NORTH-EAST NIGERIA From Needs to Investments: A Prioritisation Model for Recovery and Peace Building Interventions in North-East Nigeria February 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 I. OVERVIEW OF RECOVERY AND PEACE BUILDING INTERVENTION PRIORITIES 5 Strategic Objectives 5 Aligning Intervention Priorities to Strategic Objectives 5 Sectoral Distribution of Recovery Interventions 6 II. PRIORITISATION MODEL AND PROCESS 8 Stage 1: Prioritising Sector-level Strategic Interventions 10 Stage 2: Breaking Down Interventions into Projects and Ranking 11 Stage 3: Structuring Investments at Project Level 12 Stage 4: Preparing Project Sheets 14 Stage 5: The Buhari Plan Programming Analysis 15 Summary of Prioritisation Outcomes 15 III. REFLECTIONS ON PRIORITISATION OUTPUTS 17 Alignment of Investment Priorities with the Buhari Plan 17 First: Priority Interventions 17 Second: Priority Interventions 17 Third Priority Interventions 17 Lessons Learnt and the Way Forward 20 ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF RPBA NEEDS BY SECTOR AND BY STATE 22 ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN ADAMAWA 23 ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN BORNO 28 ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN YOBE 34 ANNEX 5: SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PRIORITISATION OUTCOMES 41 FROM GOMBE, BAUCHI, AND TARABA AND THE WAY FORWARD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2016, the Government of Nigeria—in collaboration with the World Bank (WB), the United Nations (UN), and the European Union (EU)—conducted a Recovery and Peace Building Assessment (RPBA) to gauge crisis recovery needs in the North-East. Analysis from the RPBA provides the foundations and guiding principles for recovery and peace building interventions in the six North-East (NE) states. The Government of Nigeria is committed to strengthening peace building and social cohesion, rehabilitating critical infrastructure and services, and facilitating economic recovery in the North-East. Coupling immense needs with limited financial resources and implementation capacities, it is necessary to set the priorities that will guide recovery efforts. To achieve strategic and financial alignments between various federal and state development programmes in the NE, (most notably, the Buhari Plan) and other recovery programmes funded by various development partners, it is important to formulate and agree on a recovery and peace building prioritisation process and sequencing framework. Such a framework will take into consideration the strategic differences entailed in each sector orientation of ongoing development programmes. It will also include the spatial and temporal orientation of recovery programmes, while ensuring programme alignment and an effective investment sequencing processes. With technical support from the World Bank and financial support from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID), the three NE States of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe (BAY) developed a prioritisation model that guided the process of identifying, planning, financing, and phasing multi-sectoral recovery and peace building interventions to address their respective needs. The priorities of interventions in each state were then presented as Strategic Action Plans, which serve as guiding documents working to ensure that the interventions would address the highest priorities in sequence. These action plans also serve as guiding documents for the coordination and monitoring of investments funded by different government entities and development partners. This report summaries the process and results of the prioritisation model, which benefited from a combination of the following elements: • Full ownership of the states throughout the process • International best practices on recovery and peace building • Objective criteria for transparency and objectivity • Inclusive decision-making with continuous consultations and iterations The report is structured in three main sections. The first section introduces the principles and strategic objectives of the model and offers a summary of recovery and peace building priorities in NE Nigeria. The next section explains the step- by-step methodology, process, and outcomes of the prioritisation model. The final section discusses the alignment of the priorities with the Buhari Plan, summarises the lessons learned, and presents the way forward. Most of the results presented in this report are based on the prioirtisation exercises carried out in the three states of Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe, although a summary of some preliminary outcomes from the states of Gombe, Taraba, and Bauchi (GTB) are summarised in Annex 5. It should be noted that the prioritisation model presented in this report is not a static, but an evolving model, which will adapt to the contexts and needs of the states through continuous consultations and iterations. 4 | Prioritisation Report I. OVERVIEW OF RECOVERY AND PEACE BUILDING INTERVENTION PRIORITIES The investment prioritisation process proposed in this 1. C  ontribute to the safe, voluntary, and dignified report, at both intervention and project levels, follows return and resettlement of displaced persons a robust methodology based on key prioritisation principles and a combination of evidence-based and 2.  Improve human security, reconciliation, recovery impact indicators. The key principles used in this and violence prevention process are: 3.  Enhance government accountability and • Greater humanitarian impacts citizen engagement in service delivery  ro-poor, pro-vulnerable, gender and •P 4.  Increase equity in the provision of basic environmentally sensitive interventions and agendas services and employment opportunities • Potential to generate sustainable livelihoods Aligning Intervention Priorities with  alance between government, private, •B and community interventions Strategic Objectives To support the overall goal and vision for recovery and • Balance between physical infrastructure, capacity peace building, the interventions proposed by each building, and governance improvements state should align with the overall Strategic Objectives (SOs) from the RPBA, to provide a framework of support, • Damage intensity and visible impacts assist conflict-affected people, and foster peace building and recovery in North-East Nigeria. The figure below These principles also form the basis for validating the examines how recovery interventions align with each relevance and impact of the State Investment Plans. strategic objective based on a needs review. This analysis Therefore, State officials responsible for the prioritisation was critical in determining if proposed interventions process should be aware of the significance of these were relevant to recovery and peace building and should principles to ensure that the projects the states identify be prioritised. not only meet the immediate reflected needs of the local communities, but also achieve the strategic objectives of The pie chart indicates that all four strategic objectives recovery and peace building. were covered in the proposed interventions by the states, although the largest share of the interventions falls under the fourth objective, which address equal access to Strategic Objectives improved basic services and employment opportunities. As identified in the RPBA, the overall vision of the recovery This is consistent with the fact that many of the and peace building process is to provide a framework of damages from the conflict were in the social service and support, to assist conflict-affected people, and facilitate infrastructure sectors, which include public buildings, peace building and recovery in North-East Nigeria. Four health, education, transport, water, and sanitation. key strategic objectives have been identified as necessary to achieving lasting peace and sustainable recovery: Prioritisation Report | 5 Figure 1: Aligning Recovery Interventions with the Four Strategic Objectives Strategic Objective 1: Contribute to the safe, voluntary, and dignified return and resettlement of displaced persons Strategic Objective 2: Improve human security, reconciliation, and violence prevention Strategic Objective 3: Enhance government accountability and citizen engagement in service delivery Strategic Objective 4: Increase equity in the provision of the basic services and employment opportunities Sectoral Distribution of Intervention Priorities To support the efficient and effective recovery and peace building process, the affected sectors were identified through recovery programmes that would attend to each sector’s recovery needs and strengthen peace building efforts. Sectors and locations of recovery interventions vary depending on the extent of damages and losses identified through the RPBA, humanitarian needs, and the methods of strengthening resilience and capacity building. The distribution of recovery interventions across various sectors is illustrated through the figures below, which show unsurprisingly, that Borno state has the highest portion of high-priority interventions. Figure 2: Number of sub-Sector Interventions by Priority and by Sector in the BAY States 6 | Prioritisation Report By breaking down the intervention priorities by sub-sector, an analysis of the distribution of recovery and peace building interventions proposed in the three states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe shows that the vast majority of interventions are of “high” priority. This again reflects the urgent needs of the people and communities in the conflict-affected states. The sectors with the largest number of high-priority interventions are health, education, agriculture, water, sanitation, and hygiene. Figure 3: Intervention and Subsector by Priority in the Three States of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa The section below will detail the step-by-step process and outcomes of the prioritisation model applied in the three states of Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe, with illustrations and explanations for the rationale behind the methodology applied in each step. Prioritisation Report | 7 II. PRIORITISATION MODEL, PROCESS AND OUTCOMES The basic premise of the investment prioritisation methodology is that the sector interventions and projects identified for investments reflect conflict-induced damage and recovery needs, conflict management perceptions of governments and communities, and financing and spatial accessibility limitations. The investment prioritisation methodology is developed to facilitate the progression of scoping recovery and stabilisation investment needs from the RPBA, and the scoping of actual interventions and activities to be funded and implemented under specific recovery projects. The main steps in the process of preparing the State Investment Plan are four-fold, as illustrated in Figure 4: 1. Mapping the needs for each state by sector and by spatial location 2. Prioritising sector interventions based on recovery and stabilisation of strategic indicators 3.  