Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR846 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA Credit No. 3964-GH, 4485-GH/AFD Credit No.: CGH6004.01.G ) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 54.4 Million (40.9 plus 13.5 - additional financing) MILLION (US$ 82.00 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR A COMMUNITY-BASED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT December 30, 2011 Agriculture and Rural Development Unit Sustainable Development Department Country Department AFCW1 Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective November 8, 2011) Currency Unit =New Ghanaian Cedi (Ȼ) Ȼ 1.00 = US$ 0.623 US$ 1.00 = Ȼ 1.604 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AC Area Council AFD Agence Française de Développement BCR Benefit-cost ratio BECE Basic Education Certificate Examination CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBRDP Community-Based Rural Development Project CHPS Community-Based Health Planning Service DA District Assembly DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DPCU District Planning Coordination Unit EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERR Economic rate of return GIZ Deutsche Gessellschaft für Internationale Zusmmenarbeit (German Agency for International Cooperation, formerly GTZ) GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation, now GIZ) ha Hectare IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ISR Implementation Status and Results Report km Kilometer LGA Local Government Act m Million M&E Monitoring and evaluation MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development NDPC National Development Planning Commission ii NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NRM Natural resource management NPV Net Present Value PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective RPCU Regional Planning Coordinating Unit Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Sector Director: Jamal Saghir Country Director (Ag): Sergiy Kulyk Sector Manager: Karen McConnell Brooks Project Team Leader: Charles Annor-Frempong ICR Team Leader: Kadir Osman Gyasi iii CONTENTS B. Key Dates .............................................................................................................................................. v C. Ratings Summary ................................................................................................................................. vi D. Sector and Theme Codes .................................................................................................................... vii E. Bank Staff ............................................................................................................................................ vii F. Results Framework Analysis ............................................................................................................... viii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ............................................................................................ xviii H. Restructuring (if any) .......................................................................................................................... xix I. Disbursement Profile .......................................................................................................................... xix Project Context, Development Objective, and Design.............................................................................. 1 1. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ..................................................................... 5 2. Assessment of Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 11 3. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcomes ............................................................................. 18 4. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance............................................................................ 19 5. Lessons Learned.............................................................................................................................. 21 6. Comments and Issues by Borrower/Implementation/Partners ........................................................ 22 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .................................................................................................... 23 Annex 2. Outputs by Component............................................................................................................ 24 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................................... 31 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ....................................... 38 Annex 5. Beneficiary Assessment Survey .............................................................................................. 40 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ............................................................................. 42 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower’s ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ............................................... 43 Annex 8. Comments from Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ............................................. 46 Annex 9. Supporting Documents ............................................................................................................ 47 MAP ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 iv A. Basic Information Community-Based Rural Country: Ghana Project Name: development Project ID: P081482 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-39640 ICR Date: 12/22/2011 ICR Type: Core ICR GOVERNMENT OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: GHANA Original Total XDR 40.90M Disbursed Amount: XDR 54.40M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 54.40M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Agence Francaise de Developpment B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 09/24/2003 Effectiveness: 11/02/2004 Appraisal: 03/29/2004 Restructuring(s): Approval: 07/29/2004 Mid-term Review: 10/30/2006 06/15/2007 Closing: 02/15/2009 06/30/2011 v C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Low or Negligible Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No Moderately Satisfactory at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any time Quality of Supervision No None (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: vi D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Agro-industry 20 20 Health 20 20 Irrigation and drainage 20 20 Roads and highways 20 20 Water supply 20 20 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise support 16 16 Participation and civic engagement 17 17 Rural markets 17 17 Rural non-farm income generation 17 17 Rural services and infrastructure 33 33 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: Sergiy V. Kulyk Mats Karlsson Sector Manager: Karen Mcconnell Brooks Mary A. Barton-Dock Project Team Leader: Charles Annor-Frempong Charles Annor-Frempong vii ICR Team Leader: Kadir Osman Gyasi ICR Primary Author: Kadir Osman Gyasi Kofi Amponsah F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The project's development objective is to strengthen the capacity of rural communities to enhance their quality of life by improving their productive assets, rural infrastructure and access to key support services from private and public sources. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) N/A (a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Percentage change in value of productive assets of the enterprise. Value At least 5% change for 70 % of 27% change in value quantitative or 0% supported of assets Qualitative) enterprises Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % A sample of supported enterprises had their assets changed by 27% at end of project. achievement) Indicator 2 : Percentage change in turnover of the enterprise. Value 0% At least 5% change 21% change in for 70 % of viii quantitative or supported turnover enterprises Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % A sample of supported enterprises had a 21% change in turnover achievement) Indicator 3 : Changes in time spent in travelling roads repaired under the project Value At least 75 % quantitative or 15 minutes per km reduction in time 4 minutes per km spent travelling Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % On average, a 73% reduction in time spent in traveling was recorded. achievement) Indicator 4 : Percentage change in gross enrolment figure Value 20% increase in 29% change in quantitative or 0% enrolment enrolment Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments Gross enrolment increased over three consecutive years (2007/08=10.%, (incl. % 2008/09=15.5%, and 2009/10=20.8%) in intervention areas. achievement) Percentage reduction in school days cancelled because school structures could not be Indicator 5 : used in bad weather 99% reduction in Value cancelled school days resulting from quantitative or 15 days 0 day poor Qualitative) infrastructure/bad weather ix Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% reduction in bad weather related non-school days in intervention areas. achievement) Indicator 6 : Number of people with access to safe water Value At least 200% quantitative or 117,711 increase over 421, 315 (257.9%) baseline Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Number of people with access to drinkable water rose by 257.9%. achievement) Indicator 7 : Average time lapse between breakdown and repairs of water facility Value Not more than 2 days between quantitative or 0 1.5 days breakdown and Qualitative) repairs Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments The target was exceeded. Facility users/management groups are able to repair broken (incl. % down systems quicker as a result of extensive training provided. achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Percentage of participating District Assemblies (DAs) implementing their plans and delivering services devolved to them in accordance with Local Government Act (LGA) x 462 Value (quantitative 80% 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments All 170 Districts are implementing their plans in accordance with LGA 462, Over (incl. % 469,151 people have so far benefitted from various CBRDP capacity building activities; of these, 60% (283,582) of these are male and 40% (185,569) are female. achievement) Percentage of participating Area Councils (ACs) (and Communities) implementing their Indicator 2 : plans and delivering services devolved to them in accordance with LGA 462. Value (quantitative 13.7% 100% of 454 ACs 454 (100%) or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 100% ACs trained in participatory planning; 37.9% of 172 ACs received funding to (incl. % implement their priority project. achievement) Percentage of participating DAs and ACs meeting the requirements of the Procurement Indicator 3 : Act Value (quantitative 0% 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 100% of participating DAs and ACs have set up tender coms. and review boards; 100% (incl. % of DAs have proc. plans (PPs); 70% of DAs meet PP milestones; 98% of DAs advertise nat'ly and locally;95% of DAs able to set up eval. panels; 70% DAs carry out evals, etc. achievement) Percentage of participating DAs and ACs meeting the financial accountability Indicator 4 : requirements of the Financial Administration and Internal Audit Agency Act xi Value 0.00% (using "FMR" (quantitative 100% 100% format) or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 100% of participating DAs and ACs; 99% of DAs are using the "FMR" reporting (incl. % format; DAs are yet to be trained to use the harmonized Chart of Accounts; at least 90% of DAs have Assets Registers but they are not updated regularly. achievement) Indicator 5 : Percentage of trainees assisted to set up their own enterprises Value (quantitative 0.% 50% 80% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments A little over 80% of learning center trainees received support to establish their own (incl. % enterprises. achievement) Indicator 6 : Percentage of beneficiaries accessing health facility Value At least 40% increase in recorded (quantitative 83,840 237,282 (183%) attendance by end of or Qualitative) project Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 183% Community-Based Health Planning Service (CHPS) attendance recorded. achievement) Percentage of targeted DAs, ACs and communities practicing effective natural resource Indicator 7 : management (NRM) Value At least 40% of (quantitative 0 targeted DAs, ACs 55% and communities. or Qualitative) xii Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 1610.9 hectares (representing 55%) of the critically degraded watershed areas have been (incl. % planted. achievement) Percentage of DAs fully adopting participatory planning in accordance with National Indicator 8 : Development Planning Commission (NDPC) guidelines. Value (quantitative 80% 100% (170 DAs) 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% of DAs. All 138 DAs have prepared plans in accordance with NDPC guidelines. achievement) Percentage of ACs fully adopting participatory planning in accordance with NDPC Indicator 9 : guidelines. Value (quantitative 13.7% 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 100% of targeted ACs (454 ACs) supported to prepare plans with grassroots (incl. % participation. achievement) Percentage of DAs undertaking procurement in line with the National Procurement Indicator 10 : Law Value (quantitative 0 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 xiii Comments (incl. % 100% of DAs are undertaking procurement in line with the National Procurement Law. achievement) Percentage of ACs undertaking procurement in line with the National Procurement Indicator 11 : Law Value (quantitative 0 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% of DAs are fulfilling the requirements of the National Procurement Law. achievement) Percentage of DAs and ACs fulfilling the requirements of the Financial Administration Indicator 12 : and Internal Audit Act Value (quantitative 0% 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 100% of DAs are fulfilling the requirements of the Financial Administration and (incl. % Internal Audit Acts. achievement) Indicator 13 : Changes in cropping intensity of targeted farmers. Value (quantitative 0 2 2 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments Two cropping times per year average for cultivated crops. (incl. % xiv achievement) Number of people using water from dams or wind pumps each day for domestic Indicator 14 : purposes. Value (quantitative 0 365 500 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments Average of 500 people use water from dams or wind pumps each day for domestic (incl. % purposes (3 dams and 2 Wind pumps). achievement) Indicator 15 : Number of animals drinking from the dams or wind pumps Value (quantitative 0 1080 1490 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 1490 animals use water from dams or wind pumps (3 dams and 2 wind pumps) achievement) Indicator 16 : Number of vehicles plying the route on a market day Value At least 200% (quantitative 3 increase in average 9 number of vehicles. or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Average of 9 vehicles on 62 completed roads. achievement) Indicator 17 : No. of vehicles plying the route on a market day Value 3 At least 200% 9 xv (quantitative increase in average number of vehicles. or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Average of 9 vehicles on 62 completed sampled roads. achievement) Indicator 18 : Changes in time spent in travelling Value At leas75 % (quantitative 15 minutes Average of 4 minutes reduction or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % Average of 4 minutes required to cover(one) kilometer stretch. achievement) Indicator 19 : Changes in revenue for DAs from market (% change) Value 25 market centers and 14 slaughter (quantitative 0 20% houses have been or Qualitative) completed. Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 25 market structures and 14 slaughter houses have been completed. achievement) Indicator 20 : Percentage of trainees assisted to set up their own enterprises Value (quantitative 0% 50% 80% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 xvi Comments About 80% (957 of 1,210) of supported trainees have set up their own businesses; (incl. % 1,210 trainees have been provided with loans/grants to establish their own businesses. achievement) Indicator 21 : Number of people seeking medical attention at Health Centre Value (quantitative 60,728 60% increase 237,282 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 271 CHPS compounds have been completed and at least 60 are operational. Recorded (incl. % attendance for 52 CHPS in use is: 83,840 in 2007 (baseline); 93,290 in 2008;100,849 in 2009; and 237,282 in 2010. achievement) Indicator 22 : Percentage of degraded watershed restored within targeted watersheds. Value (quantitative 0 15% 55% or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 1610.9 hectares (55%) of the critically degraded watershed areas have been planted. achievement) Indicator 23 : Number of communities requesting for NRM support. Value 17 DAs, 39 ACs and (quantitative 0 20 DAs, 35 ACs 223 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments (incl. % 17 DAs, 39 ACs and 223 communities requested support. achievement) xvii Indicator 24 : Percentage of targeted DAs, ACs and communities with NRM plans. Value 17 DAs and 39 ACs, 35 DAs, 50 ACs (quantitative 0% comprising 223 with NRM plans communities or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 17 targeted DAs and 39 targeted ACs (comprising 223 communities) have prepared (incl. % NRM plans. achievement) Indicator 25 : Percentage of targeted (DAs, ACs and) communities with NRM plans. Value 17 DAs and 39 ACs 35 DAs, 50 ACs (quantitative 0% (comprising 223 with NRM plans communities). or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/30/2011 Comments 17 targeted DAs and 39 targeted ACs (comprising 223 communities) have prepared (incl. % NRM plans. achievement) G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. DO IP Archived (USD millions) 1 12/15/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/29/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.19 3 12/29/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.43 4 06/30/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 15.09 5 01/04/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 22.15 6 11/26/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.09 xviii 7 05/31/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 51.23 8 11/03/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 56.04 9 05/29/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 58.70 10 12/07/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 63.98 11 06/09/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 71.34 12 12/15/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 77.77 13 11/19/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 83.10 H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable I. Disbursement Profile xix Project Context, Development Objective, and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal At the time of project appraisal, Ghana had made remarkable progress on its economic and poverty-reduction fronts. Its overall incidence of poverty fell from 50 percent in 1992 to 43 percent in 1999. The decline in poverty had only a modest impact on inequalities among various socioeconomic groups across the country, however. Despite improvements in social indicators, education and health services skewed toward urban rather than rural areas. Famers in northern Ghana were far less well off than their counterparts in the South. Poor infrastructural development, coupled with uneven service delivery, accounted for high poverty levels in the northern areas. At the same time, the Government of Ghana’s decentralization process was beset with constraints, such as issues with the accountability of District Chief Executives, problems with the system of appointing District Assembly (DA) members, and limits in their capacity to perform their duties effectively. The functioning of local government structures suffered from inadequate capacity (incomplete complements of staff), weaknesses in district departments, low levels of internally generated revenues, and planning and budgeting constraints. Ineffective relationships and links between local authorities and central government ministries, departments, agencies, sectoral units, development projects, and programs influenced decentralization, along with the scope of responsibilities and reporting mechanisms, the lack of checks and balances built into the system, and the resulting implications for accountability. Finally, the inability of assembly committee systems to function regularly and take development-oriented decisions, as well as the lack of opportunities and space for civil society participation, are other urgent concerns. To address these challenges, the government developed the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), which linked its poverty reduction targets with the Millennium Development Goals. The GPRS underscored the government’s overarching goal of creating wealth through the transformation of the economy to achieve growth, accelerate poverty reduction, and protect vulnerable populations, all within the context of more decentralized governance. Implicit in this goal is the reduction of regional economic disparities through improved access to social services and the amelioration of extreme poverty. The GPRS was organized around the need for greater macroeconomic stability; issues related to production, employment, and human resource capacity; and special programs for vulnerable populations and improved governance. The Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) supported the government’s priority objectives as stated in the GPRS. The CAS outlined three main strategic areas of support: (i) sustainable growth and job creation, (ii) human development and service delivery, and (iii) governance and empowerment. The Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP) was designed in line with the strategic directions of GPRS and the CAS. To realize economic growth and reduce rural poverty, the CBRDP would provide access to productive resources for its beneficiaries through the development of rural infrastructure and through activities to develop sustainable on-farm and nonfarm rural enterprises. 1 1.2 Original Project Development Objective (PDO) and Key Indicators The project’s development objective was to strengthen rural communities’ capacity to enhance their quality of life by improving their productive assets, rural infrastructure, and access to key support services from private and public sources. To achieve this objective, six PDO indicators were established at appraisal: 1. Eighty percent of executing and beneficiary local government units, District Planning Coordination Units (DCPUs), and communities undertake preparatory planning in accordance with National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) guidelines. 2. Eighty percent of all participating District Assemblies (DAs) and Areal Councils (ACs) meet the transparency and financial accountability requirements of the Financial Administration Act (Act 654) and Procurement Act (Act 663). 3. Eighty percent of all participating DAs, ACs, and communities are able to implement their plans and deliver services in accordance with the Local Government Act (Act 462). 4. Eighty percent of all participating Regional Planning Coordination Units (RPCUs), DPCUs, ACs, and beneficiary communities are able to monitor and evaluate development plans. 5. The percentage of all participating DAs and ACs whose rural populations benefit from micro projects supported under each of the five components. 6. Quality of life as measured by a 15 percent improvement among 80 percent of beneficiaries in income and access to water, education, health facilities, and rural roads. 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and Reasons/Justification The PDO was not revised. 1 The task team revised the key indicators to be more outcome focused, however, when the government sought additional financing in 2008. The additional financing was requested to reconstruct public goods in flood-affected northern Ghana, support more decentralized provision of services by funding local government authorities, and scale up capacity building in connection with expanding public works. The team contended that the original Project Appraisal Document (PAD) had too many indicators (making them difficult to measure), that the indicators focused on outputs instead of outcomes, and that there were no causal links between certain output and outcome indicators. As part of the additional financing and corresponding restructuring of the project, the PDO indicators were formally revised under three broad performance benchmarks, as follows:2 1. Enhanced productive assets: (a) Percentage change in value of productive assets. (b) Percentage change in turnover of enterprises. 1 Although the PDO was not revised, the team corrected a minor inconsistency in the way the PDO was described in the PAD vis-à-vis the Development Credit Agreement (see page 7 of the additional financing project paper). 2 Project Paper on Proposed Additional Financing, June 2, 2008, World Bank, Washington, DC. 2 2. Enhanced rural infrastructure: (c) Change in time spent in traveling roads repaired under the project. 3. Access to key support services: (d) Gross enrolment figure. (e) Percentage reduction in school days cancelled because school structures could not be used in bad weather. (f) Number of people with access to safe water. (g) Average time lapse between breakdown and repairs of water facilities. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries The project targeted rural communities, particularly in areas with the highest incidence of poverty as identified in two key documents: (i) the Ghana Living Standards Survey and (ii) the Poverty Map (supported through GTZ, the German Technical Cooperation Agency). Given that stronger institutions were considered critical to the development of rural communities, the CBRDP sought to strengthen the capacity of decentralized administrative structures, such as the ACs and DAs, to be more effective and functional in development in their areas of jurisdiction. The International Development Association (IDA) funding was augmented by € 10 million (US$ 13.8 million) from the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), which helped to provide the institutional support required for revamping decentralized administrative structures in the project’s intervention areas. The CBRDP investments also targeted public and private service providers and built their capacity to deliver basic services to rural communities. As noted, the investments targeted rural populations engaged in farm and nonfarm activities to create opportunities for increasing incomes. 1.5 Original Components The project consisted of five components: (i) Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building; (ii) Infrastructure for Agricultural Development; (iii) Rural Enterprise Development and Learning Centers; (iv) Infrastructure for Social and Human Development; and (v) Community- Based Natural Resource Management. Each is discussed in the sections that follow. 1.5.1 Component 1: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building (US$ 8.52 million; IDA US$ 7.6 million) This component sought to support the government's wider decentralization agenda by strengthening the capacities of government institutions (national, regional, and local) as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, and specific private and public service providers to deliver basic services effectively to rural communities. This component provided training, public communications programs, and technical and logistical support to enhance communities’ participation in planning and decision making. It also sought to improve the performance of government at various levels in planning and facilitating community development. 3 1.5.2 Component 2: Infrastructure for Agricultural Development (US$ 21.90 million; IDA: US$ 17.3 million) The objective of this component was to provide facilities and resources to improve farm and nonfarm activities and generally enhance socioeconomic activity in rural areas: the provision of water for agriculture, rehabilitation and construction of feeder roads, and provision of intermediate means of transport (such as tracks, trails, carts, tricycles) to improve access to farms and markets. The component financed consultants’ services for engineering/design, contract supervision, and training; it also trained beneficiary communities to maintain their facilities. 1.5.3 Component 3: Rural Enterprise Development and Learning Centers (US$ 8.37 million; IDA: US$ 6.5 million) This component was intended to create employment in rural communities by supporting sound management of rural enterprises to market, process, increase the shelf life, and otherwise add value to agricultural produce. Through training in technical and business management as well as through financial support for upgrading and rehabilitating equipment, this component would strengthen cooperative business activities and promote market research, business linkages, joint ventures, and micro- and small business development. Target groups included farm and nonfarm entrepreneurs, as well as the underemployed and unemployed in rural communities. 1.5.4 Component 4: Infrastructure for Social and Human Development (US$ 23.34 million; IDA: US$ 18 million) This component was designed to provide an enabling environment for learning and for delivering health services. It supported the building or renovation of school facilities as well as community health and nutrition centers. It also provided potable water in areas subject to waterborne diseases to relieve the disease burden, enhance the productivity of the rural population, and improve women’s and children’s access to clean water. The component financed the construction of hand-dug wells, boreholes fully fitted with hand pumps, and facilities for sanitation and hygiene. 1.5.5 Component 5: Community-Based Natural Resource Management (US$ 4.50 million; IDA: US$ 3.9 million) This component sought to strengthen capacity in environmental and sanitation subcommittees, ACs, and community-based organizations to improve environmental governance and integrated management of land and water resources. Based on information from Ghana’s 2003 land use/cover map, the component would rehabilitate five critically degraded watershed areas, support communities and DAs to manage degraded areas; provide support to nonfarm activities by targeting resource collectors, processors, traders, woodcarvers, traditional medical practitioners, wildlife traders and breeders, tree crop growers, and rural ecotourism operators. 1.6 Revised Components Not applicable. 4 1.7 Other Significant Changes As indicated in Section 1.3, the project’s components were not revised, but under the additional financing requested in 2008, three activities were planned: (i) scaling up public works under Components 2, 4, and 5; (ii) scaling up capacity building under Component 1 to respond to flooding in northern Ghana and extending the block grant mechanisms for 16 months; and (iii) continuing project management associated with the increased work in northern Ghana, including the extension of the project for 12 more months. The Development Credit Agreement was revised to reflect the scaled-up activities, and the additional financing was approved by the Board on June 26, 2008. The reallocation of funds in support of the cost of the activities supported under the additional financing is detailed in Table 1. Table 1: CBRDP Original and Additional Financing (SDR) Disbursement Original (as at May 21, Additional Total Revised Eligible Expenditure Category Allocation 2008) Financing Allocation 1. Civil Works 1,450,000 1,097,433 1,450,000 2. Goods 1,700,000 1,539,597 1,700,000 3. Consultants, Studies, Training 4,650,000 4,014,380 1,500,000 6,150,000 4. Subprojects a. Financed by Grants 22,300,000 19,290,120 11,250,000 33,550,000 b. Financed by Advances 7,750,000 3,193,689 750,000 7,750,000 5. Operating Costs 2,850,000 2,030,256 3,600,000 6. Unallocated 200,000 200,000 Total 40,900,000 31,165,475 13,500,000 54,400,000 Source: CBRDP Proposed Additional Financing, June 2, 2008, World Bank, Washington, DC In addition to the project’s extension under the additional financing, the Government of Ghana requested a one-year extension of the closing date from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011. This extension was intended to complete activities related to: (i) rehabilitating and making spot improvements on 71 feeder roads (466.6 kilometers); (ii) rehabilitating 463 basic school buildings; (iii) constructing 102 institutional toilets; and (iv) conducting tracer studies for rural enterprises. The Bank approved the extension, and June 30, 2011 became the new closing date. 1. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry The project was prepared very rapidly, moving from concept to appraisal between September 2003 and March 2004. The project’s cross-sectoral orientation was matched by that of the Bank’s multisectoral task team. The team’s rigorous analysis of the sector began at the project’s conceptual stage and produced important inputs for project appraisal, including ―Beneficiary and Stakeholder Needs Assessment for Community-Based Natural Resource Management,‖ ―Assessment of Rural Water Infrastructure Needs,‖ and ―Ghana Social Assessment Study: 5 Changing Dynamics and Capacity for Sustained Community Development and Poverty Reduction.‖ The government team visited community demand-driven projects in Thailand and the Kecanatan Development Project in Indonesia. Lessons from those initiatives were incorporated into the project’s design. For example, the learning centers were modeled along the lines of Thailand’s Social Investment Fund, whereas the lesson to build on existing institutions for sustainability rather than to create new ones emerged from the Kecanatan experience. The design also reflected lessons (positive and negative) from Ghana’s Village Infrastructure Project, implemented between 1998 and 2004. 3 Like the Village Infrastructure Project, the CBRDP involved communities in designing, implementing, and monitoring subprojects. It incorporated a range of activities that enhanced beneficiaries’ sense of ownership and involvement in implementation and were therefore integral to achieving the project’s development objectives—for example, social accountability, participatory monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and community sensitization and mobilization. Unlike the Village Infrastructure Project, the CBRDP emphasized the decentralization of such key project management functions as financial management, procurement, and M&E. The Village Infrastructure Project had centralized those functions but centralization was ineffective for addressing issues emerging from the districts and communities. In sum, the CBRDP was designed to support national development strategies, particularly GPRS, and the national decentralization policy. The project’s design was especially influenced by the need to strengthen the capacity of the DAs and other decentralized units to deliver rural social services more effectively, in accord with the government’s strategy to reduce rural poverty and geographical disparities in the incidence of poverty. The task team ensured that its collaboration with development partners supporting the decentralization agenda was optimal throughout project preparation. The team consulted widely with AFD, the Canadian International Development Agency, Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the UK Department for International Development, the European Union, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ, formerly GTZ), and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Decentralization Secretariat at the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) and the District Development Fund. DANIDA supported the District Development Fund, whereas AFD cofinanced the CBRDP. IFAD decided to support a similar operation in the northern Region of Ghana, where the incidence of poverty was highest. Risks were appropriately identified and adequate measures put in place to mitigate them. The risks identified by the team included weak capacity within MLGRD and RPCUs, the DAs’ 3 The main objective of the Village Infrastructure Project was to support the government's efforts to reduce poverty and enhance the quality of life of the rural poor through the increased transfer of technical and financial resources for the development of basic village-level infrastructure that could be maintained by the beneficiaries. It also supported capacity building for DAs to better plan and manage these investments. The government implemented the project for US$ 60 million, including an IDA credit (US$ 30 million) as well as joint financing from KfW (the German-owned development bank) (US$ 7 million), IFAD (US$ 10 million), the Government of Ghana (US$ 7.1 million), the DAs (US$ 3 million), and beneficiaries (US$ 2.9 million). 6 potential use of project funds for activities outside the project, and the lack of effective participation by financial intermediaries. To mitigate risk arising from the lack of capacity, the team developed and incorporated capacity-building interventions into the CBRPD’s design. To mitigate the risk that DAs and ACs could not fully comply with the government’s procurement law or the Bank’s procurement procedures, project staff substantially assisted DAs and ACs to enhance their understanding of procurement procedures. Following negotiations in April 2004, the Board approved the project on July 29, 2004. The Development Credit Agreement was signed on August 13, 2004 and the project became effective on November 2, 2004. 2.2 Implementation Project implementation began in November 2004. Originally the project was scheduled to close in February 2009. As noted, the closing date was extended to June 30, 2011 after additional financing (US$ 22 million equivalent) was approved to scale up key activities and rehabilitate roads damaged by severe floods in northern Ghana in 2007. An innovative Rapid Results Initiative, introduced to jump-start implementation, contributed immensely to the project’s success. Subprojects approved under the initiative were completed successfully within 100 days in 48 communities and ACs where the initiative was piloted. MLGRD also facilitated operations by assigning its staff to work closely with staff of the Project Coordinating Unit. The national elections of 2004 and 2008 affected project implementation, because it took some time to appoint new District Chief Executives; until then, decisions could not be taken in beneficiary districts, and implementation stalled. Poor understanding of the procurement law among some newly appointed District Chief Executives prevented them from adhering to procurement and contract management guidelines; delays occurred until the project team could ensure that implementation was done correctly. The project placed qualified staff (engineers, institutional development specialists, procurement specialists, and accountants) in the regions to work closely with the RPCUs and DAs to supervise and monitor progress and address implementation issues on a day-to-day basis. Implementation was also delayed for about three months in 2009, when the newly elected government issued directives to halt execution of all contracts in the country. Implementation resumed after the Bank intervened with the government to exempt Bank-financed operations from that directive. The project had made significant progress toward the PDO by mid-term, and the Mid-term Review (June 4–14, 2007) gave it further impetus by identifying and resolving key issues with the government, including: (i) the high level of consulting and operating costs (the recommendation was to reallocate savings from civil works and unallocated funds to cover such costs); (ii) weak adherence to the agreed terms of reference for the composition of the Project Steering Committee and the frequency of their meetings, reporting to IDA and AFD, and approval of annual work plans and budgets; (iii) a lack of clarity in procedural arrangements between the CBRDP, Apex Bank, and Rural Banks, which delayed implementation of the Rural Enterprise Development/Learning Center Component; and (iv) a significant shortfall in 7 counterpart funding from the government, which inhibited the project’s ability to meet its financial obligations to consultants and vendors. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning recommended and agreed with the World Bank that the financing agreement be amended and counterpart funding requirements be eliminated as per current Country Financing Parameters. The Natural Resource Management (NRM) Component also experienced initial drawbacks in implementation, owing to limited knowledge and skills in NRM on the part of project and district staff, the lack of a logical focal point at the district level to champion implementation of the component, and unclear institutional arrangements involving new partners not previously known to the project (the Regional Management Support Center and Savanna Resource Management Center). Other issues regarding governance (of revenues), land ownership, and sustainability of reforestation activities also affected the component’s implementation. Several administrative and logistical factors influenced implementation as well. Although the project built capacity among administrative staff in the DAs and ACs, most could not be retained owing to frequent turnover and staff rotations. Incorrect and inadequate filing of documentation impeded implementation of community projects. Logistical constraints limited supervision in many districts; because the project was not designed to facilitate logistics for district staff, the effectiveness of supervision in some areas was affected. Untimely financial reporting also affected supervision and reporting. The inability of district staff to provide financial reports on time sometimes affected disbursement. The CBRDP did a lot for rural people in Ghana, but little of its impact is known to the general public because the project’s communications strategy was implemented inadequately. For instance, CBRDP subprojects, funded through block grants to the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies, were either branded poorly or not at all, making it difficult to get beneficiaries to speak on behalf of subprojects. Sometimes DA representatives found it difficult to differentiate between activities (especially the installation of boreholes) funded by the CBRDP and by others. As mentioned, the Bank’s Executive Directors approved additional financing in 2008 to reconstruct flood-damaged infrastructure and expand support to the decentralization effort; the project’s closing date was then extended from February 15, 2009 to June 30, 2010. All subsequent implementation supervision missions and independent beneficiary assessments noted significant, satisfactory progress in implementation, but the closing date had to be extended once again for all activities to be completed. The request for extension was based on the fact that new public officials (particularly District Chief Executives) appointed after the 2004 and 2008 general elections had little or no knowledge of the public procurement law and their actions initially stalled project activities temporally until all the newly appointed DCEs were trained to understand the public procurement law and procedures. Subsequent joint missions by the Bank and government reviewed progress, agreed on a realistic work and procurement plan, and recommended that the project’s closing date be extended to June 30, 2011. 8 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation, and Utilization The CBRDP implemented an M&E system focused appropriately on results. At appraisal, the task team prepared a detailed results framework with key results indicators to monitor progress toward the PDO. The project team also developed an M&E manual that emphasized a results- based approach and served as a guide to monitoring progress. As noted, the indicators were considered to be too numerous, and appeared to measure outputs rather than outcomes; the task team reviewed the indicators and developed a performance review plan and data collection instruments for selected indicators. The indicators were formally revised as part of the processing of the additional financing in May 2008. The team reduced the number of indicators and aligned them with the PDO. The revised indicators significantly improved data collection. The project team used a sample approach to collect data, which significantly enhanced implementation of the M&E framework. The CBRDP zonal implementation team liaised effectively with DA staff in all data collection efforts. M&E reporting suffered some setbacks, however, owing to differences in reporting mechanisms: The project team used the mechanism specified in the M&E operations manual, whereas the DAs used the government’s reporting system. The inconsistency in reporting led to undue delays. To improve reporting and overall performance of the M&E system, the project collaborated with the NDPC to harmonize M&E at the district level by developing district M&E guidelines. The NDPC used the guidelines to train DA staff to prepare M&E plans and effectively monitor and evaluate their activities. Participatory M&E was integral to implementing M&E for the project, which organized training of trainers programs for Regional Coordinating Council staff. The training was meant to increase their understanding of the need for and use of participatory M&E at the community level to improve social accountability. The Regional Coordinating Council staff in turn trained district teams, who then trained beneficiary communities in the practical application of participatory M&E concepts. The trained communities now use participatory M&E techniques in implementing their subprojects, with the result that infrastructure subprojects of good quality have been completed, and community ownership of the infrastructure has improved. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 2.4.1 Safeguard compliance Based on environmental and safeguard assessments, the project was rated a Category B project. The project triggered two safeguard policies: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). An Environmental Assessment identified measures to mitigate negative environmental impacts that could arise from implementing some subprojects. In response to these triggered policies, the government prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework and a Resettlement Policy Framework to address any potential environmental, social, or resettlement issues, establish systems for consultation and redressing grievances, identify potential environmental and social challenges and impacts, and specify how to address them. 9 Constant follow-up by the Bank team and effective collaboration with project teams ensured that the project encountered no major safeguard issues. At mid-term, the project had complied fully with safeguard policies, and no serious adverse impact was identified. All land acquired for implementing subprojects was properly and voluntarily released by traditional community rulers or the respective DA. These acquisitions were backed by proper documentation in compliance with OP 4.12. No involuntary resettlement, displacement, or relocation occurred as a result of the project. Minor concerns, such as ensuring safety at construction sites, were addressed fully. Following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Project Coordinating Unit and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the project team developed good working relations with the EPA staff and therefore understood procedures for complying with EPA requirements. To extend this knowledge to all participating DAs, the project supported the EPA to provide hands-on training in environmental screening, including social issues, for DA staff. The project also provided financial support to the DAs for obtaining EPA permits and implementing the conditions for the permits. These actions and outcomes have benefited other Bank-supported projects, like the Ghana Social Opportunities Project and the Local Government Capacity Support Project. 2.4.2 Fiduciary compliance Throughout implementation, the project complied with the requirement to submit annual audit reports. The more recent reports were submitted on the due dates, had unqualified audit opinions, and were acceptable to IDA. Internal control weaknesses in zonal and district offices have been a recurrent issue, highlighting a general weakness of government public financial management systems at the subnational (DA) level. The most current audit report was received on June 21, 2011, within six months after the end of the fiscal year as specified in the Financing Agreement. As discussed, procurement was initially constrained, particularly at the DA level, by weak capacity and poor understanding of World Bank procurement procedures. The project’s innovative response—placing procurement specialists in all regions—immensely smoothed implementation. The project’s significant contributions to building capacity in public procurement in decentralized units also improved the capacity for good governance at the local level. Overall, no fiduciary issue posed a significant threat to project implementation. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase No follow-on operation to the CBRDP has been planned, although the Government of Ghana expressed interest in another phase of the project through a letter to the Bank. The government is interested in consolidating and deepening the gains from the project by improving the capabilities of local government units, particularly in poorer districts, to provide social services, narrow the geographical differences in the incidence of poverty, and strengthen the base for long-term development of Ghana’s rural communities. The IFAD Country Program Manager has indicated that IFAD would consider partnering with the Bank in an operation similar to the CBRDP, if the Bank would cofinance it. The Bank currently supports the Government of Ghana through two new projects that also work with decentralized structures, although these projects were not designed as follow-ons to the 10 CBRDP. The Local Government Capacity Support Project, targeting Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies, seeks to strengthen the intergovernmental fiscal framework, strengthen local public financial management and accountability for improved infrastructure and services in urban assemblies, and improve citizens’ engagement with urban assemblies and their perceptions of urban management. The Ghana Social Opportunities Project, directed at Ghana’s poorest districts, seeks to improve targeting in social protection spending, increase access to conditional cash transfers nationwide, increase access to employment and cash-earning opportunities for the rural poor during the agricultural off-season, and improve economic and social infrastructure in target districts. 2. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design, and Implementation The project’s overall objective is as relevant now as it was at appraisal, given that the government seeks to deepen decentralization at all levels, following passage of the Local Government Service Act (656 2003). The CBRDP was coordinated with other development partners to enhance donor support for implementing the Government of Ghana’s Decentralization Policy Framework and assure synergy.4 The project’s objectives, design, and implementation were fully consistent with the decentralization agenda spelled out in the policy, and it supported activities that were highly relevant to the national response to rural poverty. The project’s specific measures were also appropriate and fully consistent with the decentralization policy and the strategic orientation of the GPRS and CAS. The focus on providing access to productive resources for beneficiaries by developing rural infrastructure as well as sustainable on-farm and nonfarm rural enterprises contributes to economic growth and rural poverty reduction.5 The CBRDP effectively followed the decentralization strategy and supported the operational mechanisms for its implementation by ensuring that the respective Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies and other decentralized entities were strengthened to play their respective roles as enshrined in the Local Government Act, 1993. The project strengthened capacities of the national and regional planning coordination units; ACs; and the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies. At the community level, the project was instrumental in building capacity in targeted local community institutions, such as the Unit Committees, School Management Committees, and Community Water and Sanitation Committees. In 2007, the Government of Ghana launched a countrywide exercise for preparing District Medium Term Development Plans. The project supported this effort by building the capacities of all the DAs and selected ACs to prepare development plans, particularly by supporting: (i) the 4 Decentralization Policy Framework: Accelerating Decentralization and Local Governance for National Development, 2010, MLGRD, Accra. 5 According to a 2007 Ghana Living Standard Survey report, Ghana’s national poverty rate fell from 52 percent in 1992 to 29 percent in 2006. Poverty reduction was particularly impressive in rural areas, where the overall poverty rate fell from 62 percent in 1991 to 39 percent in 2006. 11 NDPC to prepare (train) DAs in the guidelines for formulating District Medium Term Development Plans; (ii) the Accountant General’s Department to prepare a financial manual for government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and (iii) the National Public Procurement Authority to develop a procurement manual and train DAs in its use. The project also provided resources to implement the districts’ medium-term plans. 3.2. Achievement of Project Development Objectives The CBRDP largely achieved its development objective. The project’s investments helped strengthen capacity in rural institutions and improved rural livelihoods. Local government structures, particularly the DAs and ACs, acquired substantial capacity in planning, implementing, and monitoring projects derived from their local development and investment plans. The project also significantly improved the rural poor’s access to social services such as schools, health centers, and potable water.6 The achievement of the PDO is measured by seven key performance indicators categorized under three broad themes: enhanced productive assets, enhanced rural infrastructure, and access to key support services from public and private sources. The agreed performance indicators capture the intentions of the project objective. The CBRDP succeeded in achieving all of the outcome indicators. The following section assesses the achievement of agreed PDO performance indicators (see Annex 2 for a review of project outputs by component). 3.2.1 Enhanced productive assets This set of performance indicators measured improvements in the growth of rural enterprises that were able to upgrade and expand their facilities. The first indicator, which was fully achieved, was a change in value of at least 5 percent for 70 percent of the supported enterprises. The project promoted development of the private sector in rural areas by establishing learning centers for entrepreneurial and business development skills. Through the project, 79 percent (957 of 1,210) of learning center trainees received support to set up their own businesses. The project provided Ȼ 5.9 million (US$ 3.7 million) in microcredit to 5,289 enterprises (learning centers, learning center trainees, and microenterprises) to improve their productive assets. This effort increased the value of assets by an average of 27 percent in a sample of enterprises. The second indicator, also fully achieved, was a change of at least 5 percent in the turnover of the supported enterprises. The average increase in turnover was 21 percent in a sample of enterprises. 3.2.2 Enhanced rural infrastructure This performance indicator measured the effects of rehabilitating and maintaining feeder roads as a reduction of at least 75 percent in time spent traveling. This indicator was fully achieved. The project rehabilitated 195 feeder roads covering about 1,277 kilometers. These improved roads helped to reduce the average time spent traveling from a baseline of 15 minutes per kilometer to 4 minutes per kilometer by the end of the project. They also increased rural dwellers’ access to 6 The Beneficiary Assessment Study, conducted in May 2011, highlights significant outcomes of the project. 12 social and economic facilities and services, improved the transport of agricultural inputs to farms and of food and cash crops to markets, and increased the number of vehicles plying the roads from an average of three per market day to nine per day. 3.2.3 Access to key support services from public and private sources This set of performance indicators involved changes in school enrolment and schooling days, and sustainable access to safe drinking water through the construction and rehabilitation of schools and water points in rural communities. The first indicator, which was fully achieved, was the percentage change in gross school enrolment for target communities. Table 2 shows year-to- year improvements in gross enrolment as a result of CBRDP investments. Overall gross enrolment increased from a baseline of 20 percent to nearly 41 percent by the end of the project, meeting the target of a 20 percent increase. The construction and rehabilitation of 458 basic schools greatly contributed to removing a large number of Ghana’s ―schools under trees‖ and created a convenient learning atmosphere for more than 60,000 students per school year. Table 2: Percentage Change in Gross Enrolment by School Year School Year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Pupils enrolled (number) 50,857 56,023 58,747 61,434 Gross enrolment (baseline, %) 20 – – – Gross enrolment (actual, %) – 30.2 35.5 40.8 Change in gross enrolment (%) – 10.2 15.5 20.8 The second indicator, which was also achieved, was the percentage reduction in school days cancelled because school structures could not be used in bad weather. The improvement of school structures to withstand bad weather dramatically reduced the number of school days canceled because of bad weather from a yearly average of 15 to zero, thereby meeting the target of a 99 percent reduction. The third indicator was an increase of at least 200 percent over the baseline in the number of people with access to safe water. This indicator was fully achieved through the provision of 1,676 water points (boreholes). At baseline, only 117,711 people in rural areas had access to potable water; the new boreholes provided safe drinking water to 421,315 people in 453 communities, representing a 257.9 percent increase in access to safe water. Access to safe, drinkable water significantly reduced waterborne diseases in communities where the CBRDP intervened. The final indicator was the average time elapsing between breakdowns and repairs of water facilities. This indicator was fully achieved. The CBRDP investments in water infrastructure led to an average of 1.5 days between breakdowns and repairs, below the target of 2 days. 3.3 Efficiency The CBRDP investments have proven to be very efficient. A financial and economic analysis of randomly selected activities showed that beneficiaries derived substantial financial and economic 13 benefits from the project’s investments, with positive net present values (NPV) and high economic rates of return (ERR). Focusing on three key areas of intervention—investments in developing rural enterprises, education, and health—the analysis clearly shows that the CBRDP’s investments were highly cost efficient and socially responsible (see Annex 3 for a more detailed discussion of these results). 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory. Taking into consideration the relevance of the PDO, project design, and implementation as well as achievement of the development objectives, and efficiency, the overall project outcome is rated satisfactory. All key performance indicators were fully achieved, and most exceeded their targets. These achievements were obtained within a reasonable budget and with a high level of efficiency. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes, and Impacts 3.5.1 Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development Impacts on small businesses. The component supporting rural enterprise development and learning centers enhanced small business owners’ understanding of doing business and substantially improved their business skills. Box 1 summarizes key outcomes of the project’s support to small businesses. The majority now know how to keep proper business records and build downstream networks. Many small businesses also added value to their products; for example, a grasscutter and mushroom production business in Twimia Nkwanta (BenCom) started to process mushrooms into powder, prepare mushroom pepper sauce (shito) for marketing, and trained 20 chefs to use mushrooms in variety of dishes. BenCom significantly increased its monthly production of mushroom spawn from 12,000 to 20,000, and it supplies over 3,000 mushroom farmers with oyster mushroom bags and spawn. The expansion of production created new jobs within the enterprise (the staff increased from 7 to 12 employees). Box 1: Results of the CBRDP’s support for small business development Knowledge transfer to rural entrepreneurs. The CBRDP provided technical and business management training in simple bookkeeping, packaging, marketing, and other skills to rural entrepreneurs engaged in various lines of production, including making cassava flour, biscuits, bread, confectionary, and pomade; bead decoration; weaving kente cloth; raising pigs, bees, snails, grasscutters, and rabbits; and growing mushrooms. The intention was to improve beneficiaries’ entrepreneurial skills so that they could offer training and support to others and create multiplier benefits in rural areas. Improved facilities for small businesses. The CBRDP, through Rural Banks, provided financing to small business to upgrade their facilities. For example, in Zone 4, the Tornyeli Community Women Development Association (TOCOWODEA) in the Hohoe Municipal Assembly received funding to build a structure to produce cassava flour and biscuits; Tabitha Vocational Centre in Ga West Municipal Assembly received funding for upgrading hostel facilities to house its trainees. In Zone 2, the BenCom grasscutter and mushroom production enterprise in Twimia Nkwanta (Techiman Municipality in the Brong Ahafo Region) upgraded its premises with a building for grasscutters, a spawn and incubating house, fencing, a mushroom fruiting house, and a conference room that sometimes also lodges trainees. A grasscutter rearing and snail farming center in Bekwai Municipality in Ashanti Region received support to upgrade its hand-dug well and cages for rearing animals. In Zone 3, the Eddiebay Kente Weaving Centre and Bee Keepers Association in Twifo-Heman Lower Denkyira District received support to upgrade their facilities. In Bibiani Anhwiaso Bekwai District, the Centre for Improved Animal Production System, among others, received financial support to build simple but practical housing for pigs. 14 Growth in the networks of business entrepreneurs. Rural enterprises that benefited from the CBRDP’s capacity support have become learning centers for trainees, who are either attached to the enterprises and thus serve as part of the production network or have been supported to set up their own businesses. For example, BenCom, which used to train 200 people per year, now trains 400–600, and trainees come from different parts of Ghana. Twenty initial trainees under the CBRDP received financial support to build structures and start their own farms. For example, at Kpeve Tornu in the Ho Municipal Assembly, Nutifafa Farming and Processing Group (a farming group) received support to purchase a cassava mill to produce raw material for sale to TOCOWODEA to process into cassava flour and make biscuits. Other individuals were trained in biscuit making and supported with materials to set up their own businesses. Though the latter group of trainees is not yet fully established, they demonstrate the multiplier effects of CBRDP support to rural enterprises and their potential impact on poverty reduction in rural areas. Impacts on incomes. The project’s support to learning centers and provision of financial support to trainees had positive impacts on their livelihoods. Most learning center trainees have established their own businesses, which operate at full capacity. BenCom now trains between 400 and 600 people annually. The project financially supported an initial group of 20 trainees to build structures for their own farm enterprises (Box 1). Business ownership significantly boosted beneficiaries’ incomes. The project’s support to farmers in northern Ghana enabled them to farm year-round, increased their incomes, and helped to reduce poverty across districts and within particular communities. Impacts on gender. The project benefited a substantial number of women compared to men. The rehabilitation and construction of feeder roads increased the average number of vehicles plying the roads on market days by 200 percent, from a baseline of three vehicles to nine. This intervention benefited about 289,901 persons—124,591 men (44 percent) and 160,320 women (56 percent). The construction of Community-Based Health Planning Service (CHPS) compounds benefited 92,278 people—40,382 men (44 percent) and 51,726 women (56 percent). The project built the capacity of 170 DAs to conduct participatory planning in accordance with NDPC guidelines. This intervention benefited more than 469,151 people, and it is gratifying to note that 40 percent (185,569) were female. The project also improved conditions for learning in selected schools across the country for over 385,537 people, of whom 158,718 (41 percent) were female and 226,670 (59 percent) male. Impacts on children and teachers. The project transformed the lives of children and parents in the areas where it operated. The provision of good classrooms increased both children’s and teachers’ interest in school. They feel safer in the new classrooms. School enrolment and performance increased significantly. According to the beneficiary assessment survey, school enrolment in Adjoafour (in Bia District, Western Region) increased from 120 to 150 students. BECE examination scores improved at schools where students previously scored zero. A case in point is Wuwuso Damang District Assembly Junior High School (in Wasa Amenfi District, Western Region), where 74 percent (23 of 31 students) passed the examination after none had passed in 2006–08. Impacts on health status. The CHPS had been run in small, rented, and often dilapidated premises. Indeed, many communities lacked it. The CHPS compounds established under the project improved community healthcare delivery throughout the project’s areas of operation and reduced the distance that s residents had to travel before they could access health services. The provision of CHPS improved key health indicators such as the number of births attended by 15 skilled staff, the maternal mortality rate, the prevalence of contraceptive use, and incidence of diarrhea. Impacts on access to water and improved sanitation. The project provided boreholes to beneficiary communities; about 86 percent of these water points were situated within a reasonable distance of the communities, increasing their access to good drinking water. Improved water quality helped to reduce such waterborne diseases as guinea worm and diarrheal illnesses. The construction of toilets reduced walking distances to toilet facilities and also reduced the potential for disease outbreaks. 3.5.2 Institutional change/strengthening In support of the government’s decentralization agenda, the project transformed institutions throughout the country, especially at the district level and below. More specifically, the project:  Strengthened communities’ project implementation capacity. The project revitalized subdistrict structures and helped make most ACs functional. ACs can now prepare work plans and use them to implement their subprojects. Through the DAs and Regional Coordinating Councils, the project provided matching grants, backstopping, and monitoring to the ACs. It trained and empowered communities to implement projects at subdistrict levels. ACs gained a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the development process and improved their performance levels. Communities are now better managed, administered, and mobilized for development activities.  Built the capacity of ACs in participatory planning. The project also introduced participatory planning, project implementation, and management skills at the district level. For more than 458 ACs, the project organized training in participatory planning and management, fiduciary procedures (procurement and financial management), contract management, and administration. This new knowledge empowered communities to play active roles in district and subdistrict development. Participatory planning and management training also enhanced ACs’ capacity to prepare area plans in a participatory manner, in accordance with NDPC guidelines, and to handle procurement as required under the Public Procurement Act.  Strengthened water and sanitation institutions. In support of the national policy to ensure community ownership and management of water facilities, the project helped beneficiaries form facility management committees. Through NGOs and staff of the DAs, the project organized and trained the committees to operate and maintain their water facilities. These committees are now functional and perform operation and maintenance in the communities.  Strengthened the capacity of School Management Committees. In conjunction with the Ghana Education Service, the project supported the formation and training of School Management Committees and Parent Teacher Associations in selected districts. The capacities of those committees and associations improved, and they play active roles in their respective communities’ development programs. 3.5.3 Other unintended outcomes and impacts (positive of negative) Not applicable. 16 3.6 Summary of Findings of the Beneficiary Assessment Survey A beneficiary assessment survey conducted to evaluate the project found that beneficiaries were generally conversant and very satisfied with the support they received from the project. Findings of the assessment can be broken into two parts: improvements in institutional capacity, especially in support of decentralization, and direct benefits to the beneficiaries. 3.6.1 Improvement in institutional capacity to support decentralization At the national level, the project supported institutions directly involved in implementing the decentralization program. It enabled the NDPC to train DAs, especially in the guidelines for formulating District Medium Term Development Plans. It also assisted the Accountant General’s Department to prepare a financial manual for the Ministries Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and the National Public Procurement Authority in the development of a procurement manual and training of DAs. At the regional level, the project trained staff of RPCUs in procurement, contract management, monitoring, and evaluation for district projects. The project provided additional technical training to education and health workers so that they could train district and local communities in managing school and health facilities. The majority of RPCU staff confirmed that the training enhanced their understanding of procedures for tendering and contract management and that they could respond more quickly to DAs’ requests for help in preparing tenders. The training greatly improved the quality of public tenders. At the district level, the project provided technical and financial support to the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies. District Planning Officers who received training in procurement and financial management indicated that their understanding of those processes had deepened. DPCU staff also significantly improved their knowledge of procurement, which enabled DPCUs and RPCUs to work together more efficiently on procurement processes for the benefit of local communities. The project also built DPCUs’ capacity in project management, including community empowerment, community socialization, rural poverty reduction, effective local governance, and social accountability. In sum, these efforts improved the DPCUs’ capacity to deliver services efficiently to the communities. At the subdistrict level, the project increased the ACs’ involvement in providing physical infrastructure to communities. It trained subdistrict institutions in participatory identification of community projects, community mobilization, planning, implementation, and management. The project also trained 48 ACs to use the Rapid Results Initiative, enabling them to implement projects and achieve results in 100 days. The project’s capacity building helped the ACs to provide effective oversight for participatory decision making, planning, and project implementation in their jurisdictions. At the community level, the project also provided targeted capacity building. Recipients included Unit Committees, School Management Committees, and Community Water and Sanitation Committees. 17 3.6.2 Direct benefits to the project’s beneficiaries The project increased communities’ access to physical and social infrastructure by building and rehabilitating feeder roads, providing educational and health infrastructure, and providing facilities for safe drinking water and improved sanitation. More specifically, the rehabilitation and construction of feeder roads improved marketing of goods and access to key social services. There is ready transport for traders to market centers. Health services have improved as sick and expectant mothers can be sent to hospitals more easily in emergencies. Health professionals regularly visit communities for important outreach programs such as immunizations and health education. The provision of spacious classrooms created an enabling environment for students and teachers. School enrolment and attendance have increased in the majority of schools. Schools formerly running a single stream are now running a double stream. Academic performance improved at some schools, where more students passed their basic certificate examination (BECE). The provision of health infrastructure in the form of CHPS compounds significantly improved health service delivery. Along with easier access to health services, the delivery of those services is supervised by qualified health professionals. Health personnel now have better living quarters, visit communities regularly, and have intensified health education and outreach programs. The provision of more boreholes increased access to potable water and community toilet facilities. As a result, the incidence of diseases caused by poor water and sanitation has fallen substantially. 3. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcomes Rating: Low The overall risk to the project’s development outcome and sustainability is rated low, given the high level of ownership at all levels, the low fiduciary risk to the project’s investments, and the low risks related to social and environmental safeguards. This conclusion is supported by the assessments for specific areas of risk that follow. The institutional risk to development outcomes is rated low. Institutional development arising from the project was substantial. The project helped build capacity to make the Regional Coordinating Councils, Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies and ACs more effective and functional in discharging their duties. At the district and community levels, the competency built by the project in financial management, procurement, and project management, including coordination with different actors, makes the institutional risk to the development outcome very low. The project’s support for implementing District Medium Term Development Plans improved planning and budgeting capacities in DAs and ACs. The project helped the ACs to prepare area plans used as inputs into the Medium Term Development Plans. Within beneficiary communities, the project created a sense of ownership and empowerment that will undoubtedly sustain development outcomes. 18 The economic and financial risk to development outcomes is moderate. In assessing quality at entry, the project team identified three key risks that could negatively affect the achievement of development outcomes. The financial management risks were mitigated by placing qualified financial management experts in all project regions. Except for delays in the district counterpart funds, no problem occurred with fund flow. All audit reports were prepared and submitted on time. The risk of weak government capacity was addressed during implementation, given that capacity building was integral to the project and that regional, district, and local capacity to plan and manage projects improved substantially. The risk that financial intermediaries would not participate in executing district financial services was addressed during implementation. Rural Banks, under the umbrella of Apex Bank, participated fully in transferring funds to beneficiaries, which greatly enhanced implementation of the project’s rural enterprise development component. The financial and economic analysis of the project found substantial socioeconomic impacts and benefits, with a high benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and positive NPV. The environmental risk to development outcomes is low. The environmental and social assessment undertaken at appraisal classified the CBRDP as a Category B project; it triggered two safeguard policies (Environmental Assessment and Involuntary Resettlement). The very minimal safeguard issues encountered during implementation were addressed effectively by the project team, making the related risk to development outcomes low. The social risk to development outcomes is moderately low. The project significantly improved beneficiaries’ quality of life and contributed to Millennium Development Goals such as the alleviation of poverty. The social and human development institutions put in place at the community level should sustain the development outcomes, but the sustainability of those institutions depends on the communities and government. The infrastructural risk to development outcomes is moderate. The project’s investments in building and rehabilitating agricultural and social infrastructure were well targeted, relatively inexpensive, and required only modest costs for operation and maintenance. Yet the sustainability of the infrastructure that improves communities’ access to education, health services, water, markets, and slaughterhouses depends on communities’ ability to undertake its routine maintenance. To enhance the prospects for sustaining infrastructure, particularly for social development subprojects, beneficiary communities were trained to develop facility management plans. Based on those plans, resources will be raised locally for routine maintenance of infrastructure. 4. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance 5.1.1 Bank performance in ensuring quality at entry Rating: Satisfactory 19 The Bank’s performance in project identification, preparation, and appraisal is satisfactory. The project was well conceived. It emphasized the capacity building and other forms of institutional support needed at all levels to support Ghana’s decentralization agenda. The design was straightforward, with simple, achievable targets. To prepare the project, the Bank mobilized a highly competent cross-sectoral team with the range of skills to cover the project’s technical and institutional requirements. The team moved project preparation smoothly from concept to effectiveness without delay. Good coordination in support of the government’s decentralization agenda culminated in AFD cofinancing the project with the Bank. The team’s counterparts from government were assisted to visit Bank-supported projects in Indonesia and Thailand that offered lessons to improve the design of the CBRDP. The team’s financial management specialists examined the key issues highlighted in the 2003 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability report and instituted corresponding financial management and disbursement arrangements to enhance the CBRDP’s efficiency. The placement of qualified fiduciary experts in the four regions where the project operated was a key innovation that aided the project’s successful implementation. 5.1.2 Quality of supervision Rating: Satisfactory The Bank’s performance in supervision is rated satisfactory. The Bank team paid great attention to the quality of supervision; with the government and AFD, it organized and undertook no fewer than 13 joint implementation support (supervision) missions. The missions involved teams with the skill mix to identify and address any implementation issues observed. The missions enabled prompt resolution of key implementation issues through clearly defined agreements with the government. The Bank also organized a Mid-term Review mission, which was essential to assess progress and take decisions on particular activities. For example, the team identified the causes of delays in implementing the NRM component and made corresponding recommendations for improvement. A joint technical supervision mission organized by the Bank in October 2007 discussed ways of assisting the government to respond quickly to the destructive flooding in northern Ghana; the resulting recommendations to government resulted in the Bank’s additional financing to the project. As noted, the new government’s 2009 moratorium on all projects kept project implementation on hold for about three months; a remarkable intervention by the Bank prevented a more prolonged delay by exempting the CBRDP subprojects. 5.1.3 Justification for rating overall Bank performance Overall Bank performance is rated satisfactory. To recapitulate, project preparation was smooth and fast, the project’s objective was sound, and the project supported clearly focused activities aligned with the government’s decentralization agenda. The Bank was assiduous in supervising implementation and offering appropriate recommendations for improvement. 5.2 Borrower Performance 5.2.1 Government performance Rating: Satisfactory 20 Government performance is rated satisfactory, based on the government’s high degree of commitment to the project, clear sense of project ownership, and responsiveness in all related matters at all stages, from project identification, design, and preparation to completion. The government provided material resources (government strategies) relevant to the preparation team and ensured that the intervention continuously supported the decentralization and rural poverty reduction agenda. The government ensured that all effectiveness conditions were met quickly and facilitated the launching of the project. During implementation, the government maintained good working relationships with the Bank team, AFD team, and Project Coordinating Unit staff, and it supported the organization of all supervision missions. The government also supported the Project Coordinating Unit to play its role effectively and ensure the implementation of agreed actions after every supervision mission. The government could not ensure consistent allocation and release of the counterpart funds for project activities, however. The delay in releasing the 10 percent counterpart funds initially inhibited smooth implementation of some subprojects at district and community levels. 5.2.2 Implementation agency or agencies’ performance Rating: Satisfactory The implementation agency’s performance is rated satisfactory. Project Coordinating Unit personnel were highly committed to achieving the envisaged development outcomes and worked tirelessly to ensure substantial progress. With their strong background from the Village Infrastructure Project, members of the Project Coordinating Unit participated fully and significantly in project preparation. During implementation, the Project Coordinating Unit placed its experts close to project sites, where they assisted immensely in resolving issues regarding planning, financial management, procurement, and participatory M&E. The unit established a sound M&E system to track project activities and progress related to outcome indicators; organized and coordinated supervision missions; and established good working relations with the government (with the Chief Director as the focal point). The unit maintained proper records and reporting systems for the project’s fiduciary and physical progress, managing and disbursing all project funds satisfactorily (in fact, the project was judged to be one of the best performing projects in a World Bank Country Portfolio Performance Review in 2009). The Project Coordinating Unit’s lack of expertise in NRM favored implementation of the other four components in relation to the NRM component, however. 5.2.3 Justification for rating overall borrower performance Rating: Satisfactory The overall performance of the Borrower has been rated satisfactory. The Borrower demonstrated a high level of commitment to project objectives and ensured that the project stayed on course to achieve all its outcome indicators. Throughout implementation, the project complied with all legal covenants satisfactorily. Financial audit reports were submitted when due. All audit reports had unqualified audit opinions and were acceptable to IDA. 5. Lessons Learned 21 Effective communication is the key to promoting development outcomes. The CBRDP achieved a plethora of successes but only minimally disseminated that information to the general public. Future projects of a similar nature should incorporate a communications component with funding for the project to engage a communications specialist who, as part of the project team, effectively disseminates information and builds capacity to do so at all levels. Inject awareness of NRM at the community level by having natural resource department in the DAs. Because demand for NRM related sub-projects is low at the local level for lack of awareness. The NRM component suffered setbacks in implementation owing to the lack of capacity and ownership at the district and community levels. . The CBRDP supported the EPA in developing a training manual that could be used to strengthen the capacity of district staff in environmental and natural resources. Effective relationships among development partners and good donor collaboration and harmonization are paramount to the successful implementation of a decentralized project. The strong relationship and collaboration between the Bank and AFD provided impetus to project implementation. In future, more donors should be brought on board to support the government’s efforts to establish robust decentralized systems. Inexperience among Rural Banks and project staff with the lending promoted by the project, as well as the lack of business skills among clients, posed challenges for implementing component 3 (see Annex 3). The impact would have been considerable if the scheme had targeted, developed, and promoted a few selected enterprises in the regions and districts in an initial pilot scheme for eventual scale-up. . Decentralizing project management functions up to the zone and regional levels was very instrumental in ensuring smooth implementation of the project. The CBRDP placed technically qualified staff, including accountants, procurement specialist, M&E specialists, and engineers in all the project’s regions. This allowed the specialists to closely monitor, supervise, and resolve issues on day-to-day basis with the districts’ staff. It also allowed the specialists to develop the capacity of the districts’ staff in financial management, procurement, M&E etc.. 6. Comments and Issues by Borrower/Implementation/Partners (a) Borrower/Implementing agencies A summary of the Borrower’s ICR is presented in Annex 7. (b) Co-financiers Comments from AfD are presented in Annex 8. (c) Other partners and stakeholders n/a 22 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ m equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Estimate Estimate Percentage of Components (US$ m) (US$ m) Appraisal Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building 12.16 9.21 71.49 Infrastructure for Agricultural Development 32.00 21.08 60.79 Rural Enterprises Development and Learning Centers 8.37 5.90 70.45 Infrastructure for Social and Human Development 38.84 47.44 114.05 Community-Based Natural Resource Management 5.10 3.07 66.43 Project Management 10.26 13.85 70.42 Total Baseline Cost 106.73 100.55 – Physical Contingencies – – – Price Contingencies – – – Total Project Costs 106.73 100.55 82.54 Project Preparation Facility – – – Front-end fee (IBRD only) – – – a b Total Financing Required 106.73 100.55 – a. (i) AFD also funded the Decentralization Secretariat (US$ 1.2 million), which was administered through the project. (ii) It appears the appraisal estimate of project cost did not take into account anticipated borrower and beneficiary contributions. b. Country parameters changed. No more counterpart funding requirements applied in Ghana, so from July 11, 2008, the government stopped contributing counterpart funding to the project. (b) Financing Source of Funds Type of Financing Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Percentage of (US$ m) Estimate (US$ m) Appraisal Borrower Counterpart funding 8.93 1.41 15.79 Local communities Contribution District Assembly 2.56 Beneficiaries 2.40 1.68 70.00 IDA Credit 82.00 83.79 87.34 AFD Credit 12.00 13.67 113.92 Total 121.82 100.55 82.54 23 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building This component financed activities aimed at strengthening capacities at different levels of local government, in private and public institutions, and in NGOs to deliver basic services to rural communities. Achievements under this component are rated satisfactory. Table 2.1 presents the agreed intermediate performance and output indicators that relate to this component. Table 2.1: Key Intermediate Performance and Output Indicators for Component 1 Indicator Baseline Target Actual Value Achieved 1. Percentage of participating DAs implementing their plans and 80% 100% 100% delivering services devolved to them in accordance with LGA 462 2. Percentage of participating ACs (and communities) 13.7% 100% of 454 454 (100%) implementing their plans and delivering services devolved to them ACs in accordance with LGA 462 3. Percentage of participating DAs and ACs meeting the 0% 100% 100% requirements of the Procurement Act 4. Percentage of participating DAs and ACs meeting the financial 0.0% 100% 100% accountability requirements of the Financial Administration and Internal Audit Agency Act Under this component, the project achieved its target of building capacity in participatory planning in 170 DAs. All DAs can prepare and implement their Medium Term Development Plans in accordance with LGA 462; this effort benefitted about 469,151 people, including 283,582 men (60 percent) and 185,569 women (40 percent). At the subdistrict level, the project trained all 454 ACs in participatory planning (compared to the baseline of 13.7 percent). The component’s target of building capacity in 100 percent of DAs and ACs (170 DAs and 454 ACs) to undertake procurement activities in accordance with Ghana’s Public Procurement Act 663 was fully achieved (the baseline was zero). All the DAs and ACs can prepare procurement plans and perform key procurement activities, including preparing procurement notices and publishing them in national dailies, undertaking tender evaluations, and keeping proper records of all procurement activities. The project achieved virtually all of the 100 percent target of helping DAs and ACs meet the financial management accountability requirements of Ghana’s Financial Administration and Internal Audit Act 2003. At the end of the project, 99 percent of the 170 DAs and 458 ACs could use the standard financial management reporting format. DAs lack training in using the harmonized Chart of Accounts, however; at least 90 percent have Assets Registers, but they were not updated on a regular basis. Other significant outputs of this component include:  Rapid Results Initiative. By introducing 48 ACs to the innovative Rapid Results Initiative, the project enhanced the ACs’ capacity to implement projects successfully in 100 days. Using the Rapid Results framework, communities set their own achievable 24 goals, which included an increase in school enrolments and an increase in pregnant women’s attendance at prenatal clinics. The beneficiary community members now understand and appreciate the principles of setting goals for development priorities.  Development of training manuals for decentralized institutions. The project built collaboration with key national institutions—the Controller and Accountant General’s Department, Decentralization Secretariat, Ghana Education Service, Ghana Health Service, Ghana Irrigation Development Authority, NDPC, and the National Procurement Authority—to prepare training manuals and roll out training programs for key areas of decentralization. The project’s support to these critical institutions in the decentralization process helped move the National Decentralisation Action Plan forward and promoted partnerships among key players in the development arena.  Enhanced capacity in social accountability. The project introduced 8,910 communities to the concept of social accountability through training that focused on two accountability instruments: Community Accountability Fora and Community Score Cards. More than 455 ACs held at least two Community Accountability Fora, at which community leaders accounted for their stewardship to the local people. The project also trained 167 district teams and 162 ACs to use Community Score Cards. The score cards have been used to assess the quality of various public services in 339 communities. The various fora found 90 percent of community leadership to be fair and responsive to social accountability issues. Implementation of this component was influenced, however, by the four-year election cycle for AC members and insufficient support from some DAs affected. In Ghana, ACs consist of elected and appointed officers who serve for four years. When a new government is elected, it may replace some officers appointed by the previous government. During the CBRDP, some trained members of ACs were not reelected or reappointed, and new members had to be trained. Despite the beneficial impact of the training, some districts made no provision for extending the training as envisioned to other ACs beyond the pilot areas or to new AC members. Delays in rolling out the District Development Fund, and the absence of some basic decisions and actions on the part of actors outside the project’s control, constrained implementation to some extent as well. Component 2: Infrastructure for Agricultural Development This component provided facilities and resources to enhance farm and nonfarm activities and increase the incomes of beneficiary rural communities by building or rehabilitating feeder roads and farm tracks, market structures, irrigation dams, dugouts, and wind pumps. Table 2.2 shows the agreed intermediate performance and output indicators. 25 Table 2.2: Key Intermediate Performance and Output Indicators for Component 2 Indicator Baseline Target Actual Value Achieved 1. Changes in crop intensity among target farmers 0 2 2 2. Changes in food production among target farmers 0% 70% – 3. Number of people using dam/wind pump water for 0 365 500 domestic purposes 4. Number of animals drinking dam/wind pump water 0 1,080 1,490 5 Number of vehicles plying the road on a market day 3 6 9 5. Number of days that road is impassable each year 173 90% reduction 15 6. Percentage change in revenues for DAs from market 0% 20% – The project constructed and rehabilitated 195 feeder roads spanning over 1,277 kilometers. The investment in roads improved the rural population’s access to social and economic services and facilitated the transport of agricultural inputs and produce between farms and markets. Most vehicles have better access to rural communities, and on average time spent traveling fell from 15 minutes to 4 minutes per kilometer of road. The project greatly improved rural people’s access to water by completing five dams, two wind pumps, and one dugout. Water from dams and wind pumps is used for farming as well as domestic purposes, enabling year-round farming and helping farmers increase their incomes from agriculture. The project also improved local economies by constructing 39 markets and 14 slaughterhouses. The new markets provide numerous benefits to farmers, including improvements in sheltering and storing goods, and the slaughterhouses provide a hygienic environment for handling and storing meat. Reliable figures are not available, but some revenues reportedly accrue to DAs and ACs from user fees, which are used to manage and maintain the facilities. The impacts of these outputs were measured by the following intermediate outcome indicators and their targets:  Changes in crop intensity among target farmers (target: an average of at least two crop cycles per year). This indicator was fully achieved. An average of two cropping cycles per year was recorded.  Changes in food production among target farmers (target: 70 percent of targeted farmers have an increase in crop production of at least 20 percent). This indicator could not be measured because farming was disrupted by heavy rains and floods in northern Ghana in 2007.  Number of people using dam/wind pump water for domestic purposes (target: number of people). This indicator was fully achieved: An average of 500 people use the dam/wind pump water for domestic purposes.  Number of animals drinking dam/wind pump water (target: number of animals). This indicator was fully achieved: About 1,490 animals use dam/wind pump water each day, compared to none at baseline. 26  Number of vehicles plying the road on a market day (target: the average number of vehicles increases by at least 200 percent). This indicator was fully achieved: An average of 9 vehicles ply each of the 62 of the completed roads that were sampled. Over 283,880 persons benefitted from the improved roads—124,591 men (44 percent of beneficiaries) and 160,320 women (56 percent).  Number of days that road is impassable each year (target: 90 percent reduction in number of days road is impassable). This indicator was fully achieved. At baseline, the number of days roads were impassable was 173. For the sample of 62 completed roads, this figure fell dramatically to 15 days.  Percentage change in revenues for DAs from new markets (target: an improvement of at least 20 percent in revenue from the market). This indicator could not be measured owing to unreliable revenue information from the DAs. Despite these remarkable achievements, some delays in implementation occurred. In particular, the emergency response program for northern Ghana encountered delays form the lengthy procurement process, renewed rains, and the government’s directive to stop contract payments in January 2009. Component 3: Rural Enterprise Development and Learning Centers This component financed skills development and the creation of employment in rural communities. It provided business management training, technical assistance, and credit to owners and operators of rural enterprises. Table 2.3 shows the agreed intermediate performance and output indicator for Component 3. Table 2.3: Key Intermediate Performance and Output Indicator for Component 3 Indicator Baseline Target Actual Value Achieved 1. Percentage of trainees assisted to set up their own enterprises 0% 50% 80% The component used Ghana’s rural banking system to channel loans and credits to beneficiaries. Through the component, 65 of 99 accredited rural and community banks, including one commercial bank, provided loans and grants to learning centers, trainees of learning centers, and microenterprises. The capacity of the 65 rural and community banks to appraise, make credit decisions, and disburse loans to rural enterprises engaged in farm and nonfarm activities was improved. A total of Ȼ 5.1 million in loans and grants was disbursed to 1,210 recipients (learning centers, trainees, and microenterprises). As a result, 40 recipients recorded an average change in the value of their assets of 27 percent and an average change in the value of their turnover of 21 percent. With regard to intermediate outcomes, the project supported 957 of 1,210 trainees to set up their own businesses. The percentage of trainees assisted to set up their own businesses was measured with the following target: At least 50 percent of trainees supported have set up their own businesses. This indicator was fully achieved: 80 percent of trainees supported set up their own businesses, which created about 1,622 jobs. In addition, the project significantly improved learning center facilities. Of the 94 selected learning centers, 78 received loans and grants amounting to Ȼ 1.1 million to upgrade their 27 facilities, and by the end of the project, 95 percent of those funded were using improved facilities. The project provided training in vocational skills to 1,606 under- and unemployed persons, which enabled them to establish their own businesses. Despite achieving its purpose, this component could have benefited from more clearly defined procedures and eligibility criteria for both the credits and matching grants. The lack of clear procedures led to initial delays and unrealistic expectations among program implementers as well as beneficiaries (particularly owners of learning centers and trainees, who expected grants independently of commercial conditions). Other initial setbacks were the lack of experience among Rural Banks and project staff with the type of lending promoted by the project, limited funds for training them, and regular staff changes in Rural Banks. The lack of business skills among clients affected the performance of learning centers, and the project lacked staff to provide support at all project sites. Component 4: Infrastructure for Social and Human Development This component provided water, education, and health services by building water points, rehabilitating dilapidated school buildings, and constructing community health compounds (CHPS) and nutrition centers. The project drilled and built 1,676 boreholes that gave improved access to safe water to 421,315 people in 453 communities. To ensure that the facilities would be maintained, the project trained beneficiary communities in their operation and maintenance. The communities became better organized to deal with technical problems and perform regular maintenance to reduce the average time between breakdowns and repairs of water facilities from 2 days to 1.5 days. For this reason, safe water is available longer and more continuously in beneficiary communities. The 458 basic school structures rehabilitated under this component provided a more congenial environment for over 30,000 students and teachers. Enrolment and learning improved in beneficiary communities: Gross enrolment increased significantly from the baseline of 20 percent to 29 percent at the end of the project. For health service delivery, the project built 271 community health compounds and 5 nutrition centers, which significantly improved the use of medical facilities. The number of people seeking medical attention in the CHPS compounds was measured with the target in Table 2.4. By the end of the project, in 60 operational CHPS compounds, the number of people who sought medical attention had increased by 290.7 percent over the baseline (from 60,728 to 237,282). Table 2.4: Key Intermediate Performance and Output Indicator for Component 4 Indicator Baseline Target Actual Value Achieved 1. Number of people seeking medical attention in the 60,728 60% increase 237,282 health centers (CHPS compounds) Although it surpassed agreed performance indicators, the component suffered some challenges. The good level of engagement among district health teams was not always mirrored by regional and national authorities, causing occasional difficulties in ensuring sufficient inputs and support to guarantee services in a timely fashion. 28 Component 5: Community-Based Natural Resource Management This component financed the rehabilitation of five critically degraded watershed areas and strengthened the capacities of DAs, ACs, and community organizations in environmental governance and integrated management of land and water resources. Table 2.5 shows the agreed intermediate performance and output indicator for Component 5. Table 2.5: Key Intermediate Performance and Output Indicators for Component 5 Indicator Baseline Target Actual Value Achieved 1. Number of communities requesting NRM support 0 20 DAs, 35 ACs 17 DAs, 39 ACs (comprising 223 communities) 2. Percentage of the degraded watershed restored 0% 20 DAs, 35 ACs 17 DAs, 39 ACs within the targeted watershed areas (comprising 223 communities) 3. The percentage of targeted DAs, ACs, and 35 DAs, 50 ACs 17 DAs, 39 ACs communities with NRM plans with NRM plans (comprising 223 communities) By the end of the project, 17 DAs and 39 ACs (representing 223 communities) had requested support in community-based NRM. This result was achieved through sensitization programs on the goals, objectives, and strategies of community-based NRM for all 170 DAs. The communities are now aware of the importance of NRM and its contribution to increased agricultural production and broader socioeconomic development in their areas. Greater awareness led to increased requests for technical support, training, and materials to establish tree nurseries, multipurpose woodlots, medicinal plantations and tree crop orchards, protective fire belts/rides around 11 sacred groves, and community ecotourism reserves. In the five degraded watersheds, over 22 nurseries have been established and rehabilitated, and they have produced 341,000 seedlings. Eight communities have initiated pilot sites. The project financed restoration of nearly 1,611 hectares of critically degraded watershed area— about 55 percent of the 2,930-hectare target area. Watersheds were restored by planting various multipurpose woodlot, medicinal, and fruit tree species from community and school nurseries. Community interest triggered active commitment and increased the survival rate of planted areas from about 35 percent in 2007 to about 60 percent by the end of the project Of the targeted DAs, ACs, and communities, 17 DAs and 39 ACs (representing 223 communities) prepared NRM plans. To lay the groundwork for developing the plans, the project trained 378 personnel of 18 DAs in participatory resource management planning, monitoring, and conflict management. The enhanced capacity of DA staff enabled beneficiary DPCUs to facilitate the preparation of NRM action plans for 152 communities in five pilot watershed areas and 79 communities in 8 community-initiated program areas. These capacity-building activities also enabled DA staff to integrate their plans into the District Medium Term Development Plans. Other significant outcomes and outputs include training in bushfire control and management and training in environmental protection techniques. More than 500 community members learned 29 bushfire control and management techniques and were equipped with various small fire-fighting tools. Communities reduced vegetation loss at pilot sites by creating 4.5 kilometers of fire belts and breaks. A reward scheme was instituted to encourage traditional authorities to champion bushfire control in their areas of jurisdiction. The scheme was piloted at four pilot sites, one each in the northern savannah zone, forest-savannah-transitional zone, forest zone, and coastal savannah zone. The dramatically reduced incidence of bushfires increased survival rates in planted areas from 35 percent in 2007 to just over 55 percent at the end of the project. The project strengthened the ACs’ capacity to undertake environmental protection activities. In collaboration with the EPA, DAs, and Rural Infrastructure Coordinating Unit, the participating ACs in the Upper West Region formed 25 school environmental clubs and 25 community environmental management committees, which are leading vigorous campaigns for sound environmental management. Delays in implementing this component arose because of the less than adequate preparatory work prior to project. The Rural Infrastructure Coordinating Unit did not provide sufficiently adequate leadership in promoting the component, the Regional Management Support Center and Savanna Resource Management Center did not initially understand their roles as sources of technical input and support for the project. Inadequate consideration was given to determining the best way to integrate the component at the DA level. At the operational level, implementation was constrained by limits on the advances to DAs and ACs for NRM activities. Implementation was delayed by issues with the release of funds to the Regional Management Support Center and Savanna Resource Management Center for technical support, a lack of clarity on how the livelihood subcomponent should operate, and the possible disincentive caused by cost-sharing requirements. To overcome these initial difficulties, the project engaged the Bureau of Integrated Rural Development of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology as well as the University for Development Studies to offer training to DAs, ACs, and community members. Short-term individual consultants were engaged to identify constraints and mitigation strategies. These strategies eventually whetted communities’ interest in community-based NRM. 30 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis The CBRDP’s interventions included a mix of demand-driven productive and social investments; capacity building for DAs, ACs, and communities; assistance to rural enterprises and learning centers; physical infrastructure for agriculture and for social and human development; and support for NRM as well as project management. Some activities, particularly capacity building and project management, did not generate direct economic benefits, while the remainder had varying degrees of measurable economic benefits. A cursory look at the CBRDP’s portfolio shows that over 70 percent of investments went to physical (economic and social) infrastructure; close to 7 percent supported rural enterprise development and the learning centers, while the remaining investments went into capacity building, NRM, and project management. The physical infrastructure investments generated over 3,656 subprojects (Table 3.1). Table 3.1: Sectoral Distribution of CBRDP Investments in Physical Infrastructure Project Subproject Percent of Main Subproject Type Number Percent of Component Category Investment Portfolio Infrastructure Water for 1.50 Wind Pump Irrigation 2 0.19 for Agriculture agriculture System Dam 8 0.94 Dugout 2 0.38 Feeder roads 17.71 Feeder Roads 219 17.71 Agricultural 2.58 Market structure 49 2.02 markets Slaughterhouse 16 0.56 Infrastructure Potable water 12.85 Borehole 1,879 12.72 for Social and Hand-dug well 34 0.12 Human Development Social 30.97 Basic school structure 832 23.33 infrastructure Sanitation structure 263 2.39 Nutrition center 6 0.25 Rural health infrastructure 346 5.00 Capacity 10.54 Capacity building 10.54 Building Rural 6.75 Rural enterprises and 6.75 Enterprise learning centers Natural 1.25 NRM 1.25 Resource Management Project 15.85 Project management 15.85 Management Total 100.00 3,656 100.00 The economic and financial analysis covered about 70 percent of CBRDP investments under rural enterprise development, learning centers, and infrastructure for social and human 31 development, particularly schools and rural health infrastructure. Appendix 1 provides details of the models and assumptions. Summary of Results of Cost-Benefit Analysis The economic and financial analysis showed that investments in rural enterprises (the learning centers and new businesses established by learning center trainees and small rural entrepreneurs) are profitable ventures. They accrued substantial benefits to both entrepreneurs and trainees, with a positive NPV and high ERR. Table 3.2 shows results of the cost-benefit analysis of interventions in support of rural enterprises. Table 3.2: Key Financial and Economic Performance Coefficients Coefficient Learning Centers Trainees Entrepreneurs Financial Economic Financial Economic Financial Economic Value Value Value Value Value Value NPV $22,021 $14,476 $7,240 $12,431 $5,989 $10,321 BCR 1.51 1.14 1.95 2.24 2,27 2.04 ERR 42% 159% 65% Source: AGEO-ECO Centre, Financial and Economic Assessment and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), August 29, 2011, MLGRD, Accra Comparison with Appraisal Results Results from the present financial and economic analysis for learning centers, trainees, and rural enterprises were compared with results from the analysis done before the project’s implementation. The actual benefits from the project’s investments in those activities were higher than foreseen (Table 3.3). Table 3.3: Comparison of Appraisal and ICR Results Coefficient Appraisal ICR Variance NPV $3,227, 301 $14,476,000 $11,248,699 ERR 28% 42% 14% Source: AGEO-ECO Centre, Financial and Economic Assessment and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), August 29, 2011, MLGRD, Accra; CBRDP PAD, July 7, 2004 Detailed Economic Analysis of Three Selected Subproject Categories Learning centers Respondents indicated that upgrading small and initially insignificant businesses into learning centers was a positive move that improved the business owner’s managerial skills, increased income, and created employment for other community members. The learning centers were profitable businesses that demonstrated the beneficial effects of project support. Their financial and economic incremental NPVs were positive, the BCR was greater than one, and the ERR was 32 very high (Table 3.4). Converting a business into a learning center created 62 additional working days for hired labor and increased the economic value of a day of family labor to Ȼ 10.21. Table 3.4: Learning Centers: Key Financial and Economic Performance Coefficients Coefficient Value Financial Economic NPV 22,021 14,476 BCR 1.51 1.14 ERR 42% Job created in days per year (at Ȼ 4 per day) 62 Value of one day of family labor (Ȼ) 10.21 4.08 Source: AGEO-ECO Centre, Financial and Economic Assessment and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), August 29, 2011, MLGRD, Accra Schools The economic benefit to communities of improving their schools was demonstrated through a model that accounted for the cost of improvements plus incremental spending for teachers’ salaries and school maintenance. That cost was compared to the benefits that children were expected to obtain from improving and completing their education (Table 3.5). The incremental economic benefits of school improvements expressed by the NPV is Ȼ 172,090, with an ERR of 27 percent. Data for the model were provided by school administrations and included data on the cost of renovations and additionally recruited staff, additional maintenance, and additional teaching materials. It was assumed that the renovations would enable schools to function better for 15 years. On average, 50 more children attended each school after the improvements. Of that number, 26.5 percent will graduate. The model assumes that the economic benefit of graduation will be increased employment, that a graduate will be fully employed for 25 years (starting from the sixteenth year of life), and that the daily revenue of a rural worker is Ȼ 4. Table 3.5: Benefit-cost Evaluation of School Renovations, Based on Information Provided by Administrators of 48 Schools Present Year Costs and Benefits Value 0 1 2 15 21 45 Incremental costs Investment 3,335 3,335 Education material 6,360 424 424 424 Maintenance 2,715 181 181 181 Other material 90 6 6 6 Salaries 62,220 4,348 4,348 4,348 Training of staff 375 25 25 25 Total 75,095 3,335 4,984 4,984 4,984 0 33 Incremental benefits 3,500,000 70,000 140,000 14,000 Net benefits –3,335 –4,984 –4,984 65,016 140,000 14,000 NPV Ȼ 172,090 ERR 27% Source: AGEO-ECO Centre, Financial and Economic Assessment and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), August 29, 2011, MLGRD, Accra Note: Costs represent average values by school; productivity of one graduate per day, Ȼ 2.4 (economic values); productivity of graduate per year (250 days), Ȼ 600; productivity of graduate per 25 years of work, Ȼ 15,000; productivity by 14 graduates during their lives, Ȼ 210,000; productivity of 10 years of graduates during their lives, Ȼ 2,100,000. Rural health infrastructure The economic benefits of rural health centers were estimated based on the average cost of renovations and the incremental costs of personnel and maintenance over 15 years (Table 3.6). The benefits were assumed to be the reduction in sick days among the additional patients visiting the center (after renovation, centers received on average 603 more patients). The analysis identified the reduction in the number of sick days required for the NPV to move from negative to positive values. A patient’s sick days had to be reduced by 2 before the cost of renovations balanced the higher costs of operating a health center. Table 3.6: Benefit-cost Evaluation of Health Center Improvements Present Year Costs and Benefits value 0 1 2 3 6 15 Incremental costs Value of buildings 7,228 9,035 –1,807. Equipment 5,090 2,545 2,545 Supplies 13,620 908 908 908 908 908 Maintenance 12,210 814 814 814 814 814 Administration 120 8 8 8 8 8 Salaries 25,035 1,669 1,669 1,669 1,669 1,669 Training 2,250 150 150 150 150 150 Total 65,553 11,580 3,548 3,548 3,548 6,093 1,741 Benefits Population that received therapy 9,045 603 603 603 603 603 Value of a therapy (days of work) Switching value of health service in days (NPV equals zero): 3.3 days per patient per year Source: AGEO-ECO Centre, Financial and Economic Assessment and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), August 29, 2011, MLGRD, Accra Note: 603 additional patients received per year (9,045 in 15 years); economic productivity of one day of labor, Ȼ 2.4. The cost of improving health services, along with the additional costs of managing the renovated health centers, equal 3.3 days of work per patient per year over 25 years. Under those conditions, and assuming that Ȼ 2.4 is the economic value of the working day, the cost of improving health 34 services is covered. If more days are saved, the improved health service becomes economically beneficial to the entire community. The model does not take into account social and ethical benefits. Appendix 1: Financial and Economic Evaluation Models and Assumptions Data for the evaluations were collected using a series of questionnaires. They covered rural enterprises (including the learning centers and rural enterprises opened by learning center trainees and rural entrepreneurs), renovated rural schools, and renovated health centers. The models and assumptions for each are discussed in the following sections. Rural Enterprises Information concerning financial performances was collected during interviews of approximately five hours with the managers of selected enterprises spread over two to three days. Managers used the records of the enterprise when possible, but when they were incomplete, missing data were completed by the best estimates of entrepreneurs and their collaborators. Data treatment before analysis. Enterprises first received project funding for upgrading or were created in 2007. Data on those businesses span 2006–11 and are extrapolated to the future, based on the assumption that the productive life of a given enterprise is 15 years. If the enterprise existed before its improvements were funded by the project, data for the year prior to the improvements were used as the baseline. The information provided by the entrepreneurs was too cursory to be used for a counterfactual analysis of what would have occurred in the absence of the project over the same period. Correction for inflation. Recorded cedi values were converted into fixed-term values, using 2010 as Year 1. Inflation coefficients and conversion coefficients for the evaluation are included in Appendix Table 1. Prices were reported by the managers and introduced into an enterprise balance sheet by year covering the year prior to investment, the year the investment was made, and 15 years of productive life of the enterprise. Appendix Table 1: Correction for Inflation Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Inflation 0.109 0.107 0.165 0.192 0 Correction for inflation 2.05 1.61 1.4 1.17 1 1 Source: World Bank data Incremental values. The values prior to the project were subtracted from the corresponding lines of the balance sheet. The financial and economic coefficients thus reflect only the incremental values of the enterprise arising from project support. Conversion of financial into economic values. The next step in the economic analysis was to remove the money flows (loans, repayments, and taxes). The financial conversion coefficient (CFf) for the shadow exchange rate was calculated using averages for 2006–09 from the World Bank database for Ghana according to the formula CF = (total value of imports plus total value of import duties) divided by total value of imports. The corresponding values were Ȼ 11,437 million for average import values and Ȼ 852 million for average import duties and taxes. The CFf was 1.07. 35 The daily value of rural labor was estimated from the collected information as Ȼ 4 per day on average, including food. Rural unemployment was 40 percent, based on information estimated jointly with the project zonal coordinators, rural development offices, and other data collection activities for this analysis. Given the almost unitary value of the conversion coefficient and lack of reliable information to calculate conversion coefficients for other variables (such as transport), the only data conversion from financial to economic values was a reduction of the labor value by 40 percent, from Ȼ 4 per day to Ȼ 2.4 per day. Calculation of project performance coefficients. The financial analyses used discount rates used by the Rural Banks for projects supported by the CBRDP: 23 percent for the learning centers, 22 percent for the trainees, and 20 percent for entrepreneurs. For the economic analysis, the discount rate was the same as in the PAD: 12 percent. Project performance was calculated using several coefficients: NPV (to illustrate the relative financial and economic importance of the production added as a result of the project investment and compare it among projects); internal rate of return (IRR) and ERR (to indicate the financial or economic viability of the enterprises); and benefit cost ratio (BCR), representing the discounted value of benefits divided by the discounted value of costs. A BCR higher than one indicates that an enterprise is profitable. Data in the report represent arithmetic averages for each category of enterprise examined. NPVs were calculated with the corresponding standard errors. Rural enterprises invest little. They used the loans obtained under the project mostly for financing hired labor and other inputs, so IRR coefficients were not appropriated for the analysis, and ERR values were too high. The BCR gives more balanced information. School Facilities Rehabilitation: Costs and Benefits The incremental costs of rehabilitating rural schools were calculated as the cost of renovation plus additional spending on new personnel. The model for calculating incremental benefits had the following parameters: It spans more than 45 years; Year 1 corresponds to the first year of school renovation; Year 2 corresponds to the first year of operation of the renovated school; and the renovation will be useful for 15 years (until Year 16 of the model). The effects of the renovation over time are examined for children entering the first year of study in the first year after the renovation (Year 2 of the model). Those children will graduate at the end of their sixth year of school at age 12, in Year 8 of the model. At 16 years, Year 12 of the model, these children will become professionally active and remain so until they are 40 (Year 36 of the model). The next generation of children will enroll in the second year after the renovation (Year 3 of the model) and turn 40 in Year 37 of the model. The last generation to use the school for six full years before the next renovation will enroll at the beginning of the 10th year after the renovation (Year 11 of the model) and graduate the last year that the renovated school is run (Year 16 of the model). The last generation of children will enter productive life in Year 20 of the model and end their careers in Year 44. The incremental number of graduates (14 students) was calculated as follows. Children enter primary school when they are six, and primary school lasts six years. Before the schools were renovated under the project, they enrolled 206 children, of whom 58 (26.5) percent completed the entire six years of primary education and received diplomas. After the schools were renovated, enrolments increased on average by 54 students, from 206 to 260. The model assumes that the percentage of students that will complete their primary education will not change, so the number of additional students who will complete their primary education is 54*.265 = 14. 36 The total productive years of primary school graduates is equal to 5,500 person days. A year has 250 working days, and one day’s wage for a rural worker is Ȼ 4 (as noted, Ȼ 2.4 in economic value). Thus total productivity was calculated as follows: productivity of one graduate per day (Ȼ 2.4); productivity of one graduate per year (250 days) (Ȼ 600); productivity of graduate over 25 years of work (Ȼ 15,000); productivity of 14 graduates during their professional lives (Ȼ 210,000); and productivity of 10 years of graduates during their professional lives (Ȼ 2,100,000). 37 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Name Title Unit Specialty Lending (from Task Team in PAD Data Sheet) C. Annor-Frempong Sr. Agriculture Specialist AFTS4 Task Team Leader Sylvester K. Awanyo Sr. Procurement Specialist AFTQP F. Yankey Financial Management Specialist AFTQF V. Srivastava Sr. Public Sector Mgmt. Specialist S. Manikowski Economist Consultant S. Bekure Agricultural Economist Consultant Rose Abena Ampadu Team Assistant AFCW1 J. Ellong Language Program Assistant AFTS4 N. Kotschoubey Environmental Specialist Consultant E. Dwumfour Natural Resource Mgmt. Specialist AFTS4 Serigne Omar Fye Sr. Environment Specialist AFTS1 P. Mensah Agricultural Economist AFTS4 K. Hudes Sr. Legal Counsel LEGAF D. Savage Sr. Municipal Devt. Specialist EWDSA T. J. Ramin Sr. Social Devt. Specialist RVP R. Selvaratnam Sr. Program Assistant AFTS4 K.B. Agyen Sr. Operations Officer AFTPS E. Awittor Operations Officer - Health AFTH2 Maria Manuela Faria Temporal EXTCD Emanuele Santi Communications Associate EXTCD Supervision (from Task Team Members in all archived ISRs) C. Annor-Frempong Sr. Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Task Team Leader Sean Bradley Sr. Social Development Specialist AFTCS Malathi S. Jayawickrama Operations Officer AFTAR Beatrix Allah-Mensah Social Development Specialist AFTCS Rajiv Sondhi Sr. Finance Officer LOAF Peter Kristensen Sector Leader AFTEN Anthony Mensah-Bonsu Consultant AFTPC Manush A. Hristov Sr. Counsel LEGAF 38 William F. Steel Consultant ACCWB Meseret Kebebe Program Assistant AFTAR Rose Abena Ampadu Program Assistant AFCW1 Edward Dwumfour Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTEN Ross Worthington Sr. Public Sector Specialist AFTPR Samuel Bruce-Smith Consultant AFTFM Baba Imoro Abdulai Procurement Specialist AFTPC Robert Wallace DeGraft Johnson Financial Mgmt. Specialist AFTFM Emmanuel Y. Nikiema Sr. Natural Resource Mgmt Specialist AFTEN Charles K. Boakye Consultant DC Gayatri Acharya Sr. Economist SASDA Smile Kwawukume Sr. Public Sector Specialist AFTPR Eunice Yaa Brimfa Ackweh Water and Sanitation Specialist AFTED Jesper Steffesen Consultant DC Andrew Osei Asibey Sr. M&E Specialist AFTDE K. Gyasi Agricultural Economist AFTAR Victoria A. Bruce-Goga Program Assistant AFCW1 Adu-Gyamfi Abunyewa Procurement Specialist AFTPC (b) Staff Time and Cost (from SAP) (All fields are pre-populated by the system) Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) No. of Staff Weeks US$ 000s (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY04 26.34 128,584.70 FY05 5.1 21,181.21 TOTAL: 31.44 149,765.91 Supervision/ICR FY05 26.18 58,518.70 FY06 48.88 120,432.17 FY07 40.36 133,409.68 FY08 44.60 177,055.95 FY09 24.28 106,880.99 FY10 14.35 63,975.88 FY11 6.18 35,825.06 FY12 4.63 46,742.51 TOTAL 209.46 742,840.94 39 Annex 5. Beneficiary Assessment Survey As part of project evaluation, a survey was conducted to ascertain the level of satisfaction of the project’s beneficiaries. Overall, beneficiaries are conversant and very satisfied with the support they received from the project. The survey findings are grouped as follows: improvements in the capacity of decentralized institutions and direct benefits to the project’s beneficiaries. Improvement in the Capacity of Decentralized Institutions In support of the government’s decentralization policy, the project emphasized building capacity in subnational institutions. The project’s improvements in capacity extended from the national to the community level, however, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Support to national institutions. The project supported key national institutions directly involved in implementing the decentralization program, including MLGRD, NDPC, and the National Procurement Authority. The project provided technical support to strengthen the capacity of targeted departments and units in these institutions. Staff were trained in the development of manuals and other relevant materials. Support to Regional Planning Coordinating Units. The project trained RPCU staff in procurement, contract management, monitoring, and evaluation for district projects. The majority of RPCU staff confirmed that the training enhanced their understanding of tendering and contract management procedures and has enabled them to respond quickly to DAs’ requests for help in preparing tender documents. The quality of procurement documents (including public tenders) has greatly improved. Support to the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies. Technical and financial support to the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies included training in procurement and financial management for District Planning Officers. Their deeper understanding of procurement and financial management, combined with significantly improved knowledge of procurement management among DCPU staff, strengthened working relations between DPCUs and the RPCUs, which work together to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of procurement processes and activities for the benefit of the local communities. The project also built DPCUs’ capacity to deliver services effectively and efficiently to communities by training them in project management, including community empowerment, community socialization, rural poverty reduction, effective local governance, and social accountability. Support to the Area Councils in project identification and implementation. The project increased ACs’ involvement in providing physical infrastructure at the community level. The project provided training to subdistrict institutions in participatory community project identification, community mobilization, planning, implementation, and management. The project also trained the ACs in RRI, which enhanced their understanding of the steps needed to achieve results in subprojects in 100 days. Such interventions helped ACs to provide effective oversight for participatory decision making, planning, and project implementation in their areas of jurisdiction. 40 Support to community governance structures. The project provided targeted capacity building interventions to community structures, including Unit Committees, School Management Committees, and Community Water and Sanitation Committees. Direct Benefits to Project Beneficiaries The project increased communities’ access to physical and social infrastructure by building and rehabilitating feeder roads and providing infrastructure for education, health, safe water, and improved sanitation. These interventions improved the living standards of the inhabitants of the communities as discussed next. Access to markets and social services. The rehabilitation and construction of feeder roads improved the marketing of goods and access to key social services. Traders readily get transport to market centers. Health services have improved as sick people and expectant mothers can be sent to hospitals in an emergency. Health professionals visit communities regularly for important outreach programs such as immunization and health education campaigns. Access to better education facilities. The improvement in school infrastructure in the form of spacious classrooms created an enabling environment for students and teachers. Enrolment and attendance increased in the majority of schools. Schools formerly running a single stream are now running a double stream. Academic performance improved in some schools, where children scored better on their basic certificate examination (BECE). Access to better health facilities. The provision of health infrastructure (CHPS compounds) significantly improved health service delivery. Patients now have easy access to health services, and supervised delivery by qualified health professionals has improved. The health personnel now have better living places. Access to better water and sanitation facilities. The provision of more boreholes increased access to potable water and community toilet facilities. As a result, diseases related to contaminated water and poor sanitation have declined substantially. 41 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results 42 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower’s ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The overall goal of the CBRDP was to reduce poverty and enhance the quality of life of beneficiary rural communities. The objective was to strengthen rural communities’ capacity to enhance their quality of life by improving their productive assets, rural infrastructure, and access to key support services from private and public sources. The project was declared effective on November 2, 2004 and financed by two development partners (the World Bank and AFD) with an initial IDA credit component of US$ 60 million complemented by an additional US$ 22 million. At the end of the project (June 30, 2011), the total contributions of the development partners equaled US$ 94 million, alongside the Government of Ghana’s contribution of US$ 8.9 million. Project resources were allocated to six components, as discussed in the sections that follow. Component 1: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building This component, at a total cost of US$ 8.52 million (US$7.6 of the IDA contribution), strengthened the capacity of local government institutions to further the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy, namely good governance and human resource development The component financed training for the staff members of 170 DAs in participatory planning, procurement, contract drafting, financial management, and participatory M&E and training for 29 percent of the staff of Ghana’s ACs in participatory planning, procurement, financial management, and participatory M&E. Supplementary training in RRI, the use of Community Accountability Fora, and Community Score Cards was meant to further improve the scope for decentralized administrative units to implement project components. The administration was effective in mobilizing rural communities to execute their own development projects. Frequent rotations of administrative personnel, frequent lack of continuity in follow-up of documentation, and inadequate filing systems were some obstacles to timely and successful implementation of community projects. Component 2: Infrastructure for Agricultural Development This component, which cost US$ 21.9 million (US$ 17.3 million of the IDA contribution), provided facilities and resources to enhance farm and nonfarm activities in order to increase beneficiaries’ incomes. It improved 1,277 kilometers of feeder roads; impact studies have shown that the road improvement brought numerous advantages to rural communities, as predicted in the PAD. Project funds were also used to construct 65 village markets or slaughterhouses, creating more hygienic facilities for their users, increasing the influx of clients and merchants, and increasing the volume of traded merchandise. Component 3: Rural Enterprise Development and Learning Centers This component, at a total cost of US$ 8.37 million (US$ 6.5 million of the IDA contribution) aimed to develop skills and create employment in rural communities. It did so by assisting rural enterprises to manage their operations properly and provide ready markets for agricultural produce to be processed for added value and increased shelf life. 43 The project created 49 rural learning centers, which trained 1,210 prospective rural entrepreneurs. Most of the trainees have created or are creating their own enterprises. Additionally, project funds provided loans to 731 independent rural enterprises that were willing to increase their production and presented viable business plans for doing so. The grants and loans were made available through an Apex Rural Bank and 99 Community Banks. The project’s support to enterprises and learning centers was its most outstanding success. The businesses it supported were generally financially and economically viable, increasing family revenues and creating new jobs. The learning centers proved to be a prominent initiative that trained new entrepreneurs and spontaneously created networks and circles of professionals that are active and helpful to their members. The project promoted economic growth in rural communities and improved the decentralized authorities’ capacity to combat rural poverty. Component 4: Infrastructure for Social and Human Development The objective of this component, which had a total cost US$ 23.34 million (US$ 18.5 million of the IDA contribution), was to provide a supportive environment for learning and health by rehabilitating school facilities, constructing health compounds and nutrition centers, and providing communities with sources of safe water. Communities used funds from this component to rehabilitate 832 basic schools, build 246 community health centers, and drill 1,672 successful boreholes. Financing for this infrastructure was associated with training for users in maintaining and managing the facilities; the training was specific to the type of infrastructure involved). The investigation of the economic benefits and impact of the investments in new or renovated schools and health centers indicates that the investments provided the population with the expected benefits (more satisfactory services) and delivered tangible economic benefits to the country. The communities involved are satisfied and frequently proud of the investments, which improved their personal lives and increased the communities’ prestige. The maintenance and financing of this infrastructure still require attention from the government, however. The communities have limited resources and in most cases rely at least partly on government support. Component 5: Community-Based Natural Resource Management The objective of this component, which cost US$ 4.59 million (US$ 3.9 million of the IDA contribution), was to strengthen the capacities of environmental and sanitation subcommittees, ACs, and community organizations to enhance environmental governance and integrated management of land and water resources. The component financed sensitization of DA personnel, AC staff, and community members in preparing NRM action plans (18 DAs, 152 communities), establishing tree nurseries, producing seedlings (443,000 produced), and planting woodlots (568 hectares). Moreover, 504 communities were trained in bushfire control. Since NRM involves long-term actions that span several seasons, the effects of this component’s activities are not yet fully appreciated. The government’s future efforts will go towards selecting methods and incentives that will strengthen previous impacts of NRM. 44 Component 6: Project Management This component aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of the project, technical assistance, and M&E. The total cost was US$ 7.3 million (US$ 6.2 million of the IDA contribution). Under this component, the project implemented its programmed activities successfully and in a timely way. The project, as well as its overall management, monitoring, and evaluation, received an award in May 2011 for being the World Bank’s best project in Africa. In general, the project successfully achieved its objectives and contributed considerably to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and reducing poverty in Ghana. The project’s most remarkable result is the successful introduction and reinforcement of the government’s decentralization policy, which massively mobilized communities to implement their own development plans. Decentralized administrations are now able to partner with their communities in the fight against poverty. 45 Annex 8. Comments from Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders The ICR has adequately reviewed all the key aspects of the project. You have reviewed the performance relating to the PDOs and Outcome Indicators. We have noted that generally, you have rated the project ―Satisfactory‖. This is not contestable given that all the components, except initial concerns with NRM, actually performed to exceed initial projections. We have also noted that in the ICR Post-completion Operation/Next Phase, who have indicated that no follow up on CBRDP operations have been planned although you have received a letter from GoG expressing interest for a ―next phase‖ of the project. From our side, we are also required to perform an expost evaluation. Data from the ICR, the beneficiary assessment and others would provide substantial input which might not require us to undertake a full expost evaluation but a bridging exercise to gather supplementary data to add to the present findings. In this respect, it appears the sub-component ―Support to Decentralisation‖ under the Institutional Strengthening Component will require a deeper review than has been covered under the ICR. This sub-component, as you will recall, was wholly funded under the AFD component. We agree with the findings especially proving as untrue, the assertion that rural communities do not have the capacity to identify, prepare and implement development projects. We also agree with the recommendation to include NRM departments in the MMDAs. The recent creation of departments under the MMDAs only involves the Department of Parks and Gardens. Parks and Gardens do not have the mandate to cover the wider NRM issues. Augustine TIA, Project Officer, AFD, Accra. 46 Annex 9. Supporting Documents 1. Aide-Memoires of Supervision Missions from 2004 to 2011 2. Community-Based Rural Development Project Semi-Annual Report, January–June 2010 3. Consultation Mission, Financial and Economic Assessment, and Beneficiary Assessment of the Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP), MLGRD, August 29, 2011 4. Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of Ghana, May 31, 2007 5. Decentralization Policy Framework: Accelerating Decentralization and Local Governance for National Development, MLGRD, 2010 6. Development Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and International Development Association, August 3, 2004 7. Financing Agreement, Amendment and Restating the Development Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and International Development Association, July 11, 2008 8. Government Contribution to ICR, September 2011 9. Report of Beneficiary Assessment Survey, May 2011 10. Implementation Status and Results Report, August 2, 2011 11. Project Appraisal Document on Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 40.9 million (US$ 60.0 million) to the Government of Ghana for Community-Based Rural Development Project, July 7, 2004 12. Project Paper on Proposed Additional Financing in the Amount of SDR 13.5 million (US$ 22 million) for the Republic of Ghana, June 2, 2008 47 IBRD 33411 2° W 0° 2° E To Tenkodogo B U R K I NA FAS O Hamale Navrongo To Bobo- UPPER EAST WalewaleTumu Diolasso Bolgatanga GHANA Nakpanduri UPPER WEST Walewale To Dapaong Ko lpa Black Vo wn Wa 10° N 10° N Gushiegu lta e Volta h it To W Djougou N O R T H E R N Yendi To Tamale Ferkéssédougou Sawla BENIN Fufulsu Bole To a ak D Djougou Oti C ÔT E Nakpayili T O GO D ' IV O IRE a ol t B l a ck V Salaga To Bouna Makongo Yeji Kintampo Dambai 8° N 8° N Jema V O LTA B R O N G -A H A F O Atebubu Kwadwokurom Tain ru Techiman P Berekum To Sokodé Sunyani Mount Afadjato (880 m) K w go Ranges Af r a a h m Lake Bi a To Agboville u Volta Kpandu To P l Abomey a t Agogo Goaso e a u Kumasi Ho a p i m - To Bibiani EASTERN Krokosue ASHANTI Anu To Porto- im m Novo Obuasi Bi r Diaso Tano Kade Vol ta kw Koforidua Aflao 6° N Oda A 6° N W E S T E R N Dunkwa Enchi GREATER 2° E To Abidjan ACCRA Tema Twifo Praso Prestea CENTRAL ACCRA GH A N A P ra Tarkwa Winneba a SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS obr Ank Cape Coast REGION CAPITALS Newtown NATIONAL CAPITAL This map was produced by Sekondi Axim the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, Takoradi Gulf of G uinea RIVERS colors, denominations and any other information shown MAIN ROADS on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank 0 20 40 60 80 Kilometers RAILROADS Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, REGION BOUNDARIES or any endorsement or 0 20 40 60 Miles acceptance of such boundaries. 2° W 0° INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES SEPTEMBER 2004