Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00002887 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (P094476, P122502-ADDITIONAL FINANCING, TF-56030) FOR A MULTI-DONOR TRUST FUND GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$52.8 MILLION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECT January 17, 2014 Social Protection Sector Sudan Country Department-AFCE4 Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective September 1, 2013) Currency Unit = Sudanese Pound (SDG) SDG1.00 = US$0.182 US$1.00 = SDG5.5 FISCAL YEAR January 1-December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAP Community Action Plan CBO Community-Based Organization CC Community Contracting CDD Community Driven Development CDF Community Development Fund CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement EGM Environmental Guidelines Manual EMP Environmental Management Plan FTPs Fast Track Projects GOS Government of Sudan GONU Government of National Unity IDP Internally Displaced Person LA Letter of Agreement LIU Locality Implementation Unit LSC Locality Steering Committee M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MDTFN Multi Donor Trust Fund-National MOFNE Ministry of Finance and National Economy MOU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-Governmental Organization O&M Operations & Maintenance OM Operational Manual PIU Project Implementation Unit SDG Sudanese Geneih SC Steering Committee SM Social Mobilizer SPLM/A Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WB World Bank ii Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Bella Deborah Mary Bird Sector Manager: Lynne Sherburne-Benz Project Team Leader: Endashaw Tadesse ICR Team Leader: Endashaw Tadesse iii SUDAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECT CONTENTS Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................ i A. Basic Information....................................................................................................................... v B. Key Dates ................................................................................................................................... v C. Ratings Summary ....................................................................................................................... v C.1 Performance Rating by ICR ..................................................................................... v C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) ............................ v C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators ............................... vi D. Sector and Theme Codes........................................................................................................... vi E. Bank Staff .................................................................................................................................. vi F. Results Framework Analysis ..................................................................................................... vi G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ................................................................................ xvii H. Restructuring (if any) ............................................................................................................. xvii I. Disbursement Profile ............................................................................................................... xix 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................................... 1 1.1 Context at Appraisal ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators ............................. 2 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification ............................................ 2 1.4 Main Beneficiaries, ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Original Components ........................................................................................................ 4 1.6 Revised Components ........................................................................................................ 5 1.7 Other significant changes.................................................................................................. 5 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................................. 6 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry ............................................................. 6 2.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Risks.................................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 Seven Innovations in Design and Implementation ......................................................... 12 2.5 Output Quality and Remedial Actions ............................................................................ 13 2.6 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization ................ 13 3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation ................................................... 16 iv 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives .......................................................... 17 3.3 Efficiency ........................................................................................................................ 23 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating ........................................................................ 24 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts ...................................................... 25 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops ............... 27 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................................... 27 4.1 Factors lowering risk....................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Factors increasing risk .................................................................................................... 28 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................................... 29 5.1 Bank Performance ........................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Borrower Performance .................................................................................................... 30 6. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................ 31 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors............................... 33 7.1 Grantee/Implementing agencies..................................................................................... 33 7.2 Cofinanciers/Donors ....................................................................................................... 33 7.3 Other partners and stakeholders ...................................................................................... 33 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................................... 34 Annex 2. Outputs by Component.................................................................................................. 35 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................................. 36 Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ....................... 37 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results/Summary of Site Visits during ICR Mission in Kassala State............................................................................................................................................... 38 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................................... 40 Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ........................................ 41 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................................... 56 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................................... 57 MAP .............................................................................................................................................. 58 List of Tables Table 1: PDO and PDO Indicators from the Grant Agreement-2006, FPP Slice II-2007 and as Revised in the Additional Financing Proposal of 2010 .................................................................. 3 Table 2: Financing for CDF Project (millions of US$) ................................................................. 5 Table 3 Timeline for the Community Development Fund Project ................................................ 6 Table 4: Implementation Record with Respect to Risks ................................................................ 9 Table 5: Investment per Project Beneficiary ............................................................................... 18 Table 6: Achievement of PDO indicators before change of indicator & at end of project period…………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………...22 Table 7: Achievement of PDO: Rating Summary ...................................................................... 24 v A. Basic Information Community Development Country: Sudan Project Name: Fund Project ID: P094476 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-56030 ICR Date: 01/15/2014 ICR Type: Core ICR GOVERNMENT OF Lending Instrument: ERL Grantee: NATIONAL UNITY Original Total USD 52.80M Disbursed Amount: USD 52.29M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 52.29M Environmental Category: C Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Finance and National Economy (MFNE) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 10/31/2005 Effectiveness: 04/26/2006 01/14/2008 03/15/2009 03/05/2010 Appraisal: 11/14/2005 Restructuring(s): 10/26/2010 06/26/2011 06/12/2012 Approval: 12/10/2005 Mid-term Review: 11/11/2007 Closing: 06/30/2011 06/30/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Substantial Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Grantee Performance: Moderately Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Moderately Satisfactory vi Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry Yes None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any time Quality of Supervision No None (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) General education sector 100 60 Health 25 Other Renewable Energy 12 Water supply 3 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction 100 100 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Bella Deborah Mary Bird Ishac Diwan Sector Manager: Lynne D. Sherburne-Benz Laura Frigenti Project Team Leader: Endashaw Tadesse Gossa Bassam Ramadan ICR Team Leader: Endashaw Tadesse Gossa ICR Primary Author: Richard J. Carroll F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The original objective of the Project was: "To assist the Recipient in meeting urgent community- driven recovery and development needs by providing social and economic services and infrastructure to communities." vii Note: Because the CDF is a demand driven project there is no target set for indicators at the start of the project. The target depended on the demand from the community. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The revised PDO was: "To increase access to priority economic and social services and infrastructure in war-affected and underdeveloped areas of Northern Sudan, including the three areas." (a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Girls and boys under 15 years enrolled in targeted communities (number) Indicator 1 : (disaggregated by gender) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value Total 80,800 164,098 182,740 target set at the start quantitative or Male 64,640 96,744 103,791 of the project. The Qualitative) Female 16,160 67,354 78,949 target depends on the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Targets met and exceeded. Revised at the 10/2010 restructuring from "Percentage (incl. % increase of girls and boys under 15 years enrolled in targeted communities." achievement) Achievement is based on locality enrollment data aggregated by the PIU. Percentage reduction in drop-out rates in targeted communities for girls and boys under Indicator 2 : 15 years of age Value quantitative or Dropped Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, not monitorable. achievement) People with access to a basic package of health, nutrition, or population services Indicator 3 : (percent increase) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value target set at the start quantitative or 212,200 774,056 562,704 of the project. The Qualitative) target depends on the demand from the community. viii Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target not achieved. Indicator was revised at the 10/2010 restructuring from (incl. % "Percentage increase of population including women, men, girls and boys with access to achievement) improved health facilities." People in rural areas provided with access to "Improved Water Sources" under the Indicator 4 : Project (number) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value target set at the start quantitative or 220,123 553,863 602,632 of the project. The Qualitative) target depends on the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target achieved. Revised at the 10/2010 restructuring from "percentage increase of (incl. % population, including women, men, girls and boys with access to safe water sources." achievement) The revised indicator is a core indicator. Indicator 5 : Satisfaction with delivery of basic social services (%-disaggregated by gender) Value quantitative or 90% 90% Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Overall target achieved, but not disaggregated by gender. Revised from "percentage (incl. % increase in women, men, girls and boys expressing satisfaction with delivery of basic achievement) social services" for greater clarity, at the 10/2010 restructuring Indicator 6 : Direct project beneficiaries (number), of which female (percentage) Value 2,621,794 2,796,853 quantitative or 51 % female 51 % female Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target achieved, but based entirely on population estimates. Indicator was added at (incl. % 10/2010 restructuring and is a core indicator. achievement) (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 Indicator 1 : Additional classrooms built or rehabilitated (number) As the CDF is a demand driven Value project there is no (quantitative 0 2,736 3,021 target set at the start or Qualitative) of the project. The target depends on ix the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met and exceeded. Revised from "Number of approved projects completed and (incl. % operational," at the 10/2010 restructuring. achievement) Number and percentage increase of girls and boys under 15 completing each grade in Indicator 2 : targeted schools Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Beyond the scope of the CDF Project. achievement) Indicator 3 : Schools with teacher dormitories (number) Value (quantitative 220 267 or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % Target met. New indicator added at 10/2010 restructuring achievement) Indicator 4 : Number of girls and boys for a teacher and per classroom Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Beyond the scope of the CDF Project. achievement) Indicator 5 : Health facilities constructed, renovated, and/or equipped (number) Value (quantitative 105 187 or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % Target exceeded. Core indicator added at 10/2010 restructuring. achievement) Indicator 6 : Number and percentage increase of boys and girls under 5 years who are immunized. Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Beyond the scope of the CDF Project achievement) x Number of daily patients (disaggregated by gender and age) going to health centres to Indicator 7 : receive health Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped. Relevant data collected through the indicator on people with access to health (incl. % services. achievement) Indicator 8 : Health facilities with functioning cold chain equipment (number) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value target set at the start (quantitative 95 40 of the project. The or Qualitative) target depends on the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target not met. Revised from, "quality, quantity and type of equipment available and in (incl. % functioning condition at health centers at the 10/2010 restructuring. achievement) Indicator 9 : Quality, quantity, availability and type of medicines in health centers Value (quantitative Drooped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Beyond the scope of the CDF Project. achievement) Indicator 10 : Health personnel receiving training (number) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value target set at the start (quantitative 0 235 all female 273 all female of the project. The or Qualitative) target depends on the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target exceeded. Replaced by core indicator at the 10/2010 restructuring. Original (incl. % indicator was "Numbers of qualified medical staff (disaggregated by gender) per health achievement) center". Indicator 11 : Working hours per day and week for medical personnel at health centers Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 xi Comments Dropped. Beyond the scope of the CDF Project as Project was not responsible for (incl. % medical staff. achievement) Improved community water points constructed or rehabilitated under the project Indicator 12 : (number) As the CDF is a demand driven project there is no Value target set at the start (quantitative 0 178 183 of the project. The or Qualitative) target depends on the demand from the community. Date achieved 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Revised from "Percentage reduction in average time needed to collect (incl. % water," at the 10/2010 restructuring. Actual equals the sum of all water interventions achievement) including equipment. Percentage increase of women, men, girls and boys accessing clean water daily Indicator 13 : (disaggregated by state, locality and village) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant. achievement) Indicator 14 : Communities with functional PV solar system for community infrastructure (number) Value (quantitative 0 148 162 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Added at 10/2010 restructuring. 162 total villages were supplied multiple (incl. % units for street lighting, health and education facilities, water pumps, etc achievement) Indicator 15 : Community Action Plans prepared in a participatory approach and approved (number) Value (quantitative 0 616 616 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Revised at 10/2010 restructuring from "Number and percentage increase of (incl. % community members (disaggregated by bender and age) attending public meetings to achievement) discuss project selection," to improve clarity and ease of data collection. Number and percentage of community members (by gender, age groups and minority Indicator 16 : groups) involved in key decision making processes. Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 xii Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Indicator 17 : CBO members disaggregated by gender (%) Value M-75% M-77% (quantitative F-25% F-23% or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % Target substantially met. Added at 10/2010 restructuring. achievement) Community members (by gender) that express satisfaction with participation and Indicator 18 : decision making process at community level (%) Value (quantitative 0 0 90% 90% or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Revised at the 10/2010 restructuring from "% increase of community (incl. % members (by gender, age group & minority groups) that express satisfaction with achievement) openness and transparency of project selection & implementation," to improve clarity Percentage increase of community members (by gender, age group and minority Indicator 19 : groups) who indicate improved accountability (horizontal and vertical) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Built/rehabilitated community infrastructure that is managed through a Community Indicator 20 : committee (%) Value (quantitative 0 270 289 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Indicator was added at 10/2010 restructuring. Indicator was measured as a (incl. % number rather than percentage. achievement) Percentage increase in the share of state budgets elaborated and disbursed on the basis Indicator 21 : of participatory plans by women, men, girls and boys) for local development Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Dropped: During the design of the CDF project, it was assumed that decentralization Comments would facilitate the central government to provided block grants to state and local (incl. % governments while the CDF would help local governments to adopt participatory achievement) planning xiii Indicator 22 : Constructed/ rehabilitated Water community points with user fees covering O&M (%) Value (quantitative 0 178 181 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met, but indicator was to be expressed in percent, not number. Revised at the (incl. % 2010 restructuring from, "have trained local maintenance team including women are achievement) adequately/regularly maintained," to improve clarity. Built/ rehabilitated Health Facilities/Schools in which Localities sign agreement taking Indicator 23 : responsibility of O&M (%) Value (quantitative 0 100 100 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Revised at the 2010 restructuring from, "have trained local maintenance (incl. % team including women are adequately/regularly maintained," to improve clarity. achievement) Percentage increase in number of localities which have prepared sub-project proposals Indicator 24 : and Community Action Plans (CAP) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Percentage increase not relevant. achievement) Indicator 25 : Community Development initiatives fully implemented by CBOs according to plan (%) 270 (i.e. 25% of all Value the projects financed (quantitative 0 25 % by the project or Qualitative) implemented by the CBOs) Date achieved 01/14/2008 10/26/2010 06/30/2013 Comments Target met. Revised at 10/2010 restructuring from "number and type of NGOs, CBOs (incl. % and women's organizations directly engaging with communities in selection, achievement) implementation and maintenance (by state, locality & village)," to improve clarity. Number and type of local development initiatives undertaken by CBOs and women's Indicator 26 : organizations Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Number and percentage increase of community members participation in community Indicator 27 : planning meetings (by gender and age) Value Dropped xiv (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Number of community members airing their opinions during meetings (disaggregated Indicator 28 : by gender, age and status) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Number of community members (disaggregated by gender) who openly participate in Indicator 29 : the decision making process (including planning, control, access and distribution of resources Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Indicator 30 : Number of localities receiving their share of the state budgets by amount and frequency Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped. Decentralization has not taken place and localities do not receive funds for (incl. % local development achievement) Number of communities (by name, type and locations) benefiting from funds disbursed Indicator 31 : to localities for local development Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped. Decentralization has not taken place and localities do not receive funds for (incl. % local development. achievement) percentage increase in the number of CAPs supported/implemented through the Indicator 32 : disbursed funds (disaggregated by locality, community, type of community and amount of funding) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) xv Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped. Decentralization has not taken place and localities do not receive funds for (incl. % local development achievement) Activities (by sector, type of activity and direct beneficiaries) supported by funds Indicator 33 : disbursed Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped. Decentralization has not taken place and localities do not receive funds for (incl. % local development achievement) Number of field missions and meetings conducted to create awareness on the Indicator 34 : importance of gender mainstreaming (by community, Admin Unit, Locality, State and type of mission) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped. Not a useful indicator. achievement) Percentage increase in # of CAPs implemented (disaggregated by plans which Indicator 35 : implement gender activities) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant. achievement) Percentage increase in # of Locality plans that reflect community participation Indicator 36 : (including planning, decision making and control and access of resources) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant. achievement) Indicator 37 : Number of pupils (disaggregated by gender) enrolled in schools Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments Dropped, redundant. (incl. % xvi achievement) Indicator 38 : Number of people (disaggregated by group, gender and age) completing NFE programs Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, beyond CDF scope. achievement) Percentage of leaders and community members openly supporting gender Indicator 39 : mainstreaming in programs by gender and position and location Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/14/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Proportion (percentage) of sub-project proposals with provisions for: •O &M costs (e.g. establishment of a fund) Indicator 40 : •Local team with adequate women's participation responsible for asset (school, health center, water points) management Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant achievement) Level of Government's commitment to the empowerment of local agents of change Indicator 41 : (Localities, NGOs, Women's groups) Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/26/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant. achievement) Percentage increase in # of meetings and frequency of engagement between ministries, Indicator 42 : localities, NGOs and local communities including women's organizations Value (quantitative Dropped or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/14/2010 Comments (incl. % Dropped, redundant. achievement) xvii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. DO IP Archived (USD millions) 1 03/28/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.80 2 06/20/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 16.02 3 08/31/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 16.02 4 03/24/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 18.16 5 06/15/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 22.13 6 12/22/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 31.40 7 06/25/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 34.55 8 03/21/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.11 9 09/19/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.80 10 01/19/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.80 11 08/19/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.80** **Actual total was $52.8 million. System generated amounts above omit the US$10 million additional financing. H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring & Key Approved PDO Date(s) Restructuring Changes Made Change DO IP in USD millions 1. CDF Phase I Slice II (Additional financing of US$27.8 million grant from MDTF-N and US$22.2 million counterpart funding from GONU) was approved by the Oversight Committee of the MDTF-NS to increase Project coverage from 10 to 28 Localities. The estimated project cost for the first phase was US$50 Million (i.e. US$25 million each for Slice I and Slice II) 01/14/2008 N 11.24 comprising $30 Million MDTF- NS grant and US$ 20 million GOS counterpart funding. While Slice I was financed, as planned, with US$25 million ($15 million grant from MDTF and US$10 million counterpart funding from Government of Sudan) the Slice II was financed through additional financing of US$50 million (i.e. US$27.8 million grant from MDTF-N and US$22.2 million counterpart funding from xviii ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring & Key Approved PDO Date(s) Restructuring Changes Made Change DO IP in USD millions Government of Sudan). A project results framework was also established. 2. Amendment to the Extension of closing date to July 31, 2010; to 03/15/2009 N S S 18.16 allow project activities under implementation to be completed 3. Reallocation of proceeds and extension of closing date from 03/05/2010 N S S 32.37 7/31/10 to 6/30/11 to allow project activities under implementation to be completed. 4. Additional MDTF-N Financing of $10 million grant was approved by the Oversight Committee of the 10/26/2010 N S S 38.17 MDTF-NS on October 26, 2010. The purpose of the additional financing was to scale up subprojects and revise indicators. 5. Extension of the closing date of project to June 30, 2012 on June 21, 2011; The extension of the 06/26/2011 N S S 42.80 closing date was needed due to the delayed implementation in Blue Nile and South Kordofan on account of the civil conflict 6. Extension of the closing date of project to June 30, 2013 was approved on June 2012. The main 06/12/2012 N S S 42.80 purpose of this restructuring was to allow project activities under implementation to be completed. xix I. Disbursement Profile 1 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. The Community Development Fund (CDF) Project was appraised after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of Sudan (GOS) 1 and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), signed on January 9, 2005. The CPA ended a civil war that had raged for nearly 40 of the previous 50 years. During the war an estimated 2 million lives were lost, millions more people displaced, and widespread destruction of economic and social infrastructure. The CPA was the first real chance for peace and development for the Sudanese people in decades. The report of the Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) assessed emergency and longer term development needs for the two former combatants. The CPA specified that a Multi-Donor Trust Fund-National (MDTF-NS) be established to finance and coordinate the reconstruction and development needs in the Sudan’s conflict-stricken States as presented in the JAM. The CDF Project was the first project funded by the MDTF-NS and the Government of Sudan (GOS) and aimed to channel funds to local communities in war- affected and underdeveloped areas, including North Kordofan State, Kassala State and the Three Areas—Blue Nile, south Kordofan and Abyei. 2. Socio-Economic Context. Estimates of average poverty in the North were at least 50 percent of the population, and regional estimates were much higher in the west (Darfur and Kordofan) and in eastern regions such as the Red Sea Hills. In the North, approximately 40 percent of urban and 60 percent of rural populations did not have access to a minimum of 20 liters of water per person per day within a distance of 1,000 meters, and the differential between access in rural and urban areas was growing. Two out of three primary schools were without adequate water and half were without adequate sanitation facilities, with consequent negative impacts upon school attendance, especially for girls. Many rural and peri-urban inhabitants were paying as much as 50 percent of their family income for water, often of dubious quality. 3. Among children under five, 35 percent in the North suffered from chronic malnutrition (low weight for age). Malnutrition is strongly associated with structural and transitory poverty, insecurity, and lack of access to services such as safe water and health care. Gender disparities were pronounced in the North, with differences within regions by ethnic group. GOS data indicated that women on average earned 68 percent less than men, placing Sudan 141st out of 177 countries. The challenges in Sudan were particularly great in the states affected by conflict including: North Kordofan, Kassala and the Three Areas-Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Abiye. 4. National Development Priorities. The JAM stated that “chief among these [challenges] is improving governance and creating the decentralized governmental system envisioned in the CPA that allows for community-driven recovery and an important role for a vibrant civil society and independent media.” “The NG [National Government] has additional responsibilities related to guaranteeing the special status of, and enabling development in, the Three Areas ….” 1 Note that until 2011, the Government of Sudan was referred to as the Government of National Unity (GONU). For simplicity, the ICR uses Government of Sudan (GOS) throughout. 2 5. The Grant Agreement for the CDF Project was signed on January 16, 2006 and became effective in April 26, 2006. The duration of the first phase was to be three years divided into two installments or “slices,” of 18 months each. Total project cost was estimated at US$50 million for the first phase. The total cost allocated for Slice 1 was US $25 million of which MDTF-NS and Government of National Unity contributed $15 million and US$10 million equivalent, respectively. In addition, a total of US$1 Million was allocated by the World Bank (LICUS) to finance start-up costs and capacity building activities. A key rationale for the CDF Project was to strengthen peace by investing in communities that had been affected by conflict. If successful, the Project would help create a stake for the Sudanese in national unity. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 6. The PDO in the original Grant Agreement of January 16, 2006 was: “To assist the Recipient in meeting urgent community-driven recovery and development needs by providing social and economic services and infrastructure to communities.” 2 For ICR assessment, this PDO Grant Agreement is used rather than the variation quoted in the Final Project Proposal (FPP). As Table 1 shows, a full results framework was not introduced until the FPP for Slice II (dated December 2007, approved January 2008). The original FPP (November 24, 2005) presented only a list of indicators and potential outcomes, but without any targets or baselines: • Strengthen the role and capacity of localities and NGOs in the delivery of basic social services with local community participation in a sustainable manner. • Strengthen local community participation in the identification of basic social and economic needs within a framework that encourages transparency in priority setting and allocation of resources. • Establish a viable framework for an effective cooperation and partnership among social sector ministries, Localities, NGOs and local communities in the provision of basic services targeting particularly the poorest areas. Demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the empowerment of local agents of change (Localities, NGOs) and develop social capital at the local level by strengthening the role of local partners in implementing social development activities. 7. These outcomes are consistent with the Project activities and the results framework that was later developed. 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 8. When the October 2010 additional financing was approved, the results framework was revised. The PDO was also revised to: “To increase access to priority economic and social 2 The original PDO in the Final Project Proposal document was slightly different: “To meet urgent community- driven recovery and development needs in the war-affected and underdeveloped areas of North Sudan, including the Three Areas by providing social and economic services and infrastructure.” The Three areas are Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Abeye. The Project also covered Kassala State and North Kordofan. 3 services and infrastructure in war-affected and underdeveloped areas of Northern Sudan, including the three areas.” As the Project was funded under the MDTF-NS, the PDO revision did not require approval by the Bank Board, but rather the Oversight Committee (OC) for the MDTF-NS. Measurement of PDO indicators began with Slice II of the operation when the indicators were established. Table 1: PDO and PDO Indicators from the Grant Agreement-2006, FPP Slice II-2007 and as Revised in the Additional Financing Proposal of 2010 Grant Agreement- FPP Slice 2-December 2007 Revision in September 2010 January 2006 PDO To assist the Recipient in No Change. To increase access to priority meeting urgent economic and social services and community-driven infrastructure in war-affected and recovery and development underdeveloped areas of North needs by providing social Sudan, including the three areas. and economic services and infrastructure to communities. PDO Indicators 1. Percentage increase of girls and 1. Girls and boys under 15 years boys under 15 years enrolled in enrolled in targeted communities targeted communities (number) (disaggregated by gender) 2. Percentage reduction in drop- Dropped-could not be monitored out rates in targeted communities for girls and boys under 15 years of age 3. Percentage increase of 2. People with access to a basic population including women, package of health, nutrition, or men, girls and boys with access to population services (percent improved health facilities increase) 4. Percentage increase of 3. People in rural areas provided population including women, with access to “Improved Water men, girls and boys with access to Sources” under the Project safe water sources. (number)—Core indicator. 5. Percentage increase in women, 4. Satisfaction with delivery of men, girls and boys expressing basic social services satisfaction with delivery of basic (%)(disaggregated by gender) social services 5. Direct project beneficiaries (number), of which female (percentage)—New core indicator. Note that the achievement of the PDO will have a split assessment, up to the October 2010 restructuring (65 percent disbursed) and from then until Project close (35 percent disbursed). 4 1.4 Main Beneficiaries, 9. The main beneficiaries were the communities of the Three Areas, North Kordofan and Kassala States. Originally, communities in 10 Localities were selected. By Project close, with additional financing, the Project had reached 28 Localities, including 616 communities with a total population of 2.8 million according to the final Implementation Status Report (ISR) citing GOS estimates. The communities were selected within each Locality based on criteria developed by the GOS and reviewed by the Bank to identify marginalized communities with the poorest social infrastructure. Each community established a community-based organization (CBO) that would be responsible for decisions and contributions with respect to the Project. These CBOs represented Project beneficiaries who were trained in community mobilization, needs identification, facilitation of implementation of projects and management. Local and national government institutions also were targeted for capacity building. 1.5 Original Components 1.5.1 Community Development Subprojects 10. Component 1 was to address pro-poor community development priorities laid out in the peace protocols, with particular emphasis on access and quality of basic education, health and water services. It intended to build and renovate basic education and health facilities, promote adult literacy and child immunization campaigns, launch rapid vocational training programs for school-drop-outs, facilitate the creation of youth centers, launch revolving textbook projects and other social services directed at the poor. Programs to facilitate the social integration and inclusion of vulnerable groups such as elderly, disabled, women heads of households and children victims of violence, AIDS victims, drug addicts, war-crippled victims, unemployed youths, etc., were also to be emphasized. The component was also to concentrate on the provision of small rural infrastructure including access and rural roads and environmental protection activities including community potable water, wells and spring protection, small wastewater treatment schemes that use appropriate technologies, improved solid waste collection, treatment and disposal and reforestation and protection of natural sites. 1.5.2 Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Project Management 11. This component was to provide training, technical assistance and capacity building to localities, NGOs and local Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), to improve their technical skills in the identification, planning, programming, management and delivery of social subprojects. In addition, this component was to establish the eligibility of target localities to receive funds from the project through conducting a training program aimed at building their capacity in the areas of project management (e.g., transparency, accountability, financial management, procurement), and community participation and empowerment (e.g., participatory planning process and inclusion of marginalized segments of the population in decision-making). Once the Project confirmed that these localities met the Minimum Qualifying Criteria (MQC), the localities were eligible to receive funds under the project, which they would then channel to service providers for the benefit of the target beneficiary communities using NGOs, CBOs, private sector, and social sector ministries. 5 1.6 Revised Components 12. The activities implemented under Component 1 were considerably fewer and more streamlined than as described in the original FPP component description. In reality, the component did not contain any specific provisions for program for vulnerable groups. The component essentially provided for the building and rehabilitation of health units, classrooms, community centers and water points as chosen by communities. Thus, such activities as vocational programs, adult literacy, child immunization campaigns revolving textbook projects, programs to facilitate the social integration and inclusion of vulnerable groups such as elderly, disabled, women heads of households and children victims of violence, AIDS victims, etc., were not specifically funded. However, these activities were better accommodated by the building of structures needed for these social services. While the component did finance community potable water and wells, it did not provide access and rural roads or environmental protection activities. The 2007 QAG learning review recognized that the Project needed to be streamlined to improve implementation. 1.7 Other significant changes 13. The CDF Project, like all MDTF-financed projects was initially structured as a two phase project, of three years each. Table 2 shows that the first phase of the project was financed through two slices i.e. Slice I ($25 million) and Slice II (planned $25 million). Donors had expressed a preference that there should be two slices with the second slice contingent on the performance of the first. Because of MDTF-NS budget constraints, phase two was dropped and instead the limited amount of remaining money was added to projects under implementation with good performance (such as CDF) as additional financing. The CDF project received $20 million additional funding i.e. $10 million each from the MDTF-NS and the GOS. Table 2 shows financing installments for the Project. Slice II was approved on January 14, 2008. The total funds from MDTF-NS were US$52.8 million and US$42.2 million (equivalent) from GOS, for a total Project value of US$95 million. The additional financing supported a scaling up of from 10 to 28 localities. Table 3 provides a timeline for the CDF Project. Table 2: Financing for CDF Project (millions of US$) Financing MDTF-NS GOS Total Slice I-Planned 15.0 10.0 25.0 Slice II-Planned 15.0 10.0 25.0 Slice II-Additional 12.8 12.2 25.0 Total Slice II 27.8 22.2 50.0 Additional financing 10.0 10.0 20.0 Total Financing 52.8 42.2 95.0 6 Table 3: Timeline for the Community Development Fund Project Date Event November, 14, Project Appraisal finalized 2005 January 16, 2006 Signing of Letter of Agreement (LA) and Grant Agreement—Phase I—US$50 million. Slice I— US$25 million (US$15 MDTF-NS, US$10 GoNU), Slice II— US$25 million- planned (US$15 MDTF-NS, US$10 GOS). April 26, 2006 Project Effective July 3, 2007 First Amendment to the LA-Change in currency for Special Account from USD to EUR January 14, 2008 Slice II approved by the OC to increase Project coverage from 10 to 28 localities— US$50 million (US$27.8 MDTF-N, $22.2 GOS)—Restructuring 1—Results framework established March 15, 2009 Amendment to the LA-Extension of closing date to 7/31/10—Restructuring 2 March 5, 2010 Amendment to the LA-reallocation of proceeds and extension of closing date from 7/31/10 to 6/30/11—Restructuring 3 – Indicators revised October 26, 2010 Additional MDTF-NS Financing—$10 million grant, $10 million GOS—Restructuring 4 June 21, 2011 Amendment to the LA- Extension of closing date of project to 6/30/12—Restructuring 5 June 28, 2012 Amendment to the LA-Extension of closing date to 6/30/13—Restructuring 6 June 30, 2013 Project Closed 14. In 2012 a significant allocation of funds of SDG13 million was made in order to remedy a number of deficiencies and defects in Project outputs. This allocation did not require a restructuring because the allocation occurred within the same expenditure category. The allocation would have otherwise been used to finance new sub-projects. 15. Though the Project was an emergency project, from the beginning, through its CDF approach, it implemented activities with longer term development potential. Rather than designing a new non-emergency operation under the MDTF-NS, the original Project was scaled up to expand these longer-term activities (community sub-projects). 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 16. The CDF Project was prepared and implemented under the terms of the MDTF-N, as well as under emergency conditions as guided by OP8.5 (later OP8.0). Thus, preparation was conducted by the Borrower under the guidance of the Oversight Committee (OC) and with the help of Bank staff. The OC also approved the Project rather than the Bank Board. 17. Approach to Preparation. To guide preparation of the Project, the preparation team applied three main principles: • Finance the most critical services and investments for communities • Identify the most needy populations • Deliver investments quickly 18. During a comprehensive process of stakeholder consultations, the community-driven development (CDD) approach was accepted as the best way to meet these criteria. The Project 7 design built local ownership with the help of “social mobilizers” who informed the communities about the project and who discussed community responsibilities for and contributions to the Project (Box 1). The surveyed areas had been deprived for decades of government investments, and, so, the critical needs were relatively easy to identify: water supply, basic education and health. Communities were best placed to confirm these needs. Needy populations were identified through surveys and rankings based on a variety of characteristics such as lack of health and education facilities, potential for livelihood improvement, population size and readiness and willingness to participate. The CDD approach also offered a way to achieve speedy delivery of Project investments through rapid appraisal. To further ensure quick delivery, the Project design used a new direct financing feature whereby the central PIU account transferred funds directly to the Localities (the sub-provincial unit of government), which were closer to the community projects. 19. Employing the CDD approach meant that the Project was delivering not just physical outputs, but also offering a vehicle to deliver outputs and services in the future. As seen in the next section, the GOS has indicated that the CDD approach will be mainstreamed in the government. Box 1—Role of the “Social Mobilizer” The main purpose of the Social Mobilizer was to ensure that women were integrated into the Project. With strict divisions between males and females in Sudanese society, the social mobilizer had to be female to reach women. But the social mobilizer was also the key person to raise awareness about the Project, mobilize community interest in the Project, and act as the main liaison between the community and the Project throughout preparation and implementation. This person explained the CDD approach as well as the community’s responsibility in participating in the Project and was a key to its success. 20. Coverage vs. focus of Project Resources. One of the important trade-offs for Project preparation was balance between broad geographical coverage vs. a more intensive focus of Project resources as well as the necessary complementary resources required for economic and social service delivery. With one side of the trade-off, the Project risked leaving many more communities without any Project benefits at all. With the other side, the Project risked spreading investments across too broad an area that the Government would not be able to make sufficient recurrent expenditures for essentials such as school supplies and medical staff and teachers. Because of the equity concerns related to focusing on fewer communities while marginalizing others, the Project opted more for coverage. The Project design included an unusually large Government contribution (more than 40 percent of total Project resources), which accommodated an even broader geographical coverage. The Project design attempted to mitigate the risk of spreading resources too thinly by introducing the concept of community service package and other measures, which are detailed in Section 2.2. 21. Quality at Entry. The CDF project was part of a quality at entry learning review of recipient executed trust funds by QAG in the Bank in October 2007, prior to the approval of Slice II of the Project. The QAG review commended the task team for developing a project that was highly appropriate to the emergency and post conflict conditions of the country. The QAG pointed out that “as implemented, the project’s development objectives were clear and realistic, more or less given by the nature of circumstances in Sudan but the documentation can leave the 8 reader with the impression of a set of objectives far too ambitious for a post-conflict situation.” The QAG also noted that the lack of assessment of country risks was indicated as deficiency. The identified risks, mitigation measures and their effectiveness are presented in Table 4. 2.2 Implementation 22. Context for implementation. Implementation was carried out in a difficult environment in which some of the villages had been totally abandoned because of earlier conflict. In addition to the already challenging context at appraisal, during the 2005 – 2013 implementation period of the CDF Project, the country experienced a number of additional difficulties. These challenges included: (a) the secession of South Sudan (July 2011), which resulted loss of over 75 percent of oil revenue - the main foreign currency source for the country- which in turn resulted in an immediate negative fiscal and balance of payments difficulties for Sudan; and (b) the outbreaks of conflict in two of the four States targeted by the project (i.e. Blue Nile and South Kordofan states) that made them periodically inaccessible. 23. Implementation by communities. By investing in community sub-projects that supported social services, the Project helped supported the return and reintegration process in a number of villages. The maximum size of a typical sub-project was US$100,000 equivalent. Criteria-based selection helped avoid political interference in selection of communities. The selected communities and their CBOs took the lead in implementation. They submitted subproject proposals (with assistance from the social mobilizer) that had to meet specific selection and eligibility criteria as stipulated in the project’s Operational Manual (OM). The OM contained a menu of eligible and ineligible projects, with a bias towards simpler, low-risk activities. 24. In addition to the MDTF-NS and Government funds, communities also made contributions toward the new CDF investments. Interviews during the ICR field mission in Kassala State indicated that community contributions were typically 10 percent of total costs, 5 percent in kind and 5 percent in cash, but with the cash portion in some instances paid by the locality where the community was not able to contribute in cash. This approach was new to the villages, and these community contributions should be viewed as progress toward local ownership. The practice of initial community contributions has carried over, to some degree, into a responsibility for maintenance of the assets, such as water points and solar units, but less so for schools and health units. There are two mechanisms in place to ensure adequate maintenance: First, schools and health facilities must have been approved by their respective State or Locality education and health sector relevant staff; and second a MOU is signed between the Locality and the community that the Locality will assign staff and allocate running cost (from the MOE and MOH) for these facilities and communities will support the Locality effort to the extent possible. For water supply, solar energy and community centers, community committees raise funds and manage facilities. Sub-projects completed in 2006-07 remain functional, some of which were visited during the ICR mission. 2.3 Risks 25. The risks presented in Table 4 are those from the original FPP of November 2005 that were carried over into the FPP for Slice II (December 2007). These risks were largely mitigated 9 as the table shows. However, there were a number of other risks that were not identified, which did materialize and which affected the Project. Table 4: Implementation Record with Respect to Risks Risk Risk Mitigation Measure/Result Government resources The MFNE will allocate government counterpart funds to the CDF Project Account are not provided on a as part of the annual development planning and budget allocation exercise. timely basis. There were delays in counterpart funding. MDTF funds were used until they were reimbursed near the end of the Project. While this was not a good practice, the delayed counterpart funding did not affect Project outcomes. Political interference in Government assurances would be sought that targeting and priority setting will be as the targeting of priority a result of the social assessment and needs identification studies that were conducted areas and selection of as part of project preparation. The OM would contain clear criteria and procedures priority needs. that will drive the selection of initiatives and priorities. The OM worked well contained specific criteria and scoring methodology to select the poorest and most underserved communities. The social assessment and groundwork by the PIU head helped this approach succeed. National and local A public awareness campaign to inform NGOs and CBOs about the project will be NGOs are made aware launched by the PIU in the targeted localities. These campaigns would aim at of CDF and are informing and mobilizing the NGO community to partner with the project. The PIU mobilized to make the would ensure a rapid appraisal of the proposals submitted by the NGOs to maintain most of project the momentum and interest in the project. resources and to assist communities in This proved not to be a real risk as social mobilizers and CBOs did most of the work submitting subproject for subproject proposals. NGOs were engaged mainly in relief work. proposals. Sufficient effort is Bank procedures will be made available in Arabic and workshops will be conducted made in capacity on Bank procurement and financial management procedures. building, including training of the This risk was effectively mitigated. Officials at the locality level were members of Localities and NGOs on the Locality Steering Committee (LSC) and received procurement and FM training, Bank procedures. supported by the Bank fiduciary team. Localities and Special efforts targeted at Localities and beneficiary communities will be launched beneficiary from the inception stage. The project includes resources to build capacity of communities may not Localities and NGOs in all aspects of the project cycle including sustainability. effectively participate Initial consultations with communities will include an analysis of stakeholders to in project execution. screen for systematic exclusion, risk of conflict and outreach to these groups. Also, that certain elements of the The social mobilizers were effective in minimizing this risk through consistent beneficiary community engagement of religious leaders and local leaders and government. Changes of are systematically attitudes were particularly in evidence in Kassala where it was reported during the excluded. ICR mission that community attitudes toward girls’ schooling is much more favorable than before the Project. National and local The Project will require beneficiary participation in all aspects of the project from NGOs may lose interest selection of priority needs to execution and operation and maintenance to ensure in and commitment to ownership. Implementing NGOs will be required to work closely with beneficiaries. the Project. This risk was not particularly relevant because the Project did not rely much on NGOs, but rather CBOs and the social mobilizers. 10 26. Capacity building to ensure effective community participation. Capacity building included a wide range of activities. For example, through its local government leadership enhancement initiative, CDF trained 30 senior local government officials (i.e., 13 Locality Commissioners, 13 Locality Executive managers and 4 development planning managers) drawn from 13 localities. This training was complemented by the Matching Grant from CDF to Locality Government to help the Local Government officials to translate their learning to practice by initiating and implementing development activities in their respective locality. The local government officials responded positively to the training and the provision of the Matching Grant and demonstrated strong leadership in coordinating the development work in their respective Locality, mobilizing communities and resources to implement development activities and engaging the state authorities. This was an important step toward establishing effective cooperation and partnership between Local Government and communities in the provision of basic services to the poor. 27. Mitigating the risk of spreading Project resources too thinly. The risk that Project resources were spread among too many communities was partially mitigated. There were, for example, many instances in classrooms where there were severe shortages of learning materials. The Project team concluded that, given that the nature of the Project which was to make national unity attractive, it would have been even more risky to have left out a larger number of communities entirely from Project benefits. 28. The Bank recognized that this risk had materialized in its revisions to the Project results framework in the 2010 Additional Financing FPP: “During the design of the CDF project, it was assumed that decentralization would facilitate the central government to provide block grants to state and local governments while the CDF would help local governments to adopt participatory planning and implementation. Since the expected decentralization has not taken place, this [intermediate] indicator was dropped.” A related example was: “Decentralization has not taken place and localities do not receive funds for local development.” 29. Mitigation of this risk included a number of participatory steps to ensure that the Project investments would result in service delivery as promised in the PDO (both original and revised): Community Action Plan preparation and prioritization by the communities; revision and approvals by the Locality Steering Committees and State Coordination Committees; and written commitments from the education and health sector authorities that staff and other materials would be provided when the facility was completed. The ICR field mission and monitoring data confirmed that these agreements were largely respected (Section 3.2). The Project also required that no school or health center would be constructed unless it was signed off by the relevant State Minister in order to ensure that the operation of the facility met the sector standard and would be included in the state budget. For water, the individual State governments agreed that all water projects built by the project will be owned and managed by the communities. The Independent Evaluation of the MDTF-NS in Sudan 3 reported that “.. respondents distinguished positive 3 4 Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan – Final Report, Feb 2013. There was an inconsistency in the calculation of the total number of beneficiaries because the sum of individual totals of beneficiaries from education, health, water and solar were far less than the total number of claimed beneficiaries, even if it is assumed that no beneficiary enjoys more than one project output. This discrepancy is explained by the 11 factors already supporting the sustainability of various projects, including the level of transfer of knowledge and skills to PIU staff within the GoS; the high degree of ownership of some projects like the CDF, especially by some state and locality governments; and the current discussion on replication, expansion, and/or the integration of some projects into state/locality and federal budgets”. 30. While shortage of supplies and staff are systemic and country wide problem, it is important that the allocation of resources has increased in CDF supported health and education facilities. For example the number of teachers increased in CDF financed schools from 3,375 before CDF intervention to 5,027 after the CDF intervention—about one additional teacher per two classrooms built; CDF schools received priority for school furniture provided by the Government to schools. In addition the project took measures to address the risk. For example in health CDF in collaboration with the Ministry of Health trained 267 Midwives who returned to their villages and provided services in the CDF built health facilities. BOX 2: CDF Partnership with National Health Insurance Fund CDF created a partnership with the National Health Insurance and local health authorities to secure sufficient human and material resources for 19 health facilities built by CDF. CDF brokered the partnership between the community and the National Health Insurance Fund- a government organization which provides very little service outside of Khartoum. Based on the agreement, 19 health facilities in North Kordofan and Blue Nile, built by communities with CDF support, are managed by the National Health Insurance Fund. The National Health Insurance Fund provides all the staff, drugs, medical equipment and recurrent costs and provides health services to both those who have health insurance and those who do not have. The latter patients pay for the services they receive from these health facilities. The main benefit to those who are not insured is the access to good quality health services close to their villages. 31. In general CDF supported education and health facilities received a better allocation of resources compared to other similar facilities, which is important for a project of a post-conflict and reconstruction nature like CDF. One example is described in Box 2 where the Project partnered with the National Health Insurance Fund scheme. 32. One risk that might have been better identified was the increase in conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Niles States, two of the four states in which the Project operated. Part of the reason may have been the relative calm prevailing during 2005-07 leading the Bank and the GOS to underestimate the potential for instability. As a result of the conflict, Project activities had to be curtailed, particularly in Blue Nile and South Kordofan and it was not possible to monitor Project activities after conflicts erupted. This Project was known to be high risk and that it was operating in post-conflict areas, but it is not clear what the mitigation plan would have been, had the risk been fully anticipated. The Project mitigated the risk by reallocating Grant funds from fact that the total number of beneficiaries from education, health and water supply are from facility data whereas the total number of beneficiaries is the number of population in the 616 communities benefited from CDF. 12 conflict to non-conflict areas (within the same states or to other states). The PIU also attempted to mitigate the impact by meeting with Walis (State Governors) and Ministers in charge after the eruption of the conflicts in Blue Nile and South Kordofan States, and received official commitments that all sub-projects in the conflict areas, would be completed after the security situation improved. The status of these commitments could not be confirmed during the ICR mission. 2.4 Seven Innovations in Design and Implementation 33. An important strength of the Project was the (at least) seven notable implemented design features of the CDF that were innovations in the Project area and for the country as a whole. Some of the innovations demonstrate that the Project not only aimed to address urgent short-term needs, but also established technological and institutional structures that could produce benefits over the longer term. i. V-Sat for connection between localities and Khartoum. This technology permitted reliable communication between the center and the Localities, which was critical for project management and M&E. ii. Solar energy introduced. Solar installations provided school, health facilities, mosque and street lighting cell phone recharge, and health center refrigeration. With the provision of school lighting, schools can operate a second shift after dark. This lighting also encouraged the enrollment of girls, who would not be able to go to school without this lighting. These installations were implemented through partnership with the local Solar Institute and private sector contractors. Solar installation costs have fallen sharply since this innovation was piloted. Unfortunately, the contribution of solar to the project was reduced by US$3 million because of serious procurement problems. iii. Building teacher’s dormitories adjacent to schools relieved communities from having to pay housing and transportation allowances to teachers. Poorer families could send their children to school because they no longer had to pay, thus a poverty reduction benefit. It also reportedly reduced teacher absenteeism. iv. Social accountability approach implemented. This approach included Community Scorecards that measure access, usage and satisfaction of beneficiaries. It was new for villagers to be asked for their feedback before. v. Community Service Package concept established. This concept refers to specified amenities required to consider the facility functional. For example, schools need to have toilets and washing and drinking water, locks and fences for security and furniture. The service package concept needs to be further engrained to include health and education supplies as well. vi. A Project Account for the PIU, funded through the MDTF-NS, which transferred funds directly to the individual accounts of each participating locality, instead of going through the State Governments. This avoided an unnecessary step that would have slowed down the flow of funds and possibly led to leakages. vii. Empower local officials through delegation of authority and training. Local officials experienced a higher level of responsibility which was part of the overall decentralization goal. This innovation also needs further work, because with the absence of true decentralization, these officials do not have the actual authority and resources they need. 13 2.5 Output Quality and Remedial Actions 34. The report on functionality of CDF investments (October 2012) identified a number of issues in implemented projects that needed to be addressed to improve impact and sustainability. Some of those were related to insufficient dormitories for teachers, security fencing, toilets and water supply and may have occurred because communities wanted to maximize the use of the US$100,000 community allocation (e.g., getting more classrooms or water supply and health clinic), and sometimes left out certain components of the community service package, particularly those needed for schools. In response to these findings, the Bank/GOS reallocated SDG13 million (approximately US$3 million) that was remaining from the total project costs of the US$95 million – reduction in the solar costs etc. The lower-than-anticipated investments in insecure areas in the Blue Nile and South Kordofan states were reallocated for other subprojects within the states in secure areas. This reallocation occurred within the same Component/Category—Sub-projects, and no restructuring was required for that purpose. Communities were also creative in accessing other funds, e.g., from UNICEF, for some of these investments. This experience demonstrates that communities do need substantial guidance in ensuring better functionality of the investments they choose. Communities did, in fact, have to be persuaded of the value of additional features such as toilets, fencing and dormitories. 35. Output quality was also measured through the use of Community Scorecards (CS) in which communities would express their (dis)satisfaction with the promised economic and social services from the project. The CS process followed three basic steps: 1) present the standard of service for the investment; 2) users and providers assess the performance relative to that standard; and 3) hold a joint meeting between providers and community beneficiaries. Beneficiaries reported that they appreciated being asked their opinions, and could discuss corrective measures. The CS exercises provided a good complement to other results data. The overall community satisfaction rate was 90 percent at the end of the Project. 36. Summary and conclusion. The Project developed local ownership and capacity through a CDD approach to deliver basic social structures for the neediest communities in post conflict areas. The GOS stake in the Project at the central level was strong as evidenced by the large commitment of counterpart funds, more than 40 percent of the total and ownership grew as the benefits of the Project became more visible. Ultimately, the central government decided to adopt CDF as a model for service delivery going forward. 2.6 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 2.6.1 Design 37. As was sometimes the case for projects prepared under emergency conditions, a full- fledged results framework was produced during the FPP for Slice II, after the original FPP. The PDO indicators in the Slice II FPP were related to the original and revised PDOs and were output oriented with the exception of the education enrollment indicator and access to improved water supply. An opportunity was missed to establish Project baselines during community selection process. There were also limited economic services to measure (only water supply for animals), but that was an issue of overreach of the PDO (both original and revised). 14 38. In the 2010 additional financing document, one PDO indicator was dropped, four were revised and one was added, leaving, five operative PDO indicators after the 2010 additional financing. The number of health beneficiaries and the estimate of total beneficiaries are based on population estimates of beneficiary communities. 4 Once the community was reached with a Project investment, the entire community population was counted as beneficiaries. More meaningful indicators could have been measured. For example, for access to water, a sampling could have been taken of time saved from carrying water from a set of beneficiaries in selected communities. Another example could be the number of people actually served in clinics, as recorded in logbooks, and with some notation of the type of service provided, e.g., midwife, first aid, malaria treatment, etc. Thus, the results framework gave a somewhat exaggerated picture of the reach of the Project for some of the indicators. 39. The results framework in the Slice II FPP included many intermediate indicators that were either beyond the scope of the Project, redundant, or not measurable. It became clear that most of the intermediate indicators (28) could not be measured and were dropped at the time of the 2010 additional financing. In addition, nine of the indicators were revised and four new indicators were added, leaving 14 intermediate indicators after 2010. These indicators were relevant to the Project activities and help measure achievement of objectives. 2.6.2. Implementation and Utilization 40. There was a great deal of good quality Project reporting, including four community scorecard exercises, regular quarterly progress reports by the PIU, and regular Monitoring Agent Field Visit Reports in Project areas. The Monitoring Agent role was particularly valuable to Project management. There were also portfolio reviews of the all the MDTF-NS-funded projects, including CDF. Thus, a substantial amount of concrete and qualitative data was generated and these data were important to fixing problems that arose in the Project. 41. Monitoring of implementation was essential to program management to confirm the pace of construction and the prospects for scaling up. The Functionality Assessment Report was essential in identifying follow up investments to correct defects in Project activities. Community Scorecard exercises were valuable in confirming that the Project activities were popular and worth scaling up and in identifying issues that required trouble-shooting. 2.6.3 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 42. Environmental and Social Safeguards. The Project was rated as environmental Category B. The Category B rating was because of well drilling and construction of facilities. The sub-projects were limited in scope, had small footprints and the impacts were localized. The Project triggered two safeguard policies, Environmental Assessment (OP/BP4.01), and 4 There was an inconsistency in the calculation of the total number of beneficiaries because the sum of individual totals of beneficiaries from education, health, water and solar were far less than the total number of claimed beneficiaries, even if it is assumed that no beneficiary enjoys more than one project output. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that the total number of beneficiaries from education, health and water supply are from facility data whereas the total number of beneficiaries is the number of population in the 616 communities benefited from CDF. 15 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP7.50). As an emergency project (originally under OP8.5- Emergency Recovery Assistance), the required environmental assessment could be and was done after project effectiveness. The risk of involuntary resettlement was low because the criteria in the Project’s OM did not allow sites requiring resettlement. A detailed social assessment was carried out, “Social and Conflict Analysis-Synthesis Report” February 21, 2006, before Project effectiveness, which was commended by the QAG learning review. Compliance with safeguard policies was rated satisfactory. Deficiencies in some safeguards, such as medical waste disposal that were identified in the Functionality Assessment Report (March 2012) were addressed. 43. Procurement. Generally, procurement management was straightforward, befitting a CDD project. The Monitoring Agent rated the Project’s procurement performance as “MS”. One innovation that worked well was “community contracting” in which the communities did their own contracting with local contractors. Community Contracting (CC) helped communities build capacity in carrying out delivery of basic social and economic services. CC also meant that the payments for construction of facilities remained in the community. This innovation did put an additional workload on Project staff that needed to provide more intensive help to the communities in working out contracting arrangements. 44. There was a shortcoming in procurement relating to solar panels. A procurement agent was selected who had difficulty in providing adequate procurement documentation. More importantly, there were also complications related to economic sanctions in which it was not possible to produce a letter of credit acceptable to suppliers for the ICB procurement. As a result, the major procurement of solar panels floundered for more than one year and was ultimately cancelled. Toward the end of the Project, procurement for $1 million was completed and units for 162 villages were installed. In the end, although the difficulty in procurement delayed the solar energy installation, the Project came close to reaching the original plan of 200 villages. The shortfall was in Blue Nile and South Kordofan states. In these two states, 40 villages had to be removed from the ICB because of the security issues. 45. Financial Management. The Monitoring Agent rated FM performance as moderately satisfactory. There was an FM issue mentioned above in which MDTF funds were used when counterpart funds were delayed, which is not an approved procedure for a typical Bank- supported project. Audit reports were unqualified, but cited weakness in internal control and a cost overrun in expenditure Category 2—goods including vehicles, furniture, generators, IT and communications equipment. The introduction of Vsat and other IT equipment and generators to supply the LIU offices with power were not included in the cost at the project design stage. There were also some difficulties in producing an MIS system, and a separate FM system was developed by a local consultant. The FM system adequately controlled the flow of funds in the Project which was well-administered by the PIU FM specialist. This system was demonstrated during the ICR mission and confirmed the system of controls for community subprojects. A feature of the Project that facilitated FM was that the resources for community sub-projects were transferred from the PIU account at the MFNE-NS directly to the target localities of the target communities. This feature sped up the flow of funds because they by-passed the State Governments. 2.6.4 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 16 46. With the expiration of the MDTF, the GOS and donors have been exploring ways to support the CDF activities. The GOS has decided that the CDF model be mainstreamed into government operations. Budget commitments to continue community development projects have not yet been specified. Donor support for the continuation of the CDF model has not yet materialized on a significant scale. The newly effective Bank supported Health project is expected to support some of the gains achieved by the CDF. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 47. The assessment of outcomes refers to two periods, from project effectiveness until the revision of the PDO and additional financing in October 2010, and from that point until project close. Outcomes are weighted according to the percentage of disbursements at the two intervals. 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Before Restructuring—Satisfactory After Restructuring— Satisfactory Overall— Satisfactory 48. Objectives. The stated objectives of the Project continue to be relevant to the country’s priorities, because there is still large unmet need for basic education and health facilities, as well as water supply and renewable electricity. The objectives are also aligned with the current Interim Strategy Note (FY2014-FY2015) Pillar 2 that emphasizes national and local programs for service delivery focusing and building systems for service delivery and accountability, especially in areas emerging from conflict. The revised objective referred to increased access to economic and social services. The Project provided economic services limited mainly to increased water supply to livestock. It provided an important component of other services, i.e., physical structures, which encouraged the contribution of the other components of services such as teachers and medical supplies. As indicated in paragraph 21 above the QAG Learning Review noted that the project objectives, as implemented, were clear and realistic, given the nature of circumstances in Sudan. 49. The Project also trained village midwives, and put in place agreements with the Government to supply teachers and durable goods. Water and solar services are much less dependent on provision of additional resources and are direct services. Services were hampered by inadequate teaching materials, and, at least in a few cases, limited medical supplies and staff. 50. The original PDO referred to “meeting urgent community-driven recovery and development needs,” while the revised objective referred to increased “access to priority economic and social services.” This change was significant in that it recognized that the Project was meeting longer term, not just emergency, development needs. Capacity building (a major activity of the Project) was also not explicitly referred to in the PDOs, though it was partially captured in some of the intermediate indicators. 51. Design. The activities of the Project were relevant to country needs. What was exceptional about the relevance of design were the innovations described in Section 2.2. These 17 innovations and others described in this ICR were relevant to government needs as evidenced by how they were embraced by local and central authorities. The relevance of design is also evidenced by the fact that these innovations and the Project outputs respond to both short-term and long-term development needs in Sudan. 52. The design took into account the risk that commitments of complementary resources from local authorities, staff and supplies were essential complements to CDF outputs for successful service delivery. These commitments proved important to project success even if they could not fully compensate for the fact that resources from decentralization would not be forthcoming. The high level of GOS contribution did demonstrate government commitment to expanding the reach of Project design, which meant that fewer communities would be left out of CDF investments. 53. Implementation. The restructurings, particularly the revision of the PDO and indicators and the up scaling of activities increased relevance and reflected that the activities were not just to meet urgent needs, but to contribute to longer-term access to services. Changing the objective to access vs. meeting urgent needs also improved the specificity of the operation. Capacity building, both as part of the explicit program and that which was gained in implementing the Project was also a key component of the Project’s relevance to country needs. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Before Restructuring—Moderately Satisfactory After Restructuring— Moderately Satisfactory Overall— Moderately Satisfactory 54. Original PDO: To assist the Recipient in meeting urgent community-driven recovery and development needs by providing social and economic services and infrastructure to communities. 55. Revised PDO: To increase access to priority economic and social services and infrastructure in war-affected and underdeveloped areas of North Sudan, including the three areas. 56. As stated earlier, there is a split assessment of the achievement of the PDO, up to the October 2010 restructuring (65 percent disbursed) and until Project close (35 percent). The achievement of the PDO indicators also shows a proportion that is similar to the disbursement percentages (table 5): school enrollment (60 percent), access to health (52 percent), access to improved water sources (55 percent), community satisfaction (83 percent) and total beneficiaries (76 percent). As also noted, the results framework was not established until the Slice II approval (January 2008). After an initially slow start progress in reaching communities and delivery of community sub-projects and capacity building caught up and Project funds were fully disbursed for Slice 1 and Slice II. With the good record of implementation, additional funds were made available by the October 2010 restructuring when the PDO and PDO indicators were revised. Although there were many changes to the intermediate indicators, the PDO indicators aimed at capturing the same outcomes prior to revision, but with some refinements to improve measurability. 18 19 Table 5: Achievement of PDO indicators before change of indicator and at end of project period PDO indicator At change of indicators End date 06/30/2013 achievement percentage achievement percentage Girls and boys under 15 years enrolled in Total=110170 Total=182,740 targeted communities (number) Boys 77,120 Boys 103,791 (disaggregated by gender) Girls 33,050 60 Girls 78,949 40 People with access to a basic package of health, nutrition, or population services (percent increase) 290,400 52 562,704 48 People in rural areas provided with access to “Improved Water Sources” under the Project (number) 335,166 55 602,632 45 Satisfaction with delivery of basic social services 75 83 90 17 Direct project beneficiaries (number), of which female (percentage) 2,141,080 76 2,796,853 34 PDO Indicators 57. There were five PDO indicators that were monitored, and one - dropout rates – which was dropped because it could not be monitored. Instead, enrollment rates were monitored. Four of the five indicator targets were met: • Primary school enrollment total-182,740, boys-103,791, and girls 78,949, (against targets of 164,098, 96,744, and 67,354, respectively)—Ministry of Education • Increase of people with access to water with 596,734 people (target-553,863)—Project estimates based on community populations. • Increase of people with access to health services with 602,632 people (target-774,056)— Ministry of Health. • Percent of people satisfied with service delivery, 90 percent (target-90 percent)—Fourth Community Scorecard exercise. • Total number of direct beneficiaries 2,796,853 (target-2,621,794), of which 51 percent were female (against a target of 51 percent)—Project estimates based on population. 58. By providing permanent classrooms and family health units (FHUs) in good condition, the Project supported increased access to social services. Provision of solar electricity also provided a social service because children could do school work after dark, health facilities could store vaccines and other drugs and community centers would have lighting. The solar units also powered fans in some classrooms improving learning conditions; and provided power to teacher dormitories. The provision of water supply can be viewed as a provision of a social service rather than just a component of a social service. Increased access to water benefited not only schools, but entire communities. Latrines in schools and fences around school grounds also improved learning conditions and made schools more accessible, especially for girls. Border 20 fences prevented animals from wandering into school grounds and deterred vandalism of school buildings. 59. The percent of people satisfied with service delivery was measured most recently by the Fourth Community Scorecard exercise (document dated June 2013). The CSC surveyed men and women and reported a consensus rating. Based on the report, the vast majority of communities (90 percent) were satisfied with service delivery. Likewise, the Independent Evaluation of the MDTF-NS in Sudan 5 reported that beneficiaries have expressed high satisfaction with the benefits from the CDF project. The Independent Evaluation of the MDTF- NS report indicates that “... during discussions with beneficiaries at project sites – particularly in communities where the CDF was implemented. 60. The Independent Evaluation of the MDTF-NS in Sudan, based on extensive field observation and interviews and a review of project documentation, drew up the conclusion that “… the CDF's community-led development design has had a positive impact on participating remote communities' access to education, water, health, and social services. In addition, “the evaluation team observed important impacts that would be difficult to quantify related to a shift in community attitudes and capacity as a result of their participation in the project, as well as their acceptance of and trust in the CDF project staff.” This report further highlighted three exemplary impacts of the CDF project; the following impact stories related to the CDF project are taken from the Independent Evaluation report: a. Bringing development to closed communities- The Community Development Fund has been deeply involved with bringing development to several closed communities in Kassala state. Some of the tribes in this part of Sudan have long been wary of outside involvement in their communities and have experienced very little development as a result. Over a period of many months, CDF staff met multiple times with these communities, building trust and explaining the benefits the community members would gain from their involvement with the project. This investment in establishing a good relationship with community members eventually led to their participation in the CDF, which brought schools, training, and other services to these traditionally closed villages. b. The whole school approach - A fully functioning school requires more than classrooms, desks, and blackboards. Water points, toilets, and teacher housing are also important components to ensure that schools are completely operational. ... As part of the whole school strategy… CDF ensure adequate dormitories are available for teachers as needed. … Without the housing, the teachers would not have been able to travel daily to the schools due to the long commute. The dormitories allow them to remain in the village throughout the week and then return to their homes in town on the weekend. Through their inclusive approach, these projects ensure that schools and teachers have to provide the children in their communities with a better quality of education”. 5 Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan – Final Report, Feb 2013. 21 c. Mainstreaming gender: The MDTF-NS strives to make its projects gender sensitive, conducting analytical work on how to mainstream gender in activities and developing projects and products that are gender-suitable. Several of the Fund’s projects have had a particularly high degree of impact on the lives of women. With the Community Development Fund, women have been incorporated into the community-level organization, decision making process, and project implementation from the beginning. During visits to communities in Kassala and Blue Nile State, the evaluation team found that the opportunities afforded to women through their involvement in the CDF had a positive impact on other parts of their lives as well – sometimes ensuring their greater involvement in other aspects of the community’s life. 61. The CDF project has also made a positive impact on gender and the marginalized. With regards to the inclusion of marginalized groups, for example in Kassala, has expended considerable effort, reaching out to more closed and marginalized tribes in that state, and has seen a great deal of progress opening the communities to the idea of development and girls’ education 6. Similarly, CDF has made significant impact on the lives of women in the areas it has been implemented. Through the project, women directly participated in community decision- making through the Community Development Committees (CDCs), although their level of engagement varied by location. 62. As stated earlier, the economic services supported by the Project consisted mainly of water provided by the Project that was used by livestock owners. There was no indicator for economic services. One PDO indicator that fell short of its target was the access to a package of health and nutrition services, with an actual of 602,632 (vs. a target of 774,056). One benefit of the Project was job creation related to construction and service delivery, which the results framework did not count. The overall record of the Project with respect to PDO indicators suggests a rating of moderately satisfactory. Intermediate Indicators and Additional Evidence for Ratings 63. Intermediate indicators provide additional, albeit indirect, evidence for achievement of the PDO. The Project supported sub-projects in 616 communities, including 596 school construction/rehabilitations (total of 3,021 classrooms), 187 health facilities built/equipped, 273 midwives trained, 183 water supply improvements, and 162 village solar electricity units. Annex 2 has more detail. All of these indicators met or exceeded their targets. In addition, the Project built teacher dormitories for 267 schools, exceeding a target of 220 dormitories. ICR field visits confirmed that this intervention was critical to ensuring teacher availability in remote areas. 64. The results framework used several intermediate indicators under the category “Improved management of local infrastructure and services,” which helped capture the results of the Project’s capacity building activities: 6 Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan – Final Report, Feb 2013 22 • Community infrastructure managed through a community committee-(289 committees actual, 270 target)—Project reporting. Here • Community water points with user fees covering operations and maintenance (O&M)- (181 water points actual, 178 water points target i.e. all water points built by CDF have user fees that cover O&M)—Project reporting. • Renovated and new facilities in which Localities sign agreement for O&M responsibility- % (100 percent actual, 100 percent target)—Project monitoring. • Community Development Initiatives fully implemented by CBOs-% (26 percent actual, 25 percent target)—Project reporting. 65. Each of the four targets were met as confirmed by the PIU during the ICR mission. By ensuring the existence of a community management committee, establishment of user fees for water, and signed agreements to carry out O&M, the results framework was also capturing the sustainability of the Project outcomes. The fact that a smaller percentage of community initiatives were fully implemented reflects the long list of community needs along with an underestimate of the time required to meet those needs. 66. Solar units. During the ICR field mission, beneficiaries expressed strong appreciation for the lighting from solar units. PV solar street lighting systems have contributed to the security of the villages, created gathering places for reading, and informal meeting places during Ramadan and spaces to socialize. The PV lighting also created a better overall environment that encouraged teachers to stay in villages. The results framework could have included intermediate indicators that would have captured these benefits. 67. Capacity building. In terms of training, 69,100 people (40,040 male and 29,060 female) participated in community-level workshops and training sessions on a variety of topics. The CDF also trained 30 senior government officials through its local government leadership enhancement initiative, and trained 273 village midwives. 68. Additional Evidence for Capacity Building. Achievements by local government officials through the leadership initiative included: • The project that was started by the Hameshkoreib Locality (Kassala State) Commissioner (i.e. starting the first girls’ school in the locality and enrolling at least 100 girls) is completed and 150 girls are attending school. This community is very conservative still; it was not possible to film the school while it girls are attending classes. • In four nomadic communities of Sodari locality (North Kordofan State), the Locality Commissioner and his team have mobilized resources from local government, community and NGOs and built dormitories to facilitate the education of children from the community; so far 438 students are registered to start their education. • The rehabilitation of the rural hospital in Wad Banda Locality (North Kordofan State), which was initiated by the Locality Commissioner, is completed and started providing quality health services to the people in the locality. The main aim of the Wad Banda Commissioner and his team was to reduce the costs associated with people travelling outside the locality to get medical care. The completion of the rehabilitation of this 23 hospital contributes to the reduction of cost of travelling to get services outside the Locality. • The newly formed Tadamon Locality (Blue Nile State) the commissioner and his team effectively addressed the sanitation problem in the town and surrounding villages by (a) establishing a proper solid waste collection and management system - 2 tractors and 2 trailers purchased with funds provided by CDF and employing workers to manage the system, (b) sanitation awareness education in collaboration with health institutions, (c) organizing communities to contribute to the running cost of the waste collection and disposal and keeping their environment clean. • In Kailak Locality (South Kordofan State) the locality leadership mobilized resources and renovated the Local government offices and built staff house and offices for the administrative unit bordering the Southern Sudan; and as a result of this effort government staff could be posted in this remote area and provided services to the people. This was an important achievement to establish the legitimacy of government and strengthening of the peace. 69. These examples underscore the fact that the Project, though providing urgently needed inputs, also succeeded in achieving longer term capacity building. 3.3 Efficiency Before Restructuring—Satisfactory After Restructuring—Satisfactory Overall—Satisfactory 70. An economic analysis was not carried out at appraisal and no economic rate of return was calculated for this Project. The total amount of resources under the CDF was US$95 million (combined MDTF and GOS resources). The results framework estimates 2.8 million beneficiaries overall, which would translate to a gross investment of US$33.93 per beneficiary. Investments are broken down by Project activity, i.e., education, health, water, solar and capacity building benefits (Table 6). Expectedly, education has the highest investment per beneficiary (primary student) because the education benefits require a permanent structure that beneficiaries use each day of the school year. Solar energy benefits the most people per dollar of investment. The per-beneficiary investment shows costs for benefits that are highly valued by the communities. Table 6: Investment per Project Beneficiary Sector Total Cost No. of Investment/ Beneficiary US$ Beneficiaries US$ Education 57,681,977 182,740 316 Health 7,284,860 562,704 13 Potable Water 11,102,078 602,632 18 Solar Energy 2,653,657 658,613 4 24 71. In addition, there was cost recovery for water use for livestock and some human consumption that funded O&M for many of the water points, including pump fuel where solar was not available. There are no detailed accounts for the cost recovery, but the MOU between the communities and the State Water Corporation (of the GOS) requires that the communities provide the State Water Corporation with 60 percent of collected user fees and use the other 40 percent to cover operational and minor maintenance costs. 72. Another measure of efficiency is to compare costs of construction to other norms in- country. A detailed report, “Independent Evaluation of the CDF Construction Projects & Comparisons to Similar External Projects,” compared CDF construction costs to those of other projects in Sudan. In all cases, The CDF structures had similar to substantially lower per square meter costs. For example, in a comparison of a CDF school and a non-CDF school built in Telkok Locality (Kassala State), the construction costs of the CDF school per square meter were about one-third that of the “Rebuilding & Developing East Fund school (SDG622 vs. SDG1,813). Another example in the report is the construction of two identical water stations in Damazine Locality in the Blue Nile State. Again the CDF cost was less, though similar, SDG104, 124 vs. SDG111, 481. 73. The multiple extensions of the closing date, adding up to several years, also did not seem to have any negative effects on efficiency. The extensions came with considerable additional financing in 2007 and 2010, 76 percent above what was originally planned. The Project activities were scaled up (from 10 to 28 Localities and from 200 to 616 communities). In the case of solar there were some procurements that did not materialize. The result was that only US$1.4 million (MDTF) out of US$4 million available was actually used. However, that component was a small percentage of the overall project (about 4 percent). Moreover, the price of solar units fell sharply since the attempted procurement because of technology improvementsThe unused resources were successfully reallocated to other activities. . 74. Finally, regarding some of the Project’s intangible benefits, the final evaluation of the overall MDTF, the “Independent Evaluation of the MDTF”, concluded the following about the CDF Project: “[The efforts of CDF staff] , which took a considerable amount of time in some instances, were vital to successful implementation of the subprojects…. The evaluation team heard repeatedly in the focus group discussions with CDF communities that CDF is the only dependable development partner. This trust in the CDF’s capacity to deliver on its promises— while not easily quantified—is a positive outcome which could be a cornerstone for future interventions.” 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Before Restructuring–Moderately Satisfactory After Restructuring—Moderately Satisfactory Overall—Moderately Satisfactory 75. Table 7 shows the calculation of the split rating of overall outcome rating, using the six- point scale (1= highly unsatisfactory, 6= highly satisfactory). With relevance of objectives, design and implementation rated satisfactory, achievement of the PDO rated moderately 25 satisfactory and efficiency rated satisfactory before and after the restructuring, the overall outcome rating for the Project is moderately satisfactory. Table 7: Achievement of PDO: Rating Summary Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Overall Jan. 2006-Oct. 2010 Nov. 2010-Closing Rating MS MS Rating Value 4 4 Disbursement Weight 65% 35% Weighted Value 2.6 1.4 4.00 Final Rating MS 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts 3.5.1 Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 76. Community selection was based on the lowest scores for social and economic infrastructure. Thus, from that standpoint, the beneficiaries were relatively poor. To the extent that the Project promoted access to improved education and health structures and equipment, the Project had a positive impact on poverty. The provision of water infrastructure constituted a direct service to the poor. 77. Regarding gender impact, according to the CS, there is limited satisfaction with women’s participation in CDF and development processes by communities, as reflected in average or below average satisfaction scores by communities in the CS. While women’s participation was viewed to be ‘good’ in some localities in North Kordofan and Blue Nile, it was consistently rated low in most localities, with the worst scores observed in Al Gash in Kassala. The lower rating may be attributed to cultural norms and practices, although CDF project processes appear to hold promise for positive changes in this Locality. For instance, in Al Gash where women and men are not expected to mix in a public meeting, the construction of a school bringing together boys and girls is an important step in breaking these barriers. A gender strategy and plan of action has been prepared by CDF, but is not yet implemented. 78. The MDTF-N Sustainability Study noted, there have been substantial perceived economic benefits, especially for women in most areas, from the interventions in terms of reduction in time for water collection, enhanced education for girls, and improvement in health conditions and reduction in maternal deaths. On the social front, the community centers, equipped with televisions and satellite dishes, have helped in strengthening social relationships at community level. 79. The capacity building activities implemented by CDF have made strides in social development with communities, through Community Action Plans, identifying and prioritizing their needs and implementing many of the project activities. Communities also own and manage community infrastructure including water supply schemes and village solar power; mechanisms to generate funds through user fees and community contributions, and manage through 26 community committees. The resources provided by CDF directly to local communities were, in most cases, the only funds available for development projects in the Locality. The CDF also supported capacity development of Local Government to ensure its commitment to local development agents i.e. communities and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). 80. Despite the Project’s efforts, a study 7 on CDD impacts of the Project concluded that the Project has so far “…failed to increase social capital in war-torn areas of Sudan.” This study was carried out in North Kordofan and Kassala as the other two States were unstable. However, the study also found that program villages perceived marked improvement in the cohesion of their communities, suggesting that the stock of social capital may be growing. Cohesion of communities is essential to promote communal development initiatives and is critical to promote peace and stability in conflict prone areas like Sudan. The overall conclusion of the study underscores the fact that building social capital is a longer term process than a typical project lifespan. 3.5.2 Institutional Change/Strengthening 81. The Public Expenditure review (PER) of 2007 revealed that most state and locality public spending on health and education went to salaries, while a minimal amount went to investment spending. Investment spending in the health sector was extremely low, with over 95 percent going for current expenditure. One of the main recommendations of the PER was that further increases in government health and education spending should aim to improve spending on non- salary recurrent costs and investment. The CDF responded to this need to shift resources toward investment for the construction of basic social infrastructure including school and health facility with the aim of improving access and quality of service delivery. In addition, the Social and Conflict Analysis study pointed to the complete collapse of social and economic infrastructure, particularly education and health infrastructure across the States were inadequate. The main problem facing the basic education was full collapse of school environment conducive for education. Most of the schools were built from local materials, and lacked seating, sanitary facilities and drinking water. Similarly, the health facilities are very poor with trained health personnel usually found only in urban areas. Buildings of health facilities seldom received maintenance and were in very poor condition. 82. With the advent of the CDF, for the past seven years, the GOS has provided more than 40 percent of the resources for the CDF under the MDTF. During that time, the CDF had a manager for each of the 28 locality implementation units, which have already been handed over to GOS. Overall, more than 200 staff were employed by the CDF and the majority of these staff have stayed on. All equipment and computers and furniture were maintained in working order before being handed over to the GOS. There was also continuous training in procurement and FM at the locality level. The Project trained about 35 procurement officers, before which there had been none at all. These officers, in turn, trained government officials in a kind of cascading build-up of capacity. 7 “Community-Driven Development and Social Capital: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Sudan,” Alexandra Avdeenko and Michael J. Gilligan, May 22, 2012. 27 83. The CDF Project was an important first step for GOS in the new focus on service delivery. The GOS is retaining the same implementing structure as the PIU as it mainstreams the CDF approach to service delivery. The position of Director General at the state level is taking over the PIU role. Some of the capacity has been retained, but people are now being paid Government salaries which are far lower than Project level salaries. 3.5.3 Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 84. There were a number of unintended outcomes. One positive outcome was the progress in mixing boys and girls in CDF-built schools in communities where it was not thought likely. Another unintended benefit was that Federal & state governments kept the Locality Implementation Unit structures intact, such that overall capacity built could be preserved to continue the CDD approach within local governments. The positive reputation and trust established by the CDF will be valuable in future interventions and scale-up. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops N.A. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Substantial 85. The balance of the factors increasing risk and reducing risk support a rating of substantial for risk to development outcome. 4.1 Factors lowering risk 86. The conclusion of the MDTF-N Assessment of Program Sustainability, World Bank - October 23, 2011 on local ownership supports the case of sustainability. “Ownership of the CDF approach by Government and other stakeholder is very strong and the commitment for its expansion by the federal and state governments as well as the Mahalliyah’s is very evident. Community ownership of the interventions, especially schools, health facilities, water points and community development centers is very high and has been significantly internalized. Communities have shown clear readiness to participate in the operation and maintenance of the facilities”. 87. The Sustainability Study of MDTF-N also found that "Communities have mobilized to ensure benefits are sustained. They have shown strong initiative in operating and maintaining solar electrification and water projects. For water projects, it is important that the current partnership between communities and the states’ water authorities that define the role, responsibilities, and revenue sharing arrangements be maintained to help improve the sustainable management of water points.” 88. The CDF design had several built-in features to lower risk to outcomes: (i) a participatory approach throughout the project cycle; (ii) building the capacity of communities, CBOs and local government entities; (iii) promoting stakeholders’ partnerships with Localities; 28 and (iv) implementation in close collaboration with local governments’ administrative structure (MOUs). These measures resulted in active participation of the community in the identification of their problems and solutions to address the problems, and some gains in social organization. 89. Also lowering the risk to development outcome is the GOS decision to adopt CDF procedures for future investments, in particular, procurement, FM and safeguards processes, as well as community consultation, approval and implementation procedures. In fact, the GOS has declared that the CDF model will be mainstreamed as the main service delivery approach. This decision has been backed up by budget commitments for 2014 to CDF-style investment. The Government has further declared that the priority for service delivery is to first support the CDF investments that have already been made, including missing structures and defects, and only then expand further into new communities and Localities. 90. In Sudan water sources are owned by the State water corporation except those built or rehabilitated by CDF and communities which are owned by the community. CDF managed to convince State Wali’s (governors) to provide a special decree to allow communities to own and manage water sources. The community has an MOU with the water corporation to share revenues and responsibilities in OM. Sixty percent of the revenue is provided to the water corporation which is responsible for major maintenance, audit and community training. Second, for schools and health facilities there is a MOU signed between community local government and CDF with clear roles and responsibilities. 91. The staff of the project Locality Implementation Units (LIUs), with the exception of the Manager and social mobilizer, who worked with the project during the implementation period, returned to their localities offices with additional experience from the Project. 4.2 Factors increasing risk 92. There has been and remains instability in parts of two of the four target States, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. Because of this instability, it was not possible to monitor the Project nor to conduct fieldwork for the ICR. 93. While the requirement that all subprojects include operations and maintenance arrangements whether through the establishment of user groups or maintenance funds has worked well for community owned and managed subprojects including water supply, solar energy and community centers, that is not the case for health and schools that are managed by local government. Although all subproject approvals have been explicit about the recurrent cost implications of project investments and have been spelled out in Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and that commitment is sought from the proper authorities to cover these expenses, the abilities of local government to discharge its operations and maintenance responsibility for schools and health facilities remains a challenge. 94. The CS exercises revealed concerns about lack of inputs from the local and central governments. The CS also cited poor communication between the community and relevant sector departments such that even when inputs such as text books were available at the locality level, it was difficult to access them. 29 95. Also working against sustainability is the lack of external funding going forward. The CDF will be no longer funded by the MDTF which has expired. There are only small amounts of resources secured so far. One of which is a US$2 million grant from China to support solar installations. Basically, the CDF model is going forward using GOS resources, but without supervision from the Bank as was the case during the CDF. The New Partnership Trust Fund is planned to continue some of the CDF activities but with a small resource envelope so far. DFID has provided an initial amount of US$2 million to the fund. At the present time, only analytical work can be planned with this level of resources. Efforts are ongoing to build up the resources in this trust fund. 96. Another cause for concern about sustainability of Project outputs is the loss of capacity after the close of the CDF. The social mobilizers who performed the critical task of mobilizing community participation and implementation of the Project and in whom the Project built capacity have all dispersed. The GOS will need to make efforts, to the extent possible, to locate these mobilizers and re-deploy them so that they can continue their work in community capacity building and train other social-mobilizers. 97. Only four of the 28 Locality managers in whom the Project also built management capacity, are still carrying out CDF tasks. This is because CDF activities are now being managed at the State level. Thus, another link has been added to the chain between the central government and the targeted communities. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance 5.1.1 Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 98. The Bank worked well with the GOS and other stakeholders to design community selection criteria, enlist social mobilizers, and generally familiarize stakeholders with the CDD approach to service delivery. This assistance brought a number of important innovations for Sudan. In addition it helped the country apply a rational set of community selection criteria to overcome political interference and engage communities for the first time in decades. The CDD approach also allowed communities to choose interventions and to contribute to the investment itself. The Bank, through the MDTF supported basic capacity building that was sufficient to initiate implementation. The QAG Learning Review commended the Project for its high quality Social and Conflict Assessment. The QAG also commended (i) the project institutional arrangements for implementation, especially on locality level; (ii) the quality and adequacy of FM arrangements; and overall (iii) the project team’s flexibility and ingenuity in finding ways to work in the Sudanese environment. 99. There were also a number of shortcomings in the quality at entry. Even though it was not uncommon for CDD projects, there was no results framework in the original FPP. The results 30 framework was introduced with the approval of Slice II, but needed substantial improvement at the time the additional financing was approved in 2010. 100. The risk assessment also had some weaknesses. Issues of security could have been better articulated in the FPP. The choice of community coverage over focus of Project resources had its costs, but was justified in that fewer communities were excluded from Project benefits. 5.1.2 Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 101. Supervision missions were regular sufficient and were composed of an appropriate range of expertise, including FM, procurement and safeguards. The overall reporting for the project was thorough and of good quality for the most part. Field visits were conducted by the monitoring agent (MA) which provided specific information on issues that could be addressed by the PIU and the Localities. The Functionality Assessment was particularly useful and guided project activities to remediate defects and deficiencies in Project outputs. Additional financing was secured to scale up the project and was effectively used to expand sub-projects. 102. The delivery of outputs was timely and complete with the exception of solar units and some school furniture. This was a good performance in a fragile state with low capacity at the local levels. The Bank could have played a more active role in overseeing the procurement of solar panels. Donors wanted international procurement and the OC opted for ICB procurement, which was difficult under the economic sanctions against Sudan. In the end, the solar resources were used for other sub-projects. 5.1.3 Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 103. With performance at entry rated as moderately satisfactory, and performance during supervision rated as satisfactory, and an outcome rating of moderately satisfactory, overall Bank performance is rated moderately satisfactory. 5.2 Borrower Performance 5.2.1 Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 104. The MFNE strongly supported the Project by providing a large share (44 percent) of the resources for the Project. Counterpart contributions were late because of the financial crisis and austerity measures. In the end, all counterpart funds were provided to the Project. The GOS has also declared its commitment that the CDD delivery mechanism will be mainstreamed as a way of delivering social services to the communities. Thus, the commitment to continuing the program is, at least officially, firm. 31 5.2.2 Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 105. In Project documentation, the MFNE is described as the implementing agency. The MFNE established a Project Implementation Unit (PIU), at the central level as an independent unit with administrative and financial autonomy and supervisory role over the Locality Implementation Units (LIUs). On the ground, it was the Localities working with participating communities and with the help of the PIU that were ensuring implementation. The social mobilizer worked well with the CBOs to build capacity, and select and implement the investments. The overall performance of the implementing agency was rated as Moderately Satisfactory by the Monitoring Agent, mainly because of the weaknesses of the PIU during the implementation of the project, including (i) the use of MDTF Grant Funds to cover for counterpart contribution during the delay of government contribution which is counter to the Grant Agreement; (ii) delays in submission of financial management reports; and (iii) lengthy International Competitive Bidding procurement process for the Solar energy component of the project. 106. The localities with the help of the PIU contracted the construction of schools, health units and wells, with the exception of community contracting which was carried out by the communities themselves (again, with substantial assistance from the PIU). The Localities completed training in procurement and financial management under the Project. Compliance with safeguards requirements was rated satisfactory for most of the Project. Local Project staff returned to their previous positions in the Localities, but with increased project management experience. The final evaluation report for the MDTF concluded the following about the performance of CDF staff: “As community members witnessed the consistency and dedication of the CDF staff, their willingness to participate fully in the process increased.” Thus, the example set by CDF staff was a key to the success of the Project. Finally, the Borrower produced a good quality, evidence-based ICR (Annex 7), which is a further source of information for Project ratings. 5.2.3 Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 107. With Government performance rated as satisfactory, and IA performance during supervision rated as moderately satisfactory, the overall Borrower performance is rated as moderately satisfactory. 6. Lessons Learned 108. Shortening the path of the flow of financial resources from the source to the end- user can help achieve quicker delivery of goods and services. As the PDO indicated, there was an urgent need for social services. In response, the CDF Project design called for direct 32 disbursements from the central PIU account to the localities, thus bypassing the provincial level. This direct path shortened processing time and reduced potential leakages. 109. Developing a strong relationship with Government can make it possible to gain approval for design features that are beneficial, but politically difficult. Getting the central government in Khartoum to agree to pass financial disbursement authority past the State governments and directly to the Localities was a difficult measure to get approved. Through good relations with the MOF and having built credibility through preparation of other projects, the team was able to get the direct financial flow approved, which facilitated implementation. 110. If broader community coverage is opted for rather than a more concentrated allocation of project resources, then measures need to be taken to ensure that resources are not spread so thinly that their impact is diluted. In the case of the CDF, policy makers, understandably, felt a great deal of pressure not to leave out communities from CDF benefits, but rather to cover as many as possible. Unfortunately, the localities were not able to fund adequately the necessary complements for service delivery, such as learning materials and supplies. 111. Additional capacity building beyond an initial community contribution is required to develop a maintenance mentality for new assets. The Project required communities to contribute in-kind in-cash or both, which was a good first step. To reinforce a mind-set for maintaining the assets will require continued active efforts by Localities, probably using social mobilizers, over an extended period of time. 112. It is important to demonstrate benefits of the CDD approach to stakeholders in order to win their support for the approach. Initially, people in the communities were skeptical of the CDD approach because the central government had not invested in social services in recent years. In preparing the CDF project, the preparation team presented several successful cases of CDD implementation (Yemen, Tanzania and Malawi). By showing stakeholders what these investments achieved, they were persuaded that the same benefits could be produced in Sudan. 113. The role of “Social Mobilizer” is essential for CDD projects and any capacity built through this role should be sustained after Project close. Social mobilizers were essential in not only gaining women’s participation in the Project, but also informing communities, and winning their acceptance of the Project’s investments, including their obligations through initial community contributions and ongoing O&M. With the capacity built within the social mobilizer cadre dispersing after Project close, the GOS will have to find a way to reconstitute this capacity, or start from scratch if the CDF model is to be truly mainstreamed. 114. The menu of investment choices for participating communities needs to be well thought out in order to provide the actual service the investment intends. The CDF provided a choice of investments that was consistent with the community context and were appropriate in terms of design and cost. In addition, communities do need substantial guidance in ensuring better functionality of the investments they choose. 33 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors The ICR is in basic agreement with the findings of the Borrower’s ICR. 7.1 Grantee/Implementing agencies 7.2 Cofinanciers/Donors 7.3 Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) None received. 34 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (USD (USD millions)-a Appraisal millions) 1. Community Development Sub- 82.50 82.5 100.0 % projects 2. Capacity Building. 4.0 4 100 % 3. M&E and Project Management. 7.5 7.5 100 % Total Baseline Cost 94.0 100.0% Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Total Project Costs 94.00 94.0 100.0 % Project Preparation Costs 1.00 1.00 100.0 % Total Financing Required 95.00 95.0 100.0% a-includes additional financing. (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Cofinancing Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Government of Sudan Direct 42.2 42.2 100 % Multi-donor Trust Fund for North Sudan Through WB 52.8 52.29 98.7 % 35 Annex 2. Outputs by Component SOUTH NORTH BLUE SECTOR/OUTPUT KORDOFAN KORDOFAN NILE KASSALA TOTAL EDUCATION No. of schools constructed or rehabilitated 198 167 112 119 596 no. of class room constructed or rehabilitated 1114 1007 512 388 3021 no. of offices constructed or rehabilitated 514 386 221 166 1,287 no. of dormitory constructed or rehabilitated 75 48 74 70 267 No. of waste disposal constructed 0 0 0 0 0 No. of latrine constructed or rehabilitated 996 925 724 615 3,260 No. of water facility constructed 178 140 96 136 550 Number of enrolment (boys) 34,281 28,043 19,476 21,991 103,791 Number of enrolment (girls) 28216 23032 14649 13052 78,949 HEALTH No. of health facilities constructed or rehabilitated 42 42 55 48 187 No. of Health facility provided with equipment /a 17 17 22 21 77 Total beneficiaries of this sector 153,203 152,613 73,883 183,005 562,704 WATER Number of water points constructed or rehabilitated 6 2 0 6 17 Hand pump installed 8 16 8 18 50 Water yard constructed or rehabilitated 5 14 0 18 37 Hafir constructed or rehabilitated 13 11 1 1 26 Water station constructed or rehabilitated 12 17 6 18 53 Total beneficiaries of this sector 102,832 227,271 26,599 245,930 602,632 ELECTRICITY No. of solar units provided 9 110 2 41 162 No of Generators provided to 0 1 1 3 5 Localities and dormit. /a Note: It was reported that 110 health units already had equipment. 36 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis N.A. 37 Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending/Grant Preparation Bassam Ramadan TTL 1 Project Preparation Supervision/ICR Mohamed Yahia Ahmed Said Sr Financial Management Specia MNAFM Finance Abd El Karim Bassam Ramadan TTL 1 Project management Overall Project Endashaw Tadesse TTL 2 management Jamal Abdulla Abdulaziz Senior Procurement Specialist MNAPC Procurement Vinayak Narayan Ghatate Senior Rural Development Speci SASDL CDD Abdelmonem Osman Kardash Consultant AFMSD Nandini Krishnan Economist MNSED Prasad C. Mohan Consultant AFMZW Gebreselassie Okubagzhi Consultant AFTTR Krishna Pidatala Senior Operations Officer TWICT M&E, FM Rupa Ranganathan Consultant AFTG2 Francesco Sarno Consultant MIGOP Tesfaye Bekalu Wondem Sr Water & Sanitation Spec. AFTU1 Water Richard Carroll Economist and Financial Analyst Evaluation Specialist (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending Total: 298,675.00 Supervision/ICR-a FY08-FY14 657,227.00 Total: 955,902.00 a estimated from MDTF accounting 38 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results/Summary of Site Visits during ICR Mission in Kassala State No. Locality Community CDF Activities 1 Setit Hila al Jadida Education: 543 students and 15 teachers. CDF 2007-6 classrooms, 2 offices, latrines, furniture, fence, no dormitory (not a remote area). 2 Setit Al Ramaila Education and Health: 258 students and 10 teachers. CDF 2010-3 new and 5 rehabilitated classrooms, 2 offices, fence, latrine. 2011-health unit (has staff). Teachers dormitory from Eastern Recovery and Dev. Fund, water from UNICEF. 3 Rural Diman Education and Health: 400 students and 10 teachers. CDF Kassala 2006-4 classes and 2 offices rehabilitated, 2008-4 new classrooms and 1 new office and 1 store room. 2013-Solar (fans, lights, street light, water pump, dormitory-light not functioning in dorm.) The Health Unit is equipped by the CDF and the dormitory is built and furnished by CDF Severely war effected—largely abandoned for 10 years. There’s a staffed health unit, but apparently not built by CDF. 4 Rural Hafarat Health: CDF 2008-Health Unit (which is staffed), serving Kassala more than 50 patients per week. However, medicine supplies are in short supply with neither CDF nor UNICEF supplying at this time. Furniture is also needed. Already had a school which was built by British NGO. CDF installed solar systems for basic school and water pumping unit. 5 Rural Aroma Toglay- Education and Health: 289 students and 10 teachers. CDF Hadandwa tribe 2008-1 new classroom and 1 office (first school built, before all home school). 2010-teacher dormitory (for 7 teachers out of 10). 2011-Health unit (shortage of supplies), latrine and water connection. 2012-fence. Girls do not complete past 6th grade and there is no secondary school because of poverty. CDF connected a water station (a tank and a pump) from the IFAD long pipeline. It serves several villages in addition to Toglay CDF connected a water line from IFAD main water line to complete water system constructed by CDF (water tank, pumping unit and distribution points at community.) 6 Rural Aroma Akla al Mahta Education: 2 classrooms, 1 office, rehab of water station. Distribution pipes have been installed, tank leaking (since it was rehabilitated?). The two classrooms visited are not CDF projects, only water project, however 4 classrooms and 2 offices were constructed by CDF but not visited by the team. 7 Rural Fato Health and Community Center: CDF-2007-Health unit. Kassala 2008-health cadre dormitory (fully staffed), also revolving 39 fund for medicines supported by Kuwaiti fund and patient fees, 300 people served per week. 2012-Community center 8 Hamesh Haladate Education and water-320 male students, 11 teachers. CDF Korib Hodandwa 2007-bore hole, pump (now solar powered). 2008-teacher tribe dormitory (for 7 male teachers). 2010-2 classrooms and 1 Hadandwa tribe office. Several solar street lighting units. Girls classroom (constructed by the State Ministry of Education) is used as latrine and no furniture. No dormitory for female teachers. Though village leader maintains that girls education is more important than that of boys. Community was severely affected by war and was abandoned until 2006-7. 9 New Al Gurashi Education: 359 students plus 50 pre-schoolers. CDF 2011-6 Halfa/River classrooms, latrine, fence, 2 offices. No electricity, ,solar Atbara units, capacity building for CBO-yes. Desperately need water filtration, high bilharzia rate (72% of children). Note: All communities had capacity building for CBOs. 40 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results N.A. 41 Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Government of Sudan Ministry of Finance and National Economy Multi-Donors Trust Fund Community Development Fund Project Implementation Completion Results Report (January 2006 - June 2013) Note-This document has been condensed to conform more closely with WB ICR guidelines 42 1. Introduction: The purpose of this [summarized] Core ICR is to disseminate the findings of the assessment to the CDF staff members, WB managers and concerned government agencies and other key stakeholders. Its recommendations are important for the CDF for future improvements at the project design and implementation levels. On the other hand, the ICR Report is one of the WB’s drives to increase development effectiveness. The scope of this ICRR is limited to assessment of Slice II operation’s objectives, project design, implementation process (Borrowers’ performance) and lessons learning. In order to highlight these aspects the assessment will focus on outputs, outcomes and sustainability. The thematic coverage is limited to water supply, education and health, while the geographical coverage includes North Kordofan State, Blue Nile State, Kassala State and South Kordofan State. 2. Program Context Development and Design: 2.1 Brief description of the country and sector background: After decades of conflict between the Government of Sudan and the then southern regions of the country and now South Sudan, the CPA marks the first real chance for peace and development for Sudanese people. There is massive inequality in human development outcomes and access to basic services between regions and states of Sudan, with those states in conflict suffering disproportionately from limited access to basic social services and economic opportunities. The CPA recognized that the prevailing wide regional disparities in development, access to services and opportunities are the underlying structural causes of conflict and need to be addressed. The Social and Conflict Analysis study 8 conducted in the South Kordofan, Blue Nile, North Kordofan and Kassala states (i.e. the states that are benefiting from Community Development Fund Project (CDF) project) concluded that the cost of war in these states, besides loss of lives and displacement, was complete collapse of social and economic infrastructure, particularly education and health infrastructure across the states were inadequate. The main problem facing the basic education was full collapse of school environment conducive for education. Most of the schools were built from local materials, lack seating, sanitary facilities and drinking water. Similarly, the health facilities are very poor with trained health personnel usually found only in urban areas. Buildings of health facilities seldom receive maintenance and were in very poor conditions. The Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) had been established within the CPA context to facilitate the coordination of the reconstruction and development needs of the country both in the southern and northern parts of the country. The Community Development Fund (CDF) is one of the Projects which are financed by the MDTF-North and Government of National Unity (GoNU) to address urgent community recovery and development needs in the war-affected and underdeveloped areas of Northern Sudan including the Three Areas-Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Abyei. 2.2 Development objectives: 8 Republic of the Sudan, Community Development Fund, Social and Conflict Analysis- Synthesis Report, Feb, 2006 43 The development objective of the CDF in Sudan was to meet urgent community recovery and development needs in the war-affected and underdeveloped areas of North Sudan by providing social and economic services and infrastructure. Social service delivery is perceived by CDF program designers as a vehicle for facilitating conflict resolution and ensuring peace dividends to the war-affected populations. Subsequently, the specific objective of the Program is to increase access to priority economic and social services and infrastructure in war-affected and underdeveloped areas of The Republic of Sudan (Northern Sudan at the time of design). 2.3 Components: The CDF project is composed of the following two main components: a. Community Development Sub-projects: This component addressed the pro-poor community development priorities as laid out in the peace protocols, with particular emphasis on access and quality of basic education, health and water services. b. Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation and Project Management: This component provided training, technical assistance and capacity building to Localities, NGOs and local Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), to improve their technical skills in the identification, planning, programming, management and delivery of sub-projects Through these components the program attempt was to provide sustainable socioeconomic services to the target groups. 2.4 Costs and funding, The total initial budget of the CDF is US$50 million. The contribution of MDTF was US$30 million and the contribution of GONU was US$20 million. Then the budget increased to $95 million distributed as follows: • MDTF: US$52.8 • GONU: US$42.2 • In addition to the invaluable community contribution which was estimated to be SDG 13.95 (Equivalent to approx US$ 3 million). 3. Implementation arrangements: The Ministry of Finance delegated CDF project execution to a Project Implementation Unit (PIU), established at the central level as an independent unit with administrative and financial autonomy and supervisory role over the Locality Implementation Units. Locality Implementation Units (LIUs) are established in each of the targeted locality/district and are in charge of implementation in-tandem with local government, communities, CBOs and NGOs. All staffs of LIUs, except the manager and the social mobilizers who are hired by the project, are government employees and are paid by the state. Communities are responsible to (a) identify and prioritize their needs through Community Action Plans prepared by the community in participatory approach (with the help of CBOs, NGOs and CDF LIUs), (b) contribute to the cost of projects in kind and/or cash, (c) directly participate on the implementation and management of their prioritized needs. CBOs and NGOs support communities in building capacity and 44 provide technical support in the implementation of projects which are beyond the communities’ capability. Local government through its Locality Steering Committee reviews and approves a consolidated Community Action Plan of the district, oversees the implementation of projects, ensures human resources and recurrent costs allocated to schools and health facilities financed by CDF, together with the state government ensures the allocation of government staff to LIUs and take over the full responsibility at the end of the CDF project. CDF has been designed to align its implementation with regular government structure to avoid a complete parallel structure which undermines government capacity and leaves a big gap upon project closing. To this effect, all the staff (except the Manager) at the Local Implementation unit are government employees who will be going back to the local government planning unit with all the equipment and vehicles of the CDF Local Implementation Unit. The training of local government leaders and the learning by doing which was promoted by CDF will facilitate the smooth transfer of all CDF resources, approaches and objectives to local government. The entry point of the CDF was conducting of social assessment in the targeted areas and needs identification survey as part of project preparation. The assessment and survey results were used for designing and providing basic training to facilitate the identification and prioritization of community needs, prepare Community Action Plans (CAP) that will be supported by CDF project and implemented by the community. CDF encouraged communities to create and strengthen Community Based Organizations that will facilitate the community’s participation and manage local development initiatives. It also fostered linkages between communities and local government institutions, NGOs and private sector contractors. 3.1 Main Beneficiaries: The beneficiaries of CDF project are the communities of the war-affected and underdeveloped areas of South Kordofan, North Kordofan, Blue Nile and Kassala states. They are in 616 communities which are the most needy ones and represent about 16% of the total communities in these States. The total number of beneficiaries is 2,796,853 which is about 33% of the total number of population in the 4 States. 3.2 Problems faced during the implementation process: The project management had faced some challenges and problems during the implementation process and dealt with them as appropriate. For example, the technical and institutional capacities of the LIUs were so limited. This has been tackled by training and organization. For example all the over 30 procurement staff hired by CDF at Local Implementation Unit level had no formal training on procurement prior to joining CDF. The CDF in collaboration with the World Bank Procurement specialists provided regular procurement training and back up support to capacitate the Local Implementation Unit procurement staff. Similarly, CDF trained the engineers, social mobilizers and financial management staff in order to enhance the capacity and thereby improve implementation of the project. An important operational problem was the logistical constraints. It had been overcome by appropriate sequencing of the activities, effective coordination and community participation. Although not serious the project sometimes faced delays in the release of counterpart funding releases from government. This usually results in delays in paying the contractors and consequently slippages in the implementation scheduling. One of the problems that worth mentioning were the delay of community contribution and this was solved by intensifying mobilization activities. 45 One case was reported on dispute over selection criteria in Kailak between the Commissioner and Executive Manager. This was tackled amicably through transparency and involvement of key stakeholders including the beneficiary community and community leaders in the concerned areas. 4. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization: 4.1 M&E design: The CDF had designed its own M&E system for monitoring the project activities and for the proposed evaluation requirements for the project results and impact. The system was formulated of formats for data and information collection for performance assessment and for measuring progress towards achieving outcomes and objectives. The M&E system used the indicators of each component from the results framework for consistency purpose. It specifies the methods of data collection and the responsibilities of each partner. The M&E system was designed as a flexible document that can be revised and updated when the need arises. 4.2 M&E implementation: The M&E Officer of CDF used to send monitoring formats to the LIUs on quarterly bases for the reporting and on other occasions as needed. More formats for collecting data from the beneficiary communities and other key stakeholders were also developed for some specific information needs. The data and information collected by these formats were used for assessing the financial and physical performances and for measuring the progress against the intended results of the Programme. The Community Scorecards were also implemented with the overall objective to strengthen participatory community monitoring and accountability (PCM&A) in CDF operations. 5. Description of programme performance: 5.1 Component I: Community Development Sub-projects: Performance on Education Sector: Five hundred ninety six schools have been completed and are providing services to 182,740 (78,949 Girls and 103,791 boys). 276 teachers residences built i.e. over a third of CDF built schools have teachers’ residences which helps to attract and retain teachers in a remote area. CDF financed schools are permanent building structures with essential facilities including desks, toilets, hand washing basin and fences. Over 116 schools and teachers residences are powered with photovoltaic solar energy which facilitates studying at night for students as well as allowing teachers to prepare for their lesson plans. Anecdotal evidences suggest that students in schools benefitting from solar power have improved their exam results; it also encouraged teachers to stay in villages with PV solar systems. The provision of solar lighting enabled schools to provide adult literacy classes for women in the night. Community Scorecard result for education services related to availability of adequate qualified teachers, enough desks, dormitories, latrines and permanent structures such as classrooms have been rated favorably by communities. On the other hand, indicators such as availability of text books, provision of school meal and water supply recorded low scores, indicating dissatisfaction 9. The Program has improved the physical environment in 596 schools in the four targeted States. This was achieved through construction of 3021 classrooms (72.4%) and 1,287 teacher offices (84.3%). The students’ seating has, also, been improved at different levels as illustrated by the pie chart below: Female/Male ratio has changed in South Kordofan from 1.37:1 to 1.3:1; 9 Sudan Community Development Fund project Third Community Scorecard Exercise, September 2011 46 The number of teacher in the Blue Nile has increased by a high percent of 76.60% but the highest increase was in Kassala where reached 80.12% while the lowest rate of 22.28% recorded in South Kordofan State. In North Kordofan the increase was 41.50%. High percentages of increase in number of teachers indicate that the shortage was substantial and vise versa. And the aggregate increase in number of teachers is 1652 constituting 49% of the baseline number. The achievements have met or exceeded the planned targets. Students: The number of students has significantly increased in all States. Kassala State witnessed a dramatic increase of 108% and the Blue Nile came next by 38.1% while North Kordofan achieved more than 31% and the lowest increase was in South Kordofan with 28.5$.. The overall increase is 41.6% with more for girls with about 44% increase while that for the boys is about 40%. See the tables No. below: State Total number of Students % Increase Before After SK 48,656 62,497 28.4% NK 38,915 51,075 31.2% BN 24,703 34,125 38.1% Ks 16,823 35,043 108.3% - - Total 129,097 182,740 41.6% No of Students Before and After CDF Interventions Before CDF After CDF % Increase Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls SK 27,547 21,109 34,281 28,216 24.4% 33.7% NK 22,282 16,633 28,043 23,032 25.9% 38.5% BN 14,179 10,524 19,476 14,649 37.4% 39.2% Ks 10,243 6,580 21,991 13,052 114.7% 98.4% Total 74,251 54,846 103,791 78,949 39.8% 43.9% The diagram below illustrates the above table for more visibility. It is clear that the impact of the CDF in Kassala is substantial followed by South Kordofan, North Kordofan and Blue Nile, respectively. The total number of children enrolled after the CDF intervention over three years is 53,641 (41.55%). This is mainly attributed to the construction of the classrooms, teachers’ offices and teachers’ houses in addition to the community mobilization. Figure 1 Numbers of Students 47 Enrolment of Boys and Girls 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Boys before Girls Before Boys after 15,000 Girls after 10,000 5,000 - SK NK BN Ks 5.1.1 Health Sector: The health sector attempted to reduce pregnant women and child mortality and to reduce the general rate of common diseases and to reduce the distances to the health services for the communities. These objectives were achieved through delivery of outputs in terms of construction of health facilities and provision of equipment, furniture and training of health personnel. A total of 110 health facilities have been completed and are providing services to total of 562,303 people in the four states targeted by CDF. Half of the health facilities financed by CDF also have health workers residence which serves as an incentive to attract and retain health workers in remote and underserved areas. 52% of the served population in the four States were females. The table below shows the breakdown of the beneficiaries by State and gender: Table No. (4) Health Beneficiaries State No. of Health Total Number of Beneficiaries Units Male Female Total S. Kordofan 25 71,597 81,606 153,203 Blue Nile 33 34,120 49,563 83,683 N. Kordofan 25 71,164 71,248 142,412 Kassala 27 91,278 91,727 183,005 Total 110 268,159 294,144 562,303 48 Figure 2 Health Beneficiaries Population Served By Health Facilities by Gender 300,000 250,000 200,000 Males 150,000 Females 100,000 50,000 0 S. Kordofan Blue Nile N. Kordofan Kassala Total CDF has supported the training of 210 midwives to contribute to the efforts of government to increase the availability of skilled health workers in rural areas. Fifty nine health facilities are powered by photovoltaic solar system and this contributed to the availability of health services at night, refrigerated storage facilities for drugs and vaccines, and solar lanterns for midwives in order to facilitate service delivery at night. Increases in the rate of vaccination in areas where the health facilities powered by solar refrigerators are reported by North Kordofan state Ministry of Health. For example, in Sodari locality in North Kordofan state the ten health facilities built by CDF and operated by the National Health Insurance contributed to the improvement of coverage of vaccination from 28% to 78%. CDF facilitated the partnership between the community and the National Health Insurance - a government organization that administers health insurance fund. Based on the agreement, 17 health facilities, built by community with CDF support, are managed by the National Health Insurance Fund (Sodari, Gsheikh and Wadbanda). The National Health Insurance provides all the staff, drugs, medical equipment and current costs and provides health services to both those who have health insurance and those who do not have. The latter patients pay for the services they receive from these health facilities. The main benefit to those who are not insured is the access to good quality health services close to their villages. 49 Communities expressed high satisfaction due to completion of sub-projects as this has meant access to health services close to the communities. Building health units has provided access to basic health services which were not readily accessible. While communities are satisfied with the access to and quality of health facilities, the level of satisfaction with health services was rated moderate overall. This was largely on account of low ratings by some communities on critical elements of the health service delivery i.e. shortage of drugs and staff at the health units 10. To address the issue of shortage of trained health workers CDF supported the training of 210 midwives who were selected from rural communities and went back to their villages after completing their training 5.1.2 Water Supply: The CDF has managed to considerably increase access of 183 war-affected and rural communities to safe drinking water. The total number of direct beneficiaries is 596,734 persons 48.86% of them are males and 51.14% females. All the water supply schemes are managed by the community committee and selected community members trained as technicians on O&M. Preventive and minor maintenance handled by the trained technicians while major maintenance done by the State Water Corporation. CDF supported communities own and manage the water supply scheme that has been constructed or rehabilitated with the support of CDF. Elsewhere in Sudan, all water supply schemes (even those constructed by communities or NGOs) are owned and run by the State Water Corporation which is a government organization. There is a revenue sharing agreement between SWC and communities benefiting from CDF. Revenue collected from water sources is shared between communities (40%) and the State Water Corporation (60%) and the State Water Corporation in return provides training of community members on O&M, audit of the accounts of the community and provides major maintenance when needed. The 40 % revenue retained by the communities is used for minor maintenance and expansion of the scheme. This arrangement has dramatically increased the sustainability of the water supply systems owned by the community. There is improvement in the overall access to improved water for communities benefiting from CDF interventions. During the recent Community Scorecard exercise, communities have given a high satisfaction rating for water supply related services. Benefits to communities include: (i) reduced time and distance travelled to fetch water, in turn reducing the burden on women and girls who are traditionally responsible for fetching water for the family; and (ii) access to better quality water–both for human and animal consumption. 5.1.3 Solar The main aim of the PV solar installation is to improve access and quality of services provided by community infrastructures. CDF financed the installation of 162 Photo voltaic (PV) solar system sets in 10 localities. PV solar system installation in public facilities such as schools, health facilities, religious establishments and village streets has improved the access and quality of basic social services. The installation of the PV solar systems in schools facilitated studying at night for students as well as allowing teachers to prepare for their lesson plans which in turn improved the exam results and promotion; it also encouraged teachers to stay in villages with PV solar systems. In addition, PV solar street lighting systems have contributed to the security of the villages, served as gathering places for reading, created informal meeting places during Ramadan and sanctioned spaces to socialize with peers. The number of people benefited so far from the solar facilities is 658,613 persons 10 Sudan Community Development Fund project Third Community Scorecard Exercise, September 2011 50 Locality # of Solar Beneficiaries Systems Male Female Total Abugebiha 1 3,050 3,099 6,149 Rashad 1 12,200 11,990 24,190 Kailak 7 12,192 11,765 23,957 Gabra 39 49,735 54,217 103,952 Sodari 40 92,005 83,294 175,299 Wadbanda 31 51,949 58,872 110,821 HAM 26 101,790 91,235 193,025 R.KAS 15 4,410 4,590 9,000 Damazine 1 2,287 3,213 5,500 Roseiries 1 3,000 3,720 6,720 Total 162 325,995 658,613 5.1.4 Component II: Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation and Project Management: The capacity building activities implemented by CDF have been effective in empowering communities to take the leading role in identification and prioritization of their needs and implementation of project activities. Communities also own and manage community infrastructure including water supply schemes and village solar power; mechanisms to generate funds (through user fees and community contributions) and mange it (through community committees) are put in place by the community to ensure effective O&M of community infrastructures. Resources provided by CDF directly to local communities, often the only funds available for development projects in the Locality, has great potential to create tension between the Local governments and local agents (i.e. community, CBOs and NGOs) if not managed carefully. To address this problem CDF has supported activities that enhance the capacity of Local Government and ensure its commitment to the empowerment of local development agents i.e. communities, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and NGOs. Through its local government leadership enhancement initiative, CDF trained 30 senior local government officials (i.e., 13 Locality Commissioners, 13 Locality Executive managers and 4 development planning managers) drawn from 13 localities/districts. This training was complemented by the Matching Grant from CDF to Locality Government to help the Local Government officials to translate their learning to practice by initiating and implementing development activities in their respective locality. The local government officials responded positively to the training and the provision of the Matching Grant and demonstrated strong leadership in coordinating the development work in their respective Locality, mobilizing communities and resources to implement development activities and engaging the state authorities This component provided training, technical assistance and capacity building to Localities, NGOs and local Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), to improve their technical skills in the identification, planning, programming, management and delivery of sub-projects. As part of the well-articulated implementation strategy, activities of capacity building component were prioritized for supporting the establishment of implementation units at the cener and Localities in which the project is implemented. One PIU was established at the central level and 28 PIUs at Locality level. At this stage basic training was provided to PIU members at community level for facilitating and prioritization of community needs 51 The managerial capacity of the beneficiary communities has been upgraded to the level that they managed their subprojects with minimal support from CDF. They have, also, managed to carryout contractual responsibilities and monitoring of the implementation process. So, the CDF started with establishment, strengthening and organization of PIUs as a pre-requisite for successful, effective and efficient implementation. Capacity building activities included training and management workshops for CDF key stakeholders. The workshops went beyond training to informing communities, NGOs, State and Local Government Authorities on CDF’s facilities and procedures on timely basis. Basic training was provided to facilitate the identification and prioritization of community needs and preparation of Community Action Plans (CAP). Local communities have, also, been encouraged to establish their own Community Based Organizations (CBOs) for more organized participation and management of local development initiatives. This activity has entailed fostering linkages between communities and local government institutions, NGOs and private sector contractors. An example for community organization is well demonstrated by the achievements in Damazine where 112 communities were organized. 112 Development committees were formed of 15 members with women representation ranges between 3 and 4 per committee. The VDC encompasses subcommittees for education, health and water for managing the delivery of services and for facilitating community development programs. The VDCs have been, also, supported to open bank accounts. You have to also indicate the capacity building for Local government officials through RRI and the impact it has on the adoption of the CDF approach. Use the info from the various RRI reports you have In advancing the applications of the Rapid Results Approaches, the CDF project conducted a number of rounds in training in Leadership Development. The main participants were the locality commissioners and the Locality Executive Managers as top locality leaders. The major features of training are: • Focused on the role of leaders as “Chief Performance Inspirers” • Anchored in specific performance challenges that each Commissioner and/or Executive Manager chose and committed to, at the start of the program • Based on a “learning by achieving” pedagogical model, versus on lectures or case studies • Integrated with the Rapid Results methodology that CDF has already used to inspire new performance levels at the community level. The major objectives of the training are to Increase the odds that the leaders in the pioneering Localities continue to drive performance and results in the areas they targeted or in new areas. Successes were measured based on progress that had been made on the targeted areas some months after the training, and to launch a performance-based leadership development program in the Localities. Gender: As explained under each sector above the CDF programme has achieved a realistic gender balance in terms of service delivery and participation. The general trend of social transformation indicates more gender balance even in Kassala State where women are culturally deprived from participation in public life. This was achieved through gender mainstreaming approach pursued by CDF for mobilization, planning and implementation of community development activities. Progress reports record women participation in terms of physical labour, cash contribution and caring for functionality of projects. The Programme has, also, provided special sub projects for women in response to women and girls priorities such as fences, female dormitories, girls schools, midwifery training, latrines for girls and schools water facilities. 52 6. Procurement: The procurement procedures for the CDF project are clearly outlined in the OM of the project. The procedures in the OM are prepared based on the Bank’s Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD and IDA Credits, May 2004. The OM includes procedures for International Competitive Bidding (ICB), National Competitive Bidding (NCB) and simplified and streamlined basic procurement methods such as shopping and local competitive bidding. In addition to the adherence to the OM the CDF had developed what is called “Community Contracting” as a response to the local context. The Community Contracting method is governed by the procurement methods and in consistent with the standard procurement procedures of the Bank and the GoS and use of simplified local shopping procedures. The main purpose is to achieve physical decentralization through contracting local entrepreneurs for small contracts. In order to have informed policy and decision-making process the CDF had conducted mapping for local resources and capacities. Implementation of a community-based procurement method entails involvement of the community in the contract management process. For effective use of local procedures the CDF had trained the Local Implementing Units (LIUs) on procurement procedures. The initiation of the community contracting, the capacity building and recalling lessons learnt from Slice I have contributed to smooth management of procurement process throughout the program cycle. 6.1.1 Financial management: The CDF started by developing a Financial Management Manual for controlling the project financial issues. The manual was approved by the World Bank in 2006. The CDF is using since 2007 a comprehensive computerized Financial Management System (FMS) developed based on the FMM and encompasses accounting policies and procedures, chart of accounts, and reporting formats. It was developed at the beginning of the program and was in use since the commencement of the program. This has facilitated the financial control at all levels (CDF, PIU & LIU) and enabled the financial officers to produce timely and accurate financial reports. It has, also, facilitated smooth auditing by the internal and general auditors. The Financial Officers and accountants have been trained on the FMS and it was translated into Arabic Language for easy use by Pius and LIUs. 6.1.2 Assessment of Sustainability: The factors of sustainability of CDF impact exist at different levels for the different components and within the same component. The most important factor of sustainability which is “Sense of Ownership” proved to be very strong across all components and in all targeted communities. This is evident by the community contribution that has exceeded the target of 10% in some cases and by the effective participation of community members and local PIUs. The Programme has boosted this sense of ownership by training and mobilization of the beneficiary communities. The second important factor of sustainability is the in-built mechanism which is manifested by the cost- recovery fees paid by the beneficiaries, for services. The revenues of water sources is about 2,000 on average per months shared mostly with the Water Corporation for their technical supervision and sometimes with the localities. The water Stations are, however, all owned by the communities and their share is used for maintaining sustainable operations. The fees levied by committees for education, health and water ranges between 1 and 4 thousand Sudanese pounds for meeting the operational cost of facilities. The communities have, also, initiated Sandooq (Community Fund) as a traditional mechanism for gathering community contributions which is used for emergencies and for sustainability of basic services. The responsibility of follow up as a constant factor of sustainability is normally shouldered by the line ministries or departments. The expected role from the Government is confined to employment of cadres, provision of technical support and payment of salaries. This is, so far, works albeit involves uncertainty 53 particularly in the areas where conflicts has resumed. The role of line ministries is backed up by the Locality and community follow up. They prepare and execute maintenance and rehabilitation plans. 6.1.3 Assessment of Outcomes: Generally, the assessment concluded that the CDF subprojects have achieved high rates against the expected outcomes. This is true for the two main components: capacity building and basic services subprojects. There are tangible achievements in the components that contribute to respective outcomes. For example, the CBOs and LIUs have been empowered, M&E system is in place and a framework for collaboration among stakeholders was established. On the side of basic services, schools physical environment has remarkably increased (See photo in the cover page) the rate of enrollment of children in schools has dramatically increased, the dropout rate decreased and number of teachers increased. 6.1.4 Achievement of Program Development Objectives: To contribute to achievement of the PDO the Program was divided into two major components (capacity building and basic social services) with a subsequent specific objective of increasing access to priority economic and social services and infrastructure in the targeted areas. One can, confidently, argue that the project has largely contributed to the achievement of the PDO through achievement of the specific objective. The technical capacities of the PIU, LIUs and CBOs have been built and now they are in a position to carry on the recovery and development processes. This, however, doesn’t rule out the need for further technical and institutional support. Furthermore, the access of war-affected and rural poor to the basic social services has dramatically increased in the four targeted States. For instant, access to education increased by 108% in Kassala State (as highest) and by 28% in the Blue Nile State (as lowest). Similarly, the access of 163 communities (562,537) to water supply improved. Other impacts are interventions in such as initiating the first ever girls education in communities where traditionally girls were not allowed to attend school as in many communities in Kassala State,; almost over 90% of schools in the CDF areas of operation were not on permanent structures rather they were made of local material such as grass, straws wood etc and some of them were under trees. Construction of permanent structure for schools and furnishing them has improved the quality of schools and in some places in Blue Nile , and South Kordofan States, schools were closed during rainy season and the number of days the children attend school in an academic year was limited because the old structures could not protect children from rain. The health sector has, also, achieved its objective through delivery of the expected outputs in terms of constructing 460 rooms for health facilities and provision of equipment, furniture and training of health personnel. The CDF has increased the number of health centers/units by 70% improving access 562,303 inhabitants to better health services (53% females). 6.1.5 Lessons Learnt and Recommendations: • Lesson 1: Effective coordination of humanitarian assistance with other actors at donors, implementing agencies, LGAs and communities ensures harmonization of procedures and implementation strategies. Consequently, outcomes will be achieved at high rates and the likelihood of sustainable impact will be greater as well. Recommendation: It is highly recommended to a permanent and coherent coordination mechanism for community development that articulates the Government, NGOs and private sector’s efforts. • Lesson 2: Transparency in decision-making process from the outset of the project to the end point is very essential for reducing the political interventions and conflicts and conflict of interests. A 54 practical example is given by the transparency of the CDF in setting selection criteria for beneficiaries that reduced conflicts among stakeholders. Recommendation: It is essential to have an organizational structure and coordination mechanism that ensures transparent information sharing, decision-making and operational procedures. • Lesson 3: It is has been observed through the years of CDF implementation that the support of LGAs to any decision makes it easier to reach a consensus among the members of the community development committee. Recommendation: For smooth implementation of community development projects it advisable to establish a genuine and strong partnership with the LGAs. • Lesson 4: Use of communication facilities and mass media proved to be effective means for timely delivery of messages to communities, for follow up and cost effective. Recommendation: • Lesson 5: Opting for folklore and traditions (Traditional dances, songs, poetry … etc.) for mobilizing rural people to participate in collective activities (Nafeer) proved to have positive impact. Recommendation: It is recommended to use the folklore and traditions in forms of traditional celebrations, drama (Mobile theatre), horse races … etc. for people orientation and mobilization. Community mobilization is very vital for accelerating community contribution. • Lesson 6: Counterpart funding is necessary for effective partnership with the national Government and for dragging Government contribution. However, it implies considerable risk when the Government doesn’t fulfill its commitments on timely basis. Delay of Government funding imbursement was the major problem faced the CDF through its life cycle. Recommendation: It is advisable that the partnership agreement be very concrete and include firm clauses about funding imbursement and financial control for strict adherence to budget lines. • Lesson 7: Continuous engagement of development practitioners at local level democratic ways creates space for the voiceless to participate and to be heard. Recommendation: It is advisable to establish a mechanism for effective community participation in the decision-making process. • Lesson 8: Communities have a lot of potential to organize themselves and effectively produce results through new initiatives such as participatory planning and decision making. Recommendation: It is strongly recommended to invest in capacity building because it is a critical ingredient to unleash the potential of the community for local development and for their successful empowerment. • Lesson 9: Decentralization proved to be effective for community development and encourages community participation and sense of ownership. 55 Recommendation: It is recommended to accelerate the decentralization process for community development projects and involving all key stakeholders in participatory planning. 56 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders None received. 57 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Documents CDF Project, Kassala Implementation Unit Selection of New Participating Communities. Criteria for selection of communities. Environmental and Social Safeguards Performance Review, Sudan National Multi-Donor Trust Fund Portfolio, by Daniel Gross and Abdelmoneim Kardash-Consultants, August 2012. Fourth Community Scorecard Round, June 2013 for the Sudan Community Development Fund. “Independent Evaluation of the CDF Construction Projects & Comparisons to Similar External Projects,” Feisal Mohamed Abdalla (Engineer), c. June 2012. Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan—Final Evaluation Report, February 19, 2013, ICF GHK consultants. “Interim Strategy Note (FY 2014-2015) for the Republic of the Sudan,” September 26, 2013 Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) Vols. I-III, Framework for Sustained Peace, Development and Poverty Eradication, March 18, 2005. Multi Donor Trust Fund-National (MDTF-NS) Project Proposal Community Development Fund Project (CDF) Phase I Slice II, December, 2007. MDTF-NS Assessment of Program Sustainability, October 23, 2011. Project Proposal Document for a Proposed Grant in the Amount of US$30.0 million to the Sudan Government of National Unity for the Community Development Fund Project (CDF), November 24, 2005. Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Grant from the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sudan- National (MDTF-NS) in the Amount of US$10 million to the Government of National Unity- Sudan, for the Additional Financing of Community Development fund Project, September 2010. Quality Assurance Group—CDF (FY06) (P094476)—Draft Learning Review for FY06-07— Summary Report Results from the Third Community Scorecard Exercise, Sudan Community Development Fund, September 2011. Results from the Fourth Community Scorecard Exercise, Sudan Community Development Fund, September 2013. “Social and Conflict Analysis—Synthesis Report,” CDF Project, February 21, 2006. To 25˚E RAB A RA B REPUBL IC REPUBLIC Aswan Lake 35˚E To SUDA N O F EGY PT EGYPT Nasser Hurghada Wadi Halfa Lake Nubia SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS WILAYAH (STATE) CAPITALS N u b i a n NATIONAL CAPITAL LI LIBB YA D e s e r t Red S a h a r a D e s e r t RIVERS Sea MAIN ROADS 20˚N NORTHERN RED SEA Port Sudan RAILROADS Kerma WILAYAH (STATE) BOUNDARIES Dongola INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES Ni Tokar Merowe Haiya le El‘Atrun This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. Karora The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Atbara shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any RIVER Ed Damer endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. r wa NILE Ho At 0 200 Kilometers i ba le ad Ni ra W 0 200 Miles ER ITREA RITREA KASSALA NORTHERN KHARTOUM To Kassala Dese DARFUR KHARTOUM 15˚N 15˚N AL JAZIRAH CH AD HAD NORTHERN White N Wad Medani WESTERN KORDOFAN Al Qadarif il e To DARFUR Abéche Geneina AL QADARIF Al Fasher Sinnar El Obeid Kosti Blue E T HI HIO PI A OPI Rabak N l En Nahud ie WHITE SINNAR To Dese NILE Nyala Ed Damazin Al Fula Ed Da‘ein SOUTHERN KORDOFAN BLUE SOUTHERN Muglad Kadugli NILE DARFUR To Malakal SUDAN Ba 10˚N hr 10˚N el 'Arab To ABYEI Sarh Abyei E N TR C EN TRAALL IBRD 33489R1 AF R I ICC AN To UT H SUDAN SO UTH SUDA N JULY 2011 RE PU R EP UB BL LI C IC Wau 20˚E 25˚E 30˚E 35˚E