Ghana - Agriculture Sector Investment Project

 ICRR 10858 Report Number : ICRR10858 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 08/10/2000 PROJ ID : P000961 Appraisal Actual Project Name : Agriculture Sector Project Costs 25.4 not available Investment Project US$M ) (US$M) Country : Ghana Loan/ US$M ) US $ 21.5 Loan /Credit (US$M) not available Sector (s): Agro-Industry & Marketing Cofinancing none none US$M ) (US$M) L/C Number : C2555; CP970 Board Approval 94 FY ) (FY) Partners involved : none Closing Date 11/30/1999 03/30/2000 Prepared by : Reviewed by : Group Manager : Group : 2. Project Objectives and Components a. Objectives The main project objective was to increase the flow of technical and financial resources for rural development in response to perceived needs at the village and district level. Related objectives were to increase agricultural productivity and access to markets and to strengthen communities' capacities to develop and manage their investments using the resources of non government organizations, local consultants and public institutions. b. Components Two main components: (i) The Investment Component involving small-scale water schemes, marketing infrastructure, market access roads, storage and food processing facilities and (ii) Studies and technical assistance. c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates As appraised total project cost was US $ 25.4 million of which the IDA share was US $ 21.5 million, the contribution of the Government was US $ 0.3 million and local communities were to contribute US $ 3.4 million. Information on actual project cost, actual IDA disbursements and Government and local community contribution are lacking in the ICR. The project originally scheduled to close in November 1999, closed in March 2000. 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives: Though the project was consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy and the government's priorities, the evidence given in the ICR is insufficient to make a conclusive judgement on the achievement of project objectives. 4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts: While there is little information, the ICR does note that the project was largely successful in constructing rural physical infrastructure. 5. Significant Shortcomings (including non-compliance with safeguard policies): While data is lacking, the ICR notes that the physical quality and location of some structures was unsatisfactory. The achievement of management services, training, monitoring and evaluation and project impact studies was unsatisfactory. 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Not Rated The ES does not rate outcome as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to make a conclusive judgement on project performance and outcome. Institutional Dev .: Not Rated Not Rated The ICR rates Institutional Development as Unsatisfactory which is not a formal ICR rating category for Institutional  Development. The ES does not rate Institutional Development as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to make a conclusive judgement on project performance and outcome. Sustainability : Likely Non-evaluable The ES does not rate sustainability as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so. Bank Performance : Satisfactory Not Rated The ES does not rate Bank Performance as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so. Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Not Rated The ES does not rate Borrower Performance as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so. Quality of ICR : Unsatisfactory NOTE ICR rating values flagged with ' * ' don't comply with OP/BP 13.55, but are listed for completeness. NOTE: 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability: (i) Projects which require active participation of communities in building and managing assets at the grassroot level need to be designed recognizing the fact that building capacity in the beneficiaries to do so is time and resource intensive. (ii) Inter donor co-ordination is essential to promote balanced development of the sector and to avoid unnecessary costs and coordination problems for the borrower. In Ghana, MTADP was essentially viewed as a World Bank program by other donors which addressed issues of interest to them on an individual basis without supporting a comprehensive agricultural sector program; (iii) It is essential that similar activities supported by different Bank projects are also co-ordinated. As an example both the Agricultural Sector Investment Project and the National Livestock Services Project addressed the development of livestock water supply. However it is not evident that such activities undertaken by two different Bank projects were part of a coordinated effort. 8. Assessment Recommended? Yes No Why? (i) To make another judgement on various aspects of project performance. The evidence in the ICR is insufficient to make an evaluative judgement on project outcome, institutional development or sustainability. (ii) The project is one of a package of 5 in the agricultural sector which would allow a useful sectoral review. 9. Comments on Quality of ICR: The ICR for this project was produced as a package for five agricultural projects which have closed recently. While it is commendable that the five ICRs in the sector were packaged together under a performance review report, this appears to have significantly short-changed the ICRs themselves. The ICR for the current project is very weak for two main reasons: (i) the available evidence is insufficient to assess the performance of the project; (ii) the standard format for producing an ICR has not been followed.