Document of The World Bank
Report No: ICR00001477
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT(IDA-38180 TF-51428)
ON A
{LOAN/CREDIT} IN THE AMOUNT OF
US$ 70 MILLION
AND A
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 8 MILLION
TO THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
FOR A
LOCAL EMPOWERMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
March 12, 2010
AFTENCountry Department 12Africa Regional Office
ii
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective February, 2010)
Currency Unit = NairaUS$ 1.00 = Naira 1.45
FISCAL YEAR[January 1 – December 31]
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Vice President: Obiageli Katryn EzekwesiliCountry Director: Poonam GuptaSector Manager: Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough
Project Team Leader: Africa OlojobaICR Team Leader: Nyaneba Nkrumah
iii
COUNTRYNIGERIA
CONTENTS
Data SheetA. Basic InformationB. Key DatesC. Ratings SummaryD. Sector and Theme CodesE. Bank StaffF. Results Framework AnalysisG. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRsH. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph
1. Project Context, Development and Global Environment Objectives Design..........................12. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes............................................................33. Assessment of Outcomes..........................................................................................................84. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome and Global Environmet Outcome................125. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance...................................................................126. Lessons Learned.....................................................................................................................137. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners........................14Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................................15Annex 2. Outputs by Component...............................................................................................16Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis................................................................................1Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes............................2Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results...........................................................................................4Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results..................................................................5Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR....................................6Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders......................................7Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents......................................................................................8
MAP
iv
I N S E R T
D A T A S H E E T
H E R E
AFTER APPROVAL BY COUNTRY DIRECTOR
AN UPDATED DATA SHEET SHOULD BE INSERTED
MANUALLY IN HARD COPY
BEFORE SENDING A FINAL ICR TO THE PRINT SHOP.
NOTE: The Data Sheet is generated by the system
using the information entered in the Operations Portal
each time you use “Send Draft”, “Print” or “Submit Final” functions.
v
1. Project Context, Development and Global Environment Objectives Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal(brief summary of country and sector background, rationale for Bank assistance)
Overlap with IDA Components ICR- will be provided by IDA review
Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)
The aim of the GEF funds is to promote and implement an integrated approach for the sustainable use and conservation of biological diversity resources in the Protected Areas (PAs) and assist eligible communities within support zones around targeted Protected Areas to plan, co-finance, implement, operate and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihood micro-projects.
1. The Global Environmental Objective (GEO) is that “beneficiaries within the support zones around targeted Protected Areas in two of the participating states will have planned, co-financed, and implemented, and are continuing to operate and maintain, environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihood micro-projects.” The key output indicators for this goal are:
(a) By year 5, 40% of the communities (targeted by the project during the first 2 years in the support zones of the Protected Areas) have adopted alternative and biologically sustainable livelihoods.
2. For the GEF funds, the GEF Outcome is “to promote conservation and sustainable use of biological resources in the target areas” (Annex 1 of the PAD). The Outcome indicator for the GEF aspect of the project is that:
(a) By year 5, a 5% increase in population of species identified as being threatened.
1.2 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification
The objective was not revised.
1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification
The objective was not revised.
1.6 Main Beneficiaries
The GEF funds (component 3) support the Kainji National Park, Lame Burra Game Reserve, Maladumba Land and Forest Reserve (all in Bauchi state) and the Yankari National Park in Niger state. The project also supports the surrounding park fringe communities and the National Parks Service (NPS). The project identified 100 communities to participate in the micro-project investments.
1
1.7 Original Components (as approved)
The description of the component, as given in the appraisal report, is as follows:
Component 3: Protected Area and Biodiversity Management (US$ 9.81 million [GEF= US$8.00])
GEF will finance the incremental cost of activities that have global benefits in the four national parks and reserves. The National Parks Service (NPS) and relevant state agencies will be assisted with technical assistance, equipment and civil works for ensuring better management of biodiversity and ecosystem services within selected protected areas. In addition, this component will also support development initiatives of communities living within the support zones of the selected Protected Areas and more closely promote the involvement of local stakeholders in Protected Area Management.
GEF supported activities aim to:
(a) support and extend productive uses, compatible with conservation biodiversity within the Protected Areas and support zones;
(b) promote adoption of alternative development options compatible with conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and maintenance of ecosystem services.
The component has the following subcomponents:
(i) Improving Protected Area management, under which technical assistance, training and study tours will be supported to assess the current policy and regulatory framework relating to Protected Area management.
(ii) Institutional strengthening, under which technical assistance, training, equipment and vehicles will be provided to carry out comprehensive surveys of selected areas. These surveys will establish baseline date and strengthen the monitoring and tracking of species, their movement and the health and viability of ecosystems.
(iii) Sustainable livelihoods, under which appropriate sustainable livelihoods will be identified and implemented in consultation with beneficiaries.
(iv) Conservation outreach, under which technical assistance, training, equipment and vehicles will be provided to construct and equip conservation centers or “Eco-Centers” in strategic locations to promote biodiversity and conservation awareness.
(v) Project management, under which technical assistance, training, equipment and vehicles will be provided to facilitate monitoring and implementation of project activities.
1.8 Revised Components
The components were not revised.
1.9 Other significant changes
(a) On June 6th, 2008, a reallocation request was approved. The following allocations were increased:
i. training- by US$100,000; ii. consultancy services- by US$100,000; iii. micro-projects -by US$ 500,000 and; iv. operational costs -by US$450,000
2
The additional funding came from the unallocated budget of US$ 1,150,000. The number of project beneficiaries and the scope of the project remained unchanged by this reallocation.
(b) In December 2008, a six month extension was approved.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
The quality at entry for IDA components are rated satisfactory due to the strong local empowerment aspects of the project design which trained local communities to plan and financially manage their own micro-projects; the Government’s strong involvement during project preparation; and the Government’s continued involvement in the project despite a Bank imposed 9 month delay between negotiations and the board.
The 9 month delay occurred because Nigeria was suddenly downgraded to a low case lending portfolio due to low performance of the existing portfolio. With 3 Nigerian projects going to the board from the same unit and with a suddenly lower financial envelope, the LEMP project was held back till the following fiscal year. This action prompted the Country Director to write a letter offering the government a Supplementary Project Preparation Advance in the amount of US$450,000 to maintain progress towards implementation readiness prior to the board date. In this time, the Government showed continued commitment by constituting the project team and continuing to advance on preparation activities, including the completion of several studies, till the project was approved.
