world bank document...document of the world bank for official use only resort .o. 7033project...
TRANSCRIPT
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Resort .o. 7033
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
EL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT
(LOAN 1571-ES)
December 11, 1987
Country Department IILatin America and the Caribbean Regional Office
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients oniv in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
KM OFemAL ONLYTHE WOILC ANK
Washngton. 1.C 20433U.S.A.
0.e i4 Ow,i*C.'OpKaeunnIm ,6NIM~
December 11, 1987
MEHORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Project Completion Report: El Salvador Industrial andAgricultural Trainins Prolect (Loan 1571-ES)
Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled'Project Completion Report: El Salvador - Industrial and AgriculturalTraining Project (Loan 1571-ES)" prepared by the Latin America and theCaribbean Regional Office. Under the modified system for projectperformance auditing further evaluation of this project by the OperationsEvaluation Department has not been made.
Attachment
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performanceof their oMcial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be discsed without World DBak authorimtion.
GLOSSARY
CCtS Centro de Ca,acitacion an Servicio(Insorvice Training Center)
CCR Contra do Cavacitacion Rural(Rural Training Center)
CFP Contro d* Formacion Profesional(Vocational Training Center)
CENAP Contro Nacional do Productividad/linist*rio de Economia(National Productivity Centr/Mlinistry of Economy)
CENCAP Centro Nacional de Cavacitaci;n Atrolecuaria(National Center for Agricultural Training)
CENTA Centro Nacional de Tecnoloaia Agrovocuaria(Agricultural Technology Center)
DGFPE Direccion General do Formaci6n Profesional y Empleo(General Directorate of Vocational Training and Employment)
DGG Direccion General de Ganaderia(General Directorate of Livestock)
DGRNR Direcci6n General de Recursos Naturales Renovables(General Directorate of Natural Resources)
BNA Escuela Nacional de Agricultura(National Agricultural School)
GOES Gobierno de El Salvador(Government of El Salvador)
ISTA Instituto Salvadorefio de Transformaci6n Aararia(Salvadorean Institute of Agrarian Reform)
MAG Ministerio de Agricultura v Ganaderia(Ministry of Agriculture)
ME Ministerio de Economia(Ministry of Economy)
Glossary (contd.)
MIPLAN Miinisterio de Planificacion v Coordinacion del DesarrolloEconomico y Social -(Ministry of Planning and Coordination of Economic and SocialDevelopment)
PNUD-FAO Programa de las Naciones Unidas Para el Desarrollo - FAO(United Nations Development Program - FAU)
SUP Sub-Unidad do Provecto - Proyecto CENCAP/BIRF(Project Sub-Unit - Project CENCAP/IBRD)
UP Unidad de Provecto(Project Unit)
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
EL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT(LOAN 1571-ES).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Preface ... ....... *0.......se............................. Basic Data Sheet ... ..................... iijEvaluation Summary .................................. vii
I. PROJECT GENERATION............. 1
Socio-Economic Development and Human Resources .......... 1Project Conception and Justification .................... 2Project Description. . .............. . . . . 2Project Amendments............ 3
II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... ....... . .... 4
Implementation Overview. ..... 4Project Management Org anizanion. ...............n z 4Physical Implementation...... ............ . 5Specialist Services and Fellowships ..... ............... 7Compliance with Loan Covenants ............. ............. 8Bank Performance ...... .............................. .... 8
III. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ..... ........................ 8
Project Costs ........ ............... . ................... 8Financing and Disbursement .. ..................... 9Unit Capital Costs and Space Allocation ................ . 10
IV. OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT .......... ........... 10
Physical Facilities ....... .............................. 10Educational and Institutional Outcomes ............... ... 11A. Industrial Training Component ....................... 11B. The National Productivity Center Component (CENAP) .. 12C. Agricultural Training Component ..................... 13
V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ..................... .... 15
A* Coonclusions...... 15So Lessons 16
ANNEXES
I Output from Rural Training Centers (1982-1985) ........ 19II Staff at the Rural Training Centers
and the Inservice Training Centero..o........... oooe. 21III Technical Ass3 stance in Agricultural
Training*.o.o*oe99999999.....999999 **** 22IV Compliance with Loan Covensnts.............. 23V Estimated and Actual Project Costs by
VI Detailed Project Costs..* ..... 9** *999999 26VII Analysts of Construction Costs ..................... 27VIII Breakdown ofProject Financing............. 00.0......... 28IX Disbursement .............................. so.**......... 29X Implementation and Disbursement Profile............ 30XI Analysis of Cost and Space Per Trainee........... 31
XII A Note on the Educational Aspects ofthe Project ..................................999999. , 32
XIII Notes on Physical rinplmentation ....................... 40
Charts
I Structural Organization of the General Directorateof Training and Employment.
*1~~~~~~lDtie Po-tCss................................2
ZL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIL AND AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT(LOAN 1571-ES)
PREACE
1. This project completion report for the Industrial and AgriculturalTraining Project In tl Salvador (Loan 1571-KS), carried out with the helpof a US$9 million Bank loan at a total astimated cost of US$12.7 million,compares the project objectives stated at appraisal with actual achieve-ments. It also presents an analysis of the project, including successes a*well as drawbacks In implementation. The Board approved the loan on May18, 1978. The loan was signed on June 23, 1978 and became effective onOctober 27, 1978. The original closing date was set for December 31, 1981but after two extensions was finally sot for June 30, 1985. The finaldisbursement of the loan took place on February 25, 1986.
2. The completion report wvs prepared by the Latin American andCaribbean Regional Office following a mission to E1 Salvador betweenOctober 6 and 10, 1986.1 Preparation of the report was based on:
(a) A draft project completion report prepared by the Project Sub-Unit(SUP) on the agricultural training "spects of the project; and anincomplete draft project completion report prepared by the ProjectUnit (UP) on the industrial training aspects of the project, in-cluding the Productivity Center. Both draft reports are availablein LAC Files.
(b) Bank files, including the Board Resolution (May 18, 1978) andtranscript of proceedingss the Loan Agreement; the AppraisalReport (No.1339a-ES dated April 21, 1978); the working papersprepared for the project, and the supervision and progressreoorts; and
(c) the finditgs of the mission.
3. In relation to point (c) above, the mission's task was subject tothe following constraints:
(a) an earthquake hit El Salvador on October 10, 1986, while themission was in the field. This prevented the mission from com-pleting its task and gathering all the necessary information;
1/ The mission comprised Messrs. T. Ramos Saco (Agricultural Educator),R. Hemingway (Technical Educator) and R. Etheredge (Architect), allconsultants.
- ii -
(b) the SUP in charge of the agricultural training part of the projectwas dissolved prematurely, and its key *x-staff were unavailableto provide full *asistace to the mission; and
(c) * new director of CENCAP, appointed shortly before the mission'sarrival, wvs unable to provide first-hand information on projectimplementation.
In accordance with the revised procedures for project performancereporting, this PCR was read by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED)but the project was not audited by OED staff. The draft PCR was sent tothe Borrower and its agencies for comments in October 1987. No co-nentswere received.
- £11 -
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
EL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIAL Ah. AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT(LOAN 1571-ES)
BASIC DATA SHEET
KEY PROJECT DATA
A. The Loan
AppraisalEstimates Actual
Total Project Cost (US$ Million) 12.7 13.5Loan Amount (US$ Million) 9.0 9.0Amount Expected to be Cancelled(US$ Million) 0.0 0.0
Overrun (Z) 6.3Date of Completion of PhysicalComponent 09/81 12/84
Proportion Completed by OriginalCompletion Date (Z) 100 25.9a/
Based on diabur.mnent (ee Annex IX).
Borrower: Republic of El SalvadorFiscal Year: January 1 - December 31
- iv -
B. Disbursement Schodulo(USS '000)
Proposed Percent of Actual Percent i Profile forAccumulated Proposed Aecumu1ated Actual LUtin America
TY/ Sm Disbursements Total Disbursement Total Region (Edue.)
1979 1 154 1.7 0.0 02 711 7.9 89 1.0 3
1980 1 1,383 15.4 365 4.1 82 2,641 29.3 405 4.5 14
1981 1 5.266 58.5 577 6.4 202 8,222 91.4 1,231 13.7 27
1982 1 9,000 100.0 2,333 25.9 352 2,926 32.5 42
1983 1 3,254 36.2 512 4,134 45.9 59
1984 1 4,633 51.5 682 5,324 59.2 75
1985 1 6,069 67.4 822 6,900 76.7 88
1986 1 8,226 91.4 932 9,000 100.0 97
100
C. Currency
Name of Currency: ColonAppraisal Yaar: US$l - 2.5 coloneoCompletion Year: US$1 - 2.5 colones
D. Chronology
Plan Revisions Actual
First Mentioned in File 09-26-75Government Application 06-76Negotiations Started 04-12-78Board Approval 05-18-78 05-18-78Loan Signing Date 06-23-78 06-23-78Effectiveness Date 10-27-78 10-27-78Completion Date 12-31-81 06-30-84
06-30-85Closing Date 06-30-82 06-30-84
06-30-85
Final Disbursement a/ 02-12-86
/ Disbursement was suspended on 81-31-S1 due to civil disorders, and wasreinitiated on 06-27-S1. Reinitiatlon of partial disbursements took place on 04-29-S1 (Technical Assistance and Fellowships).
E. Mission Data
Month No. of No. of Staff ReportType of Mission Year Days People Weeks Date
Reconnaissance 02-76 12 3 6.0 03-16-76Preparation/Appraisal 06-76 25 5 18.0 10-76Post-Appraisal (Management) 09-76 7 1 1.0 09-24-76Post-Appraieal 11-76 4 2 1.6 12-10-76Post-Appraisal 8-77 4 1 0.8 08-23-77Post-Appraisal a/ 01 to 02-78 17 4 8.0 02-28-78Negotiations 04-78 3 1 0.6
/ Th- delay in processing the project and the high number of post-appraisalmissionn wore due to resignation of Ministers involved In the projoct; aGovernment request to postpone the project; a change of Government; anddelay In attaining project *ffectivenees.
- vi -
Month/ Number People and Staff- Report Number of DaysSupervision Year of Das Composition Weeks Date Between Missions
1 11-78 2.5 2 A, VTS 1.0 12-20-7898
2 02-79 3.0 1 A 0.6 03-28-79292
3 12179 12.0 el 1 A 1.0 01-14-80919
4 06/82 9.0 2 A, VTS 2.0 07-22-82b/356
5 07-83 9.0 el 2 A, ATS 1.8 08-12-83331
6 06-84 6.0 t/ 3 A, VTS, E 2.1 07-09-84221
7 01-85 6.0 */ 3 A, VTS, E 2.0 02-15-85
TOTAL: 10 5
Key to Symbols: A * ArchitectE * Educator
VTS a Vocational Training SpeciallotAS Agricultural Training Specialist
pj A total of 6 days were spent on this project.k/ About two staff-weeks were spent on this report.sA A total of two days were spent on this project by the Architect and seven days by
the Agricultural Training Specialist.i/ The Architect devoted about four days to this project; the Vocational Training
Specialist six days; and the Educator participated in key metings.. The Architect spent theae days working on this project; the Vocational Training
Specialist six days; and the Educator participated in key m"etings.
F. Allocation of Loan Proceeds
Category Oriminal Loan Actual Disbursements
(1) Civil Works and RelatedProfessional Services 3,300,000.00 3,115,390.88
(2) Furniture and Equipment(a) Imported 2,200,000.00 2,631,842.87(b) Locally Procured 400,000.00 310,149.45
(3) Project Unit Staff SalariesSurve) of Training Needs,and Technical Assistance 2,200,000.00 2,942,616.80
j (4) Unallocat d 900,000.00 -
Total: 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00
- vii -
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
EL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT(LOAN 1571-ES)
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Introduction
This project was identified, prepared and appraised by two Bankmissions in February and June 1976. This extremely tight upstream schedulecould, however, not be maintained: four post-appraisal missions becamenecessary and it was not before May 1978 that the project was presented tothe Board. Implementation lasted seven years (rather than four as expectedat appraisal), requiring two closing date extensions of first two years andthen one year. The loan of US$9 million equivalent was fully disbursed onFebruary 12, 1986.
Project Oblectives and Content
The project aimed at enhancing the productivity and incomes offarmers and agricultural workers and of industrial workers and forementhrough the creation of a network of nonformal training centers. Morespecifically, the project was to provide eight rural training centers,three industrial training centers, one ir.service training center and oneproductivity center; ten mobile training units; and related adm'nistrativefacilities. This physical investment program was to be supplemented by asurvey of vocational training needs and technical assistance (PCR, para.1.5). The Bank loan of US$9 million was to cover 71Z of the anticipatedtotal cost of US$12.7 million, and Government funds the remainder.
Implementation Experience
Project implementation was seriously affected by protracted civilunrest which in 1981 led to a half-year suspension of loan disbursements(PCR, paras. 2.4 and 2.21) and which, together with rapid inflation andsevere budget constraints, brought about a significant reduction in projectscope: training centers in the most troubled areas had to be excluded fromthe investment program (two out of eight rural training centers, two out ofthree indust4ial training centers, and five out of ten mobile trainingunits (PCR, para. 1.6, Table 2 and Annex VI). Conditions in the countryalso prevented a regular program of supervision missions to be carried out:during the seven-year implementation a total of only seven supervisionmissions could be fielded and during a period of almost two-and-a-halfyears (December 1979 to June 1982), no mission at all could take place(PCR, Basic Data and para. 2.20). In addition, coverage by specialty wasvery uneven: while an architect participated in every one of the seven
_ viii -
supervision missions and a vocational training specialist in four of them,only one agricultur&l educator ever supervised the most widespread projectcomponent--clearly an unsatisfactory situation (PCR, para. 2.20).
Apart from civil unrest, delays du to unfamiliarity of projectstaff with Bank procedures, initial difficulties in setting up the proj-sct's organizational framework, and inter-ministerial rivalries interferedwith project implementation. The last problem was deemed of sufficientseverity by the authors of the PCR to be singled out for closer scrutiny(PCR, para. 2.6).
Because of the reductions in the scope of the project, totalproject cost exceeded estimated costs only slightly (US$13.5 million vs.US$12.7 mlllion). This reduced the loan-financed portion f the projectfrom about 71 to 671. In terms of unit cost, however, ov. .:uns were con-siderables construction costs per training place, for example, amounted toan average of US$7,704 equivalent, compared to an appraisal estimate ofUS$4,364, a difference of more than 76Z (Annex XI).
Results
The PCR mission judged the design of the six agricultural trainingcenters adequate whereas the in-service training centers appeared slightlyoverdesigned. By contrast, the one remaining vocational training center(in San Salvador) has been constructed on an unsuitable site, with result-Ing crowded conditions and unsatisfactory lighting and ventilation. Thetraining and administrative facilities for the national productivity centerconstructed on the same site were not yet being used by the intended bene-ficiaries at the time of the PCR mission because of transportation problems(PCR, paras. 2.12-2.13).
With the exception of the dormitories (which are being occupied at301 above nominal capacity), the rural training center facilities arejudged sufficient (PCR, para. 4.2). However, they are used much lessintensively than was anticipated at appraisal (on average only 27 weeks peryear vs. 40). In addition, changes in program content have led to a verylow utilization of workshop facilities and equipment (PCR, para. 4.2 andAnnex XII, paras. 20-22).
For the industrial training center, utilization is even lesssatisfactory (132) and appeared to be still deteriorating at the time ofthe PCR mission; the mobile training units have never been used as ljanned.The reason seems to be mainly in insufficient funding--Government budgetsare inadequate and the modern industrial sector appears to oppose financialcontributions through a wage levy (PCR, para. 4.5). In addition, it seemsthat unsettled political and economic conditions in the past have createdeconomic and social problems of such dimensions as to overwhelm concernswith marpower qualifications and industrial productivity.
In response to this situation, the Government has shifted thefocus of training from industrial skill acquisition to basic training tohelp the poorest members of the community gain a livelihood. Upgrading ofindustrial workers is still being carried out as a subsidiary activity,
-ix -
with the intake being arranged through contacts with enterprises and dimen-sioned in line with budgetary resources (PCR, para. 4.6).
Sustainabilitv
The question of the longer-term prospects of the project institu-tions hinges on future political developments in the country. At the timeof the completion mission, the outlook was not very encouraging: theuncertain political situation severely affected the Government's budgetarysituation and hence, its ability to finance the network of trainingcenters. Fortunately, the design of the facilities was such as to requireonly minimal maintenance (PCR, para. 4.1). However, even this level offunding was not attained (PCR, paras. 2.14 and 2.19).
Insufficient allocation of funds for the operation of the projectinstitutions is seen as a more serious shortcoming: in 1985 trainingcourses at the National Productivity Center reached only 302 of the levelsanticipated (PCR, para. 4.9). The very low utilization coefficient for thevocational training center has already been discussed in an earlier para-graph. Th- rural training centers are better off in this respect, aswitnessed by the large number of trainees (more than double the appraisaltarget in 1985) (PCR, para. 4.12). Financial constraints are being miti-gated by USAID assistance (PCR, para. 5.3). However, the changes inproject content have led both to a shortening of courses and to the hiringof additional instructors (PCR, paras. 4.13 and 4.15), both with negativeimplications for internal efficiency.
, ,~~FindinRts
It is ditficult to derive generally applicable conclusions from aproject whose implementation and operation has been affected so much bypolitical and economic anomalies. Given the difficulties encountered, theachievements of the project, particularly of the agricultural trainingcomponent, are creditable. For the years ahead, adequate funding for theoperation and maintenance of project facilities would appear to be the mostimportant prerequisite- for the consolidation of the project's achievements.
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
EL SALVADOR
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROJECT(LOAN 1571-ES)
I. PROJECT GENERATION
Socio-Economic Development and Human Resources
1.1 The main problem facing the Government during the projectgeneration period (1976-78) was a high unemployment rate, resulting frominsufficient economic growth and a high population growth rate. Despitethe moderate growth of the modern sector, its employment opportunities wereinsufficient to absorb the excess labor from the large agricultural sector.The serious rural unemployment situation was attributed in part to thestructure of agricultural production, which in turn was partly due to theconcentration of land ownership. The thrust of the Government'sdevelopment strategy (1978-1982) was to change the structure of productionin the agricultural sector (which accounted for about half of allemployment) in the medium term, and diversify the economy (mainly throughindustrial development) in the long term.
1.2 Implementation of the Government's development strategy showedthat the most acute shortage was expected among skilled and semi-skilledagricultural workers and farmers, and skilled and semi-skilled industrialworkers. At that stage, the first priority for human resources developmentwas to organize systematic, non-formal training programs to supplement theformal eduoation system. It appeared that the formal system would not beable to meet the requirements for newly trained manpower, let alone theneed to substantially upgrade existing workers to enhance theirproductivity and mobility. The implications for human resource policieswere to: (a) reinforce rural extension and training services;(b) strengthen industrial training at the skilled and semi-skilled level;and (c) extend management training to small-scale entrepreneurs and middle-level supervisors in industry.
1.3 When the Project was appraised, the following key training issuesand problems were identified:
(a) For agricultural training:
(i) lack of organized inservice training programs;
(ii) a tenuous linkage between agricultural training and therural development process;
-2-
(iii) little emphasis given to the training of small-scaleformers, agricultural workers *nd rural women; and
(iv) lack of a systematic evaluation of programs and trainees.
(b) For industrial training:
(i) the lack of training relevant to industrial priorities dueto the emphasis on programs for out-of-school youth;
(ii) the lack of a national training system that allows for theparticipation of employers and worker representatives inthe msnagement of training; the poor coordination mongthe agencien providing training; low financialcontribution toward training costs by employers; andinadequate planring of training activities;
(iii) lack of an adequate training budget provided by theMinistry of Labor;
(iv) absence of relevant curriculum and teaching materials; andlack of a national standards, testing and certificationsystem;
(v) lack of adequately-trained staff and instructors at theMinistry of Labor; and
(vi) inadequate supply of trained workers.
Prolect Conception and Justification
1.4 The lack of a non-formal training system that would address theinservice training needs of agricultural services staff and agriculturalworkers was a constraint to implementing a technolog/ transfer andimproving the quality of agricultural services, particularly to small- andmedium-size farm holders. On the industrial side, the establishment of aself-financing training authority was expected to resolve the main issuesfacing that sector: lack of financing, lack of coordination with theindustrial sector as well as other training agencies, and the low qualityand relevance of training. In this respect, the project had two generalobjectives: (a) to establish a nationwide infrastructure of non-formalagricultural and industrial training; and (b) increase the productivity andincome of small- and medium-size farmers, agricultural workers, skilled andsemi-skilled industrial workers and their supervisors.
Proiect Description
1.5 The project content at appraisal is described below:
(a) construction, equipping and furnishing of the institutionsindicated in Table 1:
-3-
Table 1: INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN TEO PROJECT AT APPRAISAL
No. *t Institution.Ro.lae m nt Now Trin.. PIle
a. Agricultural Training 9 U0
(1) Rural Training Canter (CCR) 1 329(il) In-service Training Center (CCES) 1 49
b. Industrial Training l 12 1.149
(7) San Sakvador Center and CentralAdminltration 1 S6
(li) San Miguel Center 1 249(iii) Santa Ana Center 1 220(iv) Mobile Training Unite If 120
c. Management and Supervisory Trainins 1 1I"(National Productivity Center)
Total 1 22 l-es
(b) conducting a model survey of detailed vocational training needs;and
(c) related technical assistance, comprising 26 man-years ofspecialist services and 15 man-years of fellowships for trainingabroad.
Proiect Amendments
1.6 On August 25, 1982, due to the shortage of counterpart funds andthe location of some of the project centers in areas of civildisobedience, two rural training centers located at La Union and Sta. Rosade Lima (items in a.(i) above) and two industr'al training centers (item b.(ii) and (iii)) were cancelled. In other modifications of the project thattook place on May 29, 1984, five mobile units (item (iv)) were cancelled,the classroom facilities of the Agricultural In-service Training Center(item a.(ii) above) were expanded from a capacity of 40 to 80 students, andthe technical assistance program was increased by 103 man-months. Threeexperts were dropped from the program. No increase in Bank allocation wasmade in either case, but there was a re-allocation by categories.
-4-
II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Implemntation Overview
2.1 Project implementation, envisaged at Appraisal to be four years(1978-1982), actu-lly lasted about seven years (1978-1985). Delays inimplementation resulted from: frequent changes in top-level governmentpositions, delays in selection and acquisition of construction sites,shortages of counterpart funding, and general civil unrest in most of thecountry.
2.2 During Appraisal, site acquisition was not felt to be aconstraint. No problems were encountered in obtaining sites for the CCRs.Selection and acquisition of most Vocational Training Component sites,including re-zoning of the CFP site in San Salvador, took 18 months longerthan originally envisaged. This delayed construction until the fourth yearof the project, and increased the cost of the civil works component by overone-half.
2.3 Delay in project commencement due to unfamiliarity with Bankprocedures, delays in organization and continuing inflation caused anincrease in project costs, which could not be absorbed even by increasedcounterpart funding. Thus a reduction in overall project scope wasmutually agreed to by the Bank and the Government (para. 3 of Highlights).
2.4 The Bank discontinued disbursements for the period January 31-June 27, 1981 due to civil disturbances which prevented safe Banksupervision of the project. Further financial constraints were placed onthe project when the Government froze project funds from February 1982until nearly July 1982. As a result, the construction contract for CFPfacilities was not signed until October 1982, almost one year after bidshad been received and evaluated, and costs had to be readjusted. The CFPconstruction was satisfactorily completed and became operational inDecember 1984, three years later than anticipated.
2.5 In spite of financial difficulties, construction of five CCRs wasstarted in January 1981 and completed that same year. These CCRs becameoperational in January 1982. The remainder of the facilities under theAgricultural Training Component were completed by June 1983.
Proiect Management Organization
2.6 Although the appraisal envisaged the establishment of a singleProject Unit (UP) assisted by a sub-unit for the agricultural component(SUP), a satisfactory working relationship could not be developed betweenimplementation units in separate ministries because of inter-ministryrivalries. As a result, two independent implementation units were formedalmost from the beginning, both units reporting directly to the Bank withlittle, if any, coordination between the two. This issue needs to beaddressed more carefully in future projects.
-5-
2.7 Staffing of the two project units was similar. Each had aDirector, either an architect or engineer to direct the construction, and aperson in charge of procuring furniture and equipment. Support staffincluded secretaries and accounting personnel. The continuity ofimplementation management was an important factor contributing to theoverall success of the project. With the exception of one change in theSUP Director slot, no changes were made in the leadership of theimplementation units during the life of the project.
2.8 The services of a physical planning specialist to asoist the UPwere envisaged during appraisal, but records do not indicate that theseservices were actually provided (with the exception of technical assistancethrough the ILO in preparing equipment lists).
2.9 Monthly reports sent to the Bank by the UP/SUP would have beenmore useful had they contained more detailed quantitative informationregarding contracts. Also, cost overruns and additions were not clearlyexplained and justified in these reports.
2.10 Most UP staff continued to work in the CFP component during thismission. They were knowledgeable about the project and project files werereadily available to the mission. The SUP staff now work for outsideentities and project files were not easily accessible. This made itdifficult for the mission to obtain information on the agriculturaltraining component while in El Salvador.
Physical Implementation
2411 Project scope was reduced to compensate for the effects ofinflation and cost overruns. The CCRs at Santa Rosa de Lima and La Unionand the CFPs at Santa Ana and San Miguel were deleted from the project (seeTable 2).
-6-
Tablo 2: LOCATION OF CCRs CONSTWCT AND DELETED PROME TPOJECT, BYAOheuLTUluL 1QION
CeoWelty (lo rdtng)Deleted
Location of CC*e Coastruct.d from theReglon o.. Name of Resion Do9ertusat Loealite by the Proj2ct Project
I Western Ste. Ana Toxistseqp 49 -Abachapsa Ahmuaapan 49 -
11 Control Chalatoeap Nuevo Ceaspcie- 49 -La LIberted Son AWree J ! 4 -
KII Centrol-Eastern Son Vicente Ste Crux Porrillo 49Cabalas ouacotecti 49 -
IV Estern Usuluten Ushluten 49 -
La Union La Union - 40
249 so
g/ Inservico Training (CCE) - Clssroom capacity was extended to 80 place..
2.12 For the vocational training component, the Ministry of Laborconstructed and equipped facilities for manpower training and developmentat San Salvador. On the same site, the Ministry of Economy constructedoffices and classrooms to be used by CEWP. However, these offices andclassrooms have never been occupied by CENAP because of the difficulty inarranging transportation for participants.
2.13 The building design for the CCRs was adequate, while design forthe CCE located in San Andres could have been simpler and less costly. Theoffices and shops at the CFP In San Salvador have been constructed on acrowded site and natural light and ventilation in the instructional area isinadequate. The site limits future expansion of the teaching areas. Theseinadequacies show serious design and construction deficiencies, whichshould have been corrected during construction (see Annex XIII). Generallyspeaking, construction of all CCR facilities was satisfactory.
2.14 Inventories of furniture and equipment are not being adequatelykept by the agencies involved and some of the CCR vehicles have beentransferred to the Agricultural Regional Offices. Virtually no maintenanceis being performed on the CCRs physical facilities; only minor maintenanceof facilities and furnishing is being carried out at CFP facilities.
-7-
Specialist Services and Fellowships
2.15 A total of 322 man-months of experts and 261 man-months offellowships were provided. This is in excess of the amount planned atappraisal (Table 3). During implementation, the experts in standards,tests and certification of employment services were canceled and the fundsredistributed to the other experts in the industrial component. Thespecialist in physical planning was never contracted.
Table 3: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Planned Man-Months Delivered Man-MonthsComponent Experts Fellowships Experts Fellowships
Agriculture (FAO) 84 70 84 95Industry (ILO) 159 103 136 71Management 60 103 102 10Physical Planning 12 - - -Government - Industry - - 85
Total: 315 184 322 261
2.16 The technical assistance implemented by the ILO lost part of itseffectiveness because of its early scheduling in relation to theconstruction program. Better coordination would have increased the impactand ensured better retention of the Salvadoran counterparts. Theassistance delivered by Tahal Consulting Engineers was considered effectiveand was extended by 15 months in 1985.
2.17 The expert services for the agricultural training component wasimplemented by FAO under contract with UNDP, as part of a larger andbroader FAO assistance to the Government of El Salvador (see Annex III).This arrangement made it difficult to identify and clearly separate Bank-financed assistance from the services of the overall FAO program. In theareas of marketing, agro-industries and evaluation, assistance provided wasdifferent from what was set out in the terms of reference (contained in theBank working documents). Despite some discrepancies in the trainingapproach between FAO and CENCAP which occurred during the last year ofFAO's assistance, the Borrower considered FAO's program adequate andhelpful. An early clarification and redirection of the assistance approachprovided in certain areas, such as evaluation of outputs from the trainingprogram, would have been helpful. The benefits received by nationalcounterparts from inservice training were an important contribution of theassistance program.
2.18 The 70 man-months shown at appraisal for the FAO fellowshipprogram were surpassed with a total of 95 man-months, at nearly 60 percentof the appraisal co3t estimate. The fellowships abroad program wascomplicated by constant changes in authorities and cumbersome procedures.Therefore, the nuzrber of staff sent abroad was greatly reduced and thenumber of local fellowships was increased. Students were not able to studyin all the originally planned areas of study because of the change ingovernment agricultural policy. This also reflected in CENCAP's program.
Compliance with Loan Covenants
2.19 The Borrower complied with the majority of Loan Covenants (seeAnnex IV), with the exception of: (a) the National Vocational TrainingCentre to ensure coordination of project execution, because of the creationof two Project Units; (b) the establishment of an effective monitoring andevaluation system by CENCAP; (c) an annual CENAP evaluation of trainingprograms; (d) the establishment of a vocational training standards, testingand certification system; (e) opening the facilities of the VocationalTraining Center to the productivity center staff and vice versa (sinceCENAP project administration and training activities have not beentransferred to the project center); and (f) the adequate maintenance ofagricultural training institution buildings (for which no specific budgethas been allocated). A maintenance budget has been allocated for theindustrial center, but maintenance is still inadequate.
Bank Performance
2.20 Bank supervision missions were not carried out on a regular basisdue to civil unrest and the resulting lack of adequate security. More than930 days elapsed between the third (12/10/79) and fourth (6/30/82)supervision missions, at a time when implementation was affected by majorfinancial and political problems. It is felt that during such criticaltimes some form of indirect supervision ought to be devised, such ascalling UP personnel to Headquarters or supervising through the UNDPoffice. Moreover, during the entire implementation period there was onlyone mission by an agricultural specialist and four by an industrialtraining specialist. This is clearly inadequate.
2.21 Due to delayed implementation and the inability to safelysupervise the projects, disbursements were suspended by the Bank for aboutfive months beginning on January 31, 1981. This suspension was ineffectivebecause even after disbursements were reinstated, Bank missions wer-e unableto safely supervise sites outside San Salvador and project implementationdid not accelerate.
9
III. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING
Proiect Costs
3.1 Even after a reduction In scope, the overall project cost (US$13.5million) exceeded the appraisal estimate (US$12.7 million) by 6.3 percent,or about US$0.8 million. More than 66 percent of this overrun occurred incivil works and site development (see Annexes V and VI). Principal factorswhich caused cost increases over appraisal estimates were: (a) higher thananticipated inflation; (b) underestimates of unit construction and sitedevelopment costs; (c) unforeseen site difficulties; and (d) implementationdelays.
3.2 Table 4 below compares the expected price increases used duringappraiaal with the actual consumer price increaser as listed in theInternational Financial Statistics Yearbook.
':7
Table 4: ESTIMALTED APPRAISAL PRICE INCREASES AND CONSUMERPRICE INCREASES IN EL SALVADOR (1978-1981)
Appraisal ActualYear Z Increase Index Year % Increase Index
1978 12.0 100.0 1978 - 100.0
1979 9.0 109.0 1979 14.7 114.7
1980 8.0 117.7 1980 17.4 134.6
1981 7.0 126.0 1981 14.8 154.5
1982 11.8 172.7
End of Project 1983 13.3 195.6
1984 11.6 218.2
1985 22.3 266.8
3.3 Construction at the CFP in San Salvador and the CCR at Usulutanwere the most affected by inflation, since construction there was delayedby about three years (see Annex VII).
- 10 -
3.4 There was an apparent *rror in the praisal construction costestimates for the vocational training componen. (excluding the ManpowerDepartment) in San Salvador: the coat estimate per square meter for thiscomponent was even less than that for the CCRs. Even discounting the factthat the site development cost for the San Salvador CFP construction wasexorbitant (totaling about 37 percent of the total initial bid price), amore realistic appraisal estimate of construction cost for the CFP shouldhave been around US$350 to US$375 (rather than US$268) per square meter --a difference per square meter of about 35 percent (see Annex VII).
3.5 Since actual sites were not clearly identified at the time ofappraisal, a physical contingency allowance higher than 10 percent shouldhave been included In the appraisal cost estimate for site development.Future projects should ensure site selection by the time of appraisal, anddevelop more reliable cost estimates.
Financing and Disbursement
3.6 Financing from the loan (US$9.0 million) covered 66.7 percent ofthe total project costs (US$13.5 million). The remainder of the projectwas financed from government funds. (See Annex VIII for a breakdown ofproject financing and Annex IX for disbursement schedule.) The loan wasfully disbursed, with the final disbursement made on February 12, 1986,four years later than anticipated. A disbursement profile may be found inAnnex X, showing a comparison between the appraisal, disbursement schedule,the actual schedule, and a compiled schedule for 11 'typical" projects inthe education sector of the Latin American Region of the Bank.
Unit Capital Costs and Space Allocation
3.7 The ratio of actual CCR construction cost per training placevaries from 21 to 35 percent higher than had been estimated at appraisal,primarily due to inflation. For the CFP however, this figure is muchhigher -- 138 percent. The cost overrun for this com.onent is due toinflation, errors in estimated cost at time of appraisal, and excessivecost overruns in site development. The ratio of square footage pertraining place actually constructed to that estimated at appraisal is veryfavorable (see Annex XI for details.)
IV. OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT
Physical Facilities
4.1 Physical facilities for the CCRs have been modestly designed andconstructed using local materials. A 25- to 30- year useful life mayeasily be expected from these facilities, with only minor maintenance. Aminimum amount of equipment and furniture has been purchased, and this willneed to be replaced and added to periodically. These buildings arefunctionally acceptable for training and may also serve as communitycenters for periodic public activities.
4.2 With the exception of dormitories, most faOlities at the CCEs areadequate. Dormitories are presently being overutilized: space constructedfor 40 in-service trainees Is being utilized by 52 students. Toiletfacilities in the dormitory are Inadequate even for the original number ofpeople.
4.3 Trainees have not been allowed to use the agricultural schooldining facilities as was envisaged during appraisal, due to a disagreementbetween the ENA and CENCAP. As a result, food is being prepared and servedfrom the patio of the dormitoriest trainees are being housed and fed underunsanitary conditions at present.
4.4 Facilities for the CFP are adequate and generally wellconstructed, although land for expansion is limited. Structural provisionhas been made for adding floors to the administration and classroomsbuildings. If CENAP does not occupy the space originally designed forthem, this space may be occupied by the Manpower Department and new spacemay not be needed.
