HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00005447 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT IDA-H9500 / TF-17021 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 28, 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 Contingent 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 Economic Internal Rate of Return 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 Monitoring and Evaluation 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 Review NPV Net Present Value 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 dated February 28, 2020 RAI Rural Access Index RAP Resettlement Action Plan RARP Rural Accessibility and Resilience Project RED Model Roads Economic Decision Model SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises 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 Finance (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 OUTCOMES 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 EFFICACY ............................................................................................................... 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 BY 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 period, the country had suffered considerable damage from heavy rains and hurricanes (Jeanne in 2004; Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike during the span of one month in 2008). Rebalancing gained momentum as a solution to reduce the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters. In 2009, to 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 reinforced by the devastating earthquake of January 2010. This caused considerable damage, 1 primarily in Port-au-Prince and the western part of the country, where most of Haiti’s economic activity is concentrated. Key strategic frameworks were developed to set territorial 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 redistribution 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 Center-Artibonite Loop: Territorial Goals and Strategies for Reconstruction” report published by the CIAT in 2010. The document framed a model for territorial planning and economic 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 breadbasket,” 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 substantial 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 strong 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 another. While the strategy envisioned for the development of the CAL was multisectoral, 3 its central element was the development of an organized urban network (the loop) connecting the port cities of Saint-Marc, Gonaïves, and Cap-Haïtien to the north; Port-au-Prince to the south; and 1 The earthquake caused over 200,000 deaths and inflicted massive damages and losses estimated at US$7.9 billion (120 percent of Haiti’s GDP). 2 Project Appraisal Document, PAD767, April 2014 3 It embedded actions in areas such as transport, agriculture, energy, water, health, or education. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 7 of 83 the Dominican Republic in the east, with improved 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 structural 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. It focused on the improvement of interloop connections not already prioritized by other funders, as well as secondary, tertiary, and rural road 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 markets 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 building a conducive business environment in The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 8 of 83 the region and to developing value chains such as food exports. Transport connectivity had to be improved to facilitate economic and agricultural trade dynamics, including (1) a functioning all-weather structural network 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 greater 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 the 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 improve 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 proofing 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 fostered the economic inclusion of the CAL with the national economy via the improved road network. It enabled new economic and labor opportunities 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) discussed 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 Crisis 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 institutional arrangements 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 expertise 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 bringing together representatives of the four designated institutions as well as local stakeholders. An important caveat is that these institutional arrangements required active coordination 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 the Infrastructure and Institutions Emergency Recovery Project (IIERP—P120895). 5 World Bank, World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009), 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 change 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 consists 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, bridges, river crossings, and critical spots along three major connecting roads: (a) outbound to the capital/south (Saut-d’Eau–Titanyen); (b) outbound to the north (Dessalines–Saint-Michel–Saint-Raphaël); (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- making 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 training 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 new 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 incorporation 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 associated 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, CTDs), 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”), whose primary objective was to cancel part of the financing (SDR 17 million) to allow the transfer to the Rural Accessibility and Resilience Project (RARP–P163490) of Project activities 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. The key changes made to PDO indicators, the associated date of revision, and the reason for change are described below: 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 climate 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, “Increase in volume of transaction in improved markets” 9 (end target of 25 percent) was dropped in the R18 to simplify the results framework. The associated outcome was captured under the revised PDO indicator 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 transactions 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 minutes from these markets. The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 14 of 83 the transfer of the rehabilitation of urban and 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) the 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 communities 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, plus the operating costs In the R20, the scope of Component B was reduced by 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 the 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- MTPTC). 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 special drawing right (SDR) allocation. In the R20, the financing of the component allocation was reduced by US$1 million, which was transferred to the RARP. [... middle sections omitted for long document ...] The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 79 of 83 logistics improved by the Project (proxy indicator) Report (ICR). It captures the contribution of the Project to enhancing the logistics of existing markets. For the purpose of the computation, it was assumed that the results of the survey carried out at Project closing would apply to the mid-2021 scenario. PDO 3 4 Share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and climate change impacts (proxy indicator) 0% 20% 16% 80% 20% 100% A similar indicator was defined at appraisal (“share of roads classified as vulnerable to natural events and climate change impacts”). It was replaced by the present indicator in the R18. However, the indicator was dropped at the R20. The indicator is reintroduced for the purpose of the ICR. The methodology for the recording of associated results is specified in annex 4. 5 Cumulated amount (in US$ millions) in projects elaborated using analytical knowledge and tools developed by the proposed Project (proxy indicator) 0 18 6.5 36.1% 6.5 36.1% This indicator was defined at appraisal as an Intermediate Results Indicator and was dropped in the R18. The indicator is reintroduced as a proxy outcome indicator for the purpose of the ICR. All PDOs 6 Share of the population in the Project area satisfied with the quality and impact of the infrastructure financed by the Project. 0% 75% 97.5% 130% 97.5% 130% The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 80 of 83 ANNEX 9. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER, AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Comments of the UTE-MEF on the ICR Arrangement institutionnel L’arrangement institutionnel mis en place pour la mise en œuvre de l’opération partait du postulat qu’un projet aussi transversal devait réunir un ensemble de partenaires qui n’ont pas l’habitude de mettre en commun leurs moyens pour atteindre des résultats tangibles pour un territoire. Ainsi le Projet allait bénéficier de la force de l’ensemble des partenaires tout en développant la culture de travail interinstitutionnel tant nécessaire pour s’attaquer à des problèmes complexes faisant appel des compétences multiples. D’où l’intérêt de faire appel à une entité du Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances, l’UTE, pour jouer le rôle de coordinateur de l’ensemble des partenaires techniques. Malheureusement, la pratique a montré que l’arrangement institutionnel, malgré son intérêt sur le papier, n’a jamais été totalement accepté par les partenaires. Le ST-CIAT a très mal vécu le fait de ne pas avoir été l’agence d’exécution du Projet alors qu’il était à l’origine de la réflexion sur l’aménagement de la Boucle Centre Artibonite. Par ailleurs, le fait que la plus grande partie des fonds de l’opération a été consacrée au financement de travaux routiers a été perçu comme un dévoiement du concept BCA. Le Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Ressources Naturelles (MARNDR) est resté pratiquement en dehors du Projet, une fois passée la phase de préparation. De façon générale, les partenaires techniques du Projet n’ont jamais mobilisé leurs ressources de façon optimale pour apporter l’appui nécessaire à l’UTE pour la mise en œuvre des activités. Les différents partenaires ont mal vécu le fait de ne pas avoir la gestion directe du financement des activités pour lesquelles ils devaient apporter un appui technique. Cette approche allait à l’encontre de la tradition. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les comportements aient pu radicalement évoluer lorsqu’à la faveur des restructurations, chaque partenaire a obtenu la gestion des fonds de son secteur. Enfin, l’attelage entre des institutions n’ayant pas le même niveau de rigueur et des cultures institutionnelles très éloignées les unes des autres a obéré les résultats du Projet. Notation du projet : L’UTE-MEF prend acte que le projet BCA est jugé modérément satisfaisant. Le rapport de la Banque laisse penser que l’UTE serait la structure inefficace et inefficiente responsable en grande partie des retards du Projet. L’UTE ne partage naturellement pas cet avis et invite à tenir compte de tous les facteurs qui ont pu limiter les chances de réussite de l’opération et de constater la part de responsabilité de chaque partenaire. Seul un tel exercice peut permettre The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 81 of 83 de tirer des leçons utiles pour l’avenir. La notation « modérément satisfaisante » est la résultante d’un ensemble de facteurs comme la faible coopération entre les partenaires, l’inadaptation de l’arrangement institutionnel à la réalité et aux capacités des acteurs, l’attelage entre des institutions de capacités trop disparates etc. En fin de compte, l’évolution des résultats du Projet conduit à conclure que, pour le moment, la collaboration entre plusieurs entités est efficace si les aspects techniques et fiduciaires sont pris en charge, pour chaque type d’intervention, par l’entité la plus expérimentée dans le secteur concerné. Leçons apprises 1. L’investissement dans la connaissance des territoires, de leurs enjeux et des acteurs permet de mieux engager les actions publiques pour le développement ; 2. A ce stade en Haïti, pour des projets multisectoriels, il est important de doter chaque unité de gestion de ressources (humaines, administratives, financières) nécessaires lui permettant d’exécuter les activités dont elle a la charge ; 3. Il est important de renforcer des liens sociaux entre le projet et les communautés afin de capturer les initiatives communautaires à mettre en œuvre parallèlement aux activités planifiées par le projet. Unité Technique d’Exécution du Ministère des Finances The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 82 of 83 Comments of the UCE-MTPTC on the ICR The World Bank HT Center and Artibonite Regional Development (P133352) Page 83 of 83