Evaluation of the Bay Islands integrated rural development project

External final evaluation covers the period 1/83-5/86 (prior to the project"s 5/31/86 end) and is based on document review, site visits, and interviews with project staff and beneficiaries. The project"s implementation arrangements reflected its complexity. PADF implemented the project with help from VITA, the local Asociacion Pro-Desarrollo de las Islas de la Bahia (APRODIB), and the National Water and Sanitation Service (SANAA). During the project"s initial emphasis on the water supply (WS) component, PADF left management in the hands of the onsite project director seconded from VITA. PADF involvement later increased under the auspices of the new APRODIB Executive Director. The project achieved most WS objectives (although sustainability of some of the systems is uncertain), all of its small business development (SDB) objectives, and many of the objectives relating to the institutional development (ID) of APRODIB, although in the latter case much remains to be accomplished. The health and sanitation education component never had verifiable objectives, and its impact is unknown. APRODIB, originally the development committee for Roatan, where most of the project"s activities have taken place, has ambitious plans to expand the SBD program and to expand existing WS systems in two of the larger towns. With these plans in mind, the following recommendations are made. (l) WS: Hire an engineer skilled in planning, building, operating, and maintaining rural and small-town water and sewage disposal systems; obtain agreement on contracting from the Municipality of Roatan. (2) SBD: Separate the loan program from all other operations; adopt the financial and decisionmaking structure of a financial institution; and add a formal training and TA component, even though operating costs may increase. (3) ID: Restructure APRODIB into 4 cost-centers (development finance, water and sanitation, administration, and other projects); change membership to sponsorship; and submit revised proposals for external funding. Two general lessons learned are that: (1) integrated rural development projects may be more difficult to staff, equip, and implement on an island than elsewhere; and (2) two organizations working as partners need to have a clear understanding of each other"s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the difference between institutional development and the implementation of field (productive) projects. Detailed analyses of, and lessons learned from, each of the four components are included.