Rapò Konpletman ak Rezilta - Pwojè Devlopman Kominotè

Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00002956 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-H1810 IDA-H4450 IDA-H5850) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 25.6 MILLION (USD 38.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND AN ADDITIONAL FINANCING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 8.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT AND A SECOND ADDITIONAL FINANCING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 15.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI FOR A COMMUNITY DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT December 18 , 2013 Sustainable Development Department Haiti Country Management Unit Latin America and Caribbean Region Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized ii CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 30, 2013) Currency Unit = Haitian Gourdes HT Gourdes 1.00 = USD 0.0238 USD 1.00 = HT Gourdes 42 FISCAL YEAR January 1 to December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF BMPAD Additional Financing Bureau de Monétisation pour l’Aide au Développement Office for the Monetization of Development Aid CADEC Conseil d’Appui au Développement Communautaire Council supporting Community Development (at the municipal level) CASEC Administrative Council of the Communal Section CCI/ICF Cadre Intérimaire de Coopération Interim Cooperation Framework CBO Community - based Organizati on CDB Caribbean Development Bank CDD Community - Driven Development CECI Canadian Center for International Cooperation COPROD EP Conseil du Projet de Développement Participatif Project Development Council EA Environmental Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan FAES Fond d’Assistance Économique et Sociale Ha i ti Social Fund GOH HH Government of Haiti Households IDA International Development Association KPI Key P erformance Indicator I A DB Inter - American Development Bank LICUS Low - income Country under Stress M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARNDR Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development MDOD Maîtres D´Ouvrage Délégués Non - Government Organization in charge of project implementation MIS Management Information System MPCE Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation MTR Mid - term R eview OED Operations Evaluation Department (World Bank) O&M Operation and Maintenance PADF Pan American Development Foundation PCF Post - Conflict Fund iii PCU/UCP Unité de Coordination du Projet Project Coordination Unit PRODEP Projet de Développement Communautaire Participatif Participatory Community Development Project PRODEPUR Community Participation Development Project in Urban Areas SCI Social Capital Index SMART Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely SP Subproject TGOH Transitional Government of Haiti TSS Transitional Support Strategy UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy Country Director: Mary Barton - Dock Sector Manager: Laurent Msellati Project Team Leader: Pierre Olivier Colleye ICR Team Leader: Eli Weiss iv COUNTRY : HAITI Proj ect Name : COMMUNITY DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 4 3. Assessment of Outcomes ............................................................................................ 9 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome......................................................... 19 5. Assessment of Bank and Recipient Performance ..................................................... 19 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 22 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Recipient/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 27 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 38 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 41 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results and Summary of Reviews................................. 43 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 54 Annex 7. Summary of Recipient's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 55 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 60 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 61 MAP i A. Basic Information Country: Haiti Project Name: Haiti Community Driven Development (CDD) Project / PRODEP Project ID: P093640 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA - H1810,IDA - H4450,IDA - H5850 ICR Date: 12/30/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrowe r: REPUBLIC OF HAITI Original Total Commitment: XDR 25.60M Disbursed Amount: XDR 40.77M Revised Amount: XDR 40.77M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Finance Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation Cofinanciers a nd Other External Partners: Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) Caribbean Development Bank B. Key Dates Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s) Concept Review: 02/03/2005 Effectiveness: 12/08/2005 12/08/2005 Appraisal: 05/ 23/2005 Restructuring(s): 01/26/2009 05/10/2010 Approval: 07/28/2005 Mid - term Review: 06/13/2008 Closing: 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Substantial Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Moderately Satisfactory ii Overall Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory 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): Yes Quality at Entry (QEA): None Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality of Super vision (QSA): None DO rating be fore Closing/Inactive status : Moderately Satisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 2 20 General agriculture, fishing an d forestry sector 70 40 General education sector 5 20 Health 3 10 Rural and Inter - Urban Roads and Highways 20 10 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Managing for development results 14 70 Municipal governance and institution