Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00004963 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT Cr. 5815-ZM, IDA D2300 ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR (14.2) MILLION (US$ 20MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE Republic of Zambia, Ministry of National Development Planning May 3, 2016 AND A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR (2.3) MILLION (US$3 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE International Conference on the Great Lakes Region June 22, 2017 FOR THE AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities Project Urban, Resilience And Land Global Practice Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 13, 2017) US$1 = SDR 0.737 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31, 2017 Regional Vice President: Hafez M. H. Ghanem Country Director: Debora L. Wetzel Regional Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Practice Manager: Robin Mearns Task Team Leader(s): Joanna Peace De Berry ICR Main Contributor: Helidah Refiloe Atieno Ogude AU African Union DHSI Directorate for Humanitarian and Social Issues DRC Danish Refugee Council FM Financial Management GLR Great Lakes Region HOA Horn of Africa ICGLR International Conference on the Great Lakes Region IDP Internally Displaced Person IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development LM Centre Levy Mwanawasa Regional Centre for Democracy and Good Governance M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MS Member State NGO Nongovernmental Organization OSEGL Office of the UN Special Envoy to the Great Lakes. PAG Project Advisory Group PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PIM Project Implementation Manual PPRRP Protocol on Property Rights of Returning Persons PSCF Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework ReDSS Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat SGBV Emergency Sexual and Gender Based Violence and Women’s Health SOP Series of Projects TSC Technical Subcommittee TTL Task Team Leader UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 5 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................5 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) ..................................... 16 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 18 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 18 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ...................................................................................... 19 C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 22 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 24 E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) ............................................................................ 25 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 25 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................... 25 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 25 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 26 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 26 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 27 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 28 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 30 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 30 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 32 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 41 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 43 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 44 ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ... 45 ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) ..................................................................... 48 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P152821 AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities Country Financing Instrument Africa Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Republic of Zambia, Ministry of National Development Zambia Interim Climate Change Secretariat, International Planning Conference On the Great Lakes Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO To improve access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure for displaced people and host communities in the targeted areas. Revised PDO to (i) improve access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure for displaced people and host communities in target areas ofthe territory of the Republic of Zambia, and (ii) support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement.’ Page 1 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 20,000,000 20,000,000 0 IDA-58150 3,000,000 335,377 401,761 IDA-D2300 Total 23,000,000 20,335,377 401,761 Non-World Bank Financing 0 0 0 Borrower/Recipient 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Total Project Cost 23,000,000 20,335,377 401,761 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 27-May-2016 13-Nov-2017 31-Dec-2021 31-Dec-2021 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 25-Jun-2019 .54 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Cancellation of Financing Reallocation between Disbursement Categories KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Unsatisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Modest Page 2 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 03-Nov-2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0 02 11-May-2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0 Moderately 03 20-Nov-2017 Moderately Unsatisfactory 0 Unsatisfactory Moderately 04 26-Jun-2018 Moderately Unsatisfactory .30 Unsatisfactory Moderately 05 16-Dec-2018 Moderately Unsatisfactory .35 Unsatisfactory Moderately 06 29-May-2019 Moderately Unsatisfactory .47 Unsatisfactory SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Social Protection 100 Social Protection 75 Public Administration - Social Protection 25 Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Page 3 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Social Development and Protection 96 Social Inclusion 60 Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities 5 Other Excluded Groups 50 Participation and Civic Engagement 5 Social Protection 15 Social Safety Nets 15 Fragility, Conflict and Violence 21 Conflict Prevention 8 Post-conflict reconstruction 8 Forced Displacement 5 Human Development and Gender 6 Labor Market Policy and Programs 6 Labor Market Institutions 3 Active Labor Market Programs 3 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Hafez M. H. Ghanem Country Director: Ahmadou Moustapha Ndiaye Deborah L. Wetzel Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Louise J. Cord Practice Manager: Robin Mearns Robin Mearns Task Team Leader(s): Joanna Peace De Berry Joanna Peace De Berry ICR Contributing Author: Helidah Refiloe Atieno Ogude Page 4 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Context Project Context and Rationale 1. The growing phenomenon of protracted displacement globally has, in recent years, brought into sharp view the pressing need to invest in sustainable responses for displaced populations and the communities that host them. While humanitarian agencies have long shouldered the responsibility of responding to forced displacement, it has been increasingly recognized that these approaches have limitations. At the time of appraisal in 2016, the World Bank’s role in defining and substantiating a comprehensive development response to forced displacement was still a work in progress (and prior to dedicated financing for addressing the challenges of refugee hosting under the subsequent IDA18 sub-window for refugees and host communities). The World Bank’s role was however broadly understood to focus on tackling the medium-term socio-economic dimensions of forced displacement as complimentary to, however distinct from, short-term crisis responses led by the humanitarian community. A development response places emphasis on hosting governments, development agencies and regional bodies being more involved in fostering durable solutions, which promote both the self-reliance of the displaced and the resilience of host communities.1 The rationale for the Displaced Persons and Border Communities Project was informed by 1) this global attention on forced displacement, 2) the growing recognition for need to invest in long- term solutions and 3) an increasingly clearer articulation of what it meant to operationalize a developmental response. 2. The need for more sustainable responses to forced displacement in the Great Lakes Region (GLR) was evident in the scale and protracted nature of the challenge and substantiated by the analytical work the WB team conducted with the UNHCR in 2015. At the time of appraisal, within the GLR there were more than 4.3 million refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).2 The 2015 background study, ‘Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region: A Development Response’ found that those affected by forced displacement were a particularly vulnerable group who had suffered trauma and loss of homes, assets, livelihoods and had to rebuild lives in new contexts, often in poor and physically isolated settings. The research showed that the displaced tended to have lower incomes, lower employment rates, and greater dependency on direct transfers than the non-displaced.3 Compounding the challenge, hosting displaced persons placed considerable strain on services, environmental degradation while also creating new economic dynamics. In a region already facing high poverty rates and large numbers of poor people, those directly affected by forced displacement and the impacts on the communities that hosted them constituted a distinct challenge for which the project sought to address through facilitating access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure in the initial Phases of the project. At the time of appraisal, most 1 World Bank Group. 2015. A Response to Global Forced Displacement. 2 Note: This figure only includes the countries covered in this project, namely Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia. UNHCR December 2016. 3 World Bank and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2015. Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region, A Development Response. Page 5 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) interventions for the displaced in the GLR were humanitarian in nature, financed and implemented through humanitarian agencies. However, the analytical work that underpinned the project design and served to engage in dialogue with relevant stakeholders, found increasing openings for a development response to the challenge. 3. A critical dimension of the project rationale was the recognition of the regional interdependencies between countries in the GLR dealing with forced displacement and that this necessitated a regional and collaborative approach well embedded in systems of government and regional institutions. Regional potential to reach solutions for displaced people had already been mobilized on several occasions in the GLR.4 For instance, at the regional level, the Heads of State had recognized the need to jointly address refugee and displacement issues in order to achieve sustainable peace and security for the GLR. The 2013 ‘Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the Region’ (PSCF) commits to the return and reintegration of refugees in their respective countries of origin as well as support for IDPs within DRC. In addition, regional institutions such as the African Union, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), and the Office of the Special Envoy for the GLR all have mandates towards the furtherance of the PSCF for the DRC and the Region, and towards addressing forced displacement specifically. However, while the regional policy and legal framework on forced displacement was relatively robust, the GLR lacked a permanent regional platform dedicated to sustained policy dialogue and knowledge sharing on durable solutions.5 Building lessons from a similar platform in the Horn of Africa (HoA); Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Regional Secretariat for Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration, the World Bank sought to develop a regional learning platform for the GLR. 4. The World Bank Great Lakes Regional Initiative (GLRI), ‘Reviving the Great Lakes’ provided the specific opportunity to tackle the spill-over effects of forced displacement through a regional approach. Launched in 2013, the GLRI was designed to work in support of the PSCF with the provision of additional regional IDA for ten new regional projects. Those affected by forced displacement were identified as a particularly vulnerable group for focus under Pillar One of the GLRI, ‘addressing vulnerable groups and improving community resilience’. 