Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00004072 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-12721) ON A GRANT UNDER THE BANGLADESH CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE FUND (BCCRF) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$13 MILLION EQUIVALENT TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH FOR A COMMUNITY CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECT August 22, 2017 Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice South Asia Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective May 17, 2017) Currency Unit = Bangladesh Taka (BDT) BDT 1.00 = US$0.01 US$1.00 = BDT 80.70 FISCAL YEAR July 1 – June 30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing ATOM Activity to Output Monitoring BCCRF Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund BCCSAP Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan CAS Country Assistance Strategy CCAG Climate Change Adaptation Group CCCP Community Climate Change Project CM Community Mechanism CPF Country Partnership Framework CRI Climate Resilience Index GIS Geographical Information System GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IGA Income-Generating Activity ISR Implementation Status and Results Report M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests MTR Midterm Review NGO Nongovernmental Organization PAD Project Appraisal Document PCN Project Concept Note PDO Project Development Objective PKSF Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation PIP Project Implementing Partner PMU Project Management Unit PPR Public Procurement Rules RBM Results-Based Monitoring RF Results Framework RWH Rainwater Harvesting SEP Sustainable Enterprise Project TRC Technical Review Committee Senior Global Practice Director: Karin Erika Kemper Practice Manager: Kseniya Lvovsky Project Team Leader: Nadia Sharmin ICR Team Leader: Shahpar Selim BPANGLDESH Community Climate Change 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 .......................................................................................... 12 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome......................................................... 17 5. Assessment of World Bank and Borrower Performance .......................................... 17 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 19 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors .............. 20 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 21 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 23 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 27 Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ....... 30 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 31 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 32 Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ........................ 34 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 39 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 40 MAP .............................................................................................................................. 41 BANGLADESH COMMUNITY CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECT DATA SHEET A. Basic Information Community Climate Country: Bangladesh Project Name: Change Project Project ID: P125447 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-12721 ICR Date: 05/17/2017 ICR Type: Core ICR MINISTRY OF Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Grantee: ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS Original Total US$13.00 million Disbursed Amount: US$12.98 million Commitment: Revised Amount: US$13.00 million Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 07/27/2011 Effectiveness: 12/12/2012 Appraisal: 02/13/2012 Restructuring(s): Approval: 02/13/2012 Mid-term Review: 04/15/2015 05/18/2015 Closing: 12/31/2016 12/31/2016 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Satisfactory Grantee Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance: i C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision No None time (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Major Sector/Sector Social Protection Social Protection 42 42 Water, Sanitation and Waste Management Other Water Supply, Sanitation and Waste Management 58 58 Major Theme/Theme/Sub Theme Environment and Natural Resource Management Water Resource Management 34 34 Water Institutions, Policies and Reform 34 34 Finance Finance for Development 8 8 Disaster Risk Finance 8 8 Urban and Rural Development Disaster Risk Management 8 8 Disaster Preparedness 8 8 Disaster Response and Recovery 8 8 Disaster Risk Reduction 8 8 Rural Development 33 33 Land Administration and Management 33 33 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Country Director: Qimiao Fan Ellen A. Goldstein Practice Manager/Manager: Kseniya Lvovsky Herbert Acquay Project Team Leader: Nadia Sharmin ICR Team Leader: Shahpar Selim ICR Primary Author: Shahpar Selim ii F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) To enhance the capacity of selected communities to increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) Not applicable. (a) PDO Indicator(s)1 Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Community mechanisms established and functioning in selected communities to Indicator 1 respond effectively to specific climate risk 5% 70% No change 78% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 112% A community mechanism (CM) was deemed functional when a group (a group making up a CM) collaborated to produce adaptation action plans and investment plans to effectively address climate risks specific to that group. The CM is judged continuously Comments functional when the group continued to meet its bimonthly meeting targets to discuss (including % climate risks on its livelihoods and troubleshoot challenges faced by the group. achievement) In total, 1,724 CMs were formed in 32 communities (about 78% of the communities as against a target 70% or 29 communities). As such, 112% of the target was met. PDO indicator 1 captures the outcome of community capacity building and increased resilience. The indicator is linked to intermediate outcome indicators 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Communities to have applied sustainable adaptation practices to address specific Indicator 2 climate change risk 5% 70% No change 84% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 122% Comments Adaptation practices refer to subprojects designed and implemented to address specific (including % climate risks, such as goat rearing in slatted houses, crab fattening, and plinth raising to achievement) protect households and community grounds. Please see annex 2 for details. 1 Data sources include the Activity to Output Monitoring (ATOM) reports which recorded monthly, quarterly, and cumulative progress of individual PIPs, the third party final evaluation at project closing, and supervision reportage (including field level verification) by the PMU and the World Bank team. iii An adaptation practice is judged as sustainable through quality of work, benefits accrued, recording of lessons learned by communities and the PIPs, and demonstrated sustainability in earlier interventions/subprojects. The target was met in communities under 34 PIPs (or 84%) from the target of 29 PIPs (or 70%). Therefore, the target was achieved 122% (adjusting for a baseline of 5%). PDO indicator 2 captures the outcome of resilience building. The indicator is linked to intermediate outcome indicators 1.1, 1.3 and 2.4. Sub-grants implemented in the selected communities are assessed to have achieved the Indicator 3 targeted objectives 0 75% No change 85% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 113% 35 subprojects or 85% of 41 subprojects were assessed by the Palli Karma-Sahayak Comments Foundation (PKSF) as successful in this respect. Success was measured against (including % reaching the targets set for each subproject (details in annex 2). As such, the target of achievement) this indicator was achieved 113%. PDO indicator 3 captures the outcome of resilience building. The indicator is linked to intermediate outcome indicators 2.1, 2.3, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1 and 3.2. (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)2 Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Intermediate Community Climate Change Fund: A functional financing mechanism for community- Result based adaptation subprojects established (Component 1): Indicator 1.1 Number of community-based adaptation sub-grants awarded 0 40 40 41 Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 103% Comments Functional financing mechanism refers to the PKSF’s capacity to solicit, evaluate, and (including % award sub-grants to project implementing partners (PIPs) and to supervise achievement) implementation of these sub-grants. At project closing, a total of 41 sub-grants were awarded, at 103% of the original target. % of PIPs with awarded sub-projects found fully compliant with policies and Indicator 1.2 procedures agreed under CCCP 80% No change 95% Date Achieved October 2016 2 Data source is same as before. iv Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years ACHIEVED: 119% The policies and procedures were laid out in the Operational Manual and other Comments guidelines prepared by the project (see indicator 2.3 below for details). As 39 out of 41 (including % PIPs (95%) were found in compliance, the target of this indicator was achieved by achievement) 119%. Those PIPs that were found to be noncompliant were given additional supervision to ensure they became compliant. One of the positive aspects of the results- based monitoring (RBM) approach was that problems could be spotted early on and time given to correct them. Sub-grants have been disbursed to the NGOs in a timely manner Indicator 1.3 0 80% No change 80% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 100% Sub-grants for 33 of 41 (80%) PIPs were disbursed on time, achieving 100% of the target. Comments ‘Timely’ refers to the fact that the quarterly and monthly disbursement targets agreed (including % between the PKSF and a PIP were met as a result of the PIP’s timely completion of achievement) quality tasks within the stipulated time. If any PIP failed to complete their tasks within the time frame and with the quality expected of them, the payment was not disbursed (as agreed with them initially) until corrective measures were taken. Knowledge management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Capacity Building: Intermediate Systematic process of sharing lessons and incorporation of best practices into the design Result and implementation of interventions is operationalized. A robust M&E system to ensure (Component 2): effective monitoring of subproject outcomes at the community and project levels operationalized PIPs with awarded subprojects have identified a list of lessons learned during annual Indicator 2.1 workshops for use in their adaptation initiatives 0 80% No change 85% Date Achieved October 2016 Comments ACHIEVED: 107% (including % 35 of 41 PIPs (85%) identified and shared lessons learned during annual workshops. achievement) The target was achieved at 107%. Indicator 2.2 Percent of PIPs report best practices to PKSF and other stakeholders 0 80% No change 89% Date Achieved October 2016 Comments (including % ACHIEVED: 111% achievement) v Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years 36 of 41 PIPs (89%) reported best practices to the PKSF. These lessons learned were entered into the PKSF website and stored in the PKSF climate change library. The target was achieved at 111%. Indicator 2.3 Toolkit & guidelines prepared for community-based climate change adaptation 0 3 No change 6 Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 200% Six toolkits and guidelines were prepared (200% of the target). These helped PIPs Comments implement and streamline operations, including the Operation Manual; Implementation (including % Manual; Activity Implementation Guideline; Procurement Guideline; Financial and achievement) Accounts Management Guideline; and Monitoring Manual, including (a) baseline questionnaire, (b) beneficiary profile format, and (c) community profile format. These guidelines were used extensively and daily by the PKSF and the PIPs for project management. Indicator 2.4 Number of inter-community visits 0 20 No change 22 Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 110% 22 intercommunity visits were undertaken (110% of the target). These visits allowed cross-learning between communities and individuals working on adaptation initiatives. Intercommunity visits (by 594 persons from the PIPs, the communities, and the PKSF) Comments were very helpful to the project in quickly conveying to communities what the possible (including % options were and how to construct and maintain an intervention (for example, plinth achievement) raising or pond excavation). Community visits were especially useful in the case of sanitary latrines and goat rearing. Once the initiative was demonstrated, the communities grasped the solution much more quickly. The PKSF believes this also reduced errors in construction. It also helped motivate communities to participate as a collective group and keep up with maintenance. This contributed toward the PDO by building a community knowledge base. Subproject has conducted a baseline study, vulnerability and risk assessment and Indicator 2.5 investment plan 0 80% No change 87% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 108% Comments All 41 PIPs completed vulnerability and risk assessments as well as baseline profiles of (including % each beneficiary as a basis for their investment plans (also through community achievement) mechanisms and investment plans that were made). 