|1. Project Data:
ICR Review Date Posted:
|3a-gef Grndwtr & Drght Mgmt Tal (fy05)
Project Costs(US $M)
Loan/Credit (US $M)
Cofinancing (US $M)
Board Approval Date
|Central government administration (100%)|
|Water resource management (67% - P)
Environmental policies and institutions (33% - S)|
||ICR Review Coordinator:
|M. Gary Costello
||Christopher David Nelson
|2. Project Objectives and Components:|
a. Objectives:According to the Project Appraisal Document (PAD, p.6) the PDO was " The development of consensus on a Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional strategic approach to support and enhance the capacity of its member States in the definition of drought management policies, specifically in relation to the role, availability (magnitude and recharge) and supply potential of groundwater resources."
According to the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund Grant Agreement (GEFTFGA, p.15) stated "the objective of the Project is to assist the Recipient develop consensus among its Member States for regional strategic approach to support and enhance their capacity's in defining drought management policies, specifically in relation to the role, availability, recharge and supply potential for ground water resources."
The Global Development Objective (PAD, Technical Annex 3) was to better understand and protect groundwater dependent ecosystems in drought prone areas of SADC.
For the purposes of this review, the objectives detailed in the GEFTFGA will be used..Both the PDO and the GDO will be assessed.
b. Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation?
c. Components:The PAD (p.7) identifies four project components.
Component 1: Development, testing and demonstration of a groundwater drought management plan for the Limpopo river basin pilot areas (appraisal US$1.74 million; actual US$1.35 million)
- The outputs of this component will be improved ability of stakeholders in the pilot areas to manage groundwater and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs), the small infrastructure assets constructed in the pilot areas to reduce the shocks of groundwater droughts and the ‘learnings’ derived from the pilot process which will be the input to Component 2 of the project - the development of regional groundwater drought management support. (PAD, p.7)
Component 2: Regional groundwater drought management support (appraisal US$2.03 million; actual US$1.93 million)
- Improved knowledge of groundwater-dependent ecosystems, economic valuation of groundwater; maps of groundwater vulnerability and water scarcity; greater awareness amongst decision-makers of groundwater role; guidelines on better management of groundwater-dependent ecosystems throughout region.
- The translation of information gained through the pilot programs, regional data and information, and the GDE research into practical management tools and guidelines will make the output of the project both accessible and useful at regional and national levels. (PAD, p. 8)
Component 3: Establishment of the Groundwater Management Institute of Southern
Africa (GMISA) (appraisal US$0.58 million; actual US$0.43 million) and the Groundwater Monitoring Fund (appraisal US$0.50 million; actual US$0.50 million)
- Establishment of the GMISA as a regional institution capable of taking lead role in regional groundwater drought management(PAD, p.9)
- Creation of the Groundwater Drought Monitoring Fund (GDMF). The Fund will enable continuity of the project research program (included in Component 2) and assist the Institute to establish itself, to continue monitoring the pilot areas and set up an initial research program. The GDMF will be administered and guided by the GMISA will be a key element in the management and protection of shared international aquifers in the SADC region and their dependent ecosystems.(PAD, p.9)
Component 4: Project Management and Administration (appraisal US$2.15 million; actual US$2.75 million)
- Establishment of a Project Steering Committee, a Project Services Agency and a Project Management Unit designed to provide maximum external support to SADC Water Division (SADC-WD) through in response to lessons from earlier projects. (PAD, p.10)
There was no formal revision of the approved project components.
d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and DatesThe grant was approved on 06/14/2005 with effectiveness on 03/15/2006 and project closing 06/30/2009. The grant was extended twice by a total of 28 months from 06/30/2009 to 10/31/2011. (ICR p,. 8). The project was restructured twice. However, there was no increase in the total Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant amount.
The first restructuring was completed on December 04, 2008. The closing date was extended to December 31, 2010 to accommodate the six month delay in effectiveness and a delay in implementing project activities. Additionally, there was a reallocation of funds to adjust for cost escalations, cost savings in the ‘Goods’ and ‘Training and Workshop’ categories, and a disbursement categorizing error in the Grant Agreement. The Project Services Agency expenditures had originally been allocated to the ‘Operating Costs’ category and were moved to the ‘Consultancy Services and Audits’ category (ICR, p 4 ).
The second restructuring was completed on December 30, 2010. The final closing date was extended to October 31, 2011 to facilitate the completion of all project activities and to ensure that the Decision Support Guidelines under Component 3 were endorsed by the SADC WRTC at their annual meeting. Additionally, there was a reallocation to accommodate an increase in costs for consultancy services and to allocate the previously unallocated US$500,000 grant intended for the operationalization of GMISA. At the time of the restructuring, the mechanism for disbursement of this grant had still not been agreed and defined. In its absence, the reallocation was made to the ‘Consultants Services and Audits’ category (ICR, p.4).
Cofinancing at appraisal estimates of $2.80 million were adhered to and the actual total estimate was $2.80 million.
|3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:|
a. Relevance of Objectives:High.