Developing State Investment Plans by breaking down prioritised interventions into implementable projects and ranking them based on recovery impact indicators 4. Preparing project sheets for costing and phasing project activities and for developing detailed Project Action Plans. Figure 4: Progression of Investment Prioritisation Process 8 | Prioritisation Report The overall prioritisation methodology is based on key programmatic strategic guidelines such as: • Consistently applying recovery principles • Harmonising results and outcomes • Prioritising between and within sectors • Sequencing recovery investments • Mutually reinforcing government and partner interventions  onitoring investment outcomes and strategic adjustments for various components of the •M recovery and stabilisation programme By introducing an indicator-based ranking and scoring method in the prioritisation process, the decision-making process can be streamlined and institutionalised with increased transparency. This may also mitigate potential risks emanating from bureaucratic discretions and political interferences in the investment planning process. A reflection of the detailed prioritisation process is illustrated in the flow chart below. Figure 5: Illustration of the Prioritisation Process Prioritisation Report | 9 Stage 1: Mapping RPBA Needs by Sector The RPBA needs estimated for the six NE states totaled nearly US$6.7 billion (as summarised in Table 1, with a breakdown of needs by sector in Annex 1), which covers three primary components: 1. Peace Building, Stability and Social Cohesion (PBSSC) 2. Infrastructure and Social Service Reconstruction 3. Economic Recovery Table 1: Summary of Recovery and Peace Building Needs in NE Nigeria Recovery Cost (USD) Intervention Adamawa Borno Yobe Gombe Taraba Bauchi Regional Federal Total Peace Building, $27,543,823 $37,780,448 $22,506,410 $13,625,437 $19,432,260 $23,915,625 $0 $5,705,375 $150,509,379 Stability and Social Cohesion Infrastructure $594,850,603 $3,933,331,671 $668,292,103 $129,050,913 $144,899,380 $202,889,339 $0 $94,680,000 $6,040,106,470 and Social Services Economic $37,565,858 $68,797,529 $30,725,048 $22,262,265 $27,689,495 $41,423,708 $235,000,000 $10,000,000 $473,463,903 Recovery Total $659,960,284 $4,039,909,648 $721,523,562 $164,938,615 $192,021,136 $268,228,672 $235,000,000 $110,385,375 $6,664,079,753 Total proposed interventions for Peace Building, Stability and Social Cohesion require resources estimated at US$151 million, which include:  trengthening the resilience capacities of host communities, and supporting the •S safe and voluntary return and resettlement of displaced populations • Fostering social cohesion and violence prevention, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) • Invigorating local governance and citizen engagement • Bolstering justice, small arms control and community security Infrastructure and social service interventions are estimated to total US$6 billion. The highest needs are for the reconstruction of houses (US$ 1.2 billion), followed by agriculture (US$881 million), and education (US$721 million). Infrastructure for energy, information and communication technology (ICT), transport, and water and sanitation require US$1.2 billion for reconstruction, constituting over 20 percent of total needs. In addition, the provision for community infrastructure and non-formal services has been taken into account. The overall estimated needs for macroeconomic and fiscal recovery total US$473.5 million. Interventions focus on the private sector, trade and finance, job-creation, livelihood support and economic restoration. 10 | Prioritisation Report Figure 6: Total RPBA Needs by Sector in the BAY States As the first stage of the prioritisation process, the RPBA provided a basis for proposing interventions under each sector and sub-sectors. The figure above illustrates the distribution of identified interventions under the RPBA. Based on these general suggestions, each state was supported in mapping out its distinct needs by adapting the proposed list of interventions into its unique context. Stage 2: Prioritising Sector and Strategic-Level Interventions Taking the considerable needs and the limited financial resources and implementation capacities into account, it is necessary to set priorities for recovery efforts. The priority ranking of sector and strategic-level interventions was determined through a collective decision-making process, using a set of agreed-upon indicators and weights. With support from the World Bank team, which brought in international best practices through intensive consultations with key stakeholders, 13 indicators within six categories were selected, as reflected in the chart below. Prioritisation Report | 11 Figure 7: Indicators Used for Prioirtisation Ranking in Stage 2 Each proposed intervention identified in Stage 1 was then compared to each of the indicators, to check the alignment and consistency proposed intervention with various criteria. Each intervention received a value of 1 (Yes) or 2 (No), in terms of its relevance to various interventions with regard to addressing strategic impacts or outcomes. Interventions receiving a score of 13 (Yes in all categories) are indicative of High-Priority Interventions. Interventions receiving a score between 10-13 are considered Medium-Priority, and the remaining interventions are categorised as Low-Priority. Since these variables have heavy underpinnings to ground level damages, it was assumed that administrative assessments of these criteria are based on key verifiable damage and conflict data points, which can be verified through spatial analysis and social media analytics. Rationales used for scoring qualitative indicators are listed in the prioritisation templates for validation and transparency. Stage 3: Breaking Down Interventions into Projects for Ranking The next stage is to break down the identified intervention priorities into investments or projects, and rank them based on a set of recovery and impact indicators. The breakdown of sector-wise interventions into projects and investments was mostly carried out through three channels:  dentifying the actual project location and investment needs at the Local Government level or lower. •I For example, the proposed intervention of “rehabilitation of schools,” under the education sector, can be broken down into several projects, including “reconstruction of damaged school in LGA X, Y, and Z, etc.  eparating a large sector-wide intervention by various levels or types of service. For example, the •S proposed intervention to “rehabilitate damaged roads and bridges” under the transport sector can be broken down into several projects such as: “rehabilitating damaged state roads,” “rehabilitating local roads,” “rehabilitating damaged bridges,” “designing and rebuilding completely destroyed bridges,” etc.  eveloping detailed and specific activities for a certain intervention, based on different target groups and •D the cohesiveness and comprehensives of the intervention. For example, the intervention proposing “training for community building and cohesion” can be further detailed into several activities, including “training community leaders,” “training local counselors,” “training community volunteers,” “training women and children,” etc. 12 | Prioritisation Report After all detailed investments have been identified and compiled, the projects identified were ranked by scoring them against another set of criteria listed below. The figure below lists the criteria for project ranking: Figure 8: List of Criteria Used for Project Ranking Each project or investment was given a numeric score in terms of its potential impact on each of the following criterion: 3 (High), 2 (Medium) or 1 (Low). Projects obtaining above average total scores are ranked as “High priority” projects and were considered as candidates for phasing in the immediate term, as part of the State Investment Plan that would guide actual investments, either through government-funded programmes, or through development partner-financed projects. The objective of the investment-level scoring and ranking exercise was to identify and grant higher priorities to the interventions that can address the most urgent needs and yield the most significant development outcomes. Efforts will be made to ensure that the proposed project investment are measurable, and thus, the next step of the approach is to focus on the beneficiary and spatial coverage as well as recovery impacts of these projects. The charts below provide a summary of the scoring results by sector and priority in the three states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe. Prioritisation Report | 13 Figure 6: Total RPBA Needs by Sector in the BAY States Stage 4: Costing, Phasing and Preparing Project Action Plans The Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) are carried out at the intervention prioritisation, and related costing stages in line with the Buhari Plan. State Investment Plans (SIPs) take place in the next stage, at winch point interventions are broken down into projects. After SIPs are prepared, the next step would be to structure the SIPs into project-specific action plans, that can be used as the framework for developing procurement plans the individual projects require.1 For the BAY States, this led to the production of the BAY State MCRP SIPs. The MCRP had been fashioned as a post RPBA project and the Prioritisation Process 1 helped developed the targeted component of the MCRP. After the MCRP SIPs were prepared, the next step was to structure the SIPs into project-specific work plans, that are to be used as the framework for developing the procurement plans the individual projects require. 14 | Prioritisation Report Key steps include the following: Preparing individual project sheets, determining spatial locations and identifying beneficiary targets, 1.  and mapping specific organizations responsible for project implementation. Project sheets should ideally provide the geographic coordinates for placing project investments across various wards and villages in the identified LGAs and should form the basis for preparing LGA-level Investment Action Plans. Spatial validation of these project locations should be undertaken by the application of Standard Operating Procedures proposed for settlement and beneficiary-identification in the Programme Implementation Manual. Calculate the cost of various sector-projects using locally-relevant cost tabs, by identifying 2.  the unit cost and target number of units (quantity) for each investment or project Resize the State Investment Plans based on fund availability. During this process, the BAY States were advised 3.  to consider project funding proportionality conditions, as agreed between Government and partner organisations for allocating funds between different sectors. In the case of the World Bank-financed Multi-Sectoral Crisis Recovery Project, a ratio-based method is proposed to allocate funds available for each state across all the prioritised sector projects. This approach achieved sector balance in the state investment planning process. Phase the projects by short, medium, and long-term investment category, and determine the funding needs 4.  