87% were judged to be of good quality by the PKSF. The target was achieved at 108%. vi Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years 11 subprojects or PIPs conducted detailed baseline studies as part of the results-based monitoring (RBM). Intermediate A Project Management Unit (PMU) established to administer project funds and to Result monitor implementation performance of activities (Component 3): Indicator 3.1 PMU has the required staff, equipment, office space & manuals Core staff: 12 Core staff: 14 Office equipment: Office equipment: 0 No change 80% 80% Office space: 80% Office space: 80% Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 125% Comments (including % The target with regard to recruitment of office staff for the PMU was fully met with 14 achievement) staff (target achieved at 125%). Targets with regard to equipment and office space were met as per the established equipment list and planned office space. PKSF produces regular Activity (quarterly), Progress (bi-annually, annually) and Indicator 3.2 Impact evaluation reports (MTR and Project Completion); Third Party Outcome monitoring (Annual) Activity (2) Activity Report (4) Progress (1) Communique (3) 0 No change Impact evaluation Brochure for all 41 (1) PIPs Date Achieved October 2016 ACHIEVED: 100% The target was met 100%. All reports were produced on time. Details are as follows: Year 1: Inception Report (Brochure), Activity Report (1) (February 6, 2013); Activity Report (2) (April 7, 2013); Activity Report (3) (July 29, 2013); Half-Yearly Progress Report October 2012–March 2013 (April 25, 2013) Year 2: Activity Report (1) (October 21, 2013); Activity Report (2) (January 13, 2014); Comments Activity Report (3) (April 24, 2014); Activity Report (4) (July 24, 2014); Progress (including % Report (1) (December 31, 2013); Half-Yearly Progress Report (May 29, 2014) achievement) Year 3: Activity Report (1) (November 3, 2014); Activity Report (2) (January 22, 2015); Activity Report (3) (June 24, 2015); Activity Report (4) (September 27, 2015); Progress Report includes narrative report of 11 NGOs and narrative report of 27 NGOs. Activity Report (1) (August 8, 2015); Activity Report (2) (February 18, 2016); Activity Report (3) (August 17, 2016); Activity Report (4) (September 27, 2016); Progress Report includes narrative report of all 41 PIPs; Lessons Learned Report; Environment and Social Impact Report; Baseline Report and RBM Report vii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. DO IP Archived (US$, millions) 1 06/17/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.16 2 11/17/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.30 3 06/09/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.08 4 01/07/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.35 5 07/30/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 9.98 6 03/22/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 10.94 7 10/14/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 12.53 H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable I. Disbursement Profile viii 1. Project Context, Development Objectives, and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Country Context 1. The sixth Climate Change Vulnerability Index, released by the global risks advisory firm ‘Maplecroft’, rated Bangladesh as the country most at risk from climate shocks due to extreme levels of poverty and a high dependency on agriculture. In addition, two key reports—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's ‘Fifth Assessment Report’ and the World Bank’s ‘Turn Down the Heat’—revealed long-term implications for Bangladesh and its people from probable catastrophic impacts of climate change. Bangladesh consists of mostly low-lying land (only about 10 percent of the country is 1 meter above mean sea level) and is home to the world’s largest river delta, comprising the Ganga, Meghna, and the Brahmaputra Rivers. One-third of the land is under tidal excursions. Due to its unique geographic, socioeconomic, population density, and physical characteristics, the country is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Most Bangladeshis rely on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries for their livelihoods. Salt water intrusion, sea level rise, cyclonic storm surge, extreme flood events, and severe droughts can damage and even destroy livelihood options for the people in the most climate-vulnerable zones of Bangladesh. This vulnerability profile provides the context and rationale for climate-resilient development being the top priority for the Government of Bangladesh. The Government’s strategy is to make livelihoods of the poorest/vulnerable populations climate resilient, so that the national economy is insulated from climate change as much as possible. 2. The chief national strategy document—‘Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan’ (BCCSAP) 2009—includes a ten-year program to build country capacity and resilience to meet climate change challenges over the next few decades. It also provides an action plan for integrating climate change issues into sustainable development. The BCCSAP was put into practice through the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF), which was a multi- donor trust fund (set up in 2010) hosted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The fund has supported investment projects and analytical research in line with the BCCSAP core principles and pillars. Rationale for World Bank Involvement 3. The World Bank has been supporting the Government in building Bangladesh’s climate resilience by investing over US$1 billion on coastal infrastructure and cyclone shelters in the past decade. This has been reflected in the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) over the years.3 The World Bank was also the trustee of the BCCRF and was designated as the sole agency responsible for managing the implementation of activities supported by the BCCRF. The World Bank had accessed BCCRF financing for building cyclone shelters and solar irrigation pumps, promoting afforestation, and undertaking significant analytical work on climate resilience. 4. In addition to substantial investments in critical infrastructure, preparedness, and response, the World Bank recognizes the need for inclusive development and the acute threat of climate 3 The project remains strongly consistent with the World Bank’s current Country Partnership Framework (2016– 2020) objectives under Focus Area 3: Climate and Environment Management, as detailed in section 3. 1 change to the livelihoods of the most climate-vulnerable people. The World Bank supported the Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF) to prepare and implement this project as it contributes to two CAS (2011–2014) outcomes: (a) strengthened water resources management and coastal protection and (b) enhanced disaster preparedness. The Community Climate Change Project (CCCP) was a stand-alone project, financed fully from BCCRF funds through its off-budget window. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved) 5. The PDO was to enhance the capacity of selected communities to increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change. 6. The three PDO-level indicators are as follows: • Indicator 1: Community mechanisms established and functioning in selected communities to respond effectively to specific climate risk • Indicator 2: Communities to have applied sustainable adaptation practices to address specific climate change risk • Indicator 3: Sub-grants implemented in the selected communities are assessed to have achieved the targeted objectives 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 7. The PDO or the indicators related to the PDO were not changed during implementation. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 8. According to the Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the primary beneficiaries of the project were to be poor and ultra-poor communities in saline-affected, flood-affected, and rainfall- scarce zones of the country, as determined by geographical information systems mapping. The final beneficiaries were selected once the project was effective and the subproject proposals were approved by the PKSF. Secondary benefits, which were to enhance capacity to plan and implement effective community-driven climate change adaptation projects, were to accrue to the PKSF and participating nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 1.5 Original Components (as approved) 9. Component 1: Community Climate Change Fund (US$10.40 million, revised US$10.79 million). This was the largest component in the CCCP and was designed to establish a fund to finance community-based climate change adaptation projects to be implemented with the assistance of NGOs (subsequently named project implementation partners [PIPs]). The fund would be managed by the PKSF through a separate Project Management Unit (PMU), to be set up and supported (including staffing, equipment, and operation costs) under Component 3. The PKSF was to call for Project Concept Notes (PCNs) from eligible NGOs and set criteria for submission 2 eligibility. The subproject proposals were to address at least one of the six BCCSAP thematic areas.4 Please see annex 2 for details on the activities supported through the subprojects. 10. Component 2: Knowledge Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Capacity Building (US$0.44 million, revised US$0.55 million). This component aimed at sharing best practice lessons between communities, among the participating PIPs, as well as within the wider NGO community nationally, regionally, and globally. It also supported a structured learning process through cross-peer visits in different vulnerable zones. Knowledge creation and management was also to be achieved through the preparation of toolkits and guidelines for the PIPs. It would thus build the capacity of NGOs to prepare eligible community-based climate change adaptation project proposals. The PMU would operationalize a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to ensure effective financial and activity monitoring during project implementation as well as enable an independent evaluation at project completion. 11. Component 3: Project Management (US$1.66 million). This component was to establish the PMU within the PKSF and hire/train staff to manage funds and monitor the implementation of subprojects; finance the PMU’s operating costs, procurement, and other expenses related to the administration of project funds; build the technical capacity of the PKSF to appraise climate change adaptation subproject proposals submitted by NGOs; and operationalize the procedures for fund management. 1.6 Revised Components 12. None of the components were revised during implementation. 1.7 Other Significant Changes 13. The BCCRF had allocated 10 percent of its total funds to its NGO window that financed the CCCP. With US$130 million paid in as capital contribution, this translated to US$13 million available for the CCCP. The original CCCP financing was US$12.5 million, leaving US$0.5 million unbudgeted under the BCCRF’s NGO window. Based on recommendations of the project’s midterm review (MTR) carried out in (June 2015), an additional financing (AF) of US$500,000 was processed by the World Bank in (August, 2015). At both the MTR and the AF, it was confirmed that project implementation was on track to meet its PDO. 14. As the AF was approved at a later stage of project implementation, it was agreed that it would be used only to support the 11 best performing PIPs and not to support any new PIP proposals. This allowed for all activities to be completed by December 2016, as per the BCCRF agreement. 4 The BCCSAP pillars are as follows: (a) Food security, social protection, and health; (b) Comprehensive disaster management; (c) Infrastructure; (d) Research and knowledge management; (e) Mitigation and low carbon development; and (f) Capacity building and institutional strengthening. The CCCP directly supports all the pillars except (e). 3 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry Project Preparation 15. The analytical basis and lessons learned that underpinned the project design were sound. The project design was based on comprehensive analyses of similar projects undertaken by NGOs at the community level and studies, based on the geographical information system (GIS), of climate change impacts in Bangladesh, with regard to both affected geographical areas and consequences for people’s livelihoods, in particular how the poorest parts of the population were affected. These background studies focused on adaptation, and not mitigation. The selection of project area and type of interventions to be pursued were thus based on these studies. 16. The PDO of the project was to enhance community capacity to increase their resilience to climate change. The definition and understanding of the term ‘resilience’ can be very broad and can capture economic resilience, social resilience, or environmental resilience to cope with climate hazards such as floods, droughts, or salinity intrusion. The definition of ‘resilience’ in the PDO has been kept broad to capture the complexities and different aspects of resilience in the context of climate resilience. The three PDO-level indicators directly reflect the essential functions required at the community level for building climate resilience and maintaining a community’s identity and structure in the face of a climate hazard, while also learning and adapting. 17. The project design was highly influenced by this broad definition and is reflected in the component design and the justification of activity sequencing. As an innovative learning project based on the World Bank’s experience in community mechanisms in Bangladesh and regionally, as well as the PKSF’s experience in microcredit financing, the CCCP was designed to specifically address climate resilience and that too in a manner tailor-made to different climate risk zones. Project design as a result was flexible and the subprojects that were to be funded were only indicative at appraisal. During implementation, proposed project interventions (subprojects) were required to explicitly demonstrate their links to attaining the PDO. 18. The most important design feature of the project was to establish the Community Climate Change Fund to channel funding to the selected PIPs who would then implement the selected subprojects that met the selection criteria at the field level. Fundamental to this were to (a) understand climate change impacts at the community level; (b) formulate subprojects that would support the achievement of the PDO (as well as the BCCSAP pillars and the World Bank CAS 2011–2014); and (c) set up an organizational and implementation mechanism (involving the World Bank, the PKSF, the selected PIPs, and the communities) that would ensure successful delivery of the outcomes. 19. Project preparation properly assessed risks associated with technical design, PKSF governance and capacity, safeguards, delivery and monitoring, and program and donors. It specifically highlighted that, as a microcredit organization, the PKSF had no experience of implementing a grant mechanism and monitoring the impact of subprojects. Appropriate measures were also identified and integrated into project design to mitigate the identified risks: (a) ensuring high-quality technical staff at the PMU and PIP levels, (b) ensuring a transparent and credible 4 screening method for the selection of PIPs and subprojects, (c) ensuring adequate resources and time for training of the PMU and PIP staff on a wide range of topics (including understanding of climate resilience in the community context, fiduciary and safeguards requirements, and, more importantly, M&E), (d) flexibility in project management to incorporate lessons emerging from one area to be applied in another area if appropriate, (e) strict supervision on safeguards, and (f) enhanced supervision arrangements for slow-performing PIPs. 20. For example, to address the PKSF’s capacity issues, a PMU was set up with high-quality staff members, including a project coordinator, dedicated project officers for each climate zone (who were selected based on their multidisciplinary backgrounds related to livelihoods in climate vulnerable areas), accounts and procurement staff, an M&E specialist, and secretarial staff. The PMU had adequate resources to conduct training for the PIPs on diverse project management- related topics. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was created to support the PMU to review subproject proposals. Also, the PMU was integrated into the PKSF’s own management structure, which contributed toward good governance of the project. 