Women in development pilot support project Report No: ; Type: Report/Evaluation Memorandum ; Country: Cote d'Ivoire; Region: Africa; Sector: Agriculture Adjustment; Major Sector: Agriculture; ProjectID: P001192 The Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Women in Development (WID) Pilot Support project, supported by Loan 3251-IVC for US$2.2 million equivalent, was approved in FY91. It closed on June 30, 1995, two years behind schedule, and an undisbursed balance of US$0.9 million was canceled. A Norwegian grant (US$0.27 million equivalent) designed to help expand women’s income-earning activities became available shortly after project approval. The grant was closed on December 31, 1995, six months behind schedule, with US$0.23 million equivalent disbursed. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) was prepared by the Africa Regional Office. An evaluation report provided by the borrower in June 1996 and the borrower’s comments on the draft ICR are not included in the ICR because of a printing oversight. As a two-year pilot for a medium-term program to establish a viable process for strengthening support services to women, this project was to be implemented in three subregions through the Ministry for the Advancement of Women (MFPF). The project objectives were to (i) improve participating women farmers’ productivity and ability to market their produce; (ii) upgrade the marketable skills of the urban women enrolled in selected institutes for the education of women; (iii) improve the welfare of rural and urban households benefiting from the project; and (iv) gradually change the way staff (including managers) who provide support services to women perceive women’s socioeconomic role. This last objective was intended to extend to society at large and the women themselves. The MFPF was to work closely with the relevant line ministries to ensure that all improved their capacity to reach women clients. Measures to monitor and evaluate implementation were included, as well as studies on women’s access to services and training. Implementation problems arose from the beginning. Although the project was extended twice, the achievement of physical objectives was modest and achievement of institutional objectives was negligible. This first WID-only project to be completed by the Bank raises concerns about how best to supervise and learn from innovative pilot projects. First, delays in implementation were extensive (some key activities started only a few months before closing) and the borrower complied with only 1 out of 17 covenants on time, but the supervision missions did not rate the project as a problem project until six months before closing. Second, although staff involvement was intensive—over 185 staff-weeks to support loan disbursements of US$1.3 million equivalent—a gender specialist became involved only during the final 3 out of 12 supervision missions; very few of the planned monitoring and evaluation activities were implemented; data on results are unavailable; no copy of completed studies could be found by the ICR team; and the 1993 midterm evaluation is not in Bank files. Given the pioneering nature of this project and the fact that it was designed as a pilot for future lending, the Bank should have ensured better technical support and full documentation of results and impact. Like the ICR, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) rates project outcome as unsatisfactory, institutional development as negligible, and Bank performance as unsatisfactory. OED rates project sustainability as unlikely (the ICR rates it as uncertain) because the final supervision mission noted that the limited training and services activities that had been undertaken were already slowing down. The ICR notes that gender issues are being addressed in recent lending for agricultural extension but does not include plans for future extension services and vocational training by the borrower. The ICR is satisfactory: it documents clearly and thoroughly the many delays and problems encountered during implementation. However, the ICR does not draw specific lessons related to the WID-only focus of the project. Instead, the lessons learned are generic statements applicable to many projects—e.g., the need for sequential implementation of cross-sectoral objectives and the importance of establishing an interministerial committee early on to promote coordination across sectors. An audit is planned.