Uganda - Southwest Region Agricultural Rehabilitation Project

 Southwest region agricultural rehabilitation project Report No: ; Type: Report/Evaluation Memorandum ; Country: Uganda; Region: Africa; Sector: Other Agriculture; Major Sector: Agriculture; ProjectID: P002948 The South West Region Agricultural Rehabilitation project (SWRARP), supported by Credit 1869-UG for US$10 million, was approved in FY88. The credit closed in FY96 after a two-year extension and US$0.71 million was canceled. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) provided cofinancing. The FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme prepared the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the Africa Regional Office. A summary of the borrower’s completion report is attached and IFAD’s comments have been taken into account in finalizing the ICR. The project’s objectives were to increase food production and raise the incomes and living standards of small farmers in four (later six) districts. At appraisal, the project rationale was agricultural rehabilitation and it comprised five components: (i) adaptive research and extension; (ii) supply of agricultural inputs; (iii) rehabilitation of rural access roads; (iv) project management; and (v) monitoring and evaluation. The rural road and agricultural inputs components commanded about 80 percent of project resources. After appraisal, IFAD developed a separate community development component. IFAD’s loan agreement was amended twice: once in 1992 to include a pilot credit sub-component and then in 1994, at the request of the borrower, to incorporate a small valley dams component. The development credit agreement, however, was not modified. The project partially achieved its objectives. Implementation was slow until the mid-term review (MTR) in 1992. The share of project investment in final costs was significantly lower than planned, and that of recurrent costs (operating costs, technical assistance and overseas training) significantly higher. The project helped revive adaptive research and extension, although most of the efforts were directed toward introducing new and exotic germplasm, with benefits limited to some zones of the project area and to two crops, Irish potatoes and banana. The inputs component provided some of the needed supplies, but delays resulted in lower than expected volume. The component eventually became redundant as the private sector took over inputs supply. Nevertheless, the project was partly responsible for facilitating private trade by providing timely stocks to retailers. The rural roads component fell victim to inordinate delays and funding constraint. The latter was partly because the appraisal had underestimated costs and partly because of increased costs as the roads deteriorated further during the period of delay. The original target of rehabilitating 2,000 km of roads to an all-weather standard was scaled down to rehabilitating 488 km of roads to dry-weather status and making spot-repairs to another 1060 km dry-weather status roads. The use of project funded road maintenance equipment for spot repairs, for which it was not suited, accelerated the machinery’s depreciation. The ICR assumes that 175,000 families, or about 1 million people, living close to the project roads may have benefited from the project. Project management was problematic until the MTR as the project overstretched the local management capacity. Management improved after the review, although nearly 45 percent of project resources were still used only in the last two years. The M&E performance fell short of its objectives. The community development and credit components achieved some success, but the benefits appear to have gone mostly to the better off areas and individuals. The ICR notes that the performance of the dams component was unsatisfactory but that 4 of the 5 intended dams were eventually put in place. The ICR rates project outcome as satisfactory, institutional development as modest, sustainability as uncertain and Bank performance as satisfactory. The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) rates project outcome as marginally satisfactory but agrees with the other ratings. The ICR and the borrower note the difficulty of attributing benefits to SWRARP in the light of the government’s Economic Recovery Program (initiated in 1987) and several concurrent donor projects. The recalculated ERR of 17 percent, based on project components covering 81 percent of final costs, is an unreliable estimate because of the lack of data attributing benefits to the project. While the project did yield some benefits, its failure to meet most of its objectives lead OED to rate project outcome as marginally satisfactory. Bank performance is rated as satisfactory. The project was appropriate to the situation at inception and it was suitably modified during implementation, demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness. The MTR helped improve project management significantly. On the negative side, the cost of the rural roads component was underestimated at appraisal and the Bank could have acted earlier to deal with delays. It should also have insisted on a proper appraisal of the dams component before including it late in the project’s life. Given the difficult economic circumstances at project entry, on balance Bank performance is rated as satisfactory. The project offers several lessons. First, local management capacity and coordination arrangements need to be properly appraised, especially for complex projects. Second, continuity in Bank task management and the involvement of the Resident Mission staff are critical for project performance. Third, adequate provisions should be made for training borrowing agency staff in Bank procedures and processes. Finally, the identification and tenure of suitable candidates is critical for technical assistance. The ICR is generally satisfactory, although the section dealing with future operation is unclear. Although the cofinancier’s comments have been taken into account in finalizing the ICR, a copy of the comments should have been included as an annex. An audit is planned.