Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Sustainable & Participatory Energy Mgmt

1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
Project Name:
Sustainable & Participatory Energy Mgmt
Project Costs(US $M)
 19.93  19.54
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 5.19  5.12
Sector, Major Sect.:
Forestry, Mining and other extractive, Oil & gas,
Agriculture fishing and forestry; Energy and mining; Energy and mining
Cofinancing (US $M)
 Gov't: 1.2; GEF: 4.7; Dutch Cooperation: 8.8  13.22
L/C Number:
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
12/31/2004 12/31/2004
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
Ashwin Digambar Bhouraskar
Fernando Manibog Alain A. Barbu OEDSG

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
According to the Staff Appraisal Report, the objective was to meet an important part of the rapidly growing urban demand for household fuels, without the loss of forest cover and the ecosystem's carbon sequestration potential and biodiversity. This objective was to be met through the (i) implementation and monitoring of 300,000 hectares of environmentally sustainable community-managed forest resource systems in the Tambacounda and Kolda regions of Senegal, creating a protection zone around the Niokolo-Koba National Park; (ii) promotion of private sector inter-fuel substitution and private sector and NGO-based improved stoves initiatives; (iii) strengthening of the institutions involved in the management of the sector, and the promotion of the participation of the civil society (private sector, academic institutions, NGO, and community) in the operation of the sector.

b. Components
The 3 project components and their respective costs are listed below:

i) Preparatory and Support Activities (appraisal: US$3.95; actual: US$3.9) Assessment of vegetation cover in the targeted regions to develop sustainable management plans and determine specific geographical focus areas; participatory rural appraisals in the areas to develop management plans, and identify women's issues and capacity needs; design of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems; technical studies; capacity building of participating institutions; preparation of demand management implementation plan; design of a communication strategy to involve civil society.
(ii) Sustainable Woodfuels Supply Management (appraisal: US$13.23; actual: US$13.07) Implementation of sustainable community-managed forest resource systems; technical support and extension services to participating communities and NGOs; support for the establishment of natural resource-based micro-enterprises.
(iii) Demand Management and Inter-fuel Substitution Options (appraisal: US$2.6; actual: US$2.57) Support for the re-organization and modernization of the urban charcoal trade; technical assistance and financial support for the economic diversification of existing charcoal traders; support for the continuation of inter-fuel substitution options and dissemination of improved stoves by the private sector and NGOs.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
Project Cost There is a small discrepancy in the figures on the project's estimated cost in the ICR. In the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), the estimated total cost was US$19.93 million. However, one table in Annex 2, Project Financing by Component, gives US$19.78 as the figure.
Financing At appraisal, the GEF and Dutch Cooperation contributions were determined at US$4.7 million and US$8.8 million, respectively. However, the actual amount each contributed is not clear from the ICR.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

a) The implementation and monitoring of 300,000 hectares of environmentally sustainable community-managed forest resource systems, creating a protection zone around the Niokolo-Koba National Park This objective was achieved. Community-managed and sustainable forest-resource systems were established in an area of 378,161 hectares around the park, an area larger than that expected at appraisal, and in 317 communities, which was 27% greater than the appraisal target of 250. Deforestation was reduced by 39,489 ha/yr (which was 97% greater than the appraisal target of 20,000 ha/yr.) while producing in a sustainable manner 370,600 tons/yr. (compared to an estimated 300,000 tons/yr.). While the targets for this objective were surpassed significantly, it is not clear to what extent deforestation in the country as a whole was reduced. As the objective is stated in the SAR and ICR, its achievement should also be evaluated according to whether a protection zone (i.e. positive impacts on the park's species) was created, even though, according to the Region, creating a protection zone was a secondary objective. However, to what degree a protection zone was created and the broader objective of preventing the loss of the ecosystem's potential for biodiversity was achieved are not certain. Included in the project was a subcomponent for the development of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan, which was to cover wildlife distribution. Yet the data the M&E activity generated on this variable are not provided in the ICR.
b) The promotion of private sector inter-fuel substitution and private sector and NGO-based improved stoves initiatives This objective was achieved. The project was able to exceed its targets for the number of improved stoves and kerosene stoves promoted. The number of improved woodfuel stoves promoted was 237,236 (which slightly exceeded the target figure of 225,000), and 11,560 kerosene stoves were sold (which was 189% greater than the target of 4,000). A local microcredit NGO was procured as a financial intermediary to manage a revolving loan fund for certified, private improved-stove manufacturers and retailers to operate in their respective fields. Additionally, the NGO matched IDA funding on a 1:1 basis, which was not expected at appraisal.
c) The strengthenening of the institutions involved in the management of the sector, and the promotion of the participation of the civil society (private sector, academic institutions, NGOs, and community) in the operation of the sector This objective was achieved. Through capacity development activities in the preparatory stages and during implementation, the Forestry Service, participating communities and NGOs were able to design and manage a decentralized and more environmentally sustainable woodfuel supply system. The Forestry Service became a technical assistance provider and adopted scientific forestry planning and management methods. Apart from actively involving communities in woodfuel management, the promotion of civil society participation was achieved through consultations with stakeholders in various workshops, and involvement of the private sector and NGOs in the project's supply and demand management components. The main text of the ICR does not provide information on the participation of any academic institutions. The Borrower's comments state that public schools were involved in environmental education.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