21. Project preparation provided limited guidance on the design of climate-resilient sub projects. However, the project design had provisions for the development of guidelines and toolkits for the PIPs and the beneficiaries as implementation evolved. During implementation, these measures mitigated the lack of design guidance at preparation as well as risks associated with PKSF capacity. Such mechanisms included PIP screening (with qualifying criteria that were to be widely disseminated to ensure transparency and credibility), subproject selection (with criteria on supporting the BCCSAP and the World Bank CAS 2011–2014, technical soundness, and beneficiary demand), fund management (including special training on fiduciary requirements of the World Bank for the PKSF as well as for each individual PIP, plus arrangements for fund tracking against subproject targets, arrangements for cross-vetting of PIP expenditures by the PKSF, and finally, auditing), subproject implementation (starting from the setting up of the community groups to subproject completion), cross-peer learning, M&E, and rounds of training on project management and results monitoring (including safeguards aspects), which demonstrated the pragmatism of the design against perceived risks. 22. The project design was also mindful of its innovative nature and sought to capture the learnings (what worked and what did not) in a transparent and candid way. The various knowledge sharing and dissemination activities planned for were adequate and discernibly helped PIPs learn from each other’s successes and mistakes during implementation. 23. The project design was approved by the BCCRF Governing Council. From the beginning, the BCCRF donors were kept abreast of project design. It was agreed that yearly updates from the project would be provided to the donors, as well as briefings at the end of every project supervision mission. This contributed toward mitigation of risks associated with donor priorities. 24. Due to its innovative nature, the project had two design shortcomings. The first is related to its Results Framework (RF), which had required a substantial amount of refinements and further development during project implementation to serve its purpose. For example, the RF made a reference to community mechanisms that should ‘respond effectively to specific climate risks’ but provided no guidance on how to identify the risks or how to establish the community mechanisms to address the specific risks. This gap in the design was addressed successfully during 5 implementation and is discussed in the next section of this Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICRR). 25. The second design shortcoming is that project preparation has chosen not to carry out economic and financial analyses. This was justified given that the details of the subprojects were not known. However, this has led to limited efforts of the project to evaluate financial performance of subprojects. This is further discussed in section 3.3. 26. Quality at entry. In summary, it can be said that the project was well designed for an innovative learning project (with two shortcomings discussed earlier) with a capable organization selected for its implementation. 2.2 Implementation 27. Project implementation was completed satisfactorily and without major delays, as judged by the achievement of targets and Implementation Status and Results Report (ISR) ratings. This was a result of a number of adjustments that were made early in the implementation phase by the project, in response to field conditions and design shortcomings: (a) the community climate adaptation approach was sharpened theoretically and operationally in Component 1, (b) results capturing and dissemination were strengthened to address weaknesses in Component 2, and (c) PMU performance was kept consistent by maintaining high-quality staff and field presence in Component 3. 28. The recommendations in the MTR were further instrumental in achieving project results by proposing a number of actions/improvements. Notably (a) specific guidelines for each PDO indicator (and project component), (b) improving guidelines for the PIPs, (c) clarifying exit strategies for the PIPs, (d) conducting more learning exchanges between the community action groups, (e) increased monitoring of specific interventions to ensure site specific suitability of technological interventions, (f) better assessments of how these technologies performed, and (g) adequate record keeping and reporting by PIPs to PKSF. As noted in the post MTR Aide Memoires, the PKSF increased its supervision efforts (especially on slow performing PIPs). 29. Implementation encountered challenges in two areas due to design weaknesses: (a) how to clearly define climate adaptation subprojects (as distinct from other projects) and (b) how to tailor the M&E system to specifically capture adaptation measures. These challenges were addressed early on due to timely action by the World Bank and PKSF (guidance notes prepared and disseminated through training) and did not significantly hamper the implementation speed once the PIPs were onboard. 30. Selection criteria (of PIPs and subprojects) were key factors in implementation. This was one of the keys to the success of the project. The NGOs that became PIPs were selected after a systematic screening of the NGO itself as well as of the subproject proposals they submitted for approval. The screening criteria were developed by the PKSF and the World Bank after several rounds of technical discussions. The criteria included experience of the NGOs in relevant geographical areas, their yearly disbursements, their manpower capacities, etc., which was done in a transparent manner, keeping in mind issues of governance and credibility. The subprojects that were finally selected were based on suggestions from the communities themselves on what 6 had worked in the past and what they were interested in pursuing. The balance between the desirable and the achievable was key in selecting the right partners and activities. 31. Understanding climate risks and elaborating the RF in a learning project were critical. Section 2.1 highlighted two design shortcomings. To assist the PIP screening, it was recognized that a climate vulnerability assessment that would put the new and different adaptation measures front and center against the climate threats that each community faced was needed. The World Bank and the PKSF together prepared a guidance note that linked climate change threat factors (floods, drought, salinity) to risks/opportunities faced by the different groups of people (for example, farmers, the landless, all community members, and so on). By directly linking threats to risks/opportunities, it was likely to arrive at a list of possible adaptation response measures (for example, planting of short duration crop varieties by farm laborers in the area due to floods). This assessment helped not only in identifying suitable subproject ideas for funding, but it also helped the PIPs keep focus on climate adaptation (as opposed to more traditional microcredit livelihood work). 32. As mentioned earlier, the RF of the project was refined at the implementation stage. Remedial action was taken by the project through the preparation of a guidance note titled, ‘Explanations and clarifications on how to identify climate risks and vulnerability at the community level, how to organize adaptation interventions, and how to monitor and evaluate implementation in line with PDO level indicators’. This document served as a practical guide that clarified to the PIPs how to translate the project RF better to everyday monitoring—especially the linkages between the PDO, PDO-level results indicators, and intermediate results indicators. The project also adopted the PKSF’s own Result-Based Monitoring (RBM) Framework and adapted it to suit the CCCP (details in section 2.3). The explanatory note, supporting supervision, trainings, and the RBM Framework together addressed a significant gap in the project design. This also represents a lesson learned for future projects where final activities are not defined in the PAD and where the project implementation is through many partners with varying understandings of a concept such as climate resilience as well as different capacities for M&E. 33. Lessons learned were well distilled and disseminated. The project involved many community groups and PIPs that generated a rich storehouse of data and information on climate resilience. The CCCP has now prepared a considerable amount of knowledge products, and in addition, each PIP participated in yearly lessons learned meetings to candidly discuss and record their problems and achievements. Over time, the numerous learning products combined with seminars, workshops, and field visits contributed significantly to capacity building of all concerned. This was evident at the brainstorming workshop on ‘Pathway to Build Climate Resilient Bangladesh’ (March, 2016) for the PIPs. The workshop had intensive group discussions and presentations, during which the participants were highly encouraged to share their knowledge and ideas and exchange views. RBM findings and lessons learned so far were shared among the PIPs by the project. Based on discussions, the workshop developed the next PMU work plan. The workshop also included discussions on increasing intervention sustainability, and better dissemination of lessons learnt (beyond the fellow PIPs). However, the inter-community field visits were perhaps the most important way lessons were taken up by other PIPs (for example in the case of plinth raising and poultry raising). 7 34. Adequate resources were allocated for technical and operational supervision and support in a highly dispersed project involving diverse community activities. The project set up a PMU with 14 employees: a project manager and a deputy manager, three program officers, an M&E officer, three accounts officers, and technical staff for training, environment and natural resources, social development, engineering, communication, and management information system. While this is a good indicator of the implementing agency’s commitment to the project, it is also commendable that they had sufficient staff to cover the scale of the project (41 PIPs and numerous communities). Field presence in the remote areas was critical in following M&E requirements and fiduciary oversight, especially when slow-performing PIPs were identified or when technical issues arose. For example, the PKSF prepared an Activity Implementation Guideline that contained drawings and instructions on how to build, in a climate-resilient way, some of the most sought-after investments, such as plinth raising for homesteads and community grounds, construction of tube wells, other water management installations, sanitary latrines, and sheds for goats, poultry, and ducks. The project also organized ‘mini technical workshops’ at the field level to demonstrate solutions to construction problems (for example, for the desalination plants and the cook stoves) for the PIPs and communities when such a need was identified. High-quality technical guidance from the PMU at the right time and the availability of considerable project resources were a positive factor contributing considerably to satisfactory implementation. It should also be mentioned that the PMU had right balance of technical expertise as all the technical guidelines were prepared by the PMU and endorsed by the relevant government agency. No additional consultancy support was necessary for the preparation of these guidelines. Eventually, that resulted in budget savings from components 2 and 3, which were then allocated towards field level activities. 35. Engaging donors was important in reporting results and creating visibility. As agreed during project preparation, BCCRF donors were briefed regularly at the end of each implementation supervision mission. Resource materials showing gradual target attainments were also shared with the donors regularly. The project also hosted several field visits by donors as part of their annual reviews, as well as a head of agency visit from the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) to the project sites in Satkhira. DFID expressed their satisfaction after the head of agency visit by communicating via email to the World Bank. This helped communicate the lessons being learned in a learning project and ensure donor objective alignment throughout implementation. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation, and Utilization 36. M&E design. The RF in the PAD was designed keeping in mind that the final activities would be chosen after project effectiveness. The guidance on what certain terms meant (‘established and functioning’, ‘effective response’, ‘climate risks’ for example) were not as clear as they could have been, especially since the RF had to be operational at the level of PIPs whose M&E capacities and understanding varied. However, the three-tiered monitoring system put in place was adequate (that is, each PIP had a dedicated subproject monitoring officer reporting to the chief executive or to a senior official not directly entrusted with implementation of the subproject, the PKSF had its own M&E unit, and the project was subject to external audits (as is the norm from the government) and M&E from independent evaluators at project closing). 8 37. As noted earlier in section 2.2, remedial actions on the project’s RF was a key factor for smooth implementation of the project. Relying on the PKSF’s own RBM Framework, a climate resilience index (CRI) was developed to measure the achieved resilience. The CRI development exercise refined terms such as ‘climate resilience’ and translated theoretical concepts into practical and measurable indicators. Four indicators were set to measure resilience. Each of the indicators was weighted based on their significance in the context of minimizing risks, budget allocation, and community needs.5 The RBM measured achievements against these weightages. The RBM was to monitor and report on project activities and eventually evaluate outputs, outcomes, and impacts in relation to indicators specified in the RF. The RBM was also a management tool that helped the project adjust course during the implementation phase to ensure that the desired results (for example, objectives) described in a plan are achieved. The RBM system as tailor-made for the CCCP is shown in figure 1. To complement the RF, therefore, the project developed a total of four detailed RFs. A ‘mother RF’ was developed to measure the CRI, which was supplemented by three other RFs for three distinct risk zones, that is, flood, salinity, and drought. In addition, 41 PIPs developed their own RFs to measure outcome and impact of their interventions. The use of the RBM was instrumental in refining the project’s RF to the credit of the project and its innovation in capturing terms such as ‘resilience’ in practical terms. 