:Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003732 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-53610 IDA-H3230) ON A INITIAL GRANT AND ADDITIONAL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR79.2 MILLION (US$120 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND SDR19.6 MILLION (US$30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF CÔTE D’IVOIRE FOR A POST-CONFLICT ASSISTANCE PROJECT December 16, 2016 Global Practice Social, Urban, Rural, and Resilience (GPSURR) Country Department AFCF2
 Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective 12/06 /2016) Currency Unit = CFAF CFAF ’000 = US$ 162 US$ 1.00 = CFAF 616 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing (2014-2016) AGEROUTE APO CBO CDC CDD Community-Driven Development CDVR CVGFR CPS Country Partnership Strategy 
 ADDR Authority for the Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration ERL Emergency Recovery Loan
 ESIA Environmental and Social Management Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FY Fiscal Year GREEN Groupes de Réinsertion Economique pour l’Environnement et la Nature (Economic Reinsertion Groups for the Environment and Nature) IDA International Development Association
 IDP Internally Displaced People
 IGA Income Generating Activity (Activité Génératrice de Revenus) M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
 MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance
 MEMIS Ministère d’Etat Ministère de l’Intérieur et de la Sécurité (Ministry of Interior and Security)
 OP Operational Policy
 OPCS Operational Policy and Country Services
 
 ORAF Operational Risk Assessment Framework
 PCAP Post Conflict Assistance Project PEJEDEC Emergency Youth Employment and Skills Development Project PCU Project Coordination Unit
 PDO Project Development Objective
 PUR-PDI Projet d’Urgence pour le Retour des Personnes Déplacées Internes (Emergency Project of the Return of Internally Displaced Persons) SODEFOR Société de Développement des Forêts (Agency for Forest Development) THIMO Travaux à Haute Intensité de Main d’œuvre (High Labor Intensity Works) Senior Global Practice Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Practice Manager: Jan Weetjens Project Team Leader: Nicolas Perrin ICR Team Leader: Nicolas Perrin CÔTE D’IVOIRE IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS (ICR) REPORT POST-CONFLIC ASSISTANCE PROJECT CONTENTS Data Sheet ............................................................................................................................ i A. Basic Information........................................................................................................ i B. Key Dates .................................................................................................................... i C. Ratings Summary ........................................................................................................ i D. Sector and Theme Codes ........................................................................................... ii E. Bank Staff ................................................................................................................... ii F. Results Framework Analysis ..................................................................................... iii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ................................................................... iv H. Restructuring (if any) ................................................................................................. v I. Disbursement Profile .................................................................................................. v 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 1 1.1 Context at Appraisal ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Original Project Development Objective (PDO) and Key Indicators ................. 4 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators ....................................................................... 4 1.4 Main Beneficiaries .............................................................................................. 5 1.5 Original Components .......................................................................................... 5 1.6 Revised Components .......................................................................................... 6 1.7 Other significant changes .................................................................................... 6 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome ................................................ 7 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry ............................................... 7 2.2 Implementation ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization .. 10 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance ............................................................... 11 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase ............................................................ 14 3. Assessment of Outcome ............................................................................................ 15 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation ..................................... 15 Rating: Modest .............................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objective (Efficacy) ............................ 16 Rating: Substantial ........................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 19 Rating: Substantial ........................................................................................................ 