Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00001751 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-56115, TF-56267, TF-56594) ON A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY GRANT (US$1.80 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI FOR AN ADAPTATION PROJECT – IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (KAP II) DECEMBER 30, 2011 Pacific Islands Sustainable Development East Asia and Pacific Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective November 1, 2011) Currency unit = Australian dollars $A 1.00 = US$1.02 US$1.00 = $A 0.98 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank AusAID Australian Agency for International Development CAS Country Assistance Strategy CC Climate Change CCA Climate Change Adaptation CCST Climate Change Study Team COP Conference of the Parties ECD Environmental Conservation Division EMP Environmental Management Plan EPF Environmental Policy Framework FM Financial Management GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objectives GNI Gross National Income GoK Government of Kiribati IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report ISR Implementation Status and Results Report KAP Kiribati Adaptation Program KMS Kiribati Meteorological Services M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MELAD Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development MFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development MFMRD Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Development MHMS Ministry of Health and Medical Services MISA Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs MOP Ministry Operational Plan MPWU Ministry of Public Works and Utilities MTR Mid Term Review NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NASC National Adaptation Steering Committee NDS National Development Strategies NGO Non-governmental Organizations NWS National Water Strategy NZAP New Zealand Aid Program OB Office of Te Beretitenti (Office of the President) OP Operational Policy PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PIAC Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre PICs Pacific Island Countries PMU Project Management Unit PPF Project Preparation Facility PUB Public Utilities Board RMF Results Monitoring Framework RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SDP Sustainable Development Plan SNPRA Strategic National Policy and Risk Assessment TA Technical Assistance TMP Tarawa Master Plan TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Vice President: James Adams Country Director: Ferid Belhaj Sector Manager: Charles Feinstein Project Team Leader: Emilia Battaglini ICR Team Leader Emilia Battaglini REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI Adaptation Project – Implementation Phase (KAP II) CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Project Development Objective and Design ........................................ 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .................................................. 5 3. Assessment of Outcomes .............................................................................................. 11 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ............................................................. 16 5. Assessment of Bank and Recipient Performance ......................................................... 16 6. Lessons Learned............................................................................................................ 19 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Recipient/Implementing Agencies/Partners............... 22 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .............................................................................. 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component...................................................................................... 25 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ..................................................................... 33 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes................. 34 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ............................................................................... 36 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results....................................................... 37 Annex 7. Summary of Recipient's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 38 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ........................... 40 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .......................................................................... 41 Map IBRD-38722 ............................................................................................................. 42 Map IBRD-38723 ............................................................................................................. 43 A. Basic Information Adaptation Program Phase II - Pilot Country: Kiribati Project Name: Implementation Phase (KAP II) TF-56115,TF- Project ID: P089326 L/C/TF Number(s): 56267,TF-56594 ICR Date: 01/05/2012 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: KIRIBATI Original Total USD 1.80M Disbursed Amount: USD 1.79M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 1.79M Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: C Implementing Agencies: Office Te Beretitenti Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) New Zealand Aid Programme B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 09/29/2004 Effectiveness: 07/07/2006 07/06/2006 Appraisal: 12/06/2005 Restructuring(s): 08/27/2009 Approval: 06/01/2006 Mid-term Review: 11/15/2008 11/11/2008 Closing: 06/30/2009 06/30/2011 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory i C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry Yes None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Yes None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): GEO rating before Moderately Closing/Inactive status Satisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 24 24 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 26 26 General public administration sector 45 45 Sub-national government administration 5 5 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Climate change 25 25 Natural disaster management 24 24 Other environment and natural resources management 13 13 Participation and civic engagement 13 13 Vulnerability assessment and monitoring 25 25 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: James W. Adams Jeffrey S. Gutman Country Director: Ferid Belhaj Xian Zhu Sector Manager: Charles M. Feinstein Hoonae Kim Project Team Leader: Emilia Battaglini Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough ICR Team Leader: Emilia Battaglini ii ICR Primary Author: Olivia Warrick iii F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved) The objectives of the Project are to: (i) develop and demonstrate the systematic diagnosis of climate-related problems and the design of cost-effective adaptation measures in Kiribati; and (ii) continue the integration of climate risk awareness and responsiveness into economic and operation planning by the Recipient. Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications (a) GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Indicator 1 : Establishment of lead agency coordinating CCA and related strategies OB SNRPA Unit OB established as Value established as established in OB lead agency in (quantitative or None lead agency in in first year of August 2009 (year Qualitative) first year of implmentation 3) implmentation Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2007 08/27/2009 06/30/2011 Target achieved in 2009 with Project director appointed. At Project closing the Comments OB was staffed with a senior policy mentor, climate change policy adviser and (incl. % disaster risk management adviser with a mandate to coordinate climate risk achievement) management activities Percentage of climate-affected programs in Ministry Operational Plans (MOPS) Indicator 2 : that reflect systematic climate risk management KAP II activities incorporated into Value 60% of MOPs MOPS did not reflect all relevant MOPs (quantitative or integrate climate climate risk management for GoK Financial Qualitative) risk management Years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Date achieved 11/30/2007 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Achievement substantially exceeded target achievement) Consistent use of best practice in the application of risk management, Indicator 3 : environmental assessment and options analysis to public infrastructure and CCA vulnerability reduction measures. All large pilot All large pilot Value infrastructure infrastructure (quantitative or None constructed under constructed under Qualitative) the Project apply the Project apply iv best practices best practices Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2009 06/30/2011 Comments 100% achieved. Best practice was applied in the design and construction of 4 (incl. % coastal protection works (component 2) and 1 water infiltration gallery achievement) (component 3) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Number of National Adaptation Steering Committee (NASC) meetings with Indicator 1 : participation of Director/Senior Assistant Secretary or higher level officials of at least 4 key ministries Value (quantitative or None 5 7 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Achievement achievement) : Number of CCST meetings attended by technical officers of at least 6 key Indicator 2 : departments Value (quantitative or None 8 5 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 63% achieved. In practice, there was little need for this team to meet more (incl. % frequently than that achievement) Consultation and awareness raising activities reflect clear role for NGOs and Indicator 3 : women All key KAP II consultation and Value awareness activities (quantitative or None 3 include a role for Qualitative) Women and NGO groups Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments It is unclear from the PAD which consultation and awareness raising activities (incl. % this indicator was targeting. A National Consultation, participatory events and achievement) all consultation activities for C2 and C3 involved NGOs and Women Climate risk profile produced and used in at least three major infrastructure Indicator 4 : investments Value None 3 4 (quantitative or v Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 100% achieved. Climate risk profiles were applied to 4 major coastal protection (incl. % works on South Tarawa achievement) Pilot investments are based on rigorous analysis of risk treatment options, Indicator 5 : including economic analysis, environmental and social assessment Value (quantitative or None All All Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 100% achieved. Rigorous analysis was applied in the design and construction of (incl. % 4 coastal protection works (component 2) and 1 water infiltration gallery achievement) (component 3) Indicator 6 : Number of reports of coastal and marine ecosystem monitoring Value (quantitative or None 8 1 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 12.5% achieved. An initial baseline marine ecosystem report was produced. (incl. % However, no further marine monitoring reports have been produced. Coastal achievement) monitoring was dropped following restructure and no monitoring was initiated National Water Strategy [NWS] adopted and reflected in MPWU MOP and PUB Indicator 7 : Business Plan Value (quantitative or None NWS adopted NWS adopted Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 100% achieved. The National Water Policy and its related Strategy have been Comments used by MWPU and PUB in their effort to comply with Kiribati Development (incl. % Plan goals. Fulfillment of the NWS objectives by MWPU is often hindered by achievement) capacity of MWPU. Master Plan for water on Tarawa-[TMP] produced and reflected in MPWU MOP Indicator 8 : and PUB Business Plan Value (quantitative or None TMP prepared TMP prepared Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 100% achieved. Master Plan for Water on Tarawa is fairly new document and (incl. % therefore only some activities namely leakage detection have been reflected in achievement) the MOP 2010 for MWPU. Number of new rainwater collection/storage facilities at government/community Indicator 9 : buildings Value (quantitative or None 20 4 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 20% achieved. The unit costing undertaken at appraisal significantly vi (incl. % underestimated the costs of water and coastal works achievement) Indicator 10 : Building code includes freshwater collection and storage as an objective Value BC amendments BC amendments (quantitative or None drafted drafted Qualitative) Date achieved 06/30/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. Draft building code complete but still to be adopted by cabinet achievement) Indicator 11 : Percentage reduction in water leakage in target area on Betio islet Value (quantitative or None 20% 0 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/30/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments Leakage reduction was not achieved to any measurable degree. A methodology (incl. % for leakage detection was developed and capacity built to undertake leakage achievement) detection work in PUB. Leakage reduction will be undertaken under KAP III Indicator 12 : Number of water locations assessed and supply improvements implemented Value (quantitative or None 5 1 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 20% achieved. An infiltration gallery was installed in one site. However, water (incl. % resources assessment at 14 sites throughout South and North Tarawa and Outer achievement) Islands were undertaken. Indicator 13 : Number of Outer Island Profiles that contain climate risk information Value (quantitative or None 12 9 Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 Comments 75% achieved. This achievement had limited applicability because the majority (incl. % of outer island activities were dropped after MTR. achievement) Indicator 14 : KAP II Project management integrated into SNRP unit in OB Value Integration Integration (quantitative or None complete complete Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2007 06/30/2011 Comments Although a SNRP Unit was never formally established, the PMU was established (incl. % in the first year of implementation within the OB. achievement) Percentage of Project progress reports that are timely and reflect a good Indicator 15 : understanding of progress, critical issues, corrective actions, accountability for actions and timing. Value (quantitative or None 100% 50% Qualitative) vii Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 While the Project produced implementation progress reports on time, these Comments reports were not forward-looking and did not reflect critical issues. The (incl. % exception is the progress report prepared prior to the MTR and the annual achievement) progress report produced in 2010. Indicator 16 : Lessons learned compiled (continuously) for future adaptation program design Value Lessons fully Lessons partially (quantitative or None compiled compiled Qualitative) Date achieved 06/01/2006 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 The PMU or OB did not regularly compile lessons learned as was indicated in Comments the PAD. Lessons were compiled by Bank supervision missions and by (incl. % consultants. An independent evaluation report commissioned by the GoK achievement) identifies several lessons. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. GEO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 06/29/2007 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.29 2 06/06/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 0.75 3 01/29/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.02 4 06/22/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.15 5 01/07/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.34 6 06/04/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.79 H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made GEO Change GEO IP in USD millions To streamline and simplify Project design by reducing the number and scope of activities so as to better match human resources and logistical constraints of implementation in 08/27/2009 N MS MS 1.19 the small and remote country. Key changes were: (i)Strengthen institutional arrangements; (ii)Reduce the scope of the Project and focus on two viii ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made GEO Change GEO IP in USD millions priority areas; (iii)Strengthen Project management capacity; (iv)Change in resource amounts between components to better match the above changes . I. Disbursement Profile ix 1. Project Context, Project Development Objective and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Country and sector issues 1. Kiribati is one of the most isolated of the Least Developed Countries, consisting of 32 atolls and one reef island spread over a vast area of 3.5 million km2 of ocean. At appraisal, the population was 98,400 (2004 est.) of whom nearly half lived in South Tarawa, a densely settled area growing at around 2% per annum. Kiribati is categorized as a lower middle income country; GNI per capita was US$970 per annum (2004 est.) Only 18% of the population is employed in the cash economy and the incidence of poverty is high in comparison to other Pacific Island countries. 2. Kiribati is considered to be one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change and sea level rise. Most of the land is less than 3 meters above sea level and on average only a few hundred meters wide. The islands are exposed to periodic storm surges and to droughts, and some are becoming increasingly vulnerable due to poorly managed high population concentration, accelerated coastal development, and environmental degradation. Extreme weather events associated with climate change and sea level rise could severely affect the main Tarawa groundwater lens, increase the epidemic potential for dengue fever, decrease agricultural productivity, and affect important marine ecosystems and fisheries. In addition to the effects of climate change, coastal degradation and poor mangrove and coral reef management are endangering habitats for important biodiversity. It has been estimated that Kiribati could face economic damages due to climate change and sea level rise of US$8-$16 million a year by 2050, or 17-34 % of its 1998 GDP. Successful atoll development requires that the integrated aspects of the environment and social conditions, as well as external conditions - in relation to stability of global economic systems - are taken into account. Rationale for Bank involvement 3. There was a clear rationale for the Bank to continue its involvement in climate change adaptation in Kiribati at appraisal. The Bank had been involved in climate change adaptation (CCA) in Kiribati since 1999, when it funded a major study on vulnerability and adaptation for the Regional Economic Report (2000). Following the review, adaptation and natural risk management became one of the pillars of the Bank‟s program in the Pacific. The first, preparatory, phase of the three-phased Kiribati Adaptation Program (KAP I) (2003-2006) had the objectives to mainstream adaptation in national economic planning and to prepare a pilot National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) to reduce the country‟s vulnerability to climate change, climate variability and sea level rise. KAP I successfully carried out national climate change consultations, raised public awareness, built capacity in risk management, incorporated adaptation into government planning processes and regulations, and undertook a social assessment of potential issues that could affect implementation during KAP II. KAP I was merged with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Global Environment Facility (GEF) NAPA preparation process. 1 4. KAP II was the logical follow-on from KAP I, aimed at piloting adaptation measures and consolidating the mainstreaming of adaptation into economic planning. KAP II was a GEF pilot project under the Special Program on Adaptation, demonstrating how adaptation planning and assessment could be translated into national policy and sustainable development planning and action. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 5. The objectives of the project are to: (i) develop and demonstrate the systematic diagnosis of climate-related problems and the design of cost-effective adaptation measures in Kiribati; and (ii) continue the integration of climate risk awareness and responsiveness into economic and operation planning by the Recipient. 6. For reference: For a GEF funded project, there is a requirement for a Global Environment Objective (GEO). As described in the PAD, the GEO was: “to assist the GoK in enhancing its capacity to plan and implement adaptation measures to the climate- related issues facing the country, which will also reduce the detrimental impacts of climate change on the fragile atoll ecosystems of Kiribati�. 7. At appraisal, key indicators and targets at the outcome level (for the PDO) were: (a) Establishment within first year of implementation of the Strategic National Policy and Risk Assessment (SNRPA) Unit as the lead agency coordinating climate change adaptation and related strategic issues; (b) Percentage of climate-affected programs in Ministry Operational Plans (MOPs) that reflect systematic climate risk management; and (c) Consistent use of best practice in the application of risk management, environmental assessment and options analysis to public infrastructure and vulnerability reduction measures. 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 8. The PDO was not revised. Two of the three outcome indicators were adjusted when the project was restructured, namely: (a) Establishment within first year of implementation of the Office of Te Beretitenti (OB) as the lead agency coordinating climate change adaptation and related strategic issues; and (c) Best practice in the application of risk management, environmental assessment and options analysis to public infrastructure and CCA vulnerability reduction measures is applied on a pilot basis. 9. The changes to the indicators were formalized with project team agreement based on: (a) Government of Kiribati (GoK)‟s decision to mandate existing senior staff (rather than a new dedicated unit) in the OB to be responsible for the project and to coordinate 2 CCA activities; and (b) the reduced scope of activities to be implemented (on a pilot basis) tailored to the capabilities of local implementing agencies in the small country. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 10. The primary target groups were stakeholders at both the island and national level. At the island level, beneficiaries were expected to be high-risk village populations and subgroups living on or near coastal areas and actually experiencing the impacts of climate risks and climate change. It included households and extended households (kainga), traditional village institutions (such as unimanwe or traditional decision making body), church groups, and women and youth groups. Other key beneficiaries at an island level include Island Councils and their subcommittees, island level church organizations, and locally seconded representatives of local government who were to receive training and awareness-raising in developing detailed coastal ecosystem adaptation plans for their villages as well as on the impacts of various climate hazards. 11. At a national level, key beneficiaries were expected to be:  Office of Te Beretitenti/The Office of the President who were strengthened in capacity to coordinate and manage climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction;  National Ministries, particularly: Ministry of Public Works and Utilities (MPWU); Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development (MELAD); Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MFED); Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs (MISA); Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development (MFMRD); Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS) ) who received on-the-job training and technical assistance (TA) in design solutions and adaptation measures;  Civil society notably local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the National Council of Churches who benefitted through training in community engagement aspects of climate change adaptation;  The private sector, particularly local consultants and contractors who benefitted through business opportunities for consultants services and small works funded under the project. 1.5 Original Components 12. The project was broken into five broad components. In line with the PDO, the components were designed to produce immediate investment results while demonstrating and promoting a climate-risk aware approach to planning and design of such activities. 13. Component 1: Policy, planning and information (US$1.17m, 18% of total costs). The expected outcome of this component was improved consultation, planning and coordination mechanisms to support climate change adaptation. This component supported three core elements of adaptation efforts in Kiribati: awareness raising and consultation; policy coordination and planning including technical assistance for 3 mainstreaming and climate risk management, and; generating scientific climate risk information. 14. Component 2: Land use, physical structures and ecosystems (US$2.17m, 33% of total costs). The expected outcome of this component was improved management of climate related hazards to coasts, public assets and ecosystems. This component intended to contribute to reducing the vulnerability of the coastline, including key public assets and ecosystems, shift management practice to a more preventative, technically varied and sustainable approach. 15. Component 3: Freshwater resources (US$2.16m, 33% of total costs). The expected outcome of this component was improved sustainability of freshwater resources. This component supported the development and management of freshwater resources to reduce their vulnerability to climate variability and climate change. 16. Component 4: Capacity at island and community level (US$0.55m, 6% of total costs). The expected outcome of this component was improved capacity for climate change adaptation at island, government and community level. This component intended to provide technical assistance to MISA to include adaptation in the Outer Island socio- economic development profiles and climate-risk management training for local governments, and to finance a pilot program of small scale adaptation investments in select Outer Islands. 17. Component 5: Project Management (US$0.39m, 8.4% of total costs). The expected outcome of this component was support provided for the implementation of project activities. This component intended to provide project management, accounting, procurement, and running costs of the Project Management Unit (PMU). 1.6 Revised Components 18. The components were not revised. However, there were changes in the activities and distribution of resources between the components as described in Section 1.7. 1.7 Other significant changes 19. The project was restructured following mid-term review and the number of activities under each component was reduced in order to focus on demonstrating visible results on the ground. Resources were shifted in particular towards activities that supported targeted capacity building under components 2 and 3 (investments) and project management support. This also acted to reduce the geographical scope of the project as many Outer Island activities were cancelled (see Annex 2). The changes in project design, scope, management and implementation arrangements are outlined in section 2.2. In addition, the project timeframe was extended from three to five years because geographical isolation, shipping delays and weak procurement capacity impeded implementation. The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) provided additional funds of $A550,000 to make up budget shortfalls due to foreign 4 exchange loss and a higher cost of labour and materials than envisaged at the time of project preparation. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 20. Soundness of the background analysis: KAP II was designed as a follow-on to KAP I which had established adaptation priorities across diverse groups in Kiribati and identified options for pilot investment designs. Analysis from KAP I is clearly reflected in the thematic design of the project components, most significantly: housing the project in a high level coordinating ministry; a balance of „hard‟ physical investments and „soft‟ behavior change activities; focus on integrating adaptation investments into national economic planning and preparation of sectoral plans and budgets for mainstreaming implementation, and; basing adaptation investments within a long term planning process that linked bottom up consultation with top down planning and policy. 21. Assessment of Project Design: The project design was overly ambitious with regards to both the range and technical complexity of activities and taking into account the implementation and management capacity of agencies in a small country such as Kiribati. 22. The major shortcomings were: a large number of diverse activities across multiple sectors; lack of cohesion between awareness and investment activities; some overly technical activities requiring extensive feasibility analysis, and; too many activities focused in remote and dispersed outer islands. Although eclectic, the collection of intended activities might have been appropriate in a different setting but would have required high management capacity, high organizational and planning capacity, and high in-country experience with Bank systems and procedures which were lacking in Kiribati. Overall, the complex design led to implementation delays and slowed the project progress towards achieving objectives and intended outcomes. As a demonstration project, the intention had been to trial as many tools and techniques for climate change adaptation as possible and also to trial institutional arrangements for adaptation coordination. The project was a flagship for the World Bank, being the first to focus entirely on climate change adaptation in the Pacific region. These two factors explain, in part, the somewhat overly ambitious design of the project. 23. Adequacy of Participatory Processes and Government Commitment. Stakeholder participation in the design of KAP II was noteworthy. KAP I had mobilized stakeholders early on in consultations and the KAP II design process involved a series of National Consultations for the prioritization of adaptation investments. The National Consultations involved communities, NGOs, church groups, women‟s groups, youth, and Outer Island local governments as well as implementing ministries. Decision making about the types of investments to be funded by KAP II was integrally influenced by the priorities identified by stakeholders during these consultations. 5 24. The success of the complex, multi-sectoral and human resource-intensive project design would hinge ultimately upon strong commitment to climate change adaptation at all levels of government. The GoK (OB, MFED and Public Services Office) initially displayed strong high level commitment, demonstrated by support for the establishment of the SNPRA unit. However, national elections and government changes impacted political commitment to the project in the early stages of implementation and the establishment of the SNPRA unit was delayed. 25. Project Risks and Mitigations. The project did not adequately identify risks that became apparent in the early years of implementation. Delay in establishing the SNPRA unit was identified as a risk by the design team but was not given enough weight (the risk rating was „Low‟). Further, the mitigation measures identified in the PAD did not clearly address the risk of shifting government support. 26. Insufficient capacity in line ministries to manage the implementation demands of project activities was not identified as a project risk at appraisal. Lack of sufficient experience and capacity in the PMU itself to manage the significant fiduciary demands of the project was not identified as a risk. Given that approximately 85 percent of technical assistance for the project was intended to be sourced nationally, it would appear that the level of technical capacity in Kiribati‟s private sector also was overestimated and had not been identified as a risk in the PAD. 2.2 Implementation 27. Implementation performance slipped to unsatisfactory prior to the mid-term review. After the mid-term review, several leadership, design and management changes were identified, and the project was formally restructured1 to respond to shortcomings affecting implementation. Problem: Lack of GoK leadership on KAP II activities. 28. Staffing of the SNRPA unit did not occur as planned and the project lacked a Project Director for many months. The lack of supervision and direction provided to the PMU and general lack of leadership of multi-sector climate change adaptation activities impeded implementation progress. This constraint was identified as the most critical to the project achieving its objectives, as it limited the commitment of line ministries to their respective project activities and prevented progress towards addressing the further implementation obstacles outlined below. Actions taken: Strengthening institutional arrangements 29. A restructure of the institutional arrangements for Project oversight enabled implementation to progress. Rather than establishing the SNRPA Unit, the capacity of existing senior staff within the OB was increased to lead and coordinate climate change adaptation. The result was strengthened leadership as the Deputy Secretary (and later, 1 The Board approved Project restructure on August 27, 2009. 6 the Secretary) to the OB position was appointed as Project Director. This greatly enhanced GoK ownership of KAP II, demonstrated by the later appointment of a disaster risk reduction officer, climate change policy adviser and senior policy mentor in the OB. Problem: Project scope was too broad for available human resources 30. A key factor affecting implementation was the lack of skilled and available personnel in core implementation Ministries (especially MPWU, MELAD, MISA) to handle the large number of proposed multi-sector activities, particularly on difficult-to- reach outer islands. For example, although progress with preparing the National Water Policy was good, the installation of rainwater collection and storage facilities on public buildings, freshwater lens assessments, water supply improvements in outer islands and revision of the national building code were all delayed. Actions taken: Reducing the scope of the Project 31. The number of activities under each component was reduced, some activities deferred for a possible KAP III, some re-focused to better complement other activities, and some dropped entirely (see Annex 2 for details). Overall, activities were adjusted to focus on water and coastal sectors (components 2 and 3) and on activities that would demonstrate tangible results. The geographical scope of the project was reduced. These changes, coupled with new procurement arrangements, brought the project back to a span that was more manageable given implementation capacity in line ministries. Problem: Project management arrangements were too complex for capacity in the PMU and line ministries 32. The procurement arrangements agreed upon at appraisal - involving a number of relatively small contract values to deliver individual activities - did not account for the GoK‟s limited experience with procurement at an international standard. Although the PAD claims that the PMU had sufficient experience with World Bank procurement procedures under KAP I, this experience was limited to individual consultants and goods and therefore not sufficient to handle the required pace and scale of procurement under KAP II. The resulting workload was such that procurement activities created a bottleneck preventing implementation of most physical investments. Actions taken: Strengthen management and implementation capacity 33. Specific actions were taken to increase management and technical capacity within the PMU and MPWU (the line ministry receiving the bulk of implementation following restructure), and to reduce demands on the PMU. Most significantly: an international Management Adviser and Procurement Adviser were recruited for the PMU; Senior Technical Advisers were recruited to build capacity in water and civil engineering units of MPWU; the procurement plan was revised to bring procurement for the bulk of activities into two large firm contracts with multi-member consultancy teams to handle documentation and assist with the procurement and supervision of construction works, including Force Account works. Combined, these actions resolved the bottleneck caused mainly by procurement arrangements and physical works were progressed. 7 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization M&E Design 34. The Results and Monitoring Framework (RMF) established in the PAD was the major formal mechanism for Project-specific results monitoring throughout the project. 35. Outcome level indicators were designed specifically to address the PDO, namely to measure project impact on risk diagnosis and adaptation design and on mainstreaming. Because the PDO was the basis of the RMF, outcome-level indicators did not specifically measure capacity building as this was instead captured by the GEO. The second outcome level indicator (Section F) had limited value in measuring the real impact of the project on mainstreaming climate risk management. Although KAP II activities were reflected in MOPs from 2007 to 2010, this does not necessarily mean that climate risk management was sustainably integrated as a priority in regular ministry work; success in this regard would have been better measured by how many additional climate risk-related initiatives were reflected in ministry planning, particularly those that utilized government funding sources. Further, although MOPs are intended to link Ministry work to the Kiribati Development Plan and national budgeting process, in reality they are not generally closely followed. This indicator became less relevant following Project restructuring (to only MPWU and MELAD as implementing Ministries) and should have been revised. 36. The overall design of the RMF was expansive with many indicators and thus proved onerous to implement. In retrospect, the design of the RMF – and target values - should have been formally revised at project restructure to reflect: the significant reduction in project scope and geographic focus; the reduced timeframe for implementation of physical works; and the realized capacity of the PMU. As it was not substantially revised, the final values often suggest unsuccessful outcomes since significantly fewer activities were completed than originally intended in the (somewhat over ambitious) initial project design. The Project Management Adviser, hired following restructure, assisted the PMU to streamline the component-level indicators to better fit revised activities (although this was not formalized). The purpose was to ensure relevant KAP II component outputs could be evaluated as an input to baseline conditions of KAP III. The streamlined Results and Monitoring Framework is reflected in the output level indicators included in Section F. M&E Implementation 37. Data was not regularly collected by the PMU, as required by RMF implementation arrangements outlined in the PAD. Missions consistently identified that data collection and M&E reporting was unsatisfactory, due to low capacity in the PMU to handle multiple project management demands and implement the expansive RMF. To address this, resources were made available for the appointment of an M&E specialist to revise the monitoring template and data collection procedures and to train the PMU on data collection and utilization in results-orientated progress reporting. However, the consultant hired did not deliver a satisfactory output with regard to either of these deliverables. As a result, the PMU was unable to progress with monitoring. Following 8 restructure, the PMU allocated M&E responsibility to one staff member which assisted implementation; some headway was made with data collected for some component-level indicators up to year 3 (2009). The presence of the Project Management Adviser greatly assisted the quality of data collection and progress reporting. Data was collected to further update the streamlined Results and Monitoring Framework for the purpose of ICR completion, following project closure. M&E Utilization 38. Because of limited data collection, the RMF was not utilized in most project progress reports which, although generally submitted, were not forward looking and results-orientated. One progress report utilized outputs of results analysis (Combined Annual Report 2009 and Progress Report to March 2010). From the Bank side, the continuous supervision and mission reports, including detailed Action Plans for PMU follow-up, provided input to the M&E efforts. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance Social Safeguards 39. Project design triggered World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement as project subcomponents had the potential to require land acquisition for infrastructure such as seawalls and freshwater abstraction galleries. A detailed Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was prepared and disclosed which complied with Kiribati‟s legislation and procedures and the Bank‟s policy on involuntary resettlement procedures. 40. In the one instance where the Involuntary Resettlement Policy was triggered, compliance with the procedures outlined in the RFP was slow but ultimately satisfactory. The installation of freshwater galleries was suggested at a site where asset acquisition (coconut trees) and land was needed. However, negotiations to acquire land from the community began before the required socioeconomic assessments and other procedures detailed in the RPF had been adhered to. Close supervision by the project team ensured that this subcomponent was put on hold until the appropriate procedures had been complied with. 41. The quality of Bank supervision with regards to social safeguards policy was varied during the project. The departure of the initial Social Safeguards Specialist from the team and the lack of a replacement until mid-2010 meant that there was a gap in supervision for a couple of years. This situation improved from mid-2010 until the project closed. Environmental Safeguards 42. An Environmental Policy Framework (EPF) was adopted. In compliance with GoK‟s legislation, larger subprojects, with potentially higher environmental impacts, were subject to Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) being drawn up and approved by the Government‟s Environmental and Conservation Division (ECD) in accordance with the approved EPF. No environmental safeguards were triggered throughout the life 9 of the project. Both Bank and counterpart safeguard experts monitored and ensured that all safeguard conditions were being observed. Financial Management 43. The recipient complied with Financial Management (FM) conditions outlined in the GEF grant agreement, specifically: to have the project approved and incorporated into the fiscal year 2006 budget, and; to have adopted the Project Implementation Plan, Operations Manual, and the Pilot Outer Islands Investments Scheme Procedures Manual. The assessment of KAP II rated the FM risk as “moderate� based on the perceived lack of capacity in Public Financial Management and the failure to publish the government accounts. The implementation aspects of the project were mainly rated low risk due to prior experience gained from KAP I. 44. Throughout the life of the project there were only two supervisions conducted by Financial Management Specialist staff . Both supervisions rated the FM performance as satisfactory and no material issues were identified and no follow up recommendations were included in either report. Procurement 45. Compliance with procurement procedures was generally weak due to lack of experience and capacity in the PMU. Attempts were made to implement agreed mitigation actions – through the appointment of dedicated national and international procurement staff – but staff turnover and poor understanding of procedures continued throughout the life of the project. A procurement post review carried out in June 2008 included recommendations to step up the advisory support and improve the recordkeeping system. Notable improvements in processing were evidenced only in the second half of the project period, with the appointment of a capable procurement officer supported by international technical support, and a gradual understanding of procedures by implementing staff. 46. In view of the assessed low capacity, procurement prior review thresholds were set at very low levels, and required a high level of input from Bank staff based in the Sydney office. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 47. At the request of GoK, a follow-on KAP III was approved by the Board on September 15, 2011. Phase III will build on several key results achieved under KAP II and carries forward a number of activities unable to be implemented under KAP II, including:  The Government of Kiribati 2010 Water Resources Policy for Kiribati,  The National Water Resources Implementation Plan, endorsed by the government in 2010;  Implementing the results of pilot programs on leakage reduction carried out with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by KAP II in2010. 10  The Tarawa Water Master Plan, developed under KAP II and published in February 2011  Community and hydrological surveys and community consultation for improved water supply in villages in North Tarawa  Pilot programs on Rainwater Harvesting Systems in South Tarawa, completed in June 2011  Analysis of the protection of groundwater reserves in Bonriki carried out in February 2010.  Coastal conditions assessment and identification of highly vulnerable sites. 48. The OB remains as the high level implementation agency. A number of KAP II PMU staff have been re-hired under competitive bidding for the KAP III PMU. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 49. Objectives. The 2004-2007 National Development Strategies (NDS) and subsequent Sustainable Development Plan 2008-2011 (SDP) highlighted climate change as a key risk to economic development, and provide for consultation-based measures for climate change adaptation. The documents also emphasize the need to care for the islands‟ fragile environment and for sustainable use of natural resources. 50. The Bank‟s Four-Year Strategy for the Pacific Islands (June 2005) identified improved hazard risk management as one of the five pillars contributing to the economic growth and job creation. The Kiribati Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) FY2011-2014, is the first climate change-focused CAS in the Pacific region. Thus, the objectives of the project remain relevant to and are consistent with both the national and World Bank strategic priorities. 51. Design. Individually, the components and activities included in project design were relevant to the needs of the Government and people of Kiribati which has described itself as being at the forefront of the impacts of global climate change. Activities spanned sectors identified as high risk in the NDS and SDP and targeted priority actions identified by a wide range of stakeholders through an in-depth participatory consultation process. However put together, the number, geographic range and technical complexity of activities were not as relevant to the situation of Kiribati since high management capacity would have been required for successful implementation. 52. Implementation. During implementation, restructuring was successful in correcting the relevance of design by re-aligning project components and activities with implementation capacity. Bank implementation support became highly relevant to the needs of key implementing agencies following restructure when in-country visits and dialogue with the OB and its PMU increased. Housing implementation in the OB was appropriate as, following capacity enhancement at restructure, it ensured that project 11 activities could be coordinated and undertaken by all relevant agencies and communities in the country. 3.2 Achievement of Project Objectives 53. The following is an evaluation of project outputs, as they relate to project objectives. Detailed discussion of component outputs can be found in Annex 2. 54. As captured in the PDO, a key objective of the project was integrating climate risk awareness and responsiveness into economic and operational planning. This objective was achieved, although further targeted capacity building is required. Despite initial setbacks, the OB has been established as a central, high level entity with a mandate to coordinate and lead CCA and disaster risk management, thus achieving Outcome Indicator 1. Through the establishment of this institution, leadership capacity for CCA planning has therefore increased within the GoK. MOPs were established as the principal institutional planning vehicle for mainstreaming, linking CCA to national development priorities. KAP II activities appeared in MOPs consistently throughout the life of the project, exceeding the 60% target of Outcome Indicator 2. 55. Although KAP II built capacity and set up the institutional structures to enable the GoK to lead a whole-of-government climate risk management approach, more time and capacity is needed before CCA implementation becomes a truly government-owned, led and coordinated process. Due to limited staffing and multiple commitments, the OB was not able to consistently work towards ensuring line ministries fully understand and are committed to integrating climate risk management in regular ministry operations. Climate change adaptation remains (generally) viewed at all levels of government as a problem separate and additional to other development priorities, that requires external experts and donor funding to solve. The OB is the institution established under KAP to lead the way in changing this perception and therefore leading Kiribati towards climate resilient development. However, further targeted capacity building within the OB is required to increase its understanding and drive to do this. 56. Another key objective captured by the PDO and reflected in project design was to develop skills for systematic diagnosis of climate-related problems and the analysis of adaptation options, through both formal training and technical assistance. Two integrated training activities were particularly successful in achieving this objective: 1) capacity building workshops to train cross-ministry staff in coastal climate risk assessments and adaptation planning, and; 2) training in the use of calculators for downsizing global climate change science to Kiribati levels in the coastal and water resource management sectors. These risk assessment methodologies are being utilized independently of KAP II; by ECD-MELAD in the development of their Second National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and by the Kiribati Meteorological Services (KMS) in drought analysis. International TA placements in ministries and counterpart arrangements with consulting firms significantly increased „hands-on‟ technical skills within key implementing and beneficiary ministries. Some examples of skills gained include: data collection techniques for water resource 12 assessment (Water Unit, MPWU); leakage detection and repair methodology (PUB); good practice in rainwater harvesting installation and construction quality and assurance (MPWU, King Holdings (private contractor)); climate resilient construction techniques for coastal protection measures (MPWU). 57. Although this objective has been achieved, understanding of how and when to apply skills remains limited to a few key individuals within government, which may compromise the sustainability of this success as ministry staff move on to other jobs. As the implementation of components 2 and 3 started only in the last quarter of project life, the efforts of both consultants and Government counterparts were focused on finalizing works which limited their ability to participate in long term capacity building efforts. As a result, skills such as data analysis and application of data in risk assessment and infrastructure design could not be adequately transferred. The value of many earlier capacity-orientated KAP II outputs were diminished since continuation of these was stopped at restructure. Details can be found in Annex 2. 58. The final key objective reflected in the PDO and project design was to develop and demonstrate the design of cost-effective adaptation measures, including tools and techniques for adaptation and risk management. The implementation of both physical investments and policy-orientated climate risk management strategies successfully demonstrated to the government and the public that solutions are available to offset climate change risks. The importance of this should not be underestimated in Kiribati where the prevailing perception prior to KAP II was that relocation of the national population was the only option. 59. Tools and techniques for coastal protection and water resource management that were specifically appropriate for the Kiribati context were developed and successfully applied on a pilot basis in all physical investments, thus achieving Outcome Indicator 3. For example, the design of „hard‟ engineering works for coastal protection was built from a basic design already being applied by MPWU in order to make it simple enough to be replicated outside KAP II. MPWU staff was involved at all stages of the diagnosis and design process. Ecosystem-based measures were also applied on a number of sites on South and North Tarawa and Outer Islands with over 37,000 mangrove seedlings planted. The uptake of this output, led by MELAD, has been sustainable, with communities actively involved in mangrove planting and maintenance. Best practice was applied in the design and construction of seawalls at four sites along the main road in South Tarawa, three on the lagoon side and one on the ocean side, for a total of 0.5 km of coastline (Component 2); 9 freshwater monitoring boreholes in locations in North and South Tarawa, and 1 water infiltration gallery in North Tarawa (Component 3). 60. The process of designing and installing rainwater harvesting and storage facilities on public buildings at four sites demonstrated a simple yet rigorous construction design, building on existing designs being applied by MPWU. Rainwater harvesting guidelines developed under KAP II in collaboration with MPWU are now being applied in a New Zealand Aid Program (NZAP) funded rainwater harvesting project. Piloting of freshwater infiltration galleries for sustainable community water resource management 13 generated important lessons for future investments in Kiribati and other Pacific Islands. The water resource assessment included more than 1200 measurements of the water lens as well as surveying the conditions of more than 550 household wells and the rainwater harvesting potential of more than 100 communal building. The assessment and community consultation process demonstrated to MPWU, donors, the OB and NGOs the extent of time and resources needed for effective options analysis for infiltration galleries and other waster resource management works. 61. Documentation of lessons (technical and implementation-related) was undertaken by individual consulting firms. However, a compilation of lessons learned from each type of investment (e.g coastal protection measures, infiltration galleries, rainwater harvesting) would facilitate better consolidation of experience gained through pilot activities and therefore enable greater achievement of objectives. 3.3 Efficiency 62. A conventional economic analysis was not applied to the project due to the difficulties of quantifying the damage associated with future climate events and the project benefits associated with climate risk reduction (see Annex 3). 63. The selection of capacity enhancement investments was based on climate related sectors that would experience the worst incremental development costs incurred because of climate change. Economic benefits resulting from investments in the water sector include improved supply of clean water for human consumption and related reduction of public health costs, and reduction of water shortages for agriculture and economic activities and related loss of productivity. Economic benefits associated with more effective coastal hazard protection include reduced damage to coastal structures and ecosystems and associated livelihoods. Although it is difficult to quantify there is consensus in government and among donors and communities that KAP II investments are economically worthwhile, given the risks related to climate change that could amount to US$8–US$16 million in the absence of adaptation (World Bank, 2000). 64. Many important lessons were learned with regard to economic efficiency of investments – particularly regarding the real costs of construction and accessing goods and services in a remote location like Kiribati. The cost of labour and materials was higher than envisaged at the time of project preparation and had to be partly offset by reducing the unit number of coastal and water utility components. Investments within the coastal sector were selected using a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the selected protection solution was the most cost-effective; for example, by choosing construction methods that would require less or simpler maintenance. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 14 65. The overall rating is based on the relevance of the objectives, the extent to which they were achieved, and the efficiency in doing so (see Section 3.3). Project objectives remain highly relevant to the current strategic priorities of Kiribati and the World Bank. Project design had some shortcomings that a restructure and increased implementation support were able to successfully address. The restructure delivered a number of largely satisfactory outputs that enabled all project objectives to be achieved to some extent. The integration of climate risk awareness and responsiveness into economic and operational planning was moderately satisfactory. Shortcomings stemmed from the shortened timeframe of the project; more time was needed to truly build ownership of climate change adaptation at the highest level of government. The development of skills for systematic diagnosis of climate-related problems and the analysis of adaptation options was also moderately satisfactory. A shortened timeframe meant that increasing capacity and skills building outputs became secondary to completing physical investments. The demonstration of tools and techniques for adaptation and risk management was satisfactory since the project produced and documented a number of valuable lessons for future adaptation investment. Overall, the short timeframe of actual implementation of most activities – especially physical investments – meant that the value of some outputs was often not as high as envisaged at appraisal2. The necessary discontinuation of some subcomponents resulted in a number of earlier „orphan‟ outputs that did not therefore significantly contribute to achieving Project Objectives. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 66. Women and NGOs had a clear role in project activities (Intermediate Indicator 3). Low income households and women headed households explicitly were consulted in the initial project design consultations and in subsequent implementation of works such as the water infiltration gallery and seawalls. NGOs played an integral role in design consultation for physical works and their skills were developed as a result. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 67. Strengthening the capacity of key institutions to lead, coordinate and manage CCA efforts is a fundamental aspect of the project objectives. As discussed in Section 3.2 the OB has been successfully established as the lead agency coordinating CCA and related strategies. The institutional capacity of key climate affected sectoral ministries to implement climate risk management strategies has been increased through training and skills transfer. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 68. There were no unintended outcomes or impacts, positive or negative. 2 For example, the Original Target Value for the number of water supply improvements implemented (Intermediate Indicator 13) was 5 while the number achieved was 1. 15 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 69. There was no beneficiary survey or stakeholder workshop. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate. 70. The follow-on phase – KAP III – builds upon the successes and lessons learned during KAP II and therefore minimizes the risk that development outcomes will not be achieved. 71. However, some risk remains: (a) Political and institutional risks. With a change of government, the political will to enforce various outputs produced from KAP II (such as the building code, water resource management plans, guidelines and manuals) could lessen. This risk has a moderate likelihood but would have a high impact since fostering government ownership of climate risk management is fundamental to the PDO. (b) Technical risks: some of the tools produced for risk assessment (particularly calculators and risk assessment methodologies and guidelines) are based on climate change projections that are constantly being updated as climate science progresses. The design of investments based on these assessments may not be sufficient to withstand the latest projections of changes in sea level and extreme events. The likelihood of this is moderate since climate science is progressing quickly, however the potential impact is low since most investments are designed to reduce risk to current climate stress as a way to reduce risk to future climate. 5. Assessment of Bank and Recipient Performance 5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 72. In retrospect KAP II exhibited weakness at entry in four areas: i) the number and geographical/sectoral scope of activities was too ambitious for implementation capacity specific to Kiribati; ii) procurement arrangements were too complex for available management capacity, nor did they reflect the lack of locally available consultants and contractors; iii) institutional arrangements for project leadership did not account for the risk of shifting political commitment, and; iv) many project risks were not recognized or adequately addressed. These weaknesses at appraisal accounted for poor progress towards meeting development objective and inevitably contributed to unsatisfactory implementation progress in the early life of the project. 16 73. It is likely that these weaknesses at entry reflected the lack of global knowledge and experience with climate change adaption project design and implementation and the limited country knowledge and experience rather than poor Bank performance in the identification and preparation phase. It is important to stress that KAP II was the first Bank investment in Kiribati and the first adaptation project of this scale in the region (and among the first globally), with no possibility to compare or gain any insights from previous or similar effort. At the time of design, most climate change adaptation-related initiatives in the region were at the stage of vulnerability assessment rather than adaptation implementation. There were therefore few implementation and management lessons to draw upon in designing KAP II. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 74. Quality of Bank supervision increased over the life of the project. During the first two years of the project, the Bank did not provide the level of implementation support that is needed in a capacity-constrained environment such as Kiribati. By the time implementation started, the project had moved to a third task team leader who already had a very large program under development. A significant lag between project launch and the first supervision mission contributed towards the waning commitment of GoK central and line ministries, as stakeholders experienced few outputs and other priorities took over. As a result of infrequent initial supervision, the full extent of capacity and implementation constraints that were limiting the acceptable implementation of the project – and the actions required to address these constraints - were only realized two years into the (initially) three year project. 75. Following the second review mission in April 2008 during which many implementation constraints were formally recognized, supervision increased to two official visits per year with interim visits by social and environmental safeguards staff who also worked on other projects in Kiribati. Both procurement and FM stepped up their support in the Pacific (with more staff in Sydney) which in turn meant more regular supervision missions. This enabled problems and solutions to be more swiftly identified and dealt with and especially assisted compliance with Bank policies and systems. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 76. The overall rating for Bank performance is based on moderately satisfactory ratings for both quality at entry and supervision. The Bank adapted appropriately as project design weaknesses became evident and implementation issues emerged. Shortcomings at entry were in part a reflection of unrealistic expectations due to lack of CCA implementation experience in the region. Aspects of preparation were exemplary, particularly the in-depth participatory design process. Initially significant shortcomings in the Bank‟s proactive identification and resolution of threats to development outcome 17 were rectified by the restructure which facilitated moderately satisfactory achievement of objectives in the timeframe remaining. 5.2 Recipient (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 77. Government performance improved over the life of the project. Although project leadership was the responsibility of the OB, initial commitment to this function apparent at appraisal did not materialize and the SNRPA Unit – crucial to progressing implementation - was not staffed for the first 18 months of the project. However, commitment to achieving project objectives increased as implementation issues became apparent and the government, led by the OB, proactively worked with the Bank to resolve these and restructure project activities. The OB was eventually appropriately staffed – including the addition of a Climate Change Policy Adviser - following agreement from the government. This development is to be commended, as strengthening the government climate change policy and coordination capacity is one of the main goals of the government strategy for climate adaptation and is a key objective of the KAP program. 78. The functioning of the National Adaptation Steering Committee (NASC)3, the entity responsible for promoting and monitoring coordination among implementing agencies, was inconsistent with frequently low attendance at Secretary or Deputy Secretary level. The NASC rarely had enough leverage to effectively steer KAP II. As a result, reporting of KAP II decisions, critical issues, updates and progress to Ministerial Secretaries and to Cabinet has not been consistent. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 79. Implementing agencies were the PMU (housed within the OB) and line ministries involved in activities funded by KAP II. Moderate shortcomings in performance were due to initial lack of capacity rather than lack of commitment to achieving development objectives. The PMU showed high commitment to carrying out post-mission Action Plans and this was fundamental to the completion of physical investments. Capacity constraints were markedly addressed by the appointment of a Project Management Adviser and Procurement Adviser, including greater engagement with line agencies, enhanced supervision of TA inputs, better office processes and more streamlined management of procurement processes. M&E responsibilities were performed inadequately however, impacting the quality of project reporting. 3 Chaired by the Secretary of the OB (also the Project Director) 18 80. Initially low commitment to KAP II activities within line ministries was linked to inconsistent leadership and coordination at a higher level and irregular Bank supervision missions. Low commitment shown by MISA, in part due to other competing priorities within the Ministry, contributed to the reduction in geographic scope of KAP II. Following the procurement arrangement restructure, MPWU committed considerable staff resources to the implementation of demonstration projects in water and (especially) coastal sectors. Technical supervision and most of the construction works under the protection of coastal public assets component was successfully carried out by MPWU under force account. MPWU also committed staff resources to assessments carried out under the Improvement of the Sustainability and Supply of Freshwater component. Compliance with GoK environmental consent process (processed by MELAD) was sound for both contracts. The performance of MPWU in implementation and management of these components was greatly enhanced by international TAs placed in the ministry, who provided capacity building and supplementation. However, the commitment of MPWU to community consultation engagement under the freshwater component was low. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Recipient Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 81. The overall rating for Recipient performance is based on ratings of moderately satisfactory for both government and implementing agency performance. Despite insufficient leadership during the first 18 months of the project, alternative options were proactively implemented by the government to increase leadership capacity in the OB. Government oversight of KAP II management became sufficient following restructure – albeit with moderate shortcomings because of inconsistent functioning of the NASC. The capacity of the PMU and line ministries to perform the required functions was successfully enhanced although reporting remained inadequate. 6. Lessons Learned 82. Experience from KAP II has informed the design of KAP III and will be carried forward in project implementation. Lessons are of direct relevance to further adaptation projects in the Pacific region and globally. The lessons presented below relate to three aspects of climate change adaptation project design and implementation: policy mainstreaming and political commitment; management, and; implementation of investments and capacity building. Policy mainstreaming and political commitment: 83. Consistent high-level leadership is crucial to integrating climate change adaptation into development processes. Strong political commitment to climate change adaptation alongside other priorities takes a long process of engagement. Project (and climate change adaptation) leadership and oversight needs to be housed in a high level ministry. Donors need to provide regular implementation support to ensure commitment to project oversight is regular and to ensure understanding of and commitment to climate change adaptation is thorough. The value of regular face-to-face contact should not be 19 underestimated in Kiribati where trusting personal relationships are important to accurate communication of facts and opinions, the negotiation of durable agreements, and mutual commitment to project objectives. Management: 84. Effective and timely project implementation depends on appropriately skilled individuals and, in particular, a strong Project Manager. Expertise and cohesion built within the KAP II PMU was instrumental to the accelerated success of the project post-restructure. A thorough analysis of institutional capacity for project management should be undertaken prior to final project design. Experienced technical advisers that mentor individuals in procurement, financial management, monitoring and evaluation and day to day management are likely to be necessary to build necessary expertise locally. PMUs should be headed by a Project Manager with considerable project management experience. The following are important to effective project management: pro-activity and initiative in stakeholder coordination; facilitation of collaboration between ministries; regular communication between ministries, and; ongoing necessary reporting. 85. Complex procurement arrangements may prevent effective implementation progress. In the absence of considerable experience with World Bank procurement processes, a complex procurement plan prevented KAP II implementation in the first two years. A thorough procurement capacity analysis should be undertaken before the procurement plan is developed and should guide project design. Technical advisors should be provided where necessary to build procurement capacity to international standards. A key lesson learned, which is systemic across the region, is that Bank staff need to provide a high level of support upfront, with procedures being explained in simple, diagrammatic form and through interactive sessions. Further, given the remoteness of the country, attracting competent international experts is difficult and therefore necessitates a concerted effort to promote more knowledge transfer programs among nationals. 86. Research and information generated by a project needs to be consolidated and shared. The large archive of research and advice generated by KAP I and KAP II, mostly of high quality and on subjects not previously studied in depth in Kiribati, is unique. A common problem in the Pacific is that research outputs from projects are not collated or made publically available. This can result in research duplication in future projects, thereby wasting funding and time. Wide public access to CCA-related data and research should be promoted at no or nominal cost. Information could be electronically linked to similar facilities in regional organisations and universities. The website www.climate.gov.ki should be used to facilitate public access to information. Implementation of investments and capacity building activities: 87. A simple project design with focussed scope is required to maximise project performance and in-country capacity building. The pre-restructure design of KAP II was overly ambitious, assuming a project implementation capacity and expertise not available in Kiribati at the time. Project design for CCA should be strongly aligned with 20 select government development priorities. Project components and activities should be cohesive and clearly work towards a simple project development objective. A balance should be sought between scaling up and building upon past successful initiatives and introducing new activities for CCA. 88. Skills gained may be quickly lost if they are not regularly applied in regular ministry work. There is a risk that skills will be lost if they are not applied in regular development activities within ministries. Technical capacity enhancement needs to be directly linked to project implementation activities rather than be limited to training workshops. Training initiatives need to have regular follow-up throughout the lifespan of a project rather than being one-off. 89. Community ownership of „hard‟ investments is fundamental to sustainable climate change adaptation. Although envisaged in the project design, thorough analysis of community cultural, livelihood, land use and socio-economic situations was not undertaken prior to community consultation for the potential installation of water infiltration galleries during KAP II. A focused campaign on coastal resilience and water resource management was problematic under KAP II as it was difficult for stakeholders (MELAD, KAP PMU, and World Bank advisers) to reach agreement on the terms of reference (TOR) for this task. The result was a lack of adequate integration of village community perspectives into water resource management and issues arose over land ownership, access and use rights. Sustained community engagement programs following the installation of water tanks was not possible due to time restrictions following restructure. As a result, there are gaps in community maintenance and management capacity. 90. Feedback from stakeholders in ministries, NGOs, civil society groups, and consulting firms included the following:  Consultations need to begin well in advance of scientific assessments so communities are fully engaged in the identification of risks faced and in decision making about options for addressing these. Consultations need to be equal two- way information sharing rather than one-way information dissemination  Consultations need to be regular and lengthy and involve the same core facilitators. Personal trust and relationships need to be built between the consultation team and the community. The time that this takes should be factored into the project implementation plan  Follow-up support needs to be given equal weight to pre-works consultation. Community engagement needs to continue regularly following the completion of works to engender community ownership; address problems; sort out management and maintenance arrangements; facilitate adaptive behavior  Teams need to include experienced and skilled local facilitators to coordinate and facilitate consultation programs. Community engagement strategies need significant design inputs from local specialists experienced in participatory community development. Local experts should play a more significant role than language and cultural translation. Overall responsibility for facilitating 21 community consultation should not rest solely with external consultants because this largely precludes sufficiently regular follow-up and support. Specific responsibilities of external consultants should be outlined in Terms of Reference developed in consultation with local community engagement experts  Ministry staff should be engaged in consultation program design and provided with considerable capacity building to ensure they are equipped with the skills to undertake effective consultations.  Staff from government agencies – especially MPWU and MELAD - need to work together to ensure messages delivered to communities are consistent. Consultations need to be well organized and internal issues and options finalized prior to visiting the communities so that community members‟ questions receive complete and consistent messages over the course of engagement. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Recipient/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Recipient/implementing agencies 91. The GoK raised two issues related to project implementation: 1) significant erosion of the shoreline experienced at either end of some seawalls; and 2) large amount of funds spent on international consultants relative to on-the-ground investments. The World Bank acknowledges the erosion problems that are occurring at some sites of the KAP II seawalls. As these seawalls were pilot investments intended to develop and demonstrate a design and construction technique rather than protecting the full coastline, they were limited in length and located in only a few of the most vulnerable sites. The way the waves interact with the seawall and how the sand and coastline react to it is critical information that will inform and be incorporated in the improved design of future coastal protection investments, including seawalls built during KAP III. 92. The World Bank also acknowledges that KAP II financed significant international TA relative to physical investments. The implementation of pilot investments was grounded on extensive and detailed technical and scientific assessments and feasibility studies which – given the limited country capacity - were mostly supported by external TA. In addition, to overcome the limited progress in project implementation during the first two years, additional external advisory support was required to avoid overburdening the PMU and line ministries with project management and implementation duties, thus detracting from their already demanding work programs. The expectation however is that some of the scientific and technical work carried out under KAP II will be used as foundation for up-scaling and improving investments under KAP III with on-the-ground investments taking place from very early on in project implementation. 93. The GoK carried out an independent evaluation of KAP II that is generally in line with the main conclusions of the Bank‟s ICR and provides a good list of lessons learned and recommendations. It provides a comprehensive account of design, implementation and management challenges and how these were addressed, particularly through the restructure. In assessing project outputs and outcomes against objectives, the GoK‟s ICR could have better considered the pilot nature of KAP II and its focus on capacity building. 22 The Recipient‟s ICR suggests that project outputs primarily improved infrastructure and policy frameworks for water resource management and coastal protection rather than achieving CCA. This does not recognise that reducing vulnerability to current climate and social stresses is a significant component of reducing vulnerability to future climate change; this was the entry point for KAP II investments. Through capacity building, KAP II increased the ability of the GoK to maintain and improve infrastructure in a climate change sensitive way. (b) Cofinanciers 94. No comments were received from Co-financiers. (c) Other partners and stakeholders 95. Comments by the Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre (PIAC) recognize KAP II contribution to the Kiribati water sector (see Annex 8). 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Components Estimate (USD Estimate (USD Appraisal millions) millions) (a) Policy, Planning and 1.17 1.28 109.4 Information Land Use, Physical Structures 2.17 1.79 82.5 and Ecosystems Freshwater Resources 2.16 2.95 136.5 Capacity at island and 0.55 0.10 18.2 community level Project management 0.39 1.58 405.1 Total Baseline Cost 6.46 7.70 Physical Contingencies 0.12 0.00 Price Contingencies Total Project Costs 6.58 7.70 Project Preparation Facility (PPF) Front-end fee IBRD Total Financing Required 6.58 7.70 117% (a) There is a large margin of error due to fluctuations in exchange rate since the appraisal estimate is in USD but accounts were kept in AUD. These figures use the exchange rate of November 1, 2011. (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Late Type of Estimate st Estimate Percentage Source of Funds Cofinancing (USD (USD of Appraisal millions) millions) AUSTRALIA: Australian Agency Joint 1.49 3.43 230.2 for International Development Recipient Parallel 2.32 1.42 62.0 Global Environment Facility Joint 1.80 1.80 100.0 (GEF) NEW ZEALAND, Govt. of (Except for Min. of Foreign Joint 0.97 1.05 102.9 Affairs) TOTAL 6.58 7.70 117.0 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Outputs and dropped/discontinued activities by component Component/Subcomponent Major outputs and dropped or Comments discontinued activities Component 1: Policy, planning and information 1.1 Frameworks and One review of quality and This activity was discontinued with the decision not to undertake processes for participation effectiveness of existing public further national consultations (see below). The review was and awareness consultation methods in Kiribati undertaken in the first year and identified gaps in existing (completed in 2008) consultation methods. Recommendations and the manual were Operational manual for public not thoroughly incorporated into community consultations for consultation prepared investments that occurred later in the project since consulting firms were not aware of the reports. 1.2 National consultation, One National Consultation regarding Discontinued. National consultations to inform the ongoing participation and building awareness of climate design of KAP II activities were intended to be twice yearly. awareness change adaptation across However, no further consultations were conducted after 2007. stakeholders The outcomes of this output were therefore limited. CCA-based participatory events on Discontinued. Participatory events and media material (below) South Tarawa and 6 Outer Islands to were discontinued at MTR as these were not directly linked to raise awareness in the public up to physical investments under components 2 and 3. Good-practice mid-term review (MTR). in participatory learning about CCA using radio, drama and print Radio, newsletters and educational media was developed and is recorded in a report. This resource material produced up to MTR has potential to be used during community engagement components of KAP III Baseline survey of public attitudes Discontinued. Surveys were intended to be completed annually towards climate change (completed in order to measure the impact of Component 1.2 on increasing in 2007) awareness. These were discontinued and the baseline study has not been used in monitoring 25 Bilingual glossary of CCA related The use of this output in actual community consultation under terms produced components 2 and 3 was limited because contractors were not aware of them. Both of these outputs can be used in the implementation of KAP III Focused behavior change campaign Dropped since it was not linked to specific physical investments. on coastal resilience and water Funds were refocused to community consultations for water resource management infiltration galleries (see below) Initial consultation completed with This output was added following MTR. This has laid the three villages in North Tarawa in groundwork required for installation of galleries in two of the relation to proposed installation of three villages in KAP III. Although galleries were intended to infiltration galleries for village water be installed under KAP II, valuable lessons about community supply perspectives on water resource management, livelihood impacts and the features and structure of successful community consultation were learned. 1.3 Policy coordination and OB established as lead agency Fundamental to achieving CCA mainstreaming objectives. The planning coordinating CCA and related institution was set up by April 2009. At appraisal, the target was strategies the first year of project implementation, which was not achieved. Climate-affected programs in MOPs Direct contribution to achieving CCA mainstreaming objectives. for GoK FY 2007, 2008, 2009 and This provided the institutional planning basis for mainstreaming 2010 include KAP II activities CCA, linking KAP II to national development planning. Coastal hazard risk diagnosis and Direct contribution to CCA mainstreaming and capacity building planning process reviewed, objectives. Protocols in coastal hazard management were recommendations for improvements strengthened. Skills in climate risk assessment and adaptation produced, capacity building planning in the coastal sector were significantly increased. workshops to train cross-ministry Foreshore Management Committee, an inter-ministerial staff in coordinated assessment and technical group was trained with the skills to complete coastal planning completed (MPWU, risk assessments and develop climate change strategies. Risk MELAD, MFMR KMS). assessments completed under this component (integrating the outputs of Component 1.4 below) were used in the design of 26 physical works in components 2 and 3. Visual outputs showcased the work of KAP at the Conference of The Parties (COP) at the UNFCCC in 2009. 1.4 Information for climate Development of and training in the Direct contribution to capacity building objectives. Members of risk management use of calculators for rainfall and the Foreshore Management Committee (from MELAD, MFMR, drought, and coastal storm surge and MPWU, KMS) were successfully trained in the use of sea-level rise projections. calculators. Calculators were used in risk assessments under components 2 and 3 by MPWU and contractors as part of physical works. Calculators are being used outside KAP II by ECD-MELAD in the development of their Second National Communications to the UNFCCC, and by KMS in drought analysis indicating a sustainable outcome 1.5 Climate monitoring Rain gauges installed in Outer Direct contribution to capacity building objectives . Climate data systems Islands (installation costs covered by is essential for climate risk diagnosis into the future. Staff KAP II only) and staff trained trained in data collection on Outer Islands are fulfilling their tasks and collect data on an ongoing basis. Component 2:Land use, physical structures and ecosystems 2.1 Integrating CCA into Raise awareness, strengthen Dropped. At the time of restructure, the activity had not begun land use policies regulations, permitting and so was dropped to simplify project design. enforcement processes, particularly for monitoring and measurement of beach mining activities Monitoring of economic impacts of Dropped at restructure because the implementation of the lagoon EU-GoK lagoon aggregate mining aggregate mining project was delayed. project 2.2 Improve protection of FS6: multi-member consultancy Direct contribution to investment demonstration and capacity public assets team produced the following building objectives. FS6 enabled techniques in coastal protection outputs: to be demonstrated and piloted. Engineering design and  Preparation of a detailed methodology is suitable for local capacity in MPWU and could 27 coastal engineering condition be replicated by ministry staff. Mentoring provided by the assessment for most of South consulting firm transferred skills in MPWU. A longer timeframe Tarawa. would have enabled more skills transfer.  Preparation of shoreline protection design guidelines & training workshops.  Preparation of adaptation strategies for six selected assets on South Tarawa.  Preparation of detailed engineering designs of selected shoreline protection works (4)  Procurement and construction supervision support for the demonstration shoreline protection works at four sites for a total of 0.5km of coastline. Civil engineering capacity in MPWU Direct contribution to capacity building objectives. The TA strengthened through an international assisted in supervising and executing works contracts in FS6 TA secondment since capacity in MPWU to do this was low. This enabled the pilot works to be completed. The TA was also tasked with skills transfer to local counterparts. This was successful although limited by the short timeframe and multiple roles required by the TOR. 2.3 Monitoring coastal Coral benthic monitoring on South Discontinued. MFMRD staff were successfully trained in coral ecosystems to support Tarawa and shoreline change and coastal monitoring. Initial monitoring to establish a baseline biodiversity monitoring on South Tarawa and was completed. The extent to which coral monitoring is being 28 outer islands. continued is unclear. Shoreline change monitoring is not being continued by MFMRD. Although these activities produced useful outputs, they were not coherently linked with other components and as such have limited value in the context of KAP II Mangrove restoration on South Direct contribution to investment demonstration objectives. Tarawa and 4 outer islands for a total MELAD successfully developed a community engagement of 37,000 seedlings planted. process for local skills enhancement and ownership of mangrove planting and maintenance. Mangrove planting has been sustainable and is increasing habitat for coastal and marine species important to local livelihoods Component 3: Freshwater resources FS7: multi-member consultancy Direct contribution to all objectives. FS7 was a single firm team produced the following outputs, contract established following the restructure to simplify contributing to subcomponents 3.1, procurement procedures. FS7enabled techniques in water 3.2 and 3.3 below : resource management to be demonstrated and piloted. MPWU Strengthened capacity in water staff were successfully trained, through partnership resources assessment arrangements, in freshwater lens assessment. NGO staff were trained in participatory techniques for community consultation. A longer timeframe would have enabled more thorough training Revision of national building codes in (technically complex) water resource assessment. to include rainwater harvesting and An infiltration gallery was successfully installed in one location storage provisions at a school in North Tarawa. The gallery, and the processes of Water resource assessments on engagement and installation, is viewed positively by the South and North Tarawa, and community. The school now has a sustainable supply of water Tabiteuea North and Tamana (Outer during the dry period. Water is not currently being used for Islands) including: drinking however, because of discoloration and smell (although quality is fine).  Well condition surveys (563 Infiltration galleries were not able to be installed in three further locations as intended, because the extent of community 29 household wells) consultation regarding land and livelihood compensation  Rainwater harvesting required was underestimated. However, community consultation potential assessment of laid the groundwork for potential installation of galleries in two communal building roofs further locations under KAP III. The most important outcome of (104 buildings) this component was experience gained in community engagement processes for water resource management. Lessons  Geophysical freshwater lens will be carried forward into KAP III. assessments in South and North Tarawa and two outer Skills in rainwater harvesting and storage design and islands (1247 measurements construction were successfully built in MPWU and local private taken) sector contractors. An important outcome is lessons learned about community engagement required for appropriate operation and self-sustained maintenance. These lessons will be carried Monitoring boreholes installed in 9 forward to KAP III. Guidelines produced were suitable for local locations in North and South capacity and are currently being used by NZAP in a rainwater Tarawa. harvesting project. Infiltration galleries for improved water supply installed in one site Community consultations undertaken for potential installation of infiltration galleries in three further sites Rainwater harvesting and storage guidelines produced Rainwater harvesting and storage facilities installed at 4 sites on public buildings 3.1 Update national water National Water Policy developed Direct contribution to outcome 1. The National Water Policy is policy, standards, and and adopted the first policy framework for a coordinated national response to capabilities water resource management issues. It sets out a number of principles currently being used to shape donor investments in 30 Kiribati, including KAP III 3.2 South Tarawa planning, Water Master Plan for South Tarawa Direct contribution to outcome 1. The Master Plan puts into remedial action, pilot completed action the principals set out in the National Water Policy. The projects intention is for it to guide long term planning in MPWU and PUB. The Asian Development Bank‟s (ADB‟s) Water and Sanitation Project, KAP and NZAP‟s Temaiku subdivision project now all generally align with the Master Plan. Study feasibility of freshwater lens Dropped due to its potentially technically and politically creation by land reclamation contentious nature. Pilot rainwater collection for Dropped in efforts to simplify project design because not groundwater recharge considered a priority 3.3 Outer Islands Re-assess feasibility of non-polluting Dropped to simplify project design since the history of sanitation assessments and public and sanitation systems improvements in Kiribati is not positive and requires a more private systems upgrades concerted focus than would have been possible 3.4 Strengthen capacity in Water engineering capacity in Direct contribution to capacity building objectives. . The TA water resource MPWU strengthened through an assisted in supervising and executing works contracts in FS7 management international TA secondment since capacity in MPWU to do this was low. This enabled the pilot works to be completed. The TA was also tasked with skills transfer to local counterparts. This was successful although limited by the short timeframe and multiple roles required by the TOR. Component 4: Capacity at island and community level 4.1 Local consultations and Consultations undertaken on five Consultations were discontinued after mid term review. participatory risk outer islands Outcomes of this component were few since the majority of assessments Outer Island activities were dropped. 4.2 Training in local Dropped to simplify project scope and design as not a priority government CCA roles and and most outer island investment activities were dropped responses 31 4.3 Include climate change 9 Outer Island socio-economic Profiles did not contribute to KAP II outcomes because the vulnerability in outer island profiles, incorporating climate majority of outer island activities were dropped after MTR. profiles change vulnerability information, Profiles provide useful baseline information that can be used in completed KAP III 4.4 Pilot small scale Outer Outer Islands loan scheme for roof Dropped to reduce scope of project since the feasibility was yet Island adaptation catchment to be researched and would require considerable technical and investments scheme administrative inputs from project management Component 5: Project management 5.1 Operation of Project PMU established as agency to The PMU was staffed by 2008 with an I-Kiribati team: Project Management Unit within manage KAP II Manager, Project Coordinator, Procurement Officer, Finance and OB admin Officer, Procurement Assistant, Project Monitor, Project Office Assistant, Assistant Accountant. International TA Project This greatly increased capacity in the PMU to undertake day to Management Adviser seconded to day and longer term project management to international PMU standards. Project reporting and office functions (such as filing) improved significantly following appointment. International TA Procurement This greatly increased procurement capacity in the PMU. Lack Adviser seconded to PMU of procurement skills to international standards had previously hindered project progress. This enabled the evaluation of bids and subsequent contract negotiations with preferred bidders for FS6 and FS7. In conjunction with the Project Management Adviser, the Procurement Adviser built skills through on-the-job involvement of the PMU in every aspect of procurement and contract management. 32 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 1. Traditional measures of efficiency such as cost-benefit analysis were not undertaken during project preparation and implementation although a qualitative incremental cost of climate change impacts was undertaken at appraisal. A conventional economic analysis could not be applied to KAP II as a stand-alone project because of two fundamental uncertainties related to delivery of intended benefits: a. the pace and severity of climate change impacts in the next 20-50 years is uncertain meaning the value of damage avoided from KAP II investment cannot be quantified precisely enough, and; b. the benefits of the Project will depend on the sustained effort of government, communities and the private sector in utilizing the capacity created. 2. Further, the largest portion of funds were directed towards institutional strengthening, technical assistance and capacity building (approximately 80% TA to 20% investment), making it difficult to measure the project benefits in economic terms. 3. The expected economic benefits identified at appraisal included: maintenance of livelihoods otherwise threatened by climate change; avoidance of damage to coastal assets and ecosystems; avoidance of climate change and disaster-induced limits to economic growth; avoidance of public health costs due to insufficient and contaminated water supply; avoidance of productivity losses due to water supply-related public health impacts; enhancing public sector investment that requires reliable and safe water supply. 4. Although it is difficult to quantify there is consensus in government and among donors and communities that KAP II investments are economically worthwhile, given the risks related to climate change that could amount to US$8 to 16 million in the absence of adaptation (World Bank, 2000). Project implementation provided useful information regarding the actual costs of construction and accessing goods and services in a remote location like Kiribati that can be used in the design and evaluation of future investments. The cost of labour and materials for example was consistently higher than what was estimated at appraisal. Investments within the coastal sector were selected using a cost- benefit analysis to ensure that the selected protection solution was the most cost- effective; for example, by choosing construction methods that would require less or simpler maintenance. Investments in the water sector were driven largely by the immediate urgency of improving supply of freshwater to reduce current risks to population associated with availability and quality of drinking water. This was highly valuable as „no regrets‟ adaptation measure (which provides benefit regardless of climate change) but most adaptation solutions were piloted on such a small scale that it would not be possible to carry out any meaningful cost-benefit analysis. 33 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Lending Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough Task Team Leader EASER Sofia U. Bettencourt Task Team Leader AFTEN David Michael Chandler Sr Financial Management Specialist EAPCO Bruce M. Harris Consultant EASTE - HIS Hoonae Kim Sector Manager EASSD Maarten K van Aalst Consultant GFDRR Nurul Alam Senior Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Supervision/ICR Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough Task Team Leader AFTEN Marianne Grosclaude Task Team Leader LCSAR Emilia Battaglini Task Team Leader EASNS Melinda Good Sr Counsel LEGES Johanna Van Tilburg Sr Counsel LEGES David Michael Chandler Sr Financial Management Specialist EAPCO Stephen Paul Hartung Financial Management Specialist EAPFM Cristiano Costa e Silva Nunes Procurement Specialist EAPPR Miriam Witana Procurement Specialist EASPR Olivia Warrick CCA Specialist EASNS Tiresa Slade Team Assistant EACNF Gitanjali Ponnambalam Team Assistant EACNF Michelle Lisa Chen Program Assistant SASDO R. Cynthia Dharmajaya Program Assistant EASER Nathan Hale Program Assistant EACNF 34 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget GEF Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY05 14.26 126.05 FY06 14.65 168.83 FY07 0.75 3.62 FY08 0.00 Total: 289.03 Supervision/ICR FY07 8.22 70.09 FY08 9.21 46.51 FY09 11.76 73.43 FY10 9.58 65.06 FY11 11.77 89.24 FY12 0.83 11.72 35 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Not applicable 36 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results Not applicable 37 Annex 7. Summary of Recipient's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR GoK comments on draft Bank ICR Comments to the World Bank Draft ICR, provided by Mr. Tangitang Karueata, Secretary, Office of the President, Government of Kiribati GoK: “Unfinished Business�, KAPII Implementation Completion Report for Government of Kiribati, May 2011 38 39 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Comments from Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre (PIAC) 40 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents See http://www.climate.gov.ki/library.html for most KAP II reports, guidelines and assessments World Bank. 2006. KAP II Project Appraisal Document Office of Te Beretitenti, GoK. June, 2010. Combined Annual Report 2009 and Progress Report to March 2010: Hughes, T. (2011) Unfinished Business: KAPII Implementation Completion Report. Government of Kiribati Beca International Consultants Ltd, 2008. KAP II Mid Term Review Evaluation Report, prepared for the Office Te Beretitenti, Republic of Kiribati World Bank, 2001. Kiribati Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) FY2011-2014 World Bank. KAP II Implementation Status and Results Reports: June 2007; June 2008; November 2008; January 2009; June 2009; January 2010; May 2011 World Bank, KAP Aide Memoires: July 2005; October, 2006; July to August, 2007; April 2008; November 2009; May 2010; World Bank, 2009. KAP II Project Restructure Paper World Bank, 2000. Cities, Seas and Storms: Managing Climate Change in Pacific Island Economies Government of Kiribati, 2008. Kiribati Development Plan: 2008-2011 Government of Kiribati, 2004. Kiribati National Development Strategies: 2004-2008 Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development, Government of Kiribati, 2007. National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) Global Environment Facility, June 13, 2006. Trust Fund Grant Agreement 41 IBRD 38722 KIRIB ATI Naa TA R AWA AT OLL COASTAL CONDITIONS 13 ASSESSMENT SITES Buariki WATER RESOURCES 0 2.5 5 Taratai ASSESSMENT SITES KILOMETERS Betio URBAN CENTERS ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER* MAIN PAVED ROADS Tearinibai OTHER ROADS Nuatabu * Bairiki Island serves as administrative center although the capital is the entire atoll of Tarawa Tebangaroi PACIFIC OCEAN Taratai KIRIBATI Area of Map Taborio Notoue Abaokoro Marenanuka 13 Main Road in Bikenibeu − Nawerewere Tabonibara 12 Main Road in Bikenibeu − Nawerewere 11 Main Road in Bikenibeu − Nawerewere Kairiki 10 Main Road in Nawerewere − Temaiku 9 Main Road in Tangintebu Kainaba 8 Main Road in Taborio Nabeina 7 Main Road in Taborio 6 Main Road in Antenon (Taborio) Tabiang 3 Main Road in Teaoraereke Tabiteuea 2 Teaoraereke − Nanikaai Causeway Tabuki Abatao Tanaea L a g o o n Buota Bonriki Bonriki Intl. Airport Nawerewer Eita Bangantebure Temaiku 9 Betio Ambo 6 7 8 10 Bikenibeu13 Tangintebu 12 11 Taborio Banraeaba 2 3 Bairiki Teaoraereke Nanikaai BAIRIKI This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information 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 endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. JULY 2011 173° E Makin 174° E 175° E 176° E 177° E 3° N 3° N K IRIB AT I Tamana Tabiteuea North GIL B E RT I S L AN D S Butaritari Island Tekabwibwi Island Tekaman WATER RESOURCES Airstrip Tanaeang Tamana Buota ASSESSMENT SITES Barebuka Terikiai VILLAGES Eita Bakaka Utiroa ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER* Tauma Bakarawa * Bairiki Island serves as administrative center although the capital is the entire atoll of Tarawa 2° N 2° N Kabuna Marakei Abaiang 0 1 Kilometer 171° E 172° E 0 5 10 Kilometers Tarawa KIRIBATI 1° N 1° N Area of Map Maiana Abemama Kuria Aranuka P A C I F I C O C E A N 0 0 Gilbert Islands Nonouti Banaba -1° S -1° S Tabiteuea North Tabiteuea Beru Nikunau South 0 100 200 Onotoa KILOMETERS -2° S This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. -2° S The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information AUGUST 2011 IBRD 38723 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 endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Tamana Arorae 171° E 172° E 173° E 174° E 175° E 176° E 177° E