Overall, The PDO and GEO remained highly relevant and consistent with (i) the priorities of the SADC
Regional Strategic Action Plan; (ii) the World Bank Regional Integration Strategy and country strategies for water resources management, and (iii) the GEF International Waters Strategy.
The project objectives were consistent with SADC’s priorities of promoting the sustainable development, extraction and protection of groundwater. The project implemented one priority project outlined in the SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan for Integrated Water. The Bank’s 2008 Regional Integration Strategy for Africa provided a framework for regional integration and programs for management of regional public goods. The strategy acknowledges that regional approaches to the management of shared waters can provide improved water security and enhanced sustainability. This was fully consistent with the GEF strategic priority for International Waters: to expand global coverage of foundational capacity building, addressing the two key program gaps in particular that of water scarcity and competing water use and support for targeted learning. (ICR, p.13)
b. Relevance of Design:Modest
The four project components were relevant to the project's objectives.
The project built upon the momentum of the Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses and its scope of work was informed by the Groundwater Management Program in the SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan. The proposed project activities went through a series of consultations with stakeholders at regional, river basin and local levels.
There were shortcomings in how the project's design contributed to achievement of the overall objective. These shortcomings included: complex and lengthy procedures to undertake logistics and procurement; the challenge of allocating and disbursing the grant intended for the operationalization of the GMISA and the complexities of working at different levels: local, river basin and regional. The management services agreement for UNOPS did neither include the management of the unallocated fund as it was outside their area of responsibility (ICR, p.8)
Pilot sites were selected in remote rural areas in 3 countries which created challenges for logistics, consistency and adaptability of physical and social interventions as well as procurement processes (ICR, p. 8). Over the life of the project, this shortcoming in design was mitigated through the commitment of the PMU to resolve procurement and logistics challenges, together with improved fiduciary support from the Bank team over the time of the project; as well as the progress made in establishing the GMISA..
The ICR also noted that the key institution, SADC, did not have sufficient capacity to implement the project which led to the selection of the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). A Management Services Agreement was agreed to. Nevertheless, there were ongoing day-to-day management challenges in determining whose procedures to follow (World Bank or UN).
Both the first and second restructuring reflected to some extent the weaknesses in the project's original design. The team tried to address the issue of allocating and disbursing the grant for the operation of GMISA through a request for reallocation of the the funds into a new disbursement (‘grant’) category during the December 2010 restructuring. In hindsight, having this discrepancy solved before implementation could have avoided the later problem of transferring the funds to operationalise GMISA.
|4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :|
The objective of the Project was to: "(i) assist the Recipient develop consensus among its Member States for regional strategic approach to support and enhance their capacity's in defining drought management policies, specifically in relation to the role, availability, recharge and supply potential for ground water resources." The Global Development Objective was to better understand and protect groundwater dependent ecosystems in drought prone areas of SADC.
Certain indicators used unit values where no clear methodology or baseline had been specified (for example ‘100% adoption’ by stakeholders for PDO-level indicator 1). Therefore, it was not possible to measure progress using the same unit as stated in the Results Framework. The results were presented in a descriptive manner instead. (ICR, p vi. footnote 1). The ICR evaluated a total of 16 indicators. Two indicators were assessed against the PDO and GEO objectives. The remaining were Intermediate Outcome Indicators.
PDO: assist the Recipient develop consensus among its Member States for regional strategic approach to support and enhance their capacity's in defining drought management policies, specifically in relation to the role, availability, recharge and supply potential for ground water resources.
Efficacy is rated substantial.
The project improved the technical capacity of SADC, River Basin Organisations and Member States to mitigate against groundwater drought by adopting management guidelines and tools. It also produced greater awareness of and scientific knowledge about groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE). The ICR (p.14 ) reports that the project achieved consensus among the SADC Member States for the adoption of a regional strategic approach to defining drought management policies, specifically in relation to the role, availability, recharge and supply potential for groundwater resources. Additionally, enhancing capacity in the definition of drought management policies, has been pivotal in influencing Member States to make informed decisions on management of groundwater resources. The efficiency of the low-technology infrastructures (such as the sand dams and wind-driven distribution of water to nearby use on communal farm land, construction and protection of shallow wells, and improved equipment and routines for monitoring groundwater levels) prolong the period of underground water storage and its overall capacity for the communities (ICR p. 12). Overall, the project has been catalytic in enhancing awareness and bridging the capacity gaps on groundwater management at regional, national and local levels.
Outputs (from ICR p. v and vi Results Framework Analysis)
- Overall, 2,940 key technical officials and policy makers were reached through 29 conferences, meetings and workshops and through 9 Project Steering Committee meetings with adjoined technical workshops.
- Specifically, the SADC Water Resources Technical Committee (SADC WRTC), who report to the Council of Water Ministers, adopted guidelines and tools which strengthens the institutional capacity for implementation (in line with the SADC Regional Groundwater Management Program) and is recorded in minutes of WRTC meetings.
- Target number of GDE referred was achieved through the mapping and identifying of vulnerable GDE activity.
- GDE activities went beyond the target, in turn prolonging sustainability of impact.
- Activity reached out to SADC policy makers, groundwater and catchment managers who thereby gained scientific knowledge on the occurrence and value of GDE.
- Physical and social interventions were developed and tested (7 pilot areas within the Limpopo River basin in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe) to reduce community and GDE vulnerability to drought.
- Guidelines, tools and methodologies were produced included:
Inventory of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems;
Methodologies for establishing economic value of groundwater;
Decision Support Guidelines (DSG) for policy makers required to make ground water related
decisions adopted by the SADC WRTC in May 2011; and
Management plans for physical and social pilot interventions testing groundwater and drought management solutions with seven communities in the Limpopo River basin across Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
Outcomes (from ICR p. v. and vi. Results Framework Analysis and the ICR p. 12)
The following are reported at the outcome level.
policy makers and other groundwater stakeholders.
- SADC, River Basin Organisations and Member States are better able to mitigate against groundwater drought by adopting management guidelines and tools. Management tools and guidelines were produced, disseminated and adopted for
Outcomes (not achieved)
- Greater awareness of, and scientific knowledge about, groundwater dependent ecosystems [GDE] measured by referred reports on dependence in at least three representative ecosystems.
- The sustainability of development impact is strong as the project is part of the SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan (RSAP). The RSAP is overseen by the sub-committee of the SADC WRTC.
- At a pilot site in Sagole in South Africa, a V-notch system was constructed at the natural communal spring in the village. Community members can now monitor groundwater levels and report to necessary authorities if flows are very low due to over-abstraction in nearby unregulated wells (ICR p.15).
- Project interventions have reduced the vulnerability of communities and GDE through:
small scale infrastructures such as monitoring boreholes, sand dams, windmill driven pumps, reservoirs, and farmland plots were constructed.
establishing and training groundwater user groups/water committees, promoting monitoring procedures and raising community awareness of the benefits from long-term protection of groundwater and GDE.
establishing 7 water committees which have both capacity and willingness to operate the infrastructures to make better use of groundwater resources (in turn increasing resilience in food security and access to water).
- While the project achieved broad consensus among the SADC Member States in support of the GMISA through demonstrating a shared, joint strategic approach towards groundwater management, the project failed to disburse the grant funds needed to operationalize GMISA. This issue is a priority for the next operation currently being appraised.
GEO: better understand and protect groundwater dependent ecosystems in drought prone areas of SADC.
Efficacy is rated modest.
The ICR (p.14) reports that the project did achieve the GEO as substantial scientific knowledge of GDE was generated across the region (e.g., vulnerability maps), along with the dissemination of this knowledge to technical staff and decision makers in the region. A number of small scale pilot interventions in rural drought prone areas were initiated. While these efforts " could" lead to the eventual protection of GDE, it is probably too soon to fully assess that outcome.
There were no formal measures of efficiency. No financial, economic analysis or cost effectiveness analysis of the project was carried out. The project was a GEF stand-alone project which included parallel/co-financing from SIDA, Government of France, Government of Germany and the EU in the amount of US$2.8 million .As is required for GEF projects, an Incremental Cost Analysis (ICA) was prepared..
At Appraisal, the ICA was prepared which included both a Baseline Scenario and GEF Alternative. A summary is described below.
Baseline Scenario (PAD p. 66)
Costs: Under the project, it is expected that the governments of the SADC region and interested donors will invest approximately US$ 22.0 million in projects related to water and groundwater resource management in the project area over the project period.
Benefits: The baseline scenario would produce mostly local and national benefits as the majority of expenditures are targeting poverty reduction in poor communities. The baseline scenario will result in very few global environmental benefits, as the participating governments are seeking to cooperate under the SADC water unit, and so some basic collaboration in the Limpopo Basin and SADC region as a whole will begin to occur.
GEF Alternative (PAD p. 67)
The GEF Alternative will provide a clear incremental enhancement of existing initiatives in the SADC Region. This will be demonstrated by the manner in which the components ‘complement/supplement’ existing initiatives, thereby contributing global environmental benefits. Research and support to decision makers in policy formulation should assist in the development and implementation of long-term strategies for global environmentally friendly resource management plans at the regional level. The incremental costs required to achieve all outputs of the Project amount to US$12,399,840, of which US$ 7, 000 000 was provided by the GEF.
The ICR did not provide an update to the ICA through an attempt to replicate, ex-post, the incremental cost analysis in the PAD. The ICR did specify project results and benefits but they were not quantified. No attempt was made to detail unit costs.
In terms of timeliness, the project's effectiveness was delayed, there were delays during implementation due to procurement and coordination issues. Another efficiency issue was the PMU's decision to develop parallel M&E framework. The project did stay within the original budget.
Efficiency is assessed as Modest.
a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR)/Financial Rate of Return at appraisal and the re-estimated value at evaluation:
* Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated