Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00005437 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT ON A GRANT FROM THE STRATEGIC CLIMATE FUND — PILOT PROGRAM FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE (TRUST FUND TF-15828) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 14.6 MILLION TO THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF SAMOA FOR THE ENHANCING THE CLIMATE RESILIENCE OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITIES PROJECT (P126596) December 21, 2021 Environment, Natural Resources & The Blue Economy Global Practice East Asia And Pacific Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 30, 2021) Currency Unit = Samoan Tala (SAT) SAT 2.55 = US$1 US$0.39 = SAT 1 FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30 Regional Vice President: Manuela V. Ferro Country Director: Stephen Ndegwa Regional Director: Benoit Bosquet Practice Manager: Ann Jeannette Glauber Task Team Leader(s): Habiba Gitay ICR Main Contributor: Tevi Maltali Obed, Sofia Bettencourt, Leilani Duffy ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CEP Community Engagement Plan CIM Community Integrated Management Plan (initially Coastal Infrastructure Management Plan) COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CRICD Climate Resilience Investment Coordinating Division CRICU Climate Resilience Investment Coordinating Unit CRIP Climate Resilience Investment Program CRISP Solomon Islands Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster Risk Project CRSC Climate Resilience Steering Committee CSO Civil society organization CSSP Civil Society Support Programme ECR Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) project EIRR Economic internal rate of return EOPR End-of-Project Report ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GoS Government of Samoa Ha Hectare(s) HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey IA Implementing Agency ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IFR Interim Financial Report IRCCNHP Vanuatu Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project IRI Intermediate results indicator ISR Implementation Status and Results Report LiDAR Light detection and ranging system LTA Land Transport Authority MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries M&E Monitoring and evaluation MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MOF Ministry of Finance MPA Marine protected area MYOB Mind Your Own Business (Accounting Software) MWTI Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure No. Number NPV Net present value O&M Operation and maintenance PAD Project Appraisal Document PCRAFI Pacific Catastrophic Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative PDO Project Development Objective PDOI PDO indicator PEAR Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report PMS Project management services PMU Project Management Unit POM Project Operational Manual PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience RPF Regional Partnership Framework STEP Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement SOE State-owned enterprise SWA Samoa Water Authority TOC Theory of change UNDP United Nations Development Programme VFMP Village Fisheries Management Plans TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 1 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................1 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................4 II. OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................... 7 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs .............................................................................................................7 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY)........................................................................................8 C. EFFICIENCY ..........................................................................................................................14 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING ...................................................................16 E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS .........................................................................................16 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 17 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................17 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................................................18 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 19 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ...........................................................19 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ....................................................21 C. BANK PERFORMANCE .........................................................................................................23 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ......................................................................................25 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 25 ANNEX 1: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS........................................................... 27 ANNEX 2: BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 38 ANNEX 3: PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 41 ANNEX 4: EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 42 ANNEX 5: BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ... 53 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 56 ANNEX 6: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES ...................................................... 59 ANNEX 7: BENEFICIARY SURVEY AT COMPLETION ................................................................ 63 ANNEX 8: LIST OF SUB-PROJECTS FUNDED ........................................................................... 80 ANNEX 9: PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUB-PROJECTS ....................................................................... 84 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources P126596 and Communities Project Country Financing Instrument Samoa Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry Independent State of Samoa of Finance Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The project development objective is to support coastal communities to become more resilient to climate variability and change. The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 14,600,000 14,600,000 14,554,387 TF-15828 Total 14,600,000 14,600,000 14,554,387 Non-World Bank Financing 0 0 0 Borrower/Recipient 0 500,000 0 Total 0 500,000 0 Total Project Cost 14,600,000 15,100,000 14,554,387 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 27-Dec-2013 07-Feb-2014 12-Jun-2017 31-Dec-2018 30-Jun-2021 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 27-Dec-2015 1.94 Change in Implementing Agency Change in Results Framework Change in Institutional Arrangements Other Change(s) 07-Jun-2017 4.02 Change in Results Framework Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Change in Legal Covenants Change in Institutional Arrangements Other Change(s) 28-Jun-2018 6.02 Change in Results Framework Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Change in Implementation Schedule 02-Apr-2020 10.01 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Modest RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 15-Mar-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory .36 02 27-Jul-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.36 03 19-Dec-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.36 04 08-May-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 1.36 05 31-Dec-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 2.30 06 29-Jun-2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 3.19 07 28-Dec-2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 3.83 08 30-Jun-2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 4.39 09 27-Jan-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 5.04 10 18-Jun-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 6.28 11 29-Sep-2018 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.03 12 10-May-2019 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.16 13 14-Dec-2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 9.53 14 17-Jun-2020 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 11.05 15 11-Dec-2020 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 12.77 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 90 Public Administration - Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry 20 Other Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 70 Social Protection 10 Social Protection 10 Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Finance 25 Finance for Development 25 Disaster Risk Finance 25 Urban and Rural Development 75 Disaster Risk Management 75 Disaster Response and Recovery 25 Disaster Risk Reduction 25 Disaster Preparedness 25 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Axel van Trotsenburg Manuela V. Ferro Country Director: Franz R. Drees-Gross Stephen N. Ndegwa Director: John A. Roome Benoit Bosquet Practice Manager: Michel Kerf Ann Jeannette Glauber Task Team Leader(s): Samuel G. Wedderburn Habiba Gitay ICR Contributing Author: Tevi Maltali Obed The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Context 1. Country Context. The Independent State of Samoa (Samoa) is a small island economy with two larger islands (Upolu and Savai’i) and several smaller ones. The country, spread over a land area of 2,830 square kilometers (km), is divided into eleven political and 42 traditional districts, 265 villages, and 45 urban villages around the capital (Apia). At the time of project appraisal, Samoa had a population of 187,000 people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of around United States Dollars (US$) 2,900 per capita and was still considered a least developed country. 2. Sectoral Context. Samoa remains highly exposed to disasters and climate-related extreme events, such as cyclones, storm surges, droughts, earthquakes, and tsunamis. At appraisal, 70 percent of Samoa’s population lived within one kilometer from the coast, and 80 percent of Samoa’s 403 km coastline was considered sensitive or highly sensitive to erosion, flooding, and landslides—an exposure exacerbated by rapid economic and urban growth. Risk modeling from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI, 2011) estimated future average annual losses from cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunamis to be US$9.9 million, with an average of 19 fatalities per year. Climate variability and change was expected to increase sea level by 360 millimeters, annual rainfall by 1 percent, and maximum surface temperatures by 0.7 degrees Celsius by 2050, with the dry season becoming drier, more severe droughts, and higher rainfall during the wet season. Cyclones were also expected to increase in severity, with damaging storms increasing in frequency. Impacts from the 2010 tsunami (143 dead), and from the 2012 Cyclone Evan, which damaged 2,000 houses and led to US$210 million in losses (30 percent of GDP), further highlighted the need to mobilize villages to better manage the risks of natural hazards and climate variability and change. 3. Starting from the early 2000s, World Bank and other assistance helped develop a Coastal Infrastructure Management (CIM) Strategy and CIM Plans in each district. The initial CIM Plans focused on the resilience of coastal infrastructure to flooding, erosion, and landslides, and identified potential solutions, but few were implemented due to financial and capacity constraints. By the time this project, Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Communities or ECR project, was appraised, there was already a recognition that in order to be effective, coastal community resilience needed a broader, “ridge-to-reef” approach, with vulnerabilities and solutions addressed from the upper watersheds to the coast. This required a revision of CIM Plans and a wider range of adaptation solutions. 1 4. Institutional Context. At appraisal, Samoa already had a solid institutional set-up, but awareness and capacity to manage disaster and climate risks were weak. While donor support to government agencies in disaster risk management and adaptation was extensive, civil society organizations (CSOs) had only recently begun to receive targeted support through the Civil Society Support Programme (CSSP), established in 2010 under the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Institutionally, MOF was responsible for coordinating financial resources for climate resilience through the Climate Resilience Investment Coordinating Unit (CRICU). The CRICU was established during the first planning phase of the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) 2, which also helped prepare the Samoa Climate Resilience Investment 1 According to the Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the ridge-to-reef approach recognized vital links between different parts of a catchment, since coastal vulnerability was closely affected by processes upstream (such as land erosion). The approach also followed district-level boundaries, since all Samoan districts extend from upper watersheds to the coast. Typical village-based solutions proposed by the PAD included water tanks, mangrove replanting, community pools, and evacuation routes and sites. Proposed supra-village solutions included larger infrastructure works, coastal management, and watershed management, among others. See World Bank (Report No:PAD686), and Annex 6 for complete references. 2The US$1.2 billion PPCR fund supports developing countries and regions in building adaptation and resilience to the impacts of climate change. See https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/topics/climate-resilience. Page 1 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Program (CRIP) in 2011. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) carried out overall technical and policy oversight, with implementation delegated to relevant line ministries. The ECR project was one of two investments prioritized under the CRIP for the second (investment) PPCR phase. It was to be implemented in parallel with a complementary United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project with the same name, funded by the Adaptation Fund in complementary districts (and completed in 2018). 5. Contribution to Higher Level Objectives and Rationale for World Bank Support. The ECR project aimed to support two key outcomes of the 2012-16 National Strategy for the Development of Samoa: Outcome 8.2 (Community Development), under the strategic area “Enhanced resilience to meet the impacts of climate change and natural disasters;” and Outcome 14 (Climate and Disaster Resilience). It also addressed one of three major themes of the World Bank Group’s Samoa Country Partnership Strategy for Fiscal Years (FY) 2012-2016, to “Strengthen resilience against natural disasters and climate change.” Finally, the project directly supported Samoa’s PPCR objective, to “Pilot and demonstrate ways to integrate climate risk and resilience into core development policies, planning and budgeting processes (…), through increased capacity and by way of scaled-up investments.” The World Bank was well positioned to support the project, as it could build on its earlier engagement in Samoa and was a key PPCR implementing agency. Theory of Change (Results Chain) 6. The PAD did not include an explicit theory of change (TOC) as this was not required at the time. For the purposes of this evaluation, the TOC depicted in Figure 1 was derived from the PAD project description and results framework. The TOC assumed the project would develop and implement immediate and urgent activities to support coastal communities in becoming more resilient to climate variability and change, as reflected by whether it: (1) assisted the population in adapting to climate variability and change; (2) protected people’s lives and livelihoods; (3) protected coastal and inland infrastructure and the environment; and (4) increased awareness of climate change impacts and adaptation among communities, civil society, and the government. Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 7. The PDO stated in the PAD and Grant Agreement was to support coastal communities to become more resilient to climate variability and change. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 8. The PDO was considered a single objective statement, since according to both standard international and national practice, resilience to climate variability and change are intrinsically linked. 3 Achievement of the PDO was to be measured through three PDO indicators (PDOIs): • PDOI-1: Number of direct project beneficiaries, with a sub-indicator for women (target: 45,000, of which 30 percent were female). • PDOI-2: Percentage of sub-projects with climate/disaster resilience satisfactorily implemented, based on a scoring system (target: 70 percent). • PDOI-3: Areas restored or reforested to combat coastal erosion, siltation, and run-off damage to reefs, with sub-indicators for different types of vegetation (target: 120 hectares (ha) of coastal vegetation restored or re/afforested, of which 70 ha of mangrove area re/afforested and 50 ha of other native species restored). 3 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (…) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer,” and climate variability as “variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as… the occurrence of extremes…) of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events.” While climate variability is generally seen as occurring over a shorter time frame than climate change, the interventions that build resilience to climate variability and change typically overlap and are pursued simultaneously. See IPCC. (2014). Page 2 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Figure 1: Theory of Change of the Project Assumptions: 1 – National capacity is not too dispersed across multiple projects to be effective at implementation; 2 – Sector agencies effectively support sub-project implementation; 3 – CIM Plans and LiDAR are completed on time to guide sub-project design; 4 – Communities correctly prioritize resilient investments, as opposed to broader development priorities; and 5 – Sub-projects prove adequate to the magnitude of climate and natural hazards risks. Circled numbers correspond to assumption numbers. Page 3 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 9. The seven original intermediate results indicators (IRIs) are shown in Annex 1 and summarized in Annex 1.C. Components 10. The ECR project, funded through a US$14.6 million grant from the Strategic Climate Fund’s PPCR, had the following components (as per the Grant Agreement): • Component 1: Implementation of Priority Adaptation Measures to Manage Climate and Disaster-related Threats (estimated cost US$10.2 million, actual cost US$10.0 million). This component supported a program of activities designed to strengthen the adaptive capacity of communities and increase the resilience of coastlines to climate change risks, by: (a) updating CIM Plans through a participatory process to include, inter alia, disaster risk management, village sustainable development, and watershed management, and (ii) preparing sub-projects aimed at strengthening climate resilience; and (b) providing sub-grants to finance implementation of eligible sub-projects prepared under Component 1(a). • Component 2: Strengthened Climate Information Services (estimated cost US$1.5 million, actual cost US$1.9 million). This component supported a program of activities designed to increase public awareness of climate change issues and improve the availability and use of data for risk analysis, hazard mapping, and knowledge sharing. It included: (a) training for CSOs to enhance their capacity for delivery of climate change-related services; and (ii) development of a Community Engagement Plan (CEP) 4 and a communication strategy aimed at raising awareness of climate resilience; and (b) strengthening data platforms for spatial hazard mapping through financing of a comprehensive light detection and ranging system (LiDAR) throughout the country. • Component 3: Institutional Strengthening for Climate and Disaster Resilience and Project Coordination and Monitoring (estimated cost US$2.9 million, actual cost US$ 2.0 million). This component supported activities to strengthen government capacity in project management, coordination, and monitoring, including through the development of an institutional framework for a programmatic approach to climate change and disaster resilience, and support towards establishing and maintaining a Project Management Unit (PMU). 11. MNRE, under which the PMU was to be established, was responsible for project execution. Overall guidance fell to the inter-ministerial PPCR Steering Committee and its Secretariat (CRICU) at MOF. Various line agencies and the CSSP were also expected to help MNRE with the sub-projects, according to their respective mandates. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION 12. The ECR project underwent four Level 2 restructurings: (1) on December 27, 2015, changing the executing agencies and institutional arrangements, results framework, risk assessment, project definitions, and legal covenants; (2) on June 7, 2017, changing the results framework, institutional arrangements, legal covenants, disbursement categories and disbursement conditions; (3) on June 28, 2018, changing the results framework and risk assessment, and extending the closing date; and (4) on April 2, 2020, extending the closing date. 4Whereas the CIM Plans helped identify natural hazards, risks and specific solutions, the CEP was intended as a procedural toolkit to assist communities in implementing the CIM Plans. See PAD, paras. 58 and 68 (World Bank, 2013). Page 4 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 13. The PDO remained the same throughout project implementation, but the following outcome targets were changed: (1) the proportion of women beneficiaries under PDOI-1 increased from 30 to 48 percent during the first restructuring; (2) the sub-projects with climate/disaster resilience satisfactorily implemented under PDOI-2 (original: 70 percent) changed to 100 village and 16 district-level sub-projects during the third restructuring; and (3) the area restored or re/afforested under PDOI-3 was increased from 120 to 1,200 ha during the first restructuring (with corresponding increases in mangrove and coastal vegetation areas), decreased to a total of 600 ha during the second restructuring, and deleted during the third restructuring (see Annex 1.C). Revised PDO Indicators 14. PDOI-1 was changed from “number of direct project beneficiaries” to “number of project beneficiaries” during the third restructuring. PDOI-2 was broken down into village and district-level targets during the second restructuring, and then changed from “percentage” to “number” of sub-projects with climate/disaster resilience satisfactorily implemented during the third restructuring. PDOI-3 was deleted altogether at that time (see Annex 1.C). Revised Components 15. Only Component 1 changed during implementation. The first restructuring removed the reference to sub- grants in the project description by deleting sub-component 1(b) and revising sub-component 1(a)(i) to become 1(b) “Preparation and implementation of sub-projects aimed at strengthening climate resilience.” The second restructuring added a new sub-component 1(c) “Preparation and implementation of district-level sub-projects aimed at strengthening climate resilience.” All other components remained the same. Other Changes 16. Intermediate Results Indicators (IRIs). Three IRIs or their targets were changed during the third restructuring:(1) IRI-1 “Participants in consultation activities…” was clarified to include both direct and indirect participants; (2) IRI-3 “Number of trained CSOs providing climate change related services” was reduced from 15 to 5; and (3) IRI-6 “Use of improved climate information and tools” was adjusted from 40 percent to 6 instances. The third restructuring also introduced two new IRIs focusing on water sub-projects: IRI-8 “Number of people provided with access to resilient water supply” with a target of 15,000; and IRI-9 “Three water sources with improved condition based on a qualitative scoring system,” from a baseline of “poor” to “medium condition” (see Annex 1.C). 17. Implementation Arrangements. MOF was added as a second executing agency (alongside MNRE) during the first restructuring, 5 with CSSP becoming responsible for village sub-project implementation (revised Component 1(b)). References to sub-grants were, therefore, removed. During the second restructuring, the institutional arrangements were adjusted to allow state-owned enterprises (SOEs), line agencies, and other public bodies— together called implementing agencies (IAs) in Samoa—to become recipients of district-level sub-grants (revised component 1(c)). From the start, project management was contracted to a firm (KVAConsult) and, hence, the PMU became known as Project Management Services (PMS). 18. Definitions. During the first restructuring, the definition of CIM was changed to “Community Integrated Management Plan,” with the same acronym maintained. Other definitions, such as district-level sub-grant, district- level sub-project, and public body were added during the second restructuring. 5 The term “executing agencies” herein refers to the two agencies (MOF and MNRE) mandated by the Grant Agreement to implement the project. This distinguishes them from “implementing agencies” (IAs), used by the government to designate agencies receiving district-level sub-grants. Page 5 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 19. Disbursements Conditions and Categories. The original condition requiring adoption of a CEP prior to sub-grant disbursement was deleted during the first restructuring. During the second restructuring, the original sub-grants’ disbursement category (Category 2, US$9.4 million) was split into two, reflecting the expected allocation of US$2.5 million for village sub-projects (now Category 2) and US$6.9 million for district sub-grants (now Category 3). At the same time, a new disbursement condition for Category 3 was added requiring adoption of a District Sub-Project Plan outlining the agreed procedures, and consequent revision of the Project Operational Manual (POM). 20. Legal Covenants were changed during the first restructuring to replace the statement “the Recipient (MNRE) shall provide sub-grants to beneficiaries to implement sub-projects” with “the Recipient (MOF, through CSSP) shall prepare and implement sub-projects”. The second restructuring inserted standard conditions for district sub-grants. 21. Closing Date Extensions. The project’s closing date was extended twice for a total of 30 months: on June 28, 2018, by 18 months (from December 31, 2018 to June 30, 2020); and on April 2, 2020, by an additional 12 months (from June 30, 2020, to June 30, 2021). Rationale for Changes and Their Implications on the Original Theory of Change 22. The above changes did not materially affect project design, TOC, PDO, or project ambition. However, they did update implementation arrangements to better align the project with government programs, as well as revise some indicators as the nature of the demand-driven sub-projects became better known. 23. Changes to PDOI targets during the first restructuring corrected editorial errors in the PAD’s original results framework, as the cumulative yearly target values on PDOI-1 indicated the proportion of female beneficiaries was intended to be 48 percent (rather than 30 percent). PDOI-3, measuring reforestation, was changed twice 6 and eventually removed in 2018 in light of beneficiaries’ prioritization of water supply, as well as alternative progress in the government’s Two Million Tree Campaign (2015-2020). Instead, IRI-9 and IRI-10 were added to account for the sub-projects’ focus on water security (see para. 16). PDOI-1’s “direct beneficiaries” was replaced with “beneficiaries” to take into account those that used spring pools or escape roads, even if they did not live nearby (see para. 32). The change from “percent” to “number” of sub-projects in PDOI-2 sought to align the project with CSSP procedures requiring all sub-projects to meet a minimum standard (3+ on a scale of 1-4) before they could be issued a completion certificate. Thus, all sub-projects were expected to meet this standard within the ECR project’s lifetime. 24. Targets for IRI-1, IRI-3, and IRI-6 were adjusted to better reflect implementation experience. For IRI-1, village consultations followed a tiered process, customary in Samoa, whereby village representatives first consulted internally with their own committees or groups, 7 brought their village priorities to consultations with project staff, and, subsequently, reported results back to their villages. CSSP staff and technical agencies also carried out on-site consultations with village groups, and those group members were counted as directly consulted (whereas those consulted through village representatives were reported as indirectly consulted). IRI-3—CSOs providing climate- related services—was reduced from 15 to 5 to reflect those that ultimately met the competitive selection criteria to assist target communities. The original number (15) was based on a preparation-stage capacity assessment of CSOs with experience in environmental and development work, but some were later found to lack the time or necessary 6 The PAD had a discrepancy between PDOI-3’s yearly cumulative values (suggesting a final target of 1,200 ha) and the actual target (120 ha), which led to an adjustment to 1,200 ha during the first restructuring (with 700 ha of mangrove re/afforested). This was later found to be erroneous, since the total estimated area of mangrove in Samoa was only 372 ha in total– See Bhattari, B., and C. Giri. (2011). 7 Traditional villages in Samoa are run by village councils (fono) consisting of family chiefs (matais). Village male and women representatives (sui o le nuu and sui tamaitai o le nuu) and village mayors (pulenuu) function as the main administrative links with the central government. In addition, a women’s committee, a group of untitled men, unmarried women, and church groups typically exist. Page 6 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) knowledge in climate resilience, despite training provided (see para. 49). IRI-6 was changed to “number of instances” (rather than 40 percent) to reduce ambiguity and align it with the way information and tools were being recorded. 25. Changes to Component 1, implementation arrangements, disbursements, and legal covenants reflected procedural refinements. The PAD envisaged that smaller sub-grants—of up to SAT 50,000 (US$19,600 equivalent)— would be provided directly through CSSP to community groups, with experienced CSOs assisting with implementation and procurement. However, as CSSP matured into a national village assistance program, it became clear that community groups lacked sufficient fiduciary experience without a significant investment in their capacity (which ECR was not designed to do). Thus, consistent with the procedures of other donor projects using CSSP, the government and the World Bank agreed in June 2015 that CSSP would handle procurement and financial management directly on behalf of beneficiary village groups, following sub-project agreements. MOF (which oversees CSSP) was added as a second executing agency, and references to sub-grants (as well as the related disbursement condition) were consequently removed in the Legal Agreement. 26. Similar adjustments were made to district-level procedures during the second restructuring. The PAD stated that larger grants (up to SAT 500,000 or US$196,000 equivalent) were to be provided through line agencies for sub- projects covering several villages. As the selection of district sub-projects was finalized in early 2017 with water and public works predominating, SOEs—such as the Samoa Water Authority (SWA) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA)—would clearly play significant roles. Since these are autonomous agencies in Samoa, the Legal Agreement had to be revised to include a new disbursement category and sub-component for district-level sub-grants, enabling them to be directly implemented by SOEs or responsible line agencies (together known as IAs). A new disbursement condition (para. 19) was needed to ensure district procedures were approved prior to the sub-grants’ release. 27. The “CIM” definition was changed in line with the Government of Samoa (GoS)’s revision of the CIM Strategy in 2015, to reflect the change from coastal infrastructure to a more integrated ridge-to-reef approach (see para. 3). 28. The two closing date extensions were justified by: the need for additional time to complete the sub-projects, particularly those at the district level involving lengthy adaptation solutions (such as watershed management); delays in storage tank procurement and signing of land leases; and the time needed to ensure post-completion evaluation and operation and maintenance arrangements (O&M). The final 12-month extension was also justified by the disruptions caused by the December 2019 measles outbreak and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating Rating: High 29. Relevance to the World Bank Partnership Framework. The PDO continues to be highly relevant to the current World Bank Regional Partnership Framework (RPF), 8 particularly regarding Focus Area 3 “Protecting Incomes and Livelihoods,” Objective 3.1 “Strengthened resilience to natural disasters and climate change.” The RPF specifically cites country-specific operations, including in Samoa, that help communities increase their resilience to climate change by mitigating effects on crops and water supplies and strengthening coastal infrastructure. By helping to protect livelihoods and the environment, the project also contributes to RPF Objective 1.1 “Improved management of oceanic 8The Pacific Islands Regional Partnership Framework (FY17-FY21, Report No. 120479) covers nine Pacific Island countries, including Samoa. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the report was extended by the Board of Executive Directors to FY23, on February 6, 2020. See World Bank. (2017). Page 7 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) and coastal fisheries” and 1.2 “Increased incomes from agriculture.” The project further meets all four of the current RPF’s selectivity criteria: (1) alignment with government priorities and demand (see para. 30); (2) alignment with RPF priority solution areas; (3) scope for successfully addressing the drivers of fragility (including climate change, natural disasters, and gender) and ensuring sustainability; and (4) building on the World Bank Group’s comparative advantage and experience in the Pacific, complementing other programs (see para. 71). 30. Relevance to National Development Strategies. The PDO remains highly relevant to four of the 14 key outcomes of the 2016/17-2019/20 Strategy for the Development of Samoa. 