Community-managed forest resource systems now account for a large part of the country's woodfuel supply, having developed the communities' capacities, generating significant returns for them, and improving forest conservation. The project also surpassed its targets for net CO2 emission reductions (1.78 million vs. 510,000 tons), and incremental income to the communities from the woodfuel trade and natural resource-based microenterprises (US$12.5 vs. US$3 million/yr.). As a result of the substantial annual income returns from the microenterprises (and other factors), the project achieved an ERR significantly higher than that at appraisal, 137.55% compared to an estimated 37.3%. However, the high ERR was also due to the fact that the disbursements were made largely in the latter part of the project.
  • The transformation of the Forestry Service from being a purely top-down, rule- enforcing institution to an agency that also provides technical assistance and services, and its adoption of scientific forestry planning and management.
  • The implementation of "pre-management" sustainable woodfuel schemes in an additional 229,359 hectares.

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

During project implementation, the Government was unwilling to keep to its commitment of eliminating the charcoal quota system (whereby only privileged and oligopolistic urban traders had rights to supply woodfuel to the cities) and merely began to phase out the system instead. Among other effects, this prevented the use of the sustainable woodfuel management system to its full supply capacity. Apart from political reasons, the elimination of the quota system was delayed for various reasons, as the Region points out: (i) because the project funding covered approximately 50% of the government's planned forest management program, and thus only about 30% of the country's woodfuel supply zone was included, the quota system could not be abolished without the possibility of resource management problems or market distortions arising; and (ii) Senegal began to decentralize administratively during the project, and adjustments to this process had to be made. The Government, however, did agree in 2004 to extend by 2007 the sustainable woodfuel management policy and regulatory framework to the rest of the country through eliminating the quota system.
  • The implementation of the revolving stove fund was seriously delayed due to persistent procurement problems for which both the Bank and Borrower were responsible. Had this delay not occurred, the achievements of the demand management component would most likely have been greater.
  • 6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
    Highly SatisfactoryHighly SatisfactoryHowever, detailed information in the ICR on some of the activities and their achievements, mainly in the areas of microenterprise development and capacity development of women, is lacking. Regarding the ERR, ideally ex-ante and ex-post calculations of the ERR should have also been based on alternative valuations of the area of avoided deforestation (i.e. as a protection zone for the national park and biodiversity, which the project objective states forest conservation was to serve, along with carbon sequestration potential) and not solely on the producer price for fuelwood--though alternative approaches may nevertheless produce equally strong ERRs. Yet as the Region states, reliable data for valuing the biodiversity and the area of deforestation avoided did not exist, and any estimates developed would have been on purely theoretical bases and had limited value.
    Institutional Dev.:
    Highly LikelyHighly Likely
    Bank Performance:
    Highly SatisfactorySatisfactoryBoth Quality-at-Entry and supervision performance were satisfactory, though during supervision, procurement delays resulted, for which the Bank was partly responsible. Furthermore, according to the QAG Report, "Quality of Supervision in FY03-04" (QSA6), which also gave the project a satisfactory rating, the project received limited management attention and support, which at times reduced the operational performance of the team and led to a slower resolution of some issues.
    Borrower Perf.:
    Highly SatisfactorySatisfactoryBorrower ownership during preparation was strong, and the government's and/or the implementing agencies' performance in some areas during supervision was noteworthy. However, because (as explained in Sec. 5) the borrower was for various reasons unwilling or unable to maintain its commitment to eliminate the charcoal quota system during implementation and instead merely began to phase it out, the overall rating is satisfactory. The borrower also shares responsibility for the procurement delays that occurred.
    Quality of ICR:

    7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

    The establishment of environmentally and socially sustainable NR supply systems can best be achieved through the introduction of community-based NR management schemes. Because governments lack the resources and the private sector the incentive to manage forests and other natural resources, these systems constitute the least cost option and offer the highest success opportunities for this kind of intervention, while generating significant rural development impacts.
    • Supporting diverse NR-based income-generating activities in communities to complement the economic benefits of woodfuel management supply may be necessary to ensure that these communities maintain their incentive to manage forests sustainably and to make a significant impact on community incomes.
    • For community-based woodfuel management systems to succeed in environmental conservation and community development, it is necessary for managed production to occur throughout the country. The continued existence of unmanaged production and unregulated producers have the potential to ultimately undercut the sustainable systems.
    • A "minimum policy and regulatory platform” is required to underpin a well functioning sustainable woodfuel supply system, consisting of (i) clear and legally enforceable forest resource and land tenure rights and responsibilities that give communities the incentive to sustainable manage the resource base; (ii) a fair and transparent decentralized fiscal and taxation system to adequately fund the oversight and supervision functions of the respective local levels of government; (iii) a clear and fair pricing system; and (iv) guaranteed and open access of woodfuel producers to consumer markets.

    8. Audit Recommended?  Yes

              Why?  An assessment would verify the successes of the project, re-examine the ERR, and evaluate the outcomes of sub-components that have not been reported on. An assessment would also compare the lessons of the project with those from the household energy projects in the last decade in Mali, Chad and Niger.

    9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

    The ICR is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
    There is a lack of specific information on several sub-objectives and -components, and their achievements. Key among these are the empowerment of women, and the assessment of their issues and capacity- building needs, participatory rural appraisals, communication strategy, microenterprise-based income generation, economic diversification for urban traders, and the design and implementation of M&E systems. As a result, many of its claims regarding the outcomes of sub-components are unsubstantiated. The ICR's weak reporting is despite a sizeable activity in the project for M&E of the ecological and socio-economic impacts. While the Region has provided additional information, which shows that some of these sub-objectives and -components were achieved, there remain some that OED is unable to verify were implemented. The ICR should have provided concisely the necessary information on all of the activities, as these were not minor and tangential, but key elements of the objectives. This information could have been presented in supplemental annexes as other ICRs have done for projects with large numbers of activities.

    Additionally, there are a few less significant errors or matters that are unclear:
    • In the detailed economic cost-benefit analysis in Annex 3, the text (p. 41) should have referred to Table 7 for data on the income streams generated for the communities from woodfuel sales and the microenterprises ("other rural revenues"), as the Region pointed out. Instead the text refers to Table 5 and thus causes some difficulty in understanding the figures. While not an error, the ICR does not state clearly in its main body how much revenue was earned from woodfuel sales as opposed to the microenterprises. It would have been helpful had the ICR done this to assess what the social and economic benefits of replicating sustainable woodfuel management systems in other countries might be.
    • There is a small discrepancy in the figures on the project's estimated cost in the ICR. In the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), the estimated total cost was US$19.93 million. However, the Project Financing by Component Table in Annex 2 gives US$19.78 as the figure.
    • At appraisal, the GEF and Dutch Cooperation contributions were determined at US$4.7 million and US$8.8 million, respectively. However, the actual amounts contributed are not clear in the ICR.

    © 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions