Investment promotion and export development (IPED)

External evaluation covered the period FY87-12/89. The project was quite successful. New investments were made, jobs were created, and the regional and national promotion agencies strengthened. The regional institution, Eastern Caribbean Investment Promotion Service (ECIPS), was established in a remarkably short time and performed exceptionally well. ECIPS uses all the recognized promotional tools in investment promotion and has appropriate structures, operations, and management. In comparison with other Caribbean and Central American promotion agencies, ECIPS excels in effectiveness. While some countries feel that ECIPS does not give them equal treatment, this perception is expected to change in the short- to medium-term. Assistance to the national investment promotion agencies has been well targeted, and the agencies have shown great progress in terms of budgeting, staff development, and investor search capability. the national investment promotion agencies was highly praised. Also, the agencies" general managers benefitted from opportunities to meet colleagues and ECIPS staff at quarterly meetings and by participating in TA programs. On the negative side, the project structure was cumbersome, and administration by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean Countries (OECS) was not as capable as desired, which led to problems in implementation and the disbursement of funds. Moreover, closer collaboration between ECIPS and the national agencies is needed to ensure the sustainability of ECIPS. It is recommended that the project create a stronger centralized executive management team, expand the ECIPS board of directors to include one member from each national agency, and relocate ECIPS to New York, where most of the countries already have trade representation. Several comments are offered by the Mission. (1) The recommendations made by the evaluators in regard to project structure and management do not have firm support from any of the parties. (2) Although it determined that ECIPS would always require external funding, the evaluation team offered no suggestions in regard to financial sustainability in general or self-financing mechanisms in particular. (3) The evaluation finding that some national agencies are more cost-effective then ECIPS is not based on adequate data, is not endorsed by any of the parties, and overlooks the fact that ECIPS and the national agencies are as different as apples and oranges.