9 Specifically, it contributes to: Key Outcome 8.1 (Community Development Enhanced), by supporting climate and disaster resilient activities at the village level; Key Outcome 9 (Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Sustained), by supporting water sub-projects, community participation watershed management and flood mitigation; Key Outcome 13 (Environmental Resilience Improved), by helping rehabilitate degraded areas using a ridge-to-reef approach from upper watershed and forest to downstream coastal and mangrove areas; and Key Outcome 14 (Climate and Disaster Resilience), by helping ensure climate and disaster resilience plans and projects are well coordinated. The project further remains relevant to Samoa’s long-term growth plan (Samoa 2040), which specifically identifies climate-resilient physical infrastructure, protection of natural environments, water supply, climate-resilient landscapes, and advancement of CIM Plan priorities as part of the interventions needed to realize opportunities in its four priority areas (tourism, agriculture and fishing, digital economy, and labor mobility).10 31. Global Relevance. Globally, the project is highly relevant to three of the PPCR’s four programmatic objectives. By implementing key CIM Plan priorities (see para. 37) it contributes to PPCR Objective 1 (Pilot and demonstrate approaches for integration of climate risk and resilience into development policies and planning). By leveraging an estimated US$3.0 million in climate-resilient investments from district-level IAs, US$0.38 million of in-kind contributions from beneficiary villages, and US$0.65 million from GoS and other sources, it contributes to Objective 3 (Scale-up and leverage climate-resilient investment, building on other on-going initiatives). It also contributes to Objective 4 (Enable learning-by-doing and sharing of lessons at country, regional, and global levels) by: sharing experiences and practices with the Enhancing Resilience of Coastal Communities of Samoa to Climate Change project, funded by the Adaptation Fund) 11 contributing to the upcoming regional community resilience comparative study; 12 and sharing experiences with other practitioners under the World Bank’s Small Island States Resilience Initiative. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 32. This Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR) did not carry out a split evaluation of the project since the revision of outcome targets did not result from a narrowing of the project’s scope, but rather from the types of sub- projects which districts and villages ultimately prioritized. The number of targeted villages and districts remained essentially unchanged from the original design: 100 villages versus 99 at appraisal, and 18 districts versus 16 at appraisal (two of the districts were split during implementation). Under PDOI-1, the project continued to consider as beneficiaries only those that directly benefited from sub-project investments according to PPCR guidelines 13 and the end target 9 See Government of Samoa. (2016). This strategy was extended to 2020/21. The new strategy, covering 2021/22 to 2025/26, had yet to be officially adopted at the time of this report. 10 See Government of Samoa. (2021). 11 See UNDP. (2018). 12 This study, predicted for 2022, compares lessons learned from community resilience projects in Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and Kiribati. 13 The PPCR Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit considers direct beneficiaries as “people or members of households who are specifically targeted by (the project) to receive support to which (the project) has contributed.” This includes, for example, direct recipients of project-provided services or grants, targeted population for disaster shelters or other resilient infrastructure, people protected by coastal zone management, or people residing Page 8 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) remained unchanged. PDOI-3 was removed not due to a reduction in project ambition, but due to progress in an alternative reforestation program and the fact that beneficiaries prioritized water supply (see para. 23). Annex 1.C summarizes the project indicators, targets (original and revised), and actuals achieved. 33. Although the PDO was a single objective statement, the PAD implicitly assumed that “resilience of coastal communities to climate variability and change”—by itself complex and multi-dimensional—would be assessed through four intended resilience outcomes: (1) population assisted to adapt to climate variability and change; (2) increased protection of people’s lives and livelihoods; (3) increased protection of coastal and inland infrastructure and environment; and (4) increased awareness of climate change impacts and adaptation activities in communities, civil society, and the government (see TOC and para. 6). These outcomes are explored in more detail below. Unless otherwise stated, all evidence was taken from project monitoring records, the beneficiary survey (see Annex 7), and complementary questionnaires submitted by the IAs for the project evaluation (see Annex 4, para. 4.8). 34. Population (number of people) assisted to adapt to climate variability and change. According to its monitoring records, the project helped 62,331 village- and 79,511 district-level beneficiaries 14 to implement immediate and urgent adaptation sub-projects, substantially exceeding the PDOI-1 target of 45,000. About 49.4 percent were women, slightly exceeding the PDOI-1 revised target of 48 percent (see Annex 1). 35. The project helped implement 100 village and 22 district resilience sub-projects, of which 84 and 50 percent, respectively, involved water supply or management (see Figure 2 and Annex 8). According to end-of-project reports, 95 villages and all 22 districts rated sub-project implementation as Satisfactory (3+ on a scale of 1-4), substantially meeting the PDOI-2 revised target of 100 villages and 16 districts (see Annex 1). These results were further corroborated by the beneficiary survey, which, based on a sample of 128 respondents from a third of the project villages, found 70 percent to be Very Satisfied and another 22 percent Satisfied with their sub-project results (see Annex 7, Figure. 7.2). Figure 2: Village and District Sub-Projects, by Type Village Sub-Projects District-Level Sub-Projects Piped Water Fish Reserves Rainwater Network 1% Harves�ng 41% 44% Watershed Mangrove/Coastal Monitoring Replan�ng 5% 4% Sustainable Agro-Forestry Flood Management Agriculture 4% 9% 2% Rainwater Harves�ng/Others Safe Havens Community Escape Roads and 29% Marine Protected 2% Pools Road Upgrade 11% Areas/Fisheries 23% Escape Roads Reserve Waste Management N= 100 9% Integrated Water 3% and Sanita�on Resources Management N= 22 4% Source: Project Monitoring Records 9% Source: Project Monitoring Records in a catchment area of a Climate Investment Fund-supported infrastructure project. See Climate Investment Funds. (2018). 14 This is equivalent to 31 and 40 percent, respectively, of Samoa’s 2021 population. Village-level activities were implemented in the same 18 districts that benefited from district sub-projects and thus, overlaps may have occurred: for example, beneficiaries of rainwater tanks (at the village level) may have also been counted as beneficiaries from a different district sub-project (such as escape roads). For this reason, village and district beneficiaries are reported separately in this report. Page 9 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 36. In addition to project indicators, the evaluation looked at further evidence to confirm if sub-projects had helped beneficiaries adapt to climate variability and change, namely: (1) whether they had been priorities in climate-resilient CIM Plans; (2) whether they were selected and designed with climate resilience standards; and (3) beneficiaries’ stated perceptions of acquired adaptive capacity. 37. All 22 district sub-projects were listed as priorities in their respective CIM Plans (see MNRE, 2018), but this was less clear among village sub-projects, where 65 percent had been village CIM Plans priorities, 22 percent a prioritized sector but not the village’s first choice, and 13 percent had not been CIM Plan priorities. According to the project team, the latter two occurred primarily because the village’s first choice could not be accommodated by the project’s budget or criteria, or village priorities had changed since the CIM Plans were updated. Climate resilience was considered in both selection and design: district sub-projects were selected with a 50 percent weight for resilience relevance and effectiveness, and village sub-projects had to demonstrate clear climate and disaster resilience benefits and not increase vulnerability over the long term. 15 With respect to design standards, rainwater tanks followed a cyclone resilient design developed by a qualified international engineering firm, including reinforced slabs and roof structures. Other village structures (e.g., safe havens, culverts, and roads) were overseen by Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure (MWTI) engineers, with World Bank technical supervision, to help ensure resilience to floods and cyclone winds. District water networks followed SWA engineering standards, incorporating training on climate resilience. Nature-based sub- projects (such as mangrove or fisheries reserves) are, by nature, considered “no regrets” adaptation solutions. 38. The beneficiary survey provided further evidence of climate adaptation: first, respondents cited multiple ways their sub-projects helped protect them from disasters and climate change (see paras. 40-46 below); and second, they were asked a set of questions aimed at gauging their perceptions along six possible resilience attributes (see Annex 7, Appendix B). Adaptive capacity was rated as the second highest attribute, with 63 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area in the next five years, my household would be able to cope/adapt successfully” (see Annex 7, Figure 7.7). To investigate further whether beneficiaries attributed this to the project, the survey asked respondents to rate several potentially causative factors. 16 They identified experience gained from the ECR project as the second highest causative factor (after experience acquired from past disasters), with a paired t-test showing a statistically higher mean rating than experience gained from other projects, from media or Internet, and from other causative factors (at less than 0.01 percent probability). 39. The above results provide evidence of the project’s contribution and attribution to beneficiaries’ adaptive capacity to climate variability and change, although other factors, such as past disaster experience, also appear to be relevant. 40. Increased protection of people’s lives. As per its monitoring records, the project built two safe shelters benefitting 1,059 vulnerable people (169 households) and four district and three village escape roads from low-lying areas exposed to tsunamis and coastal storms, serving an estimated 9,974 people (1,483 households). 17 According to the beneficiary survey, escape roads increased a sense of safety by providing them with quick access to safer inland areas during 15 District sub-projects’ selection criteria also considered sustainability (35 percent) and social and economic efficiency (15 percent). For village sub-projects, criteria included climate resilience (25 percent); environmental, social and economic effects (20 percent); value of community contribution (10 percent); benefit/cost ratio (10 percent); community support and targeting of the poorest and most vulnerable (25 percent), and capacity for implementation and maintenance (10 percent). See Government of Samoa. (2015 and 2017) for sources. 16 Attribution was measured by asking beneficiary survey respondents to distribute 10 points among the five most likely causes of their perceived resilience, including: (1) experience acquired from past disasters; (2) experience gained from this (ECR) project; (3) activities of other projects; (4) media, TV, internet, etc.; and (5) other causes. Experience gained from this project was purposely listed second to prevent respondent bias; amongst all five causative factors, it received the second highest score (2.85 out of 10 points) after experience acquired from past disasters (3.49). The points were then compared using paired t-tests to detect significant differences in means (see Annex 7, para. 7.25). 17 The number of beneficiaries per households varies by sub-project as it is derived from actual project monitoring data (see Annex 8). Household size differs widely in Samoa depending on the size of the extended family. Page 10 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) disasters. Safe havens provided refuge and shelter for vulnerable people, as well as a place to safely store personal assets and valuables during extreme events. Based on Samoa’s disaster casualty risk (extrapolated to the beneficiary population), these investments are conservatively estimated to help save on average 0.15 lives and prevent 0.61 serious injuries per year—equivalent to 4 percent of the casualty risk from cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunamis in Samoa. 18 41. Increased protection of people’s livelihoods (domestic). The project increased water security for an estimated 58,138 people (7,856 households), exceeding the IRI-8 target of 15,000 by a significant amount (see Annex 1.C). Some 75 and 82 percent of beneficiary survey respondents reported feeling Very Satisfied with their new water quality and quantity, respectively (see Annex 7, Figure 7.3). According to SWA engineers, village rainwater tanks provided 3,327 m3 of new water storage capacity during the dry season, benefiting 4,338 households, and district piped connections provided additional water capacity of 3,429 m3 per day, benefiting 434 newly connected households (with an additional 3,023 expected at system maturity). Targeted beneficiaries were among the poorest and most isolated, commonly those who had recently moved inland following the 2010 tsunami and Cyclone Evan in 2012. They also included households without access to treated water and prone to inland flooding. At the village level, rainwater tanks further provided a reliable and safe supply for times when piped water was shut off or contaminated due to prolonged dry periods, floods, or cyclones, thereby increasing beneficiaries’ disaster preparedness. In addition, as per project records (see Annex 8), the project rehabilitated community pools in 14 villages, benefitting some 14,360 people (2,212 households) by providing a reliable year-round backup for multiple water uses, such as drinking, washing, bathing, and toilet flushing. 42. Increased protection of people’s livelihoods (productive). The project helped improve both agricultural and fisheries livelihoods. At the village level, it helped 468 people (81 households) to replant an estimated 50 ha of previously degraded land with more diverse, climate-resilient crops, such as coconuts, breadfruit trees, yams, sweet potatoes and cassava. Beneficiaries surveyed cited increased food security through the ability to store food ahead of cyclone and dry seasons, as well as improved financial security from the sale of surplus crops. At the district-level, through public-private partnerships, MAF reported that the project helped 785 farmers plant 349 ha of previously degraded land with coconuts, cocoa, fruit, timber trees, and food crops; trained an additional 1,200 farmers; and helped certify 2,000 organic farmers. Resulting incremental crop revenues are estimated at US$1,207/household/year, in addition to subsistence crops worth US$306/household/year (see Annex 4). The project further assisted 11 villages to adopt Village Fisheries Management Plans (VFMP), establish three new and five extended village fish reserves, and install seven offshore fish aggregation devices, 19 benefiting 10,420 people (1,443 households). These interventions are expected to help counteract declines in fisheries yields due to overfishing, rising sea surface temperatures, and coral bleaching, and yield incremental revenues of about US$665/household/year once fisheries spillover benefits occur (see Annex 4 for assumptions and para. 66). 43. Increased protection of coastal and inland infrastructure. In their sub-project selection, beneficiaries did not prioritize enhancing the resilience of infrastructure to a significant degree. Nevertheless, according to LTA engineers, the project upgraded culverts to resist a one in 50-year flooding event in an area of 6,150 ha in two villages (Aopo in Savai’i and Samusu in Upolu), benefiting 5,630 people (800 households). Environmental protection activities, both upstream and in coastal areas, were also expected to protect key infrastructure within target districts. 44. Increased protection of the environment. Despite having deleted its re/afforestation targets due to an alternative government program and an emphasis on water (see paras. 14 and 23), MNRE reported that the project helped replant 0.4 ha and conserve 14.4 ha of mangroves, establishing three new mangrove reserves at Lotupue-Malaela, Poutasi, and 18 Samoa’s estimated casualty risk is 19 casualties a year (11 from tropical cyclones, and eight from earthquakes and tsunamis), of which 19 percent are estimated to be deaths and the rest serious injuries. See Annex 4 for this evaluation’s detailed calculations and PCRAFI. (2015). 19 Fish aggregation devices have been promoted in Samoa and other Pacific Island countries to divert pressure on over-exploited coastal resources towards more resilient pelagic species, as well as to help counteract encroachment by offshore fishers on coastal waters. Page 11 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Vaovai (Upolu). It also helped replant 8.9 ha of degraded watershed areas with native species in Lepa and Gagaemauga I districts, benefiting some 10,616 people, and helping to moderate coastal flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. As a result of project interventions, the condition of three major water sources in Lepa, Gagaifomauga III, and Gagaemauga I districts improved from “poor” to “medium,” meeting the IRI-9 target (see Annex 1.C). The project further funded a monitoring base station, three surveys, and four technical and scientific reports for the expected establishment of a 72,000-ha protected area in the upland forests of Savai’i (a threatened area of high environmental value). 45. In coastal areas, according to MNRE, the project helped update the management plan and demarcation of the 5,012 ha Aleipata Marine Protected Area (MPA), establishing six no-take zones of 57.9 ha in total and benefiting some 5,434 people. The project also funded two coral restoration sites at Sala’ilua (Savai’i) and Amaile (Aleipata), and crown- of-thorns starfish eradication in Savai’i. These interventions are expected to help maintain live coral cover and, thus, contribute to coastal structural integrity. 20 46. In terms of the village environment, the project improved waste management in 18 villages, providing 243 rubbish stands and 765 wheelie bins to some 3,816 beneficiaries (652 households) who previously lacked access to managed waste disposal. According to beneficiaries’ feedback, these investments helped prevent waste accumulation and drainage contamination, and significantly curbed diarrhea and mosquito-borne diseases during floods and heavy rains. 47. Increased awareness of climate change impacts and adaptation activities amongst communities, civil society, and government. Monitoring evidence suggests the project contributed to and helped catalyze community awareness— both through CIM planning as well as through CSO-led awareness building. An estimated 14,900 community members participated in these activities, far exceeding the IRI-1 target of 5,000 (see Annex 1). According to the beneficiary survey, they were considered amongst the most useful of project inputs. Specifically, beneficiaries reported learning how to: prepare and respond to disasters and heed early warnings; clean drains to avoid flooding; identify and relocate to safe areas; plant trees to protect people from the hot sun; and conserve water and natural springs. They also learned about the role of coastal and riverbank replantation, how burning rubbish contributed to climate change, and how diversifying crops builds climate resilience. Adaptive learning was the highest rated resilience attribute in the survey, with 72 percent agreeing, or strongly agreeing, that “households had learned considerably from how we have dealt with past disasters. This knowledge is crucial in successfully dealing with future events.” The project was cited as the second highest causative factor after experience based on past disasters (see para. 38, and Annex 7, paras. 7.19 and 7.25). 48. The project helped update 18 district and village-level CIM Plans, two more than the IRI-2 target of 16, but this was due to the division of two of the original districts. CIM Plans were based on district and village risk management maps produced through high resolution satellite imagery and digital elevation models derived from LiDAR technology, complemented by technical specialists’ inputs. The maps included: topographic and bathymetric data; coastal flood, erosion, and tsunami hazard zones; coastline historical changes (from 1954 to 2015); and natural hazards. According to the project team, communities used them in a participatory manner to update the CIM Plans and prioritize solutions. The maps also served as a visual aid for communities to assess the impacts of climate change and make more informed decisions (such as whether to relocate to safer areas)—thus meeting IRI-4 (see Annex 1). The IRI-5 target (40 percent of district population with improved awareness) was not adequately measured through a sample survey—as intended in the PAD—but project officials considered it achieved since the CIM Plan’s awareness-building process had taken place in 18 of Samoa’s 42 districts (43 percent). 21 20 A 2016 coral survey in Upolu found 40-60 percent live coral cover in the two large MPAs of Safata and Aleipata (first established in 1999), compared to less than 10 percent in most sites in Upolu. See Ziegler, Maren et al. (2018). 21 The beneficiary survey provides an alternative way to measure IRI-5: 62 percent of respondents reported participating in CIM Plan consultations. Of these, 81 percent agreed or strongly agreed they had acquired adaptive learning, suggesting an achievement of 51 percent. However, this was based on a small sample (56 responses) and other factors, such as past experience, may have also contributed to adaptive learning. Page 12 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 49. The project helped increase climate change and adaptation awareness among civil society by: (1) helping mainstream resilience into CSSP operations (previously a channel for village development); and (2) directly engaging and training CSOs in facilitating climate resilience in target villages. Initially reaching out to 20 CSOs, the project provided a two-week training to ten CSOs on climate and disaster risk and resilience, including structural and nature-based adaptation solutions, community facilitation skills, and sub-project procedures. Ultimately, five trained CSOs were contracted to support the villages, meeting the project’s IRI-3 revised target (five). 50. In terms of government awareness, the project promoted close coordination between the Climate Resilience Steering Committee (CRSC), CRICU, CSSP and the six IAs for district sub-projects: SWA, LTA, MNRE, MWTI, and the Fisheries and Crops Divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF). By directly engaging these agencies in CIM Plan updating and co-financing and implementing CIM Plan priorities, the project helped ensure climate information was used in decision making in four climate-sensitive sectors: community development, water, transport, and agriculture and fisheries, as reported to PPCR (see para. 86). The project also piloted a way through which external projects could channel sub-grants to SOEs (SWA and LTA) without a need for subsidiary agreements. This ensured project funds remained under MOF responsibility (simplifying financial management), while providing an effective way to mainstream resilience in the critical water and transport sectors. The above provides solid evidence that IRI-7, “evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanisms to mainstream climate resilience,” also a core PPCR indicator, was met. The government further recorded six specific instances where the improved climate information and tools produced through the project were used,22 thus meeting the IRI-6 target. 51. An important final consideration is that the PDO specifically mentions coastal communities. Of the 100 villages reached by the project, 80 were coastal and 20 (mostly around Apia) were located further inland. As explained in para. 3, the project’s ridge-to-reef approach meant that even inland interventions were linked to coastal community resilience: for example, piped water systems further inland helped coastal communities settle more permanently in safer upland areas, and upper watershed management aimed to decrease coastal erosion and flooding. Nevertheless, even if a strict interpretation of the PDO is followed, the project benefited at least 48,460 people in coastal villages and 69,608 people in the coastal areas of the targeted districts—substantially exceeding the PDOI-1 target. Water beneficiaries in coastal areas totaled 35,168, still double the project target of 15,000. Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating Rating: Substantial 52. Overall project efficacy is rated Substantial. Although the PDO was intrinsically complex to measure, the achievement of project indicators triangulated with beneficiary and PMS data indicate the intended outcomes were, on balance, achieved. The number of people the project helped to adapt (PDOI-1 and IRI-8), extent of livelihood protection, and increased awareness had particularly high efficacy, with clear evidence of project contribution and some evidence of attribution. Gains in protecting lives, infrastructure, and the environment were comparatively smaller, with efficacy more difficult to assess since, apart from PDOI-3 (deleted at restructuring), no quantitative targets existed. The number of sub-projects satisfactorily implemented (PDOI-2) fell slightly short of the revised target for village sub-projects (95 percent) but exceeded it at the district level (138 percent) and was balanced by the high degree of beneficiary satisfaction and reported resilience benefits. 22 These included: (1) CIM Plan Toolkit—used for community consultation, CIM Plan updating, and government decisions on whether proposed investments are located in at-risk areas ; (2) District Sub-Project Plan—used to prioritize and implement district investments identified by CIM Plans; (3) LiDAR data—used for road network planning and flood risk modeling in Savai’i (in addition to CIM updating); (4) Climate Documentaries and Infographics—raised awareness on social media and at international meetings and were used for dissemination and information about climate resilience; (5) Community Engagement Plan and Toolkit—used for CSO training, awareness, and delivery of assistance to villages; and (6) PPCR Scorecard—consolidated national scoring of progress made regarding climate resilience. See Annex 1. Page 13 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) C. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating Rating: Substantial 53. Efficiency at project completion is rated Substantial based on: (1) an ex-post economic cost-benefit analysis which found the project’s economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and net present value (NPV) to be significant and, for most cases, robust; (2) a generally sound cost-effectiveness, compared to similar investments; and (3) administrative efficiency. The justification is summarized below and detailed further in Annex 4. Economic Analysis 54. Cost-Benefit Analysis at Appraisal. At appraisal, the overall project (including all project costs) was estimated to yield an EIRR of 8.9 percent, with an NPV of US$11.8 million (at a 3 percent discount rate), based on a top-down cost- benefit analysis which assumed the project would reduce average annual future damages from disasters by 50 percent in target districts. This methodology could not be replicated at completion since the final sub-projects did not focus on reducing disaster damages, but rather on protecting lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems—aspects that were only covered qualitatively at appraisal. 55. Cost-Benefit Analysis at Completion. The economic analysis at project completion confirmed the viability of the project, yielding an overall EIRR of 11.9 percent and an NPV of US$19.5 million equivalent (at 3 percent), 23 and an EIRR of 18.0 percent (NPV of US$23.7 million) for all sub-projects combined (Table 1). With the exception of structural flood management, 24 the analysis indicated that specific sub-projects were similarly viable, with water sub-projects showing EIRRs of 14.3-42.3 percent, and others ranging from 2.2 percent (for flood management) to 45.8 percent (for fisheries reserves/MPAs)—values in line with those of similar projects (see Annex 4, para. 4.38). A sensitivity analysis further showed that the EIRRs were fairly robust to a 25 percent decline in benefits or a 25 percent increase in costs, relative to the base case scenario. Nevertheless, sub-projects were highly sensitive to a scenario where net benefits declined to zero over a period of 10 years, highlighting the crucial importance of maintenance (see Section IV.D). Table 1: Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis at Project Completion Sensitivity Analysis EIRR NPV % of EIRR NPV (at 3%) Total Project -25% + 25% Net Benefits (at 6%) in US$’000 Costs Benefits Costs Declining in over 10 Years US$’000 TOTAL PROJECT1 11.9% $19,463 100.0% 7.5% 8.2% -9.0% $9,037 All Sub-Projects (Component 1.B) 18.0% $23,669 70.3% 12.2% 13.5% -3.8% $12,449 By Sub-Project Type: Village Rainwater Harvest Tanks 42.3% $3,409 9.1% 28.7% 31.5% 29.0% $2,720 Community Pools 16.6% $169 1.5% 6.5% 8.7% -0.9% $114 District Water Piped Network 14.3% $11,400 34.4% 10.1% 11.0% -11.1% $6,020 Waste Management/Sanitation 36.7% $69 0.5% 18.2% 22.0% 28.1% $57 Village Safe Havens 10.0% $43 0.4% 3.8% 5.1% <0.0% $20 Evacuation Roads 21.3% 2,131 7.6% 11.9% 13.9% -4.6% $1,436 Flood Management 2.2% -$47 3.3% -0.3% 0.3% <0.0% -$177 Sustainable Agriculture 38.8% $5,243 3.8% 23.8% 26.8% <0.0% $3,607 Fisheries Reserves/MPAs 45.8% $9,090 1.7% 40.7% 41.8% 22.8% $6,332 Mangrove Protection 34.1% $1,267 0.6% 26.3% 28.0% 0.2% $838 1 – Includes all project economic costs, and benefits for 100 village sub-projects and 18 of the 22 district sub-projects. See Annex 4 for details. Page 14 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 56. Economic costs included: project costs; counterpart, IA, and community (in-kind) contributions; and projected O&M costs. Taxes were excluded. Economic benefits were computed for all 100 village and 18 of the 22 district sub- projects, 25 with assumptions derived from the beneficiary survey, sub-project completion reports, questionnaires to key village respondents and IAs, and relevant published studies. Water sub-project benefits included value of time saved, health costs avoided, and net savings in water tariffs. Benefits of escape roads and safe havens included the value of statistical lives, accidental injuries and household assets saved during emergencies, and the structures’ ancillary benefits. Agriculture benefits included incremental production as well as the replacement value of subsistence production. Benefits of flood management, mangrove restoration, and fisheries reserves were extrapolated from relevant Samoan studies. The analysis is conservative since it did not include difficult-to-quantify benefits such as improved well-being, watershed protection or those brought about by project activities other than the sub-projects. 57. Cost Effectiveness. At appraisal, the project aimed to reach 45,000 beneficiaries at a cost of US$9.7 million—or US$216 per beneficiary. The actual project was considerably more efficient, with a final cost of US$43 per beneficiary for village and US$88 per beneficiary for district sub-projects. 26 Final sub-project costs were close to original project estimates, with village sub-projects (at US$19,694 equivalent per unit) 0.4 percent above CSSP’s standard norm (SAT 50,000 per unit or US$19,608) and district sub-projects (averaging US$331,487 per unit) 1.8 percent below original IA estimates (US$337,462 per unit). Escape roads averaged US$150,077 per km, 4.3 percent below LTA’s norm for standard sealed roads (SAT 400,000 per km or US$156,863 per km). Water pipeline costs averaged SAT 111 per m of pipeline (US$44 per m), which is in the upper range of SWA’s standard cost (SAT 80-110 per m). Village rainwater harvest sub-projects (at US$41 per beneficiary) and evacuation centers (US$95 per m2) cost considerably less than similar comparators in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. 27 Implementation Efficiency 58. Aspects of Design and Implementation that Influenced Efficiency. Sub-projects only began in earnest in 2016-17, due to procurement delays in mobilizing the PMS, LiDAR, and CIM Plan updates (see para. 75). Once underway, village sub-projects took, on average, 19 months to complete, while district sub-projects averaged 20 months. While longer than CSSP norms (12 months) and community resilience projects in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (11 months), such delays can largely be explained by the implementation of lockdowns due to the 2019 measles outbreak and the COVID- 19 pandemic (see para. 81). Village sub-projects completed prior to 2019 averaged 11 months, in line with CSSP and comparable project standards. 59. Administrative Efficiency. Project management costs amounted to 14.5 percent of total costs, considerably less than estimated at appraisal (19.9 percent) as well as for similar projects (see Annex 4, para. 4.45). This was largely due to efficiency gains made by contracting a firm for project management, as well as MOF support through CSSP and CRICD. 23 See footnote 45 (Annex 4) for a justification of the choice of social discount rate. 24 Even though the flood management EIRR is lower than the social discount rate, it is consistent with the low benefit-cost ratio found for structural flood measures in the Lower Vaisigano Catchment Area in Samoa. See Woodruff, A. (2008). 25 Benefits could not be computed for two integrated water management sub-projects, a watershed monitoring sub-project, and a road upgrade sub-project due to lack of data. However, their costs were included in the aggregated analyses for all sub-projects as well as for the overall project. 26 Including sub-project costs (Component 1.1) and relevant overheads (Component 2.2) but excluding counterpart and village contributions. Even with counterpart contributions, costs per beneficiary were considerably more efficient than estimated at appraisal (see Annex 4, para. 4.41). 27 Village rainwater harvesting sub-projects under the Solomon Islands Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster Risk Project (CRISP, P112613) averaged US$64 per beneficiary, and evacuation centers US$245 per m2. Under the Vanuatu Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards (IRCCNHP, P112611), rainwater harvesting sub-projects averaged US$63 per beneficiary and community/evacuation centers US$647 per m2. Both projects, however, intervened in remote areas which added to their delivery costs. All comparators exclude village contributions. Page 15 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING Rating: Satisfactory 60. The relevance of the project objective is rated High given its alignment with the current Pacific Islands RPF and the Strategy for the Development of Samoa. Efficacy and Efficiency are both rated Substantial. Based on these sub- ratings, and the justification given in para. 32 for not conducting a split assessment, the project’s overall outcome is rated Satisfactory. E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS Gender 61. With women comprising 49.4 percent of total beneficiaries, the project met—and slightly exceeded––its gender target of 48 percent. According to the beneficiary survey, women were actively involved in all stages of village sub- projects (proposal, implementation, and maintenance), and their satisfaction with the results was higher than for men: 96 percent professed being Satisfied to Very Satisfied against 89 percent of male respondents. Overall, beneficiaries from 85 percent of villages surveyed reported women were actively involved in sub-project implementation committees (see Annex 7, paras. 