Senegal - Second Public Works and Employment

 ICRR 10083 Report Number : ICRR10083 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID : OEDID: C2369 Project ID : P002371 Project Name : Second Public Works and Employment Country : Senegal Sector : Other Industry L/C Number : C2369 Partners involved : KfW, CIDA, FSD, PPGE. Prepared by : Farrokh Najmabadi, OEDCR Reviewed by : A. Galenson Group Manager : Ruben Lamdany Date Posted : 06/30/1998 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Following the successful implementation of a new initiative, the concept of delegated contract management by the AGETIP (Agence d'Execution des Traveaux d'Interet Public contre le Sous -Emploi) with IDA's support through Credit 2075-SE, the Government of Senegal asked IDA's assistance for a second project in March 1991. The objectives of the project were: (a) the continuation and decentralization of AGETIP activities in secondary cities; (b) the development of pilot activities to test the feasibility of AGETIP's approach in other areas such as public procurement program; (c) the organization of training for the municipalities and the small and microenterprises engaged in project implementation; and (d) making AGETIP a sustainable agency covering its operating costs on a fee basis . The project consisted of three components : (a) US$ 71.32 million for the continuation and expansion of public works programs to be carried out under labor -intensive schemes by local contractors; (b) US$4.5 million for pilot activities; and (c) US$5.18 million for training and studies. The financing was to be provided by the Government (US$7 million), IDA (US$39 million), Municipalities (US$20 million) and other donors (US$15 million). 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : Some 348 subprojects were financed and 99.91% of the credit was disbursed. 150860 jobs were created for an average duration of 37.6 days. The project contributed to the rehabilitation and construction of numerous public buildings, rehabilitation of over 100 kilometers of urban roads, cleaning and rehabilitation of drainage and sewage canals and improvement in urban environment . The project succeeded in its private sector development role and promoted the creation of 854 small and microenterprises, 148 of which received contracts . In addition, 100 engineering/consulting firms were registered. The project was less successful in its pilot activities, as the proposed reform in public procurement did not receive the Government's backing . the training and studies programs were carried out satisfactorily. 4. Significant Achievements : The project once again demonstrated the practicability of the AGETIP model as an independent private non -profit institution for the execution of public works . The project created substantial employment at a reasonable average daily rate of CFAF 2661. 5. Significant Shortcomings : The project did not make much headway in its pilot activities to test the applicability of AGETIP principles to revenue-generating infrastructure programs, or to improve the efficiency of the public procurement program . 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory The project has not achieved its program of pilot activities designed to test the applicability of AGETIP's principles to other areas. Institutional Dev .: Substantial Substantial The project, however, did not succeed in  reforming public procurement. Sustainability : Likely Uncertain Municipalities have few resources for maintenance and upkeep of created assets. Sustainability of subprojects (90% of the project) is uncertain. Bank Performance : Satisfactory Satisfactory Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of ICR : Unsatisfactory 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : AGETIP has demonstrated the feasibility of delegating the execution of public works to an autonomous private agency. The model may, however, not be the best instrument through which general government procurement processes can be reformed . 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : Although the ICR has dealt adequately with the project experience, it is incomplete with missing sections . It lacks an Aide- Memoire, a part prepared by the Borrower and comments by cofinanciers .