Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR2378 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-41660) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 34.90 MILLION (US$50.05 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL FOR A PARTICIPATORY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT December 6, 2012 Fragile States, Conflict and Social Development (AFTCS) Country Department AFCF1 Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document of
The World Bank
Report No: ICR2378
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-41660)
ON A
CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 34.90 MILLION (US$50.05 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
FOR A
PARTICIPATORY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
December 6, 2012
Fragile States, Conflict and Social Development (AFTCS) Country Department AFCF1 Africa Region
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
ii
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective as of June 2012)
Currency Unit = CFA Francs 530 FCFA = US$1
US$1 = 0.0019 FCFA
FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARD Agence Régionale de Développement (Regional Development Agency) CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBO Community-Based Organization CDD Community-Driven Development CR Communauté Rurale (Rural Community) ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FDD Fonds de Dotation de la Decentralisation (Local Government Operation Fund) FECL Fonds d’Equipement des Collectivités locales (Local Government Investment
Fund) GDP Gross Domestic Product GoS Government of Senegal IDA International Development Association KPI Key Project Indicators LDP Local Development Plan LIF Local Investment Financing LG Local Government MDG Millennium Development Goal MFI Micro Finance Institution M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization PDO Project Development Objectives PDLP Projet de Développement Local Participatif (Participatory Local Development
Project) PEC Program/Project Executive Secretariat PES Programme Executive Secretariat PFDS Projet de Fonds de Développement Social (Social Development Fund Project) PIU Project Implementation Unit PLDP Participatory Local Development Project (Projet de Développement Local
Participatif) PNDL Programme National de Développement Local (National Local Development
Program) PNIR Programme National d’Infrastructures Rurales (National Rural Infrastructure
Program)
iii
PRSC Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RDA Regional Development Agency (Agence Régionale de Développement) RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SCBF-D Sous-Comité des Bailleurs de Fonds sur la Décentralisation (Sub-Committee of
Donors for Decentralization) TTL Task Team Leader
Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Vera Songwe Sector Manager: Ian Bannon Project Team Leader: Demba Balde ICR Team Leader: Salamata Bal
iv
SENEGAL
Participatory Local Development Project
CONTENTS
Contents A. Basic Informatiom. ................................................................................................................ vi B. Key Dates ............................................................................................................................... vi C. Ratings Summary ................................................................................................................... vi D. Sector and Theme Codes ...................................................................................................... vii E. Bank Staff ............................................................................................................................. vii F. Results Framework Analysis ............................................................................................... viii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ................................................................................ xi H. Restructuring (if any) ............................................................................................................. xi I. Disbursement Profile ............................................................................................................ xii
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design .........................................................1 1.1 Context at Appraisal ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators ......................... 2
3. Assessment of Outcomes ......................................................................................................9 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation ................................................. 9
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives ........................................................ 9
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating .................................................................... 11
v
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts .................................................. 11
3.6 Summary of findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops ........... 13
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...................................................................13 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...............................................................13
5.1 Bank Performance ...................................................................................................... 13
6. Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................15 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners.....................17
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing Annex 2. Outputs by Component Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents MAP
vi
A. Basic Informatiom.
Country: Senegal Project Name SN-Participatory Local Development Program
Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
Original Total Commitment: XDR 34.90M Disbursed Amount: XDR 34.71M
Revised Amount: XDR 34.90M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Permanent Secretary of National Local Development Program Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Republic of Senegal
B. Key Dates
Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)
C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: S Risk to Development Outcome: L Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance : S C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: MS Government: MS
Quality of Supervision: S Implementing Agency/Agencies: S
Overall Bank S Overall Borrower S
vii
Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if
any) Rating
Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality at Entry
(QEA): None
Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): Yes Quality of
Supervision (QSA): None
DO rating before Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory
D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Health 15 15 Other social services 30 30 Primary education 15 15 Roads and highways 15 15 Water supply 25 25 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Decentralization 33 33 Participation and civic engagement 33 33 Rural markets 17 17 Rural services and infrastructure 17 17
E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Vera Songwe Madani M. Tall Sector Manager: Ian Bannon C. Sanjivi Rajasingham
F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The project development objective is to assist the Government of Senegal in setting up an effective framework for participatory local development, decentralization, resource mobilization and transfer to local governments and communities, to deliver services in rural areas and targeted poorest cities efficiently. The project will assist the country’s comprehensive National Local Development Program by: (i) supporting the Government and its agencies in developing and implementing appropriate policies, strategies and arrangements for efficient decentralization; (ii) updating and improving the regulatory and fiscal framework necessary for efficient decentralization; (iii) strengthening capacity of local stakeholders (local governments, communities, regional development agencies, NGOs and the private sector) for efficient participatory local development; and (iv) mainstreaming the transfer system for public funds from the central government to local governments. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) a) PDO Indicator(s)
Indicator Baseline Value Original Target Values (from approval documents)
Formally Revised Target Values
Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years
Indicator 1 : Development partners have joined the program Value quantitative or Qualitative)
0 3 0 4
Date achieved 04/03/2006 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved: we have four development partners who joined the program.
Indicator 2 : The yearly acts (decrees, etc.) transferring FDD resources are notified to local communities
Value quantitative or Qualitative)
July March
Date achieved 04/03/2006 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved: the yearly act transferring FDD resources has been notified to local communities before end of March 2010.
Indicator 3 : Resources from FECL and FDD transferred to local government have reached FCFA 21.3 billion (USD 42.6 M)
ix
Value quantitative or Qualitative)
0 42.6 43.40 43.40
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved : the cumulated value of resources transferred to LGs is USD 43.4 M
Indicator 4 : 70 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied with services rendered by LGs Value quantitative or Qualitative)
0 70 94
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved: 94 percent of ultimate beneficiaries are satisfied with the impact of the project.
Indicator 5 : FDD resources are transferred to LGs before the end of June of each year Value quantitative or Qualitative)
June 30 June 30
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved: Resources were transferred before end of June from 2007 to 2010.
b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Indicator Baseline Value
Original Target Values (from approval documents)
Formally Revised Target Values
Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years
Indicator 1 : Number of reforms validated to operationalize the local development and decentralization agenda
Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
0 0 7
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Partially achieved: most policies have been prepared and three have been adopted by the council of ministers and sent to the parliament for approval.
Indicator 2 : Local development strategy is validated Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
N/A Not available
Date achieved 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Not achieved : strategy has not been formulated yet
x
achievement)
Indicator 3 : Number of technical reference guides elaborated and edited for the implementation of local development strategy
Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
0 2 2 6
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved
Indicator 4 : Number of local collectivities which have implemented at least two sector sub-projects using local development fund
Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
0 405 340 542
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved
Indicator 5 : Number of micro finance institutions collaborating with the project which have implemented their business plan
Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
15 13 13
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved at 87%
Indicator 6 : Number of training plans elaborated for the actors (LG, local private sector, CBOs, de-concentrated government services, MFIs)
Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
4 4 4
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved
Indicator 7 : Number training sessions organized for actors. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
412 405 467
Date achieved 04/03/2006 10/31/2010 08/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Achieved
xi
achievement) Indicator 8 : M&E system of the project is functional Value (quantitative or Qualitative)
Yes
Date achieved 10/31/2010 Comments (incl. % achievement)
Achieved.
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
No. Date ISR Archived DO IP
Actual Disbursements (USD millions)
1 10/05/2006 S S 0.00 2 05/09/2007 S S 9.09 3 11/30/2007 MS MS 9.04 4 05/11/2008 MS MS 12.07 5 11/28/2008 MU MU 19.73 6 03/24/2009 MS MS 19.73 7 06/30/2009 S MS 19.73 8 12/30/2009 S S 25.75 9 04/30/2010 S S 25.75 10 11/16/2010 MS MS 30.66 11 06/22/2011 S S 44.34 12 10/25/2011 S S 52.32 13 05/21/2012 S S 53.85
H. Restructuring (if any) The Closing Date of the Project was extended twice by more than two years cumulatively based on requests from the Government. These extensions did not entail any change in project objectives and scope. The first extension (December 2009 to August 31, 2011) was triggered by the fact that implementation activities of the project started ten months after effectiveness due to considerable delays in putting together the project implementation team at the regional level and the appropriate fiduciary system based on the decentralized country framework. The second extension (August 31, 2011 to February 29, 2012) was necessary to complete all activities, and focused on implementation of sub-projects at the community level and helping to finalize the agenda of reforms planned under Component 1 of the project to ultimately have a positive impact on decentralization by achieving key results such as the formulation of the long term strategy of the sector.
xii
I. Disbursement Profile
1
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. The benefits of growth were lower for rural than urban areas. Over the period 1995-2005, real GDP growth averaged about 5 percent annually, marking the first sustained increase in average per capita growth in Senegal since independence. However, although economic growth reduced poverty, overall poverty remained high, and gains were less for the rural population. While in 2002, 57 percent of the population lived below the poverty line, the rural poverty was 65 percent. Access to basic services improved over this period but lagged relative to countries with similar income levels, and was overall lower for rural people compared to urban ones. 2. The primary gross enrollment rate had improved to 80 percent in 2003/04, but it was 77 percent lower for rural children in 1st grade and 40 percent lower in 6th grade. Infant and maternal mortality had gradually decreased to 61 per thousand and 510 to 431 per hundred thousand in 2005 (between 1993 and 2004), but this rate of progress was too slow to meet the MDG health target and child malnutrition was higher in rural areas than in urban ones. Only 70 percent of the rural population had access to potable water in 2005 compared to 90 percent in urban areas. In sum, the benefits from economic growth over 1995-2005 were much lower in rural areas relative to urban areas, increasing the rural-urban gap in terms of incomes and socio-economic infrastructure and services.
3. Although the 2001 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) aimed to improve access to basic services and outcomes through increased decentralization and basic service delivery, public funds were largely spent at the central level and did not reach rural areas where services are rendered. 4. Senegal has a long history of decentralization. In 1996, a key step was taken when the Government enacted new legislation, especially the 1996 Act # 96-07 devolving nine competencies to 443 Local Governments (LGs), 11 regional governments, 110 urban communes (Communes) and 320 rural communities (Communautés Rurales) in the areas of: environment and natural resources management, health, population and social action, youth, sport and leisure, culture, education, programming, local development planning, urban development and housing. However, the simultaneous transfer of financial and human resources to LGs were not adequate to cover transferred competencies. The Government took these steps toward greater decentralization because it realized that access to basic social services was key to accelerate socially inclusive economic growth. It also sought to protect vulnerable groups and to allocate more budgetary resources toward development of infrastructure benefitting the poorest segments of the population. At the same time, Government was aware of the need to improve governance, public financial management and fiscal transparency through better investment planning, and evaluation and monitoring, to raise the productivity of public investments. 5. Donors strongly support decentralization and community participation but with little harmonization. Many donors finance support to decentralization through scattered projects generally focusing on supporting LGs to prepare their Local Development Plans (LDPs), and to
2
community development through social fund-type projects. Virtually all expenditures for decentralization and basic services investments have come through donor-financed projects. Although a donor decentralization group was set up it did not appreciably improve harmonization. IDA-financed projects such as the National Rural Infrastructure Program (Programme National d’Infrastructures Rurales, PNIR) for decentralized infrastructure and the Social Development Fund Project (Projet de Fonds de Developpement Social, PFDS) made little progress in internal or external harmonization with other projects. 6. Senegal’s renewed commitment to decentralization and new commitment to participatory local development. The Government made decentralization one of its priorities and in 2004 created the Ministry of Decentralization and Local Governments, whose head has the rank of State Minister, with a mandate to implement the decentralization policy. Under agreement with donors through the Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit-2 (PRSC), the Government restated its goal to expand financial transfers to LGs through an increase of the Fonds de Dotation de la Decentralisation (FDD) and the Fonds d’Equipement des Collectivités locales (FECL). Also, under the Prime Minister’s leadership during the fall of 2005, the Government adopted the full community-driven development (CDD) approach which translated into the preparation of the National Local Development Program (Programme National de Développement Local, PNDL). This step was accompanied by a Government-IDA decision to combine the two subsequent phases of the PNIR and PFDS into one single project—Participatory Local Development Project (PLDP)—to support the future Government program: PNDL. The PNDL was prepared through a highly participatory process and was designed to channel and coordinate all local development activities. 7. The PDLP was in line with the 2003 Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) which derived directly from the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), and whose four pillars were: (a) wealth creation; (b) capacity building and social services; (c) assistance to vulnerable groups; and (d) implementation of the strategy and monitoring of its outcomes. The PDLP was mainly a consolidated follow-up of two projects that were nearing completion and that supported capacity-building and the delivery of social services at the local and community levels. It was designed as a transition toward further budget support, by making the largest possible use of the regular financing channels of the Government. The PDLP was complementary with other World Bank supported projects and fitted well into the World Bank Africa Action Plan which sought to: (a) build capable states and improved governance; (b) support the drivers of growth by supporting policy reforms and public actions for economic growth at the local level; and (c) share growth by scaling up human development through the improvement of access of the poor to a minimum package of essential services including basic health, primary education, and safe water.
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 8. The PDO over the 3-year project duration was to assist the Government of Senegal in setting up an effective framework for participatory local development, decentralization, resource mobilization and transfer to local governments and communities, to deliver services in rural areas and target poorest cities efficiently. The project was to assist the country’s comprehensive National Local Development Program by: (a) supporting the Government and its agencies in developing and implementing appropriate policies, strategies and arrangements for efficient
3
decentralization; (b) updating and improving the regulatory and fiscal framework necessary for efficient decentralization; (c) strengthening capacity of local stakeholders (local governments, communities, regional development agencies, NGOs and the private sector) for efficient participatory local development; and (d) mainstreaming the transfer system for public funds from the central government to local governments. Three PDO were established at appraisal:
• Resources transferred to the Local Government through the FDD and the FECL us 40.1 million by the end of the project.
• Three development partners have joined the program in financing the National Program. • 70 percent target LGs have implemented LIF follow up mechanisms set forth in the
partnership Charter.
1.3 Revised PDO
9. The PDO was not revised and no formal changes were made to the Key Project Indicators (KPIs).
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
10. The main targeted beneficiaries were about 1.3 million people living in 110 small towns (communes) and 320 rural communities. 11. Other beneficiaries included the institutions that supported the policies of decentralized local development, specifically: (a) the Ministerial Departments linked to this policy; (b) local governments and their elected officials; (c) the Regional Development Agencies (Agences Régionales de Développement, RDAs); (d) civil society actors; (e) rural entrepreneurs selected to provide social services in the form of micro-projects in the field of health, education and water supply; and (f) community-based microfinance institutions.
1.5 Original Components (as approved)
12. The PLDP included four components in support of the PNDL implementation: (a) Support for decentralization, devolution, and participatory local development policies; (b) Financing for local development; (c) Capacity-building for decentralization and participatory local development; and (d) Support for program/project coordination and communication; monitoring and evaluation; and environmental and social management. 13. Component 1: Support for Decentralization, Devolution, and Participatory Local Development Policies (US$4.8 million). This component supported the Government’s efforts through PNDL to update and develop the legal, fiscal, regulatory and organizational environment for CDD implementation by key players: central government, local government, communities and the private sector. It comprised three sub-components: 1.1: Update of the legal, regulatory and organizational decentralization framework for the integration of the CDD; 1.2: Setting-up an organizational mechanism to finance participatory local development; 1.3: Developing guidelines for local governments and communities to implement CDD.
4
14. Component 2: Financing Local Development (US$25.8 million). This component supported the PNDL by setting up the mechanisms for Local Investment Financing (LIF), designed to promote CDD-oriented funding mechanisms to local governments (LGs). It comprised two sub-components: 2.1: Financing basic socio-economic infrastructure and services; and 2.2: Financing advisory services to develop local economic activities. 15. Component 3: Capacity-building for Decentralization and Participatory Local Development (US$14.4 million). This component provided capacity-building support to line ministries, LGs, community-based organizations (CBOs), micro-finance institutions (MFIs) and the private sector in order to ensure efficient delivery of quality services to the poor. The component was organized into five sub-components according to the specific players: 3.1: Strengthening capacity of Government to realign social services according to decentralization and participatory local development; 3:2: Strengthening LG’ capacity to implement effective participatory local development; 3.3: Capacity-building for communities to be efficient partners of their local governments to deliver small-scale community-based services; 3.4: Capacity-building for MFIs to improve access to financial services to targeted local poor populations; and 3.5: Capacity-building for the private sector and NGOs to improve their services. 16. Component 4: Project Coordination, Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Environment and Social Management (US$5.05 million). This component consisted of sub-component 4.1: Coordination, communication, monitoring and evaluation; and sub-component 4.2: Implementation and monitoring of the environmental and social management framework (ESMF).
1.6 Revised components
17. There were no changes in the structure of the components, except for reallocation of resources between components.
1.7 Other significant changes 18. The closing date of the project was extended twice, from December 31, 2009 to August 31, 2011 (20 months) and from August 31, 2011 to February 29, 2012 (6 months), but there was no formal restructuring. The first extension of the closing date was accompanied by a reallocation of funds. Component 2: Financing Local Development (community infrastructure micro-projects) which was performing well, received an additional allocation of SDR 4,280,000. This component went therefore from 51 percent of total project costs to 64 percent. Allocations for component 1 (Support for Decentralization, Devolution, and Participatory Local Development Policies) and 3 (Capacity-building for Decentralization and Participatory Local Development) were reduced, partly because other donors provided additional funding. Allocations for component 4 (Project Coordination, Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Environmental and Social Management) were increased to focus more attention on environmental safeguard issues of community infrastructure and to accommodate the additional operating costs of the 20-month extension. The second extension of 6 months was necessary to provide the project with adequate time to fully complete all activities necessary to ensure sustainability of infrastructure by putting in place adequate maintenance systems.
5
2. Key Factors affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
19. The project was well prepared. All donors involved in local development in Senegal were associated with project preparation, providing inputs, comments and suggestions to the Bank team. Since most donor agencies were halfway through implementation of their projects in support of local development and decentralization, they did not consider co-financing this project. However, the good working relationship established by the donor community through the donor sub-committee for decentralization (Sous-Comité des Bailleurs de Fonds sur la Décentralisation, SCBF-D) was instrumental in negotiating consolidated approaches with the Government. The donors expressed their willingness to work through a general framework of cooperation established by the project, including using reformed RDAs as their implementing agencies at the local level, and using the public transfer system and public financial management procedures for implementation of micro-projects at the regional/local level. 20. Several alternatives were considered but rejected in project design. Financing the second phases of the two stand-alone projects (PNIR and PFDS) was rejected because the Government expressed the need to harmonize its local development policies and interventions, and build a global institutional framework (the PNDL) for decentralization and participatory local development, to be supported by all interested donors, including the Bank. A second alternative considered was to not maintain a project approach but to provide for local development through the Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit (PRSC). In the end, financing a separate project was preferred because of the need to ensure continuity of the flow of funds to reach LGs and communities while the regular Government financial mechanism for decentralization was not yet in place at the community level, and because of the importance of the capacity-building component for which a PRSC was not a suitable instrument. 21. Project design also built on key lessons from implementation of CDD programs in the Africa Region and Bank-wide. Specifically, it took into account the experience of CDD-type projects in the Senegal portfolio, especially the PNIR (Programme National d’Infrastructures Rurales, National Rural Infrastructure Program) and the PFDS (Projet de Fonds de Développement Social, Social Development Fund Project). Lessons incorporated were: (a) LGs can develop capacity to plan their local development and implement infrastructure for basic social and economic services; (b) the poorest villages can develop capacity to prioritize their socio-economic needs and implement small-scale projects to address them; (c) implementation of two parallel and complementary projects is difficult in the field; (d) merging requires strong leadership at the PIU level while finding the right balance between decentralization and devolution is difficult; (e) LGs should play a key role in local development while working with communities as partners; (f) local accountability can and needs to be strengthened; and (g) environmental and social management capacity needs to be strengthened. Finally, at the time of project design, the Bank team discussed whether income generating activities and microfinance components should be included. The team decided against this option because: (i) microfinance development requires specialized skills and capacity that are often missing in poverty-oriented program teams; and (ii) the goal of developing sustainable and viable financial systems is often put at risk and considered conflicting with the overall poverty-oriented project goals. However,
6
the team retained the option of identifying and providing institutional support to strong MFIs at the local level. 22. Quality at entry is rated as moderately satisfactory. Project risks and mitigation measures were addressed, but one of the key risks—slow progress in implementation of decentralization policy reforms—was underestimated. The fact that as part of the project the Government was willing to substantially increase the volume of financial resources transferred to LGs was considered to be an indication of its commitment to decentralization of policy reforms. This turned out to be incorrect as the implementation of key reforms was still a slow process despite the support from donors. A small sub-component, 2.2: Financing advisory services to develop local economic activities, was finally included despite the fact that during the design phase it had been decided against. In the end, this proved to be an unnecessary distraction with little benefits. Finally, the results framework was developed in great detail, especially the intermediate outcome indicators, but its weakness was that project outcome indicators were formulated more as outputs rather than outcomes (impact).
2.2 Implementation
23. Project implementation can be divided into two distinct phases: before mid-term review and after mid-term review. This is reflected in the performance ratings. Before the mid-term review the PDO rating had declined from satisfactory to moderately unsatisfactory, but after the mid-term review project performance improved and the PDO rating returned to satisfactory. The project had a slow start. Implementation activities started 10 months after effectiveness and disbursements were substantially behind schedule, especially serious for a project with a 3-year implementation period. After two years, the disbursement rate was only 40 percent. This situation was due to: (a) institutional instability of the program during 2006 and 2007; (b) delays in putting together the project implementation team at field level in the RDAs; and (c) delays in creating the appropriate fiduciary system for using the public financial management and transfer system to pay for the micro-projects executed at the local level. 24. The institutional instability lasted over 18-months. The project was prepared under the Prime Minister’s office who appointed the first Coordinator. After creation of the Ministry of Local Government and Decentralization, the project unit was moved to that Ministry. After a change in Prime Minister, the Coordinator in turn was removed and a new Coordinator was appointed. This instability caused considerable start-up delays. Also, the RDAs, who are the critical executing agencies at the regional and local level for all the participatory local investments, were much weaker than assumed during project preparation. On March 2, 2006, a new decree was issued that fixed the modalities for the organization and functioning of RDAs. This decree strengthened the RDAs considerably as it was accompanied by major staff changes. All technical RDAs staff had to be recruited under competitive procedures. In addition, RDA responsibilities were clearly defined and they were provided with adequate resources to carry out their work. These changes in executing agency and project coordinator, the new RDA decree, and more intensive Bank supervision laid the ground for turning around the project and upgrading the PDO during the mid-term review.
7
25. An extended mid-term review was carried out from April 27 to May 8, and June 3-12, 2009. The mid-term review was well prepared and 12 professional staff covering all aspects of the project participated. Key issues reviewed were: (a) the results framework; (b) functionality of infrastructure; (c) implementation performance and financing requirements; and (d) safeguard aspects. During a workshop with representatives of all stakeholders, and with the help of a monitoring and evaluation specialist, the results framework was critically examined but found to be adequate. As a result of the mid-term review the Government and the Bank agreed to extend the closing date by 20 months from December 31, 2009 to August 31, 2011, and to reallocate funds to provide additional resources to component 2: Financing Local Development. 26. Starting before but especially after the mid-term review, project implementation and disbursements accelerated. All the players understood their respective roles and execution of micro-projects proceeded as planned; 99. 5 percent of the total project funds were disbursed by the final closing date. 27. However, some of the social aspects of the project, namely the participation of the most vulnerable social groups and women (gender dimension), and social accountability could have received more attention during project implementation.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 28. The project M&E system was built upon the PNIR and PFDS systems that performed well and allowed for monitoring processes, inputs, and outputs for subprojects implemented at the local level. The system was established within the Program Executive Secretariat (PES). At the national level, it worked with focal points within the Department of Treasury of the Ministry of Economy and Finances and the Directorate of Local Governance, and collaborated with concerned Sectoral Ministries. At the regional and local levels, the unit worked with M&E specialists within the ARDs who trained and supervised local staff. This staff was in charge of collecting raw data to feed the PLDP and PNDL integrated databases needed for establishing baselines and regularly updating KPIs. 29. UNDP supported the M&E effort and financed a specialist within the M&E Unit. Access to monitoring data was open to all donors and they were used for local investment planning. An effort has started to geo-reference data on local investments. Toward the end of the project, a program evaluation study was carried out (November 2011) as well as a beneficiary satisfaction assessment (February 2012). Overall, the M&E system tracked physical investments and environmental aspects more closely than it did with regard to the social dimensions of the project and its economic impact.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance Safeguards 30. At the time of appraisal, the project triggered five operational policies (OP 4.01, OP 4.09, OP4.12, OP 4.37, and OP 7.50) and the borrower prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to address any
8
potential environmental or social impacts. These frameworks established a system for screening all micro-projects, consultations and grievance redress. 31. Constant follow-up by the Bank team and effective collaboration with project teams ensured that the project encountered no major safeguard issues. The project unit hired a safeguards specialist to ensure that the environmental and social aspects were handled and well managed. Several training modules were prepared and a series of workshops were held to familiarize all actors (LGs, central Government, private sector, CBOs, etc.) in their application. The Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies became so useful that they were adopted for LG systems nation-wide. The safeguards strategy was defined at the national level by the PEC, which put in place regional committees that ensured agreed policies were applied and that all relevant local actors were trained appropriately.
Fiduciary Compliance 32. Throughout implementation, the project complied with the requirement to submit annual audit reports. All audit reports were submitted on time, had unqualified audit opinions, and were acceptable to IDA. Nevertheless, internal control weaknesses at the national and LG level were a recurrent issue and most supervision mission reports stated that the level of financial management risk remained high. 33. While the procurement process was generally adequate, there were occasions when proper procurement procedures were not followed, hence impacting the quality of bidding documents and technical specifications. These deficiencies seemed to derive from lack of team work (regional staff turnover affected implementation at the beginning of the project) in reviewing technical aspects of procurement plans, bidding documents, technical proposal evaluation reports, and contract enforcement. Over time, however, hiring process for consultants improved and at the end worked satisfactorily. Simplified procedures for local procurement and training of a large number of regional and local staff in basic procurement principles contributed to building good governance capacity at the local level.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 34. The Government was satisfied with the results of the project and formally requested financing for a second phase. Also, as a sign of its commitment to local development, it has provided assured funding to the PNDL Executive Secretariat until the end of the year so that it can continue to function. The PNDL Executive Secretariat advocates strongly for decentralization policy reforms, and in July of this year it organized a national seminar on the elaboration of a new national strategy for local and territorial development. 35. Government financing of participatory local development projects with the support of donors continues and the Government is actively looking for renewed multi- and bi-lateral donor support for its decentralization policy. At the local level, communities have organized and taken responsibility for ensuring that their investments in class rooms, health posts and potable water are adequately maintained. Politicians at the local and regional level are highly satisfied with decentralized delivery of basic services and with their active involvement in all phases of the project cycle for micro-projects. The several hundred mayors and council members who have
9
been trained in local investment project management and who have seen positive results can be expected to be strong advocates with the Government for deeper decentralization. The process seems irreversible and the next crucial step, when the political situation is ripe, will be a fiscal reform that allocates a greater share of the national investment budget to LGs. 36. The World Bank is likely to support further decentralization through budgetary support linked to policy reforms. Also, the Casamance Regional Growth Pole Development Project, currently under preparation, will rely heavily on the three RDAs in Ziguinchor, Sédhiou and Kolda, as implementation agencies and will further strengthen them.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 37. Project objectives, design and execution were entirely consistent with the major orientations of the Government’s development strategy and the Bank’s CAS. The project effectively assisted the Government in promoting relevant policies and setting up a coordinating and executing mechanism for decentralized local participatory development. This contributed to building LG capacity and improving local governance, stimulating the local economy and scaling up human development through the improvement of access by the poor to a minimum package of essential services, including basic health, primary education, and safe drinking water.
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 38. Achievement of the PDO is rated Satisfactory, based on the achievement of agreed PDO indicators, intermediate outcome indicators, and the beneficiary assessment. 39. The project met all five PDO indicators:
i. Cumulative resources transferred to the PLDP from the Local Government Investment Fund and from the Local Government Operating Fund reached US$48.8 million versus a target of US$42.6 million;
ii. Three development partners (UNDP/FENU/LUX DEV, CANADA, and UNIFEM) joined the program as initially envisioned and there was close collaboration with donors on the NLDP through the Donor Sub-Committee on Decentralization;
iii. The yearly acts (decrees) transferring FDD resources were notified on time (March 31) from 2007 to 2011;
iv. FDD resources have been transferred to LGs on time (by June 30); and v. The January 2012 beneficiary assessment showed that 88.5 percent of all stakeholders
and 93.6 percent of the population gaining access to social services were satisfied with the services rendered by LGs.
40. A summary assessment of the achievement of intermediate performance indicators for the four components of the PLDP is provided below. 41. Component 1: Support for Decentralization, Devolution, and Participatory Local Development Policies (Satisfactory). The preparation of a series of policy studies and technical reference manuals was coordinated by the Executive Secretariat of the project and produced by
10
various technical departments in the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry in charge of Local Government. Although all these studies and reference manuals were completed, with considerable delays, most policy studies led to actual changes in laws. Two critical policies—on local fiscal revenues and promulgation of a local development strategy—still need to be defined and passed into law. The three outcome indicators for this component were : (a) at least 70 percent of targeted LGs have prepared and implemented local development plans according to established procedures; (b) FDD resources are made available to LGs before legal deadline for budget adoption (March 31); and (c) two technical reference manuals, one for the implementation of sector policies for participatory local development and the other for the implementation of the partnership between LGs and CBOs in planning, contracting, and monitoring and evaluation of micro-projects have been prepared and are being applied. All three outcomes indicators have been achieved. 42. Component 2: Financing Local Development (Highly Satisfactory). The component provided LG access to investment funds to implement micro-projects pertaining to their local development plans. After initial delays because the RDAs were not functioning properly, this component worked very well and achieved its outcome target—481 local communities have each implemented at least two sub-projects, mostly construction of primary education class rooms, health posts and water supply schemes. A total of $32.3 million was spent for these investments, compared to the original $25.76 million allocated (64 percent of the total grant compared to the originally planned 51 percent). RDAs were entrusted with coordinating implementation of the program, consolidating annual work plans and budgets and overseeing the financial management, procurement and monitoring and evaluation of activities and environmental and social management. RDAs have become highly professional and technically competent and are key players in the decentralization process. They have become an indispensable part of the institutional landscape at the regional and community levels. According to M&E data and the beneficiary survey, micro-investments in water, education, and health had considerable socio-economic benefits. As a result of improved availability and access to water, women and children spent less time fetching water and the incidence of water borne diseases decreased. On education, students per class room, and drop-out and repeater rates were reduced. These improvements were certainly due to smaller class sizes and the fact that the new facilities provide a better environment for teaching and learning, as they have better ventilation and lighting, and are more spacious. Micro-projects in the health sector (health posts, health rooms, postes de santé et maternités) greatly improved access of the rural population to basic health services, while the Government supported greater access with more health personnel, especially nurses and mid-wives. 43. Component 3: Capacity-building for Decentralization and Participatory Local Development (Satisfactory). It provided capacity-building support to line ministries, LGs, CBOs, MFIs and the private sector to ensure efficient delivery of quality services to the poor. The outcome indicators for this component were largely achieved. Based on needs assessments, five out of five training plans were prepared for all the stakeholders (locally elected leaders, CBO members, private sector actors, agents of local administration, and MFI representatives). Also, the number of training sessions organized exceeded planned targets: 467 versus 412 (113 percent) workshops have targeted 8,798 locally elected leaders, 12,560 CBO members, 920 private sector actors, 1,216 public agents from decentralized ministries, and 364 agents from LG
11
administrations. Training received enabled the various stakeholder groups to play and effective role in the production or delivery of services. However, given the periodic turnover of elected officials at the LG level, this training will have to continue in the future. Fortunately, the project has made significant progress in the training of trainers who can respond to future demands. 44. Component 4: Project Coordination, Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Environment and Social Management (Satisfactory). There were no specific outcome indicators for this component. Once the initial institutional instability of the Executive Secretariat had been overcome, it performed well its coordination and communication function and was always staffed with competent personnel. M&E was satisfactory and the Secretariat did an excellent job in ensuring that all micro-projects were screened for environmental and social issues and appropriately dealt with. The Bank’s guidelines for environmental assessments became a new standard and are being applied beyond the project by LG authorities. 3.3 Efficiency 45. The economic benefits of capacity building cannot be easily quantified, and most of the investments under the project were for improving basic social services, for which it is also inherently difficult to estimate economic rates of return. However, according to the Government’s 2011 PNDL evaluation, there is evidence that the social investments had short-term impacts in terms of improved social indicators and increased productivity that are expected to last. The investments under component 2 also contributed to employment and income generation in rural areas, both directly through the recruitment of local artisans and entrepreneurs for the construction of basic infrastructure funded under the project and indirectly through the new and additional economic opportunities generating higher incomes in the community. Through the decentralized decision-making process for local micro-projects, there are indications that the unit investment costs were lower for the sub-sectors covered by the project, compared to similar micro-projects realized by different partners of government institutions (see Annex 3).
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating 46. Achievement of the overall project outcome is rated as Satisfactory. All PDOs as stated in the appraisal document were met. Senegal today has an effective framework for participatory local development and decentralization, and social services have significantly improved in the targeted communities. If the Government decides to deepen local participatory development, all that is needed is the reallocation of resources as the process; systems, mechanisms and tools are in place. Investments in the form of micro-projects (Component 2) represented 65 percent of total costs, were based on least-cost solutions and compare favorably with similar investments by line ministries. They strengthened local governance, provided for greater transparency and assisted in building up a citizenry better aware of its rights, obligations and needs.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 47. Since in Senegal poverty has a strong rural dimension, the major poverty impact of the project was on rural areas. The target population was all 320 rural communities and the poorest
12
110 small towns (Communes urbaines). They were selected based on an index developed by the Statistics Directorate, which measures community access to drinking water, roads, health centers, schools and markets. The situation of women has considerably improved due to the provision of water and health infrastructure by the project. In addition, the project’s participatory planning processes has further opened the way for women to join village associations as more equal partners with men and to be part of the decision-making process. The project did not attempt to specifically target the poorest segments within village societies, as the services provided are basically tailored toward community needs. b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 48. The project brought about institutional strengthening at three levels:
• LG level. Mayors, rural community presidents, council members and private sector actors benefitted from the project through their involvement in local development planning and their active involvement in all phases of micro-project implementation. This was a learning experience in participatory democracy and helped to build social capital. LG entities were also equipped with new skills in community procurement and financial management.
• Regional level. RDAs were reformed in 2006 through legislation that clarified their
mandate and their personnel structure, and ensured that their key staff was hired competitively. Since then, RDAs have become key actors in the decentralization process. Their help and advice is sought by all stakeholders, including other donors.
• National level. The Executive Secretariat and the donor sub-committee for decentralization have regularly convened leaders of the main ministerial departments concerned with decentralization and key donor representatives. These frequent contacts and open discussions have deepened the understanding of key issues and created an atmosphere of trust and respect among the participants that can be expected to last for some time.
c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 49. The project made important contributions in education, health and water. In education, the project contributed to lower drop-out and repetition rates in all schools where it intervened. In schools affected by the project (2008-2011), only 2.1percent of students dropped out, compared with a national rate of 9.3 percent. The percentage of students who had to repeat the same grade was 0.2 percent under the project compared with a national rate of 3.1 percent. In health, during the same period, the quantity of health care activities provided by project-built health facilities increased from 6,900 to 8,600 interventions, which is 60 percent higher than comparable health facilities outside the project area. Investments in potable water supply through stand pipes and wells reduced the average distance to fetch water from 17.7 to 7.4 kilometers for stand pipes and from 12 to 3 kilometers for wells. Daily household water consumption increased by 13 liters and water quality improved. Taxes collected from newly built markets increased LG revenues and local employment was also generated. These outcomes were particularly appreciated by stakeholders.
