Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR2666 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-39310, IDA-45550, IDA-46820, TF-54460, and TF-95950) ON A SERIES OF CREDITS IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 29.7 MILLION1 (US$45 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA FOR A SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND II PROJECT September 25, 2013 Human Development Sector Unit Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova Country Unit Europe and Central Asia Region 1 Not including grants from Trust Funds. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rates Effective September 25, 2013) Currency Unit = Moldova Leu MDL 1.00 = US$ 0.0778 US$ 1.00 = MDL 12.85 MDL 1 = Euro 0.0577 Euro 1.00 = MDL 17.32 FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS IDA International Development Association JSDF Japan Social Development Fund KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDL Moldovan Lei MLSPF Ministry of Labor, Social Protection, and the Family MOF Ministry of Finance MSIF Moldova Social Investment Fund MTR Mid-Term Review PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective QAG Quality Assurance Group Sida Swedish Agency for International Development US United States Vice President: Laura Tuck Country Director: Qimiao Fan Sector Manager: Andrew Mason Project Team Leader: Yuliya Smolyar ICR Team Leader: Menahem Prywes ii MOLDOVA SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND II PROJECT CONTENTS A. Basic Information.................................................................................................... iv  B. Key Dates ................................................................................................................ iv  C. Ratings Summary .................................................................................................... iv  D. Sector and Theme Codes ......................................................................................... v  E. Bank Staff ................................................................................................................. v  F. Results Framework Analysis .................................................................................... v  G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs .................................................................. xi  H. Restructuring .......................................................................................................... xii  I. Disbursement Profile .............................................................................................. xiii 1.   Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................ 1  2.   Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ............................................ 4  3.   Assessment of Outcomes.......................................................................................... 7  4.   Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...................................................... 12  5.   Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................... 12  6.   Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................... 14  7.   Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners ........ 15 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ........................................................................ 16  Annex 2. Outputs by Component ............................................................................... 17  Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................... 18  Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes .......... 21  Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ......................................................................... 23  Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................. 26  Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ................... 27  Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ..................... 33  Annex 9: Table of the Original Outcome Indicators .................................................. 34  Annex 10: Table of the Revised Development Outcome Indicators ............................ 35  Annex 11. List of Supporting Documents .................................................................... 41  Map: IBRD 33448 iii A. Basic Information Social Investment Fund 2 Country: Moldova Project Name: Project IDA-39310,IDA- Project ID: P079314 L/C/TF Number(s): 45550,IDA-46820,TF- 54460,TF-93407 ICR Date: 07/24/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: Republic of Moldova Original Total XDR 13.80M Disbursed Amount: XDR 29.70M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 29.70M Environmental Category: FI Implementing Agencies: Moldova Social Investment Fund Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Sida, Japan, European Union B. Key Dates Revised/Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 05/06/2003 Effectiveness: 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 03/24/2009 Appraisal: 03/23/2004 Restructuring(s): 01/26/2010 Approval: 06/17/2004 Mid-term Review: 05/21/2007 Closing: 03/31/2010 03/31/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate 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 Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): iv Problem Project at any time Quality Assessment of No 2 (Satisfactory) (Yes/No): Lending Portfolio PDO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Energy efficiency in Heat and Power 15 15 Other social services 40 40 Primary education 20 20 Rural and Inter-Urban Roads and Highways 15 15 Water supply 10 10 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Other accountability/anti-corruption 16 16 Other social protection and risk management 33 33 Participation and civic engagement 17 17 Rural policies and institutions 17 17 Rural services and infrastructure 17 17 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Laura Tuck Shigeo Katsu Country Director: Qimiao Fan Luca Barbone Sector Manager: Andrew D. Mason Hermann A. von Gersdorff Project Team Leader: Yuliya Smolyar Anush Bezhanyan ICR Team Leader: Yuliya Smolyar ICR Primary Author: Menahem M. Prywes F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The project will contribute to the implementation of Moldova's (EGPRS) by empowering poor communities and vulnerable population groups to manage their priority development needs. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The revised objectives of the project, approved by the Board on January 26, 2010, in connection with the Second Additional Financing, were: “(i) to support the implementation of the National Development Strategy by empowering poor communities and vulnerable population groups to manage their priority needs; and (ii) to contribute to employment and wage incomes in selected poor rural communities during the current economic contraction and during the recovery.” For further information, please see Annex 9: Table of Original Development Indicators and Annex 10: Table of Revised Development Indicators. v (a) Revised PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target (from approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Increase in school attendance in participating school projects (attendance rate in Indicator 1: percentage points). Value quantitative or 92% 95% 95% 95% Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) Increase in learning results in rehabilitated schools (percentage passing end of year Indicator 2: exams). Value quantitative or 93% 97% 96% 97% Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) Indicator 3: Increase in new educational programs in participating schools (in percentage points). Value quantitative or 9% 90% 90% 65% Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The indicator fell short of its target. achievement) Decrease in respiratory and infectious diseases in communities with school, water, Indicator 4: and gas subprojects. Value 180 cases per 1,000 120 cases per 98 cases per 1,000 per quantitative or Not available per year 1,000 per year year Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 vi Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) Increase in participation of community members in community development in Indicator 5: participating communities (percentage of community members participating). Value quantitative or 28% Not available 70% No target set Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) Decrease in consumption of coal and fuel wood for heating in participating Indicator 6: communities among households participating in gas connection sub-projects (percentage of households using coal or wood as fuel). Value quantitative or 85% 45% 45% 24% Qualitative) Date achieved 05/15/2007 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) Number of sub-projects in communities which have made initiatives for new Indicator 7: community activities to address development needs during the sub-project implementation and up to two years after its completion Value quantitative or 0.00 Not available 107 244 Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2013 01/25/2013 The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. The target was for project-supported Comments communities to initiate at least 107 sub-projects without MSIF support: this is 9 (incl. % percent of the objective of building 1,033 sub-projects from all financing sources. The achievement) actual outcome was 244 sub-projects: This is 20 percent of the 1,233 actual sub- projects built with support from all financing sources. Percentage of respondents in institutions surveyed who report that their capacity to Indicator 8: manage community priority development needs has improved because of SIF training and implementation of the sub-project. Value quantitative or 0% Not available 60% 53% Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2013 01/25/2013 Comments The target was partially achieved. In 2008, the Bernhard Brunhes evaluation study (incl. % reports a 67 percent rate, which exceeds the target. The CBS-AXA evaluation study in achievement) 2012 found a rate of 53 percent, which falls short of the target. vii Percentage of respondents (in a survey), who express increased satisfaction with local Indicator 9: government's way of managing community priority development needs. Value quantitative or 0% Not available 30% 35% Qualitative) Date achieved 09/15/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) Indicator 10 : Number of sub-projects that received a higher community contribution than required. Value quantitative or 0.00 56 107 507.00 Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 The target was fully achieved and exceeded. The objective was for project-supported Comments communities to initiate at least 107 sub-projects without MSIF support: this is 9 (incl. % percent of the objective of building 1,033 sub-projects from all project resources. The achievement) actual outcome was 507 sub-projects: This is 41 percent of the 1,238 sub-projects built with support from all project resources. Project doubles labor-intensiveness of sub-projects supported by the Second Indicator 11 : Additional Financing (results for school rehabilitation, relative to the original and first additional financing, in percentage points). Schools: 23% Schools: 46% Schools: 27% Value Water: 15% Water: 30% Water: 22% quantitative or Indicator did not exist Village roads: 12% Village roads: 24% Village roads: 25% Qualitative) Gas: 10% Gas: 20% Gas: 28% Date achieved 01/26/2012 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments The target was partially achieved. The project fell short of its targets for schools and (incl. % water supply sub-projects, which were the most common types of sub-projects. It fully achievement) achieved its targets for village roads and natural gas connection subprojects. Increase in wage incomes in communities with sub-projects supported by the Second Indicator 12 : Additional Financing in 2010 and 2011 Value quantitative or 0 Indicator did not exist 40.3 million MDL 23.8 million MDL Qualitative) Date achieved 01/26/2012 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % This indicator fell short of its target. achievement) Increase in consumption expenditures in communities with sub-project supported by Indicator 13 : the Second Additional Financing in 2010 and 2011. Value quantitative or 0 Indicator did not exist 21.9 million MDL 17.5 million MDL Qualitative) Date achieved 01/26/2012 03/31/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % This indicator fell short of its target. achievement) viii Employment in public works (Direct project beneficiaries in person days, of which Indicator 14 : female in percentage points). Value 170,000 person Indicator did not 149,050 person days quantitative or 0% days exist. 21% female Qualitative) 20% female Date achieved 05/19/2010 03/30/2006 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments The target was partially achieved. This indicator fell short of its target for employment (incl. % but fully satisfied its target for the female share in employment. achievement) Number of communities where Beneficiary Associations were still operational two Indicator 15 : years after sub-project completion. Value quantitative or 0 Not available 90 357 Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) Respondents (to a survey) who express satisfaction with local government organization Indicator 16 : and provision of social services (in percentage points). Value quantitative or 0 Not available 30% 36% Qualitative) Date achieved 05/19/2010 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) Participation in community planning and sub-project management: Direct project Indicator 17 : beneficiaries participation (number), of which female (percentage point share). Value 0 200,000 people 200,000 people 437,841 people quantitative or 0% 40% female 40% female 65% female Qualitative) Date achieved 10/01/2009 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % Both targets were fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) Indicator 18 : Increased number of persons benefiting from community based social care services Value 31,621 from the Sida Grant quantitative or 0.00 Not available 21,420.00 + 18,011 from the EU Qualitative) Grant Date achieved 09/01/2001 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 09/30/2012 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) ix Decreased number of new beneficiaries from pilot districts referred to national Indicator 19 : residential care services. Value quantitative or 0 Not available 520 Not available Qualitative) Date achieved 09/01/2004 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 09/30/2012 It proved impossible to measure the reduction in number of people referred to national Comments residential care. This was it was because the team could not estimate the number of (incl. % beneficiaries that would have been referred in the absence of the investments. Target achievement) informed by consultants’ evaluation of the Sida and EC grants (544-161) Sida grant + (367-240) EC grant = 520 people. Participation of direct project beneficiaries in community planning and sub-project Indicator 20 : management (percentage share). Value quantitative or 0% 70% 70% 71% Qualitative) Date achieved 10/01/2009 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % Both targets were fully achieved. achievement) Percentage of civil society representatives in coordinating committees who in a survey Indicator 21 : express that their involvement in social care services planning and provision has been improved Value quantitative or Not available Not available 30% 80% Qualitative) Date achieved 10/01/2009 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved and then exceeded. achievement) Number of MSIF best practices replicated by government and non-government Indicator 22 : institutions Value quantitative or 0.00 5 10 12 Qualitative) Date achieved 01/09/2001 11/20/2007 01/26/2012 01/25/2013 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved. achievement) x (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target (from approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Total number of micro projects completed. Value 1,033 1,238 (quantitative 0.00 400 [for all IDA [For all IDA sources: or Qualitative) sources 596] 854] Date achieved 01/09/2004 3/31/2010 09/30/2010 01/25/2013 Comments Original credit: 443 (incl. % 1st Additional Financing: 74 achievement) 2nd Additional Financing: 335 G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. DO IP Archived (US$ millions) 1 06/30/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/09/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.00 3 06/03/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.17 4 12/13/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.48 5 06/20/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.28 6 12/13/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.97 7 06/18/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 11.49 8 11/19/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 13.47 9 06/26/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 14.38 10 12/06/2008 Highly Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 16.05 11 04/09/2009 Highly Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 18.01 12 08/31/2009 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 19.34 13 11/25/2009 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 20.08 14 03/05/2010 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 20.77 15 07/29/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 23.02 16 09/13/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 23.02 17 05/01/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 29.02 18 09/28/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 34.30 19 11/30/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 35.62 20 05/19/2012 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 37.73 21 11/03/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 44.79 22 03/11/2013 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 45.36 xi H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring and Approved PDO Date(s) Restructuring Key Changes Made Change DO IP in US$ millions Project modified to respond to 03/24/2009 Y S HS 17.23 floods (first Additional Financing.) Project modified to respond to the financial crisis of 2009 through 01/26/2010 Y S HS 20.58 labor-intensive public works (Second Additional Financing). Reallocation of proceeds to deliver 12/10/2010 N S HS 23.02 more community infrastructure projects Financing Agreement provisions amended to allow utilization of the Government of Moldova list of schools that will not be closed 10/20/2011 N MS S 35.62 under the schools optimization program as a basis for investing the Credit proceeds in school- related sub-projects. Reallocation of proceeds to invest into small-scale community 09/27/2012 N MS S 44.79 infrastructure and deliver more sub-projects If PDO and/or Key Outcome Targets were formally revised (approved by the original approving body) enter ratings below: Outcome Ratings Against Original PDO/Targets Satisfactory Against Formally Revised PDO/Targets Satisfactory Overall (weighted) rating Satisfactory xii I. Disbursement Profile xiii 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1. The Board of Executive Directors approved the Moldova Social Investment Fund II (MSIF II) project on June 17, 2004, and the Project became effective on September 15, 2004. The Project benefited from two additional financings, in 2009 and 2010, and closed on March 31, 2013. 1.1 Context at Appraisal 2. Moldova is a small country situated between Romania and Ukraine with 34,000 square kilometers of territory and a population of 3.6 million. Moreover, Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Eastern Europe. In 2004, at the time of appraisal for the original financing, the Ministry of Economy estimated the poverty rate at 27 percent. The poor were concentrated in rural areas and among households headed by small farmers and rural wage laborers: the poverty rate was 36 percent in villages, 49 percent in small towns, and 17 percent in cities (World Bank, 2006). 3. Facing poverty at home, many Moldovans migrated to European Union (EU) countries and Russia, sending home remittances. These lifted household incomes and drove down the poverty rate for more than a decade. But migration had negative consequences for some elderly people living alone, some children left with relatives, and some people with disabilities, who were placed in large centralized residential institutions (the internats). Moreover, residence in internats isolated vulnerable people. In response, the Government sought to downsize internats and deliver social services to vulnerable people in their communities. 4. Aside from internats, the Moldovan Government faced an inclusion challenge in the Transnistria2 region. This is a long and narrow territory that lies mostly on the left bank of the Dniester River and that separated from Moldova following a brief civil war in 1991. Transnistria is not recognized by any country, but operates as an independent state. This complicates Moldova’s relations with its trading partners and constrains its ability to draw poor Transnistrians into Moldova’s economic recovery. 5. The rationale for the original financing (IDA Credit 3931) in 2004 was to address these issues via the mechanisms described in the Government’s Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EGPRS), and in particular by reducing poverty in selected rural areas. Moreover, the original financing addressed institutionalization and the shortage of community level social care services. A further rationale was to sustainably improve living conditions by building community and local government capacity to initiate, fund, manage, and operate their own projects. 6. Following this financing, Moldova was hit in 2007 by a severe drought that depressed agricultural production by about 30 percent. In 2008, the Prut and Dniester rivers flooded. The rationale for the First Additional Financing (IDA Credit 4555) in early 2009 was to help Moldova offset the risks of worsened poverty among affected poor rural households. 7. By early 2009, the global financial crisis had lowered the income of Moldovan migrants in the EU and in Russia, reducing the remittances sent to resident households. This led to a 6 percent slump in Moldovan GDP in 2009 and to deep poverty in several rural areas. The rationale for the Second 2 Territory of the Republic of Moldova located on the eastern side of the Dniestr/Nistru River, proclaimed an autonomous Republic in 1991, following the independence of Moldova. 1 Additional Financing (IDA Credit 4682) in 2010 was to cushion the impact of the crisis on poor rural households through labor-intensive public works. 8. The mass of visible infrastructure works realized through the first MSIF Project and the use of participatory methods attracted considerable co-financing. The Swedish Agency for International Development (Sida) generously contributed a grant of US$3.7 million (TF-54460) to co-finance the original credit of the MSIF-II Project. This grant mainly supported the district-level system of social care services. In 2009, Sida generously co-financed the Second Additional Financing through a grant of US$2.7 million (TF095950). This helped start the public works in the months before the Second Additional Financing became effective. 9. To extend MSIF-II project activities to Transnistria, the World Bank team raised nearly US$2 million in a grant from the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) in 2009 – with approval from the Government of Moldova. The grant supported community mobilization and infrastructure sub-projects in Transnistria and led to extraordinary operational challenges. 10. Moreover, the EU generously established the Moldova Regional Development and Social Protection Trust Fund (TF071114) in 2009. This included an allocation of Euro 1.9 million in parallel financing to the MSIF unit to build water supply and management works in drought stricken areas and Euro 4.2 million for the extension of the social care services work to new rayons. Moreover, the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) has continued to support implementation of community infrastructure sub-projects through the MSIF project unit independently from IDA. While this ICR will discuss issues involved with the JSDF, EU and KfW Trust Funds as relevant, the ICR is only intended to evaluate the original MSIF II credit, the First and Second Additional Financings, and the two Sida co- financing grants. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 11. The original Project Development Objective was to “contribute to the implementation of Moldova's Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy by empowering poor communities and vulnerable population groups to manage their priority development needs.” 12. The original key indicators were “improved quality of education, health and other outcomes due to improved quality of the basic social and economic services in the community measured through the impact evaluation studies.” The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) of the original financing lists 72 indicators: nine Country Assistance Strategy (“sector”) related indicators, four outcome/impact indicators, and 59 output indicators (World Bank, 2004, Annex I). The table of baseline, target, and actual numbers on the original sector and outcome/impact indicators appears in Annex 9. 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 13. The revised objectives of the project, approved by the Board on January 26, 2010, in connection with the Second Additional Financing, were: “(i) to support the implementation of the National Development Strategy by empowering poor communities and vulnerable population groups to manage their priority needs; and (ii) to contribute to employment and wage incomes in selected poor rural communities during the current economic contraction and during the recovery.” 14. The original indicators proved difficult to update and track. Most of the 72 indicators measured outputs, rather than outcomes. Some indicators were poorly defined and some could not be measured in 2 practice. The first three outcome indicators, for example, could not be measured without expensive and time-consuming household surveys of income and expenditures (Annex 9). 15. Therefore, the Government and the World Bank project team agreed on new indicators in 2006 and asked the project unit to collect only these indicators. In 2009, the Government and the project team agreed on some further adjustments to the project development indicators. The final revised table consolidated indicators for all three IDA financings, except for four indicators of the outcomes from the public works supported by the Second Additional Financing. The Board approved the revised set of 22 outcome indicators on January 26, 2010. Annex 10 presents the revised table, with baselines, targets, and outcomes. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 16. The project applied a poverty-targeting methodology to ensure that citizens of the poorest rural villages and small towns benefited from grants for community infrastructure sub-projects. The formula for allocation of grants under the original financing favored communities that scored high on the Ministry of Economy’s village deprivation index. The formula also assured a wide geographic distribution of grants. The original project also benefited vulnerable groups, such as children with inadequate parental care, elderly people living alone, and people with disabilities. The project unit estimates that the Project benefited over 1.2 million people –one-third of the population- by strengthening delivery of social and economic services. 1.5 Original Components (as approved) 17. Component 1 of the original financing supported community mobilization to select, fund, and operate investments (sub-projects) that helped communities to solve their priority problems. The Project, local governments, and community members funded these sub-projects, which were typically rehabilitation of decayed community infrastructure, such as schools, natural gas connections, roads, and water supply. The original financing helped communities with no experience with participatory methods through training and communities that had already gained experience to prepare development plans. 18. Component 2 supported the development of a network of social care services in six pilot districts (rayons). The Project helped rayons to prepare integrated plans for delivery of social care services, so that children without parents, people with disabilities, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups could receive social services in their home village or town, rather than be forced into distant residential care. 19. Component 3 supported training of community leaders, including mayors and council members, and social service professionals. The component also supported communication and monitoring and evaluation. Component 4 supported project management. 1.6 Revised Components 20. The First Additional Financing of US$5 million equivalent mostly supported an expansion of Component 1. Like the original financing, it targeted grants for sub-projects to communities that scored high on the village deprivation index. Unlike Component 1, the Additional Financing gave preference to small towns and villages damaged by the floods on the Prut and Dniester Rivers. 21. The Second Additional Financing of US$20 million equivalent introduced labor-intensive public works to Component 1 to increase wage incomes and consumption during 2010 and 2011, while the financial crisis continued to affect Moldova. The targeting formula assured a wide geographic distribution of grants for sub-projects and also targeted poor rural areas. To shorten the lead-time to sub- 3 project construction, the formula targeted the majority of grants to communities that had already prepared a strategic development plan and identified their priority sub-projects. 22. In a further and important revision of Component 1, the First and Second Additional Financings shifted implementation of grants for sub-projects from community-based committees to village and small town governments. This occurred because many mayors demonstrated their drive to help their villages through collaboration with the MSIF unit. Moreover, the shift toward work with local governments was a strategy for building permanent institutional capacity and in line with best practice. To support this shift, these financings delivered increased training and support with procurement and financial management to local governments. 1.7 Other significant changes 23. The team reached out to include residents of Transnistria in the community participation and infrastructure investments (Component 1) by raising parallel financing from the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF). The JSDF grant for community participation in the post-conflict zone was signed in March 2009 and the MSIF unit started implementation quickly. 24. In 2011, the MSIF project unit granted funds for the rehabilitation of several schools that were at risk of closure during consolidation of the national school system into core schools. The Government and the World Bank signed an amendment to the legal agreement that guaranteed that the MSIF II project would only rehabilitate schools on an agreed list of schools that would not be shut in the consolidation program. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 25. The Project was prepared with strong ownership. The World Bank team preparing the Project was the same as the team supervising the first MSIF Project, and worked closely with the Government to ensure continuity and improvement. The Project was prepared in a timely manner with 10 months between the concept note and project approval. The additional financings had strong Government ownership, and were completed in a timely manner. 26. The design of the MSIF-II Project built on experience from the first MSIF Project. The main lesson was that community participation at every stage of the infrastructure sub-project cycle motivates communities to maintain and operate their sub-projects. Therefore, the design emphasized community decision-making in identifying the type of sub-project built, supervision of construction, resolution of technical problems, and operation of sub-projects. Experience with the first project taught the team that the 15 percent community contribution to the cost of the sub-project was one of the most critical elements for building ownership and became a requirement in the MSIF II Project. 27. As explained above, design of the outcome and output indicators could have been more streamlined, better aligned with the Project’s goals, and easier to monitor. However, this shortcoming did not impact negatively on the implementation of activities towards the Project’s overarching goals. 28. The main concern about the quality at entry related to the public works supported by the Second Additional Financing. This used the Project’s existing methodology to speed delivery of works. But under the MSIF methodology, there was no way to impose a choice of labor-intensive sub-projects on communities or to impose labor-intensive construction methods on contractors. This weakened the 4 potential for the Second Additional Financing to meet the development objectives for labor-intensive works and employment. With more preparation time, the team could have prepared a procurement methodology that was more appropriate for public works. The team’s decision was that quick delivery of employment was the priority. On balance, the design of the works with the MSIF project structure was probably the best possible compromise. 29. A quality at entry report was not completed; however, a review by the Quality Assurance Group (World Bank, 2010) rated the quality of the design as satisfactory. 2.2 Implementation 30. The MSIF-II supported 1,238 community infrastructure sub-projects throughout Moldova (443 from the original credit; 74 from the First Additional credit; 307 from the Second Additional credit; 30 from the Sida grant TF-054460, and the remaining from EU, KfW, and JSDF grants). In addition, MSIF- II supported social care services in 21 districts (six rayons with support from the Sida grant TF-095950 and 15 from the EU grant). The Government of Moldova, through the MSIF unit, implemented these investments quickly and efficiently with few exceptions. 31. The first component of the Project mobilized and trained communities to plan for their own development and to select and carry-out their own small-scale infrastructure projects. Overall, the Project helped build small-scale infrastructure in half the settlements in the country. Each of the IDA credits supported more sub-projects than originally planned (Annex 2). The Project delivered quality training and community participation was substantial. The Project helped 36 communities prepare or update their development plans, identify priority sub-projects, prepare proposals, manage funds, and implement and sustain their sub-projects. An additional 224 communities received technical assistance to prepare proposals and implement sub-projects. 32. Sida grant TF095950, worth approximately US$4.2 million, financed the piloting of the community-based, rather than central institution-based, delivery of social care services under the second component. The component supported planning for delivery of care in six pilot rayons, training of staff, rehabilitation of buildings, and resulted in the establishment of 31 operating social care centers (some communities also chose to build social care service centers under the first component). The project unit expanded the network for delivery of community-based services by implementing a further 30 social care centers in 14 rayons with support from the EU-funded “Regional Development and Social Protection” project. Overall, the project unit invested in 66 such community-based centers all over Moldova. 33. Drawing on the initial pilots, the Government began construction of a national network of local social care services. The Government adopted the National Program for the Development of Integrated Social Care Services for 2008 – 2012. Moreover, the Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family (MLSPF) adopted a policy of serving several vulnerable groups under the same roof in multi-functional social care centers in villages and towns. The Project supported preparation of operational guidelines for the centers, including the description of services and staffing structure, which the Ministry approved. Based on these, the Ministry prepared regulations to operate the multi-functional centers. Furthermore, the Ministry reviewed the existing quality standards and developed new ones, introduced accreditation of services, and a framework for contracting out services to NGOs and private providers. With assistance from the Project, the Ministry introduced mobile teams for people with disabilities to address the issue of shortage of specialists in rural areas, such as psychologists, physical therapists, and speech therapists, and successfully piloted the mobile team in one rayon. 34. The third component of the Project supported building community capacity to influence policy at the national level, various evaluation studies, and building the management information system (MIS). 5 Under the original credit, the component supported community efforts to influence implementation of the national poverty reduction strategy. Under the additional financing, its activities shifted mostly to technical assistance to communities. Moreover, the First and Second Additional Financing credits emphasized assistance to flood-affected settlements and creation of temporary employment to cushion the impact of the financial crisis in rural Moldova. Thus, as the project evolved, the share of investment in construction expanded and the share of investment in community participation and capacity-building diminished. Community contribution to monitoring project outcomes lessened and the project unit relied increasingly on independent evaluations to inform project outcomes. Importantly, the project unit further developed its MIS for project activities and outputs. 35. In 2009, the JSDF grant funded community participatory investment projects in a post-conflict zone. This brought additional challenges to the Project. The Project first had to build ties with authorities in Transnistria before mobilizing communities and beginning work. Work was delayed in 2010 as Transnistrian authorities expressed concerns regarding various issues including: (i) references in contracts that conflict was resolved according to Moldovan law and in Moldovan courts; (ii) demands for implementation through an agency registered in Transnistria (not MSIF); and (iii) requirements to procure Transnistrian construction permits, payment of import tax, and use of banking system. The parties worked together to determine solutions that were amenable to all sides, and work re-commenced in 2012. The Grant was extended and is expected to complete its sub-projects and close in September 2013. 36. Over nine years of implementation, there was just one significant and a few minor slips in implementation. The significant slip occurred during the summer of 2011, when the MSIF project unit granted funds for the rehabilitation of several schools that were at risk of closure during consolidation of the national school system into core schools. The project team discovered this during a routine review mission, studied the situation at each relevant school, and reached agreements with the Government on whether to stop or complete each school rehabilitation sub-project. To prevent any further grants for rehabilitation of such schools, the Government and the World Bank signed an amendment to the legal agreement on October 31, 2011, that guaranteed that the MSIF II project would only rehabilitate schools on an agreed list of schools that would not be shut in the consolidation program. 37. There were several minor slips. For example, a pause in implementation of project-supported investments in social care services occurred in 2007 due to uncertainty regarding the Ministry of Social Protection’s support for Component 2, involving social care service centers. The Ministry resolved the issue by producing new regulations on the new centers. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 38. The MSIF project unit collected data on the indicators of outcomes from its management and information system (MIS), through baseline surveys, and through three in-depth evaluation reports by independent consultants: Bernhard Brunhes International (2008), CBS-AXA (2012), and CBS-AXA (2013). 39. The project results framework was modified at the mid-term review to capture better the achievement of the development objective. The outcome/impact indicators of the PDO and the three component objectives were modified to relate more directly their wording to the ideas of empowerment and enhanced capacity behind the PDO and component objectives. Where relevant, the output/performance indicators that were previously used were maintained. The project results framework was formally revised at approval of the Second Additional Financing, with the inclusion of an additional PDO and accompanying indicators to measure employment and wage-related impacts of the Project. Annex 10 presents the source for each outcome indicator. 6 40. In its well-developed MIS, MSIF collected and analyzed predominantly output-related data about its performance. MSIF obtained outcome-related data through special data-gathering exercises and more sophisticated beneficiary impact assessments commissioned by consultancies. For instance, the original credit financed participatory monitoring, used in 2004 - 2010 to monitor attainment of some high-level objectives. Furthermore, for the Second Additional Financing credit, MSIF established a separate recurrent monitoring scheme in which the wage content of contractors’ budgets and record employment of local laborers engaged in public works through locally hired engineers-supervisors were analyzed. In addition, MSIF commissioned several independent procurement audits and technical reviews of the engineering quality and operating condition of a sample of sub-projects—both in execution of provisions in the legal agreements. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 41. The Quality Assurance Group rated safeguards and fiduciary aspects of the project as satisfactory (World Bank, 2010). The project experienced no significant issues with fiduciary compliance. However, the financial audit for 2010 was delivered four months late because of complications in procuring the auditor. 42. The environmental category for all three financings was ‘Financial Intermediary’ since the MSIF II Project finances investments selected by communities and not determined in advance. The Project Operation Manual includes environmental guidelines and a checklist for evaluating environmental and other safeguards issues for each proposed community infrastructure sub-project. These three financings did not trigger the safeguards for resettlement. A safeguards specialist regularly reviewed the Project including visiting a sample of infrastructure sub-projects. These reviews did not find any significant issues with compliance. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 43. The project team presented an options note on the future of the MSIF-II project to the State Chancellery (Prywes, 2012). In the note, the team suggested use of the MSIF unit to train local governments in participatory methods and in project management with a view of transferring greater funds and responsibilities to these governments. The State Chancellery expressed its wish to preserve the project unit’s capacity for possible implementation of external donor funds as Moldova stands to receive increasing volumes of EU grants for regional development. In the medium-term, the Government might ask the project unit to apply its experience with community participation and fiduciary matters to regional development and help it absorb EU grants. 44. For the near term, the Government of Moldova will maintain the MSIF project unit in its current form and seek international financial support for extension and expansion of the MSIF II project. At present, the project unit continues to implement its work on community development (Component 1 of the project) with support from KfW. It will continue to implement its work on social services for vulnerable groups (Component 2) with a forthcoming grant from the World Bank-managed Japan PHRD Trust Fund for Disability and Development. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 45. The Project objectives were aligned with the objectives of both the 2004 Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) and 2008 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). The Project contributed to the achievement of strategic country outcomes under the second pillar of the 2004 CAS, which was to 7 minimize social and environmental risks, build human capital and promote social inclusion. Those outcomes were: (i) better targeting of social assistance; and (ii) higher quality of education and improved access to education services in line with MDGs. The 2008 CPS retained the same second pillar and the Project has contributed to the objectives under the second pillar. 46. In addition, the Project’s objectives were relevant to the Government’s EGPRS for 2004-2006, which was followed by the National Development Strategy for 2008-2011. Specifically, the original financing supported the first pillar of the EGPRS, which was to attain a more “equitable distribution of the benefits of growth.” To achieve this, the Project targeted grants to poor rural communities through Component 1. The Project supported specific actions in the strategy such as increased access to schools, rural roads, and potable water supply, and increased local services for people with disabilities. This occurred as communities chose to use their grants to build sub-projects in these sectors. Through Component 2 on social care services, the Project supported the equity objective of the EGPRS and the poverty reduction and social inclusion objectives of the National Development Strategy. Component 2 invested in basic services (such as health and education) to vulnerable groups, which helped to improve capacity to manage their own development –a project development objective. The JSDF grant supported a further objective of the National Development Strategy: The resolution of political conflict with Transnistria. 47. The design was relevant to conditions on the ground in Moldova. Component 1 targeted poor rural areas due to the concentration of poverty there. The objectives and design of the component stressed capacity building due to the relatively weak condition of village and small town governments. Component 2 was relevant to the crisis of care of people in centralized institutions and the shortage of local-level services to vulnerable people. 48. The monitoring system (discussed in section 2.3) and World Bank supervision showed ways to modify design and implementation to ensure the Project remained relevant to the needs of poor rural households and communities. For example, the monitoring system and supervision led to changes in the Project to assure that schools at risk of closure were not rehabilitated. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 49. The Project met 16 of its 22 objectives: exceeding its objectives for building communities’ capacity to manage their own development, boosted living conditions in the poor target communities, and generated wage incomes to cushion the blow from the financial crisis of 2009 (Annex 10). 50. The combination of project-supported training and community learning-by-doing most likely explain the high performance of indicators measuring improved communities’ capacity to manage their own development. For example, the number of communities that contributed more than required to financing their sub-project was 507, compared to a target of 107; the number of communities that started new initiatives not supported by the project was 244, compared to a target of 107. Also, the number of communities where the beneficiary association was still operational two years after sub-project completion was 357, compared to a target of 90. Moreover, the high level of project-supported communities that reported increased confidence in their local governments to manage local development. 51. The Project apparently caused an improvement in living conditions. Combined with increased community participation in schools, the rehabilitation of schools, improved heating and sealed roofs seem to have caused an increase in school attendance. These same forces contributed to the launch of new learning programs and to improved learning results in schools. In a further example of causation, the installation of natural gas led to a reduction in consumption of polluting coal and wood fuel. Better heat and less air pollution probably led, in turn, to a decrease in the incidence of respiratory diseases. Further 8 outcome indicators for the infrastructure sub-projects (Component 1) show similar positive results. Importantly, the results of the difference-in-differences analysis of outcomes for living conditions are consistent with causation (Bernard Brunhes International, 2008 and CBS-AXA, 2012). 52. Turning to social services to vulnerable groups (Component 2), the indicators show that the Project increased the number of vulnerable people who receive care in their communities. This probably reduced referrals to central residential institutions. The reduction is difficult to measure because there is no way to determine how many vulnerable people would have received local care in the absence of the Project. Further, the indicators of capacity to deliver social care services improved. For example, the percentage of district level coordinating committee members who said that their ability to identify gaps in the social service delivery system improved exceeded the target of 70 percent. 53. The Second Additional Financing exceeded its objectives for wages and consumption in target villages and towns. However, the financing fell short of its objective for the labor-intensiveness of works and for public employment. This is important since improving short-term employment was an objective of the public works. The shortfall is explained by the decision, for the sake of speed, to rely on established procurement procedures that did not impose labor-intensive sub-projects on communities or impose labor-intensive construction methods on contractors. A further consideration is that the targets for these indicators were over-ambitious. 54. Overall, the Project has achieved its development objectives by meeting most of its project development indicators and exceeding many of them. Living conditions improved in communities with project-supported infrastructure. Beneficiary communities demonstrated their ability to manage their own development. The Project exceeded the targets for wages and consumption under the public works supported by the Second Additional Financing, but failed to meet the doubled labor-intensity objective. The social care service component was successful in terms of the number of beneficiaries served and the reduced referral of people to central residential institutions. Finally, within the country, Government and civil society replicated many project practices and pilots which add to the sustainability of the Project objectives and results. 3.3 Efficiency 55. The economic analysis of the Project demonstrates a relatively low cost operation. The Project’s management costs averaged 5 percent of total disbursements, less than half the average in similar projects (Annex 3, Table A). The comparable projects included three other social investment funds in the ECA region and six other investment projects in Moldova. 56. Moreover, Moldova benefited from relatively cost-effective construction of infrastructure. The Project’s unit costs of construction components averaged eight percent less than in similar donor projects and 23 percent less than in government agencies (Annex 3, Table B). The comparison is with the unit costs of components experienced by donors such as the UNDP and GIZ, and with the costs of government agencies such as the National Environment Fund, the Energy Efficiency Fund, the Regional Development Agency, and with local governments. The team compared unit costs of components because the diversity of design and content of community infrastructure sub-projects was an obstacle to comparison of the overall costs of infrastructure sub-projects. 9 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 57. The Project responded directly to the concentration of poverty in rural areas. It also responded to gaps in the system for local delivery of social services to vulnerable groups. The Project achieved most of its objectives, and was particularly successful in achieving the indicators of the most difficult part: building community capacity to manage their own development. The Second Additional Financing met its wage and household consumption targets, but undershot its targets for labor-intensiveness of works and short-term employment. However, this partly reflects an over-ambitious target and inappropriate procurement processes. Furthermore, the economic analysis suggests that the Project was cost-effective. The Quality Assurance Group (QAG) awarded satisfactory ratings to the Project (World Bank, 2010). Finally, the Government expressed satisfaction with the Project in its own evaluation report. 58. A further important reason for rating the Project as satisfactory relates to the difficult issue of sustainability of outcomes, where sustainability is defined in terms of:  Community capacity. The indicators suggest that communities gained a lasting ability to plan for and carry-out their own investments. (See section 3.2).  Financing. The evidence suggests that both external and internal sources will continue to finance the types of investments supported by the Project. At present, the German KfW is financing investments in community sub-projects and Japan plans to finance investments in children with disability, with the MSIF project unit managing both investments. The indicators suggest that village communities will continue to finance their own project- related activities (see the number of communities that were able to mobilize more than the required financing for MSIF-supported sub-projects and the number that financed new investments afterwards). Moreover, local governments committed themselves to financing the operation of MSIF-supported sub-projects and did so in all but a handful of cases.  Methodology. The Project's participative methodology for village and small town development has been accepted and promoted by the present and past Moldovan governments and applied by most donors. The Project did not introduce these methods, but was the main vehicle for demonstrating and spreading the methodology in Moldova.  Personnel. The Project invested in training local elected officials and other community leaders and in training the civil servants who work at district-level social care service centers. Indicators and evaluation reports show that village communities have continued to use this human capacity to raise funds and start new development projects.  Institutions. The Project built up a productive project unit that operates and procures small- scale infrastructure at relatively low cost. For these reasons, the Government has pressed forward with MSIF unit implementation despite the option to implement projects on its own. This reflects the Government's difficulty in attracting and holding on to well- qualified staff at civil service salaries. Most importantly, the Government is eager to preserve the capacity of the project unit for use in absorbing EU regional development funding. 59. For all of these reasons, the team rates this Project as ‘satisfactory.’ 10 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 60. As explained above, the Project focused on the poorest areas and according to the outcome indicators, improved living conditions (heat, water supply, education facilities) in poor communities. The poverty rate declined throughout the nine years of project implementation, a decline driven mostly by workers remittances. There is no way to measure the contribution of the Project to the decline in poverty. 61. The Project improved women’s participation in community decision-making, in part by requiring that, to qualify for a grant, at least 40 percent of participants in community meetings must be women. It also benefited women’s employment by reserving at least 20 percent of jobs on sub-projects for women. 62. The Project focused on community participation, and under the latter two financings, on implementation by local governments. This means the Project can be classified as both social development and institution building. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 63. Component 1 of the Project invested heavily in building enduring project management capacity in villages and small town governments and community committees. The Project strengthened these local institutions through training of personnel and by enabling local leaders to learn by carrying out sub- projects. More importantly, the Project strengthened institutions by sending MSIF project unit consultants to work with local leaders so that they learned by implementing their sub-projects. The indicators of community capacity building demonstrate this achievement (Section 3.2 and Annex 10). 64. Component 2 built district-level capacity to plan for delivery of social services to vulnerable groups and built small town and village level capacity by training staff of social care service centers. Again, the indicators illustrate a sustained improvement in institutional capacity (Section 3.2 and Annex 10). (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 65. The Second Additional Financing supported school rehabilitation at the time of the reform and consolidation of the schools network by upgrading some of the hub schools and thus rendering them more attractive to parents and students. This positive support for school consolidation was somewhat offset by the risk that several schools rehabilitated by MSIF might be shut during the school consolidation. Separately, the Project contributed positively to the school reform by influencing the national standards and requirements applied in construction. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 66. The Project commissioned independent evaluation reports, which are summarized in Annex 5. The first report (Bernard Brunhes, 2008) collected information on the revised indicators (Annex 10). The following two reports (CBS-AXA 2012 and 2013) presented figures separately for the First and Second Additional Financing. 67. Two of the reports applied the difference-in-differences methodology to approximately control for changes in income, assets, population, and other variables in a control group of communities. The difference-in differences estimates generally found that residents of communities that benefited from sub- projects reported a greater improvement in living conditions and in capacity of their local leaders than in 11 communities that did not receive project support. All three reports found improved citizen satisfaction with project-supported sub-projects and improved community confidence in their ability to plan and manage development initiatives. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 68. The risk to the development outcome appears moderate to low. The Government of Moldova accepts and promotes active citizen participation in development; citizens continue to elect representative, and often dynamic, local leaders; KfW continues to finance new sub-projects through the MSIF unit and use the MSIF methodology. A large-scale inflow of EU funding would allow for an expansion of the Project’s work on community development and on social services to vulnerable groups. The possibility of a large inflow of aid presents the Government with the challenge of coordinating and supervising institutions for implementation of aid including: the MSIF unit, the Regional Development Fund, the UNDP-supported implementation units, and others. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory 69. In preparing each financing, the Bank team drew on earlier experience with social investment funds in Moldova and drew on country and sectoral research studies, such as poverty assessments and updates. A QAG Quality of Lending Portfolio Review found that the quality at entry of the original financing was satisfactory (World Bank, 2010). Furthermore, the team prepared the additional financings quickly and the resulting public works delivered an increase in wages, incomes, and consumption in target communities while they suffered from the consequences of the financial crisis. However, as explained above, early issues existed with the choice of indicators to be monitored and evaluated, however these did not impact adversely on the activities undertaken in the Project towards the overall project goals. The Team should have prepared a shorter and more measurable set of outcome and output indicators (section 1.3). (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 70. The World Bank project team monitored the Project through semi-annual support visits. Each included field visits to between eight and ten sub-projects, meetings to seek the views of beneficiaries, village mayors, school principals, teachers, and the directors and staff of social care service centers. The team also monitored the Project through annual inspections of the physical quality of sub-projects by a civil engineer, procurement post-reviews, annual financial audits, and safeguards reviews. The QAG review graded the quality of the Bank’s supervision as a “High 2” where ‘2’ means satisfactory (World Bank, 2010). 12 71. Seeing a need to revise the original project monitoring indicators, the team worked with the Project Unit, and in concurrence with the Government, to modify these in 2006, and again in 2009. However, the indicators were not formally restructured until 2010. 72. Through supervision, the Project Team successfully increased the speed of public works implementation (supported by the Second Additional Financing) in 2010 and 2011. Through systematic supervision, the Project Team identified use of MSIF resources for financing several schools at risk of closure and addressed the issue through cooperation with the Government and an amendment to the legal agreement. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 73. The rating is based on the multiple aspects of supervision, the number and quality of evaluation studies, the outcomes, and the conclusions of the Quality Assurance Group’s review. 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 74. The Government of Moldova supported and promoted the Project, and carried out the work through the MSIF project unit. In particular, the Government guided the project through its leadership of the steering committee. Early in the Project, complaints surfaced from steering committee members that its meetings were organized haphazardly, without clear direction, agendas, or notice. The Government addressed these concerns in a timely manner, changing the leadership within the steering committee, and thus, affecting positive change. Ultimately, this contributed to greater quality of MSIF work and policy consistency. Moreover, the Government sustained its support through a change in administrations, following elections in 2010. Local governments implemented many project-supported sub-projects. They also contributed a substantial portion of the over US$11 million community contribution. (b) Implementing Agency Performance Rating: Satisfactory 75. The MSIF project unit mobilized communities, trained leaders, and arranged for realization of the infrastructure sub-projects at a rapid pace. The project unit deployed an experienced management team along with well-qualified experts on community-driven development, civil engineering, social care services, and contracting, accounting, and monitoring and evaluation. The unit’s only major slippage was financing of rehabilitation of several schools at risk of closure. Among the lesser slippages, the project unit was late in delivering one financial audit, a technical audit, and one evaluation study. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 76. The rating is based on support from senior officials, such as Deputy Prime Ministers and heads of the State Chancellery, under two government administrations, and government participation in guiding the Project through its steering committee. It is also based on the Ministry of Labor and Social 13 Protection’s contributions to deinstitutionalization and building a local network of non-residential services to vulnerable groups, such as people with disability. 6. Lessons Learned 77. Implementation of the MSIF II project confirmed that the public is willing to participate at every level of local development. It also confirmed public willingness to volunteer time and contribute a 15 percent share of the costs of sub-projects. The Project confirmed the value of community contributions in gaining community commitment to realization and operation of their sub-projects, and in teaching the communities to raise funds for their own development projects. 78. A further encouraging lesson is that most village and small town governments can successfully plan for their own development and manage, operate, and maintain their own development projects, with sufficient initial assistance. There were few problems with the shift of responsibility for money management and procurement to the local governments; this points to the feasibility of further decentralization of budget and responsibilities to local governments. 79. Clear criteria for the selection of sub-projects and a participatory approach minimize the possibility for political capture. In addition, a formal complaint mechanism appears to be an important component in mitigating risks of unfair treatment of communities or villagers. 80. It is possible to promote and, to a degree, achieve sustainable outcomes in terms of financing, capacity, methodology, trained people, and institutions (section 3.4). 81. Cooperating with donors to ensure continued funding of community-driven investments and to build implementation capacity in local governments and in the regions is imperative. Within Moldova the UNDP supports government plans for local development, while the EU is the major donor for regional development. 82. All parties should be in agreement with project guidelines prior to commencing work. Particularly in post-conflict zones, time prior to commencing work may be required to build ties and trust, and should be accounted for. 83. Competitive procurement processes, along with building capacity at the local level can lead to improved efficiency. Specifically, this allowed the Project to maintain relatively low operating and construction costs. 84. In the preparing each financing, the team worked with the Government and learned the importance of balancing poverty-targeting, through the use of the village deprivation index, with rules assuring an equitable distribution of sub-projects across poor rural areas. 85. Within the design of the Project, a tendency toward choosing tangible construction sub-projects prevailed over soft sub-projects, such as training. It is important to promote and expand the availability and desirability of soft sub-projects that provide long-term skills and sustainability. 86. Sustainability is an important factor for all SIFs. It is important to consider the medium and long- term sustainability of SIFs at the design stage. In the case of MSIF, other donors are continuing to use the project unit to implement community development projects. However, elements of the Government currently appear hesitant. Such obstacles should be addressed early in the design to ensure funding and operation beyond the duration of IDA funding. 14 87. MSIF proved to be a highly flexible mechanism. The Government was able to use the Project to respond as needed to various crises, natural and economic. However, the difficulty of reaching the labor- intensiveness and employment targets of the Second Additional Financing demonstrates the disadvantage of using a SIF project to deliver emergency public work. A preliminary mission explored a list of alternative vehicles for public works, such as building the capacity of the Government’s small public works program, attempting large scale forestry, building works for water management (berms, canals, ponds), supporting government road rehabilitation works, and supporting the public utility’s installation of large water pipes. None of these approaches proved feasible. The government public employment program did not have the necessary procurement or financial management capacity, and did not have much experience with works. Road rehabilitation turned out to be capital rather than labor-intensive; the same was true for burying large water pipes. It was not possible to install water management works without time-consuming engineering studies and preparation. Forestry faced the challenge of identifying sufficient free land and of building community forest management capacity. Therefore the only solution for quick action was to use the MSIF to mount public works. However, trade-offs are certainly present: using existing procedures allows for rapid implementation with perhaps less capacity using existing procedures, while introducing new procurement procedures could allow for better quality, but would take an extended period of time. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 88. The State Chancellery of the Government of Moldova transmitted a detailed Romanian-language evaluation report of the Project to the Bank on July 25, 2013. An English-language summary of the report appears in Annex 7. The report stresses the Project’s successes in building more community infrastructure than planned, in helping community organizations and local government to plan for their own future and to procure and manage construction contracts. The report also stresses the Project’s successes in working with the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection and with local authorities to build the district-level system of service delivery to vulnerable groups. (b) Co-financiers 89. The Bank team did not receive comments from co-financiers. (c) Other partners and stakeholders 90. The Bank team did not receive comments from any other partners or stakeholders. 15 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Expenditures by Component Percentage of Components Appraisal Estimate (US$ millions) Actual (US$ millions) total appraised amounts Financing and co-financing IDA 3931 IDA 4555 IDA 4682 Total IDA 3931 IDA 4555 IDA 4682 Total 1. Community development 22.5 5.7 22.6 50.8 25.1 6.8 26.8 58.7 115.6 2. Social care services development 3.3 0.0 0.6 3.9 3.5 0 0.8 4.3 110.3 3. Communications, monitoring, 1.9 0.0 1.0 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.0 34.0 evaluation, and capacity building 4. Project management 1.5 0.2 1.0 2.6 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.7 64.6 Total 29.2 5.9 25.2 60.2 30.4 6.9 28.4 65.7 109.1 Note: Includes Sida co-financing but does not include European Union, Government of Japan, Soros Foundation, and other sources of co- and parallel financing. Source: MSIF Unit and the World Bank. (b) Project Financing by Source Percentage of Sources of funds Appraisal Estimate (US$ millions) Actual (US$ millions) total appraised amounts Financing & co-financing IDA 3931 IDA 4555 IDA 4682 Total IDA 3931 IDA 4555 IDA 4682 Total Borrower 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.2 0.7 2.4 138.7 Local Communities 3.7 0.7 2.5 6.9 3.8 1.4 6.0 11.2 162.8 International Development 20.0 5.0 20.0 45.0 20.7 5.3 19.3 45.3 100.7 Association (IDA) SWEDEN: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 3.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 4.2 0.0 2.4 6.6 244.4 (Sida) US: Soros Foundation 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 Total 29.2 5.9 25.2 60.2 30.4 6.9 28.4 65.7 109.1 Note: Actual Sida co-financing of IDA 3931 was US$4,194,855. Source: MSIF Unit & World Bank. 16 Annex 2. Outputs by Component (Outputs from all sources of finances, outputs in brackets, [..], are from IDA sources only) Baseline Actual Objective March March 2013 2013 Component 1: Community Infrastructure Sub-Projects Person-days of training delivered (#) 0 31,686 13,000 Total community infrastructure sub-projects – all types and all sources 0 1,238 1,033 of financing (#) [854a/] [596b/] Community infrastructure sub-projects by type: Schools (#) 0 404 - Kindergartens (#) 0 278 - Water management (#) 0 191 - Roads (#) 0 117 - Natural gas pipeline networks (#) 0 108 - Cultural & community centers (#) 0 75 - Other (#) 0 65 - Community infrastructure sub-projects by project sub-component: 1.1 Development of newly involved villages 0 [305a/] [229b/] 1.2 Community-driven development for villages served by MSIF-I 0 [394a/] [276b/] 1.3 Community development in towns 0 [155a/] [91b/] Community infrastructure sub-projects by source of financing: IDA Credit no. 3921 - Original Financing 0 443 358 IDA Credit no. 4550 - (First) Additional Financing 0 74 45 IDA Credit no. 4682 - Second Additional Financing 0 307 193 Sida Grant no. TF054460 0 30 - JSDF Grant no.TF93407 0 22 12 Component 2: Social Care Services Types of outputs Districts-level strategic plans delivery of social care services (#) 0 6 6 Person days of training (#) 0 7069 720 Social care service infrastructure sub-projects –project financing 0 61 60 Social care service infrastructure sub-projects by source of financing: Sida Grant no. TF095950 0 31 30 Note: Similar sub-projects implemented outside of the MSIF-II project 0 30 30 but by the MSIF project unit with financing from EU Grant no. Component 3. Capacity Development, Communication, Monitoring & Evaluation Types of output: Person days of training (#) 0 2,161 - Memorandums of Understanding signed with villages, NGOs, 0 1,275 - rayons, and ministries (#) Communities participating in monitoring and evaluation (#) 0 536 400 a/ Actual number of sub-projects supported by all three IDA credits; b/ Sum of objectives for all three IDA credits. 17 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis This economic analysis demonstrates that Moldova benefited from the relatively low costs of the Project. In particular, the MSIF Project’s:  Management costs averaged five percent of total disbursements, less than half the average in similar projects; and  Unit costs of components of construction averaged eight percent less than in similar donor projects and 23 percent less than in government agencies. Management costs. Implementation of the Project was cost-effective in terms of management costs (Table A). These are defined as the cost of operating the project implementation unit (consultants’ wages and benefits, their travel and training, equipment, utilities, and materials), as well as the costs of project monitoring and evaluation, and financial audits. The comparison is with three other social investment funds in the Europe and Central Asia region and six other World Bank-supported projects in Moldova. The data sources are the project costs by component tables in Annex 1 of the relevant Implementation Completion Reports. Drawing on this data, the Project’s total cost of management was 4.8 percent of its total disbursements, less than half the 10.1 percent average cost of nine similar projects. Moreover, the Project’s costs of management ran below the costs of six of the nine comparators. Annex 3, Table A: Project Management as a Share of Total Project Costs (in percentage points) Projects Management costs (%) Moldova Social Investment Fund-II Project 4.8 Average for projects listed below 10.1 Social investment funds in other ECA countries Ukraine Social Investment Fund 13.0 Georgia Social Investment Fund 3.1 Armenia Social Investment Fund 17.4 Other projects in Moldova Health Investment Fund 6.0 Social Protection Management 4.0 Agricultural Pollution Control (Global Environment Fund) 13.9 Persistent Organic Pollutants Management 23.5 Moldova AIDS Control 6.0 Pilot Water Supply and Sanitation 4.0 Source: MSIF Project Unit and World Bank Implementation Completion Reports. Construction component costs. In a further analysis of cost-effectiveness, the evaluation team sought to compare the Project’s costs of rehabilitation of infrastructure with the costs experienced by other donors and by the Government. However, the design and content of project-supported infrastructure in a single sector vary greatly and this obstructs the comparison. For instance, the content of school rehabilitation sub-projects varies with community preferences and budgets. Some communities replace their school’s gas heater, install new insulated windows and doors, and replace its roof, some drop one of these components, while others focus on rehabilitating a secondary school gymnasium, and still others limit renovations to light repairs of crumbling plaster and some broken roof tiles. 18 Annex 3, Table B: Comparison of MSIF's and Other Institutions' Unit Costs of Construction Components (Calculated from files on small-scale community infrastructure projects completed in 2011 and 2012, all figures exclude value-added tax (all components include the costs of materials, supporting infrastructure, and of installation) MSIF Other Donors Government of Moldova Percent point differences Unit Unit Unit MSIF Type of Construction cost Sample size cost Sample size cost Sample size vs Other MSIF vs infrastructure component (MDL) (infrastructures) (MDL) Donor (infrastructures) (MDL) Agency (infrastructures) Donors Government Water supply 1,000 meters of 59,379 10 64,447 UNDP, 5 86,594 NEF and local 9 -7.9 -31.4 polyethylene GIZ governments water pipeline Roads 1,000 square 127,635 10 NA NA NA 169,643 Regional 7 NA -24.8 meters of Development rehabilitated Agency asphalt road (NFRD) Schools 1,000 square 268,225 12 299,965 UNDP 2 346,479 Local 13 -10.6 -22.6 meters of new Governments metal tile and EEF roofing Schools 100 square 99,820 12 111,551 UNDP 5 120,841 EEF, Central, 6 -10.5 -17.4 meters of new and Local windows Governments Schools 100 square 29,379 11 30,472 Keystone, 3 36,892 EEF, Central, 4 -3.6 -20.4 meters of wood Soros, and and Local or ceramic UNDP Governments floors Average (unweighted) -8.1 -23.3 Source: Ursul and Andriuta (2013), based on data collected from MSIF, other donors, and the Government of Moldova. Notes: NA - 'Not Available'; MSIF - Moldova Social Investment Fund; NEF - National Environment Fund; EEF - Energy Efficiency Fund; NFRD - National Fund for Regional Development; GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. 19 To overcome the obstacle, the team collected and compared standardized unit costs of construction components from the MSIF project, other donors, and from Government of Moldova agencies. The team gathered information on costs of components from the winning bids submitted to MSIF, and from detailed government budget documents, during the years 2011 and 2012. In particular, consultants gathered information on the costs of components of three types of sub-projects in 2011 or 2012: 1. Rehabilitation of schools and kindergartens; 2. Rehabilitation of rural roads; and 3. Construction of new water supply pipelines. The consultants also gathered information on the following components of the infrastructure and then converted the information to a per unit basis: Water supply works:  1,000 meters of polyethylene water pipeline, PE 80, PN6, diameter 63-75 mm (incl. PE pipeline and ground works) Rural gravel road works:  1,000 meters squared of rehabilitated asphalt road (with a new 4 to 5 centimeter layer). School and kindergarten rehabilitation works:  1,000 meters squared of new metal tile style roofing (including installation of structural wood beams and other directly related works);  100 meters squared of new PVC windows; and  100 meters squared of typical wood or ceramic floors. After collecting these data, the consultants adjusted the results to exclude value-added tax to eliminate differences in tax treatment, and then expressed the component costs in per unit terms. The report by Ursul and Andriuta (2013) provides further detail on the methodology. The results suggest that the Project maintains systematically lower costs of construction of components of subprojects than other donor agencies, such as the UNDP and the GIZ (Table B). Furthermore, the results suggest that the Project achieved systematically lower costs than government agencies such as the National Environment Fund (NEF), the Energy Efficiency Fund (EEF), the Regional Development Authority (RDA), and selected local governments. In their report, Ursul and Andriuta (2013) provide detailed information on each of the infrastructure sub-project in the sample. 20 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Lending Original Financing Anush Bezhanyan Team Leader ECSHD Alexei Ionascu Operations Analyst ECSHD Juraj Mesik Community Foundation Specialist ECSHD Keith McLean Local Government Specialist ECSHD Nadejda Mochinova Program Assistance ECSHD Yingwei Wu Procurement Specialist ECSPS Vitaly Kazkov Financial Management Specialist ECCAT Zoe Kolovou Senior Counsel LEGEM David Freese Senior Finance Officer LOAFC Andrian Guth Child Protection Specialist ECSHD Erik Whist Environment Sepcialist ECSHD Piet Goovaerts Social Investment Fund Specialist ECSHD First Additional Financing Menahem Prywes Senior Economist ECSHD Andrei Busioc Financial Management Specialist ECCAT Yingwei Wu Senior Procurement Specialist ECSPS Dmytro Glazkov Operations Analysts ECSSD Hannah Koilpillai Senior Finance Officer LOAFC Ruxandra Costache Counsel LEGEM Alexei Ionascu Operations Analyst ECSHD Anna Goodman Program Assistant ECSHD Tamara Ursu Program Assistant ECCMD Second Additional Financing Menahem Prywes Team Leader ECSHD Yuliya Smolyar Social Protection Specialist ECSHD Andrei Busioc Financial Management Specialist ECCAT Yingwei Wu Senior Procurement Specialist ECSPS Oxana Druta Financial Management ECSSD Arcadie Capcelea Safeguards Specialist ECSSD Hannah Koilpillai Senior Finance Officer LOAFC Ruxandra Costache Counsel LEGEM Alexandru Ursul Engineer ECSHD Mihaela Ciocanu Operations Analyst ECCMD Anna Goodman Program Assistant ECSHD Tamara Ursu Program Assistant ECCMD Supervision Irina Babich Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Anush Bezhanyan Team Leader ECSHD 21 Names Title Unit Yasser El-Gammal Team Leader MNSHD Iurie Brumarel Consultant on engineering ECSHD Andrei Busuioc Senior Financial Management Specialist ECCAT Arcadii Capcelea Senior Environmental Specialist ECSEN Mihaela Ciocanu Operations Analyst ECCMD Bogdan Constantin Constantinescu Senior Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Oxana Druta Financial Management Analyst ECSO3 Yasser El-Gammal Senior Operations Specialist ECSHD Dmytro Glazkov Operations Analyst ECSSD Anna Goodman Program Assistant ECSHD Petre (Peter) Adrian Guth Consultant on social care services ECSHD Alexei Ionascu Operations Analyst ECSTR Irina Shmeliova Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Yuliya Smolyar Social Protection Specialist ECSH3 Tamara Ursu Program Assistant ECCMD Alexandru Ursul Engineer ECSHD Erik Whist Consultant MNSED Yingwei Wu Senior Procurement Specialist LCSPT (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle US$ Thousands No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending a/ FY03 11.5 80 FY04 31.4 141 Total: 43.0 220 Supervision/ICR FY05 34.8 102 FY06 34.8 90 FY07 32.6 112 FY08 33.2 118 FY09 18.0 76 FY10 19.0 83 FY11 34.2 73 FY12 29.9 99 FY13 16.1 93 Total: 252.6 845 Source: World Bank. a/ Staff weeks and costs for lending cover preparation of the original MSIF credit, preparation of the first and second additional financing are included under 'Supervision.' 22 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results MSIF financed three evaluation reports that surveyed beneficiary views of project outcomes:  Bernard Brunhes International (2008) covers beneficiaries of the original financing,  CBS-AXA (2013) covers beneficiaries of the first Additional Financing,  CBS-AXA (2012) covers beneficiaries of the Second Additional Financing. For each report, the consultants surveyed beneficiaries and compiled quantitative figures on responses. Moreover, the consultants also interviewed beneficiaries and summarized their perspectives on the project. Summary of the Bernard Brunhes International (2008) on the original financing Sources and type of analysis. To assess the project objectively, the consultants computed and reported difference-in-differences estimates of outcomes. These estimates are the difference between the change in an outcome indicator over 2003-2008 in communities that received assistance from the original financing of the MSIF-II Project and the change in the same indicator in comparison communities. ‘Communities’ means villages and small towns. ‘Beneficiaries’ mean residents of these MSIF-supported communities. For this analysis, Bernard Brunhes International surveyed beneficiaries in 36 communities and also surveyed 36 control communities. In total, the consultants surveyed 1,691 people. Satisfaction with infrastructure sub-projects. The difference in difference analysis showed an impressive increase in public satisfaction over 2003-2008 among beneficiaries, compared to residents of control communities. The increase in satisfaction was 55 percentage points greater for communities that built gas supply sub-projects with assistance from MSIF, 53 percentage points greater for communities that built schools, 34 percent higher for communities that built roads, and 13 percent higher for communities that built water supply. Not all households benefited from project-supported sub-projects, and that limited satisfaction. For instance, couples with adult children do not benefit from school sub-projects. Grants for natural gas and water sub-projects were too small to connect all households. About 50 percent of households in communities that received a natural gas sub-project did not consume gas. About 77 percent of beneficiaries in communities with an MSIF-supported sub-project reported that high costs limited their access to the sub-project. This was particularly true for natural gas and water supply sub-projects. Beneficiary well-being. Indicators of household well-being in project-supported communities increased to a greater degree than in control communities. For instance, household incomes rose by 51 MDL more in project-supported communities than in control communities. Natural gas sub-projects were associated with the most improvement in incomes, compared to other types of sub-projects. The consultants also reported on indirect benefits: for example the number of days of pupil absence decreased by 12 percentage points more in communities with MSIF-supported schools sub-projects, compared to the control communities. Community capacity to manage their own development. About 52 percent of beneficiaries reported improved or much improved relations between community members, and about 32 percent reported improved expectations for the future. About 48 percent of beneficiaries reported an increase in the capacity of their local public authorities. About 5 percent more beneficiaries reported improved local administration ability to resolve social and economic problems than in the control group. Moreover, project-supported training appeared effective, with about two-thirds of beneficiaries expressing approval. 23 Summary of CBS-AXA (2013) Report on the (first) Additional Financing Sources and types of analysis. The consultants surveyed beneficiaries in 56 communities, where the project supported 74 sub-projects and conducted 10 interviews with representatives of local administrations. Unlike Bernhard Brunhes, CBS-AXA did not attempt a difference-in-differences analysis. This introduced an increased degree of uncertainty about the results of the First Additional Financing. Satisfaction with infrastructure sub-projects. The consultants presented evidence of beneficiary satisfaction in communities that received support from the First Additional Financing. They found a 57 percentage point increase over 2008-2012 in beneficiaries who were satisfied or very satisfied with their communities’ social and economic development. Impact on well-being. Emigration out of the flood region, targeted by the Additional Financing, fell slightly over 2008-2012. Moreover, the number of new businesses opened per 1,000 inhabitants increased over 2008-2012, and the number of farms per 1,000 decreased – probably because of the floods. It is not clear whether the fluctuations in the other social and economic indicators can be attributed to the Project. Community capacity to manage their own development. There is some evidence that the project was associated with stronger social capital and stronger community ability to manage its own development. For example, 84 percent of beneficiaries reported that carrying-out their sub-project increased activism among community members. Nearly half of beneficiaries said that their local governments had improved their ability to address social and economic problems since 2008. Nearly 70 percent of beneficiaries reported that the experience accumulated during implementation of their MSIF-supported sub-project improved their capacity to implement similar projects. In the in-depth interviews, representatives of local public authorities said that they learned practices that they would apply in implementing other community sub-projects. Summary of CBS-AXA (2012) Report on the Second Additional Financing Sources and types of analysis. Like the Bernard Brunhes International (2008) report, CBS-AXA (2012) reported some difference-in-differences evidence on the impact of the financing, as well as summaries of interviews with beneficiaries. CBS-AXA (2-12) surveyed 71 communities that received sub-projects supported by the Second Additional Financing and seven comparison communities. Moreover, the consultants relied on a baseline survey conducted over 2011-2013. The difference-in-differences analysis likely understates the project impact. This is because, by the start of the Second Additional Financing, the MSIF-II Project had served so many communities that the consultant could not assemble a comparison group of communities that were similar to the beneficiary communities but had not received support from MSIF or from other donors. To illustrate the issue, communities that benefited from the Second Additional Financing carried out, on average, 3.5 sub- projects over 2010-2013, with support from all donors, while the comparison communities carried out 3 projects. Satisfaction with infrastructure sub-projects. The consultants reported widespread satisfaction with sub-projects supported by the Second Additional Financing. For example, almost 55 percent more beneficiaries said that educational services were good or very good in 2012, compared with 2009. The improvement was 58 percentage points for water supply sub-projects, and 52 percent for roads sub- projects. 24 The difference-in-differences analysis of the increase in satisfaction with social services found more modest improvements. Satisfaction with schools sub-projects rose nearly 20 percent percentage points further in beneficiary than in comparison communities. The figure was five percent for roads sub-projects, and negative one percent for water-supply sub-projects. The survey results reveal some inconsistency between beneficiary demand and the sub-project proposals approved and submitted by the same communities. In 2012, beneficiaries reported that the highest demand was for roads (36 percent) and then for water supply (22 percent) sub-projects. Yet the proposals for funding that communities submitted were mainly for schools/kindergartens (53 percent) and water supply (13 percent). The high demand for roads sub-projects may reflect the poor condition of multi- kilometer long village access roads, while the project only finances short roads within villages. The reduced demand for school/kindergarten sub-projects in 2012 may reflect the MSIF Project’s satisfaction of community demand. Impact on well-being. The difference-in-differences analysis found generally higher increases in indicators of well-being in beneficiary than in comparison communities. Most of these difference-in- differences are modest or small. Average monthly household expenditure increased by about 120 MDL (US$10) more in beneficiary than in comparison communities. Employment improved by almost 12 percentage points more in beneficiary communities, consistent with achievement of the project’s employment objective. The increase in the number of farms was 66 percentage points greater in beneficiary communities, but the number of new businesses was three percent smaller. Community capacity to manage their own development. As in the earlier evaluation reports, the consultants found evidence of strengthened social capital and community capacity. The difference-in- difference analysis found that almost 19 percentage points more beneficiaries were satisfied with the social and economic development of their communities than in the comparison communities. The results of training and practice in implementing a project are reflected in the survey results on capacity for management development. Over 69 percent of beneficiaries sampled said they had participated in MSIF-supported training. The most commonly mentioned benefits of training were increased self-confidence (36 percent) and what to do to solve community problems (24 percent). The consultants reported a 34 percent increase in beneficiaries appraisal of the local public administration’s (usually the mayor’s office) capacity to manage community development projects over 2009-2012. 25 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results The project supported three in-depth evaluation reports that drew on interviews with beneficiaries, community leaders, and government officials and received the feedback summarized in Annex 5 above. Therefore, it was not necessary to hold a stakeholder workshop. 26 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Summary of the Government of Moldova’s Evaluation Report The Moldova’s Social Investment Fund 2 (MSIF) was established by the Government of Moldova with financial support from the World Bank and other donors (KfW, Sida, JSDF) to contribute to the implementation of national strategies and programs through empowerment of vulnerable communities and by building institutional capacity for their development. As a result, during 2004-2013 Moldova’s Government and the donor community channeled about US$111.6 million 3 through MSIF for rehabilitation of social infrastructure, as well as for human resource and institutional capacity building. The total amount of funding provided Structure of World Bank administered  financial resources  project  implemented through MSIF   for MSIF and administered by the management  World Bank was composed of three 3.3% IDA credits, two Sida grants, one EU- capacity  building,  and one JSDF-financed grant. The communication  World Bank standard rules and community  M&E 1.5% development procedures for project implementation 81.1%  were applied to all sources of financing. social services  The MSIF project consisted of the development  following main components: (i) 14.1% community development through strengthening capacity of local authorities to partner with community organizations in the delivery of better services to population by means of infrastructure rehabilitation; (ii) social services development contributing to building capacity of local and central administrations in establishment of integrated social services network, and (iii) capacity building, communication and M&E aimed at fostering participation of local communities in the policy-making process. The community development component 4 Infrastructure projects financed from IDA  combined funding from the: (i) original IDA credits  Credit 3931 MD (US$20 million) that aimed at building the capacity of poor communities to prioritize and manage infrastructure rehabilitation; kindergartens  water and  followed by; (ii) additional financing IDA 172 sewerage 144 4555MD (US$5 million) to upgrade rural roads 102 schools  infrastructure around the Dniester and Prut Rivers 357 affected by the flooding of 2008 and the further; (iii) IDA Credit 4682MD (US$20 million) gas 87 provided in response to the economic crisis of social  community  service  other 19 centers 34 centers 5 3 The amount of US$111.6 million consists of the World Bank loans and the donor Trust Funds administered by the World Bank in the amount of US$61.95 million, the GoM and community contribution of US$23.8 million as well as other donors funding in the amount of US$25.85 million. 4 Infrastructure rehabilitation under community development component was divided into three main parts: (i) rural community development for deprived villages that did not benefit from MSIF assistance in the past; (ii) rural community development for villages that successfully benefitted from cooperation with MSIF and showed good results (Community Driven Development), and (iii) urban community development for small towns with population less than 20,000 inhabitants. 27 2008 and that aimed at creation of jobs in rural areas. This financing was complemented by a Sida Grant TF095950 (US$2.7 million). In addition and to enable Transnistrian residents to benefit from similar social infrastructure rehabilitation, the Moldovan Government raised additional financing from JSDF TF 093407 (US $1.95 million). Overall, the community development component5 resulted in rehabilitation of 534 social infrastructure objects (including social services centers, schools and kindergartens), construction of 34 community centers, renovation of 345 small-scale economic infrastructures (roads, gas and water supply) and implementation of seven environmental projects. Savings from tendering works contracts were used to rehabilitate or build additional infrastructure. It is notable, that the infrastructure component financed under the World Bank credits exceeded the initial target by 44 percent (i.e. 282 more of infrastructure projects delivered versus the initial target). Furthermore, implementation of MSIF projects created approximately 12,000 temporary jobs for an average period of five to eight months and fostered creation of 300 new jobs, particularly in the communities where gas and water supply pipelines were constructed or new kindergarten groups organized as a result of buildings renovation and implementation of new educational programs. More than that, MSIF contributed to enabling local governments in rural areas to manage their own development by helping them to prepare community development plans. To this end, MSIF supported strategic planning for additional 217 villages and 22 small towns that did not benefit from donor assistance in the past. In addition, all participating communities (about 800+) have been involved in the procurement of their works contracts, thus obtaining on-the-job training in contract management and quality monitoring. Implementation of infrastructure projects also contributed to the promotion of citizen participation in the decision-making process starting from project identification to ensuring its further sustainability. It is notable, that in the eligible localities MSIF organized over 6,000 public events with participation of about 500,000 persons, more than a half of which are women. Furthermore, after implementation of MSIF project, about 58 percent of communities 6 succeeded in raising additional resources either to further expand the scope of works, or to launch another infrastructure upgrading. Of particular relevance here is the fact that rural communities have been pro-active in collecting contribution for matching the donor- funding and often collected amounts exceeding the required 15 percent of the total project cost. As a result of rural socio-economic infrastructure renovation the participating communities have recorded a decline in the communicable diseases cases from 180 to 122 per 1,000 persons; school attendance improved by 5 percentage points compared to the project baseline and there was recorded growth in household incomes by 1.5 percentage points. The community development component was divided into three sub-categories: development for deprived villages not benefitting from the original MSIF project; community development for participants in the MSIF project showing good results (community-driven development), and community development for towns with population less than 20,000. Each of them fulfilled the original objective and even exceeded the expected results. It should be mentioned that, most of new villages applying for MSIF financing had proactively elaborated strategic development plans. Furthermore, infrastructure rehabilitation under this 5 Mapping of all MSIF-implemented projects could be found at the web-site: www.msif.md (Romanian and English). 6 Some 58 percent of rural communities have attracted funding for their community development needs from other sources. This indicator significantly exceeds the initially planned target of 30 percent.  28 financing stream led to creation of 312 Beneficiary Associations most of which are fully functional to date. Besides that, 18 small towns have benefitted from assistance in urban strategic development planning and infrastructure investment. Given the high demand from local authorities MSIF applied the “first come-first served” principle. The towns affected by flooding of 2008 have been also benefitting from water infrastructure investments provided under second additional financing, yet the entire financing source has been absorbed using the community-driven development approach. Table. Distribution of infrastructure investment by source of financing, Component 1 Original Additional Additional Total Subcomponent financing financing financing II plan real plan real plan real plan real Subcomponent 1.1: new villages 196 267 - - 33 37 229 304 Subcomponent 1.2: community-drive development 120 124 32 55 124 216 276 395 Subcomponent 1.3: small towns 42 52 13 19 36 84 91 155 Total 358 443 45 74 193 337 596 854 Note: EU and JSDF financing sources are not included. In addition to the World Bank financing, the community development component also included a European Union grant7 and a Japanese Social Development Fund grant.8 These two financing sources were allocated, respectively, for water infrastructure rehabilitation and for post-conflict community development respectively. The EU grant resulted in the implementation of 43 infrastructure investments (versus 30 targeted) which provided for construction of 192,000 linear meters of water supply pipelines, 35 water towers, 12 sewerage stations and improvement and protection of about 60 water source areas. In addition, the most proactive communities benefitted from training in water management. The Japanese Social Development Trust Fund is still in the implementation phase. To date, 24 social projects have been implemented, six vocational centers established and two reconciliation schools organized with the aim of building confidence between the two banks of the Dniester River. Implementation of infrastructure projects in a transparent manner with empowerment of local authorities ensures local ownership and better sustainability. However, the operational sustainability is largely affected by the Government-promoted reforms. Of particular relevance is school reform that affected MSIF projects implementation leading to space optimization in several renovated schools. The capacity for participatory community development on the right bank of the Dniester is relatively well developed, but implementation of JSDF trust fund revealed a number of problems related to institutional capacity to manage the funds, several regulatory bottlenecks, and socio-economic discrepancies on the left bank -in the Transnistrian region. 7 EU TF 094952. 8 JSDF TF093407. 29 The social services development component was implemented in two stages: (i) piloting of new model of integrated social care services for disabled, elderly, vulnerable and people at risk, including youth and children; (ii) establishment of integrated social care network across the country. The Decline in no. of new beneficiaries of residential  pilot funded through Sida TF054460 has services in communities where social care centers  been successfully implemented in six rayons were created (31 projects) for which the MSIF unit prepared social maps and social design, drafted operational manuals for each type of 1000 554 social services, provided capacity building, 367 500 240 etc. In December 2008, the Government of 161 Moldova adopted the National Program for 0 Integrated Social Services Development for SIDA EU 2008-2012. 9 As part of program’s implementation, the Ministry of Labor, before social care centre after social care centre creation Social Protection and Family (MLSPF) amended the Law on Social Assistance (Law no 122 dd. 18.06.2010) and also adopted the Law on social services no. 123 in June 2010. The EU-funded regional development trust fund (TF094952) came to complement the above efforts by financing the construction and equipment for 30 new multifunctional social care centers 10 across 15 Rayons in the country, as follows:  Daycare centers for disabled;  Social care centers for elderly; and  Multifunctional social care centers for vulnerable persons and those at risk (children at risk, vulnerable young families and children, elderly with disabilities etc.). To this end, MSIF successfully cooperated with the MLSPF in selection of beneficiary rayons, as well as in drafting of internal regulations for the newly created social care centers, revision of service delivery standards, etc. Furthermore, the MLSPF initiated a review of the nomenclature of professions and social services classificatory in order to introduce new services and professions. Importantly, that all rayons that received project-supported social care centers were selected by a specially created Advisory Council composed of representatives of the MLSPF, donor organizations and civil society representatives. To ensure ownership and sustainability, local authorities formally agreed to take responsibility for financing and maintenance of social care centers in the future. Furthermore, all beneficiary rayons had updated or developed strategic plans for social care service delivery aimed at enabling better financial management by local administrations (LPAs). However, frequently local public authorities faced problems related to lack of funding a lack of trained specialists. As a result of piloting of the new social care model under the Sida grant, the number of beneficiaries grew from 21,000 to 31,000 (MSIF unit assessment). The assessment of implementation of the EU grant showed weaker results because some of the social care centers were not operational at the time of evaluation. 9 For details see Government Decision 1512/2008.  10 Daily capacity of all 30 social care centers cumulatively is about 1,500 places. 30 Finally, the capacity building, communication and M&E component aimed at strengthening of community capacities to participate in national policy-making processes included the following main activities:  Knowledge transfer, and exchange of experiences provided through on-the-job training during project implementation. Some 3,300 persons obtained first-hand experience in strategic planning, establishment of Beneficiary Associations. The general public engaged in monitoring of infrastructure quality and decision-making at various levels.  Institutionalization of MSIF experience and best practices at the rayon level through establishment of 31 fully functional Investment Management Centers empowered to partner with other stakeholders, to raise funds from other donors and to assist local communities in project implementation.  Through infrastructure rehabilitation, MSIF actively contributed to upgrading of civil engineering standards and promotion of up-to-date technologies. In particular, while actively promoting asbestos-free environment MSIF replaced three million square meters of asbestos-tile roof at 470 schools and kindergartens, as well as constructed 1,267 kilometers of polyethylene water supply pipelines which subsequently led to amendment of relevant regulations and norms and prohibition of asbestos utilization. In addition, MSIF promoted installation of boiler stations within the building11 aimed at reduction of heat loss and decrease of recurrent costs; supported installation of 68 sewerage mini-stations for renovated social infrastructure, facilitated energy conservation and space optimization at schools and kindergartens, implemented a pilot of utilization of solar batteries and solar collectors aimed at diminishing dependency from energy suppliers and savings generation, promoted adjustment of social infrastructure for people with special needs (disabled and elderly). Furthermore, to tackle irregular electricity supply problems that led to deterioration of many heating systems country-wide within 1999-2003, the MSIF started to install gas convectors and gravitational heating systems not dependent on energy supplies.  MSIF unit staff has actively participated in the Working Groups for preparation of many national development programs, such as Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2004-2007, National Development Plan 2008-2011, as well as in monitoring of Millennium Development Goals implementation. To multiply the effect from project implementation the MSIF unit set up effective communication channels for knowledge transfer and results dissemination. In addition to day-to-day cooperation with central and local public administrations, MSIF issued the “Rural Alternatives” periodical and circulated it amongst project beneficiaries, distributed various trainings handouts and manuals and such other information among Investment Management Centers. In addition, information on MSIF funding was available at www.msif.md. Internal monitoring of all projects implementation and their impact has been computerized and recorded in the MSIF management information system that also interacted with 1C accounting system. Besides this routine projects monitoring, MSIF went through external impact assessments in 2007 and 2012 that reported achievement of many positive results, inter alia, in terms of rural capacity strengthening, confidence building, new jobs creation, participatory decision-making and strategic community 11 Old standards provided for installation of boiling house at a distance not less than 5 meters away from the building. 31 development. Furthermore, MSIF introduced participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanism which was subsequently applied in 454 communities. Participation of various stakeholders in external monitoring (end users, business community, CSOs, LPAs, etc.) contributed to ensuring project ownership and sustainability, as well as allowed MSIF to assess the community development progress over time. Overall, MSIF accumulated a mixture of expertise and best practice experiences which will be further sustained and further utilized by Moldova’s Government particularly in the implementation of National Decentralization Strategy approved in 2012. 32 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders The project team did not receive comments from cofinanciers or other stakeholders. Sida as an organization, is no longer present in Moldova and the Sida colleagues who worked on the program are no longer in Chisinau.   33 Annex 9: Table of the Original Outcome Indicators This table presents the most important part of the indicators’ table that appeared in Annex 1 of the Project Appraisal Document for the original financing. This table consisted of nine sector indicators, four outcome/impact indicators, which appear on the table below, and a further 51 outcome indicators, which are omitted for brevity. The revised table appears as Annex 10. Baseline 2006 2010 2013 Target Sector indicators Poor people in targeted areas benefiting from MSIF NA NA NA NA NA (percentage point share in total) Household welfare in participating communities Basic food expenditures NA NA NA NA NA Expenditures on footwear and clothes NA NA NA NA NA Income (per month, in MDL) 886 NA 1,527 (2007) NA NA Subjective poverty NA NA NA NA NA School attendance in participating communities (in 92 94 96 95 95 percentage points shares of total) Learning results in rehabilitated schools (% passing 93 90 97 97 96 exams) Schools with new educational programs in 9 48 59 65 90 participating communities (in percentage points shares of total) Respiratory and other infectious diseases in 180 NA 111 98 120 communities with school, or water and gas sub- projects (rate measured as number of cases per 100,000 of the population) Participation of community members in community 28 NA 77 72 70 development in participating communities (rate in percentage point shares of total) Decreased consumption of coal and fuel wood for 85 NA 79 24 70 heating in participating communities Annual expenditures for purchase, maintenance, and NA NA NA NA NA functioning of heating systems in the rehabilitated public buildings. Outcome/impact indicators Beneficiaries from MSIF interventions 1 Number of people 0 171,152 1,034,076 NA 420,000 Percentage share of the total target population 47% 42% NA 30% NA NA NA NA Percentage shares of children NA NA NA NA Percentage shares of women NA NA NA NA Percentage share of vulnerable people Beneficiaries satisfied with services provided 18 NA 37(2007) 81 80 through MSIF interventions (percentage point share of total). Communities implementing other new projects 0 NA 149 244 280 within two years following an MSIF intervention (number). Trained people using the skills learned during 0 NA NA NA NA training (percentage point share of total). Note: NA means not collected and not available. Sources: MSIF project unit MIS, Bernard Brunhes International (2008). 34 Annex 10: Table of the Revised Development Outcome Indicators (Revision approved by the Board on January 26, 2010, figures are the total of outcomes from all sources of financing; Acronyms: BBI-OF is the Bernard Brunhes International (2008) report on the original financing, CBS-1AF is the CBS-AXA (2013) impact evaluation report on the First Additional Financing, CBS-2AF is the CBS-AXA (2012) impact evaluation report on the Second Additional Financing; MIS is ‘Management Information System’; and PME is ‘Participatory Monitoring Exercise) Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 Higher Order Indicator 1: Increased school 92% 95% 95% 95%  Source of baseline: BIA 2004; CPS Goal: attendance in participating school  Source for 2010: Participatory Poverty projects Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) alleviation and exercise. sustainable human  Source for January 2013: CBS- and community 2AF development Indicator 2: Increased learning 93% 97% 97% 96%  Same as above. results in rehabilitated schools Indicator 3: Increase in share of 9% 59% 65% 90%  Same as above. participating schools with new educational programs. Indicator4: Decreased respiratory 180 111 98 120  Source of baseline: BIA 2004; and infection diseases in cases/1000/yr  Source for 2010: BBI-OF. communities with school water and  Source for January 2012: CBS- gas subprojects (# cases per 1,000 1AF. per year.) Indicator 5: Increased participation 28% 77% 72% 70%  Same as above. of community members in community development in participating communities 35 Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 Indicator 6: Decrease in 85% 79 24% 45%  Same as above. consumption of coal and fuel wood for heating in participating communities (percentage point share of households) Original Project Indicator 7: Number of sub- 0 149 244  107  Source for 2010: PME. Development projects in communities that have  Source for January 2013: CBS- Objective: made new initiatives/activities to 1AF Contribute to the address development needs during  The objective was for project- implementation of sub-project implementation and up supported communities to initiate Moldova’s to two years after the completion of at least 107 sub-projects without National the sub-projects MSIF support: this is 9 % of the Development objective of building 1,033 sub- Strategy by projects from all financing sources. empowering poor The actual outcome was 244 sub- communities and projects: this is 20% of the 1,033 vulnerable actual sub-projects built with population groups support from all financing sources to manage their priority development Indicator 8: Number of 0 67% 53% 60%  Source for 2010: BBI-OF. needs respondents in institutions surveyed  Source for January 2013: CBS- who state that their capacity to 1AF. manage community priority  Note that the Bernard Brunhes development needs has improved (2008) evaluation reported a rate of because of SIF training and 67%, higher than the target. implementation of the sub-projects. Indicator 9: Number of surveyed 0 49% 35% 30%  Source for 2010: BBI-OF. respondents who express increased  Source for January 2013: CBX- satisfaction with local governments’ 1AF. way of managing community priority development needs. 36 Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 Indicator 10: Number of sub- 0 228 507 107  Source for March 2010: MIS projects that received higher  Source for January 2013: MIS. community contributions than  The target of 107 is 9% of the total required objective of 1,033 and 507 is 41% of the actual 1,238 sub-projects completed. Additional Indicator 11: Double labor  Source: MIS, which draws on Project intensiveness of sub-projects: 23% Indicator did not exist 27% 46% budgets of contractors. Development  Schools, kindergartens, 15% 22% 30% Objective for the community centers, health 12% 25% 24% proposed Second centers 10% 28% 20% Additional  Water and Sanitation Financing: to  Village roads contribute to  Gas employment and wage incomes in Indicator 12: Increase in wage 0 Indicator did not exist. 40.3 million MDL 23.8 mil MDL  The baseline study estimated total selected poor rural incomes in communities with sub- monthly wage incomes in communities projects supported by the Second participating communities as MDL during the current Additional Financing in 2010 and 157.6 million. economic 2011.  Source for January 2013: CBX- contraction and 1AF. during the Indicator 13: Increase in 0 Indicator did not exist 21.9 million MDL 17.5 million MDL  The baseline study estimated total recovery. consumption expenditures in monthly wage incomes in communities with subprojects participating communities is MDL supported by the Second Additional 157.6 million (3,873 per Financing in 2010 and 2011. household) excluding savings.  Source for January 2013: CBX- 37 Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 Indicator 14: Employment on 0 Indicator did not exist 149,050 170,000 person  Source: Estimated by MSIF from public works: Direct project (21 % female) days information collected locally on beneficiaries (person days), of (20 % female) employment of community which female (percentage) residents in civil works.  Informed by MIS, based on budgets of contractors Component 1: Community Development  . Objective: Indicator 15: Number of 0 223 357 90  Source: MSIF staff. Enhanced communities where the Beneficiary capacities of local Associations still operational during government in two years after sub-project organizing completion provision of Indicator 16: Number of 0% 43% 36% 30%  Source for 2010: BBI-OF improved priority respondents (in a survey). who  Source for January 2013: BIA of basic services in express increased satisfaction with 2012. partnership with local governments’ way of civil society organizing provision of basic services Indicator 17: Participation in 0 375,923 437,841 200,000  Source: Collected routinely by community planning and sub- (o/w female, 64%) (o/w female, 65%) (o/w female, 40%) consultants who moderate general project management, (number), of community meetings. which female (percentage) Component 2: Social care services development Objective: Indicator 18: Increased number of 0 31,621 31,621 from a Source: Consultant’s evaluation Enhanced persons benefiting from community From a Sida grant Sida grant + report on implementation of the Sida capacities of based social are services 18,011 from the grant. central and local EC grant.  Sida Grant number TF054460 government in the  EC Grant number TF094952. 38 Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 development of a Indicator 19: Decreased number of NA 493 520 N/A  Source: Consultants’ evaluation coordinated new beneficiaries from pilot districts reports on the Sida and EC grants. network of referred to national residential care  (554-161) Sida grant + (367 – 240) integrated social services EC3 grant =520 people. care services at Indicator 20: Participation of NA 71% 71% 70%  Source for the 2010 figure is the rayon level in direct project beneficiaries in BIA of May, 2008. partnership with community planning and sub-  The figure for March 2010 is for civil society project management (percentage the Sida Grant and the figure for share) January 2013 is an average of the outcome for the Sida and the EC grant. Indicator 21: Percentage of civil NA 74% 80% 60%  Source: MIS. Collected routinely society representatives in by consultants who moderate coordinating committees who in a general community meetings. survey express that their  Figure for 2013 is an average of involvement in social care services outcomes for the Sida and EC planning and provision has been grants) improved  The figure for 2010 is from the BBI-OF and covers the Sida Grant. Component 3 Institution-building, training, public information monitoring, evaluation, Objective: Indicator 22: Number of MSIF 0 9 12 10 Source: MSIF staff estimates: Development of best practices replicated by 1. Identification of community institutional government and non-government priority needs and problems by mechanism to institutions the population reflect community 2. Participatory identification of experiences and different resources, inclusive influence national financial funds, necessary for policies. community needs 3. Involvement of population and 39 Actual at Original closing date for Hierarchy of Actual Indicators Baseline Original Financing Target Source of data/comments Objectives January 2013 and First Additional Financing, March 2010 local actors in decision making process, consolidation of funds, monitoring and evaluation etc. for/within community problems solving 4. Management/administration of the external funds 5. Development of inter/intra partnerships by the communities 6. Practice of public hearings 7. Development of associative sector (support in creation and development of CBOs and their activity) 8. Development of strategic plans for community development, as well as specific fields of rayon development (social services) 9. Piloting of community multifunctional centers of integrated social services 10. Piloting of new construction materials and technologies 11. Modification of standards in the fields of construction, social protection, education and energy. 12. Piloting of alternative energy sources 40 Annex 11. List of Supporting Documents  Bernard Brunhes International (2008). “Assessment of MSIF 2 Project Impact on Beneficiaries: Final Report.” Paris, France and Chisinau, Moldova.  Center for Sociological Investigations and Marketing CBS-AXA (2012). “Assessment Study of the Impact over the Beneficiaries of Investments under the Second Additional Financing for the MSIF Project.” Chisinau, Moldova.  Center for Sociological Investigations and Marketing CBS-AXA (2013). “Impact Assessment Study on the Beneficiaries of Investments from Additional Financing Sources One for MSIF” Project. Chisinau, Moldova.  Government of Moldova (2004). “Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2004-2006.”  Government of Moldova (2008). “National Development Strategy, 2008-2011.”  Prywes, Menahem (2010). Final Report on Implementation of the Sida Grant for Development of Social Care Services in Moldova (No. TF054460). June 18.  Prywes Menahem (2011). Final Report on the Sida Trust Fund for Co-Financing the Second Additional Financing of the Moldova Social Investment Fund Project (No. TF095950). May 27.  Prywes, Menahem (2012). Future of the Moldova Social Investment Fund. July 18.  World Bank (2004). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 13.8 million (US$20 million equivalent) to the Republic of Moldova for a Social Investment Fund II Project. Report No. 28139-MD, May 18. Report No. 35618-MD.  World Bank (2006). Moldova: Poverty Update. Report No. 35618-MD, June 12.  World Bank (2009a). Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Financing Credit (IDA Credit No. 4555) in the amount of SDR 3.4 million Credit (US$5 million equivalent) to the Republic of Moldova for the Social Investment Fund II Project. Report No. 46458-MD, February 26.  World Bank (2009b). Emergency Project Paper on the Proposed Second Additional in the Amount of and SDR 12.5 Million Credit (US$20 million equivalent) to the Republic of Moldova for the Social Investment Fund II Project. Report 51568-MD, December 30.  World Bank Quality Assurance Group (2010). “Second Quality Assessment of the Lending Portfolio (QALP-2).”  World Bank (2013). World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C: World Bank. 41 IBRD 33448R 27°E 28°E 29°E 30°E Dnes tr To Vinnytsya UKRA INE To Chernivtsi Moghiliov- To Vinnytsya Ocnita Podolski Briceni MOLDOVA Donduseni B To Chernivtsi Edinet Soroca e Drochia s 48°N Camenca 48°N Rîscani s Floresti Nist ru a Costesti Soldanesti ˘ r Glodeni Balti Rîbnita Rezina Balatina a Pr Sîngerei ut To Voznesens'k r Falesti ˘ Telenesti 0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers a Chiperceni b Orhei 0 10 20 30 Miles ROM AN I A Sculeni Dubasari ˘ TRANSNISTRIA i To Pascani Mt. Balanesti Calarasi ˘˘ Criuleni (430 m) a Ungheni Straseni ˘ Grigoriopol Nisporeni ˘ Stauceni To Zhmerynka 47°N ˘ CHISINAU 47°N ˘ Lapusna Ialoveni Anenii Noi Tiraspol Hîncesti Bender Leuseni (Tighina) Slobozia ˘ Cainari Causeni ˘ To Odesa Plain Cimislia c ˘N Stefan-Voda ist To Birlad ea ru g Leova Bu This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Comrat Basarabeasca Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any To Birlad endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Cantemir 27°E ˘ ˘ GAGAUZIA Ceadîr- To Artsyz UKRA INE Lunga MO LD O VA 46°N 46°N Prut SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Cahul Taraclia AUTONOMOUS TERRITORIAL UNIT CAPITALS ˘ ˘ GAGAUZIA RAIONS OR MUNICIPALITIES CAPITALS* ˘ Vulcanesti NATIONAL CAPITAL RIVERS MAIN ROADS RAILROADS To Imayil B l ack AUTONOMOUS TERRITORIAL UNIT BOUNDARIES To Bucharest Sea and Constanta RAIONS OR MUNICIPALITIES BOUNDARIES INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES *Names of the raions or municipalities are identical to their capitals. 28°E 29°E 30°E MAY 2007