Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Livestock


  
1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
08/10/2000   
PROJ ID:
P000930
Appraisal
Actual
Project Name:
Livestock
Project Costs(US $M)
 29.06  not available
Country:
Ghana
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 22.45  not available
Sector, Major Sect.:
Livestock,
Agriculture
Cofinancing (US $M)
 none  none
L/C Number:
C2441      
   
Board Approval (FY)
  93
Partners involved
none 
Closing Date
12/31/1998 12/30/1999
         
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
Nalini B. Kumar
Ridley Nelson Ridley Nelson OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The National Livestock Services Project was identified as part of Ghana's Medium Term Agricultural Development Strategy (MTADS). The accompanying program (MTADP) was to establish and support market-led growth in agriculture. The primary project objective was to increase meat, egg and milk production, to raise producer incomes, particularly those of smallholders, and to reduce the financial burden on the Government of services it provides to the livestock sub sector.

b. Components
The project had six components: (a) Animal Health Control; (b) Feed Resource Development; (c) Livestock Water Supply; (d) Breed Improvement; (e) Pilot Dairy Development Scheme; (f) Institution Building.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
As appraised total project cost was US $ 29.06 million of which the IDA share was US $ 22.45 million and the Government of Ghana share was US $ 5.35 million. Beneficiary contribution was to be US $ 1.26 million. The project closed one year behind schedule but there is no mention of the extension in the ICR.


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 judgment on the achievement of project objectives. The ICR notes that "the project's future impact will be partial."

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

While there is no data the ICR indicates that the pilot dairy development scheme was satisfactory.

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

While there is no data provided the ICR indicates the development of community health workers and privatization of veterinary services were largely unsuccessful.
6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Outcome:
Not RatedNot Rated
    The ICR rates outcome as partial which is not a formal ICR rating category and does not convey whether the ICR considers the project to be satisfactory or not. Hence the ES interprets this rating as not rated. The ES itself does not rate outcome as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to make a conclusive judgment on project performance and outcome.
Institutional Dev.:
PartialNot Rated
    The ES does not rate Institutional Development as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so.
Sustainability:
LikelyNon-evaluable
    The ES does not rate sustainability as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so.
Bank Performance:
SatisfactoryNot Rated
    The ES does not rate Bank Performance as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so.
Borrower Perf.:
DeficientNot Rated
    The ICR does not make an unambiguous judgment on borrower performance. In one place (under Principal Performance Ratings) it rates borrower performance as unsatisfactory but in the other (in the text) it rates it as satisfactory. The ES does not rate Borrower Performance as the evidence in the ICR is insufficient to do so.
Quality of ICR:
Unsatisfactory

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

(i) In the case of ambitious projects like the National Livestock Services Project (NLSP) that attempt to kick start a whole industry in the country by simultaneously addressing constraints on several fronts, a realistic time frame for addressing issues is essential. The short duration of the NLSP project was exacerbated by initial implementation tardiness. (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 NLSP 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. Audit Recommended?  Yes

          Why?  (i) To make another judgment on various aspects of project performance. The evidence in the ICR is insufficient to make an evaluative judgment 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 overview.

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.

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