13
3.6 Summary of findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 50. The project carried out a beneficiary assessment in December 2011. Various categories of project stakeholders were interviewed: (a) LG representatives and administrative officials; (b) technical staff of various ministries involved; and (c) private sector, RDAs, MFI and most importantly the ultimate beneficiaries of the services provided (Annex 5). The assessment was based on a sample of regions, rural communities, villages and people selected at random, covering 677 households and including 418 interviews. On average, 88.5 percent of stakeholders were satisfied with the services provided by the project, considerably higher than the target rate of 70 percent in the Project Appraisal Document. The highest satisfaction rate (93.6 percent) was recorded by community member beneficiaries, followed by CBO representatives (92.0 percent) and the private sector (88.8 percent).
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome - Rating: Low 51. The movement toward more participatory local development and decentralization, and resource transfer to LGs and communities to deliver services in rural areas, is unlikely to be reversed, although the pace of future reforms is uncertain. The Government and donors, but especially LG officials and the general population, strongly support these reforms. The Government and donors see them as a way to improve governance and transparency, while LG officials see them as an opportunity for attracting more attention and resources based on needs articulated at the local level. In the short term, the fact that the PNDL Executive Secretariat has been maintained and is functioning after the IDA credit has closed is also positive. 52. Also, the legitimacy of local elected politicians is enhanced as they deliver services to their constituents. The rural population at large (CBOs, private entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens), and especially the mayors of small towns and rural communities, are becoming increasingly conscious of what local economic development entails and how to promote it. They appreciate the fact that they have the opportunity to develop their own local development plans, and prioritize their investment needs. In the process of executing hundreds of local micro-projects, local stakeholders report an increase in social capital as local actors learned to collaborate to ensure projects were completed and sustained, including in managing contracts and budgets, and setting up maintenance arrangements.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank Performance a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry - Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 53. The Project Appraisal Document covered all important aspects and incorporated the lessons of the PNIR and PFDS. The project was prepared with the full participation of other donors and clearly served as the Government’s instrument to launch and sustain its National Local Development Program. The task team at the time assumed that everything was in place for a project that would disburse quickly. It especially assumed a strong Government commitment to implement policy reforms to support decentralization, which merely required the necessary technical studies to translate them into the required laws and regulations. Also, it was assumed that the RDAs were well organized, with competent professional staff and adequate operating
14
resources to assist LGs in carrying out local micro-projects, especially in terms of procurement, financial management and M&E. Based on these assumptions, a 3-year Sector Investment Loan was deemed appropriate, including a package of policy reforms which optimistically were expected to be completed within the first 18 months. This proved to be unrealistic. The timing of major policy decisions is difficult to predict in advance. Decisions that require action by the President and Parliament depend on a set of complex political considerations and timing, but good technical preparation does not guarantee success. On readiness of RDAs, it was unwise to conclude from the good performance of some of them in previous projects that all would perform well under the new project. Finally, institutional instability is a fact of life and should be factored into the design of a complex multi-sectoral and multi-donor project such as this. b) Quality of Supervision - Rating: Satisfactory 54. The initial supervision of the project was hands-off and the reporting and ratings were probably over optimistic. A December 2008 mission downgraded the PDO and project implementation performance to moderately unsatisfactory, due especially to the slow disbursement rate. 55. From that time on, the Bank team concentrated on preparing a thorough mid-term review which was held in two stages on April 27-May 8, 2009 and June 16-19, 2009 and consisted of a team of 12 people, covering all project aspects. While no restructuring or major changes were undertaken, the mid-term review served to critically review all key issues, and especially the results framework. A stakeholder workshop, carried out as part of the review, was critical in developing a better understanding of key actors in terms of their roles and ensuing expectations. At the same time, the institutional instability of the project came to an end, as it was transferred from the Prime Minister’s office to the newly created Ministry of Local Government and Decentralization, and a new Executive Secretary was appointed. Also, by the time of the mid-term review, pressure by the Bank to restructure the RDAs and equip them with qualified and competitively selected staff was showing some progress. The 20-month closing date extension allowed for a rebalancing of project components, including a significant reallocation of funds to the financing of local development (Component 2) which was the most successful. At all times, supervision missions were appropriately staffed and fiduciary and environmental safeguard policies were properly addressed. Gender and intra-village poverty aspects could have received more attention. The fact that the TTL was based in the Dakar office was important, as there were many exchanges between project management and the Bank that were critical to keep the project on track but are not reflected in the official correspondence. c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance - Rating: Satisfactory 56. With the exception of underestimating the time needed to implement the project, the project was well prepared. Project supervision improved over time and the mid-term review was very successful in clarifying issues and accelerating project implementation. Successive supervision missions critically identified issues and proposed realistic solutions in a diplomatic manner. On this basis, the overall Bank performance is rated as satisfactory.
15
5.2 Borrower Performance a) Government Performance - Rating: Satisfactory. 57. The Ministry of Economy and Finance kept its legal obligations and provided all the agreed upon counterpart funds in a timely manner, except in 2009, when there were severe overall budgetary constraints. The Government also facilitated project activities and put technical and institutional instruments for further decentralization in place (Elaborating legal texts concerning the status of elected officials; elaboration of decentralization charter; laws reforming RDAs, harmonization of existing policy letters with the law of local communities; putting in place and rationalizing various local concertation frameworks, etc.). b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance - Rating: Satisfactory 58. At the beginning of the project, the ministerial departments that were responsible for various policy reforms were slow in preparing the necessary technical studies. Two reforms regarding the local tax code and the adoption of a national local development strategy are still outstanding. However, once the initial institutional instability was overcome, the Executive Secretariat performed very well. It was staffed with competent staff that managed the project well, coordinating all the different actors and keeping the public at large informed about project objectives and achievements. The RDAs, after the restructuring and the accompanying capacity building, performed much better. They implemented the crucial investment component with its hundreds of micro-projects in a timely and professional manner. The RDAs have become key institutions that the national, regional and local governments increasingly turn to for the planning and implementation of local participatory development.
c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance - Rating: Satisfactory 59. After a slow start, the Borrower and its executing agencies performed well and completed the project with appropriate professional standards and within the revised project time schedule. During the implementation, the project complied with all legal covenants satisfactory. The Borrower provided adequate resources and high degree of commitment to the project and fully supported the implementation of the project. The Government maintained good relationship with all donors involved in the program and played a key role to ensure the achievement of good results. Lessons Learned 60. As in other CDD projects, local governments can develop capacity to plan their local development and implement infrastructure for basic social and economic services. It also has been demonstrated that with appropriate training and technical backstopping, local accountability as well as environmental and social management capacity can be sufficiently strengthened to ensure cost effective local investments. 61. Combining policy reforms and investment activities is always risky, as the two follow different logics and time paths. Investment loans are generally not appropriate vehicles for effecting major policy changes, especially in terms of the way a country is organized and distributes resources between the national and regional/local levels. Seeking to bring about such fundamental changes requires interventions at the highest level and is best left for policy based
16
operations. When it comes to reforms that require changes in laws, the most that can be asked for are technically sound draft laws for consideration of Parliament. 62. Institutional instability is a fact of life and has to be factored into project design, even while it is impossible to predict when it will happen and how lengthy it will be. Also, even projects such as this one, which was built on two existing operations, need time to get all the new project mechanisms and procedures into place to effectively deliver micro-projects at the local level, and are often delayed by normal institutional changes and instability. Finally, there are no shovel-ready projects at the local level, so a 5-year rather than a 3-year implementation period for this kind of project seems to be the minimum. Implementing the PLDP confirmed this lesson. 63. Participatory local development is highly people intensive and requires a considerable amount of training of local actors in all aspects of the project cycle to ensure that they play their role effectively. This cannot be organized solely from the national level but requires a strong institutional presence at the regional level that can multiply these training sessions and provide the necessary technical back-stopping and coaching. The RDAs were able to play this role. On the Banks side, it is important to have a country-based TTL as there is a need for continuous and close follow-up for a project delivering services at the local level. 64. Effective relationships among development partners and good donor collaboration and harmonization are paramount to the successful implementation of participatory local development projects. The donor sub-committee for decentralization was instrumental in negotiating key approaches with the Government and in providing a platform for the open exchange of information and ideas on project implementation. While it would have been ideal if the whole donor community were mobilized to support decentralization, the project can be an important bridge to maintain a dialogue and communicate with donors to encourage greater coordination. 65. Micro-projects alone cannot develop a village or locality. To encourage growth and development in a region, there will be a need for larger projects (especially in infrastructure) which will necessarily involve and affect a larger number of communities. To maintain a local development focus, this will only be possible if the financial resources for communities are increased and a more regional/spatial development perspective is adopted with clear understandings of the interrelationship between communities and local/regional economies. 66. Communication is an essential element in the success of a community development program. A communication and awareness campaign is essential to increase community involvement and have the information that allows communities to participate in their own development. Innovations in ICT technology should be used to interconnect communities among themselves but also with development actors outside the region. This will be especially important when micro-projects have market potential beyond the immediate community. 67. In designing the results framework care has to be exercised not to define project development objectives or outcomes/impact as outputs. Indicators that count the number of reforms are not that useful, since the number does not necessarily translate into meaningful reform and improved outcomes for the project and the sector as a whole.
17
6. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners N/A
18
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)
Components Appraisal Estimate (USD millions)
Actual/Latest Estimate (USD
millions)
Percentage of Appraisal
1.Support for Decentralization, Devolution, and Participatory Local Development Policy
4.4 4.8 9
2. Financing Local Development 25.5 25.8 52 3.Capacity-building for Decentralization and Participatory Local Development
13.3 14.4 29
Project Coordination, 4.Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Environment and Social Management
Borrower 137.48 0.00 .00 International Development Association (IDA) 50.05 53.85 107.6
19
Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1: Support for Decentralization, Devolution, and Participatory Local Development Policies Achievements under this component are rated Satisfactory. This component supported the Government’s efforts through PNDL to update and develop the legal, fiscal, regulatory and organizational environment for CDD implementation by key players: central government, LGs, communities and the private sector. It comprised three sub-components: 1.1: Update of the legal, regulatory and organizational decentralization framework for the integration of the CDD; 1.2: Setting-up an organizational mechanism to finance participatory local development; 1.3: Developing guidelines for local governments and communities to implement CDD. With support from the Executive Secretariat, a total of 23 policies and guidelines were to be developed by the “Executing Agencies”, i.e., several ministerial departments in charge of these issues. This was a very ambitious and comprehensive agenda, and development of these policies took much longer than the 18 months expected at appraisal. At the end of the project, almost all policies were prepared. All the guidelines were developed and applied. The area where there was little progress (sub-component 1.2) concerns the transfer of resources from the national to the decentralized level beyond what was agreed as counterpart funds under the project. The detailed status of each of these policies or guidelines is shown in the table below. Sub-component 1.1: Legal, regulatory and organizational decentralization framework
Reform Exec. Agency
Status Product available
Comments
Elaboration of legal texts concerning local fiscal reform
DGID Ongoing ToRs This policy is linked to a general fiscal reform
Elaboration of legal texts concerning the status of local elected officials
DCL Done A draft law and decrees were prepared
Awaiting approval at the Prime Minister’s office
Elaboration of the decentralization charter DAGAT Done Approval expected Support to put in place a local public administration
DCL Done Laws and decrees finished
Law was approved March 2011
Harmonization of existing policy letters with the law of local communities
DDEC Done Final report available
Putting in place and rationalizing various local concertation frameworks
DADL Done Guidelines available and applied
Harmonization of local participatory planning procedures
DADL Done Guidelines available
Making the National Council for Development of Local Governments more effective
DCL Done Law and decrees available
Charter for partnership between local governments and civil society org.
DDC Done Charter available
20
Sub-component 1.2: Setting-up an organizational mechanism to finance participatory local development
Reform Exec. Agency
Status Available Products
Comments
Strengthening of local actors concerning local taxes
DGID Partly done The fiscal center of Louga was supported
Support to the implementation of mechanisms to delegate activities to local government
DCL Study will be carried out in collaboration with another Department
Implementation of fiscal transfers from central to local governments
DCL Awaiting Government decisions
Evaluation of the costs of competencies transferred from the national to the regional and local level
DDEC Done Report available
Study of the feasibility of a single investment fund to finance LG investments
DCL Study ongoing
Sub-component 1.3: Developing guidelines for local governments and communities to implement CDD
Reforms Exec. Agencies
Status Available Products
Comments
Guidelines for actors in the decentralization process
DDEC Done Guidelines available
Promotion of collaboration between local governments
DDEC Ongoing Reform is being tested in various regions
Guidelines for the implementation of sectoral policies
DDEC Done Guidelines available
Procedures manual for Local Dev. Fund DGCPT Done Manual available
Guidelines for control of legality of legal texts DDEC Done Guidelines Available
Elaboration of official list of all villages in Senegal
DAGAT Done List available
Elaboration of a guide for international cooperation at regional level
DIRCOD Done Manual available
Elaboration of guidelines for harmonization conferences
DAGAT Done Manual available
Collection of legal texts governing actions by local office holders
DAGAT Done Document available
Component 2: Financing Local Development Achievements under this component are rated Highly Satisfactory. This component supported the PNDL by setting up the mechanisms for Local Investment Financing (LIF), designed to promote CDD-oriented funding mechanisms to LGs. It comprised two sub-components: 2.1: Financing basic socio-economic infrastructure and services; and 2.2: Financing advisory services to develop local economic activities.
21
Financing basic socio-economic infrastructure and services: According to data from the M&E system, the project signed 867 financing agreements with 370 rural communities and 111 rural towns to put in place some 3,738 micro-projects. Three generations of financing agreements were signed for a total of FCFA 31,000,000,000 (approximately US$62 million) as follows:
• 86 LGs signed three financing agreements, • 202 LGs signed two financing agreements, and • 203 LGs signed one financing agreement.
The sectoral distribution of these over 5,000 local micro-projects (including micro-projects financed by other donors) is as follows (FDL-Local Investment Fund):
Rural Water Supply (2,358 micro-projects) FCFA 9.6 billion= 31% of FDL
Education (1,760 micro-projects) FCFA 8.7 billion = 28% of FDL
Health (565 micro-projects) FCFA 8.4 billion = 16% of FDL
Other community and agricultural projects (933 micro-projects) FCFA 6.3 billion = 21% du FDL
1,104 km. of water pipes 903 class rooms constructed, of which 706 equipped
74 health posts constructed of which 49 equipped
Social infrastructure (meeting places, markets)
394 wells 248 class rooms equipped 285 health rooms (cases de santé and maternities) constructed of which 240 equipped
Vaccination parks, storage facilities, and agricultural transformation equipment
21animal watering points, 8 water tanks, and 38 deep wells
117 class rooms renovated
63 health facilities rehabilitated
Equipment of 24 deep wells
134 toilet facilities constructed
131 schools fenced Source: Rapport d’achèvement du projet de développement local participative – PDLP, Ministère de la Décentralisation et des Collectivités Locales, and Evaluation de l’Impact des Réalisations du PNDL, Consortium pour la Recherche Economique et Sociale, 28 Février 2012. The above data on the number of micro-projects are for the National Participatory Development Project, not only for the part financed by the World Bank.
The major impact of these local investments in the various sectors is: Rural Water Supply: Out of a total national population of 13 million, 1,360,000 million live in areas covered by the PNDL. Out of this population, 330,000 people in 553 villages benefitted from access to potable water in their homes (24 percent), and 366,000 people in 375 villages benefitted from potable water from wells (27 percent). These investments in potable water supply through stand pipes and wells reduced the average distance to fetch water from 17.7 kilometers to 7.4 kilometers for stand pipes and from 12 kilometers to 3 kilometers for wells. At the same time, household water consumption on a daily basis increased by 13 liters and water quality improved. Finally, the financial cost of water decreased by 10 percent or about 10,000 FCFA per household per year. According to the beneficiary survey, the greater availability and easier access to water greatly improved the quality of life of all concerned. Women and children had to spend less time fetching water and the incidence of water borne diseases decreased. These health benefits, although difficult to quantify, are considerable, as are the economic benefits of less time spent fetching water and thereby freeing up time for alternative use. Education: In the project area, a total of 1,760 classrooms were newly constructed for an additional 22,451 primary school children. These class rooms replaced primarily existing
22
provisional unsafe structures rather than constitute new additions to the existing stock of school facilities. This choice was based on the wish of parents who pushed their local elected officials in this direction. While therefore few new additional class rooms were constructed, the project had a very positive effect on the internal efficiency of the school system. The number of students per class room was reduced from between 40-50 to 36. In schools affected by the project, only 2.1 percent of students dropped out compared with a national drop-out rate of 9.3 percent. The percentage of students who had to repeat the same grade was 0.2 percent under the project compared with a national repetition rate of 3.1 percent. These improvements were certainly due to smaller class sizes and the fact that the new facilities provide a more suitable environment for teaching and learning as they have better ventilation and lighting, and are more spacious. Health: The 565 micro-projects in the health sector (health posts, health rooms) greatly improved access of the rural population to basic health services. 1.1 million Additional people now have access to health posts and 1.0 million additional people have access to health rooms thanks to project investments. The investments in health facilities were supported by the Government making available qualified health personnel, especially nurses and mid-wives. As a consequence, the quantity of health care activities provided annually by these facilities steadily increased from 6,900 to 8,600 interventions from 2008 to 2011. This level of services is 60 percent higher than in comparable health facilities outside the project area. Specific health interventions such as: (a) medical consultations; (b) number of medical evacuations; (c) vaccinations of children; and (d) information campaigns concerning general health, nutrition and hygiene took off. While the exact impact of these local health investments has not yet been measured, there is no doubt that it is considerable and that especially the rural poor benefitted from these newly available services. Financing advisory services to develop local economic activities. This subcomponent did not receive much attention and played a very minor role. However, 13 MFIs were supported through investments in office infrastructure and equipment and the provision of 4x4 vehicles and motorcycles. The investments in mobility were especially useful and allowed the participating microfinance institutions to increase their geographic coverage (number of villages intervened), increase the number of borrowers and deposits and had a positive impact on credit recovery. Component 3: Capacity-building for Decentralization and Participatory Local Development The component provided capacity-building support to line ministries, LGs, CBOs, micro-finance institutions and the private sector in order to ensure efficient delivery of quality services to the poor. The outcome indicators for this component were largely achieved. Five out of five training plans have been prepared for all the stakeholders (locally elected leaders, CBO members, private sector actors, agents of local administration, and representatives of micro-finance institutions). Also, the number of training sessions organized exceeded planned targets. 467 over 412 (113 percent) workshops have targeted 8,798 locally elected leaders, 12,560 CBO members, 920 private sector actors, 1,216 public agents from decentralized ministries, and 364 agents from LG administrations. The training received enabled the various stakeholder groups to effectively play
23
their role in the production or delivery of services. However, given the periodic turnover of elected officials at the LG level, this training will have to be continuous. Between 2009 and 2010, the training topics, their frequency and the number of trainees were:
Topics Frequency No. of trainees Procurement 77 1780 Good governance 17 1102 Financial management 11 153 Health/HIV 10 327 Planning 9 193 Budget management 9 192 Monitoring and evaluation 7 39 Land management 6 167 Environmental management 5 106 Other topics - -
Achievements under this component are rated Satisfactory. Component 4: Project Coordination, Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Environment and Social Management. There were no specific outcome indicators for this component. Once the initial institutional instability of the Executive Secretariat had been overcome, it performed well its coordinating and communication function and was always staffed with competent personnel. As pointed out, M&E was satisfactory and the Secretariat did an excellent job in ensuring that all micro-projects were screened for environmental and social issues and appropriately dealt with. The World Bank’s guidelines for environmental assessments became a new standard and are being applied outside the project. Achievements under this component are rated Satisfactory.
