capacity of the PIU and other key project institutions was inadequate Significant delays were encountered in fulfilling the conditions of effectiveness The project design was overly complex and not completely consistent with its objectives 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Highly Unsatisfactory The project did not achieve any of its development objectives, and achieved no worthwhile development benefits Institutional Dev .: Negligible Sustainability : Highly Unlikely Bank Performance : Unsatisfactory Quality at Entry was unsatisfactory : The project design was overly complex and not completely consistent with the objectives The Bank's assessment of the capacity of the PIU and key Borrower institutions was deficient Readiness for implementation was deficient Commitment by the central government was negligible During supervision, in less than 2 years of effectiveness there were 3 Bank Task Managers, which delayed project progress. Borrower Perf .: Highly Unsatisfactory There were significant delays in fulfilling the conditions of effectiveness The PIU and other key institutions upon which the project depended had inadequate capacity Necessary cooperation between various levels of government was lacking Commitment by the central government was negligible. Quality of ICR : Satisfactory NOTE: NOTE ICR rating values flagged with ' * ' don't comply with OP/BP 13.55, but are listed for completeness. 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability: Before proceeding with a project, the Bank should gain assurances of strong commitment from all involved levels of government Before proceeding with a project, the Bank should carefully assess the capacity of Borrower institutions to implement the project. The Bank should also assure that all key administrative and contractual arrangements are in place or well-advanced Excessive turnover in Bank task management makes the achievement of project objectives more difficult 8. Assessment Recommended? Yes No Why? It would be useful to understand why the Bank went ahead with a project where there was so little commitment by the central government and where institutional capacity was so limited . 9. Comments on Quality of ICR: A Project Completion Note was developed instead of an ICR .