7.35-7.39 for further details). 62. Women played leading and coordinating roles in rainwater harvesting, community pools, waste management, and sustainable agriculture sub-projects. Proposals for rainwater harvesting and waste management were mostly prepared by women, who also supervised subsequent implementation, and even helped male workers by preparing food and helping carry rocks for tank bases. Women also oversaw maintenance of water tanks and rubbish bins. In addition, women’s committees were heavily involved in community pools, removing rubbish and planting trees to beautify surrounding areas, fundraising, and carrying out regular maintenance. Some villages had rosters of women to monitor agreed pool user rules, whereas others organized weekly vegetation and pool clean-up days. Women also reportedly monitored the use of funds for any deviations from agreed proposals. In agriculture sub-projects, women’s committees led proposal preparation and organized monthly meetings with beneficiary families. Among infrastructure sub-projects (such as escape roads and safe havens), women’s roles were more muted due to men’s traditional lead role in construction. Nonetheless, they participated in village meetings, prepared food, and engaged in some (but not all) oversight committees. 63. Overall, the project appears to have capitalized well on women’s leading development role in Samoan villages. While sub-projects may have increased the work burden of women, they also focused largely on sectors that traditionally benefitted them (water, waste management, and agriculture). Water sub-projects led to substantial time savings for women (see para. 68), while water, waste management and agriculture investments contributed to household health (another key women’s role). Given their traditional role in marketing, the extra income derived from crops is also expected to enhance the economic role of women in their villages. Institutional Strengthening 64. The project contributed to institutional strengthening by: (1) piloting a financing platform by which MOF—through CRSC and CRICU—was able to coordinate various IAs and CSSP to implement climate resilience investments in their sectors, in accordance with CIM Plans; (2) supporting the conversion of CRICU into a full-fledged Division (CRICD), staffed by full-time government employees since 2016-17; and (3) updating CIM Plans in 18 districts, which according to MOF now help guide development decisions to assess whether proposed investments are located in at-risk areas. Page 16 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity 65. The project targeted the poorest areas of Samoa. For example, approximately 72 percent of beneficiaries were from Northwest Upolu, the poorest region in Samoa according to the latest available poverty data 28 (along with the Apia Urban Area). Northwest Upolu was also the region, along with Apia, with the highest degree of inequality (Gini coefficient of 0.44). Amongst the targeted villages, 56 percent of beneficiary survey respondents said they depended on informal income sources (fishing, livestock, food stalls, plantation work, or seasonal work), which are among the most vulnerable occupations in Samoa. An additional 12 percent indicated they depended on both formal and informal sources, and 4 percent reported no income. 66. Actual project impact on poverty is estimated to be modest, except amongst the 2,300 households benefiting from agriculture and fisheries sub-projects. According to estimates from the economic analysis, beneficiaries from all water sub-projects saved about SAT 90 (US$35) per year per household in lower water bills, and beneficiaries from water and waste management saved on average SAT 130 (US$51) per year in health costs—equivalent to 0.56 to 0.67 percent of average annual household expenditures. Beneficiaries from sustainable agriculture and fisheries, on the other hand, saw their average annual household income increase by SAT 3,076 (US$1,207) and SAT 1,695 (US$665), respectively—equivalent to 27.2 and 14.9 percent of the poorest households’ average annual income. 29 67. Where household targeting was possible—e.g., in the case of rainwater harvesting tanks, waste management, and sustainable agriculture—the beneficiary survey confirmed the project benefited the poorest and most vulnerable, thus helping to boost shared prosperity within villages. 30 This included those without access to safe and reliable water or those who were unable to afford water fees. At the same time, intra-village targeting generated some resentment among higher income households, which felt excluded from sub-project benefits (see Annex 7, para. 7.16). Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 68. Aside from improving resilience, beneficiaries from village sub-projects reported receiving significant development benefits. These included: (1) time savings by not having to collect water from alternative sources (a median of 59 minutes a day per household); (2) savings in water bills; (3) health benefits from cleaner water and improved waste management; (4) aesthetic, social, and tourism benefits from spring pools; (5) facilitated access to schools and plantations from escape roads; (6) use of safe havens for village gatherings and rented venues; and (7) better nutrition from vegetables and more diverse crops, amongst others (see Annex 7, paras. 7.12 and 7.13). 69. The district agro-forestry sub-project resulted in two key public-private partnerships with Serendi Coco Samoa, involving 630 farmers, and with Women in Business Development Inc., involving 155 farmers. These and other private sector engagement (namely in procuring water tanks) were judged as successful in the government’s ICR (Annex 5). III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 70. An ambitious and broad objective, measurable only in part by the results framework. Given that community resilience impacts are generally only fully realized over the long-term and resilience is multi-dimensional, the PDO was somewhat ambitious and broadly defined, both in scope and in timing (see para. 82 for further details). 28 In 2013-14, up to 24 percent of Northwest Upolu’s population had weekly per capita expenditures that were less than the basic needs poverty line, compared to 19 percent nationwide. See Samoa’s National Statistics Office (NSO) and UNDP. (2016). 29 Project estimates of average household savings were compared with average household income and expenditures of the three poorest deciles, weighted by region. Sources: estimates from the economic analysis made for this evaluation, and SBS. (2020). 30 Targeting the most vulnerable segments of the community was part of the evaluation criteria for village sub-projects. See MNRE. (2015). Page 17 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 71. A simple and coherent design, anchored in past experience. The project’s design was simple and sound, reflecting the World Bank’s long operational experience in Samoa. 31 The project’s three components were closely linked in support of priority adaptation measures identified in the CIM Plans. The design had several innovations based on sound national and international practices, such as the reef-to-ridge approach, and community awareness to influence adaptation choices. To avoid potential delays caused by the CIM Plan process, the PAD also proposed a two-step approach, where a rapid assessment would help identify pilot sub-projects, followed by a lengthier consultation to finalize the CIM Plans. 72. A solid risk assessment. The risk assessment recognized MNRE capacity was strained and proposed a programmatic PMU to handle multiple projects, as well as reinforced World Bank fiduciary support. It also recognized that villages have a natural bias towards infrastructure and proposed strong sensitization to help them select nature-based solutions. Ultimately, this sensitization proved insufficient to counteract community preferences for water investments, but it was compensated by a stronger focus on nature-based investments at the district-level (see Figure 2 and para. 78). 73. Sound institutional arrangements, but the capacity of village sub-grant recipients was over-estimated. The design correctly sought to counteract capacity constraints by relegating district sub-projects to IAs and village sub-projects to CSSP. Yet it over-estimated the community groups’ capacity to manage funds directly, leading to the first restructuring. 74. Readiness for implementation. The project was solidly appraised, and an initial POM and procurement plan were ready by the time of project effectiveness. While the initial POM lacked details on sub-grant procedures, it was assumed (correctly) that such details could be further developed during early implementation, based on the participatory experience, when the project was focusing on updating the CIM Plans. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION Factors Within Government and World Bank Control 75. Delayed procurement of key services. Sub-project implementation only began in earnest in 2017, due to procurement difficulties with three key precursor contracts: (1) the PMS were mobilized one year into implementation, due to protracted negotiations with the only firm that qualified and the need to negotiate the contract with the Adaptation Fund/UNDP project with which the services were shared (they were eventually separated); (2) the LiDAR and aerial photography needed for the CIM Plans had to be rebid after the initial bids proved too high (it was completed in March 2015); and (3) CIM Plan services had to be contracted to individual experts, when the initial bidding failed to attract a qualified firm. While eight village pilots got underway in 2016, the late completion of CIM Plans led to delays in implementation of district and most village sub-projects. 76. CSSP increased responsibility. As the CSSP program evolved, it increasingly became a mechanism to channel sub- projects to community-based organizations, with CSOs playing primarily a service delivery role. 32 This required CSSP to play a more centralized fiduciary role than envisaged at appraisal (see para. 25). In addition, as the choices of villages focused on social infrastructure, CSSP became a more efficient choice to procure materials in bulk and ensure sub- projects followed climate-resilient standards. These changes led to the first restructuring in 2015. 77. A breakthrough sub-grant mechanism for district investments. At the time of appraisal, Samoa did not yet have a clear mechanism to channel project funds through SOEs (see para. 50). The sub-grant mechanism, agreed in mid-2017, provided the breakthrough by which the project was able to use the capacity of SOEs, in addition to key sectoral Ministries, to vastly exceed the number of beneficiaries planned at appraisal. 31 Dating back to the first and second Samoa Infrastructure Asset Management Projects (SIAM-1, 1999-2003, P052293, and SIAM-2, 2004-2013, P07552), as well as the preparation of the CRIP (GoS 2011). 32 See Constantini, Gianfrancesco (2015). Page 18 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 78. Shift away from coastal replanting. By and large, target villages selected water supply over coastal replantation investments envisaged at appraisal. This reflected not only their priorities, but also progress on complementary programs, such as GoS’s Two Million Tree Campaign (2015-2020). District sub-projects continued to emphasize nature- based solutions, but the results framework had to be revised (at the third restructuring) to reflect this shift. 79. Laudable efforts to harmonize monitoring and evaluation (M&E) procedures, but with high transaction costs at completion. Beginning in 2016, project indicators were integrated within a broader PPCR performance framework (see para. 86). The project also used existing CSSP End-of-Project Reports (EOPR) to evaluate village sub-projects. While this considerably eased the government’s M&E burden, it did not address some of the weaknesses in the project indicators, requiring considerable extra efforts to collect evaluation data at project completion (see paras. 82, 87 and 88). 80. Strong government coordination and proactive Bank team support. The government, through the CRSC, promoted strong coordination among IAs and ensured CIM Plan priorities were respected without undue political interference. The World Bank team was also proactive in adjusting the project design through frequent restructurings and practical advice, enabling implementation problems to be rapidly resolved (see para. 106). These combined efforts enabled the project to recover from initial procurement delays and ultimately exceed its original beneficiary and sub- project targets. Factors Outside the Control of Government 81. Impact of Health and Natural Disasters Emergencies. Sub-project implementation was slowed by: (1) the December 2019 measles outbreak, which halted activities for six weeks; (2) heavy rain caused by two tropical cyclones in February 2020; and (3) the COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020. As a result of the latter, Samoa banned international travel and restricted internal gatherings, which affected follow-up of village and district sub-projects. It also considerably affected World Bank supervision missions, which had to be carried out virtually, and substantially constrained data collection for the ICR, which had to rely on in-country sources. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) Rating: Modest M&E Design 82. The project followed a sound design logic, 33 but the PDO was broadly defined and somewhat ambitious. The PAD partially compensated for this by listing several implicit resilience outcomes which the project was expected to focus on (see para. 6), but these were inconsistently stated. 34 As a result, the PDO was only partially measurable by the results indicators. Protection of lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure, all cited in the PAD as critical resilience dimensions, lacked clear targets, and had to be assessed at completion through additional monitoring. 83. Apart from the above weaknesses, the results indicators were generally specific, measurable, achievable, and time-bound. However, two indicators had noticeable flaws. PDOI-3 (area restored or re/afforested) was intended to measure nature-based investments, but its sub-indicators only measured mangrove and natural coastal revegetation, and not upland watershed management (which was intrinsic to the project’s reef-to-ridge strategy). The end-of-project target was also unclear: while the PAD listed it as 120 ha, the year-to-year targets suggested 1,200 ha, including 700 ha 33The project was designed in 2013, before the World Bank’s adoption of TOC. 34For example, while the main body of the PAD (para. 20) listed the implicit outcomes shown on the ICR TOC, Annex 2, para. 5, did not mention adaptation as an outcome (only urgent adaptation activities as an output), and Annex 2, para. 6, listed different intended outcomes. In its defense, the project was appraised at a time (2014) when a global consensus on adaptation and resilience indicators did not yet exist. Page 19 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) of mangroves—yet this would have clearly been excessive, since the total estimated area of mangroves in Samoa was only 372 ha. 35 IRI-5 (Improved awareness of climate change risks and hazards among targeted population) was also intrinsically difficult to measure. Even though the PAD envisaged measuring it through a sample survey, it did not explain how the data would be collected, nor the rationale for the 40 percent target. 84. M&E arrangements in the PAD were designed to be extensive, programmatic, and well embedded within local institutions. An M&E specialist and a data entry clerk were to be hired to work with counterpart staff, supported by an international specialist as needed. The PAD also envisaged that within village councils, a CIM Plan committee member would report on village progress, complemented by ecological and disaster monitoring by community/CSO/school teams, and scientific monitoring by MNRE. Additional data was to be provided through sample surveys at the start and completion of the project. The CRICU (aided by the PMS) was to provide broader programmatic monitoring and disseminate lessons learned across the two PPCR projects and the Adaptation Fund/UNDP project. M&E Implementation 85. M&E implementation followed a sound process, but weaknesses and inconsistencies persisted in the way key indicators were monitored. By mid-2015, baseline household and population data had been collected and reported for all villages. In addition, application forms for village and district sub-projects recorded direct beneficiaries, how they addressed climate resilience, and agreed objectives and indicators, against which the proponents evaluated their final achievement and overall implementation in the EOPRs. To maintain objectivity, project officers also gave their own rating and an agreed final score was then recorded. The proportion of sub-projects registering “good” or “excellent” implementation were then counted against PDOI-2 (see paras. 23 and 35). To facilitate field monitoring, the PMS also developed a geospatial mobile database for village sub-projects using hand-held devices (mobile phones or tablets). 86. In 2015, under separate funding, the CRICD developed a programmatic M&E system to link resilience indicators in the Strategy for the Development of Samoa, PPCR program core indicators, and the results frameworks of three relevant projects (including ECR). 36 This allowed two of the more subjective project indicators (IRI-6 and IRI-7) to be scored annually by stakeholders from all IAs and CSSP, as well as for evidence of annual progress to be monitored for five relevant sectors (national planning, transport, water and sanitation, community development, and agriculture). These, as well as other project indicators, were updated regularly in the Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs) and reported annually to the Climate Investment Fund. 87. While the above harmonization was exemplary, several original weaknesses in the project’s M&E were not fully corrected. An “excellent” score on PDOI-2, for example, may reflect more how beneficiaries viewed implementation of their development priority (e.g., water), but further evidence was needed to ascertain whether it contributed to their resilience (the PDO). The PMS and IAs also faced difficulties reconciling numbers of direct beneficiaries (PDO-1), particularly for escape roads and nature-based solutions (e.g., should they count the entire village/district population, or only those living close to the road/watershed or MPA?). Improved awareness (IRI-5) was interpreted as the share of districts (population) that benefited from CIM Plan updates, rather than the change in the population’s awareness of climate change risks and hazards in target districts (as originally intended). 88. To compensate for the above weaknesses, CSSP caried out a beneficiary survey in 2020-21 in one-third of the target villages, surveying, among others, perceptions of acquired resilience knowledge and capacity (Annex 7). In addition, a short survey was provided to IAs to complement district-level outcome data. These were used to triangulate project achievements for the efficacy assessment and as a background to the efficiency analysis (Sections II.B and C). 35 Source: Bhattari, B., and C. Giri. (2011). 36 In addition to this (ECR) project, the system reported on the second PPCR project, the Enhancing Climate Resilience for West Coast Road Project (P126504), as well as the Enhancing Resilience of Coastal Communities of Samoa to Climate Change funded through the Adaptation Fund/UNDP. Page 20 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 89. The project’s M&E functions are likely to be sustained, given their integration within the Samoa Climate Resilience Monitoring and Reporting System maintained by CRICD. Since the project used slightly modified CSSP templates, CSSP is likely to sustain them. CSSP adopted the mobile monitoring system and the PMS transferred the database to a government server, but at the time of this report, newly recruited CSSP staff still needed to be trained to use the system. M&E Utilization 90. As stated in para. 85, project stakeholders (village councils, IAs, CSOs, CSSP, and CRICD) were involved in M&E and in any adjustments resulting from project findings. The programmatic M&E experts brought in during early implementation led to site visits and pilot testing of eight village sub-projects. This earlier experience helped determine, for example, that mangrove management and escape roads were best done at the district level, under the guidance of specialized IAs. In addition, the project was restructured in response to M&E findings: PDOI-3, for example, was first reduced and subsequently dropped when it became clear villages prioritized water, rather than the originally planned nature-based solutions. Two new intermediate indicators (IRI-8 and IRI-9) were then adopted to reflect the growing predominance of water sub-projects, and IRI-1 and IRI-3 were reformulated due to monitoring and implementation experience (see para. 24). When it became clear the project’s monitoring framework was insufficient to monitor PDO achievement, a complementary beneficiary and IA surveys were carried out. At the same time, the methodology to capture resilience awareness under IRI-5 was not corrected. The total number of beneficiaries under PDOI-1 was also left unchanged since the impact of district sub-projects was not known until late in implementation. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 91. The overall quality of M&E is rated Modest. Shortcomings in the design and implementation of the results framework and the broad PDO made assessing project outcomes somewhat difficult. However, this was partially compensated by the surveys carried out at completion, which enabled a more comprehensive assessment of outcomes than would have been possible through project indicators alone. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE Safeguards Compliance 92. The project was classified as a Category B (partial assessment) at appraisal, triggering the following World Bank Operational Policies (OP): 4.01-Environmental Assessment; 4.04-Natural Habitats; 4.36-Forests; 4.11-Physical Cultural Resources; 4.10-Indigenous Peoples; and 4.12-Involuntary Resettlement. An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework were prepared and disclosed, both in-country and at the World Bank Infoshop, on September 24, 2013. The ESMF incorporated policy requirements on Natural Habitats, Forests and Physical Cultural Resources. Since 93 percent of Samoans are indigenous Polynesians, a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan or Framework was not required. However, a brief summary outlining how the project complied with OP/BP 4.12 was disclosed on September 25, 2013. 93. The project complied with all its safeguard policies. Safeguard processes were generally handled soundly, with application forms requiring sub-projects to be screened for environmental and social impacts and include necessary permits and consultation records. The PMS’ safeguards specialist trained CSOs and IAs in 2015 in safeguard procedures and, together with the Planning and Urban Management Agency and a World Bank safeguards specialist, reviewed the proposed environmental and social classification of all district sub-projects. A comprehensive safeguards field review was carried out in December 2018 to January 2019, and specific issues were then monitored on a bi-annual basis. The safeguards specialist also participated in end of sub-project evaluations, where safeguard issues were recorded. Page 21 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 94. Environmental. Environmental issues were, for most cases, minor and satisfactorily resolved. Sixteen district sub- projects were rated Category B, requiring a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR), 37 including eight that were reclassified following the 2018-19 safeguards review (from Category C [no assessment] to a B). Since three had already been completed, they required environmental site validation reports, which confirmed no significant residual impacts. The Vavau escape road used material sourced from a village-owned quarry (in conformity with the ESMF) but which had not been stabilized as per the landowner’s request. A visit by the Bank safeguards specialist subsequently confirmed it did not pose community or environmental risks. The district fisheries sub-project in Palauli-West and Aana Alofi III included seven fish aggregation devices, but these were part of village fisheries management, and thus expected to have net positive impacts. Construction of the Aopo base monitoring station required minor upgrading of the access road, but access was restricted to works at the station to preserve access restrictions to the conservation area. By contrast, and as confirmed by site visits, all the village sub-projects were classified as Category C, not requiring a PEAR. 95. Social. The project did not involve involuntary resettlement or land acquisition. At the village level, two escape roads were upgraded but remained communally owned, with no land transfer needed. For the twelve district sub- projects that required land (e.g., for water infrastructure or escape roads), four voluntary land donations and eight long- term lease agreements were negotiated, requiring Land Access Due Diligence Reports and a six-month public notification period for any objections to land leases. The following objections were raised: (1) in the Sagaga Le Falefa Road and Piped Water Supply, a landowner disputed land claimed by the Samoa Land Corporation, but the safeguard specialist confirmed water pipes were laid within the road reserve and no property was lost; (2) in the Faleasiu Piped Network, a family dispute over the chiefly (matai) title was eventually resolved, enabling the lease to be signed; and (3) in the Se’ese’e Water Network, a dispute between two beneficiary claimants was resolved in August 2021. Prior to project closure, SWA had transferred lease payments to MNRE to hold in trust and release to the rightful owners. Thus, all consultations and lease agreements were completed before project closure and lease payments were paid to a trust fund, if not signed by June 30, 2021. 96. The project established a Grievance Redress Mechanism where two grievances were recorded and satisfactorily resolved. The first was from a village in Lepa district, complaining about a design flaw on the storage tanks for the Sinasina spring pool, causing water overflow (rectified by the contractor to the satisfaction of the village). The second, from a village located along the West Coast Road, had confused the project with that of another development partner. Fiduciary Compliance 97. Procurement. The project complied with its Procurement and Consultant Guidelines (dated January 2011), the Grant Agreement, and the project procurement plan (dated October 2013 and revised annually). No evidence of mis- procurement, fraud, or corruption was found. 98. As mentioned in para. 75, procurement of key packages—PMS, LiDAR, and CIM Plans—was critically delayed, causing procurement performance to be downgraded to moderately unsatisfactory in March 2015. To address these weaknesses, from mid-2015 to early 2016, the World Bank procurement expert conducted two training sessions with IA, CSSP, and CRICU staff. The POM was revised to detail procurement steps and IA specialists were further involved in contract specifications. The PMS also set up a procurement performance monitoring system, with standards based on contract timeliness and budgetary efficiency, and hired a project assistant to improve procurement records. These steps enabled procurement to be upgraded to moderately satisfactory in January 2018. In early 2019, facing delays in procuring materials for rainwater sub-projects at the village level, CSSP set up bulk procurement for water tanks, which further improved procurement efficiency. 37The PEAR, under the Samoa Planning and Urban Management Act and Regulations, was considered by the World Bank as equivalent to an Environmental Management Plan. None of the sub-projects required a more stringent Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Report. Page 22 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 99. The project did not follow the Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement (STEP) system, continuing to rely instead on Excel-based monitoring since, by the time it was introduced in 2016, most of the procurement plan had been completed and Samoa faced bandwidth limitations in accessing the system. 38 100. Financial Management. The project complied with all its financial covenants, but with two- to four-month delays in the 2016 and 2017 audits and in some of the Interim Financial Reports (IFRs). Apart from minor weaknesses noted below, financial management was generally adequate and all audits up to fiscal year 2019-20 were unqualified. 39 World Bank financial reviews found, in general, adequate segregation of duties, accounting staff, and record maintenance using the GoS’s own system (FinanceOne), complemented by Excel worksheets to satisfy World Bank requirements. CSSP also employed a project officer and set up a Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) account, with monthly reconciliations provided to the PMS for consolidation into project reports. 101. World Bank financial reviews and annual audits found some minor weaknesses in financial management which were, for the most part, satisfactorily resolved: (1) advances claimed by CSSP as expenditures were not eligible until acquitted, and, to address this, IFRs were revised as of December 2020 to include advances, acquittals, and unacquitted balances; (2) the project budget had to be made consistent with the procurement plan and sub-project amounts; (3) inconsistencies in project transactions were corrected in October 2018 through training and use of International Public Sector Accounting Standards; (4) delays in reconciliation between GoS’s system and the project records required more regular reconciliation; and (5) CSSP expenses needed to be subject to pre-auditing in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 Public Finance Management Act. MOF subsequently confirmed this had been agreed with CSSP. By the time of this report, GoS was expecting to return US$0.66 million in project funds, mostly from unused contingencies. 102. Legal Covenants. The project complied with all its legal covenants, but with 10-month delays in mobilizing the PMS and submitting the CEP, and a five-month delay in submission of the District Level Sub-Project Plan. C. BANK PERFORMANCE Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Quality at Entry 103. Quality at entry was generally adequate but had two key shortcomings: (1) a broad and somewhat ambitious PDO (para. 70); and (2) over-estimating the capacity of community groups to implement sub-grants (para. 73). The World Bank appraisal team helped ensure high strategic relevance, by grounding the project in Samoa’s institutional, policy, and implementation experience, and anchoring it within a programmatic approach to minimize the government’s burden. Apart from the role of community groups, implementation arrangements were appropriate, with responsibilities allocated among MOF, MNRE, CSSP, and the various IAs in accordance with their mandates. 104. Technical design reflected best practices which were also innovative at the time: (1) the ridge-to-reef approach; (2) an emphasis on awareness to improve communities’ resilient behavior; (3) investments guided by participatory plans and risk maps; and (4) helping communities retreat from vulnerable coastal areas. The economic analysis had some weaknesses, as seen in para. 54 and Annex 4, para. 4.6. Social aspects were comprehensively addressed through three assessment studies—social, CSO capacity, and gender impact—guiding project design, although the CSO assessment over-estimated their experience in climate resilience (see para. 24). Environmental aspects were well 38 The procurement plan did not include district-level sub-projects since they were disbursed as sub-grants. In addition, between 2016-2018, STEP was very challenging among Pacific Island countries due to their limited internet bandwidth. Given this and the expectation at the time that only few procurement contracts remained during the extension period, the World Bank team agreed that the project would not migrate to STEP. 39 When this ICR was being written, the audit for July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 (due December 31, 2021) had not yet been completed. Page 23 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) covered in the PAD and the ESMF, with clear responsibilities and a negative list to avoid common problems (such as sand mining and mangrove clearance). The World Bank team also comprehensively addressed fiduciary aspects, with residual risks rated substantial even after mitigation. This included hiring an experienced PMS firm and procurement monitoring with service standards. M&E arrangements were extensively designed, but with weaknesses in some of the indicators (see para. 82-83) and an over-estimation of the monitoring ability of village councils and IAs (para. 84). Overall project risks were rated substantial, with a candid assessment of the effects of capacity constraints, project fatigue, and community bias towards infrastructure—all of which proved relevant during implementation. World Bank team composition was also adequate, with sufficient fiduciary and safeguards expertise, complemented by experts on technical disaster risk management, coastal engineering, and natural resource management assisting the core team. Quality of Supervision 105. The World Bank team carried out implementation support missions at least bi-annually. 40 Full missions— including both field visits and meetings with high-level decision makers—alternated with shorter technical missions, complemented by regular teleconferences to address implementation problems. Missions had adequate technical and operational support: procurement and social and/or environmental safeguards staff joined nearly every time, and financial management reviews were held annually. The core team had expertise in adaptation, natural resources, and disaster risk management, and brought in engineering, M&E, and knowledge and learning experts as needed. The Bank’s safeguards team also joined field visits in 2018-19, proposing a higher classification for several district sub- projects (see para. 94) and monitoring them regularly for safeguards compliance and resolution of any pending issues. 106. In general, the World Bank team offered constructive and candid feedback, downgrading implementation progress to moderately unsatisfactory for three years (2015-2018) due to procurement delays, and again in December 2019 when it became clear a new project extension would be needed to complete the sub-projects. Financial management and safeguards ratings were also regularly adjusted (from satisfactory to moderately satisfactory) as issues were identified and eventually solved. Aide Memoires were concise, practical, and focused on key implementation challenges. They included a rolling action plan, an updated results framework and (when relevant) safeguards and fiduciary reviews. The World Bank team also showed flexibility in restructuring the project four times at the government’s request, finding innovative solutions to channel funds to IAs through sub-grants (see para. 50) and to provide implementation support during the COVID-19 lockdown—e.g., by holding weekly videoconferences with the PMS and individual IAs to resolve procurement delays due to border closures. 107. In the initial stages, the World Bank team focused much of its efforts on ensuring the project was well anchored with Samoa’s climate resilience program, e.g., by encouraging harmonized procedures with IAs and CSSP. In later years (2017-2021), the World Bank team shifted its attention to helping the national team complete the large portfolio of sub-projects. This may have distracted from focusing on the project’s own development impact so far as measuring the PDO was concerned. During the last year of implementation, however, the team acted rapidly to deploy a local consultant and involve CSSP and the IAs in collecting complementary data for the final evaluation. Transitional arrangements were handled well, with the World Bank team and the government agreeing that MOF and CSSP would continue to provide transitional support (particularly on financial management). Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 108. Based on the quality of inputs provided and on the moderate shortcomings noted above, overall World Bank performance is rated Moderately Satisfactory. 40From 2017 to 2019, the World Bank team carried out three missions a year, alternating technical (shorter) missions with full implementation support missions. From 2020 on, all missions were carried out virtually due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions. Page 24 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 109. The overall risks that the development outcome will not be sustained are considered moderate in likelihood yet could have a substantial impact if they materialized due to major disasters or weak maintenance. As climate change intensifies, the community resilience built by the project could be overwhelmed by the frequency and/or intensity of natural disasters. This risk is mitigated by the fact that the project provided basic services and improved livelihoods to households recently retreated from more exposed coastal zones—helping to consolidate a process of voluntary population retreat to safer inland areas. Nevertheless, inland areas continue to be exposed to droughts and floods which could, in the absence of continuous maintenance, affect project sustainability. The likelihood of this happening is deemed moderate for water sub-projects, and moderate to substantial for other sub-projects, as explained below. 110. Among village sub-projects, surveyed beneficiaries perceived sustainability to be high: 91 percent believed the sub-projects would continue to operate well in two years and 74 percent were optimistic they would continue in five years. Less optimistic beneficiaries felt they would continue to operate only if properly maintained or if villages received outside maintenance support (see Annex 7, paras. 7.30-7.33). Notable differences in sustainability perceptions existed depending on sub-project type: beneficiaries of rainwater tanks, community pools, rubbish bins, and agriculture sub- projects, in particular, were overwhelmingly confident their families (or, in the case of pools, village committees) would maintain them. Reasons cited included: (1) perceived quality of inputs (e.g., water tanks); (2) ease of maintenance; (3) importance to households; and (4) incentives put in place by CSSP and village councils, whereby poorly performing households or villages were excluded from future village projects. By contrast, beneficiaries from escape roads and safe havens felt less confident in their ability to maintain the sub-projects, as escape roads became muddy and dirty during the rainy season and safe haven walls were reportedly subject to rotting. Overall, however, reliance on maintenance undertaken by the community remained the most likely form of sustainability for village sub-projects, since at the time of this report, CSSP had not yet secured funding for the same areas and activities. 41 111. In the absence of major disasters, district sub-projects are likely to continue to provide substantial resilience benefits, since they form an integral part of their respective IA’s performance frameworks and operational budgets. SWA’s Corporate Plan for 2021-2024, for example, includes “Increased Community Engagement” and “Integrated Water Management” as part of its corporate objectives, and has an adequate annual O&M budget for system assets of US$1.7-1.8 million equivalent. By contrast, natural resource management activities—such as the MPA in Aleipata and upland forest monitoring in Savaii—are likely more exposed to disaster risks and uneven maintenance given their historical dependency on donor support. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 112. Projects focused on climate resilience should bring the PDO down to the specific dimensions/sectors that the project addresses…and include clear targets. As resilience is multi-dimensional and may take a long time to achieve, the PDO may need to be narrowed further to the types of interventions and time frame that a project is expected to cover (e.g., “increase the resilience of livelihoods for coastal communities).” In this project, the PDO was overly broad, and although the PAD listed expected outcomes, some were not captured by the results framework (see para. 82). Project implementors also had difficulties measuring beneficiaries for sub-projects with fluid boundaries—such as escape roads and flood management. 41At the time of this report, CSSP had an operational counterpart budget of SAT 100,000 a year (US$37,450 equivalent). The European Union and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were funding CSSP Phase II until 2021, but with different target areas than ECR. CSSP was also implementing the Green Climate Fund’s Vaisigano Climate Resilience Project, but this was confined to the catchment near Apia. The government was also holding discussions with donors (including the World Bank) to continue to fund resilient investments at the local level (task team, personal communication). Target villages can also continue to rely on CIM Plan priorities to apply for small grants that may become available in the future. Page 25 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Recommendation: World Bank guidance on measuring resilience should be further refined to include good examples of PDO statements, and ways to measure frequently used indicators (such as water and food security). This should also include specific examples on how to measure beneficiaries for different types of sub-projects. 113. Village adaptation priorities (e.g., water) may need to be complemented by district-level interventions in the case of nature-based solutions, and adaptation options requiring scale and regular maintenance. The project experience suggests that when given a choice of resilience investments, communities tended to prioritize those addressing their immediate needs (such as water supply). As such, nature-based solutions had to be driven by specialized agencies at the supra-community (district) level, while closely involving communities. Project lessons also indicate that: (1) men tend to benefit more from infrastructure sub-projects, while women benefit more from investments closer to their traditional roles (water, agriculture, and waste management); and (2) partition amongst village- and district-level investments must be based not only on scale, but on future maintenance capacity as well. Recommendation: Projects that rely on participatory processes to define adaptation solutions must be cognizant of the community and gender roles that are likely to influence priority setting, and guide the process accordingly, for example by engaging specialized agencies in nature-based solutions at the district level or giving women prominent roles in sub- project selection at the community level. Adaptation solutions involving significant civil works are best done under institutions with guaranteed future maintenance budgets. 114. The ridge-to-reef approach piloted by the project was able to help vulnerable people secure basic services and livelihoods in safer (upland) locations…but this approach takes time. Feedback from beneficiaries suggests the project approach may offer a good model for adaptation that promotes longer-term, structural change by gradually helping communities settle in safer upland areas, through: (1) using participatory climate risk and resilience plans (CIM Plans) to prioritize adaptation investments; (2) complementary village- and district-level investments within a given catchment and administrative area; and (3) targeting the most vulnerable with basic services (water) and livelihoods (e.g., farming). This approach, however, takes considerable time, as it requires sequential steps— planning followed by investments—and careful development and testing of sub-project procedures (7.5 years in the case of this project). Recommendation: Projects seeking to promote transformational adaptation should encourage participatory, climate- resilient spatial plans as a basis to guide resilient investments using both natural and administrative boundaries. This may entail catchment areas (upper watershed to edge of reef) or a whole-of-island scope for smaller islands. The plans should be closely tied to national and local budgets, as well as to sectoral and regional planning to ensure all investments contribute to greater resilience. To ensure actual investments address key vulnerabilities, adaptation solutions should be ranked by order of priority. Because of the long time required, a series-of-projects, phased approach may be required. 115. Programmatic approaches across projects can help diminish the government’s burden, but they do not always work as planned due to individual project needs. In the case of this project, considerable effort went into establishing a joint PMS with the Adaptation Fund/UNDP project, as well as a harmonized monitoring and reporting system (para. 86). This contributed to the initial implementation delays and weak attention to monitoring the specific project’s outcomes, which had to eventually be corrected by separating the PMS and collecting further data (para. 75 and 88). Recommendation: Given the burden governments experience in managing multiple projects (particularly in small island states and in climate resilience), efforts towards harmonization of procedures should continue. However, projects must factor in the extra time, budget, and capacity this typically involves, and plan for supplementary assistance in case procurement packages need to be separated or project-specific M&E reinforced. Page 26 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 1: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Support coastal communities to become more resilient to climate variability Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Project beneficiaries Number 0.00 45000.00 45,000.00 141,842.00 10-Feb-2014 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 30-Jun-2021 Female beneficiaries Percentage 0.00 30.00 48.00 49.40 Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded. Of the 141,842 project beneficiaries: i) 62331 people (of which 31,343 females) directly benefitted from village sub-projects such as access to more resilient water supply, multi-cropping/resilient agriculture, coastal resilience from fish reserves or mangrove rehabilitation, and access to safe havens and improved roads for evacuation during cyclones/tsunami; and ii) 79,511 beneficiaries (of which 38,770 females) benefited from district sub-projects, including access to piped water, flood management, integrated water resource management, escape roads, fisheries reserves, sustainable agro-forestry and watershed improvement, . Some beneficiaries may have benefitted from both village and district level sub-projects. Page 27 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) The methodology developed in 2016-17 for monitoring each of the indicators was followed and only direct beneficiaries were counted - those within project sites and benefiting most from the investments. The number of beneficiaries include household members for village- sub-projects. For both the village and district sub-projects, the beneficiaries were confirmed during the End of Project Review (EoPR). The target of 45,000 beneficiaries was exceeded, as the original estimate did not include the densely populated area around Apia, nor the extent of the areas covered by the district-level sub-projects, which included activities in coastal and watershed areas Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Sub-projects with Number 0.00 70.00 116.00 117.00 climate/disaster resilience satisfactorily implemented 10-Feb-2014 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 30-Jun-2021 based on a scoring system Village level sub-projects Number 0.00 70.00 100.00 95.00 03-Oct-2016 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 30-Jun-2021 District level sub-projects Number 0.00 16.00 16.00 22.00 06-Oct-2016 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Target met (slightly under for village sub-projects but compensated by target exceeding for district sub-projects) Page 28 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) This measures the project’s success in implementing climate/disaster resilience activities at the village and district levels. The government used a scoring methodology and conducted End of Project Review - EoPR - surveys some months after the implementation completion, with scores ranging from 0 to 4; a score of 3 or 4 was Satisfactory or Highly Satisfactory in terms of sub-project outcomes. 100 village level sub-projects were implemented; however of the 8 pilots (which tested different interventions), the EoPR was conducted at least six months after the completion of these sub-projects, and beneficiaries rated five of the sub-project outcomes as having a score of <3 (i.e., Unsatisfactory). Thus the actual village sub-projects rated as satisfactorily implemented is 95 (target being 100). The target for district sub-projects was 16; 22 were satisfactorily implemented (i.e. with an EoPR rating of >3). The combined target of 116 sub-projects is thus met and just exceeded. A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Implementation of Priority Adaptation Measures to Manage Climate and Disaster-related Threats Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Participants in consultation Number 0.00 5000.00 14,900.00 activities during project implementation (number) 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded. This measures the participants in the CIM Plan consultations, during the design and implementation of village- and district-subprojects, outreach/media events and during doing the EoPRs. Page 29 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) The 14,900 includes 7,100 female beneficiaries. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of trained CSOs Number 0.00 15.00 5.00 5.00 providing climate change related services under the 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2017 30-Jun-2021 project Comments (achievements against targets): Target met. This indicator measures the number of CSOs that were trained prior to implementation of village level sub-projects and with the use of the Community Engagement Plan, the toolkit and training material based on these documents. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion CIMs updated through Number 0.00 16.00 18.00 consultative processes and incorporate other planning 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2021 frameworks Comments (achievements against targets): Page 30 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Target exceeded. End target was 16 as per the initial number of agreed districts for completion of CIM Plans through the project. Two districts were added when district boundaries were redefined in 2018, resulting in the updating of 18 CIM Plans under the project. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of people provided Number 0.00 15000.00 58,138.00 with access to resilient water supply 04-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded. This measures the number of people that benefited from improved access to water supply through district (for piped network extension and some combined with new boreholes) and through village rainwater harvesting systems subprojects. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Three water sources with Text Poor Medium Medium improved condition based on a qualitative scoring system 04-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Page 31 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Target met. Sub-projects with improvement of the condition of the water intake in the districts of Gagaimauga I, Gagaifomauga III, and Lepa were completed. Classifications for water quality and flow are Poor, Medium, Good, and Excellent. Although the overall score is Medium, the Lepa sub-project’s water quality is classified as Good. Component: Strengthened Climate Information Services Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Use of improved climate Number 1.00 40.00 6.00 6.00 information and tools. 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Target met. Information and tools include: (i) CIM Plan Toolkit—used for community consultation, CIM Plan updating, and for government decisions on whether proposed investments are located in at-risk areas; (ii) Community Engagement Plan, toolkit and training material used for CSO training, awareness and delivery of assistance to villages; (iii) LiDAR data and aerial photography - used for road network planning and flood risk modeling in Savai’i (in addition to CIM updating); (iv) District Sub-Project Plan—used to implement district investments identified by CIM Plans; (v) Climate documentaries, training material and Infographics – used for raising awareness on social media and at international meetings and dissemination of information about climate resilience; and (vi) PPCR Scorecard—consolidated national scoring of progress made regarding climate resilience. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Page 32 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Improved awareness on Percentage 10.00 40.00 40.00 climate change associated risks and hazards among 10-Feb-2014 30-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 population in targeted districts Comments (achievements against targets): Target met. This indicator measures the percentage of stakeholders who are estimated to have improved their understanding of climate change. Based on the 2016 Census, the total number of population in the targeted districts is 99,372. It is estimated that at least 40,000 people within the targeted districts have seen the climate resilient documentaries via several media platforms and participated through the CIM Plan process and implementation of 100 village and 22 district subprojects. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Maps prepared for Text None Relevant maps, data 18 district maps with bathymetry and topography on wave movement relevant data, for Upolu and Savai'i and use and other information contributing to the to strengthen resilience contributes to design of risk decision making on management climate risks and used interventions in the design of risk management interventions 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2021 Page 33 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Comments (achievements against targets): Eighteen district maps were prepared with relevant data on hazards, wave movement, and other information necessary for decision making (and formed critical part of the CIM plans). The maps used also included information from LiDAR on coastal waters (bathymetric) and in land/topography. The maps continue to contribute to the design of risk management interventions, including, but not limited to, in village and district level sub-projects. Component: Institutional strengthening for climate and disaster resilience, project coordination and monitoring Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Evidence of strengthened Text Climate information Climate information Demonstrated government capacity and product/services products/services are evidence that national coordination mechanism to rarely used in decision used in decision planning and four mainstream climate making making in climate sectors use climate resilience. sensitive sectors information in decision making; improved coordination between CRICD, CRSC, CSSP and Line Agencies 10-Feb-2014 29-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): Target met. Page 34 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) There is demonstrated evidence that national planning and four sectors use climate information in decision making; improved coordination between CRICD, CRSC, CSSP and Line Agencies Improved coordination is based on available evidence of the government’s strengthened capacity through CRICD, CRSC, and CSSP, as well as engagement of technical agencies with CIM Plan review consultations. CRICD acts as the Secretariat for the CRSC. CRSC, for example, has made decisions on investments for the district sub-projects and successfully had LTA and SWA or LTA and MNRE to work together as necessary to address risks from heavy rain and/or floods. It has also helped bring expertise from different ministries (such as MWTI) into works-related village and district sub-projects. PUMA uses CIM Plans when making decisions related to consent for infrastructure/development projects, such as roads and/or buildings. CRSC has also provided oversight for village sub-projects, ensuring they meet the project’s climate resilience objectives. Such coordination and oversight have also strengthened the capacity of technical agencies, including CSSP, and the MoF on procurement, contract management, safeguards, and financial management. Page 35 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT Objective/Outcome 1. Coastal Communities Become More Resilient to Climate Variability and Change 1. Number of project beneficiaries, and number that are female Outcome Indicators 2. Number of sub-projects with climate/disaster resilience satisfactorily implemented, based on a scoring system 1. Participants (direct and indirect) in consultation activities during project implementation (and number of female participants) 2. CIM Plans updated through consultative processes, incorporating other planning frameworks 3. Number of trained CSOs providing climate change-related services under the project 4. Maps prepared for bathymetry and topography for Upolu and Savai’I and used to strengthen resilience Intermediate Results Indicators 5. Improved awareness on climate change associated risks and hazards amongst population in targeted districts 6. Use of improved climate information and tools 7. Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanisms to mainstream climate resilience 8. Number of people provided with access to resilient water supply 9. Three water sources with improved condition based on a qualitative scoring system 1.1. CIM Plans updated through consultative processes, integrating other relevant plans 1.2. District sub-projects covering several villages implemented, guided by updated CIM Plans 1.3 Village sub-projects implemented, guided by the CEP Key Outputs by Component 2.1. CSOs trained to facilitate village sub-projects (linked to achievement of 2.2. CEP developed Objective/Outcome 1, as per the TOC) 2.3. Spatial hazard maps produced for Upolu and Savai’i 3.1. Common platform established for external funding and support for climate and disaster resilience Page 36 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) C. SUMMARY OF PROJECT INDICATORS, TARGETS, CHANGES AT RESTRUCTURING AND ACTUALS ACHIEVED Target Indicators Baseline Original Revised Achieved PDOI-1: Number of directc project beneficiariesPPCR-5 0 45,000 No change 62,331 (village) 79,511 (district) - Percentage that are women 0 30% 48%a 49.4% PDOI-2: Percentage Numberc of sub-projects with climate /disaster 80%b/100c (village) 95 (village) resilience satisfactorily implemented, based on a scoring system 0 70% 70%b/16c (district) 22 (district) PDOI-3: (original) Areas restored or re/afforested to combat coastal erosion, siltation, and run-off damage to reefs, with sub- indicators for different types of vegetation (total ha): 0 120 1,200a/600b 23.5 - Area of mangroves re/afforested (ha) 0 70 700a 14.8 - Area of natural coastal vegetation restored (ha) 0 50 500a 8.9 (revised). Entire Indicator Deletedc Deleted IRI-1: indirect)c Participants (direct and in consultation activities during project implementation 0 5,000 No change 14,900 - Number that are women 0 2,500 7,100 IRI-2: CIM Plans updated through consultative processes, incorporating other planning frameworks 0 16 No change 18 IRI-3: Number of trained CSOs providing climate change related services under the project 0 15 5c 5 IRI-4: Maps prepared for bathymetry and topography for Upolu and Relevant maps, data on Savai’i and used to strengthen resilience None wave movement and 18 district maps with other information No change relevant data, contributes to decision contributing to the making on climate risks design of risk and used in the design management of risk management interventions interventions IRI-5: Improved awareness on climate change associated risks and hazards among population in targeted districts 10% 40% No change 40% IRI-6: Use of improved climate information and tools (percentage) (number) 0% 40% 6c 6 IRI-7: Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination Climate Climate information Demonstrated mechanisms to mainstream climate resiliencePPCR-2 informati products/services are No change evidence that on used in decision making national planning products/ in climate sensitive and four sectors use services sectors climate information rarely in decision making; used in improved decision coordination making between CRICD, CRSC, CSSP and Line Agencies IRI-8 (New Indicator)c: Number of people provided with access to resilient water supply 0 -- 15,000c 58,138 IRI-9 (New Indicator) : Three water sources with improved condition c Poor -- Mediumc Medium based on a qualitative scoring system Changes made at the first restructuringa (December 27, 2015); second restructuringb (June 7, 2017); and third restructuringc (June 28, 2018). Bold – Revised/new at restructuring (last restructuring shown as bold). Strikethrough – Deleted at restructuring. PDOI – PDO-level indicators; IRI – Intermediate Results Indicators. PPCR – Also a PPCR Core Indicator. Page 37 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 2: BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation Samuel G. Wedderburn Task Team Leader Habiba Gitay Senior Environmental Specialist Michael Bonte-Grapentin Disaster Risk Management Specialist William Cuddihy Consultant (Agriculture) Douglas Forno Institutional Specialist Andrew K. Hurd Coastal Resources Management Specialist Chris Manu Coastal Engineer Ursula Kaly Coastal Ecologist Joyce Miriam Denise Witana Procurement Specialist Stephen Paul Hartung Financial Management Specialist Robert J. Gilfoyle Senior Financial Management Specialist Victoria Florian S. Lazaro Social Specialist Beverley Ann McLean Social Safeguards Specialist Gerardo Pio Francisco Parco Environmental Specialist Marjorie Mpundu Senior (Project) Counsel Victoria Florian S. Lazaro Operations Officer Gerardo F. Parco Senior Operations Officer R. Cynthia Dharmajaya Program Assistant Nathan Hale Program Assistant Supervision/ICR Habiba Gitay Task Team Leader Stephanie Sieber Task Team Leader Tevi Obed ICR Task Team Leader/Disaster Risk Management Specialist Sofia U. Bettencourt ICR Co-Author/Adaptation Specialist Leilani Duffy ICR Co-Author/Climate Resilient Specialist Leila Mead ICR Report Editor Richard Croad Coastal Engineer John Lowsby Engineer Page 38 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Matthew Whitwell Engineer Antonia Wong Senior Program Assistant Maeva Natacha Betham Vaai Liaison Officer, Samoa Lynn Ioana Malolua Team Assistant Miriam Witana Procurement Specialist Eric Leonard Blackburn Procurement Specialist(s) Vladislav Krasikov Senior Procurement Specialist Mark Ansell Procurement Specialist Toufiq Ahmed Operations and Procurement Officer Stephen Hartung Financial Management Specialist Janet Virginia Gamarra Rupa Financial Management Specialist David Whitehead Financial Management Specialist Zhuo Yu Finance Officer Evaron Masih Financial Management Analyst Gerard Parco Environmental Safeguards Specialist Nicholas Valentine Environmental Safeguard Specialist Keelye Hanmer Environmental Specialist Kazi Fateha Ahmed Environmental Specialist Nathalie Suzanna Noella Staelens Environmental Specialist Beverley Ann McLean Social Safeguards and Community Engagement Specialist Craig Andrew Clark Social Safeguard Consultant Allan Brown Monitoring and Reporting Specialist Chris Solomona Monitoring and Reporting Specialist Rachel Hunt Monitoring and Reporting Specialist Jeanette Murry Knowledge and Learning Coordinator Cindy Patricia Quijada Robles Disaster Risk Management and Gender Specialist Loren Jayne Atkins Counsel Katherine Baker Team Member Carmenchu D. Austriaco Team Member Thomas John Callander Social Specialist Duangrat Laohapakakul Counsel Ngozi Blessing Obi Malife Procurement Team Joan Toledo Team Member Chau-Ching Shen Team Member Page 39 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) B. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY11 0 3,840.05 FY12 15.237 90,687.39 FY13 5.913 90,970.17 FY14 11.388 125,198.80 FY15 0 - 556.32 FY17 0 61.47 Total 32.54 310,201.56 Supervision/ICR FY12 0 0.00 FY14 2.100 20,706.68 FY15 8.862 154,779.40 FY16 9.754 123,310.32 FY17 7.547 98,374.35 FY18 7.575 81,057.58 FY19 6.475 132,858.08 FY20 11.602 176,816.10 Total 53.92 787,902.51 Page 40 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 3: PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Table 3.1: Project Costs by Component (Trust Fund Only) Amount at Actual at Percentage of Components Approval Project Closing Approval (%) (US$M) (US$M) 1- Implementation of Priority Adaptation Measures to Manage Climate 10.20 9.98 98 and Disaster-related Threats 1.a. Participatory Prioritization of Disaster Risks and Adaptation Options 0.80 0.88 110 1.b. Sub-grants for Priority Climate Resilience Measures 9.40 9.10 97 2 - Strengthened Climate Information Services 1.50 1.94 129 1.a. CSO Training, National and Local-level Education and Awareness 0.30 0.48 160 Raising on Climate Resilience 1.b. Strengthened Data Platforms 1.20 1.46 122 3 - Institutional Strengthening for Climate and Disaster Resilience, 2.90 2.01 69 Project Coordination, and Monitoring TOTAL 14.60 13.931 95 Table 3.2: Project Costs by Financing Source (All Sources) Amount at Actual at Project Percentage of Financing Source Approval Closing Approval (US$M) (US$M) (%) Recipient (Government, IAs, and Target Villages) 0.002 3.813 481 Adaptation Fund ECR Project 0.00 0.18 4 118 TF from Strategic Climate Fund-PPCR (TF15828) 14.60 13.93 95 TOTAL 14.60 17.92 123 1 The actuals at project closing (US$13.93 million) differ from the disbursed amount shown on the datasheet (US$14.55 million) since, at the time of completion of this report, GoS was expected to return about US$0.66 million in unspent funds, primarily from unused contingencies. 2 Revised to US$500,000 in 2016 to take into account expected counterpart contributions to district sub-projects and LiDAR. 3 Including an estimated US$375,801 equivalent in in-kind contributions from communities benefiting from village sub-projects; US$2,963,930 cash equivalent in IAs counterpart contributions to district sub-projects; and US$471,495 cash equivalent in counterpart contributions for CRICD/CRSC, CSSP Personnel Officer and PMS incremental operating costs. 4 Taxes paid on LiDAR services which were shared with the Adaptation Fund/UNDP ECR Project. Page 41 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 4: EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 4.1. The efficiency analysis carried out at project completion involved four steps: A. A description of economic analysis results at appraisal. B. A cost-benefit analysis at project completion applied to main sub-project types, as well as the totality of sub-project and project costs. C. A cost-effectiveness analysis. D. Assessment of implementation and administrative efficiency. 4.2. The detailed assumptions and calculations are available on a separate document on project files (World Bank, 2021). A. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AT APPRAISAL 4.3. A comparison between economic analysis results at appraisal and completion could not be performed since the methodology used at appraisal was not suitable to the types of investments villages and districts ultimately selected (and that the project implemented). At appraisal 42, the project performed a “top down” cost benefit analysis by taking into account overall project costs relative to total benefits—assumed to be the aggregate level of avoided damages from cyclones. 43 Project costs included estimated yearly costs of all components, as well as a 10 percent O&M allowance. Benefits were based on projected average annual losses computed by PCRAFI, 44 downscaled to project districts. Parameters used for the benefits analysis included: (1) avoided direct damages from cyclones to buildings, infrastructure, and major crops; (2) avoided emergency losses (involved in disaster relief); and (3) avoided lives lost, extrapolated from other countries using willingness-to-pay estimates. Future damages were expected to rise by 6 percent by the end of the project lifetime (25 years) based on PCRAFI projections. In addition, the analysis considered a 3 percent real GDP annual growth and a projected population growth of 0.65 percent a year to account for increases in exposure. The project was assumed to avoid 50 percent of the damages inferred from average annual losses in target districts. 4.4. Based on the above assumptions, the base case EIRR was estimated at 8.92 percent, with an NPV (at 3 percent) of US$11.79 million and (at 6 percent) of US$4.19 million. A sensitivity analysis to various parameters showed them to be mostly robust, but the EIRR and NPV were sensitive to changes in total population as well as to future changes in asset values, as simulated by GDP growth. The project remained economically viable (EIRR of 4.18 percent) even when avoided lives lost, accounting for 20-25 percent of the benefits, were excluded from the analysis. 4.5. Since the specific sub-projects supported by the project were not known at the time of appraisal, a separate cost-benefit analysis for them was not performed. Rather, the PAD listed their benefits qualitatively, for example, for mangroves, their role in: reducing wave strength, water velocity and wind strength; increasing coastal biodiversity; and protecting homes and crops from flooding. 4.6. The appraisal economic analysis had two weaknesses: first, it relied heavily on PCRAFI estimates of cyclone wind and flood damage to buildings and infrastructure—when the typical types of interventions mentioned in the PAD (water supply, catchment management, mangrove replanting and evacuation routes) were not designed to specifically prevent physical asset damages, but rather to enhance community resilience to a changing climate. Second, the 42 See World Bank. (2013). 43 Avoided damages from tsunamis and earthquakes were also included in the sensitivity analysis. 44 See PCRAFI. (2011). Page 42 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) analysis assumed all casualties estimated by PCRAFI were fatalities, when in fact they included both fatalities and injuries (PCRAFI, 2011). Hence, the value of lives lost may have been over-estimated. B. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AT PROJECT COMPLETION 4.7. At completion, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis was carried out for each of the major sub-project types: (1) rainwater harvesting tanks; (2) community pools; (3) district water pipeline supply; (4) waste management and sanitation; (5) safe havens; (6) escape roads; (7) flood management; (8) sustainable agriculture; (9) fisheries reserves; and (10) mangrove rehabilitation. In total, the analysis covered all 100 village sub-projects, and 18 of the 22 district sub-projects. Benefits for the remaining four sub-projects—two district integrated water management sub-projects, one watershed/forestry monitoring sub-project, and one road upgrading sub-project (to facilitate a future water pipeline installation)—could not be computed due to lack of data. However, their costs were included in the aggregated analysis of all sub-projects. Finally, the overall project cost-benefit was computed by comparing the aggregated (computed) benefits of all sub-projects against the entire costs of the project, including counterpart contributions and maintenance. The latter provides the closest comparator to the economic analysis performed at appraisal, although the methodologies were notably different. 4.8. The assumptions used for the economic analysis were based on a specific questionnaire applied by local consultants to 2-6 key respondents from each of the main village sub-project typologies. A separate email questionnaire was applied to IAs according to their respective district sub-projects to obtain complementary data. This was further complemented by the results from the beneficiary survey (see Annex 7), feedback from project experts, project records, national surveys and statistics, and relevant published studies. Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the ICR team relied on local consultants and experts, with data verification and validation done remotely. 4.9. Discount Rate. Consistent with World Bank guidance, the analysis used a base case social discount rate of 3 percent. 45 A higher rate (6 percent) was also used in the sensitivity analysis (para. 4.39). 4.10. Costs. Economic costs included: (1) actual, final investment costs imputed by the PMS to the sub-projects; (2) community in-kind contributions, consisting of costed labor and local materials as recorded by CSSP; (3) IA counterpart contributions for district sub-projects; (4) expected periodic and annual maintenance costs after investment completion, specific to each sub-project type; and (5) CSSP and district-level monitoring and operational costs. The latter, however, were only included in the aggregated sub-project and overall project analysis, as they could not be split across individual sub-project types. In addition, the total project analysis included all other component costs (Components 1.a, 2 and 3). Taxes, comprising a 15 percent Value Added Tax on Goods and Services, were excluded. Sub-project investment costs were allocated to the year(s) when investments occurred. Annual maintenance costs were assumed to start one year after investment and continue for the sub-project’s lifetime. 4.11. Benefits. Economic benefits were estimated based on the principle of incrementality (benefits with project minus benefits without project) and relied on established economic valuation methodologies for community-based investments and non-market values. Benefits were assumed to start one year after investment and last for the duration of sub-project lifetimes, as reported by project experts: five years for waste management bins, 10 years for rainwater tanks and community pools, 15-20 years for emergency roads, 20 years for nature-based solutions, and 30 45World Bank guidance on economic analysis recommends a social discount rate of about twice the rate of real GDP growth per capita for the country. During the project implementation period GDP real growth per capita averaged 1.49 percent, indicating a social discount rate of 3 percent for the economic analysis. Sources: World Bank (2016). Page 43 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) years for piped water network and flood management culverts. 46 For sub-projects with benefits that materialized prior to project completion, the analysis relied on interviews with beneficiaries or key respondents. For other types of sub- projects, where benefits were more long-term (e.g., flood management, mangroves, and fish reserves), the estimated impacts relied on published studies in Samoa or, if not available, in surrounding Pacific Islands. 4.12. Benefits from Water Sub-Projects. The project funded 71 communal and 1,150 household tanks in 73 villages, in addition to 64.7 kilometers of new piped connections at the district level. Their benefits were estimated based on (1) the value of time saved, (2) savings in water purchases, and (3) value of improved health, according to WaterAid’s methodology.47 Community pools, in addition, resulted in (4) incremental visitor revenues, but were deemed to yield few incremental health benefits as water quality was expected to be comparable to that of traditional sources. Beneficiaries also reported additional benefits which could not be quantified, including well-being from improved cleanliness, and increased safety for women, children, and the elderly (from not having to fetch water away from their homes). 4.13. Time saved by not having to collect water from other sources (typically, from non-metered informal sources, or from pipes outside the household) was estimated at 59 minutes a day, based on the median 48 reported by 20 rainwater harvesting beneficiaries. Rainwater tanks beneficiaries saved time primarily during the dry season (May to September) as daily rainfall during the remaining months is generally sufficient to fill miscellaneous containers close to their homes. For beneficiaries of new piped connections, however, time savings occurred year-round. Community pools provided important sources of alternative water during weather emergencies or times when the piped connections were down or contaminated. Based on local experts, this benefit was estimated to occur 21 days a year but resulted in relatively significant time savings (2.5 hours per day per household, as reported by key respondents), given that alternative water sources are more difficult to find during emergencies. 4.14. Time saved was valued at a shadow wage rate of SAT 1.5 per hour, half of Samoa’s minimum wage of SAT 3.0 per hour. 49 Only one adult per household was assumed to benefit. These are conservative assumptions, since (1) a small sample of key respondents interviewed stated they would be unwilling to work during this time for less than SAT 3.0, indicating they placed a high value on their (saved) time; and (2) other household members, typically children, also help with water collection. Based on the above assumptions, the value of time saved ranged from SAT 79/household/year for community pools (US$31), SAT 224/year/household/year for rainwater tanks (US$88), and SAT 544/household/year for piped water beneficiaries (US$213). 4.15. Savings in water purchases depend on beneficiaries’ previous water sources; those who relied on independent water schemes typically paid a flat rate of SAT 20 per month and continued to pay it even after they received rainwater tanks to complement household needs other than drinking and cooking. For newly connected households, this was replaced by a higher average monthly tariff (SAT 38 per month) but with improved water quantity and quality. Those who relied on metered connections away from their households reported paying SAT 70-150 per month and would thus gain significant savings either through rainwater tanks or household connections. Net savings in water bills as a 46 Benefits were assumed to flow for the same period. Rainwater tanks were guaranteed for 10 years, even though they were expected to last longer. LTA estimates the lifetime of emergency roads ranges from 15 years (unpaved) to 20 years (paved). Water pipelines and culverts had a 50-year life expectancy, but 30 years was considered the limit for the economic analysis. 47 See Redhouse, D., P. Roberts, and R. Tukai. (undated). 48 The median, rather than the average reported by the beneficiary survey (133 minutes/day) was used for both rainwater tanks and piped water benefits, given some respondents reported spending as much as several hours a day collecting water. These were likely households living in unconnected upland areas, who had to collect water from Apia. 49 See ADB. (2002). Page 44 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) result of the project were estimated at SAT 15/year/household for beneficiaries of community pools (US$6) and SAT 107-108/year/household for rainwater tanks and piped water beneficiaries (US$42). 4.16. Beneficiaries from water sub-projects reported substantial health benefits from both lower incidence of diarrheal disease (a 40 percent decrease) as well as dengue fever (a 50 percent decrease), as less standing water near the home prevented mosquitos from breeding. For diarrheal disease, it was assumed this benefit accrued primarily to children and only half of the episodes required treatment (reported to cost on average SAT 40/episode, including medication and travel to clinic). For dengue fever, the attack rate as reported by the Ministry of Health for the 2017 outbreak was used to estimate the number of actual cases, since beneficiaries’ recollections were thought to be too high. Treatment costs for dengue fever treatment and hospitalizations (22 percent of the cases during the 2017 outbreak) were obtained from the Niu pharmacy and Leulomoega district hospital. Based on this, the value of health costs avoided was estimated at SAT 79/household/year for rainwater harvest (US$31) and SAT 185/household/year for piped water beneficiaries (US$73). Rainwater harvest beneficiaries were assumed to accrue health benefits primarily during the dry season. 4.17. Beneficiaries from community pools reported substantial increases in the number of visitors (by about SAT 460/village/year on average). However, given COVID-19 travel restrictions, the vast majority (98 percent) were Samoan and paid no entry fees. For the few foreigners who did visit, the entry fee averaged SAT 2 per visit. The analysis assumed foreign visitors would increase by 10 percent a year over a period of three years due to the progressive lifting of travel restrictions. Nonetheless, the value of incremental visitor revenues is estimated to remain modest, at SAT 18 to 23 a year per village (US$7-9). This could increase to SAT 1,000 a year (US$392) should villages adopt an entry fee for all visitors. 4.18. Benefits from Waste Management. Reported benefits from the 765 waste bins and 243 rubbish stands distributed by the project were multifold, but only the value of health costs avoided could be quantified. 50 According to a small sample of beneficiaries interviewed, this included a 67 percent reduction in diarrheal disease in children (higher than what was reported for water sub-projects) and a 50 percent reduction in dengue fever episodes. Using the methodology employed for water sub-projects, incremental benefits of waste management due to the project are estimated at SAT 186/household/year (US$73)—the same as for piped water supply—with benefits accruing year- round. Other, non-quantified benefits include: (1) well-being from improved cleanness; (2) decreased pollution; and (3) lower flood risk (from waste no longer clogging drains). 4.19. Benefits from Safe Havens and Emergency Escape Roads. The project funded two small village safe havens and seven emergency escape roads of a total length of 11.2 km, four of which (at the district level) were paved. Net benefits were estimated based on: (1) value of statistical lives saved; (2) value of injuries avoided; (3) value of household assets saved; (4) value of time saved due to better road access (for escape roads); and (5) value of ancillary uses of centers (for safe havens) or increased market sales (for escape roads). Other non-quantified benefits included: value of sheltering vulnerable households (for safe havens); savings in travel costs; and value of spurred future development, for escape roads. 4.20. The value of statistical lives and injuries avoided was computed based on estimated annual casualties from cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunamis in Samoa (PCRAFI, 2011). This value (19 people per year) includes both fatalities and injuries at an estimated ratio of 4.2:1, 51 which were, in turn, extrapolated to the number of people safe havens 50 The project financed sanitation in one village and waste management in a total of 19 villages, of which 16 were also beneficiaries of rainwater tanks. Since it proved difficult to separate beneficiaries, all 16 dual benefit villages were assumed (conservatively) to receive only water benefits. 51 Source: World Bank. (2015). This ratio represents the midpoint between the number of deaths and injuries reported for cyclones in Samoa Page 45 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) were able to accommodate based on building capacity, and the incremental population able to flee during emergencies using escape roads (according to LTA sources). The analysis also assumed that annual casualties would increase by 0.25% a year based on the projected increase in cyclone risk in Samoa due to climate change, as estimated by PCRAFI (2013). 52 Based on these assumptions, the safe havens and escape roads built by the project will save on average, an estimated 0.15 lives and avoid an estimated 0.61 serious injuries per year. The analysis is conservative since: (1) target villages are expected to have a higher risk than Samoa as a whole; and (2) the analysis does not consider increases in exposure due to future development or population growth. The value of statistical lives was computed as the present value of income loss, based on average weekly income for elementary occupations as reported by the 2018 Samoa Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 53 for the target regions, an average age of 25, and 30 years of lost income. The value of accidental injuries avoided assumed an average of seven days for hospital stays and a three-month loss of income due to post-injury recuperation, with hospital costs estimated at SAT 150/day as reported by the Leulomoega district hospital, and income loss costed at the HIES weekly estimate. Based on this, the estimated value of casualties saved was SAT 3,679 per year for safe havens (US$1,443) and SAT 23,087 per year for all escape roads combined (US$9,054). 4.21. Safe havens and escape roads also help save household assets, by enabling people to bring valuables with them when they escape or seek shelter. During Cyclone Evan in 2012, the average value of destroyed household assets (extrapolated to SAT 2021 values) was SAT 2,641, of which approximately 10 percent would have been salvageable if escape roads or safe havens were in place (according to Samoa Disaster Management Office sources). Based on past recollection from key beneficiaries, evacuations were assumed to occur with a periodicity of once every 12.5 years, giving an annualized value of assets saved of SAT 21 per household for the two sub-project typologies (US$8). 4.22. The rehabilitated escape roads further improved foot access from the coast (where some of the schools remained) to upland and plantation areas. Time saved was reported to be about 60 minutes per trip for about a quarter of the households reported to commute regularly. School children would presumably use the roads 198 days a year (5 days a week, minus 89 school holidays), whereas farmers and fishers would use the roads during workdays (243 days a year). Assuming, conservatively, only one adult and 1.5 children per commuting household would benefit and using a shadow wage rate of SAT 1.5 per hour, incremental benefits were estimated at SAT 1,620 per household per year (US$635). 4.23. Finally, based on interviews with key respondents, the analysis estimated increased fishing sales for access roads, based on the number of reported fishermen who sold their catch and incremental catches after road rehabilitation. This was estimated at SAT 333,179 per year or SAT 3,120 per fishing household (US$1,223). For safe havens, the rental income from use of the centers for events (based on 17.5 events per year on average) was estimated at SAT 24,500 per year for the two safe havens supported by the project (US$9,608). 4.24. Benefits from Flood Management. The project funded the reinforcement and upgrade of two culverts at Aopo (Gaga’ifomauga III, Savai’i) and Samusu Armco (Aleipata, Upolu) and helped redefine the waterway area to reduce flooding. According to LTA engineers, the works were designed to prevent floods with a 1 in a 50-year return period, and Tonga to EM-DAT (University of Louvain), which was 3.3:1, and a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on the health burden of catastrophic events in Oceania (5.2:1). 52 See PCRAFI. (2013). The estimated increase in average annual losses in Samoa, due to the impact of climate change on cyclones, was 25.4 percent by 2100. 53 See Government of Samoa. (2018). Estimates of weekly income include wages and salaries, income from agriculture and other activities, remittances, and value of own (home) production. The analysis used weekly incomes for Northwest Upolu, Rest of Samoa and Savaii, weighted by the beneficiary population of the target sites, and extrapolated for 2021 using a Consumer Price Index of 2018=100. Page 46 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) which helped prevent regular flooding at the two sites that had previously caused estimated annual damages of SAT 100,000 per year. Based on modeling carried out in 2008 for the Lower Vaisigano Catchment Area, flood management structures with a 1 in 50-year flood design helped prevent 76.7 percent of the damages. As such, net benefits of the project interventions were estimated at SAT 76,700 a year or US$30,078. 4.25. Benefits from Sustainable Agriculture. The project funded two village sub-projects dedicated to sustainable agriculture, as well as agricultural activities in three other villages which also received water tanks and waste management. 54 It provided farming tools, seeds, and fencing materials to promote vegetable farming in previously degraded lands, where cropping had been difficult due to lack of land clearing and stray pig encroachment. In addition, the project funded a major upland agro-forestry sub-project in six districts in eastern Upolu and Savai’i, promoting mixed cropping of coconuts and cocoa (in 165 ha), and fruit trees, timber and food crops (in 184 ha). Quantified benefits included: (1) the value of incremental agriculture sales; and (2) for village sub-projects, savings from incremental subsistence production. The latter was not computed for district-level interventions since MAF reported the land had been used for continuous cropping and livestock grazing, and, thus, no net gains were assumed in subsistence use. For both village and district sub-projects, crop failures of up to 80 percent every four years were conservatively assumed to account for the effects of regular droughts, floods, and cyclones. Additional benefits that could not be quantified included: (3) flood, erosion, and siltation control due to better land use management; (4) improved food security during disasters; and (5) health impacts from improved nutrition. 4.26. At the village level, some 62.5 percent of beneficiary households reported selling surplus production. Net increase in vegetable sales was estimated to average SAT 1,794 per household annually (US$703), as reported by eight key respondents in the beneficiary and economic surveys.55 To estimate the value of subsistence consumption, respondents were asked to state how much they would be willing to pay for the crops they harvested for self- consumption (mostly sweet potatoes) in the absence of the project. This value was estimated at SAT 780 per household annually (US$306), giving an overall net benefit from agriculture for village sub-projects of SAT 208,474 a year (US$81,755) for 81 beneficiary households. 4.27. At the district level, estimates of area planted, expected yield and prices were obtained from MAF experts, in consultation with Serendi Coco Samoa and Women in Business Development Inc., the project’s private partners. Coconut yields were estimated at 5,000 nuts per hectare at full maturity (16 years), growing progressively from an initial harvest of about 710 nuts 5 to 10 years after planting. Cocoa was estimated to yield 3 tons per hectare at full maturity (6-10 years after planting) and fruit trees (avocado, rambutan, soursop and abiu) 4 tons per hectare at full maturity (year 7). Annual food crop yields were assumed to be the same as reported for village sub-projects. Based on these assumptions, net benefits of the district sub-project were estimated to be SAT 2.5 million (US$987,949) at full maturity, directly benefiting 785 farming households. The combined incremental benefits of village and district agricultural sales are estimated at SAT 3,076 a year per household (US$1,206 equivalent). This is likely to underestimate project benefits, since an additional 1,200 farmers were trained by the project and 2,000 were certified as organic producers. 54The benefits of these three sub-projects were accounted for in the water and waste management analysis. 55Respondents from the beneficiary survey were asked to report weekly or bi-weekly sales. In addition, the economic survey included interviews with three farmers by phone, whereby estimates of quantities and prices sold for sweet potatoes, pumpkin, spinach, and pak choi cabbage were obtained. The estimates were then averaged across all respondents, also taking into account the proportion of households that reported no sales. For those who reported sales, the average net income increase was SAT 2,870/household/year which is in line with that reported for subsistence farmers engaged in vegetable and fruit production (SAT 2,830/farmer/year) under the Samoa Agriculture Competitiveness Enhancement Project. See World Bank. (2019a). Page 47 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 4.28. Mangrove Replanting and Conservation. The project funded four sub-projects at the village level and one district sub-project focusing on mangrove replanting/conservation. Three of the four village sub-projects were carried out at the pilot stage (2016-17) and were not deemed to be successful. The fourth (in Vaiusu) resulted in 0.3 ha of mangrove replanted and an additional 0.7 ha conserved. At the district level, an MNRE sub-project focusing on marine and coastal ecosystems led to the establishment of three mangrove reserves (Lotopue-Malaela, Poutasi and Vaovai) for a total of 13.7 ha conserved, and 0.05 ha replanted. 4.29. Economic benefits were extrapolated from an economic valuation study of mangroves in Safata (Ram-Bidesi et al., 2014), 56 which valued them at SAT 140,420 per hectare per year including direct user values (fishing, invertebrates, timber, and fuelwood extraction) and indirect values (coastal protection, carbon sequestration, water purification, and sediment costs). The study concluded that without conservation, mangroves would lose 25.2 percent of their value in 13 years, whereas with conservation, their value would increase by 2.8 percent in 20 years (in real terms). These values were used as a basis to estimate with and without project scenarios for conserved mangroves and mature replanted stocks, after adjustments to take into account their baseline state of degradation vis-à-vis Safata mangroves 57 (see below). 4.30. For the purposes of the economic analysis, newly replanted mangroves were estimated to reach their mature economic value after five years, 58 from a baseline of just 10 percent of the value of Safata’s (assuming replanting was done in highly degraded areas). The baseline value of newly conserved mangroves was deemed to be 50 percent (at Vaiusu and Lotopue-Malaela, considered degraded by MNRE) to 75 percent of Safata’s value (in Poutasi and Vaovai, considered to be in good condition). From this baseline and using Ram-Bidsei et al. (2014) estimates, the areas were estimated to lose 2.2 percent of their value a year under a without-project scenario of continuing degradation and increase by 0.14 percent a year under a with-project scenario. Based on these estimates, the incremental annual value of mangroves newly replanted through the project was estimated at SAT 54,286 (US$21,289) and that of newly conserved areas SAT 518,985 per year (US$203,524), twenty years after project interventions and subject to continuing conservation. 4.31. Fisheries Management. The project funded: (1) one village-level fish reserve sub-project in Satitoa, eastern Upolu; (2) one district-level sub-project covering ten villages in Aana Alofi III district (Northwest Upolu) and Palauli West (Savai’i), resulting in ten Village Fisheries Management Plans (VFMPs), three new fish reserves, and five sites with extended reserve areas; and (3) an updated management plan for the 5,000 hectares Aleipata MPA, including demarcation of six no-take zones comprising 57.87 hectares. The quantified economic benefits were based on the incremental fisheries catch value resulting from improved management. Incremental tourism benefits and improved aesthetics—particularly relevant for the larger Aleipata MPA—could not be quantified due to lack of data. 4.32. Samoa’s Fisheries Division has promoted VFMPs since 1995, involving some 98 villages, of which two thirds have adopted small (0.5-17.5 hectares) ‘no take’ fish reserves. 59 In addition, MNRE assisted several districts in creating larger MPAs, under which the Aleipata MPA was first established in 1999. Thus, for the purposes of economic benefits, the project funded: (1) three new fish reserves in non-VFMP villages; 60 (2) five extended reserves in VFMP villages; 61 (3) two new VFMPs in non-VFMP villages; 62 and (4) improved management of a pre-existing MPA 56 See Ram-Bidesi, Vina, Malama Siamomua-Momoemausu and Moira Faletutulu. (2014). 57 The Safata mangroves are considered to be the least degraded in Samoa. See Suluvale, Eletise Alofoe. (undated). 58 See Lewis III, Roy R. (2001). 59 See King, M. and U. Fa’asili. (1999). 60 Satupuala in Upolu, and Siutu and Salailua in Savai’i. 61 Faisitoo Tai and Vailuutai in Upolu and Faoailuga, Foailalo and Satuiatua in Savai’i. 62 Taga in Savai’I and Faeatiu in Upolu. Page 48 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) (Aleipata). The village sub-project in Satitoa was subsumed under the benefits of the Aleipata MPA. Fishing reserves and no-take zones influence surrounding catches by providing sanctuaries for fish and invertebrates to breed. While this stock enhancement effect is highest inside the reserve, it can also spillover to surrounding fishing areas, contributing to increased catches. Typically, spillover effects are highest when reserves are created in degraded areas and less noticeable in sites with ongoing fisheries management (see para. 4.34). 4.33. Since the expected benefits of project interventions will not be evident until several years following project closure, the analysis relied on Samoa’s 2012-2013 socio-economic fisheries survey, 63 which covered 100 villages stratified by whether they were: coastal or inland communities; part of the VFMP program/MPA or not; and located in Upolu or in Savai’i island. Through this data set, deriving the value of fisheries catch per capita in villages with and without management regimes and extrapolating it to the beneficiary population was possible, thus providing a very useful baseline estimate of the value of fisheries in project sites. The advantage of using this data set is that it covered both subsistence and commercial catches, and the use of average per capita production considered both fishing and non-fishing households. While production quantities relied on 2012-2013 values, these were adjusted to 2021 using a Consumer Price Index of 2010=100. An adjustment factor of 70 percent was used to convert reported market prices of the 2012-2013 survey into farmgate, mostly subsistence, values. 64 4.34. To estimate the impact of improved management, the differential in catch per unit effort (CPUE) between VFMP and non-VFMP villages, expressed in kg per person per hour, was used as a reference. CPUE was considered a better proxy for project impacts than average production per capita, as the latter could be influenced by the possibility that VFMP villages had a proportionally higher number of fishers than non-VFMP villages. Based on an earlier (2001) survey of 66 Samoan villages, Mulipola (2001) 65 cites an average CPUE of 1.77 kg/person/hour for non- VFMP villages compared to 2.80 kg/person/hour for VFMP villages, or a 58.2 percent increase. Nevertheless, CPUE differentials across villages can also be influenced by factors such as differences in fishing grounds or more skilled operators. To account for these factors, it was assumed that newly established reserves would result in only 50 percent of the reported CPUE differential (or 29.1 percent), and that extended reserves, villages with new management plans (but without new reserves), and the Aleipata MPA would account for only 10 percent of that increase (or 5.8 percent). Although conservative, this is consistent with findings that MPAs tend to have the most spillover effect in degraded areas with newly established reserves. Spillover benefits were assumed to accrue progressively six years after the project intervention, consistent with published studies. 66 4.35. While the impact of reserves is generally positive, they can also result in short-term declines in fisheries catch due to closure of the reserve area. To account for this, the analysis assumed a 10 percent decline in catch value the year after investment, and a 5 percent decline the following year. Thereafter, net benefits were assumed to become positive as spillover effects started to accrue. Based on this, the net benefits of fisheries management sub-projects were estimated to reach SAT 2.4 million per year at full maturity, or SAT 1,695 per beneficiary household (US$665). 4.36. Other Types of Sub-Projects. While the analysis included all types of village sub-projects, the benefits of four of the 22 district sub-projects could not be quantified due to lack of data (para. 4.7). The economic benefits of these interventions—integrated water resources management, upland forest monitoring, and a road upgrade to facilitate 63 See Tiiti, Ulusapeti, Michael Sharp, and Joyce Ah-Leong. (2014). 64 See Gillett, R. (2009). 65 See Mulipola, Atonio. (2001). CPUE differentials were based on an earlier (2001) survey of 66 Samoan villages, which is the source of the “55 increase” in production attributed to VFMP found in various official documents. 66 See da Silva I.M., Hill N., Shimadzu, H., Soares, A.M.V.M., Dornelas M. (2015). Page 49 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) future water supply—are by nature difficult to attribute and quantify over the long term. They may include better flood control, reduced sedimentation, improved coastal protection, biodiversity values, and (for the upgraded road) enhanced safety and access to piped water for the local population. While the benefits of these interventions were not quantified, their economic costs were included in the aggregated cost-benefit analysis for all sub-projects, as well as for the entire project. 4.37. Results. Table 4.1 below summarizes the estimated EIRR and NPV at project completion. The estimated EIRR for the entire project was 11.9 percent, with an NPV (at 3 percent) of SAT 49.6 million (US$19.5 million). Sub-projects in general yielded positive returns, with an aggregate value of EIRR of 18.0 percent and NPV of US$23.7 million (SAT 60.4 million). With the exception of structural measures for flood management (EIRR of 2.2 percent), economic returns on individual sub-project types were also significant, with EIRRs for water sub-projects ranging from 14.3 percent (for district piped connections) to 42.3 percent (for village rainwater tanks). Nature-based solutions— mangrove protection and fish reserves—and waste management and sanitation also showed particularly high EIRRs (34.1-45.8 percent), whereas those of safe havens (10.0 percent), and evacuation roads (21.3 percent) were more modest, but still considerably above the social discount rate. Table 4.1: Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis at Project Completion Sensitivity Analysis EIRR NPV % of EIRR NPV (at 3%) Total Project -25% + 25% Net Benefits (at 6%) in Costs Benefits Costs Declining in US$’000 over 10 Years US$’000 TOTAL PROJECT1 11.9% $19,463 100.0% 7.5% 8.2% -9.0% $9,037 All Sub-Projects (Component 1.B) 18.0% $23,669 70.3% 12.2% 13.5% -3.8% $12,449 By Sub-Project Type: Village Rainwater Harvest Tanks 42.3% $3,409 9.1% 28.7% 31.5% 29.0% $2,720 Community Pools 16.6% $169 1.5% 6.5% 8.7% -0.9% $114 District Water Piped Network 14.3% $11,400 34.4% 10.1% 11.0% -11.1% $6,020 Waste Management/Sanitation 36.7% $69 0.5% 18.2% 22.0% 28.1% $57 Village Safe Havens 10.0% $43 0.4% 3.8% 5.1% <0.0% $20 Evacuation Roads 21.3% 2,131 7.6% 11.9% 13.9% -4.6% $1,436 Flood Management 2.2% -$47 3.3% -0.3% 0.3% <0.0% -$177 Sustainable Agriculture 38.8% $5,243 3.8% 23.8% 26.8% <0.0% $3,607 Fisheries Reserves/MPAs 45.8% $9,090 1.7% 40.7% 41.8% 22.8% $6,332 Mangrove Protection 34.1% $1,267 0.6% 26.3% 28.0% 0.2% $838 1 Includes all project economic costs, and economic benefits for all 100 village projects and 18 of 22 district sub-projects 4.38. The above results are generally consistent with those of similar projects in the Pacific Island region at completion stages. In Vanuatu, the Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project (IRCCNHP; P112611) yielded EIRRs of 11-33 percent for water sub-projects, 13 percent for community centers and 42 percent for feeder roads. In the Solomon Islands, the Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster Risk Project (CRISP; P112613) and the Rural Development Project (RDP; P089297) resulted in EIRRs of 21-55 percent for water sub- projects, and 11-19 percent for community/evacuation centers. The Kiribati Adaptation Program – Phase III Project (P112615) yielded an EIRR of 38 percent for small rainwater harvest sub-projects. Comparative results are scarcer for nature-based adaptation investments in the Pacific; however, community-based MPAs in Vanuatu had EIRRs of 12- Page 50 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 56 percent, with an average of 36 percent (Pascal, 2011).67 By contrast, an analysis of structural flood measures in the Lower Vaisigano Catchment Area in Samoa (flood embankments and by-pass and diversion channels) found none of the designs were economically viable, consistent with the results of this project. 68 4.39. Sensitivity Analysis. The sensitivity analysis on Table 4.1 shows net benefits to be generally robust to a 25 percent decrease in benefits and 25 percent increase in costs, as well as to a 6 percent social discount rate. However, with few exceptions—namely rainwater tanks, waste management, and fish reserves, which yield relatively rapid results—all sub-projects are highly sensitive to a scenario where benefits decline to zero over a 10-year period following investment. This highlights the crucial importance of ensuring villages and IAs continue to provide maintenance support to sub-projects. C. PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS AT COMPLETION 4.40. Project cost-effectiveness was assessed as follows: (1) Actual costs per key output compared to appraisal estimates. (2) Sub-project unit costs at completion versus IA standards, or unit costs of comparable projects. (3) Sub-projects average completion time relative to that of comparable projects. (4) Administrative efficiency, in terms of share of final project costs allocated to project management. 4.41. Costs per Key Output. Unit costs per beneficiary at completion were significantly more cost efficient than estimated at appraisal. Using Components 1.b and 2.a as a reference, the PAD envisaged reaching a total of 45,000 beneficiaries at a cost of US$9.7 million, or an average of US$216 per beneficiary (without counting counterpart contributions). The actual project had a cost per beneficiary of US$43 at the village level and US$88 at the district level, or (if village and district sub-projects are combined) an average of US$68 per beneficiary (68 percent lower than appraisal estimates). Final cost per beneficiary also compared well with similar projects in the Pacific Islands. 69 Efficiency gains are, in part, explained by shifting sub-project costs to community and IA contributions, which comprised 16 and 29 percent of total costs, respectively. However, even if these are taken into account, total cost per beneficiary averages US$49 for village sub-projects and US$125 for district sub-projects (US$92 overall), well below appraisal estimates. By contrast, CIM Plan costs (Components 1.1 and 2.2) were slightly less efficient (4 percent higher) than estimated at appraisal, averaging US$130,000 per district compared to an appraisal value of US$125,000 per district. This was due in part to higher-than-expected LiDAR service costs (US$1.4 million compared to US$1.2 million at appraisal). 4.42. Sub-Project Unit Costs. The final sub-project costs were close to the original estimates: for village sub- projects, the final costs averaged SAT 50,221 (US$19,694) per unit, 1.0 percent above the original estimates (SAT 49,740/unit) and 0.4 percent above the CSSP standard norm of SAT 50,000/unit (US$19,608). District sub-projects 67 See Pascal, Nicolas. (2011). 68 See Woodruff, Alison. (2008). 69 Solomon Islands CRISP (P112613) had an average cost per beneficiary of US$79 and the Vanuatu IRCCNHP (P112611) had an average cost of US$138 per beneficiary. However, these two projects operated in remote areas which increased sub-project costs. See World Bank. (2019b) and World Bank. (2020). Page 51 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) averaged SAT 845,291/unit (US$331,487), 1.8 percent below the original IA estimates of SAT 860,527/unit (US$337,462). 4.43. The costs of individual sub-projects were in general in line or below those of IA standards and comparable projects: (1) for village rainwater tanks, costs per beneficiary averaged US$41/person, compared to US$64/unit for Solomon Islands CRISP 70 and US$63 for Vanuatu IRCCNHP; (2) water pipeline costs averaged SAT 111 per meter of pipeline (US$43/m), in the upper range of SWA’s standard cost (SAT 80-110/m); (3) evacuation roads averaged SAT 382,700 per km (US$150,077/km), 4.3 percent below LTA’s norm for standard sealed roads (SAT 400,000 or US$156,863 equivalent); and (4) evacuation centers cost US$95/m2, considerably below those in Solomon Islands CRISP (US$245/m2) and Vanuatu IRCCNHP (US$647/m2). Unit costs excluded community/IA contributions, to allow for standard comparisons. However, it should be noted that the location of sub-projects in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu was considerably more remote, thus entailing higher costs. 4.44. Sub-Project Completion Time. Village sub-projects took, on average, 19 months to complete (median: 14) whilst district sub-projects averaged 20 months. While longer than CSSP norms (12 months) as well as the 11 months average in the Solomon Islands CRISP and Vanuatu IRCCNHP projects, this can largely be explained by the lockdowns caused by the 2019 measles outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic which significantly delayed bulk-procured imported items (such as water tanks) after 2019. Village sub-projects completed prior to 2019 averaged 11 months, in line with CSSP and comparable project standards. 4.45. Administrative Efficiency. Project management costs at completion (Component 3) amounted to 14.5 percent of total project cost, considerably less than the 19.9 percent estimated at appraisal—largely due to efficiency gains by contracting a firm as PMS, as well as active MOF support through CSSP and CRICU. The project’s administrative efficiency was also higher than under comparable projects; project management costs under the Solomon Islands CRISP were 17 percent of total costs, and under Vanuatu IRCCNHP they were 31 percent of total costs. The Kiribati Adaptation Program – Phase III Project (P112615) had lower administrative costs (12 percent), but it benefited from efficiency gains acquired through three program phases. Its second phase had 21 percent in administrative costs. 70 This includes only village sub-projects. If all rainwater tanks are considered (at the village and provincial levels), CRISP costs averaged US$36 per beneficiary. Page 52 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 5: BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 5.1. The draft ICR was shared with the Government of Samoa on 13 October 2021. The following written feedback was received on 23 October 2021, from CRICD, on behalf of the government: “Thank you for a complete and wonderful job in putting together the report. We appreciate the hard work of the Bank team over many months to arrive at this stage. This project is one of a few where some GoS counterparts were involved from appraisal to completion. The report has reiterated the importance of monitoring/measuring results throughout and particularly at completion which was a new experience for a lot of government staff. We greatly appreciate seeing the results in numbers and the contribution to community resilience of the PPCR ECR. The report is an encouragement for us to do the same for government-funded investments. I take this opportunity to thank you again, Habiba and the Bank team, for the support and guidance (over and beyond what was required) in the implementation of the ECR”. 5.2. In addition, summary findings of the ICR were presented as part of a project closing meeting on 23 June 2021, with participants from MOF, the PMS, CSSP, SWA, MNRE, MAF, and LTA in attendance. Representatives emphasized the key role played by village mayors and women representatives. They stressed the usefulness of technical inputs and capacity building from the Bank team, particularly on the areas of financial and procurement reporting. They also highlighted the innovative way whereby state- owned enterprises were supported through the sub-grant mechanism, paving the way for better coordination across sectors in the area of climate resilience. In particular, the operational manuals for village and district sub-projects were mentioned as very useful for other projects as well. Finally, participants praised the way the project evaluation documented quantitative results as well as beneficiary insights, despite the difficulties faced in measuring objectives. 5.3. An additional project closing meeting was held on 28 June 2021. The meeting noted project achievements, such as completion of the CIM Plans, hands-on support to the villages, and involvement of CSOs. 5.4. Key staff from MOF, CSSP, and IAs were also closely involved in the surveys that led to the final project evaluation. 5.5. The Executive Summary of the Government’s Completion Report was shared with the Bank team in August 2021 and is presented below. Page 53 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Executive Summary - Government’s Completion Report IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT August 2021 Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) P126596 (TF 15828) Funded by the Climate Investment Funds’ Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) Through the World Bank Biorap survey rainwater harvesting faisua distribution Ministry of Finance, Samoa Page 54 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Acknowledgements The work of the project and this report draws on collaboration with and inputs from an extensive number of stakeholders from the government, communities, and consultants that have been critically important in implementation of the project since 2014. The Government of Samoa acknowledges and thanks the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), as part of the Climate Investment Funds, and its Administration Unit for their support. The Government of Samoa also conveys its sincere appreciation to the World Bank and World Bank task team for their support and guidance in implementing this very important project for Samoa, and for their review of and inputs to this report. Page 55 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Executive Summary Samoa is one of three countries that was selected for participation in the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) for the Pacific region in 2009 and provided funding for Phase 1 to conduct a national level plan (Climate Resilient Investment Plan or CRIP) and to identify priority investments. On 10 September 2013, the PPCR Sub- Committee under the Climate Investment Funds approved grant funding of US$29.4 million for Samoa for two projects to be administered through the World Bank. Of the two projects, US$14.8 million was allocated to the Climate Resilient West Coast Road and US$14.6 million for the Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) Project. The PPCR-ECR project proposal was prepared and submitted in 2013, approved by the World Bank Board on 27 December 2013, and implemented from 7 February 2014 to 30 June 2021. The development objective of the PPCR-ECR project was to support coastal communities to become more resilient to climate variability and change. It was specifically designed to: ▪ assist the population in adapting to climate variability and climate change; ▪ protect people’s lives and livelihoods, coastal and inland infrastructure, and the environment; and ▪ increase awareness of climate change impacts and adaptation activities in communities and civil society. The PPCR-ECR project updated 18 Community Integrated Management (CIM) Plans which encompassed 100 villages and produced district and village risk management maps with the use of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology—the first such national level coverage in the Pacific islands—complemented by technical specialists’ inputs. The process of developing the maps and the CIM Plans included extensive consultations with the villages, resulted in prioritized sub-projects, and served as a visual aid to assess climate impacts and make better risk- informed decisions (such as deciding whether to relocate to safer areas). As a result, 100 village and 22 district sub-projects were selected, implemented, and completed, with immediate results seen and documented, to help beneficiaries adapt, increase their resilience, and improve their livelihoods. Overall, 141,842 people benefited directly from the project’s interventions, with about 50 percent being female. Investments in villages included: establishing or improving rainwater collection systems and water intake springs; providing bins for solid waste management/sanitation to reduce local flooding; improving community spring pools; establishing escape routes; building safe havens that meet cyclone standards; and establishing multi-cropping systems and coastal fish reserves. Investments in districts included: piped water network upgrade/extension; flood management; establishing boreholes for water supply in inland areas; enhancing watershed management; road upgrades in areas prone to floods/erosion; establishing or extending marine protected areas/fisheries reserves; rehabilitating land through sustainable agriculture/agroforestry; and protecting the environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic value of upland areas of Savai’i. Assessment Methodology and Ratings Overall project assessment was based on four assessment criteria: 1) Relevance/Appropriateness To assess the extent to which supporting coastal communities to increase their resilience to climate variability and change was and remains a priority for the Government of Samoa (as expressed through national policy documents and statements and global statements) and a priority of, and tailored to, the needs of the communities themselves, both at the time of design and at the end of project implementation. Overall project relevance is assessed as High. Page 56 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 2) Efficacy/Effectiveness To assess project efficacy (effectiveness) by determining the extent to which the planned outputs and outcomes were achieved. Overall project efficacy (effectiveness) is assessed as High. 3) Efficiency To assess whether the activities implemented to date were carried out to achieve the highest rate of social return on funds invested. Overall project efficiency is assessed as Substantial. 4) Sustainability Overall sustainability of project investments is assessed as Highly Likely. This assessment is premised on the agreement with all villages and districts that maintaining district and village sub-projects is also dependent on governance arrangements within the village setting to assist as much as possible. Such governance arrangements have been put in place and will contribute to sustainability. Additionally, ongoing monitoring and maintenance programmes by the implementing agencies—who provided 30 percent in co-financing for the 22 district sub- projects—will further assist in ensuring the sustainability of all district sub-projects while the Civil Society Support Programme (CSSP) will focus on village interventions. Sustainability of village sub-projects is allocated by the village councils to relevant village committees (Women’s or Working Committees, for example) for monitoring and maintenance. Key Lessons Learnt 1. Coordination is key in any project and for PPCR-ECR it was imperative to ensure all relevant partners collaborated given the cross sectoral programmatic nature of the project. As such, existing mechanisms were utilized and strengthened to facilitate successful coordination throughout the various project phases. In addition to the Climate Resilience Investment Coordinating Division (CRICD), the Climate Resilience Steering and Planning Committees made a high level of collaboration and coordination possible, which was important in addressing challenges and progressing implementation. 2. Risk and vulnerability assessment from the national to the village level with participatory approaches and bottom-up prioritization informed investments. It was necessary to ensure ownership of the identified interventions was provided by those who understood the situation best based on everyday scenarios in relation to the themes of governance, environment/livelihood, and infrastructure. As such, representatives in the consultations that were rolled out for both Upolu and Savai’i included village councils, youth, and titled (chiefly) men and the women. This made it easier and allowed the technical specialists on the team to assess what was most feasible to be implemented by the project, in collaboration with all the implementing agencies. 3. On-the-ground investments illustrate what strengthening resilience means in reality, including that it takes time and effort—but results in broader resilience benefits. The beneficiary surveys, conducted for each of the sub-projects, found that while the interventions implemented sought to strengthen the resilience of communities to climate change and variability, they also strengthened resilience to other external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Page 57 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 4. The use of local experts and the private sector was successful under the project in ensuring the necessary technical assistance and reporting were supported throughout project implementation. 5. Several tools were developed and will continue to benefit Samoa’s climate resilient development. These tools must remain accessible (including translation into Samoan as was done for CIM Plans, accessibility of LiDAR data within government agencies, and integrated reporting on climate resilience to the Climate Resilience Steering Committee) to ensure their continued use. They would also facilitate the continuation of the integrated monitoring and reporting systems developed through this project, both at the national and community levels. 6. Engagement of multiple stakeholders, as well as the use and strengthening of established institutional arrangements, will be essential for scaling up investments in climate resilience. Multiple stakeholders have been at the core of driving successful sub-project completion and will ensure outcomes are sustained in the future, both in village and district sub-projects. The project’s approach of training villagers on climate resilience, as well as designing sub-projects, provided a direct link between beneficiaries and investments. Training civil society organizations on climate resilience and involving them to help villages design and implement priority climate resilience sub-projects has led to new partnerships and contributed to capacity building and sustainability of climate resilient development outcomes in Samoa. While engagement and participation of multiple government agencies and the private sector to implement the investments at the district and village levels was important, it needs to continue to ensure enhanced capacity exists to scale up climate resilient investments in the future. Way Forward A. Enhancing/Strengthening and Continuation of Coordination: Project coordination mechanisms as utilized and strengthened under this project are pivotal in facilitating and driving implementation. Such arrangements must be continually strengthened and improved upon to support all other climate resilient investments. B. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation plays a critical role in the sustainability of district and village level sub-projects as part of the ongoing monitoring and maintenance roles of CSSP and the implementing agencies. This will further assist in updating the overall status of the government’s various resilience projects and provide reliable baseline data for future investments. It will also assist the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment as the keeper of all CIM Plans to review and update them from time to time. C. Policy and Institutional Issues that affect the sustainability of community investments and the adequacy of operation and maintenance (O&M) funding and activity have wide-ranging impacts on future CIM Plan interventions in Samoa. Village councils have taken responsibility for the sustainability of their sub-projects by delegating monitoring and maintenance to relevant village committees. The government’s commitment to national infrastructure maintenance to key agencies (including the Land Transport Authority and the Samoa Water Agency) is important to ensure the provision of adequate O&M funding for infrastructure-related interventions established under this project. Page 58 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 6: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES A. Key World Bank Documents Official Documents World Bank (2013). Project Appraisal Document for the Samoa Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project. Report PAD686. November 15, 2013. Washington, D.C. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/361421468335703425/pdf/PAD6860PAD0P12010Box379877B00OUO090.pdf World Bank. (2014). Grant Agreement for the Enhancing Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project between the Independent State of Samoa and International Development Association. February 7, 2014. Washington, D.C. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/756651468107340167/pdf/RAD1597117142.pdf World Bank (2016). Amendment to the Grant Agreement for TF015828 (English). January 29, 2016. Washington, D.C. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/392081468296954068/pdf/RAD794427846.pdf World Bank (2017a). Amendment to the Grant Agreement for SCF-PPCR Grant TF015828. June 30, 2017. Washington, D.C. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/486141498682639705/pdf/ITK425962-201705281641.pdf World Bank (2017a). Corrigendum to the Grant Agreement Letter for SCF-PPCR Grant TF015828 (English). September 18, 2017. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/410811506106884872/pdf/ITK425962-201708221456.pdf World Bank (2018). Disclosable Restructuring Paper - Enhancing Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) (English). June 29, 2018. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/265071530240481558/pdf/Disclosable-Restructuring- Paper-Enhancing-the-Climate-Resilience-of-Coastal-Resources-and-Communities-P126596.pdf World Bank (2020). Disclosable Restructuring Paper - Enhancing Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) (English). April 2, 2020. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/753591585861787472/pdf/Disclosable-Restructuring- Paper-Enhancing-the-Climate-Resilience-of-Coastal-Resources-and-Communities-Project-P126596.pdf Implementation Status and Results Reports See https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/document-detail/P126596?type=projects Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 01 (English) – March 15, 2014 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 02 (English) – July 27, 2014 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 03 (English) – Dec 19, 2014 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 04 (English) – May 8, 2015 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 05 (English) – Dec 31, 2015 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 06 (English) – June 29, 2016 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 07 (English) – Dec 28, 2016 Samoa – ECR Project (P126596) ICR-Sequence No: 08 (English) – June 30, 2017 Disclosable Version of the ISR–ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 09 (English) – January 28, 2018 Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 10 (English) – June 18, 2018 Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 11 (English) – September 29, 2018 Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 12 (English) – May 10, 2019 Page 59 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 13 (English) – December 14, 2019 Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 14 (English) – June 17, 2020 Disclosable Version of the ISR– ECR Project (P126596): Sequence No: 15 (English) – December 11, 2020 B. Safeguards Reports GoS. (2013a). Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Apia. November 2013. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/169821468107967330/pdf/E42980ESMF0ECR000PUBLIC00Box379832B.pdf GoS (2013b). Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework (LARF). Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Apia. November 2013. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/421381468300709467/pdf/RP14870LARPF0S0a0PUBLIC00Box379832B.pdf World Bank (2013c). Indigenous Peoples Policy Requirements. IPP 659. Washington D.C. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/535131468335963870/pdf/IPP6590IP0P126000PUBLIC00Box379832B.pdf. C. Borrower ICR Ministry of Finance of Samoa. (2021). Implementation Completion Report – Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) P126596 (TF15828). Funded by the Climate Investment Funds’ Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) through the World Bank. August 2021. Ministry of Finance, Samoa. Apia. D. Detailed Economic Analysis World Bank. (2021). Detailed Economic Analysis at Project Completion for the Samoa Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) Project, P126596. See project documents, https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/document- detail/P126596?type=projects. E. References Cited ADB. (2002). Handbook for Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects. Economics and Development Resource Center. Asian Development Bank. Manila. Aldrich, Daniel and Michelle Meyer. (2014). Social Capital and Community Resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 1-16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281601274_Social_Capital_and_Community_Resilience Béné, Christophe, et al. (2016). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Sec. (2016) 8: 123-138 Bhattari, B., and C. Giri. (2011). Assessment of mangrove forests in the Pacific region using Landsat imagery. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 5(2011): 053509-1-11. Climate Investment Funds. (2018). PPCR Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit. Pilot Program for Climate Resilience. Washington, D.C. Constantini, Gianfrancesco. (2015). Final Evaluation of Civil Society Support Programme in Samoa. The European Union’s DCI Programme. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/samoa-cssp-final-report.pdf. Christophe Béné, Rachel Godfrey Wood, Andrew Newsham and Mark Davies (2012). Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny. IDS Working Paper 2012 (45). da Silva I.M., Hill N., Shimadzu H., Soares A.M.V.M., Dornelas M. (2015). Spillover Effects of a Community-Managed Marine Reserve. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0111774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111774 Gillett, R. (2009). Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories. Samoa. Asian Development Bank. Pacific Studies Page 60 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Series. Manila. Government of Samoa (2015) Community Engagement Plan and Toolkit. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Apia. Government of Samoa. (2016). Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2016/17-2019/20 - Accelerating Sustainable Development and Broadening Opportunities for All. Apia. Government of Samoa. (2017). Samoa PPCR-ECR. Project Operations Manual, Section 8: Preparation, Approval and Implementation of District Level Sub-Projects. Government of Samoa (2018). Samoa Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2018. Tabulation Report. Samoa Bureau of Statistics. Government of Samoa. (2021). Samoa 2040. Transforming Samoa to a Higher Growth Path. Apia. Government of Samoa (2011). Samoa Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience (SPCR). Prepared for the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR). Apia. https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/samoa_strategic_program_for_climate_resilence_spcr_crip_0_0.pdf. Gregorowski. (2016). Internal paper produced for the United Kingdom Department for International Development on Lessons Learning from Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters. IPCC. (2014). Assessment Report 5 Climate Change 2014. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Technical Summary, Table TS7s. Jones, L., and T. Tanner. (2015). Measuring Subjective Resilience. Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 423. King, M., and U. Fa’asili. (1999). A Network of Small, Community-Owned Village Fish Reserves in Samoa. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin # 11. September 1999. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea. Lewis III, Roy R. (2001). Mangrove Restoration - Costs and Benefits of Successful Ecological Restoration. Proceedings of the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, University Sains Malaysia, Penang, 4-8 April 2001. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm. (2001). MNRE. (2015). Community Engagement Plan and Toolkit. Planning and Urban Management Agency, MNRE. Apia. MNRE. (2018). Community Integrated Management Plans—Implementation Guidelines, for A’ana Alofi I East (Upolu); A’ana Alofi I West (Upolu); A’ana Alofi II (Upolu); A’ana Alofi III (Upolu); Aleipata Itupa I Lalo (Upolu); Aleipata Itupa I Luga (Upolu); Falealili East (Upolu); Falealili West (Upolu); Faleata East (Upolu); Faleata West (Upolu); Lepa (Upolu); Lotofaga (Upolu); Sagaga Le Falefa (Upolu); Sagaga Le Usoga (Upolu); Gagaemauga I (Savaii); Gagaifomauga III (Savaii); Palauli East (Savaii); Palauli West (Savaii) districts. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Apia. https://samoa-data.sprep.org/dataset/community-integrated-management-plans Mulipola, Atonio (2001). Profile of Village Fisheries in Samoa. Samoa Fisheries Project and AusAID. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries & Meteorology. NSO and UNDP. (2016). Samoa Hardship and Poverty Report. Analysis of the 2013/14 Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Government of Samoa National Statistics Office and UNDP Pacific Centre, Apia. Pascal, Nicolas. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Community-based Marine Protected Areas: Five Case Studies in Vanuatu. Coral Reef Initiatives for the Pacific. Economic Studies. February 2011. PCRAFI. (2011). Country Risk Profile: Samoa. September 2011. Pacific Catastrophic Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, World Bank. Washington, D.C. PCRAFI. (2013). Current and Future Tropical Cyclone Risk in the South Pacific. Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative in collaboration with Pacific-Australia Climate Change Science and Adaptation Planning Program. PCRAFI. (2015). Country Note—Samoa. Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance. Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, World Bank. Washington, D.C. Page 61 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Ram-Bidesi, Vina, Malama Siamomua-Momoemausu and Moira Faletutulu. (2014). Economic Valuation of Mangroves of the Safata District in Samoa. University of South Pacific. Suva. Redhouse, D., P. Roberts and R. Tukai. (undated). Everyone’s a Winner: Economic Valuation of Water Projects. WaterAID Discussion Paper. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/50748419/everyones-a-winner-economic-valuation-of-water-projects-wateraid. SBS. (2020). Samoa Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2018 Tabulation Report. Samoa Bureau of Statistics. Suluvale, Eletise Alofoe.(undated). Environmental Change of Selected Mangrove Areas in Samoa. https://www.sprep.org/attachments/VirLib/Samoa/4.pdf Tschakert, Petra, and Kathleen Ann Dietrich. (2010). Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. Ecology and Society, Vol. 15(2): 11. Tiiti, Ulusapeti, Michael Sharp, and Joyce Ah-Leong. (2014). Samoa Socioeconomic Fisheries Survey Report. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. UNDP. (2018). Terminal Evaluation of the Project “Enhancing Resilience of Coastal Communities of Samoa to Climate Change”. UNDP PIMS ID 4667, Atlas ID 079525. Woodruff, Allison (2008). Samoa Technical Report – Economic Analysis of Flood Risk Reduction Measures for the Lower Vaisigano Catchment Area. European Union EDF-SOPAC Project Report 69g. Reducing Vulnerability of Pacific ACP States. https://pacificdata.org/data/dataset/samoa-technical-report-economic-analysis-of-flood-risk-reduction-measures-for-the-lower-va-2008). World Bank. (2013). Project Appraisal Document for the Samoa Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project. Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis. Report PAD686. Washington, D.C. World Bank. (2015). Project Appraisal Document for the Pacific Resilience Program. P154839 (Report No. PAD 1095). Washington, D.C. World Bank. (2016). Discounting Costs and Benefits in Economic Analysis of World Bank Projects. Unpublished. OPSPQ, May 9, 2016. Real GDP growth per capita derived from World Bank Indicators https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=WS. World Bank. (2017). Regional Partnership Framework for Kiribati, Republic of Nauru, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Independent State of Samoa, Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu for the Period FY17-FY21. World Bank Group. Report Number 120479, January 1, 2017. Washington, D.C. World Bank. (2019a). Implementation Completion and Results Report for Samoa Agriculture Competitiveness Enhancement Project. World Bank, June 28, 2019. World Bank. (2019b). Implementation Completion and Results Report for the Vanuatu Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project (P112611). Report No. ICR 4558. December 27, 2019. World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. (2020). Implementation Completion and Results Report for the Solomon Islands Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster Risk Project (P112613). Report No. ICR 5156. October 26, 2020. World Bank. Washington, D. C. World Bank. (2021). Detailed Economic Analysis at Project Completion for the Samoa Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities (ECR) Project, P126596. Available in Project Files. Ziegler, Maren, et al. (2018). Status of coral reefs of Upolu (Independent State of Samoa) in the South West Pacific and Recommendations to Promote Resilience and Recovery of Coastal Ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, April 2018; 129 (1): 392-398. Page 62 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 7: BENEFICIARY SURVEY AT COMPLETION 7.1. CSSP carried out a beneficiary survey between June 2020 and January 2021, with the assistance of a World Bank consultant (Leilani Duffy). The survey included 155 direct beneficiaries from 34 villages—or 34 percent of village sub-projects (total 100) and 0.25 percent of direct beneficiaries. The survey was designed to be as representative as possible, so for each major sub-project type at the village level, at least a third of the villages were covered. 71 In terms of geographical coverage, the sampled villages extended over 14 of the 18 beneficiary districts, with five (15 percent) located in Savai’i and 29 (85 percent) located in Upolu, approximately the same proportion as the project villages (17 percent in Savai’i and 83 percent in Upolu). Appendix A includes further information on the survey sampling. 7.2. In each sub-project site, between two and six beneficiaries (a median of four) were interviewed, with the exception of Tuaefu, Satalo and Ulotogia villages, which had eight, 13, and 10 respondents, respectively, as narrowing down participants who wanted to participate in the survey proved difficult. As such, some sites were over- represented in individual answers, while others were under-represented. To account for this, both individual responses as well as weighted site responses were analyzed for the most important quantitative answers. In the weighted site approach, individual responses were averaged across each site, so all sites counted equally toward the final results. In practice, the results were similar to those where individual answers were considered equally, and these (equally counted individual answers) are reported herein as they better reflect variations in beneficiaries’ perceptions. Where relevant, the weighted site averages are also reported. A. CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 7.3. Sex. Of the 155 respondents, 65 (42%) were female and 89 (58%) were male. 72 7.4. Age and Education. The average age of respondents was 54 years, with the majority (68 percent) over 50. An additional 15 percent were between the ages of 41 and 50, 11 percent were between the ages of 31 and 40 years, and 5 percent were between the ages of 21 and 30. Respondents did not include children or teenagers below the age of 20. Most respondents (82 percent) had some level of secondary or college education. An additional 13 percent had tertiary education and 5 percent had only primary education. 7.5. Household Characteristics. Households were generally large, with an average of 12 people each and a median of nine. Close to 81 percent reported having between five and 20 people. A total of 21 percent (31 respondents) came from female-headed households. A quarter of respondents came from households with people with mental or physical disabilities, and 61 percent had elderly members (above the age of 60). The number of children averaged 4.6 per household, with 26 percent reporting more than five. 7.6. Main Source of Household Income. The majority of respondents (56 percent) depended on informal income sources—particularly plantation, fishing, livestock, food stalls, or seasonal work—as well as remittances (15 percent). An additional 28 percent depended primarily on income from formal employment of family members, resort work, businesses, or pensions, and 12 percent cited both formal and informal sources. Four percent (six respondents) reported no income. 71 Exceptions were unusual sub-project prototypes or sub-project combinations, such as “Rainwater Harvesting and Replanting” (17 percent sample), “Mangrove Replanting” (25 percent sample), and unique types, such as sanitation, fish reserves, rainwater harvesting and water intake, or waste management and sustainable agriculture, which could not be sampled due to logistical constraints. The survey did not include control villages, as the type of questions asked and COVID-19 restrictions rendered it impossible. See Appendix A for further details. 72 One respondent did not provide her/his gender. Page 63 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Sub-Project Types. About half of Figure 7.1: Surveyed Beneficiaries by Main Sub-Project Type respondents surveyed (48 percent) benefited from rainwater harvest Safe Haven Mangrove Escape Route 5% 3% systems, 18 percent from community 6% pools, 14 percent from waste Sust. Agriculture management (wheelie bins or rubbish 6% stands), 6 percent each from sustainable agriculture and escape roads, 5 percent from safe Rainwater Harvest havens/shelters, and 3 percent from Waste 48% mangrove restoration/replantation Management (see Figure 7.1). About 29 percent of 14% respondents came from villages that benefited from more than one type of sub-project, generally water Community Pool N=155 18% combined with waste management or replantation. Compared with total project beneficiaries, beneficiaries from community pools, escape roads, and safe havens were slightly over- represented, while beneficiaries from mangrove replantation and rarer sub-project types were under-represented (see Appendix A). 7.7. Vulnerability to Extreme Events. Surveyed beneficiaries experienced a variety of extreme events, including the 2009 tsunami (which destroyed some 20 villages along the southeastern coast of Upolu) and cyclones and storm surges—most recently Cyclones Evan (2012) and Gita (2018). As a result of the tsunami, several communities moved further inland, but some continued to lack reliable water supply and infrastructure. Respondents also cited the effects of storm surges and cyclones on water supply, the poor condition of coral reefs, and hardship due to damaged buildings and insufficient escape roads. Alternate droughts and heavy rainfall reportedly caused bushfires, flashfloods and landslides, leading to piped water and electricity cuts, housing damage, and poor crop and plantation yields. Crops were also destroyed by free-range cattle and pigs which—together with economic hardship—exacerbated food insecurity. Several respondents mentioned difficulties paying their water bills and extended periods without access to safe water when cyclones or floods interrupted the piped supply and/or SWA’s emergency water trucks were delayed. Springs and community pools were often sedimented and difficult to access due to vegetation overgrowth. Finally, lack of waste management led to garbage accumulation near villages, which (when combined with flooding) exacerbated communicable and mosquito-borne diseases. 7.8. The survey revealed that some families were considered more vulnerable than others even within the same villages—particularly those without access to cash income, those who had recently moved to inland areas without piped water supply, or those whose only land options were vulnerable coastal areas. Page 64 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) B. SATISFACTION WITH SUB-PROJECTS Figure 7.2: Overall Satisfaction with Sub-Projects 7.9. Overall Satisfaction. Survey respondents All Rainwater Harvest Community Pools revealed, in general, a high level of satisfaction with Waste Mng Escape Routes Safe Havens their village sub-projects. Of 128 respondents, 70 100.0% Agriculture Mangrove percent professed being Very Satisfied and another 22 percent Satisfied, with only 8 percent Indifferent or 80.0% Dissatisfied 73 (see Figure 7.2). The high degree of satisfaction generally held across all sub-project types, with beneficiaries from water investments only slightly 60.0% more satisfied than those from non-water sub-projects (93 vs. 90 percent Satisfied or Highly Satisfied, 40.0% respectively). However, satisfaction levels were lower for escape roads and mangrove replanting—both pilot 20.0% sub-projects—where a significant proportion (60 and 67 percent, respectively) reported being only Satisfied, 0.0% primarily because they had preferred other priorities Very Dissa�sfied Indifferent Sa�sfied Very Sa�sfied (or, in the case of the escape road, for it to be sealed). 74 Dissa�sfied (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Among other sub-project types, the few respondents N= 128 that were not satisfied expected other types of assistance (e.g., rebuilding their house, fixing their plantation access road, or providing a wheelchair for Figure 7.3: Satisfaction with Water Quality and Quantity a daughter), mentioned an insufficient number of water tanks or rubbish bins to cater to all households, Water Quality Water Quan�ty or (in the case of mangrove replanting) felt the 100.0% activity was insufficient to prevent wave impacts on their houses. 80.0% 7.10. Satisfaction with Water Quality and Quantity. 60.0% Among interviewed beneficiaries of rainwater tanks, satisfaction with water quality and quantity was 40.0% generally high, with 75 and 82 percent, respectively, stating they were Very Satisfied, and another 20 and 20.0% 19 percent Satisfied (see Figure 7.3). Overall satisfaction with water quantity was slightly higher 0.0% than for water quality, primarily because a few Very Dissa�sfied Indifferent Sa�sfied Very Sa�sfied respondents wanted the project to check for bacteria Dissa�sfied (2) (3) (4) (5) and bugs in water tanks, and one who was dissatisfied (1) N= 59 (Quality); N=54 (Quantity) with the quality of the independent water scheme. 73 The results were similar, albeit slightly higher, when answers were weighted equally for each village: 77 percent were Very Satisfied and 18 percent were Satisfied. 74 This feedback reflected a misunderstanding of the eligibility among some respondents of the pilot village sub-projects, as sealed roads are under district responsibility. Following the experience of the pilots, mangrove rehabilitation and escape roads became primarily district sub- projects (Task Team Leader, personal communication). Page 65 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) C. PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF SUB-PROJECTS 7.11. Protection Against Disasters and Climate Change. Respondents were asked how their sub-projects would help protect them from disasters and climate change. Among water sub-project beneficiaries (both rainwater harvesting and community pools) main benefits cited included the ability to have access to water 24/7. Rainwater water tanks provided a reliable and safe supply for times when the piped water was not available and/or contaminated due to prolonged dry periods, floods, or cyclones. This, in turn, enabled particularly vulnerable families to be better prepared against disasters. Community pools provided a reliable backup for an even broader range of domestic water uses (drinking, washing, bathing, and toilet flushing), often through separate designated areas. Trees planted around the pools also helped halt soil erosion and sedimentation, providing shade and improving water quality. Waste management sub-projects helped prevent drainage contamination and mosquito-borne diseases during floods and heavy drains. Escape roads increased the sense of safety among beneficiaries by providing them with quick access to safer inland areas during tsunamis, cyclones, and floods. Safe havens reportedly provided refuge and shelter for vulnerable people during extreme events, as well as a place to safely store personal assets and valuables during disasters. Beneficiaries from sustainable agriculture sub-projects cited increased food security from more diverse and resilient crops, as well as better financial resilience from selling surplus crops. They mentioned saving food for periods of adverse weather, as well as investing in more resilient crops, such as umala (sweet potato) 75. Finally, mangrove conservation was cited as important to protect coastal resources as well as the coastline. 7.12. Other Development Benefits. In addition to resilience, sub-projects were also perceived to yield significant development benefits. For rainwater harvesting these included: (1) savings in water bills; (2) time savings from not having to collect water when piped water was out; (3) protection from diseases; (4) no longer having to ask other families for help in accessing their water sources; and (5) new iron roofs for houses where a roof catchment had to be installed. Time saved by not having to collect water from alternative sources was significant: an average of 136 minutes a day (median: 59 minutes) across all respondents and 117 minutes a day across all sub-projects. As a result, beneficiaries reported more time for village beautification and cleanup, gardening, fishing, and plantation work. 7.13. Beneficiaries of community pools mentioned similar savings in water bills, as well as protection from diseases. They also cited aesthetic and social benefits from communal beautification efforts, bringing people closer together. In one village, respondents mentioned the project had helped renovate their women’s committee house to support community pool management and that, as a result, women were now planning additional village developments. Respondents from another village mentioned their youth were actively involved in cleanup efforts. Still others pointed to enhanced tourism attraction, and consequent revenues from entrance fees. Waste management beneficiaries mentioned their health had improved from no longer having to burn garbage, as well as increased cleanliness of their water supply and less mosquito breeding grounds. Like community pool respondents, they also mentioned aesthetic and social benefits from a cleaner environment and bringing people together. Escape road beneficiaries highlighted facilitated access by children to their school and by farmers to their plantations and that the improved routes had stimulated further farming, plantation, and housing development. Beneficiaries of safe havens used them for village meetings and other activities and mentioned their indirect contribution to village development. Finally, beneficiaries of sustainable agriculture cited better nutrition from vegetables and more diverse crops, as well as extra income from surplus crop sales. Mangrove restoration beneficiaries cited their importance as nurseries for fish and marine species (thereby improving livelihood sources). 75 As a root crop, sweet potato is naturally resilient to cyclones. Page 66 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.14. Sub-Project Proponents. The majority Figure 7.4: Who Proposed the Sub-Projects? of respondents (70 percent) stated the entire village had proposed the sub-projects (see Figure 7.4). The remainder cited women (11 Others percent), chiefs or village mayor (11 percent), 8% and other proponents (8 percent)—such as church ministers, faith-based groups, village Women 11% maidens, and individuals (including men). 7.15. Distribution of Benefits. Sub-projects were generally perceived to have yielded broad- based benefits. When asked who had benefited N=155 Whole Village the most, 56 percent of respondents identified Chiefs/Village 70% Mayor the whole village, 23 percent identified 11% vulnerable or poor families, and 4 percent mentioned women (see Figure 7.5). However, 8 percent also pointed to specific individuals or families—those living close to feeder roads, safe N=161 havens, and community pools—and 4 percent mentioned the village mayor and/or his committee. 7.16. Among water sub-project recipients, many stated the ECR project had Figure 7.5: Who Benefitted the Most from the Sub-Project? specifically targeted vulnerable and/or poor families who lived away from the piped Whole Village 56.3% network or other water sources, were Vulnerable Families 22.7% particularly exposed to water interruptions Some Individuals/Families 7.8% during disasters, or who had difficulties paying their water fees. At the same time, this Village Mayor 3.9% targeting created some resentment among Women 3.9% respondents who felt left out. These Children respondents would have preferred the project to provide water tanks or rubbish bins Farmers/Fishermen to all families in the village. In addition, the Un�tled Men use of the village mayor and women’s Village Council committee as entry points for the sub- projects led to distrust among a few Nobody/Not Me/Don’t Know N=128 respondents regarding fairness of the targeting (see Community Recommendations). D. RESILIENCE PERCEPTIONS 7.17. Measuring resilience in disaster risk management and adaptation projects is extremely challenging: in the absence of rigorous control groups, attributing resilience changes to a specific project is difficult; the short timescale of a project may be insufficient to reflect changes in assets and capacities; successful adaptation and resilience Page 67 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) building are difficult concepts for Figure 7.6: Perceptions of Resilience Amongst Project Beneficiaries beneficiaries to grasp; and a single indicator that correctly captures the 50.0% multifaceted dimensions of resilience does not exist. 76 7.18. The beneficiary survey, therefore, attempted to capture multiple 30.0% dimensions of beneficiaries’ resilience, namely their ability to cope with, recover from, adapt to, and transform when confronted with climate and 10.0% disaster events; their access to financial and social capital; and their adaptive learning (see Appendix B). The survey Strongly Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree used a set of questions adapted from Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the Jones and Tanner (2015) evaluation -10.0% of subjective resilience. 77 The results are Coping Capacity Adap�ve Capacity Transforma�onal Capacity summarized in Figures 7.6 to 7.8. Financial Capacity Social Capital Adap�ve Learning 7.19. Adaptive learning had the highest rating of all resilience attributes, with 72 Figure 7.7: Proportion of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing percent of 103 respondents agreeing, or strongly agreeing, their “households had learned considerably from how we have Coping Capacity 28.6% dealt with past disasters. This knowledge is crucial in successfully dealing with future events”. Respondents mentioned Adap�ve Capacity 63.2% learning extensively from: past disaster experience regarding preparing for future events, including how to build Transforma�onal Capacity 35.9% stronger houses and install water tanks, and knowing where to go inland or to go Financial Capacity 34.8% to higher ground; early warning information and disaster preparedness provided by TV, radio, and word of Social Capital 60.0% mouth; the project itself; and guidance provided by the village council. Those few who felt less confident mentioned Adap�ve Learning 71.8% the potential magnitude of events (such as cyclones) may transcend their capacity acquired through past adaptive learning. 76 See Gregorowsk ( 2016). 77 See Jones, L. and T. Tanner (2015). Page 68 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.20. Adaptive capacity had the second highest rating, with 63 percent of 117 respondents agreeing, or strongly agreeing, that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area in the next five years, my household would be able to cope/adapt successfully”. Those who responded positively mentioned people now knew how to prepare more resilient crops, install water tanks, and climate-proof houses, with some respondents specifically mentioning the project had enhanced their awareness of what to do. Many stressed the importance of working together as a village and asking for help from CSSP and others if needed. Less positive respondents stressed that adaptive capacity among families varied, with some able to adapt, and others needing help from the government and village council—thus highlighting the importance of social targeting. Many of those pointed out they would be able to adapt, but only with external help, with lack of financial resources frequently cited as a barrier. In one village (Tuaefu), respondents mentioned they were located at the end point of a water stream and were thus subjected to frequent flooding. 7.21. Social capital had the third highest rating, with 60 percent of 115 respondents agreeing, or strongly agreeing, that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area tomorrow, my household would be able to draw upon the support of family and friends to fully recover from the (disaster) threats.” Many respondents who agreed with the statement mentioned the ability to rely on relatives or friends (particularly overseas) and, if that was not enough, on the government, churches, CSSP, or other similar project assistance. Some respondents also mentioned they would work together and support each other (per the Samoan tradition). Still others highlighted the importance of insuring homes and assets and/or investing money received from remittances or saved through earnings derived from projects such as ECR. Less optimistic respondents emphasized that assistance from families or the government tended to mostly cover immediate needs and would be insufficient for their full recovery (for example, if they had to rebuild their houses). They also mentioned that government assistance took time and might not be sufficient if everyone was affected by a major disaster. Several mentioned having no relatives overseas or that family assistance was increasingly limited to immediate family members, rather than extended family. 7.22. Transformational capacity. Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area in the next five years, and my community ceased to exist, my household would be able to cope/adapt successfully, even if it required us to completely change our ways of life” as a proxy for transformational capacity. About a third of 117 respondents (36 percent) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, explaining they had the capacity to move to safer (inland) grounds for the safety of their children and families. Some mentioned knowing what a major disaster was like and had already left their coastal areas after the 2009 tsunami, feeling confident in their capacity to adapt to a new place. Other respondents mentioned the need to plan ahead and consider relocating before a major disaster stroke. Many, however, mentioned they could relocate only if they had help from the government (particularly in the granting of land), CSSP, or the church. Among those who disagreed with the statement, the most cited reason was lack of resources or alternative land, with one respondent specifically stating that moving would be impossible because most (alternative) land was under freehold or customary ownership. Some stated they would not relocate from their heritage land, and others mentioned they would only relocate if their houses were destroyed (by a major disaster) or that, despite having lost coastal land to erosion, they could manage to stay put with government assistance in building a seawall. Even within the same village, responses to this question differed sharply. 7.23. Financial capacity was rated the second lowest of all resilient attributes, with 35 percent of 115 respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area tomorrow, my household would have access to sufficient financial resources to ensure that we fully recover.” Respondents who agreed mentioned being able to rely on assistance from families or a church overseas, or on their farm, livestock, and plantations. Many cited the advantages of good preparation for disasters (e.g., maintaining vegetable gardens, working together as a Page 69 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) community, or protecting household assets) as lessening their eventual impact. Most respondents who disagreed with the statement mentioned having little or no savings, as well as few or no family members with access to cash employment. As before, respondents stressed not all families were the same, with some having little income and others having the advantage of good support systems (with large plantations and families). Again, several respondents mentioned they would like to have disaster insurance but were unable to afford it. 7.24. Coping capacity was rated the lowest among all resilience attributes, with only 29 percent of 126 respondents agreeing that “if a major disaster was to occur in my area tomorrow, my household would be able to fully recover from the damage caused by the event within six months.” This had to do primarily with their perception that 6-12 months was too short a period of time to recover from a disaster. Many mentioned two to three years and some five years or more would be needed for a full recovery, with one respondent saying, “it takes a long time for the land to naturally heal and recover”. Others cited limited resources and lack of savings as hampering their coping capacity. Again, several respondents emphasized not all families were the same, with some better able to cope than others. More optimistic respondents mentioned they could recover within a 6 to 12-month period if everyone worked together or if they received government and CSSP help. Another highlighted that returning to a thriving subsistence livelihood would be difficult because of the many (and frequent) natural disasters. 7.25. Attribution. The survey sought to Figure 7.8: Beneficiaries Attribution of Resilience Perceptions investigate how much of the above resilience perceptions were due to Others, 8.2% experience gained through the ECR Experience from project. Attribution is particularly past disasters, challenging since beneficiaries’ resilience 34.9% perceptions are also influenced by past Media/Internet, disasters and other assistance programs. 18.8% To investigate this further, respondents were asked to reflect back on their stated resilience perceptions and distribute 10 points among the following causative Ac�vi�es of other factors (with the most important factors projects, 9.6% receiving the most points): (a) experience gained from past disasters; (b) experience Experience gained through the ECR project; (c) gained from this N=123 project, 28.5% activities of other projects; (d) media, TV, internet, etc.; and (e) other factors. Experience from past disasters was rated highest, with an average of 3.5 points and a median rating of 3.0 (out of 10). However, experience gained through the ECR project was also significant—an average of 2.9 points and a median of 3.0—particularly when compared with “activities of other projects” (1.0-point average, median 0.0), “media/internet” (1.9-point average, median 2.0), and “others” (0.8-point average, median 0.0). Paired t-tests comparing attribution to the ECR project with that of other factors showed the differences to be highly significant, at the <0.01 probability level. 7.26. Figure 7.8 above depicts the stated attribution, with average points converted to percentages. The results suggest the ECR project contributed significantly to beneficiaries’ perceived resilience—particularly with respect to stated adaptive learning and adaptive capacity—although other contributing factors, especially experience acquired through past disasters, were also important. Page 70 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) E. PERCEIVED RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY 7.27. Perceived Relevance. About 88 percent of beneficiaries surveyed agreed the sub- Figure 7.9: Was this Sub-Project a Priority for Your Household? projects had been a high priority for them and reflected their household and village’s needs (see Figure 7.9). Some respondents stressed the importance of their sub-projects by remarking that “water is life,” safe havens are Not Quite/Not Sure critical to protect their lives, or their 1.4% community pool is important for healthy living. A rainwater tank beneficiary mentioned they always wanted a water tank but had been No Yes unable to afford it. The few respondents (9 88.1% 10.5% percent) who disagreed mentioned they wanted specific help which had not been delivered—such as help with their individual houses or, in Alamutu Saleimoa, rehabilitation N=143 of the dirt road to their plantation area. Some also complained they had not received sufficient water tanks or rubbish stands, but, in Figure 7.10: Were Activities Carried out as Expected? general, most respondents agreed with their allocation to the most vulnerable families. Respondents from one community pool village (Vailoa Faleata) mentioned they had wanted a water pump but given the Ministry of Health’s advice that their spring water was not safe to drink, they agreed to receive water Not Quite/Not tanks instead. Sure 5.2% 7.28. Meeting Expectations. A substantial proportion of respondents (88 percent) stated Yes No 88.1% 6.7% their sub-projects were carried out as expected, while 12 percent were unsure, had reservations, or mentioned their sub-project had not conformed to expectations (see Figure 7.10). Frequently mentioned aspects N=135 that had worked well included the entire village working together, with “everyone involved.” Some beneficiaries specifically mentioned their village had also provided its own funds (e.g., for the safe haven in Utualii, the water tank base in Samea Paepaela, and the aggregate collection and iron roof installation in Tuaefu), or had contributed substantially in-kind—e.g., by building a riverbank wall to reduce soil erosion; cleaning up vegetation and rubbish around community pools; building a fale near the pool to monitor agreed rules; installing their own water tanks; and mobilizing women’s committees to monitor sub-projects. Page 71 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.29. Implementation Aspects. Respondents identified many implementation aspects where they thought the project (through CSSP) had performed particularly well. Consultations, training, and awareness were viewed as very useful, as were monthly meetings with the villages to keep everyone informed. Respondents also commended: tools, fittings, and fencing (for the water tanks and sustainable agriculture sub-projects); training by experienced farmers on how to plant and transplant sweet potato (umala) and cassava (manioc); and encouraging families to be self- reliant with vegetable gardens. Some of the 16 percent of respondents who expressed concerns mentioned: incorrect measurements for the water tank cement base; the fact that their supporting CSO did not know how to do the fittings; the need for additional help on how to clean water tanks; and the inability to use the balance of grant funds as CSSP could not complete the final procurement items on time. A few expressed dismay they had not been included as part of the proposal or that their specific needs had not been met. 7.30. Perceived Sustainability. When Figure 7.11: Will the Sub-Project Continue in…. asked whether they believed their sub- project would continue to operate as planned in two years, 91 percent of 91.2% 2 years 5 years respondents offered an unconditional yes, 7 percent agreed but with caveats 73.8% or were unsure, and only two respondents stated “no”. Over a five- year horizon, respondents were more conservative, with 74 percent expressing optimism the sub-projects would continue to operate, and 10 and 15 percent agreeing they would 6.6% 10.3% 15.1% 2.2% continue only if the sub-project was 0.8% properly maintained or if they received outside maintenance help, respectively YES YES IF NEED OUTSIDE HELP NO MAINTAINED/UNSURE (see Figure 7.11). N=136 (2 years); 126 (5 years) 7.31. As expected, stark differences emerged among sub-projects types. Beneficiaries of escape roads, in particular, mentioned that while village councils were responsible for road maintenance, the roads became muddy and dirty during the rainy season, and further help from LTA was required. Beneficiaries of safe havens had designated village committees, composed of women and untitled men, to clean and maintain the shelters, but some of those less confident in future maintenance mentioned the unpredictable impacts of disasters and the effect of rot. One respondent from the safe haven at Saleaumua claimed the village would need a machine for future maintenance. 7.32. By contrast, beneficiaries from water sub-projects (both community pools and rainwater harvest systems) assumed for the most part that future maintenance would be done by their own village. Village community pools were sometimes maintained by the entire village, women’s committees, village development committees, children, untitled men, chiefs, or village councils. Some emphasized the need to plant more trees around community pools to continue reducing soil erosion, and others viewed maintenance as important for young generations to also benefit. In Vailoa Faleata, respondents mentioned their women’s committee was divided into four groups to police and manage the community pool. A few community pool respondents, however, highlighted dependence on future funding and on the village continuing to work together. Page 72 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.33. Among rainwater harvest recipients, the vast majority were confident their individual families would care for, and maintain, their own water tanks (for example, by cleaning up algae or impurities) as this was critical for benefits to continue. Others stressed good maintenance was needed to help ensure future CSSP support, so all families would have water tanks in the future. While maintenance was viewed as an individual family’s responsibility, women’s committees, village mayors, chiefs, and/or faith-based groups were tasked with monitoring how families were looking after their tanks. Some villages—like Tuaefu and Satalo—adopted fines for non-compliance or a rule excluding families that did not look after their water tanks from future village projects. Some who were unsure about future maintenance, however, cited the unpredictability of natural disaster impacts, while others mentioned CSSP and the village should work together to look after sub-projects. Beneficiaries of waste management sub-projects, in general, agreed each family was responsible for looking after the rubbish stands and their committees to monitor cleanliness and take care of the materials provided. Similarly, recipients of sustainable agriculture sub-projects mentioned a women’s development committee was responsible for monthly monitoring, while chiefs (matais) were responsible for ensuring food security management. One respondent said long-term sustainability would depend on the available market for umala. F. OTHER IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS 7.34. Role and Performance of Village Figure 7.12: Is the Sub-Project Committee Performing Well? Committees. With one exception (Satapuala) all villages had designated sub-project implementation committees. Often, these preceded the project, as in the case of Not Sure/Don’t Know/Some women’s committees, village development Problems committees, and village councils. In general, 5% respondents were happy with the way these committees oversaw their sub-projects, with No many praising the work of the women’s Yes 6% committees, especially in waste management 89% and community pools. About 89 percent of respondents reported their committees were working well, 78 with an additional 11 percent N=137 unsure or reporting performance problems (see Figure 7.12). Problems were reported primarily in four villages: (1) Sapunaoa, which had formed a new committee after the original one that oversaw the escape route stopped working; (2) Satapuala where no active committee existed; (3) Alafua, where respondents reported the committee had only been active during installation of the water tanks; and (4) Satalo, where some respondents (not all) who felt left out stated the previous mayor was biased regarding the distribution of water tanks. 78 This proportion was almost identical (90.6 percent) if responses were averaged across villages, so that each village counted the same. Page 73 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.35. Role of Women. In general, women were actively involved in all key sub-project stages (proposal, implementation and monitoring), playing leading roles in water, waste management, and sustainable agriculture sub- projects, in particular. In the two escape roads and one of the safe havens sub-projects, women’s roles were more muted, given men’s leading roles in construction sub-projects. However, women participated in village meetings, prepared food for workers, and were involved in some (but not all) infrastructure oversight committees. 7.36. Women’s reported satisfaction with sub-project results was higher than for men: 72.2 percent were Very Satisfied, and another 24.1 percent Satisfied (total 96.3 percent), compared to 68.5 percent Very Satisfied and 20.5 percent Satisfied among male respondents (total 89.0 percent). 7.37. Among community pools, women played critical and leading roles. Women’s committees were actively involved in: developing the proposals and coordinating major activities; cleaning up and removing rubbish around the pools; cooking for (male) workers who built the pool’s concrete walls; planting trees and beautifying areas around the pools; fund raising; and organizing cleaning and maintenance days. Some villages had rosters of women to monitor agreed pool use rules at all times, whereas others organized weekly vegetation and pool cleanup days. Still others monitored and controlled any misuse of funds and deviations from the agreed proposal. 7.38. Women also led and coordinated many rainwater harvesting and waste management sub-projects, initiating proposals alongside village mayors, supervising, preparing food, and even helping the (male) workers, for example, by carrying loads of rocks for the construction of water tank bases, and overseeing maintenance of water tanks and rubbish stands/bins (both communal and family-owned). In the words of some respondents, women “lead the development of the village” and their active involvement was viewed by many as a primary reason why implementation runs smoothly. Similarly, for agriculture sub-projects, women’s committees led sub-project preparation, were actively involved in implementation, and organized monthly monitoring of beneficiary families. 7.39. In total, 86 percent of respondents stated women participated actively in implementation committees, while 11 percent said they did not and 4 percent were unsure. Villages where women were not actively participating included one escape road (a pilot sub-project where the requirements had not been respected) and three rainwater harvest villages, one of which had an inactive committee, and another Figure 7.13: Degree of Participation in CIM Plan Consultations which had selected the village council and not the women’s committee to be responsible for the sub-project. 7.40. Role and Participation in CIM Plans. When asked whether they or No 32% members of their household had participated in CIM Plan consultations, about two thirds (62 percent) replied affirmatively, one third (32 percent) said no, and 6 percent were unsure or did not know. Those who participated recalled Yes learning about: sea level rise and climate Not Sure/Don’t 62% change in general; how to prepare and Know respond to disasters; how to heed early 6% N=90 warnings; how to improve and clean drainage to avoid flooding; people’s Page 74 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) roles in destroying the environment and causing deforestation (thereby increasing erosion and flooding); how to identify safe areas to relocate away from hazard-prone areas; the role of rubbish stands in healthy living; the role of coastal and riverbank replantation (nature-based solutions); how to conserve water and natural springs, forests, and marine areas; how burning rubbish contributes to climate change; how to plant trees to protect people from the hot sun; and the role of crop diversification in building resilience to disasters and climate change. 7.41. Slightly more than half of respondents (57 percent) reported understanding their village’s priorities in their CIM Plan. An additional 39 percent said they did not and 4 percent were unsure. Escape route respondents, for example, cited sea level rise, its impact on coastal families, and the need to ensure the village’s safety as a justification for prioritizing their sub-project. Safe haven respondents mentioned they had prioritized this investment in their CIM Plan because many families continued living along the coastal area (as they lacked houses inland) and had dwellings that were vulnerable to cyclone damage. Community pool and waste management respondents stated these investments had been prioritized because they improved environmental issues, hygiene, and healthy living, with one emphasizing the CIM Plan was important to guide village development. Agriculture beneficiaries mentioned they had prioritized umala as a resilient crop for food security because of the impacts of climate change but asked for more awareness and knowledge imparting programs. Several respondents—from both safe haven and community pool sub-projects—mentioned they would have preferred sealing the road to facilitate linkages and safe evacuation between the inland and coastal areas of the village (see Section G “Escape Roads” below). G. ASPECTS SPECIFIC TO SUB-PROJECT TYPES 7.42. Community Pools. Community pools were used by the entire village, particularly by children. In general, they catered to all domestic uses, often through separate areas: drinking/cooking, 79 washing, bathing, and latrine/toilet flushing. One village—Vailoa Faleata—also used the pool for baptisms, while another—Alamutu Sale’imoa— restricted washing due to the effect of chemicals on eels. Most villages had adopted by-laws for the use of community pools, often posted on billboards. These included: time limitations (e.g., 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and closed on Sunday); prohibition of littering, alcohol, loud noises, jumping, and throwing dead animals into the pool Some also restricted access by outsiders without permission. One village—Malaemalu—announced these rules on TV. For most cases, the rules were monitored and enforced by women’s committees, groups of untitled men and chiefs, with penalties determined by the village council. Out of the seven community pools sampled, only two charged fees (between SAT 1-2), although one (Alamutu Saleimoa) mentioned accepting donations. 7.43. Community pools were viewed as an important water supply back-up during natural disasters (cyclones and floods), and periods of bad weather, when piped water was typically disconnected, as well as a primary source for families not connected to the water main. They were also very useful during drought spells when water was limited. For most cases, respondents were satisfied with their sub-project and had no further suggestions for improvements, although one respondent suggested upgrading the access road to the pool, and another wanted to fence off the area and add a billboard to attract tourists. 7.44. Rainwater Harvest. Prior to the water tank installation, respondents reported carting water by bucket from neighbors with a piped supply or from other public sources. Water collection was generally carried out by children and women, less often by untitled men, and, in a few cases, by older people, taking on average 165 minutes or a median of 90 minutes a day. Relative to the time spent now (after the installation of rainwater tanks), respondents reported saving, on average, 133 minutes a day (median 59 minutes). When answers were averaged across respondents in a specific village so each village counted equally, time savings were 117 minutes a day on average, or 79 Some villages had communal water tanks installed at the pool area for drinking and cooking needs. Page 75 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) a median of 75 minutes. Respondents most frequently spent this extra time vegetable gardening, working on plantations (for taro, bananas and mandioc) and doing domestic chores. Other respondents reported fishing, weaving fine mats, relaxing and resting, or engaging in other income-generating tasks. 7.45. As reported in Section B, satisfaction with water quality and quantity provided by sub-projects was high, with 75 and 82 percent of respondents, respectively, stating they were Very Satisfied, and another 20 and 19 percent Satisfied. When satisfaction was averaged across respondents from the same village, so each village sub-project counted the same, the overall score was 4.6 for water quality and 4.8 for water quantity, on a scale of 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). 7.46. Most respondents reported no outstanding problems with their household water supply following the introduction of rainwater harvesting tanks. However, a few mentioned not having enough tanks, and two stated their 1,000-liter tank could be depleted in about a week if it did not rain—suggesting either under-dimensioning of water capacity for their household or water waste. One respondent also mentioned dirty tanks. While about half of the villages paid no water fee, respondents in the remaining villages reported paying between SAT 12 and 200 a month per household (most commonly between 20 and 50), depending on their consumption, and still others mentioned their village was thinking about instituting a water fee. 7.47. Waste Management. Beneficiaries from waste management sub-projects stated their rubbish stands or wheelie bins had improved the cleanliness of their living environment considerably: no more garbage dumping, burying, or burning; improved health; and prevention of mosquito-borne diseases. Resilience reportedly improved due to the reduction of plastic, tins, chemicals, and other waste that had clogged drains and polluted rivers during heavy rainfall. One respondent also mentioned that during heavy rains and cyclones, villagers cleaned up the wheelie bin and used it to collect and store extra water in case the piped supply ran out. Public collection took place once or (more frequently) twice a week. In Tuaefu, respondents who lived in areas not covered by garbage services mentioned taking their rubbish to public collection sites in Tafaigata. Beneficiary households were responsible for their own bins, while women’s committees undertook periodic monitoring. No fees were paid for maintenance. 7.48. Sustainable Agriculture. Beneficiaries from sustainable agriculture sub-projects reported receiving tools, training, fencing, and planting materials and planting resilient crops such as umala (sweet potato), manioc, yams, taro/giant taro, and vegetables. Fencing materials were used to ward off pigs. Some respondents also planted bananas and coconuts, although this may have preceded the project. Most respondents managed between one- quarter to one acre of land. In general, beneficiaries reported strengthened food security during disasters, as the crops grown (particularly umala) were able to withstand cyclone damage. A respondent reported no longer having to buy food and another mentioned times where they had no money but could rely on crops for subsistence. Two- thirds of respondents (five of eight) also reported earning income from the sale of surplus crops (particularly taro, bananas, umala, and manioc), averaging about SAT 50, and ranging from SAT 10 to 120 per week per household—an important source of income for their households, as well as to support village and church commitments. 7.49. Safe Havens. Prior to the construction of safe havens, people reported seeking shelter in churches, their own homes, or inland at relatives’ homes, and taking between 10 minutes to up to two hours to escape during disasters. The safe havens were considered strong, safe, and a much better refuge during natural disasters, given their construction and location further inland (away from coastal areas). The safe haven in Utualii reportedly could hold ten families. When asked what could be done to improve the shelter, respondents stated the need for continued maintenance. Adding a cooking area/kitchen was also proposed. 7.50. Escape Roads. Respondents from the two escape roads considered the routes important for when a tsunami or other major natural disaster strikes, and they must quickly escape via the main road or further inland (taking on Page 76 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) average 15 to 25 minutes to escape). At the same time, most respondents wanted the roads sealed, with those from Sapunaoa, in particular, stating the road became very muddy and was in poor condition during rainy days, making it unsafe for driving. This suggests an incomplete understanding of village sub-project eligibility since sealed roads would fall under LTA responsibility and would normally be considered a district-level investment. 7.51. Mangrove Rehabilitation. Mangrove sub-project recipients were well aware of potential benefits to coastal and fishing resources from which they derived their livelihoods. They felt the tools and materials distributed by the project worked well, but that more rubbish bags were needed to collect plastic, glasses, and other waste brought from upstream areas during floods. They also cited the importance of mangrove rehabilitation, in view of the possibility of wharf development in their village (Vaiusu). One respondent, however, emphasized the need to complement mangrove rehabilitation with a seawall due to the impacts of strong waves behind their homes. H. COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ELSEWHERE 7.52. Respondents were asked what could be done differently if the project had been implemented elsewhere. Their suggestions are summarized in Table 7.1 below. Table 7.1: Beneficiaries’ Recommendations: How Could ECR Be Done Differently in Another Site? GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUB-PROJECT SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS • More funding for additional priority sub-projects. • Seal the road (ESCAPE ROADS). • Women and men should work together as women’s involvement is • Support given directly to poor households to important for successful implementation. upgrade their dwellings (SAFE HAVEN). • Make it easier for village communities to understand how to develop • Additional support to build toilet and bathroom the proposal and apply for funding (as we are not professors). facilities for visitors (COM POOL). • More seminars, training, and awareness on CSSP support. • Everyone to be considered for water • Extend awareness support to other villages. tanks/rubbish stands (not just vulnerable families) • Good planning and communication as well as consistent (monthly) (RWH/WM) and provide them to families who site visits by CSSP staff. were not included. • Consider one quote (single source) and/or easier process to avoid • CSSP should carry out a survey on who really going back and forth with quotes and spending too much time on needs the water tanks and keep records on the meetings and consultations. families that receive them (RWH). • Provide better monitoring and evaluation support. • Provide training on how to build cement bases to • CSSP should have more staff to supervise the work, so it is done avoid hiring specialized labor (RWH). according to their specifications. • CSSP to provide funds to encourage villagers to • More accurate information and a thorough discussion of the clean up (WM). proposal before it is implemented. • CSSP to look for markets for crops and investigate • Village development committee to work closely with CSSP and CSSP limitations to multi-cropping projects (AGRIC). to continue to submit proposals to overseas donors. • Provide awards and incentives to families doing a • Ensure sub-project maintenance by the village as well as through good job (AGRIC). continued CSSP support. • Promote cross-visits so information about this • Provide funds to village committees to manage sub-projects. project can be shared with other neighboring • In the future, projects should not only be led by the village mayor or villages (AGRIC). women representatives but should include more members (men and • Need more rubbish bags and wire to collect women) to ensure transparency. plastics and glass found in mangrove areas (MANGROVE). COM POOL – Community Pool WM – Waste Management RWH – Rainwater Harvesting AGRIC – Sustainable Agriculture Page 77 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 7.53. Many respondents emphasized they were happy and grateful for the project’s support and hoped to continue their partnership with CSSP to secure additional funds to implement other proposals. In their words, CSSP should “continue the good work and provide support to village communities like our village.” One respondent clarified they were happy with the project’s approach of paying suppliers directly, as this avoided the problem of people using funds for personal needs. At the same time, some stressed the distribution of water tanks and rubbish stands to the most vulnerable families led to feelings of jealousy and suspicions of unequal allocation, with many suggesting all families in the village should benefit equally. Appendix A: Surveyed Communities by Type of Sub-Project Relative to Total Village Sub-Projects Page 78 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Appendix B: The Multiple Dimensions of Community Resilience Community resilience is typically multi-dimensional. Amongst the most relevant dimensions to the ECR context are: • Resilience capacity (coping, adaptive, and/or transformative)—the ability of communities to actively develop and implement strategies and responses to vulnerability conditions (Béné et al. 2016 80). In turn, resilience capacity can be sub-divided into coping, adaptive, or transformative capacity depending on the shock’s intensity and the type of response needed. For example, coping capacity generally focuses on short-term disaster recovery, whereas longer-term climate change may require building transformative capacity, such as relocating communities to higher grounds. Source: Béné et al. (2012) 81 • Adaptive learning—the dynamic process of learning from past events and experiences and using it to anticipate and adapt to future changes. 82 • Social capital—degree of access to, reliance on, and trust in family, friends, community, and supra-community social networks for support during disasters and climate events (for example, community mutual help in rebuilding damaged homes, or in sheltering those displaced) 83. • Financial capacity—access to own capital, remittances, revolving funds, gifts or other financial help to recover from disasters or better prepare for future events (e.g., roofs reinforcement). Another dimension of community resilience, access to early warning information, was not captured by the survey. 80 Béné, C., et al. (2016). 81 Béné, C., R. Godfrey Wood, A. Newsham and M. Davies. (2012) 82 Tschakert, P. and K. Ann Dietrich. (2010). 83 Aldrich, D. and M. Meyer. (2014). Page 79 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 8: LIST OF SUB-PROJECTS FUNDED A. LIST OF VILLAGE SUB-PROJECTS District Village Sub-project Type Direct Beneficiaries Total Female Households 1 Sagaga Leusoga Afega Rehabilitation of Village Pool 2137 1027 306 2 Gagaemauga Nu. 1 Leauvaa Rehabilitation of Mangrove Area 3457 1673 482 3 Falealili Sapunaoa Construction of Escape Route 462 241 58 4 Lotofaga Vavau Water Harvesting & Storage Systems 391 182 52 5 Palauli Le Falefa Tafua Tai Coastal Replanting 404 186 62 6 Palauli Sisifo Taga Rehabilitation of Village Pool 785 392 128 7 Gagaemauga Nu. 3 Aopo Rainwater Harvest and Storage Systems 280 132 40 8 PalauliSasae Vailoa Palauli Mangrove and Coastal Replanting 784 392 111 9 AanaAlofi III Samea Paepaeala Rainwater Harvest System 217 100 31 10 AanaAlofi I Moamoa & Tauoo Village Pool Upgrade 4177 2029 597 11 AanaAlofi III Vailu’utai Spring Pool Upgrade /Rehabilitation 870 415 121 12 AanaAlofi III Satapuala Rainwater Harvest System 620 963 33 13 AanaAlofi III Faleatiu Rainwater Harvest System 217 115 31 14 AanaAlofi I Sapulu& Lealalii Rainwater Harvest System 416 250 25 15 AanaAlofi I Avano& Satui (FasitooUta) Rainwater Harvest System 425 200 25 16 AanaAlofi I Salioa&Matailiili (FasitooUta) Rainwater Harvest System 785 358 45 17 Sagaga le Falefa Utuali’i Safe Haven 506 261 84 18 Aana Alofi II Leulumoega Rainwater Harvest System 546 305 34 19 AanaAlofi II Nofoalii Rainwater Harvest System 373 215 34 20 Sagaga Le Usoga Tuana’i Escape Route 1407 730 240 21 Sagaga Le Usoga Malie Access Road Rehabilitation 300 140 30 22 AanaAlofi I Lepale FasitooUta Rainwater Harvest System 147 65 26 23 AanaAlofi III Fasito’o Tai Spring Pool Upgrade /Rehabilitation 1665 853 196 24 Falealili Salesatele Upgrade Water Intake & Rainwater Harvesting Systems 347 172 49 25 Falealili Tafatafa-Matavai Rainwater Harvest Systems 219 102 34 26 Falealili Malaemalu Spring Pool Rehabilitation 243 121 34 27 Falealili Siuniu Community Sanitation 136 66 13 28 Falealili Salani Spring Pool Rehabilitation 538 250 88 29 Falealili Satalo Rainwater Harvesting Systems 182 78 26 30 Lepa Lealatele Rainwater Harvesting Systems 167 72 15 31 Lepa Aufaga Rainwater Harvesting Systems 175 84 25 32 Falealili Saleilua/ Togitogiga Upgrading Water Intake & Water Tank Storage for 420 197 60 Independent Water Supply System 33 Falealili Poutasi Waste Management & Food Security through 395 192 93 Replanting Activities 34 Falealili Vaovai Spring Pool Rehabilitation & Replanting 506 240 85 Page 80 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Direct Beneficiaries District Village Sub-project Type Total Female Households 35 Falealili Matautu Spring Pool Rehabilitation & Rainwater Harvesting 426 185 52 Systems for Safe Haven 36 Lepa Vaigalu/ Lepa Replanting of tree crops and vegetable farms 266 122 47 37 Lepa Saleapaga/ Siupapa Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Community Disaster 140 69 20 and Climate Risk Management 38 Aleipata i Luga Vailoa Aleipata Spring Pool Rehabilitation & Rainwater Harvest Systems 324 152 49 39 AleipataItupa I Lalo Satitoa Fish Reserve & Replanting 817 455 98 40 Aleipata Itupa I Malaela Spring Pool Rehabilitation & Replanting 193 96 30 Lalo 41 Aleipata Itupa I Lotopue Rainwater Harvest Systems & Replanting 227 102 33 Lalo 42 AleipataItupa I Lalo Saleaumua Safe Haven Facility 553 274 85 43 AleipataItupa I Lalo Utufaalalafa Rainwater Harvest Systems 146 63 22 44 AleipataItupa I Lalo Samusu Rainwater Harvesting Systems 224 114 32 45 AleipataItupa I Lalo Tiavea Rainwater Harvesting Systems 261 128 26 Palauli I Sisifo 46 Foailalo Rainwater Harvesting Systems 203 95 29 (West) Palauli I Sisifo 47 Foailuga Rainwater Harvesting Systems 203 104 29 (West) Palauli I Sisifo 48 Satuiatua Rainwater Harvest Systems 291 153 47 (West) Palauli I Sisifo 49 Salailua Rainwater Harvest Systems 182 89 26 (West) Palauli I Sisifo 50 Siutu Rainwater Harvest Systems & Replanting 175 88 25 (West) Aleipata Itupa I 51 Amaile Rainwater Harvest Systems 161 84 23 Lalo 52 Falealili Sapo'e/Utulaelae Rainwater Harvest Systems & Replanting 326 146 34 Palauli I Sasa'e 53 Faala Rainwater Harvest Systems & Replanting 932 477 141 (East) Palauli I Sasa'e 54 Vaitoomuli Rainwater Harvest Systems 683 316 23 (East) AleipataItupa I 55 Ulutogia Agriculture Root Crops & Tree Diversification 202 97 34 Luga 56 AleipataItupa I Lalo Mutiatele Rainwater Harvesting Systems 182 84 26 57 Sagaga Le Falefa Tufulele Rainwater Harvest Systems 194 92 21 58 Lotofaga Matatufu Rainwater Harvest Systems 361 200 26 59 Lotofaga Lotofaga Rainwater Harvesting Systems 189 91 26 60 Sagaga Le Falefa Salepouae Rainwater Harvest Systems 312 179 25 61 Faleata East Vaimoso Rainwater Harvesting Systems 217 111 31 Toamua (incl. Puipa’a sub 62 Faleata West Rainwater Harvest Systems 1500 700 59 village) 63 Sagaga Le Falefa Nonoa Spring Pool Rehabilitation 524 261 77 64 Sagaga Le Falefa AeleFou Rainwater Harvest Systems 327 83 22 65 Faleata West Saina Rainwater Harvest Systems 172 83 30 66 Faleata West Vaiusu Mangrove Replanting & Coastal Cleaning 2581 1219 350 67 Sagaga Le Falefa Levi &Alamutu Spring Pool Rehabilitation 397 194 187 Page 81 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) Direct Beneficiaries District Village Sub-project Type Total Female Households 68 Sagaga Le Falefa Lotosoa Saleimoa Rainwater Harvesting Systems 809 388 138 69 Sagaga Le Falefa Aleisa East Rainwater Harvest Systems 189 96 28 70 Faleata East Vailoa Faleata Rainwater Harvest Systems & Spring Pool Rehabilitation 1575 758 262 71 Sagaga Le Falefa Aleisa West Rainwater Harvest Systems 182 85 27 72 Faleata West Vaigaga Rainwater Harvest Systems & Waste Management 818 406 123 73 Faleata West Vaitele Tai Rainwater Harvesting Systems 150 74 21 74 Faleata East Lepea (inclSeesee sub Rainwater Harvesting Systems 167 78 20 village) 75 Sagaga Le Falefa Faleula Rainwater Harvesting Systems 2668 1279 425 76 Gagaifomauga III Fagaee Rainwater Harvesting Systems 200 91 25 77 Gaga'emauga l Samalaeulu Rainwater Harvesting Systems 1054 483 104 78 Gaga’emauga l Patamea Rainwater Harvesting Systems 649 299 30 79 Gagaifomauga III Sasina Rainwater Harvest Systems 175 84 26 80 Gagaifomauga III Letui Rainwater Harvest Systems 294 140 30 81 Gaga'emauga l Mauga Rainwater Harvest Systems 162 80 27 82 Faleata East Sinamoga Rainwater Harvest Systems & Waste Management 1333 678 212 83 Faleata East Moamoa Fou Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 963 489 38 84 Faleata East Alafua Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 1347 655 249 85 Faleata East Pesega/ Lotopa Waste Management (Rubbish Stands) 1714 846 318 86 Faleata West Tapatapao Rainwater Harvesting System & Farming tools for 242 111 48 Replanting 87 Faleata West Tanumapua Rainwater Harvesting & Waste Management 407 196 77 88 Faleata West Siusega Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 1057 518 151 89 Faleata East Ululoloa Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 709 361 155 90 Faleata East Tuaefu Rainwater Harvesting & Waste Management 129 63 13 91 Faleata East Vaitoloa Rainwater Harvesting Systems 680 340 102 92 Faleata West Elise Fou Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 142 72 30 93 Faleata West Vaitele Uta Waste Management (Rubbish Stands) & Rainwater 252 127 36 Harvesting & Storage System 94 Faleata West Vaitele Fou Waste Management (Rubbish Stands) 1260 800 180 95 Faleata West Tulaele Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 838 421 133 96 Faleata West Talimatau Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 520 255 89 97 Faleata West Falelauniu Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 222 108 34 98 Faleata West Tafaigata Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 998 470 151 99 Sagaga le Falefa Nuu Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 1471 807 10 100 Sagaga le Falefa Malua Rainwater Harvesting Systems & Waste Management 365 181 62 TOTAL 62,331 31,343 8,472 Source: Project Monitoring Records Page 82 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) B. LIST OF DISTRICT SUB-PROJECTS Direct Beneficiaries IA District Name of Sub-Project Total Female Households Sub-Project Type 1 SWA Aana Alofi I Piped Water Network Faleasiu Piped Network Phase 1 – Construction of the Faleasiu Water Supply Network 1520 738 223 2 SWA Faleata East Piped Water Network Se'ese'e Water Network – (i) Extension of the current pipeline and (ii) tank construction 400 188 59 3 SWA AanaAlofi I Piped Water Network FaleasiuUta-Lepale - Phase 2 Piped Network 6471 3107 950 4 SWA Sagaga Le Falefa Piped Water Network Aleisa Piped Water Supply Network 5642 2768 889 5 SWA Sagaga Le Usoga Piped Water Network Construction of the Piped Network - Leopodine 829 429 165 6 SWA Aleipata Itupa i Lalo and Luga Piped Water Network Aleipata Inland Piped Network 5465 2722 791 7 SWA Aana Alofi II; Leulumoega & Nofoalii Piped Water Network Nofoalii-Leulumoega Water Supply Network Extension 3206 1582 495 8 SWA Aana Alofi III & Satapuala Borehole* Construction of new borehole for Aana Alofi III 9 SWA Aleipata Itupa I Lalo Borehole* Construction of new borehole for Saleaumua 10 LTA Faleata West Escape Road Toamua Emergency Evacuation Access Route - Upgrade of the existing evacuation access route 3317 1638 466 11 LTA Gagaifomauga III (Aopo) Flood Management Reconstruction upgrade of the RCP Culverts in Aopo. 1445 687 204 12 LTA Palauli West Escape Road Reconstruction of Foailuga (Satuiatua) Emergency Escape Road (EER) - Lifeline Access 2083 1011 326 13 LTA Falealili Escape Road Reconstruction of Siuniu Emergency (Lifeline Access) Escape Route. 1034 500 163 14 LTA Aleipata Itupa I Lalo Flood Management Construction and Upgrade of the Box Culvert to alleviate Flooding 4188 2031 596 15 LTA Lotofaga Escape Road Vavau escape route construction sub-project 1371 648 200 16 LTA Sagaga Le Falefa Road Upgrade Construction of the Laloanea Dirt Road to lay pipes for piped water supply network 1371 809 292 17 MWTI & Lepa Integrated Water Lepa Integrated Water Catchment & Upgrade of the Sinasina Spring Pool Project 1337 598 233 MNRE Resources Management 18 MAF Palauli West; Gagaifomauga III Agro-Forestry Multi District Agro-Forestry Replanting Sub-Project 16758 8091 2481 Crops Lotofaga; AleipataItupa I Luga AleipataItupa I Lalo; Falealili 19 MAF Aana Alofi III & Palauli West Marine Protected Building resilient communities through enhanced understanding and appropriate management 9604 4740 1345 Fisheries Areas/Fisheries of the marine environment as well as adapting to climate change impact on fisheries and Reserves aquaculture 20 MNRE Gagaemauga I Integrated Water Integrated Water Resources Management Sub-Project 1865 862 261 Resources Management 21 MNRE Gagaifomauga III Watershed Application of long-term monitoring tools and methodology to assess climate change impact 1445 708 204 Monitoring on upper catchment areas and montane/cloud forest ecosystems on upland Savaii. 22 MNRE AleipataItupa I Luga, AleipataItupa I Marine Protected Strengthen monitoring of marine and coastal ecosystems as an adaptive measure to safeguard 10,160 4913 1498 Lalo and Falealili Areas/Fisheries biodiversity and enhance the resilience and adaptive capability of communities against climate Reserves change TOTAL 79,511 387,70 11,841 *Although boreholes were implemented as separate sub-projects, they were part of water pipeline networks and therefore did not include separate beneficiaries. Source: Project Montioring Records Page 83 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) ANNEX 9: PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUB-PROJECTS A. WATER SUB-PROJECTS Water was the priority adaptation choice for project beneficiaries; up to 84 percent of village sub-projects and 50 percent of district sub-projects involved water supply and/or management. However, investments differed depending on whether they were done at the village or district levels. Village sub-projects involved rainwater tanks and community pools, often combined with other project assistance, such as waste management, replantation, and agriculture (led by CSSP). By contrast, district-level investments involved piped water installation to unserved areas, and multi-village integrated water resources management led by MNRE and MWTI. Rainwater tanks and piped networks targeted the most vulnerable beneficiaries, commonly those that had moved further inland because of coastal disasters and lacked access to safe and reliable water sources—but also households with vulnerable members (elderly and people with disabilities). Community pools benefited the whole village and played important roles in water security during disasters or periods of supply cut-offs. 1. Rainwater Harvesting Tanks (Village-Level) Water tanks ranged in capacity from 1,000 to 10,000 liters according to user needs. Upper left photo: 2,000-liter individual household tank, linked to pre-existing roof (Mutiatele village). Upper right photo: 3,000-liter individual household tank in stand-alone catchment structure (Tanumapua village). Lower left photo: 2,000-liter communal tank at Fagae’e Congregational Christian Church. Page 84 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) 2. Communal Pools (Village-Level) Communal pools were often divided according to their authorized water use, such as for cooking, bathing and washing. Upper photos: Valioa Faeata community pool before (left) and after rehabilitation (right). Lower photo: Rehabilitated pool in Nono’a village. 3. Piped Water Networks (District-Level) Photo at left: Borehole drilling at Satapuala (Aana Alofi II district). This new borehole, together with a holding tank of 250 m3 capacity, was part of the Nofoalili- Leulumoega Water Supply Network Extension district sub-project, which also included 10.7 km of piped network (upper right photo), targeting 471 beneficiary households. Lower right photo: Aleipata Inland Piped Network. This network extended piped water coverage to families that had relocated further inland following the 2009 tsunami. Page 85 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) B. ESCAPE ROADS AND SAFE HAVENS Escape roads—which help evacuate people from coastal areas during disasters—were first built (unpaved) in three pilot villages. However, this earlier experience showed they were best done at the district level to ensure technical oversight as well as future maintenance from LTA All four district escape roads were paved. Safe havens, which shelter people escaping from disasters, were built in two villages in Upolu. 4. Escape Roads (Village and District Level) Left photo: Village-level escape road at Tuana’i (unpaved). Right photo: District- level escape road at Toamua (paved). 5. Safe Havens (Village-Level) Safe haven construction (left and upper right photos) and finalized building (lower right) at Utuali’I village. Upper right photo shows reinforced slabs for cyclone wind resistance. Page 86 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) C. WASTE MANAGEMENT The project helped 18 villages improve their waste management by providing elevated rubbish stands and wheelie bins, linked to managed waste collection networks. These measures helped beneficiaries avoid clogged drains and prevent local flooding. They also helped improve household health by curbing diarrheal disease and dengue fever, decreasing mosquito breeding grounds, and avoiding smoke from burning garbage. Left and center photos: Rubbish stands at Talimatau and Vaitilele Uta villages. Right photo: Wheelie garbage bins (distributed to individual households) at Alafua village. D. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Sustainable agriculture and agro-forestry were promoted at both the village and district levels to improve livelihood resilience and restore degraded land. Farmers were given training, seedlings, tools, and fencing materials to keep out stray pigs. Village investments included vegetable gardens as well as plantations in degraded land. The project also supported a major (six-district) agro-forestry investment that involved mixed cropping of coconuts, cocoa, and fruit trees, as well as timber and food crops, through a partnership with two private enterprises (Serendi Coco Samoa and Women in Business Development Inc.). Photos on the left: Distribution of seedlings, tools, wheelbarrows, and fencing in Vaigalu Lepa, Ulutogia and Tapatapao villages. Photos on the right: Crops ready to harvest in Ulutogia, and growing cocoa and coconut seedlings at Vaigalu Lepa and Satitoa villages. Page 87 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) E. FISHERIES RESERVES AND MARINE PROTECTED AREA Fisheries reserves were supported through a mixture of village and district sub-projects. While field activities were village specific, they were supported centrally by the Fisheries Department or, if part of a Marine Protected Area, by MNRE through umbrella district sub- projects. Participating villages adopted Village Fisheries Management Plans and created and/or expanded small, ‘no take’ reserves where fishing was banned to enable the replenishment of surrounding areas. Other management measures included stock enhancement through artificial reefs, coral restoration, and re-seeding of giant clams, as well as participatory monitoring and awareness. The project also updated the Aleipata District Marine Protected Area Management Plan and established six no-take zones at the MPA. Upper left photo: Underwater monitoring at Satitoa Fish Reserve. Upper middle and central photo: Artificial reefs and giant clam restocking at Satitoa. Lower left and right photo: Installing artificial reefs and restocking activities at Amaile village. Upper right photo: Aleipata MPA. F. MANGROVE REPLANTING AND CONSERVATION Mangrove rehabilitation was carried out in four village sub-projects. However, given the low success rate in three of these (all pilot-stage sub-projects) and the existence of an alternative government program, the project opted to support mangrove rehabilitation through a district-level umbrella sub-project overseen by MNRE. Together with a successful village sub-project at Vaiusu, this led to the creation of three mangrove reserves covering 14.4 ha and replanting an additional 0.4 ha of local mangrove species. Left photo: Mangrove conservation in Vaiusu village. The limits of the conservation area are delineated with simple poles linked by horizontal flag markers. Page 88 of 89 The World Bank Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal Resources and Communities Project (P126596) G. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, UPLAND CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING The project (and the CIM Plans) followed a ridge-to-reef approach, recognizing that in order to strengthen the resilience of coastal communities, it needed to address key vulnerabilities from the upper watersheds to the coast. This approach also followed traditional communal land management approaches in Samoa, which extend rights from the watershed to the edge of the reef. Together with other nature-based solutions, watershed management and monitoring were carried out at the district level, through two Integrated Water Resources Management sub-projects in Lepa and Gagaemauga I districts, and a monitoring sub-project in the upper catchment of Savai’i (Gagaifomauga III district near Aopo village). The first two helped replant a degraded area of 8.9 ha with native species, whereas the third paved the way for the future establishment of a protected area in the upland forests of Savai’i, benefiting traditional custodians in Aopo asa. Top photos: Integrated water resources management at Lepa. This district sub-project involved a collaboration between MNRE—to rehabilitate the catchment through native species replanting—and MWTI, to upgrade the Sinasina spring and water intake as a community water back-up source. Bottom photos: Culverts and drains in Aleipata Itupa using a combination of hard and nature-based solutions to manage localized flooding and reduce erosion. Left photo: Cloud forest at Aopo, Gagaemauga I (Savai’I island). As part of an MNRE district sub-project— Application of Long-Term Monitoring Tools to Assess Climate Change Impacts on Upper Catchment and Montane/Cloud Forests of Savai’i— the project funded a BIORAP and reconnaissance survey, and a new monitoring base station at Aopo in this endangered ecosystem in Samoa. Page 89 of 89