Ghana - Agricultural Diversification Project

 ICRR 10737 Report Number : ICRR10737 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 08/10/2000 PROJ ID : P000918 Appraisal Actual Project Name : Agricultural Diversification Project Costs not available Not available Project US$M ) (US$M) Country : Ghana Loan/ US$M ) 16.5 Loan /Credit (US$M) Not available Sector (s): Perennial Crops Cofinancing US$M ) (US$M) L/C Number : C2180 Board Approval 91 FY ) (FY) Partners involved : France Closing Date 12/31/1998 12/31/1999 Prepared by : Reviewed by : Group Manager : Group : 2. Project Objectives and Components a. Objectives The objective was to revitalize and expand the cultivation of non -cocoa tree crops and horticultural crops for export and import substitution within a framework of an agricultural diversification strategy aimed at reducing reliance on cocoa. b. Components Main components were: 1. Expansion of small scale outgrower oil palm production by 3,500 ha and establishment of 16 intermediate technology oil palm mills for cooperatives and individuals . 2. Rehabilitation of 1,500 ha of coffee on old farms and planting 3000 ha on new farms using improved technology and support for coffee research . 3. Development of technical packages for pineapple production and other horticultural export crops, technical assistance for market penetration, development of pilot production villages, and resurfacing 100 km of feeder roads. 4. Supporting activities including : studies; technical support; equipment; and materials to the Agricultural Development Bank,; training and research; and project coordination . c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates The ICR does not provide actual project cost data . The project was extended for one year . 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives: The ICR notes that project objectives of revitalizing and expanding cultivation of non -cocoa tree crops were substantially achieved for oil palm and rubber but were not achieved for coffee and horticultural crops other than pineapple. Given the long gestation period of tree crops it is too early to assess the extent to which reliance on cocoa will be reduced. The project suffered from the depreciation of the Cedi which resulted in high input costs and affected technology adoption . 4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts: 7,820 ha of oil palm was planted compared to the original target of 3500 ha. 1259 ha of rubber were planted, a little above the target of 1200 ha. Private sector participation in the production of coffee planting material was achieved . Development of export production of pineapples increased with exports rising from 10,000 tons in the early 1990s to 27,000 tons in 1996. An innovative pilot scheme assisted small -scale pineapple producer cooperatives to team up with two exporters to form a limited liability company to provide production services and inputs to farmers and to export their produce. 5. Significant Shortcomings (including non-compliance with safeguard policies): Project management and coordination was weak . There were counterpart funding problems as well as significant delays in the oil palm and rubber components . Implementation of a merger of the Crop Services Department with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture created institutional uncertainties . Only 33 percent of the target for coffee development was achieved. Apart from pineapples, development of other horticultural crops was limited . Institutional arrangements to sustain achievements in coffee and horticulture remain weak but the expectation is that these will be bolstered under a proposed new sector investment project (AGSSIP) 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Limited evidence in the ICR, particularly with respect to efficiency, but, with what information exists, efficacy in achieving relevant objectives seems to have been quite high in some crops and low in others. However, there is no evidence in the ICR for linkage of project inputs to outcomes. Therefore we would rate moderately satisfactory, a rating option that the ICR does not have. An audit would be needed to verify this outcome . Institutional Dev .: Modest Modest The ICR uses the term partial. Sustainability : Likely Non-evaluable Evidence in the ICR is exremely limited. The difficulty in assessing this is even greater with the long gestation crops . Bank Performance : Satisfactory Not Rated Insufficient information in the ICR to validate the rating. Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Not Rated Insufficient information in the ICR to validate the rating. Quality of ICR : Unsatisfactory 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: The ICR offers three lessons: 1. Outgrower schemes are useful mechanisms for integrating the private sector and communities in production activities. 2. Capacity building is essential for developing understanding, acceptance and commitment by stakeholders. 3. Inadequate attention to technical aspects in support of small scale operations affects output and therefore project success . 8. Assessment Recommended? Yes No Why? 1. The project is one of a package of 5 in the agricultural sector which would allow a useful sectoral overview. 2. The ICR has very limited information and an audit would help to fill this out . 9. Comments on Quality of ICR: Unsatisfactory. While it is commendable that the 5 ICRs in the sector were packaged together into a sector performance review report, this appears to have significantly short -changed the ICRs themselves . The ICR lacks a number of data tables, for example, on project financing and supervision resources . While brevity, where possible, is commendable, at about three pages of text there is barely enough information to support the ratings given . The ICR itself contains no original or actual project cost or credit data either in the text or in annexes, although the overview report for this batch of ICRs does list the credit figure .