Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003858 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-99693) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 4.9 MILLION TO THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) FOR A SAVE OUR SPECIES PROJECT February 6, 2017 Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective – January 31, 2017) Currency Unit = 1.00 = US$ 1.00 US$ 1.00 = US$ 1.00 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AZE Alliance for Zero Extinction CBD Convention on Biodiversity CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CoP Conference of the Parties DGF Development Grant Facility ESMF Environment and Safeguards Management Framework FFEM French Global Environment Facility (Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial) GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IP Indigenous Peoples ISR Implementation Status and Results Report ITHCP Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Program IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KfW Reconstruction Credit Institute (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) MTR Mid-Term Review M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-governmental organization PAD Project Appraisal Document PCMS Project Complaints Management System PDO Project Development Objective PoWPA Program of Work on Protected Areas PPI Program de Petites Initiatives SOS Save Our Species SSC Species Survival Commission UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Program WB World Bank Global Practice Senior Director: Karin Erika Kemper Global Practice Director: Julia Bucknall Practice Manager: Benoit Blarel Project Team Leader: Andrea Kutter ICR Team Leader: Sachin Shahria World Save-Our-Species (SOS) Project CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design…………………………...1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes…………………………………...5 3. Assessment of Outcomes………………………………………………………………...12 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome………………………………………….17 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance………………………………………..18 6. Lessons Learned...……………………………………………………………………… 21 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners...………... 24 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing…………………………………………………….25 Annex 2. Outputs by Component...……………………………………………………… 26 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis………………………………………………32 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes...………... 33 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results……………………………………………………..35 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results...…………………………………. 36 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR…………………37 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders…………………..39 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents………………………………………………….40 Annex 10. Comparison of Risk and Mitigation Measures at Appraisal and Completion Stage……………………………………………………………………………41 Map …………………………………………………………………………………..43 A. Basic Information Country: World Project Name: Save Our Species (SOS) Project ID: P115564 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-99693 ICR Date: 1/31/2017 ICR Type: Core ICR WORLD Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) Original Total USD 4.90M Disbursed Amount: USD 4.90M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 4.90M Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: B Implementing Agencies: International Union for the Conservation of Nature - Switzerland Co-financiers and Other External Partners: DGF, FFEM B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 02/13/2009 Effectiveness: 07/07/2011 07/07/2011 Appraisal: 3/11/2010 Restructuring(s): 10/2015 & 11/2015 10/2015 & 11/2015 Approval: 04/05/2011 Mid-term Review: 06/15/2013 06/13/2014 Closing: 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Unsatisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Moderate Bank Performance: Unsatisfactory Borrower Performance: Unsatisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Unsatisfactory Government: Unsatisfactory Implementing Moderately Quality of Supervision: Unsatisfactory Agency/Agencies: Unsatisfactory Overall Bank Overall Borrower Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Performance: Performance: i C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project at Quality at Entry No None any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision Yes None time (Yes/No): (QSA): GEO rating before Moderately Closing/Inactive status Satisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 100 100 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Biodiversity 100 100 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Laura Tuck Inger Andersen Director: Julia Bucknall James Warren Evans Practice Manager/Manager: Benoit Blarel Michele de Nevers Project Team Leader: Andrea Kutter Claudia Sobrevila ICR Team Leader: Sachin Shahria ICR Primary Author: Sachin Shahria F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) The Project Development Objective (PDO) as stated in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and Grant agreement is “to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent organization with global reach.” The Global Environment Objective as stated in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) was “to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species or populations and their habitats”. For the purposes of this evaluation, the PDO from the grant agreement (and PAD) will be used. ii Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications The GEO was not revised. (a) GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Improved protection and/or management of at least 60 threatened species or Indicator 1 populations and their habitats Value 0.00 60.00 60.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: A total of 91 grants were awarded targeting more than 250 species and populations. Out of the 78 sub-projects that were completed by the end of March 31, 2016, 60 species populations and their habitats received improved protection and/or management as a consequence. These results are based on self- reporting by the Comments grantees. These improvements are not reflected as a change in status in the IUCN Red (incl. % List. The World Bank did not undertake field missions to verify these achievements. A achievement) more detailed analysis of these subprojects was not provided by IUCN/SOS to the Bank at the time of submission of this ICR. This indicator captures the conservation aspects in the PDO. At least 3 new species profiles to guide strategic directions developed and under Indicator 2 implementation Value 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 04/12/2012 03/31/2016 Dropped: At the request of the SOS Donor Council (after its fourth meeting in April 2014), the key indicator under sub-component 2A (Species action plans) was eliminated as part of restructuring the project. In October 2015, the related sub-component and the associated indicators were removed from the SOS Results Framework. The available Comments budget under this sub-component (US$ 100,000) was reallocated to sub-component 3A (incl. % (Fundraising) and Component 4. The need for restructuring the project was an outcome achievement) of the Mid-term Review mission carried out by the World Bank between February and June 2014. At least an additional US$10 million secured from private sector for conservation Indicator 3 action targeted to threatened species Value 0.00 10.00 2.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) iii Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Not achieved (20%): A total of US$24.5 million was raised during the course of the project. Of this only about US$2 million was secured from the private sector, US$1.5 million from different foundations and a total of US$21 million from government agencies (including a Euro 20 million grant secured from KfW for tiger conservation).The funding from KfW was independent but can be attributed to SOS and the Secretariat. Comments (incl. % An additional US$20 million was under discussion with two separate donors (yet to be achievement) disclosed). Although these resources have not been secured during the implementation of the SOS project, it is a reflection of the increase in the demand for the work undertaken by the SOS and the viability of the funding mechanism created by the program. This indicator measures the viable funding mechanism outcome in the PDO. Indicator 4 Increase awareness and fundraising for threatened species Value Website 0.00 Website readership (quantitative or readership up 75% up 75% Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved (100%): Increase in public awareness of the program and its objective of saving threatened species was evidenced by a growth in visits to the SOS website. These visits have increased from an average of 65 visits per day in the first year it was launched (2010-2011) to approximately 330 visits per day in the final year of the reporting period (2016). The SOS project was also active in showcasing its work in international forums such the IUCN World Conservation Congress and CoP-13 of the CBD. Comments To date, SOS has published more than 300 original pieces of project related news, 14 (incl. % newsletters, 2 printed activity reports and produced 16 short videos. These videos achievement) promote the initiative to both donor and general public audiences, some of which were produced in two language versions (English and French). Additionally, SOS appeals to the general public (cumulative individual donations over duration of the project) has so far raised US$ 45,000. This compound indicator captures the conservation outcome and viable funding mechanism of the PDO. Indicator 5 Project transparency Value Established in the Website with all Website with all (quantitative or Operations Manual. projects profiled. projects profiled. Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved (100%): All supported projects are profiled on the SOS website. News stories and final reports are accessible from the individual project profiles. The project Comments portfolio can be searched through an interactive map function. (incl. % achievement) The SOS Secretariat also made concerted efforts at promoting a culture of transparency, allowing grantees to report failures as long as lessons learned were described. Small iv NGOs were more flexible and receptive to feedback and collaboration opportunities suggested by the SOS. This indicator measures the ‘administration by a competent organization with global reach’ related outcome in the PDO. Indicator 6 Project managed effectively Value Established in the Donor Council Donor Council (quantitative or Operations Manual. Evaluation Evaluation Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Partially Achieved (50%): The latest ISR reported that the implementation progress improved significantly over the duration of the project, including in terms of technical and financial reporting to the World Bank. The SOS funding architecture was robust and successful at the task of soliciting and reviewing proposals, awarding grants and providing ongoing implementation support to grantees. The project outperformed expectations in terms of managing grants, from reviewing proposals, working with grantees, and supervising technical and financial reporting. Comments (incl. % However, issues such as the need to extend the closing date of the project, the failure of achievement) the Secretariat to provide timely responses to WBG requests (often incomplete FM responses and lack of response on request for updated values for all indicators) and a lack of prioritization or responsiveness to donors was a continuing feature for duration of the life of the project, prompting the “partially achieved” rating. This indicator measures the ‘administration by a competent organization with global reach’ related outcome in the PDO. (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years At least 20 projects that demonstrate conservation progress for threatened Indicator 1A species/populations and their habitats as measured by stable or improved Red List status Value 0.00 20.00 17.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Not Achieved: Out of the projects that were completed by the end of March 2016, SOS reports that at least 60 demonstrate conservation progress for the threatened species populations and their habitats. These results are self-reported (including the actual Comments achieved value) by the grant recipients and have not been verified by any World Bank (incl. % supervisions missions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of measure of stability or achievement) improved Red List status of these threatened species/populations and their habitats (except for 2 species). v A more detailed analysis, promised by SOS, was to be made available by the end of 2016 but, despite several requests, has not been provided by the time of submission of this ICR. This indicator relates to the conservation outcome in the PDO and PDO indicators. At least 40 small grants that catalyze early conservation action of threatened species or Indicator 1B populations and their habitats Value 0.00 40.00 17.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Partially Achieved (42%): Only 17 Rapid Action Grants were approved and disbursed out of the targeted 40 by the end of March 2016 to catalyze early action for the conservation of threatened species. Grant documents propose early conservation action, Comments however no actual results reports or other evidence are available to verify whether these (incl. % grants have actually resulted in a reduced threat to threatened species or populations achievement) and their habitats. This indicator relates to the conservation outcome in the PDO and PDO indicators. Development of new profiles for 3 priority species groups to guide strategic direction Indicator 2A investments Value 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Dropped. At the request of the SOS Donor Council (after its fourth meeting in April 2014), the Key indicator under Sub-component 2A (Species action plans) was eliminated as part of restructuring. In October 2015, the related sub-component and the Comments associated indicators were removed from the SOS Results Framework and the available (incl. % budget under this sub-component (US$ 100,000 each) was reallocated to sub- achievement) component 3A (Fundraising) and Component 4. The need for restructuring the project was an outcome of the Mid-term Review mission carried out by the World Bank between February and June 2014. Indicator 2B Red List updated annually with information on targeted species 100% targeted 100% targeted Value 0.00 species updated species updated (quantitative or annually annually Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 09/31/2016 Achieved (100%): The most recent update to the Red List status of the targeted species Comments from each of the sub-grants took place in September 2016. These updates do not (incl. % provide information on attribution or contribution to a specific (or combined) achievement) conservation action. SOS conservation efforts contributed to the changes that are reflected in the updates. Two of the species supported through SOS had a change in vi their conservation status during the project duration: The status for the Markhor1 changed from “Endangered” to “Near Threatened”; the Monk Seal from “Critically Endangered” to “Endangered”. This indicator relates to the conservation outcome in the PDO and PDO indicators. Indicator 2C Status of and project impact on target species monitored (%) Value 0.00 100 0.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Not Achieved (0%): The progress on status of and project impact on targeted species was self-reported. Progress reports have been collated and reported through the grantees’ semi-annual reports throughout the life of the project and a final report. Comments However, there has been no systematic collation or analysis of the impact of the sub- (incl. % projects on the targeted species; therefore the status monitoring results cannot be linked achievement) to the report on final project impact on the targeted species. This indicator relates to the conservation outcome in the PDO and PDO indicators. Indicator 3A At least 10 new private sector contributors Value 0.00 10.00 4.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Not achieved. The premise by which large amounts of funding could be tapped from the private sector, and more specifically from the marketing budgets of corporate donors, proved to be unrealistic. In order to guarantee the financial sustainability, SOS had to change its fundraising strategy by targeting foundations, multilateral and government agencies. The SOS marketing and fundraising effort secured 10 partnerships over the period Comments covered by this project. These were sourced from both private and public sectors. (incl. % Several of them continue past the end of this project (some as key components of the achievement) SOS marketing strategy). Private sector funding was secured from Nokia (Japan), Disney Nature (France) and Coqenpate (France). In addition to these 10 contributors, SOS fundraising efforts secured two partnerships (Terre Sauvage Magazine and Freedom Conservation) that helped catalyze SOS communications and outreach activities (if not directly contributing funds to the initiative). This indicator measures viable funding mechanism of the PDO and PDO indicators. Indicator 3B Effective communication and marketing program implemented Value Established at the start of 100% 100% (quantitative or the funding 1 Species of wild goat that is found in northeastern Afghanistan, northern and central Pakistan, Kashmir in northern India, southern Tajikistan, southern Uzbekistan and in the Himalayas vii Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: SOS successfully developed a robust brand that is known across the conservation community. This is evident by the large number of proposals that have been submitted through the calls for proposals (the first three calls for proposals Comments received 700 applications) from across the world, from a variety of actors in the (incl. % conservation community. achievement) This indicator relates both to the PDO in terms of conservation aspects and viable funding mechanism. Indicator 3C Visitors to website and newsletter subscribers increase by at least 75% annually Value Established at the start of 75% 75% (quantitative or the funding Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: Visitors to the website were tracked and the website saw a steady increase of over 75% annually from a baseline of 43,800 individual visits in 2013, with recognizable peaks during the calls for proposals. Website visits have grown from an average of 65 visits per day in the first year it was launched (2010-2011) to Comments approximately 330 visits per day in the final year of the reporting period (2016). The (incl. % SOS has published 14 newsletters to a readership list of 11,000 subscribers currently. achievement) The list has grown from zero to 11,000 since the first newsletter was published in 2013. This indicator measures the conservation aspects and viable funding mechanism of the PDO and related indicators. Indicator 4A SOS strategies, and annual action and investment plans approved/guiding grant-making Approved Strategic Dependent on Dependent on Value Framework and Operational Donor Council Donor Council (quantitative or Manual Decision Decision Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: Annual action and investment plans (budgets) were prepared by the SOS Secretariat and approved annually by the SOS Donor Council. The fifth and final Comments annual work and investment plan was approved by the Donor Council in 2015. (incl. % achievement) This compound indicator measures the conservation aspects and viable funding mechanism of the PDO and related indicators. Indicator 4B Overall program monitored and in compliance with Operations Manual Value Approved Operational 100% 100% (quantitative or Manual Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: The SOS program was in compliance with the Operational Manual (Version Comments June 2014). This was monitored over various WB supervision missions and the Mid- (incl. % Term review carried out by the World Bank. achievement) viii This indicator measures the administration by a competent organization with global reach-related outcome in the PDO and related indicators. Indicator 4C 100% of final project reports complied by grant recipients available online Value Approved Operational 100% 100% (quantitative or Manual Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: The final reports for each completed sub-grant were uploaded on the SOS website. All supported projects are profiled on the SOS website. News stories and final reports are accessible from the individual project profiles. The project portfolio can be Comments searched through an interactive map function. (incl. % achievement) This indicator measures the administration by a competent organization with global reach-related outcome in the PDO and related indicators. Program-wide replication strategy developed and implemented to disseminate best Indicator 4D practices and lessons Target audiences Value Target audiences informed and 0.00 (quantitative or informed Strategy discussed Qualitative) broadly Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: SOS has worked with the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and the Mohammed bin Zayed Fund to ensure that lessons learned are shared between the three small grants programs. SOS has worked through the IUCN Species Survival Comments Commission to share lessons and ideas. (incl. % achievement) This indicator measures the administration by a competent organization with global reach-related outcome in the PDO and related indicators. Indicator 4E Five annual and ten biannual reports produced Value 0.00 15.00 14.00 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 04/05/2011 12/31/2015 03/31/2016 Achieved: Biannual reports have been submitted to the World Bank and other donors within the agreed deadlines. Comments (incl. % This indicator measures the administration by a competent organization with global achievement) reach-related outcome in the PDO and related indicators. ix G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. GEO IP Archived (USD millions) 1 08/01/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 12/05/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00 3 12/14/2012 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.57 4 10/12/2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.80 5 04/21/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.37 6 11/18/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.37 7 03/31/2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 4.90 H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring Board Restructuring Restructuring in USD Restructuring & Key Date(s) Approved millions Changes Made DO IP Restructuring of a sub- component of the project was initiated based on a decision during the Fourth Donor Council meeting in October 2015 N S MS 3.37 April 2014. The Results Framework was also revised to drop the PDO indicator related to this sub component Restructuring to extend the closing date of the November 2015 N S MS 3.37 project to March 31, 2016. x I. Disbursement Profile xi 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal The world is facing a biodiversity extinction crisis. The main threats to biodiversity are loss and fragmentation of habitats, overexploitation of natural resources and the voluntary or involuntary introduction of invasive species – and climate change is likely to exacerbate all of these threats. Key stone species are recognized proxy indicators of biodiversity status and losses as they serve as the indicator for ecosystem stability and integrity. Ecosystems provide essential services such as food, fuel, purification of water and air, regulation of climate and pollination of crops. They also provide a vital resource for economic activities (such as tourism, fisheries and forestry), as well as having significant cultural, aesthetic and spiritual values. Species have been widely studied and identified, are measurable and in many cases are keystone indicators for ecosystem health. Species are often listed in environmental legislations and also provide a good entry point to tackle more complex issues through landscape approaches aiming at enhanced conservation, maintenance of ecosystem services or the sustainable use of natural resources. The value of species is also understood by the general public and can be used to raise awareness about the need to address threats to species. Throughout the world, natural habitats that harbor threatened species are also home to millions of people who are highly dependent on healthy ecosystems for their livelihoods and well-being. It has been estimated that 15 to 37 percent of all species are threatened to become extinct by 2050 unless widespread and effective conservation actions are undertaken soon and maintained. In the 2009 update of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species™ 1 in 8 birds, 1 in 4 mammals, 1 in 4 reptiles, 1 in 3 amphibians, and 1 in 3 species of reef building corals are listed as threatened. The 4th International Panel on Climate Change suggested that with increases in global temperatures of just 1.5˚-2.5˚C more than 30 percent of all species will be threatened with extinction. The Save our Species (SOS) project was conceived by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank (WB) and the IUCN to focus fundraising efforts towards on-the-ground action necessary to adequately address at scale the biodiversity extinction crisis. The project was envisioned to complement ongoing conservation efforts and address funding gaps. The SOS project sought to provide a credible platform and scope to offer meaningful and high profile return on investments from the private sector and other sources rooted in its association with the WB, GEF, and IUCN. The SOS project was designed to align with and complement other global conservation initiatives, including the Mohamed bin Zayed Conservation Fund (initiated at the same time as SOS), the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) Program of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) and GEF supported initiatives such as the 2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE). The SOS program was perceived to be uniquely positioned to engage international corporations, foundations and governments at the highest level, especially companies with animals or plants in their logos. The private sector was seen to present a largely untapped source of conservation funding and the SOS program was an attempt to attract and channel private sector resources towards conservation at levels substantially greater than prior commitments. Rationale for Bank involvement - Over the last 20 years, the Bank supported more than 600 biodiversity projects2, including both protected area projects and projects which support more sustainable natural resource management. Many of these projects have addressed threatened species through habitat protection but none have been designed to reverse the extinction of designated globally important species. The SOS 2 Source: World Bank Operations Portal 1 project has aimed to harness the potential to complement other conservation efforts in client countries of the WB endowed with modest but effective conservation funding, targeted the most threatened species and urgent conservation needs. The contribution to SOS built on other global partnerships supported by the WB, linking the comparative strengths of the WB with the GEF, leading environmental and conservation NGOs, and the private sector to build a powerful biodiversity alliance which meant to strive to engage and support local civil society actors. The emphasis on the empowerment of civil society promotes strong local ownership, good environmental governance, effective national and local institutions and more efficient and cost-effective delivery of global and national benefits. The SOS project was to be financed by US$4.90 million from the GEF, US$5.00 million from the World Bank Development Grant Facility (DGF), US$1.50 million from the French Global Environment Facility (Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial - FFEM) and US$2.34 million in kind contribution from the IUCN. 1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) The Project Development Objective (as stated in the PAD and GEF Grant Agreement) was “to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent organization with global reach”. The Global Environment Objective (as stated in the PAD) was “to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species or populations and their habitats”. The Program Objective as stated in the DGF Grant Agreement was “to mainstream conservation of threatened species in sustainable development through mobilization of additional financing and strengthened involvement of the private sector in biodiversity conservation.” For the purpose of this evaluation, the PDO as stated in the GEF Grant Agreement (and PAD) will be used as per ICR guidelines. The Key indicators and targets monitoring progress and ultimately assessing the achievement of the Project Development Objective and Global Environment Objectives were:  Improved protection and/or management of at least 60 threatened species or populations and their habitats;  At least 3 new species profiles to guide SOS investments are developed and under implementation; and  At least an additional ten million United States Dollars (US$10,000,000) secured from the private sector for conservation action targeted to threatened species.  Increase awareness and fundraising for threatened species.  Project transparency.  Project managed effectively. 1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 2 The GEO was not revised during project implementation. At the request of the SOS Donor Council (after its fourth meeting in April 2014), the outcome and key indicator under sub-component 2A (Species action plans) was eliminated as part of a level two restructuring. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries Due to the global nature of the project, international, national, and locally-based NGOs, as well as other civil society partners, (mostly academic institutions) benefitted from SOS grants. Other grant making organizations such as the Mohamed bin Zayed Fund, the CEPF, the Program de Petites Initiatives (PPI) of the Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial (FFEM) and some selected IUCN (Species Survival Commission) SSC Specialist Groups such as the Amphibian, Cycad and Shark Specialist Groups also benefitted from support from SOS funding. The SOS initiative through its support reached 78 grantees in 65 countries including activities in 97 protected areas, of which 8 are RAMSAR3 sites and 15 are World Heritage sites. In addition to this, local communities have also benefited by the management of their natural capital through SOS-funded projects. The benefits accrued at the local and global levels included projects funded in Central America, South America, Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia and East Asia. 1.5 Original Components (as approved) The project consisted of four components. Component 1: Threatened Species Grants Program (US$ 16,114,000; GEF – US$ 3,460,000). SOS supported a competitive grants program for threatened species conservation with two subcomponents according to 3 strategic directions: (1) threatened species or taxonomic groups; (2) vulnerable ecosystems; and (3) corporate priorities (species or taxonomic groups or species conservation actions of particular interest to corporate and private sector donors). Sub-component 1a: Threatened Species Grants (US$ 15,364,000; GEF – US$ 3,460,000). Threatened species grants funded grants awarded competitively to civil society individuals or organizations working on species needs identified under the strategic directions. The grants were a mix of medium-sized grants ($25,000 to $200,000), along with large-sized grants ($200,000 to $800,000) awarded in special cases at the discretion of the Secretariat. Sub-component 1b: Catalyzing early action (US$ 750,000; GEF – US$ 0). In order to respond to situations that could negatively affect the status of threatened species in a rapid and significant way (for example, oils spills, mass-stranding, disease outbreaks, data deficiency in the face of development, etc.) and to initiate local capacity building, a small-grants facility was dedicated for early and/or rapid action. Small rapid action grants up to $25,000 were made available at the discretion of the IUCN Secretariat. Component 2: Species Action Strategies & Monitoring (US$ 2,020,000; GEF – US$ 200,000) Sub-component 2a: Species action plans (US$ 620,000; GEF – US$ 100,000). Threatened species investments were guided by species profiles and action plans developed by the SSC Specialist Groups. For 3 A Ramsar Site is a wetland site designated of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. The Convention on Wetlands, known as the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental environmental treaty established in 1971 by UNESCO, and coming into force in 1975. 3 several species and species groups, conservation strategies and action plans had already been produced. These action plans were to provide a basis for determining appropriate investments to fill already identified gaps in conservation action for those species. Many less charismatic and less well-known threatened species did not as yet have action plans, or action plans were outdated or too narrowly focused. This component supported the development of at least three species profiles to guide future funding allocations once additional funding has been secured from new partners. These profiles were meant to help refine strategic directions identified by the SOS Secretariat and SSC specialists to target funding where it is most needed and effective. Sub-component 2b: Monitoring status of threatened species (US$ 1,400,000, GEF – US$ 100,000). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, recognized as the global authority for assessing the threat status of species, provided the basis for the selection of threatened species under the program and to monitor the status of targeted species that benefitted from funding. This component aimed at: (a) building on the strength of the SSC and IUCN Species Program, their members and partners, in monitoring the success of fund interventions; and (b) ensuring that threatened species targeted by SOS projects had their Red List status updated in a timely manner. Component 3: Funding & Communications (US$ 2,134,000, GEF – US$ 450,000). The project targeted specifically private sector donors and supported a strong communications and marketing campaign to raise additional support and funding from private companies, foundations, governments, and the general public. Sub-component 3a: Fundraising (US$ 715,000, GEF - US$ 200,000). The program was expected to benefit from contributions for species conservation from the private sector. An SOS Fundraising Strategy was prepared with funds from the Project Preparation Grant. A list of prospects was prepared and ranked. Through targeted campaigns, the private sector would be encouraged to support species and species conservation actions that were of interest to their corporate profile and culture and linked to the corporations’ own brands and marketing campaigns. Corporations were to be also encouraged to provide flexible funding for conservation action guided by the Secretariat. Sub-component 3b: Communications (US$ 1,419,000, GEF - US$ 250,000). The project promoted a strong communication and marketing campaign that used threatened species as a way to secure public and private sector support, encourage behavioral changes, and foster activities compatible with species survival of biodiversity. In order to secure additional support, it was essential to communicate why species mattered, what the program was seeking to do and what has been achieved for species conservation. IUCN launched the SOS website (www.SaveOurSpecies.org) to maximize transparency, provide information, and provide tools for grantees, donors, and the public and summarize lessons learned from the program. A part of the SOS website was devoted to grant management and relevant specifically to applicants and grantees. Component 4: Project management, monitoring, and evaluation (US$ 3,461,000, GEF – US$ 790,000). This component financed associated project administration and management, and implementation monitoring and evaluation. IUCN was responsible for ensuring that sub-projects and all other aspects of the project were carried out according to the Operational Manual, including the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Process Framework, Environmental Management Plans, Resettlement Action Plans, and Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. 1.6 Revised Components 4 At the request of the SOS Donor Council (after its fourth meeting in April 2014), the Key indicator under Sub-component 2A (Species action plans) was eliminated as part of restructuring. In October 2015, the related Sub-component and the associated indicators were removed from the SOS Program Framework and the available budget under this Sub-component (US$ 200,000) was reallocated to Sub-component 3A (Fundraising) and Component 4 (US$100,000 each). The need for restructuring the project was an outcome of the Mid-term Review mission carried out by the World Bank and IUCN between February and June 2014. 1.7 Other significant changes The original agreement for funding the SOS Partnership was that the GEF would provide US$4.9 million through the World Bank, with at least US$5 million in co-financing from the Development Grant facility of the Bank and US$2.34 million in-kind contributions from IUCN. This in-kind contribution from the IUCN would support workshops and contributions associated with the SSC Specialist Groups. SSC would also contribute to SOS through review of SOS priorities, proposals, and assistance with project monitoring. A request for funding in the amount of US$5 million for the Threatened Species Program was submitted to the World Bank’s Development Grant Facility (DGF). However the DGF approved only US$3.9 million of the requested US$5 million. Due to the lack of sufficient SOS staff resources for fundraising, it was agreed that the budget for Component 4 (program management, monitoring and evaluation) would be increased by US$100,000; using funds that had been assigned to Component 2a (Species Action Plans). IUCN used co-financing to continue to support Red List updating under Component 2b (Monitoring Status of Threatened Species), with another US$100,000 going to Component 3a (Fundraising). 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry The project was prepared between 2009 and 2010 and officially launched in October 2010 at the Conference of Parties (CoP10) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan. The project negotiations took place in January 2011 and the Board approved the project in April 2011. The project was declared effective in July 2011, with disbursing starting in March 2012. Lessons learned from earlier operations - Lessons learned from existing species conservation grant programs such as the CEPF, the AZE, and the Preventing Extinctions Program (of BirdLife International) were taken into account during project preparation. This process consisted of identifying the structures, processes and targets as well as their successes and challenges. The lessons learned include the following: Need for inclusiveness and practicality in use of pre-existing resources. The IUCN’s Red List, Species Profiles, and Action Plans were deemed to be effective tools for prioritizing conservation needs and planning investment strategies, and the required processes. It made practical sense to use these already available tools and processes rather than invent new tools systems and experiences. Need for effective monitoring. In most circumstances, parameters associated with the measurement of the viability of species and their populations are difficult and may shift slowly over time. Therefore, tracking progress towards achieving conservation outcomes for species is challenging. Under SOS, an explicit subset 5 of short-term benchmarks, based on WB, GEF, IUCN, and SSC project monitoring guidelines, were agreed on for monitoring progress in achieving identified conservation targets. Need to generate socioeconomic and capacity benefits. While aiming for conservation outcomes, it was important that the implementation of SOS grants was aimed at generating socioeconomic, governance and capacity impacts. Project design - The project design was informed by consultations with SOS donors (the GEF, the World Bank, IUCN and FFEM), species conservation specialists, national and regional civil societies groups and international NGOs (including lessons learned from species conservation grant programs such as the CEPF, the AZE, BirdLife International). From the earliest stages (Partners Meeting, May 2009) it was decided that the institutional arrangements (including development of the PAD and Operational Manual) was to be based on the CEPF model4 (the SOS, unlike the CEPF, the UNDP Small Grants Program or the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund, was focused exclusively on biodiversity, targeted at saving threatened species and for medium-sized grants). The CEPF has a three-tier structure to deliver grants to beneficiaries. At that time, the World Bank underestimated that the global scope and the 3-tier institutional setup of the CEPF provided for a complex structure which may pose a challenge for the efficient and effective delivery of grants to beneficiaries in support of biodiversity conservation outcomes. Hence, all challenges associated with the CEPF model were replicated in the SOS project. The discussions at the project design phase emphasized that all proposals would focus on conservation actions rather than strategies or research on the supported species. All sub-projects were structured along three strategic directions: (1) threatened species or taxonomic groups (groups of related species); (2) vulnerable ecosystems; and (3) corporate priorities (species or taxonomic groups or species conservation actions of particular interest to corporate and private sector donors). Individual grants were limited to US$800,000 and grants larger than US$200,000 needed a no-objection by the World Bank. All projects needed to be compliant with World Bank safeguards policies and monitoring procedures consistent with the GEF Biodiversity tracking tool. Assessment of risks. It was apparent from the PAD finalization stage that raising funds from the private sector was to be an uncertain proposition. The risk “lower than expected fundraising from the private sector” was clearly rated as “S” (Substantial Risk). The proposed mitigation measure consisted of the SOS initial donors stepping in and raising funds, with communication and fund raising campaigns shoring up and complementing these actions (see Annex 10. Nature of Risk and Mitigation Measures). Furthermore, the project attributed a “Moderate Risk” to the fact that there would be “reduced private sector interest due to financial crises” and the mitigation measure proposed (at the PAD stage) was that the SOS project would seek to link funding to company marketing and advertising budgets rather than corporate responsibility budgets. Both the rating and the rationale were unrealistic. The project preparation discussions and process also failed to take into account any similar projects depending on funds from the private sector or any lessons learned from similar initiatives which would have directly informed the component of the SOS project. 2.2 Implementation Following the launch of the project, the recruitment of staff for the SOS Secretariat began before the end of 2010. The Secretariat reached its full composition with the recruitment of a fourth member in September 2011. 4 For the CEPF, the World Bank is currently undertaking an In-Depth Fiduciary Review and a Value-for-Money Assessment which will identify key lessons from partnerships that use a model such as the CEPF. It will include comparisons with other similar mechanisms such as SOS or the GEF Small Grants Program. 6 Implementation of the project in the early stages was slow, partly due to the relative inexperience of the SOS Secretariat with Bank policies and procedures and GEF requirements. Progress was further impeded by the fact that by the third and final year of DGF funding, the IUCN had not received the funds committed by the World Bank, leaving a balance of US$1.1 million below what was requested. The World Bank had to alert both the IUCN and the GEF that it could only commit US$3.9 million, rather than the US$5 million as originally anticipated. Call for Proposals. A total of four competitive calls for proposals were issued during the course of the project (one each for 2011, 2012 & 2013 and following the securing of additional funding, one in 2015) with a total of 85 threatened species grants awarded. An additional four threatened species grants were awarded as pilot projects to kick start the initiative in 2010 and two more were awarded in 2015 based on the request of specific donors (corporate priorities). Additionally, a total of 17 rapid action grants were funded during the course of the project to catalyze early action to respond to conservation emergencies. The Donor Council and the SOS Working Group (renamed Technical Advisory Group in 2015) met seven times during the course of the project. The screening for the first set of 414 proposals highlighted the complexity of the applications template, namely the difficultly in assessing the likely impact of proposed interventions on the targeted species and lack of clarity on how to present the budget. Furthermore, the process of review and testing of the process took longer to organize. These issues were rectified in time for the second call for proposals. The second call for proposals garnered 131 proposals, out of which 25 were endorsed by the Donor Council. By then, the system for soliciting, tracking and awarding grants (grants management system) had improved by learning from the first round of proposal and grant making. The project portfolio had started to grow and the Secretariat needed additional support to process proposals and grants, review reports, monitor results and manage relationships with grantees. Field visits to supervise ongoing projects were initiated during this time. In order to sustain this momentum, it was decided that two consultants would be added to the Secretariat to provide technical and communications support. The Mid-Term Review, held during March 2014, found that the project significantly improved following a series of adaptive updates by learning from previous calls for proposals. The updates to the Operational Manual regarding financial risk assessment and other requested amendments had been fully incorporated and operationalized. The project continued to manage its grants well. The first three calls for proposals received 700 applications, 74 of which were awarded, totaling US$8.7 million. The SOS staff continued to monitor and undertake field missions to supervise the 57 remaining open projects. However, the efforts put in by the Secretariat had exhausted staff resources and contributed to the SOS being less successful in processing and supervising larger number of projects, resulting in delays in reporting. In addition to this, the lack of staff resources also hampered the raising of additional funds which was important for the SOS to continue operating past the end of the GEF project. A position mapping by the IUCN of the Secretariat was to be performed to inform donors about staffing needs in anticipation of another phase of SOS. After three calls for proposals, the full amount of funds for grants had been fully committed. There was to be no new calls for proposals until funds were replenished. Limited SOS Secretariat Staff Resources. Limited staff resources hampered the ability of the Secretariat to scale up efforts to engage in fund raising. A large proportion of the staff’s time and effort was spent on processing and approving project proposals, supervising larger number of projects, and reporting to donors and stakeholders. Careful consideration and forethought could have contributed to better staffing decisions. This lack of sufficient staff resources for fundraising was subsequently addressed when the budget for 7 Component 4 (Program Management) was increased by US$100,000, funds that had been assigned to Component 2a (Species Action Plans). Fundraising. By the close of the project, the SOS had contacted more than 150 private-sector organizations and 30 foundations as well as public sector entities. The SOS Secretariat was able to collaborate closely with other units in IUCN, especially the Strategic Partnerships Unit and the Business and Biodiversity Unit. It should be noted that given the less than favorable economic conditions (the tail end of the 2008 Financial Crisis and the follow-up recessions hitting the European countries and commonly referred to as being direct repercussions of the European sovereign debt crisis), a factor outside the control of the project during that stage of the project, it is commendable that SOS was able to secure contribution from Nokia and a pledge from the FFEM. Following the initial success with Nokia, the first corporate donor for SOS, fundraising activities with companies were pursued actively with a primary focus on contacting carefully selected prospects either directly or through referrals. However, fundraising continued to be a challenge. By the end of 2012, only Volkswagen was under serious consideration to become a donor. Further efforts resulted in Fondation Segre providing a first contribution of US$287,000 (with confirmation of continued support) and the KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) showed a willingness to build on the SOS experience and contributing toward a Euro20 million fund for tigers. By the Mid-Term Review in March 2014, Fondation Segre had agreed to a second contribution of Euro 223,000, with Fondation Credit Agricole agreeing to support one project. The KfW agreed to provide a grant of Euro20 million for tigers but not under the SOS (the KfW and the SOS would manage the tiger project jointly). The SOS Secretariat initiated a process of updating its funding approach in order to better identify its comparative advantage and positioning itself as a financing vehicle for achieving commitments made under the CBD and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). A fourth call for proposals was put on hold until new funding was secured. A total of US$24.5 million was raised during the course of the project. Of this, US$2 million was secured from the private sector, about US$1.5 million from different foundations and a total of US$21 million from government agencies (including a Euro20 million grant secured from KfW for tiger conservation). An additional US$20 million was actively under consideration with two separate donors (one is approved and the other is close to completion) at the time of writing this report. Communication and Marketing. Mid way through the project, the demand for marketing and communications had already grown significantly due to the size of the portfolio. To respond to these developments, SOS recruited a full-time consultant in 2013 to support the Communications and Marketing Officer. The consultant’s role was to help develop the partnership portfolio and ultimately actions supporting the overall fundraising result. The SOS started to show improvement with its presence in social media through Twitter and Facebook. During this time, SOS also produced a lessons learned document reflecting on its fundraising efforts to date. This document helped inform more recent decisions as regards to prioritizing potential donors for the medium-term. In parallel SOS secured funding from several foundations such as Fondation Segré (for a total of 6 different contracts over 5 years), Fondation Credit Agricole (now Indo-Suez) and Fondation Iris and began developing several high profile communications partnerships to publicize the SOS brand. Prior to the 2014 Mid-Term review, the SOS project website was improved, however no progress reports on implementation of sub-grants were available. The website also did not provide any contact information for reporting grievances and seeking redress. This issue was partially addressed by introducing a Project Complaints Management System (PCMS) set up by the IUCN. This system was difficult to access as it was 8 buried under the Accountability and Value section of the IUCN website. The PCMS currently shows a webpage with sets of accountability documents but no easy interface to allow for immediate submission of a complaint. Restructuring. At the Fourth Donor Council meeting in April 2014, it was decided that given the timeframe of the project and the wealth of information that already existed on species, species profiles would not be funded directly under SOS, unless it was to co-finance profiles led by other parties. In October 2015, the first restructuring of the project was undertaken and two of the following elements were cancelled: Outcome Indicator 2: “At least 3 new species profiles to guide SOS investments are developed and under implementation” Intermediate Outcome 2, Indicator A: “Development of new profiles for 3 priority species groups to guide investments”. The second restructuring was done in November 2015 in order to extend the closing date of the project to March 31, 2016. This was undertaken to allow for disbursement of the full project amount. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization M&E Design - The project M&E framework languished because of an ambiguous PDO statement as regards ‘viable funding mechanism’ and ‘competent authority’ which was not backed up with clear and well-designed indicators. The main outcome of the PDO was the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats. However, the associated indicators defining what a viable funding mechanism is were inadequate. Targets focused mainly on the achievement of the GEO and conservation outcomes and not the viable funding mechanism outcome in the PDO. The GEO, which was to improve conservation of globally threatened species is multilayered hence, it may have suited the project to have separate indicators measuring both species status and habitat health. Several of PDO/GEO indicators, i.e. “Improved protection and /or management of at least 60 threatened species or populations and their habitats”, “Increased awareness and fundraising for threatened species” and “Increase awareness and fundraising for threatened species” were not worded as indicators (measurement of change) but as outcomes. Furthermore, they are open to interpretation and unnecessarily complex. It is for example unclear how “improved protection and/or management” of both threatened species and their habitat was to be measured or quantified. Similarly, within the Intermediate Results Indicators, the indicators “Status of and project impact on target species monitored”, “SOS strategies, and action and investment plans approved/guiding grant-making” and “Program-wide replication strategy developed and implemented to disseminate best practices and lessons learned” were all compound indicators and not articulated clearly. Along similar lines, “project transparency’ is not sufficiently captured by profiles on the SOS website. Considering that the GEO was to “mainstream biodiversity conservation through improving the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats” it would have been instructive to have more than one core indicator to measure the conservation of critically threatened species. The element of “mainstreaming biodiversity” is measured by a weak intermediate indicator, “progr am-wide replication strategy developed and implemented to disseminate best practice for species conservation.” Mainstreaming here should be specific to incorporation into tangible efforts of species conservation and not general dissemination (e.g. website visits, newsletters, or lessons dissemination). A thorough assessment at early stage of the formulated indictors would have better served the project and the final evaluation of the results. 9 M&E implementation - The main elements monitored under the grant portfolio were: (1) Progress at the individual grant level - This was undertaken through the analysis of submissions of Interim Progress and Final Technical Reports by the grantees. Information for each of the Objectives, Results and Activities in the grant logical framework was collated in “Grant tracking tables” at the time a report was received. Objectives and results were categorized as “Achieved / Partially Achieved / In - progress” according to the reported progress. At the submission of the Final Technical Report a final score was obtained for each of the grants based on the proportion of the Objectives and Results that were achieved. (2) Monitoring of conservation outcomes at the portfolio level was made possible by the SOS Secretariat’s categorization of each project in the portfolio according to the “Conservation Actions Classification Scheme” (Version 2.0). This classification scheme was designed to ensure global uniformity when describing conservation actions, in place. They have been developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership and are being used by a number of organizations and donors. Individual projects were asked to capture information on key cross cutting questions on the results of the project on (1) the target species population, (2) any changes in the conservation status for the species, (3) the critical habitat for the target species, (4) the direct threats to the target species or its habitat and (5) enabling conditions for conservation. The analysis of the progress of the projects at both the individual and portfolio levels should have enabled the SOS Secretariat to monitor the cumulative results of the projects on each of the conservation actions categories and at the same time it allowed for the portrayal of the main areas of intervention needed in order to bring about any desire corrective measures. It should be noted that information captured by the individual projects have not been verified by World Bank supervision missions or third parties or for that matter reflected in any substantial change in the status of the species in the IUCN Red List. M&E Utilization - Data collected through monitoring detailed above were assessed and used for reporting to the World Bank and other donors, to inform regular communications on the SOS website and media channels (newsletter and social media) and published in SOS reports in 2014 and 2016. However, there is no evidence of any corrective actions taken using the data collated till that point of project implementation by any parties concerned, including the World Bank. There was no move to bring about clarity in the indicators, the lack of evidence on any intermediate success of the species conservation efforts or a recalibration of funding strategies. Lessons from project implementation were captured in reports from grantees. These lessons were still being collated and were to be made available upon completion of the analysis and used for Phase 2 of the SOS initiative. Despite several requests, the final report was not submitted at the time of finalizing the ICR. The report was to be divided in different categories according to their relevance to: (i) Project identification and design; (ii) Project implementation; and (iii) Conservation methods. Data or evidence to formulate an analysis of results or the impact of the conservation efforts undertaken so far by the SOS Secretariat were not available by the close of the project. The date of the submission of the World Bank ICR was extended to January 31, 2017 and a request was made to the Secretariat to provide findings of any impact or results of the activities of the project. No such report or results or lessons learned have been shared by the time of submission of this ICR. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance Safeguards – Safeguards were addressed in the Environment and Safeguards Management Framework (ESMF) in the SOS Operations Manual. The project was classified as a B (partial assessment) project and triggered Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) and Forests (OP/BP 4.36). Safeguards implementation was rated as Moderately Satisfactory and finished in the last ISR as Satisfactory. The 10 project complied with the World Bank Access to Information policy by publishing safeguards documents and by creating an open web platform to share information on the subproject funding and impacting species (the site is accessible at http://www.sospecies.org/). The project attempted to undertake the selection and screening of safeguard procedures for the approval of grants. The screening of sub-project proposals identified the potential safeguard issues and scrutinized the project preparation procedures in the proposals to assess potential impacts and mitigation measures. A review of the final sub-project proposal (after modifications requested by the SOS Secretariat had been made by the applicant) further scrutinized the full proposal against the SOS objectives and procedures, assessed the adequacy of the sub-project’s preparation process and implementation of measures for potential safeguard issues. At the beginning, safeguards were not comprehensively developed in each of the first call for proposals submissions due to the lack of clarity in the template questions on safeguards. In order to make disclosure of activities or issues that could potentially trigger safeguards, the Secretariat developed – with the help of the World Bank team – a new form to solicit potential adverse impacts and monitor changes over the period of sub-grant implementation. This form was added to the Operational Manual and was filled in by applicants/grantees at the time of application and with all interim and final grant reports. Projects proposals related to Indigenous Peoples (IP) territories needed broad community support and documentation prior to being approved but there are no indications of the compliance with OP4.10 requirements. Similarly, even after the close of the second call for proposals, there was no consistent follow- up field visits and confirmation despite there being a SOS Secretariat screening of projects for restricted access to legally designated protected areas. Moreover, the proposals themselves did not often have enough information to correctly manage for various safeguards. This reflected the need for both the World Bank and the SOS Secretariat to enhance field supervision of grants and provide greater safeguard oversight. Fiduciary - While IUCN had a good financial management system in place, the financial management project grants was not satisfactory and required a lot of handholding by the World Bank, e.g. for getting documentation of eligible expenditures on a timely basis. The World Bank carried out two missions to IUCN focusing on financial management. Issues raised during these mission reports were clarified and resolved within the deadlines established. Of particular note was that by the time a supervision mission was conducted in February 2013 there was significant disbursement lag of 13 months. This was, among other factors, due to: i) the fact that the original disbursement schedule was unrealistic and based on expected commitments rather than disbursements (US$6.4 million committed under Component 1, only US$2.4million disbursed); ii) shortage of staff for management coupled with turnover of Financial Management and Project staff, thus affecting the understanding of the legal compliance; iii) SOS giving preference to other donor compliances requirements where grant closing dates were earlier than those of the Bank grant regulations; iv) unclear understanding of World Bank Grant fiduciary compliances; and v) the SOS Secretariat capacity constraint to review and provide clearance of sub-grant proposals and sub-grant completion reports. Audit reports consistently expressed unqualified opinions, since they were only concentrating on financial accounting and auditing standards. Training on financial management, procurement procedures (October 2011) and safeguards policies (December 2011) were all provided within six months of the project effectiveness date (7 July 2011), either during World Bank missions to IUCN or through teleconference. The first financial management mission to IUCN was only carried out in August 2013 and during this mission additional training was provided on completion of Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) as well as Grievance Redress Mechanisms to be set up for SOS projects. The SOS Risk Assessment Methodology was also revised in order to better assess the upfront 11 operational and fiduciary risks. The last ISR rated the Financial Management performance of the project as “Moderately Satisfactory.” Procurement – The process of procurement, once training was received, was straightforward and applied consistently by the project. Overall, over a period of more than five years few instances of procurement of goods, works and non-consultant services were required. All of these were carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s guidelines. There were only a few instances where the project had failed to submit a General Procurement Notice (GPN) or update its procurement plans (such as in 2011). The last ISR rated the performance of the project to follow World Bank procurement policies as “Satisfactory.” 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase The SOS fundraising efforts targeting the private sector were not successful. However towards the end of 2015, SOS had elicited the interest of two new donors, the European Union (DevCo) and a private Geneva- based foundation (wishing to remain anonymous), for the funding of two large initiatives targeting specific threatened species taxonomic groups (vertebrates) and geographical regions (Africa). The SOS Secretariat is currently at work to complete all the required preparations to see these initiatives start in early 2017. The combined amount of the two initiatives is expected to reach US$20 million and thus exceed all funding secured for SOS in the course of its first phase (2010-2016). It should be noted that in addition to these resources, the SOS project was able to secure Euro20 million from KfW for the support of the Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Program (ITHCP). Although these funds were not to be utilized under the SOS banner, it was nevertheless a successful fruition of the efforts of the SOS in fundraising. In spring 2015, the World Bank commissioned an independent evaluation on the structure that SOS should adopt in the future in order to ensure sustainability of its operations. The report titled “SOS – Save Our Species: The IUCN Species Conservation Program. Towards a New Business Model”, was completed by a consultant in June 2015 and submitted to the GEF and the World Bank for discussion. The report focused on the future structure that SOS could take after completion of its first phase to guarantee the sustainability of its operations. It also proposed a new structure for the SOS Secretariat, Technical Advisory Group, Donor Council and a stronger focus on capacity building of grantees. Following the completion of this evaluation, IUCN submitted a new proposal for a mid-size project to the GEF that is currently being discussed. This grant would potentially guarantee the rolling out of a revised SOS model based on a stronger regionalization of the Secretariat ensuring additional cost-effectiveness of operations and closer proximity with the regions and projects supported through the SOS grants. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Relevance of Objectives - Substantial. The objectives of the project to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent organization with global reach continue to be relevant. A large number of threatened species (1 in 4 mammals, 1 in 8 birds, 1in 3 amphibians, and 1 in 3 corals are at risk of extinction in the wild) continue to require urgent action to improve their conservation status and additional funding is needed to support the conservation efforts required to prevent extinctions of threatened species worldwide. Projects such as the SOS provide a vital source of building the 12 capacity of civil society to further enhance biodiversity conservation outcomes at the local level. The level of serious intent shown by the European Union, a private Geneva-based foundation (wishing to remain anonymous), the GEF and the acknowledgement of the SOS as a viable funding instrument by the KfW through its parallel commitment in the ITHCP illustrates the strong interest for continued conservation funding for threatened species. The SOS Project’s objectives, and its results, are of relevance to the Bank’s Environment Strategy 2012-2022, which was developed through consultation with developing country partners, including civil society organizations. The Strategy prioritizes action across the green, clean, and resilient agendas. For the “Green Agenda”, the focus is on nurturing greener, more-inclusive growth and poverty reduction while protecting biodiversity and ecosystems. The SOS model of providing a funding mechanism and working at the local level through local grant beneficiaries is a biodiversity conservation approach that helps build environmental and socio-economic sustainability through capacity-building, network-building and employment generation. This project has informed Bank work in biodiversity conservation and will provide valuable inputs going forward through the lessons learned as outcome of the implementation of the project. The Project’s objectives are also of relevance to Bank’s engagement with civil society, ensuring that civil society’s voices can be heard by governments, that their views are factored into decision -making, and that they are offered the opportunity to participate in working to develop solutions to local problems. Relevance of Design – Modest. The design of the project is also highly relevant to World Bank strategy for future biodiversity conservation projects as it highlights some of the areas of improvement and concern in preparing, designing and implementing similar small grants mechanism-oriented biodiversity initiatives. The results and impact of the project (or lack of) and the deficiencies accruing from the design of the project will help in understanding some of the factors dictating the success or failure of projects such as the SOS projects and how best to utilize World Bank resources. Projects with designs such as for the SOS need to carefully consider the implications from complex design structures, a weak theory of change from implementing small grants to strategic or transformational changes in ecosystem health and challenges with project supervision. The SOS project design was not fully consistent with the project’s stated objectives and the results framework was not adequate nor specific enough to capture the expected objective. The components, indicators and outputs focused more on conservation of globally threatened species and less on establishing a viable funding mechanism to support this cause. The large share of project financing was assigned to Component 1 (Threatened species) and less was assigned to support the fundraising objective. The global scope and 3-tier institutional setup put a strain on project resources and posed a challenge for the efficient and effective delivery of grants to beneficiaries in support of biodiversity conservation outcomes. This lack of staff resources also hampered the raising of additional funds. The model seeking funding primarily from private sector was flawed. The PDO and results framework did not allow for the flexibility of funding from other sources than the private sector and the project was not restructured to rectify this when it was apparent that the funding from private sector was not forthcoming. 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives The Project Development Objective was “to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent organization with global reach.” The PDO comprised of two sub-objectives: (a) A viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions; and (b) Administration by a competent organization with global reach. 13 Sub-objective a: A viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions Rating: Modest There was no agreement on what a “viable funding mechanism” entails. Assuming that a ‘viable funding mechanism” for biodiversity is an institution that provides a sustained flow of resources in support of conservation outcomes using a set of agreed principles to allocate resources for agreed eligible activities – the outcome was not achieved as only US$2 million of the target of US$10 million from private sector funding was achieved. Also, only 4 of the targeted 10 new private sector contributors was achieved. The project, however, leveraged US$24.5 million through a combination of private sector, foundation and development partners, with an additional US$20 million being actively under consideration. This flow of funding can be attributed to the building of a recognized brand managed by an organization with a global reach. Sub-objective b: Administration by a competent organization with global reach Rating: Modest IUCN agreed to host the Secretariat of SOS. IUCN is a global leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards. Over the lifetime of the project, IUCN and SOS were unable to provide evidence of its contribution to the improvement in the conservation status of these species. The World Bank did not undertake field missions to verify these achievements. The IUCN, as the executing agency was to bring scientific credibility and expertise to the program, including the active mobilization of technical expertise and support of the Species Survival Commission and its Species Program. Members of the SSC Specialist Groups were to be involved in technical review and monitoring of SOS investments and outcomes. The IUCN was to administer and execute the project on behalf of the SOS partners with a composition, institutional framework, functions and resources satisfactory to the World Bank. This included ensuring that funds were managed with due diligence and efficiency. The SOS Secretariat, under the oversight of IUCN, was to manage the grants, including calls for proposals, selection of projects, and the performance of the project to ensure that all activities and their management are carried out in compliance with Donor Council decisions and the Operational Manual, which reflected GEF and World Bank policies and guidelines, including procurement and financial management. Among the key Financial tasks, the IUCN was to: i) ensure that sub-grant agreements were signed for subprojects under terms and conditions in compliance with the Operational Manual; ii) submit to the Bank annual work plans and budgets for approval by February 1 each year; iii) submit semi-annual progress reports to the Bank; iv) have adopted TOR for external audit acceptable to the Bank by December 30, 2011; and v) prepare and provide to the Bank a mid-term independent evaluation report prior to the Bank mid- term review mission and a completion report six months after the closing date. The lack of adequate staff resources to administer the funds and the increased levels of work required for the calls for proposals process and to review and provide comments and follow-up on grantee reports was apparent, which led to slow implementation in the early stages. With regards to administration and implementation, although there is no question as to competency of the IUCN or the diligence and hard work of the SOS Secretariat, the fact remains that there is no evidence to verify the actual results or impact of the program. Over the lifetime of the project, IUCN and SOS were unable to provide evidence of its contribution to the improvement in the conservation status of these species. The World Bank did not undertake field missions to verify these achievements. The SOS Secretariat had agreed to accommodate the 14 World Bank’s request for a results and impact assessment report by the end of December 2016, but no such report has been forthcoming by the time of submission of this ICR. The Global Environmental Objective of the project as stated in the PAD, targeted the improvement of the conservation status of globally threatened species or populations and their habitats. These outcomes were highly ambitious for a project with relatively small resources, global reach and attribution challenges. The project was unable to provide evidence of its contribution to the improvement in the conservation status of these species and the achievement of this objective is rated modest. Although the project went through a level two restructuring to drop one of the PDO indicators on species profiles, the project objectives were not revised and remain unchanged. The change to the results framework had no impact on the project objectives, therefore, a split evaluation was not done for this assessment. 3.3 Efficiency Efficiency Rate: Modest. An Incremental Cost Analysis was carried out for the SOS Project in the PAD. The background to the analysis made a strong case for the vital role that biodiversity and the large range of species, as key units of that biodiversity, play in the survival of our planet. It argues that species can recover with concerted conservation efforts, with a considerable amount of funding needed to mitigate the extinction crisis. As stated in the PAD, “funding at an order of magnitude greater than what is currently available is required to slow the hemorrhaging of the Earth’s species.” With some exceptions, much of the e xistent biodiversity funding will continue to be focused on government-led initiatives and a few key protected areas. A key rationale for this project is to address that funding gap, and complement current conservation efforts, by leveraging additional funding through the private sector. The PAD estimated that the projected incremental SOS cost at the low end to be in the range of US$20-25 million, constituting a significant increase in species conservation funding and a focus on medium-sized grants for the broadest range of threatened species across the globe. The GEF Alternative was projected to provide, a significant increase in available funding for threatened species conservation efforts. Details of the Baseline Scenario, GEF Alternative and Incremental Cost are provided in Annex 3. Although the analysis adequately justified the basis for GEF and World Bank involvement, it does not provide a cost based rationale for the figures provided in the Alternative scenario. Nor does the analysis provide any dollar value of the assumptions made to arrive at the baseline, or estimates that the GEF, World Bank or other conservation related grant management organizations investments had already kicked in as of the beginning of the SOS initiative. At best, the figures reflect the appraised cost estimates that would be needed to run the SOS program. A lack of a methodology hampers any comparison to the final results with respect to the cost efficiency derived from the invested funds by the World Bank and the GEF. As a result of this, the Incremental Cost Analysis in the PAD was not carried out at exit. The effective management of small grants requires a significant degree of administration and time, given the requirements of having to fulfill all policies and procedures required from the World Bank as the trustee and fund donor. The project can be considered cost efficient with regards to the process of review of all applications. All proposals selected for funding were reviewed in detail in order to maximize the return on investment of each individual grant and therefore significant savings were made. Grants were awarded on a competitive basis to proposals that fit the strategic direction, as approved by the SOS Donor Council, and were implemented in accordance with criteria and guidelines laid out in the Operational Manual. 15 Additionally, from an overall fundraising objective, the SOS Project has demonstrated some efficiency, with more than US$24.5 million (this includes a Euro20 million grant secured from KfW for tiger conservation but not under the SOS banner) being raised from a combination of private sector, public sector and foundation funding since the start. Another important element of the efficiency aspect of the project was the capacity building aspect and most grantees emphasized that the support that they were receiving from the SOS Secretariat was very valuable, although the biodiversity conservation activities aspect of some of the SOS funded projects call attention to the high probability of duplication of efforts by similar programs such as the CEPF and the Mohamed bin Zayed Conservation Fund. It should be noted that the efficiency of administration of project was hampered in the initial stages of the project by the lack of planning and vision. The project could have pre-tested the application template, used the four pilot projects to gather experience prior to full blown project implementation, or used a pilot phase for the first round of proposals. The deficiencies in design and implementation were addressed in subsequent calls for proposals and this improvement was highlighted in the Mid-Term Review undertaken by the World Bank. The MTR however does not highlight or discuss or indicate any data supporting the cost efficiency achieved by the project. In terms of the overall cost efficiency of the project, the determination of a baseline cost for the Project’s total investments at entry was not possible, especially as the full suite of target species remained to be identified or conservation of a set of threatened species even proposed. The Project’s PAD (in the Appraisal Summary section) also states that “the nature of the proposed project is such that it is not meaningful to carry out traditional economic analysis.” To put a monetary value on the achievement of conservation of 250 threatened species and the present or future impact of their conservation would be difficult at best (see short discussion on the Incremental Cost Analysis approach adopted in the PAD in Annex 3). As a proxy to the Net Present Value we can determine that the Project was able to contribute to the conservation of about one percent of the total 23,928 species facing extinction. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Unsatisfactory The Project objectives continue to be of relevance to achieving viable conservation funding for threatened species and habitats across the globe. The approach promoted by the SOS Secretariat is relevant to the work the World Bank undertakes with clients countries in support of sustainable conservation of threatened species and habitats, as well as with respect to civil society engagement and capacity building of local organizations. Important progress has been made in securing the strategic conservation management of globally important threatened species in various habitats, particularly through engagement of both international and local organizations, foundations and the private sector and in mainstreaming threatened species conservation by developing policies and practices to improve conservation outcomes. This was all done while adapting to the changing nature of resources availability, human resources insufficiency and challenges of management of diverse projects and their supervision. The Bank’s 2014 Mid-Term Review found that, “The progress has significantly improved a series of adaptive updates to take advantage of lessons learned subsequent to each call for proposals. The SOS Secretariat and Working Group are now fully constituted and working well in furtherance of the project’s objectives. Overall, the SOS architecture is robust and has initiated best practices to accomplish the task of soliciting and reviewing proposals, awarding grants and providing on-going implementation.” 16 In spite of these results, the PDO of the SOS was not achieved as it was unable to secure private sector funding for a viable funding mechanism. With substantial relevance of objectives, modest relevance of design, modest achievement of the two sub- objectives, and modest efficiency, the overall outcome is rated Unsatisfactory. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development The SOS Secretariat reports that a number of the grants awarded supported the development of alternative livelihoods for communities in close proximity to the project sites. For example, in the West African Manatees project, manatee hunters were incentivized to forego hunting of the manatees and in return were offered training and equipment to take up catfish aquaculture. Similarly in the Boe region of Guinea-Bissau eco-tourism provided the local communities with an alternative form of revenue from operating nine bungalows and guided tours on spotting chimpanzees, thus reducing the communities’ impact on the forest and safeguarding the chimpanzee’s natural habitat. Some of the grants were better placed than others to monitor and report the results of their activities on poverty. However, there were no specific requirements in the project on reporting results on gender aspects and social development, hence the information is mostly anecdotal. The SOS Secretariat has expressed its view that the scale and duration of the projects did not really allow for the large scale changes needed to alleviate poverty, address gender issues and social development. These need significant investment over a long period of time in order to be fully documented. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening A number of grants supported the strengthening of local institutions through development of community- based conservancies, reinforcement of protected area management, and training of government personnel. The SOS threatened species project results aimed to directly feed into the update of the IUCN Red List. The Red List is used for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species and it now plays an increasingly prominent role in guiding conservation activities of governments, NGOs and scientific institutions. Several grantees managed to secure more support, both financial and non-financial (such as the ability to be new partners, expanding existing work to new regions and raising new pledges from important stakeholders) as a result of their SOS project. This was highlighted in the beneficiaries’ survey of the 2014 SOS Partnership Evaluation (72% of respondents said that the SOS grant helped secure more ‘support’). A number of grantees also received awards of excellence (such as the Whitley Awards) for the quality of their work funded by SOS. The SOS Secretariat has built strong partnerships between various stakeholders such as the scientific community and local communities in protecting some of the most threatened species in the world (such as tigers, spoon-billed sandpipers, and dugongs and brought public attention to some of the non-charismatic threatened species like the cycads). Over the course of this project, it has built a recognizable brand name (examples being the growth in visitors to the SOS website, increase in newsletter subscriptions and increase in engagement via Facebook and Twitter), a viable funding mechanism for conservation of threatened species and habitats and a robust architecture and best practices for any future work that would involve management of small grants and their management and implementation. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative, if any) The projects in the SOS portfolio to date were able to target a total of 250 specific threatened species. While the project activities on these species and their habitats were monitored by the grantees, the projects will have undoubtedly also impacted other threatened species sharing the habitat with the target species. Some 17 projects have made specific reference to other threatened species while in most cases these will simply remain unknown. As noted during the 2014 evaluation of the SOS Partnership, there were both negative and positive unexpected impacts. The positive impacts included new species described, new species range, new or better than expected habitats discovered, improved profile/ increased capacity and strengthened or improved relations with various stakeholders among others. Some negative impacts were issues such as mistaken perception of project (intentions and impact), loss of capacity (staff), lack of additional income, unintended species impacts (crop raiding increase, exposure to new risks) and lack of cooperation among sectors/stakeholders. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops No Beneficiary Survey or Stakeholder Workshops were held by the SOS Secretariat. However, during a 2014 SOS Partnership Evaluation, surveys of SOS grantees and direct interviews of people involved with Partnership governance and management were conducted. A short survey was sent via email to 70 SOS grants recipients, 47 (64%) responded. In addition to this, personal telephone interviews were carried out with 12 interviewees who were involved with or had good knowledge of the SOS initiative. The key informants included members of the Donor Council, Technical Advisory Group, SOS Secretariat and senior IUCN and Species Survival Commission staff. Some of the findings of this evaluation included the following:  The SOS experience differed from other grant-making mechanism in two ways o Reporting was too bureaucratic and onerous o Impacts (e.g. for species status) were too difficult to report  Indications that achieving outcomes within the Conservation Action categories of ‘Law and Policy’ and ‘Livelihood and Economics’ would be challenging.  The most cited project-specific lessons learned were good communications, education and outreach, involvement and understanding the role within stakeholders, and maintaining project flexibility (new ways of working and new information).  The Secretariat was capable but capacity was too low to effectively manage the portfolio size, the bureaucratic and manual procedures and processes and the pressure of finding additional funds.  The model seeking funding primarily from private sector was flawed (notwithstanding the global economic downturn). Some of the recommendations of the evaluation were:  The main SOS donors should continue their support.  Support longer-term programs to increase impact of SOS.  Increase the SOS governance and management capacity. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome The risk to development outcomes is rated as moderate, consistent with the risk identified at entry and in keeping with the ratings issued throughout the period of supervision. Although impacts generated through species and habitat conservation initiatives are long-term in nature and thus, not fully evident within a limited implementation time frame, specific risks to the development outcome were managed satisfactorily. Other identified risks such as mismanagement of funds by grant recipients and instability in some regions 18 had the potential to seriously impact SOS reputation and delivery mechanism. The tight management and scrutiny of the grants and the geographical spread allowed for the mitigation of these risks. The continuation into a second phase of the SOS initiative has meant that the work underway will allow for sustainability of project funding. It is anticipated that IUCN’s experience and knowledge will continue to increase and to guide SOS. However funding has remained the main issue for the future. To mitigate the risks of termination of SOS, the funding base has been diversified. The private sector was the primary focus during the first phase but it quickly became evident that this was not a sustainable option, coupled with the fact that this coincided with the beginning of the financial crisis. The strategy in order to achieve sustainability of the efforts undertaken so far by the SOS initiative was to allow for a stronger focus on raising funds from bilateral donors, private foundations and individuals rather than of soliciting private sector funding. However, the risks to threatened species and habitats and the drivers contributing to the decline of species and habitats across the globe still remain. A substantial number of projects funded by the SOS project do not fully address other drivers (climate change, commodity pricing) of loss of species and habitats. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Unsatisfactory. The Bank’s performance in ensuring quality of entry was unsatisfactory and can be attributed to a number of reasons. Although the project had borrowed heavily from the CEPF experience and operational framework, the IUCN nevertheless had little experience managing this kind of initiative, therefore the start of the project was slow. The limited capacity of the IUCN could have been better assessed and anticipated. The setup of the Donor Council was confusing with regards to the Bank’s role versus the role of the donors. The design of the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation was poor and the link between some of the indicators and the project outcome weak. In several instances, the design of the indicators was imprecise and not well constructed, further impeding the ability to monitor progress towards achieving outcomes. There was a mismatch between funding for Secretariat functioning and adequate staff resources and the targeted growth in activities of the project. Inadequate financial management or safeguard training at the onset of the project resulted in disbursement lags and unclear questions on safeguards during the first calls for proposals stage respectively. Despite an endorsement from the GEF, there was no Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Tool (METT) in place. A better and closer process of scrutiny and a more involved approach by the Bank during the formative phase of the project may have allowed for better progression of the project. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Unsatisfactory The Bank carried out very few field supervision missions. This resulted in inadequate oversight on various issues related to financial management, raising of private sector funds and slow recognition of the lack of adequate staff resources for increased levels of work being undertaken for the subsequent phases of calls for proposals. Supervision was required to ensure that grantees were correctly identifying safeguard risks and working appropriately with Indigenous Peoples (IP) and communities. 19 A closer review of the results of the first proposal process, in conjunction with a review of the interim and final reports would have greatly helped in a recalibration of some of the functioning of the Secretariat. A necessary restructuring did happen but later than what would have been desirable. In fact, even during the first restructuring (to a Key Indicator), there was no move to improve the indicator design or address the quality of the Results Framework. The Mid-Review also did not address the lack of the GEF Biodiversity METT required at the endorsement stage of the project or at the MTR stage. The IUCN had other donor funds involvement in the project and had to comply with their closing date requirements. Hence, World Bank grant activity commitments (disbursement lag of 13 months) could not be achieved. There were frequent changes of staff for financial management, coupled with the fact that location of the financial management unit was different from project management, further affecting the communication and involvement of the financial management staff and the utilization of the grant on a timely basis. This further exhibits the World Bank’s weakness in the supervision process and not being judicious in identifying the operational issues and taking timely action to address evolving issues. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Unsatisfactory. The lack of clear guidance on policies and procedures from the Bank at the entry phase of the project coupled by inadequate supervision and oversight of the functioning of the project emphasizes the unsatisfactory nature of the Bank’s overall performance. The Bank team did not provide adequate implementation support and follow-up, in particular technical assistance. Furthermore, the Bank could have taken the opportunities proactively address M&E deficiencies, bottlenecks in slow disbursement, and project staffing at the MTR. 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Unsatisfactory. The IUCN as a grant recipient (and the SOS as grant implementer) was not fully conversant with World Bank policies and procedures, which led to slow implementation of project activities. Grantee final reports were not reviewed and uploaded to the monitoring system, causing delays in release of final payments and a disbursement lag, attributed mainly to staff shortages to review and provide comments and follow-up on grantee reports. Even though the SOS Secretariat was the implementing agency, the staff shortage and additional mandate of the IUCN for other responsibilities delayed World Bank grant activities and deliverables. The project saw very little ownership from the IUCN, exhibiting a certain lack of commitment to the SOS Secretariat, particularly with regards to counterpart funding. Lack of prioritization of donor requests was a constant challenge during the life of the project. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory. The SOS team has worked diligently in developing a funding architecture that is robust (though not from private sources) and successful at soliciting and reviewing proposals, awarding grants, providing supervision support to and working with grantees and collating technical and financial reporting. It has been successful in achieving a pathway to replenishment following the end of the project. 20 However, issues such as the need to extend the closing date of the project, the failure of the Secretariat to provide timely responses to WBG requests (often incomplete FM responses and lack of response on request for updated values for all indicators) and a lack prioritization of responsiveness to donors was a continuing feature for duration of the life of the project. This is compounded by the fact that there were major shortcomings related to the Results Framework, including inadequate M&E and absence of data for sub- projects. Furthermore, the SOS Secretariat has been unable to provide the World Bank with any collation of lessons learned or of impact/ results of funded activities, despite the Secretariat having agreed to provide such a report by December 31, 2016. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Unsatisfactory5. Overall Borrower performance is rated unsatisfactory due to the unsatisfactory performance of the IUCN as the recipient and the moderately unsatisfactory performance of the SOS secretariat as the implementing agency. 6. Lessons Learned Adequate governance and management capacity are twin pre-requisites for a competitive grants program - The governance and management capacity of the Secretariat has to be commensurate with the dimension of the project portfolio administered, including the fundraising and communication efforts. The SOS Secretariat original set-up included four positions (of which one was part-time). During the course of the project implementation it was found out that this set up was insufficient to guarantee the performance of all tasks. The structure of the Secretariat needs to be revised and updated depending on the need and potential for the scaling-up of the SOS Partnership (including increased need to respond to new donors’ requests and Partnership management capacity). Showcasing experience and achievements will likely bring new opportunities - The SOS Secretariat needs to build on the fund raising experiences gained during the implementation of this first phase of SOS and recalibrate expectations. While the targeting of the private sector generated limited returns on investment/efforts, other sectors demonstrated their readiness to fund the Initiative (i.e. foundations and government agencies/public sector). SOS was able to distill a series of lessons learned from its fundraising experiences and should now be able to capitalize on its positive achievements and working with a new and improved marketing strategy for the period 2016-2020. An example of this change in strategy was that IUCN developed some targeted initiatives building on the experience of the Tiger Program. A SOS Lemur initiative was created which quickly generated interest. Some new donors joined and a larger one is helping now to transition to a second larger phase. There is a fine line between complex reporting requirements and reducing bureaucracy by simplifying procedures and processes – Project reporting and related monitoring became a huge burden on the daily operations of the Secretariat once the third call for proposals was launched in 2013 (so much that no additional call for proposals could have been launched even if funding had been available). A 5 In line with ICR guidelines, the ratings for government performance and implementing agency or agencies’ performance are combined into a rating of overall Borrower Performance. When the rating for one dimension is in the satisfactory range while the rating for the other dimension is in the unsatisfactory range, the rating of overall Borrower Performance normally depends on the Outcome rating. 21 balance needs to be struck between taking unnecessary risks and conducting in depth risk assessments for operations, and the level of detail of the guidelines and procedures applied by SOS should also be commensurate with the human resources available by the Secretariat. A series of projects implementing grants over a longer time period is a better strategy than larger grants for short-term periods for achieving enhanced conservation outcomes -The challenge of conservation organizations is to secure funding for longer period of time than the normal funding cycles of most donors. Often amounts provided over a long period of time is the most likely way to achieve concrete conservation outcomes. It should be noted that a large portion of the projects required a no cost extension. The SOS Secretariat could consider supporting longer-term projects to increase the potential impact of its investments. These could be both long term (3 years or longer rather than 1 or 2 year projects) and concentrated more on capacity building (e.g. for small organizations or for organizations in non-English speaking regions). The value of creating stronger stakeholder relations within projects and encourage their development was already reflected in the original project design (see PAD) but could not be fully explored given the large number of relatively short grants administered by a small Secretariat. Support to local NGOs and capacity building of less experienced smaller NGOs must be an essential element of any small and medium grants program - A global grant making mechanism such as SOS, that has high expectations from donors (and prospective donors) to deliver results and award funds in the most cost effective way faces unique challenges to ensure that money is targeted at the most effective national civil society organizations. Large international NGOs that have country offices staffed by national and international staff (and liaising with their international headquarters) have been very competitive in securing grants from SOS during the first few call for proposals. However many smaller, more local, home- grown NGOs may be equally (or even more) effective in project implementation but may not have similar capacity in proposal development and may find it challenging to access SOS funding. It is critical that programs that rely on self-reporting of results such as the SOS Program build a strong foundation of mutual trust - Remote supervision remains challenging because of the reliance on a grantee’s self- reporting and willingness to disclose difficulties encountered or failure to identify risks. The SOS Secretariat reports that a majority of grantees would not hesitate to ask for advice and report difficulties once they understood they would not be penalized. The SOS Secretariat made concerted efforts at promoting a culture of transparency, allowing grantees to report failures as long as lessons learned were described. Small NGOs were more flexible and receptive to feedback and collaboration opportunities suggested by the SOS Secretariat than large NGOs. Training in financial, fiduciary, safeguard and reporting requirements are necessary elements of any project and may preempt non-compliance in similar Bank funded global grant making mechanism initiatives - Delays in reporting and release of final payments, disbursement lags in the earlier stages of the project and proper safeguard compliance reporting mechanism in project proposals submissions exhibited a lack of proper understanding by both the IUCN and the SOS Secretariat of Bank policies and procedures. Link between livelihoods and sustainable conservation measures are crucial - Conservation efforts to save threatened species and their habitats cannot be undertaken in isolation. A significant number of people live in and around threatened habitats and depend on these habitats both for survival and livelihoods. Therefore it is crucial that future projects funding threatened species and habitats consider enhanced livelihood components within their frameworks. It would be useful to reflect how the World Bank should engage in small and medium grants mechanism projects - The World Bank usually integrates small grants mechanisms as a component in projects that seek to address policy and regulatory challenges or while implementing large scale investments. These small grants are embedded in a larger framework and have a clear niche to fulfil. 22 Projects like the SOS with a global scope providing small grants to NGOs and local community groups tend to achieve in the end only very localized conservation outcomes which often can’t be sustained because the enabling environment is not conducive to either achieving or sustaining impact. In addition, a small grants mechanism, if not well designed, implemented and supervised, can pose a risk in terms of governance and transparency. In that context, stand-alone small grants mechanisms such as the SOS may not the Bank’ comparative advantage. In addition to this, in the past, the Bank has often been seen as a simple pass through financing mechanism. However, the World Bank needs to fully comply with its fiduciary responsibility and legal obligations vis-à-vis donors that entrust money to the World Bank for an intended purpose, resulting invariably in the incurring of very high project supervision costs. 23 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies (b) Co-financiers (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 24 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Components Actual (US$) Estimate (US$)* 1 Threatened Species grant program 1a Targeted Conservation Actions for Priority Threatened Species 15,364,000 9,081,000 1b Rapid Action Plans 750,000 320,000 2 Action Strategies and Monitoring 620,000 28,000 2a Species Action Plans 1,400,000 0 2b Monitoring & Red List Update 3 Funding and Communication 3a Fundraising 715,000 692,000 3b Communications 1,419,000 552,000 4 Secretariat Costs 3,461,000 2,303,000 Total 23,729,000 12,976,000 * Includes sources of funding from the GEF, DGF and Others (plus expected US$10 million from the private sector). (b) Financing Appraisal Type of Estimate Actual/ Percentage Sources of Funds Co-financing (US$ millions) (US$ millions) of Appraisal IUCN* In-kind 2.34 0.00 Global Environment Facility (GEF) Grant 4.90 4.90 DGF Grant 5.00 3.90 FFEM Grant 1.5 1.5 Private Sector (to be raised) 10.00 2.97 23.74 13.08** * The Borrower (IUCN) provided in-kind support, which consisted of supporting workshops and contributions associated with the SSC Specialist Groups. The SSC also contributed to SOS through review of SOS priorities, proposals, and assistance with project monitoring. ** The difference between the Project Cost by Component actuals and the Financing actuals can be attributed to the SOS retaining some of its funding from non-World/GEF funds. All DGF and GEF funds have been fully utilized. 25 Annex 2. Outputs by Component The table below lists all the Outputs by Component of the project Component 1: Threatened Species Grants Program Outcome 1: Stabilize and improve the status of multiple threatened species Project Outcome Indicators Year 5 Target Progress of status towards Targets At least 20 projects that 60 91 Threatened Species Grants have been demonstrate conservation supported to date: progress for threatened  4 selected with the no-objection of the SOS species or populations and Donor Council in 2010 (“pilot projects”); their habitats as measured by  23 supported under the 1st SOS Call for a species specific tracking proposals in 2011; tool developed by IUCN and  25 supported under the 2nd SOS Call for described in the operational proposals in 2012. manual.  26 supported under the 3rd SOS Call for proposals in 2013.  2 additional ones supported at the request of “corporate” donors in 2015  11 supported under the 4th SOS Call for proposals in 2015 – “SOS Lemurs” Out of the 78 projects that were completed by the end of March 2016, at least 60 demonstrate conservation progress for the threatened species populations and their habitats. A more detailed analysis is underway that may well increase this number. At least 40 small grants that 40 17 Rapid Action Grants have been supported by catalyze early action on the the end of March 2016 to catalyze early action for conservation of threatened the conservation of threatened species. species or populations and their habitats as measured by a species specific tracking tool developed by IUCN and described in the operational manual. Component 2: Species Action Strategies & Monitoring Outcome 2: Improving our knowledge of species status and our ability to take effective action Project Outcome Indicators Year 5 Target Progress of status towards Targets Development of new profiles 3 Following a decision taken at the fourth meeting of for 3 priority species groups the SOS Donor Council (in April 2014) and made to guide investments official through the mid-term review of SOS, the 26 initiative would no longer be developing species profiles. A profile for species in West and Central Africa, was developed nonetheless. Its preparation however was not supported by SOS funds as originally intended. Red List updated for targeted 100% Information from each of the sub-grants provided to species. date is being used to update the Red List status of the targeted species; the most recent update took place in September 2016. Two of the species supported through SOS had a change in their conservation status during the project duration: The Markhor changed from Endangered to Near Threatened; The monk seal from Critically Endangered to Endangered. Status of and project impact 100% Sub-grant reports reflect progress and project impact on SOS target species on targeted species, which are collated and reported effectively monitored through the grantees’ semi-annual reports. Final reports were submitted by all completed SOS grants and data on impact on target species has been extracted from the reports, collated and stored in an SOS portfolio monitoring database. The analysis of this database was expected to provide valuable lessons for the conservation community by the end of 2016. No report or analysis has been shared by the time of the submission of this report. Component 3: Fundraising & Communications Outcome 3: Secure significant resources for species conservation from the private sector using financing mechanisms and awareness campaigns Project Outcome Indicators Year 5 Target Progress of status towards Targets At least 10 new private sector 10 The SOS marketing and fundraising effort secured contributors subject to 10 partnerships over the period covered by this IUCN’s Operational report. These are sourced from both private and Guidelines for Private Sector public sectors and several of them continue to this Engagement (Version 2.0) day (some as key components of the SOS marketing effective as of February 2009 strategy). In addition to these 10 contributors, SOS fundraising efforts secured also two partnerships that helped 27 catalyze SOS communications and outreach activities (if not directly contributing funds to the initiative). The full list of partnerships secured includes: From the private sector:  Nokia  Disney Nature, France (for a one time donation marking launch of the Disney film “Bears”).  the French company Coqenpate (donating a proportion of their income through the sales of their products – with a minimum agreed figure over 5 years). From the public sector:  Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM);  KfW for the support of the Integrated Tiger Habitat Conservation Programme (secured thanks to SOS but implemented as a parallel initiative and not under the SOS banner at the request of the donor). Foundations:  Fondation Segré (for a total of 6 different contracts over 5 years);  Fondation Credit Agricole Suisse (now Fondation Indo-Suez);  Fondation Iris; Others:  The Mohammed Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (for the support of the SOS Lemur initiative); and  A bequest from a former colleague (specifically earmarked for the conservation of rhinos). Additional partnerships:  Terre Sauvage Magazine – a leading nature magazine in France with a reach of 40,000 people monthly. Helping SOS enhance its visibility via collaborative communications activities; and  Freedom Conservation – An initiative enhancing SOS visibility via collaborative communications activities and having reached 500 million viewers worldwide through some of the joined activities. Effective communication and 100% The SOS marketing and communications strategy marketing program has evolved over time and with experience and has implemented delivered in terms of partnerships, greater awareness about SOS and engagement in the SOS cause. In keeping with the SOS marketing strategy using internal IT systems to record activities and manage assets, contact histories are recorded in the IUCN 28 Contact Relationship Management (CRM) tool to facilitate coordinated follow-up activities. Meanwhile, the message in the SOS communications component has remained consistently focused on profiling the initiative’s benefits to donors, reporting on individual project technical progress to the conservation community and promoting SOS as a universal and inspiring cause to the general public. This has been implemented through aforementioned partnerships as well as collaboration with founding partners (IUCN, GEF and World Bank) and through a toolkit of communications tools created and/or enhanced over the reporting period including digital tools (website, social media and video) as well as event and print materials. The SOS website has been improved and updated over 3 stages during the reporting period to include new dynamic features such as an interactive map, a donate button and enhanced project profile pages. To date SOS has published more than 300 original pieces of project related news, 14 newsletters, 2 printed activity reports and produced 16 short videos. These videos promote the initiative to both donor and general public audiences, some of which were produced in two language versions (English and French). Additionally SOS appeals to the general public (cumulative individual donations over the project so far have raised US$ 45,000). These tools are all branded cohesively and coherently helping position SOS as a valuable and effective conservation tool which is open to support from all sectors of civil society. Visitors to Web site and +75% Website visits have grown from an average of 65 per newsletter subscribers day in the first year it was launched (2010-2011) to increase by at least 70% over approximately 330 per day in the final year of the 5 year period reporting period (2016). Tracking and analysis of web traffic indicates there is seasonal fluctuation as well as peak periods of activity related to important news announcements such as periodic calls for proposals issued to the conservation community. In addition SOS has published 14 newsletters to a readership list of 11,000 subscribers currently. The list has grown organically from zero to 11,000 since the first newsletter was published in 2013. There is 29 scope to grow the subscriber list further at scale with time and manpower. To complement these activities and go beyond the target of 75% annual growth in website traffic and newsletter subscriptions, SOS launched a Facebook page and Twitter account to build a social media community - a fast and scalable way to reach a wider audience given the way media and news are consumed in the Internet age. Both launched in 2013, the SOS Facebook and Twitter communities had grown to 37,650 and 3,620 respectively by the end of the June 2016. SOS services both communities with daily posts and content primarily related to news on the SOS website. This content is also shared periodically by SOS partners on their respective platforms which considerably amplifies reach and engagement in the SOS message. In addition the reposting of news on the IUCN’s two main Facebook accounts engage a community of approximately 292,000 while its two main Twitter accounts reach a community of almost 129,000 followers. Component 4: Project management, monitoring and evaluation Outcome 4: Program managed effectively and transparently Project Outcome Indicators Year 3 Target Progress of status towards Targets SOS strategies and annual Donor Council Annual action and investment plans (budgets) were action and investment plans approval prepared by the SOS Secretariat and approved developed, approved, and annually by the SOS Donor Council. guide grant-making These guides grant making through the four call for proposals issued over the project duration. Overall program, including all 100% The SOS program is in compliance with its activities and financial Operational Manual (Version June 2014). This was management, effectively monitored over various financial management monitored and in compliance missions and the mid-term review carried out by the with SOS Operational Manual World Bank. Program-wide replication Target SOS has implemented a program-wide replication strategy developed and audiences strategy based on the dissemination of project results implemented to disseminate informed through its website and the dissemination of best best practice for species practices for species conservation to specific conservation projects. Given the lack of sufficient funding to organize regional/thematic workshops to discuss and disseminate best practices and the diversity and 30 distribution of species supported through SOS grants, the SOS Secretariat took the responsibility of sharing information directly with relevant grantees and IUCN Specialist Groups. 100% of final project reports 100% The final reports for each of the completed sub- compiled by grant recipients grants were uploaded on the SOS website as soon as available online the reports are validated by the SOS Secretariat. At present, due to the upgrade of the SOS website that took place over the summer of 2016, final reports need to be re-uploaded on the new website. This process will be completed as soon as some of the website functions are restored (by end of November 2016). 5 annual reports and 10 Biannual reports have been submitted to the World biannual reports produced Bank and other donors within the agreed deadlines. 31 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis An Incremental Cost Analysis was carried out for the SOS Project and is outlined in Annex 9 of the PAD. The background to the analysis makes a strong case for the vital role that biodiversity and the large range of species, as key units of that biodiversity, play in the survival of our planet. It argues that species can recover with concerted conservation efforts. In 2008, the IUCN recorded improvement in status for 40 species including 37 mammals and an estimated 16 bird species avoided extinction over the last 15 years due to conservation programs. However, much more work has to be undertaken, with a considerable amount of funding needed to mitigate the extinction crisis. As stated in the PAD, “funding at an order of magnitude greater than what is currently available is required to slow the hemorrhaging of the Earth’s species.” With some exceptions, much of the extant biodiversity funding will continue to be focused on government-led initiatives and a few key protected areas. A key rationale for this project is to address that funding gap, and complement current conservation efforts, by leveraging additional funding through the private sector. The PAD estimated that the projected incremental SOS cost at the low end, to be in the range of US$20-25 million, constituting a significant increase in species conservation funding and a focus on medium-sized grants for the broadest range of threatened species across the globe. The GEF Alternative is projected to provide, a significant increase in available funding for threatened species conservation efforts. The table for the Baseline Scenario, GEF Alternative and Incremental Cost is given below. Baseline Scenario, GEF Alternative and Incremental Cost Distribution Component Cost Category US$ Threatened Species Program Baseline - GEF Alternative Baseline + US$ 16.1 million Incremental US$ 16.1 million Species Action Plans Baseline - GEF Alternative Baseline + US$ 2 million Incremental US$ 2 million Funding and Baseline - Communications GEF Alternative Baseline + US$ 2.1 million Incremental US$ 2.1 million Program Management Baseline - GEF Alternative Baseline + US$ 3.4 million Incremental US$ 3.4 million Although the Incremental Cost Analysis section adequately justifies the basis for GEF and World Bank involvement, the analysis does not provide a cost based rationale for the figures provided in the Alternative scenario. Nor does the analysis provide any dollar values of what the baseline could have looked like, taking into account efforts or estimates that the GEF, World Bank or other conservation related grant management organizations have invested by the time of the start of the SOS initiative. At best the figures given in the table above reflect the appraised cost estimates that would be needed to run the SOS Program. A lack of a methodology hampers any comparison to the final results with respect to the cost efficiency derived from the invested funds by the World Bank and the GEF. 32 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Preparation Kathleen S. Mackinnon Lead Biodiversity Specialist EASER Claudia Sobrevila Senior Environmental Specialist GEN01 Valerie Hickey Practice Manager GEN03 Thao Le Nguyen Senior Finance Officer CTRLN Nurul Alam Senior Procurement Specialist ECS02 Senior Financial Management Behdad M. H. Nowroozi GENDR Specialist Charles di Leva Chief Counsel LEGVP Alberto Ninio Deputy General Counsel LEGVP Mohammad Nadeem Paralegal Regional Environmental and Agi Kiss Safeguards Advisor Svend Jensby Senior Social Development Specialist OPSPF Andrea Stumpf Lead Counsel LEGVP Kathleen Mikitin Consultant Yuan Tao Special Assistant to Managing Director MCCAO Varun Singh Senior Social Development Specialist GSU06 Susan Sen Practice Manager GSU02 Nina Irving Senior Program Assistant GEN2A Karen Azeez Junior Professional Associate SDNCM Elisabeth Mealey Senior Communications Officer ECRSD Douglas Graham Senior Environmental Specialist GEN07 Senior Financial Management Novira Asra GGO20 Specialist Iraj Talai Consultant HDNHE Tony Whitten Consultant EASCS Juliette Makandi Program Assistant GEN06 Lars Lund Consultant GSURR Supervision/ICR Andrea Kutter Senior Operations Officer GENDR TTL Senior Financial Management Team Madhavan Balachandran GGO20 Specialist Member/Finance Team Ruth Tiffer-Sotomayor Senior Environmental Specialist GEN04 Member/Safeguards Team Sachin Shahria Consultant GENGE Member/Biodiversity /ICR Author 33 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle US$ (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Preparation 2009 8 40642.81 2010 19 40112.41 2011 17 27467.79 Total 44 108223.01 Supervision/ICR 2012 13 14689.11 2013 12 27287.21 2014 2 30277.54 2015 0 14999.76 Total 27 87253.62 Grand Total 71 195476.63 34 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results No beneficiary survey was carried during the duration of this project. However, during a 2014 SOS Partnership Evaluation, surveys of SOS grantees and direct interviews of people involved with Partnership governance and management were conducted and a summary is provided in Section 3.6. 35 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results No stakeholder workshop was carried out in the framework of this project. 36 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The SOS Secretariat sent the Recipient’s ICR to the World Bank in mid-November, 2016. Inputs were used from the Recipient’s ICR in drafting the World Bank’s ICR. The World Bank shared its’ draft ICR in early December 2016 with the Secretariat for fact checking and responses (at the same time as the ICR was sent for internal review). The following are the main points as outlined in the Recipient’s ICR (see filed copy of the Recipient’s ICR in WBDocs):  The ICR states that the SOS has established itself as credible, technically robust, secure, and effective program.  The premise by which large amounts of funding could be tapped from the private sector, and more specifically from the marketing budgets of corporate donors, proved to be unrealistic and in order to guarantee its financial sustainability SOS had to change its fundraising strategy and target foundations, multilateral and government agencies. This revised approach proved to be significantly more successful than the original one.  To date the SOS initiative provided support to 250 threatened species through a total of 108 grants. While this number exceeds the original project objective, it should be put into perspective by comparing it to the scale of the extinction crisis as documented by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  The analysis of the SOS portfolio to date shows that the initiative exceeded its objective of “improving the protection and/or management of at least 60 threatened species or populations and their habitats.”  Notwithstanding some of the difficulties encountered by the SOS Secretariat in implementing the project as designed, all outcomes have been met or exceeded by the end of the GEF funded operation.  In terms of its rating on the World Bank, the ICR states that the World Bank was not only the Implementing Agency but was also a donor to SOS. Unfortunately after publically committing US$5 million through DGF, the World Bank decided to reduce its contribution to US$2.9 million initially and then to US$3.9 million after some discussion took place. This created a significant problem for the SOS Secretariat.  With regards to the quality of supervision, the World Bank was always very helpful in helping IUCN to solve management problems. However the degree of technical support drastically declined during the second phase of the project. It became more and more difficult to get hold of the Team Task Leader. On the fiduciary and financial side, the quality and responsiveness of supervision improved from 2014 onwards. As a justification for the reduced support IUCN was told that the TTL had extra responsibilities and therefore less time to dedicate to the project.  In its response to the World Bank’s draft ICR and the “Moderately Unsatisfactory” rating given to the Overall Borrower Performance, the SOS Secretariat founded it “unclear how this rating is the product of the previous two: Moderately Unsatisfactory + Moderately Satisfactory = Moderately Unsatisfactory?”  The Bank draft ICR stated “often incomplete FM responses and lack of response on request for updated values for all indicators” (from the Secretariat). The SOS Secretariat was not sure what these incidents were and as to when these took place. 37  The Bank draft ICR stated that “the biodiversity conservation activities aspect of some of the SOS funded projects call attention to the duplication of efforts by similar programs such as the CEPF and the Mohamed bin Zayed Conservation Fund.” The SOS Secretariat commented that this was not correct as proposals reviews and sharing of information with these other grant making initiatives have always made sure that no duplication took place with projects funded by CEPF and Mohamed bin Zayed Fund, but rather that grants were complementary or additional.  The Bank draft ICR stated that “at times the IUCN competed for funding with the SOS project.” The SOS Secretariat found it unclear as to how the IUCN competed for funding with the SOS Project and would like to see this sentence removed. 38 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Not applicable 39 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents i. WB-IUCN Grant Agreements ii. Project Appraisal Document iii. SOS Operational Manual iv. Aide Memoires from World Bank missions v. Implementation Status and Results Report from World Bank missions vi. Word Bank Mid-Term Review Report vii. Restructuring Paper, 2015 viii. SOS Partnership Evaluation – Final Report – August 2014 ix. List of grants funded between 2010 and 2016 x. SOS - Five Years of Conservation Action Report (2016) xi. SOS – Save Our Species: The IUCN Species Conservation Program. Towards a New Business Model – June 2015 xii. Borrower’s Implementation Completion and Results Report xiii. SOS website 40 Annex 10. Comparison of Risk and Mitigation Measures at Appraisal and Completion Stage Nature of Risks Mitigation PAD Rating Assessment of actual risk Measures in PAD (before / after impact on project mitigating measures) Lower than expected SOS initial donors S --> M Initial donors did not fundraising from the will fundraise. participate actively in private sector. Communication and fundraising efforts and the fundraising campaigns SOS Secretariat recruited have been planned. additional support to increase its fundraising efforts. Fundraising from private sector was lower than expected and the sector proved not to be responsive to the cause notwithstanding communication and fundraising campaigns. Reduced private The link to company M --> M Private sector companies sector interest due to marketing budgets is contacted during fundraising financial crisis. expected to leverage efforts often disengaged by private sector explaining the financial resources. crisis had affected them too negatively for them to support the initiative. Attempts to engage with companies marketing and communications units (and therefore with marketing budgets) were redirected to companies’ CSR units. Targeting private Target species will be M --> N Species targeted by each donors may divert selected together with SOS call for proposals were funding from existing conservation selected by a scientifically conservation stakeholders to avoid credible technical advisory programs. competition for group usually only after resources. additional funding was secured. While in some cases SOS approached private sector companies that were already funding conservation initiatives, the requirement was always for additional funding and not to divert funding from other initiatives or organizations to SOS. 41 Inappropriate use of IUCN secretariat will S --> M This risk proved to be real grant funds due to conduct ex-post for a number of weak capacity and review of selected organizations supported by inexperience of local grants using risk- SOS. Significant time was organizations. based approach. invested by the SOS Training on the OM Secretariat in providing will be provided. capacity building on financial and technical reporting. All financial reports were reviewed in detail and when risk assessments conducted highlighted a high risk, independent audits were requested. In some cases expenditure was disallowed ex-post by the SOS Secretariat and detracted from the final payment of the grant. Activities outside the Grant selection M --> N Programmatic risk project’s control criteria reduce risky assessments were carried out could undermine projects. Risky for all selected applications project gains. projects assessed prior to grant signature. In annually for two cases projects had to be reallocation processes. cancelled due to activities outside the projects’ control and funds were reallocated to other grants. Regional or political Activities supported S --> M Through the financial and instability may offset through organizations programmatic risk conservation gains with demonstrated assessments, SOS ensured delivery capacity. that organizations selected for funding had the capacity to implement project activities even in areas at risk of regional or political instability. This proved the case for most projects but for a two or three for which change of government support for activities or regional instability offset or thwarted conservation activities planned. Risk rating: H (High risk), S (Substantial risk), M (Moderate risk), N (Negligible risk). 42 MAP WITH THE SOS GRANTS LOCATIONS http://saveourspecies.org/interactive-map 43