5. The ‘Great Lakes Region Displaced Persons and Border Communities Series of Projects’ was therefore conceived to implement and operationalize a development response to forced displacement in the GLR under the GLRI. A Series of Projects (SoP) approach was adopted to address common challenges for multiple borrowers. In this case, the common development challenge identified was forced displacement. The design of the SoP was informed by identification of clear openings and what at the time, were new ways of working on forced displacement, where 4 In 2015, the ‘Comprehensive Solutions Strategy for Rwanda Refugees’ brought together Rwanda, together with those countries hosting Rwandan refugees – Uganda, Zambia, DRC – in a new commitment to sustainable solutions for those Refugees; The 2014 Strategic Framework for Local Integration (SFLI) agreed between the governments of Zambia and Angola for the awarding of full residency rights and integration opportunities to former Angolan refugees in Zambia; The 2007 ‘Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy (TANCOSS)’ saw agreement between the governments of Burundi and Tanzania over the resolution of status for a population of refugees who had moved to Tanzania in the early 1970s. Integration within Tanzania was one part of this strategy. 5 The need for such a permanent platform was further affirmed during a June 2016 workshop where the World Bank team for the Great Lakes Displaced Persons and Border Communities Project, the Office of the UN Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region and the UNHCR Regional Office for the Great Lakes together hosted the “Local Integration as A Solution to Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region - Challenges and Opportunities” workshop. Representatives from the Governments of Burundi, DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia affirmed the need for sharing experience and more knowledge and identified several further topics for mutual learning, potential policy formulation, and fuller exploration through research. Page 6 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) there was client commitment to development solutions and where there was a good chance for success. 6 The overall objective of the SoP was (a) to improve access to livelihoods and socioeconomic infrastructure for displaced persons and their host communities and (b) to support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement. It was determined that it was beyond the scope of the SoP to respond to all the situations of forced displacement in the GLR, which are varied and often acute. 6. Stakeholder consultation and Identification missions held in 2015 pointed to clear client-demand for the Project in DRC, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as from the ICGLR. With the availability of ear-marked funding under the GLRI for a regional project responding to forced displacement and building upon the consultation carried out through the analytic work in 2015, the team embarked on a series of identification missions in the region. The Government of DRC expressed immediate interest to scale-up an existing Social Safety Nets Project targeting the poorest in Eastern Congo, in order to include internally displaced persons amongst the beneficiaries. Meanwhile the Governments of Zambia and Tanzania had recently launched Government Strategies to offer local integration to long-term refugee populations and were eager to use the financing to underpin the implementation of these Strategies. The ICGLR was looking for ways to enhance its capacity to fulfil a convening mandate under the PSCF. Letters of request for the project were received from the Governments of DRC, Tanzania and Zambia and from the ICGLR in 2015. Parallel to project preparation, a series of TA and analytic initiatives were launched, with particular focus on responding to the Government of Zambia and Tanzania’s request to assist in the strengthening of the ir respective strategic approaches for local integration. The sequencing of the SOP was determined by urgency, client demand, and readiness: Phase of SoP Rationale PDO Phase I related to DRC, where The first phase was prioritized To improve access to livelihoods and investment in support of IDPs, because the displacement crisis in socio-economic infrastructures in refugees and their host communities DRC was at a stage where there could vulnerable communities in the was processed as the US$50 million be a transition to more development eastern provinces of DRC Additional Financing to the DRC approaches through processing of Eastern Recovery Project with Board Additional Financing to a well approval on December 11, 2015 performing project. (P157303). Phase II involved a US$20 million The GoZ had embarked on a process To improve access to livelihoods and Credit to the Republic of Zambia in of offering full local integration for socio-economic infrastructure for support of local integration of long term refugees a rarely pursued displaced people and host former refugees and their host option by hosting countries as one of communities in the targeted areas of communities (P152821) under the three preferable solutions for the the recipient’s territory Government of Zambia, ‘Strategic long-term displaced. In this sense, the Framework for Local Integration' GoZ was setting a global precedent in offering a comprehensive process for local integration which contained provisions for both legal and socio- economic integration. 6 World Bank and UNHCR. 2015. Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region, A Development Response. Page 7 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Phase II also intended to involve a This local integration initiative would Engagement with the GoT aligned US$27 million financing to the target long-term refugees from with the PDO for the Zambia portion Republic of Tanzania. This phase Burundi, the majority of whom have of the regional PDO with the same proposed support to the lived in three settlements for more aim, ‘to improve access to livelihoods Government of Tanzania (GoT) in the than four decades and had been and socio-economic infrastructure for implementation of its Strategic Plan granted Tanzanian citizenship. At the displaced people and host for Local Integration (SPLI).7 time, the World Bank team communities in the targeted areas of undertook significant technical the recipient’s territory.’ assistance, dialogue, and preparation with the GoT to design a project in support of the SPLI. Phase III (the main focus of this ICR) The forum would facilitate regional To support regional learning on (P152821) included the proposal to learning and knowledge exchange in development responses to forced create a new regional coordination support of development responses to displacement. forum through the ICGLR through a forced displacement which could grant of US$3 million. influence or substantiate policy formulation. It would also coordinate and share lessons emerging under the other phases of the SoP in DRC, Tanzania, and Zambia. Regional International Development Assistance (IDA) financing 7. The ‘GLR: Displaced Persons and Border Communities Series of Projects’, as initially conceived, met the scope required for Regional IDA financing which was four-fold: (a) the SoP involved three eligible countries under the GLR Initiative – DRC, Tanzania, and Zambia. Since DRC is a fragile state, the SoP could proceed on the basis of two participating countries; (b) the project addressed regional spill-over effects (c) there was strong country ownership of the strategies which underpinned the design of the project; and (d) the project would contribute to harmonization of policies and practices related to forced displacement across the GLR. In particular, the third phase of the SoP would support a regional institution, providing a platform for high-level discussions on policy harmonization to tackle some of the underlying root causes of forced displacement. Timeline of Important Events during context of Appraisal and Implementation 8. There are several important developments in the context of appraisal that had significant implications for project implementation and achievement of outcomes. They require brief detailing here to contextualize the scope and emphasis of the remaining sections of the ICR which will focus on the ICGLR grant (see Figure 1 below): Figure 1. Timeline of Developments during context of Appraisal and Implementation 7 Initially planned for delivery in FY16, this phase of the SOP was delayed to allow time for the institutional commitment and responsibilities outlined in the SPLI to be finalized. Page 8 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 9. US$50 million Additional Financing to the DRC Eastern Recovery Project approved by the Board on December 11, 2015 (P157303). 10. Government of Tanzania withdraws from project during appraisal in March 2016 and shortly before Project Negotiations : While the Negotiations package was being prepared for the SoP Credits to the GoZ and GoT, there was a change in line Ministry leadership in Tanzania following the 2015 presidential elections.8 The new government had a different disposition, both towards the integration of long-term refugees,9 and about using WB Credit financing to implement development responses to forced displacement than the previous government. As such, the GoT communicated that it would no longer participate in the project, which resulted in the WB team abruptly compelled to revise all project related documents shortly before Board Approval to only reflect the Credit for Zambia. 11. The Great Lakes Displaced Persons and Border Communities Project (P152821) was approved on May 27, 2016 with a $US20million Credit for the Republic of Zambia. 12. The third phase of the SoP, the $3million Grant for ICGLR, was changed from a Stand-alone Project to an Additional Financing (AF). The ROC Meeting for Phase II of the SOP was held on March 9 th, 2016. The Minutes of the ROC record the endorsement of the third phase of the SOP to be a stand-alone Project to be delivered in FY17. However, in the course of 2016, the position of the WB’s Regional Vice President’s office changed towards portfolio consolidation and suggested that the $3M Grant not proceed as a stand-alone product but rather it be attached to the Zambia project as Additional Financing. At the time of the AF, the PDO was changed to include objectives related to the additional grant and the AF was approved on July 25, 2017. The Zambia project was not yet Effective and nor had the Government of Zambia requested the AF. Risks of preparing an AF for a non-effective project were highlighted by the team but the required waivers were acquired. 13. ICGLR grant was effective and under implementation by November 2017: The grant to ICGLR was declared effective on November 13, 2017 and was under active implementation, with satisfactory progress towards the achievement of the development objective and satisfactory fiduciary management. 8BBC, Tanzania poll: John Magufuli of CCM defeats Edward Lowassa, October 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa- 34669468 9The current Government subsequently withdrew the Ministry of Home Affairs ‘Strategic Plan for Local Integration’ which had been endorsed by the previous Government during project preparation and was the foundation for project design. Page 9 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 14. Government of Zambia withdraws from project prior to effectiveness in March 2018: On March 14, 2018 the World Bank received a letter from the GoZ stating that they did not wish to proceed with the signing of the Financing Agreements for the Credit. A notice of Withdrawal of Offer of Credit was therefore sent to the Government of Zambia on February 25, 2019 and the Credit was closed on March 29, 2019. Underlying their decision was the new GoZ’s position that they should benefit from full grant terms for any initiatives focused on hosting refugees. Although the IDA18 sub-window for refugees and host communities, with a grant element, was available for GoZ by this time, the allocation for Zambia under the SOP had been prepared under regional IDA Credit terms10 (further details in Section B). 15. Overall project cancelled and project closure date brought forward: In light of the withdrawal of offer of Credit to the GoZ, the US$3million grant to ICGLR was ‘orphaned’ from a parent project. While re-structuring the Project to remove the Zambia components was possible, the upshot – having a stand-alone $3million Project as the only remaining element of the original SOP - was deemed to be undesirable by the Regional Integration Unit, who was focused on portfolio consolidation. 16. Throughout 2019, the World Bank team explored avenues to re-process the ICGLR grant to ensure the continuation of activities, while also achieving portfolio consolidation. The following options were explored: (i) attaching the Grant to the SGBV and Women's Health Project (P151821), already being implemented by ICGLR. This option proved not possible as the Closing date for the SGBV Project was December 31, 2019 leaving insufficient time for Re-Structuring, (ii) proposal to Government of Rwanda about attaching the Grant as an additional component under a new forthcoming Socio-economic Inclusion of Refugees and Host Communities in Rwanda Project (P164130). The Government of Rwanda expressed a lack of support for this idea. (ii) Attaching the grant to the forthcoming Burundi North-East Region Refugee and Host Community Support Project (P169315). This proved not possible as ICGLR (as a regional institution, only eligible for regional IDA) would not be able to a recipient agency under a country-mapped project. 17. Therefore, the decision was made to close the Project and to cancel unspent funds. The closing date was changed from December 31, 2021 to June 20, 2019. 18. Given the above developments – especially that the Zambia project was never Effective and an ICR does not need to be prepared for an operation that “fails to become effective or is cancelled before significant implementation is initiated”11 – the assessment of outcomes will focus on the brief implementation period of the ICGLR grant. 10 A subsequent offer to support the Government of Zambia’s eligibility to the IDA18 sub-window for refugees and host communities and to offer a proportion of grant terms for a refugee hosting project, has not yet been taken up by the Government of Zambia. 11 Bank Guidance: ICR for IPF Operations https://spappscsec.worldbank.org/sites/ppf3/PPFDocuments/Forms/DispPage.aspx?docid=c064d560-c46b-4f32-81b2- 013e46cce4ad&ver=current Page 10 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Theory of Change (Results Chain) 19. There are three higher level objectives to which project aimed to contribute: (i) help identify ways to support displaced people and improve community resilience, (ii) promote regional integration; and (iii) support objectives of ICGLR’s Humanitarian and Social Issues sector (See Figure 2 below). 20. The theory of change that underpins the project objective, to increase support to regional learning on development response to forced displacement, relied on four key activities and outputs: a. The first was for the ICGLR to convene learning events such as workshops and conferences - inviting relevant member states affected by displacement and other stakeholders such as the AU, UN, and civil society - to share knowledge, experiences, and good practices regarding development responses to forced displacement. The events would result in heightened awareness about long-term responses to forced displacement, fostering relationships among policy makers and facilitating ongoing regional processes. b. The second focused on the pivotal issue of access to land for displaced people; specifically advancing support the ICGLR was already providing to its Member States (MSs) on their adoption of the Declaration on the Implementation of two Protocols; the Protocol on the Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons and the Protocol on Property Rights of Returning Populations.12 The project would host two meetings and provide technical assistance to the ICGLR Technical Subcommittee (TSC) on Land the short-term outcomes of which would be to establish reporting systems that ensure the effective implementation of the protocol and to help the TSC formulate research on land and displacement relevant to the GLR. Consequently, regional learning on land and displacement would be increasedc. c. The third set of activities and outputs sought to help address the gap of research required to develop evidence-based policies and the attendant interventions on forced displacement. Through the ICGLR LM Research Centre in Lusaka, regional research initiatives would be conducted, from small-scale desk reviews, such as analysis of local integration legal frameworks, to larger qualitative and quantitative impact assessments, for instance, quantifying the impact of displacement on host communities and on social cohesion. d. Lastly, fostering technical capacity within the PCU of ICGLR was understood as instrumental to ICGLR’s credibility to engage on development responses to forced displacement sustainably. As such, providing day-to-day technical assistance on planning, implementation of project activities, procurement and FM, and M&E was crucial to the theory of change. 21. Important assumptions that the Theory of Change relied on were mainly related to the political and security environment in the region: a. The topic of forced displacement remains highly sensitive across the GLR and at the time of project appraisal was relatively new to the World Bank. Although there were strong signs that the time was appropriate for more open dialogue and cooperation between countries to achieve durable solutions for forced displacement, it was well understood that governments still face political risks in choosing to pursue development responses to forced displacement, often associated with public perception. 12The declaration recommits to the establishment of a subcommittee of experts with specific responsibility for land and property rights. Page 11 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) b. The forum entailed meetings between Government representatives from countries with a long history of conflict and who host significant refugee populations. Burundi, where the ICGLR is hosted was a sensitive operating environment given periodic political instability. As such, on the one hand, the forum’s objectives would serve to mitigate political risk, while on the other, a key assumption was that volatile regional and domestic political developments could undermine their willingness to engage in dialogue over forced displacement. c. Further, there was still great paucity in experience in implementing development responses to forced displacement. Therefore, the project team was cognizant that the extent to which the regional learning platform could influence MS policy outcomes/on-ground interventions was unknown or limited. 22. Desired long-term outcomes of the project envisioned that the forum would:  serve as an opportunity to cultivate ideas about how to better support the displaced and improve host community ability to cope with stresses brought on by displacement;  promote cooperation and reginal integration among member states through the establishment of a de facto regional Community of Practice that would be sustained for knowledge sharing outside of the formal ICGLR- convened contexts and  support the objectives of the ICGLR’s Humanitarian and Social Issues Sector (the Sector under which this project was housed), notably their objectives related to (a) Protection, Assistance and Search for Lasting Solutions for Displaced Populations and (b) Legal Framework on Issues Relating to the Recovery of Lands and Properties of Returning Persons. Both of these priorities are key to driving the ICGLR’s activities on forced displacement. Page 12 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 23. The linkages between activities, outputs, and outcomes of the project, to the higher-level objectives to which the project contributes are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Results Chain for the Project13 Short-term Medium -term Key Activities Key Outputs Outcomes Outcomes Long-term Outcomes ICGLR convenes Heightened awareness regional learning about development Help identify ways to events – workshops, 1a. Regional learning responses to FD, lessons support displaced conferences etc. platforms/events held shared and facilitation people and improve of commitment to community resilience ongoing regional processes ICGLR hosts two meetings of the 1b. Support to Technical Technical Subcommittee on Land Reporting systems Subcommittee (TSC) provided that ensure Increased support to Promote cooperation group of experts on effective regional learning on and regional integration land implementation of development Protocol responses to forced 2. Generation and established displacement LM Centre engages in documentation of research and data TSC formulates and research and data collection (desk reviews, presents research focused on FD in the impact assessment etc.) topic on land and GLR including on land displacement Support objectives of ICGLR’s Humanitarian LM Centre: Fill and Social Issues sector Technical advisory services knowledge gaps and provided on day-to-day 3. Technical assistance provided that supports provides evidence for planning, implementation policy making on of project activities, project management Zambia withdrawal development improve access to livelihoods and procurement and FM, and and institutional /Project restructuring responses to FD socio-economic infrastructure for PM&E capacity building displaced people and host Strengthened project communities in target areas of the management skills and territory of the Republic of Zambia institutional capacity of the ICGLR Assumptions: - Governments face political risks in choosing to pursue development responses to forced displacement, often associated with public perception. - Regional geopolitical challenges do not undermine political will to engage in continued dialogue on forced displacement - Burundi, host country of ICGLR, remains fairly stable - There are limits to the extent that regional learning platforms can influence policy outcomes/on-ground interventions Project Development Objectives (PDOs) The PDO was to (i) improve access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure for displaced people and host communities in target areas of the territory of the Republic of Zambia, and (ii) support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement. However only the second part of the PDO applies to the ICGLR grant. 13 ICGLR wesite :http://www.icglr.org/index.php/en/humanitarian-and-social-issues Page 13 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators PDO Outcome: support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement. PDO Outcome Indicators:  Perceived usefulness (percentage) of the events  Use of the knowledge (percentage) shared at the events  Use of research (percentage) outputs Page 14 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Components 24. Support to the ICGLR under the project was captured under the following three sub-components: (a) Regional Learning, (b) Regional Research, and (c) Project Management and Institutional Capacity Building, with an emphasis on activities that benefit the identified ICGLR members and further extended the benefits of knowledge sharing to the indirect beneficiaries (that is, displacement-affected populations in the GLR). Sub-Component 1: Regional Learning, US$717,000 Subcomponent 1a: Regional Learning Events, US$627,000 25. The project would support the ICGLR to organize regional learning events that would bring together the ICGLR MSs and other relevant stakeholders to share knowledge, experiences, and good practices regarding development responses to forced displacement. In line with this, the ICGLR would convene regional learning events based on the provisional list that was agreed on at the stakeholder consultation workshop held during the project preparation process, ‘Local Integration as a Solution to Displacement in the GLR: Challenges and Opportunities’ held in Nairobi, in June 2016, and was later reviewed and substantiated during preparation missions (included in Annex 6). The typology of the learning events was intended to range from small ‘closed-door’ workshops to enable Government representatives to discuss sensitive issues; including, for instance, workshops focused on sharing experiences in implementing sustainable return and reintegration processes. Other events were intended to be larger multi stakeholder dissemination conferences involving the public, with the intention to share lessons that have important implications and lessons beyond the ICGLR membership. Subcomponent 1b: Support to the Technical Subcommittee on Land, US$90,000 26. The ICGLR was already involved in issues of access to land for displaced persons; the ICGLR MSs adopted the Declaration on the Implementation of the Protocol on Property Rights of Returning Persons in March 2015. However, there remained much to be done with regard to the integration of the protocol into the national legal frameworks of the ICGLR MSs. This subcomponent of the project would therefore, provide technical assistance to support the existing process of the ICGLR Technical Subcommittee (TSC) on Land to establish reporting systems that ensure the effective implementation of the protocol. The ICGLR would also work with the TSC to formulate a research topic on land and displacement, the research results of which will be presented at the second TSC group of experts meeting. Sub-Component 2: Regional Research, US$1,084,000 27. The project would support the ICGLR and its MSs to engage in research and data collection activities that aimed to fill knowledge gaps, and in so doing, enable evidence-based policy making. The typology for regional research initiatives would range from small-scale desk reviews, such as analysis of local integration legal frameworks, to larger qualitative and quantitative impact assessments, for instance, quantifying the impact of displacement on host communities and on social cohesion. The list of themes prioritized for in-depth research at the time of appraisal are given in Annex 6. Sub-Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Capacity Building, US$1,199,000 Page 15 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 28. This component was developed to cover the cost for project management, day-to-day planning, implementation, and supervision of project activities, administration of procurement and financial management (FM), capacity building, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) within the ICGLR was the focal coordinating unit and would manage the project account. The PCU would also support a Project Advisory Group (PAG)14 for the project. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets The original PDO was: To improve access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure for displaced people and host communities in the targeted areas (in Zambia). The revised PDO after the processing of the AF was: to (i) improve access to livelihoods and socio-economic infrastructure for displaced people and host communities in target areas of the territory of the Republic of Zambia, and (ii) support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement. Revised PDO Indicators The PDO Indicators remained unchanged. Revised Components The components were not revised. Other Changes Refer to Context at Appraisal section; Figure 1. Timeline of Events during context of Appraisal and Implementation Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change Rationale for Changes 29. The RVP office requested to process the ICGLR grant as an AF to the Zambia Displaced Person Project: The rationale for the RVP office to process the ICGLR grant as an additional financing and not a stand-alone project as originally conceived at the ROC was 1) avoidance of RI portfolio fragmentation and 2) efficiency of supervision costs. At a meeting between the WB project team and the RVP office on May 24, 2017, the TTL raised the risk with the RVP office that the Zambia project might not become Effective due to emerging changes in Government priorities, which would leave the ICGLR grant ‘orphaned’ as a stand-alone $3million AF. The RVP office was fully cognizant of 14 a consultative mechanism, which would be devised in a manner that acts as a layer of quality assurance and technical advice Page 16 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) this risk but agreed that re-processing of the ICGLR $3million as an AF should proceed notwithstanding this risk. Unfortunately, this risk materialized; effectively meaning that the parent project for the grant was no longer. At this stage, the SoP no longer met the minimum three country criteria for a regional project, since it was only the DRC activities being implemented and the ICGLR grant moving forward. 30. Political changes in Tanzania and Zambia: The withdrawal of the GoT and GoZ were arguably because of both changing domestic politics in the respective countries, as well as growing global positions on how poor countries should be best assisted in responding to forced displacement. On the former, in both Tanzania and Zambia significant changes to national politics occurred during project preparation and appraisal; in the 2015 Tanzanian General elections and 2016 Zambian General elections, new governments were elected that had differing dispositions to how to address challenges to forced displacement compared to previous governments that were consulted during project design. This disposition was held by some other governments and stakeholders reflecting: 1) a sense that poor countries had for far too long been disproportionately shouldering the responsibility of hosting refugees with inadequate political attention and support from the international community and 2) they were expected to continue hosting refugees on what they considered unfavorable financial terms being offered by donors.15 Notably, the design of the project preceded important global developments – such as the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees to increase global responsibility-sharing for refugees - that refined approaches to address the long term challenges of forced displacement, and further made the technical and financial assistance, currently offered to poor countries, more readily available and on preferential terms. Critically, the IDA18 Regional Sub-window for Refugees and Host Communities which provided $2 billion of dedicated funding to help low-income countries hosting large numbers of refugees and encompassed more favorable financial terms for medium-term investments that benefit both refugees and host communities, was not available at the time the project was being designed. 31. Review of projects within region results in decision for project closure: As part of a review of projects within the region especially with regard to reducing regional fragmentation – it was decided by the Regional Integration Unit that the project should be consolidated, and lack of viable options for this resulted in project closure. Implications for Theory of Change: 32. Political will undermined among member states from GLR: The withdrawal of the GoT and GoZ undermined the potential success of achieving the outcomes, as activities such as the learning events and incorporation of research outputs into policy formulation were contingent on political will to find regional solutions to forced displacement. The withdrawal of the governments from the project signaled less political commitment to regional dialogue and to addressing the long-term challenges to forced displacement. On the other hand, their withdrawal made the need for institutionalized regional dialogue on development approaches to forced displacement even more pertinent. 33. Uncertainty and disruption of implementation of project activities: The decision to restructure the project as an AF, placed a lot of uncertainty on the viability of the ICGLR activities, as it was known by the WB team and ICGLR that actitvies could possibly be disrupted at any moment if the GoZ chose to withdraw. Secondly, it was clear that there was a detrimental impact on the momentum of the project and on regional learning outcomes once it was 15Betts, A. Don’t Make African Nations Borrow to Support Refugees, Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/21/dont-make-african-nations-borrow-money-to-support-refugees/ Page 17 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) decided that the project would be cancelled and activties suspended; without the opportunity to implement actitvities, achieving the intended outcomes was not possible. II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating Rating: High 34. The Great Lakes region remains one of the areas of the world most affected by forced displacement where most of the countries in the region host refugees and IDPs but have also seen their own citizens seek refuge in neighboring countries.16 The multiple complex conflicts and significant scale of internal and cross-border displacement that characterized the GLR when the project was designed, continues today. Notably the deteriorating situation in the DRC and Burundi are the main drivers of displacement. Currently, Congolese IDPs and refugees encompass the largest displaced population in the sub-region, with close to 4.9 million IDPs and approximately 530, 000 refugees and asylum seekers in neighboring countries.17 Although the large-scale violence in Burundi has subsided, the situation remains a concern, especially in view of the 2020 elections. This reality of political fragility and inter-connected displacement situations reaffirms the need for countries in the region to engage in dialogue in an institutionalized manner that aims to address the long-term impacts of forced displacement. However, the abrupt closure of the activities of the ICGLR means that the GLR still lacks a permanent regional platform dedicated to sustained policy dialogue and knowledge sharing. 35. In March 2019, the Governments of the Great Lakes Region re-affirmed their commitment to seeking regional solutions to the shared challenge of forced displacement. Representatives of Government Member States of the ICGLR, met in Kampala in March 2019 for a ‘High Level Meeting of Ministers in Charge of Refugees in the Great Lakes Region’. In an agreed Outcome Document, the Ministers declared their intention to (amongst others): “Address the drivers and root causes of forced displacement in the region including violence armed conflict, human rights violations, natural disasters, and environmental degradation, among others; work with Member States to domesticate and implement the ICGLR protocols, including the Protocol on the Property Rights of Returning Persons; and implement durable solutions for refugees.” In addition, delegates commended the ICGLR Executive Secretariat for the World Bank financed ‘Great Lakes Region Displaced Persons and Border Communities Project’ and called upon Member States to fully support this project and to use the project as a valuable additional collaborative vehicle to follow up on the commitments made at the meeting. Finally, the Meeting recommended that that ICGLR develops a Regional Strategy for Durable Solutions for the Great Lakes region and an action plan to implement this strategy. Indeed, in March 2019 (when procedures were already underway to close the project) demand for the activities of the ICGLR grant amongst the MSs were at the highest point. Without the project, it is unlikely that ICGLR will be able to move forward with MS request, to develop the Regional Strategy. 16 https://reliefweb.int/report/democratic-republic-congo/great-lakes-region-humanitarian-snapshot-october-2019 17 Ibid. Page 18 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 36. The Socio-economic Inclusion of Refugees and Host Communities in Rwanda Project (P164130, currently active) and the Burundi North-East Region Refugee and Host Community Support Project (P169315, under preparation) as well as seven new operations being prepared in Uganda, all under IDA18 sub-window for refugees and host communities financing, are evidence of the critical role the World Bank has in financing interventions that enable the self-reliance of refugees and resilience of host communities in the GLR. In light of these projects, a regional platform for dialogue is relevant today because it can serve as repository for lessons that emerge from the implementation of projects in the region – as was initially intended. However, the gains made cannot be taken for granted. In practice implementing development responses to forced displacement is complex and fluid local and regional political dynamics can rapidly unravel progressive policies and practices. As such a platform could also serves as a means mitigate political risks that periodically emerge and threaten to destabilize the region. 37. Analytical work on forced displacement continues to offer a useful entry point for dialogue with governments that are at varied stages of the adoption of development approaches in the GLR. Studies that quantify the impact of refugee inflows on hosting communities and model the development dividends of different approaches have been influential.18 Further, much research is still required on specific thematic topics focused on the GLR. Notably research outputs identified under the second component of the ICGLR grant that were yet to be undertaken, remain relevant today.19 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome Rating: Negligilbe PDO Outcome: Increase support to regional learning on development responses to forced displacement. 38. The first PDO Outcome indicator was: Perceived usefulness (percentage) of the events. Achieving this outcome was based on assessments by attendants of the learning events held. Given the constraints the ICGLR and WB team were under, the operation is assessed to have only partly achieved its intended outcomes primarily because of the request to halt activities and the premature closure of the project. In addition, there are constraints in collection of data to assess the usefulness of the few learning events held. The M&E framework outlined a survey to be sent to participants of learning events immediately after and six months subsequently to collect quantitative data on usefulness and usage. Give that the first learning event was held in January 2019 and the project closed in June 2019 and due to project disruption, this survey was never sent and data not collected. However, the below qualitative analysis provides an account of initial reflections from participants which point to progress towards 18IDA 19 Second Replenishment Meeting: FCV. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/515831563779134705/pdf/IDA19- Second-Replenishment-Meeting-Special-Theme-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence.pdf 19 Topics such as: quantifying the impact of displacement on host communities and on social cohesion; documenting good practices across the region (knowledge banking) – such as in Rwanda and Burundi; analyzing impacts of forced displacement on women, youth, children, and other vulnerable groups and development strategies for protection; analysing local integration legal frameworks (documentation, naturalisation, and model law); harmonizing data, data collection, and analysis relating to local integration and implementing an alternative to camps in the GLR: constraints and opportunities. Page 19 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) achievement of “Heightened awareness about development responses to FD, lessons shared and facilitation of commitment to ongoing regional processes.” (the short-term outcome as per the Theory of Change) During the brief implementation period, ICGLR convened the following events: 39. In July 2018 a meeting with the Project Advisory Group (PAG), a consultative mechanism which would be devised in a manner that acts as a layer of quality assurance and technical advice, was held in Nairobi. The PAG’s purpose was to (a) improve the technical quality of the project by enabling relevant and timely input from key stakeholders into the project activities, (b) create a link between the project activities and wider policy dialogue and other activities on development responses to forced displacement in the region, and (iii) give strategic guidance to the PCU. The objective of the first meeting was to establish contact between PAG members and get to learn more about the role of the PAG and its responsibilities towards the Project. The meeting was attended by, two Government participants from Zambia, one from Uganda, one from Burundi and the three members from Partner Organizations and four from the Project. Confirmed participants from DRC missed their flight. To conclude the first PAG meeting the participants filled out an evaluation. Main comments included that the meeting fully met its objectives; the meeting was well organized and was fruitful; that the next meeting should be held in one of the represented Country’s, and that the meeting was very engaging and participatory (Report, including attendance sheet and evaluation form, in Annex 6). 40. On 29-31 January 2019 the ICGLR convened a workshop on Government, Institutional and Governance Arrangements for Development Responses/solutions to Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The workshop brought together representatives from the Governments of Burundi, the DRC, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia where they discussed and shared the experiences of their countries on the topic. The workshop was the first in part of the intended series of thematic learning events that were to be conducted under the Project. Securing the participation of the above governments was in part reliant on the ICGLR selecting topics that government’s asserted as relevant for their contexts and for the GLR.20 41. The main objective of the workshop was to share experiences on government, institutional and governance arrangements for development responses/solutions to forced displacement in the GLR. The workshop brought together selected government representatives from the ministry responsible for refugee affairs, ministry/department responsible for national planning and the ministry responsible for local government. The workshop was attended by 23 country representatives from Burundi, DRC, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia representing their national governments; 5 participants from NGOs, 3 participants from Multilateral Donor Agencies (World Bank, UNHCR and UN) and 9 participants from the ICGLR Secretariat. A total of 6 country presentations and a brief opening session took place on the first day, as well as short briefs from the UN Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary- General for the Great Lakes Region, the UNHCR, the Regional Durable Solution Secretariat (ReDSS) the International Refugee Committee and Danish Refugee Council. It is noticeable that both GoZ and GoT representatives were present at the event; despite their withdrawal from the SoP, there was still a desire to learn about the topic. 20 The Nairobi Workshop mentioned earlier, was instrumental in determining some of these topics with governments. Page 20 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 42. Feedback documented at the workshop was positive. When asked if they found the workshop useful and why, comments included that the workshop was very interactive, allowing for cross-fertilization of ideas for better working methods; people with different expertise shared views freely; there was improved knowledge on development solutions to forced displacement; participants were able to identify weaknesses and good practices. The second PDO Outcome indicator was: Use of the knowledge (percentage) shared at the events 43. Feedback received in writing after the Dar es Salaam workshop was from the Governments of Zambia, DRC, and ReDSS21. The Government of Zambia noted that it had incorporated lessons from the workshop, including strengthening and institutionalizing coordination among ministries responding to forced displacement to ensure that such coordination “survive[s] even when there is change in personalities/officers/ministries.” While the Government of DRC noted that it was motivated to host its own workshop in DRC along the same thematic lines, focused on the four provinces most affected by forced displacement. ReDSS highlighted that it “was able to use the discussions and key points from the workshop to inform the development of its strategy in the Great Lakes region.” (See Annex 6) 44. The above feedback, notably from the GoZ points to a demand and need in the region for such a platform and from varied stakeholders. Further, the client has noted in Annex 5 that there appear to be signs of political will among some governments towards a commitment to development responses, based on the attendance and feedback from the workshop. It is difficult to point to the precise possibilities of a counterfactual (i.e. the absence of the ICGLR playing a convening role in this short implementation period and especially without having the full time to implement activities). Nonetheless, loss of momentum in convening stakeholders and possible loss of confidence in such platforms/institutions – particularly on a politically delicate issue and in a volatile region – is a plausible conclusion. Specifically, without the Project, the ICGLR will have limited ability to take forward the agreements of the March 2019 Outcome Document of the ‘High Level Meeting of the Ministers in Charge of Displacement in the Great Lakes Region’. The third PDO Outcome indicator was: Use of research (percentage) outputs 45. Aside from the reports published to document the outcomes of the PAG and Dar es Salaam meetings as well as several concept notes for proposed research, no research outputs were developed under the Regional Research component. Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating Overall efficacy rating: Negligible 46. Overall, it is unsurprising that the ICGLR was only able to host two events with no research outputs generated given the continuous uncertainty and disruption the project faced – as such the efficacy rating is determined to be negligible. In particular, there was 1) a short time between when the project was declared Effective (November 2017) 2) the subsequent uncertainty created when looking for options to continue the Grant under another project and 3) finally the moment when the ICGLR was requested to formally halt implementation of activities (in May 2019). Nonetheless, initial feedback provided and based on responses that speak to the outcome indicators show early signs of interest, perceived usefulness and a possible use of knowledge shared at events. This points to 21The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) is a consortium of 14 NGOs all working on durable solutions for displaced persons in the Great Lakes Region. Page 21 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) progress towards achievement of the short-term outcome: Heightened awareness about development responses to FD and lessons shared. C. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating Rating: Negligible 47. Efficiency of the project is rated as Negligible primarily because of the tremendous amount of time and effort spent by the World Bank team in reprocessing the project internally, which given the premature closure of the project and the consequential inability to implement activities and achieve outcomes, does not reflect value for money and time. Implementation inefficiencies 48. In fact, the processes undergone during this project and the time taken to enact the processes are inconsistent with the WB’s Agile principles – namely, flexibility in the face of changing conditions of the clients; efficiency to find the best solutions for clients and less bureaucracy that makes for happier clients and staff. 49. During the processing of the Grant from a stand-alone project to an AF for the Zambia Project, the team faced a number of bureaucratic hurdles. Significant progress had been made in preparing the Grant as a stand-alone Project, and this work had to be retro-fitted for the AF processing. These are some of the processes and challenges the team faced which consumed much time and effort and as such contributed to overall inefficiency:  New P-code: To avoid starting again under a new code, milestones were transferred from stand-alone code to AF code up to Negotiations stage. However, since this was a first-time request for IT, this process took 3 weeks to complete  Delaying Negotiations: To avoid delaying Negotiations or re-clearance of legal documents it was proposed to undertake the necessary change to the PDO for the Zambia Project during Negotiations. However, the legal agreements were prepared with a stand-alone Grant number, not an AF grant number; this problem was only discovered later and required revision of legal documents at Signing.  AF for non-effective Project: Preparing an AF for a non-effective project required a waiver.  Given the delicate status with the Parent project – the team worked with the Legal team to defer requirements for re-structuring on the Zambia parent project side so as not to raise concerns with the client directly.  Waivers to clear AF: Since there was no request from the Government of Zambia for the AF, DFI would not clear the package and requested an RVP waiver. The team directly appealed to the RVP to secure not having a waiver. The above processes and time spent largely reflect an inflexible bureaucracy which took time and energy away from the client, yet nonetheless did not prevent the final outcome of ICGLR having to halt activities prematurely. 50. One key positive contribution to efficiency and value-for-money was the capacity-building of the ICGLR PCU despite the short-term implementation period. Based on interviews, the project strengthened the ICGLR PCU team’s capacity to convene learning events, their project management skills and their knowledge of World Bank processes. Page 22 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Further, the WB-financing and technical support helped to substantiate that the ICGLR is a legitimate stakeholder in forced displacement. (See more under Institutional Strengthening) Economic and Financial Efficiency 51. An economic and financial analysis was not undertaken for the project during appraisal, given the focus of activities on provision of technical assistance, learning events, and research rather than implementation of works and field- level activities. Efficiencies were understood to be achieved within the project budget through a number of measures: (a) using the staff of the existing PCU within the ICGLR and augmenting their salaries to enable full-time positions, rather than recruiting new staff members, and (b) use of financial proposals (alongside technical proposals) to comply with least cost criteria in the selection of consultants and firms for activities under the project. Nonetheless, a summary of disbursement and expenditure is included below, with a brief analysis of utilization of funds. 52. The project grant was relatively small for a regional dialogue platform. Other comparable examples in the region are the IGAD Regional Secretariat for Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration, for which $8M was set aside to facilitate regional-coordination, experience sharing and harmonization of refugee policies under the Development Response and Displacement Impacts Project. 53. By closure of the project, 18% of funds were disbursed ($541,536) all of which was used for the Regional Learning Component ($68 773) and the Management and Capacity Building Component ($321,434). No expenditure was used for the Regional Research component. The funding used under the Regional Learning component was mostly spent on the hiring of 3 staff – a Displacement Specialist, and two accountants to service the Research Center in Lusaka and the office in Bujumbura, as well as host the two learning events. The third component on Capacity Building was largely spent on project operations (salaries) and audits carried out over the period. Critically, the funds spent under this third component are relatively high and reflect an inefficiency since staff were being paid for the project, while no activities could be implemented. The following is a summary of planned activities and budgets and actual expenditure per component (See Annex 6 for Budget and Workplans) 54. For Year 1 planned activities and budget under Component 1 were:  Access to land: Sub Committee of Experts on Land Meeting ($50 000)  PAG Stakeholder Engagement ($15 000)  Total Planned Budget: $65 000 Actual activities and expenditure under Component 1 were:  Review of government, institutional and governance arrangements for developments responses/solutions to forced displacement in the region workshop  PAG Stakeholder Engagement  Total Expenditure: $68 773 Page 23 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 55. For Year 1 planned activities and budget under Component 2 were:  Quantifying the impact of displacement on host communities and on social cohesion ($600 000)  Labor intensive sources of growth in the region (urban/rural, migrants/refugees) ($150 000) No actual activities were implemented, and no expenditure was spent under component 2 56. For Year 1, planned budget for Component 3 was $303 200, while actual expenditure was $321 434. Table 1: Expenditure Figures at 20 June 2019 and October 2019 USD Actual Disbursements Received 541,536 Cumulative expenditure as at 30 June 261,919 2019 Percentage of disbursed spent by 49% June 2019 July to October 2019 125,288 Cumulative expenditure 390,208 Percentage of disbursed spent by 72% October 2019 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING Rating: Unsatisfactory 57. The justification for the overall outcome rating takes the following into account: i) the PDO is highly relevant given the continued scale and complexity of forced displacement in the region and the absence of a permanent platform on regional dialogue and research on development responses to forced displacement, ii) the project efficacy was rated as negligible given the limited achievements possible in the short implementation period. These ratings don’t however fully reflect the uncertainty caused by the potential re-processing of the grant and the subsequent disruption caused by the closure of the project. iii) efficiency is rated as negligible largely due to the convoluted and time consuming internal bureaucratic processes that were undertaken and cost implications for payment of salaries with less than anticipated activities being implemented. Page 24 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) Gender No significant impact on gender was achieved. Institutional Strengthening 58. The project has certainly strengthened the ICGLR PCU team’s capacity based on interviews with PCU members. The PCU, responsible for the overall coordination, day-to-day implementation, and supervision of the project benefited from, and built on, the experience of the PCU responsible for implementing the SGBV Project. Specifically, the same FM Officer and Project Coordinator took on the roles under the regional platform project. Interviews with the PCU in preparation for this ICR confirmed that one of the major impacts of the project was the development of specific project management capacities and knowledge of development responses to forced displacement. Critically, interviews with the PCU also affirmed that the team had gained the capacity and credibility to facilitate dialogue on development responses to forced displacement sustainably in the short implementation period. Mobilizing Private Sector Financing N/A Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity N/A Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION See Section A: Context at Appraisal and Section B: Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION See Section A: Context at Appraisal and Section B: Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Page 25 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Theory of Change IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design 59. An M&E system was intended focused on quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Project progress and success was developed around threes project-level indicators that focused on not merely assessing the number of events held, but the perceived usefulness of them. The design of the M&E went further by deciding that the project be assessed against participant use of knowledge from an event through perception surveys. With regard to research output – the design not only assessed that relevant stakeholders should be informed of the outputs but should report using the information in the outputs. M&E Implementation 60. Evaluation surveys based on qualitative outcome indicators were conducted at both the PAG Meeting and Dar es Salaam workshop. Subsequent contact was made with participants at the workshop and feedback was received. Evaluation surveys aimed to address the indicators on perceived usefulness of events and use of knowledge from learning events. Feedback was documented in the respective PAG and workshop report. Interviews conducted with the client confirmed that feedback received from participants was documented with the intent to use the feedback to inform future learning events and research. However, given closure of the project, an intended quantitative survey to collect data against indicators six-months after the learning event was never sent This affects the evidence base for justification of outcome achievements. M&E Utilization Potential project re-processing and closure was initiated before M&E could be sufficiently utilized. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E The overall quality of the M&E system is rated as Modest. 61. The justification is that the design was simple yet substantive from the qualitative outcomes it sought to assess. The application of the M&E appeared to be deliberate and systemic based on surveys conducted at the end of the PAG Meeting and Workshop, however follow up after the workshop seemed limited/weak. Overall, not much time was available to implement M&E, as such, it is difficult to assess further. Page 26 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE No safeguard policies are triggered under the project. 62. With regard to fiduciary matters, timely FMR quarterly reporting to World Bank was conducted and once reviewed, were found to be satisfactory. Further, ICGLR successfully supported the 2017 and 2018 external audits, while audits reports were submitted before the respective deadlines. The project received an unqualified audit opinion for December 2017, June 2018 and June 2018 – July 2019. 63. Procurement of goods and services funded under the project followed Bank procurement procedures. The Project Procurement Plan was approved by the World Bank on 26 March 2018 and was successively revised on November 19, 2018, February 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019. During the period from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the following consultants contracts were signed for a total amount of USD 128,020:  BI-ICGLR-50800-CS-INDV-Displacement Specialist: contract signed with Geofrey Mugumya22  BI-ICGLR-50806-CS-INDV-Accountant and Technical Assistant: Contract signed with Jamin Simiyu Mulati23  BI-ICGLR-50813-CS-INDV-Accountant Assistant: Contract signed with Gift Kasongo24  BI-ICGLR-50823-CS-INDV-Consultants' services (preparation, facilitation and/or interpretation) Workshop/meeting of the ICGLR Technical Sub Committee on Land: contract signed with Mr Jean Bosco Nzisabira25  BI-ICGLR-50869-CS-LCS: Financial Audit- Yearly audit (2018-2019) and closing: Signature of contract by direct selection with COFIMA; total contract amount: USD 10,420. This audit was implemented and completed in September 2019 before the end of grace period. Following to the closing of the project, BI-ICGLR-50804-CS-INDV-Research Specialist Selection which was under contract negotiations was suspended. Table 2 Consultant Services Cumulative (January 2018- June 2019) USD Bujumbura 128,020.00 LMR Lusaka - Total USD 128,020.00 Goods and non-consulting services During the period from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the following contracts were signed for a total amount of USD 11,480:  BI-ICGLR-50738-GO-RFQ-Bujumbura Office equipment-Furniture: Contract signed with PDM and GTS for a total amount of USD 5,464;  BI-ICGLR-50756-GO-RFQ / Bujumbura recurrent office supplies: Contract signed with MICEM for a total amount of USD 6,016. Table 3 Goods and non-Consulting Services Page 27 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Cumulative (January 2018- June 2019) USD Bujumbura 11,480.00 LMRC Lusaka - Total USD 11,480.00 Procurement status and Final report are in Annex 6. C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 64. At project preparation, the Bank team employed a proactive yet cautionary approach by: 1) identifying developmental needs based on analytical work26, 2) extensive consultations with clients to build and ensure commitment,27 3) as well designing the project based on openings and political will exhibited by the clients.28 65. For the regional platform the Bank also placed great emphasis on the lessons learned from other projects notably the work done by IGAD in HoA and the existing SGBV project implemented by ICGLR. The project documents clearly articulated lessons learned that were reflected in project design such as: 1) building on the capacity of the existing PCU, 2) initiating research and learning events identified by countries in the region as priorities. 66. Notably, the need for such a permanent platform was further affirmed during a June 2016 consultation workshop held during project preparation, where the World Bank team, ICGLR, the Office of the UN Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region and the UNHCR Regional Office for the Great Lakes together hosted the “Local Integration as A Solution to Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region - Challenges and Opportunities” workshop. Representatives from the Governments of Burundi, DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia affirmed the need for sharing experience and more knowledge and identified several further topics for mutual learning, potential policy formulation, and fuller exploration through research. 22 USD 66,000 (USD 5,500 per month) 23 USD 16,800 (USD 1,400 per month). This contract was amended in March and the rate is now USD 2,000 per month 24 USD 12,000 (USD 1,000 per month); 25USD 22,800; 26 World Bank and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2015. Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes 27 Building upon the consultation carried out through the analytic work in 2015, the team embarked on a series of identification missions in the region, consultation pointed to clear client-demand for the Project in DRC, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as from the ICGLR. 28 In 2015, the ‘Comprehensive Solutions Strategy for Rwanda Refugees’ brought together Rwanda, together with those countries hosting Rwandan refugees – Uganda, Zambia, DRC – in a new commitment to sustainable solutions for those Refugees; The 2014 Strategic Framework for Local Integration (SFLI) agreed between the governments of Zambia and Angola for the awarding of full residency rights and integration opportunities to former Angolan refugees in Zambia; The 2007 ‘Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy (TANCOSS)’ saw agreem ent between the governments of Burundi and Tanzania over the resolution of status for a population of refugees who had moved to Tanzania in the early 1970s. Integration within Tanzania was one part of this strategy. Page 28 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) 67. As noted in the assumptions underpinning the theory of change, the team was cognizant of various potential risks – especially political ones – that eventually materialized and contributed to the ultimate closure of the project. Although the Bank’s bureaucracy and rigidity of the system in responding to emerging developments was inadequate, the team recognizes that the mitigation measures for risks identified during design could have been strengthened. These measures may have helped to minimize the risks that hindered the achievement of the PDO. 68. Given the above, the Bank Performance quality at entry is rated as Moderately Satisfactory. Quality of Supervision 69. The Bank demonstrated commitment, dedication, perseverance in the face on political changes in Tanzania and Zambia, as well as internal bureaucratic rigidity. This can be seen in how the team, at every stage, provided alternative suggested based on assessment of political risk, as well as explored avenues to re-process the grant to ensure the continuation of activities, while also achieving portfolio consolidation (SGBV, Rwanda, Burundi). 70. Upon reflection, the team could have had more consultations with stakeholders, especially among government officials that were not supportive of Bank financing of refugee/host community interventions after Board Approval, to better understand their concerns and as such attempt to allay their concerns. This engagement could have been done by conducting ongoing deeper and domestically-focused political-economy analysis for internal purposes, especially to better understand the risks posed by changes after elections in Tanzania and Zambia. 71. Interviews with the client affirmed the Bank team’s commitment to ensuring ICGLR was kept abreast of developments to the extent that they were explainable to people unfamiliar with internal Bank processes and in supporting activities that were doable in the timeframe. 72. Throughout 2019, The RI Unit signaled their intention to maintain project activities and to respond to client demand for the Project by earmarking a $3million grant from Regional IDA if an alternative could be found for ‘housing’ the grant. Although all alternatives for this (combining with the SGBV Project, incorporation in Burundi and Rwanda Projects) were subsequently found to be non-workable and the process of exploring them created additional work and uncertainty for both the project team and ICGLR, it is of note that the RI Unit intended the work to continue. 73. Finally, the team worked with the ICGLR to secure EU and World Bank Trust Funds to continue the implementation of some of the planned activities Although grant agreements have not yet been formalized, there is verbal intent for the EU to offer $800,000 and the World Bank Dutch Partnership for Prospects to offer $450,000 to continue work on regional learning on forced displacement in the Great Lakes in a collaboration between ReDDS and ICGLR. These have been achieved on the initiative of the task team to respond to client demand and maintain momentum on activities despite regional IDA funding being unworkable. Given the above, the Bank Performance quality at supervision is rated as Moderately Satisfactory. Page 29 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 74. The overall Bank performance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory, justified by the adequate preparation for, and supervision of, the project – however with the need for deeper domestically-focused political-economy analysis throughout the project lifecycle and with stronger risk mitigation measures at design stage even though the project faced significant challenges during negotiations, implementation and supervision which were significantly influenced by internal Bank processes and resulted in premature project closure – the diligent and thorough preparation by the team as well as efforts undertaken to keep the project going (now with EU and WB TFs) given its high relevance, justifies the rating. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME Rating: Substantial 75. Evidence from the events held by the ICGLR show strong interest from stakeholders that a regional platform is both useful and learnings have great potential to be incorporated into government practices and policies. However, the abrupt closure to the project maybe be interpreted by stakeholders in the GLR as the World Bank signaling a lack of commitment and indeed a lack of need for a regional platform on development responses to forced displacement. Given the leading role the World Bank now plays on the issue, both in financing interventions and providing technical assistance, this interpretation may affect stakeholder’s willingness to invest in a regional platform. 76. The ICGLR is in the process of securing funds to implement the objectives articulated in the project documents and to do with partners in the region. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The lessons and recommendation below may be of particular use to future regional operations using regional IDA funding or forced displacement-related projects in general: 77. Despite the World Bank’s significant efforts to institutionalize Agile principles, this project is an apt example of how institutional rigidity and internal administrative objectives can be out of sync with client needs, and in some cases actually serve to thwart response to client demands. 78. The World Bank has made significant advancements in supporting the agenda on development responses in the GLR and elsewhere. However, the inherent political nature of displacement continues to pose challenges to implementing sustainable interventions that seek to support the livelihoods and rights of both refugees and hosts. 79. Ensuring that Clients’ initial demand and political will is sustained throughout the life of a project and in the face of national and regional political and security changes will continue to be a challenge Bank team’s working on forced displacement projects. Consistent client engagement and periodic Page 30 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) deep political-economy analysis to better understand changing dynamics in a client country, could serve to mitigate risks that threaten the sustainability of projects. 80. The World Bank should reconsider how best it can finance regional forced displacement dialogue initiatives. Regional IDA may not be the most appropriate financing instrument as Regional financing instruments may not have the sufficient degree of flexibility to ensure adaptability in the face of changing political developments and client needs. . Page 31 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Improved socio-economic opportunities for refugees and host communities in Zambia Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Direct project beneficiaries Number 0.00 250000.00 0.00 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Female beneficiaries Percentage 0.00 50.00 0.00 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Beneficiaries with improved Number 0.00 150000.00 0.00 access to connective and socio-economic 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 infrastructure (by Page 32 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) female/former refugees) Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Beneficiaries of livelihood Percentage 0.00 60.00 0.00 subprojects who report improved food security, 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 income and/or welfare Comments (achievements against targets): Objective/Outcome: Improved regional learning on development responses to forced displacement Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of research pieces Number 0.00 8.00 0.00 created under the project 01-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): Page 33 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of regional learning Number 0.00 8.00 1.00 events held to faciliate knowledge exchange on 01-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 development responses to forced displacement Comments (achievements against targets): A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Socio-economic Investments Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of completed Number 0.00 40.00 0.00 infrastructure sub-projects (by sub-project type) 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Page 34 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Share of approved socio- Percentage 0.00 80.00 0.00 economic infrastructure subprojects that are or will 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 be integrated into government planning and budget exercises Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Share of infrastructure Percentage 0.00 70.00 0.00 built/rehabilitated by the project that is climate 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 resilient Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Support to Resilient Livelihoods Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Beneficiaries of livelihoods Number 0.00 3000.00 0.00 sub-projects (Number disaggregated by 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Page 35 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) female/vulnerable members) Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Social Cohesion and Conflict Prevention Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Share of former refugees Percentage 0.00 60.00 0.00 who report having good relations with host 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 communities Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of people Number 0.00 100000.00 0.00 particpating in community- based decision- 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 making/participatory planning exercises Comments (achievements against targets): Page 36 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of people who have Number 0.00 100000.00 0.00 participated in social cohesion activities under the 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 project Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Project Management Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of individuals Number 0.00 200.00 0.00 participating in capacity building trainings 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of plans in districts Number 0.00 3.00 0.00 or wards mainstreamed with climate resilience 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Page 37 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Support to ICGLR for a regional platform for knowledge and research Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion % of participants judging Percentage 0.00 70.00 48.00 regional learning events as useful 01-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion % of people who received a Percentage 0.00 70.00 0.00 research piece that have used it 01-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion % of participants who have Percentage 0.00 70.00 0.00 Page 38 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) used their 'take-away' from 01-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 events Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of individuals Number 0.00 50.00 40.00 participating in regional knowledge and learning 27-May-2016 31-Dec-2021 21-May-2019 exchanges Comments (achievements against targets): Page 39 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT Objective/Outcome 1 Support regional learning on development responses to forced displacement 1. Number of direct Beneficiaries (33) 2. % of participants judging the event as useful (42%) Outcome Indicators 3. % of participants have used their 'take away' from events (unknown) 4. % of people who received a research piece that have used it (N/A) 1. regional learning events held to facilitate knowledge exchange and creation of development responses to forced displacement (2) Intermediate Results Indicators 2. research pieces created under the project (N/A) 1. PAG Meeting (10 participants) 2. Government, institutional and governance arrangements for Key Outputs by Component development responses/solutions to forced displacement in the Great (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1) Lakes Region Workshop (23 participants) Page 40 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation Natacha Caroline Lemasle, Joanna Peace De Berry Task Team Leader(s) Wedex Ilunga Procurement Specialist(s) Lingson Chikoti Financial Management Specialist Mwansa Lukwesa Social Specialist Ann-Sofie Jespersen Team Member Cordelia Adda-Marie Hjernoe Chesnutt Team Member Kaori Oshima Team Member Diego Garrido Martin Team Member Christiaan Johannes Nieuwoudt Team Member Iretomiwa Olatunji Team Member Wolfhart Pohl Social Specialist Mariangeles Sabella Counsel Joseph-Antoine Ellong Team Member Richard Coppinger Team Member Kristine Schwebach Social Specialist Supervision/ICR Joanna Peace De Berry Task Team Leader(s) Alice Museri, Arcade Bigirindavyi Procurement Specialist(s) Enagnon Ernest Eric Adda Financial Management Specialist Margaret Png Team Member Page 41 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Joseph-Antoine Ellong Team Member Iretomiwa Olatunji Environmental Specialist Kutemba Chilila Kambole Team Member Kaori Oshima Team Member Murat Fatin Onur Team Member Erina Iwami Social Specialist Helidah Refiloe Atieno Ogude Team Member B. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY15 18.567 163,735.90 FY16 77.029 517,052.53 FY17 .512 11,356.53 FY18 0 0.00 Total 96.11 692,144.96 Supervision/ICR FY17 24.875 115,674.02 FY18 16.962 94,256.03 FY19 18.107 142,059.48 FY20 4.599 17,823.34 Total 64.54 369,812.87 Page 42 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Amount at Approval Actual at Project Percentage of Approval Components (US$M) Closing (US$M) (US$M) Socio-economic Investments 0 15.00 0 Support to Resilient 0 .83 0 Livelihoods Social Cohesion and Conflict 0 1.00 0 Prevention Project Management 0 3.17 0 Support to ICGLR for a regional platform for 0 3.00 0 knowledge and research Total 0.00 23.00 0.00 Page 43 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS N/A Page 44 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS The draft ICR was sent to the Client for comment. The ICR team received the following comments on 17 December: Political will in the GLR: There seems to be a new understanding among GLR governments that is leading to renewed political will. This is evident from the attendance by government representatives from all the countries – including Tanzania and Zambia – to the ICGLR workshop on “Government, institutional and governance arrangements for development responses/solutions to forced displacement in the Great Lakes Region”, which was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in January 2019. Also as evidenced by the Outcome Document of the High- Level Meeting of the Ministers in charge of Refugees in the Great Lakes Region held in Kampala Uganda in March 2019, where the Ministers heralded the ICGLR Project. Insufficient funding to sustain planned activities: The funds being sought/secured by the ICGLR are likely to be too meager to sustain initially planned activities under the project. Disagreement with ratings provided in ICR: It is not clear how the efficacy rating is Modest, and the assessment of efficiency is Negligible even though ICGLR operated normally against the guidelines and result framework indicators. The evaluation should be more focused on ICGLR’s performance notwithstanding the wider project’s challenges. An ICR Mission to Burundi was conducted in October 2019. Interviews were held with the ICGLR PCU, the ICGLR Acting Head of the Directorate for Humanitarian and Social Issues and World Bank Procurement and Financial Management staff. Page 45 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 6: MAP Page 46 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) Page 47 of 49 The World Bank AFR RI-GLR: Displaced Persons & Border Communities (P152821) ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) Project Documents  Project Appraisal Document  Implementation Supervision Reports  Aide Mémoire  Procurement Plan  Project Quarterly Reports  Procurement Plan (Final Report)  Budgets and Workplans Project restructuring and cancellation  Zambia Notice of Withdrawal Offer of Credit  Notice of Cancellation  Implementation Completion MAL Learning Events’ Reports:  PAG Meeting Report, including attendance sheet and evaluation form  Report on Government, Institutional and Governance Arrangements for Development Responses/solutions to Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region workshop Page 48 of 49