across programme components and projects by year. Stage 5: The Buhari Plan Programming Analysis The key principles that define the programming approach in the Buhari Plan should define the project composition and delivery parameters proposed in each intervention. These are: I. Sustainability: All interventions must be carried out with the local capacity in context. Stakeholder management is paramount to ensuring ownership and post-project sustainability.  ntegrated and comprehensive programme delivery: Projects must be developed with activities and II. I objectives that address identified needs in a holistic manner with appropriate indicators. For example, a school access programme has multiple projects such as construction of school buildings, teacher training and retention, provision of teaching materials and student books supplies, e-library, and the inclusion of basic services such as solar power solutions and boreholes within schools. An intervention is ineffective if any of the critical components that provide a holistic solution are left out.  he Build Back Better approach: This is to ensure that all projects espouse global best practices, III. T provide innovative solutions, and are not bound by the idea of simply replacing destroyed infrastructure. Projects should aim to deliver additional value in enhancing the standards of living and creating multiplier effects within the varied beneficiary classes. This overall strategic approach will ensure that the North-East no longer trails behind other regions of the nation across all indices.  omplementarities & Synergy: In order to ensure that there is efficient allocation of resources and to minimise IV. C duplication of interventions across the region, it is imperative that interventions that complement each other be identified and synergies established. This is one of the outcomes of the planning process above, which leverages the limited resources available for greater impact. To achieve complementarities and the requisite synergy to deliver complementarity, individual projects must be examined at the granular level to identify areas to be leveraged. Summary of Prioritisation Outcomes This section describes the four-stage prioritisation model applied in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe. The detailed outcomes for the three states are presented in Annexures 2 through 4. The map on the next page illustrates the actual investments to be carried out under the MCRP, following the entire four-step procedure described above. It should be noted that the prioritisation model presented in this report is not static, but evolving, and will adapt to the contexts and needs of the states, with continuous improvements and refinements through various consultations and iterations. The map below offers broad validation that a larger percentage of investments have been placed in highly damaged and impacted LGAs, and that investments are also placed in vulnerable LGAs, although high intensity damages and displacements directly impact these LGAs. Prioritisation Report | 15 Figure 10: MCRP Investments Identified Through the Prioritisation Process Table Description: Investment prioritization is demand driven; an inclusive approach was adopted through extensive consultative processes. 16 | Prioritisation Report III. REFLECTIONS ON PRIORITISATION OUTPUTS Aligning Investment Priorities with the Buhari Plan The strategic goals of the Buhari Plan include providing immediate relief to people in the North-East, supporting the re-establishment of livelihoods, rehabilitating and resettling IDPs, facilitating peace building, providing security and driving infrastructure development. To achieve these goals, based on the Buhari Plan, three levels of priority interventions are proposed or expected. First Priority Interventions Activities from the Buhari Plan will target Immediate Humanitarian Assistance, Social Stabilisation, and Early Recovery, as first priorities to protect all affected populations within the region, in scales determined by the extent of exposure and vulnerability. All humanitarian activities deployed through this Plan will be leveraged, prioritising safety through security initiatives deployed, as pre-requisites or as simultaneous activities with each category of intervention. The statistics assessed and verified by the collective reports of all humanitarian actors in the region will form the baselines for targeting the scope and scales of the humanitarian assistance and social protection interventions, to the extent of the vulnerability of IDPs, host communities and populations affect the crisis at a secondary level. Second Priority Interventions The second priority interventions will focus on resettling IDPS into functional and secure communities. The targeted interventions at the core of this component are built upon the existing frameworks deployed through the first-priority interventions. They include: screening reclaimed communities for security, rapidly reconstructing critical infrastructure, relocating IDPs to safer areas, and fully resettling all IDPs. Third Priority Interventions Commencing concurrently with the Resettlement Phase, the third priority focuses on Socio-Economic Development components. Economic development programmes will dominate this period of the intervention, targeting the need to revitalise the region’s economy for sustainable peace and stability. This component seeks to address the underlying causes of the conflict such as poverty, unemployment and underemployment. The component also seeks to comprehensively address the low socio-economic indicators recorded in the region, across the spectrum of food security, healthcare, education, job creation, capital infrastructure, and capacity development. Broadly, the Buhari Plan has identified nearly 131 sector-interventions across three major strategic intervention priorities. Sector interventions identified in the Post-RPBA Strategic Action Plans are aligned with the strategic interventions identified in the Buhari Plan. Using Adamwa as an example, the priorities identified by the state, through the prioritisation process, are very closely aligned with the interventions expected in the Buhari Plan, as shown in the table below. Prioritisation Report | 17 Table 2: Alignment of Interventions between Buhari Plan and State Action Plans Buhari Plan Interventions Priorities identified by Adamawa Units Peace Building and Stability and Social Cohesion Non-Food Items Non-Food Items (NFIs) Kits 2,520HH Agricultural kits with short-maturity vegetable seeds (beans, cowpeas 9,360HH and maize seeds, sorghum), basic agricultural tools (pangs, sickles, hoes, axes), urea and NPK fertilizer Small Animals (goats) 3,774HH Non-agricultural Livelihood kits which may include hairdressing tools, 4,680HH small machinery (tools for bicycle and motorcycle repair), and batteries Sensitization, Community Mobilization and formation of community peace groups Psychosocial Care/ Diagnosis of community specific reconciliation (truth-telling, healing), 30 communities Rehabilitation peace building (mediation platforms) and social cohesion needs Psycho-social needs assessment of victims and former BH members. 30 communities Conflict Sensitivity / ICT, Support to community programmes that respond to needs as prioritised Statewide Communications and by communities based on a diagnosis Camp Coordination  ultural and recreational activities at the Community Level •C  wareness against Stigmatization of Children and Actors •A associated with armed groups  rovision of specialized psycho-social support responding to •P specific needs of vulnerable of the most vulnerable (especially women and children) (group support, recreational, ritual and socializing activities, referral) Support to community peace groups for establishing community 30 communities platforms to discuss community needs, grievances; and building a bottom-up planning model Conflict Early Mapping and profiling of local government structure (including 30 communities Warning and Early community policing) and communities in places of both Response System displacement and origin Post-Conflict Capacity building to local governments to effectively work with existing Transitional Justice and (formal and informal) governance structures and traditional rules Accountability Program Safer Communities Capacity building to local governments on budget planning and 30 communities Initiative execution, and monitoring and reporting. Standardized Returnee Development of a transparency and accountability model through Humanitarian community participation (social accountability mechanisms) Relief Packs Water Supply for Local Communities and Public Institutions Water, Drainage, Sewage Rehabilitation of treatment plant and distribution networks in Towns 13 Disposals, Hygiene and Sanitation Facilities Trucking of water to Emergency spots such as IDP camps including 8 8 operation and maintenance. Construction of Hand Pump Fitted Boreholes in seven LGAs 1,050 Construction of Solar Powered/Motorised Boreholes in seven LGAs 79 Rehabilitation of broken down HP Boreholes 350 18 | Prioritisation Report Rehabilitation of broken down SP/MBH Boreholes 35 Mobilisation, sensitisation and enlightenment on personal/ 80 environmental hygiene through lectures, demostrations and production of IEC materials in 12 IDP Communities/LGAs on quarterly basis. Conducting “Train the Trainer” and “Train the User” workshops for 22 VLOMs, WASHCOMs, WCAs WASH Units, VHPs and State/LGA officials at two levels Sanitation for Communities and Public Institutions The Low Cost High Construction of 2 compartments of 3 units VIP latrines. 1,600 Impact Sanitation Interventions Concrete slab covered pit latrine 790 Train the trainer on Latrine Construction and management 79 Solid waste management Waste collection from household using moveable disposal bins 7200 Waste collection from collection centres, household bins and IDP camps 4 Pay loaders, 8 through machineries, Tippers and Pay Loaders Tippers Train the trainers cost/person 60 Fumigation against reptiles and disease carrying vectors 790 Road and Public Transportation Rehabilitation of Reconstruction of State Roads 440 State Roads Rehabilitation of Span Bridges in Sqm 1,485 Design and Construction of Bridges in Sqm 2,805 Training / Retraining of Engineers through international 10 seminars and workshops Rehabilitation of Public Health Centers 34 Rehabilitation of General Hospital 5 Medical Equipment Packages 5 Construction and equipping of Trauma Center at Specialist Hospital 1 Conduct Routine Immunization in all affected LGAs 1 Distribution of Essential Drugs to PHC's in affected LGA's 7 Training of HWs on Trauma MGT and other service Deliveries. 