5 First, three risks zones, that is, flood, salinity, and drought, were weighted based on their impacts on community and budgetary allocation. Salinity received the highest score which is 45 percent, followed by flood (30 percent) and drought (25 percent). Second, four indicators were set to measure the resilience. These are (a) resilient households established, meaning households are protected from climate change variability and related shocks mainly in char lands and coastal areas by raising plinths above the flood level and reconstructing houses; (b) reduction of disease incidence as to improving health and well-being of the community by securing water and sanitation systems and raising awareness; (c) food security with regard to food availability and increased nutrition status by providing alternative support to income generation; and (d) ensured available water for drinking and irrigation for vegetable growing. Third, each of the indicators was weighted based on their significance in the context of minimizing risks, budget allocation, and community needs. It was found that weightage of an indicator varies in different risk zones. For example, the indicator ‘resilient households established’ gets 50 percent weight for flood and 30 percent for salinity whereas this indicator is not considered in the drought zone. Reduction of waterborne diseases is a common indicator for all three risk zones, which is weighted 20 percent for flood, 40 percent for salinity, and 20 percent for drought zones. Food security is the other common indicator that is weighted 30 percent for all three risk zones. ‘Ensured available water’ is the only indicator that is set for the drought risk zone and weighted 50 percent. The weightage has been distributed considering severity of impacts, proposed interventions, and budget allocation. 9 Figure 1. CCCP RBM System OUTPUT OUTCOME IMPACT Activity to Output Monitoring Resilience-Related Outcome Assessment Sheet Questionnaire to Calculate the (ATOM) CRI ATOM monitors monthly, Project participants were ranked • Food security quarterly, and cumulative in one of five different conditions, • Protected household progress of individual PIPs and that is, from ‘non-resilient’ to • Reduction of disease progress is remotely monitored ‘completely resilient’. The by the PMU scoring categories have been • Community mechanism made specific to each risk zone. • Household’s livelihood • Protected household • Access to safe drinking water and sanitation • Community mechanism 38. M&E implementation. Figure 1 shows the RBM system adopted by the PKSF during project implementation. Following this system, two RBM reports were created—one in March 2015 (11 PIPs were covered and the household sample size was 84) and one in June 2016 (11 PIPs but with a larger sample size of 300 households). Eleven PIPs were selected as being representative of the three climate risk areas. Given the remoteness of the areas and the dispersed households and communities, getting a more inclusive sample size was desirable but not practicable. ATOM data quality (gathered by PIPS) was adequate but the data aggregation and analysis could have been improved at the PKSF end (for economic efficiency calculations at project closing and for future reference). Training of PKSF and PIP staff in M&E helped considerably; however, a lesson learned is that attention must be given to designing an M&E system, when it requires considerable time, resources, and capacity on the part of implementers (PIPs and the PKSF in this case) to do it full justice. 39. M&E utilization. The project used the ATOM data to continuously measure progress through tracking utilization of funds in relation to budgets allocated to each PIP. This proved to be an important tool in ensuring steady progress and that corrective measures were taken early on when needed. In addition, in keeping with the theme of a learning project, PIPs also candidly shared their experiences, which helped other PIPs make design changes when needed. GIS-based monitoring has proved highly effective by the CCCP. For example, according to the Department of Public Health and Engineering, distance of a tube well and a latrine should be at least 30 ft. With Google Earth, the PMU could easily monitor whether these types of infrastructures are rightly placed or not. 10 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 40. Financial management. A robust financial management assessment of the PKSF was carried out during preparation phase of the CCCP in accordance with OP/BP 10.02, to identify financial management risks and mitigation measures with the view to designing an appropriate financial management arrangement. Financial management risk was rated Substantial and appropriate mitigating measures were incorporated into project design. Financial management performance of the project remained Satisfactory for the most part of the project life, and there are no pending issues as agreed on the financial management action plan. The financial reports were submitted to the World Bank on time and with acceptable quality. Financial statements were audited by private audit firms on an annual basis with unqualified opinion for all the audits. The audit of the financial statements for July–December 2016 was carried out by a private audit firm and was submitted to the World Bank before June 30, 2017. There are no pending material audit observations on the previous audit reports. 41. Procurement performance. There was significant improvement of capacity in managing procurements at the PMU and PIP levels compared to the initial stage of project implementation. The PMU has successfully developed and disseminated simplified procurement documents and instructions for the PIPs. The PMU also provided continuous hands-on support and training to the PIPs in executing day-to-day procurement activities. As a result of these interventions, procurement activities at the field level gained momentum during the midterm of the project, and all procurements were completed within the project duration. PIPs also expressed that for the first time they followed the public procurement rules (PPR) for their procurements, and the training sessions and hands-on support provided by the PMU were very helpful. 42. Environmental safeguards. There were no deviations from the applicable World Bank safeguard policies—Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01). The project was rated Category B for environmental safeguards. Visits to project sites during the implementation found that the environmental management measures had been complied with and a system of community monitoring and reporting had been introduced and followed. Environmental enhancement parameters had been considered in the design of sanitary latrines, cluster-based raised plinths, and other activities. The CCCP played a strong role in awareness building to ensure safe drinking water conservation in the drought and saline prone areas. The CCCP PMU organized a number of awareness-building workshops to train the communities in maintaining project interventions in an environmentally sustainable manner. 43. Social safeguards. There were no deviations from the applicable World Bank safeguard policies—Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). No land acquisition was permitted or required in implementing schemes for income-generating activities (IGAs) and community level sub-schemes under this project. It was also highly unlikely to affect the small ethnic communities negatively. However, OP 4.10 was triggered to ensure positive impacts for the communities. Over the project period, the PKSF submitted quarterly reports to the World Bank. In these reports, no adverse social impacts were recorded. For example, according to the report (April–June 2016), 2.04 percent of the project’s beneficiaries were from small ethnic community groups (2,668 people in total). Given that the total population belonging to small ethnic groups is only between 1.5 and 3 million in the country (less than 2 percent), it can be said that the inclusion of these communities in accessing the project benefits was very good. The project also 11 established a functional grievance redress mechanism (GRM). The GRM received 42 written complaints and 234 verbal complaints. These complaints were resolved by the community in the presence of local government representatives and relevant NGO focal persons. The project worked very well in gender mainstreaming as 92.32 percent of beneficiaries of the project were women. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 44. Following the successful implementation of the CCCP, the PKSF requested World Bank support for expanding the intervention beyond climate change and to enable the use of microenterprises as a tool to make IGAs environmentally sustainable. In response to the request, the Sustainable Enterprise Project (SEP) is being prepared and seeks to expand support to integrating environmental sustainability in microenterprise development as a means of strengthening resilience and livelihoods. The concept of the proposed SEP builds on the needs of the local communities to move toward resilient livelihoods, from climate, environmental, and economic perspectives. The key lessons learned from the CCCP relevant to the SEP are as follows: • Selection process for PIPs was highly commendable and transparent and did not receive any unsolvable complaint. The NGOs disqualified at the second stage were notified after final approval of proposals. Agreements with successful PIPs were signed in three batches. • The NGOs that became PIPs were selected based on their experience in the relevant geographic areas, their yearly disbursements, their manpower capacities, and so on. This approach was successful, as given the training that the NGOs needed, they could ultimately deliver the supervised activities. • The competitively selected NGOs helped introduce innovative adaptation practices in new locations, drawing on indigenous knowledge and with technical support from the project. Such approaches provided new opportunities for women to enter the workforce and had wide demonstration effects beyond the targeted beneficiaries. • Sustainability solutions depend on networks at the field level with larger demonstration effect and awareness building. Collectively, these changes exemplified the capacity of local communities to become more financially self-reliant and resilient to extreme weather and climate risks. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design, and Implementation 45. Relevance of objectives. The objectives of the project are highly relevant, timely, and appropriate to Bangladesh’s current needs and are consistent with Government commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation, both at the time of appraisal and at project closure. At appraisal, the CCCP aimed at contributing to achieving two CAS (2011–2014) outcomes—(a) strengthened water resources management and coastal protection (b) and enhanced disaster preparedness. The PDO remained highly relevant to the World Bank’s CAS (2011–2014). The project remains strongly consistent with the World Bank’s current Country Partnership Framework 12 (2016–2020) objectives under Focus Area 3: Climate and Environment Management. Overall, by targeting the most vulnerable and poorest communities, the project contributed to the World Bank’s strategic goals of ending extreme poverty and shared prosperity. Thus, the relevance of objectives is rated High. 46. Relevance of design. The relevance of design is rated High. The project components were appropriate and well designed and collectively contributed toward meeting the PDO. As identified earlier, the RF design in the PAD needed substantial refinement; however, the logical chain between components, their inputs, activities, outputs to achieve intermediate outcome targets, and the PDO was sound. The PDO was covered by sufficient and relevant indicators to measure its achievement in the RF, but they were extended through the CRI and RBM. 47. The project design drew upon Bangladesh’s extensive experience in working with civil society and local communities in designing a credible and functioning financing mechanism and a community mechanism to help selected communities increase their resilience to climate change. The financing mechanism design (through the design of the PIP screening, subproject screening, and fund reimbursement mechanism) effectively harnessed the right mixture of PIPs with relevant field experience from the three climate risk zones. This has effectively helped achieve the PDO. 48. The World Bank’s implementation assistance was responsive and relevant to project design and intended objectives, including achieving BCCSAP goals and CAS objectives. The project was responsive to changing needs and challenges and adjusted itself to ensure that it stayed focused on achieving the PDO. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 49. The achievement of project objectives is rated Satisfactory. The project achieved its PDO to enhance the capacity of selected communities to increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change. All project targets that were set in the RF were either fulfilled or exceeded by project closure, as presented in the Results Framework Analysis section in the Data Sheet. The data here have been validated by the PKSF and are also in line with the findings of the independent third party evaluators at project closing.6 50. The project had the following three PDO indicators: (a) Community mechanisms established and functioning in selected communities to respond effectively to specific climate risks (b) Communities to have applied sustainable adaptation practices to address specific climate change risk (c) Sub-grants implemented in the selected communities are assessed to have achieved the targeted objectives 51. PDO indicator 1 captures the outcome of capacity building at the community level, and increased resilience. CCCP interventions were unique because of the technical capacity building 6 ATOM’s monthly data quality is adequate and is the basis for project results reporting. 13 of the beneficiaries on how to ‘do it better’. Technical input covered livestock health, homestead maintenance, agricultural advisory, maintenance demonstration etc. In the flood areas, a total of 8,539 participants received technical training, while in the drought areas it was 10,024 participants. At project closing about 96 percent beneficiaries expressed their satisfaction at the quality of training, as per the final evaluation report. 52. According to the CRI data, almost 6,000 families in the saline areas are now protected from storm surges. The number is around 7,000 in the flood affected areas. These families have been trained to grow vegetables all year round on their raised and protected homesteads. About 15,000 families in all three areas are now capable of rearing goats, rearing poultry, fattening crabs and producing vegetables. About 10,000 families no longer drink unsafe water thanks to the project in the saline areas. Deep tube wells have also been installed for 5,000 families in the flood areas, and 18,000 families in the drought areas now have access to shallow tube wells under the project. 11,415 beneficiaries are now familiar with climate change and have a technically better understanding of resilience in the saline areas, according to the final evaluation report for the project. (further details in annex 2). A factor behind successful uptake is that the communities themselves were instrumental in identifying which interventions they needed. While 80 percent of the beneficiaries were already involved in similar activities (and this in fact contributes positively toward project sustainability), what set apart the CCCP was that the options that were finally chosen were done through group discussions at the CCAG level, where they evaluated what design options had not worked in the past or what options might work better and be more sustainable and manageable. 53. The CCCP has significant demonstration effects at the community level. The activities that have been implemented by other people being influenced by the CCCP participants include raising homestead plinths, constructing slatted house, producing vermi-compost, installing improved cooking stoves, building sanitary latrines, undertaking poultry and duck rearing, starting crab fattening activities, and cultivating drought and salinity resistant crops. 54. PDO indicator 2 captures the outcome of resilience building. An adaptation measure is defined as applied based on uptake and outcome data as reported by PKSF and the final evaluation by the external evaluators. The target of adaptation practices being taken up by communities was met in 34 (or in 84 percent) of the communities as against a target of 29 communities (or 70 percent). This means the target was overachieved by 122 percent (adjusting for a baseline of 5%). The external evaluation found that the slatted housing for goats was the most popular activity with 17,155 or 45 percent of the households having adopted this practice. However, there is a significant difference in adoption between the three risks zones (26 percent in the saline zone, 72 percent in the flood zone, and 79 percent in the drought zone). Household plinth raising was adopted by 32 percent beneficiaries in flood and salinity zones. This is an indigenous practice but an improved design was introduced by the project to cope with the additional stress caused by climate change. 55. PDO indicator 3 captures the outcome of resilience building. Success in implementing sub- grants was measured against targets against each subproject. 35 out of 41 PIPs were judged by PKSF as being successful in implementing their subprojects in time. 14 3.3 Efficiency 56. The overall efficiency of the project is rated as Substantial. This rating is based on the significant increases in monthly household incomes from the IGAs promoted by the project. An end-of-project household survey 7 indicated that there was an average increase of household income of BDT 2,110 per month during the project period (increased to BDT 5,683 per month from the average baseline income of BDT 3,573 per month in the sampled households). Of that amount, the average contribution to family monthly income from the CCCP-assisted IGAs was found to be BDT 1,351 per month, which is a contribution of 64 percent. Among the CCCP direct beneficiaries, 77 percent have taken up IGAs. The survey also shows that slatted houses for goat and sheep rearing, which is practiced by 60 percent of the beneficiaries, led on average to an incremental monthly income of BDT 1,718 per month due to a reduction in diseases and higher productivity. Crab fattening, which can be practiced in saline areas only, led to an additional income of as much as BDT 5,500 per month (annex 3). While no quantitative analysis of the counterfactual scenario has been carried out, it is believed that a key factor leading to these incremental incomes was the transfer of knowledge on these IGAs, which the beneficiary households would unlikely have been able to obtain without the project. The said household survey also found a significant reduction in the incidence of diseases, including notably diarrhea, the prevalence of which decreased from 42 percent to 16 percent among beneficiary households (annex 3). Again, while other factors contributing to this outcome have not been analyzed, given the known causation between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation and diarrhea, the project’s contribution is believed to be significant. 57. Cost-effectiveness was considered in the appraisal of subproject proposals during project implementation. The PKSF evaluated proposed subproject budgets against costs in similar PKSF microcredit projects.8 Design alternatives, including costing, were also considered by the project at the level of CCAGs. The subproject proposals were formulated by NGOs based on suggestions by future beneficiaries who already had experience in similar interventions and had informed preferences on what design alternatives would have a higher chance of being sustainable and increasing resilience. Nevertheless, in certain subprojects, costs were much higher than what was common practice. For example, latrines financed by the CCCP typically cost BDT 1.4–1.5 million, whereas the Government’s approved standard cost for a sanitary latrine is much lower at about BDT 100,000–200,000. The cost difference arises from the quality of the materials chosen. For example, the project opted for rust-proof materials in saline areas, which will contribute to the sustainability of this type of investment. 58. At project appraisal, neither an economic nor a financial analysis was carried out with the justification that the subproject had not yet been determined. While an economic cost-benefit analysis would indeed have required too many assumptions to be useful, financial analyses (from the point of view of adopting households) of the main likely IGAs would have been beneficial. First, they would have allowed estimation of net incomes and determination of key variables affecting net incomes, including recurrent costs and additional labor and time requirements, which in turn would have contributed to the design and targeting of the sustainable subprojects. Second, 7 440 households were sampled and surveyed through questionnaires. In addition, there were case studies and informal group discussions. The baseline data are from the first RBM report. 8 For example, livestock prices in similar areas as part of their microcredit projects. 15 this analysis would have established a formal method that could have been used for subproject appraisal, including of financial sustainability. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 59. The project has been rated Moderately Satisfactory or Satisfactory throughout its implementation in all aspects, overall rating, and rating in relation to fiduciary aspects. The trend has been steady in improving its performance. The final external evaluation and the RF with final achievements (details in annex 2) indicate that the project has met or surpassed the targets set in the PAD RF for all indicators. The achievements shown with regard to the development objective has been explained earlier and they also support a satisfactory rating. The overall outcome is rated Satisfactory based on the assessment described in the earlier sections: relevance of PDO (High); relevance of design (High); achievement of PDO (Satisfactory); and efficiency (Substantial). 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 60. Poverty impact. The overarching theme is building climate resilience at the community level. The IGAs have demonstrated a direct contribution to poverty alleviation in the sample survey done at project closing. Earlier discussion on efficiency covers issues related to income data. 61. Gender aspect. The project had the poor and ultra-poor as its target group with no specific gender focus. However, as in so many other projects reaching out to the poorest, it turns out that women are the ones who become most engaged and are the most benefitted. About 92 percent of beneficiaries are women. The CCCP has several such success stories of women beneficiaries who have increased their income, especially in the flood affected haor areas.9 Discussions with the PIPs reveal that access to water (for drinking and other purposes) has increased through the rainwater harvesting (RWH) and pond maintenance activities, which greatly supports women because traditionally it is always them who collect water for the households. 62. Most of the IGAs have been pursued by women and it is noteworthy that as soon as it has been demonstrated that they work, neighboring women have picked them up on their own initiative. This is of course limited to activities that do not require significant cash investments, such as vegetable gardening on raised homesteads or production of vermi-compost to support the vegetable garden. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 63. One of the most important outcomes of the CCCP has been the formation of community mechanisms and their continued functioning. As noted earlier, about 98 percent of project beneficiaries are participating in the CCAGs formed by the 41 PIPs. They are meeting twice a 9 Source: PKSF (2016). Pathways to Resilience: CCCP Experiences. 16 month and are contributing financially as a condition to participate in community activities. The final evaluation team also noted that several CCAGs have formulated their own sustainability plans. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 64. The demonstration effect among non-CCCP communities was not foreseen but is an unintended positive outcome. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 65. Not applicable. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 66. The risk that the community-level initiatives will not be sustainable is Moderate. IGAs are extremely likely to continue. Livelihood activities depending on group management and maintenance are a different story. Pond Management Committees, Pond Sand Filter Management Committees, and Deep Tube Well Management Committees have been set up in project areas by the PIPs. Some have opened bank accounts for future maintenance expenditures. These committees are tasked with raising funds from the users for lifetime repairs. The committees have been informally linked up with the local government Union Parishads. However, past project experience shows that similar management committees do not always manage to complete their repair tasks on time or to effectively seek and receive support from the local government, and this remains a risk. 67. Discussions with PIPs suggested that the people in coastal areas drink pure rainwater during the monsoon and at that time, the pond sand filters remain unused. As a consequence, it becomes nonfunctional for the next dry season. However, if the management committee is active and raises funds for maintenance, then the pond sand filters will continue providing benefits. The risk of gradual demise is probably highest with regard to the CCAGs, but the fact that most of them are linked together in savings groups is a very strong incentive for them to stay together. 5. Assessment of World Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 World Bank Performance (a) World Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 68. World Bank performance is rated Moderately Satisfactory. As discussed earlier, project preparation had two design shortcomings. This has resulted in a lower rating for World Bank performance in ensuring quality at entry. 17 (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 69. World Bank performance is rated Satisfactory. During the implementation period, supervision missions were undertaken about every six months and agreed-upon follow-up actions were recorded in the Aide Memoires and duly implemented. The World Bank submitted extensive comments on the project proposals submitted by the PKSF by PIPs for ‘no objection’. World Bank staff participated in workshops organized by the project and visited some of the subprojects in the field. At the early stage of project implementation, the World Bank team quickly identified the design gaps and contributed to the conceptual development of the project clarifying what characterizes a climate adaptation project from a more traditional livelihood project in a poor rural context (for example, the CRI and RBM). International expertise on climate adaptation and community development was also mobilized to support project implementation. Finally, safeguards and fiduciary supervision performance was also Satisfactory. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall World Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 70. The overall rating of World Bank performance is based on ratings for quality at entry and during supervision, considering the overall satisfactory outcome rating. Although it was a learning project, the World Bank team remained vigilant in project monitoring and took measures to adjust implementation design to address the learning elements. The measures taken were justified and supported the project in achieving its PDO. 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 71. The project was critically needed in Bangladesh, and the Government considered the project to be of high importance. The Government demonstrated strong commitment to the project and consequently, the project started disbursing shortly after signing. The MoEF provided clearance to the AF as part of the Management Committee and hosted wrap-up meetings at the end of each implementation support mission. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 72. Implementing agency performance is rated Satisfactory. The PMU has been actively involved in appraising the proposals, preparing all technical documents as required and guiding the PIPs during field implementation. Although certain procedures had to be modified to meet World Bank standards with regard to both financial management and procurement, this was done relatively quickly. The PKSF’s role in adapting the RBM to suit the CCCP was a key factor behind smooth project implementation supervision. The PKSF and the PMU also developed, at the very early stage of the project, a number of guidelines for these functions as well as for environmental and social safeguards, which further helped in ensuring smooth project implementation. A GRM was put in place but was used sparingly owing to good preparations. The PMU staff were quick to respond to senior management and World Bank guidance (for example, on increasing supervision 18 of slow-performing PIPs in mid-2015) and spent a considerable time of their person-months in the field conducting site visits, monitoring progress, problem shooting, and finding solutions with the communities and the PIPs (for example, the PKSF organized seminars on desalination plants with relevant PIPs to facilitate a better understanding of the desalinization technology and to find the best design option, which was finally adapted by the project). There were no legal issues, staff changes were not a hindrance to implementation, and the same project director continued for most of the project’s lifetime. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 73. Given that the performance of the implementing agency has been rated Satisfactory consistently, there were no delays from the Government on financing, and all project targets were met and or surpassed, the borrower’s overall performance is rated Satisfactory. 