24
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis The PAD did not attempt an economic and financial analysis of the overall project. It was considered at appraisal that the economic benefits of capacity building cannot be easily quantified. In addition, it was considered that the local investments involved in the project are demand-driven and therefore their cost benefit cannot be assessed ex-ante, as each community makes its final choice about investments, based on its own needs and constraints. Cost-Efficiency Analysis: Unit Cost Comparison. The types of sub-projects financed were mostly social investments. For these social investments, cost effectiveness analysis is more appropriate than cost-benefit analysis because benefits cannot be measured fully in monetary terms or measurement is difficult or can only be done over the very long term. The distribution of investments in micro-projects is presented in the Table below. Sectoral Distribution of Local Investments (2007-2011)
Sub-Project Category Total Amount (US$ million)
Percentage of investments 2007-2011
Of which main sub-project types
Water Supply 19.2 31%
64 equipped bore holes (38) 394 wells 1104 km piped water to homes
74 Health Posts 285 Health rooms 38 maternity equipped 33 health houses 63 health schools rehabilitated
Economic Infrastructure 14% Markets Other 11 % Total 100%
While comparative data is scant and often difficult to standardize across highly variable investments, data from the M&E system show that the unit costs of PLDP micro-projects were significantly lower than that of line ministries for similar projects. From the table below it can be seen that: (a) in the case of classrooms, the ones built by the project cost 18 percent less than the ones constructed by the Ministry of Education, (b) in the case of health posts and health rooms, the ones build by the project cost between 8 percent (case of health rooms) and 17 percent (case of health posts) less than similar ones constructed by the Ministry of Health, and (c) in the case of potable water: bore holes, wells, and water connections, cost respectively 44 percent, 30 percent and 36 percent less than similar micro-projects carried out and financed by the Department/Ministry of Hydraulic. These figures only concern savings in construction costs. They do not include maintenance costs. Maintenance costs can be expected to be equally significantly lower in the case of the micro-projects constructed under the project than similar ones undertaken by the sectoral Ministries, given the fact, that the beneficiaries were involved in
25
all phases of the project cycle and have established maintenance procedures that were agreed upon at the local level. Since the overall investments in micro-projects were US$62 million out of which US$48.5 million were for social infrastructure (water supply: US$19.2 million; education: US$17.4 million; and health: US$9.9 million), it can be estimated based on weighted averages of percentage savings in the table below that the social infrastructure component of the project alone saved the Government some US$11.5million. Infrastructure Comparative Unit Costs (‘000FCFA)
Project Type PLDP Ministry of Education
Ministry of Health
Dept./Ministry of Hydraulic Water
PLDP costs as % of ministerial departments
Classrooms 4,500 5,500 82 Health posts 55,000 66,000 83 Health rooms 6000 6,500 92 Bore holes 280 500 56 Wells 7,000 10,000 70 Water connections 4,500 7,000 64
Sub-sector economic analysis is further detailed below: Water supply: Access to clean water improves the health of the rural population and reduces time spent by women and children collecting water. Worldwide, the benefits of improved water supplies on health outcomes are well documented. These health benefits in turn lead to labor productivity and income gains via multiple pathways. Data from the evaluation study show that under the project, investments in potable water supply through stand pipes and wells reduced the average distance to fetch water from 17.7 kilometers to 7.4 kilometers for stand pipes and from 12 kilometers to 3 kilometers for wells. In addition, the financial cost of water decreased by 10 percent or about 10,000 FCFA per household per year. Education: Social rates of return on primary education in Senegal as elsewhere are high. ERR calculation is not pertinent for such kind of social investments aimed at creating a better teaching environment through decongesting overcrowded classrooms and providing permanent structures more conducive to learning. The cost-efficiency analysis based on infrastructure comparative costs carried out shows efficiency gains for the PLDP investments with unit costs 18 percent lower than for investments financed by the Ministry of Education (see table above). Health: Economic benefits from health investments the world over are well documented. They include the direct impact of increased labor productivity and avoidance of the potential death of productive family members. Health shocks to the household are closely related to future poverty. On the other hand, better health results in fewer days lost to schooling and higher birth weights of newborns. In the project area, health interventions increased significantly and are 60 percent higher than in comparable health facilities outside the project are. Special health interventions such as: (a) medical consultations, (b) number of medical evacuations, (c) vaccinations of children, and (d) information campaigns concerning general health, nutrition and hygiene took off. These benefits have not been quantified yet but are greatly appreciated by the population as evidenced by the results of the beneficiary assessment.
26
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes a) Task Team members
Names Title Unit Responsibility/ Specialty
LENDING Moctar Thiam TTL AFTTR TTL Demba Balde Co-TTL AFTCS Serge Theunynck Co-TTL AFTED Hang N. Sundstrom Language Program Assistant AFTTR Arnaud Desmarchelier Consultant SDV Bourama Diaite Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Saidou Diop Senior Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Ibou Diouf Senior Transport Specialist AFTTR L. Rodrigue Djahlin Operations Officer CAFJ5 Fily Sissoko Senior Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Thomas Fugelsnes Financial Specialist TWIAF Edeltraut Gilgan-Hunt Safeguards Specialist AFTEN Felly Akiiki Kaboyo Operations Analyst AFTTR SUPERVISION/ICR Demba Balde Senior Social Development Specialist TTL Moctar Thiam Sector Leader AFTSN Mamadou Ndione Senior Economist AFTP4 Manievel Sene Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Seynabou Thiaw Seye Program Assistant AFCF1 Ronnie W. Hammad Senior Operations Officer ECSSD Maimouna Fam Bow Senior Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Soulemane Fofana Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Cheick Traore Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Salamata Bal Senior Social Development Specialist AFTCS ICR TTL Franz Schorosch Consultant AFTCS Marie Agnes Ndour Huchard Program Assistant AFCF1
b) Staff Time and Cost BP Fiscal Year Sum of Staff Weeks Sum of Total LEN 2005 2.79 6,600 2006 74.88 234,578 2007 0.05 107 LEN Total 77.72 241,285 SPN/ICR 2007 38.1 111,401 2008 43.53 135,665 2009 27.73 59,986 2010 41.1 154,258 2011 21.44 67,890 2012 23.14 75,318 2013 5.18 9,834 SPN Total 200.22 614,352 Grand Total 277.94 855,637
27
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results A beneficiary survey was carried out and the results were published in December 2011. The objectives of the survey were:
• Ascertain the quality of the services offered and measure the degree of satisfaction of the beneficiaries with these services and micro-projects;
• Evaluate the local participatory planning process and the level of participation of the local population;
• Evaluate the performance of the RDAs; • Evaluate the quality of the performance of the private sector in the execution of micro-
projects; and • Assess the level of participation of CBOs.
In accordance with the stakeholders of the PLDP, the following categories of actors were interviewed:
• Local elected government representatives (mayors and council men/women); • Local administration officials; • Staff of technical services of the various ministries at the regional level; • Representatives of CBOs and NGOs; • Representatives of the private sector; • Citizens that were the ultimate beneficiaries of the services provided and the micro-
projects carried out; and • The directors of the RDAs.
In a 4 step process, a sample of regions, rural communities, villages and people was selected at random and 677 persons were interviewed.