The project design integrated lessons learnt from Social Funds and community-driven development projects and in particular focused on two key lessons that ultimate helped the project: (a) benefits must accrue quickly and provide tangible economic benefits in the short-term to increase the potential for maintaining collective action and (b) community planning must be truly participatory and (c) the poor and vulnerable must be targeted and social organization must address the needs of each interest group (farmers, landless, women, nomads, different age groups) to give them an integral stake in the success of the micro-project.
The project document was found to be satisfactory at the QER. The QER panel was impressed with the thorough preparation of the project materials, the smooth logistics, and the focused terms of reference provided for the panel. The panel considered the project relevant, and important in meeting an urgent need for improved watershed management in Nigeria. The panel particularly liked the innovative application of CDD practice to multi-sectoral watershed management, and the combination of Bank and GEF activities to meet their complementary concerns. At the QER, the project focused on using a micro-watershed approach as the organizing principle and was called the MEMP- Micro-watershed and Environmental Management Project. This watershed management approach was slightly de-emphasized by appraisal and the final project went forward as the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project, focusing more on the CDD approach to environmental planning with elements of micro-watershed principles. Perhaps as a result of this shift, the micro-watershed approach, although mentioned throughout the PAD, was not well detailed or deliberated and therefore not owned by the client. This is most evident in the project’s activities where a concerted micro-watershed approach to local planning and development is absent.
GEF Preparation
Despite strong M&E aspects elaborated in the design that applied to the IDA and GEF aspects of the project, quality at entry for the preparation of the GEF aspects of the project is rated unsatisfactory largely because (i) the GEF aspects, which were supposed to be blended into the project, were poorly integrated, leading the project to change implementation arrangements in the last 2 years of the project to ensure a stronger presence at the community level. The ICR review is of the opinion that implementation of GEF activities required a very strong CDD approach, but there was not much distinction in implementation arrangements between GEF and
3
IDA, with GEF being subsumed under the IDA program. There were other poor design issues that negatively impacted implementation: (ii) the key output for the GEF funds were the micro-projects. However, there was no clear language in the PAD that described the type of micro-projects that needed to be implemented. The PAD referred to the micro-projects as “environmentally sustainable livelihood projects”, “sustainable livelihood projects” and “biologically sustainable livelihoods” but gave no description as to whether these could be social projects, environmental projects or any alternative livelihood project. To confuse the issue further, the GEO stated that 40% of communities should have invested in “biologically sustainable livelihoods” but elsewhere in the same document it stated that communities would be given an open choice in terms of their investments. It is no wonder that the project implementers were at a loss. The Project Implementation Manual adds to the problem because the manual, while excellently done, gives a positive list of what communities can invest in and a negative list of what they cannot, and this positive list is restricted to environmentally sustainable (but some might argue not necessarily biological) micro-projects. The list includes eco-tourism, community woodlots, nurseries, agro-forestry, handicrafts, bee-keeping, pottery making, wind and solar energy, animal farming, and soil erosion control. If one followed the PIM and ignored the inconsistencies in the PAD, then the project would have been likely to achieve the GEO and PDO within the original period and without the need for an extension. However, the inconsistencies in the PAD likely contributed to the mistaken establishment of every type of micro-project, including (a) social micro-projects because the communities were offered an open-choice (e.g., rehabilitation of classrooms, water infrastructure, health centers); (b) livelihood projects (e.g., agricultural production projects) and (c) environmentally sustainable projects as defined in the PIM. In the last 2 years of implementation, Phase II projects were restricted largely to environmentally sustainable projects on the positive list in an attempt to meet the requirements of the GEO. The switch, which came as a result of a 2007 mission, alienated some community members, who largely preferred social projects, and negatively impacted the length of time that participants had to establish and profit from their new sustainable environmental livelihoods; (iii) the logic and design of the GEF Project Development Outcome, in the ICR’s opinion, was overly ambitious. The GEF Outcome is achieved when the collective output(s) results in a higher benefit, which for this project should have been a change in community behavior. However, this step is missing in the logic chain. This change in behavior could have been measured by a before and after survey of beneficiaries. Then, the behavior change, over time, may result in an increase in the number/frequency of species. The design of the project assumes that the promotion of conservation ideas automatically leads to a 5% increase in the number of species in the park without measuring whether behavior change has occurred or not.
2.2 Implementation
Implementation was relatively slow, with the latter half of implementation (Phase II) proceeding much smoother and faster than the first half of implementation. During implementation, it was clear that the bank team and the project implementing team had to work steadily to overcome considerable obstacles related to project design issues, lack of counterpart funding, and high TTL turn-over. The following describes implementation bottlenecks and how they were overcome.
Implementation issues affected by project design flaws: As indicated in the previous section, there was a clear tension between the IDA and GEF aspects of the project that is apparent in the PAD. This lack of clarity was not helped by a rapid turn-over in TTL-ship - 5 different TTLs (1 for preparation, 4 for implementation) over the project’s lifespan. In 2006, the Bank supervision team appeared to have had an epiphany and realized that the GEO and PDO would not be met if the project continued with implementing high disbursing social projects (schools, hospitals, etc). The teams eventually overcame this by a decision to completely decouple GEF activities from IDA activities to ensure they met the very different goals of environmentally sustainable livelihoods. They jettisoned the old Community Development Plans that were the same at the IDA program and initiated new plans for Phase II projects termed sustainable livelihood plans (SLP). By the end of the project, the number of micro-projects that qualified as “environmentally sustainable” had increased significantly from 35% to 50%.
Slow Implementation by Mid-Term: Implementation was slow in the first 3 years because of (i) delays in procurement; (ii) the learning curve to retrain of the MITs on environmentally sustainable livelihood concepts and the development of a new generation Sustainable Livelihood Plans. By mid-term (May-June, 2007), 50
4
new phase II sustainable livelihood plans had been developed but not yet reviewed or selected; (iii) delays were also caused by the process of replacing MITs and their field staff with recent university graduates (Operational Officers or OOs) due to MIT staffing problems; (iv) problems obtaining the Government counterpart funding during the first 5 years of the project. The Government counterpart was 265 million Naira (US$1.82 million). However, by 2008, only 40 million Naira (US$275,862) had been released. The rest of the counterpart was only released in 2009, towards the end of the project; (vi) slow response time from the Government and the Bank- it took a long time for the Bank to identify problematic issues and even longer for the NPS and other implementing institutions to implement the recommendations. For example, it took several years for the project to realize it wasn’t implementing the right type of micro-project and the M&E manual took 1 year and 10 months from TOR to final delivery. Although a few of the slow implementation issues were never really resolved, once the SLPs were ready and Operational Officers replaced the MIT staff, the pace of implementation of the micro-projects picked up. For example, at mid-term there were 172 micro-projects implemented, by project close this number was almost triple (480).