Educational and Institutional Outcomes
A. Industrial Training Component
4.5 Despite extensive technical assistance, the efforts to reshape tLeindustrial training system through the establishment of an autonomoustraining agency which would raise funds through a levy on wages did notmaterialize (because of the resistance of the modern industrial sector).This, combined with the fact that training continues to be inadequatelyfinanced by the Government, has resulted in a 13 percent utilization rateof project facilities -- clearly much lower than expected. The VocationalTraining Center at San Salyadorl has only met 17 percent of the appraisaltarget output and, in fact, utilization in 1985 fell to about one-third thelevel of 1984 (see Table 1 of Annex XII). In an attempt -o alleviate thesituation, the center management has arranged contracts with an agency ofthe European Economic Community (Cs. 400,000 per year) to finance a projecton the creation of training and the development of micro-businesses for thedisplaced and marginal population. The in-plant training initiated in 1981has had quite modest results and needs to be thoroughly reorganized. Themobile units have never been used as originally planned.
4.6 During the project, emphasis at the General Directorate ofVocational Training and Employment (DGFPE) shifted from providing servicesfor the industrial sector to assisting the poorest members of thepopulation to obtain employment. Target groups included unemployed out-of-school youths, displaced persons and the physically handicapped. Althoughemployed workers are still trained, they have unfortunately been relegatedto a second priority. In preparing the Annual Training Plan, the DGFPE
1/ The other two centers were deleted from the project.
- 12 _
accessos tho training demand through contacts with employers and thenadjusts the amount of training to the available government resources*About 90 percent of the graduates are placed in jobs through the DGFPE.
4.7 An instructor unit was satisfactorily established at the DGFPE in1981. But utilization of instructors is low and turnover is high (about 50percent) due to the low salary levels. A training curriculum has beendeveloped satisfactorily on the basis of occupational analysis, andteaching materials are produced by the instructors. But the courses arenot modularized as envisaged at appraisal, and national standards have notbeen established nor have trade tests either. The average recurrent costper trainee hour, equivalent to US$0.60, is low compared to other countriesin the region (US$1.5 to US$8.0).
4.8 The management of the San Salvador Vocational Training Center ismaking efforts to resolve their financial problems through trainingcontracts. Formalizing and strengthening the training contract techniquemight be an appropriate solution to the funding of operating costs.However, such a Valicy would require a greater emphasis on the training ofemployed wozke-s io the modern sector. The present in-plant training unitwould be expeaded into a training department, organized by the industrysubsector and --. fed by training officers, some of whom would be recruitedfrom the relevant industry. The training department would maintain a closerelationship with the industry subsector, help to identify training needsof individual companies, and group companies together for trainingpurposes. The training contracts negotiated between the center and thecompanies would specify the training to be provided by the center and theshare of the training cost to be paid by the companies. The system has theadvantage of flexibility: only those companies that want training wouldparticipate in the program. In addition to being effective and efficient,the CFP should be instrumental in eatablishing a national trade standardstesting and certification system, and an evaluation and ex-trainee follow-up system.
B. The National Productivity Center Component (CENAP)
4.9 Management courses for middle-level supervisors and small-scaleentrepreneurs were implemented at CENAP, as envisaged at appraisal. Coursesare mostly given in the evening. However, CENAP is still operating in theold buildings in downtown San Salvador and the transfer to the new projectbuilding (at the site of the Vocational Training Center) was delayedbecause cf transportation difficulties faced by course participants. It ishoped, however, that the move will take place shortly. The output hasfallen since 1983-84, and in 1985 met only 30 percent of the 1982 appraisaltarget because of low allocation of funds by the Government. Shortage ofGovernment funding still remains a problem. (Output figures are shown inTable 2 of Annex XII.)
-13 -
C. Aaricultural Training Component
4.10 With technical assistance financed by the project, the Borrowerwas able to meet a major objective of the project component by establishingand developing CENCAP, a centralized institution responsible for thecoordination and execution of non-formal agricultural training, normativefunctions and follow-up and evaluation of ex-trainees. This nationalAgricultural Training Center would focus its activtties on training medium-and small-size farmers and agricultural workers (in an attempt to improvefarming and agricultural technology). The center would also train thenecessary staff.
4.11 Two new Government policies, enacted after CENCAP was created, hadimportant implications for the CENCAP role outlined above. First,enactment of the Agrarian Reform Laws in 1980 resulted in: increasedtraining demands; a shift of training priorities from technology andtechnologically-oriented areas to socially-oriented areas (socialorganization, cooperatives, farm planning, farm management andbookkeeping); and a switch in priority from internal (boarding) training(at the CCRs) to external training (outside the CCRs). Second, theadministrative regionalization of the Ministry of Agriculture and thegranting of autonomy to the regional offices had the followingimplications: CENCAP's prerogative as a national institution foragricultural training was weakened as the regions took directresponsibilities for regional training programs; CENCAP's coordination rolefor agricultural training was weakened; and CENCAP's normative function,not clearly defined from the beginning, was never properly clarified(regarding its relation with the regions and with other agticultural oragriculturally-oriented training agencies). In addition, CENCAP has notimplemented a program for the follow-up and evaluation of ex-trainees. TheGovernment, with FAO assistance, is expected to review the organization andoperation of non-formal agricultural training in order to establish animproved system. This follows an evaluation of the current situationundertaken with FAO assistance.
4.12 Despite the weaknesses outlined above, CENCAP should be commendedfor the great interest and motivation it created among farmers and staff,and for the large number of participants it attracted. The annual traininggoals established at appraisal -- about 7,200 farmers (1,200 per CCR) and250 staff at the CCES -- have been surpassed by a wide margin. In 1985 theactual number of farmers trained was more than double the appraisal target,and in 1983 and 1984 the actual training figures for staff were 10 timesand four times higher, respectively, than the appraisal target. (Figuresfor 1985 were unavailable.) (See Annex I and Table 4 of Annex XII.)Between 1982 and 1985 project facilities contributed to the training of atotal of 39,562 persons, an average of 11,300 persons per year. Thisgreatly exceeded the annual output target of 7,450 people set at appraisal(7,200 farmers in six CCRs and 250 staff in one CCES). If non-project CCRsare included, the number of persons trained during the 1983-85 period
- 14 -
increases to 54,291. A greater emphasis was put on the training of 36 855farmers who are direct beneficiaries of the Agrarian Reform Decree 153.
4.13 Internal training consists of boarding courses that last about oneweek external training consists of two-day courses off the premises of theCCRs. The CCES, rather than exclusively training staff as planned atappraisal, is also offering farmer training courses. Curriculum of thesocially-oriented courses for farmers and staff are grouped into the majorgroups indicated in paragraph 4.11. They predominate, totalling about 82percent of the courses (divided between associative business education, 73percent, and business administration - 9 percent). Technology-orientedcourses reached only 13 percent of participants, and other courses5 percent; although literacy reached a negligible proportion, it is gainingin importance.
4.14 Although the importance of communitylenterprise developmenttraining ought to be recognized in a country such as El Salvador,technological improvements in farming and agriculture can hardly beexpected unless courses oriented toward that purpose are given a greaterimportance. (This importance was recognized at appraisal, which placed aheavy emphasis on such courses.) Community/enterprise training should havebeen incremental rather than in place of technical training. The trainingof women in home economics has also not received the importance it deservesalthough it has been shown that women are responsible for improving thefamily's living conditions. In general, a greater use should be made ofaudio-visual aids in the courses; a modular course system should beconsidered; methodology should be more non-formal and more practicallyoriented; and trainees should be supported after their training throughradio programs. Existing radio program facilities at the CCES, andpractical workshops at the CCRs are grossly underutilized, and in somecases barely utilized at all.
4.15 Fifty-six staff members are utilized for the operations of theCCRs and the CCES (25 teaching staff and 31 administra..ive staff - seeAnnex II) out of a total of 246 CENCAP staff members. (Over two-thirds ofthese are paid from USAID-supported projects). In both cases, the staff ismuch larger than was anticipated at appraisal. There are two major reasonsfor this: the program inciudes project and non-project CCRs, since it ismuch larger than anticipated at appraisal; and the switch in emphasis tosocially-oriented courses permitted the hiring of a larger number ofpermanent CCR staff than the originally planned short-term technologically-oriented staff. The reason for the large CENCAP staff does, however, meritan in-depth study. The assessment should include the proportions of staffin the Central Office compared to that in the field. The recurrent unitcost per week of training has been established in 1985 at Cs. 151.25(US$60.5). This is low compared to the 1978 appraisal estimate3 thatprojected 1985 costs at Cs. 390 (see paragraphs 25 and 26 of Annex XII).
2/ As a result of this decree, production cooperatives were established,consisting of workers from about 250 of the largest farms in thecountry.
3/ The unit recurrent cost was estimated at appraisal on the basis of one-week (five days, eight hours per day) boarding courses.
_ 15 -
V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
A. Conclusions
5.1 Implementation of the project was initially subject to management- problems (impossibility to keep one single project unit) and, later on to
unforeseen events of political and economic nature, which requiredgovernment policies to be adjusted to the new situation. The civildisturbances, inflation and shortage of government funds twice compelledthe Government to request a reduction of the scope of the project withinthe Bank allocation. Moreover, shortage of operational governmental fundsand the lack of financial support by industry to the planned infrastructurefor industrial training made the establishment of such infrastructureimpossible. As a result, several of the planned activities for theindustrial training component failed to be implemented and the appraisaloutput target was far from reached (17 percent). Utilization of projectfacilities reached very low levels.
5.2 The management of the San Salvador Vocational Training Center ismaking commendable efforts to resolve the financial problems throughcontracts with companies. Under these contracts the companies wouldspecify the training to be provided by the center and the share of thetraining cost to be paid by the companies. Only those companies that areinterested in the program would participate. However, a policy of thisnature would require that a greater emphasis be put on the training ofemployed workers in the modern sector and an expansion and improvement ofpresent inplant training.
5.3 In the case of the agricultural training component, legislationcreating a nationwide infrastructure for agricultural non-formal training(CENCAP) already existed at the time of appraisal, and the project helpedconsolidate it. The Government's shortage of operational funds wasbalanced with funds provided by USAID. The output targets .et at appraisal
-were surpassed, and project facilities were fairly well utilized. Theagricultural training component thus succeeded in meeting the firstrobjective of the project, establishing a nationwide infrastructure for non-formal agricultural training. However, new policies adopted by the
*Government in response to the prevailing situation had some implicationsfor the implementation of the component. By enacting the Agrarian Reform,Law, training emphasis switched from technologically-oriented to socially-oriented courses in agriculture, and thus from boarding courses at the CCRs
I.to external courses outside the CCRs. Decentralization of the Ministry ofAgriculture, which granted a great deal of autonomy to the regions, appearsto have reduced the nationwide role originally intended for CENCAP indelivering non-formal agricultural education.
- 16 -
5.4 There is still scope for improving non-formal agriculturaltraining in El Salvador and perhaps for its expansion. This would require:
(a) improvements in overall organization and management by carryingout an analysis of the officiency of CENCAP's training activities.In general, a better coordination of all training activities wouldincrease their efficiency and reduce costs;
(b) improvements in the quality and relevance of the training coursesto agricultural development, giving agricultural technologytraining a higher priority;
(c) a revision of teaching methodology and pedagogical training ofinstructors, applying modular system of training, making more useof audio visual aids and mass-media and establishing a system oftrainee evaluation and follow-up; and
(d) upgrading of the precarious facilities under which the non-projecttraining is taking place, after having assessed whether the demandwould justify the expansion of this training program, and thefinancial feasibility of the expansion.
5.5 The project-supported study on vocational training needs wascarried out at too early a stage to be of significant value.
5.6 It is not possible to assess whether the second objective of theproject -- improving the productivity and earnings of sma'l- and medium-size farmers, agricultural workers, skilled and semi-skilled industrialworkers and their supervisors -- was actually met. An evaluation andfollow-up system of former trainees has not been implemented.
B. Lessons
5.7 Following are the lessons that can be .:;awn from theimplementation of this project. Some are important in the case of futureprojects in the same subsectors (e.g. management and organization). Othershave already become a normal standard in new projects (e.g. site selectionand organization).
5.8 Financing. Management and Organization.
(a) Due to the fact that industry's financial contribution toindustrial training programs is considered to be essential for theimplementation of these programs, it is necessary that a fullanalysis be carried out at appraisal of the industrial sector, itsinstitutional characteristics and the feasibility of industry'sfinancial contribution. If relevant legislation is required toensure such contribution, it should be enacted by loan approval.In addition, a well established action plan should be part of theproject;
- 17 -
(b) coordination between industrial training and industry isessential. Implementation of the industrial component of theproject would have been more successful had the coordinationbetween the CFP (San Salvador) and industry been stronger. Inthis case it is likely that some of the actions planned atappraisal and that failed to be implemented (para. 5 ofHighlights) would have been put into effect. In any case, suchcoordination would facilitate the implementation at the presentCFP's plans for generating funds, based on individual contractsbetween CFP and the industry for the training of its workers.This modality constitutes an alternative to the establishment ofan autonomous training agency as planned at appraisal;
(c) in the case of the agricultural component, CENCAP's initial roleas the institute for nationwide coordination of non-formalagricultural training is loosing ground and it should be restored.This coordinating function is indispensable for better planning oftraining and more efficient use of scarce resources;
(d) in projects that include two or more ministries or executingagencies the choice of an implementation structure may lead tosusceptibilities or antagonisms. In El Salvador this issue wasresolved by having two independent units, a procedure that workedwell. In some cases the establishment of a single project unitmay not be a viable solution, and the issue should be addressedcarefully and in a flexible manner.
5.9 Physical Implementation
(a) Implementation would be accelerated if final architectural plansand specifications were completed at the very latest by Boardpresentation. Preparation costs of these documents could befinanced retroactively. As a result of acceleratedimplementation, the effects of inflation on overall constructionwould be reduced.
(b) A careful assessment of the transportation facilities available tostudents should be made when selecting the sites for theconstruction of training facilities.
(c) Sites should become property of the Borrower as a pre-conditionfor negotiations, or Board presentation at the very latest, toavoid delays (in some cases substantial) in project start up.
(d) Bank supervision missions should be more forceful in inducing theBorrower to adequately maintain facilities, equipment andfurniture and keeping adequate inventories.
- 18 -
5.10 Technical Assistance
(a) The timing of the technical assistance for the industrial trainingcomponent was improper. Technical assistance should be scheduledso as to coincide with key events in the implementation cycle.The use of fewer, long term experts and more short-termconsultants would increase flexibility and impact, and reducecosts.
(b) In the agricultural component, Bank financed technical assistancewas part of a larger and broader FAO technical assistance program.The terms of reference of the FAO program were not sufficientlygeared at the needs of the project because they responded topartially different objectives. Thus, when other agencies arealso providing T.A. for a project under a broader umbrella, acareful examination of the relevance of this assistance to theproject objectives should be made before any Bank commitment toinclude it in the overall project costs.
(c) The fellowships program should start as early as possible,particularly in countries where the processing of fellowships is alengthy and cumbersome bureaucratic procedure.
5.11 Supervision
Supervision by Bank staff should be carried out more regularly,-and missions should include the appropriate training specialists more oftenthan was the case in El Salvador. In the case where in situ supervision isnot possible, the Bank should devise alternative solutions, so as not toleave long gaps in project monitoring.
EL VADOR - AorlculeuraI *U Induatrial T,arnin, Projct fLo 167-,
Prolect Cmletion RaSort
cutout from Rural Trinino Canter- t1S2 - 10851
Year: 19S2 (2nd. a.e.ter) 1968 / 1984 j/ 196 i S 19S2 - 1054No. Attendants Cours. Attendants Cmurao Attendants COuPS" Attendant. Courg Attondantc Couree.
Far_r Staff Total Farmr. taf Total Farr. Staff Total FrrF Staff Total Farer, Staff total
Region I (Occidental)Ahuachapan AS 90 100 6 26 - 2 1,286 11 - 24
RA - 6 S6 80 4 139 1i4 _ 7T _ 12 1 16 3 1 2 l9 30 81(81) 4
0 - - - - - - 2(2)~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 42(42 8OL - -- -4 0() 2
Sub-total: 178 112 14 112 38 7 1.641(224) 143(148) 40 2.989( 896) 77(25)
Teuietepeqe AS 71 - 4 111 - 2 669(125) 68( 68) 4RA 90 16 6 122 - 30( 15) - 2
T - - - 48 9 2 25( 25) - 1
O - - - - - - - S5(886) 1L - - - - - - - 28( 28) 1
Sub-totl 169 1s 10 281 89 7 724(165) 1l(121) 9 1,984( 782) 68(24)
Total Region 1: 847 128 24 898 72 14 2,368(389) 264(264) 49 4.90*(1,648) 10()
Region 11 (Central)Nuti, Concepeion AS 111 20 S 182 28 4 872(268) 0( 0) 18
RA S 37 S 11 12 2 113( 3R) 0( 0) 4
T 218 66 11 238 52 15 122( 4S) S a
S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ °( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~05 222 2
z2h-total: 882 103 21 S81 87 21 807(363) 125(126) 31 2,375(1,033) S(3)
Son Andrea, AS - - - - - -B29188 71t71) 19RA - - - - - - 17(171) 0(0) 6
T - - - - - - 256(25) 1042104 1SO - - - - - - 20 20o 104(1' 13L la 3" -00 8(7 1l
Sub-total: - - - - - - 978(601) 370(370) 45 4,641(1,92) 98(48)
Total Region IT: 82 103 21 381 87 21 1.782(964) 495(498) 78 7,216(2,625) 118(84)
R eion Ill (Paracentral)St. Crux Porrillo AS 278 4 6 88 8 2 913m20 2* 27
RA se lOS Ul 2l S 2 §) 000NA 805 108 86~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 118 28 8 52 2
T 126 - S 39 a 7 49( 49) 0( 0) 2
L - 1St log 211 2 S 21 1
Sub-toa 1,801 112 44 168 88 IS 1,072(889) 107(107) 37 2.8"(1,008) 71(30) 9
Ouacetecti AS 44 17 8 268 2 9 41S( 86) 0( 0) 18
RA - 2 1 79 17 4. 78( 48) 9( 9) 3 0
T 228 121 14 197 22 8 231(104) 0( 0) 7 -
0 - - - - - - 3901 2 27) 12
Cub-total: 272 140 18 689 41 21 1.061(348) 75( 75) 86 2,311( 688) 68(21)
Total Reion II: 1,873 252 62 727 77 8 2,13(707) 162(182) 78 5,19(1,668) 134(51)
year: 190 (2nd. aemeater) 198 ak/ 1904 i15h /162-16Yno. Attendants Course Attendant. Course. AttendantS CoureI Attendt. Coue. Attnda nt- Cours.Farm.,s Staff Total Farm.r. Staff Total Farmers Staff Total -Parmrs staff TOUal Farmer Staff Total
Region IV (Orlentel)Uaulutan AB - - - S 20 1 915 264) a(s0) 22RA _-
O)2 0 O( 1T - - - - 3S 1 *7 17) O(I) 10 - - - - - - 42) 1221 2L - - - - - - 0 0) 19 1t 1Sb-total: - - - 5 53 2 1,006(343) 69( 69) 27 2.#4( 87) 67(28)Total Region IV - - - 5 5o - 1O0S(343) 69( 69) 27 2364( 667) 67(28)Total for all Region&: 2 m la 0 02 zs Lfn i,2 Zju.c i 1I010Ol-Otl M WIz A 4d 2201 3LZ S2 taj L
Crand Total: 2,7ai 107 8,889 200d/ 8.290 2253 1.642 489(220) 39"82 1,021(Internal Training) n.m. n.e. S,413 *.62 n.s.(Staff Trained) 483 2,569 1,010 n.s. n.a.
O/ Hrekdown figure for typen end number of course per Rural Training Center rofer to the first seeter of 1903 only, but the total for off region conrrsondn to toe fullyour 1983 (a reason shy adding all reg;ono dose not mtch tho total).h/ Figure. in parenthesis refer to internal training (taken inside tho Rural Training Center). while other figureo refer to totaln of internal plus *rtarnal training (trainingcerried out outside the R.T.C.),g/ Seperate figures for staff training and training by type of cours ore unawailable.A/ Miseion estisate.
tjR: The figuroe given in this tabi refer to training carried out only by the Project Rural Training Centers. Additional training corried out by CEWIUA is not shoen here.
A8m Associative Businea Education; RA. Rural Administration; T- Technology; Oe Other; Le Literacy.
Sour- Coapiled by the mi-nion based on inforastion provided by the Sub-Project Unit and CENCAP.
000
MX
- 21 -
ANNEX II
EL SALVADOR
Industrial and Atricultural Traininz Proiect (Loan 1571-ES)
Prolect Completion Repout
Staff at the Rural Training Centers and the Inservice Trainins Center
(1985)
Teaching Adutnistrative TotalCenter Staff Staff Staff
1. Ahuachapan 4 4 82. Texisteque 2 4 63. San Andres 6 4 104. Nueva Concepcion 3 4 75. Sta. Cruz Porrillo 4 6 106. Guacotecti 3 4 77. Usulutan 3 5 8
Total: 25 31 56
Source: Sub-Project Unit.
- Z2 -
ANNE4 III
EL SALVADOR
Industrial and Agricultural Training Proiect (Loan 1571-ES)
Proiect Completion Revort
Technical Assistance in Agricultural Training
Implementationof Overall Project Project
Expert Services FAO Program Appraisal ActualArea: Man/Weeks Estimate Implementation
1. Project Director/Planning 53.0 24 242. Communication 42.5 12 123. Rural Administration 46.0 12 124. Rural Training 25.0 18 18S. Home Economics 6.0 -6. Institutional Information 2.0 -7. Statistics and Agricultural
Economics 2.0 -8. Rural Development 4.5 -9. Rural Youth 4.0 -10. Livestock 3.011. Professional Staff
Insurance Training - 6 6a/12. Agricultural Industry - 4 4a13. Marketing 4 4a14. Evaluation - 4 4
188.0 84 84
a/ The approach applied to this assistance was different than the oneestipulated in the Appraisal Terms of Reference.
Source: Compiled from the Sub-Projent Unit, UNDP/FAO "Resultados yRecomendaciones- Capacitaci6n y Trabajadores Agropecuarios" and Banksupervision missions.
- 23 -
ANNEX IVPage 1 of 2
EL SALVADOR
Industrial and Agricultural Trainint Proiect (Loan 1571-ES)
Prolect Completion Revort
Compliance with Loan Covenants
Section/Covenant of Loan Atreement Remarks3.02(a) Borrower to maintain and fund Project Unit
and Project Sub-unit. Implemented
(b) NVTC to ensure coordination of projectexecution. Not Implemented
3.05(a) CENCAP to establish a monitoring and System established
evaluation system of its training programs. but not usedeffectively
(b) CENAP to annually evaluate training programscarried out in the productivity center. Not Implemented
3.07(a) The Borrower to establish planning and
evaluation and operations divisions within theMinistry of Labor. Implemented
(b) The Borrower to establish an in-planttraining advisory unit. Implemented
3.08(a) The Borrower to establish vocational
training standards, testing andcertification systems. Not Implemented
(b) The Borrower to establish vocationalguidance and placement system for trainees. Implemented
- 24 -
ANNEX IVPage 2 of 2
Section/Covenant of Loan Agreement Remarks- 3.09 The Borrower to make available facilities Facilities for the
of Vocational Training Center to productivity centerproductivity center staff, and viceversa. (CENAP) have been
completed and areintegrated with thoseof the vocationaltraining center;CENAP has not yetmoved itsadministration andtraining activitiesto the center.
3.12 Borrower to submit completicn report. Submitted for theAgricultural TrainingComponent andincomplete for theIndustrial TrainingComponent.