buil ding 14 20 Participation and civic engagement 29 5 Poverty strategy, analysis and monitoring 14 3 Rural services and infrastructure 29 2 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy Pamela Cox Country Director: Ma ry A. Barton - Dock Caroline D. Anstey Sector Manager: Laurent Msellati John Redwood Project Team Leader: Pierre Olivier Colleye Garry Charlier ICR Team Leader: Eli Weiss ICR Primary Author: Pierre Werbrouck iii F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives ( from Project Appraisal Document ) Building on the successful experience of the PCF-funded CDD pilot, the objectives of the Project were to scale-up the direct transfer of public resources to local community organizations in poor rural and peri-urban communities, by: (i) improving their access to basic social and economic infrastructure and support income-generating activities by financing small-scale investments proposed, implemented and managed by community organizations; and (ii) improving governance and building social capital of communities by increasing citizen participation and transparency in open decision-making processes.. Key indicators for the project were: (i) Number of communes (municipalities) successfully managing direct transfers to community-based organizations (CBOs) for community subprojects (SPs); (ii) Cost effectiveness/efficiency of direct transfers to CBOs vis a vis traditional service provision; (iii) Percentage rural/peri-urban poor with access to basic social and economic infrastructure (water supply, feeder roads, schools, health posts); (iv) Percentage change in household assets, per capita incomes among project beneficiaries; (v) Number of CBOs officially constituted and participating in project development councils (COPRODEPs); (vi) Number of households expressing awareness of PRODEP (participatory community development project) and its objectives/activities/means of access; and (vii) Percentage change in Social Capital Indices reflecting greater citizen participation in resource allocation decisions. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The statement of PDO was not revised but Key Performance Indicators were changed and/or adjusted by two Board-approved Additional Financing operations. For the sake of clarity and consistency with the ICR Guidelines, Appendix B as well as Section 3.2 of the Main Text, Section (a) below presents results of the original PDO indicators as per the PAD Results Framework in the third column. This is followed separately by the revised indicators from the Restructuring in January 26, 2009 (1st Additional Financing, AF1) further revised by the 2nd Additional Financing approved in May 2010 (AF2) as shown in "Formally-Revised Target Values" (fourth) column. Final actual values achieved for the original project use the AF1 Board approval date of January 26, 2009 (actual results data are from March 31, 2009, the closest data set available at that time). Assessment of outcome for the post-Restructuring period uses the AF2 revisions as the final version of indicators/targets. Annex 2, Appendix 1 shows the evolution of the Results Framework from 2005 to 2013. (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 : Original Project (as per PAD Results Framework): Number of communes (municipalities) successfully managing direct transfer to CBOs for community subprojects (SPs) iv Value quantitative or Qualitative) 2 Between 55 and 65 (60 in Results Framework) 59 Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: US$9.8 m were transferred direct ly by BMPAD through MDODs to 728 CBOs for 728 SPs in 59 Muns.; 131 s elected SPs were at design phase (implemented in post - Restructuring perio d). Indicator 2 : Cost effectiveness/efficiency of direct transfers to CBOs vis a vis traditional service provisi on Value quantitative or Qualitative) Zero No target in PAD Dropped Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Dropped: There is little /no "traditional" service provision of tertiary road spot improvement, wat er supply and health and education infrastructure repairs. Further, neither GOH nor local authorities finance income generation SPs.Indicator dropped by A F1. Indicator 3 : Percentage of rural/peri - urban poor with access to basic social and economic infra structure (eg, water supply, feeder roads, schools, health posts ) Value quantitative or Qualitative) 18.5% of the poor in the targeted municipalities had access to good quality water, health facilities and schools. 41% of residents in the targeted mun icipalities had access to potable water less than 15 minutes from their home s No target in PAD Some 763,000 residents (32% of the 2.4 million project municipalities' residents) estimated to have benefited from improved access to infrastruc ture, productiv e and social service s Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) No target for judging incremental achievement: But, 557,000 poor residents were reached by infrastructure SPs, 55,000 by productive SPs and 151,000 b y social SPs. Estimates of access are b ased on the methodology agreed during 2009 MTR evaluati on. Indicator 4 : Percentage change in household assets, per capita incomes among project beneficiaries Value quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 20% Dropp ed Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Dropped: This indicator was dropped by AF1 as majority (81%) of SPs (infrastructure and social) did not have a direct impact on household income or assets. An estimated 75% of income generating SPs showed varying financial issues at this sta ge. Indicator 5 : CBOs officially constituted and participating in COPRODEPs Value quantitative or Zero 2,000 4,030 v Qualitative) Date achieved 07/2 8/200 5 06/30/2010 01/26/20 09 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: 202% The number represents the CBOs participating in COPRODEP meetings and participating in the prioritization and selection of SPs as well as in training and information sessions. Indicator 6 : Number of households expressing aware ness of PRODEP and its objectives, activities and means of access . Value quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 300 households (as per PAD) 240,000 households express awareness of PRODEP activities in participating municipaliti es Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: MTR survey estimated that ove r 240,000 households were aware of PRODEP and its activities in communities. Indicator not relevant for measuring social capit al. Indicator 7 : Percentage change in Social Capital Indices reflecting greater citizen participation in resource allocation decisions Value quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 20% N ot measured by original projec t Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 0 1/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Inconclusive: Index was not established under Original Project, thus not measured (at that time). MTR beneficiary assessment indicates substantial increase in CBO membership, in solidarity, trans parent decision making, dialogue, and gender participat ion Indicator 8 : Restructured project (AF1) and Additional Financing (AF2): Number of communes successfully managing direct transfers to CBOs for community SP s Value quantitative or Qualitative) 59 57 59 (AF2) 59 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) A chieved 1 00% Indicator 9 : Residents in project area with access to basic social and economic infrastructure (eg, access to potable water, irrigation, grain mills). Value quantitative or Qualitative) 763,000 residents AF1: 50% AFAF2: 1.2 million residents in 59 Municipalities of the Project area improve the ir access to basic social and economic infrastructure 1.65 million according to MDOD reports and 1.5 million according to BMPAD final report; but 1.35 million taking into account only SPs in operatio n vi and/or benefits of productive SP s Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/ 30/201 3 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: 112%. Taking into account SPs in operation, approximately 1.35 million residents improved access to basic socio - economic infrastructure/services by end - project – compared to the 195,000 intended beneficiaries mentioned in PAD. Indicator 10 : 5 0% of productive/income gene rating subprojects are operational 3 - 6 months after completio n Value quantitative or Qualitative) 42% AF1: 50% AF2: 75% of productive, income - generating SPs within the 59 municipalities are operational and are being maintained 12 months after completio n. 82% operatio nal and maintained 12 months after completio n Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: AF2 target was exceeded by about 7 percent because of better productive SPs strategy and fo llow - up. Indicator 11 : 3500 CBOs officially constituted and participating in COPROD EPs (includes pre - existing and strengthened, as well as newly - created CBOs) . Value quantitative or Qualitative) 4,030 3,500 total 3500 CBOs in the 59 Municipalities a re officially constituted and participating in COPRODEPs 3,819 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: Target exceeded by about 10 percent. End figure is lower than baseline because of turno ver in CBO participati on. Indicator 12 : 60% of population in project area express awareness of PRODEP and its objectives, activities and means of access. Value quantitative or Qualitative) 240,000 HH (84% of adult population) 60% 60% o f adult popula tion in the 59 Municipalities expresses awareness of PRODEP and Not measured vii its objectives, activities and means of acces s Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: End of project percentage n ot measured under the assumption that by M TR, PRODEP awareness had peak ed. Indicator 13 : 80 percent of CBO members express a positive change in terms of their organizational capacity and ability to work together constructively. Value quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 80% 20 - point change in Social Capital Indices, reflecting greater citizen partici pation in resource allocation decision s Three of five social capital sub - indices exceeded: fourth sub - indicator 96% achieved and fifth sub - indicator not mea sured. Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Substantially Achieved: Also, during MTR beneficiary a ssessment all participants indicated a positive change. Impact survey also indicates considerable pr ogress in social capital . (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 : Original Project - Component 1: Number COPRODEPs following democratic and open meeting procedures as detailed in Project Operational Manual Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 60 59 Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: 100% as PAD estimated between 55 and 65 participating Municipalities. Indicator 2 : Number of SPs by SP type - infrastructure (potable water, roads); productive (irrigation, food processing); social (health, education). Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 2600 proposed, 1950 approved, 1300 under implementation, 1300 completed 3112 proposed; 909 approved; 728 under implementation; 549 completed viii Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: 100% (when pro - rated for elapsed time to Jan 26, 2009, date of R estructuring/AF1 approval). Implementation on target and no delays. Results: 46% infrastructure SPs; 37% productive; and 17 soci al. Indicator 3 : Creation of new community - based or ganizations (CBO) Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero No target in PAD 87 Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved. Creation of CBOs was neither part of the Project description nor of the MDO D contracts, but creation of new CBOs was encourag ed. Indicator 4 : 30% of CBO/COPRODEP members are women Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 30% 28% of CBO members and 17% of COPRODEP members Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Partially Achi eved: 93% of the CBO indicator and 57% of the COPRODEP indica tor Indicator 5 : Number of SPs with adequate O&M arrangements Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 75% 40% of SPs with adequate O&M a rrangements Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Partially achieved: adequate maintenance is not part of the cultur e, however in the course of the project 40% of the SPs reported adequate O&M arrangements whi ch is remarkable given the starting poi nt. Indicator 6 : Original Project - Component 2: Number of training events for CBO s Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 360 774 Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achi evement) Exceeded: T arget exceeded by over 1 00% Indicator 7 : Pace of SP execution by CBOs (3 months) Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero Suggested 3 months 37 percent of SPs were completed in 3 months Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 0 1/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Partially achieved: This is not seen as a negative, since the target was artificial and rapi d implementation can jeopardize SP quality. The average time was actually 4.9 mont hs. Indicator 8 : Percentage of pr ioritized and approved subprojects financed ix Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 100% 100% Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: Indicator dropped by AF1. It is assumed this indicator w ould always be 100% as no SPs were approved without corresponding financing availabili ty. Indicator 9 : Original Project - Component 3: SP unit costs (per beneficiary family, type of SP ) Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero No target in PAD Actual: USD19,250 per SP (all types) and USD114 per family Date achieved 07/28 /200 5 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Inconclusive: No target established thus not possible to conclude whether target achieved/not. This indicator was drop ped by the AF1 because de facto, Project support did not exceed USD17,500 per SP, with the additional SP costs financed by communiti es. Indicator 10 : Geographical distribution of SP Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 10 Departments 10 depart ments Date achieved 07/28/2005 06/30/2010 01/26/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: 100% This indicator was dropped by AF1 Indicator 11 : Flow of project funds Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero No target in PAD US$ 20.3 mill ion spent Date achieved 07/26/2005 06/30/2010 0 1/26/200 9 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: putting in place such a structure was a major challenge and consumed the first few years of implementation to ensure the disbursement and tracking syst em was adequate for acceptable governance framework. Indicator 12 : Restructured Project (AF1) and Additional Financing (AF2): Component 1 57 CADECs following democratic and open meeting procedures as detailed in Project Operational Manua l Value (quan titative or Qualitative) 59 57 59 59 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved: 100% Democratic and open meeting procedures confirmed b y audits and evaluatio ns. Indicator 13 : # SPs propose d,approved, start implementation and completed Value (quantitative 3,112 proposed; 909 approved; 728 under 3,200 proposed; 2,250 approved; 4,050 proposed; 10,202 proposed; 1,750 approved; x or Qualitative) implementation and 549 completed. 1,450 started; 1450 completed. 2,900 approved; 2,0 20 started; 2,010 complete d 1,687 started and completed. Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Substantially Achieved: 93%. 765 infrastructure, 552 productive and 370 social SPs. High, revised AF2 target numbers were est ablished based on calculation error which over - estimated the number of SPs possible with available funds (see para 3.2 .9) Indicator 14 : CBOs created as a result of the project Value (quantitat ive or Qualitative) 87 40 100 238 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: Target exceeded by more than 100 perce nt. Indicator 15 : 30% of CBOs and 15% of CADEC members are women Value ( quantitative or Qualitative) 28% of CBO are women 30% and 15% 30% of CBO and 15% of CADEC members of the executive committee are women 39% of CBO are women and 18% of COPRODEP/ CADEC executive committee are wome n Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/20 1 0 06 /30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: Target exceeded by about 40 percent because of affirmative gender policies introduced by the project. Indicator 16 : Restructured Project - Component 2: Training events for CBOs and CADEC s Value (quantitative or Qualitative) 774 100 400 4,030 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/3 0/201 3 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: Target substantially exceeded because of AF2 USD2.0 million dedicated training program Ind icator 17 : # CBO members who have attended at least one training event Value (quantitative or Qualitative) No data available 75% CBO members, 90% CADEC members 75% CBO members - at least one training e vent 90% CADEC members - at least 2 training even t s 89% of CBO members - at least one training event 100% CADEC members - at least 2 training event s xi Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: Target substantially exceeded because of AF2 USD2.0 millio n training prog ram Indicator 18 : Percentage of SPs implemented within 6 months Value (quantitative or Qualitative) PW: Any data as at Jan or March 2009 80% 65% Date achieved 01/26/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achieveme nt) Substantially Achieved: 80% Speedy implementation has trade off with SP quality. AF2 financed larger municipal SPs w hich took longer to impleme nt. Indicator 19 : CADECs allocating funds from other development programs Value (quantitative or Qual itative) Zero 10 0 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Not achieved: There was insufficient time to train and prepare CADECs for fund - raising/leveraging activities although some CBOs re ceived co - financing from other sourc es. Indicator 20 : Restructured Project - Component 3: MIS provides complete quarterly reports within 30 days after the end of each quarte r Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Zero 30 days 0 Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 0 6/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Not achieved: PRODEP MIS was only operational at f inal stage of project. Monitoring was done using quarterly MDOD repor ts. Indicator 21 : Amount of project funds disbursed within the project time - frame Valu e (quantitative or Qualitative) USD20.3 million spent USD46.0 million USD61.0 million USD62.6 million Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Exceeded: T arget exceeded because of exchange rate ga ins Indicator 22 : Management cost of transferring USD 1.00 to CBOs is less than USD 0.50 cents Value (quantitative or Qualitative) USD 51 cents USD 50 cents USD 58 cents Date achieved 03/31/2009 06/30/2013 06/30/2010 Comments (incl. % achievemen t) Not achieved: increase due to a relative increase in MDOD and BMP AD management cost s xii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs No. Date ISR Archived DO IP Actual Disbursements (USD millions) 1 01/04/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.69 2 05 /02/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.69 3 10/04/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.18 4 01/06/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.40 5 05/21/2007 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 6.60 6 11/19/2007 Satisfactory Satisfac tor y 9.73 7 06/02/2008 Satisf actory Satisfactory 15.92 8 07/29/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 17.15 9 02/10/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 22.65 10 04/17/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 24.66 11 07/29/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 27.42 12 10/27/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactor y 30.95 13 01/ 12/201 0 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 36.64 14 06/16/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.92 15 02/07/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 45.74 16 07/27/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 48.10 17 01/31/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 52. 12 18 06/06/2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfacto r y 56.26 19 01/10/2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 60.76 20 06/26/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 62.60 H. Restructuring (if any) Restructuring Date(s) Board Approved PDO Cha nge ISR Ratings at Restructuring Amount Disbursed at Restructuring in USD millions Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO I P 01/26/2009 Y S S 22.65 Additional Financing 1 supported continuation of activities in 32 municipalities, and represe nted Bank's response to hurricane disaster. Changes: added USD8.0 million; increased numbers of SPs and beneficiaries financed in those municipalities; and changed Key Performance Indicato rs. 05/10/2010 N S MS 38.01 Additional Financing 2 viewed as resp onse to 2010 earthquake and return of large numbers xiii Restructuring Date(s) Board Approved PDO Cha nge ISR Ratings at Restructuring Amount Disbursed at Restructuring in USD millions Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO I P urban residents to rural areas. Changes: added USD1 5.0 million; intensified activity in the 59 municipalities; re - designed SP selection methodology; new methodology for financing productive SPs; extended closing date; incorporated lessons learned . If PDO and/or Key Outcome Targets were formally revised (approved by the original approving body) enter ratings below: Outcome Ratings Against Original PDO/Targets Moderately Satisfactory Against Formall y Revised PDO/Targets Moderately Satisfactory Overall (weighted) rating Moderately Satisfactory I. Disbursement Profile 1 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1.1.1 Country and Sector Background . For several decades, Haiti struggled to emerge from a cycle of chronic political instability and internal conflicts that devastated its economy, weakened state and local institutions, exacerbated social tension and polarization, multiplied poor governance practices and maintained or deepened poverty. By 2003, Haiti’s political and financial situation had become very uncertain. There was political upheaval and the security situation was severely deteriorating in urban and rural areas. Because of declining economic governance, external aid dried up and the economy went into a downturn. The World Bank and many other donor agencies withdrew their support. Armed opposition forces entered from the Dominican Republic to remove President Aristide from power. He left the country on February 29, 2004 and a transitional government took office in a fragile state environment that prompted the mobilization of a UN peace-keeping force that is still operating in the country until this date. 1.1.2 Interim Cooperation Framework (ICF) . The Transitional Government (TGOH) led the donor community in putting together an Interim Cooperation Framework seeking to increase political and social stability and jump-start the economy. The ICF presented the broad themes of TGOH’s strategy: (i) strengthening political governance and promoting national dialogue; (ii) strengthening economic governance and contributing to institutional development; (iii) promoting economic recovery; and (iv) improving access to basic services. 1.1.3 Rationale for Bank Involvement . In order to provide some assistance to Haiti, the World Bank (WB) financed in 2003 a USD1.0 million Post-Conflict Fund (PCF) grant for a rural Community Driven Development (CDD) pilot project contracted to the Pan-American Development Foundation (PADF) 1 in two rural border areas. The grant enabled the Bank to maintain minimal activities in Haiti, while preparing for an eventual reengagement. The grant also tested the CDD methodology developed in northeast Brazil. 1.1.4 In 2004, the Bank renewed its official relations with Haiti. To initiate activities rapidly on the ground, the Bank provided a USD1.0 million Low-Income Countries under Stress (LICUS) grant in 2005 to finance a Labor-Intensive and Basic Infrastructure Rehabilitation Pilot Project. This grant strengthened the national capacity (government and community-based organizations-CBO) to manage and implement 23 community-driven small-scale infrastructure subprojects (SPs) in six rural municipalities and to provide short-term income generation opportunities. 1.1.5 The successful PCF grant demonstrated that CBOs could manage public funds and implement small SPs and prompted the Bank to propose a scaled-up USD38.0 million CDD project (PRODEP). The intention was to use CDD mechanisms to repair the social fabric, strengthen local organizations and provide the poor with the means/funds to address pressing local investment needs, thereby breaking the cycle of their exclusion. The CDD approach was expected to increase transparency in the allocation of investment resources and the likelihood that these resources would respond to local demand. The democratic selection of SPs was aimed at re-generating social cohesion within a population that was strongly divided politically. The goal was to promote community empowerment and social trust and “restore hope” in a fragile country that had gone through significant political and economic crises. 1 PADF is an offshoot of the Organization of American States. The WB provided the PCF grant directly to PADF. 2 1.1.6 The Project would contribute to three of the four ICF pillars by: (i) improving local economic governance through sound management of common resources and establish transparent processes for selecting SPs and the suppliers of goods and services; (ii) creating local economic opportunities; and (iii) financing SPs that created or improved basic services such as education, health and sanitation. 1.1.7 PRODEP’s linkage to the Bank’s IDA Transitional Support Strategy (TSS). In January 2005, the Bank’s Board of Directors endorsed a Transitional Support Strategy (TSS) for Haiti, which included up to USD150 million in credit commitments (grants) over a two-year period. A key feature of the TSS was poverty alleviation through improved access of communities to basic services and infrastructure. PRODEP was closely aligned to the TSS whose two-year strategy supported: (i) basic services provision; (ii) job creation; (iii) rehabilitation of areas devastated by floods in 2004; and (iv) community initiatives in local development. The TSS was also intended to strengthen governance and institutions, thereby improving transparency, and promoting inclusion and consensus building on development priorities. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 1.2.1 Building on the successful experience of the PCF-funded CDD pilot, the objectives of the project were to scale-up the direct transfer of public resources to local community organizations in poor rural and peri-urban communities, by: (i) improving their access to basic social and economic infrastructure and support income-generating activities by financing small-scale investments proposed, implemented and managed by community organizations; and (ii) improving governance and building social capital of communities by increasing citizen participation and transparency in open decision-making processes. 1.2.2 The Project (PRODEP) represented the first stage of a planned ten to fifteen-year engagement with Haiti on CDD, the end-goal of which would be to mainstream CDD as a mechanism for the transfer of public resources to the local level within government budgetary and planning processes. The proposed project was a significant first step in fostering critical elements that, over time, could evolve into a decentralized approach for funding local CDD initiatives. 1.2.3 Original Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the project were as follows: (i) 60 communes (municipalities) successfully managing direct transfers to community-based organizations (CBOs) for community SPs; (ii) cost-effectiveness/efficiency of direct transfers to CBOs vis-à-vis traditional service provision; (iii) percentage of rural/peri-urban poor with access to basic social and economic infrastructure (e.g., water supply, feeder roads, school, health posts); (iv) 20% change in household assets, per-capita incomes among project beneficiaries; (v) 20% change in Social Capital Indices reflecting greater citizen participation in resource allocation decisions; (vi) 2,000 CBOs officially constituted and participating in COPRODEPs; and (vii) 300 households expressing awareness of PRODEP and its objectives/ activities/means of access. 2 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 1.3.1 The PDO were not changed. Several original PDO indicators (KPI), however, were dropped or revised at approval of both the first and second Additional Financing grants (AF1 and AF2) because they were unclear, not relevant or impossible to measure. The second indicator intended to compare the efficiency/effectiveness of the CDD approach with traditional government services was dropped at Board approval of AF1 because similar government services were not provided in Haiti. The fourth indicator was dropped at AF1 - most SPs were unlikely to 2 This number was likely a typing error which remained uncorrected. 3 have any direct impact on household monetary income or assets – and substituted by an indicator of productive SP sustainability. The fifth indicator was revised at AF1 then reintroduced at AF2 in its original form. Other minor adjustments were made including to targets. Annex 2, Appendix 1 shows the evolution of the results framework over time. 1.3.2 AF2 Board approval saw further changes to KPIs. The following became the final versions to be measured at closing: (i) in 59 municipalities, CBOs have successfully managed direct transfers for community SPs; (ii) 1.2 million residents in 59 Municipalities of the Project area improved their access to basic social and economic infrastructure and/or benefits of productive SPs;(iii) 75% of productive/income generating SPs within the 59 Municipalities are operational and are being maintained 12 months after completion; (iv) 3500 CBOs in the 59 Municipalities are officially constituted and participating in CADECs; (v) 60% of the adult population in the 59 Municipalities express awareness of PRODEP and its objectives/means of access; and (vi) 20-point change in Social Capital Indices, reflecting greater citizen participation in resource allocation decisions. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 1.4.1 Targeted beneficiaries were 195,000 poor residents of 59 municipalities (of the 140) in all Departments of Haiti. The municipalities were selected based on poverty criteria contained in the GOH 2004 poverty map and geographical and operational criteria (such as proximity to other communes, road access). The project’s baseline study estimated an average annual household income of USD750 equivalent and only 18.5% of the residents in the selected municipalities were estimated to have easy access to quality water supply, health facilities and schools. 1.5 Original Components ( as approved ) 1.5.1 Component 1: Community SP funds, management and support (USD34.0 million – IDA USD 31.7 million) was to finance in 55-65 communes of rural and peri-urban Haiti an estimated 1,816 demand-driven SPs costing on average not more than USD 20,000 (of which the project would provide some USD17,500 and direct beneficiaries the rest, mostly in kind). The SPs would be identified by CBOs and later prioritized in representative Project Development Councils (COPRODEPs). SPs included basic socio-economic, small-scale infrastructure, productive and social investments covering a wide spectrum: roads, water supply, energy, soil conservation, public amenities, livestock, grain mills, community stores, agro-processing, markets, irrigation, schools, health facilities, community centers, cyber cafes, community radio broadcasting and other investments (see Annex 2). 1.5.2 The component also financed non-governmental service providers ( Maitres D´Ouvrage Délégués – MDODs) mobilizing CBOs to participate in the project, and providing training and technical assistance to CBOs and COPRODEPs to fulfill their roles in financing, implementing, operating and maintaining the SPs. It also financed a campaign to inform potential project beneficiaries of the project’s objectives and avenues for participation. 1.5.3 Component 2: Capacity-building and technical assistance (USD3.6 million – IDA 3.6 million) was to be implemented by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The component included training for COPRODEPs, municipal governments and regional representatives of central government ministries, MDOD staff, BMPAD staff and consultant services. 1.5.3 Component 3: Project administration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation (USD 2.7 million – IDA 2.7 million) financed the incremental costs associated with project implementation by the PCU including the establishment of a Management Information System (MIS), technical and financial audits and impact evaluation studies. 4 1.6 Revised Components (N/A) 1.7 Other significant changes 1.7.1 Natural disasters and Additional Financing grants: Four hurricanes and tropical storms devastated the country in 2008. As part of the recovery efforts, Haiti received in 2009 a first IDA Additional Financing grant of USD 8.0 million (AF1) 3 . The additional funding was to finance investments in 32 municipalities many of which had suffered severe flood damage. 1.7.2 Following the January 2010 earthquake, Haiti received a second AF of USD15.0 million (AF2) to help cope with the return of thousands of residents from earthquake struck Port-au- Prince to rural areas. Parallel grants from other programs included: (i) the Japan Social Development Fund ’s “Cash for Work” grant of USD3.0 million in urban areas; and (ii) the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) approved in 2011 a USD10 million grant to finance 180 SPs in 32 municipalities, using the PRODEP methodology. 1.7.3 Implementation changes: AF2 (approved in May 2010) introduced implementation changes based on lessons learned from the preceding implementation period: (i) COPRODEPs were converted into CADECs (Community Development Councils) to reflect a broader civil society role in the municipality; (ii) productive SPs were subjected to a more rigorous screening and follow-up methodology; (iii) more attention was paid to SP quality and maintenance; and (iv) municipal SPs became eligible for financing of up to USD55,000 per SP. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 2.1.1 Background analysis . The Bank prepared the project in the short period of four months (from February to June 2005), driven by emergency post-conflict needs. The preparation team focused on the institutional arrangements and the operational project implementation mechanisms included in the project manual. The social analysis was based on the PCF pilot project experience and beneficiary assessments. The Government conducted an environmental assessment with public consultation and the Bank did a cost-benefit analysis of four productive SPs, a procurement assessment and a financial management review. The preparation team relied on the experience of the PCF grant pilot operation which had developed the SP selection and implementation methodology as well as the financial management procedures. The project also benefited from Bank experience gained in the long-standing engagement in the northeast Brazil and several members of the Bank’s Brazil team participated in project preparation. 2.1.2 The initial goal was to have a swift implementation start-up and provide the rural areas with “hope” , as stated explicitly in the Bank’s TSS. Project preparation had weaknesses in two key aspects: (i) design of the capacity-building component 2 was left to be developed during project implementation; and (ii) the financial analysis might have emphasized the complexity and riskiness of productive SPs, as well as the conditions needed for their success. 2.1.3 Project Objectives and Indicators: The PDOs were realistic and reachable, important for the country, and aligned with the ICF and TSS. They responded to the country’s circumstances and development priorities, and focused on the outcomes for which the operation could reasonably be held accountable. The P roject’s end goal could have been better-formulated so as to ensure a participatory role for civil society in decisions affecting local development. The 3 In June 2008, the World Bank approved a USD16.0 million grant for PRODEPUR, a similar operation in urban areas. In 2010 PRODEPUR also received USD30.0 million in additional financing. 5 results framework presented some weaknesses: several monitoring indicators were not SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, results-based and time-bound), while others had no quantitative targets. Since the project was demand driven, the project team struggled estimating targets. 2.1.4 Institutional arrangements: Finding the Project’s appropriate institutional location was challenging. At the time, FAES (the Haitian Social Investment Fund) was over-burdened and going through its own leadership and institutional crisis as was the case for most state and local institutions. No government Ministry was set up to house a multi-sector project focusing on civil society community organizations, and local institutions, some of which had still to be created. The Project came to be located in the PL-480 Management Office under the Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation. The office was an autonomous public institution to: (i) receive and monetize food aid from international donors; and, (ii) identify and fund government development projects with relevant institutions and/or agencies in areas such as road construction, agriculture, education, health and commerce. It was converted in 2007 into the Bureau de Monétisation de l’Aide au Développement – BMPAD – Office for the Monetization of Development Aid, under the Ministry of Finance. A small PRODEP PCU was established . Because of BMPAD’s lack of experience in managing small-scale rural investments, field operations were contracted to NGOs. 2.1.5 Project design: The basic project design was solid and no major changes or project design restructurings were needed during implementation, apart from incorporating lessons learned. The design incorporated the PCF pilot experience, lessons learned from the Northeast Brazil program and widely-accepted CDD methodologies. The decision to delegate project field implementation to two prominent NGOs was influenced by the general weakness of public institutions in Haiti. To garner greater government ownership, it would have been prudent to get input from local (albeit weak) agencies of line Ministries, and to assign more weight to municipal priorities. A project Steering Committee that included relevant line ministries (e.g., Public Works, Agriculture) was proposed for preparation and implementation, but was not operational. To encourage more municipal buy-in, AF2 included financing for larger SPs backed by municipalities. This improved the relationship between COPRODEPs/CADECs and local authorities and increased the chances of longer-term SP sustainability. 2.1.6 Project design faced a trade-off on two issues: (i) Subproject size – and resulting impact – was limited by both the ceiling of USD20,000 (of which USD17,500 project support), and weak capacity of inexperienced CBOs to efficiently manage SPs at greater scale. Demonstrating burgeoning social capital, CBOs quickly circumvented the size problem by banding together to implement larger SPs, i.e., the combination of joint collaboration between several CBOs, a higher aggregate investment budget and increasing SP scale, strengthened impact. Subprojects amenable to this approach were primarily infrastructure – road rehabilitation and buildings (e.g., community centers and classrooms); and, (ii) As with CDD projects in many countries and for similar reasons – weak ministries, lack of a decentralization policy framework and thus few viable alternatives for channeling funds to poor communities - the Project supported a civil society structure (COPRODEPs) parallel to local authorities, a conscious choice to make the project responsive to urgent community needs, but challenging to sustain in the long run. 2.1.7 Adequacy of Government commitment : GOH authorities focused heavily on restoring political democracy and social stability after the upheavals of 2003/4 and relied on Bank experience in CDD to prepare the project. The Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation and the Office of PL-480 strongly supported the project but did not have the resources to participate fully in preparation. 6 2.1.8 Risk assessment : The preparation team identified the project’s main risks. The project was quali