ISRs/Bank Follow-up: Although there was regular ISR reporting for the IDA aspects of the project, there was inconsistent follow-up on the GEF component. This is largely due to the disconnect between the two aspects of the project- Reporting was to be based on a mixture of IDA supervision missions and reports that covered all components and intermittent GEF focused missions. In actuality, the IDA supervision reports focused mainly on the IDA funded components and did not systematically report on the GEF component.
Table 1: Project Outputs for Subcomponent 3 (Micro-projects) Compiled from Field Community Profile Documents (November, 2009 Sources).Protected Area/Reserve
Number of communities directly impacted by the project
Number of environmentally sustainable micro-projects (PIM definition)
Number of other micro-projects
Total Number of micro-projects
Total cost of micro-projects (GEF only)
Maladumba Lake and Forest Reserve
20 75 44 119 (63% environmentally sustainable
42,982,095 Naira or US$296,428
Yankari Game Reserve
20 94 111 205 (45% environmentally sustainable
48,633,400 Naira or US$335,402
Kainji National Park (Borgu and Zugurma sectors)
12 31 30 61 (50% environmentally sustainable
33,143,126 or US$228,573
Lama Burra Game Reserve
17 54 41 95 (56% environmentally sustainable
39,040,490 or US$248,555
Total 69 254 226 480 US$1,108,958
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
M&E for the project is rated Moderately unsatisfactory.
5
The M&E system design in the PAD focused on baseline surveys in the project areas that used an adapted version of the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) in years 1 and 5 to assess the impact of investments. In addition, the GEF funds supported the establishment of comprehensive surveys in the Protected Areas which would provide baseline data and strengthen the monitoring and tracking of species, their movement and the health and viability of the ecosystem.
M&E reporting was never systematic despite the secondment in 2005 of an M&E specialist from the National Parks Service. The bank noted the deficiency in M&E and recommended the recruitment of a consultant to develop an M&E manual. Terms of reference were developed in February 2006 and in December 2007 a draft M&E manual was finally delivered. The December Bank supervision mission recommended further changes to the M&E procedures, recommending (i) that the GEF M&E focal officer meet with relevant stakeholders of the protected areas to agree upon relevant indicators, monitoring methods and reporting formats for assessing the changes of biodiversity in the PAs due to the project activities; (ii) that the GEF M&E focal officer provide, by February 2008, a clear set of reporting formats for stakeholders to facilitate regular and meaningful reporting and; (iii) additional training for staff of the PAs to monitor and assess biodiversity changes in the PAs and (iv) that the project would facilitate in-house training to ensure adequate capacity and collection of relevant and accurate data.
M&E improved for the community related aspects from Phase I to Phase II micro-projects, with strong community reporting. For example, each micro-project group had record books with careful elaboration of expenditures, income and profits. For Phase II projects, these records were checked and monitored for accuracy by OO staff. In addition, there were community profile documents prepared by the OOs and used in this ICR review, which clearly outlined the community as well as the number, type and cost of investments. Despite these positive changes in the field level implementation, M&E remained poor at the project level and the M&E for the project is rated moderately unsatisfactory on the following basis: (i) Although a baseline was established at the beginning of the project for all PAs which included species counts, including estimated numbers for threatened species, there were no follow up surveys for the remainder of the project period. The surveys were a crucial element of the M&E design at the PAD stage partly because they were needed to track increases (or decreases) in wildlife populations that could be attributed to the project. Without the surveys the ICR cannot determine quantitatively whether the PDO was achieved or not; (ii) a quantitative study was done at mid-term by the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, (NISER) to understand how the project had impacted the quality of life of recipients in the GEF LEEMP project area. The study interviewed project participants and asked a number of pertinent questions ranging from whether participants were involved in the preparation of management plans to whether or not communities would continue encroaching in the park/reserve. Although most of the PA communities responded negatively to the last question, 70 percent of participants in Mala Dumba stated that they would continue hunting in the park, thereby compromising the attainment of the GEF PDO. At mid-term, disbursals to these Mala Dumba communities were lower than in other communities and the project subsequently improved their investment disbursals in Mala Dumba. However, again, the project failed to put in place a follow up survey to track any change in communities attitude by the end of the project; (iii) at the end of the project, a report (termed an e-survey) was completed by the NPS. However, this survey gave no information on community attitudes or species change. Instead, it focused on the details of the micro-projects completed, particularly in Kainji National park; (iv) Perhaps most troubling aspect of the project M&E system as a whole is that there is a marked discrepancy in the number of micro-projects implemented even among the project’s own official documents. Documents prepared by the OOs conflict with summaries of the project achievements presented by the PMU. Project documents, for example, claim that 585 micro-projects were established over a 3 year period (first micro-project was implemented in 2006). Documents provided by the OOs and field staff at the end of the project suggest that this figure could be significantly lower (480 Micro-projects, see Table 1). In addition, a count of projects indicates the establishment of 61 projects in Kainji whereas other project document state 191 projects.
6
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Safeguard Compliance
Safeguard compliance is rated satisfactory. The project had developed a environmental and social screening checklist for community sub-projects prepared by the LEEMP-IDA project. The procedure manual for micro-projects published in November 2006 and revised in October 2008 also contained the procedures for ensuring safeguard compliance. Despite this, a Bank supervision mission noted that although the procedures were clear, monitoring of the mitigation measures for micro-projects required better follow-up. Recommendations included the hiring of an environmental/social consultant (or state level environment specialist) to participate in the monitoring and to ensure that contractors adhere to the environmental guidelines. A natural resources management specialist was subsequently put on the project team and subsequent missions report the consistent use of the environmental and social screening checklists. An environmental audit of the project was completed in 2009 to assess whether PMU had sufficient capacity to follow-up environmental safeguards, ascertain whether contractors and communities were adhering to environmental due diligence during construction and to assess the involvement of State Environmental Protection Agencies in project monitoring. A satisfactory compliance to safeguard measures for the project as a whole was shown including the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
Fiduciary Compliance
Financial management was unsatisfactory. The Bank’s financial audit of December 2006 indicated that even though there were external audits, there was no evidence that the reports from the auditors were being followed up or remedial actions taken. The financial audit also indicated that the 2004 and 2005 audits did not contain balance sheets (against financial covenants, Article IV section 4.01), nor fixed assets, debtors and accrued expenses. The recommendation was that a pre-audit system be introduced so that no payment would be made unless certified by the Internal Auditor. The audit report also listed various corruption related problems with SOEs where travel receipts were less than the claim or where room rates were too high. The 2008 and 2009 Internal Control Report suggested that there were several improvements in the accounting skills of staff, updating of cash books and classification of financial transactions. However noted weaknesses stated that the fixed assets register and stock ledger were not being used and there was weak supervision of accounting duties by senior staff. The ICR process identified some inaccuracies in reporting. There was a total budget of US$2.35 million allocated for micro-projects. According to field documents listing the micro-projects and disbursal amounts up to November 2009, US$1,108,958 was spent on the micro-projects. However, final financial report prepared by PIU staff states that the micro-projects cost US$1,914,759.64 (see below table). The discrepancy between the two figures is approximately US$805,801. The PIU has not yet responded to an inquiry related to the difference in figures.
Table 2Category Description Allocation Expenditure to Date Balance
01 Consultancy Services 1,200,000.00 1,011,502.52 188,497.4802 Goods 850,000.00 858,813.53 (8,813.53)03 Civil Works 1,200,000.00 1,129,939.81 70,060.1904 Training & Workshop 650,000.00 608,488.59 41,522.4105 Micro Project 2,350,000.00 1,914,759.64 435,240.0006 SLBCOF 550,000.00 00.00 550,000.0007 Operating Cost 1,200,000.00 1,471,045.82 -271,941.82
Total 8000000.00 6,994,549.91 1471045.82 1,005,450.09
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase(including transition arrangement to post-completion operation of investments financed by present operation, Operation & Maintenance arrangements, sustaining reforms and institutional capacity, and next phase/follow-up operation, if applicable)
7
There are few transition arrangements. The project did have plans to put in place a $550,000 livelihood fund which would have funded additional micro-projects in the project area. This would have also provided funding for the presence of NPS and other support staff (OOs, trainers, etc) in the field. However, the fund was not established before the project ended. The Government is trying to establish the fund themselves since there is a large amount of counterpart funding remaining. However, as of the ICR date, little progress has been made on that front.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation(to current country and global priorities, and Bank assistance strategy)
The conservation and protection of biodiversity in arid and semi-arid lands increasingly is beingrecognized as a global priority. Numerous species that were prevalent several years ago in the Savannah,Sudan and Sahelian regions of Nigeria have virtually disappeared. Protection and conservation ofbiodiversity in these areas is particularly important since the degradation of habitat and ecosystems andthe disappearance of indigenous species increase the potential for desertification of these areas, Inaddition, the degradation of these ecosystems has marginalized communities living in them, reducingtheir options to earn a livelihood, which in turn increases the pressures on Protected Areas as well as onfragile ecosystems. Limited information exists on existing species diversity in the forest and gamereserves other than the Protected Areas demarcated as National Parks. The objectives of the project arefully consistent with guidance from the Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity- 4 -(CBD) (ratified by Nigeria on August 29, 1994) regarding conservation, sustainable use of biologicaldiversity and support for the active involvement of local communities as managers and beneficiaries ofsound natural resource management.
At the time of the project’s preparation, the Nigeria Joint Interim Strategy Update (JISU) identified three sets of actors contributing to development in Nigeria: government, private sector and local communities. Accordingly, the JISU was structured along three pillars, each designed to increase the capacity of one of these sets of actors to contribute more effectively to Nigeria's development. The three pillars were to: (a) improve economicgovernance; (b) create conditions for rapid private sector-led and poverty-reducing economic growth,especially in the non-oil economy; and (c) enable local communities to take charge of their owndevelopment. Consistent with the third pillar, the overall objective of the Local Empowerment andEnvironmental Management Project (LEEMP) was to reduce poverty by empowering communities andlocal governments to take charge of their own development plans (and their needs, to the extent thatdoing so lies within their capabilities) through an approach based on the principles of community-drivendevelopment (CDD).
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives and Global Environment Objectives
Global Objective (GEO)“Beneficiaries have planned, co-financed, and implemented, and are continuing to operate and maintain, environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihood micro-projects.” (pg 3, PAD)
Rating: Satisfactory
The achievement of the GEO for the GEF component is rated satisfactory despite the fact that the project delivered only 69 out of 100 community development (phase I) and sustainable livelihood (phase II) plans developed. By the end of the project, at least 50% of the micro-projects around each reserve/park could be classified as environmentally sustainable, with all 69 communities adopting at least one or more micro-projects that can be defined as environmentally sustainable thus achieving the indicator for the GEO. There are 3 ways in which the micro-projects were particularly successful: First, the project was effective in social targeting. Beneficiaries were part of an elaborate yet effective process that targeted women, youth, artisans, farmers and
8
hunters. Targeting hunter groups (self identified poachers) would be expected to contribute significantly to attaining the GEF outcome; Second, the project was effective in ensuring that beneficiaries owned and fully participated in the micro-projects. At the community level, a Community Programme Management Committee (CPMC) was put in place with a community elected chairman, secretary and financial secretary and this group worked with the MITs to develop the group plans. The CPMC’s also open the main project account for the community, collected the community co-financing and monitored disbursement. Approximately US$1,108,958 was reported disbursed from GEF for the micro-projects with an additional US$ 138,092 provided by the beneficiary communities. This community co-financing represents 12 % of the overall cost of the micro-projects- evidence of strong beneficiary commitment. Third, the project was particularly successful in ensuring that beneficiaries continued to operate their micro-projects after implementation although the long-term result is less clear for Phase II micro-projects, which were begun in 2008 and 2009. Most Phase I projects, which began in 2006, continue to be operational. Of the Phase I micro-projects visited, all were in full operation and several were already beginning to show longer-term profitability. There are several projects that deserve special mention because they were particularly successful: The Duel powered (electric and diesel) rice processing machine and housing for Wawa Women’s Association. This group was the only one with this type of equipment for miles and they were making a good profit. Another group, formally an animal fattening group, had fattened and sold their animals and invested the profits into purchasing motorcycles which they initially leased. From leasing, they moved into selling motorcycles and indicated that they were making a profit of about $70 on each motorcycle sold. A third group, the Unique Business/ Computer Center for the Wawa Youths Association, established in 2006, focused on printing (brochures, photocopies, funeral announcements) and computer centers. The group reported profits and plans for expansion. The greatest risk to the project’s GEO and PDO is that a large number of Phase II micro-projects were established in the last 2 years and without the training and hand-on approach that benefited Phase I participants, sustainability of these newer micro-projects remains a concern.
3.3 Efficiency(Net Present Value/Economic Rate of Return, cost effectiveness, e.g., unit rate norms, least cost, and comparisons; and Financial Rate of Return)
Not applicable for the GEF aspects
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome and Global Environment Outcome Rating(combining relevance, achievement of PDO/GEOs, and efficiency)For the GEF funds, the GEF Outcome is “to promote conservation and sustainable use of biological resources in the target areas
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
Although the project successfully achieved the GEO, which relies largely on achieving project related outputs related to micro-project establishment (sub-component 3 of component 3), the GEF Outcome is only achieved when the collective output(s) results in a higher benefit, which for this project is a change in community behavior (missing from the design as indicated earlier). This, in turn, should lead to an increase in species in the parks/reserves. The ICR first examined whether the promotion of conservation ideas as well as the micro-projects led to any changes in community behavior and then examined whether this could possibly have resulted in any species increase.
The GEF component listed the following short-term outputs: (i) community members are educated in conservation (subcomponent 4) and (ii) that communities will implement and operate successful alternative livelihoods that provide incomes that will reduce the reliance on the park for livelihoods (subcomponent 3). These outputs are to result in a behavior change that promotes conservation, ultimately leading to an increase in the number of threatened species in the park.
9
The micro-projects were moderately satisfactorily implemented but the pivotal question is: were the communities adequately sensitized in conservation/protection of the parks? Did the education and the micro-projects foster a behavior change? A mid-term beneficiary survey suggests that the implementation of the conservation education aspects was weak. For example, less than a third of participants were involved in the participatory management plans for the park and very few (2.6% in Mala Dumbia, 16.7% in Lame/Bura and 26.7% in Yankari --see Table 2) indicated that they had participated in any biodiversity management training). However, it is likely that the micro-projects had a greater impact on modifying behavior for 3 of 4 parks/reserves because when the survey asked whether or not the project had succeeded in preventing participants from encroaching on the reserves and parks, responses were largely in the affirmative except for Mala Dumbia. Responses indicated that in Kainji, 64% answered yes the project had stopped them from encroachment, 96.8% answered similarly in Yankari and 89.7% answered similarly in Lame/Bura. In Mala Dumba only 30.8% answered yes, indicating the persistence of high level encroachment. This can be due to (i) the low level of funds disbursed (30%) to the Mala-Dumba communities before the mid-term compared with higher levels in the other parks and (ii) the extremely low levels of biodiversity management training that occurred in that community. There were other communities that resisted the project- in Lame-Bura the project had to expel 3 communities from participating in the project because they continued to encroach in the park and at one stage beat up a project staff. Without a follow up survey at the end of the project to determine whether the behavior of the Mala Dumba community changed, it is difficult to say that the project fully obtained its GEF PDO. The ICR review argues that although the outputs for subcomponent 4 (micro-projects) were largely achieved, the outcome was only partially achieved for the following reasons: (i) behavior change in Mala Dumba remains uncertain; (ii) even though the communities did not receive adequate conservation training, the livelihoods were enough to, in 3 of 4 parks/reserves, detract them from poaching. However, it also shows that if the livelihoods were to fail, communities would return to poaching; (ii) delays in the implementation of the micro-projects have meant that funds for at least 50-60% of phase II projects were just fully disbursed in 2008 and 2009. With the closure of the project without the implementation of the US$550,000 livelihood fund intended to continue support to communities, the sustainability and profitability of these new investments is uncertain and behavior changes will be reversed if these ventures are not profitable.
The next question to assess is whether the ICR review can make any determination as to whether there is a species increase in the parks/reserves as a result of any behavioral change. There was no end of project survey of wildlife species and therefore it is not possible to quantitatively show that the project had any impact on threatened species. However, the ICR review determines that it is highly unlikely that any change in species frequency occurred. First, the impact of the project itself is generally low given that there are 1 million people living around the park and the project only intervened in 69 communities with a total of 480 micro-projects. If we assume 20-30 people per micro-project, the micro-projects directly impact a maximum of 14,400 people. If we assume that each person indirectly influences 10 people, the project’s impact will rise to 140,000 people, a mere 15% of the park population. Given the relatively low impact of the project vis a vis the total population of the park communities, the few number of projects that are currently profitable, the lack of directed project funds to a fund that can continue to educate and provide livelihoods for communities and the poor conservation/biodiversity education of participants, it is unlikely that the PDO (and the indicator as stated in the PAD) was an attainable goal. This project is therefore rated moderately unsatisfactory for attainment of the Project Development Outcome.
Table 2: Awareness and Participation in Biodiversity ManagementVariable PARK
Kainji Lake National Park
Yankari Games Reserve
Mala-Dumba Lake & Forest Reserve
Lame/Bura Games Reserve
Proportion aware of any biodiversity management plan for their community
57.5 48.6 100.0 57.5
Proportion involved in the development of the biodiversity management plan5
91.3 61.1 37.5 26.1
10
Proportion involved with the implementation of the biodiversity management plan
60.0 10.8 25.0 5.0
Proportion reporting implementation of biodiversity management plan executed as proposed
70.0 35.1 17.5 40.0
Proportion ever participated in any biodiversity management training
47.5 26.7 2.6 16.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
While the primary objective of the project was the conservation of globally significant biodiversity, the project contributed significantly to the livelihood of the local communities by the promotion of income generating activities that have resulted, in a few cases to date, in substantial increases in income. Through this component, the project was effective in addressing poverty, gender and social development in the following way: empowerment of local communities and social inclusion were a part of the project design. This was achieved by ensuring that the process for selection of project beneficiaries targeted specific groups such as women, youth, artisans, farmers and hunters. For example, there were at least 1 women and 1 youth sustainable livelihood micro-project in each community. To ensure that this occurred within a known socio-economic context the project supported baseline social assessments of the communities to gain a good understanding of community dynamics, needs, economic pursuits, etc.
The project addressed poverty issues by assisting community groups to put in place a mechanism for sharing the profits of the micro-projects. All these groups devised their own methods for sharing the funds among their 20-30 members, thus alleviating poverty within their group. Some methods of sharing/revolving funds were poor or unfair and these were assessed by the OOs and strengthened where needed. An innovative example of this revolving mechanism was seen in the rice de-husker group in Wawa where women distributed their funds among their members but asked for re-payment in rice, which they then de-husked and sold. Other groups required repayment in cash.
The project seemed to have a positive impact on the social development of beneficiaries, particularly women, because it gave them the opportunity, within a largely Muslim context, of being in charge of organizing, funding and running their own business ventures. One of the women said that this project had allowed her to help her husband and contribute to paying some of her children’s school related costs. It was clear that the estimation of her worth had risen sharply in her household.
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening(particularly with reference to impacts on longer-term capacity and institutional development)
The specific aim of the project has been to increase the local capacity (NPS, Local Government, etc) to administer natural resources, as well as to strengthen partner institutions including local communities. The project (see Annex 2) partially achieved these aims. The project did improve the operational capacity of NPS by providing equipment, a boat, vehicles, computers, and 5 much appreciated ranger quarters within the parks. It also improved to some extent, the technical capacity of staff through international tours, ranger training, fisheries training, training on community building, etc. The project also provided the NPS with tools to improve forestry/ wildlife management by funding 4 management plans for the parks/reserves. Despite this, there was limited partnership with communities. The trust that needed to be built with communities as well as the community education aspects of the project could have been strengthened if the eco-centers were developed much earlier in the project. The ICR review noted that these eco-centers, recently equipped with TVs, small generators, camping equipment and education pamphlets, have not yet fulfilled their intended function of educating communities. There was also limited partnership with the local government agencies (LGAs), who
11
are responsible for community development in 3 of the 4 parks/reserves (Kainji is an exception because the NPS intervenes in these communities). LGAs, more so than the NPS, could have been trained to become advocates for the park since they interact often with communities. The last supervision mission prior to project close stressed the need to anchor an exit strategy on three pillars: (i) increased advocacy for LGAs to take over the ownership of the project; (ii) strengthening of the existing institutional arrangement for governance of the project at the community level and (iii) synergies with existing WB projects for continued technical and other support even after project close. These recommendations came late and were not implemented.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)
Not applicable
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops(optional for Core ICR, required for ILI, details in annexes) N/A
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome and Global Environment OutcomeRating: Substantial
As indicated earlier, the risk to the DO and GEO are substantial because the project closed before the Phase II projects were established, and there is no plan regarding how the National Parks and the LGAs will support these communities after project close. The contract with the OOs, who worked with the communities, is ended and several of the NPS staff who had worked on the project were transferred to other parts of the country at project close. At the time of the ICR missions, the eco-center in Kainji was not permanently staffed. Communities will need continued technical and financial support as they establish their micro-projects. Women-only groups may need additional protection to stop men from co-opting their projects. For example, at the time of the ICR mission, it was discovered that the women in one community were being told that they had to pay a portion of their profits to the Community Programme Management Committees (CPMCs). These factors expose the project outcomes to substantial risk.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance (relating to design, implementation and outcome issues)
5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry (i.e., performance through lending phase)Rating: Unsatisfactory
As previously discussed, Quality at Entry for the preparation of the GEF aspects of the project is rated unsatisfactory largely because the GEF aspects, which were supposed to be blended into the project, were poorly integrated, leading to substantial confusion in early project implementation. Specifically, the outcome indicators did not accurately measure the outcomes, and the poor articulation of the environment outputs of the project and how they were linked to the outcome, led to implementation delays that ultimately affected the longer term viability of the Phase II micro-projects.
(b) Quality of Supervision (including of fiduciary and safeguards policies)Rating: Moderately satisfactory
Safeguard aspects were very well supervised and the TTLs responsible for the GEF aspects identified the main bottlenecks and provide detailed recommendations for removing these stumbling blocks. However, the Bank team was not proactive enough in addressing on time, the problems related to the type of micro-projects implemented, fiduciary compliance issues and some simple tasks such as the finalization of an M&E manual.
12
The lack of follow through can be attributed to two factors: First, some of the supervision was to be covered by the IDA portion of the program and during these times, supervision of the GEF component (but not necessarily of the IDA) was weak or non-existent. Second, the high turnover in TTLs (beyond the TTLs control) which meant that several aspects of the project fell through the gap as the transitions were made. (b) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
Although there was significant technical guidance and support at crucial moments that helped turn the project around, there was insufficient oversight of the GEF aspects, as seen from the ISR records and the length of time to resolve issues or to get a task completed. It is also the role of the Bank to enforce fiduciary compliance through a number of tools such as forensic audits, stronger enforcement of audit recommendations and even project suspension. These tools were not used to enforce fiduciary compliance. The rapid turn-over in TTLs, every 1-2 years, only served to disrupted the flow of the project and put undue stress on project staff, requiring them to bring the new TTLs up to speed and to be flexible enough to respond to changes in the Bank team. These factors, coupled with the problems related to quality at entry for the GEF component, suggest that the Bank’s presence could have more strongly guided implementation of the GEF component.
5.2 Borrower Performance(a) Government PerformanceRating: Moderately satisfactory
The Government, particularly the state governments in Bauchi and Niger were well engaged in the project, particularly at preparation. During preparation, there were several missions and workshops held for the GEF component with widespread participation by state officials including the Commissioner for Housing and the Environment, Bauchi State Government, NGOs, community leaders, Niger state core teams, and many state and local government authorities. At these workshops, the participants were strongly engaged in preparation, identifying issues faced by communities within the support zones, assessed appropriate interventions, and bringing up possible projects that could be supported by the GEF component. Despite this show of early commitment, the Government had problems releasing the counter-funds for the project and although these were ultimately released, the delays impacted the smooth flow of the project.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies PerformanceRating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
The project faced considerable obstacles in the first few years and yet the team managed to turn around the project and meet most of its set objectives. However, limitations related to implementation delays and the sustainability issues reinforced by the inability of the project to put in place a livelihood fund reduced the likelihood that the environmental gains will be long-lasting. In addition, gaps in monitoring and evaluation of the project have made it difficult to assess the real impact of this project. Of additional concern are the fiduciary compliance problems that are likely to have reduced the real impact of this project.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower PerformanceRating: Moderately satisfactory
The Borrower is rated moderately satisfactory based on the analysis of the performance of the Government and the implementation team. Although certain aspects of the project were implemented successfully, there were a number of key limitations that have jeopardized the full attainment of the GEF Project Development Outcome such as the lack of counter-part funding, fiduciary issues and failure to put in place the livelihood fund.
6. Lessons Learned (both project-specific and of wide general application)
13
The achievement of project outcomes is only validated by quantitative data put in place by a strong results framework and monitoring and evaluation system. Such a system requires prioritization in the cost-tab or the loan agreement. In this project, one of the positive aspects of the design was that the project design required monitoring of wildlife in the parks throughout the project period as well as beneficiary surveys to monitor the opinions of project beneficiaries. However, none of this was implemented. A line item budget for these tasks in the cost-tab and reinforcement of these studies in the grant agreement could impress on the Borrower the importance of these studies.
Institutional strengthening components need to address the totality of the way the institution functions instead of using training as a panacea for all strengthening needs. The project financed capacity building aspects such as training and equipment but completely missed opportunities to assess identify gaps in the NPS management and operations. For example, there was no assessment of enforcement methods, surveillance methods, adequacy of staffing levels for the PAs, staff incentives, etc. Consequently, the core operations of the NPS continue as usual without any deep or long-lasting reforms.
Bank staff that prepare relatively complex projects should be required (if in the same region) to continue to supervise their projects for the first 1-2 years of project implementation. The Bank tends to have TTLs that design projects and move on to design other projects without supervising their own projects. This can be detrimental to the project because hand-over notes cannot replace the in-depth knowledge of the project design aspects that the former TTL takes with him. This leaves the replacing TTL with the daunting task of deciphering and interpreting how components should unfold.
Lapses in fiduciary aspects should be addressed quickly and decisively from the outset and early transgressions by the Borrower should be treated as serious and used as an opportunity to enforce standards and to communicate that World Bank rules and procedures cannot be compromised. A weak response to these issues always opens the door to greater mismanagement.
In projects that seek to change conservation behavior, it is important to ensure that participants understand and accept the rationale for the new ideas/values even before the micro-project/alternative livelihood investments are established. Establishing micro-projects without an adequate acceptance of the new values may lead to a resurgence of poaching if micro-project profits do not emerge or are reduced.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies
(c) Cofinanciers
Not applicable
(d) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)
Not applicable
14
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project - P069892
Components Appraisal Estimate (USD millions)
Actual/Latest Estimate (USD
millions)
Percentage of Appraisal
1. MULTISECTORAL COMMUNITY-DRIVEN INVESTMENTS
46.02 -- --
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
4.96 -- --
3. PROTECTED AREA AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT 9.81 (8.00 GEF) 6.99 87.3% of GEF only
4. STRENGTHENING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS
0.87 -- --
5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 28.72 -- --
Total Baseline Cost Physical Contingencies 0.00Price Contingencies 0.00
Total Project Costs PPF 0.00Front-end fee IBRD 0.00
Total Financing Required
Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project - P071817
P069892 - Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project
Source of Funds Type of Financing
Appraisal Estimate
(USD millions)
Actual/Latest Estimate
(USD millions)
Percentage of Appraisal
Borrower 6.89 0.00 .00 Local Communities 4.28 0.00 .00 International Development Association (IDA) 70.00 0.00 .00
P071817 - Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project
Source of Funds Type of Financing
Appraisal Estimate
(USD millions)
Actual/Latest Estimate
(USD millions)
Percentage of Appraisal
Borrower 1.81 0.00 .00 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8.00 0.00 .00
15
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
Component 3
Subcomponent A: Improving Protected Area Management: Conduct comprehensive inventories of selected protected areas to assess ecological, bio-physical, geological and socio-economic characteristics of both protected areas and their support zone to establish baseline data to guide participatory development of management plan. This objective was partially achieved. Four studies were completed for each of the protected areas/reserves and their support zone that provided both quantitative and qualitative data on the communities, their socio-economic profile, livelihoods, ethnicity, etc. Household surveys and focus groups were used as a key means of obtaining primary data. Line transects were also used to assess species density and encounter rates in the PAs. The project was not as successful in ensuring participation in the development of its protected area management plans. A study, conducted at mid-term, by the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) assessed the level of awareness and participation of communities in biodiversity management. Results show that in most of the protected area, less than 60% of the respondents were aware of any biodiversity management plan for their community, the exception being Mala-Dumba where 100 percent of all respondents indicated that they were aware of a biodiversity management plan. Despite being all aware, only 37.5% were involved in the development of the management plans and only 25% were involved in its implementation. A surprising 2.5% of participants in Mala-Dumba indicated that they had received any type of biodiversity training. In Lame/Bura, 57.5% of the communities knew of a management plan but 26.1% participated in the development of the plan. The level of involvement of community members in the developing of the biodiversity management plan was highest in Kainji, where 91.3% of those who were aware of a biodiversity management were also involved in the development of such plans. Table 2 (from the study) shows clearly that biodiversity training and community involvement in the preparation and implementation of the management plans was particularly poor in communities around the Mala Dumba and Lame Burra reserves.
Subcomponent B: Institutional Strengthening: Technical assistance, capacity building including training and tours for the NPS and assessment of the current policy and regulatory framework to identify options for collaboration with the private sector and local communities. The subcomponent will also fund direct investments in the protected areas (roads, culverts, watering points, etc). This objective was achieved. There were several trainings and international study tours to build capacity in the National Parks. In 2003, a study tour of south African national parks was completed for the conservator general and 8 directors of the National Parks Service. In 2004, project staff was trained to improve project management and in 2005, 23 participants went on a study tour to Zimbabwe to tour (CAMPFIRE) and the National Parks. Other trainings included ranger/guard training, a 3 month training course, training on fisheries, community building, procurement training, etc. In terms of investments in the parks, the following was completed: 12 ranger posts, 2 bird viewing platforms, 5 watering points for animals and 5 ecotourism outreach centers. Construction of PAs infrastructure such as eco-centers, bird viewing platforms, watering points, and ranger posts was been delayed. The contracts were terminated due to non-performance of the contractors and a new process had to be launched. The outreach centers were supposed to have been constructed earlier in the project (2008) to serve the communities, but the delays meant that they were only just constructed and equipped towards the end of the project. Roads were also rehabilitated in 3 of the protected areas.
Subcomponent C: Sustainable Community Livelihoods (Micro-projects): Identify and implement sustainable livelihood activities with facilitation from NGOs, MITs and other stakeholders. Best practices and lessons learnt disseminated. This objective was partially achieved and is described more fully in the section of the ICR related to the GEO rating. As indicated in the preceding pages, MITs were hired that were largely NGOs in each PA/Reserve with the first contract signed in 2005 to develop Community Development Plans and later Sustainable Livelihood Plans. A total of 100 CDPs and SLPs were formulated and 69 were finally implemented before the project closed. Apart from the implementation of micro-projects, there were several special projects. A consultancy on “turning waste to wealth” was awarded and 80 participants from the 4 PAs trained on the art of converting maize husks to craft materials. An important aspect of the project, the
16
Sustainable Livelihoods and Outreach Fund was never achieved. At mid-term, this process seemed to be on track with the mission noting the enthusiasm of the government team and other stakeholders to operationalize this concept. The mission also observed the technically sound report that evaluated the creation of the report and a technical team was asked to be appointed to provide further inputs and clarifications before submittal for review by a conservation finance specialist, followed by a legal assessment to develop the regulatory framework for setting up this fund. There were substantial delays in getting the reviews, inputs and legal assessment completed and by the end of the project this had not yet been completed.
The Output from Component 3, as listed in the table of key performance indicators (pg 45) is that “Collaborative management approaches are adopted by Parks administration and communities in support zones for sustainable biodiversity management of Protected Areas.” Although training was completed successfully in many different areas, a collaborative management approach was introduced but not adopted as shown by the percentage of communities that were engaged in completing the management plan for the parks. There was however, better collaboration on the establishment of micro-projects and this project is likely to have an impact on how micro-projects are implemented in park communities. There was no assessment to determine the extent to which this collaboration occurred (Score of 50% or greater according to IUCN scoring) and therefore this cannot be accurately determined.
17
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis (including assumptions in the analysis)
Not Applicable
1
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team membersNames Title Unit
Talib Esmail Sr Rural Development Specialist, AFTS3Indumathie V. Hewawasam Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTS4
Abiodun O. Falusi Consultant AFTSP Adenike Sherifat Oyeyiola Sr Financial Management Specia AFTFM Africa Eshogba Olojoba Sr Environmental Spec. AFTEN Akinrinmola Oyenuga Akinyele Financial Management Specialis AFTFM
Amos Abu Sr Environmental Spec. AFTEN Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist AFTPC Chita Azuanuka Oje Team Assistant AFCW2 Chukwudi H. Okafor Senior Social Development Spec ECSSDDirk Prevou Senior Operations Spec AFTEN Esther Usman Walabai Sr Agriculturist AFTS3 - HIS Indumathie V. Hewawasam Consultant AFTEN Labayo Kolawola Kazeem Consultant AFTSP Lucas Kolawole Akapa Senior Operations Officer AFTAR Mary Asanato-Adiwu Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Modupe Dayo Olorunfemi Program Assistant INT Nina Chee Sr Environmental Spec. MIGEP Olatunde Adetoyese Adekola Sr Education Spec. AFTED Salimata D. Follea Operations Analyst AFTEN Sunday Achile Acheneje Procurement Specialist AFTPC
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Stage of Project CycleStaff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)
Lending FY00 21 0.00 FY01 41 0.00 FY02 89 0.00 FY03 51 0.00 FY04 21 0.00
Total: 223 0.00Supervision/ICR
2
FY01 0.00 FY02 0.00 FY03 1 0.00 FY04 14 0.00 FY05 44 0.00 FY06 43 0.00 FY07 40 0.00 FY08 35 0.00 FY09 22 0.00
Total: 199 0.00
3
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any)
To be attached
4
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any)
N/A
5
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
(to be attached)
6
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
Not Applicable
7
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
Federal Republic of Nigeria (Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project) Project Document (July, 2003)
GEF Component Programme Implementation Manual (May, 2004)
Cost-Tab (for Project)
Mid-Term Review Final Report by Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, (NISER), June, 2007
Community Profiles and Status of Micro Project Implementation, November 2009 for Maladumbia Lake Forest Reserve
Community Profiles and Status of Micro Project Implementation, November 2009 for Lame/Burra Game Reserve
Community Profiles and Status of Micro Project Implementation, November 2009 for Yankari Game Reserve
Community Profiles and Status of Micro Project Implementation, November 2009 for Kainji Game Reserve (2
Report on Ecological Survey for Yankari National Park by Development Research Bureau (DRB) Ibadan, November, 2004
Report on Ecological Survey for MalaDumbia Lake Forest Reserve by Development Research Bureau (DRB) Ibadan, November, 2004
Report on Ecological Survey for Yankari Game Reserve by Development Research Bureau (DRB) Ibadan, November, 2004
Report on Ecological Survey for Kainji Game Reserve by Development Research Bureau (DRB) Ibadan, November, 2004
Implementation Status Reports (ISRs) 2004-2010
Project Documents in the Portal including Financial Quarterly Reporting. Other Financial Documents provided by the project implementing team.
8
MAP
I N S E R T
M A P
H E R E
AFTER APPROVAL BY COUNTRY DIRECTOR
AN ORIGINAL MAP OBTAINED FROM GSD MAP DESIGN UNIT
SHOULD BE INSERTED
MANUALLY IN HARD COPY
BEFORE SENDING A FINAL ICR TO THE PRINT SHOP.
NOTE: To obtain a map, please contact
the GSD Map Design Unit (Ext. 31482)
A minimum of a one week turnaround is required
9