4.03(b) Borrower to employ qualified staff for
project institutions and maintain termsand conditions to ensure quality andcontinuity of instruction. Implemented
4.04 Borrower to prepare studies for the The studies have beenestablishment of a specialized training carried out but theagency to coordinate and carry out Government hastraining in economic sectors related decided not toto the project. establish the agency.
4.05 Borrower to ensure adequate maintenance Maintenance andof facilities and make adequate budgetary correspondingallocation for this purpose. budgeting at
Agricultural TrainingCenters werepractically non-existent, althoughsome funds wereprovidedin 1985 formaintenance of theIndustrial Center.Maintenance appearsstill inadequate.
Source: Bank Supervision Mission
- 25 -
ANNEX V
EL SALVADORIndusetial and Atricultural Tra±nina Proiect
Proi1ct CoDlet±on R..octEstimated and Actual Proisct Costs by Cat.zorv of Expenditure
, S' ,X~~~~~~~~~~USS'OOOI
1:.I .
De0psisal (I ) Actal (2).-....-....... 01 f IreAce as
CATEWoRT OF EXPEIOISt AuSt I of Total D wt S of total s of Aooraisal
Civil works VW Sit@ Oovlopi1 6224.5 49.2 6751.6 50.2 J.5
Equip"t a Furniture 3014.6 23.8 2974.9 22.1 -1.3
Equi * 2600.4 20.5 2631.J 19.6 1.2
F;rniture 414.4 3.3 343.1 2.5 -17.2
Technical Assisunce I Services 3422.7 27.0 3729.3 27.7 9.0
Professional Ftes 799.6 6.3 76. 7 S.6 -1.6
Eaperts 1791.0 14.1 2137.6 15.9 19.4
Fellowships 460.5 3.6 454.1 3.4 -1.0
Training Needs Survey (3) 37.3 0.3 45.0 0.3 20.6
Project A1inistation 334.3 2.6 303.7 2.3 -9.2
'TOTAL 12662.0 100.0 13455.J. 100.0 6.3
(1) tnclude. all contingencies(2) Eacluv's construction eliminated dring i1lew1ttion but 1nclues professional fees(3) Incl4ced in technical assistance contract with ILO
EL SALVADOR2051 I-l^/IUZPUOISIndustrial and Agricultural Trainina Prolect
Pro1ect Co.Pletion ReportDetailed Prolect Costs USS'OOO
C WlSSIIClllOSI CSU S ClslfU. G 15II1 10SS E(f l5IUI 0s5 51(31W ASSSSIFII U SlUICES MUf
Acd.rc Sord" Seat# fatal 0r. Iurliu fr i.1g trslessitu 1a wtIs liSme- free. i Ptrojct M S'Uinaslag (5) (2) Eis f 41 ships Wmse A A
a. 06s1S11 w 1 Of AICIA -U63.0 146.0 3o4.9 2090.5 120.5 32115 20.9 434.1 0S. 6.6 6.6 33l.11. WRUAL TRAINING CENTERS S1.0 411.0 2516.41 50.4 94.1. 16,.2 53.3 6.0 I.6 0.0 6.6 2l1o1.
a.m *edi.a*piue 95.9 51.4 31.4 240.1 IS.z 29.1 3I.6 3251.5.2 slu6 Crua PorrsilSo 63. 1 506 30.3 234.3 5s.4 29.1 25.2 31.61.I Aboachpon 562.5 123.0 45.4 201.3 55.4 n.1 31.6 51.21.4 suacolec(s 52. 530.4 45.0 24. 1s.0 29. 1 324 W.2I. s 1.504. 124.5 16.4 1.4 324.9 51.3 23.1 42.4 414.3
5. hwa Cecep ism 3. 5.5 3. 2315.4 as.1 21.932.U. *ses* bat de. Ig Om. I. "t .s.1. sims. los * lam - -1.0 to maim .. o.
2. IN-$RICE TRAINING CEfTERS AS.0 54.1 465.11 31.4 142.9 03.0 19.03. HSOtC(L ASSIS51AI 4,14.1 1.6 163.1
II. nImIIIw of 10 420 1.9 6.6 6. . 1.4 210.9 641.4 .*5.1 . 464.0 36.111.6 6.6 - *65. CAII0~~~ 56*50560 3195.0 ~~40. 0. 156 595 51. 1. . .0 6.6 6.6 05151.41. 9110114 ZUII*IIIC ~~1111.6 . 0.0 3191.0 129.1 1)m.6 4.9 * . *l *@ *)-1.1 Us Su1w.ar 3195.6 3131.6 529.1 5 4M.0 319.6 S1111.35.2 Somts --i - - *. - - 6.1.1 nap..; - . - . . 49.9 .- .95.4 fbosh units 329.631.
2. I5I6*IC KuIE OfItI 410.5 6.6 6.6 4.1 .*.3 31. *9 .1 SS4.. 9*.6 0.6 5*56.32.1 a qlu hiiS,*& 410.5 410.5 11.3 It5.6 46.2 13M.42.2 Sare of IriStes. an" w".8 90.6 2.9
3. 51(5615CM ASSISIIJI I 2.g . , 1.9
55.I.UllSSlS 011 5(05051 [email protected] .0 .6 361.2 32.0 *.2 52.1 612.3 13.6 6.6 6.6 3 .65. ClE 31.2 3111.2 32.0 261.2 32.1 003.2. 51(3Clm ASSISISAI 612.3 19. 905.3
iv. u.ojlcs ItllSausne*I 00 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 140.0 6.6 6.6 M3.? 46.S1. SaSarmes *d 1 t 33.1 313.12. liSchmasc Assastid.e 140.6 140.6
v. Ioul PoJCI COS 5*03.1 14.0 364.9 0155.0 34J.5 2031.6 1S6.1 2531.6 450.1 4*S.6 331.) 141.4
Source ot lsmoretsIa. AgricwItural Inrate, Ctomemethowmi 6. Sorrouers Projeclt Cwletiua "roA2) Ae 9. Dm150. Dt*qu5wlm1 0 lfaXii totl IS COrnMC1t5w1 dii,rabutaOe h.it el varied so correspooeed with cerrncog Vla.
I$) A lea1. Duitto, Ust o(4) Aot 1. U||@o- fsr itut lisiumA_tun. vistaisoom lisomoij tuq"ros. Poujctt ImIsIrwmetius ipit
EL SALVADORIndustrial and Agricultural Training Proiect
Prolect Cognltion R-portAnalysis of Construction Costs (USS'OOO)
Area to Sq.Us. Coetrmc ios * Isle tPrteessi'm8 les foul Ceastreets Cot t Ariasa3 6 ktul uost OR. 1.ArWagta Actmul prasut kA al Aipraal Actual Derlssl 8 Ue8 IVIS 46 PertM #pralsesl ktA l
lot (21 (if 428 (8) 421
1. uaIaISuav w *tticsaiua 1224 3111 2021.1 *0. 2S0.S 2.3 2268.2 2MA.4 18.2 3.8 311.44 $J11.14
1. IRUAL TRAINING CENTERS *240 t 834 1630.3 3485.4 209.4 1"8. 3 39.1 U114.1 -26.S -1.3 R4.8 $533.131.1 Ieattssepqe 6 6 0.2 240.1 21.1 35.4 12S.9 214.3 50.4 32.1 6.42 5322.1t1.2 Sem. Crus htrriloe in M 894.1 234.3 25.3 2S.2 222.S 2n9.s W.S 84.9 6244.42 3131.is8.3 ibe.ecmq&. 16i t1S 111.4 241.3 2M.S 31.S 221.9 3AL.a 118.2 31.3 6231.61 534.433.4 EmcolecIS 16 S 101.4 91.6 27.4 31.4 234.S 324.9 92.9 3f.1 51111.1 531.9I.S Ute.kS.s 11 656 MA.4 324.9 2S.1 48.4 721.9 341.3 141.4 64.4 1 .6 5.1.4 ewe Co.cepceoe n 1" 2M.4 243.1 24.6 7.9 234.4 219.4 41.4 1 9..6 3.41.0 SI& NU dr5 I 1$M 1tl 210.9 21.1 *36.0 4.4 -21.4 -6.6 52.3
1.41a ilates 1tV 210.9 2.83. .0. -23.6 -18.6 511.132. Iwluwsct IeI"IG U1c111 96 3311 391.4 481.8 S3.8 43.4 440.5 544.1 9.2 21.4 1.1 $4.1i
i. 638IS19 OLA 16 4058 f 32 3411.1 41*.9 412. 4931.8 4843.2 4119.6 416. 4.9 .52 5 49.1
I. N 8C* IIOSj MINING 3*89 11946 3201.4 3193. 412.1 450.9 36.31 4242.1 142.4 -41.4 2.18t- $181.153.1 Sao 844 594 3129.8 31.6 894.1 38. 112f.1 4111.6 2311.3 13.1 521.24 561.31 -A
1.2 Sats A" 29 .1 91.4 3.2 65.3 11.2 -115.1 -6.1 526.41.3 Sbe Mol 3Mt 919.1 118.2 49.1 1891.3 49.9 .61.4 94.2 5299.6
2. IMIU8Iu KVILOeMUI2.1 _wmer feparltast 8I51 66 443.5 414.1 59.6 40.2 123.1 561.3 -.6 -1.3 5412.3 .19
8.ulmaslml U ICOf OV 36 3024 S24.5 361.2 1.1 32.1 S93. 419.9 -13. -29.2 1413.42 )46.23. amt 8 5.5 .2 U1.5 1.1 191.6 489.9 -113.1 -29.2 543. 546.26
iV. bi01L hIWCI CONSIUKIi(Al LOSO 228 54818 4224.3 41SI.4 0.3 16.1 1024.4 3.3 S33.9 1.3 3811.31 153.95
(33 So.wce of Imloretaom. Stall Aweasesa lowt. lible 10 - lacldes Physica d oa p8se COat $segc es231 Seuce of Imiurmesmm. project lopletelhtim sbsu
ble: USq dilieweaets way ocew dame to coerssefirm ColoeS to 8 and remad di fL fibel reselt
- 28 -
ANNEX VIII
EL SALVADORIndgtr1ial and Agrgiultural Trainin. Pro ect
Pro act Coiletion ResortBreakdown of Proiect Financinf
(USS'O00)
CATffh mnwt Financed Aunt Financed total Projectby We#ld k* ly .vernwnt Cost
(1) Clvil Nons aW relate 3115.4 422.9 7533.3
Arle. Tr". Cauomnt 1151.9 1207.5 2359.4Vocat. Trn. Coupont 1963.5 3215.4 5173.9
(2) Equipw t A furniture 2941.9 33.0 2974.9
(a) imported 2631.3 0.0 2631.8
Agric. Trq. Component 321.1 321.1vooat. rmg. Co oet 2310.? 2310.7
(b) locally procurd 310.1 33.0 343.1
Agrie. Tr"g. Component 114.7 11.4 126.1Vocat. 1mg. Comoat 195.4 21.6 217.0
(3). Project Unit Staff salaries 2942.6 0;0 2942.6survey under Part I of theProject and tecinicalassistance under Part C ofthe Project
Aqric. Tr". Component 503.1 503.1vocat. Trg. Component 2439.5 2439.5
TOTAL 6999.9 (1) 4455.9 13455.8
(1) Rounding error of 0.1
-29 -
ANNEX IX
EL SALVADORInduatrial and Ahrieultural Trainina Proicgt
Proisct Comtleeion ReiortDisburasmnt Schedule (USS'000)
fiscal Year Semter Prestd Percent of Actual Percent of Percent Profile forAcciulated Proposed Accumulated Actual Latin America#
Oiuursents Total 01sbursots Total Reion (Education)
1979 1 154 1.7 0.0 o2 711 7.9 It 1.0 3
1910 1 1363 15.4 345 4.1 62 2641 29.3 S 4.5 14
1911 1 5266 5.5 5? 6.4 202 8222 91.4 1231 13.7 27
1962 1 9000 100.0 2333 2S.9 3S2 2926 32.5 42
1963 1 3254 36.2 512 4134 45.9 S9
1984 1 4633 51.5 6o2 S324 59.2 t5
1985 1 Gel" 67.4 822 6900 76.7 a8
.1984 1 8226 91.4 932 9000 100.0 97
100
- 30 -
CL OLVADORIndustrial and atricultural Trainina Project
Proect C q lestion ReportIn1mlmontatioa Ed Dieburtemat Proflle
19131tW Iti t 1166 131 116 1163 lIM iS 11_ __ [ ~~~~. .. re. . ...................... _.. . I
£stas1uu #_ ; Stf 4'ee I'- a. .s* s ag 4-rn- g Ct I.am" 'ls. b.
