Projet de développement régional du Centre et de l'Artibonite en Haïti

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00005447 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT IDA - H9500 / TF - 1 7021 ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 32.4 MILLION (US$ 50 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND US$8.0 MILLION TO THE Republic of Haiti FOR THE HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development Project February 2 8 , 2021 Transport Global Practice Latin America And Caribbean Region Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective { Feb 22, 2021 }) Currency Unit = Haitian Gourdes (HTG) HTG 72.83 = US$1 US$1,44 = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR October 1 – September 30 Regional Vice President: Carlos Felipe Jaramillo Country Director: Tahseen Sayed Khan Regional Director: Franz R. Drees - Gross Practice Manager: Nicolas Peltier - Thiberge Task Team Leader(s): Malaika Becoulet, Marc Marie Francois Navelet Noualhier ICR Main Contributor (s) : Fabian Hinojosa Couleau, Jordy Hinaarii Timyan Chan ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AfD French Development Agency (Agence Francaise de Développement) CAL Center - Artibonite Loop CASEC Administrative Council of Communal Sections (Conseil Administratif des Sections Communales) CBO community - based organization CERC Conti n gent Emergency Response Component CIAT Ministerial Committee for Territorial Development (Comité Interministeriel d´Aménagement du Territoire) CIF Climate Investment Fund CTD Departmental Technical Council (Conseil Techniques Departemental ) EIRR E conomic I nternal R ate of R eturn EU European Union FER Road Maintenance Fund ( Fond d´Entretien Routier ) FM financial management FY fiscal year GoH Government of Haiti GDP gross domestic product ICR Implementation Completion Report IDB Inter - American Development Bank IP Implementation Progress IRI Intermediate Result Indicator ISR Implementation Status Report M&E M onitoring and E valuation MARNDR Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministère de l´Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural) MDOD Delegated Project Management (Maîtrise d´Ouvrage Déléguée) MEF Ministry of Finance and Economy (Ministère de l´Economie et des Finances) MTPTC Ministry of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications (Ministère des Travaux Publics, Transports et Communications) MTR Mid - term R eview NPV N et P resent V alue NR3 National Road 3 PAD Project Appraisal Document PAP Project - Affected Person PBCA Haiti Center and Artibonite Regional Development Project (Projet de la Boucle Centre Artibonite) PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience PSDH Strategic Plan for the Development of Haiti (Plan Stratégique pour le Développement d´Haïti) R18 Restructuring dated June 27, 2018 R20 Restructuring date d February 28, 2020 RAI Rural Access Index RAP Resettlement Action Plan RARP Rural Accessibility and Resilience Project RED Model Roads Economic Decision Model SME s S mall and M edium E nterprises SPCR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience STEP Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement TF Trust Fund UCE - MTPTC Central Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications (Unité Centrale d´Implémentation du Ministère des Travaux Publics, Transports et Communications) UTE - MEF Technical Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Economy and F inance (Unité Technique d´Exécution du Ministère de l´Economie et des Finances) TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................ ....................... 6 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) ................................ ..... 13 II. OUTCOME ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 20 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 20 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ................................ ................................ ...................... 21 C. EFFICIENCY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING ................................ ................................ .... 30 E. OTHER OUTCO MES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) ................................ ................................ ............ 30 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 33 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................ ................................ ................... 33 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ................................ ................................ ............. 34 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 37 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ................................ ............................ 37 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ................................ ..................... 39 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 40 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 43 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ................................ ........................... 46 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 54 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ................................ ................................ ........... 58 ANNEX 4. RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF OUTCOME INDICATORS RETAINED TO ASSESS PROJECT EFFI CACY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 59 ANNEX 5. REVISIONS TO THE RESULTS FRAMEWORK ................................ ........................... 63 ANNEX 6. TRANSFER OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES TO THE RARP ................................ .................. 68 ANNEX 7. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........................... 70 ANNEX 8. PROJECT OVERALL OUTCOME RATING ASSESSMENT BASED ON RESULTS EXPECTED B Y MID - 2021 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 76 ANNEX 9. BORROWER, CO - FINANCIER, AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS .. 80 The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 1 of 83 DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P133352 HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development Country Financing Instrument Haiti Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Ministry of Economy and Finance Unite Technique d'Execution (UTE), Unite Centale d'Execution (UCE) Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The objectives of the Project are to: (a) support the development of the Centre Artibonite Loop region, primarily by enhancing all - weather connectivity and logistics for producers, and the region’s resilience to climate change; and (b) support the Recipient’s capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency, as needed. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 2 of 83 FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing IDA - H9500 50,000,000 26,752,330 16,186,274 TF - 17021 8,000,000 8,000,000 6,351,914 Total 58,000,000 34,752,330 22,538,188 Non - World Bank Financing 0 0 0 Borrower/Recipient 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Total Project Cost 58,000,000 34,752,330 22,538,188 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 19 - May - 2014 06 - Oct - 2014 21 - Feb - 2018 28 - Feb - 2020 31 - Aug - 2020 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 27 - Jun - 2018 5.60 Change in Implementing Agency Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Change in Disbursements Arrangements Change in Institutional Arrangements Change in Financial Management Change in Procurement 25 - Feb - 2020 21.45 Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Cancellation of Financing Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Change in Implementation Schedule The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 3 of 83 KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Modest RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Actual Disbursements (US$M) 01 11 - Oct - 2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory .50 02 12 - May - 2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.50 03 24 - Nov - 2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.10 04 31 - May - 2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.10 05 03 - Jan - 2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 4.10 06 30 - Jun - 2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 5.10 07 02 - Jan - 2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 5.60 08 01 - Aug - 2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 7.60 09 10 - Jan - 2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 19.11 10 05 - Jul - 2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 19.11 11 14 - Jan - 2020 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 21.45 12 31 - Aug - 2020 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 21.75 SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 9 Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support Activities 9 The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 4 of 83 Public Administration 18 Sub - National Government 7 Other Public Administration 11 Transportation 64 Rural and Inter - Urban Roads 64 Industry, Trade and Services 9 Agricultural markets, commercialization and agri - business 9 Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Private Sector Development 100 Jobs 100 Finance 3 Finance for Development 3 Housing Finance 3 Urban and Rural Development 82 Urban Development 11 Urban Infrastructure and Service Delivery 8 Urban Planning 3 Rural Development 71 Rural Markets 9 Rural Infrastructure and service delivery 62 Environment and Natural Resource Management 15 Climate change 15 Mitigation 15 The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 5 of 83 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy Carlos Felipe Jaramillo Country Director: Mary A. Barton - Dock Tahseen Sayed Khan Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz - Vasquez Franz R. Drees - Gross Practice Manager: Aurelio Menendez Nicolas Peltier - Thiberge Task Team Leader(s): Pierre Xavier Bonneau Malaika Becoulet, Marc Marie Francois Navelet Noualhier ICR Contributing Author: Fabian Hinojosa Couleau The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 6 of 83 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Context 1. At the time of appraisal in 2014, Haiti was pursuing an economic rebalancing process across its national territory. Public awareness that Haiti needed to rebalance development across its territory was already growing during the early 2000s. During this per iod, the country had suffered considerable damage from heavy rains and hurricane s ( Jeanne in 2004 ; Fay, Gustav, Hanna , and Ike during the span of one month in 2008 ) . R ebalancing gained momentum as a solution to reduce the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters . In 2009, t o ensure better governance of territorial planning across Haiti , the Ministerial Committee for Territorial Development ( Comité Interministeriel d´Aménagement du Territoire , CIAT) was created. The importance of rebalancing was reinforc ed by the devastating earthquake of January 2010 . This caused considerable damage , 1 primarily in Port - au - Prince and the w estern part of the country, where most of Haiti’s economic activity is concentrated. K ey strategic frameworks were developed to set te rritorial rebalancing and decentralization as national priorities going forward, including the 2010 Strategic Plan for the Development of Haiti ( Plan Stratégique pour le Développement d´Haïti , PSDH) and the Haiti Tomorrow report published by the CIAT in 2010. From 2011 to 2013, Haiti’s gross domestic product ( GDP ) increased by a cumulative annual growth rate of 4.2 percent. However, the country was still striving to achieve a spatial redistribu tion of growth across its national territory, with high levels of unemployment and extreme poverty prevailing, especially in the provinces. 2. The Haiti Center and Artibonite Regional Development Project ( Projet de la Boucle Centre Artibonite , PBCA) was born out of this rebalancing process and takes its roots in the “Haiti Tomorrow — The Cent er - Artibonite Loop : Territorial Goals and Strateg ies for Reconstruction” report published by the CIAT in 2010. The document framed a model for territorial planning and econ omic development across the country, by structuring a multisectoral development vision for the Center - Artibonite Loop (CAL) region , centered on road connectivity as a means to improve territorial and human development. Often considered as “Haiti’s breadbas ket , ” the CAL region spans a territory of 4,632 square kilometers ( km 2 ) and has 1.2 million inhabitants. The region was identified as strategic by the Government of Haiti (GoH) , given its s ubstantial contribution to agricultural output, a sector accounting for 25 percent of the country’s GDP and 50 percent of total employment in Haiti at appraisal . 2 The region also displayed still untapped agricultural potential along with high poverty rates and stro ng vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change. The loop itself ( see Figure 1 ) is a 240 - km - long road system connecting 10 urban centers, which are nearly equidistant (on average 24 km away) from one an other. While the strategy envisioned for the development of the CAL was multisectoral , 3 it s central element was the development of an organized urban network (th e loop) connect ing the port cities of Saint - Marc, Gonaïves , and Cap - Haïtien to the n orth ; Port - au - Prince to the s outh ; and 1 The earthquake caused over 200,000 deaths and inflicted massive damages and losses estimated at US$7.9 billion (120 percent o f Haiti’s GDP ). 2 Project Appraisal Document , PAD767, April 2014 3 It embedded actions in areas such as transport, agriculture, e nergy, water, health , or education. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 7 of 83 the Dominican Republic in the e ast , with i mprove d road connectivity from these external cities to the loop, between urban centers on the loop, and to communities within the loop. Figure 1 . Center - Artibonite Loop Source: CIAT (Comité Interministeriel d´Aménagement du Territoire), Haiti Tomorrow — The Center - Artibonite Loop (CAL): Territorial Goals and Strategies for Reconstruction (Port - au - Prince: CIAT). 3. To help achieve this vision, the Project was designed to complement and build on structur al investments in the region, in coordination with donors and the GoH, such as the rehabilitation of National Road 3 (NR3) between Cap - Haïtien and Port - au - Prince, the construction of the University Hospital of Mirebalais, and overall support to agricultural production regionally. I t focused on the improvement of interloop connections not already prioritized by other funders, as well as secondary, tertiary , and rural roa d sections inside the loop. 4. The Project responded to major bottlenecks observed for the development of key regional sectors, including agricultural development, business development, transport connectivity , and climate resilience. Limited access to market s and services, weak public institutions , and extreme vulnerability to climate change and natural hazards posed significant challenges to agricultural productivity, along with the depletion of natural resources and land tenure insecurity. Lack of infrastructure was also a key impediment to build i ng a conducive business environment in The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 8 of 83 the region and to develop ing value chains such as food export s . Transport connectivity had to be improved to facilitate economic and agricultural trade dynamics, including ( 1 ) a functioning all - weather structural netw ork of primary and secondary roads to ensure access to internal and external markets ; and ( 2 ) all - weather rural roads linking production, processing sites , and local markets. A reliable road network would also lower transportation costs and facilitate grea ter accessibility to social services for rural and peri - urban communities . Figure 2 . Breakdown of Planned CAL Road Investments , by Funder , in 2010 Source: CIAT (Comité Interministeriel d´Aménagement du Territoire), Haiti Tomorrow — The Center - Artibonite Loop (CAL): Territorial Goals and Strategies for Reconstruction (Port - au - Prince: CIAT). 5. The Project was built based on the Bank’s long - standing support in th e transport sector. The Bank had been supporting Haiti’s countrywide transport sector since 2004, with a particular focus on critical spot interventions to ensure all - weather connectivity, and on strengthening maintenance of the national road system to imp rove resilience and protection of assets . 4 Furthermore, the Bank had supported the development of the GoH’s US$25.0 4 The following projects have participated in this effort: The Transport and Territorial Development Project (PTDT — P095523), the The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 9 of 83 million Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR), as part of the Climate Investment Fund ’ s (CIF ’s ) Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), in response to the increasing challenges posed by climate change to Haiti’s sustainable development. In this context, the Project was allocated a grant of US$8 million (TF - 17021) to cofinance the climate proof ing of CAL’s road infrastructure. The Project was aligned with recommendations of the 2009 World Development Report , 5 which highlighted transport connectivity as a key component of regional integration and development. 6. The Project was in line with higher - level objectives at appraisal. With a focus on helping end extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity , the Project foster ed the economic inclusion of the CAL with the national economy via the improved road network. It enabled new economic and labor o pportunities while strengthening the resilience of infrastructure and communities, as a direct application of the SPCR program. Moreover, the Project was fully consistent with the World Bank Group ’ s Haiti Interim Strategy Note (Report No. 71885 - HT) discuss ed by the World Bank ’s Executive Directors on September 27, 2012. The Strategy defined the program of the second tranche of the US$500 million allocated to Haiti in response to the 2010 earthquake from the International Development Association ’s IDA16 Cris is Response Window. 7. Due to its multisectoral and regional approach, this ambitious project required close coordination between several institutions for its implementation. The Project’s original i nstitutional a rrangements entrusted responsibility for its implementation to the Ministry of Economy and Finance ( Ministère de l´Economie et des Finances , MEF) through its Technical Implementation Unit ( Unité Technique d ’ exécution, UTE). However, as Project activities involved technical expe rtise from various sectors, it was established that UTE - MEF would rely on the participation of the Ministry of Public Works, Transportation , and Communications ( Ministère des Travaux Publics, Transports et Communications , MTPTC); the CIAT executive secretariat ; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development ( Ministère de l ’ Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural , MARNDR) for the implementation of the components. This coordination would be formalized through a steering committee chaired by the CIAT executive secretariat and bring ing together representatives of the four designated institutions as well as local stakeholders. An important caveat is that t hese institutional arrangements require d active co ordination among implementing partners to achieve progress in executing the Project . Emergency Bridge Reconstruction and Vulnerability Reduction Project (PROReV — P114292 ) , the Disaster Risk Management & Reconstruction Project (DRMRP — P126346 ) , and t he Infrastructure and Institutions Emergency Recovery Project (IIERP — P120895) . 5 World Bank , World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography (Washington, DC: World Bank , 20 09), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5991 . The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 10 of 83 Theory of Change (Results Chain) Figure 3 . Reconstituted Theory of Change at Appraisal Note: CBOs = community - based organizations; PDO = Project Development Objective. Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 8. The development objectives of the Project as stated in the financing agreement and the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) are to: (1) support the development of the Center Artibonite Loop Region, primarily by enhancing all - weather connectivity and logistics for producers, and the region´s resilience to climate change; and (2) support the Recipient´s capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency, as needed. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 11 of 83 Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 9. The key expected outcomes 6 and outcome indicators are listed in Table 1 . Table 1 . Project Development Objectives (PDOs): Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators at Appraisal No. Key Expected Outcome Outcome Indicator 1 Support the development of the Center - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancing all - weather connectivity PDO indicator 1: Share of rural population with access to an all - weather road (disaggregated by gender) 2 Support the development of the Center - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancing logistics for producers PDO indicator 3: Increase in volume of transactions in improved markets 3 Support the development of the Center - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancing the region’s resilience to climate chang e PDO indicator 2: Share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and climate change impacts 1 – 3 All of the above key expected outcomes PDO indicator 4: Direct Project beneficiaries (disaggregated by gender) PDO indicator 5: Share of the population in the Project area satisfied with the quality and impact of the infrastructure financed by the Project Components 10. The Project design consist s of five components, 7 outlined below from A to E, along with the various subcomponents of each. 11. Component A : Enhancing logistics, transport connectivity, and climate resilience (original costs estimated at US$37 million). This component was comprised of four subcomponents: 12. Subcomponent A.1 : Strengthening the regional connectivity, logistics , and the climate resilience of the road network through the rehabilitation and/or construction of: ( 1 ) vulnerable road sections, brid ges, river crossings, and critical spots along three major connecting roads: ( a ) outbound to the capital/ s outh (Saut - d ’ Eau – Titanyen); ( b ) outbound to the n orth (Dessalines – Saint - Michel – Saint - Rapha ë l); ( c ) internal corridor west – east across the loop (Maissade – Hinche); ( 2 ) critical sections of primary, secondary , and tertiary roads selected on the basis of the vulnerability assessment to be carried out under Component C; ( 3 ) tertiary roads selected based on a participatory decision - mak ing mechanism; and ( 4 ) basic infrastructure along such roads. 6 The PAD does not specify key outcomes. Therefore the ones proposed in the table are based on the formulation of the PDO. 7 Actual component costs are shown in table 3. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 12 of 83 13. Subcomponent A.2: Improving the rural road network and the climate resilience thereof through: ( 1 ) the rehabilitation or upgrading of feeder roads and rural pathways selected based on a participatory decision - making mechanism; and ( 2 ) the rehabilitation and construction of small logistical facilities. 14. Subcomponent A.3: Strengthening the road maintenance capacity and mechanisms through: ( 1 ) the preparation and adoption of a regional road maintenance strategy and guidelines , as well as the provision of t raining to MTPTC; ( 2 ) the rehabilitation of road maintenance centers in Hinche and Mirebalais; ( 3 ) the construction of a road maintenance center in Saint - Michel; and ( 4 ) the development of n ew road maintenance microenterprises and community - based organizations (CBOs) and enhancing the capacity of existing micro - enterprises and community - based organizations. 15. Subcomponent A.4: Developing technical guidelines and training programs for the incor poration of climate resilience in the design of road infrastructure. 16. Component B : Improving infrastructure and management capacity of markets (original costs estimated at US$ 10 million). This component was comprised of two subcomponents: 17. Subcomponent B.1 : The rehabilitation and/or construction of selected urban markets and the associated facilities, and the improvement of their climate resilience and management capacity. 18. Subcomponent B.2: The rehabilitation and/or construction of rural markets and the as sociated facilities , selected based on a participatory decision - making mechanism , and the improvement of their management capacity. 19. Component C : Supporting the development of regional knowledge, planning capacity , and local participation (original costs estimated at US$ 6 million). This component was broken down into two subcomponents: 20. Subcomponent C.1: Supporting the development of regional knowledge , including climate resilience aspects through: ( 1 ) the carrying out of a vulnerability assessment of the road network; ( 2 ) the preparation of studies, plans , and guidelines; ( 3 ) the development of information systems; ( 4 ) the provision of technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of the CIAT executive secretariat ; and ( 5 ) the development of a dashboard tool capturing key development indicators and investments at the regional level. 21. Subcomponent C.2: Supporting the development of regional planning capacity , including climate resilience mainstreaming and local participation , through: ( 1 ) the preparation of a regional programmatic development agenda; ( 2 ) supporting the implementation of the participatory decision - making mechanism at the local level to identify local priorities and investments; and ( 3 ) enhancing the capacity of existing local Departmental Technical Councils ( Conseils Techniques Départementaux , CTD s ), the technical services of selected municipalities, the Administrative Council of Communal Sections (Conseil Administratif des Sections Communales, CASECs ), and CBOs . 22. Component D : Contingent Emergency Response Component (original costs estimated at US$ 1 million). Provision of support to respond to an Eligible Emergency, as needed. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 13 of 83 23. Component E : Project implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (original costs estimated at US$ 4 million). Provision of support to MEF, CIAT executive secretariat, MTPTC, and MARNDR for Project management, monitoring, and evaluation. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) 24. The Project was restructured twice: 1. A restructuring dated June 27, 2018 (thereafter referred to as “R18”) , resulting from the Mid - Term Review (MTR); and 2. A restructuring dated February 28, 2020 (thereafter referred to as “R20”), wh ose primary objective was to cancel part of the financing ( S DR 17 million) to allow the transfer to the Rural Accessibility and Resilience Project (RARP – P163490) of Project activit ies that would not be completed before the Project closing date of August 31, 2020. Details on the transferred activities are in annex 6. Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 25. The PDOs were not revised, but the targets for outcome indicators 1 and 4 were revised (see paragraph 26 ). Revised PDO Indicators 26. T he key changes made to PDO indicators, the associated date of revision , and the reason for change are described belo w : 8 a. PDO indicator 1 , “ Share of rural population with access to an all - weather road (disaggregated by gender) ” — the end target was reduced from 60 percent to 45 percent as a result of the R20 to reflect the transfer of activities to the RARP . b. PDO indicator 2 , “Share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and climate change impacts” was dropped in the R18. The data were captured by a revised intermediate results indicator, “ Change in share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and cli mate change impacts,” which was dropped in the R20 due to the complexity of data collection compared to client capacity, the survey methodology, and the scattered scope of the intervention areas as stated in the restructuring paper. c. PDO indicator 3 , “Incre ase in volume of transaction in improved markets ” 9 (end target of 25 percent ) was dropped in the R18 to simplify the results framework. T he associated outcome was captured under the revised PDO i ndicator 4 . d. PDO indicator 4 , “Direct Project beneficiaries (disaggregated by gender)” (end target of 190,000) was revised in the R18 to “Number of people serviced by new or improved climate - resilient markets ” 10 (end target of 190,000) and in the R20 to “Number of producers and users serviced by an all - weather road accessing urban and rural markets” (end target of 100,000) . These changes aimed to ( 1 ) take into account 8 There was no change to the “ Share of the population in the Project area satisfied with the quality and impact of the infrastructure financed by the Project.” 9 Growth in volume of total transaction s taking place in improved markets, based on surveys conducted by “operators” in the rural and urban markets benefiting from Project investments . 10 That is, people living less than 60 min utes from the se market s. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 14 of 83 the transfer of the rehabilitation of urban a nd rural markets to the RARP, and ( 2 ) better capture the improved logistics and access to rural and urban markets achieved under the Project. Revised Components 27. The revised components are described below and summarized in Table 2 . Table 2 . Revisions to the Scope of Project Components Revised Component Revised Component in the R18 Revised Component in the R20 Revised Component A. Enhancing logistics, transport connectivity, and climate resilience The activities and the estimated costs remained unchanged in the R18, but the implementation strategy and responsibility for the component was changed (see Section I . B., “Rationale for Changes and Their Implications for the Theory of Change ” ). In the R20, the scope of Component A was reduced by US$15 million to transfer the funds to the Rural Accessibility and Resilience Project (RARP) for activities related to (1) t he construction of four bridges on road sections Hinche – Maissade and Saint - Michel – Saint - Raphaël; (2) spot improvements on road sections Titanyen – Saut - d’Eau, Saint - Michel – Saint - Raphaël, Dessalines – Saint - Michel, and Hinche – Thomassique and the construction of a culvert on River Bretelle; (3) the spot improvement, maintenance, and repair of 40 km of rural roads; (4) the construction and rehabilitation of two road maintenance centers (Hinche and Saint - Michel); and (5) the training of 200 people within selected c ommunities on basic rural road maintenance. Revised Component B. Improving selected markets and supporting the development of regional knowledge and planning tools In the R18, the original Components B and C were merged into a new Component B to foster implementation synergies. The new Component B’s financing was reduced from a total US$16 million to a total US$14.5 million. The scope of the new Component B was simplified to better align Project implementation capacity with the number of markets expected to be rehabilitated, constructed, and/or improved, and the number of urban plans expected to be elaborated. The name and numbering of components were revised to account for the component merger. All the original activities under the original Subcomponents B.1 and B.2 were integrated into the new Subcomponent B.1, “Urban and rural markets and associated facilities.” The new Subcomponent B.2, “Improving regional knowledge and planning tools,” consisted of all the activities under the original Component C, pl us the operating costs In the R20, the scope of Component B was reduced b y US$9 million to transfer the funds to the RARP for activities related to (1) the construction, rehabilitation, and/or improvement of five markets; (2) the development of a regional dashboard tool capturing key development indicators and investments at th e regional level; (3) the elaboration of climate - informed urban plans for Saint - Michel and Saint - Raphaël; and (4) CIF coordination. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 15 of 83 of supporting the monitoring and evaluation of the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience activities funded by the Climate Investment Fund, which was added to the financing agreement. Revised Component C. Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) No change. The CERC was not triggered during the Project. The component was kept in the Project in the R20, but its financing of US$1 million was cancelled and transferred to the RARP. Revised Component D. Project Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation The component was split into two subcomponents in the R18, Subcomponents D.1 “Support to UTE” (Technical Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Economy and Finance — UTE - MEF) and D.2 “Support to UCE” (Central Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications — UCE - MTPT C). As a result of the R18, US$1.5 million was reallocated from Component B to Component D to accommodate for the increased costs ensuing from changes in implementation arrangements, and the financing gap arising from significant depreciation of the specia l drawing right (SDR) allocation. In the R20, the financing of the component allocation was reduced by US$1 million, which was transferred to the RARP. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 16 of 83 28. The revised components are described below and summarized in Table 3 . Revisions to the Scope of Project Components: Estimated and Actual Costs . Table 3 . Revisions to the Scope of Project Components: Estimated and Actual Costs From Appraisal to June 2018 Restructuring From June 2018 Restructuring to Closing Components Cost at Appraisal Components Cost at June 2018 Restructuring Cost at February 2020 Restructuring Actual Cost at Closing Actual Cost at Closing (% of estimated cost at R20) A. Enhancing logistics, transport connectivity, and climate resilience 37 A. Enhancing logistics, transport connectivity, and climate resilience 37 22 15.9 72 B. Improving infrastructure and management capacity of markets 10 B. Improving selected markets and supporting the development of regional knowledge and planning tools 14.5 5.5 4.3 78 C. Supporting the development of regional knowledge, planning capacity, and local participation 6 D. Contingent Emergency Response Component 1 C. Contingent Emergency Response Component 1 0 0 N/A E. Project Implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 4 D. Project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 5.5 4.5 4.0 88 Total Project Cost 58 58 32 24.2 76 The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 17 of 83 Other Changes 29. Revised Project financing and costs. As a result of the partial cancellation of the World Bank’s International Development Association ( IDA ) financing in the R20, the total Project financing was reduced by SDR 17 million (or from an equivalent of US$58 million at appraisal to an equivalent of US$32 million in the R20). This amount was canceled from the IDA financing to account for the cancellation and transfer to the RARP of Project activities, as well as unused funds under the Contingent Emergency Response Component ( CERC ) c omponent, by the way of R20 and an a dditional f inancing (P173281) to the RARP. The Strategic Climate Fund Grant of US $8 million was not reduced. The revised Project costs are detailed in Table 3 . Revisions to the Scope of Project Components: Estimated and Actual Costs Error! Reference source not found. . 30. Revised results framework. Annex 5 displays the changes to the results framework over th e course of the Project. 31. Change in the implementation arrangements. The implementation arrangements were changed in the R18. UTE - MEF continued as the overall coordination entity and was responsible for the implementation of the revised Component B and the new Subcomponent D.1. The Central Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications ( UCE - MTPTC ) was appointed to implement, coordinate, evaluate , an d supervise Component A and the new Subcomponent D.2. 32. Extension of closing date. The extension of the Project original closing date from February 28, 2020 , to August 31, 2020 , was approved in the R20 to facilitate the transfer of activities to the RARP an d the completion of activities that could be expected to be completed by the new closing date . Rationale for Changes and T heir Implication on the Original Theory of Change 33. The Mid - term R eview concluded that complex Project implementation arrangements delayed implementation. A key feature of Project design was the promotion of cross - support between different implementing entities in order to benefit from intersectoral complementarities. The original Project Implementation Unit (PIU), UTE - ME F , was dependent on the UCE - MTPTC, the CIAT executive secretariat, and the MARNDR for key technical support , including the identification of investments, the preparation of procurement packages, or the supervision of works. However, despite continuous supp ort provided by the Bank, limited coordination between implementing partners was witnessed during the first three years of Project implementation. Delays were exacerbated by a lengthy political transition from March 2016 to February 2017 , by the impact of Hurricane Matthew on implementation capacity, as well as by a restrictive withdrawal condition of the Financing Agreement (see Section III.B., “Key Factors During Implementation”) . Therefore, Project disbursements lagged behind forecasts , with 10.4 percent of the total Project budget disbursed by June 2018. The delays impacted all components of the Project. 34. The R18 responded to the need to expedite implementation progress by ( 1 ) transferring the implementation responsibility for Component A from UTE - MEF t o an experienced PIU (UCE - MTPTC) ; ( 2 ) modifying the implementation strategy for Component A (while maintaining the original activities) to: (a) combine larger contracts for the construction of main bridges , (b) use regional small and medium enterprises (SM E s ) for small critical spot works , and (c) regroup activities involving rehabilitation of small rural roads, maintenance , and community engagement into one The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 18 of 83 large contract to be implemented by the United Nations Office for Project Services ( UNOPS ) , thereby allowing UCE - MTPTC to focus on its core competencies; and ( 3 ) merging Components B and C to allow for effective synergies between the CIAT executive secretariat and UTE - MEF through a clarification of roles and respons i bilities as well as a simplification a nd reduction of the scope of the activities . 35. The R18 also simplified the results framework for more realism, consistency , and relevance to the PDO. The PDO indicator 2 for PDO (iii) was dropped and thereafter captured under a revised intermediate results indicator , as the indicator — “ (change in) share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and climate change impacts ” — was perceived as an o u t put indicator rather than an outcome indicator. PDO indicator 3 for PDO (ii) was dropped to simplify the results framework , and logistics enhancement resulting from market - related activit i es was thereafter captured by the increase in the number of people serviced by new or improved climate - resilient markets (revised PDO indicator 4) rather than by an increase in the volume of transactions in improved markets. In addition to these outcome level changes; several intermediate results indicators and/or indica tor targets were changed as described in a nnex 5. 36. From R18 to February 2020, the disbursement rate quadrupled to 41 percent of the total Project financing, reflecting significant Project implementation progress, but the latter remained hampered by rising insecurity, as well as political and operational challenges. Over the course of 2019, the Project areas located in the CAL region saw an uptick in crime and violence perpetrated by armed group s, which caused major implementation delays by preventing the ef ficient execution and supervision of works. Implementation delays were further exacerbated by new challenges in the political, administrative , and processing environment (e.g. , violent riots from July 2018 to September 2019), critical staff departures (UTE Executive Director, CIF focal point at the CIAT executive secretariat , M&E specialist at UTE) , and persistent delays related to frequent turnover at the government level. Endogenous and exogenous challenges accumulated by the Project prevented the complet ion by Project closing of several activities and outputs planned at appraisal. 37. In light of implementation constraints affecting the Project, a second restructuring was processed in February 2020 to reduce the Project scope and transfer to the RARP key activities that could not be completed by the Project closing date of August 31, 20 20. The decision to go ahead with a transfer instead of an extension of the Project was motivated by ( 1 ) the contribution of a merger to broader portfolio consolidation in Haiti, ( 2 ) the additional time frame allowed under the RARP for the completion of activities, and ( 3 ) continuity in Project implementation , as UCE - MTPTC was the implementing agency of the RARP and maintained effective working relationships with its PBCA counterparts. 38. The R20 revised the results framework to reflect the r educed scope of the Project . The outcome target of PDO Indicator 1 for PDO (i) was reduced from 60 to 45 percent. PDO Indicator 4 for PDO (ii) was revised as logistics enhancement was thereafter captured by the increase in the number of producers and users serviced by an all - weather road accessing urban and rural markets rather than by an increase in the number of people serviced by new or improved climate - resilient markets. In addition to these outcome level changes ; several intermediate results indicators and/or indicator targets were changed as described in a nnex 5. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 19 of 83 39. As a consequence of these changes, the theory of change includes fewer original outputs at closing , while the outcomes remain unchanged. The re vised theory of change reflects the scope reduction of the Project as illustrated in figure 4. Figure 4 . Theory of Change at Closing Note: CAL = Cent er - Artibonite Loop ; PDO = Project Development Objective. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 20 of 83 II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating 40. The PDO remained highly relevant throughout the Project life cycle and contributed to the Project’s relevance in the World Bank Group’s Haiti Country Partnership Framework for FY16 – FY21 (Report No. 98132 - HT). At appraisal, the PDO was fully consistent with the World Bank Group’s Haiti Interim Strategy Note for FY13 – FY14 (Report No. 71885 - HT), notably with Objective 1 (reduce vulnerability and increase resilience) and the expansion of Objective 4 (revitalizing the economy), which includes regional development. The PDO remained highly consistent with Haiti’s Country Partnership Framework (CPF) FY16 – FY21 (Report No. 98132 - HT), especially with the Area of Focus 1 (Inclusive Gr owth) Objective 1 — Contribute to Enhancing Income Opportunities , and Area of Focus 3 (Resilience) Objective 9 — Improve Disaster Prevention and Strengthen Climate Resilience. 41. PDO (i) , “Support the development of the Center - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancin g all - weather connectivity , ” and PDO (ii) , “Support the development of the Center - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancing logistics for producers , ” are highly consistent with Area of Focus 1 (Inclusive Growth) Objective 1 — Contribute to Enhancing Income Opportu nities. The CPF describes Haiti as characterized by the intensive concentration of capital and a high degree of inequality. Furthermore, the quality of transport and logistics services is pointed out as low and hampering overall competitiveness and endogen ous economic development while raising costs of imports and exports . 11 PDO (i) and PDO (ii) contribute to inclusive growth and enhancing income opportunities by ( 1 ) rebalancing economic activity more evenly across the country’s territory ; ( 2 ) creating better economic opportunities for the poor, especially in the rural areas and in the agricultural sector ; ( 3 ) encouraging a more favorable business environment ; ( 4 ) improving the quality of transport and logistics services ; ( 5 ) reducing the isolat ion of local populations and their disconnection from the State ; and ( 6 ) supporting the development of value chains (e.g. , through increased agricultural production and facilitated distribution) . 42. PDO (i) and PDO (iii) , “Support the development of the Cent er - Artibonite Loop Region by enhancing the region’s resilience to climate change , ” are highly consistent with Area of Focus 3 (Resilience) Objective 9 — Improve Disaster Prevention and Strengthen Climate Resilience . The CPF describes the urgent need to stren gthen Haiti ’s resilience and adaptation to climate change, as it is among the countries most exposed to natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods , and earthquakes . C limate change is expected to further exacerbate the risk of hydro - mete o rological haza rds by increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events. PDO (i) and PDO (iii) contribute to the country’s resilience and to improving disaster prevention and strengthening climate resilience by ( 1 ) strengthening the resilience of transport infrast ructure and surrounding communities, and ( 2 ) reducing the vulnerability of the region to climate change . 11 At the time of the CPF writing, Haiti scored 144th out of 160 countries on the Logistical Performance Index, 142nd for international shipments , and 151st for infrastructure . The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 21 of 83 43. While the Bank has supported the development of the Haitian transport sector since 2004, the Project is the first of its kind to focus exclusively on lifting bottlenecks to growth and connectivity in the Center and Artibonite, as envisioned in the CPF. The PDOs focused on concrete and pragmatic objectives: improving road infrastructure and logistics.