19 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating .......................................................... 21 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts ........................................ 22 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops . 23 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 24 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 25 5.1 Bank Performance ............................................................................................. 25 5.2 Performance ...................................................................................................... 27 6. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................ 28 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners........... 32 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .............................................................................. 34 Annex 2. Outputs by Component...................................................................................... 35 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ..................................................................... 40 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes................. 43 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ....................................................... 46 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 50 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ........................... 53 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .......................................................................... 53 Data Sheet A. Basic Information Emergency Post- Country: Cote d'Ivoire Project Name: Conflict Assistance Project IDA-53610, IDA- Project ID: P082817 L/C/TF Number(s): H3230 ICR Date: 12/15/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF COTE Lending Instrument: ERL Borrower: D’IVOIRE Original Total XDR 79.20M Disbrsed Amount: XDR 98.44M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 98.44M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Prime Minister’s Office Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: none B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 04/22/2003 Effectiveness: 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 10/06/2011, Appraisal: 05/07/2007 Restructuring(s): - 04/04/2013 and 12/04/13 Approval: 07/17/2007 Mid-term Review: - 05/15/2010 Closing: 12/31/2011 06/30/2016 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Moderately Satisfactory i Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Yes None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Moderately Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central Government (Central Agencies) 20 20 Health 3 3 Other Education 5 5 Other social services 55 55 Vocational training 17 17 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction 50 50 Improving labor markets 25 25 Income Support for Old Age, Disability & Survivorship 25 25 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Mahktar Diop Obiageli Ezekwesili Country Director: Pierre Laporte Mamadou Dia Practice Jan Weetjens William Experton Manager/Manager: Project Team Leader: Nicolas Perrin Maurizia Tovo ICR Team Leader: Nicolas Perrin ICR Primary Author: Jean-Claude Balcet ii F. Results Framework Analysis   Revised Actual Value % of Baseline Original Target Achieved at Revised PDO-Level Indicator Value Target Value Value Completion Target (2013) (2007)1 (2013)2 (2016) Achieved 1. Number of vulnerable youth who have participated in project socio- 0 30,000 39,000 40,485 104% economic reintegration activities 2. Percentage of the population of the 10 departments benefiting from project 0 - 60% 40% 67% improved access to civil registration3 3. Number of communities with improved social and economic 0 775 975 1,052 108% infrastructure Beneficiaries Direct project beneficiaries 0 685,000 760,000 861,000 113% Of which women (%) 0 49% 50% 47% 94%  Intermediate Results Indicators Original Formally Actual Value Target % of Baseline Revised Achieved at Value (from Revised Indicator Value Target Completion or approval Target (2013) Value Target Years documents) Achieved (2013) (2016) (2007) 0 8,000 10,000 10,259 103% 1 Under the initial financing phase. 2 Under the additional financing phase. 3 This indicator is only valid for the 15 departments covered under the Additional Financing phase. iii 0 31% 35% 34%4 97% 0 109 119 120 101% 0 160 320 224 70% n.a. 75% 100% 53% 53% n.a. 60% 80% 52% 65% 0 775 975 1,069 110% - 30% 35% 35% 100% 0 10 210 213 101% 0 136 210 298 142% 0 697 1,200 1,197 99% 0 9 - 9 100% G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) Moderately 1 01/25/2008 Unsatisfactory 0.10 Unsatisfactory Moderately Moderately 2 06/20/2008 10.34 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 4 During the AF phase only this percentage is 45%. 5 This indicator was worded in a slightly different manner under the initial financing: number of communities demonstrating increased social cohesion by being able to plan and manage sub-projects that deliver improved social or economic infrastructure in response to their expressed needs and according to their collective decisions. The related indicator is the improvement of socio-economic infrastructures in 1052 communities (108% of the target under the AF phase). 