Private enterprise promotion project (PEPP)

Interim evaluation covered 5/84-12/86 and was based on document review, site visits, and interviews with personnel of USAID/SL, the MF&P, the contractor, and SLBDC and with SLBDC clients. Although progress falls short of initial expectations, and none of the SLBDC programs is making a truly significant impact on private sector development, the project, through its Investor Services Program, has already met its target of creating at least 10 new investments, and may produce more. This includes small local ventures aimed at domestic markets, and larger projects involving foreign collaboration and aimed at export markets. The performance of the TA contractor, Coopers & Lybrand (C&L), and its relationship with the SLBDC has hindered project success. In addition to unfortunate timing for the start of its work (after the SLBDC was already functioning), skepticism on the part of the Centre about the value of TA was reinforced by C&L"s provision of some inappropriate consultants. Overall, the TA has contributed only marginally to the project, and the poor relationship has actually detracted from progress. Non-renewal of the contract is recommended. Too many diverse roles were given to the SLBDC, a new institution, which should now refocus on providing services to the small and medium enterprise sector. Also, the SLBDC, which has provided general investment climate profiles as well as specific investor-based profiles and prefeasibility studies, should limit its efforts to the latter, especially to studies whose costs will be shared by clients. SLBDC should continue its programs of entrepreneurial and managerial development, but since the private sector has shown itself unready to utilize the SLBDC to engage the government in open policy dialogue (a major aim of this project), other groups, such as Chambers of Commerce, should take on this function. The SLBDC should primarily use indigenous, not expatriate, TA. Because of the novelty and complexity of the project in comparison with previous USAID/SL experience, more Mission staff should have been assigned to design and implement it. More staff attention and a more direct relationship with the SLBDC (instead of through the MF&P) should be built. Finally, although A.I.D. should continue to support SLBDC operating costs through this project, the Centre should spend most of its time and earn most of its funding from grants or contracts funded by foreign donors or government agencies, and devote only 20% of its attention to delivery of its own program of services.