| General Information |
Project/Program |
Program |
| Project Name |
Cambodia Strengthening Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Program |
| Duration |
Initiated in October of 2005 and ending September 30, 2008 |
| Donor |
USAID |
| Implementiong Organization |
the Chief of Party, the Deputy Chief, 12 local professionals, 8 support personnel |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Economic & Business |
| Region |
Kratie, Prey Veng, and Svay Rieng, and Kampong Cham |
| Financing |
$5.0 million including a $150,000 dollar add-on for TIP |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
USAID, The Ministry of Agricuture, Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
| Gender |
|
| Impact Analysis |
The project in a narrow but very visible manner is fostering greater public sector accountability -- fomenting interest groups and helping these effectively petition political leaders to address economic grievances. The evaluation team believes that MSME, operating within given restrictive geographic limitations, has appropriately targeted beneficiaries for greatest long term impact. Towards this end, the project expended time and effort on the selection of target value chains. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
Over 19 bilateral and multilateral organizations operate assistance programs, which in total may sum to the equivalent of some 15% of GDP. These are of varying quality and effectiveness. The MSME project enhances the Mission’s ability to promote sensible effective programming within the donor community. Achieving demonstrable results in difficult rural areas where few other donors are operating raises USAID standing in technical discussion. Regarding project management, the evaluators see excellent leadership, a strong well-mentored staff, and consistent application of a successful model and operating style. Innovation, reasonable risk-taking, and taking advantage of unforeseen opportunity are areas of strength. Initially there was a difficult start-up period with a steep learning curve, but that is clearly in the past not the present. Still, even now some problems remain with respect to insuring timely and user-friendly reporting.
|
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
The project has made a pioneering contribution towards helping to link the political-economic dynamics of the country-side to that of the capital. It is commendable that USAID, with a relatively narrow program, is ahead of other donors in this area. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
This evaluation was undertaken by a two person team of experienced (retired) USAID professionals – one an economist and program officer, and the other a business development specialist and private sector officer. The two person evaluation team reviewed project documentation in preparation for the evaluation. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
The contractor budgets in accordance with the contract specified requirements -- e.g., direct and indirect costs. Overall the expenditure rate looks reasonable – as of June 30th some 47% of LOP resources had been expended with roughly 42% of project lifetime remaining. Nonetheless, the lack of programmatic detail in the budget makes it difficult to closely track or program the proportional level of effort against functional activities. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
The MSME has done admirable pioneering work in promoting rural SME development in a narrow range of activities. Moreover, it shows promise with regard to helping address rural economic governance issues. Though successful in terms of its short time frame, implementation of the project concept is still evolving and the activity has not yet reached its full potential. Further, MSME arguably fills a gap in the collective donor program for Cambodia. With the building blocks now in place, a successor project should be considered. |
