Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Agricultural development support project

1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
Project Name:
Agricultural development support project
Project Costs(US $M)
 4.3  2.6
St. Kitts & Nevis
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 3.0  2.5
Sector, Major Sect.:
Agro-Industry & Marketing,
Cofinancing (US $M)
 0.8  0.0
L/C Number:
C2248; L3332      
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
06/30/1999 06/30/1999
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
John R. Heath
Alain A. Barbu Gregory K. Ingram OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The project aimed "to improve the pace and diversity of St. Kitts and Nevis's agricultural development through (i) changes in the incentive framework, aimed at providing security of land ownership and migrant labor to work in agriculture (particularly sugar); (ii) improvement in agricultural support services and the Government's agricultural planning capacity; and (iii) major changes in the operation of the state-run sugar industry, including its divestiture in the second year of the project"

b. Components
Technical assistance for agricultural development (including leasehold titling, cadastral mapping, land surveying, extension and agricultural planning) and the sugar industry (including interim management and preparation for divestiture).

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

Overall, the project did not meet its objectives. However, (i) a Land Development Act introduced 35-year renewable leases, replacing one-year leases for farm land; ii) the provision of vehicles and communications equipment helped increase the outreach of agricultural extension; and (iii) management of the sugar industry improved during the first two years of implementation----but it was not divested as planned .

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

The sugar industry cash flow broke even in 1992 ("for the first time in many years") owing to tighter financial management; but this upturn was shortlived. The organization and management study led to more efficient organization of the Department of Agriculture and the Land Development Corporation.

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

Project identification and design were seriously flawed. There was little demand for long-term leases (only 12 were issued), mainly because tenants felt secure under the previous tenure arrangements, and because they perceived the cost (they would have to pay for boundary surveying) as too high in relation to the expected return. There was no expansion of the cultivated area, or crop diversification (away from sugar). There were few appropriate crop technology packages available. Tenants derived much of their income off-farm and showed little interest in agricultural development. No agreement was reached on divesiture of the sugar industry.
6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
UnsatisfactoryHighly Unsatisfactory
    Design of this project failed to take account of country priorities and outcome was therefore doomed from the start.
Institutional Dev.:
    Same rating, different terminology
Bank Performance:
DeficientHighly Unsatisfactory
    Same rating, different terminology
Borrower Perf.:
DeficientHighly Unsatisfactory
    Same rating, different terminology
Quality of ICR:

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

(a) Need for full stakeholder participation at the identification and design phase to ensure that project is relevant to client needs.
(b) Need for an effective monitoring and evaluation system.

8. Audit Recommended?  No


9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

A very concise and soundly argued ICR, covering all relevant issues.

© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions