ICRR 13891 Report Number : ICRR13891 IEG ICR Review Independent Evaluation Group 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 06/12/2014 Country : OECS Countries Project ID : P073267 Appraisal Actual Project Name : Oecs Protected Areas US$M ): Project Costs (US$M): 7.57 9.49 And Associated Livelihoods Project L/C Number : Loan/ US$M): Loan /Credit (US$M): 3.70 3.58 Sector Board : Environment Cofinancing (US$M): US$M ): 1.99 2.66 Cofinanciers : Board Approval Date : 05/20/2004 Closing Date : 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Sector (s): Central government administration (55%); General agriculture fishing and forestry sector (27%); Other social services (10%); General industry and trade sector (8%) Theme (s): Biodiversity (33% - P); Rural non-farm income generation (17% - S); Participation and civic engagement (17% - S); Regional integration (17% - S); Environmental policies and institutions (16% - S) Prepared by : Reviewed by : ICR Review Group : Coordinator : Keith Robert A. Oblitas Roy Gilbert Christopher David IEGPS1 Nelson 2. Project Objectives and Components: a. Objectives: To contribute to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in the participating countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States by removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas, and increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of said protected areas . (Global Environment Facility - GEF - Trust Fund Grant Agreement) The Project Appraisal Report (PAD) reports the same objective, while making the reference to OECD countries By : (i explicit and highlighting the intended means to achieving them . "By: ( i) strengthening national and regional capacities in the sound management of protected areas; (ii) ii) establishing or strengthening a number of demonstration protected areas; (iii)iii ) providing economic sustainable opportunities for environmentally compatible livelihoods in buffer zones of project -supported protected areas; and (iv) iv ) involving communities, civil society and the private sector in the participatory management of the protected areas ." Note: In order to focus discussion on the central features of the objectives, for evaluating the project ’s relevance of design, and it’s efficacy, the review will be by the two core elements of the objectives : (i) removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas; and (ii) increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of these areas . b.Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation? No c. Components: Component 1: Protected Areas Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangements (Institutional Framework ). Estimated cost (base costs without contingencies ) at Appraisal – $1.02 million. Actual cost - $1.12 million.) Reforming policy, legislative and institutional arrangements in the participating Member States to develop a harmonized approach to create and manage protected areas in the OECS region by (three sub-components): (i) policy, legal and institutional reforms; (ii) updating/preparing new national protected areas system plans; and (iii) supporting studies. (This component, and other project components, would be coordinated by the project implementing agency, the Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU) of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, OECS). Component 2: Protected Areas Management and Associated Alternative and New Livelihoods . Estimated cost (base costs without contingencies ) at Appraisal – $3.55 million. Actual cost - $4.26 million.) Promoting biodiversity management and conservation through the establishment of new protected areas or strengthening of existing ones, complemented by support for alternative and /or new livelihoods in areas in proximity to the protected areas. This would include: preparing site inventories, demarcating and mapping of the selected protected areas; establishing a biodiversity baseline; developing or updating protected area management plans; basic park infrastructure and equipment; M&E, training and technical support; and, identifying sustainable alternative livelihood opportunities, selecting beneficiaries, and implementing sustainable livelihood sub -projects. Component 3: Building Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Areas Management and Increasing Environmental Awareness . Estimated cost (base costs without contingencies ) at Appraisal – $0.74 million. Actual cost - $1.51 million.) Enhancing national capacity for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of protected areas through training and technical assistance for project involved local and state level government officials; and increasing public awareness on the ecological, social and economic significance of protected areas through education and awareness campaigns . Key activities would be: undertaking regional and national training needs assessments; preparing and implementing national and regional training programs for protected areas management; implementing sustainable livelihood programs for communities around the protected areas; and, public awareness campaigns. Component 4: Project Management, M&E and Information Dissemination . Estimated cost (base costs without contingencies) at Appraisal – $2.06 million. Actual cost - $2.61 million.) Employment of additional specialist staff for ESDU; purchase of equipment, and updating and implementing ESDU’s existing M&E program to meet Global Environment Facility (GEF) and World Bank standards; and dissemination of project results . d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates: There were no changes during implementation to the project ’s objectives or to its components, design or implementation arrangements; although there were several minor amendments : (i) on August 26, 2008, an adjustment to the financing percentage for the Project Coordinator; (ii) on December 9, 2009, to extend the closing date by 15 months (from April 30, 2010 to July 31, 2011); and, (iii) on March 4, 2011 a reallocation (less than 10 percent of the grant) to correct inadvertent misclassification of expenditures under training, workshops and other operating costs. There were several cofinancers : the Fonds Francais de L’Environment Mondial (providing a grant of $1.64 million which was fully used) the Organization of American States (which provided a grant of $0.35 million, of which $0.17 million was used); and the Nature Conservancy which made in -kind contributions valued at about $ 0.85 million. The balance of the $9.49 million actual project costs was made up of an in -kind contribution from the OECS Secretariat ($1.12 million, actual) and the borrower (in-kind contributions of $2.14 million). Both the borrower and the OECS significantly increased their actual contribution compared with appraisal plans – an increase of 167 percent for OECS and of 47 percent for the borrower. 3. Relevance of Objectives & Design: a. Relevance of Objectives: Sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity is an important challenge in the OECS countries - both habitat and biodiversity are under threat . The most recent Bank Regional Partnership Strategy for the OECS (2010-2014) includes building resilience to the severe pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity from population growth, over-exploitation of natural resources, pollution, poorly planned coastal development, and tourism . The strategy noted the need for strengthening environmental management through appropriate policies, legislation, regulation, institutional strengthening, piloting of field approaches for managing protected areas, improving public awareness, and participation of communities in local environmental protection . These areas were and remain core needs for biodiversity conservation in the OECS countries . They are also consistent with global priorities such as the Convention on Biological Diversity . The project’s objectives also fit within the OECS ’s 2000 Ratification of St. George’ s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability within the OECS countries ’, which includes a commitment to the conservation of biological diversity and the protection of areas of outstanding ecological significance . The Relevance of the Project ’s Objectives was High.High b. Relevance of Design: Removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas � – the project’s For the project’s first objective – “Removing results framework effectively linked, through a logical results chain components 1 and 3, and their outputs to this objective. Component activities were to cover the macro -framework – policies, legislation, regulation, institutional strengthening and public awareness for biodiversity protection . Improvements in all of these areas would facilitate more effective management of natural resources for conserving biodiversity, and the monitorable indicators covered most of the proposed core actions to reduce such barriers . Increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the For the project’s second objective – “Increasing planning, management and sustainable use of these areas .� – the results chain is less clear . As stated in the objective, increased involvement of civil society and the private sector is the centerpiece of this goal . By implication, civil society and the private sector would in turn be the primary drivers to improve planning, management and sustainable use of protected areas . Yet there is little coverage in either the PAD or ICR of the role of civil society and the private sector. More coverage would, for instance, be expected in the reports ’ detailed descriptions of project components, project institutional arrangements, support activities by the implementing agency to get civil society and the private sector involved, as well as evidence of them in discussions of the logical framework and in the monitorable indicators. However, the focus in project design was on overall management of protected areas (PAs), with all the elements involved in such management . Community involvement is mentioned as part of this . But there are few details about how communities, other civil society and the private sector would be functionally integrated into the management and sustainable use of the protected areas . Thus, project design was highly relevant for the first objective in that the intended actions could be expected to improve the basic policies, legislation and governance for better management of biodiversity . On the other hand, the relevance of design for the second objective was modest, as the design contained little that would increase involvement of civil society and the private sector, key elements of the objective . Taken overall, the project’s Relevance of Design was Modest . 4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy): The project’s efficacy will be evaluated by assessing the achievement of each of the two parts of the project ’s overall objectives as highlighted at the beginning of this report (Section 2a) as follows: Objective 1. Removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas . Main achievements relative to the objective were : Project actions to improve governance for sustainable conservation of protected areas covered policy, legislation, biodiversity management plans, institutional strengthening, training and a public awareness campaign . Core achievements were: A review of policy, legislation and institutional arrangements in the OECS states led to drafting of legislation and regulations governing protected areas and fisheries management in three participating member states : Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Drafts of a regionally harmonized protected areas policy and a supporting model act were completed, and a regionally harmonized institutional framework was prepared . The institutional frameworks were customized and put into place with the support of another operation - the Environmental Capacity Development Project, financed by the Canadian International Development Agency ) - designed to suit local conditions in five of the six member states . National protected area management plans were formally approved by the cabinets of Grenada and St . Vincent and the Grenadines; and draft plans were prepared and are pending approval in the remaining three states . A public awareness program (radio, TV, tool kits) on protected areas was sponsored, and while impact cannot be quantified, this can be expected to contribute to a more environmentally conscious populace and governments . The institutional capacity for managing biodiversity was enhanced in the OECS Secretariat and in the national biodiversity coordinating agencies, as a result of the experience gained through implementing the project plus relevant training. In summary, the various initiatives supported by the project amounted to an improvement in the policies, legislation, regulation, institutional structures, and skills for protected areas management . Low capacity in all of these areas had impeded biodiversity conservation, and the project made a start in changing this . While performance varied across countries, all member states made at least some progress towards more facilitating policies and governance for improved conservation of biodiversity . The project’s Efficacy in removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas was Substantial . Objective 2. Increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of the protected areas . Results achieved are summarized here under the following headings : (i) Protected Areas Management Management was improved on six marine and terrestrial protected areas, of which four were new areas and two were pilot protected areas which were to receive more intensive investment in management, infrastructure and in generating substitute livelihoods . All six sites were officially delineated and legally established . The total area of the six protected areas was 24,700 ha (well in excess of the target of 6,500 ha). Management plans were prepared on all six areas. A training program in protected areas management was developed and about 700 persons were trained (as against a target of 450 persons). Training included modules in PA planning, management, communications, ecological gap analysis, M&E, and financial management and procurement . The Management Effectiveness of the PAs, as measured by a “scorecard system� introduced by the project - modelled on the World Wildlife Fund/Bank scorecard system - improved substantially in the project's PAs in four states (Dominica by 63 percent; St. Kitts and Nevis -73 percent; Saint Lucia – 41 percent; and St. Vincent and the Grenadines – 82 percent) and marginally improved for the PAs in the remaining two : Antigua and Barbuda – 11 percent; and Grenada – 6 percent). (The WWF/World Bank scorecard system evaluates management effectiveness based on criteria such as institutional status of PA, regulatory and enforcement systems, boundary demarcation, quality of management plan, quality of research and resource management, budget sufficiency, adequacy of maintenance, and status and trends in the environment and biodiversity .) (ii) The Livelihoods Program. The program to create alternative livelihoods for persons adversely affected by creation of a protected area has made only modest progress. It got off to a late start due to the member state governments ’ stipulation that work on a PA could not commence until the management plan was approved by the legislature . By project completion, the livelihoods program had commenced on all six sites, 500 persons had been trained in a livelihood skill (the types of activities/skills are not specified in the ICR ), and 200 persons had received seed money for investments (also unspecified). The ICR does not indicate the total number of project affected persons, so it is difficult to assess the significance of these numbers in relation to project affected persons as a whole . Also, there is no data on the degree to which affected persons have actually benefitted in terms of improved incomes or other forms of welfare (the ICR advises that, because of the late start, such assessment is not yet possible ). (iii) Civil Society and Private Sector Involvement There is little information in the ICR on the role and performance of civil society and the private sector . The only significant reference is to the participation of communities in management of the PAs, but, even here, details are not provided leaving unanswered questions on how the communities are involved, the structure, processes and representation of committees, what training they may have received, the technical assistance provided to them, the consultation process between Government and the communities, and other operational details . There is little reference to actions by the private sector and the measures taken under the project to involve private parties . There is one reference to an NGO, but without details . As stated in the ICR (page 23), "Progress in engaging the private sector in protected areas management and biodiversity conservation was limited ." Summary Assessment of the Objective to Increase the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of these areas . Summarizing, while performance varied by country, good progress was made in strengthening the hands -on management of the six protected areas . Nevertheless, other than statements about the participation of communities, there is little evidence in the ICR of meaningful participation by other civil society and the private sector . Further, while the livelihoods program has made a start, there are no details on the persons that still need to be assisted, and on changes in the welfare of the persons who have participated . And benefits of participants are unknown . Overall, the Efficacy of the Objective to Increase the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of the project protected areas was Modest . 5. Efficiency: An economic rate of return was not estimated for the project . A useful proxy of efficiency can be the Grant ’s overall cost-effectiveness. The ICR estimates an average cost of managing the project ’s protected areas of about $1,500/km2 per annum (calculated over the project ’s seven year implementation period, including initial investment costs). This is similar to the estimated average annual protected area budget for the Caribbean region as a whole, based on updating an earlier study (James, Green and Paine, 1999), Thus, at least comparative to other protected areas in the Caribbean, the project ’s cost-effectiveness matched typical experience elsewhere . Another measure of efficiency is the cost -effectiveness of the project ’s investment program. The output from the protected area development program (an increase of 25,000 ha of combined marine and terrestrial area under protection) was substantially above (by 280 percent), the appraisal target of 6,500 ha, while actual costs of the protected area investment and management program were 20 percent above the appraisal estimate . Thus, for a comparatively small increase in costs, achievement was considerably larger, resulting in a significant improvement in cost-effectiveness. Financing and speed of implementation present a mixed picture . The project was efficient as concerns external financing. The GEF Grant was virtually fully used (97 percent of the Grant) and the combined contributions of cofinancers at project closure ($1.81 million) were within the original combined allocations of $ 1.99 million. On the other hand, the project’s seven year implementation period (Board approval to closure) was 15 months beyond appraisal expectations. Interpretation of this longer time period is, however, moderated by two considerations . First, as commented on in Section 8a, given the ambitious array of actions intended under the project, the implementation period may have been underestimated in the first place . Second, as referred to above, actual outputs exceeded plans, at least meaning that the extra time was also accompanied by a larger investment program . Summary: Cost-effectiveness is the most direct indicator of the project ’s efficiency. It was better than expected at appraisal and was at about regional norms . The project was efficient in use of external finances, and, while implementation was longer than planned, physical achievements were also larger . Taking account of the above factors, in particular of the project ’s cost-effectiveness, the project ’s Efficiency is assessed Substantial . ERR )/Financial Rate of Return (FRR) a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) FRR ) at appraisal and the re- re -estimated value at evaluation : Rate Available? Point Value Coverage/Scope* Appraisal No ICR estimate No * Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated. 6. Outcome: The project's objectives were highly relevant to the need to conserve the declining biodiversity in the Eastern Caribbean states, but the design of the project had modest relevance as it did not match the stated objective to increase the involvement of civil society and the private sector . As concerns efficacy, the project made substantial progress towards its first objective to reduce barriers to effective management of protected areas . Against its second objective, the project also made progress in improving the management of protected areas, but it had little impact involving civil society and the private sector, and the impact of the livelihoods program is not known . Hence, the overall efficacy of the second objective was modest . Nevertheless, the project was substantially efficient (cost-effective) in use of resources. Taking the relevance, efficacy and efficiency of the project together, the Outcome of the project was Moderately Satisfactory . a. Outcome Rating : Moderately Satisfactory 7. Rationale for Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Whether institutional support and financing, in particular of PA operating costs, and whether the livelihoods program will continue to be successful, are the main uncertainties that would affect development outcome . Based on global experience, it is difficult for protected areas to be self -funding, and many rely on mixed sources of funds including some external support . If interest in biodiversity wanes, financing sources, whether from the international community and/or the governments of the participating states, would be more difficult to find . Continuation of the coordinating entities of each participating nation is also uncertain – even when nested within an existing institution, the entities were specifically created for the project and might be considered temporary rather than established structures . The livelihoods program faces its own specific issue – Because of the late start, results are not yet available; hence its effectiveness is not yet demonstrated . Also, the scheme requires close interaction between beneficiaries and facilitators, and some support may be needed beyond the investment phase . It is not clear which agency will provide such support now that the project is closed . Risk to Development Outcome is Significant . a. Risk to Development Outcome Rating : Significant 8. Assessment of Bank Performance: a. Quality at entry: While the project was a strategically relevant operation, there were several weaknesses in its design . First, the logical framework had inconsistencies and gaps between the project ’s objectives, and the orientation and detailed design of the project ’s components and monitorable indicators, the most notable mismatch being between the second objective – emphasizing involvement of civil society and the private sector - and the project’s actual design. Second, the Bank overestimated the implementation capacity of the national agencies and at protected area levels - the substantial learning in new activities required time for individuals and management units to become effective, slowing project implementation . Quality at Entry was Moderately Unsatisfactory . at -Entry Rating : Quality -at- Moderately Unsatisfactory b. Quality of supervision: While supervision missions were regular, until Mid Term Review, supervision was weak . There was inadequate responsiveness to implementation issues . Most notably, the formal clearance requirement for investments and the livelihoods program significantly delayed implementation in the protected areas, but the issue was not resolved until Mid Term Review. (The bottleneck was readily resolvable by changing the approval for commencing work on a protected area from official endorsement to availability of the management plan . Supervision reporting in the first two years of the project was unrealistic, the satisfactory ratings provided by the team being far too optimistic given the slow and problematic project start . As remarked in the ICR (page 28), there was a “Lack of candor and realism in supervision reporting .� As concerns Bank resources, the project had a succession of four task team leaders, which may have contributed to the limited responsiveness to the project ’s implementation problems. Another gap was insufficient biodiversity and protected areas specialists in the supervision team (ICR page 28). Supervision improved significantly from the Mid Term Review, enabling much better and more expeditious project implementation thereafter. Summary of supervision performance . The supervision team in the second half of the project performed well (satisfactorily), turning a faltering project around to enable achievement of a broadly satisfactory outcome . But supervision in the initial years of the project was weak, hence Supervision Performance overall is rated Moderately Unsatisfactory . Overall rating of Bank Performance. Considering both quality at entry and quality of supervision, while the Bank managed to create and supervise a project that helped the OECS countries to improve their policy framework and field experience in management of protected areas – an undoubted achievement - there were also a number of Bank ’s Performance overall was Moderately Unsatisfactory . weaknesses. The Bank’ Quality of Supervision Rating : Moderately Unsatisfactory Overall Bank Performance Rating : Moderately Unsatisfactory 9. Assessment of Borrower Performance: a. Government Performance: The government structure relevant to the project comprised the OECS as the bridging institution between the participating nations, the governments of the nations, and the key ministries /agencies associated with implementation of the project, depending on the institutional structure of each state . Commitment to the project was good: counterpart funding exceeded appraisal expectations; implementation units at OECS and national levels were established; and extra staff from the concerned departments were seconded to the project on Government budget. Interdepartmental rivalries complicated implementation in some member states . The Project Steering Committee only met once a year, limiting their guidance, but the role of the Committee was largely taken over by the much more dynamic OECS Secretariat . However, delays in approval by national governments of protected areas management plans slowed the pace of project implementation and caused the delayed start with the livelihoods program. The Government ’s Performance was Moderately Satisfactory . Government Performance Rating Moderately Satisfactory b. Implementing Agency Performance: OECS’ Environment and Sustainable Development Unit was the central implementing agency, coordinating the activities of the national implementation organizations . The Unit provided technical assistance to the country units, advised and oversaw procurement and financial management, played the lead role in public awareness campaigns, and was generally timely in decision making . The national agencies and protected area coordinators needed significant training and experience to build their capacity, which, from results on the ground, appears to have been achieved. A limiting influence was that the project staffing was from core staff in the Unit, who had other functions as well, overextending their time . Nevertheless, they were able to provide enough effort to guide the project’s implementation, and the Implementing Agency ’s Performance was Satisfactory . Taking account of the performance of both Government and the implementing agency, the overall Performance of the Borrower was Moderately Satisfactory . Implementing Agency Performance Rating : Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance Rating : Moderately Satisfactory 10. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization: a. M&E Design: Standard reporting related to progress, financial management, procurement, auditing and work plans was included under the project. For broader monitoring, a set of monitorable indicators was developed . While most indicators were useful in themselves, they only partly covered the results framework . In particular, there were no direct indicators for monitoring the degree of involvement and achievement of civil society and the private sector under the project ’s second objective. A good initiative was the decision to use the World Bank –World Wildlife Fund Alliance “Scorecard� system for measuring management effectiveness on all six demonstration protected area sites . b. M&E Implementation: The M&E program was headed by ESDU, with field data collection under the PA managers . Project administration data (such as costs, procurement, and implementation progress ) was provided by the ESDU units responsible for the activity, and by the national coordination units . Such MIS type data was collected and regularly reported, but budgets for measuring the monitorable indicators were sometimes inadequate (ICR page 15). At the project launch workshop it was decided to reduce monitorable indicators to only one outcome indicator – protected areas management effectiveness – and this was reflected in a revised Operations Manual and in the Bank ’s supervision reporting (the ICR comments that the reason is “not well articulated�). At Mid Term Review, it was decided to return to the original project monitorable indicators, and this remained so to the end of the project . The Scorecard system continued, with assessments in 2006, 2008 and 2011. c. M&E Utilization: The standard MIS type data on management, finance, procurement and the project ’s physical progress were useful operational tools for ESDU and in Bank supervision . However, the ICR (page 15) comments that some of the detailed information in the Aide Memoires “was not always brought in to the Implementation Status and Results Reports .� Although the Scorecard system was developed as intended, there is little information on how this was used to inform decision making. Given the delays in getting the livelihoods sub -projects underway, no evaluation of the impacts of the livelihoods program was possible . Overall, the Quality of M&E was Modest M&E Quality Rating : Modest 11. Other Issues a. Safeguards: The project was an Environmental Assessment Category B operation and triggered the following Safeguards : Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01); Physical Cultural Resources (OP 11.03); and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). The Natural Habitats Safeguard (OP 4.04) was also used as guidance during project implementation . An Environmental Management Plan was developed for each protected area, and instructions for handling chance findings of cultural resources were included in the Operational Manual . No involuntary resettlement is reported in the ICR. However, for communities affected by loss or reduction of livelihoods, a Process Framework for handling such situations was developed and included in the Operational Manual . The ICR comments that limited reporting on the Process Framework makes this safeguard difficult to evaluate . The planning and management of the protected areas was in line with the Natural Habitat safeguard . b. Fiduciary Compliance: The ICR reports that Financial Management and Audit Reports were submitted in timely fashion . Audit results showed no significant issues, except an incident in Grenada when Government closed the revolving fund account to conform with its establishment of a single treasury account . The matter was subsequently resolved, the account reinstated, and funds retransferred and reconciled . There were a number of implementation difficulties with procurement ranging from the difficulty learning Bank processes, the complexity of consultant recruitment even for small consultancies, and mixed performance of contractors (which was resolved in the last year of the project when an engineering firm was hired to oversee infrastructure contracts). c. Unintended Impacts (positive or negative): d. Other: 12. 12. Ratings : ICR IEG Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Moderately Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory Risk to Development Moderate Significant Uncertainties regarding continuity of Outcome : financing and institutional support . Bank Performance : Moderately Moderately Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Borrower Performance : Moderately Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of ICR : Satisfactory NOTES: NOTES - When insufficient information is provided by the Bank for IEG to arrive at a clear rating, IEG will downgrade the relevant ratings as warranted beginning July 1, 2006. - The "Reason for Disagreement/Comments" column could cross-reference other sections of the ICR Review, as appropriate. 13. Lessons: The following lessons have been adapted from the ICR : 1. Designing, supervising and introducing innovations for biodiversity conservation and protected areas management projects requires an adequate core of specialist expertise in these areas . Although the ICR’s list of staff involved in preparing and supervising the project includes, at various times, 13 staff described as environmentalists or anthropologists, specialzations in biodiversity and protected areas management are not recorded. The ICR comments that the lack of consistently available expertise in biodiversity and protected areas management reduced responsiveness to project challenges . 2. Establishing biodiversity conservation programs may require medium to longer -term Bank engagement rather than the short -term horizon of typical investments . Although the project period, including its 15 month extension, was seven years, OECS and the participating states were inexperienced in biodiversity conservation . There was little time to build specialist expertise, to consolidate institutional and field-level capacity, to reflect on experience, to design a continued program, and to make arrangements for the sustainability of the institutions involved beyond the project period . Further, some activities such as the crucial livelihoods program had hardly begun by project closure, and local communities had only limited experience in protected areas management . A longer Bank engagement, whether using an APL, a pilot project preceding a larger project, or other means, might have been better for both learning and sustainability . 3. Local champions are critical to the successful establishment and sustainability of protected areas . Motivated and capable site coordinators were important drivers for establishing the project ’s protected areas. The need for champions is likely to become even more critical where, as in this project, countries have limited institutional capacity and experience . 4. Flexible and timely responses to project implementation problems can substantially improve project achievements . The project as designed required that investments in the protected areas and start -up of the livelihoods program could begin only after official endorsement by the member state governments of the management plans . But delays in the official process held up implementation . Alternative investment triggers, such as the completion of a management plan, but without requiring its official endorsement, would have resolved this bottleneck, as illustrated when this adjustment was finally made after the Mid Term Review . 14. Assessment Recommended? Yes No Why? To learn from the institutional, capacity building, technical, community organization, and specialist issues of a multi-nation project establishing biodiversity programs in countries with limited biodiversity management experience . The project offers a spectrum of experience covering terrestrial and coastal environments, national policy and legislation, and grass roots development including community involvement and enhancement of livelihoods . 15. Comments on Quality of ICR: The ICR is a candid document with a thoughtful and analytical discussion . The discussion of Bank actions and issues is probing and operationally oriented . The report also includes a useful summary of lessons learned and applied in project design and implementation from a previous OECS project (ICR pages 10-12). Areas that could have received more attention are: (i) the experience with community organizations on the pilot protected areas, a core element of the project; and (ii) a more detailed discussion of the livelihood program ’s initial field experience. A short commentary on what biodiversity impact might broadly be expected as the pilot protected areas get further established would also have been illuminating . But overall, taking account of the strength of the report in its main features, the Quality of the ICR is Satisfactory . a.Quality of ICR Rating : Satisfactory