42 The Establishment Conduct Integrated outreach services in all the communities 7 of Level One States surrounding the HFs Trauma Centre Provision of basic medical equipment in Yola specialist/FMC 2 which are referral centres for IDPs in four IDP camps Provision of Basic medical equipment’s in PHCs around the camp and 6 within Camp and their host communities which are primary referral centres for IDPs In 4 IDP camps within Yola Metropolis Provision of essential drugs in Camp Clinics/maternities 6 and Host communities Prioritisation Report | 19 Reconstruction of Education Assets and Education Service Management Rehabilitation of Schools Renovation of Primary schools in various Local Governments 685 Renovation of Government Secondary Schools 34 Community Sensitization Recruitment of 3,425 qualified (5 each per school) NCE, Bsc for 11 LGA's 3,425 for Education Program Pedagogy Training for IDP Teachers 8,187 Psychosocial training of 1,941 head Teachers, 417 JSS teachers, 42 2,800 education Secretaries and Quality Assurance Supervisors. Reconstruction of main Secretariat/Town Halls. 19 Irrigation Infrastructure and Check Dams Enhancing existing irrigation facilities/sites, provision of pumps and 5 other equipment/installations as well as buildings and other supporting infrastructure. The One Stop Shop Rehabilitation of existing, and construction of new input and output 10 Agro-Output Centers warehouses, mini-silos and other storage facilities at local government level, development of warehouse/inventory credit system (ICT), utilization of alternative/renewable energy in storage systems, capacity building etc The Staple Crops Development/dissemination of modern varieties/cultivars, establishment 11 Processing Zones of One-Stop Shops in insurgent affected areas and other LGs, strengthen local access to and acquisition of different technology capabilities for input processing, including fertilizer blending, etc. Revitalization of Retrain existing extension workers and subject matter specialist, recruit 7 Extension Services in new extension workers especially in returnee LGs to ensure 1:500 farmer the North-East ratio, acquisition of infrastructure, ICT, logistics and establishment of One Stop Centers in all 21 LGAs Provision of food basket (2,100kcal) to the vulnerable such as infants, 7 children, lactating mothers and elderly. Rehabilitate/construct damage/destroyed agric. Commodity markets, 10 stores, build technical capacity for handling commodities in line with CODEX standard, packaging, food safety and build technical capacity of key actors Lessons Learnt and the Way Forward The state-led prioritisation exercise used the best information available from damage mapping, and extrapolating information where data gaps exist due to poor data quality. Prioritisation findings were fine-tuned through stakeholder consultations, and further validated using spatial mapping. The focus of the process was to build state ownership of the findings based on best information available. To further address the data constraints used for the prioritisation, states will periodically review their investment plans to assure that the needs and priorities identified are logical, checking that priorities have not changed due to a shift in available resources, security dynamics, or redundant partner investments. The prioritisation model summarised in this report was applied into a conflict setting, requiring an adaptive approach to address poor data quality, limited accessibility, and dynamic security situations. Against this backdrop, several lessons learnt have been summarised to guide the future prioritisation needs and the way forward. 20 | Prioritisation Report 1. Applicability and Constraints Lessons learnt from the experiences of the BAY states will be applied to the GTB states, both process-wise and The prioritisation of recovery and peace building methodology-wise. In particular, a slight modification interventions needs to be carefully assessed on an annual in the stage three process will be proposed for PBSSC basis, and adjusted as needed, according to the prevailing interventions to achieve better outcomes and impacts. situation on the ground and following the “Do-No-Harm” Almost all proposed interventions on peace building, tactic. There is widespread recognition that military stability and social cohesion have a unique feature action, led by the Government (and the sub-regional of interdependency, meaning that the impact and coalition), has improved the security situation, yet security effectiveness of one intervention would rely upon incidents continue to occur on a regular basis albeit with the implementation of another intervention. These different levels of intensity across the North-East. At the interventions, when implemented together, or in national level, a harmonised approach will need to be reasonable sequence, would reinforce one another developed, and should include differentiated support to and bring about better outcomes and impacts. Noting the six states, down to the Local Government Level. this, it is advised that the prioritisation methodology for When implementing the prioritisation methodology, two the PBSSC component be modified to strengthen the operational challenges may occur: linkages across interventions. • Challenges with managing a large Moving forward, the GTB states will prioritise PBSSC number of intervention packages interventions using the already established damage impact criteria. The revised approach assures that • Challenges with the operational viability of multiple needs, such as food, shelter, and livelihoods, are the packaged interventions. For the effective addressed holistically and achieve maximum coverage. implementation of the methodology, the number of packaged interventions should be large enough to effectively prioritise them based 3. Institutionalisation and Implementation of the on verifiable indicators and project outcomes. Prioritisation Model If the bundled packages are few, the scope and To streamline the process of prioritisation, it is useful to utility of prioritisation becomes very limited. This institutionalise the process into a documented guideline means that interventions should be packaged that can be referred to by the states, development by taking both unique and group outcomes into partners, and other stakeholders. However, a key consideration based on the objectives and urgency. challenge in the implementation and institutionalisation of the prioritisation model is ensuring that prioritisation Another operational challenge relates to the operationali- is maintained throughout the life cycle of recovery. sation of packaged interventions in terms of procurement. Top recovery priorities will evolve as activities are A packaged intervention may have projects or activities implemented. This will require close monitoring by the that require a specific procurement strategy. This means lead recovery institution, and regular, annual or bi-annual that such projects or activities may be operationalised reviews and adjustments based on need and resource separately, rather than being bundled into large procure- availability. Revisions to priorities should be made as ment packages. Hence, it is observed that packaged or financial capacities change. Additionally, identified and bundled interventions should be scoped, through opera- revised recovery priorities should be validated with local tional packages, taking into consideration specific project stakeholders to confirm needs and build local ownership. outcomes and procurement feasibilities. Maintaining recovery prioritisation will require close 2. Roll-out of the Prioritisation Model and coordination between the lead federal recovery authorities, Modifications for Peace Building, Stability and Social state governments, and development partners. Close Cohesion Interventions coordination is essential to guiding the institutional approach to prioritised recovery implementation, Due to the different levels of the impact of conflict in adjusting recovery priorities, and monitoring recovery the six NE states, the prioritisation process was first financing. The institutionalisation of the prioritisation applied to Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe (BAY) states, while model will require the regularisation of coordination Gombe, Taraba, and Bauchi (GTB) have just started the meetings, supplemented with a strong monitoring and process. Annex 5 provides a summary of the preliminary evaluation system, and aid tracking mechanism. results from the GTB states at a much less granular level compared to the BAY states. Prioritisation Report | 21 ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF RPBA NEEDS BY SECTOR AND BY STATE Table 1: Summary of Recovery and Peace Building Needs in NE Nigeria Recovery Cost (USD) Intervention Adamawa Borno Yobe Gombe Taraba Bauchi Regional Federal Total Peace Building, $27,543,823 $37,780,448 $22,506,410 $13,625,437 $19,432,260 $23,915,625 $0 $5,705,375 $150,509,379 Stability and Social Cohesion Safe and Voluntarily $9,017,100 $11,321,100 $7,481,100 $5,177,100 $7,097,100 $8,633,100 $0 $0 $48,726,600 Return of IDPs Reconciliation, $3,651,263 $4,694,480 $2,955,784 $1,912,566 $2,781,914 $3,477,393 $0 $0 $19,473,400 Peace Building and Community Cohesion Local Governance $9,288,090 $11,941,830 $7,518,930 $4,865,190 $7,076,640 $8,845,800 $0 $150,000 $49,686,480 and Citizens Engagement Community Security, $5,587,370 $9,823,038 $4,550,597 $1,670,581 $2,476,606 $2,959,333 $0 $5,555,375 $32,622,899 Justice, Human Rights, Mine Action, Small Arms Control Infrastructure and $594,850,603 $3,933,331,671 $668,292,103 $129,050,913 $144,899,380 $202,889,339 $0 $94,680,000 $6,040,106,470 Social Services Agriculture $141,109,690 $485,443,689 $170,029,316 $18,487,489 $29,700,262 $36,602,990 $0 $0 $881,373,435 Education $82,986,795 $513,606,486 $77,105,117 $6,838,389 $17,367,887 $23,473,270 $0 $0 $721,377,944 Energy $31,852,500 $15,938,500 $3,318,000 $0 $3,391,250 $0 $0 $92,477,500 $146,977,750 Environment $10,574,307 $235,915,794 $15,880,161 $15,598,029 $34,366,598 $2,739,764 $0 $0 $315,074,651 Health $50,636,400 $481,690,400 $86,168,000 $4,047,600 $12,744,800 $29,286,000 $0 $2,202,500 $666,775,700 Private Housing $15,726,500 $1,097,376,500 $46,599,000 $1,807,500 $2,202,500 $700,000 $0 $0 $1,164,412,000 Public Buildings $40,339,585 $295,851,401 $22,712,443 $2,671,680 $5,825,325 $6,694,222 $0 $0 $374,094,655 Transport $74,531,000 $337,522,671 $126,711,650 $37,001,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $575,767,221 Water and Sanitation $25,890,554 $115,323,061 $17,211,969 $2,955,809 $4,682,627 $5,788,496 $0 $0 $171,852,516 Social Protection $93,764,839 $180,263,768 $69,565,531 $34,290,979 $30,556,067 $91,080,398 $0 $0 $499,521,583 ICT $272,112,461 $272,112,461 $721,523,562 $164,938,615 $192,021,136 $268,228,672 $235,000,000 $110,385,375 $6,664,079,753 Community $27,438,433 $174,399,402 $32,990,918 $5,351,538 $4,062,064 $6,524,199 $0 $0 $250,766,554 Infrastructure Economic Recovery $37,565,858 $68,797,529 $30,725,048 $22,262,265 $27,689,495 $41,423,708 $235,000,000 $10,000,000 $473,463,903 Private Sector, Trade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235,000,000 $10,000,000 $245,000,000 and