6 This indicator only applies to the original financing phase. iv 3 11/26/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 20.36 4 05/04/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 20.86 Moderately Moderately 5 10/25/2009 25.13 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Moderately 6 05/10/2010 Moderately Satisfactory 31.12 Unsatisfactory 7 12/22/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 63.38 8 08/10/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 70.09 9 05/14/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 91.05 10 11/24/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 100.41 11 05/17/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 111.25 12 11/24/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 121.34 13 06/02/2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 125.26 Moderately 14 08/30/2014 Satisfactory 126.01 Unsatisfactory Moderately 15 12/30/2014 Satisfactory 132.14 Unsatisfactory 16 06/19/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 140.94 17 01/19/2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 146.37 H. Restructuring (if any) The project was the object of three Level 2 restructuring decisions: (i) on October 6, 2011 to extend the closing date of the Grant by 18 months from December 31, 2011 to June 30, 2013 and partially reallocate its proceeds across the FA categories as requested by the Recipient; (ii) on April 1, 2013 to extend the closing date of the Grant by 6 months, from June 30, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to provide the necessary time to complete activities which had been delayed by the security situation in the West of Côte d’Ivoire, and (iii) on December 2, 2013 for the approval of the Additional Financing. I. Disbursement Profile v vi 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1 2 3 1.2 Original Project Development Objective (PDO) and Key Indicators     1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators 7 Financing Agreement (Post-Conflict Assistance Project, between the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the International Development Association, July 18, 2007 8 Components were renumbered from A, B, C and D in the PAD of the original project phase to 1, 2, and 3 in the Project Paper for the additional financing phase. For the sake of consistency, it has been elected in this report to use the component identification based on numbers for both phases. 9 These difficulties had led to the cancellation of the PCAP’s subsidy provided to the Authority for Reintegration and Rehabilitation of Communities (RRC) under Component 4. 4 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 1.5 Original Components     5 1.6 Revised Components      1.7 Other significant changes 6 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 10 Programme d’Urgence pour le Retour des Personnes Déplacées Internes-PUR PDI (Emergency Project of the Return of Internally Displaced Persons) 11 The Bank agreed to extend a package of special financial assistance to the Government so that it could pay its arrears and therefore become eligible for regular funding. 7 2.2 Implementation 12 See Section G of Data Sheet ‘Ratings of project performance in ISRs’ 8 9 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization Implementation and Utilization. 10 The data collected by the M&E unit have regarded inter alia (i) Component 1: individual information on beneficiaries, as well as information on service providers such as employers, training institutes, and consultants, and partner institutions and programs; a geo-referenced database was already operational at project inception to support the implementation of Component 1; (ii) Component 2: mobile courts hearings information, civil registers and civil registry offices; information concerning the identification process under Component 2 was centralized at the Prime Minister Cabinet and made public; particular attention was paid to ensure that data and data transfer between institutions were protected; and (iii) Component 3: economic opportunities and labor demand by geographic zone and by sector; technical support by agencies and physical implementation of community subprojects, by subproject type were integral part of the data collected; a novel aspect regarding the data collected through ‘participative auto- evaluations’ by communities. In addition to the above daily routine regarding date collection, ad hoc studies were carried out as needed to inform the M&E database. These included regular beneficiary assessments, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods; they also included implementation completion report prepared by the PCU at AF Credit closure (June 2016). At the end of the project period a large workshop was organized in May 2016 to take stock of results and draw lessons from project implementation. M&E activities were consistently rated as Satisfactory by the Bank supervision missions. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 33. . The original PCAP was approved in 2007 as an emergency operation and a Category-B project, i.e., it was subject not only to Ivorian Environmental Code both also triggered OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment. The AF did not change the safeguard category or trigger new safeguard policies. OP 4.01 was triggered by the Project because of some potential adverse impacts linked to the 11 labor-intensive public works and the nature of the sub-projects to be implemented (clinics, schools, water pumps, etc.), as well as creation of small farms and small businesses as part of the support of Income Generating Activities (IGAs). Furthermore, the rehabilitation/ construction of civil registry offices and the community infrastructures could have had negative effects on the environment, albeit expected to be moderate and