6. Lessons Learned 74. As an innovative project, the CCCP has now yielded a rich storehouse of knowledge on the technical side of subprojects. These lessons are available in detail with the PKSF (soon to be uploaded on the CCCP website) and contribute significantly to the knowledge available on climate-resilient livelihoods. The project’s implementation generated a number of overarching lessons, among which the ICR team shares the following most significant ones. • IGAs merging innovations and indigenous knowledge received the most amount of traction. Beneficiaries were also interested in receiving project interventions once their basic life needs were met (for example, shelter, and basic income). Only when these two conditions have been met can they start thinking ‘out of the box’. Once there, communities and households are very receptive to new initiatives and good ideas are replicated by neighbors. • Community contribution is a key factor behind continued engagement and project sustainability beyond closing. The fact that both PIPs and communities contributed their own resources to their respective projects and activities was a significant factor behind project success. This also proved to be an essential factor in securing ownership and thus success of the project. • Awareness building is more important than was initially thought. People’s concept of climate risks and increasing vulnerability has to be assessed as part of project interventions. For example, before the NGOs got there, for many beneficiaries, climate consequences were not laid out in terms of increasing damages/risks to their livelihoods. Without this conceptual linkage, their participation would not have been as complete as it has been. Building climate resilience in highly vulnerable and poor communities depends on the communities first understanding that instead of responding to almost yearly disasters, they need to respond to permanently new and different climatic conditions. This shift in mind-set is important as a base for discussing and finding new climate-resilient activities. Based on an improved 19 understanding of the climate challenge, new and more climate-resilient initiatives become more easily accepted and can spread fast as demonstrated in this project. • Stringent supervision has no substitute and must acknowledge field-level complexities. It was found during field supervisions that there were incidents of rusting in the corrugated iron sheets used for the sanitary latrines in the salinity-prone areas. The type of metal sheet was changed and the problem was solved. This led the PKSF to introduce a new guarantee condition (defect liability period clause) with contractors to ensure that they used high-quality material. • M&E needs careful attention at the design and the implementation stage. This lesson might be an old worn one but is no less significant when the exact project beneficiaries and activities are to be finalized after project effectiveness. It is recommended that project design allows an RF and baseline refinement, and adequate resources must be allocated for M&E training and date collection when a project involves so many different partners with varying capacities. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors (a) Grantee/Implementing Agencies 75. No specific issues were raised. (b) Cofinanciers/Donors 76. BCCRF donors visited the project in the field on a few occasions and expressed their satisfaction with progress. They were briefed regularly at the end of every implementation supervision mission. All copies of Aide Memoires were shared with them as well. (c) Other Partners and Stakeholders 77. No specific issues were raised. 20 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million Equivalent) Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Estimate Percentage of Components (US$, millions) (US$, millions) Appraisal Component 1. Community Climate 10.40 11.04 106.15 Change Fund Component 2. Knowledge Management, 0.44 0.45 Monitoring and Evaluation, and 102.27 Capacity Building Component 3. Project Management 1.66 1.51 90.96 Total Baseline Cost 12.50 13.00 Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 12.50 13.00 — Total Financing Required 12.50 13.00 — (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Cofinancing Appraisal (US$, millions) (US$, millions) Trust Funds 0.00 0.00 Bangladesh MDTF for Climate Change (Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience 12.50 13.0 104 Fund) 21 Annex 2. Outputs by Component 1. Subproject screening. By December 2012, a total of 498 PCNs were received. The PKSF screened all the 498 PCNs based on required criteria and prepared a short list of 150 NGOs. A TRC was formed. After the preliminary screening of PCNs, PKSF officials visited all short-listed PIPs to verify their field existence. A workshop was organized for short-listed NGOs to help them submit detailed and high-quality subproject proposals. The PKSF’s internal team evaluated the detailed project proposals with support from the TRC (which was comprised of international experts), obtained fiduciary and technical clearance from the World Bank and approval from the PKSF Governing Body. In this process, a total of 41 sub-grants were finally awarded over about two years (in three phases starting from July 2013 until October 2014). Fund disbursement to the PIPs was done according to the Operations Manual developed for the project, as well as fiduciary requirements of the World Bank. The PKSF signed contracts with each PIP, and based on receipt and review of each PIP’s yearly action plan (with costed indicative budget), the PKSF transferred the grant funds. Each PIP received a 35 percent advance (which was adjusted during the second last quarter before project closing) and received the rest of the designated funds on a reimbursement basis. Before processing the reimbursement, the PKSF reviewed their action plans every quarter and did field checks (cross-checking vouchers). Their findings were then reviewed by the PKSF’s audit department, and then the funds were reimbursed to the PIPs. 2. Subprojects implemented. Major field-level adaptation activities carried out by the PIPs included raising plinths, courtyards, and community grounds above the flood level (including earth filling and turfing to make them resilient to future flood events); installation of shallow and deep tube wells considering local climate risks and water tables; pond and canal re-excavation to ensure water supply for drinking, irrigation, and domestic purposes; installation of water purification systems for safe drinking water in highly saline areas (pond sand filters and desalination plants); RWHs for individuals and communities; installation of sanitary latrines; installation of improved cook stoves; demonstration of climate-resilient crops; and providing technical support and training support to beneficiaries on IGAs (for example, goat rearing, crab fattening, and vermi-composting). Table 2.1. Project Budget and Benefits at the Outcome Level in the Three Climate Zones in Component 1 Saline Area Flood Area Drought Area CCCP 3,590,688 4,326,525 2,467,700 contribution in US$ (Total: 10,384,925) Protected 5,759 families are now protected 7,037 families are now house from storm surges and can protected from floods and produce vegetables round the can produce vegetables year. round the year. 26 community grounds will provide shelter to 5,000 people during floods Livelihood 3,475 families are now capable 6,029 families are now 5,811 families are now (space wise and technically) of capable (space wise and capable (space wise and rearing more than 35,000 goats technically) of rearing technically) of rearing more and sheep in slatted houses. more than 70,000 goats and than 60,000 goats and sheep sheep in slatted houses. in slatted houses. 23 Saline Area Flood Area Drought Area 5,815 families are now capable 1,187 families are now (space wise and technically) of capable (space wise and 1,930 families are now rearing more than 100,000 birds technically) of rearing capable (space wise and in poultry sheds. more than 20,000 birds in technically) of rearing more 643 families are now capable poultry sheds. than 40,000 birds in poultry (technically) of fattening crabs. 650 families are now sheds. 720 families are now capable of capable of producing 277 families are now producing vegetables and crops vegetables and crops with capable of producing with organic fertilizers. organic fertilizers. vegetables and crops with organic fertilizers. Water At least 10,000 families have At least 5,000 families At least 18,000 families access to safe drinking water have access to safe have access to safe drinking through deep tube wells. drinking water through water through shallow tube A total of 403 tube-well deep tube wells. wells. platforms with soak wells No less than 10,000 A total of 1,647 tube-well working for recycling used water, families have access to safe platforms with soak wells aquifer recharge, and irrigation drinking water through working for recycling used for homestead gardening. shallow tube wells. water, aquifer recharge, and 82 pond sand filters serve sweet A total of 3,113 platforms irrigation for homestead water to 4,000 families. protect tube wells from gardening. 83 ponds and canals serve intrusion of polluted water. Re-excavated ponds provide adjacent communities. 2 of the 1,350 families with water canals help 300 farmers in for household uses and agricultural cultivation during the small-scale irrigation. dry season. 2 deep tube wells allow 195 RHW systems are capable to farmers to irrigate a total of reserve at least 2.0 million liters 65 acres of land round the of rainwater in a season, which year. can serve 2,500 families during the dry season. The desalination plants produced 150,000 liters of pure drinking water a day that can serve at least 15,000 families. Health, At least 10,000 members are now At least 9,000 members are At least 12,000 project education, and using sanitary latrines and are now using sanitary latrines participants are now using sanitation knowledgeable about hygiene and are knowledgeable sanitary latrines and are practices. about hygiene practices. knowledgeable about Two community latrines are used 29 community latrines are hygiene practices. by around 100 people daily. used by around 3,000 Approximately 240,000 Approximately 400,000 poultry people daily. poultry and livestock and livestock vaccinated over the Health camps served no vaccinated over the project project period. less than 20,000 patients period. Approximately 6,000 people are over the project period Approximately 35,000 no more exposed to indoor air Approximately 200,000 people are no more exposed pollution due to the installation poultry and livestock to indoor air pollution due to of improved cooking stoves. vaccinated over the project the installation of improved period. cooking stoves. Approximately 17,000 people are no more exposed to indoor air pollution due to the 24 Saline Area Flood Area Drought Area installation of improved cooking stoves. At least 1,225 families and 4,500 children are now able to work and read at night due to installation of the solar home systems. Capacity A total of 11,415 project A total of 8,539 project Training completed for 402 building participants are now familiar participants have now got batches that covered with climate change and have a different trainings. different IGAs and climate technically relatively better Now PIP staff and project change issues. A total of understanding of different participants technical 10,024 project participants adaptation options. know-how are better to got different trainings. Now PIP staff and project manage different Now PIP staff and project participants technical know-how adaptation activities of participants technical know- are better to manage different different climatic risk how are better to manage adaptation activities of different zones. different adaptation climatic risk zones. activities of different climatic risk zones. Agricultural Minimum 250 farmers are At least 250 farmers are 50 farmers are producing and special cultivating salinity-tolerant crops producing flood-tolerant drought-resilient fodders. interventions round the year and 50 households crops round the year. At least 690 farmers are rear Koyel birds, an alternative practicing salinity-tolerant IGA that has significantly crops round the year and improved livelihoods in the 200 households are rearing salinity-prone areas. cows in an improved method. Community All project participants are All project participants are All projects participants are mechanism actively involved with 616 actively involved with 629 actively involved with 479 CCAGs and 649 activity CCAGs and 1,413 activity CCAGs and 1,329 activity maintenance committees. maintenance committees. maintenance committees. A total of BDT 20.291 million A total of BDT 26.878 A total of BDT.14.274 was invested by communities to million was invested by million was invested by implement project activities. communities to implement communities to implement A total of 14,000 meetings were project activities. project activities. held by the CCAGs. A total of 15,000 meetings A total of 11,000 meetings were held by the CCAGs. were held by the CCAGs. Crab Fattening Case Study 3. A CCCP beneficiary received 120 yards of nylon net, 120 yards of bamboo fencing (locally called ‘Pata’), and technical training on the crab culture. He stocked crab fingerling (each weighing over 100 g) at the cost of BDT 175–200 per kg and provided crab feed for 15 days. The cost and return to the beneficiary is shown in table 2.2. Table 2.2. Crab Fattening Profits Bangla Month Production Cycle Cost (BDT) Gross Return (BDT) Gross Profit (BDT) 1st 1,200 2,800 1,600 Poush 2nd 800 1,800 1,000 1st 900 2,300 1,400 Magh 2nd 1,000 2,500 1,500 Falgun 1st 1,050 1,600 550 25 Crab Culture Case Study 4. A CCCP beneficiary stocked 10 kg small crab (10–12 per kg) at the price of BDT 90–120 per kg in a saline pond adjacent to his house for 120 days. He fed the crabs with tilapia and silver carp fish at the rate of 5 kg per day. He sold crabs (more than 200 g size) at BDT 500 per kg for male and BDT 1,000–1,400 per kg for female crabs. On average with an investment of BDT 1,000, he got a return of BDT 6,000 per production cycle of 120 days. Duck Rearing Case Study 5. Diglarkanda is a poverty-stricken village of Noril Union of Haluaghat Upazila under Mymensingh District. The area remains inundated for five to six months every year. The beneficiary, Manikjan, is the mother of four children, with a day laborer husband. They have no cultivable land and are often in debt. During lean periods, her husband is away from home in search of employment. After joining a CCCP CCAG, Manikanjan started duck farming with 40 Kagi Campbell ducks. She received duck rearing training from the CCCP. At project closing, she had 100 ducks. She now sells 50 to 60 eggs at over BDT 500 daily. After covering the production expenses, she earns a net profit of BDT 50–60. With abundant natural feed, Manikjan is now planning to expand her duck farm size further. Since starting duck rearing, all four of her children go to school. Manikjan expects that her husband will not have to migrate as a day laborer during the lean period. Her family is no longer dependent only on her husband. She is now confident of coming out of the poverty cycle. 