Finance Livelihoods and Local $24,215,175 $31,133,796 $19,602,761 $12,684,139 $18,449,657 $23,062,071 $0 $0 $129,147,600 Economic Recovery Employment $13,350,683 $37,663,732 $11,122,287 $9,578,126 $9,239,838 $18,361,637 $0 $0 $99,316,303 Total $659,960,284 $4,039,909,648 $721,523,562 $164,938,615 $192,021,136 $268,228,672 $235,000,000 $110,385,375 $6,664,079,753 22 | Prioritisation Report ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN ADAMAWA No. Interventions Priority Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Rating (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years (%) 1. Social Protection 1.1 Identification and provision of support to caregivers who will take care of orphaned children in returned areas and else where Medium 315 18,900,000 60,000 80% 20% 1.2 Skill acquisition trainings in various choice fields for returnees etc. and cash grants as initial capital or materials/equipment supports to beneficiaries in the communities High 10,000 1,060,000,000 3,365,079 80% 20% 1.3 Provision of cash grants/transfers as capital supports to local/community entrepreneurs like artisans/ professionals, petty trading or business etc. to bus economic activities and encourage entrepreneurial drive High 10,000 400,000,000 1,269,841 80% 20% 1.4 Community sensitization and awareness creation against stigmatization among returnees, security consciousness and initiatives/self-help like formation and support for local security initiatives (meetings, local vigilante etc.) High 70 84,000,000 266,667 80% 20% 1.5 Training, formation of community counsellors and peace volunteers to provide counselling/ psycho-social supports and reporting of early warning signals/threats to community leaders etc Medium 70 84,000,000 266,667 80% 20% 1.6 Rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing 3 Nos. skill acquisition centers in Mubi, Yola and Mayo-Belwa High 3 120,000,000 380,952 80% 20% 1.7 Rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing 13 nos. Vocational Training centers (i.e. BEST Centers) in each of the 7 affected LGAs and 6 LGAs that has large IDP population to functional skill acquisition centers Medium 13 650,000,000 2,063,492 80% 20% 1.8 Training of Instructors for the skill acquisition and the vocational centers High 130 26,000,000 82,540 80% 20% 1.9 Assessments, data upgrading (i.e. registration and profiling) of all eligible candidates for social protection programs in the seven affected LGAs and six LGAs that have large IDP population Medium 260 35,620,000 113,079 80% 20% 1.10 Conditional cash transfers to most vulnerable IDPs and households (i.e., the elderly, widows, females and children to meet basic needs) High 13,000 780,000,000 2,476,190 80% 20% 1.11 Training staff and strengthening Social Protection Institutions at Local Government and State levels for citizen engagement and service delivery High 210 138,000,000 438,095 80% 20% Social Protection Total 3,396,520,000 10,782,603 Prioritisation Report | 23 No. Interventions Priority Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Rating (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years (%) 2. Peace Building, Reconciliation & Community Cohesion 2.1 Training community Leaders (including women and youth) on peaceful resolution of conflicts and peace building. High 490 55,999,650 177,777 100% 2.2 Training local/ward councilors to provide of psycho-social supports on trauma counseling, gender base violence and stigmatisation High 350 43,960,000 139,556 100% 2.3 Providing social funds to support community counselling/reconciliation committees and victims’ rehabilitation. High 350 43,960,000 139,556 100% 2.4 Supporting community leaders for local sensitization on security consciousness, reporting systems, initiatives. High 70 84,000,000 266,667 100% 2.5 Conducting studies on general causes and remedies of community conflicts. Medium 7 11,552,800 36,676 100% 2.6 Supporting community leaders for local sensitization on security consciousness, reporting systems, initiatives. High 7 17,895,784 56,812 100% Total Peace Building and Reconciliation Interventions 257,368,234 817,042 3. Safe and Voluntary Return and Resettlement 3.1 Assessments and registration of IDPs who want to return voluntarily to their communities/LGAs and those who want to integrate in their host communities in 14 LGAs of displacement High 14 38,360,000 121,778 100% 3.2 Provision of return food package in form of food basket to returning IDPs that will last for at least one (1) year High 25,000 11,700,000,000 37,142,857 100% 3.3 Provision of essential nonfood items (beddings, cooking items etc.) to returning IDPs for 1 year for easy take off High 25,000 1,497,500,000 4,753,968 100% 3.4 Skill acquisition trainings in various choice of fields for IDP returnees etc. and cash grants as initial capital or materials/equipment supports to beneficiaries in the communities High 10,000 1,120,000,000 3,555,556 100% 3.5 Community sensitisation and awareness creation against stigmatization among returnees, security consciousness and initiatives/self-help like formation and support for local security initiatives (meetings, local vigilante etc.) High 70 28,000,000 88,889 100% 3.6 Training, formation of community counsellors and peace volunteers to provide counselling/ psycho- social supports and reporting of early warning signals/threats to community leaders etc. Medium 70 28,000,000 88,889 100% Total Safe and Voluntary Return Interventions 14,411,860,000 45,751,937 18,065,748,234 57,351,582 24 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Priority Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Rating (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years (%) 4.1. Water, Sanitation And Hygiene (Wash) 4.1.1 Rehabilitation of treatment plants and distribution networks in towns - 13 5,690,555,890 18,065,257 40% 60% 4.1.2 Tanker Supply - 8 200,000,000 634,921 100% 0% 4.1.3 Hand Pump Borehole - 1,050 1,575,000,000 5,000,000 40% 60% 4.1.4 Mechanized Borehole - 79 948,000,000 3,009,524 40% 60% 4.1.5 Protected Water/ Tank Source - - 4.1.6 Enhancing water supply capacity of existing facilities - - a Hand Pump Boreholes - 350 35,000,000 111,111 40% 60% b Solar Powered/Motorised Boreholes - 35 52,500,000 166,667 40% 60% 4.1.7 Hygiene and health promotion in IDP communities - 80 119,248,000 378,565 30% 70% 4.1.8 Establishment of spare parts supply chain/buffer stock for water facilities - - - 4.1.9 Capacity building of LGAs on water and sanitation management - 22 22,000,000 69,841 65% 35% Total Water Sector Needs 8,642,303,890 27,435,885 4.2. Sanitation for Communities and Public Institutions 4.2.1 Public latrines - 1,600.00 1,108,000,000 3,517,460 45% 55% 4.2.2 Piped Sanitation System - - 4.2.3 Septic Tanks - - 4.2.4 Pit holes - 790 25,912,000 82,260 75% 25% 4.2.5 Provision of Wash NFI's - - 4.2.6 Capacity building for community level sanitation management. - 79 31,347,200 99,515 100% 0% Total Sanitation Intervention 1,165,259,200 3,699,236 4.3. Solid Waste Management 4.3.1 Door to door collection of waste High 7,200.00 72,000,000 228,571 60% 40% 4.3.2 Mechanized waste collection 2 Nos Pay loaders, and disposal High 4 Nos tipper trucks 158,000,000 501,587 70% 30% 4.3.4 Safe transportation and sanitary disposal of waste at final dump sites 2 Nos Pay loaders, 4 Nos tipper trucks 158,000,000 501,587 70% 30% 4.3.5 Recycling of organic waste Low 60 21,000,000 66,667 100% 0% Total Solid Waste Needs 409,000,000 1,298,413 4.4. Debris Management 4.4.1 Debris Street Cleaning 4.4.2 Debris Transport 4.4.3 Debris Disposal Total Debris Management Intervention Needs - - Prioritisation Report | 25 No. Interventions Priority Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Rating (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 in 2-5 Years (%) (%) 4.5. Vector Control 4.5.1 Fumigation against Reptiles and Disease causing vectors. Medium 790 237,000,000 752,381 100% 0% Total Vector Control Interventions 237,000,000 752,381 Total WASH Interventions 10,453,563,090 33,185,915 5. Energy/Power Supply and Distribution 5.1 Restoration of substations 5.2 Restoration of power supply 5.3 Distribution of solar panels to households 5.4 Conventional street lighting 5.5 Solar Street lighting 5.6 Diesel generators to public offices 6. Roads and Public Transportation 6.1 Rehabilitation and Construction of Local Roads High 2.50 km 114,082,227 362,166 100% 0% 6.2 Rehabilitation and Construction of State Roads High 108 km 4,410,000,000 14,000,000 80% 20% 6.3 Rehabilitation and Construction of other Roads High 330 km 9,375,000,000 29,761,905 40% 60% 6.4 Rehabilitation of affected bridges. 1,485 High sqm 671,733,320 2,132,487 100% 0% 6.5 Design and Construction of new Bridges. 2,805 Medium sqm 1,995,261,015 6,334,162 30% 70% 6.6 Capacity building 10 Medium trainings 326,505,000 1,036,524 50% 50% Total Cost for Roads and Public Transportation 16,892,581,562 53,627,243 Sector Interventions 7. Health 7.1 Restoration of Public Health Centers High 35 1,544,418,056 4,902,914 100% 0% 7.2 Restoration of Public Hospitals High 5 1,378,039,813 4,374,730 100% 0% 7.3 Medical equipment and furniture High 5 915,858,270 2,907,487 60% 40% 7.4 Establishment of trauma centers High 1 412,560,781 1,309,717 100% 0% 7.5 Immunization and other preventive treatments High 1 108,656,000 344,940 100% 0% 7.6 Procurement and distribution of essential drugs High 7 24,154,200 76,680 70% 30% 7.7 Capacity building, staffing and training High 42 59,245,000 188,079 70% 30% 7.8 Outreach services High 7 61,254,900 194,460 100% 0% 7.9 Provision of essential health services to IDP areas and affected host communities through a combination of mobile, non- permanent and permanent approaches. High 14 48,093,006 152,676 60% 40% Total Health Sector Intervention 4,552,280,025 14,451,683 26 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Priority Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Rating (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years (%) 8. Reconstruction of Education Assets and Education Service Management 8.1 Restoration of Primary and Secondary Educ. Facilities High 685 776,169,068 2,464,029 100% 0% 8.2 Restoration of Primary and Secondary Educ. Facilities High 34 4,813,223,869 15,280,076 100% 0% 8.3 Renovation of Staff Quarters High Several 879,118,557 2,790,853 100% 0% 8.4 Teacher recruitment and recertification High 14,412 213,108,250 676,534 50% 50% 8.5 Construction of Perimeter Walls in Schools 11 299,906,304 952,084 50% 50% 8.6 Procurement of Instructional Materials Medium 38,200 363,480,801 1,153,907 100% 0% Educational Sector Totals 7,345,006,849 23,317,482 9. Reconstruction of Public Buildings and Capacity Building of Public Institutions 9.1 Reconstruction of Local Government Secretariats High 8 1,890,693,402 6,002,201 80% 20% 9.2 Construction of Community/Town Halls Medium 7 318,189,205 1,010,124 100% 0% 9.3 Rehabilitation of Ministry Zonal Offices Medium 2 31,309,200 99,394 100% 0% 9.4 Rehabilitation of Emirs and Chief Palaces Low 1 134,630,679 427,399 100% 0% Total cost of Public Building Interventions 2,374,822,486 7,539,119 10. Irrigation