AiC ispeta 'a..s "wg _a ja-t "upEg
v?C *gvsi"l m.m
Actual un i.. @ a4X1 1~~~~~~~~mavmt _ .eg t
VTC 4"*is amass.Actual
5gu1 _ -__
Dos, of lsci titles
eTC *pts"l mas IACtual -.
Vi AC st"l US$ 9.0 million
Coestrucuoa , u SD.
Ac4ual *m s, mvfc Aw . ..." sg. .s./
Actual .' .e75..U
Furniture a (a t A4neul-Lists and ?emre a 0tseruft Cuur"
AtC Acoral hI **kctual
vYC eratl am as_Actual S
.rypicl O'oursno_t b/Sunaey * Istalat'tow of .' Ecattee PrJects
atc 'te. sI /t **-...-
vCActual amin
kctual .......... u
ATC LAsraisal a a s _*e .ua s mActual --- - -- -- ' . --.- e ! I
V?C Asacisai mav r
,t *A a.c,ltural r.ie^.g CQasorata* wccat'ael tIraining Ccweeits
- 31 -ANNEX XI
EL SALVADORIndustrial and Airicultural Trainins Proiect
Prolect Completion ReportAnalysis of Cost and Space per Trainee
X DIFFERENCEAPPRAISAL (1) ACTUAL (1) FRCM APPRAISAL
RURAL TRAINING CENTERSNo. of places 320 240 -25.0Total area (Sq.Mts.) 0,240 5,180 -17.7
Total cost of construction (US'1 00) 1,389.0 1,814.? -1.4including site developmentand professional feesArea per training place (Sq.Mts.) 19.5 21.4 9.7
Cost per training place (USS) 36,749.38 37,581.25 31.5Cost per square meter (USS) 3294.64 3853.83 19.8Total cost of furniture (US$'0O) 8162.88 394.70 -38.0Cost per training place (USm) 8477.56 8394.58 -17.4Total cost of equipment (USS'f00 8686.99 S178.20 -74.1
Cost per trr ining place (USS) S2,148.84 f742.50 -66.4
IN-SERVICE TRAINING CENTERNo. of placos 40 40 0.0Total aroa (Sq.Mts.) 9U6 1,177 19.4Total cost of construction (US-'0we) 448.5 644.7 21,4including site developmentand professional foes
Area per training place (Sq.Mts.) 24.7 29.4 19.4Cost per training place (US$) f11,212.50 613,617.60 21.4Cost per square meter (US$) 3464.37 8462.79 1.7Total cost of furnituro (USS'WO) S27.41 31.40 14.6
Cost per training place (USs) 8865.25 786 .0 14.6Total cost of equipment (USS'OOO) $99.64 8142.90 43.4Cost per training place (US3) 82,491.00 83,672.560 43.4
VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS (2)No. of places SO s60 0.0
Total area (Sq.Uts.) 6,448 5,966 -7.5
Total cost of construction (US3'000) 1,726.5 4,111.6 138.1
Including site developmentand professional fees (3)Area per training place (sq.its.) 11.6 10.7 -7.5
Cost per training place (USS) 3,083.04 37,342.14 138.1
Cost per square meter (USm) 8267.76 $889.17 167.4
Total cost of furniture (US3'000) 392.72 3129.10 39.2
Cost per training place (USS) 3166.67 3230.64 39.2
| 9 Total cost of equipment (US3'000) 3728.84 81,479.60 101.8
Cost per training place (USS) 31,301.14 32,626.07 101.8
Notes: (1) Includes contingencies and professional fees(2) San Salvador VTC only - excludes space allocated
for national administration and CENCAP(3) Excludoe professional fees for Santa Ana and San Miguel
- 32 -
ANNEX XIIPage 1 of 8
EL SALVADOR
Industrial and Agricultural Training Proiect
Proiect Completion Report
A NOTE ON THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
A. Industrial Training Component
Organization, Management and Services
1. The strategy of the project was to reshape the industrial trainingsystem through the establishment of an autonomous training agency whichwould raise funds through a levy on wages. Despite extensive technicalassistance and prolonged discussion, the effort failed. This is mainly dueto resistance from the modern industrial sector, which already pays a highpayroll tax and has experienced a sharp decline in its fortunes since 1979.Thus there is no formal linkage between the industrial training system andthe modern sector, and the DGFPE is isolated from other training agencies.Furthermore, training continues to be inadequately financed by theGovernment.
2. The DGFPE operates in the administration building constructed withproject assistance, and has been reorganized with the help of projecttechnical assistance. Departments for operations, training services,placement, administration and planning were established with a complementof 99 employees excluding instructors (84 estimated at appraisal).(See Chart I ). In 1979, a manpow!'r survey was undertaken .nd the dataused to determine training needs. Unfortunately, the data rapidly becameobsolete because of no follow-up. At present, the Annual Training Plan isdeveloped through ad hoc contacts with employers to determine demand, andthen adjusting the amount of training to the available budget.
3. The DGFPE has the responsibility for vocational guidance and jobplacement, with about 90 percent of the ex-trainees being placed.Dressmaking, shoemaking, carpentry and jewelry are trades where theplacement is easiest. The emphasis is on micro-industries in the non-formal sector: wages are very low but the ex-trainee is offered a startwith further skill-training on-the job. There is no organized follow-upsystem for ex-trainees.
Training Programs and Courses
4. In-plant training was started in 1981 with the help of aspecialist under the technical assistance program. He trained twocounterparts and gave short courses in instructing techniques to 96 foremenand supervisors from industry at CENAP. Due to low salaries, thecounterparts soon left and were replaced by others who were untrained.Furthermore, the mobile units have never been used for in-plant training as
- 33 -ANNEX XII
Page 2 of 8
planned at appraisal. In 1985, only three employers were assisted, andtraining was arranged for 135 secretarial assistants. This service needsto be thoroughly reorganized.
5. The Vocational Training Center in San Salvador is open eight hoursa day, on a single shift basis. Of the 17 workshops and one laboratoryconstructed, nine are in regular use, five are starting courses inNovember, 1986, and four are used for storage. Compared with theutilization rate planned at appraisul (a 68 percent average with double-shift operation), the present facilities show only about a 13 percentutilization rate. Of the eight mobile units purchased, only two are inuse. The inadequate training budget impedes better utilization. In anattempt to provide more training services, the Center management hasarranged training contracts with an agency of the European EconomicCommunity (Cs. 400,000 per year), to offer training at the rehabilitationcenters of the armed forces and several private entities. Under thecontracts, the entities undertake to provide censumable materials forcourses and the Center will train displaced persons and others, and promotethe formation of micro-enterprises.
6. About 80 percent of the equipment has been installed andinventories are being prepared. Due to inflation, (all the plannedequipment was not ordered and some additional items will be required,especially in the machine shop where some of the machines are too large-scale for basic training. Upkeep of the equipment is satisfactory,although upkeep of the buildings was not totally satisfactory; adequateacademic records are maintained; and the workshop instruction methodologyis appropriate. Academic inspection is the responsibility of a technicalpedagogical unit consisting of six supervisors.
Instructors
7. An instructor training unit was satisfactorily established at theDGFPE in 1981 with the assistance of an expert. Three counterparts havebeen trained and sent abroad on fellowships. On return they have joinedthe unit. A full instructor training course lasts 460 hours: in-servicecourses for existing staff range from 60 to 120 hours. Skill upgrading isalso arranged as needed using the center facilities. Output from theprogram is shown below.
Table 1: OUTPUT FROM THE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING UNIT
1984 1985 1986Instructors for Fixed Centers 12 58Instructors for Mobile Units 15 3 38Upgrading 43 52 85
8. The output covers wastage and the needs of some otherinstitutions, including the Ministry of Education. No charges are made.There are at present 62 instructors (appraisal estimate 33) working in theDGFPE, divided between the new training center and the old rented
- 34 -
ANNEX XIIPage 3 of 8
facilities still in use in downtown San Salvador. Utilization ofinstructors is low, at some 400-500 hours per year. Turnover is high,about 50 percent, due to low salary levels. Replacements are recruitedfrom skilled foremen or others possessing the requisite qualifications andexperience. All instructor staff have received some formal technicaleducation and instructor training, and have industrial experience averaging10 years.
9. Candidates for admission to the courses at DGFPE are at least16 years old, and have successfully passed practical, theoretical andaptitude tests.
Output
10. The 1985 output at the Vocational Training Center in San Salvadorhas only met about 17 percent of the appraisal target set in 1982 and, infact, is down by one third since 1974. See Table 2 below:
Table 2: OUTPUT OF SKILLED WORKERS
Actual Output 1985Appraisal Output estimate % of 1982
Courses 1974 1982 Number Estimate
Vocational Training Center San Salvador
Apprentice Training 120Accelerated Training 1,104 860 435 51Upgrading Training 191 680 112 16In-plant Training 529 2,400 687 6
Total 1.824 4,060 687 17
Recurrent Costs
11. The actual DGFPE expenditures in 1985 were about Cs.1.1 millionwhich, spread across all the courses offered (including overheads) producedan average cost per trainee-hour of about Cs.3.0 (US$0.60). This is lowcompared with other countries in the region (US$1.5 to $8.0). But in orderto keep Government operating costs down, only nine of the 17 workshops arefunctioning, and only on a single shift. To maximize the benefits of thecapital investment, utilization of facilities must be improved andrecurrent expenditure on training increased. However, it is doubtful ifthe Government can find these extra resources at present.
B. The National Productivity Center Component
12. The National Productivity Center (CENAP) is still operating in theold buildings in downtown San Salvador. Transfer to the new building atthe site of the Vocational Training Center was delayed because of
- 35 -
ANNEX XIIPage 4 of 8
transportation difficulties faced by course participants. However, themove will hopefully take place shortly.
13. At CENAP, 10 tachnicians (appraisal estimate was 10) were sent onoverseas fellowships under the project to be trained as instructors. On3their return they were incorporatetd into the team and worked ascounterparts to the experts. Seven are still with CENAP, and the otherthree participate occasionally in instruction on a part-time bais.
14. The Management Courses at CENAP were implemented as planned.Problem-solving techniques at the trainees' own work place have beenadopted for both modern sector supervisors and micro-entrepreneurs.Results have been very satisfactory, and numerous training manuals havebeen prepared by the technical assistance experts and their counterparts.CENAP has a technical staff of 42 trainers, seven of which receivedfellowships under the project. Courses are mostly given in the evenings.
15. The 1985 output at CENAP has met only 30 percent of the 1982appraisal target, and has fallen since 1983-84 because of fundingshortages. The figures are shown in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Output from the National Productivity Center (CENAP)
1985 OutputAppraisal as Z of
Output Estimate Actual Output AppraisalCourses (annual) 1982 1983 1984 1985 Estimate
National Productivity Center (CENAP)
Middle LevelSupervisors 240 79 219 116 66 27
Small ScaleEntrepreneurs 180 82 37 147 58 32
TOTAL: 420 161 256 263 124 30
C. Atriculture Training Component
OrRanization, Management and Training Approach
16. The Borrower met a major objective of the component byestablishing and developing a nation-wide 1-frastructure for agriculturaltraining, represented by the National Training Center for Agriculture(CENCAP).
