Document of
The World Bank
Report No: ICRXXXXXX
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(Loan/Credit No)
ON A GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF [SDR/EURO] [0.00] MILLION (US$ [0.00] MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO
LAKE CHAD BASIN COMMISSION
FOR A
REVERSAL OF LAND AND WATER DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE LAKE CHAD
BASIN ECOSYSTEM PROJECT
[DATE]
[Sector Department]
[Country Department]
[Region]
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
i
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 December 31
(Exchange Rate Effective)
Currency Unit = US$
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AFD
Agence Française de Développement
AfDB
African Development Bank
APR
Annual Performance Report (UNDP)
BGR
German Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources
CAR
Central African Republic
CAS
Country Assistance Strategy
CBO
Community Based Organization
COM
Council of Ministers of LCBC
CMP
Catchment Management Plan
CPS
Country Partnership Strategy (Nigeria)
DGIS
Directorate-General for International Cooperation
DES
Deputy Executive Secretary of LCBC
DFID
Department for International Development (UK)
EMF
Environmental Management Framework
ES
Executive Secretary/secretariat of LCBC
ESI
Environmental Status Indicator
EU
European Union
FM
Financial Management
FMWR
Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Nigeria
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
GEO
Global Environmental Objective
GTZ
German Assistance for Developing Countries
IA
Institutional Assessment
ICR
Implementation Completion and Results Report
IMCC
Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee
IP
Investment Plan/Implementation Progress
ISR
Implementation Supervision and Results Report
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
IW
International Waters (GEF)
IWRM
Integrated Water Resources Management
JWL
Joint Wetlands Livelihoods project
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
ii
K-Y pilot
Komadugu-Yobe pilot project (Nigeria)
KYB
Komadugu-Yobe Basin (Nigeria)
LCB
Lake Chad Basin
LCBC
Lake Chad Basin Commission
LCB-GEF
The Project Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the LCB Ecosystem
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MSA
Management Services Agreement
MTR
Mid-term Review
NAP
National Action Plan
NCC
National Coordination Committee
NCF
Nigerian Conservation Foundation
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
NPC
National Project Coordinator
PAD
Project Appraisal Document, World Bank
PIM
Project Implementation Manual
PSC
Project Steering Committee
PI
Process Indicator
PIR
Project Implementation Review (UNDP)
PM
Project Manager
PMG
Project Management Group
PMU
Project Management Unit
Prodoc
Project Document, UNDP
PRSP
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSC
Project Steering Committee
RAF
Resettlement Action Framework
SAP
Strategic Action Program/Plan
SRI
Stress Reduction Indicator
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TOR
Terms of Reference
TPR
Tri-partite Review
TTL
Task Team Leader
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WWF
World Wild Life Fund
Vice President:
Obigiali K. Ezekwesili
Regional Director:
Richard Scobey
Sector Manager:
Ashok K. Subramanian
Project Team Leader:
Ijsbrand de Jong
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
iii
ICR Lead Author
Johannes G. Grijsen
A. Basic Information
Reversal of Land and
Water Degradation
Country:
Africa
Project Name:
Trends in the Lake
Chad Basin Ecosystem
Project ID:
P070252
L/C/TF Number(s):
TF-52140
ICR Date:
05/07/2009
ICR Type:
Core ICR
LAKE CHAD BASIN
Lending Instrument:
TAL
Borrower:
COMMISSION
(LCBC)
Original Total
USD 2.9M
Disbursed Amount:
USD 2.8M
Commitment:
Environmental Category: B
Global Focal Area: I
Implementing Agencies:
Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC)
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
B. Key Dates
Revised / Actual
Process
Date
Process
Original Date
Date(s)
Concept Review:
02/12/2001
Effectiveness:
01/22/2004
Appraisal:
04/08/2002
Restructuring(s):
Approval:
01/21/2003
Mid-term Review:
12/19/2006
02/26/2007
Closing:
12/30/2006
12/20/2008
C. Ratings Summary
C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes:
Moderately unsatisfactory
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
iv
Risk to Development Outcome:
Significant
Bank Performance:
Moderately Unsatisfactory
Borrower Performance:
Moderately Unsatisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)
Bank
Ratings
Borrower
Ratings
Moderately
Moderately
Quality at Entry:
Government:
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Moderately
Implementing
Moderately
Quality of Supervision: Unsatisfactory
Agency/Agencies:
Unsatisfactory
Overall Bank
Moderately
Overall Borrower
Moderately
Performance:
Unsatisfactory
Performance:
Unsatisfactory
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation
QAG Assessments
Indicators
Rating
Performance
(if any)
Potential Problem Project
Quality at Entry
No
None
at any time (Yes/No):
(QEA):
Problem Project at any
Quality of
Moderately
Yes
time (Yes/No):
Supervision (QSA): Unsatisfactory
GEO rating before
Moderately
Closing/Inactive status
Unsatisfactory
D. Sector and Theme Codes
Original
Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Central government administration
50
60
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
v
General water, sanitation and flood protection sector
25
40
Irrigation and drainage
25
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Land administration and management
50
50
Water resource management
50
50
E. Bank Staff
Positions
At ICR
At Approval
Vice President:
Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili
Callisto E. Madavo
Ali Khadr
Country Director:
Richard Scobey
Antoinette M. Sayeh
Mark D. Tomlinson
Sector Manager:
Ashok K. Subramanian
Inger Andersen/ Praful C. Patel
Project Team Leader:
IJsbrand Harko de Jong
Tracy Hart
ICR Team Leader:
IJsbrand Harko de Jong
ICR Primary Author:
Johannes G. Grijsen
F. Results Framework Analysis
Global Environmental Objective (from PAD): To build capacity within the LCBC and its
national committees, so that it can better achieve its mandate of managing land and water
resources in the greater Conventional Basin of Lake Chad.
The GEO has not been revised. The PAD and Credit Agreement did not provide a Results
Framework. Therefore, the following framework has been derived from information provided in
the Project Design Summary (Annex 1 of the PAD); refer also to Sections 1.2 and 2.3.
In Annex 10, UNDPs APR/PIR and Prodoc outcome indicators have been integrated with the
outcome indicators used in the Banks ISRs. This integration provides a better presentation of
project outcomes and an alternative for the Results Framework provided in this Section F.
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
vi
The objectives and indicators of the Project Appraisal Documents (PAD) results framework
were overly ambitious and lacked baselines and targets. As a result, it is difficult for stakeholders
to reach agreement in rating the achievements of the project. For example, this ICR rates the
project performance as moderately unsatisfactory (MU), while the independent final evaluation
rates the project performance as moderately satisfactory (MS). The MU rating is based on the
comparison of the achievement of the project with the overly ambitious objective. The MS
rating, on the other hand, is based on the projects achievements despite the difficulties
encountered, such as the civil strife.
GEO Indicator: Not provided in the PAD or Credit Agreement
Outcome Indicators
Baseline
Target
Values Achieved
Value
Values
at Completion
Indicators (1) Increased numbers of stakeholders involved in local and transboundary
1 and 2
water resource management issues, with the ability to influence decision
making processes; (2) Increased awareness of the impact of national policies
on shared water resources by constituency groups
Value
Not
Not
CBOs and local stakeholders proposed and
available
available
implemented projects addressing local concerns.
National teams developed the National Action
Plans (NAP) for the implementation of IWRM,
through the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
Date 01/21/2003 01/20/20081 12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (no target set). At the beginning of the project, limited
avenues were available for public involvement in the overall management of the
Lake Chad Basin system. National and local capacities for the sustainable
development of the LCB resources have improved through training of groups
such as Inter-Ministerial-Committees at national level and CBOs at community
level.
Indicator 3 Implementation support for three pilot projects
Value
Local micro-grant activities were implemented in
Not
Not
3 out 5 of pilot projects, with involvement of
available
available
many stakeholders. Catchment Management
Plans were developed for 4 pilot Basins. Lessons
learned on pilot activities are incorporated in the
NAPs and SAP.
Date 01/21/2003 01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (no target set). The Upper-Chari Basin pilot was cancelled
and the Lake Fitri pilot was curtailed due to the prevailing security conditions ;
1 Closing date as agreed upon at the time of project effectiveness.
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
vii
micro-grants were disbursed with delays.
Indicator 4 Completion and adoption of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP), with a
framework, timeline and Financing Plan for implementation of priority
activities.
Value
Not
Not
The SAP has been endorsed by the Council of
available
available
Ministers in June 2008, but the Investment Plan
for SAP implementation has yet to be developed.
Date 01/21/2003 01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (no target set). At the start of the project, the planning
document for Basin development was the Master Plan of 1992. Although the SAP
has been endorsed by the CoM, this indicator is partially achieved since the
Investment Plan is not available.
Indicator 5 Increased donor involvement in and support for the SAP and LCBC Plan
implementation.
Value
Not
Not
A donor conference is under preparation for
available
available
2009. AfDB has approved the LCB Sustainable
Development Program (PRODEBALT), which
will support implementation of the SAP.
Additional donor funding is available from the
EU, BGR, GTZ.
Date 01/21/2003 01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments
Partial achievement (no target set). At the beginning of the project, few Donors
were involved in the development of land and water resources in the Lake Chad.
This indicator is partially achieved since the donor conference has been
postponed beyond project closure. AfDB funding has been approved in
December 2008.
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
Date ISR
Actual Disbursements
No.
GEO
IP
Archived
(USD millions)
1
08/06/2003
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
2
02/25/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
3
07/28/2004
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
0.00
4
04/18/2005
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
0.25
5
11/04/2005
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
0.53
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
viii
6
03/29/2006
Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
0.53
7
05/09/2006
Moderately Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
0.53
8
05/15/2006
Moderately Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
0.53
9
11/08/2006
Moderately Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
0.53
10
06/12/2007
Moderately Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
1.18
11
11/16/2007
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
2.20
12
05/20/2008
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
2.20
13
12/05/2008
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
2.85
H. Restructuring (if any)
Not Applicable
I. Disbursement Profile
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
ix
Draft ICR Lake Chad GEF
05/15/2009
x
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal
Regional context and issues. Lake Chad and its active basin constitute an important freshwater
resource shared by Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Niger and Nigeria. Due
to persistent drought and human activity, the lakes surface area has decreased from a peak of
25,000 km2 to less than 2,000 km2. Socio-economic pressures on the regions limited water
resource base and a drier climate have led to a significant increase in extractions for irrigation.
Rural poverty and environmental degradation: General poverty characterizes the development
situation in the Basin, which is a key factor for all environmental threats. The member countries
rank among the last thirty in the latest Human Development Index ranking (December 2008).
Close to 20 million peoples livelihoods depend on economic activities carried out in the lake
and its hydrological active basin of about 1.0 million km2, which also includes important
wetlands and floodplains.
Inadequate water and environmental management policies: Generally, there is insufficient
knowledge of water resources in the Basin, and there is no effective system for monitoring
freshwater resources. Water demand management is ineffective, and little attention is paid to
adapting production methods to natural resource limitations.
Focus on strengthening regional (LCBC), national and local capacity: On May 22, 1964, the
Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) was instituted under the ,,Convention Relating to the
Development of the Chad Basin, executed by Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria. CAR joined
LCBC in 1994 and Libya ratified the convention in June 2008. LCBCs broad mandate includes
prior notification, monitoring studies and works related to water resources. LCBC has the
authority to examine complaints and contribute to the resolution of differences among member
countries. The latter, however, have often bypassed the LCBC in pursuing national development
projects.
Rationale for Bank's assistance: The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) does not explicitly
elaborate the rationale for Bank assistance. LCBC and GEF requested the involvement of the
Bank as co-implementing agency with UNDP, for its comparative advantage. At the time of
appraisal, the project was consistent with the general sector goals of relevant Country Assistance
Strategies (CAS) and PRSPs, but relevant CAS documents gave different levels of attention to
the issue of water in general, and little or none to transboundary water basin management. The
project contributed to the overarching goals of the Regional Integration Assistance Strategy
(RIAS) for Sub-Saharan Africa by strengthening collaboration across borders, promoting
cooperation, and coordinating investments in support of shared water resources. The Central
Africa Regional Integration Assistance Strategy (2003) specifically mentioned the Project and
sector work to define basin-wide priorities.
Designed to generate global benefits through sustainable transboundary water resources
management and comprehensive participation of local stakeholders in land and water
management in the Lake Chad Basin, the project was fully aligned with GEFs OP9 "Integrated
Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program." The GEF project was an
opportunity for LCBC to embrace institutional change towards: (i) a planning and management
based organization, (ii) ensuring a sound and environmentally sustainable basis for investments
and economic developments, and (iii) creating a culture of transparent public participation.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
1
1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators
Lack of uniformity in GEO descriptions: The PAD, Grant Agreement and Prodoc (UNDP)
provide various descriptions of the PDO/GEO (see Table 1). These descriptions, although
different, are not contradictory. They all agree on the capacity building aspects of the LCBC, and
the Grant Agreement and Prodoc further elaborate on the TDA and SAP, and on the increase and
coordination of donor support. The Grant Agreement mentions donor coordination, while the
Prodoc focuses on donor support, specifically in implementing the SAP.
GEO in the PAD
GEO in the Grant agreement
GEO in Prodoc (UNDP
To build capacity within (i) to strengthen the capacity of LCBC (i) to overcome barriers to the
the LCBC and its national to promote and improve coordinated concerted management of the basin
committees so that it can and sustainable water management in through enhanced collaboration and
better achieve its mandate the
Basin;
(ii)
to
strengthen capacity building among riparians
of managing land and institutional mechanisms in member and stakeholders; (ii) to complete a
water resources in the countries
for
management
of TDA and prepare a descriptive
greater
Conventional transboundary water issues; (iii) to framework for the concerted water
Basin of Lake Chad
develop a Strategic Action Program management across the basin; and
(SAP) to improve the conservation and (iii) to prepare a GEF-SAP for long
management of land and water term implementation of priority
resources in the Basin; and (iv) to actions to address transboundary
assist LCBC in coordinating donor issues, and to mobilize increased
support of the SAP and transboundary donor
interest/support
for
management
implementing the SAP.
Table 1: Description of the GEO in the different Project documents.
Lack of uniformity, baseline, and end of project target values in key performance indicators:
Neither the PAD nor the Grant Agreement provides a Results Framework with indicators,
baseline values and end-of-project target values. The Project Design Summary in Annex 1 of the
PAD only lists outcome indicators (some of which are activities/outputs), in addition to a host of
output indicators. Similarly, Annex 2 of UNDPs Prodoc provides a detailed log frame for the
project without baseline and end-of-project target values for its indicators (see Annex 10).
1.3 Revised GEO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification
There were no formal revisions of the original GEO and key indicators.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
The primary regional benefit of the project was a stronger LCBC for the decision-making
process at the regional level, resulting in: (i) strengthened regional institutional capacity for
coordinated decision-making; (ii) local communities empowered in managing the Lake Chad and
Lake Fitri resources; (iii) design of an effective mechanism to translate regional policies to the
local level for managing the natural resources; and (iv) regional consensus and support for the
next phase of work based on a SAP. The PAD and Prodoc identified beneficiaries at three levels:
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
2
(i) At the regional level LCBC would benefit from institutional strengthening, capacity building
to implement projects, and an overall advancement of its vision, mandate and strategic planning
framework. It would be able to build more commitment from its members, and serve them
efficiently.
(ii) At the national level water management structures of LCB countries would benefit from
institutional capacity building and being mandated to lead the national-level process of the TDA
and SAP. Member governments would put mechanisms in place to harmonize their activities and
get prepared to attract donor support and investment.
(iii) At the local level rural communities in the Basin would benefit from the micro-grant
programs and become more involved in decision-making processes to manage their natural
resources.
1.5 Original Components
The project consisted of six components, as summarized below from PAD and Prodoc (see also
Annex 2). Components 2 and 6 were implemented through the Bank, components 1, 3 and 4
were implemented through UNDP, and component 5 (pilot projects) was jointly implemented.
The total budget of the project was US$9.6 million, of which US$2.9 million was implemented
through the Bank.
Component 1 (An established PMU and national Lead Agencies to drive and coordinate
implementation - US$ 2.34m) aimed at establishing: the Project Management Unit (PMU) at
LCBC; national lead agencies; and a Technical Advisory Committee and Project Steering
Committee (PSC) to drive and co-ordinate TDA, SAP, pilot projects, policy initiatives and
institutional linkages.
Component 2 (Enhanced regional policy initiatives and institutional mechanisms to address
trans-boundary issues - US$1.08m) aimed to strengthen the institutional and environmental
management capacity at regional and national/local levels through: (i) review of current
functions and responsibilities of LCBC, creating awareness of national policy makers on
transboundary issues and building regional capacity; (ii) integration of transboundary water and
environmental management policies into National development Action Plans (NAP); (iii) review
of legal, institutional, financial and socio-economic frameworks in member countries; and (iv)
the harmonization of legal frameworks, regulations and approaches for transboundary
management of shared resources.
Component 3 (Strengthened engagement of stakeholders - US$ 1.23m) aimed at strengthening
community level participation through: (i) supporting local planning initiatives to establish their
sustainable development plans in line with sub-basin planning frameworks; (ii) workshops for
the prioritization of local, national and regional initiatives to arrive at a coherent and integrated
approach; and (iii) development of a regionally based methodology and mechanism for multi-
level stakeholder participation, with provisions for environmental impact studies.
Component 4 (A completed TDA and a synthetic framework for concerted management of the
basin US$ 2.05m) aimed to examine basin-wide conditions and issues and to determine the
linkages between environmental and socio-economic systems and their transboundary impacts.
These would serve as an input to the SAP design (component 6) and implementation. This
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
3
component was also designed to collect data, improve data collection systems and capacity,
develop water resources models and develop risk analysis capacity.
Component 5 (Demonstration pilot projects - US$2.54 m) aimed to test and validate
methodologies, secure stakeholder involvement and develop implementation modalities for
national and local SAP and NAP interventions. Pilot projects implemented through the World
Bank were (i) the Lake Fitri pilot in Chad, (ii) the Komadugu-Yobe (KY) pilot in Nigeria, and
(iii) the Waza-Logone (WL) flood plains pilot in Cameroon. Pilot projects funded through the
UNDP included: (iv) the Lake Chad Shorelines and Northern Diagnostic Basin pilot, and (v) the
Upper Chari Basin land use systems pilot in the CAR.
Component 6 (Strategic Action Plan endorsed and donor support mobilized- US$0.36 m) aimed
to develop a prioritized Strategic Action Program (SAP) for basin management (with an
Investment Plan (IP)) and to mobilize donors support.
The Project was jointly implemented by the World Bank and UNDP. The United Nations Office
for Project Services (UNOPS)was the Executing Agency for the components funded through the
UNDP, and acted as a Management Services Provider for the components funded through the
Bank. The project was managed by a PMU in collaboration with National Coordinators (NC).
1.6 Revised Components
None of the project components were restructured during project implementation.
1.7 Other significant changes
At project effectiveness (January 21, 2004) the closing date was extended till January 20, 2008,
following which it was extended twice, ultimately to December 20, 2008. No significant changes
related to project design occurred during implementation. The only changes made in 2006 were:
(i) a reallocation of funds; (ii) the merging of funds for goods and works with the funds for
"micro grants" to allow full community participation in the implementation of local initiatives
under the pilot projects; (iii) an adjustment of the financing parameters for all expenditures to
100%; and (iv) an amendment of the Procurement Schedule of the Grant Agreement.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
Quality at Entry Assessment (QEA): The project was not subjected to a QEA, but QAG
conducted in August 2004 a Quality of Supervision Assessment (QSA6), which covered mainly
the period from appraisal to effectiveness. The panel noted (i) the Bank's weak performance in
helping the project achieve effectiveness, (ii) slow response to serious design issues; and (iii) the
absence of a strategy to remedy weak ownership and commitment of LCBC. The latter was
highlighted as a main threat to the projects sustainability. The Panel also expressed concern
about the weak performance of UNOPS/PMU in project execution.
Delay in project effectiveness. It took a full year after Board approval to achieve effectiveness
conditions in January 2004. Factors causing this delay included: (i) LCBCs institutional
weakness and lack of capacity; (ii) LCBCs failure to provide counterpart staff for the PMU; (iii)
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
4
UNOPS inability to timely establish the PMU; (iv) severe constraints to travel and
communication within the region; and (v) initial disbursement problems of UNOPS.
Overly ambitious project design: The QSA6 panel (August 2004) concluded: (i) the projects
scope, design and GEO were too ambitious given the implementation capabilities of the
Recipient; (ii) the institutional context was not properly appraised at entry, (iii) the project
design did not sufficiently address the development of SAP implementation capacity in LCBC;
and (v) the safeguard framework overly focused on a set of micro-level pilot sites, while failing
to look at the region's problems more strategically.
Lessons learned. Lessons learned from other GEF operations were enumerated in the PAD, but
in some cases not adequately incorporated into the project design, such as:
Political support from riparian countries is needed to strengthen regional mechanisms.
Although the riparians were expressing their commitment to improving the environmental
management of Lake Chad, this did not translate into effective until the end of the project.
Capacity building is critical for effective decision-making and management at all levels. The
project aimed at building regional, national and local capacity to strengthen the decision-
making process for sustainable ecosystem-based management of the Basins resources.
However, the projects design provided insufficient resources for strengthening of the
regional institution LCBC itself.
Assessment of risks: Crucial risk factors were seriously underestimated in the PAD. These
included (i) the political willingness of the member states to effectively support LCBC
financially and politically in executing its mandate and the project, and (ii) LCBCs lack of
ownership of the project. The lack of implementation and fiduciary capacity within LCBC
prompted the Bank to insist that LCBC would utilize a project management service. The LCBC
selected the UNOPS. However, the use of this service management agent eroded LCBCs
ownership of the project.
2.2 Implementation: factors hampering successful project implementation
Inadequate project management caused delays in project implementation: During 2004 and
2005, the project experienced operational and managerial problems. These included (i) the lack
of funds due to problems in UNDP's financial system ATLAS, (ii) lack of participation of LCBC
staff, and (iii) lack of office facilities, vehicles, and other logistical requirements. Appointment
of a new Project Manager (PM) in 2005 caused implementation progress to deteriorate further.
By then, the lack of communication with LCBCs management had led to complaints and
disinterest at various levels. LCBC was not involved in project decisions, and its staff members
had been withdrawn from the project.
Lack of commitment and ownership by Recipients: The lack of commitment of the member
countries to LCBC has resulted over time in large arrears in the national contributions to LCBC,
which at the end of 2007 stood at 3.4 billion FCFA or about US$ 6.6 million2. In turn, LCBCs
weak financial position and its limited management capacity contributed to inadequate co-
funding of project staffing. Linkages between the PMU and LCBC remained weak throughout
the project, despite numerous efforts and commitments to improve the situation, including (i) the
2 Since the project became effective in January 2004 only Nigeria paid its contribution for 2005 and Chad reportedly
paid its total arrears in 2008.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
5
establishment of a Project Management Group (PMG) in LCBC, (ii) increased participation of
LCBC staff members in the project, and (iii) increased internal communications and regular
meetings.
Project at risk but not restructured: Following the QSA6 in August 2004, the team considered
restructuring the project, but concluded that the time required would be prohibitive. This
restructuring would have been too lengthy, given the complex design of the project (namely, the
contract management service of UNOPS) and the high number of stakeholder (UNDP, LCBC,
and the member countries). The project had been under preparation for many years. It was,
therefore, concluded that the optimal option was to work intensively with the PMU/UNOPS to
improve project implementation ,,en route. The project, at risk of cancellation in 2005, moved
out of problem status by May 2006. LCBCs project ownership and PMUs project management
performance had improved, and substantial progress had been achieved with procurement.
Intensive quarterly Bank supervision missions and improved coordination between the PMU and
LCBCs management had contributed to this favorable development. The project slipped back
into problem status in 2007. Implementation Status and Results reports (ISR) suggest that
between July 2006 and September 2007 Bank supervision was inadequate.
Security situation caused difficulties with project staffing and implementation: The recruitment
of project management staff for the PMU was difficult due to duty station location (NDjamena).
Because of civil strife, the project was forced to suspend its business twice, the Lake Fitri pilot
project in Chad was not be completed, and the Upper Chari Basin pilot in CAR was not initiated.
Overly optimistic Mid-Term Review Assessment: An independent MTR was carried out in
February 2007, while the project still had the momentum gained by mid 2006. The MTR
concluded that the project had: (i) established the PMU and coordinating bodies; (ii) prepared a
draft institutional assessment (IA) of LCBC and its restructuring plan; (iii) launched all pilot
projects; (iv) prepared the TDA; (v) launched a consultancy on IWRM and on the preparation of
NAPs; and (vi) contributed to the creation of regional mechanisms to integrated sub-basin
management. The MTR considered the project to be progressing successfully towards the
achievement of the PDO/GEO and judged the objectives to be relevant and achievable. The
MTR appears to have rated (expected) achievements more on the basis of efforts of the PMU
than on the basis of achievement of the outcomes and outputs as articulated in the PAD.
Delay in approval of the Institutional Assessment (IA): LCBC, until late in the project, failed to
provide leadership in the pursuit of its restructuring. The IA was initially approved by Technical
Experts (June 2006), but did not offer a concrete action plan towards institutional reform. The
November 2006 CoM requested that LCBC complement the IA. Little progress was made until
November 2007, when a consultant was hired to finalize the phase 2 of the IA. In March 2008
the Heads of States and Government Summit resolved that "LCBC should carry out - within six
months - institutional reforms in order to define the most appropriate structure for the Executive
Secretariat and adequate mechanisms for institutional capacity building likely to render the
LCBC more operational." The IA was approved in June 2008 by the Extraordinary CoM. GTZ is
currently supporting the implementation of the IA. The action plan for the implementation of the
IA has been endorsed at the last Council of Ministers held in Nigeria in May 7-8, 2009.
Missed opportunity of international exposure and donor interest: The Heads of State and
Government Summit (March 2008) requested "the LCBC/GEF project partners to assist in the
preparation and organization of a donors conference." However, the late endorsement of the
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
6
SAP (June 2008) and the delay in developing the IP, caused the Chairman of the CoM to
postpone the donors conference till after project closure.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
Inadequate M&E framework design: The PAD and Prodoc did not provide a single, concise
Results Framework. Outcome indicators varied between the PAD and Prodoc, which provided
mainly lengthy lists of broadly defined output/process indicators. The documents lacked
quantified baselines and were not specific in the end-of-project outcome/output targets. The PSC
adopted in 2005 a new Results Framework, but it was never formalized. Subsequent ISRs and
annual APR/PIR reports of UNDP showed a gradually evolving set of M&E indicators. As from
2005, ISRs monitored progress against the following set of outcome indicators.
Intermediate Outcome Indicators:
The LCBC has been reformed according to the endorsed institutional audit and is operating
more effectively.
Pilot project activities provide lessons on good land and water management practices for
subsequent inclusion into NAPs and SAP.
The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and an IWRM studies have been completed
and adopted by the PSC.
The SAP and Investment Plan are endorsed by riparian countries and a donors conference
takes place at the end of the project, with an opportunity for donors to pledge funding for
future investments.
Monitoring of Basin status: During the CoM of March 2008, the ,,Protocol of Agreement on Data
Exchange between Member States of LCBC was signed, with the objective to exchange data on
water resources for the LCB. A database will be established for monitoring the status of the
Basin from an environmental, natural resources and water management angle, including regional
basin data on : water resources (quality and quantity), water use, land use (soil, vegetation and
erosion), climate conditions and meteorological observations, environmental aspects, navigation,
and socio-economic conditions. This regional database will be based in the LCB-Observatory at
LCBC, as proposed in the endorsed IA.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Safeguards compliance assessment: The Project was classified as Environmental Category B due
to potential impacts from the implementation of the pilot projects. Four safeguards policies were
triggered for the pilot projects: OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitats,
OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement, and OP 4.37 Safety of Dams. During preparation, an
Environmental Management Plan and Resettlement Policy Framework were developed. The
latter was developed in view of possible redistribution of community and/or private assets for
optimal resources management. Framework Dam Safety Plans were also prepared for the Maga
Dam in Cameroon and the Tiga and Challawa George Dams in Nigeria. The project funded
Environmental Safeguards Audits (ESA) in mid 2008 for the K-Y Integrated Wetlands
Management pilot, the Waza Logone pilot, and the Lake Chad Shorelines & Northern Diagnostic
Basin pilot.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
7
The safeguard ratings in the ESA reports varied across pilot projects, but were overall
moderately satisfactory (MS) for the OPs 4.01, 4.04 and 4.12, and Unsatisfactory (U) for OP
4.37. The dam safety policy was triggered because it was felt that some pilot project activities
might rely on the performance of existing dams, which constituted a reputational risk. The
project did not provide financing to fund mitigation measures and intended to convene a donor
conference to solicit funding for structural and non-structural mitigation measures. As per Annex
13 of the PAD, the Bank was expected to receive twice yearly progress reports on the progress in
addressing the risks identified at the various dam sites. However, such reports were not received.
Under this project no severe negative impacts arose due to the small scale and thorough selection
process of individual micro-interventions under each pilot project. The ESA noted missed
opportunities to mainstream environmental and social concerns in pilot projects and to establish
a system of screening with environmental and social checklists, EMPs/ EAs and approval
processes. This was noted with reference to the possible up-scaling of micro- projects under
future SAP funded activities, when cumulative environmental impacts of many small-scale
investments may become significant.
The ESA noted that the knowledge of safeguard documents by the project staff and other
stakeholders was very limited, and that the safeguard documents were not applied and
implemented systematically. There was no Environmental Specialist in the PMU, which relied
on the Environmental Specialist of LCBC. The pilot project operators did not conduct baseline
studies before the start of the implementation of micro-projects and did not put in place M&E
systems to assess the impacts of micro-projects. Also, there were no references to safeguards in
the LCB Micro-grants Implementation Manual.
Overall, supervision missions and the MTR report did not pay adequate attention to safeguard
issues. However, the ESA noted that strong positive feed-back was received from K-Y
community members on the process of consultation, training for the CBOs, and the involvement
of CBOs and NGOs in micro-project identification, formulation, implementation, supervision,
and conflict resolution. Communities showed strong ownership in the implementation of micro-
projects.
Financial management assessment: The financial management system for the project was based
on UNDPs ATLAS system, and all payments for the project were processed through UNOPS
and the projects Imprest Account at the PMU. Neither supervision missions nor audit reports
revealed critical issues. The MTR reported that flow of funds through UNDPs country offices to
pilot project activities (micro-grants) was not satisfactory. ISRs rated the financial management
performance as moderately satisfactory. UNOPS failed to regularly provide the mandatory
annual audit reports, which for the years 2005 2007 were only submitted in October 2008.
Lack of fiduciary capacity in LCBC: LCBC generally failed to adhere to the legal agreement, as
it did not timely provide the annual audit reports for the Executive Secretariat. Therefore, it was
agreed at the tri-partite review (May 2006) that the project would hire a FM consultant to assist
LCBC in developing an Action Plan for Fiduciary Capacity Building and conduct training for
representatives of the member countries. This support was expected to enhance sustainability of
project efforts, increase accountability of LCBC and enhance the trust of donors inLCBC.
Unfortunately, this consultancy performed poorly and was of little use to the LCBC.
Procurement assessment: The Banks standard bidding documents were adjusted to UNOPS
internal requirements and procurement clauses in the Grant Agreement were amended to support
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
8
the procurement needs of the pilot projects. The task team provided intense procurement support
to the PMU, and most of the procurement activities were successfully completed by December
2006, albeit with large delays. Procurement was rated satisfactory in all ISRs. The MTR
Procurement review identified a weakness in the filing of procurement documents and observed
undue delays in procurements.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
The project had marginal success in putting in place a conducive and enabling environment that
would ensure the long-term, environmentally sustainable development of the basin's
transboundary land and water resources. At project closing in December 20, 2008, the biggest
foreseen threats to sustainability of achieved results were the Projects failure to implement the
IA of LCBC. As of May7-8, 2009, the CoM endorsed IAs action plan, which was elaborated
with GTZ support. This decision of the last CoM provides hope that the IA is still being pursued.
LCBCs current weak financial position, delay in recruiting technical staff and (past) inadequate
management still pose threats to the sustainability of the project outputs. There is still a risk that
the envisaged long-term objectives of the project may not be achieved.
To increase the likelihood of achieved results being sustainable, the task team ensured that key
milestones of the project, the TDA/SAP and the Institutional Assessment, were endorsed by an
Extraordinary COM in June 2008. The Bank initiated in FY06 the coordination and
communication with other development partners, such as representatives of the AfDB, the EU,
GTZ and AFD (France). LCBC is seeking to secure additional funding for the implementation of
priority actions identified in the SAP, and a donor conference is now envisaged to take place
later in 2009. The Investment Plan (IP) has yet to be prepared and endorsed by the member
countries. Meanwhile, the following ensuing donor support provides a marginal sustainability
scenario:
The approximately US$ 45 million (UC 30 million) AfDB funded Lake Chad Basin
Sustainable Development Program (PRODEBALT; 2009 - 2014) was approved in December
2008 and is designed to implement part of the SAP. PRODEBALT was conceived in
response to the observed reduction of flows and water quality, the loss of bio-diversity, and
the erosion and siltation, which affect Lake Chad and its Basin. The program is coherent with
the SAP and LCBCs Vision 2025 for sustainable development of the Basin and is designed
to reverse land and water degradation trends in the Basin The project appraisal document for
PRODEBALT suggests the following co-financing (other than contributions of member
countries):
EU funding of about Euro 5 million for local development activities, water resources studies
and upgrading of the Basins hydro-meteorological monitoring systems;
GTZ funding of US$2 million for implementation of the Institutional Assessment; and
BGR funding of US$3 million for the monitoring and assessment of groundwater resources.
The potential catalytic function of this GEF project is well demonstrated by the success of the
Komadugu-Yobe pilot project in Nigeria. This pilot project supported ongoing activities (JWL
and IUCN-NCF projects) regarding the adoption of a Water Charter for the K-Y catchment by
the six riparian states and the Federal Government of Nigeria, which resulted in the creation of a
US$13 million Trust Fund for the financing of the K-Y Catchment Management Plan.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
9
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
The project and its objective remain relevant to sectoral strategies of the member governments,
LCBC, the World Bank and UNDP, as well as to the strategic objectives of the GEF.
Regional and national priorities: Niger (2008) and Nigeria (2004) developed new PRSPs since
the project became effective. The project objective remains relevant to priorities of the PRSPs of
the member countries, including rural development strategies with the rural sector as engine of
economic growth, the sustainable management of water and other natural resources, the
protection of the environment and reduction of environmental degradation. The project also
responded to objectives declared by NEPAD (Agriculture and Environment programs) and the
MDGs, as well as to LCBCs Vision 2025 (2003)3.
CAS: The Bank generally supports rural development and regional integration in the LCBC
member countries. The Project and its envisaged follow-up (AfDB-funded PRODEBALT and
SAP implementation) contribute to CAS objectives by contributions to rural livelihoods in the
Basin through increased income opportunities for the poor, improved community-based natural
resource management, and a reversal of land and water degradation trends in the Basin.
GEF priorities: The project is fully consistent with the updated strategic priorities for GEF-IW
projects under GEF-4. It specifically fits with the Strategic Program #3 on "Balancing overuse
and conflicting uses of water resources in surface and groundwater basins that are of
transboundary nature." The following expected outcomes of SP # 3 are most relevant to the
project:
Political and legal commitments made to utilize IWRM policies towards sustainable water
use;
Institutions and reforms introduced to catalyze implementation of policies for basin-scale
IWRM and increased water use efficiency;
Communities benefit from access to water-related benefits in tests of innovative
demonstrations of balancing water uses.
3.2 Achievement of GEO
The major expected outputs of the current phase of the project were to: (i) efficiently carry out a
successful TDA/SAP process, (ii) derive lessons learned from pilot projects, (iii) assess the
legislative and institutional frameworks of the member countries, (iii) enhance LCBCs
institutional capacity, (iv) develop a stakeholder Analysis, (v) develop a transboundary strategy
for a functional network of protected areas, and (vi) generate full commitment of member
countries and strong donor support for implementing the Strategic Action Program (SAP).
The achievement of the GEO in terms of ,,building capacity within LCBC for better achieving its
mandate of sustainably managing land and water resources is rated moderately unsatisfactory,
despite various commendable project outputs achieved under difficult operational conditions.
Some key opportunities were missed, including: (i) the project was not able to support the
3 Vision summary: Land, water and all natural resources are conserved, sustainably exploited, managed in an integrated manner
and shared equitably, in order to not only eradicate poverty and improve living standards of the people living in the Lake Chad
Basin, but also to ensure peace, security, cooperation and sound economic developments of the region
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
10
implementation of the LCBCs reform due to the late endorsement of the IA; (ii) though the
Bank extended the closing date twice, the Investment Plan (IP) of the SAP could not be
completed; and (iii) as a consequence, the Chairman of the CoM postponed the donors
conference.
The above deficiencies are primarily due to three key root causes, namely (i) lack of commitment
of the member countries to LCBC until the last year of the project, (ii) LCBC's lack of ownership
of the project, and (iii) an understaffed PMU. The moderately unsatisfactory project performance
is unquestionably also associated with the difficult security and logistic circumstances under
which the project had to operate.
The project partially achieved its GEO and key achievements include:
a) The Institutional Assessment of LCBC was completed and endorsed by the member
countries. The IA report contains 34 recommendations aimed at reforming LCBC into a
reinvigorated, product-oriented institution. These recommendations call inter alia for the
preparation of a Biennial State of the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem Report and the establishment
of: (i) a regionally-based data and information system - the Lake Chad Basin Observatory - as
part of LCBCs capacity to undertake a systematic monitoring role for the natural resources of
the basin; (ii) a Water Resources Experts Committee (WRC) comprised of senior level water
resources specialists from the Member States; (iii) an Environment, Science and Planning
Committee (ESPC) to provide needed scientific capacity to the LCBC; (iv) a Donor Consultative
Committee (DCC) to facilitate continued donor involvement and investment in the work of the
LCBC, and (v) a Staff Development Fund providing professional development opportunities for
recruiting and retaining high quality staff. The IA also recommends upgrading and strengthening
the fiduciary capacities of LCBC and improving its overall accountability to Member States and
other contributors. Due to the late endorsement of the IA (June 2008), the project was not in a
position to support the implementation of these reforms of LCBC. It should be noted, however,
that the GTZ is currently supporting the LCBC in the implementation of these reforms. GTZ
supported LCBC in elaborating an action plan for the implementation of the IA. This action plan
was endorsed during the last CoM held in Nigeria on May7-8, 2009.
b) Progress was made towards the harmonization of relevant legal frameworks,
regulations and approaches in the member countries for the integrated and transboundary
management of the shared land and water resources of the Lake Chad Basin.
Comprehensive national and regional diagnostic reports on legal, institutional, economic and
financial aspects of the transboundary management of shared land and water resources of the
Basin have been prepared.. These reports complement the development and implementation of
the SAP. Recommendations focused on: (i) creating transboundary IWRM Committees; (ii)
harmonizing and completing the national legal frameworks through an integrated approach
regarding the various uses of water, land and the environment; (iii) creating of the LCB
Observatory to monitor water resources, environmental, economic, socio-economic and other
aspects relevant to an implementation of IWRM; and (iv) capacity building to promote IWRM.
Though national legal and institutional frameworks are yet to be harmonized, each Member State
has committed to ensure that its body of laws and regulations will be coordinated and supportive
of environmental policies developed through the NAP/SAP process. The NAPs, the main
foundation of the SAP, were prepared based on an assessment of national priority areas of
concern, including regional concerns identified in the TDA. Each country has developed
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
11
objectives and targets, proposed interventions and elaborated a resource mobilization strategy to
address their objectives.
c) A comprehensive Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) was completed at
national and regional levels. The TDA analysis was conducted through a participatory process
and presents the transboundary problems as identified and prioritised by the basin stakeholders.
The TDA identifies three overarching root causes of the transboundary problems caused by
unsustainable resources use practices, i.e. (i) the absence of sustainable development on the
political agendas of the riparian countries, (ii) low standards of environmental education and
awareness, and (iii) population pressure. The regional TDA identified seven priority regional
environmental concerns, as follows: (i) the variability of the hydrological regime and fresh water
availability, (ii) water pollution, (iii) decreased viability of biological resources, (iv) the loss of
biodiversity, (v) the loss and modification of ecosystems, (vi) sedimentation in rivers and water
bodies, and (vii) the presence of invasive species. The TDA highlights the need to pay special
attention to institutional reform of LCBC as the bedrock for arresting the degradation trends in
the Basin. LCBC lacks the power to arbitrate water conflicts in the basin. It also has no
mechanism for fostering basin level IWRM by way of getting the line agencies of the member
countries to harmonize their water resources development programs.
d) Based on the findings of the TDA, a Strategic Action Program (SAP) was completed
as a regional policy framework for the Lake Chad Basin; the SAP was developed in a
regional consultation process and endorsed by the Extraordinary COM in June 2008. This result
is commendable as few Basins in Africa have been able to complete a SAP in five years. The
SAP primarily addresses the seven priority regional environmental concerns as identified in the
TDA, lays down the principles of environmental management and cooperation, and establishes a
long-term vision for the sustainable development of the Lake Chad Basin. It subsequently
defines a set of targets and interventions to meet regionally agreed Ecosystem Quality and Water
Resource Objectives (EQWRO) and related indicators for the priority areas of environmental
concern, in the transboundary context of the Lake Chad Basin. These EQWROs are: (i) improved
quantity and quality of water; (ii) restoration, conservation and sustainable use of bio-resources;
(iii) conservation of biodiversity; (iv) restoration and preservation of ecosystems; (v)
strengthened participation and capacity of stakeholders, and (vi) institutional and legal
frameworks for environmental stewardship of the LCB.
The overall objective of the SAP is to contribute to poverty alleviation in the Basin through
priority actions, including (i) initiating shared management of the Basins water resources, (ii)
implementing a basin-wide sustainable data collection system (the LCB Observatory), (iii) taking
sectoral actions for enhanced water demand management, (iv) fighting against desertification and
against the loss of bio-diversity, (v) preventing and controlling pollution, and (vi) improving
exploitation methods of aquatic ecosystems. The Project did not prepare the Action Plan for the
SAP implementation., Missing components include (i) estimated costs to achieve the identified
EQWROs, (ii) an Investment Plan, and (iii) a strategy and financing mechanism. Although the
envisaged donor conference could not yet be held, initial SAP implementation will to an extent
be supported by the AfDB-funded LCB Sustainable Development Program (PRODEBALT).
e) In addition, the micro-grants and pilot demonstration programs yielded some
successes and impacts on the ground. Catchment Management Plans (CMP) for integrated
natural resources management were prepared and adopted for the Chari-Logone Basin, Lake Fitri
and the Lake Chad Shorelines & Northern Diagnostic Basin. The CMP for the Komadugu-Yobe
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
12
Basin was developed jointly with the K-Y Basin Project (IUCN-NCF) and the Joint Wetlands
Livelihoods Project (DFID-funding). The cooperation with these projects yielded a significant
success in establishing a Water Charter for the Sustainable and Equitable Management of the K-
Y Basin. This Charter represents a legal and institutional framework for cooperative
management of the shared water resources of the Basin by six riparian states in Nigeria. The
riparian States and Federal Government of Nigeria established a US$13 million Trust Fund to
finance the KYB - CMP. The CMPs proposed action plans targeted to resolve identified water
problems and challenges and institute integrated natural resources management instruments in
the regions. The Upper Chari and Lake Fitri pilots were terminated due to security conditions.
Local priorities were supported with 56 micro-grants to demonstrate environmentally sustainable
approaches to reverse land and water degradation, as a basis for poverty alleviation. Local
beneficiaries have been consulted and encouraged to participate in basin resource management.
Local stakeholders have thus developed a certain environmental awareness that could benefit
long-term integrated basin resources management. Implementation progress and efficiency were
hampered by problems with the transfer of micro-grants to beneficiaries. A Bio-diversity Study
was also completed and a Regional Protected Area Strategy was approved by stakeholders and
adopted by the countries.
3.3
Efficiency
Consistent with GEF requirements, Annex 4 of the PAD included an Incremental Cost Analysis,
which found that the project was composed of activities necessary to improve transboundary
water resources management. The support from the GEF was specifically targeted at covering
the transaction and other costs of cooperation between the LCB riparian countries. Due to the
transboundary nature of the issues and the public goods aspect of the environmental benefits, it is
unlikely that beneficiary countries would or could have financed these activities. Therefore, the
costs were almost certainly incremental, but the project achieved its GEO only partially within
the estimated incremental costs.
Because this was a stand-alone GEF project, additional economic analysis was not required.
Component 5 of the project in the K-Y pilot project contributed to the creation in Nigeria of a
US$ 13 million Trust fund to finance the KYB CMP. Component 6 of the project contributed
towards catalyzing an additional $45 million of future investments in the sustainable
development of the LCB through the AfDB-funded PRODEBALT project.
Despite the projects contribution to leveraging additional funding, a number of factors doomed
the operation to be inefficient in achieving its objective. These factors were: prevailing security
conditions in the region, time consuming land based transport, limited services of airlines, non-
availability of up-to-date logistical and technical facilities in NDjamena, and high costs of
workshops. This inherent inefficiency of the project was exacerbated by large initial
implementation delays, the light structure of the PMU, difficulties in the flow of funds, less than
expected contributions of LCBC staff to project implementation, significant project management
issues, and delays in recruiting consultants and in procuring essential equipment and vehicles. A
two-year extension of the project was insufficient to achieve the overly ambitious project
outputs.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
13
Overall, although the project helped to leverage additional funding in the Basin, the cost of doing
business in the region is prohibitively expensive causing the implementation of the project to be
inefficient4.
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
Despite the continuing high relevance of its GEO, the overall outcome of the project is rated
moderately unsatisfactory because (i) the project partially achieved its main development
objective, (ii) key project outputs were insufficiently achieved, (iii) the project implementation
was inefficient, and (iv) sustainability of the project outcome, although showing promise, is not
ensured.
It is noted that with a few exceptions, UNDPs annual APR/PIR reports rated the project
performance consistently as satisfactory, while the Banks ISR ratings were most of the time in
the unsatisfactory range. The independent final review of the Project rated the overall outcome
moderately satisfactory based on the achieved project outputs (see Section 3.2). Given the overly
ambitious objective in the PAD and lack of any baseline or target, the rating of the overall
outcome of the project reflects the proverbial half-full versus half-empty cup. The last CoM
(May 7-8, 2009) endorsed implementation of the IA and nominated a new ES, providing
stakeholders some assurance on the sustainability of the projects achievements.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a)
Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
The pilot projects did not include direct income generating activities, nor focus specifically on
womens groups, but they generally improved flooding and desertification conditions in specific
areas. The pilot projects contributed as such to the restoration of income of local stakeholders,
which proved to be an important incentive for stakeholder motivation. Public participation drives
helped to involve as many beneficiaries as possible and opened up the decision-making process
to a broader range of local stakeholders. Quantitative data on these aspects are not available.
(b)
Institutional Change/Strengthening
Although the project did not achieve its objective regarding institutional reform and capacity
building in LCBC, it did achieve some improvement of the institutional framework for Basin
management, including:
At national level, the project strengthened on-the-job the capacity of staff of key institutions
responsible for land and water management with potential transboundary impacts;
At local level, the project actively involved communities in the participatory management of
wetlands and protected areas, and in the equitable sharing of the benefits deriving from such
management through the set-up and support of CBOs;
4 A classic economic analysis is not applicable as this was a regional GEF grant and not an investment project.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
14
Overall, the project broadened LCBCs traditional sectoral role towards a more integrated
approach to transboundary basin resources management, by adopting principles of
environmental sustainability and encouraging participation from multi-level stakeholders.
(c)
Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts
Not available.
3.6
Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
No survey was held.
4.
Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: Significant
The risk to the Development Outcome of this operation is conservatively rated as significant.
Generally, LCBCs weak financial position, the lack of performance incentives for its staff and
its past weak management pose a continuing threat to the sustainability of the project outcome. It
is uncertain when the Investment Plan of the SAP will be completed, when the envisaged donor
conference will be held, and to what extent donors will be willing to support the SAP
implementation. Factors in favor of the sustainability of project interventions are the recently
approved AfDB-funded PRODEBALT program for SAP implementation, the CoM endorsement
of the implementation of the AI, and the nomination at the CoM of a new Executive Secretary in
May 7-8, 2009 (who assumed office on May 18th, 2009). Although these factors presage
potential improvements in sustainability risks and breakthroughs occurred in the last year of the
project, the rating is kept as Significant. .
5.
Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1
Bank
(a)
Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
Whereas the project was aligned with the CAS in all four countries and the GEF-IW strategy and
OP 9 guidelines, the PAD did not provide a clear description of the project and its anticipated
activities. The QSA6 panel (August 2004) noted weaknesses, as described in section 2.1. The
design also neither addressed the unsatisfactory level of commitment to LCBC of the member
countries nor designed to help countries to take ownership of the project. It was further perceived
that LCBCs weak management and fiduciary capacity needed to be compensated by requesting
LCBC to contract a project management service (UNOPS). This approach resulted in lack of
incentive for LCBC to be accountable. The M&E framework and arrangements for the project
were inadequate and the time schedule for completion of the major activities was not realistic.
(b)
Quality of Supervision
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
The Bank team has seen four TTLs. Following effectiveness, supervision intensified to quarterly
supervision. Based on ISRs, it appears that supervision was of unequal quality during the
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
15
projects lifetime. The supervision of fiduciary aspects was moderately satisfactory (see Section
2.4). Most procurement actions were completed in FY06. The quality and candor of ISRs and the
reporting on outcome indicators was generally adequate. Overall, the project was handled by the
Bank as a small operation, and the supervision budgets were inadequate. The budget was not
commensurate with the fact that the project was covering five large countries in a complex
region, with problems of civil unrest requiring intensive supervision.
The Banks supervision was generally coordinated with the UNDP as co- implementing agency,
which assigns the responsibility for regular supervision to its local offices in the member states.
The MTR report noted that UNDPs offices in Chad and other member countries have not been
effective in terms of supervision and logistic support to the project.
(c)
Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
Despite frequent and good quality supervision during part of the project period, the project could
not overcome its basic design flaws and did not achieve its main development objective. The
projects overly ambitious objectives and failure to restructure guaranteed the final MU rating.
The overall Bank performance is thus rated moderately unsatisfactory.
5.2
Borrower Performance
(a) Government Performance
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
The governments of the member countries demonstrated till late in the project an unsatisfactory
level of commitment to LCBC and to achieving the development objectives of the project. The
CoM lacked actions regarding inadequate management of LCBC. The amount of arrears in the
LCBC is of concern (ref. Section 2.2), although the situations of arrears in contributions also
exist to a certain extent in other transboundary Basins in Africa. Chad reportedly paid its total
arrears to LCBC in 2008. As a consequence, the project faced serious issues regarding
counterpart staffing and funding. Although the CoM endorsed the IA in June 2008, this shows a
late commitment of the member countries, which demanded in 2002 the institutional reform of
LCBCs Secretariat.
(b) Implementing Agency Performance
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory
LCBCs performance is rated moderately unsatisfactory for its lack of ownership of the Project
and its ineffectiveness in supporting the PMU in achieving the Projects outputs. Until the last
year of the project, the Secretariat did not lead the process of its IA or use available resources for
addressing its own institutional challenges. It is worth noting that in 2008 two CoMs and a Heads
of States Summit were organized by the LCBC, despite recent civil strife affecting the operations
at the LCBC Headquarter in NDjamena. LCBC failed to provide its annual audit reports in
compliance with the Grant Agreement.
The performance of UNOPS/PMU in managing the implementation of the Banks part of the
project and executing UNDPs part is also rated moderately unsatisfactory. It is, however,
recognized that the project suffered from having to operate under extremely difficult operational
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
16
conditions and lack of support from LCBC. The PMU was understaffed and project management
suffered from repeated changes of the Project Manager (PM). The time required to establish the
PMU, procure project vehicles, establish project offices in the member countries and procure
various consultancy contracts was very long. Consequently, the project took more than two years
from the start of the UNDP component (August 2003) to achieve some momentum. When the
PM resigned in July 2007, the project was managed by UNOPS from Denmark. UNOPS
provided intermittent quarterly progress reports and financial reports, but the mandatory annual
audit reports were provided only shortly before project closure.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance:
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory (See paragraphs (a) and (b) above).
6.
Lessons Learned
The following lessons can be drawn from the final evaluation of this project:
The full endorsement and commitment of the riparian countries of a shared Basin and of
their Basin organization is a pre-requisite for successful SAP and GEF-IW project
implementations. Country management units' and country offices' increased involvement
in project supervision is critical for the regional projects' success. The successful reform of
LCBC and substantial payment by member countries of their arrears in financial contributions to
LCBC should be pre-requisites for donor-funded investments in the implementation of the SAP.
The countries' compliance with regional commitments could be part of the CMUs' policy dialogue. Lack
of commitment of member countries to their regional institution will result in deficiencies in co-
financing and project staffing, inadequate management of the regional institution, and an overall
lack of ownership by the Basin institution of its mandate and of the donor-funded projects.
In the absence of a strong regional institution, development assistance should focus
foremost on capacity building and institutional strengthening of the Recipient, rather than
attempting to resolve or bypass the institution's shortcomings by introducing outside
agencies for project management and execution. In case of the Lake Chad Basin GEF project,
the employment of UNOPS as (mandatory) Executing Agency (EA) for the UNDP components
and Management Services Provider (MSP) for the Bank components diminished the interest of
LCBCs management in the project. It also provided LCBC with the perfect excuse for its lack of
ownership of the project. This situation was further compounded by the introduction of a light-
weighted PMU, consisting of only a Project Coordinator/ Manager and a DAF, into the weak
technical and managerial environment of LCBC. The PMU had no procurement expertise, nor
substantive thematic expertise for each project component. Whereas the project relied thus by
design on LCBCs domain expertise, the actual availability of such expertise was not sufficiently
considered and guaranteed, nor were adequate incentives for the full participation of LCBC in
project implementation incorporated in the project design. The most important and fundamental
design flaw of the Project was its implementation arrangement, whereby the Recipient (LCBC)
was not trusted to take full responsibility for project implementation and financial accounting.
The PMU should have solely reported to the Recipient, i.e. LCBC. The Niger and Senegal
Basins provide good examples of GEF projects implemented through adequately staffed PMUs,
operating under full responsibility and supervision of the respective Basin Organizations.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
17
Joint project implementation through two GEF implementation agencies (i.e. World Bank
and UNDP) requires that roles and responsibilities of the two agencies during project
implementation are clearly elaborated and agreed upon in advance, with key reporting and
supervision processes harmonized. Different procedures and reporting requirements for UNDP
and the Bank place an additional burden on project implementation. The difference in UNOPS
roles as EA and MSP caused from time to time confusion regarding its decision-making
authority. For example, certain decisions (e.g. regarding changes in components) which could be
made at the UNOPS/PMU level for the UNDP components required prior approval from the
Bank for Bank components. The project design and implementation arrangements should take
such potential complications into consideration. It should also be cognizant of the fact that it is
complicated and time consuming to restructure regional projects with a high number of
stakeholders and multiple implementing agencies. Although joint WB/UNDP missions were
occasionally conducted to improve cost-efficiency and communication between all partners, the
overall project implementation and supervision might have been more effective and cost efficient
with a single GEF implementing agency.
The Bank should be realistic regarding project implementation planning, the time it takes
to complete a project of this challenging nature, and the outcome targets to be achieved.
There is a need for realism in operations challenged by Recipients low capacity and unclear
commitment, multiple players and difficult operational conditions. Because the targets set in the
project design were unrealistic and a restructuring would have significantly delayed the
implementation of the project, the final rating MU was thus built into the design of this project.
Restructuring regional projects with a high number of stakeholders and multiple implementing
agencies is complicated and time consuming. Project design should take into account the
implementation capacity of the Borrower, as well as the potential technical and logistic problems
with project implementation particularly in a region with frequent civil strife and severe
limitations in its operational conditions. One or two years of delay in project implementation are
frequent among this kind of projects, whereas the project documents and budgets have no
provision for their compensation, and project documents do not include these delays among the
project risks. Standard Bank budgets for supervision of relatively small regional GEF operations
in this and similar regions are inadequate.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
(a) Borrower/implementing agencies
Refer to Annex 7 for a summary of the Recipients ICR<Yet to be included>.
(b) Co-financiers
The draft ICR was submitted for review to LCBC, UNDP and UNOPS. Received comments are
included in the project files, and are partially incorporated in this document. <Yet to be
included>
(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society).
Not applicable.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
18
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent), as on December 31, 20085
Appraisal Latest Percentage
Components
Estimate Estimate Appraisal
Bank funded
2.900
2.899
100%
2. Enhanced regional policies and institutional mechanisms
1.081
1.323
122%
5. Demonstration projects with micro-grants
1.457
1.349
93%
6. SAP development and donor coordination
0.362
0.223
62%
UNDP funded
6.700
6.499
97%
1. Establishment and operation of PMU and Coordinating mechanisms
2.338
2.700
115%
3. Strengthened community level participation and education
1.227
1.077
88%
4. Completed TDA and modeling framework for basin management
2.055
1.896
92%
5. Pilot projects
1.080
0.826
77%
Total Baseline Cost
9.60
9.398
98%
Physical Contingencies
Price Contingencies
Total Project Costs
9.60
9.398
98%
Project Preparation Facility (PPF)
0.69
0.69
100%
Front-end fee (IBRD only)
Total Financing Required 10.29
10.088
98%
(b) Financing
Appraisal
Type of
Latest Estimate Percentage
Source of Funds
Estimate
Financing
(US$ million)6
Appraisal
(US$ million)
Recipient
In-kind
0.41
0.41
100%
GEF
10.29
10.09
98%
Member countries
In-kind
1.75
DFID UK (JEWEL project) Co-financing
4.69
DGIS Netherlands (IUCN) Co-financing
1.97
World Wildlife Fund
Co-financing
0.16
0.16
100%
UNDP
Co-financing
0.35
0.35
100%
Total
19.62
5 The UNDP budget is expected to be completely disbursed at the time of closure of the UNDP project in 2009.
6 Information on co-financing and in-kind contributions is not available.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
19
Annex 2. Outputs by Component (achievements versus targets in PAD and Prodoc7)
Component 1 Established project mechanisms, PMU and national Lead Agencies to
ensure inter-sectoral coordination (UNDP managed)
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory; Disbursed: 115%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
Create and organize the Program Co- Partially achieved. The PMU was established with
ordination Unit (PMU) to facilitate and co- substantial delays, but was seriously understaffed
ordinate the work program of the project, (by design and due to the lack of participation of
efficiently deliver project outputs, give LCBC
staff)
and
displayed
significant
technical assistance and manage program shortcomings in project management, resulting
activities.
into significant delays and inefficiency in project
implementation; thus rated MU.
Create and make provision for the conduct Achieved. A coordination network with other
of meetings of the co-implementation Task initiatives and donors active in the Basin was
Force, and interact effectively with related maintained. A website www.lakechadbasin.net
regional GEF-IW projects.
was developed to support coordination and
information sharing with all stakeholders and other
IW-projects.
Inter-Ministerial Committees (IMCs) in Achieved. The PSC was established, conducted
each country, a Project Steering Committee regular meetings and fostered regional cooperation
(PSC) and Technical Task Teams (TTT) in the management of the basin. The IMCs were
established.
created in each member country and the TTTs
contributed to the NAPs, TDA and SAP.
Support a Lead Agency for each Achieved. Five National Coordination Units,
participating country and a NC to lead directed by a National Coordinator (NC), were
national project activities and represent the established to manage and coordinate all national
participating country in PSC meetings.
components of the project.
Component 2: Enhanced regional policy initiatives and institutional mechanisms to address
transboundary issues (WB managed)
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory; Disbursed: 122%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
The adoption of new or updated national Partially achieved. NAPs, aimed at the integration
water policies in each country, which take of transboundary water and environmental
into account transboundary water issues management policies into national development
and encourage environmental protection, plans, were completed and endorsed by all IMCs,
and are incorporated into National Action but they are not anchored in national programs.
Plans (NAP).
The development of new national water policies
has not yet been initiated.
Assess existing national legal frameworks Achieved. Comprehensive national and regional
and provide specific recommendations for diagnostic reports on the legal, institutional,
7 Summarized from Annex 1 (Project Design Summary) of the PAD and the descriptions of Project Outputs,
Rationale and Activities and Annex 2 (Logical Framework Analysis) of the Prodoc.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
20
incentives
and
harmonised
legal economic and financial aspects of integrated
frameworks to enable an integrated transboundary management of the shared land and
regional approach towards long-term water resources of the LCB have been prepared,
sustainable basin management.
with the ultimate objective to harmonize the
relevant national legal frameworks, regulations and
approaches. The studies were endorsed by the PSC
in Dec. 2008. The harmonization of legal and
institutional frameworks is yet to be initiated.
Develop, endorse and implement a specific Partially achieved. The Institutional Assessment
proposal for the institutional reform of (IA) has been completed and was endorsed by an
LCBC, to create a more effective LCBC Extraordinary COM in June 2008, but
with an improved capacity for IWRM.
implementation of this crucial project is not
completed. Thus, the project was not able to
support LCBCs crucial reform and provide
capacity building (hence the rating MU). GTZ is
supporting the implementation of the IA.
Adopt regional agreements to improve Not achieved, but a Protocol on data exchange has
transboundary management of power been endorsed by the COM, and a draft water
generation, irrigation, fisheries, water sharing agreement (funded by FAO) is under
quality and effluent standards, diversions negotiations.
and consumptive uses, and the creation of
economic instruments.
Component 3: Strengthened engagement of stakeholders (UNDP managed)
Rating: Moderately Satisfactory; Disbursed: 88%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
Support for 15 local participatory planning Partially achieved. The Project supported 12 local
initiatives
for
community
level planning
initiatives
for
community
level
stakeholders, to establish their sustainable stakeholders; selected initiatives in the Upper
development plans in line with sub-basin Chari sub-basin in CAR could not be implemented
planning frameworks.
due to civil unrest; 49 NGOs, CBOs and local
authorities partnered with the Project. More than
800 people benefitted from training provided.
Prepare
a
report,
including Partially achieved. The Regional Stakeholder
recommendations based on lessons learned Analysis for the LCB was completed and approved
from the coordination between local, by the member countries; 3 reports were prepared
national and regional initiatives, to assist on lessons derived from the K-Y and W-L pilot
governments
and
LCBC
with demonstration projects. With WWF a documentary
implementation of key results from the to promote partnership and cooperation between
mini-agenda 21 exercises.
stakeholders was produced, distributed to
stakeholders and partly shown on CNN.
Develop a regional based methodology for Not addressed/achieved.
conducting
environmental
impact
assessments, ensuring provision of multi-
level stakeholder participation and the
communication of results to stakeholders.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
21
Component 4: A completed Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and a synthetic
framework for concerted management of the Basin (UNDP managed)
Rating: Moderately Satisfactory; Disbursed: 92%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
Prepare country reports on existing relevant Partially achieved. Country reports were prepared
data,
and
collect
and
synthesize with information on the environmental conditions
information.
in the LCB.
Perform a data gap analysis and define a Partially achieved. A database and GIS with
basin-wide
monitoring
network; historic data relevant to IWRM was prepared, and
incorporate results into the TDA, with capability for the analysis of remote sensing data
involvement of national technical and was developed. Future requirements for LCBCs
academic entities.
knowledge management system were assessed.
The COM adopted a Protocol of Agreement on
Data Exchange between Member States of LCBC,
but the LCB Observatory has yet to be initiated.
Examine the basin-wide conditions and Achieved. National and regional TDAs have been
issues relevant to transboundary IWRM, prepared and were endorsed through a
determine
the
linkages
between participatory process, as input for SAP
environmental and socio-economic systems development. The regional TDA identified seven
and their transboundary impacts, identify priority regional environmental concerns, and
and assess environmental hot spots and highlights the need for institutional reform of
prepare, validate and publish the TDA
LCBC as the bedrock for arresting the degradation
trends in the Basin. The TDA process contributed
considerably to capacity building in the region.
Support for the development of key water Not achieved/addressed. These activities will be
resource measures such as upgrading of executed by other donor-funded projects, namely
hydrological monitoring stations and water EU, and GTZ.
quality measurements.
Assemble
a
basin-wide
synthetic Not achieved. The project did not produce
framework
for
surface/groundwater substantial new knowledge and models on the
interaction within the Lake Chad Basin, to water resources of the Basin, which could help in
pre-identify long term consequences of better designing investments in the Basins
development alternatives. Develop water resources. This will be executed through projects
resources models for the Basin.
implemented by GTZ, BGR (groundwater) and the
EU.
Component 5: Demonstration projects to test methodologies, secure stakeholder
involvement and develop implementation modalities (WB and UNDP managed)
Rating: Moderately Satisfactory; Disbursed: 86%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
Develop and adopt a regional program to Achieved. A Bio-diversity study and a Regional
improve existing and define new Protected Protected Area Strategy were prepared, approved
Areas.
by stakeholders and adopted by the member
countries.
Develop a regional program and Catchment Partially achieved. CMPs were developed and
Management Plans (CMP) to protect adopted for the Chari-Logone and Komadugu-
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
22
immediately
threatened
aquatic Yobe Basins, Lake Fitri and Lake Chad &
ecosystems,
including
six
pilot Northern Diagnostic Basin. Local priorities were
demonstration sites.
supported through micro-grants (WB: 16 and
UNDP: 25), which aimed to demonstrate
environmentally sustainable approaches for the
reversal of land and water degradation. Some
achievements contributed to local level ownership
of sustainable natural resources management.
Implementation of local initiatives in the Lake Fitri
and Upper Chari pilot areas was terminated due to
prevailing security conditions. Progress and
efficiency were hampered by delays in the transfer
of micro-grants to beneficiaries and in the
contracting of consultants.
Develop and test regional mechanisms for Partially achieved. CMPs were developed for the
integrated basin approaches in the K-Y and Chari-Logone and K-Y Basins. The K-Y pilot
Chari-Logone sub-basins; prepare basin contributed to the development of a Water Charter
management plans for maintaining the for water sharing between 6 riparian States of the
integrity of sensitive wetlands systems and K-Y Basin and the establishment of a US$13
promoting sustainable development.
million Trust Fund for implementation of the
KYB-CMP.
Develop a regional program for reducing
Not addressed/achieved.
growing water demands and future
pollution, with an emphasis on identified
hotspots and building capacity to prevent
pollution.
Incorporate lessons learned regarding good Partially achieved. There is no strong evidence that
land and water management practices in the CMPs and pilot projects contributed directly to
the NAPs and SAP.
the preparation of the TDA and the SAP. The
M&E process of micro-projects was inadequate.
Component 6: Strategic Action Program and Investment Plan designed and endorsed, with
donor support and funding committed (WB managed)
Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory; Disbursed: 62%
Planned activities as per project design
Outputs at the time of project completion
Develop and finalize the SAP through the Mostly achieved. Based on the TDA and through a
IMCs and LCBC, with support of national regional consultation process, the SAP was
and regional specialists, stakeholders and completed as a regional policy framework for the
authorities.
LCB. CMPs, NAPs and experiences from micro-
projects fed into the SAP development process.
The SAP addresses seven major regional
environmental concerns identified in the TDA, and
defines a set of targets and interventions to meet
regionally agreed Ecosystem Quality and Water
Resource Objectives. The SAP was endorsed by
the member states of LCBC during the
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
23
Extraordinary COM of June 2008. The NAPs,
TDA and SAP are not yet anchored in the planning
processes of the member countries, and there is no
clear strategy for NAP/SAP implementation at
national and regional levels.
Implement a plan for continuing donor Not achieved. The Investment Plan, strategy and
contact, develop a strategy and Investment financing mechanism for SAP implementation
Plan (IP) for ongoing financing of SAP were not prepared; thus the donor conference for
implementation, and generate increased generating funds for SAP implementation could
funding for SAP implementation through not be held (hence the rating moderately
the organization of two donor conferences. unsatisfactory). SAP implementation will initially
be supported by the AfDB-funded (approx.) US$
45 million LCB Sustainable Development Program
(PRODEBALT).
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
24
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
Not applicable for GEF projects.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
25
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (yet to be
completed)
(a) Task Team members
Responsibility/
Names
Title
Unit
Specialty
Lending
Supervision/ICR
Hugues Agossou
Sr Auditor
IADDR
Stefanie U.S. Brackmann
Consultant
AFTEN
Ningayo Charles Donang
Senior Procurement Specialist
AFTPC
Djibril Doucoure
Consultant
AFTEN
Pierre Jacques Lorillou
Jr Professional Officer
AFTWR
Chloe Milner
Rural Development Specialist
AFMTD
Etienne NKoa
Sr Financial Management Specia
AFTFM
Africa Eshogba Olojoba
Sr Environmental Spec.
AFTEN
Lucson Pierre-Charles
E T Temporary
AFTWR
Abdoul-Wahab Seyni
Social Development Spec.
AFTCS
Amal Talbi
Water Supply Specialist
AFTWR
Armele Vilceus
Language Program Assistant
AFTU2
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Stage of Project Cycle
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
26
USD Thousands (including
No. of staff weeks
travel and consultant costs)
Lending
FY00
71.13
FY01
65.14
FY02
77.64
FY03
38.99
FY04
0.00
FY05
0.00
FY06
0.00
FY07
0.00
FY08
0.00
Total:
252.90
Supervision/ICR
FY00
0.00
FY01
0.00
FY02
0.00
FY03
2.68
FY04
77.76
FY05
115.52
FY06
7
152.23
FY07
1
40.53
FY08
94.90
Total:
8
483.62
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
27
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results
Not applicable.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
28
Annex 6.
Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any)
Not available.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
29
Annex 7.
Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
To be included
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
30
Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
To be included, if available
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
31
Annex 9.
List of Supporting Documents
1. WB: LCB-GEF Project Appraisal Document; January 2003.
2. WB: LCB-GEF Trust Fund Grant Agreement; April 2003.
3. WB: Project Status (PSR) and Implementation Status Results Reports (ISR); 2003-2008.
4. WB: Aide-Memoires and BTOs of Supervision Missions; 2002-2008.
5. WB: Quality of Supervision Assessment (QSA6); August 2004
6. WB: Environmental Safeguard Audit for Komadugu-Yobe Pilot Project; June 2008.
7. WB: Environmental Safeguard Audit for Waza-Logone, Transboundary Desertification
Control and Lake Chad Shorelines Pilot Projects; July 2008.
8. WB: Environmental Assessments and Resettlement Framework; 2002
9. WB: Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) for Cameroon (2003), CAR (2003), Chad (2003),
Niger (2003 and 2008) and Nigeria (2005).
10. UNDP: Project Document RAF/00/G31/A/1G/31; September 2002.
11. UNDP: Mid Term Review; April 2007
12. UNDP: Annual Performance Reports and Project Implementation Reviews (APR/PIR);
FY2004 - FY2008.
13. UNDP: Project Final Evaluation, April 2009
14. UNOPS: Audit reports for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007; October 2008
15. PMU: Institutional Assessment of LCBC, Final Report; June 2008
16. PMU: Assessment of the Capacity-Strengthening Needs of the LCBC; March 2006
17. PMU: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Lake Chad Basin; May 2007.
18. PMU: Strategic Action Program for the Lake Chad Basin; June 2008
19. PMU: National Action Plans for the 5 member countries; 2008.
20. Country (5) reports on Promotion of IWRM in the Lake Chad Basin countries: (a) Diagnostic
économique et financier du secteur de leau, and (b) Diagnostic juridique et institutionnel de
la gestion de leau et des terres; January 2008.
21. Report on Promotion of IWRM in the Lake Chad Basin countries: Diagnostic régional des
aspects juridiques, institutionnels, économiques et financiers de la gestion de leau et des
terres du bassin du lac Tchad; July 2008.
22. PMU: Project Implementation Manual; 2003
23. Poverty Reduction Strategy and equivalent Papers (PRSP) for Cameroon (2003), CAR
(2006), Chad (2003), Niger (2008) and Nigeria (2004).
24. AfDB: Project Appraisal Report for the Lake Chad Basin Sustainable Development Program
(PRODEBALT); October 2008.
25. PMU: Catchment Management Plans for Komadugu-Yobe (May 2006), Waza-Logone
(November 2007), Lake Fitri (October 2007) and Lake Chad Shoreline & Northern
Diagnostic Basin (May 2007) Pilot Projects.
26. PMU: LCB Stakeholder Analysis.
27. PMU: Designing a Regional Strategy of Protected Areas of the Lake Chad Basin; June 2007.
28. Water Charter for sustainable and equitable management of the Hadejia-Jamaare -
Komadugu-Yobe Basin; February 2007.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
32
Annex 10.
Enhanced Results Framework Analysis, synthesized from PAD and Prodoc
Neither PAD nor Grant Agreement provided a Results Framework with indicators, baseline
values and end-of-project target values. The Project Design Summary in Annex 1 of the PAD
only lists the following outcome indicators (some of which are activities/outputs), in addition to a
host of output indicators, without providing baseline and target values:
Increased numbers of stakeholders involved in local and transboundary water resource
management issues, with the ability to influence decision making processes;
Increased awareness of the impact of national policies on shared water resources by
constituency groups;
Implementation support for three pilot projects;
Completion and adoption of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP), with a framework, timeline and
Financing Plan for implementation of priority activities; and
Increased donor involvement in and support for the SAP and LCBC Plan implementation.
Annex 2 of UNDPs Prodoc provides a detailed log frame for the project, but also does not
provide baseline and end-of-project target values for its indicators. The Prodoc acknowledged
that the projects success cannot be measured against Environmental Status Indicators (ESI),
since it was of catalytic nature and aimed at mobilizing a process of institutional and regulatory
reform, with a focus on capacity building and regional policy initiatives to address transboundary
issues. Thus, the Prodoc expected that most of the indicators employed to track implementation
progress (and to be defined by the PMU in its first year) would be Process Indicators (PI) and
some Stress Reduction Indicators (SRI) such as changes to regulations, harmonized approaches
to land degradation issues, and improvements in the LCBCs capacity to effectively address its
mandate.
In its APRs/PIRs, UNDP monitored progress towards achieving the project objective through the
following outcome indicators:
A co-operatively developed and approved framework and co-ordination mechanism for
regional and national interventions on behalf of the participating countries.
Improved national and regional capacities for the long-term sustainable development of the
resources of the Lake Chad Basin.
Increased donor interest in and support for the efforts of the participating countries and the
LCBC to achieve a sustainable future for the Basin.
Documented, substantial stakeholder participation in the work of the project
To create consistency and clarity in reporting, UNDPs APR/PIR and Prodoc outcome indicators
have been integrated with the outcome indicators used in the Banks ISRs, to provide the
following Results Framework for improved presentation of project outcomes, consistent with
subsequent ISRs and APRs/PIRs and as an alternative for the Results Framework provided in
Section F.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
33
Global Environmental Objective (from PAD): To build capacity within the LCBC and its
national committees so that it can better achieve its mandate of managing land and water
resources in the greater Conventional Basin of Lake Chad.
GEO Indicator
Baseline Value
Target Values
Values Achieved at
Completion
GEO
Policy and management decisions for the long-term sustainable development
Indicator: of the land and water resources of the Lake Chad Basin take place, through a
strengthened institutional framework and an approved policy framework
and co-ordination mechanism for regional and national interventions.
Value
Inadequate policy
National and regional
The TDA, NAPs and
framework and regional
stakeholders endorse the
SAP have been
coordination for
NAPs, TDA and SAP, as
finalized and adopted,
sustainable development the basis of a sustainable
and the SAP was
of land and water
development framework
endorsed at an
resources in the Basin;
for the Basin; donor
Extraordinary CoM
donors are not informed
support mobilized; LCBC
(June 2008).
and involved.
reformed.
Date 01/21/2003
01/20/20088
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (60 %) due to lack of time in the project to implement the
Institutional Assessment and to prepare the Investment Plan for the SAP, and the
subsequent related decision of the CoM Chairman to postpone the donors
conference. Institutional and legal frameworks are yet to be harmonized in the
member countries.
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Baseline Value
Target Values
Values Achieved
at Completion
Indicator LCBC has been reformed, is operating more effectively and its capacity to
1
sustainably develop LCB resources has been strengthened according to an
endorsed IA.
Value
Regional, national
Recommendations for
The Institutional
and local
institutional reform of LCBC
Assessment (IA) has been
institutions are not
have been implemented, and
endorsed in the
able to co-ordinate
LCBC functions effectively
Extraordinary CoM (June
policies and actions and efficiently as the regional
2008). CBOs and local
for managing the
LCB management institution.
stakeholders proposed
vulnerable LCBs
Capacity exists to implement
and implemented projects
resources in a
CBO- based approaches for
addressing local
sustainable manner. local interventions. National
concerns. National teams
and regional capacities for the
developed the National
sustainable development of
Action Plans for the
8 Closing date as agreed upon at time of project effectiveness
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
34
the LCB resources have
implementation of
improved.
IWRM.
Date 01/21/2003
01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (60% of target). On request of LCBC, GTZ has agreed to
support implementation of the IA. Plans, TORs and the budget for the recruitment
of new technical staff have been developed and are awaiting approval of the CoM
(expected to be held May 2009). The project could not serve as a capacity building
instrument for LCBC through IA implementation.
Indicator Pilot project activities provide opportunities for stakeholder involvement and
2
lessons on land and water management practices for inclusion in NAPs and
SAP.
Value
Limited avenues
All pilot project activities are Local micro-grant
for public
completed with substantial
activities were
involvement in the
involvement of stakeholders.
implemented in most
management of the Workshops to share lessons
pilot projects, with
Lake Chad Basin
learned on pilot activities are
involvement of
system.
conducted and lessons are
stakeholders, albeit with
incorporated in the NAPs and
large delays and below
SAP.
target budgets. Six
riparian states and the
Federal Government of
Nigeria approved a
catchment Water Charter
for the KYB.
Date 01/21/2003
01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (60 %): the Upper-Chari Basin pilot was cancelled and the
Lake Fitri pilot project was curtailed due to the prevailing security conditions.
Indicator The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and an IWRM study have
3
been completed and adopted by the PSC.
Value
Regional synthesis
Data gap analysis has been
The TDA was finalized
of available water
performed and results are
and adopted by national
resources data and
incorporated in the TDA.
Technical Experts in
information on
TDA and IWRM study are
September 2006. The
socio-economic
adopted by the PSC.
IWRM study was
and environmental
adopted by the PSC in
impacts of the use
December 2008.
of basin resources
not available.
Date 01/21/2003
01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Target fully achieved (100 %).
Indicator The SAP and Investment Plan (IP) are endorsed by riparian countries and
4
donors have pledged increased support for future investments in the Basin.
Value
Donors are not
The SAP has been endorsed
The SAP has been
substantially
by riparian countries, a donor
endorsed by the CoM in
involved in the
conference has been held and
June 2008. A donors
sustainable
donors have pledged future
conference is under
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
35
development of
investments.
preparation for 2009.
land and water
AfDB has approved the
resources in the
LCB Sustainable
Lake Chad Basin.
Development Program, to
support SAP
implementation; other
donor funding is
confirmed (EU, BGR and
GTZ).
Date 01/21/2003
01/20/2008
12/20/2008
Comments Partial achievement (60 %) since the IP has not yet been prepared and the donor
conference has been postponed beyond project closure.
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
36
MAPS
Draft ICR for Lake Chad GEF
May 23rd, 2009
37