The degree of satisfaction per type of stakeholder was as follows (see table below):
Type of Stakeholder Satisfaction rate (%) Beneficiaries (community members) 93.6 Counselors in municipalities and rural communities 78.3 Representatives of ministerial departments involved in PDLP 71.4 Representatives of community based organizations 92.0 Private sector representatives 88.8 Representatives of local administration 83.7 Global satisfaction rate 88.5
The planning process as agreed with the concerned local communities involved in the study has been respected. The majority of the local authorities (74 percent) have a local Development Plan and an Investment Plan prepared in 2010. The participatory approach has been well appreciated by the counselors, CBOs and management committees. However, in some cases, even if these stakeholders are involved, it was observed that some of their needs have not been fully taken into account (45 percent of the CBOs and 69 percent of the management committees). Other planning exercises were carried out, such as financial resource planning, the annual investment plan and budget preparation. The PNDL had each time to provide support in order to obtain the best results. The planning process was satisfactory to the majority of the local authorities. The lack of communication and training plan was noted in several communities. Considering the capacity building, the five groups involved in the project (the CBOs, the private sector, management committees, MFIs and the chairmen of the local councils) had all benefited from this component through the PNDL. In fact, the highest rate of people who participated in one or more courses is 47 percent and this figure applies to the chairmen of the local councils. This figure is followed by the private sector (35 percent), the management committees (31 percent), the MFIs (25 percent). The CBOs benefitted least in terms of capacity building. Only 8.9 percent of the interviewed CBOs benefitted from capacity building. The satisfaction rates on capacity building were very favorable for the PNDL, varying between 76.7 percent and 100 percent, except for MFIs with a satisfaction rate of 50 percent. Although the number of people trained was limited, satisfaction was high among those that received the training. Providing socio-economic infrastructure has been the main activity of the project, which is appreciated by a range of stakeholders—CBOs, the local population, management committees, etc. For the majority of those interviewed, these achievements are in line with their needs. The main achievements concern the education, water and health sectors, which in order were the top three sectors financed by the project. The majority of stakeholders are satisfied with the infrastructure which has been built. In terms of dissatisfaction was observed, the main source relates to the amount of infrastructure financed by the project relative to total needs in the area. Some dissatisfaction also related to lack of maintenance and sometimes poor quality of works. RDAs have generally good relations with STD, administrative authorities and the presidents of local communities. Missions assigned to them are generally carried out satisfactorily and the rate of achievement of their objectives is fairly high (80-90 percent). Other stakeholders express
29
satisfaction with the work carried out by the RDAs as part of the project. Despite favorable performance and positive assessments, RDAs are understaffed and have pressing needs with regard to logistics. These two weaknesses reduced their efficiency while overburdening an overwhelmed staff. The representation of women in local councils can be improved and requires greater efforts. Local councils with 10 women or more comprise only 28 percent of local councils visited. The number of young people represented in local councils is not much better—9.4 percent are represented in local councils where there are more than 30 young people. Overall, vulnerable groups are not sufficiently represented in local councils. In summary: The qualitative assessment of the beneficiary survey shows that the global rate of satisfaction is very high: 88.5 percent compared to the target rate of 70 percent in the Project Appraisal Document. The local planning process is working well and most communities do have a local development plan that is periodically updated. The capacity and competency of local actors has been significantly enhanced. Local infrastructure investments met the needs of the population and are highly appreciated. The RDAs played a key role in the provision of decentralized local services.
30
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results N/A
31
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Executive Summary The Local Development and Participatory Project (PLDP) became effective in 2007 and closed in February 2012. Designed to support efforts of the Senegalese government to reach its strategic objective to reduce poverty by half in 2015, PLDP had to, eventually, contribute to reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially in the areas of education, health and hydraulic. Project implementation was carried out through partnership involving local communities, Regional Development Agencies (RDA) and decentralized technical departments, community organizations at the local level, Ministries linked to decentralization and local development, and the private sector. The positive and globally satisfactory results by each of the four components are to be attributed to the concerted and sustained efforts of each of these actors. Project coordination was handled by an Executive Secretary. The Project has four components: (1) Support to decentralization, deconcentration and participative local development policy; (2) Financing of local development; (3) Technical support and capacity building; and (4) Coordination and program management. Component 1: “Support to decentralization, deconcentration and participative local development policy” reveals significant progress in terms of improvement of the regulatory and legal framework. While it is true that the national strategy of local development is yet to be finalized, one must admit that important milestones were reached such as: (i) the existence of important texts on reform or harmonization in key areas of decentralization; (ii) the production of implementation tools and instruments for local development; (iii) the restructuring, strengthening and repositioning of regional development agencies ; (iv) the considerable increase in terms of volume of financial transfers from the State towards the Local Collectivities ; and (v) the net improvement of delays in funds availability for Local Collectivities. In spite of obstacles linked, among others, to the still timid political climate, personnel mobility, time necessary to study the Exportation Agency (AGEX), institutional instability, etc. the Project launched an irreversible process of qualitative change of public policies regarding decentralization and local development. Component 2: “Financing of local development” produced very good results between April 2007 and 2011, in terms of micro-project realizations, infrastructure building, basic utility delivery with investments reaching 9.6 billion FCFA (or 31% of LDF) in access to clean water, 8.7 billion FCFA (or 28 percent of LDF) in education, and 4.8 billion FCFA (or 16% of LDF) in health. The Project also participated in the emergence of a local private sector and in the improvement of SFD intervention capacity, by mobilizing 300 million FCFA for 15 of them. Furthermore, 93.6 percent of households –ultimate beneficiaries– expressed their complete satisfaction. Component 3: “Technical support and capacity building.” The targeting of all categories of actors (State, Local Collectivities, private sector, NGO, Community Based Organizations, and
32
SFD) is effective. All capacity building plans of actors involved in decentralization and local development were implemented. PDLP contributed significantly to the design of planning tools intended for Local Collectivities and created opportunities for success for the underprivileged and vulnerable groups and for Community Based Organizations. Furthermore, PLDP accompanied the elaboration and validation of the original framework, in this case the National Strategy for Training and Communication of actors involved in decentralization and local development. Component 4: “Coordination and program management” generated very positive results. The fact that regular coordination meetings among the Technical Monitoring Committee, regional development agencies and the Permanent Executive Secretary of the Project were held allowed the Project to evolve progressively and in a harmonized way toward meeting its objectives, adapting to various constraints. The Project managed to support PNDL in setting up a monitoring and evaluation and an information system, although still under construction but very much pertinent and efficient, considering the many positive results coming out of the actors and beneficiary survey. The communication section led to (i) the elaboration of a national communication strategy of PNDL; (ii) the elaboration of eight communication strategy documents for regional development agencies; (iii) the production of communication aides to accompany the management unit of PNDL and relieve the institutional communication flow of information; and (iii) the elaboration of 135 plans of communication. The Project also succeeded in making PNDL a national and sub-regional model because it was able to take into account the environmental dimension. An environmental and social management framework was defined so that all of the environmental and social management mitigating measures linked to the Program would be in compliance with existing norms and other applicable operational policies. Benefits are visible through (i) the elaboration and broadcasting of environmental and social management investment tools; (ii) the organization of workshops and training sessions on environmental and social management; (iii) the organization of technical support and follow up missions on environmental and social monitoring of micro-projects in the regions, with the collaboration of environment units; (iv) the installation of 14 regional environmental and social monitoring committees; and (v) the realization of environmental impact studies and environmental audits of micro-projects, constitution of a baseline documentary on the environmental and social dimension, and the formation of various partnerships. PLDP contributed to PNDL becoming a pertinent and efficient framework with the potential to boost implementation of decentralization and local development initiatives in all their dimensions. The very positive results, as well as performances are recognized by the State and by various categories of actors and beneficiaries. The aggregated satisfaction rate is 88.5 percent. PNDL is managed by the steering committee (as one of the better among the three in Senegal).
33
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders N/A Based on the biannual reports received and the evaluation and satisfactory survey conducted, the partners’ opinion is that the PDLP was globally executed successfully. Concretely, the level of equipment and socioeconomic services (Component 2 of PNDL) has been really improved. Based on the 10th report submitted to the Steering Committee on September 2012, in four (4) years of execution, 916 funding agreements related to 4076 micro projects (health centers, schools, water points) have been signed for the profit of 343 rural communities (RC) with an amount of 32, 6 billion F CFA. This performance resulted from the partnership established with the ARD, Local Officials, and technical services. An inclusive dynamic of local development which can support the coming programs and development strategy is created and functional. Capacity building activities have been developed to accompany this dynamic. The most difficult activities were the reforms of decentralization legal framework. Despite many delays, some results have been achieved: local civil service law adopted, National strategy of territorial development elaborated, local taxes reform submitted for integration in the tax code reform, etc. The Project was an exciting local development experience with multiple dimensions: it was a multi-actors process, all institutional levels involvement, new local development approaches and an advanced learning by doing process.
34
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
1. Aide-Memoires of Supervision Missions from 2006 to 2012 2. Government completion report (Rapport d’achèvement du projet de développement local
participatif – PDLP, Ministère de la Décentralisation et des Collectivités Locales, février 2012)
3. Beneficiary Assessment (Enquête de Satisfaction Auprès des Acteurs et Bénéficiaires du PNDL, Ministère de la Décentralisation et des Collectivités Locales, décembre 2011)
4. Impact Evaluation Study (Evaluation de l’Impact des Réalisations du PNDL, Consortium pour la Recherche Economique et Sociale, 28 février 2012)
5. Program Evaluation of PNDL (Evaluation du Programme National de Développement Local – PNDL, Rapport provisoire, Moctar Sow, Pr. Abdoulaye Diagne, Amadou Sadio, Malamine Savane, Nov. 2011
6. Project Appraisal Document and Financing Agreement, PLDP, April 3, 2006