.17. CENCAP was created as a centralized institution of the Ministry ofAgriculture responsible for the coordination and execution of non-formalagricultural training. It also had normative functions and was responsible
- 36 -
ANNEX XIIPage 5 of 8
for follow-up and evaluation of the training product. Its activities wereexpected to focus on the training of small- and medium-size farmers inorder to improve farming and agricultural technology, and train thenecessary staff.
18. Two important new policies adopted by the Government after CENCAPwas created had important implications for CENCAP's originally-assignedrole and functions: (a) the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Law (March1980) and the Law for transfer of land ownership (April 1980); and (b) theregionalization of the Ministry of Agriculture's administration, whichgranted to regions a great deal of autonomy. The implications of thesepolicy changes are indicated in par&. 4.11 of the body of the report.
19. CENCAP was developed by the Bank project with FAQ assistance, andwas provided with assistance to build six Rural Training Centers (CCRs) andone Inservice Training Center (CCES). CENCAP oversees other non-projectCCRs. CENCAP's organization has three divisions (operations,communications, and curricula development) with five departments. It alsohas supportive sections for planning administration and auditing. Anadvisory committee operated only at the beginning of CENCAPs operations.CENCAP's staff consists of 246 members (170 under contract from US AID-supported projects, and 76 paid directly from Government sources), a muchlarger staff than anticipated at appraisal. The operations division isCENCAP's link with the regions.
The Trainina Programs and the Training Centers
20. In the agricultural training program, the number of permanentprofessional staff at each CCR was planned at two (one director and onedeputy director) whose duties largely consisted of coordinating thetraining programs and administrative functions. During the implementationof the project, the actual number has increased between two and four perCCR. The explanation is that while at appraisal most of the training wasexpected to be carried out by outside staff (given the emphasis ontechnological transfer) the eimphasis actually switched to the socio-economic area, which is more repetitive, requires less specialization andcould be carried out by permanent internal staff. For the technologycourses, the CCRs utilize external staff, with the cooperation of variousinstitutions. This cooperation has not been a problem, contrary to whatwas expected at appraisal. The number of staff of project CCRs in 1985 isshown in Annex II. It consisted of a total of 56 persons: 25 teachingstaff (professionals and technical) and 31 administrative.
21. The CCRs operate both internal and external courses. The formerare usually one-week boa;ding courses carried out at the CCR, whileexternal courses are usually two-day field courses. The Inservice TrainingCenter (CCES), instead of being dedicated exclusively to the training ofstaff, is also being utilized for the training of farmers. This dualobjective is also applied at the CCRs. Because of the high demand forcourses at the CCES, the utilization factor in relation to appraisal is 120percent, and the rate for the CCRs is 68 percent (a reasonable rate thatcould still be improved). See Table 4 below:
-37-
ANNEX XIIPage 6 of 8
Table 4: USE FACTOR IN CCU SPACE FACILITIES(Year 1985)
6 Use Factor asCompared to
Appraisal Estimate Actual Utiliaetion AppraisalNumber of Weeks Number of Weeks Estimate (S)
A. CCRa
Ahuachapan 40 28 70Texistepeque 40 24 60Nva. Concepcion 40 36 90Sta. Cruz Porrillo 40 30 75Guacotecti a/ 40 21 52Usulatan a/ 40 23 58
Total: 240 162 68
B. CCES b/ 40 48 120
a/ In these CCRs the programed number of weeks in 1985 was way below theappraisal estimates, which explains the low utilization factor.b/ The focus of the courses on the socio-economic area both in internaland external courses has led to a low utilization of workshop facilitiesand technical equipment at the CCRs and the CCES.
22. The curricula of the courses was focused on the following majorcategories: associative business education; rural administ.ation;technology; literacy; and other. The selection of topics was carried outwith participation of the rural community and to- respond to the newagrarian policy, the switch in emphasis to socially-oriented courses had totake place. Printed material, graphics and videccassettes (in some cases)were utilized to support the courses. The relatively low priority given totechnology courses and to courses for women on rural home improvement isquestionable.
23. Output
The number of persons trained at the project CCRs and the CCES hasbeen steadily increasing from 2,735 in 1982 (second semester) to 19,642 in1985, with a total of 39,562 people trained during a period of 3.5 years,an average of 11,300 per year, compared to the appraisal target of 7,450(7,200 farmers and 250 staff). (See Annex I). Although information on thenumber of staff trained in the year 1985 is unavailable, the number trainedin the first 2.5 years (1982-1984) was 4,062: this would indicate an annualaverage that is over six times the annual appraisal target (250). The
- 38 -
ANNt XIIPage 7 of 8
partial infon4mtion shown in Annex I indicates that for 1985, the number ofpeople trained in internal courses (6,628) met 89 percent of the appraisaltarget.1 In 1985, the proportion trained in external courses vs. lnternalcourses was two to one. The increase of external training was due to thereasons Indicated in para. 18. The summary on output shown in Table 5below, supplemented by that given in Annex I, provides the full picture onoutput presently available.
Table 5: OUTPUT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TRAINING PROGRAM
1985 OutputAppraisal as % of
output Estimate Actual Output AppraisalCourses (annual) 1982 1983 1984 1985 Tartet
Six Rural TrainingCenters 7,200 8/ 2,252 6,300 7,286 n.a.
Inservice TrainingCenter 250 483 2,589 1,010 n.a*
TOTAL: 7,450 2,735 8,889 8,296 19,642 263
Internal TrainingOnly: 7,450 n.a. n.a. 3,413 6,628 89
_/ Adjusted to six CCRs from the originally planned eight centers.
24. CENCAP focused the training program on farmers sub4ect to theBasic Agrarian Reform Law (Decree 153)2 , and on those included in abroadening of that law through Decree No. 207.3 Including the projectCCRs, non-project CCRs and other training programs, a total of 54,291persons were trained between 1983-1985 (36,855 beneficiaries of Decree 153,and 9,910 beneficiaries of Decree 207, as well as 7,526 professional andtechnical staff). The total population benefitting from Agrarian Reform isestimated about 530,000 people. Farmers, farm leaders, technicians a*dprofessionals have been trained in the following broad areas: associativebusiness education; rural administration, technology, literacy and othertypes of activities. Only 13 percent were trained in technology:associative business education reached 73 percent, business administration9 percent, 'other" 5 percent, and the literacy training rate was very lowbut gaining in importance.
1/ Adjusted to 7,450 because of the reduction of CCRs from eight to six,plus the CCES.
21 This law established production cooperatives made up of the workersfrom about 250 of the largest farms in the country.
31 Land not being directly worked by the owners is transferred to thoseworking on the land.
- 39 -
;UANX xIIPag a of 8
I.
oRecurrent Costs
25. In 1985, the total cost for operating CENCAP's training programs(internal and external) vas Ca. 4.05 million (2.5 million from Public Law
nr480 revenues, 0.95 million from AID Loan Project No. 519-T-032, and 1.06million from Government sources). The proportion of Governmentcontributions to operational costs have been steadily decreasing overconsecutive years as a proportion of total costs. Distribution ofexpenditures in 1985 for operational costs is estimated as follownspersonnel 72 percent; materials and supplies 23 percent; other non-personnel expenses 4 percent; and current transfers 1 percent.Improvements in the training programs appear possible by reducing theproportion of central staff compared to field staff, and allocating morefunds for field operations and maintenance of buildings, as well as theprovision of equipment and materials.
26. CENCAP's 1985 operational costs (Cs. 4.05 million) for training38,920 people (about half from project CCRs and CCES end half from non-project CCRs) represents an average cost per trainee of Cs. 104(USS 41.62). This cost corresponds to 18,700 trainees in one-week boardingcourses (five days, each for a total of 93,500 trainee-days), and 20,200trainees in two-day external field courses (40,400 trainee days). Overallcost per trainee-day would therefore be Cs.30.25 (US$12.1) and coat pertrainee-hour would be Cs.3.78 (US$1.51). The cost per trainee-weekis Cs.151.25 (US$60.5). This cost includes about two-thirds of thestudents learning in boarding conditions, and one-third as externalstudents. Information about the boarding cost was unavailable. The unitcost at appraisal for one trainee-week at a boarding course was equivalentto Cs. 150. This cost, projected to 1985 (see Table 4 of the body of thereport), would be about Cs.390. Even considering that about half of thetrainees participated in external courses and took only abo"t one-third ofthe total number of training days set at appraisal, the actual unit cost(Cs.151.25) appears quite reasonable compared to the project appraisalestimate. The cost per trainee-hour of US$1.51 appears quite reasonableconsidering the boarding conditions indicated above.
27. The low cost indicated appears to be the result of severalfactors: (a) the cost of one week courses at appraisal was based on 100
-percent boarding courses, while the actual cost reflects the real situationwhere only two-thirds of the total number of training days occur inboarding conditions; (b) socially-oriented courses, which predominates atthe CCRs, require proportionally less staff and less teaching materialsthan technically-oriented courses, and are therefore cheaper; (c) actualcourses are shore of teaching materials and other operational expenditures;and (d) the appraisal estimate appears to the modest salaries actuallybeing paid.
- 40 -
ANNEX XIIIPage 1 of 2
EL SALVADOR
Industrial and Agricultural Trainint Program
Prolect Completion Report
Notes on Physical Implementation
Designs of Educational Units
1. The design of the CCRs included four main buildings: (a)administration and staff living quarters, (b) cafeteria and kitchen, (c)student dormitory, and (d) classroom building. The building design wasstandardized *nd modest, utilizing locally-available materials and finishesthat minimized maintenance costs. Expansion of the training capacity from40 to 60-75 places will be possible by increasing the size of the studentdormitory facilities: constructed areas for the other facilities are largeenough to allow for this expansion.
2. The design of the CCES Center located in San Andres isconsiderably more elaborate than that of the CCRs. This facility wasprobably designed as a showplace, to harmonize with the surroundingAgricultural Research and Extension buildings (CENTA) and the AgriculturalSchool (ENA). A stmpler design with fewer oversized hallways, plantingareas and patios p.uld have been more appropriate and less costly.
3. Although functional, attractive and requiring minimal maintenance,the offices and shops at the Vocational Training Center (CFP) in SanSalvador have been constructed on a crowded site and are situated tooclosely together. As a result, natural light and ventilation in theinstructional area is inadequate. The site limits future expansion of theteaching area.
Civil Works
4. General contractors licensed to construct in El Salvador wereprequalified and evaluated in accordance with Bank guidelines. Sealedcompetitive bids were received for construction of the proposed facilities.
5. Generally speaking, construction of all CCR facilities wassatisfactory. Serious designlconstruction deficiencies which should havebeen corrected during construction were noted in the CFP component in SanSalvador. In the CFP facility, improper flashing and installation ofroofing material allows rain water to leak into the training areas. Notonly does the roof leak, but rain also enters as a result of inadequately-prote^-ted screened areas high on the outside walls. Furniture andequipment is being damaged. As a res.1t of what appears to be faultybase/finish painting, there is a serious rust problem on almost allstructural metalwork and on metal doors. Corrections are being made by thecontractor, with final retention monies being held until corrections have
- 41 -
ANNEX XIIIPage 2 of 2
been satisfactorily completed.
Furniture and Equipment
6. Furniture for the project was procured locally, utilizingprocedures acceptable to the Bank. Although international bids were notrequired, the invitation to bid was distributed to all Embassies in El
i Salvador and international companies were free to participate.
7. Bids for equipment, including spare parts, were requested on aninternational basis through manufacturers' legal representatives in ElSalvador. There was no prequalification of bidders. Only a minimal amountof equipment still remains to be delivered and installed at variouscenters. The Government has not yet resolved legally a dispute concerningthe quantity of some material received that was less than what shown on theshipping documents.
I.,
0
f -' I
l, . S i s9
0
,~~~~~~~~ S
-
1a _ * 1 .I a
:uo;iu pu: 5-ITZ Jo*;-':> -Z"9@1Z ozzSeZ @}"X lJod-a-
aa.lso ,r0
[S3-1Z51~~~~~~~~
Uwl PdYTwJ @ilaS u-gtlnu
lIOaV^lVS - 13~~~~~~~
.