Infrastructure and Check Dams 10.1 Construction/Rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure Medium 5 4,903,350,000 15,566,190 30% 70% 10.2 Construction of Storage preservation infrastructure High 10 1,256,000,000 3,987,302 70% 30% 10.3 Farm inputs supports & services High 11 1,162,457,789 3,690,342 80% 20% 10.4 Extension services rehabilitation and Agriculture MIS High 7 221,136,370 702,020 80% 20% 10.5 Provision of Supplementary Food Support High 7 2,489,904,690 7,904,459 80% 20% 10.6 Marketing Infrastructure (private sector driven) High 10 806,705,000 2,560,968 34% 66% Total Agriculture Sector needs 10,839,553,848 34,411,282 Subtotal of all interventions 70,523,556,094 223,884,305 Prioritisation Report | 27 ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN BORNO No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 in 2-5 Years Priority (%) (%) 1. Safe and Voluntary Return and Resettlement of IDPs 1.1 Support and strengthen broader access to basic need at local level for new IDPs and IDPs with no intention to return in short to medium term Low 27 96,000,000 304,762 70% 30% 1.2 Initiative supporting separated/ unaccompanied children IDPs and returnees Medium 27 608,000,000 1,930,159 1.3 Psycho-social support to affected population, including IDPs, returnees and host community members Medium 27 800,000,000 2,539,683 80% 20% 1.4 Preventing gender based violence in host communities and camps High 27 768,000,000 2,438,095 80% 20% 1.5 Initiatives supporting elderly and widows High 27 32,000,000 101,587 80% 20% 1.6 Initiatives to facilitate support and sustain voluntary return. Medium 27 1,312,000,000 4,165,079 80% 20% Subtotal 3,616,000,000 11,479,365 2. Peace Building, Reconciliation & Community Cohesion 2.1 Prison facilities for deradicalisation programme Low 96,000,000 304,762 25% 75% 2.2 Training High 576,000,000 1,828,571 28% 72% 2.3 DDR technical assistance Low 128,000,000 406,349 70% 30% 2.4 Micro-grants High 192,000,000 609,524 55% 45% 2.5 Social funds for CSOs High 192,000,000 609,524 30% 70% 2.6 Outreach and Advocacy Low 288,000,000 914,286 40% 60% 2.7 Establishment and support to community platforms 2,432,000,000 7,720,635 30% 70% 2.8 Training Medium 1,280,000,000 4,063,492 60% 40% 2.9 Policy dialogue and mentoring High 128,000,000 406,349 50% 50% Subtotal 1,472,000,000 4,673,016 28 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment in Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) 2-5 Years (%) Priority 3. Community Security, Justice, Human rights, Small Arms Control and Mine Action 3.1 Establishment of SARC 96,000,000 304,762 50% 50% 3.2 ICT for case management Medium 320,000,000 1,015,873 60% 40% 3.3 Training High 448,000,000 1,422,222 60% 40% 3.4 Assessment and Studies Low 32,000,000 101,587 20% 80% 3.5 Model/pilot projects 416,000,000 1,320,635 60% 40% 3.6 Micro-grants High 64,000,000 203,175 50% 50% 3.7 Services (Oversight, Outreach, Advocacy) High 128,000,000 406,349 20% 80% 3.8 Mine Action Emergency risk education campaign Medium 224,000,000 711,111 70% 30% 3.9 Mine Action victim assistance needs assessment and individual rehabilitation response Low 608,000,000 1,930,159 70% 30% 3.10 Community Participation on security/SALW awareness and reduction in the North-East enhanced drought provision of advocacy and sensitization the dangers of SALW High 32,000,000 101,587 40% 60% 3.11 Capacity of security apparatus in the North-east strengthened through the provision of best practice in border security and rockpile management High 64,000,000 203,175 60% 40% Subtotal 2,432,000,000 7,720,635 4. Livelihood Support, Social Protection, and Local Economic Development 4.1 Restoration of disrupted and destroyed basic livelihood economic assets High 6,400,000,000 20,317,460 65% 45% 4.2 Development, strengthening and diversification of relevant market related skills for self employment High 1,184,000,000 3,758,730 50% 50% Prioritisation Report | 29 No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment in Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) 2-5 Years (%) Priority 4.3 Establishment, development and strengthening of agricultural value chains and agro-processing centers value chains and enterprise High 1,792,000,000 5,688,889 50% 50% 4.4 Establishment, development and strengthening of natural resources based and solid minerals value chains and enterprise Medium 544,000,000 1,726,984 30% 70% 4.5 Strengthen institutional capacity of state employment centres and related institutions High 320,000,000 1,015,873 40% 60% 4.6 General programme for labour force skills development High 2,784,000,000 8,838,095 40% 60% 4.7 Women empowerment through skills training for employment Low 1,792,000,000 5,688,889 30% 70% 4.8 Youth empowermen through skills training for employment High 3,360,000,000 10,666,667 40% 60% Subtotal 18,176,000,000 57,701,587 5. Education 5.1 Construction of 6-classroom block High 501 21,080,000,349 66,920,636 70% 30% 5.2 Rehabilitation of secondary schools High 29 4,939,019,378 15,679,427 80% 20% 5.3 Reconstruction of office block High 368 2,759,287,680 8,759,643 85% 15% 5.4 Repair of office blocks High 296 1,182,536,000 3,754,083 85% 15% 5.5 Reconstruction & repair of latrines in schools 2 blocks each 3 compartments Medium 1,098 2,108,000,000 6,692,063 100% 0% 5.6 Reconstruct /repair hand pump boreholes in schools Medium 281 421,600,000 1,338,413 90% 10% 5.7 Reconstruction/repair of motorised boreholes and overhead tanks in schools Medium 280 6,324,569,140 20,077,997 80% 20% 5.8 Building/repairs schools perimeter fences Medium 550 19,238,400,000 61,074,286 70% 30% 5.9 Teacher table & chair Medium 3,736 224,154,880 711,603 100% 0% 5.10 Pupil chair Medium 13,759 233,903,000 742,549 100% 0% 5.11 Capital costs for IDPs education services Medium 350,000 94,491,360,000 299,972,571 60% 40% 5.12 Recurrent costs for IDPs education services Medium 350,000 23,846,400,000 75,702,857 70% 30% Subtotal 176,849,230,427 561,426,128 30 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years Priority (%) 6. Health 6.1 Establish Governance & Early Warning Systems (capital) High 69 2,235,600,000 7,097,143 70% 30% 6.2 Operational support to Governance & Early Warning Systems (operational) Medium 69 5,216,400,000 16,560,000 70% 30% 6.3 Reconstruct/Rehabilitate Health Care Facilities/ Infrastructure & Equipment High 69 5,746,432,056 18,242,641 70% 30% 6.4 Health System Restoration (capacity building) High 69 2,086,560,000 6,624,000 60% 40% 6.5 Health system restoration (operational) High 69 3,129,840,000 9,936,000 60% 40% 6.6 Risk Mitigation (capital) Medium 69 447,120,000 1,419,429 70% 30% 6.7 Risk mitigation (operational) Medium 69 1,788,480,000 5,677,714 70% 30% 6.8 Service provision (Capital) Medium 69 17,884,800,000 56,777,143 70% 30% 6.9 Service provision (Operational) Medium 69 131,155,200,000 416,365,714 70% 30% Total Health 169,690,432,056 538,699,784 7. Public Buildings 7.1 Prisons Low 14 1,680,000,000 5,333,333 70% 30% 7.2 Audit offices Low 8 160,000,000 507,937 70% 30% 7.3 Post offices High 15 154,000,000 488,889 70% 30% 7.4 Police station Medium 74 1,080,000,000 3,428,571 70% 30% 7.5 Development area office - 7.6 Cultural/historical buildings High 51 62,840,000,000 199,492,063 70% 30% 7.7 Local Government building High 505 50,265,600,000 159,573,333 70% 30% 7.8 Ministry buildings Low 113 1,000,000,000 3,174,603 70% 30% Total Public Buildings 117,179,600,000 371,998,730 Prioritisation Report | 31 No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment in Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) 2-5 Years (%) Priority 8. Transport 8.1 Reconstruct/repairs of damaged bridges Medium 6 875,929,600 2,780,729 70% 30% 8.2 Repair damaged Federal roads High 1,200 33,959,200,000 107,806,984 40% 60% 8.3 Recover public transport services Medium 37 8,970,000,000 28,476,190 70% 30% 8.4 Repair damaged state/LGA roads Medium 1,601 48,032,000,000 152,482,540 40% 60% Total Transport 91,837,129,600 291,546,443 9. WASH 9.1 Reconstruction of wells High 345 334,995,000 1,063,476 70% 30% 9.2 Rehabilitation of wells High 188 94,235,000 299,159 70% 30% 9.3 Hand pumps to be replaced High 103 154,500,000 490,476 9.4 Hand pump to be rehabilitated High 106 59,625,000 189,286 70% 30% 9.5 Motorised borehole replacement High 280 7,015,482,274 22,271,372 69% 31% 9.6 Destroyed Motorised borehole to be rehabilitated High 303 1,893,750,000 6,011,905 70% 30% 9.7 Replacement of AC pipe with UPVC High 21 945,560,511 3,001,779 60% 40% 9.8 Solar borehole to be replaced High 21 252,000,000 800,000 60% 40% 9.9 Solar Boreholes to be rehabilitated High 20 57,875,000 183,730 60% 40% 9.10 Reconstruct/repair water & sanitation infrastructure in public places High 31 2,330,543,040 7,398,549 60% 40% 9.11 Sanitation and hygiene promotion in IDP return areas, host communities and institutions High 27 7,699,567,360 24,443,071 60% 40% 9.12 Construct/repair sanitation infrastructure in institutions and public buildings High 190 2,933,344,000 9,312,203 60% 40% 32 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment in Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) 2-5 Years (%) Priority Recover damages to institutional sanitation 9.13 infrastructure High 37 352,000,000 1,117,460 60% 40% Construct/repair of water infrastructure for host communities and provision for IDP 9.14 return areas Medium 185 9,322,171,840 29,594,196 60% 40% Reconstruct/repair water infrastructure in communities, institutions and 9.15 public buildings High 226 11,385,753,280 36,145,249 60% 40% Solid waste 9.16 management 1,250 6,616,767,680 21,005,612 60% 40% Total WASH 51,448,169,985 163,327,524 10. Agriculture 675 Tractors 600 Agricultural machines agricultural 10.1 and tractors High machines 5,800,000,000 18,412,698 90% 10% 10.2 Heavy duty machines High 75 4,240,000,000 13,460,317 90% 10% 10.3 Implements such as disc harrows, ploughs, etc. High 1,875 840,000,000 2,666,667 90% 10% 10.4 Feed store High 54 27,280,000,000 86,603,175 90% 10% 10.5 Irrigation and drainage system, e.g. canals High 9 15,120,000,000 48,000,000 40% 60% 10.6 Water pumps High 5,237 288,000,000 914,286 70% 30% 10.7 Boreholes High 187 5,600,000,000 17,777,778 70% 30% Total Agriculture 59,168,000,000 187,834,921 Subtotal of all Interventions 691,868,562,068 2,196,408,134 Prioritisation Report | 33 ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN YOBE No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years Priority (%) 1. Safe and Voluntary Return and Resettlement of IDPs 1.1 Development and Implementation of Community Policing Program High 7 521,687,697 1,656,151.42 33% 67% 1.2 Psycho-social support to individuals affected by violent conflict and community group trauma counselling High 1,000 357,728,707 1,135,646.69 33% 67% 1.3 Identification and Registering of Returnees to Communities of origin High 34,779,180 110,410.09 100% 0% 1.4 Implementation of Conditional Cash transfer Scheme to Households in areas of return High 397,476,341 1,261,829.65 50% 50% 1.5 Identification and Registration of all Unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) High 24,842,271 78,864.35 