Document of The World Bank . Report No: ICR1657 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-73290) ONA LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 35 MILLION TO THE STATE OF MINAS GERAIS FORA RURAL POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT January 20,2011· Sustainable Development Department Brazil Country Management Unit Latin America and Caribbean Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective July 31, 2010) Currency Unit = R$l.OO = US$ 0.5693 US$ 1.00 = R$ 1.7564 FISCAL YEAR January 1 ~ December 31 ABBREVIA nONS AND ACRONYMS BB Bank of Brazil BN Bank of the Northeast CA Community Association CAS World Bank Country Assistance Strategy COD Community-Driven Development CMDRS Conselho Municipal de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentavel! Sustainable Rural Development Municipal Council EMATER-MG Minas Gerais State Company for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension FUMAC Municipal Community Scheme GOB Federal Government of Brazil HDI UN Human Development Index IBGE Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics IDENE Instituto de Desenvolvimento do Norte e Nordeste de Minas Gerais/ Minas Gerais Northern and Northeastern Development Institute IEF Instituto Estadual da Floresta !State Forestry Institute MC Municipal Council MIS Management Information System NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRDPIPAPP Northeast Rural Development Program PAC State Community Scheme PRONAF Brazilian Federal Program to Support Family Agriculture R-NRDP Reformulated Northeast Rural Development Program RPAP Rural Poverty Alleviation Program RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Program SEBRAE Brazilian Agency for Micro and Small Enterprise Assistance SEDVAN Secretaria de Estado Extraordinario para 0 Desenvolvimento dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri e Norte de Minas Gerais! Special State Secretariat for Development of the Jequitinhonha/Mucuri Valleys and Northern Minas Gerais SEPLAG-MG Secretaria de Estado de Planejamento e Gestiio/ Minas Gerais State Secretariat of Planning and Management SP Subproject STU State Technical Unit Vice President Pamela Cox Country Director Makhtar Diop " ! Sector Manager Ethel Sennhauser Project Team Leader Edward Bresnyan ICR Team Leader Edward Bresnyan ii BRAZIL: Rural Poverty Reduction Project - Minas Gerais CONTENTS A. Basic Information ..................................................................................................... .iv B. Key pates ................................................................... ~ ............................................... iv C. Ratings Sununary ....................................................................................................... iv D. Sector and Theme Codes ............................................................................................ v E. Bank. Staff ..................... " ............ " ......................................................................................... v F. Results Framework Analysis .......... " .......................................................................... vi O. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs .................................................................... xi H. Restructuring (if any) ................................................................................................. xi L Disbursement Profile ................................................................................................ xii 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................ 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ............................................ 5 3. Assessment of Outcomes ......................................................................................... 13 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ........ ;............................................. 21 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................... 21 6. Lessons Learned (beyond those noted on Productive SPs in Box 2 above) ........... 23 7. Comments on Issues Raised by the Borrower ........................................................ 24 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................... ;............................................... 25 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ............................................. :................... ,............ ;... 26 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis .................................................................. 32 Annex 4. Bank. Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............. 35 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ............................................................................ 37 Annex 6. Summary of Borrower's ICR and Comments on Draft ICR .......................... 39 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents ....................................................................... 46 MAP ........... ""':;,'.<1.;.9 ...... "•• , ......................................................... .-••• "., ...................................... 47 iii IRural Poverty !Country: IBrazil IProject Name: !Reduction Project - !Minas Gerais ~!~j~~~I._!?=._ !~g~_~9~2256..!~~~~~~.~!(~)~ .!!.~~:?~~?O !I.~.R Date: .:!~~?'Q!.~9}! .!!~~.'!yp.~: ........... !~~r~I.c;R.... . . :State of Minas !Lending Instrument: !SIL IBorrower: . r-.. . . . -.-----. --.----------~.-._t_--.-~-~~~ . . . . .-.. . . . . . . IGerais . _-_. . . . . . . . . . __. _._.__. . .. . . "'-.---" -~--.-~ --.-.~ ~.-~-- ....._......r-~-- IOriginal Total IUSD 35 M !Disbursed Amount: USD 35 M !Commitment: ___~ 1~~y!. ~.~----..._ - - - - - Satisfactory ............._........... . ...... .................................................--................................................................_...._-..................-........... ....-.........................--........................................................................................................ -~ 1~~~~~~~~.~~~g~~!:!!~~~.~~~.!!~~~~~!!'.~!!~.~~~~!?oy~ ••••••••• 'Water !~lJ11icip~l~~y~~~?~~~.~~~!it:I!~~~~'!~I~~~~ . . . . .. 33% 33% i Participation and civic engagement 17% 17% markets 17% 33% : Rural services and infrastructure 33% 17% Positions At IeR At Approval Vice President: Pamela Cox Pamela Cox : Country Director: Makhtar Diop (Acting) Letitia A. Obeng , Sect~! Mat?-_~~~~~~.__~_ _Eth~!_~.~nnh~us~~~____,~___ John Redwood ~~!~j~~!!~~~~~~!: . . . .. . . §~~~~~~1.!~~!:l!~~~ya.? . . . . Luis 0. Coirolo L!~~._!~~. .~~~~~r:,.,.,,_...._'".,~~~.~~..'!!~!g~.!:l!~~~2'~ . . . . . _." . , ___._,. , .... _._,._.''"~ . . . . .. ; ICR Author: Tulio Barbosa v F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project aimed to assist the State of Minas Gerais to reduce high levels of rural poverty by: (a) improving well-being and incomes of the rural poor through better access to basic socio-economic infrastructure and' services and support for productive activities, using proven community-driven development (CDD) techniques; (b) increasing the social capital of rural communities to organize collectively to meet own needs; (c) enhancing local governance by greater citizen participation and transparency in decision-making, through creation and strengthening of Community Associations and Municipal Councils; and (d) fostering closer integration of development policies. programs and projects at the local level, by assisting Municipal Councils to extend their role in seeking funding, priority- setting and decision-making over resource allocation, and by assisting government to measure the efficiency and impact of its programs to reduce rural poverty in rural space. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The PD~ was not revised. Ja,l.~!?,Q.~~.~~~!~!,(sl~ .. _.~.~._.. .' ._~.......w...,_ ...................... " .. ........... . ....... .. . .Original Target 'Formally Actual Vabu: Values (from Revised Achieved at Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years 'Indicator 1: No. of families benefited from subproject(SP) investments. Value quantitative or Zero 93,000 93,900 Date achieved 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 07/31/2010 :Comments Achieved. Although the number of financed SPs was lower than 'original target (1,730 VS. 1,860), the number of beneficiary families was (inc!. % fully attained; The number of families per SP was greater than originally 'achievement) . :~l1yi~l;lg~~l;ltl;lpp!l;lisl;ll~ . .Indicator 2: Incr~I;l~~i11~~ll~~i11gl;lJ:1~.i11c()Irl~s()rJ>!()ject beneficiaries. 'Value Increased ;quantitative or Zero No target wellbeing 91lIilit.l;lt~y~) Date achieved 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 07/31/2010 Comments Achieved. Improved quality of life was cited by 70% of beneficiaries. :Income generation, employment opportunities, improved healthlhygiene [(inc!. % were cited by 57%, 43% and 70%, respectively. 76% of the beneficiaries achievement) l1()~~~I;l~~~~~!l?p()!I;l~l~~I;l!~!s.llpply.~. . . . [Indicator 3: !Increase in social welfare of rural communities. VI Value Social welfare- iquantitative or :benefits Zero No target !Q~~~~~~y..~) isubstantial ... •••••• ••• · , · ... " •• H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ •••••••••••••••••• nate achieved 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y ••• ••• •••••• 07/3112010 ····.H................._.........................." ., ....................".,""'........".".................. "., .." ..................._..... ........ .......................... .. . .... .............." ......... " ....•..•............ :Comments Achieved. > 70% of families linked increased community social welfare to :the financed SPs. Focus groups for 16 SPs cited: (i) improved working i{incl. % !aChievement) Iconditions; (ii) shorter distances and time saving for women; (iii) income ...........................lg~J:t.~~!i.~J:t. . ~.pp~~!!~~.~ ..............................._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . !Indi~~!f1.!. . ~. . :.. __ !.!J:t.~!~~~. ~.~~~.i.~..~.~p!~! . ~~~~.J~.~D.~f..~~~!p~~~~~~!~ . . (M.~s)~ . . . . . :SCI not measured; Value strong qualitative quantitative or No target 'evidence for social !Qualitative) ;capital growth . . . ~~J:t.g~g~. !Date achieved ••••• ~., 09/07/2005 . ...•..•.•"." , .... "... ........................ 09/07/2005 •........................-.......... , .......................... 07/3112010~........... •............................ , •.• .•.•..• c" ............... ............... ~ ~ ~.......... • .••• m ........ .. IComments Achieved. The majority of CAs perceive the importance of the CMDRSs lin finding collective solutions to their problems. The restructured CMDRSs !(inc!. % \became participatory, deliberative vehicles for the democratic and . :achievement) .............. _.. _........_. ~P~~~!.~P~~. ~_(p~p..~.~~.P~!!~~~~.~......... ... __ . . _................. . ·No. ofMes participating in priority-setting and decision-making on Indicator 5: ,resource allocation of Project and non-Project-funded development . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . " •••• m ••• iactivities. '.M......................., ,••• _..,.. Value quantitative or Zero No target 188 (100%) 19~~!~!i.Y.~).................... ......................... ............. ...................... iDaie achieved .,,~~ •• , ...... .................... __ .. ~ ~ .... _ 09/07/2005 .•.••• .• _ _ _ _ ..... _ ...... _ ~ ............... ~.~ 09/07/2005 _ _ _ ." .. _ _ , ........_ ..... ~ •• _~ 07/31/2010 __ .,...~ •• .. ~ ~_O •.•• N ............ _ ......"' .• _ ..• ~vm.'¥ __ ~.,.¥_~.'N_· •• ··.~~_~ ... Achieved. The CMDRSs are a single municipal decision-making body Comments !(adjusted to satisfy requirements of the Project in terms of beneficiary !(incl. % representation), dealing with and deciding on demands from small farmers lachievement) , land rural communities. -...... ................. .............................-.............. ................ ............. ...................................... ........... . ....................................................................................................................................... ..................... ...................... ~ " ~ , . " " iIndicator 6: IIncrease in total Project and non-Project financing allocated through the !MCs. Luz para Todos used the MCs to 'finance 106,485 :rural connections, while PRONAF Value :financed 23,417 quantitative or Zero No target iinvestment Qualitative) !Contracts, amounting to US$ 618,400 and US$143,300 ......................................"... .. ..... ........ ........ ", ................................... .......................... .. ......... " ~........... . " ......................................................... ~ -" ... . . . .. . . . . . .'r~~p~~t.t\l~ly....... Date achieved 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 07/3112010 vn Achieved. IDENE leveraged the MCs to link SPs to others (e.g., electricity, Comments investment capital) provided by Luz para Todos and PRONAF, allowing :(incl. % significant, but unmeasured, savings of Bank loan resources and additional achievement) lfinanced SPs. Indicator 7 :~~:~f~c.>~~~!~~~~~~~!~~f1"c.>~!~e P!c.>~!~: Value Graduation in quantitative or Zero No target terms of Qualitatiy~) Date achieved 09/0712005 09/07/2005 Comments Achieved. Only 3% of the CAs with productive subprojects had more than (incl. % ,one SP financed. Therefore, the concept of graduation of these CAs was achievement)t()bserved for the remai!l~l1~~?~' Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) . Original Target Formally Actual Value . Values (from Revised Achieveda.t Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or .. ...."..~~~~~~~~~) Values ,.I~!g~~X~a ..s Indi~ator' 1 : . 'J:'.Tll~~~!~~!ypec.>f~I>sitIlpl~tIl~l1t~~~ Value (quantitative Zero 1,860 1,730 achieved.. 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 07/31/2010 Comments Achieved. Financed SPs was93% oftarget. The number of oerlenClaJry % families was fully achieved. Average SP cost at appraisal was US$20,552 and cost per beneficiary family, US$411; at closing, these averages were achievement) Y~~,~,~,!,~?~~~,Y~~~~~~, "!~~P~'?!~Y~~Y: ............. ",.. . ., "", .. . huiicator 2: Number()r~J>~()p~!~t~l1glll1~tIl~il1t~il1~~.l~d~X~~s~ft~r ~()tIlpletion. Value Strong indications (quantitative Zero No target of satisfactory or Qualitative) . O&M achieved 09/07/2005 0910712005 07/3112010 'Comments Achieved. 98% of community leaders interviewed confirmed that SPs met 'community demands. 83% agreed that works were implemented as % :expected. 87% said that equipment was procured per the Op. Man.; 83% achievement) confirmed that its effectiv~ll~~~Y~~l1e~ciaries. Indi~ator 3: Cost-effe~tiY~Il!()j.~.~.~. . ~~.~~.~. .P!c.>Il1c.>t~~. . ~()~t. . ~ff-,.,,,(1 (September 2010). Ii The Borrower noted its satisfaction in fully disbursing the USD having met (and in some cases, surpassed) the PD~ and intermediate T,~ .. ,Y<'1"", finance on the part of the State remained consistent, while the approach to administration (i.e., Management Shock) proved a factor the Project's success. • The Borrower concurs with the overall rating Satisfactory, noting of the relevance of the project design, evidence of quality subprojects and the strong benefits targeting that was both planned ex ante achieved at project dosing. @ Local participation of organized civil society, coupled with the "i'?O~,,"J;:,''''H.,",U' of municipal government and the restructuring of the C~!fDRSs to these outcomes. • Finally, the Borrower reminds the Bank of: (i) the importance of IDENE advancing poverty reduction in Northern Minas Gerais; and the partnership in promoting inclusive and participatory rural development Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (~). . ~~()j.~~!.(:()~t . !?y. (:.().~p()~.~~!. . (i,~ . .!T.~.~. . Mi~Ii,()~. . ~qi.l~Y.Il.I~~t) . . . . . . AduallLatest · t Appraisal Estimate: Estl'm.·"'te ·(·t·JS·.D Percentage of .C omponen S (USn millions) «. Appraisal .g~~ll!1it}l~ll~pr~j~~t~ ,~, '" .~-" '~"~""'~"'''''''''''-~ 41.15 47.90 116% Institutional Devel~pI11~nt 3.10 2.45 79% Administration, Supervision, 1.20 0.51 43% M&E Total Baseline Cost 45.45 50.86 112% ........ ~~y~~~~g~nt~~~~I1~i~~ 0.60 0.00 Price ContiIlg~l?:cies 0.40 0.00 Total Project Costs 46.45 50.86 109% Front-end fee IBRD 0.35 0.09 !()t~l~iJlilJl~iJlg~~q1:li~~~ 46.80 50.95 * Including counterpart provided by beneficiaries Appraisal Actual Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source (USn . (USD Appraisal . . ..----. . ................ ~,~_..___..___.____._~_~i.!!i,()~~)._i!!i!!~()~~t " __ ~___ . _ ~_. . . .. Borrower 11.80 15.95* 135% International Bank for 35.00 35.00 100% Reconstruction and Development * Including counterpart provided by beneficiaries 25 Annex 2. Outputs by Component 2.1 The following discusses physical outputs by each project component: 2.2 Component 1 - Community Subprojects: This component was expected to finance 1, 860 matching grants to rural CAs for socio-economic infrastructure and productive SP:; to US$50,OOO each) identified by these groups as priority investments that would improve community well-being for some 93,000 families. Community SPs were identifIed, executed, operated and maintained by beneficiary communities, acting through their legally-constituted CAs. After SP approval by the STU, project funds are disbursed directly to the manage SP implementation, operation and maintenance. SPs were expected to be ....n'-'-..',,'"''"' three subprograms - PAC (State Community Schemes), FUMAC (Municipal Community Schemes) and FUMAC-P (Pilot Municipal Community Funds) - of varying degrees of decentralization and autonomy. PAC was expected to absorb about.23% of aU SP cost to US$9.3 million.); FUMAC about 72% (US$ 29.4 million) and FUMAC·P about 5% (lJS$2.4 million). PAC was the. least decentralized while FUMAC·P was the most advanced in each CMDRSs its own budget envelop to manage. 3 2.3 Although planned, IDENE decided not to use the PAC and FUMAC-P delivery mechanisms. PAC became viewed as retrograde, in the face of the positive experiences municipal councils, while FUMAC-P proved intractable due to issues surrounding the transfer of funds from the Municipal Council to respective community associations. 4 As a consequence, October 2008, loan resources originally allocated to the PAC and FUMAC-P subprograms were reallocated to FUMAC, as follows: (i) a total of US$11,430,000 comprising US$6,450,OOO from Category lea) PAC Grants, US$1,700,000 from Category l(c) FUMAC Pilot Grants, US$1,050,OOO from Category 3 Training for Parts B and Cof the Project, and U8$2,230,000 from Category 7 Unallocated reallocated to Category l(b) FUMAC Grants for a total of US$31,950,OOO; (ii) a total of US$600,OOO comprising US$262,500 from Category 5 Fee and US$337,500 from Category 7 Unallocated reallocated to Categgry 2 ConsultIDlts' services fOI: Parts B and C of the Project for a total of US$2,000,000; and (iii) a total of U8$1 comprising US$80,000 from Category 4(a) Incremental operational costs and U8$82,500 Category 7 Unallocated reallocated to Category 4(b) Project supervision and monitoring costs for a total 0[U8$412,500. This, in essence, mainstreamed the FUMAC mechanism. 3 Under FUMAC, in the context of the CMDSs, community associations participate in with 2/3, majority membership of beneficiaries and civil society, and 1/3 of municipal authorities and other entities. The Councils meet regularly to debate community subproject proposals and set priorities, based on predetermined by !DENE annual budget determined. Approved subprojects are sent to the !DENE for final technical and environmental analysis and approval. Funds are transferred directly to the beneficiary association. Based on previous experience of other NE states, !DENE decided to devolve FUMAC-P to the original FUMAC design. According to information collected by !DENE, the main reason for failure of FUMAC-P was that the NE State Governments never felt comfortable with the decentralization of actual funds management to these Councils. Further, some FUMAC-P tended to finance very small subprojects ,designed to reach the maximum number of communities, resulting in low and localized impact. Finally, under PAC, community associations submit subproject proposals directly to the State Technical Unit which transfers funds directly to the associations for approved subproject. There is no representative Municipal Council.. [t is the least decentralized and studies have shown, has the least impact on social capital formation. !DENE, based on his own earlier experience and on lessons collected from other states decided, upfront, dedicate effort to assist the creation and development of councils in all 188 municipalities. 4 Under Brazilian law, as Municipal councils were not legally constituted entities, they could not receive subproject funds from the STU for subsequent transfer to community associations. 26 2.4 At loan closing, the number of financed SPs (1,730) was 93% of the target. The number of beneficiary families was fully met. The number of families per SP was greater than originally envisaged (54 vs. 50). Productive SPs responded for 54% of total, while infrastructure accounted for 30%, and social, the remaining16%. The average SP cost at appraisal was US$20;552 and cost per beneficiary family US$41 f; at loan closing, these averages were US$23,892 and US$442, respectively. As such, the 8% increase in the average beneficiaries per SP was accompanied by an increase of 16% in the average cost of the SP but by an increase of only 8% in the average cost per beneficiary family. For details on costs distribution (planned vs. actual), see Annex 1. 2.5 Demand: Project success depended on the wide mobilization of rural communities, their organization into CAs and the subsequent expression of their investment priorities in the context of the CMDRSs. Dissemination and mobilization used various methods (e.g., radio. pamphlets) to· reach all targeted municipalities and communities, even the most distant from urban centers requiring a substantial institution~ effort to bring information and motivate the rural people to participate in the Project. IDENE project management was decentralized through the creation of the ROs. The institutionalization of MCs. through their consolidation into the CMDRSs, allowed greater interaction with rural communities that stood to benefit from the Project and the knowledge of the potential and the problems of each region. This mobilization effort yielded an aggregate SP demand of at least 1,730 proposals. 5 2.6 Types of subprojects: The following tables (2a and 2b) provide information and data on the 1,730 financed SPs. As shown on Table 2a, productive SPs responded for. 54% of the total, while infrastructure accounted for 30%, and social, 16%. Water supply (infrastructure) was the most demanded/financed SP type, while the others are scattered over a large number of categories. In general, the productive SPs, although large in numbers, are relatively unsophisticated, but many subject to market exposure (even local). As noted in this ICR [see Annex 5]: (i) productive and social development SPs are contributing significantly to the economic development of the families/CAs. Notwithstanding difficulties in delivering the products to the markets, in 100% of the cases investigated there was acknowledgement of significant income increases; (if) social SPs (e.g., community social centers), demonstrated multi~purpose functionality (e.g., training events, non-farm production, temporary rental); (iii) with the advent of the productive SPs, there were significant changes in the positions occupied by rural workers: as a consequence of their increased income and social prestige, they have tended to become "small farmers and businessmen", whose activiti~s are more market-oriented; (iv) women started playing a fundamental role, in most of the cases, in the organization and management of CAs: (v) major impact was with children of association members, who became stimulated to pursue more education, continuing their studies; and (vi) in general, CAs met monthly to exchange ideas on problems they face, discuss new projects and review planning and strategies for projects under implementation. l The project's MIS does not register SPs which have not been approved/recommended by the CMDRSs. Therefore, actual data on total SP demand is not available. 27 Table 2a: Distribution of financed subprojects by types and corresponding total mvest men t ,costIsu bIproJect , num b er 0 f b enefi' . . T IClary f:ami les an d cost per f:·1 amity Subproject Types # of financed Total Costl #of Cost subprojects financing subproject . beneficiary Ifamily (USS million) (USS) families (USS) ('000) Productive (Pl 936 24,92 26,617 56.17 443.8 Infrastructure (I) 519 10,06 19,383 22.19 453.3 Social (S) 275 6,48 24,06 15.55 416.9 Total 1,7JO 41,44 23,96 93.91 441.3 W Actual averages in US$ were $23~892 and $442.45, respectively 2.7 Targeting: The Project was accurately targeted, as given by the fact that 95% of project funds destined for SP financing were allocated to municipalities in the regions with average HDI (Mucuri, Norte and Jequitinhonha - 0.644, 0.649 and 0.650, respectively) below the average for the entire project area (0.659). Conversely, municipalities in the Central Region, with average HDI of 0.693 received only 5% of the funds. The targeting appropriateness can also be seen by comparing the average allocation per municipality between the regions with lowest (Mucuri) and highest (Central) average HDI: USD 226,537 vs. USD 177,352 (see table 2.c). The matter of fact is that HDI-M is low all around the entire project area. Table 2c: Number of municipalities, per Regions, and corresponding averages of HDI-M and Funds per municipality Region #of Average Total Funds allocated Funds/ municipalities HDI-M USD million municipality Mucuri 36 0.644 8.155 226,538 Norte 89 0.649 20.085 225,669 Jequitinhonha 52 0.650 11.929 229,408 Central 11 0.693 1.951 177,353 Total 188 0.659 42.120 224,043 28 2.8 Integration: By opting to use the fold theMCs into the CMDRSs, IDENE had a unique opportunity to share decisions and link investments financed by the RPRP-MG with others (e.g., electricity, investment capital) provided byLuz para Todos and PRONAF, among others. This decision and consequent implementation allowed a complete integration in all 188 municipalities of the Project and these programs using a common approach. Approximately R$ 1.09 billion (US$762 minion) were implemented by ~ese two programs using the CMDRSs as focal points for discussing rural electrification and the provision of investment credit to small farmers. This provided a privileged environment for Project beneficiaries to complement and integrate investments financed by the RPRP-MG with those provided by these programs and meant significant, but not measured, savings of loan funds, which could then be reoriented toward productive SPs. 2.9 Performance results at end-project fot Component 1 are shown in Table 2dbelow: IDENE 2.10 Component 2 -- Imditutional Development: financed technical assistance and training to build capacity in implementing entities, including the CAs, MCsand IDENE. This component financed training for CAs, MCs and STU project technicians, in addition to technical assistance and information dissemination. Technical assistance and specialized consultancies were financed for CAs and MCs to build and consolidate their participatory decision-making processes and their role in overseeing subprojects execution. This component financed some 22_training events for CAs, the MCs and IDENE. The specific objectives of the training were the following: (a) discuss the roles to be played by the presidents and the treasurers of the beneficiary CAs and the presidents of the CMDRSs;(b) the correct use of SP funds received and guidance on how to prepare the statements of expenses; and (c) expl~ation of the clauses .of the subproject agreements signed between the CAs and IDENE. Seven technical events, attended by 293 regional staff, were held in the eight regions and Belo Horizonte in which subjects such as monitoring of project implementation and CAs' statement of expenses were discussed. In all, these events had a participation of some 3.245 people (See Table 2e). 29 Table 2e: Training events # of participants Assoc., Municipalities rep.;, Type Local Date Rural Workers IDENE Unions, CMDRS, staff EMATER and .ONGs Awareness raising I Mobilization Ara~uaf 3011112005 45 Awareness raising / Mobilization Diamantina 06112/2005 90 Awareness raising / Mobilization Janauba 2411112005 45 Awareness raising / Mobilization Januana 2311112005 72 Awareness raising / Mobilization Jequitinhonha 2911112005 54 Awareness raising / Mobilization M. Claros 05/12/2005 99 Awareness raising / Mobilization Te6filo Otoni 2811112005 108 Awareness raising / Mobilization Salinas 07112/2005 51 Project presentation B. Horizonte 05110/2005 50 Technical working meeting . Te6filo Otoni 26 a 28/06/2007 53 Montes SOE workShop Claros 02 e 03/10/2007 20 SOE workshop Diamantina 04 e 05/10/2007 20 Signing of Agreements and SOE B. Horizonte 24/05/2007 354 Signing of Agreements B. Horizonte 06112/2006 101 Signing of Agreements and SOE B. Horizonte 26/06/2008 622 Signing of Agreements and SOE Ara~uai 27/09/2007 130 Signing of Agreements and SOE Corinto 03112/2007 55 Signing of Agreements and SOE ltambacuri 11112/2007 144 Signing of Agreements and SOE M. Claros 20/09/2007 165 Signing of Agreements and SOE Salinas 07112/2007 185 Signing of AgreementS and SOE Te6filo Otoni 28/09/2007 154 Signing of Agreements and SOE Janauba 24/08/2007 38 Technical working meeting Diamantina 21 e 22/07/2010 50 Technical working meeting M. Claros 11 a 13/08/2010 50 Signing of Agreements and SOE Diamantina 17 a 19/06/2009 120 Signing of Agreements and SOE M. Claros 09 a 11106/2009 280 Technical working meeting M. Claros 11110/2006 50 TOTAL 2,912 293 30 2.11 Component 3 - Administration, Supervision,Monitoring and Evaluation: financed the costs (excluding salaries) of project administration and coordination including supervision, monitoring and impact evaluation. 2.12 This component supported project coordination and activities to monitor project performance and results. Incremental operational costs (excluding salaries) ofIDENEfurther improved supervision and strengthened project operation. This was particularly important in view of relatively large distance between IDENE' s headquarters and the Project area. The component financed the upgrading of the project MIS, as well as public information outreach to disseminate understanding about Project's objectives, benefits, rules and methodology. The component also financed technical working meetings of the ROs, one of the main instruments for improving Project working plans and their implementation (Table 2f). Performance results for Component J were as follows: IDENE 1 per year during Project implementation IDENE Carried out as planned External studies contracted firms 31 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 3.1 As stated in the Borrower's Completion Report, '.'since its beginning, the Project is striving to satisfy demands from the poorest rural communities in the regions covered by IDENE/SEDVAN, with the objective of contributing to reduce rural poverty through generation of employment and income in addition to the search for improvement in the quality of life and wellbeing of the beneficiary families." 3.2 The RPRP-MG fmanced 1,730 community SPs, benefiting some 93,900 families, across 188 municipalities anQ organized in 1,647 CAs. the following categories constituted fully three-fourths of these SPs: water supply, farm mechanization, community social center, fann implements (machinery), manioc flour mills, milk cooling· units and house improvement (see Table 3a). 3.3 The Project was subject to a Physical Performance Study and a Perception study; the main fmdings of these studies are summarized in Annex 5. An end-of-project impact evaluation study was not conducted; however, 22 case studies of implemented SPs - with field data collection - were compiled to estimate indicative economic and financial results of the Project, of which only the cases of water supply, fann mechanization and milk cooling units are presented in this Annex. Additionally, a comparative analysis is done of the known results of similar SP types (e.g., water supply, in the case of Minas Gerais) in other rural CDD projects in Northeast Brazil (see Table 3c). Methodology: Case Studies 3.4 A case study approach was adopted, based on the main SP types (Le., water supply; farm mechanization, house improvement, sugarcane brick candy, manioc flour mills and milk cooling) and the community associations demanding, executing and operating them. Of 22 sampled SPs, six water supply, eight fann mechanization and two milk cooling were selected for financial analysis .. Statistical extrapolations for the entire SP universe were not intended, but there was a certain comfort level in exploring the results obtained for four basic reasons: (i) the apparent homogeneity (i.e., representativeness) of the units comprising the universe by SP type ; (ii) the intentional decision to include SPs considered by knowledgeable people to be moderately· successful, that is, the sampled units were not limited exclusively to very successful subprojects; (iii) the STU took care to select SPs 32 considered ""\"t}'nu'<> dispersed. 3.5 leaders and the nature 3.7 • Water 3.8 sampling selected magnitude of . am manclaI and economic resu Its 0 f sub,prOject s * T a ble 3b M· fi . . PV Benefits PV Costs BIC ratio IRR-l IRR-2 Subroject type (R$) (RS) Water supply 62,242,059 11,8762,054 5.2 83% 53% 'Farm mechanization 1,816,790 1,031,712 1.2 35% 13% Milk cooling units 270,754 162,725 1.7 58% 21% *Vlliues extrapolated to the total number of water supply subprojects at the time of the data collection for the case study (octInovember 2008) ,while for the other two types estimates were restricted to the samples. 3.9 The findings above suggest that financial returns are robust for all three SP types under very conservative assumptions (shown by the sensitivity analysis - IRR-2). Regarding water supply (as shown in other studies such as Binswanger 2005), its positive impact on beneficiaries' wellbeing is widely recognized, despite the inability to fully quantify this impact in the exercise. The approach here seems to yield very high financial returns for water supply, milk cooling and farm mechanization. Comparative analysis of results of MG and other States for similar projects 3.10 A comparison of financial returns to investments in two SP types (Le., water supply and farm mechanization). common and similar in seven individual States with RPRPs (see Table 3c) suggests that Minas Gerais is faring quite well in water supply and in the same level of other states in farm mechanization. Table 3c. Estimated Internal Rates of Returns (0/0 , for comparable subproject types Subproject typel States I NE PE PB PI CE BA MG SE Water supply - 53 30 3 18 21 53 57 Sanitation - 8 - - - - - Farm tractor 38 39 - - 39 35 35 25 Honey_ I 17 54 - Bahia (BA), Mmas Gerrus - Northeast Region (NE). Pernambuco (PE), Parafba (PB), Piau! (PI), Ceara (CE), - - 63 - (MG) and Sergipe (SE) , Sources: NE (van Zyl study); for PB, PI, CE and SE see corresponding ICRs; for BA and MG, own estimations by ICR Primary Author. ' 34 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes Task Team members..... .=.c.. c w •••••••••••••••• c .............. c ..............c •..............•..................•................................................................•.•.........•...................... Names IUnit Anna Roumani ... .... . .................... ET Consultant ...... . .......................................- ~ ... ............................... .... ILCSER. .. ~ .,. _ Claudio Mittelstaedt . . . . . . . •.. . . . •. . : ..............................................................C. o. n. s.•. .u.l.ta. n. t.•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i.L:.C. O.AJ\ Edward ....n'''"'''''n lET Consultant ILCSER Irani Escolano IProcurement A:T1a1yst ILCSE Joao Barbosa de Lucena Consultant ILCSRE Carvalho Consultant 'LEGLA •..••...•............•..•.•....................•........•..•........•.........•.•.••....•.•..•......•...•.••...••.........•.•...•....•......•..•.........•.•..•.••...•.•.•.•...•....•...••.....•........••••......••.•..................•...•.......•.•............••.......•... Luis Coirolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......I!:~li.~~~~!I:)~~p~~~li.~!~~~1.'~~!:~li.~~~ LCSRE Luiz Gazoni .....................I!:~li.~J:>~I:)r~~~~eJ1"l~l1~~pecialist :LCSPT Maria de Fatima de S()\l~~~~~()T1li.~!~~T1~I:)~~':l~~IPe.y~ll:)p~~T1t~pe~ialist iLCSAR Raimundo N. Caminha Consultant !LCSAR Tulio Barbosa Consultant iLCSAR ................................ ......•..•.....••.....••....•.•...•...•••••...•.•.•••...•.........•...•....••.••.•.•.............•.........••......•......• 35 _{~ Staff !,!!!!~"~"~~_.CO!!" ___ "" ___ ~",,,__,,_~,~,,,",,_,,.,,, . ,. ." . " ....,", . .,., ,_~_,_" ., ",~,_",_" ".,_,." . . . . ~~,!!~~~~,•.,~,~. ,.~.~~~,!t..~~g~!Q~~t ,.,.,",. ,',. . . .,.. . ,.,. ,. :Stage of Project Cycle ,No.of staff weeks USB ThousaDds(iueludiug .";",','"'_,.".",,"""~,-'''''',,',''','''''',','',,;;".,.''''.,,"""","",','~""'""~,',,.,,'.,'"".;,,,',",;,',',"'~"""''''_""""":"~!~!~~H~,~,!:'.~~~~"..~~,~~~t_. 1Lend~~IL.,,,,_~_,_""___""""._"_"'.,, ..""""_--.:.._."'.~_.,,_"",,,,,__,___ "'' .,____",," "",,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,, "_"",,,,,,,,,,,, '" ____,,_'' "....... . ........ FY98 . ............................................."....,_ ..._"............'...m"."_._ .. ...._ '... . .......... ~ 0. 2.97' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." ' . . . IT~ • • • " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . • •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , •••••••••••••••• m •• ' ••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m ..... "". ......................... • 0. ......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. •••••••• ••• FYOO • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ••••• . . . . . . . . . • . . •• .... • . . • ...... M ....... • • .... •• • 0: .. .... ~ .. , . . . . . . . . . 0: . . . . . . . . . .m . . . . . . . . . . ~ ••• _ •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ~1 • ............. . . . ........................ •• ...... • .......... M . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .' " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ............. . 0: FY02 ........... ......... ............................. 10.41 ...... .............. - 37.45 FY03 ...... 12.34 ...... ~-~ .... " ,,, ..... .... 56.31 • .... • . . . . w · ........ ·~· . . . . FY04 4.98: --...-... ... ...." .. -,~ 14.34: FY05 ................................. 01 .. ................. ' " ... _ ..............................................~ ........... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ .... ~ ....... _ _ . . . H_ ............ , . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.85: FY06 ............................................ 1.3\ .................................. . ........................_ ...... .. 7.06: FY07 ........- ............................................. .............._... -........ ........ - ~ a , 0: Total: . . . ., ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.43: m . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ................ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total: :~~pf:t:!i~i~~~!l: . .. . . .., . . . . . . . . . ............. .. . . FV06 10.5 . 20.04 ;. FY07 ___ 51.22 ~ _ _ ,~,J" .... _ _ FY08 10.68· 42.84 FY09 8.76 38.77 '---------------.---~---,--------,---------~ FYI0 5.27 . 19.43 FYll 4.20 . 37.31 , i-f----- ----+----~------"'-.-'~. ~ Tot2!._I:__. , 48.24 1 _~ 209.61 ' _ _ _ _ ~""_~_ ... _ _ _ _ _..""_,,-'<~.-..-"""'""'.J.,~~ _ _ "'_,..,,_~~,_,,~_="'.,,_,, __ ''',_"..~,,~ _ _, 36 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results 5.1 TecnoMetrica (2010) used quantitative and qualitative data for SPs implemented under the RPRP-MG and interviews with community leaders and associations. The survey was conducted in municipalities, across the regions of the project area. Samples comprised 203 subprojects and 1,746 families; 6,357 persons in aU were interviewed. 5.2 Findings were as follows: • 98% of community leaders interviewed declared that financed SPs were in response to communities'demands; • 83% declared that constructions/works were done as expected; @ 87% that acquisition of equipment was also done in accordance with the subproject agreements (convenios) and the Project Operational Manual; • 83% informed that these equipment are being used by the beneficiaries and 86% stated that they adequately satisfy their needs; .. 86% acknowledged that SPs produced positive impact on the communities while 59% acknowledged that they brought opportunities for additional sources of income and employment generation; lit 82% of families interviewed stated that the financed SPs fully or partially.satisfied their needs; @ 88% informed that the SPs fully or partially satisfied the communities' needs; lit Outside evaluators stated that, in general terms, there was a correspondence between the approved technical SPs and their execution in the field.. lit 80% of families interviewed declared satisfaction with the productive SPs. @ On the social front, the majority of community social centers financed became multi-use facilities (e.g., training events, non-farm production, and temporary rental). lit Finally, beneficiaries reacted very positively in matters such as: (i) improved working conditions, Oi) shortening of distances, (iii) time saved by women with child care; and Ov) the development of other income generation opportunities. 5.3 Estudo Quailtativa das Percepfoes e impressoes dos beneflciarios para avaliafiio dos e/eitos diretos e indiretos dos subprojetos do PCPR na vida dos sellS benejiciarios (Qualitative Study of Perceptions) [SEDVANIIDENE, July 2010]. Main themes addressed: (a) identification of improvements in the wellbeing and living conditions of the population benefited (directly and indirectly) by the RPRP-MG; (ii) identification of SP relevance in employment creation and income generation opportunities; (iii) identification of the extent to which SPs are contributing to the autonomy of the beneficiaries through social empowerment and their capability to search for solutions to the problems they face; (iv) evaluate the development of associative possibilities - the communities' social capital; and (v) understand the power relationships involving political behavior of the beneficiaries. 5A The study was based on the selection, for sampling purposes, of communities with productive an.d social SPs to the extent the fOlmer address issues of income generation and the latter, social development. Two communities were randomly selected (one for productive and "' ..... 'wr""." for social development) for each of the eight areas covered by the regional offices; as sixteen SPs were selected. 37 5.5 Among the results, the following merit mention: (i) both productive and social development SPs are contributing significantly to the economic development of the families/CAs. Notwithstanding difficulties in delivering the products.to the.markets, in 100% of the cases investigated there was acknowledgement of significant income increases; (ii) with development of productive SPs, there are significant changes in'the positions occupied by rural workers: as a follow on of increased income and social prestige, they tend to become "small farmers and businessmen", whose activities are market-oriented; (iii) women started playing a fundamental role, in most of the cases, in the organization and management of CAs: (v) major impact was with. children of association members, who became stimulated to pursue more education, continuing their studies; and (vi) in general, associations meet monthly to exchange ideas on.problems they face, discuss new projects and plan for projects being implemented. 38 Annex 6. Summary of Borrower's ICR and Comments on Draft ICR A. Borrower Completion Report (Executive Summary) 6.1 The Rural Poverty Reduction Project - RPRP~MG, under Loan Agreement 7329-BR, aimed to support, on a matching grant basis, productive, social and basic infrastructure investments in response to demands from the poorest rural communities living in the jurisdiction area of the IDENE/SEDV AN 6 System - the project STU - contributing to rural poverty reduction through income and employment generation and improvement of wellbeing and quality of life of the beneficiary families. Additionally, the Project pursued the objective of strengthening community associations and the CMDRSs to make them active participants in the discussions on their own demands and in defining priorities on the use of project funds and of municipal public policies, therefore improving social capital. 6.2 The State government's and the World Bank's premise of decentralization turned the RPRP into a rather challenging project to implement because it required transparent processing and strong participation of organized civil society. It can be concluded that state management created a favorable scenario for the implementation of public policies acceptable to and shared by society, thereby strengthening credibility and allowing the definition of targets to satisfy society's demands. Even considering all favorable conditions for the implementation of these actions, poor effectiveness could result if human capital, professionalism, qualification, coordination capability and the search for an emotional intelligence had not been taken into consideration as these elements provide commitment to the major client: the society. 6.3 The operating model adopted by the RPRP-MG to support the rural population assumed that mechanisms that include increased civil society participation tend to generate better results as enhanced social capital and increase the communities' capacity to mobilize internal and external resources to enable their development. In this sense, the financing of community subprojects is presented as a catalytic instrument for community mobilization and organization. Physical and Financial Performance of Subprojects 6.4 In the period from 2006 to 2010, 1,730 subprojects were implemented. In this period. the RPRP-MG benefited 93,900 families or some 328,600 persons across 1,647 community associations in 188 municipalities of the project area. Project records show that 23% of the all community associations benefited in that period were coordinated by women. 6.5 It took no more than 3 years, since the beginning of implementation, to reach 82% of the target for financed subprojects and 90% of the 90,000 target for beneficiary families (Table 6a). It is estimated that by end 2008 about 84% of loan funds for subprojects had already been disbursed (actual plus committed). 6IDENE, created by State Law nr 14.171, dated January 15,2002 and by Delegated Law nr 78, dated January 29, 2003, January 2003, is an autonomous institution under the Gablnete da SeeretdT/a de Estado Extraordindrio para o Desenvolvimento dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e MueuT; e do Norte de Minas - SED VAN. 39 Table 6a. Number of financed subprojects, total financing and number of beneficiary families, by year Year # of financed Total financing # of beneficiary subprojects (BRL million) families ('000) 2006 101 5.1 7.8 2007 830 42.3 49.3 2008 485 23.6 24.3 2009 248 10.8 10.6 2010 66 1.5 1.9 Total 1,730 83.3 93.9 6.6 At loan closing, the number of financed subprojects was 93% of the original target. The number of beneficiary families was fully accomplished. The number of families per subproject was greater than originally envisaged (54 vs. 50). Productive subprojects responded for 54% of total, while infrastructure accounted for 30%, and social, the remaining 16%. The estimated subproject average total cost at appraisal was the equivalent to US$20,552 and cost per beneficiary family US$411 and at closing the averages were US$23,892 and US$442, respectively. Therefore, the 8% increase in the average number of beneficiary per subproject was accompanied by an increase of 16% in the average cost of the subproject but by an increase of only 8% in the average cost per beneficiary family (see Table 6b) Table 61>. Distribution of financed subprojects by types and corresponding total investment, cost/subproject, number of beneficiary families and cost per family (Amounts in BRL) Subproject Types # of financed Total Costl #of Cost subprojects financing subproject beneficiary Ifamily (BRL million) families rOOO) I Productive (P) 936 50.10 53,500 56.17 892.0 -Infrastructue_(1) 519 20.22 38,960 22.19 911.2 Social (S) 275 13,03 48,360 15.55 837,9 , Total 1,730 83.3 48,150* 93.91 887.0* WActual averages in US$ were $23,892 and $442.45, respectively 6.7 Except for water supply (infrastructure), the other subprojects are scattered over a large number of different subprojects, notably the productive, as shown in Table 6c. 40 Advances and Innovations Management 6.8 IDENE innovated in many project management aspects such as: (i) linking the community suprojects along three fundamental strategies: income generation; social development and basic infrastructure reconstrauction to face drought, a common.oCurI'ence in the project area; (ii) prior to financing subprojects, an effort was made to develop and organize community associations and CMDRSs;(iii) the latter were chosen to be the project local decision/oeal point, an environment shared with decisions on other projects and programs; (iv) subsidiary but essential for CMDRSs' choice was their reestrucuting, in particular increasing the representativeness of the project beneficiaries (to 113 with voting rights); (iv) budgetary allocation and enforcement for each of the 188 municipalities; (v) maintenance and strenghthening of the eight Regional Offices, strategically located in the project area; (vi) SEPLAG-MG monitoring, with whom results agreements were signed. 6.9 The empowerment or the CMDRSs, supported by· the RO staff, led to significant participation of rural communities in deciding on the application of resources within the municipalities, promoting transparency and reducing political interference in projectmanagement. An important result of this process was that 100% of subprojects financed were discussed in the CMDRSs, from the prioritization made by the communities. Training of Community Associations and CMDRSs 6.10 Some 22 training events for community associations and CMDRSs, involving a total of 2,912 representatives took place from November 2006 to August 2010. The specific objectives of the training were: (i) discuss the roles to be played by the presidents and the treasurers of the beneficiary associations; (U) the roles to be played by the presidents of the CMDRSs; (iii) the importance of the Project and its directives; (iv) the correct use of funds received and guidance on how to prepare the statements of expenses; (v) explanation of the clauses of the agreements signed between the associations and IDENE. Seven technical events, attended by 293 regional 41 staff, were held in the region and Belo Horizonte in which subjects such as monitoring of project implementation and associations statement of expenses were dealt with. Ouilombolas and Indigenous communities 6.11 Even without a specific plan (not required at the time of project preparation and approval) the Project benefited 1,300 Quilombolafamilies in the North and Northeast regions, where 243 Quilombola c011lIllunities live, involving funds of about R$ 1.4 million (US$797,000), with fmancing of sixteen productive, three social and six infrastructure subprojects. 6.12 Likewise (without a specific plan), the Project benefited 698 families of the Xacriaba indigenous ethnical group (municipality of Sao Joao das Missoes), which received financing for eight subprojects, involving funds of about R$ 557,000 (US317, 100). Studies Results Assessment-Indic:ator of SustainabiHty 6.13 According to result studies (EDF and "Perceptions"), 70% of families, investment in infrastructure fulfilled their needs; income generating and employment opportunities acknowledged by 57% and 43%, respectively. Improvement in quality of life is recognized by 70% of the beneficiaries. Access to water supply provided resulted in approval by 76% of the beneficiaries (quantity of water availability by 79%,quality by 75% and regularity of supply by 86%). Improvement in health and hygiene conditions was acknowledged by 70% of families. At least 5,585 and 17,210 families gained access to services of infrastructure and water supply, respectively. More than 70% of these families recognized the increase of social welfare in their communities. 6.14 Currently, the majority of CA members have a real perception of the importance of their associations for the search of collective solutions to problems they face. This is fundamental for democratic and transparent public policies. 42 B. Borrower Letter Commenting on Bank's Draft ICR Oftdo 1'1" j21 IID~EJGBlIO Belo Horizonte. 29 de dezembro de 2010.. Em aLendimento a soIici~ de V.Sa.• re",is8J1lO& a versio preliminar da. ConclusaQ,da lmplemen~io e :ReJatos dcrResulUtdos'Finais do PCPRlMG J, etabomdo poresse BallCO Mundial. apresenta11lO&'8s segulntes con!!;i~Oa: o Relat6rio apresentado baSeOtH,!C de formafJdedigna nai informa~Oes repassad~s pelo ldene. Para a!em dasjnforma~ transmitido. 0 proprio Banco. par mew de Mi"$6es e ¥ ., .. acompanhamentos de alguns subprojetos. fat eapaz de elaborar .Infonn~ 'que con$olidatam uma avaJi~iio " b.istante satisfatooa a respeito do desempenho do Pmjeto de Combate ltPobreza Rural - PCP'RIM.G. Segundo 0 Relat6rio. apesar delfltciais. 0$ resultados I1ponta.m para II positividade dos sUOprojetos na promOt;1o do bem..emr. na aera9io de rends e desenvo}vimenfo .das capacid.'\des associativas das comunidades rurais da area de abrange:nciado PCPRIMG. Os resultados positivos a1ca~s nio sedam possfveis, segundo 0 rclatOrio. caso nao houvesse u~ soma de fatores que vlo desde 0 modelo de gestio descentrali:utdo do Pr~ieto. pallsando pela CBJ!aeidade de trab~lbo dos responsbe;&. ate 0 important:e papel ' dos benc.fidru-ios. representados ,.,elu Associ~ e 0 papeJ que cstas desempenham nos CQnsclhos Municipais de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentavel - CMDRS's. 0 8UCt:PO do Programa lam~m conCt com a Importan~ partidP8f!9 do Banco e da ~ua visio reJacionada a urn modero, incfpsivo e parficipativo ~ gestio' dos subprojetos, j!r destacando a partici~ ~ benef:iCihios, como tam~m dos representante... pubHcos dns· Prefeiturss iocais comofundamentais para 0 fortalecimento dos Conselnos e parn uma Ipr9PJ'i~o local dos I11(:CIlnismos de desenvolvimeoto. limo, Sr. Edward W. Dresnyan.Jr. Gerenre do PrqjelO Banco Mundia) - BlRD Brasllia-DF 43 ContOOo. 00 que tange l gestio. 0 rellUdrio tlvalia como sendo butanJe positivll II adeq~ e oomprometimento do govemo do Estado com os objetivos e a metodologia ~. 0 Estado ~ve sua adequada contrapartida :na impleme~ do projew e npew-