manageable. Hence, a comprehensive Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the entire project was therefore prepared, consulted upon, approved and disclosed in-country and at the InfoShop in 2009. In addition, each infrastructure or income-generating sub-project had to prepare a simple individual Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) as part of the sub-project feasibility study or business plan. Under the AF, an ESMF was developed for all the small civil works; for works with limited impacts, environmental measures based on the national laws and regulations were applied. In the course of project implementation, three Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) were undertaken, consulted upon, and disclosed for works under the Project. A comprehensive ESIA was prepared by an independent consultant in July 2013. These documents showed that the Project was safeguard-compliant and there was no unresolved environmental or social issues. 35. The PCU was staffed with an Environmental Specialist. This specialist regularly monitored and assessed safeguard issues. In doing so, he 12 36. 13 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 14 3. Assessment of Outcome 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Rating: Modest13 13 The rating is established here against IEG four-point rating scale (High, Substantial, Modest, Negligible) since the Implementation Completion and Results Report Guidelines of OPCS of August 2006 (last updated on: 07/22/2014) does not contain a rating category for assessment of outcome. 15 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objective (Efficacy) Rating: Substantial 14 Vulnerable youth in this report refer to ex-combatants, individuals associated with armed groups and child soldiers, as well as all young people at risk (i.e., people who 16 could not reintegrate into civil life, and, hence, had the potential to go back to the armed rebellion). Indeed, for obvious reasons having to do with individuals’ security inter alia, the Project was never able to exactly identify whether or not the vulnerable youth where directly linked with the armed rebellion. 15 Parents who did not meet the deadline of the mandatory 90 days for registration of their children after birth, had to seek a supplementary judgement for the court of justice; this meant an additional cost of close to CFAF 10,000 (from CFAF 5,000 to CFAF 15,000) which most parents could not afford. 17          16 69 départements were covered during the Grant phase and 15 during the Credit phase (with 10 overlapping the two phases). 17 Groupes de Réinsertion Economique pour l’Environnement et la Nature –GREEN (Economic Reinsertion Groups for the Environment and Nature) 18 Programme d’Urgence pour le Retour des Personnes Déplacées Internes -PUR PDI (Emergency Project of the Return of Internally Displaced Persons) 18 3.3 Efficiency Rating: Substantial 19 ‘Audit technique des infrastructures réalisées dans le cadre des Composantes 2 et 3 du PAPC’ , Deloitte, May 2016. 19 Type of facility Unit PCAP MCU PCAP/MCU Component 3: Community Infrastructure Health center (main building) CFAF/m2 75,817 134,711 56% Maternity (main building) CFAF/m2 69,894 119,288 58% Schools (main building) CFAF/m2 47,440 79,704 68% Other infrastructures (markets, CFAF/m2 122,194 132,351 92% community buildings, etc.) Average 78,500 116,300 67% Component 2: Office building for the decentralized administration Préfectures CFAF ‘000 162,300 174,700 93% Sous-Préfectures CFAF ‘000 99,200 107,000 93% 20 In addition the cost of hydraulic pumps financed by the project was CFAF 14,5 millions or 9 percent lower than the average costs incurred by the Decentralized Territorial Communities, Source : Etude des Impacts et de la Perception des Bénéficiaires du PAPC, Synergie Expertise SARL, May 2016 20 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately Satisfactory    21 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 22 (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 21 It is to be noted that in Côte d’Ivoire, as opposed to other countries of the sub -region, the CDD approach was still rather novel during project implementation; it needed to be more precisely defined and steered. 23 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome 22 Source: Etude des Impacts et de la Perception des Bénéficiaires du PAPC, Synergie Expertise SARL, May 2016 23 NB. The numbers cited in the Workshop Proceedings are slightly different than the final numbers provided by the PCU which appear in the Data Sheet, owing to two reasons: (i) the workshop took place one month before project closure (May 27 vs. June 30, 2016); and (ii) the final tally furnished by the M&E section was not made available until July 2016. 24 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 24 The results of the 2015 election were very favorable to the incumbent President of the Republic who has been in office since 2011. But the election was extensively boycotted by the opposition parties, preeminently the party of the former president (in office until April 2011) (see para 14 regarding the 2010- 11 post-electoral crisis). 25 
 Rating: Satisfactory 26 (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance 5.2 Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 27 
 (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 6. Lessons Learned 28 29 30 Project specific lessons 31 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners c) (b) Cofinanciers (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 32 33 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing Appraisal AF Total Latest % of Components Estimate Estimate Revised estimate Appraisal Component 1: Socio- Economic 40.0 9.3 49.3 61.8 125% Reintegration Component 2: 20.0 3.8 23.8 24.7 104% Identification Process Component 3: Community 40.0 11.7 51.7 40.0 77% Rehabilitation Component 4: Project 20.0 4.6 24.6 22.8 93% Management Contingencies - 0.6 0.6 0.0 Total Project Costs 120.0 30.0 150.0 149.3 99.6% Appraisal Actual/Latest Source of Funds Cofinancing Estimate Estimate % of Appraisal (US$ million) (US$ million) IDA Grant (initial phase) - 120.00 119.4 99.5% IDA Credit (AF phase) - 30.0 29.9 99.7% 25 The average rate of exchange of the CFAF vs. the US$ was 514 during the Grant phase and 524 during the AF Credit phase. 34 Annex 2. Outputs by Component        26 See Rapport d’Achèvement du PAPC, Cabinet du Premier Ministre, République de Côte d’Ivoire , Juin 2016 35            36        Inst            37       o o o o o o  o o o o o o 38 o  39 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 27 ‘Audit technique des infrastructures réalisées dans le cadre des Composantes 2 et 3 du PAPC’, Deloitte, May 2016. 28 Centre de Communication et de Développement de l’Entreprise (CCDE), Evaluation des impacts des activités du Projet d’assistance post-conflit (PAPC) sur la période Août 2008-Décembre 2012, January 2014. 40 Type of facility Unit PCAP MCU PCAP/MCU Component 3: Community Infrastructure Health center (main building) CFAF/m2 75,817 134,711 56% Maternity (main building) CFAF/m2 69,894 119,288 58% Schools (main building) CFAF/m2 47,440 79,704 68% Other infrastructures (markets, CFAF/m2 122,194 132,351 92% community buildings, etc.) Average 78,500 116,300 67% Component 2: Office building for the decentralized administration Préfectures CFAF ‘000 162,300 174,700 93% Sous-Préfectures CFAF ‘000 99,200 107,000 93% 29 In addition the cost of hydraulic pumps financed by the project was CFAF 14,5 millions or 9 percent lower than the average costs incurred by the Decentralized Territorial Communities, Source : Etude des Impacts et de la Perception des Bénéficiaires du PAPC, Synergie Expertise SARL, May 2016 41 42 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Maurice Adoni Senior Procurement Specialist GGO07 Jean-Charles Amon Kra Senior Financial Specialist GGO07 Marie-France Anet Ayourou Procurement Assistant AFCF2 Kathryn Suzanne Bach Junior Professional Associate AFTHE - HIS Paul Bance Task Team Leader GCFMR Noel Chaherli Sector Coordinator AFCF2 Jean-Paul Chausse Consultant GSP07 Yvette Laure Djachechi Safeguard Specialist AFTCS William Dakpo Procurement Specialist AFTPE - HIS Racky Dia Camara Program Assistant GSU01 Bella Lelouma Diallo Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO25 Faly Diallo Finance Officer WFALA Saidou Diop Sr Financial Management Specia GGO25 Joseph-Antoine Ellong Sr. Program Assistant GSU01 Africa Eshogba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05 Sophie Grumelard Social Development Specialist GSU01 Abdoulaye Gadière Environmental Specialist GEN07 Nicole Hamon Temporary GHNDR Bernard Harborne Lead Social Specialist SUGL Assiata Houedanou Soro Operations Analyst, OPCS AFCF2 Daniele A-G. P. Jaekel Operations Officer GHN07 Noemie Anais Kouider Consultant GSURR Julia Lendorfer Consultant GPV01 Zainab Mambo-Cisse Senior Executive Assistant AFCF2 Bruce MacPhail Community Development Specialist GSU01 Elisabeth Maier Operations Officer GEE05 Maimouna Mbow Fam Senior Financial Specialist AFCF2 Emmanuel Ngollo Consultant GENDR Emmanuel Noubissie Country Program Coordinator AFCCI Ngankam Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05 Mehmet Onur Ozlu Sr. Urban Economist GSU11 Taleb Ould Sid’Ahmed Communication Specialist Sr. Social Development Specialist, Nicolas Perrin GSU01 Task Team Leader Laura Primard Temporary AFCF2 Daniel M. Sellen Chair, Staff Association WBGSA Fanta Touré Social Protection Specialist GSP07 Maurizia Tovo Task Team Leader GSP07 Kishor Uprety Senior Counsel LEGAM Jean Van Eenaeme HQ Consultant ST EASTS - HIS 43 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD ‘000 (including travel No. of staff weeks and consultant costs) Lending FY03 0.35 0.75 FY04 45.04 283.80 FY05 42.72 138.76 FY06 30.62 161.35 FY07 33.00 206.55 FY08 30.14 95.66 Total: 181.87 886.87 Supervision/ICR FY08 24.65 141.25 FY09 62.68 269.26 FY10 25.00 156.15 FY11 21.64 160.9 FY12 28.08 129.26 FY13 17.02 104.55 FY14 10.54 80.183 FY15 21.51 116.14 FY16 18.50 108.31 FY17 3.11 22.66 Total: 232.73 1,288.66 44 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results 30 Source : Etude des Impacts et de la Perception des Bénéficiaires du PAPC, Synergie Expertise SARL, May 2016 45 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results The following paragraphs summarize the outcomes of the Stakeholder Workshop held on May 27, 2016.31 This report reveals the following main conclusions and recommendations: a) Based on its results, the PCAP has registered a great performance in relation to its context of implementation. Indeed, it has achieved technically a volume of achievements far beyond the expected operating results, with the disbursement of almost all of the allocated financial resources (a rate of more than 99.9%); and b) The participatory approach adopted by the project as a process of intervention has greatly contributed to achieving the above results. This approach has, in fact, secured the strong adherence of line ministries, decentralized authorities, local administrative authorities and especially the beneficiary communities. General Recommendations - Strengthen the institutional anchoring with the existing structure to ensure the sustainability of the achievements - Deepen access to public procurement for emerging economic groupings - Develop educational tools adapted to integrate functional literacy in promoting approaches to self-employment / IGAs - Adopt the participatory planning approach at the grassroots that allows (i) to target relevant investments, (ii) ensure optimal resource management, (iii) access quality services, and (iv) ensure the sustainability of development interventions. Specific Recommendations Organization of the community demand - Planning strategy o Adopt and popularize the local participatory planning manual as the unique permissible approach to planning at the local and community level, and, if necessary, regulate its use by an official text (decree, etc.) o Empower the CDC for community planning o Ensure extension of the CDD approach to Communities, CBOs, technical departments and decentralized technical structures o Harmonize the denomination of the community authorities o Strengthen the capacity of all stakeholders 31 Projet d’assistance post-conflit (PAPC), Don IDA H323-IVC / Crédit IDA 5361, Rapport : Atelier bilan et Capitalisation des Acquis du PAPC (2008-2016), Vendredi 27 mai 2016 46 o Define the PVD regular updating mechanisms o Have the PVD approved by the Approval and Monitoring Committee (CAS), in keeping with the framework for the development and adoption of local and regional development plans o Systematize the integration of developing countries into local or regional plan - o o o o o - o o o o o Local Governance and skills transfer - o o - - - - - Economic development and social community 47 - - - - - - - - - - - Outlook Considering the positive results obtained by the project, the conclusions of this workshop and certainly appeased sociopolitical context but still carries the legacy of ten years of crisis, the workshop strongly recommends the continuation of community development activities as developed CPAA by following the approach of development Driven by the 48 Communities (DCC) to consolidate the gains in social cohesion and inclusion of young people in the country initiated development. To do this, the workshop recommended the finalization of the work undertaken so that products documents reflect the depth of the discussions held during the work in commissions. 49 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The following paragraphs summarize of the Borrower’s ICR (June 2016). Project components The Project used various mechanisms to implement project activities: Main project results (Results Framework) a) 50 Other project results 51 By letter dated December 13, 2016, the Recipient’s authorities provided brief comments on the present report. They indicated that the report offered a precise narrative of the project’s implementation. They conveyed their broad agreement with the report’s overall 52 conclusions and recommendations, with the following minor remarks concerning Component 2. In their view, some of the report’s statements concerning Component 2 could have been slightly nuanced on the following counts: Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders There were no co-financiers for the Project. No comments were provided by other project partners/ stakeholder on the present report. Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Cabinet du Premier Ministre, République de Côte d’Ivoire: Rapport d’Achèvement du PAPC, Juin 2016 Cabinet du Premier Ministre, République de Côte d’Ivoire: Rapport de Suivi Environmental et Social, Juin 2016 Centre de Communication et de Développement de l’Entreprise (CCDE), Evaluation des impacts des activités du Projet d’assistance post-conflit (PAPC) sur la période Août 2008-Décembre 2012, January 2014 Deloitte : PAPC Rapport d’Audit Technique 2013, Don H3230-IVC, Exercice clos le 31 décembre 2013 Deloitte : Audit technique des infrastructures réalisées dans le cadre des composantes 2 et 3 du PAPC, Rapport de l’auditeur, mai 2016 Primature, Requête pour un financement et Note conceptuelle pour un programme d’appui au développement à la base 2016-2020, 2 août 2016 Projet d’assistance post-conflit (PAPC), Don IDA H323-IVC / Crédit IDA 5361, Rapport : Atelier bilan et Capitalisation des Acquis du PAPC (2008-2016), Vendredi 27 mai 2016 Projet d’assistance post-conflit (PAPC), Rapports d’activités mensuels (selected issues 2008-2016) 53 Synergie Expertise SARL, Etude des Impacts des Activités et de la perception des bénéficiaires du PAPC, Avril 2016 World Bank: Emergency Project Paper on a Proposed Pre-Arrears Clearance Grant in an amount of SDR 79.2 million (US$120 million equivalent) to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire for a Post-Conflict Assistance Project, July 2, 2007 World Bank: Financing Agreement (Post-Conflict Assistance Project), between the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire and the International Development Association, July 18, 2007 World Bank : Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project Restructuring of the Post Conflict Assistance Project, Grant H3230-CI, Report No. 76119-CI, April 1, 2013 World Bank: Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Credit from the International Development Association in the Amount of SDR 19.6 million (US$30 million equivalent) to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire for the Post-Conflict Assistance Project, Report No. 81225-CI, December 4, 20013 World Bank: Supervision Aide-Mémoires 2008-2016 World Bank: Implementation Status Reports, Sequence 1 (January 2008) to 17 (January 2016) 54 MAP 55