Impact assessment and institutional analysis : Zambia agricultural training, planning and institutional development, project (611-0075)

External, mid-point evaluation covers the period 9/80-3/84 and is based on document review and interviews with project and other-donor personnel. Despite a number of implementation and management problems (most notably a 2-year start-up delay due to poor US-GRZ relations), the project has begun to have an impact on agricultural policies and policymaking in Zambia. The GRZ has instituted some significant policy changes in response to recommendations based on project studies and follow-up activities. In instances when a policy was not changed (often for non-economic reasons), the recommendations have contributed to active policy dialogue. Long-term activities have contributed to institutional development. The participant training record is outstanding: ten of ten participants have returned to fill positions in which they have the potential to affect agricultural policy. The capacities of local agencies have been upgraded through, e.g., enhancement of the data processing center at the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and the computer center at the Ministry of Agriculture Planning Division (MAWD/PD), development of a library in MAWD, and important work in management training and information dissemination. An unanticipated project benefit has been the coordination of efforts among Zambian agencies, which has led to such first-time activities as a joint MAWD/CSO crop forecasting survey. Other project areas, however, have been less successful. Some work carried out at Iowa State University, such as complex econometric model building, has not been sufficiently integrated into the Zambian context. Relations between GRZ and expatriate staff are strained for many reasons, including a heavy counterpart workload, lack of formal counterpart arrangements, and some expatriates' indifference to improving relations. High recurrent costs for some of the institutions supported by the project is another serious problem; however, policy reforms initiated under the project have the potential to generate savings. Recommendations are made for solving management, communications, and institution-building issues during the remainder of Phase I (a 2-year extension has been approved). Suggestions are also made for a Phase II project. The main conclusion is that - since policy analyses and studies were perhaps relied on too much during Phase I (and were less collaborative than envisioned), and since the pace of policy reform is likely to slow somewhat - Phase II should focus on management systems and procedures, training, and institutional coordination.