26 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 1. Household income increases. According to the household survey in the final project evaluation report, a significant difference in economic return from the IGAs was observed. Monthly income had risen due to the CCCP’s IGA interventions in all three project regions, with the highest impact being felt in the draught-prone areas (see table 3.1). Table 3.1. Comparison of Monthly Income Increases in the Different Project Areas Project Location/Income Flood (n = 164) Salinity (n = l31) Draught (n = 145) All Areas (n = 440) Source Mean/ Mean/ Mean/ Mean/ SD/Range SD/Range SD/Range SD/Range Median Median Median Median From main occupation (for example, day labor 5,388.7 3,692.55 6,386 3,470 5,411 3,924 5,683 3,727 and farming—non-CCCP income) CCCP-assisted IGAs 1,353 1,975 1,287 2,333 1,417 1,857 1,351 2,064 Others (for example, 100 to 100 to 100 to homestead gardening and 1,350 2,175 1,852 1,500 1,500 25,000 10,000 25,000 farming) Source: Household survey 2016. Note: n = sample size. 2. According to final project data, about 72 percent of the direct beneficiaries had undertaken different types of climate-resilient IGAs. A majority (60 percent) of the beneficiaries are involved with goat rearing, while 32 percent are involved with poultry rearing, and 20 percent are cultivating vegetables. Table 3.2 presents income data from the final evaluation report. Crab culture has the highest return (in saline areas only) while goat rearing was found most appropriate for all areas. It was observed by the PKSF that incidence of different goat diseases (for example, peste des petits ruminants, Goat Pox, and Pneumonia) reduced from 20 percent to 6.5 percent in the CCCP working areas. As the goats became healthier and more productive, goat population of the areas increased by over 50 percent. Table 3.2. Comparison of IGAs in Terms of Average Investment and Return Duck/Poultry Slatted house for Average Crab Culture Vermi-compost Pigeon Goat/Sheep Rearing Total capital required for the IGA 6,500 7,360 9,400 6,224 (BDT) Funding from the CCCP (BDT) 5,638 5,998 9,000 5,679 Own investment (BDT) 430 1,140 500 750 Monthly income (BDT) 712 1,718 5,250 990 Source: Household survey 2016. 27 3. Cost calculations available with the PKSF suggest that one slatted house (costing about BDT 6,500 on average, which is US$81, which covers the slatted house, capacity building, and vaccinations) can on average hold eight goats (which would cost about US$600 from beneficiary contributions that they got through microcredit10). At the end of year 1, 8 goats on average will produce 8 kids each, totaling 64 goats. Assuming 10 percent mortality (which is a reduction from about 80 percent mortality), this would mean that the household would have 57 goats. At the end of year 2, when the goats are mature (weighing 5 kilos each minimum), these can be sold at the market (BDT 700 per kg price estimate), generating about BDT 199,50011 (US$2,493) in income in year 2, against an investment cost of US$681. Now, with a very rough and generous estimation of running costs over these two years (time, labor, opportunity costs of goat shed land, vaccination, fodder, trips to the market, and so on based on similar activities by the PKSF) of about BDT 174,500, an average householder is earning BDT 25,000 (US$312) in year 2. A total of 15,315 people (mostly women) have reared goats under this project, and thereby it can be estimated that the total additional income from goat selling is BDT 372,875,00012 (US$4.78million). Given that the CCCP total cost is US$13 million, just from the goat plinth raising IGA, a rough calculation of about 35 percent return can be made. This is, of course, if each beneficiary continues with the goat rearing practice in year 3 and based on the rough estimations made. The PKSF has case studies of income impacts due to IGAs, and some are presented in annex 2. 4. Food security. About 68 percent of surveyed beneficiary households reported that production and income from agriculture had increased. Production and consumption of eggs and meat increased owing to backyard poultry and duck farming. In many cases, this has been an unintended positive consequence of more secure homesteads (see the next paragraph). Vegetable production on homesteads has significantly improved diversity in the diet as well as food availability for beneficiary households. Access to increased quantities of more varied food is a good indicator of increased food security. 5. Improved homesteads (flood and saline zones). About 46 percent of the beneficiaries made physical changes to their houses after joining the project. About 77 percent raised their homesteads through earth filling. About 87 percent beneficiaries took up homestead tree plantation. The CCCP found that raising plinths in the low-lying char lands and coastal areas is a very effective adaptation activity. The project raised cluster-based homesteads instead of single houses. As per the guideline of the CCCP, a cluster must have at least four households because raising a large space is more sustainable than a smaller one. In addition, cluster-based raised homesteads work as flood shelters during floods. The participants get multiple opportunities from this single intervention. They can grow vegetables round the year, which they could not do earlier. They prepare seedbeds on the raised plinth during floods so that they can transplant immediately after receding of flood water. Their poultry and livestock are safe from floods, which they used to sell at a relatively cheap price during floods. It is important to note that other flood-affected people from surrounding areas now take shelter on the cluster-based raised plinths. In addition, conversations with the PIPs reveal that cluster dwellers are able to establish a social network within the cluster and can exchange daily necessary commodities during emergency periods that they could not do before; beneficiaries planted fruit and other trees by themselves on a cluster-based 10 Microcredits were not offered in the project. 11 Breakdown: 57 goats × 5 kg × BDT 700 per kg = BDT 199,500. 12 Breakdown: 15,315 beneficiaries × BDT 25,000 = BDT 382,875,000. 28 raised plinth that helped meet nutrition needs, earn extra money, and protect the homestead from soil erosion; having a secure home enables the dwellers, especially women, to engage in income- earning activities such as poultry, cattle rearing, and vegetable cultivation (not necessarily as part of the project). The clusters of houses with raised plinths have served as flood shelters for people and livestock during the floods of 2015 and 2016, saving not only the people but also their livestock and thereby increasing their ability to get back to normal living conditions very soon after the flood was receded. During the ICR field visits, beneficiaries mentioned the importance of receiving technical guidance on how to do something better, over the grant received. They also mentioned increased feelings of security, economic independence, and a sense of hope. These aspects cannot be monetized. 6. Access to clean safe water, health, and hygiene. No data are available on the health impacts of the CCCP’s safe drinking water and sanitary latrine interventions. However, the household survey shows that the project has installed about 1,941 RWH systems at the household level and over 12 community RWH systems. All together these RWH systems have the capacity of 1.2 million liters of storage of rainwater. Only 9 percent of beneficiary households had access to sanitary latrine at the beginning of the project, but owing to project interventions, access to sanitary latrines has been increased to 51 percent. As a result, there has been a significant reduction of disease incidences compared to the baseline survey and an example is the prevalence of diarrhea that has been reduced from 42 percent at the beginning of the project to 16 percent. Although solid data demonstrating improved health and hygienic conditions are not available, interviews, in particular with women, clearly demonstrate the positive effects of the project with regard to environmental health. 7. Knowledge generation. A dedicated web page, several publications, seminars and workshops, exposure visits, and reports produced by the PKSF and PIPs have largely contributed to building a knowledge base, which is available to all, nationally as well as internationally. Different tools and guidelines produced by the project as well as reports from seminars and workshops are important reference material for future project planning and implementation for government and nongovernment organizations alike. The CCCP also adopted a GIS-based data management and monitoring system. GPS coordinates of each subproject activity and its households were incorporated with the CCCP community investment plan. Maps for each unit of activities were produced to understand the spatial distribution of all activities under the CCCP. A Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file of the database was produced to link it with Google Earth. Each activity is linked with Google Earth and is accessible to all. The KML file has been uploaded on the PKSF website (www.pksf-cccp.bd.org). The benefits of these achievements have not been monetized. 29 Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending/Grant Preparation Burhanuddin Ahmed Consultant GHNDR Financial Management Md. Akhtaruzzaman Consultant GSU06 Social Safeguards Teen Kari Barua Consultant GSU06 Social Safeguards Angie Harney Program Assistant SACBD Program Assistance Marghoob Bin Hussein Senior Procurement Specialist OPSPF Procurement Sr Natural Resources Management Yuka Makino GSU18 TTL Specialist GWASS - Khawaja M. Minnatullah Sr Water & Sanitation Specialist Adviser HIS Jose Ramon R. Pascual IV Senior Counsel LEGCF Legal Nadia Sharmin Senior Environmental Specialist GSU18 TTL Chau-Ching Shen Senior Finance Officer WFALN Financial Management Supervision/ICR Shahpar Selim Environmental Specialist ICRR TTL (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle US$, thousands (including Travel No. of Staff Weeks and Consultant Costs) Lending Total: 0.00 Supervision/ICR Total: 0.00 Note: the project was 100% trust funded, including supervision costs 30 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Not applicable 31 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results Findings from Lessons Learned and Way Forward Workshop (September 2016) Overall Lessons Learned 1. Based on the presentation of all the 41 projects and the discussion with the 18 PIPs, it has become clear that building climate resilience in highly vulnerable and poor communities depends on the communities’ first understanding that instead of responding to almost yearly disasters, they need to respond to permanently new and different climatic conditions. This shift in mind-set is important as a base for discussing and finding new climate-resilient activities. Second, building resilience depends on diversifying the income base and thereby the livelihood base. It is further important to improve what is already being done so that it responds better to the new climatic conditions. For example, plinth raising must take account of the increasing flood levels and not be based on historic flood data only. Based on an improved understanding of the climate challenge, new and more climate-resilient initiatives become more easily accepted and can spread fast as demonstrated in this project. 2. Two of the most popular initiatives have proven to be plinth raising and construction of slatted goat sheds. It is also important to improve the livelihood conditions at the community level and such improvements must consider the climate factor. Two of the most appreciated initiatives at the community level are latrines and water supply. Latrines have been designed to be resilient to rust in saline areas; and they are being built on sites that are not flooded and inundated. RWH and desalinization plants are very important in salinity areas, and in flood-prone areas, tube wells are installed on raised concrete platforms to avoid unhygienic conditions around them. To capture these lessons, the PMU is preparing a booklet summarizing the experience of each of the 41 sub- grants. Vertical and horizontal upscaling of already proven technologies facilitated exchange visits, crab fattening as a new and popular alternative IGA in the salinity risk zone, and combining production of vermi-compost with homestead gardening. Preference of Activities 3. It was clear from the workshop that responding to the climate challenge is different in different risk zones and dependent on the socioeconomic condition of each community. For example, in flood-prone areas, plinth raising is the number one priority. It is difficult for communities or households to focus on other things before they are assured of their homesteads not being destroyed by floods. However, once this is secured, they are quick to take the next step, for example, taking up vegetable production on the raised plinths under their own initiative. In the salinity zone, access to fresh water is a high priority and slatted sheds for goats and ducks are very popular as IGAs. In the drought zone, introduction of drought-resistant varieties of crops combined with adjustments in the cropping pattern and introduction of slatted sheds for goats are high- priority activities. Sustainability 4. The key to sustainability is that communities and individuals (households) are able and willing to maintain structures and practices that have been implemented. At the individual level, activities that have a clear economic added value are easily sustained. Their value is further proven 32 by the fact that in many cases those activities have a strong footprint of demonstration effect. The households that are not beneficiaries of the project decide to do the same thing. Clearly, this happens mostly with activities that do not require substantive capital investments, such as growing vegetables on raised plinths or construction of raised and slatted sheds for goats and ducks. The latter improves the hygienic conditions and reduces sickness and death considerably. In one case, the increased number of goats in a community has even triggered a market in fodder for goats, a positive economic spin-off not anticipated. Production of vermi-compost is another example of an activity that has ‘taken off’ based on its inherent economic benefit. 5. With regard to community-based activities, sustainability requires a functioning community mechanism that is able to take responsibility for maintenance of shared investments or for maintaining ties with a service provider, such as a veterinary service that can be called upon to visit the community at agreed times to vaccinate livestock. The PIPs have assisted communities in establishing such contacts with upazila and Union Parishads that are regularly informed of project activities and ready to provide agreed-upon services upon request and for a fee. In one case, a community decided to construct five-foot bridges with its own resources to facilitate its communication with other communities. However, community-based activities require a solid, functioning community mechanism, and being aware of this, some PIPs will continue to support communities in this respect. 33 Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Summary of the PKSF’s project completion review: 1. The CCCP is an adaptation project that aims at enhancing the capacity of selected communities to increase their resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change. Originated from the BCCRF, the CCCP is mandated to channel 10 percent of the multi-donor trust fund through NGOs for community-level climate actions. The CCCP introduced a new and innovative approach to finance community-based adaptation interventions in selected climate-vulnerable areas by building the institutional capacity of the PKSF to administer a climate change adaptation fund. The PKSF received a total of US$13 million under two separate agreements signed with the BCCRF for implementation of the CCCP. The project had also received contribution from the PIPs and from community people directly involved with the project. Community contribution was 6.69 percent, which has made the project unique. The CCCP is being implemented in 36 upazilas (sub- district) under 15 districts of Bangladesh. The project focuses on three climate risks that are prevalent in Bangladesh: salinity, drought, and flood. A total of 41 PIPs are implementing 41 subprojects under the CCCP. Relevance of the PDO 2. The CCCP is an attempt to support the implementation of the BCCSAP 2009 developed by the Government of Bangladesh. Furthermore, the CCCP supports one of the four strategic objectives of the World Bank’s CAS for Bangladesh (2011–2014), specifically strategic objective 2: ‘Reduce environmental degradation and vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters’. Participation 3. Beneficiaries of the CCCP are the poor and extreme poor population of the country who are the most vulnerable due to the adverse impacts of climate change. Beneficiaries of the project were selected through following a rigorous interactive process at the grassroots level. The number of direct beneficiaries under the CCCP is about 43,189 and community beneficiaries are about 94,415. About 93 percent of the project direct beneficiaries are female. The CCCP through the PIPs has been able to form 1,724 functional community groups, also called CCAGs, to respond effectively to climate risks. Community groups are functional as they are holding regular meetings, managing activities undertaken by the CCCP. Efficiency 4. The project has achieved all the target values against the indicator set for the Results Framework and Monitoring developed for the CCCP by the World Bank. About 97 percent of the beneficiaries surveyed during the final evaluation have admitted that they have got expected results from intervention of the project. 5. The CCCP aims to increase the resilience of the climate-vulnerable communities through establishment of an effective grant financing mechanism to channel funds to eligible NGOs. The PKSF is found successful to meet the intermediate results indicators for Component 1 (to award 34 40 sub-grants). As of June 2016, The PKSF has been able to disburse BDT 763.4 million, which is about 92 percent of the target.13 6. The CCCP was found successful in promoting sustainable adaptation practices to address specific climatic risks in three risk zones. Selected adaptation practices are well accepted and being practiced at community and household levels. All the beneficiaries were found to have applied at least one adaptation practice identified by the CCCP. Though the CCCP could not reach the target for the initial three years of project implementation, it has successfully overcome and achieved its stated target mentioned in the PAD’s Results Framework and Monitoring for adoption of sustainable practices. It seems that adoption and practice of sustainable adaptation practices by the targeted beneficiaries of the CCCP has gained momentum in year 4 (2016). Among 41 PIPs, communities of 34 PIPs applied sustainable adaptation practices to address the specific climate change risk. The remaining 7 PIPs are in the process of applying sustainable adaptation practices. Adoption of slatted housing for goats was found highest in all three climate risk zones; 15,315 households under the project were supported. Household plinth raising was adopted by 32 percent of beneficiaries in flood and salinity zones. 7. The CCCP can be termed as an umbrella project; all the subprojects under the CCCP have specific objectives to achieve, contributing toward the CCCP objectives. The CCCP M&E data analysis revealed that 35 subprojects under implementation in the selected communities are on track to achieve the targeted objectives. It has achieved 86 percent against the set target of 75 percent mentioned in the Results Framework and Monitoring of the PAD (as of June 2016). 8. The CCCP substantially contributed to knowledge management through documentation, publication, and dissemination. It has developed nine different manuals for proper execution of the project. These guidelines helped the PIPs implement the subprojects at the field level. The project has its own website. It also used virtual reporting systems for all PIPs through use of ATOM. 9. A PMU was established to administer project funds and to monitor implementation performance of activities by the CCCP. The PMU has a total of 14 staff headed by a project coordinator. The PMU team has provided the technical support to the PKSF to manage the CCCP and monitor the implementation of subprojects. Despite limited human resources, the CCCP PMU delivered all the activities planned in the project. The small team has acted as planner, implementer, trainer, and many other roles for the success of the project. Effectiveness and Impacts 10. The CCCP has taken an innovative strategy for increasing household income through promotion of different IGAs by the project beneficiaries. The project was successful in the promotion of technologies to protect productive assets of its beneficiaries that has contributed toward increased income and livelihood activities. About 72 percent of the direct beneficiaries had undertaken different types of IGAs. Majority (60 percent) of them are involved with goat rearing; 13 The review was done in June 2016, and the final disbursement numbers are higher, as reported earlier in the ICRR. 35 while 32 percent are involved with poultry rearing, 20 percent are cultivating vegetables. On average, the CCCP beneficiaries have earned BDT 9,000 from the IGAs they were implementing during the project period. Monthly average income from IGAs is BDT 791. Thus, the IGAs promoted by the CCCP are contributing toward poverty reduction. The CCCP was also found successful in the promotion of nonconventional IGAs such as fodder production. Beneficiaries practicing the IGAs with improved technologies were found to have successfully increased their family incomes. 11. The food security status of the beneficiary households improved after participation with the CCCP. It is observed that availability of food increased due to increased production of crops, livestock, and fish. Production and consumption of vegetable increased from homestead gardens. Consumption of eggs and meat increased from backyard poultry and duck farming. About 68 percent of the respondent households opined that production and income from agriculture has increased after involvement with the CCCP. This can be termed as a significant impact of the project on food security. 12. About 46 percent of the beneficiaries made physical changes of their houses after joining the CCCP initiatives. Among them, 77 percent raised their homesteads through earth filling. Tree plantation was also observed as a significant change of homesteads (87 percent). Plinth raising has created the opportunity for the beneficiaries to produce vegetable and to rear livestock. These clusters of houses with raised plinths served as flood shelters during the floods of 2015 and 2016. The people of the areas have also saved their livestock using the raised plinths. 13. Considering the local context, the CCCP has taken up different water-related interventions. The project has identified different and appropriate technologies for different climate risk zones. All these water-related interventions significantly increased the availability of safe drinking water. The CCCP has achieved its stated target (70 percent) to ensure safe drinking water. 14. This is difficult to ensure safe drinking water for all in the saline-prone coastal areas as in most of the areas tube-well water is not suitable for drinking or cooking. The CCCP has implemented different alternative options in coastal areas. These are pond sand filters, RWH at household and community levels, and desalination plants to improve drinking water availability. It is estimated that the project has installed about 1,941 RWH systems at the household level and over 12 community RWH systems. All together, these RWH systems have the capacity of 1.2 million liters storage of rainwater. However, it is found that rainwater alone is not sufficient for ensuring safe drinking water. 15. The CCCP has successfully promoted good practices for health and hygiene among the beneficiaries. Only 9 percent of households had access to sanitary latrine at the beginning of the project. Due to intervention of the CCCP, access to sanitary latrine has been increased to 51 percent. The project provided 6,615 sanitary latrines currently used by around 21,000 families. 16. The CCCP has implemented various interventions to improve environmental health. Use of safe drinking water, sanitary latrine, and improved cooking stoves are contributing toward improved environmental health for the project beneficiaries. Significant reduction of disease incidence compared to the baseline survey was found for diarrhea. Prevalence of diarrhea was 42 percent at the beginning of the project and has reduced to 16 percent. About 13,000 households in 36 all risk zones were given improved cooking stoves through the CCCP. This intervention is supposed to reduce indoor air pollution, thus saving women and children from respiratory diseases. 17. The CCCP has enormously contributed to knowledge generation on adaptation to climate change. A dedicated web page, publications, seminar and workshops, exposure visits, and reports produced by PIPs have largely contributed to generating knowledge on climate change. Different tools and guidelines produced would also be very useful in future project implementation by government and nongovernment organizations. Sustainability 18. The CCCP is a community-based project. The project has promoted adaptation activities that have been proved sustainable and are already being practiced by community. The project has been implemented through capable NGOs that have long been involved in the project areas. Most of the PIPs are financially sustainable and have large microcredit programs. It can be assumed that sustainability of adaptation actions at the beneficiary level would sustain as there is financial contribution from the beneficiaries for all the activities. Particularly, the IGAs would sustain as these are producing economic returns. However, the CCCP has developed an exit strategy through a workshop held during June 22–23, 2016. Different activities have been suggested and agreed upon to ensure sustainability of the CCAGs. They include preparation and implementation of an adaptation plan for action, integrating CCAGs with microcredit programs to have access to seasonal loans, and so on. Recommendations 19. The evaluation team proposed the following recommendations based on the findings of the evaluation study: • The PKSF should consider new projects to cover more climate-vulnerable areas and continue its efforts to establish itself as a National Implementing Entity of Green Climate Fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The PKSF may also try other sources of funds including Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund and multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. • In future projects, promotion of local/indigenous practices as well as new improved technologies should be considered. Adaptation activities might be considered based on different sectors, such as livelihood, agriculture, water, energy, health, and so on. Good practices for adaptation for specific sectors might be promoted through funding of innovative projects in different climate-vulnerable areas of Bangladesh. • Future projects by the PKSF should consider promotion of solar home systems. • In future project interventions, awareness raising and capacity building might be given due attention. 37 • The PKSF should consider linking the community groups to Government agencies, so that they can tap resources as well as establish networks for their development. • In future projects, the PKSF may also consider other agriculture-related adaptation options such as water saving technology, as well as other management practices. Community seed banks and other similar risk reduction options might be introduced in future projects. • In future projects, the PKSF may consider market linkage for the beneficiaries to have stable incomes from their IGAs. • The PKSF should consider long-term projects for climate change. 20. The evaluators consider the project implemented by the PKSF has achieved its stated objectives, but the achievements shall not last long if there is no further effort to sustain this. It is expected that the global community as well as the Government of Bangladesh, being the initiator of the CCCP, would be able to contribute to developing resilient communities through a continuous fund flow. Comments from the PKSF on the Draft ICR: 21. Following are the PKSF’s comments on the ICR: (a) The ICRR as a whole looks acceptable to the PKSF. It has comprehensively detailed the key factors affecting the implementation and the outcomes of the CCCP, assessed the outcomes and impacts of the Project and also assessed the World Bank’s and the PKSF’s performances. It has duly recognized the PKSF’s innovation of capturing community-based economic, social and environmental resilience against the environmental hazards. It is also recognized the PKSF’s role in adapting the Results- Based Monitoring (RBM) system to suit the CCCP, which was a key factor behind the smooth project implementation supervision. (b) The PKSF, however, differs on the Overall Outcome Rating in the ICRR for the CCCP as “Satisfactory”. The Results Framework Analysis of the ICRR shows that the CCCP achieved scores ranging from 100-200% (average 117) on 13 different outcome indicators. It exceeded its target on almost all indicators. Therefore, we expect that the outcome rating of the CCCP would be “Highly Satisfactory”. 22. We thank you for your cooperation in successfully implementing the CCCP and request you to review the Overall Outcome Rating in the ICRR. 38 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 23. The draft ICR findings were presented to the BCCRF donors during a briefing meeting. The ICR mission Aide Memoire was also shared with them. They did not send any comments. 39 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents 1. Project Appraisal Document 2. Aide Memoires and ISRs 3. Management Letters after implementation of support missions 4. Bangladesh Country Partnership Strategy FY2011–2014 (extended to FY2015) 5. Bangladesh Country Partnership Framework FY2016–2020 6. Financial Management Manual 7. Environmental and Social Management Framework 8. The PKSF’s Project Completion Report 9. BCCRF Implementation Manual and Grant Agreement 40 MAP CCCP: Drought Area Interventions Source: Cartography Unit, World Bank 41 CCCP: Flood Area Interventions Source: Cartography Unit, World Bank 42 CCCP: Saline Area Interventions Source: Cartography Unit, World Bank 43