|1. Project Data:
|Environmental Institutions, Environment|
|UNDP, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), European Community (EC), Montreal Protocol Interim Fund (MP)|
|Andres Liebenthal, OEDST|
|Alain A. Barbu|
|2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs, and Components:|
The project's objective was to strengthen effective environmental institutions at the national level and help create them at the state level. Its components included; (i) development and strengthening institutional capacity at the national and state levels, (ii) establishment of an environmental information network for monitoring environmental trends throughout the country, and (iii) studies for the identification of specific investment projects for alleviating environmental degradation.
Total project costs of US$27.3 million were financed by IDA Credit 2353-UNI ($25.8 million - approved on April 14, 1992), cofinancing from Montreal Protocol Interim Fund ($0.2 million), and counterpart funding by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN - $1.3 million). Additional cofinancing from Overseas Development Administration ($3.0 million), European Union ($1.0 million), and United Nations Development Program ($3.0 million) had been expected at appraisal but was cancelled due to political and implementation problems. The IDA credit was closed on March 31, 1998, two years later than planned.
|3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:|
This technical assistance project has achieved most of the expected outputs, but there is not enough information to determine the outcomes:
(i) the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) was transferred from the Ministry of Works and Housing to the Office of the President, and implemented an environmental training program for other ministries, provided assistance to all 36 states to establish state environmental protection agencies and their programs, supported environmental training programs for nearly 600 local government authorities, and established a legal framework for environmental regulation, including a requirement for environmental impact assessments (EIAs).
(ii) the FEPA established an environmental information network with information gathering nodes in line ministries, and collected detailed nationwide land use and socioeconomic information.
(iii) project financed studies laid the groundwork for addressing issues related to the legal framework, coastal zone management, EIA guidelines, ozone depletion, industrial pollution, hazardous waste tracking, the environmental impact of macroeconomic policies, and forest management. In addition, funds programmed for studies were used to support community-based pilot project proposals for activities such as community forest management, the development of non-timber products (for rural forest communities), and wildlife conservation.
|4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:|
The project played a critical role in supporting the growth of FEPA's institutional capacity and policy role, in the establishment of environmental organizations and environmental action plans in each state, and in laying the groundwork at the local level for addressing environmental problems.
The project-funded GIS data bases are among the most complete in Africa, with information on land use for 1978 and 1995 covering soils, elevation, drainage, and soil erosion. The project also supported the development of basic socioeconomic data.
The project-financed studies and associated workshops laid the groundwork for addressing various important environmental issues.
|5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):|
Highly inadequate counterpart funding for the project (only $1.3 million, vs. $5.7 million expected at appraisal) constrained the implementation of most project activities, and raises doubts about the government's ability and commitment to continue funding the activities initiated by the project.
Inadequate monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the project makes it difficult to establish the outcome and impacts of the training, studies, equipment and other technical assistance provided, e.g., with reference to key indicators of improved environmental management performance, reduced emission and pollution levels, and improved management of natural resources.
|6. Ratings:||ICR||OED Review||Reason for Disagreement/Comments|
OED's rating is based on the ICR's finding that the institutional strengthening objective was only partially met and the much greater weight of this objective in relation to the data base and the studies.
There is a discrepancy between ICR's text, which rates the institutional development impact as modest, and Table 1, where it is rated substantial. OED concurs with the text.
The two ratings are equivalent.
Quality of ICR:
|7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:|
This project provides a lesson on the advantages of decentralized supervision and mainstreaming of the environment. This was a high risk project, with a fairly complex and demanding design, implemented under challenging political and economic conditions. The fact that it achieved most of its objectives may be attributed to a combination of (i) the transfer of FEPA to the Office of the President, which facilitated linkages and coordination across ministries and states, and (ii) the supervision of the project from the Resident Mission, which facilitate effective problem-solving and follow-up.
|8. Audit Recommended? Yes|
Why? There is a need to document the outcomes of what has the potential of being a best practice project for the effectiveness of locally based supervision under difficult conditions, and to verify the sustainability of its achievements in the absence of further project funding.
|9. Comments on Quality of ICR:|
The ICR provides an interesting and comprehensive overview of the implementation experience of the project. However, its quality is marginally satisfactory and could have been substantially improved through presentation of more complete and convincing evidence on the outcome of the project:
(i) given the objective of strengthening environmental institutions, it would have been useful for the ICR to, e.g., discuss the substance of the new legal framework for the environment that has been created - and provide an indication of the number of inspection visits that have been carried out - ; discuss the workings of the new EIA procedures - and provide an indication of the number and coverage of EIAs under way -.
(ii) given that several studies and a major environmental data base (including land use information from 1978) were financed, it would have been useful for the ICR to discuss the key findings that emerged, e.g., on land use trends, the state of the environment, and the studies' implications for the design of macroeconomic policies, the management of industrial pollution and hazardous waste. The ICR's indication that the data base was established and the studies completed does not document the outcomes and impacts of the project.
(iii) Finally, the discussion of future operations should have focussed on the continuing operation of the institutions and activities created under the project, rather than the prospects for renewed Bank operations. Of particular relevance would have been a discussion of plans and arrangements for future monitoring and evaluation of the national and state environmental programs and information gathering systems created under the project, on the basis of appropriate outcome and impact indicators.