100% 0% 1.6 Caregiving and provision of emergency aid to UASC High 467,034,700 1,482,649.84 25% 75% 1.7 Development of Special Care Facilities for UASC High 1,490,536,278 4,731,861.20 0% 100% Subtotal 3,294,085,174 10,457,413 2. Peace Building, Reconciliation & Community Cohesion 2.1 Conducting a Social and Peace Building Assessment High 16,892,744 53,627.76 100% 0% 2.2 Training of key religious and traditional leaders on peace and security to deal with small scale or large conflict dynamics High 34,779,180 110,410.09 100% 0% 2.3 Facilitation of dialogue sessions for better understanding of new and outstanding grievances of group member who have been conflict affected High 109,305,994 347,003.15 45% 55% 2.4 Multi dialogue session between various groups to understand dissenting opinions about ways forward towards increasing social cohesion High 109,305,994 347,003.15 45% 55% 2.5 Development of community based structure to address issues and provide mechanisms to address and channel to appropriate authorities High 16,892,744 53,627.76 100% 0% 2.6 Provision of temporary judicial services in remote areas High - 100% 0% Subtotal 287,176,656 911,672 34 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost (NDN) Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years Priority (%) 3. Security and Mine Action 3.1 Emergency Risk education campaign to understand the threat and impact of Explosive remnants of war/landmines and IEDS High 74,526,814 236,593.06 33% 67% 3.2 Survey of affected areas, demining and explosive ordinance disposal and stockpile destruction High - - 100% 3.3 Needs assessment and medical response to victims High 347,791,798 1,104,100.95 55% 45% Subtotal 422,318,612 1,340,694 4. Agriculture 4.1 Provision of agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers & agro-chemicals), provision of animal traction units 22,640,625,000 71,875,000 13% 87% 4.2 Youth empowerment agriculture and provision of incentives 3,484,530,000 11,062,000 29% 71% 4.3 Establishment of skill acquisition centers for women empowerment 1,476,405,000 4,687,000 100% 0% 4.4 Improvement of agricultural marketing 15,503,906,250 49,218,750 5% 95% 4.5 Provision of small scale micro loan with single digit interest 7,382,812,500 23,437,500 27% 73% 4.6 Establishment of afforestation project 9,105,468,750 28,906,250 19% 81% 4.7 Improved livestock production 24,900,750,000 79,050,000 40% 60% 4.8 Food and nutrition 24,609,375,000 78,125,000 100% 0% 4.9 Extension delivery system 3,701,250,000 11,750,000 28% 72% Subtotal 112,805,122,500 358,111,500 5. Education 5.1 Capacity Building on Psychosocial 3 283,500,000 900,000 40% Support to Teachers and Students Medium 60% 5.2 Provision of containerized 13 69,615,000 221,000 temporary classrooms Medium 100% 0% 5.3 Rebuilding of destroyed and 22 420,505,810 1,334,939 damaged school buildings High 30% 70% 5.4 Provision of instructional 22 97,200,000 308,571 materials and equipment Medium 100% 0% 5.5 Provision of school furniture and recreational equipment High 22 173,475,001 550,714 70% 30% Prioritisation Report | 35 No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 in 2-5 Years Priority (%) (%) 5.6 Provision of teacher grants for engagement in hardship locations Medium 191 45,792,000 145,371 100% 0% 5.7 Implementation of school feeding programme High 22 629,100,001 1,997,143 100% 0% Subtotal 1,719,187,813 5,457,739 6. Health 6.1 Reconstruction of Health Facilities and Service Management 6.1.1 Construction of 26 PHC Centres in Gujba and Gulani LGAs High 27 1,360,800,000 4,320,000 6.1.2 Upgrade of 58 Health Facilities to modern PHC Clinic (22 in Y1 & 36 in Y2 in Gujba and Gulani LGAs) High 58 2,140,200,052 6,794,286 6.1.3 Construction of General Hospitals at Buni Yadi, Bara, and Kanama Medium 3 1,928,575 6,122 6.1.4 Construction of Immunization Office at Buni-Yadi, Gaidam and Fika Low 4 179,999,996 571,429 6.2 Procurement of essential drugs and consumables 6.2.1 Procure and distribute essential drugs and consumables to the new 26 PHC Centres in Gujba and Gulani LGAs Medium 27 874,799,976 2,777,143 6.2.2 Procure and distribute essential drugs and consumables to 58 newly constructed modern PHC Clinic (22 in Y1 & 36 in Y2) Medium 58 1,252,800,026 3,977,143 6.2.3 Procure and distribute essential drugs and consumables to General Hospitals Buni Yadi, Bara and Kanama Medium 5 269,999,998 857,143 6.2.4 Procure and distribute Plumpy Nuts for malnourished children 140,000 4,410,000,000 14,000,000 6.3 Procurement of Medical Equipment and facility Furniture 6.3.1 Medical Equipment and facility Furniture to the new 26 PHC Centres in Gujba and Gulani LGAs Medium 27 328,050,012 1,041,429 36 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years Priority (%) 6.3.2 Medical Equipment and facility Furniture to 58 newly constructed modern PHC Clinic(22 in Y1 & 36 in Y 2 Medium 58 704,700,026 2,237,143 6.3.3 Medical Equipment and facility Furniture to General Hospitals Buni Yadi, Bara and Kanama Medium 5 450,000,007 1,428,571 6.3.4 Supply Household Furniture to 84 newly constructed modern PHC facilities: 58 Clinics and 26 PHC centres (50 in Y1 & 34 in Y2) Medium 85 61,199,885 194,285 60% 40% 6.4 Health worker gap and capacity building 6.4.1 Screen and recruit 425 skilled health care workers 1 589,500 1,871 6.4.2 Salaries and wages for the 213 newly recruited Nurse/Midwives for 12 calendar months 213 575,100,096 1,825,715 6.4.3 Salaries and wages for the 212 newly recruited CHEWS for 12 calendar months 212 400,680,000 1,272,000 6.4.4 Conduct IMCI training for PHC workers 2 each in 84 Health facilities in Gujba and Gulani LGAs - - 6.4.5 Enhance capacity of 450 newly recruited PHC workers on Focused ANC and Emergency Obstetrics and Newborn Care 450 37,935,135 120,429 6.4.6 Train community 5 resource persons per ward on Child spacing and community IMCI on 19 key house hold practices in Gujba and Gulani 110 4,692,650 14,897 6.4.7 Support monthly meetings of Facility and Ward Health Committees in affected LGAs 60 15,627,654 49,612 6.5 Health Outreach services to Hard to reach and underserved communities 6.5.1 Conduct integrated mobile 312 46,799,953 148,571 health outreaches in Hard to reach communities without functional HFs 6.5.2 Procure 3 mobile ambulances 3 53,729,997 170,571 for health outreach 6.6 Strengthening Health Management Information System (HMIS) 6.6.1 Recruitment of 120 1 83,251 264 number of HMIS staff Prioritisation Report | 37 No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 in 2-5 Years Priority (%) (%) 6.6.2 Salaries and wages for recruited HMIS staff 120 1,943,999,946 6,171,428 6.6.3 Conduct 3 days training of 45 M&E staff on the use of HMIS tools and DHIS software application in all LGAs and at state level. 45 4,879,744 15,491 6.6.4 Procure and distribute 30 Laptops, internet Modems and monthly Internet subscription to M&E/HMIS officers at state and LGA level 30 5,022,014 15,943 6.6.5 To conduct data quarterly data analysis in selected HFs 1,000 9,647,999,550 30,628,570 6.6.6 To support Monthly Data review meeting 60 6,048,000 19,200 6.6.7 External hard Drives, Antivirus for data and Internet Security 20 359,982 1,143 6.7 Health Financing 6.7.1 Develop a deferral and exemption scheme for vulnerable groups - - 6.7.2 Partner with NHIS to implement Community Based Health Insurance Scheme in all LGAs 3 54,000,003 171,429 6.8 Partnership for Health to leverage additional resources 6.8.1 Develop and institutionalize framework and guidelines for the harmonization and alignment of development partners support 1 328,501 1,043 6.8.2 Facilitate quarterly coordination meeting with partners and Donors 20 611,982 1,943 6.8.3 Establish and support quarterly intersectoral Ministerial forum at DPRS state level to facilitate inter sectoral collaboration 20 359,982 1,143 6.8.4 One day meeting professional groups to develop plan for delivery of mobile out reach services in conflict affected communities 5 337,507 1,071 Total Health 24,833,664,000 78,837,029 38 | Prioritisation Report No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 (%) in 2-5 Years Priority (%) 7. Power 7.1 Solar Streetlight High 800 540,010,800 1,714,320 20% 80% 7.2 Solar Inverters High 64 84,096,029 266,972 15% 85% Total Power 624,106,829 1,981,292 8. Public Buildings 8.1 Rehabilitation of Prisons Medium 25,013,520 79,408 0% 100% 8.2 Rehabilitation of Post Offices Medium 4,866,263 15,448 0% 0% 8.3 Rehabilitation of Police Stations/Barracks High - 0% 0% 8.4 Rehabilitation of Local Government Offices High 1,057,212,003 3,356,229 24% 76% 8.5 Rehabilitation of Development Offices Medium 12,576,001 39,924 100% 0% 8.6 Rehabilitation of Audit Offices Medium 24,735,635 78,526 100% 0% 8.7 Rehabilitation of Zonal Statistics Office Low 19,800,000 62,857 0% 100% 8.8 Rehabilitation of Cultural Buildings Medium 189,709,892 602,254 20% 80% 8.9 Rehabilitation of Ministry Buildings High 190,519,061 604,822 25% 75% 8.10 Staffing and Training of Government Departments Medium 8.11 Capacity building of Ward Committees/LGAs Medium - 8.12 Documentation and Data Management Medium - Total Public Buildings 1,451,840,357 4,839,468 9. WASH 9.1 Water Supply for Local Communities and Public Institutions 9.1.1 Piped Water Supply (Rehabilitation 21 48,299,990 153,333 of motorized powered BH) High 100% 9.1.2 Tanker Supply (Drilling of Borehole) 12,946,500 41,100 Low 100% 9.1.3 Borehole--Solar Powered 28 170,799,993 542,222 High 100% 0% Prioritisation Report | 39 No. Interventions Overall Units Total Cost Total Cost Investment Investment Intervention (NDN) (USD) in Year 1 in 2-5 Years Priority (%) (%) 9.1.4 Mechanized Borehole Medium 75 315,000,000 1,000,000 50% 50% 9.1.5 Protected Water/ Tank Source - 9.1.6 Enhancing water supply capacity of existing facilities High - 9.1.7 Hygiene and health promotion in IDP communities High 441,000,000 1,400,000 30% 70% 9.1.8 Capacity building of LGAs on water and sanitation management High 25,999,999 82,540 40% 60% 9.2 Sanitation for Communities and Public Institutions 9.2.1 Public latrines 58 220,952 50% 50% 9.2.2 Piped Sanitation System High 9.2.3 Septic Tanks Low 9.2.4 Pit holes (In Households) Low 9.2.5 Capacity building for community level sanitation management High 1,440,000 50% 50% Total WASH 1,014,046,482 4,880,147 Subtotal of all Interventions 147,047,340,320 466,816,953 40 | Prioritisation Report ANNEX 5: SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PRIORITISATION OUTCOMES FROM GOMBE, BAUCHI, AND TARABA AND THE WAY FORWARD PCNI, with technical support from the World Bank, Outcomes: The main outcomes after the two-day arranged a two-day workshop on the prioritisation of state workshops were agreements to: investments for the three GTB States from November • Finetune the application of the Prioritisation 2-3, 2017 in Abuja. Although the States have done some Model and adopt a comprehensive, wholistic, works on prioritising interventions identified during the build back better approach for completing RPBA, due to lack of clarity on potential project funding the GTB States Investment Plans. opportunities and institutional supports, the prioritisation exercise was not implemented. • Conduct engagements with responsibility actors within each State to organize and map the State Objectives: The main objectives of the two-day specific problems/ challenges and issues, crystalizing workshop were to: these into each State’s specific indicators and interventions for selecting their areas of priority.  hare lessons learnt from the state investment •S prioritisation process undertaken for the BAY States; Propagate the prioritisation process at the State Government Levels for organic application of the  ap the GTB state specific recovery and •M methodology and adaptation of the templates to identify stabilization issues and challenges; specific interventions that comprehensively address the needs in each State and incorporate those needs as  dentify priority interventions, including •I prioritised in the State’s Investment Plans. those identified during the RPBA; • Facilitate close engagements with the State MDAs to  odify the description of interventions to capture •M identify and cost each priority intervention identified. the challenges identified by the States; • Provide technical support for internalization  eview the prioritisation indicators used •R of the Prioritisation process within the for BAY States and agree on indicators respective MDAs and complete the Strategic relevant to State specific interventions; Action Plans, State Investment Plans.  rganize a working session to go through the •O • Scope out the technical support/facilitation mechanics of prioritisation of state investments; needs and specific timelines for completing each State’s prioritisation process and  gree on an institutional mechanism for •A agree on an institutional mechanism for undertaking this exercise by the States; undertaking this exercise by the States.  nsure sensitization of State level •E • Ensure sensitization of State level Stakeholders stakeholders through consultations; through consultations; agree on a timeline to •A  gree on a timeline to complete the complete the State prioritisation process; and state prioritisation process; and • Explore opportunities to align State •E  xplore opportunities to align State Investment Plans with development Investment Plans with development partner supported investment plans. partner supported investment plans. • Continue engagement and consultative sessions with State Stakeholders to crystalize State Priorities into actual projects in rapid annual Project specific Investment Plans; and with the State Focal Persons and Development Funding Partners to match these to priorities subsequently identified. Prioritisation Report | 41 State Specific Recovery and Stabilization Perspectives: GTB States made individual presentations on the State specific prioritisation challenges and investment needs based on a structured questionnaire shared by PCNI and the World Bank. Several common recovery and stabilization trends were identified and discussed. Below are several key findings from the discussion, which will inform next steps and the refinement of the prioritisation methodology to meet the unique needs of each state. Table 1 below shows the GTB initial and broad recovery and stabilization challenges. Table A5.1: Description of GTB Recovery and Stabilisation Challenges Recovery and Stabilisation Components Bauchi Gombe Taraba Levels of Recovery Risk/Challenges Peace Building, Stabilization High (internal Conflict and Social Cohesion Medium Low Induced impacts) Physical and Social Infrastructure High in 5 LGAs Rehabilitation/Improvements Medium (All 20 LGAs and Medium are impacted) in Other LGAs High Economic Recovery High High High Key Prelimary Findings from the GTB States: has resulted in the increased displacement of people in the state. Given the unique circumstances  5 to 90% of the remaining IDPs had no desire to •8 of each State, the representatives will further return to their place of origin, while participants develop and validate the selected criteria to discussed that their intent may change as the accommodate the local context of the state. security and economic situation evolves; • Tensions witnessed during the early days of IDP  DP movements within the GTB States have largely •I influx period were reported to be largely diminished stabilized, although some internal movement within with continuous support provided to IDPs and the states were reported, driven by IDPs searchfor associated host communities by the government job opportunities. For Taraba State, communal agencies and humanitarian partner organizations, violence also contributes to localized movements. while no community tension was reported;  DPs in the GTB States were reported to be well •I • DPs were reported to be distributed across all integrated with host communities, including LGAs in Bauchi and Gombe State, although IDP politically, socially and economically. However, populations are concentrated in particular LGAs; this assumption should be further explored and validated given that the states also reported that • Although only a few LGAs experienced physical IDP influx is taxing their communities, economic damages, almost all LGAs in the GTB States resource, social services and infrastructure and lack basic services and/or livelihood/economic basic services. These are overextended due to opportunities to meet the additional needs of increased needs from IDP population, which has the IDPs. Participants agreed to focus the scope of the potential increase (trigger?) tension and conflict; prioritisation on both damaged and impacted LGAs, prioritising the most affected LGAs (damage and  ombe and Bauchi States reported their proactive •G impacts). As a result, the prioritisation template implementation of IDP resettlement and community will be adapted to prioritise interventions by LGA. integration programmes, ensuring access to state land grants and government jobs, etc.; • Main recovery challenges reported include access to sustainable livelihoods, access to basic social  tate representatives from Gombe and Bauchi •S services, and economic opportunities. Participants reported some improvement in social cohesion and also acknowledged and discussed the complex integration of IDPs. In contrast, the representatives and often less understood social, environmental from Taraba highlighted heightened tension and political drivers of economic and infrastructure and violence due to conflict between farmers needs, with peace building, stability, and social and herders. While the drivers of conflict are cohesion interventions critical to support a holistic environmental in nature, competing over limited approach to recovery. This included a discussion of natural resources, it is exacerbated by ethnic, the lesson learned from the BAY State prioritisation, religious, and trans-boundary divisions. This also 42 | Prioritisation Report which resulted in the adaptation of the prioritisation • Identify LGA focal points for data collection methodology to prioritise “bundled” interventions and collect LGA damage and impact data. to assure linkages across interventions and the multiplicity of needs are accounted for. The World • Prioritisation exercise done at LGA level and Bank and PCNI will host a workshop to support aggregate prioritised interventions, selected the GTB States’ further understanding of this project and project costing templates at State component of the RPBA, while also rolling out the level for preparing the State Investment Plans. revised methodology for prioritisation of the peace building, stability, and social cohesion interventions; • Actively engage PCNI to problem- solve or seek guidance. • Recovery approaches should be multi- sectoral to address the multiple needs PCNI experienced by the States; and • Provide routine communication and guidance • The African Development Bank has taken a keen to the GTB States to evaluate progress, clarify interest in the workshop and appreciated the rigor expectations, and help trouble-shoot. This includes and robustness of the methodology being presented for coordination, data collection, team set up, by the World Bank and also shared its intent to prioritisation, and validation. Mr. Nakama Keri and further refine its existing prioritisation done for its Ms. Bola Wellington will serve as PCNI focal points. multi-sector recovery project for GTB States using • Develop a detailed work plan and schedule for the State Investment Plans now under development. the provision of remote support and roll out the prioritisation in each state. In line with the Scoping for Recovery and Stabilization Interventions: AfDB’s planning process, the GTB States and PCNI will look to finalize investment plans by State representatives agreed that the January 2017 (3 months). Upon finalization, key scope of their prioritisation would: partners will validate the investment plans. • Be determined by the level of sector • Continue to build capacity and explore opportunities and spatial impacts of IDPs along with to institutionalize the prioritisation methodology. impacted host communities. • Explore financing opportunities • Build back better damaged infrastructure and social for the investment plans. services to improve access of vulnerable families to basic services and economic opportunities. World Bank • For Gombe and Bauchi States, the prioritisation • In coordination with PCNI, provide additional would target Boko Haram affected IDPs and host technical and / or trouble-shooting support. communities. Given the unique needs of Taraba State, communities affected by mainly by natural • Host a workshop to roll out the prioritisation resource competition would also be targeted. methodology for the Peace Building, Stability and Social Cohesion Component of the prioritisation. • Determine the operational viability of the identified interventions based on • Finalize the revised Peace building, Stability, and their institutional environment. Social Cohesion prioritisation methodology. • Support the adaptation of the prioritisation Next Steps templates to include LGA level prioritisation The following next steps were identified: of the interventions. GTB States • Explore opportunities for spatial mapping of damage and impact data for the GTB States. • Form cross-sector teams to lead the prioritisation process, including the clarification of roles • Support investment plan validation. and responsibilities, objectives, and a review (training) on the prioritisation methodology. African Development Bank The State Ministry for Economic Planning and Budgeting/Finance and economic • In coordination with PCNI, provide additional development should set up and lead the teams technical and / or trouble-shooting support, to operationalize the prioritisation methodology. including participation in additional workshops. • Finalize the state investment prioritisation criteria. • Consider alignment of their anticipated investments with the GTP State investment plans. • Coordinate with the relevant sector MDAs to update the State Investment prioritisation inputs • Support investment plan validation. Prioritisation Report | 43