Sudan - Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project - A Pilot - Implementation Completion...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00002124

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-90693)

ON A

GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 8.31 MILLION EQUIVALENT

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF SUDAN

FOR AN

IMPROVING LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND MARKETING PROJECT – A PILOT

November 27, 2013

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Irrigation (AFTA3) Africa Country Department (AFCE4) Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit = Sudanese Pound (Sudanese Guinea = SDG)

At Appraisal (April 2007) US$ 1.00 = SDG 2.0

At Completion (June 2013)

US$ 1.00 = SDG [ 5.5 ]

FISCAL YEAR October - September

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Additional Financing CAHW Community Animal Health

Workers CAS Country Assistance Strategy CD Closing Date CDF Community Development Fund CIFA Country Integrated Fiduciary

Assessment COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities

Program (IFAD) CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CS Community Sub-group DPA Darfur Peace Agreement DPC Deputy Project Coordinator EFA Economic and Financial Analysis ESMF Environmental and Social

Management Frameworks ESPA Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FM Financial Management FPP Final Project Proposal FY Financial Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographical Information System GoNS Government of National Unity of

the Republic of the Sudan GoS Government of Sudan GoSS Government of South Sudan IBRD International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development

ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report

IDA International Development Association

IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development

IGA Income Generating Activities IGAD Intergovernmental Authority for

Development ILPMP Improving Livestock Production

And Marketing Project IMF International Monetary Fund IPRSP Interim Poverty Reduction

Strategy Paper ISM Implementation Support Mission ISN Interim Strategy Note ISR Implementation Status and Results JAM Joint Assessment Mission KPI Key Performance Indicator LCC Locality Coordination Committee LDIF Livestock Development

Investment Fund LIU Local Implementation Unit LMD Livestock Marketing Database LPMP Livestock Production and

Marketing Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MA Monitoring Agent MARFR Ministry of Animal Resources,

Fisheries and Ranges MDTF Multi Donor Trust Fund

http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/recs/igad.htm

http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/recs/igad.htm

MDTF-NS Multi Donor Trust Fund for North Sudan

MDTF-SS Multi Donor Trust Fund for South Sudan

MFI Microfinance Institution MoU Memorandum of Understanding MTR Mid-Term Review MWMP Medical Waste Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPV Net Present Value NRM Natural Resources Management PAD Project Appraisal Document PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PFM Public Financial Management PIU Project Implementation Unit POM Project Operational Manual PSC Project Steering Committee PSD Private Sector Development RWC Rural Water Corporation SD Sustainable Development

SDG Sudanese Pound SG Safeguards SIFSIA Sudan Integrated Security

Information for Action SMAARI State Ministry of Agriculture,

Animal Resources and Irrigation SMS Short Message Service SUSTAIN Small Scale Traditional Producers

in Sennar State SSC State Steering Committee ToR Terms of Reference TTL Task Team Leader UNOPS United Nations Office for Project

Services USD United States Dollar VDC Village Development Committee VPAC Veterinary Privatization Advisory

Committee WSRMP Western Sudan Resources

Management Project WB World Bank

Vice President: Makhtar Diop

Country Director: Bella Deborah Mary Bird

Sector Director Jamal Saghir

Sector Manager Tijan M. Sallah

ICR Team Leader/Project Team Leader: Stephane Forman

REPUBLIC OF SUDAN

IMPROVING LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND MARKETING PROJECT – A PILOT

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. PROJECT CONTEXT, DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN ..................................................... 1 2. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES .................................................... 7 3. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................ 14 4. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .................................................................. 20 5. ASSESSMENT OF BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE ............................................................ 22 6. LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................... 24 7. COMMENTS ON ISSUES RAISED BY BORROWER/IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES/PARTNERS ............. 26 ANNEX 1. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ..................................................................................... 27 ANNEX 2. OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT ............................................................................................... 28 ANNEX 3. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 57 ANNEX 4. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION PROCESSES ................. 63 ANNEX 5. BENEFICIARY SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................... 68 ANNEX 6. STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP REPORT AND RESULTS ........................................................ 68 ANNEX 7. SUMMARY OF BORROWER'S ICR AND/OR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ICR .......................... 69 ANNEX 8. COMMENTS OF COFINANCIERS AND OTHER PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS ........................ 89 ANNEX 9. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................. 90

i

A. Basic Information

Country: Sudan Project Name:

Improving Livestock

Production and

Marketing Project - A

Pilot

Project ID: P101955 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-90693,TF-95956

ICR Date: 11/29/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Grantee:

GOVERNMENT OF

NATIONAL UNITY

OF SUDAN

Original Total

Commitment: USD 4.05M Disbursed Amount: USD 8.18M

Revised Amount: USD 8.18M

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies:

Ministry of Animal Resources, Fisheries and Rangelands

Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 09/28/2006 Effectiveness: 08/29/2007

Appraisal: 05/25/2007 Restructuring(s):

08/13/2009

08/22/2010

06/14/2011

06/21/2012

11/06/2012

Approval: 08/29/2007 Mid-term Review: 10/01/2009 07/19/2009

Closing: 08/30/2011 06/30/2013

C. Ratings Summary

C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate

Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

Grantee Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)

Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Moderately Government: Moderately

ii

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing

Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory

Overall Bank

Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Borrower

Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation

Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project

at any time (Yes/No): Yes

Quality at Entry

(QEA): None

Problem Project at any

time (Yes/No): Yes

Quality of

Supervision (QSA): None

DO rating before

Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Animal production 77 77

Central government administration 23 23

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Other rural development 100 100

E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili

Country Director: Bella Deborah Mary Bird Ishac Diwan

Sector Manager: Tijan M. Sallah Karen Mcconnell Brooks

Project Team Leader: Stephane Forman Jeeva A. Perumalpillai-Essex

ICR Team Leader: Stephane Forman

ICR Primary Author: Mateo Ambrosio Albala

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document)

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to improve livestock production and

marketing in selected rainfed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan.

iii

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)

No revision

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target

Values

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years

Indicator 1 : Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type of livestock

(number)

Value

quantitative or

Qualitative)

Sheep 299,664

Goat 912

Cattle 10,640

Camel 5,972

93,225

Sheep 398,852

Goat 1,213

Cattle 14,161

Camel 7,949

Sheep 492,845

Goat 63,74

Cattle 80,525

Camel 26,919

Date achieved 07/01/2009 12/28/2007 06/14/2011 06/28/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 2 : Average herd size of small ruminants per household in targeted areas (number)

Value

quantitative or

Qualitative)

Sheep 31

Goats 7 Sheep 36

Sheep 46

Goats 10

Sheep 64

Goat 10

Date achieved 07/01/2009 12/28/2007 06/14/2011 06/28/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 3 : Direct Project Beneficiaries (number)

Value

quantitative or

Qualitative)

2,959 136,000 166,000 170,368

Date achieved 07/01/2009 12/28/2007 06/21/2012 06/28/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 4 : Direct Project Beneficiaries of which female (%)

Value

quantitative or

Qualitative)

29 35 35 35

Date achieved 07/01/2009 12/28/2007 06/14/2011 06/28/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

iv

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target Values

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years

Indicator 1 : Improved community water points constructed or rehabilitated (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 36 32 34

Date achieved 07/01/2009 08/30/2011 06/21/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 2 : VDCs with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of

water points (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 34 32 34

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 3 : Beneficiary households receiving IGA Support (number_

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 2500 4,229 4647

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 4 : Share of females in beneficiary households receiving IGA support (percentage)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 45 45 45

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 5 : Private vets providing veterinary services in the targeted localities (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 12 9 10

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 6 : Community animal health workers and in networks associated with private

v

veterinarians (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 48 91 91

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 7 : Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 6 6 6

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 8 : Livestock routes demarcated and rehabilitated (kms)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 286 346 346

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 9 : Fire lines opened (number)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 1600 1100 1082

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Indicator 10 : Pasture area planted using selected seeds (ha)

Value

(quantitative

or Qualitative)

0 14000 7920 6520

Date achieved 03/01/2009 08/30/2011 09/30/2012 06/30/2013

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR

Archived DO IP

Actual

Disbursements

(USD millions)

1 05/23/2008 Moderately Moderately 0.44

vi

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

2 12/15/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.44




6 03/16/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.39

7 10/20/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.96

8 05/31/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.39



H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring

Date(s)

Board

Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at

Restructuring

Amount

Disbursed at

Restructuring

in USD

millions

Reason for Restructuring &

Key Changes Made DO IP

08/13/2009 MS MS 1.09

Following the Mid-Term

Review, fundamental changes

on the implementation

arrangements in the Eastern

States, the Project Operational

Manual, and budget re-

allocation for the remaining

activities of the phase one. The

results framework was revised,

and the responsibilities and

roles on monitoring and

reporting for the four levels of

implementation (PCU, PIU,

LIU and VDC) redefined.

08/22/2010 MS MS 2.99

Implement fast-track program

through the LDIF component to

enhance 14 additional water

points in hafirs (or natural

ponds), particularly along

livestock routes, that were

severely affected by the lack of

precipitations during the 2009

rainy season. The restructuring

created a new Component 4 to

address the demarcation of

livestock routes. Additional

Financing for USD 2.5M.

06/14/2011 S S 4.86 Extension of Closing Date

(from August 31, 2011 to June

vii

Restructuring

Date(s)

Board

Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at

Restructuring

Amount

Disbursed at

Restructuring

in USD

millions

Reason for Restructuring &

Key Changes Made DO IP

30, 2012)

06/21/2012 MS S 6.51

Extension of Closing Date

(from June 30, 2012 to

December 31, 2012)

11/06/2012 MS S 6.51

Additional funding for USD

1.8M, as result of a MDTF

portfolio restructuring that

relocated fund from projects

with implementation challenges

to well-performing projects.

Extension of Closing Date

(from December 31 2012 to

June 30, 2013)

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives, and Design

1.1. Context and Appraisal

1. Sudan is a country of 26 million people in 2013 that experienced a protracted period of internal conflict between the North and South over resources and differences in cultural vision. Decades of conflict and neglect in Sudan made the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) set high expectations for a quick peace dividend. A World Bank-United Nations (WB-UN) Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) recognized that the livestock sector would be crucial to develop rural areas and sustain peace. To coordinate donor funding for Sudan’s reconstruction and development needs, two Multi Donor Trust Funds – one for the Government of National Unity of the Republic of the Sudan (GoNS) and one for the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) – were established. Donors and Government requested the World Bank to administer the two MDTFs due to the high degree of fiduciary compliance that the Bank’s procedures would bring. Similarly, the Bank’s support for using Government’s own systems to implement projects was considered key to help build capacity through learning by doing.

2. The MDTF for the Republic of the Sudan (MDTF-NS) aimed to consolidate peace by supporting key CPA commitments, and supporting recovery and development in war-affected and marginalized areas in the Northern states1. For the last decade, 95 percent of Sudan’s Gross Domestic Product came from oil revenues, with 75 percent of these oil revenues coming from the South. The 2011 Self-Determination Referendum and South Sudan’s subsequent independence resulted in an immediate negative fiscal and balance of payments situation for Sudan. International development assistance plummeted from about US$ 1.9 billion in 1985 to US$ 50 million by the late 1990s, and donors tended to focus their attention on humanitarian relief. The Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP) has guided the GoNS’ 3-year “Crash Program” (2011-2013) in response to the separation of South Sudan and to cover the loss of oil revenues in the economy.

3. To address the tight fiscal situation, the GoNS prioritized the agricultural sector, and in particular the livestock sector. As the backbone of the Sudanese economy, livestock represents around half of the agricultural production and about 19.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Project (GDP). While the domestic market is the main outlet, livestock remains the dominant agriculture commodity and accounts for a substantial share of exports from North Sudan. Sheep constituted 80 percent of livestock exports; up to 1.5 million head of sheep are exported annually, principally to Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries.

4. Livestock plays an important role in food security and rural employment in Sudan. More than 80 percent of the Sudanese rural population relies on rain-fed traditional farming and associated livestock rearing for their livelihoods. The rural population is highly vulnerable to shocks from adverse events and conflicts related to natural resources (land, water). Livestock represents a substantial source of incomes and helps mitigate hunger in case of crop failure. Improvement in livestock-dependent livelihoods helps in ensuring a peace dividend, preventing conflict and improving food security.

1 The Northern States covered by the MDTF-NS were Abyei, Blue Nile, South Kordofan, North Kordofan, Red Sea, Sinnar and White Nile state.

2

5. At some level, most conflicts in Sudan have been linked to natural resources, particularly land and water. Use and management of these resources have traditionally divided farmers and pastoralists in Sudan. Farmers and pastoralists now compete for resources in the same areas, while facing severe market constraints, poor access and low prices that discourage intensification. Whenever conflicts arise from access to water and range, pastoralists negotiated with the sedentary farmers, as customary owners of the land. Expansion of the area under cultivation and/or the size of the livestock herd have become alternative strategies. As a consequence, the balance between resource availability and demand is changing. In North Kordofan, smallholder farming has expanded into traditional grazing areas and into the stock routes themselves, encroaching into more land and water, where pastoralists service their expanding herds.

6. The governmental attempts to increase agriculture production and modernize public administration have worsened the resource competition. Mechanized farming has helped increase production. However, the policy was poorly implemented, with no respect for customary land claims, often land was leased to inexperienced farmers, without supportive policies and market infrastructures. Resource competition has in turn become more severe. To modernize government structures, the government replaced the Native Administration with the appointment of local administrators. The Native Administration was an appropriate negotiation mechanism that helped overcome conflicts over access to natural resources. The rural situation has been made worse, for while the government policy of mechanized farming has exacerbated conflict between farmers and pastoralists, the policy towards the Native Administration has also reduced local capacities to manage conflict..

1.2. Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators

7. The project’s objective was to improve livestock production and marketing in selected rainfed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan.

8. In the body text of the Final Project Proposal (FPP), the key performance indicators (KPIs) of the project outcomes were: (i) Number of subprojects supporting livestock-dependent livelihoods; (ii) Number of vaccinations delivered by private veterinarians; (iii) Increase in animals traded in markets rehabilitated under the project; and (iv) Completion of study on constraints to natural resource-based conflict mitigation. However, the key indicators in the FPP Results Framework were different: (i) Livestock productivity enhanced (reduced mortality, increased weight, and lambing/calving rate); (ii) Increased number of animals traded in target markets rehabilitated by the project by 20 percent by Year 5; (iii) Approaches to mitigate natural resource-based conflicts elucidated; (iv) Producer share of final price (domestic or export) for sheep; and (v) Reliable markets prices available to producers in remote areas. Only the indicator referred to as animals traded in the rehabilitated markets was consistent in both KPI and Results Framework sections.

3

1.3. Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and

reasons/justification

9. The PDO was not revised. However, the key indicators were revised several times through corrective restructurings during the project implementation. Table 1 summarizes the changes in the KPIs and intermediate outcome indicators. Table 1: Original and Revised Key Performance Indicators

1/ Original Key Performance Indicators Revised Key Performance

Indicators (by project

completion)

Reasons for Change

PDO: To improve livestock production and marketing in selected rainfed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan

Livestock productivity enhanced (reduced mortality, increased weight, and lambing / calving rate).

Dropped after Second

Restructuring (Aug 2010)

Not consistent with project objective

Increased number of animals traded in target markets rehabilitated by the project by 20 percent by Y5

Modified after Second

Restructuring (Aug 2010) to:

Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type of livestock, number per year

Complement the second PDO-level indicator. Smaller herds size is not necessarily negative. During droughts, voluntary commercial destocking is considered an excellent coping mechanism.

Approaches to mitigate natural resource-based conflicts elucidated

Dropped after Mid-Term

Review (Aug 2009)

Not relevant for the project objective

Producer share of final price (domestic or export) for sheep.


Review (Aug 2009)


Reliable markets prices available to producers in remote areas


Review (Aug 2009)


Added during Second

Restructuring (Aug 2010) and

modified after Third

Restructuring (Jun 2011):

Average herd size of small ruminants per household in targeted areas

Assess effectiveness of project activities (subgrants (restocking), access to water, veterinary services, pasture improvement) to impact livelihoods of pastoralist households’ livelihoods.

Added after Third


Direct Project Beneficiaries (number)

Introduced Bank-wide as a core indicator and fully relevant to the project objective

Added after Third


Direct Project Beneficiaries of which female (%)

Relevant to the project objective

Intermediate outcomes

Number of subprojects promoting livestock production implemented

Dropped Formulated as an output indicator

Private animal health service providers have established sustainable businesses (i.e. still on 2 years after creation).

Dropped Not measurable with the available data sources

By-weekly price information and animal flow for rehabilitated markets available to producers in the target localities.

Dropped Not measurable with the available data sources

NOTE: (1) This table displays a subset of the PDO indicators, at the project onset and completion. For ease of reference, the modifications during project implementation are not included. Table 2.11 in Annex 2 shows the detail of changes.

4

1.4. Main Beneficiaries

10. As per the FPP, direct project beneficiaries were pastoral communities. Against a target value of 166,000 direct pastoral households beneficiaries, the Project benefited at completion 170,368 pastoral household beneficiaries, of which 35 percent are females. As a result of the increased herd size and higher flock productivity and off-take rates, the communities benefited from higher incomes and enhanced food and nutrition security. Households benefited from the animal restocking activities, especially women, who benefited from the enhanced and cheaper water supply for livestock and household consumption. The project created capacities in the Local Implementation Unit (LIU) to manage projects (especially on procurements, financial management).

1.5. Original Components

11. The project was to be implemented over a 5-year period, beginning June 2007. Due to the MDTF-NS budget constraints, the project split in two phases: a first two-year phase followed by a midterm review for a total of US$7.7 million (MDTF-NS US$4.0 million; GoNS US$3.7 million), and a second three-year phase for US$12.3 million (MDTF-NS US$4.0 million; GoNS US$8.3 million). As per the FPP, the phased approach aimed to ensure that lessons learned from the first phase would guide the activities of the second phase. That second phase aimed to scale up the project activities into the Abu Zabed (North Kordofan) and Gabaleein (White Nile) localities.

12. Component 1: Livestock Development Investment Fund (LDIF) (US$13.1 million) set the ‘community-driven actions’ of the project, and aimed to increase livestock productivity and sales. In the Phase I, this component was allocated US$4.6 million, a 60 percent of Phase I budget, and would provide matching grants and technical assistance to pastoral communities. The grants targeted as demand-driven subprojects, that included water point rehabilitation, restocking, rangeland development, stock route demarcation, livestock fattening, advisory services for improving herds, etc. The technical assistance aimed to mobilize pastoral communities, stimulate the formation of self-help groups, and reinforce the existing ones. Training was also provided to relevant local authorities to support implementation.

13. Component 2: Privatization of Animal Health Services and Markets (US$2.2 million) aimed at testing two pilot activities – the privatization of animal health services and the improvement of livestock markets and marketing. Improved services to producers should lead to bigger incomes. It consisted of two subcomponents.

Subcomponent 2.1 Privatization of Animal Health Services: This pilot program supported the private-led provision of animal health and vaccination services in all nine localities of North Kordofan. In addition, the program aimed to enhance the regulatory and supervisory capacity of the veterinary services at local- and state-level. As a pilot, the privatization process was expected to be gradual, starting in two or three localities in Phase I. Technical assistance would assess the prevailing policy and legal framework for animal health service provision, propose necessary changes, and design a privatization strategy. Registered private veterinarians were to be contracted to deliver vaccination and other animal health services. Activities included training the veterinarians and providing business start-up resources, to cover costs such as for transport, vaccines, drugs, refrigeration etc. State and locality veterinary services would receive training to monitor the work of the hired veterinarians.

5

Subcomponent 2.2 Improvement of Livestock Markets and Marketing: The Project was to finance the rehabilitation of five livestock markets in the four states. Besides civil works and equipment to improve market physical infrastructures, the activities included technical assistance to the market-related stakeholders (the private sector, the communities, the state- and local-levels government staff) as well as the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) and the relevant LIUs. Areas of support were related to procurements, market management, and inspection services. Training included study tours for locality staff and selected market operators to efficiently manage markets. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would be recruited to mobilize livestock owner/trader groups and train them on market price analysis, group marketing, and animal health requirements. To disseminate market prices and information, the project would provide basic communication equipment.

14. Component 3: Project Implementation and Studies (US$4.7 million): Given the pilot nature of the program and implementation in four states, a PCU would be set up in MARFR in Khartoum to coordinate all project activities. Two Project Implementation Units (PIUs) were to be established in the State Ministries of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (SMAARI), one at Sinnar (Sinnar State) and the other at El Obeid (North Kordofan). Technical assistance and equipment would be provided for the Marketing Department of the MARFR Directorate of Economics and Planning to develop a market information database easily accessible to producers and other sector stakeholders. To strengthen and broaden the Livestock and Marketing Information System funded by the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), technical assistance also provided support to undertake studies, including the preparation of a livestock population census for Sudan (covering Southern Sudan as well). This component would also fund a study/mapping exercise to assess factors contributing to conflict among the pastoralists and the sedentary farmers.

1.6. Revised Components

15. New component: rehabilitation of demarcated livestock routes. The study on factors contributing to conflict between pastoralists and farmers 2 revealed that the lack of clear demarcation and mapping of livestock routes was a key driver of conflict. The study recommended providing and enhancing the basic services along stock routes as a measure towards preventing future conflicts. In August 2010, the MDTF-NS Oversight Committee and the Bank approved a revision of components, following an additional financing of US$2.51 million from the MDTF-NS. The project set a new component 4 adding activities on livestock routes demarcation that were included in the component 1 3 . The new component included services’ packages to develop and sustain the routes. Those basic services included;

Mobile veterinary services, using different community driven approaches of animal health workers and livestock development workers.

2 Egis Bceom International (2011), Study to Assess Factors Contributing to Conflict among Pastoralists/Agro-Pastoralists and Sedentary Farmers. Khartoum: Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project (ILPM) – Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries. 3 The activities in component 1 were bottom-up actions and community-driven, while the demarcation and rehabilitation works were top-down activities that required strong coordination at state-level.

6

To support the migrant livestock and herders, training on income generating activities (IGA) targeting settled members of the pastoral communities (mainly women, elders and children). The training would include regeneration of pastures along the routes, production of feed concentrates, simple agro-processing technology to open new markets for livestock bi-products; private veterinary drugs stores, etc.

Additional infrastructures along the routes: To improve conditions of resting areas for livestock, a socio-economic survey would identify investments needs along the routes. The to-date rehabilitated water points prioritized by targeted pastoral communities were located adjacent to the route. These investments would be funded through the same matching grant arrangement under component 1.

1.7. Other significant changes

16. The project went through five restructurings, following several delays in the

disbursement of the GoNS contribution, as well as two batches of additional funding. Three restructurings included the extension of the project Closing Date (CD). The ILPM was a pilot project that tested innovative ways in a fragile setting of delivering services to communities. The restructurings were meant to adapt the implementation pace to a changing scenario of available resources, and when possible to scale up activities into new localities and consolidate investments. During the project timeframe, the GoNS faced a dramatic fiscal situation that was substantially aggravated by the independence of Southern Sudan. This situation lead to the GoNS delaying the disbursement of ILPM funding, and finally to disbursing less than one third of the pledged resources. In addition, MDTF-NS donors disbursed the committed funding in tranches, not necessarily matching the funding needs of the projects, and adding more uncertainty to the project implementation. Finally, ILPM was one of the best-performing projects within the MDTF-NS portfolio. Consequently, the MDTF-NS Steering Committee allocated two batches of additional funding to ILPM from projects with implementation challenges.

a. The first restructuring (August 2009) followed the MTR and included fundamental changes on the implementation arrangements for the Eastern States, in the Project Operation Manual, as well as a revision of the results framework and the M&E roles at the four levels of implementation.

b. The second restructuring (August 2010) included a new component 4 to address the rehabilitation of demarcated livestock routes (see section 1.6) and additional activities following the first batch of supplementary funding for US$2.5 million4.

c. The third restructuring (June 2011) included the request of a CD extension (from August 31, 2011 to June 30, 2012) to complete the remaining rehabilitation of livestock markets, water points, and livestock investment activities. This restructuring also included changes in the Results Framework and indicators.

4 This funding aimed to develop a fast-track program through the LDIF component to enhance 14 additional water points in hafirs (or artificial ponds), particularly along livestock routes, that were severely affected by the lack of precipitations during the 2009 rainy season. The additional resources also provided for 2 additional livestock markets, start-up funding for 6 additional private vets, enhanced additional 188 km of rehabilitated routes, and 49 additional non-water sub-projects.

7

d. The fourth restructuring (June 2012) included a request for a second CD extension (from June 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012).

e. The fifth restructuring (November 2012) followed a reallocation of funding within the MDTF-NS portfolio to well-performing projects. As one of the most successful project of the MDTF-NS portfolio, ILPM received a second batch of US$1.8 million as additional financing for scaling up activities. The restructuring also included a third CD extension (from December 31, 2012 to June 30, 2013).

17. Thorough modification of the indicators framework. The initial set of indicators and the results framework provided a weak basis for project monitoring. Besides the changes in the PDO key indicators (see Section 1.3), the indicators and the Results Framework were modified several times during the project time span5. These modifications were not always consistent or corrected the shortcomings, to effectively enhance the link of the indicators to the PDO and the project outcomes6. The MTR review was in the right direction. By the project completion some changes remain questionable, like dropping the intermediate outcome indicators per component, include process-oriented indicators (see subcomponent 2.1 on privatization of animal health services), or letting component 3 without any kind of indicator. The last restructuring in November 2012 helped make the framework leaner, and better focused on the PDO outcomes. Following the second additional financing, the project was able to scale up some activities. The target values in the Results Framework was accordingly modified as follows:

a. Increase by 10 sheep in the average herd size of small ruminants per household in the targeted communities

b. Additional investments in small infrastructure and equipment (shades, provision of reliable water sources, electricity supply and fodder lots) for the 6 rehabilitated markets were expected to lead to continuous increase of animals sold annually in these markets (36,259 sheep, 110 goats, 1,287 cattle and 723 camels).

c. Increase by 10,000 in the total number of beneficiaries reached.

d. Demarcation and rehabilitation of 60 additional km of livestock routes, seeding of additional 1,400 ha of pasture and 400 km more of fire lines opened.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1. Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

18. The WB engagement was consistent with the existing strategic approach to re-

engaging with Sudan. Bank’s engagement was aligned with the existing approach to the WB’s strategic role in Sudan. The 2003 Country Re-Engagement Note outlined a four-pronged approach, which included the engagement in demonstration projects; foresaw the need to 5 The Table 2.11 in Annex 2 sets out a detailed sequence of changes in the indicators and results framework, following major restructuring in the project. 6 The indicators revision included new indicators to measure the available capacity and extent of the communities and other stakeholders’ participation in project management and in project-related activities, or to verify the delivered outputs (completion of community prioritized subprojects, livestock market facilities, and livestock routes facilities). In other cases, the indicators were not adequately formulated for the intended purpose (improved provision of veterinary services, usage of community prioritized subprojects, markets or routes).

8

establish and staff country offices; and raised the possibility of the Bank administering a reconstruction trust fund, as it later materialized with the MDTF-NS and MDTF-SS. The 2008 ISN aimed to support GoNS and GoSS to sustain peace and reduce conflict by meeting the commitments contained in the CPA, Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), and Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement (ESPA) particularly in the areas of governance, basic services, and pro-poor economic growth--especially in war-affected and marginalized areas. One of the medium-term country goals was to improve productivity in the rural sector by developing more efficient markets, strengthening transfer of improved technology through extension services, and promoting sustainable land and natural resource management.

19. The project design was not particularly complex, and the most challenging aspects,

essentially of institutional nature, were to be closely monitored. The expected project outputs were concrete and addressed physical investments, community-driven matching grants, community mobilization, and capacity building activities. The project addressed critical elements of institutional change in the sector: participation of the private sector in delivering animal health services; creation and strengthening of multi-stakeholder boards to manage livestock markets, with a focus on sustainability and increased transparency in market transactions; and creation and strengthening of Village Development Committees to manage community needs. No evidence was found suggesting that the project preparation involved consultation with stakeholders, perhaps as a result of the emergency nature of most of the MDTF-funded operations. The project required strong coordination among the three administrative levels – federal, state and locality – and the creation of new institutional arrangements, namely Market Boards and Village Development Committees. Likewise, the project implementation structure, set in parallel to the administrative levels (PCU, PIU and LIU), was demanding in terms of coordination needs and capacity creation, mostly at the sub-federal levels. The FPP did acknowledge the need to reinforce weak existing capacities for the implementation, especially with regards to M&E, safeguards, and fiduciary management.

20. The knowledge base in the lessons considered for the project design was limited. The knowledge base used to draw lessons for the project design on was limited to IFAD projects in traditional rainfed areas, and to WB-funded livestock projects implemented in the 70’s and 80’s. At the time of the project design, most of the donors had their operations suspended since the beginning of the 90’s and the donors’ presence in Sudan was limited to IFAD. However, the preparation missions identified other relevant projects, implemented by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and by United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) that could have been better considered7. With regards to water management, the FPP builds on the potentiality of the economic return of water supply on stock routes based on the role of a private company involved in projects in the 70-80’s. The rationale behind matching grants had neither a country nor a regional basis despite the WB remarkable experience working with community-driven matching grants. Lessons could have been relevantly included as a basis to design the component 1. The marketing management and the standards on livestock markets were based on the lessons from Asian markets, with more efficient procedures to trade based on estimated weight. 7 Projects implemented by FAO: an Italy-funded US$9 million project to improve food security in 9 states, including the south; Spain-funded US$1.6 million for the promotion of rice production in White Nile; EC-funded EUR 20 million on Food Security Information system (EUR 20 million), and a Sudan Recovery project in the North and South (Euro 80 million). Projects implemented by UNOPS: IFAD-financed four programs for US$80 million in North and South Kordofan, and in the East with a focus on credit and agriculture production.

9

21. The FPP showed adequate awareness and defined measures to mitigate the project

risks, especially with regards to financial and procurement capacities. The FPP identified weak capacities in the MARFR and SMAARIs, in terms of staff and procedures. The qualifications of the three to-be-hired Procurement Specialists were set to be satisfactory to the Bank. Project Procurement Specialists, and designated State and MARFR staff were provided with early training on WB procurement procedures. Where procurements did not involve international competition, the WB Procurement Guidelines allowed use of national procedures. Since the national regulations in Sudan were not detailed enough to ensure economy, efficiency, transparency and equal opportunity, the Project Operational Manual (POM) made provisions to modify the relevant regulations. The POM was expected to be “living document” and be regularly updated with lessons learned from the project practice. Each procurement procedure was subject to the World Bank’s prior review and approval on a no-objection basis.

22. At the time of project design, no country fiduciary assessment was available in Sudan

and the overall financial management risk was rated as substantial. A Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (CIFA) was underway following the recent Public Expenditure Review (PER 2006) which revealed that in general, the Public Financial Management (PFM) system was reasonably well functioning in the North but needed to be substantially revamped and modernized. At state level, and especially at the decentralized level, the PFM capacities remained weak. As an OP 8.00 operation, no Financial Management (FM) effectiveness conditions were considered. Rather, the first supervision mission was expected to monitor some key mitigation measures 8 . Besides, the FPP established auditing and reporting obligations. Financial statements were expected to be consistent with the IAS and audited by Auditor General, and audit reports to be submitted to International Development Association (IDA) before six months after the end of each fiscal year.

2.2. Implementation

23. The main factors that impacted the project implementation were: (i) the delay in receiving the GoNS committed funding, in the end less than one third of the pledged amount at the project design; (ii) the engagement of the project teams, particularly the Project Coordination Unit to proactively address foreseen implementation constraints; (iii) the occurrence of outbreaks of conflicts in States targeted by the project (e.g. Blue Nile) that made them not accessible from time to time; and (iv) even when quickly and substantially improved later during the implementation, the incomplete supervision and support services delivered by the Bank at the project start-up. Despite the delayed taking off in the project implementation, the two batches of additional financing 9 demonstrate the project capacity to overcome constraints and reach a satisfactory absorptive capacity.

24. Delayed GoNS disbursements affected critically the implementation pace. The separation of Southern Sudan aggravated the critical fiscal situation in GoNS during the project implementation. As a consequence, the counterpart contribution was substantially delayed. In July 2009, almost two years after the project was declared effective, the GoNS had disbursed less 8 These measures included (i) appointment of Finance Officers, (ii) establishment of manual accounting systems (account books, forms etc.), (iii) updating the current procedures as part of the POM to reflect the project’s specifics (decentralization, subprojects etc.), and (iv) timely release of counterpart funds and internal audit work plans. 9 See section 1.7.

10

than 12 percent of the pledged funding. During the Phase I, some 60 percent of project expenditures under component one (Livestock Development Investment Fund) and component three (Project Management and Staffing) were to be funded from the counterpart contributions. As a result, key project activities in the Eastern Sector covering Blue Nile, White Nile and Sennar states started late and only in September 2008 and in the Western sector covering North Kordofan state in October 2008. The actual effective implementation period of the project during Phase I was not more than six months before the initial Closing Date (August 31, 2011).

25. The project teams at federal, state and locality levels were instrumental to sustain the

project implementation. The ILPM had four-level governance demanding strong coordination and supervision, especially on the procurements at the community level. The commitment and engagement of the project teams at the four levels, and especially from the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) in Khartoum, deserve recognition. The PCU provided backstopping support and responded to capacity shortcomings at the state and locality levels in key areas, such as FM and procurement. While the PCU-level M&E Officer position was vacant early during implementation, the PCU, PIUs, and LIUs coordinators took over those roles on an ad hoc and informal basis. Following the mid-2009 MTR, these roles were formally recognized and incorporated. The NGOs recruitment process for the LDIF implementation failed. The PCU and the Bank devised a mechanism to engage PIUs and LIUs staff in community mobilization, project design and formulation. The MDTF-NS community-based intervention – the Community Development Fund (CDF) – provided the necessary training for the ILPM staff.

26. Conflict outbreaks in Blue Nile affected the implementation of activities, including

capacity building interventions and water points rehabilitation. Blue Nile, White Nile and some areas of Sinnar are among the poorest regions in Sudan. Tensions and conflicts were recurrent, mainly due to allocating land for semi-mechanized farming that is blocking traditional seasonal migration routes. Sheep and cattle herds have traditionally migrated across these states from Southern Sudan to terminal livestock markets in Khartoum State. By the end of 2011, the security situation in Blue Nile deteriorated. This state provides fodder and water for the winter grazing herds. Herders were reluctant to access the grazing resources in South Sudan due to the political tensions. As a result, three water point rehabilitation works in that State were halted during months.

27. Operational support services provided by the WB were incomplete at the beginning

of project implementation, although improved progressively. At the start of the project, the WB did not have a fully functional country office in Khartoum. Most of the key operational support services were to be provided by other regional offices, and consultants. This somewhat impeded the implementation support of all projects under the MDTF-NS portfolio. In the case of ILPMP, measures were rapidly taken to more closely supervise the project. By the beginning of 2011, the WB Country Office could finally provide country-based technical, especially operations support staff on safeguards, procurements, FM, and M&E (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in Annex 4). The project staff found the POM to be inconsistent, unclear, and lacking a precise definition of the implementation roles, especially with regards the decentralized implementation arrangements for the component 1 LDIF, around a 65 percent of the total project budget. The 2009 MTR reflected these shortcomings conveyed from the project staff and proposed the necessary corrective measures.

11

2.3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

28. Design: Correlation between the PDO, the outcomes and the results indicators was poorly formulated at entry. The project activities addressed livestock both as an economic sector, by creating an enabling environment for market transactions (market and routes rehabilitation, privatization of animal health services, studies) and as a livelihood, by providing inputs to poor households (matching grants). The final version of the PDO indicators and the results framework captured well this dual approach. The PDO was phrased well to cover both aspects, though referring explicitly the beneficiaries and the livelihoods impact would have made the PDO more precise.

29. As a pilot project, the FPP acknowledged that the design featured flexibility to achieve the objectives. The document also set out that the project processes and impact needed a close monitoring in order to draw lessons for the implementation. However, the set of indicators in the Results Framework was notably weak. The FPP included an M&E Officer in PCU responsible for establishing and overseeing the M&E system. To support the M&E activities, the FPP also included: funds for technical assistance and training on M&E development and management for the four-implementation levels; the elaboration of a baseline survey; and an impact evaluation by the end of fourth year, to review the impact of the pilot on privatization of veterinary services.

30. Implementation: Shortcomings in the M&E system at entry were substantially corrected during the project time frame10. By the project completion some weaknesses remained, though the M&E system and Results Framework had been definitely made leaner and enhanced. The available tools and guidelines for M&E implementation were insufficient to help detect constraints and bottlenecks in project implementation. The baseline study for the results framework was delivered by the end of 2009. After a failed appointment of the M&E Officer at the PCU early on, the position was finally covered in July 2009. By mid-2009, the MTR helped identify that the POM lacked of clear guidelines on roles and responsibilities for the M&E functions. The PCU, PIU, and LIU coordinators were taking on those roles on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, the manual did not include monitoring and reporting templates either. The MTR was instrumental to take corrective measures. The POM was added a one-page matrix describing the roles and responsibilities, and a format for monitoring and reporting at community level. The Coordinators and the VDC Secretary were formally appointed to follow up on M&E activities. The M&E Officer was appointed to guarantee the proper use of formats in the monitoring progress reports, and for providing M&E/reporting guidance to the relevant staff of the PIUs, LIUs and communities.

31. The Monitoring Agent (MA) supplemented the M&E-related project capacities. Price Waterhouse Coopers was hired as MA to cover the whole MDTF-NS program. Per each MTDF-NS project, the MA responsibilities covered reviewing paperwork on procurement and finances, monitoring projects through site visits, and reporting on the status, progress and performance rating of MDTF-NS projects on a quarterly basis. Other than the monitoring services, the MA also played an important capacity development role, and on-the-job assistance both to PIU staff and through other World Bank training activities. The MDTF-NS evaluation found that the MA

10 For details see sections 1.3 and 1.7, and Table 2.11 in Annex 2.

12

played a vital role in supporting the MDTF-NS and PIU operations in the areas of procurement and financial management11.

32. Utilization: The evidence available suggests that the M&E information was incorporated in the project operation. The information and recommendations presented in the MA Quarterly Reports were also to be integrated into project operations. For instance, the 2011 Sustainability Report concluded that appropriate arrangements were needed to sustain the MDTF-NS project interventions beyond the program closure date. The report noted that some sub-projects (e.g. water points, and livestock markets) had significant construction defects or lacked essential elements (e.g. fences, water points, electricity, incinerators, crushes etc.). These deficiencies hindered the fully functionality and sustainability of the market infrastructures in the long run. The 2012 Functionality Assessment Report identified the shortcomings and provided with an estimated cost of addressing those deficiencies (see the ILPM referred deficiencies in Annex 2, Tables 2.3 and 2.9). As part of MDTF-NS exit strategy, the facilities needed to be working and in adequate conditions prior the handover to the beneficiary communities and authorities. As part of the completion mission, two of the referred markets (El Nuhoud and Tandilti) were visited. El Nuhoud still had ongoing works. Both markets were operational though not fully functional, and some equipment and facilities were deteriorating (for details see Table 2.10 in Annex 2).

2.4. Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

33. Safeguards: The project complied with the formal requirements on safeguards, though the implementation offered leeway for improvement. The project was rightly rated as a category ‘B’ project. Two factors were key in the ILPM safeguards management: preparation under the emergency response guidelines (OP 8.00) and the small-scale impact of the subprojects. As in other emergency MDTF-NS projects, neither public consultations nor environmental and social analysis were conducted during the project preparation. Given the small scale of the ILPM investments, any negative social and environmental impacts were considered unlikely to be significant, irreversible or large in scale. The 2012 Environmental and Social Safeguards Performance Review of the MDTF-NS portfolio assessed the ILPM safeguards (SG) performance as positive, though some weaknesses were remarked (ESMF was not disclosed in Arabic). Unlike most of the MDTF-NS projects, the ILPM Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMF) spelled out procedures for grievances in adequate detail, and included the use of mediation using traditional Sudanese systems of conflict resolution (ajaweed). The ESMF was considered the appropriate tool. The ILPM screened the sub-projects using checklist to identify specific risks, but did not use Environmental Impact Assessments, Environmental Management Plans, Resettlement Action Plans that could help prescribe mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate such risks.

34. The FPP recognized the need for creating SG capacity, yet the project failed to promptly staff the implementation units with SG capacities. Once the units had appointed a safeguards officer, the Bank organized a workshop for national and state-level PIUs in December 2009. As per the Implementation Status and Results (ISR) reports, the weak SG technical capacity – along with the late project start-up – hindered a timely delivery of the safeguards instruments (the

11 ICF GHK (2013), Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan.

13

ESMF, the Medical Waste Management Plan (MWMP) and Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework and Resettlement Action Plan). These tools were legal covenants and should have been complied with within six months of project effectiveness. They were finally delivered by May 2010.

35. Fiduciary: There were no serious procurement issues under the project, with any deficiencies noted being corrected. Financial planning and reporting have been timely and satisfactory, and no audit reports were overdue. The project was well staffed to manage procurements (one Procurement Officer at the PCU level, in charge of the whole procurement activities carried out by the project at the PCU, PIUs and LIUs). The Bank duly attended the capacity building needs of the project on procurement management. In June 2009 the Bank’s Country Office procurement staff provided training in contract management. Procurement was properly staffed in WB supervision missions. The financial management has been consistently rated in ISRs as Moderately Satisfactory and Satisfactory.

36. The initially weak FM capacities were substantially improved and the final performance was rated as Satisfactory. Procurement plans have been regularly updated by the PCU and cleared by the Bank. Most of the major procurement activities have been concluded to date and the procurement processes of most of the planned activities, including under additional financing, were finalized timely. Along the project duration, the project showed a satisfactory progress in creating capacities. Improvements included moving from using ‘Excel’ spreadsheets and manual booking, to using specific software for the accounting system. Planning and reporting were rated Satisfactory. Staff included an experienced FM officer in the PCU, and each PIU was allocated with accountants. FM was also properly staffed in WB supervision missions. The financial management has been consistently rated in ISRs as Moderately Satisfactory and Satisfactory.

2.5. Post-completion Operation / Next Phase

37. IFAD will build on ILPM achievements to continue supporting the livestock sector. IFAD has included an ILPM follow-up project, the Livestock Production and Marketing Program (LPMP) in its 2013-2016 Results Based-Country Strategic Opportunities Program (RB-COSOP). The LPMP development objective is increased livestock productivity, value addition and marketing. Key outcomes will include: more sustainable management and utilization of natural resources; improved animal health and access to animal health services; and increased marketing of primary and secondary livestock products. The total Program costs are estimated at US$50 million over a 7-year implementation period. Field activities will initially focus on states where ILPMP pilot activities have started (North Kordofan, Blue Nile, White Nile and Sennar), and will later expand to priority localities in other states to be confirmed.

38. IFAD considers that the ILPM has succeeded in raising awareness about resilience generation, and providing management models consistent with the Sudanese governance architecture. For IFAD, the ILPM has developed effective models for community-based natural resource management and rehabilitation to increase resilience to climate change, stock route demarcation to reduce conflict, delegation of tasks of public good nature (vaccination) to private veterinarians to improve animal health and rehabilitation of livestock markets to improve adherence to quality standards and access to markets. Important lessons have also been learned regarding ensuring sustainability of interventions, and proper planning and institutional

14

coordination. The pilot phase of the ILPM has been successful in raising these issues in policy dialogue at state and federal level and in promulgating new legislation that creates an enabling environment for scaling up these models. It has also established implementing arrangements appropriate to Sudan’s federal system of governance, and partnerships with the key institutions involved in the livestock sector. IFAD also valued positive the strong collaboration developed by the ILPM with ongoing IFAD projects: the Western Sudan Resources Management Project (WSRMP) in North Kordofan on community mobilization, rangeland protection and rehabilitation of water points, and with the Small Scale Traditional Producers in Sennar State Project (SUSTAIN) in Sennar State on destocking, rangeland enclosures, seed propagation, stock routes, and Natural Resources Management (NRM) policy.

39. GoNS committed to provide additional funding to keep PCU operational until IFAD provides funding. Following an ILPM wrap-up meeting in April 2013, the MARFR requested the Ministry of Finance and National Economy bridging funds and extension of the ILPM project until the end of 2013, to ensure bridging the period for the expected IFAD fund in 2014. The requested funding amounts for SDG 3.0 million and aims to ensure that the PCU will continue to work under the policy direction of the Project Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the Undersecretary of MARFR.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1. Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

40. The current Interim Strategy Note (FY14-15 ISN) acknowledges that in most regions of Sudan, conflict over access to natural resources between pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and settled farmers is endemic and also contributes to regional conflict, such as in the Sahel. Agriculture, including livestock, holds the highest potential for broadly shared growth and poverty reduction in Sudan. The PDO of the ILPM is deemed consistent with the government priorities and highly

relevant for meeting the country’s priorities. The PDO contributes to increase market access and trade, strengthen and sustain pastoral livelihoods, and diversify the sources of income for pastoralists and poor households.

41. The design of the project is also relevant. The expected project continuation by IFAD will build on successful activities by ILPM and be embedded on national systems at federal and state level. The components aim to increase livestock production and productivity, including support for restocking and enhanced access to animal health services through private vets and CAHWs; improve natural resources management, especially in communities located along traditional livestock routes; increase value addition to livestock products, which includes matching grants at the community level for small IGA; and improve markets infrastructure and facilities, and management systems based on multi-stakeholder market boards.

42. The implementation was challenged by the late disbursement of the counterpart contribution12, substantially reduced to less than one third of the amount initially pledged; the need for intensive coordination for the project implementation that involved three levels of administration, the respective project units and the VDC; and the limited operational capacity of 12 Having already committed its budget to other MDTF-NS projects (Census and New Currency projects which required substantial funding), the GoNS was no able to meet all its financial commitments to the project. This slowed progress at the start and was one of the reasons for the first restructuring.

15

the staff. This latter was progressively tackled through training and capacity building activities. With regards to the effective availability of government contributions, the secession of South Sudan in July 2011 brought about a loss of three-quarters of oil wealth in Sudan causing the government budget to lose 50 percent of its revenue, followed by a balance of payments shock. The debt burden keeps constraining the development options. Arrears to the WB and other development partners limits direct access to concessional financing. Development financing is limited to humanitarian-related assistance through MDTFs. As for the ILPM, the WB role remains instrumental in providing services to administer and supervise future sector-related operations.

3.2. Achievement of Project Development Objectives

43. The last Implementation Status and Results (ISR) report rated the PDO Achievement as Satisfactory. By the completion, the project reported the achievement of the PDO indicators targets (table 3).

a. The number of animal traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets substantially exceeded the target values. By the project completion, the accumulated amount of animals traded by the end of June 2013 reached 492,845 sheep, 63,749 goats, 80,525 cattle, and 26,919 camels. Once rehabilitated, the markets have traded in just half-year more than the target value set for the whole year (398,852 sheep, 1,213 goats, 14,161 cattle, and 7,949 camels). The baseline of May 2009 set that the targeted markets traded annually an amount of 299,664 sheep, 912 goats, 10,640 cattle and 5,972 camels.

b. The average herd size of small ruminants per household in areas benefitted with the livestock restocking activities also exceeded the target value. By the project completion in June 2013, the average herd size reached 64 sheep and 10 goats, against a target value of 46 sheep and 10 goats. The baseline in May 2009 set an average herd size of 31 sheep and 7 goats.

Table 3: PDO Key Indicators baseline, target and final values

As of

Baseline

31-May-09

Target Value

30-Jun-13

Final Value

30-Jun-13

PDO INDICATORS

Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type of livestock

Sheep 299,664 Goat 912

Cattle 10,640 Camel 5,972

Sheep 398,852 Goat 1,213


Sheep 492,845 Goat 63,749 Cattle 80,525 Camel 26,919


Sheep 31 Goats 7

Sheep 46 Goats 10

Sheep 64 Goat 10

Direct Project Beneficiaries 2,959 (1-Mar-09) 166,000 170,368

Direct Project Beneficiaries of which female (%) 29 (1-Mar-09) 35 35

c. In terms of beneficiaries, the project also met the target for the direct project beneficiaries, reaching 167,970 beneficiaries, against a value target of 166,000,

16

including 35 percent of them as female. As per the baseline of March 2009, the project was already reaching a total of 2,959 beneficiaries, of which 29 percent were female.

44. Looking at the results framework and indicators’ target fully reached, the project would indeed be successful. However the rating should be downgraded to Moderately Satisfactory, due to the difficulty to fully attribute the values of the PDO indicators to the project interventions. The project reported that the targets set for the PDO indicators were achieved. But the correlation of the undertaken activities and the PDO is not direct and clear so as to verify to what extent the project activities effectively contributed to the PDO. Only one of ‘intermediate outcome’ indicators in the Results Framework (VDCs with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and

maintenance costs of water points) can be considered as such. The rest are outputs indicators. The PDO reads, “to improve livestock production and marketing in selected rainfed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan”.

a. The PDO indicator on the herd size can be taken as indicator of improved livestock production, following the activities under component 1. However, the Results Framework does not make a clear link between the increase in herd size and the component 1 indicators, two of which are indeed output indicators (water point rehabilitation, beneficiaries of IGA support) and the other refers to the financial sustainability of the infrastructure management (100 percent recovery rate).

b. The PDO indicator on the animals traded in rehabilitated markets can be taken as indicator of improved livestock marketing, following the activities under component 2. The component 2 intermediate outcome indicators are actually outputs indicators. Other than reporting on the private veterinarians and CAHWs operating, and markets rehabilitated, these indicators do not explain how the activities were supposed to impact on the animals traded in the markets.

c. Similarly, it is unclear for a non-livestock specialist how the component 4 indicators (all three output indicators: demarcated and rehabilitated routes, opened fire lines, and planted pasture seeds) are linked to the PDO aspects, either production or marketing.

45. The available Results Framework is not deemed fully functional to make a direct link between the project activities and the PDO. Following the indications of the ICR Guidance Note, the discussion elaborates on the project rationale as set out in the FPP and the PAD from June 2010, when the component 4 was added, and using the final values of the indicators (Table 4).

a. For the component 1: The objective for this component was to increase animal productivity through demand-driven initiatives. The investment fund was expected to provide matching grants to finance activities and technical assistance demanded by pastoral communities to increase productivity and sales of livestock. The LDIF improved 34 community water points, against a target of 32, and helped the VDCs in reaching at least a 100 percent of recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of the infrastructure. Some VDCs have reported the use of revenues from water fees to reinvest in other non-water or livestock-related investments for the community benefit. With regards to the support for IGA, the project benefitted 4,647 households, against a target value of 4,229 households. The percentage of benefitted female-headed households achieved a 45 percent of the total households targeted.

b. For the component 2: The objective of this component was to test pilot activities in

17

the privatization of animal health services and improvement of livestock markets. Enhanced animal health was expected to increase productivity, and the rehabilitation of livestock markets was expected to provide producers and traders with better incentives to use the markets to sell and buy animals. The project rehabilitated the expected 6 livestock markets, though sustainability and fully functionality was not guaranteed by completion; trained 91 CAHWs and helped them liaise with the private veterinarians; and sustained 10 private veterinarians operating in the targeted localities (over the target of 9). Livestock markets are providing veterinary services and marketing opportunities for pastoralists. The 2011 Sustainability Report suggested that the average price received by pastoralists in El Nuhoud livestock market in North Kordofan had reportedly increased by some 10-20 percent compared to prior to the intervention. However attribution of this result to the project’s interventions remains to be proved. For the livestock markets, the localities are collecting entry and service fees to support operation and maintenance. The states are providing veterinarians and paying their salaries. Vaccines against transboundary animal diseases are provided free-of-charge while other vaccinations are paid for by the pastoralists.

Table 4: Intermediate Outcome Indicators baseline, target and final values

As of

Baseline

31-May-09

Target Value

30-Jun-13

Final Value

30-Jun-13

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME INDICATORS

Component 1. Livestock Development Investment Fund

Improved community water points constructed or rehabilitated** 0 32 34 VDCs with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of water points 0 32 34

Beneficiary households receiving IGA support 0 4,229 4,647 Females in beneficiary households receiving IGA support (%) 0 45 45 Component 2. Privatization of Animal Health Services and Markets

Subcomponent 2.1 - Privatization of animal Health Services

Private vets providing veterinary services in the targeted localities 0 9 10 Community animal health workers trained and in networks associated with private veterinarians 0 91 91

Subcomponent 2.2 - Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated

Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated 0 6 6 Component 4. Improving livestock routes

Livestock routes demarcated and rehabilitated 0 346 346 Fire lines opened 0 1,100 1,082 Pasture area planted using selected seeds 0 7,920 6,520

c. For the component 3: The studies were expected to provide MARFR with the capacity to collect data and information to inform policy change. In addition, this component was expected to support a livestock census and natural resource-based conflict mitigation. Component 3 indicators were dropped following the MTR review.

18

Besides the baseline study and the safeguard-related frameworks (ESMF, MWMP, and the Resettlement Policy Framework), this component provided the required knowledge products for other activities: for the component 1, guidelines to manage community investment matching grants; for the component 2, guidelines to privatize the animal health services, for the design of the livestock marketing database, and for the design and management of livestock market rehabilitation components. The innovative study on factors contributing to conflict in pastoral production systems backed the decision to create a new component 4. The objective of the study was to provide an understanding of the key constraints to “rights-based” access to land and equitable sharing of natural resources. The results were disseminated in seminars in Khartoum (August 2010) and Nairobi (June 2013).

d. For the component 4: This component aimed to provide services packages to develop and sustain the demarcated livestock routes. Those basic services include establishment of Livestock Services Centers and the mobile veterinary services, using community driven approaches of animal health workers and livestock development workers. The works to improve livestock routes met the expected targets in the kilometers of routes demarcated and rehabilitated (346 km) and almost in the fire lines opened (achieved 1,082 km against a target of 1,100 km). The final delivered pasture area planted with selected seeds (Ha 6,520) fell short behind the expected target (Ha 7,920).

3.3. Efficiency

46. The FPP did not include a detailed economic and financial analysis of the overall project. Since the project was prepared under OP8.00, no net present value (NPV), economic or financial rate of return were calculated a priori, and no analyses are available. The data on the livestock sector in Sudan remain scant.

47. The first ILPM outcome was to increase the size of the herd per community household. Based on information from the ILPM quarterly progress reports and the VDC records, each SDG invested in the restocking activities yielded by the project completion 2.7 SDG in real terms per household in the targeted communities. Households have also benefitted from an increased value of the animals. Once discounted by the GDP deflator, each SDG invested by the project in the restocking activities, increased 1.3 times the value of each animal. With regards to the water point investments, the project assumed that enhancing the water availability would increase the size of the household herd. Compared with the results in communities targeted only with restocking activities, each additional SDG invested in communities through water point activities do not show any differential impact on the size of the household herds.

48. With regards to the efficient use of the MDTF funding, the overall sub-utilization percentage is 7.7 percent. The largest gaps between planned and effective disbursements correspond to the privatization of animal health services (57.7 percent gap) and the restocking activities (56.3 percent gap). On the contrary, the project allocated an additional 10.8 percent of MDTF-NS funds to the rehabilitation of water points. Based on the available evidence on the returns per each SDG invested, the project should have devoted more efforts to fully utilize the available resources for the restocking activities, more efficient to increase the number of animals per herd. The project efficiency is rated as Moderately Satisfactory.

19

49. The evidence is however not conclusive, but merely indicative. Any either/or discussions between restocking and water point rehabilitation works should be dismissed. Experiences in neighboring countries show that restocking without better access to water – besides feeding (pasture), animal health services, and extension/advisory services – leads always to failures, in terms of death of animals, or drop in the offspring available for restocking.

3.4. Justification of Overall Outcome Rating

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

50. The project objectives and design were relevant for the Government and the WB priorities for the sector and the country. By its completion, the project reported an increase in the values expected for the key PDO indicators. The PDO was phrased well to encompass the outcomes of the project activities. An explicit reference to the beneficiaries and the impact on livelihoods would have made the PDO more precise. The results framework was thoroughly revised and modified during the project implementation, yet it remained weak to explain how the rehabilitation of the project activities contributed to the achieved values in the PDO indicators. The activities undertaken by the project contributed to make an appreciable difference in the livelihoods of the benefitted communities, by enhancing the access to water and increasing the size of the animal herds. The VDCs have strengthened communities ownership over their investments, and empowering in their dialogue with administration at the state and locality level. The rehabilitation of the markets remains incomplete. The market boards in El Nuhoud and Tendeltin are collecting fees from the users. However, the markets are not fully operational and some basic sercices are not provided yet. The risk for a steady deterioration of the infrastructures is high. The overall outcome is rated Moderately Satisfactory due to the difficulty to fully attribute the values of the PDO indicators to the project intervention.

3.5. Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

51. The restocking subprojects have been successful in increasing the herd size of the targeted pastoralists households, as well as in providing revenues to cover their expenses and basic needs. The improved access to water points has been reported to reduce the diseases within the communities. Some communities report using the revenues from the water fees in building and rehabilitating school facilities, health centers, and mosques; fencing; and building cement rooms for the community members. The project has boosted the communities ownership over the rehabilitated and constructed infrastructures, and enhanced their empowerment to maintain dialogue and demand services from the authorities. The improved livelihoods and assets availability at the community level has enhanced the collective access to formal financial services provided by microfinance institutions.

52. The market rehabilitation works and the support to transparency offer good prospects from the poor pastoralists to increase their revenues from selling animals. Small local businesses are mushrooming around the market facilities to provide producers and traders with food and beverages. Suppliers of animal health services (like pharmacies, veterinarians) are also settling mobile-offices in the surroundings of the market, delivering services during the market days. Yet transport costs remain high to carry animals from communities to the market place, and

20

frequently traders and middlemen buy the animals directly from the communities. The 2012 Internal Impact Assessment found that pastoralists and other animal producers sell their product more frequently in local village markets (39.7 percent of the surveyed households) or in satellite markets (28.6 percent), rather than in the rehabilitated markets (16.4 percent). The main factors for that remain the distance from their villages, the prices are reasonable in the other markets, and easy market access. This evidence suggests that pastoralists still face difficulties to make the most of the opportunities in the rehabilitated markets.

53. ILPM was critical in increasing and improving access to water resources, which has important implications for women’s and girl’s time, health and security. Women accounted for 45 percent of community members participating in income generating activities and specifically within the livestock restocking groups. To encourage and ensure female participation, particularly in community decision-making committees established by the projects, ILPM required 25-35 percent participations rates of women in ruminant restocking activities, 30 percent participation in VDCs. The project also hired one woman out of every three staff to improve outreach to female community members.

b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

54. The project staff has developed key capacities in procurement, financial management, and environmental and social safeguards. The 4-level architecture of the project implementation arrangements, at the Federal, State, Locality and community level, allows extending the created capacities not only at the central level, but also at the sub-federal levels. According to the 2012 Internal Impact Assessment, 79 percent of the surveyed households showed appreciation for the work of the VDCs, and agreed with their effectiveness and continuation. In the context of the ongoing devolution process, this project outcome is even more remarkable. The experience with the privatization of animal health services in North Kordofan offers a benchmark and concrete inputs and steps for other states willing to engage in a similar process. As the Veterinary Privatization Advisory Committee (VPAC) report in 2011 pointed out, the mobility of private vets and the CAHWs, and especially the wide spread of illegal drugs for animal health remain key challenges. The Market Boards offer a new management approach to livestock markets in Sudan, opening the participation to relevant stakeholders (Locality, Pastoralist and Herders Unions, private veterinarians) and increasing awareness about the need to collect fees based on the services delivered, and to ensure the sustainability of the infrastructures. The project has provided the livestock sector government units at the Federal, State and Locality levels with methodologies and experiences on mobilizing and engaging communities in managing basic infrastructures and promoting income generating activities.

c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)

Not applicable. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops No workshop conducted.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome

Rating: Moderate

21

55. ILPM was an emergency project implemented under post-conflict setting. The prospects to guarantee the sustainability of the project outcomes after completion are mixed.

56. The rehabilitated water points have substantially reduced the time needed to access water (from 7 hours to 1 hour in the Alawanra community). VDC and communities ownership is strong. VDC overlook water points and collect fees and the revenues being used for maintenance and operation works, and to improve the living conditions of the community households (in the Wad Shaifoon community, the revenues allow to provide each household with one cement room). The risk of changes detrimental to sustainability is low.

57. The restocking activities are fulfilling good expectations. Communities are committed and concerned with ensuring proper use of the project resources. The collective increase in the household livelihoods allow to access financial services. Increase in animal heard does not necessarily help access markets. Transport costs remain high for the poor pastoralists, and middlemen usually buy animals in situ in the communities. The risk of changes detrimental to sustainability is moderate. In Sudan rangeland degradation and conflict over land between pastoral groups and farmers has often followed higher stocking rates. In the long term, investments are needed in rangeland management, conflict resolution, and in value-added to livestock production.

58. Full functionality of the 6 rehabilitated markets, and therefore their sustainability, is not guaranteed. The Market Boards are constituted and operational. As per the field visit during the completion mission, pastoralists and traders are operating in the market, yet works are not completed, and some equipment and infrastructures are deteriorating. Evidence on the equipment used for the Livestock Market Data Base is lacking. Entrance and per transaction fees are duly collected, where 70 percent of these revenues are assigned to the Locality and the other 30 percent to market management. Some localities have shown delays in paying their contribution, and in the case of Damazin, the State Ministry of Finance had to intervene and take over the market management. Markets need to operate autonomously to become self-sustaining. Discussions about the legal status and ownership are ongoing and involve the Federal Ministry of Finance, the State Ministries of Livestock, the Localities and the Herders Association. Given the extent of the institutional changes proposed, the project could have benefitted from paying more attention to the political economy in the management of livestock markets. The risk of changes detrimental to sustainability is high.

59. The decision of the Ministry of Finance to finance the continuation of the PCU, following a request by the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Range is to be welcomed. The project has created capacities. Likewise, the expected IFAD intervention in continuing and scaling-up some of the pilot activities initiated by ILPM. Financial constraints remain significant for the Government of Sudan. The risk of changes detrimental to sustainability is moderate.

60. The livestock route demarcation in the Eastern Sector was satisfactory. It contributed to prevent conflicts between pastoralists and settled farmers and provided states high-quality inputs. To strengthen the sustainability of the infrastructures constructed, the PCU signed three memorandum of understanding with the three-targeted states of the Eastern Sector (Blue Nile, Sinnar and White Nile states). VDCs are involved in overlooking livestock routes’ service centers. The risk of changes detrimental to sustainability is moderate.

22

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1. Bank Performance

a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry

Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory

61. As per the technical design, the ILPM was not a complex project, a wise approach for such a fragile and post-conflict setting. The main activities addressed investments in infrastructures, matching grants, and institutional changes in livestock markets, animal health services, and community management. The PCU, the PIUs and LIUs were set as parallel structures to government bodies. The implementation and the multi-level institutional coordination were expected to be demanding. The FPP implementation arrangements and the identified risks were appropriate. The WB actively involved in the implementation of mitigating measures, by committing to provide training and technical assistance to build capacity – especially in sensitive areas like procurement, financial management and safeguards. The FPP set up the ILPM as a pilot and with strong country-level limitations. These positive aspects were challenged by: (i) the WB Country Office was not fully staffed at the project design which moderately impeded the implementation support of all projects under the MDTF-NS, thereby the M&E and the supervision aspects should have accordingly been flagged as critical aspects; and (ii) the design results framework and the relevant indicators remained weak. The POM failed to provide adequate guidance to the needs of the project teams. Ultimately, the Bank took for granted that the Government would be in the position to fulfill its pledged funding, even when the country was facing a dramatic fiscal crisis. This led to the need to restructure the project several times, explaining the Moderately Unsatisfactory rating.

b) Quality of Supervision

Rating: Satisfactory

62. ILPM was a pilot project in a post-conflict setting where the available capacities were weak. The FPP set the need for close monitoring and supervision as bottom line of the project implementation. The 2013 MDTF-NS evaluation found that, in the early days, the in-country staffing was a challenge for the Bank and had decisive impact on the implementation of the Fund’s projects13. The project was led by four TTLs. Safeguards was one of the areas affected. Before March 2009, the Khartoum Country Office had not been staffed with a safeguards specialist. The 2012 MDTF-NS Environmental and Social SG Performance Review concluded that the Bank might have been late in responding to the ILPM capacity gaps on safeguards. Early supervision missions should have paid more detailed attention to safeguards, and issues raised in the ESMF were apparently insufficiently discussed during supervisions (Gross and Kardash, 2012).

63. Notwithstanding the gaps identified at the beginning of the implementation, the remarkable revamp of the supervision tasks during the second half of the project lifespan deserves recognition. The referred evaluations also acknowledge that the Bank responded over the project

13 “The fact that in-country staffing was a challenge for the World Bank in the MDTF-N’s early days had a direct and negative impact on the implementation of the Fund’s projects; however, the Bank eventually responded to the human resource and technical support needs and the current capacity of the Technical Secretariat is experienced and adequate for the current level of operations” (ICF GHK, 2013).

23

implementation and took corrective measures. The close implementation support and the proactive role in monitoring led the Bank to take timely measures (extension of closing dates, additional financing, modification of result frameworks) that redirected the project implementation. During the project timeframe, the WB provided the project with eight Implementation Supervision Missions (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in Annex 4) and four partial missions focusing on specific aspects (field visit conducted in January 2013 or M&E specific mission in August 2011 for instance). WB M&E specialists and safeguards specialists participated in three missions. Procurement and FM specialists participated in six missions. In overall, the supervision reports were of good quality and adequately reflected the problems arising in the project implementation. The main issues encountered during the implementation were adequately reported to management levels in the ministries. In some instances, the reports failed to provide an accurate, consistent and updated assessment of the project implementation, and in some cases, the wording may have been optimistic14. In addition, the supervision rightly paid more attention to M&E and safeguard issues, as shown in the ISRs and aides memoires. Despite all this, the project implementation was well advanced as to make the most of those corrective actions. Therefore given (i) the close implementation support that was given to this project, (ii) the proactivity that was demonstrated by the timely restructurings of the project , (iii) the flexibility shown to help the client achieving results in such as complex environment, (iv) the proper handover process followed during the changes of TTLs, and (v) the fact that the Bank team cannot be held responsible for the unpredictable financing of the project and that the timely restructurings (extension of closing dates, AFs) were more the proof of their adaptability, the Satisfactory rating of the Bank performance for this project is justified.

c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance


64. Following the ICR Guidelines (OPCS, 2011), the Overall Bank Performance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory, since the rating of Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry is Moderately Unsatisfactory, the rating of the Quality of the Supervision is Satisfactory, and the Rating of the Overall Outcome is Moderately Satisfactory.

5.2 Borrower Performance

a) Government Performance

Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory

65. The GoNS has recurrently committed to making the livestock sector a key contributor to the Sudanese economic growth. However, having already committed its budget to other MDTF-NS projects (Census and New Currency projects which required substantial funding), the GoNS was no able to meet all its financial commitments to the project. This slowed progress at the start

14 Once the safeguards instruments were finally issued, the rating on Safeguards was set as Satisfactory. It was after the 2012 MDTF Safeguards Review highlighted some deficiencies, that the rating was rightly downgraded back to Moderately

Satisfactory. Despite the 2009 MTR had agreed changes in the results framework, the following ISR #05 (12 months after the MTR) still reported over the earlier set of indicators. The situation was corrected in the following ISR #06. The indicator of progress towards PDO at MTR was rated as Moderately Satisfactory, when only 18 months were left.

24

and was one of the reasons for the 1st restructuring. This commitment still needs a more decisive support and better identify and tackle existing bottlenecks. During project implementation, the GoNS did not respond in a timely manner to solve out some key implementation issues. The delayed disbursement of the ILPM funding contribution, the non-materialization of over two thirds of the initially pledged funds, or the delayed fulfillment in preparing the safeguards instruments as legal covenants had critical implications for the project management and implementation. The GoNS has shown interest in building up on the project outcomes; for instance, approving the legal framework, by-laws and strategy approved by the Federal Minister of Animal Resources for the privatization of veterinary services, following the pilot activities in North Kordofan; committing funding to the continuation project by IFAD; or committing US$0.25 million to fund a bridging period between the ILPMP closure and the arrival of new donors, in order to retain the experience as well as the technical, managerial and fiduciary skills. However, by the completion mission the disbursement of the bridge funding was still not effective.

b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance

Rating: Satisfactory

66. Despite the delayed provision key resources for starting up and the capacity limitations, the project units at the Federal, State and Locality remained committed and engaged during the project implementation. Since the beginning of the project, the ISRs have consistently and adequately rated the overall implementation progress and the project management as Moderately

Satisfactory and Satisfactory. The project was specially demanding in terms of coordinating the four-level implementation arrangements; and supervising and supporting communities, especially with regards the procurement management. The PCU needs to be commended for providing backstopping support and responding to capacity shortcomings at the state and locality levels in key areas, such as FM and procurement. The unit’s performance in following up the completion of market rehabilitation works showed some minor shortcomings. Yet the Federal MARFR have acknowledged the PCU skills and performance by committing resources to cover operating costs and continue building capacities in the established local units.

c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance


67. Following the ICR Guidelines (OPCS, 2011), the Overall Borrower Performance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory, since the rating of Government Performance is Moderately

Unsatisfactory, the rating of the Implementing Agency Performance is Satisfactory, and the Rating of the Overall Outcome is Moderately Satisfactory.

6. Lessons Learned

68. The lessons learned from the project are five, as discussed below.

69. First, in a post conflict setting, empowering communities through capacity building is

key to development success. This also requires solid M&E systems and results framework

to track and benchmark progress. Because of weak capacities, the project directly engaged the communities in project implementation and in training activities, which helped build their capacity, including also in additional monitoring efforts. The communities were strongly empowered in delivering on activities to build resilience – in restocking, building water points,

25

and in constituting village development communities. Although the project’s design lacked wide consultation due to preparation under OP8.00, this was rectified during implementation when communities were consulted on the activities and they participated effectively; this also helped to build their capacity and mobilize local resources for implementation. A large majority of the communities showed appreciation for the VDCs. Supra-community entrenched administrative levels were reluctant to transfer responsibilities or decision-making power to the communities. Working through local staff however was more efficient than bringing in external capacity and this approach became instrumental for building sustainable capacity. A larger engagement of partners at local level, especially community groups, required additional resources for community capacity building and training activities. Since the available technical and managerial skills were weak, the community 'learning-by-doing' approach required putting added emphasis on setting a robust monitoring and evaluation system for the community to self-monitor and track progress.

70. Second, working in conflict-affected settings requires proactive supervision and

‘contingent thinking’ during project implementation: In a country affected by conflict, supervision cannot be limited to routine follow up, but requires heightened proactivity in anticipating bottlenecks and adjusting accordingly. Initially, the project set to target 34 water points, of which 6 were in a conflict affected area. Following violent outbreaks, the number of water points was revised down to 28. Yet this relatively minor change followed a supervision mission, and required a whole restructuring process, which included drafting the relevant restructuring paper. For similar cases, a mechanism should be explored to provide project teams with enough flexibility to evaluate the context and reallocate funding towards more secure and ‘contingent’ areas, in case conflicts arise. This mechanisms would build upon a set of ‘contingent targeting areas’ to be defined ahead or during project implementation. If necessary, the reallocation would just need that the government reports to the WB about the change in the targeted areas. As usual, the WB does not need to approve the areas to be targeted, but should focus on the country as a whole. In short, working in post-conflict environments like Sudan, where resources are unpredictable and capacities are weak, it helps to maintain flexibility and adaptability to get to successful results. Close supervision and interaction with the client and implementing agency helps in enhancing proactivity and in supporting the client in finding solutions to implementation challenges and realization of project development objectives.

71. Third, the use of an independent monitoring agent (MA) in fragile-environments is

instrumental to provide monitoring services and on-the-job capacity building. The MA was a third-party agent hired to monitor the implementation of the MDTF-NS not only the ILPMP. The MA played an important monitoring and capacity development role, providing training and on-the-job assistance to PIU staff and through use of other WB training activities. This stype of additional partner monitoring and implementation support is quite relevant to countries like Sudan, where fiduciary assessment was lacking during the preparation of the project. If costs associated with an MA are kept manageable, this modality of third party monitoring can be designed in a way that generates economies of scale to include other projects.

72. Fourth, community-driven restocking activities proved a success in enhancing

livelihoods and building social capital. The ILPMP set up the implementation of the community-driven re-stocking activities as a revolving fund. Along with the project matching grants, the communities contributed at least 20 percent of the subproject costs, in the form of either cash or in-kind. The implementation mechanism also built on the fee-based Village

26

Development Committees (VDC). Unlike the water rehabilitation activities, the restocking required additionally of ‘community sub-groups’ (CS) that held each other accountable for the herds’ care. For most of these communities, fee-based VDCs and CSs were a remarkable institutional innovation. The project provided the communities with flexibility to decide on the appropriate governance arrangements, memberships, herds composition, as well as rules of the revolving fund. Besides the regular follow-up, the project guidance was limited to the technical aspects. The LIU officers advised the VDC procurement committees at the time of assessing and picking out the animals, which were more suitable for the communities requests and conditions. VDCs revenues were reported to be used in rehabilitating school facilities, health centers, and mosques; fencing; and building cement rooms for the community members. After project completion, the GoNS committed to continue the training and building of the capacities of the VDCs through the PCU.

73. Fifth, the experience of privatization of animal health services in North Kordofan set

a nation-wide milestone. Around 70 percent of the Sudanese sheep exports come from North Kordofan. The bulk of animal health services were already privatized (extension, treatments, surgeries). Private veterinarians reported that vaccinations remained hard to privatize due to the strong opposition of vested interests. Yet the decisive political support at locality and state levels were key in making headway. The challenge was translating the political support into concrete actions. Following the privatization decree, the policy reform remained critical. A privatization study and strategy informed the subsequent legal framework that was later endorsed by the State Minister of Agriculture and Animal Resources. Awareness campaigns helped raise interest among private veterinarians to get engaged in delivering the services. To support the veterinarians business plans, the ILPMP financed a revolving fund to finance drugs, equipment and vaccines. Similarly the project made available trained community animal health workers to better reach out to clients, one of the key constraints. Among the remaining challenges, the spread of illegal trade of drugs appeared as the major threat to the sustainability of the private veterinarians’ business.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners

Not applicable.

27

Annex 1: Project Costs and Financing

a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million)

1. At the project appraisal, the total proposed cost was US$ 20 million, of which the Government would cover US$12 million and the MDTF-NS US$8 million. The project had two phases, the Phase 1 for US$7.7 million (of which MDTF-NS contributed with US$ 4.0 million) and the Phase 2 for US$12.30 million. Due to the MDTF’s budget constraints and non-materialization of a significant part of the GoNS commitment, the project was unable to access Phase II financial resources and Phase I resources were extended. Following two batches of additional MDTF-NS financing (US$2.51 million in 2010, US$1.80 million in 2012) the final project cost totaled US$12.01 million (financed through US$8.31 million from the MDTF-NS and US$3.70 million from the GoNS)

Components

Appraisal

Estimate (USD

millions)1/

Actual / Latest

Estimate (USD

millions)2/

Percentage of

Appraisal

1. Livestock Development Investment Fund 1.52 3.58 235.20

2. Privatization of Animal Health Services and Markets 0.70 1.89 270.00

2.1 Privatization of Veterinary Services 0.16 - -

2.2 Markets and Marketing 0.54 - -

3. Implementation and Studies 1.78 2.43 136.52 4. Stock Route Demarcation 0.42 - Total Baseline Cost 4.00 8.31 207.75

Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00

Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Project Cost 4.00 8.31 207.75

Project Preparation Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00

Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Financing Required 4.00 8.31 207.75

NOTE: (1) Only MDTF-NS contributions for Phase 1. (2) Only the share funded by MDTF-NS.

b) Financing

Sources of Funds Type of

Cofinancing

Appraisal

Estimate (USD

millions)

Actual/Latest

Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage

of Appraisal

MDTF-NU 8.00 8.31 104%

Borrower 12.00 3.70 31%

TOTAL 20.00 12.01 60%

28

Annex 2: Outputs by Component

Component 1 – Livestock Development Investment Fund (US$ 5.10 million)

The objective for this Component 1 was to increase animal productivity through demand-driven initiatives. The investment fund was expected to provide matching grants to finance activities and technical assistance demanded by pastoral communities that are related to increasing productivity and sales of livestock. Outputs delivered through the water points sub-component:

a) The LDIF interventions on water points targeted 32 communities in the localities of Abu Zabad (5 communities), Gebaish (6), and El Nuhoud (5) in North Kordofan, and in the East Sector, in Abuhjar (8), Eljabalain (3), and El Damazine (5).

b) The 32 water points rehabilitated and constructed were directly access and benefited from the water for both human and animal consumptions, estimated in 28,097 direct and indirect beneficiary households and 537,735 animals in the targeted areas.

c) Over SDG 4,5 million invested in the projects, of which SDG 1,2 million (26.5 percent of the total cost) were in-kind and cash contributions by the communities (SDG 0.7 and 0.5 million respectively).

d) Out the revenues obtained with the fees, the respective Village Development Committees could allocate funding to a variety of activities of benefit for their communities. The most common interventions aimed to pay for training and incentives (10 VDCs), school maintenance (8VDCs), health center (6 VDCs) and operation and maintenance of the water points (4 VDCs).

Outputs delivered through the water points sub-component:

a) The LDIF interventions on livestock restocking targeted 32 communities in the localities of Abu Zabad (8 communities), Gebaish (6), and El Nuhoud (9) in North Kordofan, and in the East Sector, in Abuhjar (3), Eljabalain (3), and El Damazine (2), and Altadamun (1).

b) The project delivered 3,480 animals in the 23 communities located in North Kordofan. After the project intervention, the stock of animals had increased to over 7,890 animals, a 227 percent of increase in the herd in those communities. In average, and over the 806 households benefitted by this subcomponent in North Kordofan, the project delivered in average

c) In both sectors, the project benefited directly 4,889 households with an investment of SDG 1.27 million, of which SDG 0.29 million (20.5 percent of the total cost) were in-kind and cash contributions by the communities (SDG 0.2 and 0.1 million respectively).

d) To mobilize the communities, the project supported the constitution and support to Community Groups. By the project completion, 133 community groups had been formed of which 79 (59.4 percent) qualified to receive livestock restocking support.

29

Two NGOs, one per sector, were expected to carry out the community mobilization for the LDIF implementation. Despite several attempts by the PCU, the process of identifying and recruiting these NGOs failed. The PCU advertised the consultancy service for the first time on October 2007. Following a review of the procedures by the WB, the service contract was re-advertised for the second time on July 2008. The call was not simultaneously advertised in the DG market. The consultancy service was then advertised for the third time on September 2008. The selection committee was formed on October 13, 2008. On November 8, 2008 the short list of three NGOs (one international and two nationals) was submitted to the WB approval on a no-objection basis. However, only one NGO later sent the request for proposal but later did not take up the assignment. The PCU and the WB team devised a mechanism to engage project staff at LIU and PIU levels in carrying out those activities. The PCU and the Community Development Fund (CDF) project signed a Memorandum of Understanding, by which CDF staff committed to train ILPM staff in methodologies for community mobilization. The training was undertaken at Al Medani – Al Kaseh Camp from January 24 to 31 2009. The training targeted 36 ILPM staff: six participants from each locality including the LIU Coordinator, seconded Veterinarian, Range & Pasture officer, Animal Production officer, and two partially seconded females from relevant departments. Following the training, the LIUs staff with support of PIUs formed a 6-member team at each locality level. The mobilization process started by selecting 5 villages in the targeted localities, which resulted in a total of 29 communities and facilitated the selection of 29 community sub-projects. The selected communities were trained to help them analyze and decide on their priority development needs. Out of their deliberations, each community came up with a list of priorities based on the funding opportunities that the project provided. The result of the deliberations is included in the Appendix (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Based on the identified priority needs, the LIU and PIUs staff helped the pastoral communities to design eligible subprojects. The FPP set the following criteria for the subproject eligibility:

a) Subprojects will have to demonstrate that they are demand-driven, i.e. prioritized and to be implemented by pastoral groups, are economically, socially, technically and environmentally sustainable and that they are simple and avoid administrative complexity.

b) Subprojects will have to be livestock improvement-related investments that could among others include: provision of water, range and pasture management/improvement and other activities such as stock fattening, stall feeding and advisory services.

c) Subprojects will be financed as matching grants to local communities with typical project costs ranging between SDG 40,000-150,000. The fund will finance a maximum of 80 percent of total subproject cost, with the remaining 20 percent covered by cash or in-kind contributions from the beneficiaries, local government counterpart funds or third parties. A minimum of 5 percent in cash contribution by the community will be required. Project implementation will not exceed 24 months.

30

The LIUs had to review the designed subprojects, after which, endorsed subproject proposals were to be transmitted to the SSC for approval. The LIUs was also expected to elaborate the framework agreements (specifying the roles, obligations and responsibilities of parties) for approved subprojects. The financed projects will be implemented by the communities and contractors. To facilitate the implementation of these subprojects, a comprehensive guideline on Matching Grant management was also prepared. By the end of second year, the project was expected to have 15 water points rehabilitated or constructed managed by the communities, and 20 subprojects supporting livestock production and marketing. Water points sub-projects

The Rural Water Corporation (RWC) at locality levels engaged in the design of the water points rehabilitation works and in the setting-up of the matching grants for the targeted communities. Community contributions were set at least by 20 percent of the total project cost. The project supported the efforts by the VDC and the RWC to set up a management plan with water payments covering operational and maintenance costs. Additional saving could be re-invested by village committees in supporting non-water or livelihood projects. The tripartite agreements (the project, RWC and VDC) included the following breakdown of revenues: 30 percent as VDC share, 30 percent as RWC share, and 40 percent for the maintenance. During the preparation of the Functionality Assessment in 2012, the MAs visited the water points investments. The in-site visits found that 17 water points in the Eastern States (4 in White Nile, 8 in Sinnar, and 5 in Blue Nile) were on-ground and functional (see results in Appendix, Table 2.3). Each one of the 11 water points visited in the North Kordofan State was equipped with a water tank, fence, troughs, clerk room, submersible or reciprocating pump, tabs, pump house, and one unit diesel generator. The latrines were the only missed element in the investments. Each latrine cost was estimated in the amount of SDG 8,000 in the Eastern States communities and SDG 20,000 in North Kordofan. By the completion, the project has completed 32 water point sub-projects, of which 16 in North Kordofan (5 in Abu Zabad, 5 in Nuhoud – of which 1 for animals, and 6 in Gebaish – of which 1 in a livestock market and 1 for animals) and 16 in the East Sector (8 in Abuhjar, 3 in Aljabalain, and 5 in Eldamazine). Sustainability was ensured by building capacity within these VDCs through regular trainings and cost-recovery mechanisms. Restocking sub-projects

To work as a revolving fund, the restocking activities required a different implementation mechanism. The VDC utilized the project funding and the community contributions to purchase animals from the market and distribute them among the community members. The revolving mechanism relied on ‘community sub-groups’ (CS) that the community members formed based on their own personal preferences. The sense of belonging to a particular tribe was a common criteria to decide what group to join. Usually, the communities have come up with 5-7 CSs, each with 15 households in average.

31

During an Assembly meeting, the community members raffled the order in which each CS would benefit from the project. The first sub-group had to pick out the wished number of animals, sheep and goats. The decision was based on experience, preferences and available resources: sheep are more demanding – in terms of time and resources – but also more profitable than goats; female members usually asked for goats, and men for sheep. The VDC procurement committee purchased the animals from the market. The LIU officers provided the committee support in deciding the quality of the animals. The re-stocking turnover lasts between 12-16 months, after which the subgroup members repay their loan to the second group. Borrowers can pay back their debts either in-kind or cash. Because of inflation, members usually prefer to pay in-kind, using offsprings and the mature animals. Vaccinations are part of the subgroup funding contribution. Where available, the CAHWs provide vaccination services. The costs of lost animals were shared collectively among the members of the relevant subgroup. Monitoring services is in charge of the relevant subgroup leader, who had to report to the VDC monthly; the VDC Secretary, and the leader of the following CS in the queue. During the project implementation, LIUs officers visited each community weekly or twice a month, to provide extension services, and to monitor subprojects. By the project completion (see Table 2.5), this LDIF component had implemented 32 restocking sub-projects, of which 23 in North Kordofan (8 in Abuzabad, 9 in El Nuhoud, 6 in Gebaish) and 3 in the East Sector (3 in Abuhjar, 3 in Aljabalain, 1 in Altadamun, and 2 in Eldamazine).

a) The project had invested SDG 1.27 million for restocking activities in 32 communities. Per states, SDG 0.77 million in North Kordofan, covering 23 communities, and SDG 0.5 million in the Eastern States, covering 9 communities.

b) With regards the community’s contributions, the communities initially contributed with SDG 0.29 million (20.5 percent of the project contribution), of which 0.5 million (6.44 percent) was in cash, and the rest in-kind. Per states, communities from North Kordofan contributed with SDG 0.19 million (24.1 percent of the project contribution), of which 0.07 million were cash (8.53 percent). In turn, the communities of the Eastern States provide with SDG 0.1 million (20.52 percent of the project contribution), of which 0.03 million were cash (6.44 percent).

c) In terms of beneficiaries, 4,889 households were covered, of which 3,898 were male-headed and 991 female-headed households (20.3 percent). Per states, in the Western State of North Kordofan the communities targeted 806 households, of which 246 were female-headed households (30.5 percent). In the Eastern States, the communities attended 4,083 households, of which 745 were headed by females (18.2 percent).

d) The communities had established in total 133 CSs, of which already 79 CSs had been covered (59.4 percent of the total CSs). Per community, the mode value of the formed CSs was 4 and of CSs already attended during the re-stocking cycle was 3 CSs.

e) The accumulated stock of animals amounted up to 11,410 animals. North Kordofan keeps the bulk of the animals, with a total of 7,896, and the rest, 3,514 animals in the Eastern Sector. In

32

North Kordofan, the restocking activities are having an outstanding impact15. The average size of the household herds increased from 13 to 22 animals. This increase includes only the households effectively covered by the project completion with the restocking cycle; that is, only those households that had thus far directly contributed and benefited from these activities. Per locality, the increases are remarkable as well: from 14 to 21 animals per household in the communities of the El Nuhoud locality, from 11 to 18 in Gebaish, and from 14 to 27 in Abuzabad.

This success was possible due to a regular follow up by project and Government advisory staff that delivered trainings and messages related to animal health, nutrition and improved husbandry practices. After project closure, the GoNS has committed itself to maintain the PCU and provide minimum operating costs to continue training and building capacities of the VDCs. One key factor may have been the training by the project and the MFI Agricultural Bank of Sudan to the communities in the Western Sector. This training addressed rural microfinance, financial management, rural finance and management, and also targeted private veterinarians participating in the component 2. Later, this training was extended to support women groups to help identify micro-finance opportunities in restocking and agro-processing of dairy products.

Component 2 – Privatization of animal health services and livestock markets

(US$1.40 million)

The objective of this component 2 was to test pilot activities in the privatization of animal health services and improvement of livestock markets. The assumptions to work in this component was that improving the animal health would increase livestock productivity, and that upgrading livestock markets would provide producers and traders with better incentives to use the markets to sell and buy animals. This component comprised two subcomponents: Privatization of animal health service; and Rehabilitation of livestock markets. 2.1 Privatization of animal health services

This component aimed to support provision of animal health and vaccination services by the private sector in all nine localities of North Kordofan, and reinforce the regulatory and supervisory capacity of locality and state veterinary services. Technical assistance was needed to assess the prevailing policy and legal framework for animal health service provision, propose changes where necessary, and to design a privatization strategy. Registered private animal health service providers were to be contracted to deliver vaccination and other animal health services. The project would support the providers with training and business start-up resources to cover costs such as for transport, vaccines, drugs, refrigeration etc. State and locality veterinary services will be provided with training to monitor the work of the private veterinarians service providers.

15 Data on the amount of animals initially contributed by the project to the Eastern Sector states are not available.

33

As a result of the work in this component, ten veterinarians were hired by the Veterinary Privatization Advisory Committee (VPAC) to provide technical services in Elnhoud locality, on vaccination, treatment, and extension services to pastoralists. Each veterinarian was associated with four Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs), who were trained by the ILPM and supervised by the VPAC. In total, 91 CAHWs benefitted from training. Additionally, the project established a revolving fund to finance the private vets. This fund was set up in the Agricultural Bank, and was managed by three parties (the DG of Animal Resources, the Head of the Pastoralist Union, and the Head of VPAC). This component required on the State Government of North Kordofan to issue a State Decree in order to legalize the practice of private veterinaries delivering animal health services. Despite the delays in issuing the decree, the State remained willing to move ahead with the privatization. The Decree was finally issued in April 16, 2009, and specifically legalized the practice of vaccinations by private veterinaries and their charging a fee for the service. Vaccines for key diseases remained free. Other animal health services were already privatized: extension, usually free-of-charge; treatment, where drugs and a fee per flock – between SDG 50-100 per dose – were charged; and surgery, with a fee of around SDG 50 for minor surgeries. Once issued the decree, ILPM supported the government of North Kordofan in drafting a strategy and implementation plan on Veterinary Services Privatization. ILPM support the elaboration of the strategy and the plan so as to ensure that framework was in line with the standards of the World Organization for the Animal Health and remained consistent with the federal policies. The subsequent legal framework was approved by the Federal Minister of Animal resources, including by-laws and strategy for privatization of veterinary services using Public Private Partnership. The framework and the strategy aimed to organize the work of the private veterinarians, and were subsequently endorsed by the state minister of the Agriculture and Animal Resources and deposited at the VPAC. As a key actor in following up on the Privatization Act, the VPAC ensured the publication of the actual Act, and the development of the regulatory framework. In parallel, the project carried out activities (mostly workshops) to raise awareness among private veterinaries interested in the vaccination practice under that new privatized modality, which included using the services of the Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) to conduct community outreach. The procedure was as follows:

Veterinaries had to submit a proposal to the LIU on how they plan to operate and what type of resources they will require.

An agreement followed identifying mechanisms (micro-finance or matching grant) to fund start up requirements.

The selected veterinaries received short training on business management and two training on project design and proposal writing.

Once selected and trained, veterinaries could interview and select the CAHWs to be engaged in their practice.

34

Since the pilot activities started, the practice has offered remarkable lessons about the impact, and possible way forward. As a lesson for other states, the relevant stakeholders highlight the need for public sector eager to privatize, without reluctance, that acknowledges that private operators are more efficient in delivering, and that their engagement does not compete with other operators. Communities openly welcome the larger engagement of private veterinaries. Accessibility and ease of delivery has substantially enhanced, and the service delivery is less bureaucratic and agile: “with just a call, the private veterinaries respond”. Challenges and constraints also remain.

Despite the financial support to start their practice, veterinaries still need better access to funding, especially to acquire working capital.

Vaccination supplies need to be more stable. Federal bodies guarantee that stability better than state bodies do. Moreover, the privatization should move forward toward engaging private retailers, duly authorized by the government, to commercialize the vaccines.

Privatization should progressively be extended also to the laboratory diagnosis that currently is still delivered by the public sector.

2.2 Rehabilitation of livestock markets

Linked to strategy of advancing in privatization animal health services, ILPM initially aimed to rehabilitate five livestock markets in the four states. The market selection was to be based on these criteria: (a) markets owned by localities or states (i.e. not to the private sector), (b) markets with high economic relevance (high number of livestock traded or great potential), (c) localities or states agreeable to subcontracting market operations and facilitate management by the private sector. Project support included civil works and equipment to improve market infrastructure, and technical assistance to the PCU and the LIUs in the selected localities to prepare tenders for market management, to private sector and communities to help with bid preparation and operating/managing markets (market development and management plan), to selected market operators (including study tours) to efficiently manage markets, and to locality staff to deliver inspection services. An NGO was expected to mobilize livestock owner/trader groups and provide training on market price analysis, group marketing, and animal health requirements. The established livestock marketing groups would be provided with basic communication equipment to disseminate market prices and information. As part of the rehabilitation process, the PIUs with support from LIUs in the targeted localities signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the locality authorities ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders is clearly highlighted, and that targeted localities would contribute 20 percent of the rehabilitation cost. PCU also contributed to identify ways to encourage private operators to delivered services to users of the livestock markets. The rehabilitation process included the establishment of Livestock Market Boards, composed by traders, producers and locality representatives. The project included support to build capacity through study tours, an activity that was not finally executed due to agenda problems. The markets were also equipped with computers and software to collect and report data for the

35

Livestock Marketing Database (LMD). The LMD includes a regular reporting system, composed by monthly reports at LIUs level and aggregated at the PIU level, and the project quarterly progress reports. Markets sustainability remains a concern. Discussions between State and localities stakeholders are still ongoing to negotiate the future of the rehabilitated livestock markets. On the institutional side, the market boards consolidation and a greater engagement of the communities, building their capacity and ownership, stand out as priorities. On the financial side, the distribution of market fees (by which a 70 percent are allocated to the localities for non-market-related purposes) is being questioned by different stakeholders. The PCU may still be required to follow up closely on the completion of the pending works. Following the Functionality Assessment in 2012, the six markets rehabilitated showed deficiencies and incomplete works. The assessment highlighted investments and improvements, and quantified the cost of the acquisition and work pending (see Table 2.9). By the completion, the ISR final reports indicated that the rehabilitation works were completed. However, the field trip during the completion mission (October 22-23) visited the El Nuhoud and Tendeltin markets. Based on the assessment included in the Functionality Report, the evidence found indicates that the rehabilitation works are not completed, and that some equipment is deteriorating. The results of the visit are included in the table below (see Table 2.10). The two markets are functioning, pastoralists and traders operate either within the market or in the surroundings. Yet the market facilities are far from offering conditions expected after the rehabilitation works, especially if the market users are expected to pay fee for accessing rehabilitated markets.

Component 3 – Project Implementation and Studies (US$2.8 million)

The objective of this component was to ensure timely implementation of the project, proper coordination of project activities, and their close monitoring. It would also provide MARFR with the capacity to collect data and information to inform policy change, including resources for studies in support of a livestock census and natural resource-based conflict mitigation. Given the pilot nature of the program and execution in four states, the project financed a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) in MARF, the implementing agency that coordinated project activities; two PCU-supporting Project Implementation Units (PIUs), established in the State Ministries of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (SMAARI), at Sinnar (in Sinnar State) and El Obeid (in North Kordofan); and Locality Implementation Units (LIUs) at each locality. Project availed resources for: close monitoring and impact assessment of project activities under the supervision of the PCU and PIUs and with the collaboration of implementing partners and beneficiaries; and conducting a baseline survey and identifying key indicators against which project progress and impact would be measured. This arrangement set up two different implementation architectures: the ‘decentralized arrangement’ for the North Kordofan State, to cover three localities (Gheibeish, En Nuhud and Abu Zabed) and the ‘centralized arrangement’ for the Eastern States, each one with one locality (Singa in the Sinnar State, Damazine in the Blue Nile State, and Gabaleein in the White Nile State). In the former arrangement, the PIU and LIUs were in the same State; in the latter

36

arrangement, one PIU and LIU were in the same State (Sennar) while the two other LIUs were in different States. In this ‘decentralized arrangement’, the key aspect was that the arrangement could also be owned by the two States without PIU. During the MTR, these two States objected to participate in meetings of the State Steering Committee (SSC) chaired by one State. The concerns included the attention that the PIU in Sennar could provide to the other two States. Ideally, a dedicated PIU for each state would be the best solution, which would enhance state ownership and remove the current irritants in the smooth functioning of the project. Ideally, a PIU for each state would enhance state ownership. But each State in the Eastern Sector only had one locality. The solution was to create the position of Deputy Project Coordinator (DPC) in the PIU to attend the two states of White Nile and Blue Nile, provide the required technical and operational support to the LIUs of the two states, and represent the PIU coordinator in SSC meetings of these states. In addition, the LIU coordinators were given more authority to interact with the SSCs and report to the DPC/PIU Coordinator. The following key studies have been sponsored by the project. After their completion, they are reported to have been endorsed by the MARFR.

Study on factors contributing to conflict in pastoral production system. This innovative and comprehensive study shed light on the roots of violent and non-violent conflicts among pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and sedentary farmers in Sudan. Discussions during the elaboration of the report backed the decision of adding the new component 4 on demarcation of livestock routes. The study results were discussed and broadly disseminated through a national workshop in Khartoum (August 2010) and a WB-organized Seminar on Conflicts and Pastoralism in the Dry Lands in Nairobi (June 2013).

Study to design livestock marketing database, as part of the efforts to improve available data to inform MARF/States policies, based on the rehabilitation of the livestock markets through the Component 2.2.

Study to develop strategy and guidelines for privatization of veterinary services, as an input to build on the privatization decree issued by the State Ministry of Animal Resources in North Kordofan, as implemented through the Component 2.1

Study on management of community investment matching grants that served as an input for the implementation of LDIF in the Component 1, after the training and the work by the communities to select their priorities.

Study on the design and management of Livestock Market Rehabilitation, as input for the work on the Component 2.2 to rehabilitate livestock markets. The proposed ILPM design model of livestock markets was finalized and endorsed the Sudan Standards Metrology Organization and Engineering Affairs. This office, along with the PCU, also engaged in preparing bids for rehabilitation work and closely monitoring the rehabilitation activities.

Environmental and social management framework and veterinary chemicals waste management plan; and a Resettlement policy framework. These studies were part of the legal covenants, and expected to be delivered not later than six months after the Effectiveness Date. The documents were completed by May 2010.

37

Base line survey. The baseline survey was carried out in 2009 and provided the baseline data for the Eastern and Western States of the project for the indicators in the results framework. The Baseline Study was completed in August 2009 and set the data baseline in May 2009.

This component included initially the preparation of a livestock population census for Sudan (including Southern Sudan). This activity was expected to strengthen and broaden the IFAD-funded Livestock and Marketing Information System. By the 2009 MTR, the team verified that progress in the preparation of the census was unsatisfactory. A reliable methodology was still a priority for the MARFR to ensure that the next livestock census was to be conducted using the latest technology available. The MTR team recommended to approach and involve the FAO to take up this task since it has a strong livestock census expertise at the headquarters. The Under-Secretary of MARFR agreed to contact the FAO’s Sudanese representative in Rome, and to seek his assistance in contracting FAO team to undertake the study on livestock census methodology. The PCU would follow-up with the office of the under-secretary and ensure that the suggested contacts are made with FAO. An MoU was to be signed with FAO and the project to undertake the census methodology study to be completed by the end of 2009 including the validation of the draft report by the stakeholders. By the second quarter of 2010, the project had been informed that the government allocated different resources for that study. Livestock Market Database

One of the key knowledge-related project outputs of the project is the Livestock Markets Information System, built on a Livestock Market Database (LMD) and the dissemination of the data. This system should provide with a communication infrastructure for reporting and requesting information on livestock sales and prices from a network of key primary, secondary and terminal markets in the country. The overall LMD management would be the responsibility of Marketing Department of the Federal MARFR. The project provided technical assistance to train and equip the MARFR, and counterparts in key Sudanese livestock markets to collect data on livestock prices and trade flows (domestic and exports), update and analyze. The project was rightly sensitive to the specific market conditions in Sudan, and specifically, to the business-as-usual protocols during the negotiation of transactions. Information on quantities and prices usually remain between seller and buyer. Incentives are not in place to share information on prices and standards with other parties. The rationale for this LMD activity was that producers would get involved in providing information based on the following assumptions:

a) The bargaining position of herders with traders improves. Better and broader information leads to better decisions about when and where to sell, how to transport, and to whom to sell.

b) Better decisions may lead to a reduction of transaction costs. This may in turn lead to drive down prices for consumers, higher prices for producers, and a more competitive position at the export markets.

c) Better information reduces uncertainty and marketing risks, which may encourage doubters to participate in the market process (it lowers entry barriers). This may in turn lead to a more equitable distribution of marketing profits

38

To ensure the sustainability of the activities, the ILPM and the General Administration of Planning & Livestock Economics of MARFR signed a MoU that identified the roles and responsibilities to insure appropriate application and functionality of the LMD system as planned. An additional MoU was signed with the Sudan Integrated Security Information for Action (SIFSIA) with the purpose of utilizing the SMS Technique used by SIFSIA in ILPM targeted markets to obtain livestock prices. Each ILPM targeted market is expected to have an information officer, responsible of the LMD Unit. A web-based database site (www.ilpmsd.org/lmd) has been established within the project website to be easily accessed by interested browsers and concerned parties. The project will also recruit technical consultants to carry out studies that would inform MARFR and State policies supporting the livestock sector. In view of the current lack of data concerning livestock population in Sudan, the first consultancy financed by the project will prepare a detailed proposal to conduct a livestock population estimate for Sudan (North and Southern Sudan) and corresponding TORs. Another key consultancy to be supported by the project will study the efficiency of the inspection quarantine system and propose improvements.

Component 4 – Rehabilitation of demarcated livestock routes (US$0.34 million)

This component was added following discussions around the study on factors contributing to conflict between pastoralists and farmers 16 . This study recommended the provision and enhancement of the basic services along stock routes as a measure towards preventing future conflicts. In August 2010, the Executive Board approved a revision of components, following an additional financing of US$2.51 million from the MDTF-NS. Initially the activities aimed to develop through the LDIF (Component 1) a fast-track program of additional water points along the livestock routes that were affected by the 2009 drought. The restructuring created a new Component 4 to address the demarcation of livestock routes. The activities in component 1 were bottom-up actions and community-driven, while the demarcation and rehabilitation works were top-down activities that required strong coordination at state-level This component aimed to develop and sustain the demarcated livestock routes with services’ packages, including mobile veterinary services using community animal health workers (CAHWs). The project delivered the demarcation of 346 Km of livestock routes through Blue Nile, Sinnar and While Nile States. The work required to recognize and identify the livestock routes, the coordinates were specified and demarcated, and satellite digital maps produced, followed by a socio-economic survey aiming to list the affected areas, schemes, villages and individuals. Furthermore, the project proceeded to complete a three integrated service centers at Ruru in Blue Nile State, El Mazmom in Sinnar State, and Um Elgora en White NileState, along the route. The demarcation of the livestock routes included work at three levels: identification of the routes through geographical and land use surveys, determining the GPS coordinates for the markers, and final placement of stones; issuance of a decree to legally re-establishing the routes; and 16 Egis Bceom International (2011), Study to Assess Factors Contributing to Conflict among Pastoralists/Agro-Pastoralists and Sedentary Farmers. Khartoum: Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project (ILPM) – Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries.

http://www.ilpmsd.org/lmd

39

development and implementation of resettlement action plan covering acquisition of land within the route boundaries, and compensation. Based on advanced GIS technology, the project has mapped these routes. This component also established and equipped three livestock centers along the stock routes, and provided basic services. However, the existing monitoring system didn’t allow the project to capture the effective utilization of these services centers.

40

Appendix I: Tables of Annex 2

Table 2.1: Subproject priorities for sub-projects in the Eastern Sector communities

SOURCE: Mid-Term Review, Aide Memoire. Table 2.2: Subproject priorities in the Western Sector communities

SOURCE: Mid-Term Review, Aide Memoire.

41

Table 2.3: Detail of Functionality Assessment and Estimated Costs for Water Point

Completion

SOURCE: Monitoring Agents, Functionality Assessment, 2012

42

Table 2.4: Outputs - Water sub-projects

Locality Water

point

Cost & contribution (SDGs) Beneficiaries (direct +

indirect)

VDC

Revenu

e 60%

Revenue used in

Project

Communities

HHs Livestock Operation &

Maintenance

Health

center Fencing

School

mty

Subproject Mosque

Incentives

&

trainings

Others

In kind In cash

Abu Zabad

Ankosh 165,120 - 45,000 1,480 15,000 57,518 X X Khamas Uomra 185,173 - 18,000 920 35,000 39,534 X X

Rizig 224,319 - 13,000 800 12,500 14,213 X X

Ajab 114,300 - 9,100 520 19,000 21,020 X X Um dresaia pump 45,800 6,000 140

Sub total 734,712 0 91,100 132,285

Gebaish

Marude 134,861 16,950 14,000 1,038 24,000 26,755 X X

Elretarete 92,497 - 18,000 1,872 27,000 39,313 X X Livestock market 184,813 - 17,244 2,000 16,000 21,576 X X

Abumelaisi 184,813 15,750 9,850 1,626 32,000 45,526 X X

Elhamaria 123,285 - 10,000 750 19,000 12,756 X X Um darouta hafier 300,000 20,000 653

Sub total 1,020,269 32,700 89,094 145,926

Nuhoud

Huwack 80,000 15,000 5,000 125 - -

Ajack 178,000 00,000 9,035 2,850 11,590 14,096 X X X X X X X Um Glaingeet pump

45,800 6,000 148

Abu rigaiba pump 45,800 6,000 93

Eidaid El Hur hafier 115,102 8,000 320

Sub total 464,702 15,000 34,035 14,096

Total Western Sector 2,219,683 47,700 214,229 15,335 211,090 292,307

43

Locality Water

point

Cost & contribution (SDGs) Beneficiaries (direct +

indirect)

VDC

Revenu

e 60%

Revenue used in

Project

Communities

HHs Livestock Operation &

Maintenance

Health

center Fencing

School

mty

Subproject Mosque

Incentives

&

trainings

Others

In kind In cash

Abuhjar

Umarda 185,580 n.a. n.a. 833 12000 30% X X X

Umkhairain 205,160 n.a. n.a. 500 15100 30% X X X

Alsahba 117,091 n.a. n.a. 1676 65000 30% X X X

Werket 234,794 n.a. n.a. 1600 30% X X

Almujawer 232,254 n.a. n.a. 1666 33035 30% X X X X

Jabal Buna 224,693 n.a. n.a. 1250 16,500 30%

Eltarow 195,963 n.a. n.a. 833 18000 30%

Mahbouba 120,951 n.a. n.a. 250 20,080 30%

Sub total 1,516,487 0 0 7008 181315

Aljabalain

Abu El Dakhira 246,000 12,300 36,900 344 5955 30% X

Al Tiboon 247,000 12,500 37,050 1250 11000 30% X

Ahmerain 235,750 35,036 11,780 600 26000 30% X

Sub total 728,750 59,836 85,730 2194 42955 30%

Eldamazine

Yarwa 88,800 16,650 5,550 300 28150 30% X X X X

Girawa 183,200 34,850 11,450 600 22005 30% X X X X

Goli 153,600 28,800 9,600 1960 34600 30%

Seidak 213,600 40,050 13,350 500 12620 30%

Wad Elfas 189,094 28,350 9,450 200 5000 30%

Sub total 828,294 148,700 49,400 3560 102375

Total Eastern Sector 3,073,531 208,536 135,130 12.762 71324

Total 5,293,214 256,236 349,359 28,097 537,735

SOURCE: VDC records, reelaborated and disseminated by ILPM PCU.

44

Table 2.5: Outputs – Restocking sub-projects

Locality Community

Subproject

Small

ruminant

Cost (SDGs). Beneficiaries. Community

Groups Stock

to date

Stock

increase

(%)

Project Initial Community's contribution Male Fem. Total

80% Cash % Kind % Total % HHs HHs HHs formed covered

El Nuhoud

Wad Shaifoun 150 23,000 4,600 20.0% 0 0.0% 4,600 20.0% 30 15 45 7 6 * 603 402% Abu Sebiaba 110 23,000 1,140 5.0% 3,460 15.0% 4,600 20.0% 25 8 33 4 3 422 384% Ayal Rikab 160 35,000 2,198 6.3% 6,552 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 20 12 32 4 2 233 146% Gumania 96 23,000 1,440 6.3% 3,160 13.7% 4,600 20.0% 17 7 24 4 2 276 288% El tarour 156 23,000 2,000 8.7% 2,600 11.3% 4,600 20.0% 15 5 20 4 1 138 88% Abu Sharoul 160 35,000 3,120 8.9% 5,630 16.1% 8,750 25.0% 24 8 32 4 3 328 205% Mutabir 160 35,000 2,200 6.3% 6,550 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 21 11 32 7 3 384 240% Um Glaingeet 160 35,000 2,200 6.3% 6,550 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 24 8 32 3 3 331 207% El Shamamia 122 62,500 6,750 10.8% 8,750 14.0% 15,500 24.8% 0 12 12 4 1 128 105%

Sub total / average (%) 1,274 294,500 25,648 8.72% 43,252 14.04% 68,900 22.76% 176 86 262 41 18 2,843 223%

Gebaish

Abujedia 122 23,000 1,440 6.3% 4,320 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 33 12 45 4 3 383 314% Elhamari 142 23,000 1,440 6.3% 4,320 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 33 12 45 4 3 436 307% Eltalatat 160 23,000 1,440 6.3% 4,320 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 25 8 33 4 2 349 218% Umkadada 228 35,000 2,200 6.3% 6,550 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 35 16 51 4 2 499 219% Eyalnaiem 240 35,000 2,200 6.3% 6,550 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 44 16 60 4 2 390 163% Abu meraida 112 62,500 9,750 15.6% 5,750 9.2% 15,500 24.8% 10 4 14 4 1 111 99%


Abuzabad

Nashrbo 139 23,000 1,437 6.2% 4,323 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 29 13 42 4 3 365 263% Murkab 135 23,000 1,438 6.3% 4,322 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 27 12 39 5 3 482 357% Zeleta 135 23,000 1,437 6.2% 4,323 18.8% 5,760 25.0% 16 8 24 5 2 465 344% Shaluta 185 35,000 4,123 11.8% 4,627 13.2% 8,750 25.0% 14 7 21 4 1 315 170% Um dagaieg 160 35,000 2,200 6.3% 6,550 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 36 12 48 4 3 354 221% Abu himera 160 35,000 2,190 6.3% 6,560 18.7% 8,750 25.0% 37 18 55 5 3 422 264% Umdresia 160 35,000 4,350 12.4% 4,400 12.6% 8,750 25.0% 37 17 54 4 3 345 216% Sata Algazier 130 62,500 9,475 15.2% 6,025 9.6% 15,500 24.8% 8 5 13 4 1 137 105%

45

Locality Community

Subproject

Small

ruminant

Cost (SDGs). Beneficiaries. Community

Groups Stock

to date

Stock

increase

(%)

Project Initial Community's contribution Male Fem. Total

80% Cash % Kind % Total % HHs HHs HHs formed covered


Subtotal / Average Western

Sector 3,482 767,500 70,768 8.53% 116,192 15.59% 186,960 24.12% 560 246 806 100 56 7,896 227%

Damazine Wadalfaki 260 45,600 2,850 6.3% 8,550 18.8% 11,400 25.0% 270 30 300 5 4 975 375% Wadbaloola 260 45,600 2,850 6.3% 8,550 18.8% 11,400 25.0% 300 100 400 4 1 275 106%

Altadamun Aljamam 150 66,000 3,300 5.0% 9,900 15.0% 13,200 20.0% 400 100 500 2 1 158 105% Sub total / average (%) 670 157,200 9,000 5.83% 27,000 17.50% 36,000 23.33% 970 230 1,200 11 6 1,408 210%

Abuhjar Elbogaa 300 52,705 3,294 6.2% 9,882 18.7% 13,176 25.0% 230 20 520 5 4 501 167% Elwanasb 144 66,000 4,125 6.3% 12,375 18.8% 16,500 25.0% 267 33 330 1 1 62 43% Omnamil 300 52,705 3,294 6.2% 9,882 18.7% 13,176 25.0% 144 189 333 4 3 488 163%

Sub total / average (%) 744 171,410 10,713 6.25% 32,139 18.75% 42,852 25.00% 641 242 1,183 10 8 1,051 141%

Eljabalain Um elgora 300 72,000 6,000 8.3% 1,080 1.5% 7,080 9.8% 487 33 520 5 4 570 190% Elshorak 165 66,000 3,300 5.0% 9,900 15.0% 13,200 20.0% 460 40 500 2 1 200 121% Abu togaba 150 36,000 3,000 8.3% 540 1.5% 3,540 9.8% 780 200 8,000 5 4 285 190%

Sub total / average (%) 615 174,000 12,300 7.22% 11,520 6.00% 23,820 13.22% 1,727 273 9,020 12 9 1,055 172%

Subtotal / Average Eastern

Sector 2,029 502,610 32,013 6.44% 70,659 14.08% 102,672 20.52% 3,338 745 4,083 33 23 3,514 173%

Total /

Average

(%)

32 5,511 1,270,110 102,781 6.4% 186,851 14.1% 289,632 20.5% 3,898 991 4,889 133 79 11,410 207.0%

SOURCE: VDC records, reelaborated and disseminated by ILPM PCU.

46

Table 2.6: Animals Supplied in ILPM Rehabilitated Markets (quarterly)

Market Spp. 2011 2012 2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

El Nuhoud (operated in the 2nd quarter / March 21, 2012)

Sheep 35,314 36,175 64,182 78,002 45,530 30,917 48,655 63,905 46,811 53,514 Goat 985 1,611 3,495 3,143 4,155 2,261 3,690 2,993 6,222 4,427 Cattle 4,600 4,981 3,629 6,853 7,931 2,895 3,232 3,578 12,086 2,717 Camel 1,550 2,076 2,535 4,992 2,345 1,866 896 1,013 1,727 483 Sub total 42,449 44,843 73,841 92,990 59,961 37,939 56,473 71,489 66,846 61,141

Gebeish (not functioning yet)

Sheep 36,000 57,000 93,240 90,000 12,326 13,370 Goat 0 1,200 1,530 1,730 1,595 Cattle Camel 2,350 16,700 10,765 1,028 198 252 Sub total 38,350 73,700 105,205 92,558 14,254 15,217

Elkhewie (August 7, 2012)

Sheep 52,942 79,702 41,675 107,305 73,316 100,324 Goat 3,458 19,319 3,277 8,020 9,158 6,826 Cattle 0 3,563 0 Camel 290 160 3,320 0 900 0 Sub total 56,690 99,181 48,272 115,325 86,937 107,150

Singa (May 14, 2012)

Sheep 15,009 18,912 7,964 6,564 2,355 5,002 2,777 Goat 6,622 12,488 2,237 2,629 1,294 2,168 2,760 Cattle 1,110 1,242 1,496 1,012 19,854 811 432 Camel 4 6 3 2 1 8 5 Sub total 22,745 32,648 0 11,700 10,207 23,504 7,989 5,974

Tendelti (May 30, 2012)

Sheep 21,434 29,150 11,853 18,495 9,019 Goat 9,530 12,521 2,027 12,630 2,817 Cattle 1,655 2,130 21,551 1,895 4,908 Camel 32 23 11 25 6 Sub total 32,651 43,824 35,442 33,045 16,750

Eldamazine (March 11, 2012)

Sheep 11,070 13,750 5,095 4,604 2,971 Goat 12,210 16,491 12,772 3,990 2,332 Cattle 11,852 13,484 36,115 4,200 2,368 Camel 3 9 0 12,794 0 Sub total 43,734 53,982 25,588 7,671

TOTAL

Sheep 35,314 36,175 79,191 96,914 134,472 208,087 233,034 280,513 160,554 181,975 Goat 985 1,611 10,117 15,631 7,613 45,557 39,808 28,636 35,898 20,757 Cattle 4,600 4,981 4,739 8,095 7,931 17,898 19,858 81,098 22,555 10,425 Camel 1,550 2,076 2,539 4,998 4,985 18,764 15,015 2,053 15,652 746 TOTAL 42,449 44,843 96,586 125,638 155,001 290,306 307,715 392,300 234,659 213,903

SOURCE: Livestock Market Database, elaborated by the ILPM PCU.

47

Table 2.7: Animals Traded in ILPM Rehabilitated Markets (quarterly)

Market Spp. 2011 2012 2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2


Sheep 5,542 10,133 17,654 32,569 11,545 11,704 19,343 31,334 15,599 12,223 Goat 102 332 350 594 416 299 659 1,123 1,006 550 Cattle 1,328 1,420 742 2,341 2,211 1,474 962 1,645 1,623 1,405 Camel 379 792 327 1,084 1,042 998 307 412 541 185 Sub total 7,351 12,677 19,073 36,588 15,214 14,475 21,271 34,514 18,769 14,363


Sheep 19,442 28,310 78,485 74,834 8,346 9,802 Goat 933 819 1,245 1,050 Cattle Camel 1,585 12,400 8,626 493 122 172 Sub total 21,027 40,710 88,044 76,146 9,713 11,024


Sheep 16,183 33,975 20,128 85,877 57,510 82,873 Goat 2,174 2,450 2,486 4,678 7,291 5,174 Cattle 1,931 0 Camel 290 98 1,008 0 435 0 Sub total 18,647 36,523 23,622 90,555 67,167 88,047


Sheep 2,682 618 1,658 3,163 1,533 5,612 2,115 Goat 586 155 641 1,572 832 1,376 628 Cattle 827 40 558 542 14,681 711 269 Camel 4 0 3 2 1 8 5 Sub total 4,099 813 2,860 5,279 17,047 7,707 3,017


Sheep 10,360 16,055 7,112 17,489 8,276 Goat 6,048 8,285 1,247 8,252 7,112 Cattle 956 1,015 13,122 883 1,197 Camel 17 4 5 2 6 Sub total 17,381 25,359 21,486 26,626 16,591


Sheep 7,211 7,094 3,915 2,960 1,911 Goat 8,585 10,546 8,201 2,400 951 Cattle 7,711 8,738 24,475 3,450 1,447 Camel 3 9 0 8,810 0 Sub total 23,510 26,387 36,591 17,620 4,309

TOTAL

Sheep 5,542 10,133 20,336 33,187 47,170 93,218 144,268 204,605 107,516 117,200 Goat 102 332 936 749 2,590 18,023 24,481 16,900 21,570 15,465 Cattle 1,328 1,420 1,569 2,381 2,211 10,699 11,257 53,923 8,598 4,318 Camel 379 792 331 1,084 2,917 13,519 9,956 911 9,918 368 TOTAL 7,351 12,677 23,172 37,401 54,888 135,459 189,962 276,339 147,602 137,351


48

Table 2.8: Price of Animals Traded in ILPM Rehabilitated Markets (quarterly)

Market Spp.

2011 2012 2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2


Sheep 246.0 263.0 350.0 430.0 467.0 500.0 660.0 780.0 716.0 775.0 Goat 188.0 178.0 203.0 350.0 383.0 350.0 410.0 350.0 390.0 566.0 Cattle 1,733.0 1,578.0 1,400.0 2,083.0 2,067.0 4,500.0 2,830.0 4,875.0 5,000.0 6,250.0 Camel 2,550.0 2,587.0 3,416.0 4,000.0 4,267.0 5,500.0 7,500.0 6,330.0 6,750.0 8,150.0


Sheep 450 500 750 833 740 825 Goat 300 288 300 346 Cattle Camel 4,200 5,500 5,800 5,666 7,000 5,000


Sheep 550.0 525.0 650.0 765.0 650.0 725.0 Goat 275.0 250.0 297.0 358.0 345.0 452.0 Cattle 3,750.0 0.0 Camel 750.0 1,250.0 7,045.0 0.0 8,500.0 0.0


Sheep 500.0 530.0 658.0 733.0 708.0 739.0 1,425.0 Goat 300.0 255.0 355.0 335.0 286.0 394.0 441.0 Cattle 2,500.0 3,000.0 2,800.0 3,350.0 1,058.0 3,162.0 3,653.0 Camel 3,000.0 2,250.0 2,700.0 7,500.0 3,500.0 5,000.0


Sheep 536.7 795.0 666.0 843.0 767.0 Goat 410.0 393.0 703.0 666.0 297.0 Cattle 8,653.0 4,450.0 843.0 7,033.0 3,029.0 Camel 2,733.0 7,500.0 6,300.0 5,500.0 5,000.0


Sheep 567.0 817.0 450.0 650.0 1,127.0 Goat 366.7 410.0 310.0 420.0 364.0 Cattle 3,250.0 2,733.0 833.0 2,300.0 4,174.0 Camel 5,000.0 4,000.0


49

Table 2.9: Results of the Functionality Assessment of the ILPM Rehabilitated Markets and

Estimated Costs of the Markets Completion (March 2013)

SOURCE: Monitoring Agents, Functionality Assessment, 2012

50

Table 2.10: Assessment of Infrastructure and Equipment Condition in El Nuhoud and

Tendeltin livestock markets (October 2013)

Market On ground Deficiency

El Nuhoud

(visited October 22, 2013)

Fence Underground Water tank Sheep & Cattle pens Action Ring Loading ramps Cafeteria facility Dealers shed Animal shade

Scale Not operational, missing wire to connect scale to stall

Cafeteria Procuring for service provider Market prices board Not in use Latrines In use, but bad condition, deteriorating Veterinary Check Point Not in use, locality procuring furniture Crush Not in place Incinerator Not in place Electric generator In Khartoum, pending transportation and

procuring for installation Communication equipment Not in place Water troughs Not in place Market dealer office Not in place Administration Office No electricity

Tendeltin

(visited October 23, 2013)

Auction Ring Loading ramps Animal pens Water point facility & Underground tank External Fence Vet Check Point facility Embankments and landscaping Solar panel Construction of pens shade (umbrellas or shelters) Incinerator Cafeteria facility

Electricity Electric generator in Khartoum, pending transportation and procuring for installation

Fence Internal fence in bad condition; external fence incomplete, market partially open

Water point Missing pipe engine to pump water from ‘drilling’ point

Introduction of scales (for sales by weights)

Missing wire to connect scale to stall

Electronic boards system for animal prices

Not in place

Banking window in the market Not in place Incinerator Missing stairs and hole to take away leftovers

after incinerating Administration Building With furniture, but not operational Latrines In use, but bad condition, deteriorating Veterinary Check Point With furniture, no equipment Dealers Waiting Shed service Not in place Market prices board Not in use Crush Construction stopped Scale Not operational, missing wire to connect

scale to stall Cafeteria Not operational

SOURCE: Completion Mission, Field Trip, October 22-23, 2013.

51

Table 2.11: Changes in PDO, Outcome and Output indicators Legend: D=Dropped // C=Continue // N= New // R=Revised

Original PAD

(June 2007)

Mid-Term Review

(August 2009)

Restructuring and Additional

Funding (August 2010)

Restructuring and CD Extension

(June 2011)

Additional Funding and CD

Extension (November 2012)

PDO: To improve livestock production and marketing in selected rainfed areas of eastern and central Sudan

Livestock productivity enhanced (reduced mortality, increased weight, and lambing/calving rate).

C Livestock productivity enhanced (reduced mortality, increased weight, and lambing/calving rate).

D ---

Increased number of animals traded in target markets rehabilitated by the project by 20 percent by Y5.

R (Moved as intermediate result

indicator of subcomponent 2.2) R

Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type (number) (Early intermediate result

indicator of subcomponent 2.2)

R (Moved as intermediate result

indicator of subcomponent 2.2) R

Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type of livestock (number per year) (Early intermediate result

indicator of subcomponent 2.2)

Approaches to mitigate natural resource-based conflicts elucidated

D ---

Producer share of final price (domestic or export) for sheep. D ---

Reliable markets prices available to producers in remote areas

D ---

N Increased share of household income from livestock D ---

N Reduced cost of watering animal/year ($) D ---

N

Margin between prices for sheep* paid in targeted secondary market and terminal market (%) (*) Sheep of 2-3 years age, for export.

D ---

N Average herd size/household (number) R


C Average herd size of small ruminants per household in targeted areas

N Direct Project Beneficiaries (number) C Direct Project Beneficiaries

(number)

N Direct Project Beneficiaries of which female (%) C Direct Project Beneficiaries of

which female (%) N Indirect Project Beneficiares D ---

52

Original PAD

(June 2007)

Mid-Term Review

(August 2009)




(June 2011)



Intermediate Outcomes / Indicators

Communities empowered to design, implement and manage subprojects,

Number of subprojects promoting livestock production implemented,

D ---

Improved access to animal health services,

Private animal health service providers have established sustainable businesses (i.e. still on 2 years after creation).

D ---

Access to livestock price information.

By-weekly price information and animal flow for rehabilitated markets available to producers in the target localities.

D ---

Components / Subcomponents / Indicators


Number of water points rehabilitated R Number of water points

rehabilitated and used R Community water points rehabilitated under the project operated by VDCs. (number)

R Improved community water points rehabilitated by the project (number)

R Improved community water points constructed or rehabilitated (number)**

Number of sub projects implemented R

Percent of approved community sub-projects completed

D ---

N Number of village development committees (VDC) established

R

VDCs (with average of % female representation) with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of water points (number)

R VDCs with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of water points (number)

C VDCs with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs of water points (number) N Number of village development

committees registered

N Number of community subgroups established D ---

N Number of community development groups received training by type (male, female)

D ---

N Number of non-water subprojects implemented D ---

N Direct Beneficiaries (of which % female) organized in Livestock producers group (number)

R Direct project beneficiaries (of which % female) (numbers) C Direct project beneficiaries (of

which % female) (numbers)

53

Original PAD

(June 2007)

Mid-Term Review

(August 2009)




(June 2011)



N Beneficiary households receiving IGA support (number)

C Beneficiary households receiving IGA support (number)

N Beneficiary households receiving IGA support of which % female

D ---

Component 2. Privatization of Animal Health Services and Markets

Subcomponent 2.1 Privatization of animal Health Service

Number of vets contracted to vaccinate R Percentage of private sector

veterinary service providers R Private vets (% female) providing veterinary services in the targeted localities

R Private vets providing veterinary services in the targeted localities (number)

C Private vets providing veterinary services in the targeted localities (number)

Number of vaccines delivered by private vets D ---

N Number of livestock vaccinated by private vets, by type of livestock

R Livestock vaccinated by private vets (males and females), by type of livestock (number

D ---

N Percentage of herders who routinely vaccinate their animals

N Established a Veterinary Privatization Advisory Committee

N Decree to support privatization are passed and enforced

N Privatization Strategy approved and findings disseminated to stakeholders

N Community animal health workers in networks associated with private veterinarians (number)

R Community animal health workers trained and in networks associated with private veterinarians (number)

C Community animal health workers trained and in networks associated with private veterinarians (number)

N

Privatization Strategy and relevant regulatory Decree are passed and enforced, supported by the functioning Veterinary Privatization Advisory Committee in North Kordofan (Yes/No)

D ---

Subcomponent 2.2 Improving Markets and Marketing

Markets rehabilitated and equipped R 4 Livestock markets

rehabilitated and functioning R Livestock markets rehabilitated and with functioning Marketing Boards (average % female

D ---

54

Original PAD

(June 2007)

Mid-Term Review

(August 2009)




(June 2011)



representation) and MIS providing regularly updated price information. (number)

Number of livestock owner groups formed and trained D ---

N Number of market participants groups formed and trained (m, f)

N Number of animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets , by type (early PDO indicator)

R (moved back as PDO

indicator) R Number of animal traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets (number) (early PDO indicator)

R (moved back as PDO

indicator)

N

Markets with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance costs (number)

R

Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated, with at least 100% recovery rate for operation and maintenance and with functioning MIS;

R Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated

Component 3. Project Implementation and Studies

Marketing Data base established R Marketing information system

established and functioning D ---

Study on livestock pop. estimates D ---

Plausible approach to conflict mitigation is developed D ---

N Livestock Marketing information disseminated through Weekly radio airtime

D ---

N Methodology on livestock census developed in consultation with FAO-HQ

D ---

Component 4. Improving livestock routes

N Livestock routes demarcated and rehabilitated (km) C Livestock routes demarcated

and rehabilitated (km) C Livestock routes demarcated and rehabilitated (km)

N Fire lines opening (km) C Fire lines opening (km) R Fire lines opened

N Area covered using selected pasture seeds (ha) R Pasture area planted using

selected seeds (ha) C Pasture area planted using selected seeds (ha)

55

Table 2.12: Baseline, target and final values of indicators in the Results Framework PDO INDICATORS

As of

Unit Value

(1)

Baseline Target Values Values Frequency Data

Source

Responsible for

data collection 31-May-09 31-Aug-11 30-Jun-12 30-Jun-13 9-Dec-10 31-Aug-11 5-May-12 31-Dec-12 30-Jun-13

Animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets, by type of livestock

Number AA 74,916 93,225 93,225

Sheep 398,852

Goat 1,213 Cattle 14,161 Camel 7,949

83,838 101,822 211,477 Sheep 492,845 Sheep

492,845 Goat 63,74


Annually VDC records

LIUs

Restructured in Sept 2012 Sheep 299,664 Goat 912


-- Sheep 362,593 Goat 1,103


-- -- Sheep 461,232 Goat 8,718


--


Number TA 31 36 --

Sheep 46 Goats 10

35 36 36 --

Sheep 64 Goat 10

Annually Market sales

registry

Project PIUs and Market operators

Restructured in Sept 2012 Sheep 31 Goats 7

-- Sheep 36 Goats 10

-- -- Sheep 64 Goats 10

Sheep 64

Direct Project Beneficiaries Number TA 2,959 (1-Mar-09)

136,000 166,000 113,425 137,325 160,692 170,368 Quarterly Progress reports

LIUs

Direct Project Beneficiaries of which female (%)

% TA 29 (1-Mar-09

35 35 33 35 35 35 Quarterly Progress reports

LIUs

NOTES: (1) Value: AA - Annual Accumulate, TA - Total Accumulate

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME INDICATORS PER COMPONENT

as of

Unit

Value

(1)

Baseline Targets Values Frequency

Data

Source

Responsible for

data collection

1-Mar-09 30-Aug-11 30-Jun-12 30-Jun-13 9-Dec-10 31-Aug-11 5-May-12 31-Dec-12 30-Jun-13


Improved community

water points constructed

or rehabilitated**

Number TA 0 32 34 32 24 28 28 28 34 Monthly Progress reports

LIUs

VDCs with at least 100%

recovery rate for

operation and

maintenance costs of water

points

Number TA 0 -- 34 32 -- 28 28 28 34 Monthly Progress reports

LIUs

Beneficiary households

receiving IGA support

Number TA 0 -- 2,500 4,229 -- 1,893 2,790 3,669 4,647 Monthly Progress reports

LIUs

Share of females in

beneficiary households

receiving IGA support

% TA 0 -- 45 45 -- -- 45 45 45 Monthly Progress reports

LIUs

Component 2. Privatization of Animal Health Services and Markets

Subcomponent 2.1 - Privatization of animal Health Service.

Private vets providing Number TA 0 -- 12 9 -- 6 6 6 10 Monthly LIUs

56

as of

Unit

Value

(1)

Baseline Targets Values Frequency

Data

Source

Responsible for

data collection

1-Mar-09 30-Aug-11 30-Jun-12 30-Jun-13 9-Dec-10 31-Aug-11 5-May-12 31-Dec-12 30-Jun-13

veterinary services in the

targeted localities

Community animal health

workers trained and in

networks associated with

private veterinarians

Number TA 0 -- 48 91 -- 36 48 91 91 Monthly LIUs

Subcomponent 2.2 - Targeted livestock markets rehabilitated

Targeted livestock

markets rehabilitated

Number TA 0 6* 6 6 6* -- 6 6 6 Quarterly Progress reports

LIUs

Component 4. Improving livestock routes

Livestock routes

demarcated and

rehabilitated

Km TA 0 -- 286 346 -- 286 -- 286 346 6-monthly Progress reports

PIUs and LIUs

Fire lines opened Number TA 0 -- 1,600 1,100 -- 1,020 1,020 682 1,082 6-monthly Progress reports

PIUs and LIUs

Pasture area planted using

selected seeds

Ha TA 0 -- 14,000 7,920 -- 6,520 14,000 6,520 6,520 6-monthly Progress reports

PIUs and LIUs

NOTES: (1) Value: AA - Annual Accumulate, TA - Total Accumulate

57

Annex 3: Economic and Financial Analysis

The FPP did not include a detailed economic and financial analysis of the overall project. No NPV, economic or financial rate of return were calculated a priori, and no analyses are available. The data on the livestock sector in Sudan remain scant. The FPP admitted the need for a detailed productivity baseline on the different production systems in the targeted localities to identify and assess changes due to the project and non-project influences. Baseline is available since 2009, but did not meet the FPP requests. Available data is sourced from the ILPM quarterly progress reports, VDC records, and the LMD. Given the limited information available to conduct this analysis, the results provided in this annex cannot be taken as conclusive, but merely indicative and exploratory. FPP Assumptions

The FPP presented a description of the types of impacts and beneficiaries due to the project activities. The ILPM project proposal assumed that supporting production and marketing in localities of central and eastern Sudan could help identify options to improve livestock producers’ revenues, and increase supply and competitiveness of livestock on domestic and international markets. The project activities were expected to impact directly on individuals (e.g. animal health services), groups of livestock owners and communities (e.g. rangeland management regimes, water development and market services), and institutions, through capacity building (e.g. supporting development of conflict resolution strategies, modernizing livestock marketing processes).

Community-led investments on water points benefit directly small-scale producers and household budgets with better water supplies and reduced costs of water for household use and livestock. Before the project intervention, the farthest village in the Alawamra community (in Abuzabad) was at distance of 7 hours walking from the water point; now the VDC confirmed that they have stable access to water in just 1 hour.

Community-led investments on non-water subprojects (restocking, rangeland and feed resources) help increase herd and flock productivities; higher off-take rates provide the selected community households with improved food security and nutrition, and increased cash incomes, as well as enhanced collective access to financial services by micro-finance institutions.

The works on the market rehabilitation, and especially the data dissemination from the LMD (prices, animals traded in main markets, key national outlets for the livestock sector), aim to increase the market transparency, enhance the bargain power of the producers, and make better-informed decisions. Prices are expected to increase and consequently provide the pastoralists with higher income.

Other assumptions remain debatable however.

FPP assumed transferring effective control over key resources as water and pastures

enhances ownership. Besides transferring control, ILPM provides some evidence that

58

enhanced ownership, and particularly financial sustainability of the water points, are also linked to the additional benefits. Communities report using the revenues obtained through the water fees in rehabilitating or building school facilities, health centers, and mosques; fencing; and building cement rooms for the community members.

Unlike what FPP EFA section assumed, the larger engagement of communities in water point management is not expected to remove the expenses allocation from the RWC or the localities budgets. By virtue of the MoU signed between VDC and the RWC in the respective locality, the RWC will still have to provide monitoring and technical services to the communities in managing their water points.

In turn, privatization is reported to have a positive impact in the quality of the services that the producers receive. Clients value the promptness that private veterinaries show when requested to deliver vaccination. Veterinaries report that there is still leeway to improve the service, by further limiting the role of the public sector regarding the vaccines availability or the laboratory diagnosis.

Efficiency in achieving the outcomes

The first ILPM outcome was to increase the size of the herd per community household. The project co-financed the purchase and distribution of sheep and goats for the communities. The funding was used to purchase the animals from the markets, based on the initial requests from the community subgroups. Each household had to take care of the allocated herd, and assumed costs as community contributions, paying for vaccinations, feeding, raising and laboring the animals. At the time of paying back the loan, the households handed over the mature animals and kept the offspring. For the sake of simplicity, and following the quarterly reports indications on the first offspring delivered per localities, the following assessment of efficiency keeps a conservative approach. Given the delay in starting the LDIF activities, and the lack of detail on the disbursements per community, initial investments on water rehabilitation are assumed to date from 2010, and on the restocking activities, from 2010 in the Western Sector communities and 2011 in the Eastern Sector communities. Based on information from the ILPM quarterly progress reports and the VDC records, Table 3.1 shows that the restocking activities had a positive impact in the household incomes. Once discounted the GDP deflator, by the project completion each SDG invested in the restocking activities yielded 2.7 SDG per household in the targeted communities. In the localities of the Eastern Sector, these activities returned 3.3 SDG per household, over the 2.4 SDG produced in the Western Sector localities. Both the prices and the herd composition explain that difference. The LDM data for 2013 Q2 show that the sheep prices in the Eastern Sector markets (SDG 1,425 in Singa, SDG 767 in Tendelti, and SDG 1,127 in Eldamazine) were higher than those in the Western Sector markets (SDG 775 in El Nuhoud, SDG 825 in Gebeish, and SDG 725 in Elkhewie). Moreover, the final composition of the herds in North Kordofan included both sheep and goats, while only sheep composed the final stock in the communities from Blue Nile, Sinnar and White State.

59

Per animal, households have also benefit from an increase in the value of the animals. Once discounted the GDP deflator, each SDG invested by the project in the restocking activities, increased the value of each animal 1.3 times. Differences between Western and Eastern Sector are due to the composition of the herd (sheep and goats in the Western Sector, only sheep in the Eastern Sector), and the price difference for sheep, where the Eastern Sector markets reported higher prices than Western. In the Eastern Sector States, the value per animal almost doubled in real terms: SDG 242 per animal as project investment turned by the end of the project in SDG 464, an increase of 1.9 times. In North Kordofan, the herd barely increased their value. With regards the water point investments, the project assumed that improvement in the water availability would lead to an improvement in the household herd. The results from the 2012 Internal Impact Assessment Report show that for the targeted pastoralist households the access to water was not as critical other factors to explain the increase of the herd size17. Out of the main project areas, 44.8 percent of the surveyed households indicated the pasture availability and 25.3 percent the grants to buy animals through the restocking activities. Only the 20 percent referred the water availability. The communities with ILPM-funded restocking and water point rehabilitation activities do not offer any conclusive evidence. Only 4 communities received investments through the restocking activities and the water points: Um Glaingeet (in El Nuhoud locality), Elhamari and Abu Meraida (in Gebaish locality), and Undresia (in Abuzabad). Table 3.2 shows some selected indicators from these communities and compares with the average at the respective localities and the state. In short, the indicators do not show any common and distinctive pattern of change in these four communities, when compared with their respective localities. In 3 of the 4 communities the incomes of the households more than doubled or tripled after participating in the restocking activities. Only in Abu Meraida (in Gebeish locality), the household incomes and the value per animal decrease substantially. This is one of the smallest communities that participated in the ILPM18, where mostly goats compose the herd. Despite being one of the smallest communities, the initial project contribution was one of the highest19, therefore the relatively high allocation per household (SDG 5,571). The herd size notably increased in absolute terms in Um Glaingeet and Elhamari. But other communities within their localities reached a higher stock of animals. Despite these changes, these results are not definitive to conclude that activities on water rehabilitation had a substantial impact in increasing the size of the herds for the households. The second ILPM outcome was to increase the number of animals traded in the rehabilitated markets: El Nuhoud, Gebeish, and Elkhewie (in North Kordofan State), Singa (Sinnar State), Tendelti (White Nile State), and Eldamazine (Blue Nile State). Due to successive delays, the bulk of the rehabilitation works were completed in 2012, just leaving between 12-18 months for a full operation of the markets. Traders and producers already started using the markets even 17 ILPM-PCU (2012), Internal Impact Assessment Report. 18 In this community only 14 households were targeted by the restocking activities. In the Gebeish State, the average was 41 households per community, and in the whole program, 29 households per community. 19 That seems to be a sort of a pattern in the project, where communities with less than 15 participating households received over SDG 60,000 as project contribution for the restocking.

60

when works were not completed, and services operational. This included the localities handing over the Livestock Market Database to the Market Boards. This process was completed as the markets started operating (see Table 3.3). Based on the information provided by the LMD, the Table 3.3 assesses the efficiency in increasing the number of animals traded based on the rehabilitation cost for each market and the difference between the animals traded prior and after the beginning of operations in the markets. The ratio of investment per new animal traded can only be used with four of the six rehabilitated markets. The LMD does not provide enough data on Gebeish and Eldamazine for this calculation. According to this ratio, El Nuhoud was the less efficient market. Each additional animal traded in the market after the rehabilitation cost US$119.1 each quarter. In Singa and Tendelti, the ratio amounted US$35.1 and 39.3 per additional animal traded each quarter. As the most efficient market, in Elkheview each additional animal per quarter cost US$3.8. The Table 3.4 summarizes the previous calculations to estimate the unit cost of increasing the herd size per household and the unit cost of additional animals traded in the rehabilitated markets. The cost for additional animals in the household herd is based on the Table 3.1, if only considering the restocking activities, and Table 3.2, when also including the subprojects on the water points. The unit cost is calculated as a ratio of the additional animals per herd and the invested resources, both from the project and the community. The costs of the water point rehabilitation are included as well, if necessary. With regards the traded animals, the cost is a weighed estimation of the US$ invested per traded animals. Project cost and expenditures by component

Actual expenditures against budgeted costs per component (see Table 3.5) show the extent to which the project has made efficient use of the resources. Including the MDTF and the GoNS funding, by its completion the project left around 9 percent of the available funding unutilized. The component 4 for improving livestock routes left the largest gap between planned and effective disbursements; almost half of the available funding was not used. By subcomponents, the activities on the privatization of animal health services (subcomponent 2.1) left 73.2 percent of the budgeted funds unutilized; followed by the restocking activities (within the component 1), where the project used less than half of the budgeted funding. Considering only the MDTF funding, the overall sub-utilization percentage drops to 7.7 percent. The largest gaps between planned and effective disbursements remain the same, on the privatization of animal health services (subcomponent 2.1, with a 57.7 percent gap), restocking activities (within component 1, with a 56.3 percent gap) and improvement of livestock routes (subcomponent 2.1, and a 45.5 percent of undisbursed funds). Out of the previous calculated ratios, the restocking activities was an efficient activity to increase the number of animals per herd. From that perspective, the project could have been more efficient in delivering development outcomes by fully using the resources for the restocking activities. As per the evidence gathered from the targeted pastoralists, and the outcomes in communities benefitted with water points, the re-allocation of resources out of the restocking activities may have deviated resources towards less efficient components.

61

Appendix II: Tables of Annex 3

Table 3.1: Estimated Impact of Restocking Activities on animal value and household incomes

State Locality

Initial Investment

(2010)

Final Herd Value

(2013 Q2)

Variation

(%)

Total Per HH Per

animal Total Per HH

Per

animal

HH

incomes

Animal

value

North

Kordofan

El Nuhoud 285,400 1,089 224 908,120 3,466 319 318.2 142.6 Gebeish 251,780 1,015 251 518,886 2,092 239 206.1 95.4 Abuzabad 339,280 1,146 282 843,338 2,849 292 248.6 103.7

Western Sector Total 876,460 1,087 252 2,270,345 2,817 288 259.0 114.2

Blue Nile Damazine 156,492 3,130 234 663,997 13,280 472 424.3 201.9 Sinnar Abuhjar 173,552 3,471 233 626,696 12,534 596 361.1 255.6 White Nile Eljabalain 160,234 3,908 261 338,600 8,259 321 211.3 123.2 Eastern Sector Total 490,278 3,477 242 1,629,293 11,555 464 332.3 191.9

ILPM Total 1,366,738 1,443 248 3,899,638 4,118 342 285.3 137.8

NOTES: Constant SDG 2010. Initial investment includes project, as well as in-kind and cash community contributions. Estimations of households, and initial and final stock of animals based on VDC records and stock distribution per locality by December 2012, elaborated and reported by ILPM PCU. Final herd value based on prices reported by Livestock Market Database. Herd distribution of sheep and goats based on stock distribution per locality as reported by ILPM Quarterly Report Dec 2012. Table 3.2: Impact on animal value and household incomes of restocking activities on communities

in North Kordofan with water point rehabilitation

Locality Communities

Initial Investment

(2010)

Final Herd Value

(2013 Q2)

Variation

(%)

Initial

Stock of

Animals

Total Per

HH

Final

Stock of

Animals

Total Per HH HH

incomes

Animal

value

El Nuhoud Um Glaingeet 160 43,750 1,367 331 105,729 3,304 241.7% 116.8% Locality Max 160 603

Locality Average 142 40,378 1,772 264 100,902 3,376 294.4% 123.3% Gebeish Elhamari 142 28,760 639 436 104,352 2,319 362.8% 118.2% Abu Meraida 112 78,000 5,571 111 26,567 1,898 34.1% 34.4% Locality Max 240 499

Locality average 167 41,963 1,551 361 86,481 2,114 255.3% 109.5% Abuzabad Umdresia 160 43,750 810 345 100,850 1,868 230.5% 106.9% Locality Max 482

Locality average 151 42,410 1,653 361 116,157 3,449 330.4% 127.8% North Kordofan average 151 41,498 1,673 343 102,446 3,072 283.6% 111.0%

NOTES: Constant SDG 2010. Initial investment include project, as well as in-kind and cash community contributions. Estimations of households, and initial and final stock of animals based on VDC records and stock distribution per locality by December 2012, elaborated and reported by ILPM PCU. Final herd value based on prices reported by Livestock Market Database. Herd distribution of sheep and goats based on stock distribution per locality as reported by ILPM Quarterly Report Dec 2012.

62

Table 3.3: Unit Cost per Additional Traded Animal in Rehabilitated Markets

Market Operation Start

Date

Invested

USD

Average of Quarterly Traded Animals USD invested per

increase of

traded animals Prior Start After Start Difference

El Nuhoud March 21, 2012 240,000 18,181 20,195 2,014 119.1 Gebeish * n.a. 195,000 n.a. n.a. --- --- Elkhewie* August 7, 2012 194,000 30,949 81,923 50,974 3.8 Singa May 14, 2012 193,000 2,610 8,110 5,500 35.1 Tendelti May 30, 2012 202,000 17,381 22,516 5,135 39.3 Eldamazine March 11, 2012 202,000 n.a. 21,683 --- ---

SOURCE: Current USD. Livestock Market Database (LMD), as elaborated by ILPM PCU. Data on Quarterly Traded Animals for the Q1 and Q2 of 2011, 2012 and 2013. Table 3.4: Unit Costs per each Additional Animal Produced and Traded

Concept Period Increase

in animals

Cost per

additional animal Unit cost

(SDG) in SDG in USD

Additional animals in the herd

(restocking) 3 years 5,899 231.7 231.7

Additional animals in the herd

(restocking and water point) 3 years 649 919.8 919.8

Additional animals traded in

rehabilitated markets Quarterly 63,623 13.03 97.72

Table 3.5: Project cost and expenditures at appraisal and completion (current SDG)

At appraisal (2007) At completion (2013) Sub-utilization

MDTF GONS Total MDTF GONS Total MDTF GONS Total

1. Livestock Development

Investment Fund 5.43 1.26 6.68 4.92 1.05 5.97 9.3% 16.7% 10.7%

* Water point rehabilitation 3.80 0.96 4.75 4.21 0.85 5.06 -10.8% 10.6% -6.5%

* Restocking activities 1.63 0.30 1.93 0.71 0.19 0.90 56.3% 36.0% 53.1% 2. Privatization of Animal

Health Services and

Markets

1.99 2.11 4.10 1.64 1.69 3.33 17.8% 20.0% 18.9%

2.1 Privatization of Animal Health Services 0.43 0.29 0.73 0.18 0.01 0.19 57.7% 96.2% 73.2%

2.2 Improving Markets and Marketing 1.56 1.82 3.38 1.45 1.68 3.13 6.7% 7.7% 7.2%

3. Project Implementation

Studies 9.86 7.06 16.92 9.55 6.57 16.11 3.2% 7.0% 4.8%

4. Improving Livestock

Routes 0.40 0.08 0.48 0.22 0.02 0.24 45.5% 78.1% 50.9%

Total project expenditure 17.68 10.51 28.19 16.32 9.32 25.64 7.7% 11.3% 9.0%

SOURCE: Non-audited project cost and expenditures as reported by the ILPM PCU to the Federal Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries of Sudan.

63

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/

Specialty Lending Supervision/ICR Jeeva A. Perumalpillai-Essex Manager Nestor Coffi Country Manager Iain G. Shuker Sector Manager Program Coordinator Louise F. Scura Sector Leader Husam Abudagga Lead Operations Officer Evarist F. Baimu Senior Counsel

Stephane Forman Team Leader (TTL) Livestock Specialist

Assaye Legesse Senior Agriculture Economist Nancy Ruth Morgan Senior Economist Yasmin Tayyab Senior Social Development Specialist Hadyiat El- TayebAlyn Gender Specialist

Abdelmonem Osman Kardash Consultant Environmental Specialist

Antonio J. Cittati Consultant Colin P. Rees Consultant Mohamed Osman Hussein Consultant

Satish Kumar Consultant Livestock Specialist

Maisoun Alaaidin Badawi Consultant PSD Specialist Teishi Fujiwara Consultant M&E Endashaw Tadesse Senior Operations Officer Jamal Abdulla Abdulaziz Senior Procurement Specialist Moustapha Ould El Bechir Senior Procurement Specialist Mohamed Yahia Abd El Karim

Senior Financial Management Specialist

Diego Garrido Martin Senior M&E Specialist Eyerusalem Fasika M&E Specialist Meseret Kebede Program Assistant Azza Abdel Magid Imam Team Assistant Enas Suleiman Team Assistant Hiyam Fouad Abdoun Team Assistant Maisa Osman Mukhtar Nurein Team Assistant

64

(b) Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks

(estimate) USD Thousands

(including travel and

consultant costs) Lending 87 610

Total

Supervision/ICR 10 70 Total

65

Appendix III: Tables of Annex 4

Table 4.1: Composition of WB Supervision Missions during Project Implementation

Start-Up

Assessment Mission Mid-Term Review ISM1 01 ISM02 ISM03 ISM04 ISM05 ISM06

Mission Start

Day 13-Jan-08 21-Jun-09 20-Mar-10 10-May-10 30-Nov-10 1-Apr-12 3-Sep-12 12-Apr-13

Mission

Leader

TTL/Senior Agricultural Economist

Rural Development Specialist

TTL/Rural Development Specialist

TTL/Rural Development Specialist

Team Leader N.A.2 TTL/Livestock Specialist

Technical SD Sector Leader for Ethiopia and Sudan


SD Sector Leader for Ethiopia and Sudan


WB Livestock Development Consultant

PSD Specialist Senior Economist

Lead Natural Resources Specialist

Livestock Specialist Consultant

Senior Agriculture and Rural Development Specialist

Operations

Officer

Senior Operations Officer

Senior Country Officer

FM Specialists FM Specialist FM Specialist FM Specialist FM Specialist FM Specialist

Procurement

Specialists

Senior Procurement Specialist





Safeguards

Specialists

Environmental and Social SG specialist

Environmental Specialist

Environment Specialist

M&E

Specialist

M&E Specialist Senior M&E Specialist

Gender

Specialist

Gender Specialist Gender Specialist

Legal issues Legal Counselor Senior Counsel

Assistants Team Assistant Team Assistant Team Assistant Team Assistant Team Assistant (2x) Team Assistant

Non-WB staff Microfinance Specialist (SMDF- Sudan Microfinance Development Facility)

Chief Technical Advisor, & Marketing Specialist (FAO/SIFSIA- North)

IFAD Associate Professional Officer

(1) ISM – Implementation Support Mission. (2) Information not available in the mission Aide-Memoire.

66

Table 4.2: Composition and Location of WB Staff involved in Implementation Supervision

Reports

ISR

archive

date

Staff involved

Location

Total Country

Office

Other

AFTA3

Country

Other

Regional

Unit

HQ

ISR 01

(May 23,

2008)

Subtotal per location / Total 3 1 2 3 9

Management, Legal (Manager, Sector Leader, Counsel) 2 2

Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock)

Operations (Safeguards, FM, Procurement, M&E) 1 1

Consultant 2 2 4

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 02

(Dec 15,

2008)




Operations (Safeguards, FM, Procurement, M&E) 2 1 3

Consultant 1 2 3

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 03

(May 7,

2009)





Consultant 1 2 3

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 04

(Dec 1,

2009)


Management, Legal (Manager, Sector Leader, Counsel)

Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock) 1 1


Consultant 1 1

Team Assistant 1 1 2

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 05

(May 28,

2010)


Management, Legal (Manager, Sector Leader, Counsel) 1 1 2

Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock) 1 1 2


Consultant 1 2 3

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 06

(Mar 16,

Subtotal per location / Total 7 3 4 14


67

ISR

archive

date

Staff involved

Location

Total Country

Office

Other

AFTA3

Country

Other

Regional

Unit

HQ

2011) Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock) 2 1 1 4


Consultant 1 1

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 07

(Oct 20,

2011)



Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock) 2 1 1 4


Consultant 1 1 2

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 08

(May 14,

2012)



Technical (Gender, PSD, Agriculture, Economist, Livestock) 1 2 2 5

Operations (Safeguards, FM, Procurement, M&E) 3 1 1 5

Consultant 2 2

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader

ISR 09

(Mar 27,

2013)

Subtotal per location / Total 5 2 1 8




Consultant 2 2

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

ISR 10

(Jun 24,

2013)





Consultant 2 2

Team Assistant 1 1

Team Leader 1 1

68

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results

Not applicable

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

Not applicable

69

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

EXCERPTS FROM BORROWER’S

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

Republic of Sudan

Ministry of Animal Resources, Fisheries and Range

Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project- A Pilot (ILPMP)

Submitted June/24/ 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ILPMP was an MDTF (Annex 1) funded project appraised at US$ 20 million and approved to be implemented in two phases; however, actual financing was 12.01 by 3.7 from GoS and 8.31 from MDTF separated by midterm review. Actually, implementation was 1st phase and two extensions. The project was effective on 08/29/2007 to be originally closed by 06/30/2011; however, actual closing was on 06/30/2013. The project development objective was stated as “To improve livestock production and marketing in selected rain-fed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan”; however, the project was implemented in Sinnar, BNS, WNS and NKS and six localities, viz, Sinja, Damazine, Jabalain; Gebaish, Abuzabad and Anuhoud. The project embraced four components, viz, livestock development investment fund (LDIF), privatization of animal health and livestock markets, management and studies and rehabilitation of livestock routes. Moreover; the project organized beneficiary communities into VDCs, market boards, private vet and CAHW networks and formed SSCs, LCCs and initiated participation of civil society organizations including pastoralists, farmers and women unions in addition to project implementation structures. LDIF component had water and IGA subprojects; water projects included rehabilitation or construction of water points and yards, meanwhile IGA activities were mainly restocking of beneficiaries with sheep and goats. For conducting those activities, the project offered beneficiaries grants at 80% of the total cost, meanwhile; beneficiaries contributed by 5% in cash and 15% in kind. As a result 34 water points/yards were rehabilitated or constructed as per ILPMP specifications and benefited around 170,368 direct and indirect beneficiaries. Moreover, there were 24 VDCs for restocking which benefited around 4,647 beneficiaries of which 45% were female headed households by implementing 69 subprojects with CGs. Beneficiaries of all water projects paid a subsidized cost of water for human and animal consumption and the VDCs divided the net revenue into 30% for RWCs, 40% for maintenance and operation (100% recovery rate) and 30% for social services and lending community groups to invest in income generation activities. Grants for restocking were provided to beneficiaries on communal consensus to

70

select the eligible groups providing contribution in cash and kind as for water subprojects, thereby; eligible beneficiaries were given between 10 to 15 ewes as a starter flock (occasionally few goats); however, around 85% of the beneficiaries repaid the loans and were moving ahead with their flocks. Private vets in Anuhoud, Abuzabad and Gebaish were provided a grant, exempted from contribution and networked with selected CAHWs and all were trained for privatization of animal health services. However; three out of five paid the grants 100% and two 81% and 64% and the sixth has started lately, moreover; five more vets applied for privatization in 2013. They have treated 2,051,832 animals compared to 12,851 by the public veterinary service, conducted 2,702 operations compared to 1,043, vaccinated 568,555 animals compared to 951,250; performed 77 lab diagnoses, but, both provided minimal extension and advisory services to pastoral and rural communities. Six livestock markets were constructed as per ILPMP specifications in Damazine, Sinja, Tendelti; Elkhawei, Anuhoud and Gebaish; however; some work was still on. They were administered by trained market boards and with functioning market information system. The markets generated good revenue with 100% recovery rate for maintenance and operation and the rest was divided into 30% for the board and 70% for the locality at best. Three livestock routes were demarcated and rehabilitated for 346 km in length, rangeland of 7,920 hectare was planted with selected seeds and 1,100 km of fire line opened; moreover, the routes were provided with integrated service centers. Moreover, the project managed to complete all ten studies, most of the procurement, one baseline survey and an internal impact assessment; it met its deadlines and responded efficaciously to the MTR, all ISM and assessment missions. The project was reputed for complying with all the covenants of the LGA and satisfactory performance along the various stages of implementation. LDIF component utilized US$ 3,120,000 of the total budget (30.56%) with 2,520,000 (24.68%) for water projects and 600,000 (5.88%) for restocking, 220,000 (2.26) for privatization of animal health, 1,605,000 (15.7%) for rehabilitation/construction of livestock markets totaling 1,825,000 (17.87%) and 200,000 (1.96%) for rehabilitation of the stock routes. Project management utilized 2,830,000 (29.04%), 1,550,000 (15.18%) for studies and capacity building, 350,000 (3.43%), for vehicles and 200,000 (1.96%) for office equipment and rehabilitation. Project management and implementation of its components (Annex 2) were considered cost effective, except for rehabilitation of the stock routes as it was difficult to evaluate their benefits in monetary terms, efficiency and efficacy of implementation were satisfactory; impacts were tangible, risks to development outcomes identified and elements for sustainability highlighted. However; overall rating of project development objective and outcomes were “satisfactory”, with “moderate” risk to development outcome; overall Bank performance, ensuring quality at entry and quality of supervision were found “satisfactory”. Moreover; women represented around 35% of project direct beneficiaries by completion. The outcomes of LDIF and stock routes components were found “satisfactory” with “high” risk to the stock routes, “significant” to the development outcome of water projects, but, “low” risk to restocking projects; meanwhile, the outcome was “moderately satisfactory” for of privatization of animal health services with “low” risk to the outcome. The outcome of livestock markets was found “highly satisfactory” with “high” risk to the development outcome.

* * *

71

RESULTS FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

1. PROJECT CONTEXT, DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN (excerpts)

1.1. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL

Sudan is renowned for its vast livestock population which amounted to 136.6 million head in 2005 including cattle (40.5), sheep (49.8), goats (42.2) and camels (3.9) sustaining about 80% of sedentary and pastoral rural populations with considerable social and economic importance. As noted by JAM, following signing the CPA, development of the livestock sector was considered crucial for rural development and sustainability of peace through provision of services that would result in equitable and sustainable development of the poorest communities in North Sudan. Accordingly, the country pursued a strategy of decentralization (JAM) vesting greater autonomy over domestic expenditure in the states and localities in order to address challenges of reconstruction and reduction of natural resource based conflicts. The GNU sector objective and strategy for livestock production centered round the interventions and expected results shown in table (1) below:

Table (1) GNU livestock sector strategy and expected results (FPP)

Strategy Expected results

Improving animal health services Improving production techniques Increasing access to water Improving market infrastructure and access to market information

Higher livestock off take rates Reduced environmental degradation and conflicts Increased incomes Better integration of livestock and agriculture Increased meat supply for domestic needs Improved livestock competitiveness

Based on the GNU sector objective, strategy and expected results (Table 1) and findings of JAM, the MDTF was approached for financing the project in selected rain-fed areas of Sudan. The project rationale was demonstrated by piloting the interventions stated below:

Improving livestock production by studying natural resource based conflicts and mitigation approaches attempting to stabilize and secure the productive force in the first place

Improving livestock production by privatizing animal health services to improve herd health and survival

Improving livestock production by supporting pastoral and rural communities in livestock production promoting activities by improving water supply, resources and capacity building

Improving livestock marketing by investing in market infrastructure, management, market information and livestock routes to furnish rewarding herd produce outlets

Two project areas were selected in central and eastern Sudan representative of the diversity of livestock systems and socio-economic context under rain-fed husbandry systems in four states, namely, BNS, Sinnar, WNS and NKS, and six localities based on significance of livestock and frequency of conflict over land and water, namely, Damazine, Sinja, Jabalain and Gebaish, Anuhoud and Abuzabad. Later, two localities emerged: Abu hojar in Sinnar state and Tadamon in BNS. On the other hand, despite the tangible potentials of the livestock sector both domestically and regionally, the sector was indicated to be crippled by a number of constraints including, marketing

72

inefficiencies, land policy believed not favoring pastoral livestock development and; water scarcity affecting pastoral livestock, disease burden and old production and marketing data.

2. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES

2.1.PROJECT PREPARATION, DESIGN AND QUALITY AT ENTRY

Past experiences of projects funded by IFAD and WB/MDTF were utilized in improving the design of the components and implementation of the project as summarized in annex (10). The project learned lessons from CDF and IFAD projects in BNS and NKS and coordinated focused training on community mobilization and CDD approaches to PIU and LIU staff including PRA and PLA methods and a comprehensive guideline on matching grant management was prepared by a consultant to facilitate implementation of the community sub-projects. Also, the project coordinated training of CAHWs with FAO with the aim of providing animal health care to their pastoral and rural communities e.g. BNS and NKS. The project adopted the CDD approach during the phases of project preparation, design and implementation at all levels including, villages, cluster of villages, administrative units, localities and the states e.g. village development committees (VDCs) and other community groupings and organizations. Also, the beneficiary communities participated in the baseline and other surveys, workshops, contributed to the technical studies conducted by the project and participated in the field missions of the MTR, ISMs and other missions. On the other hand, there were inherent risks working at country, entity and project levels and risk to secure MDTF funding (annex 11). However, stakeholders managed to work out legal framework agreements which were used to mitigate risks affecting implementation with regard to privatizing animal health, taxes and fees levied on water and animals sold in markets and interference of the local authorities with management, maintenance and ownership of the community sub-projects. However, institutional reforms were needed to address the issue of contractual linkages of the rehabilitated markets and the localities owning them regardless of board formation and registration. Institutional reforms were also needed to address linkage of targeted communities to the rehabilitated stock routes. For the graveness of the ownership issue, a study was commissioned to draft a livestock market development strategy to guide the making of a legal framework and also for formalizing the community ownership of the implemented subprojects.

2.2.IMPLEMENTATION The project was declared effective on August/29/2007, however; inherent risks were substantial and the GNU experienced some difficulties with disbursing its contribution timely in the first two years which affected implementation of the “LDIF” and “project implementation and studies” components as they were planned to be funded from GNU counterpart contribution. Nevertheless, the project formed management and implementation structures at the central, state and locality levels (annex 9). The structures were supported by administrative, financial, procurement and safeguards officers at the PCU and PIUs and backed up by steering committees at the central and state levels and locality coordination committees at the localities. The PIUs were supported by subject matter specialists (SMSs) and veterinary officers to provide assistance and backstopping.

73

MAARF had the overall oversight on the project through the PCU for coordinating all the activities supported by the PSC. Project implementation was the responsibility of the two PIUs of the SMAARIs based in Sinnar and Elobeid for the eastern and western sectors respectively supported by the SSCs and VPACs. The LIUs had the responsibility of implementing the LDIF sub-projects by the VDCs at the locality level supported by the LCCs. In fact, the first six months were the implementation period in the 1st phase; nevertheless, it was dedicated to implement key activities in the eastern and western sectors beginning in September and October 2008 respectively. The PSC, SSCs and LCCs were active and provided guidance and supported implementation by reviewing and approving work plans, monitoring performance of the project and addressing implementation constraints. However, the project was challenged by a number of implementation issues in the first phase as numerous planned activities were not achieved e.g. livestock census methodology and the fact that establishing a functional institutional and management structure for a decentralized and CDD approach took a long time as all project attempts to recruit NGO/MFI organizations were unsuccessful until training lastly was coordinated with CDF. Thus, staff at PIU and LIU were trained on community mobilization using CDD methods and communities were trained on microfinance which helped establish the VDCS and engage in implementing the matching grant. Moreover, GNU disbursement was regained on track after the MTR in July 2009 and as a result; staffing was completed at the PCU, PIUs and LIUs. Most technical studies and procurement of office furniture and equipment including computers and vehicles were conducted; offices were renovated, workshops conducted and training of project staff on implementation including fiduciary aspects, monitoring and evaluation. It should also be noted that project implementation was affected by insecurity situations in BNS and Gebaish locality in NKS. However, based on the encouraging implementation capacity and satisfactory commitment demonstrated at all levels, implementation of the 1st phase was continued for another two years until June 30/2011. Institutional and implementation arrangements, procurement and financial arrangements, monitoring and reporting responsibilities were described for the project as well as the detail of implementation activities (FPP, annex 6 and attachment 2). Moreover, the supplemental project operations manual (SPOM) provided detail of implementing the LDIF component and guided the general operations at the PCU/PIUs and LIUs including planning cycle, preparation of AWP and budget, supervision, MTR, ICR and completion processes. By the 1st ISM in April 2010, the operations manual was revised and endorsed by the Bank since; previously, it was unclear to project staff in many areas. Restructuring of the project for additional financing of the 1st extension took place in June 2010 with the aim of building on completed and ongoing activities, notably, investment in policy development, capacity building and veterinary service infrastructure and equipment. Moreover, the recipient, the project implementing entities and program management team were found compliant with all covenants specified in the LGA and that there were neither outstanding audits nor interim financial reports. That was because the project implementing entities have established an acceptable financial, monitoring and evaluation and reporting systems which were also employed in the extension periods. Principally, the additional financing was directed towards supporting the originally appraised activities supposedly to have been implemented in the 2nd phase as scheduled except for few adjustments and up scaling. The project was restructured for the 2nd extension for additional funding preceded by the 3rd ISM when implementation was rated “satisfactory”. As a result, ongoing activities were consolidated, the six livestock markets complemented with equipment, refresher training of VDCs provided and capacity building was also provided in social mobilization as well as extension and advisory services. Moreover;

74

successful activities were scaled up e.g. additional water points, restocking subprojects and rehabilitation of rangeland along stock routes. New small scale activities were introduced by building capacities for leather and milk processing and rural tanning. However, project implementation performance was rated “satisfactory” by the 4th ISM in April 2013 despite delays in financing; moreover, arrangements for closing by June/30/2013 were readied and eventually some conducted.

2.3.MONITORING AND EVALUATION, DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND

UTILIZATION Establishment of the M&E unit was delegated to the monitoring officer at the PCU and sufficient funds were availed for technical assistance to develop the M&E system and training of project staff at the central, state, locality and community levels. 2.3.1. Design Monitoring and evaluation was originally designed to assess achieving the PDO at two levels as shown in the original result framework in annex (4):

PDO level of 3 indicators to be assessed by 6 measures Three intermediate outcomes to be assessed by 3 indicators

Original arrangements for monitoring and evaluation to assess achieving the PDO and intermediate outcomes are given in annex (5) which included the following indicators:

Component result indicators 1. Two indicators for LDIF (component 1) 2. Two indicators for privatization of animal health services and two for privatization of

livestock markets (component 2) 3. Three indicators for component 3 (Project implementation and studies)

Intermediate outcome indicators 1. Three indicators to assess herd parameters of composition and productivity 2. Five indicators for assessing marketing parameters and benefits to livestock producers

The performance indicators were comprehensively revised as reasoned in annexes 6, 7 and 8 until brought about SMART and could reflect project progress. However, the revised intermediate outcome indicators were formulated for components 1, 2 and 4, but, there were no indicators given to component 3 "Project implementation and studies” since it was considered a tool for achieving the PDO by the CPPR, MTR and 1st ISM; moreover, three new outcome indicators were introduced for the new livestock routes component. However, the 3rd ISM in May/2012 classified the performance indicators into output and outcome indicators for components 1, 2 and 4 about ongoing and the new activities; thus, by this stage, the result framework for M&E was reformed to have three levels as shown in annex (8);

One PDO level indicator One beneficiaries indicator of two complements (number and % female) Intermediate results with thirteen output indicators and six outcome indicators for components

1, 2 and 4. The result framework used by the MEU of the project as of July 2010 3rd quarterly report (Table 5) evolved from the firstly revised result framework (Annex 6, 1st amendment); nonetheless, new

75

intermediate outcome indicators were introduced, but, instantly dropped in the following quarterly reports as given below:

Number of people in rural areas provided with access to improved water sources under the project of which % female

Number of loans given out by VDCs Percentage of repayment of IGA loans to VDCs Number of producers receiving updated market price information in replacement of the

“number of rehabilitated markets with functioning boards etc” The other intermediate outcome indicators remained without change

However, the indicator “Number of vaccinated livestock by private vets by type of livestock” was dropped and that by the 4th quarterly report of 2010, the MEU resorted to the secondly revised result framework (Annex 6, 2nd amendment) intended for the 1st restructuring of the project. However, the 1st quarterly report of 2011 was amended as follows:

The PDO level indicator “Margin between sheep price paid in targeted secondary and terminal markets” was dropped leaving the PDO with the previous two indicators

Direct project beneficiaries promoted to act as a second level overall indicator (number and % female)

Indicator indirect project beneficiaries was dropped Beneficiary households receiving support for IGA (number and % female) was introduced The other intermediate outcome indicators remained without change

The MEU of the project revised the result framework for the 2nd quarterly report of 2011 to be based on one PDO level indicator, one beneficiary level indicator with two complements and nine intermediate outcome indicators. However; the PDO was assessed in the succeeding reports until completion with two indicators i.e. “Average herd size of small ruminants” and “Annual number of animals transacted in the rehabilitated livestock markets” (Table 2). 2.3.2. Implementation

The MEU of the project started delivering quarterly monitoring and evaluation reports on project implementation and progress as of July 2010 (Table 2). The reports focused on implementation activities, performance by the components and financial and procurement performance; performance of the result framework and compliance with the provisions of the legal grant; however, reporting continued until the 1st quarter of 2013. However, it was not possible for the MEU to assess achieving the PDO and implementation performance using the original result framework except for few indicators and with limited efficiency and coverage as discussed in section 1.3 and shown in annex (5) due to:

Irrelevance of the PDO level and intermediate outcomes indicators (section 1.3 for detail) and difficulty to collect such indicators

Lack of clear definition between the PDO level and intermediate outcome indicators, component outputs and outcomes

Lack of constant and independent starter baseline values to use as bench marks Instability of the M&E staff at the PCU Lack of designated and trained M&E officers at the PIUs and LIUs and at the VDCs levels Lack of information management system and reporting format

76

Moreover, the MTR mission developed monitoring and reporting formats for all implementing levels to track implementation and the performance indicators, later, the reporting formats were incorporated in the operations manual. However, the 2nd ISM addressed the difficulty in collecting information about the indicators at the PIU and LIU levels However, despite the successive improvements to the result frameworks; assessing implementation performance and PDO achievement was affected by:

Lack of a consistent and stable result framework Adjustment of baseline and target values from within project implementation, period by period Insecurity in some targeted areas e.g. water points/yards in BNS Introduction of unplanned activities as support to slaughterhouses and slabs Introduction of new output/outcome indicators and lack of baseline values for them The short time remaining before project closure did not help using the new indicators

However, it should be noted that the revised result framework was used by the MEU only in 4 quarterly reports: the 3rd and 4th in 2010 and the1st and 2nd in 2011. Lastly, from the 3rd quarterly report of 2011 until the 1st of 2013, the MEU focused on tracking implementation component by component, but, ceased to provide a result framework. 2.3.3. Utilization

As indicated in annex (6) of the firstly revised result framework, assessment of project performance and PDO achievement was done at the MTR and 1st restructuring based on the followings:

The baseline value used was taken as 2008/2009 with real figures for the assessed PDO level indicator and zero values for all the intermediate outcome indicators

Target values extended from 2007 to 2011 with reported figures for the assessed PDO level indicator until 2009 and zero values for the intermediate output/outcome indicators until 2008 except for the privatization strategy indicator in 2008

There were no target values given to the PDO level indicators in 2010 and 2011, but, were given to the intermediate outcome indicators except for beneficiary households in component 1, CAHWs in component 2, fire lines and pasture plantation in component 4.

Furthermore, the 3rd ISM in April/2012 updated values for the key performance indicators based on the following adjustments:

The baseline for original project start was adjusted to 2009 with values given to the PDO level, beneficiaries and animals traded and zero values for the remainder

Progress taken by December 2011with figures for all indicators Cumulative target values taken by 2012 and 2013 with figures for all indicators

An update of the result framework was presented by the 2nd restructuring mission in September 2012 on the following basis:

The baseline for original project start was 2009 with values for two PDO level indicators, beneficiaries indicator and there were no values for the intermediate outcome indicators

Progress taken by 2012 with figures for the indicators of the three levels Original target values for 2012 and new additional funding target values for 2013

Moreover, the 4th ISM in April 2013 indicated that the M&E system has been continuously improving and an update as of March 2013 was presented in support of the fact that the project has already contributed to achieving its PDO targets for most indicators or close for the remainder based on the following basis.

77

The baseline for original project start was 2009 with values for the two PDO level indicators, beneficiaries indicator and there were no values for the intermediate outcome indicators

Progress taken by 2013 with figures for the two PDO level and beneficiaries indicators Progress by 2012 with figures for the intermediate outcome indicators Target values by June 2013 for all indicators in the result framework

It could be said that the result framework for monitoring project performance and assessing achievement of the development objective was used only occasionally by the MEU of the project and in the early stages until mid 2011. However, updates were provided by a number of missions each ending with a revision to the preceding result framework and indicators. Nevertheless; the MEU traced performance in the remainder of project implementation until 2013 by following the achievements of the components utilizing the adjusted baseline and indicating progress and target values in line with the MTR and ISMs. However, for better utilization of M&E; it could have been very beneficial if M&E aspects were evaluated during appraisal before approving by the approving authority, especially:

Revision of the original result framework and the performance indicators and definition of the components, outputs and outcomes

Determination of a starter baseline value for each indicator e.g. data averaged from 2005/2006 independently of project implementation, in absence, similar operations in the country or a neighboring country could have been used.

Early staffing and training of M&E personnel at PCU, PIUs and LIUs

2.4.SAFEGUARD AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE

2.4.1. Safeguard policy

As for any development project, the Environment Conservation Act (2001) entailed from the project an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report before embarking on any development activities. Since the project intended to renovate old offices, additional structures and supplies to market places, water points/yards and stock routes and range, concern was also triggered with respect to articles OP/BP/GP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) safeguard policies of the WB. Moreover, the environmental assessment policy required a plan for management of medical and veterinary chemical waste as well. Fulfilling the safeguard requirements was conceived difficult due to limitations of MARFR and the stated capacity of the project. However, a safeguard management committee (SMC) was created for training and coordination among the participating ministries under coordination of the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR). Moreover, the project hired a part-time safeguard officer to handle safeguard issues at the PCU which resulted in creation of an environmental and social management framework (ESMF), resettlement action plan (RAP) and veterinary chemical waste management plan (VCWMP) in line with the social and environmental policies prepared for all the MDTF projects. By June 2010, the project fulfilled all conditions precedent to the first additional financing in June 2010 as per OP 13.2 and there were no

environmental and social or other safeguard issues that were unresolved. Also that, environmental

checklists were prepared for smaller civil works and environmental plans for water points, but, none of the works required preparation of a RAP. Nevertheless, the last ISM in April 2013 recommended

78

safeguards analysis for water points, livestock markets and routes just to ensure that project interventions followed the agreed ESMF, RPF and VCWMP. However, field findings indicated introduction of technologies facilitating resource conservation and sanitation e.g. water harvesting techniques at water points/yards, plantation of trees at livestock markets and water points. Also by expanding water yard catchments, avoidance of human defecation sources and provision of filtration system, latrines at water points/yards and livestock markets as well as incinerators at the latter and stock routes; moreover, humans were separated from animals at the water points and yards. Given the imminent closing date, the project was very careful in limiting assistance to some slaughterhouses and slabs around the rehabilitated livestock markets to improving processing of hides and skins without impinging upon institutional rehabilitation which could have substantial safeguard requirements to meet. It should be noted that, since appraisal, midterm review and by the 1st and 2nd restructuring, ILPMP project sustained an environmental rating of category B (partial assessment) with a strong positive impact and it did not raise any environmental, social or other safeguard concerns, so far. The overall safeguard compliance was rated “satisfactory” and there were neither significant irreversible environmental nor social impacts accrued from the conducted project activities.

2.4.2. Procurement capacity

At appraisal, the procurement capacities of MARFR, the project (PCU, PIUs and LIUs), SMAARI and the localities were weak in terms of both personnel and ability to use procurement procedures. Since the risk for procurement management was rated high for the country, the JAM assessment recommended procurement reforms including capacity building and logistical support for modernizing the then regulatory system until a more comprehensive legal framework was developed. Project procurement was centralized by the PIU and arrangements were described (FPP, attachment 8) with the stated commitment of the project to abide by the WB procurement guidelines e.g. Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, Selection and Employment of Consultants by WB Borrowers and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Grant Agreement. In assistance, the WB recruited a monitoring agent for north Sudan to expedite risk mitigation and enhance capacity building. By 2008, the project recruited three procurement specialists, one at the PCU and two at the PIUs one each who were then all trained in Khartoum and formally abroad. The CIFA was completed in the country and the CPPR has identified the main issues affecting public procurement at the federal and state levels, in addition, PSCAP have already tackled some of them. However, the capacity assessment mission recommended three annual supervision missions to the field to carry out a review post procurement actions. By the MTR in July 2009, all procurement activities involving national competitive bidding (NCB) were carried out at the state level and that the SBDs were approved by the Bank before advertizing. Moreover, all contracts involving community contracting were conducted at the LIU level and also that the revised SPOM contained a section on community contracting. However, procurement capacity was found good by the 1st and 2nd ISMs and rated “moderately satisfactory” by the latest procurement mission and the 1st restructuring in June 2010, asserted in the 2nd in 2012; however, overall risk was rated “substantial” and other weaknesses in procurement capacity

79

were identified as stated below, accordingly, corrective measures were recommended to include on job and formal abroad training.

Lack of experience in procurement of consultants, services Lack of familiarity with procurement planning and monitoring systems Lack of capacity to meet the Bank procurement reporting requirements

The last ISM in April 2013 rated procurement performance as “satisfactory” and noted that most of the major procurement activities were concluded and that all those under the additional financing already started, however, caution was made about procurement not entirely achieved and delivered before the closing date as to be paid by GoS.

2.4.3. Financial management

The PFM system in north Sudan was considered reasonably well functioning in general (PER 2006) excluding the states, nonetheless, there was need to revamp and modernize the system as risk at country level was rated high and substantial for both entity and project levels (FPP, annex 7). The financial management and disbursement arrangements of the project were described (FPP, annex 7) and risk assessment, mitigation measures and status of application are shown in annex (11). However, the main challenges faced the public financial management (PFM) system were indicated by:

The entire accounting and financial system was manual Budget classification was not in line with international standards Limitations of staff capacity, commitment controls, debt management, cash and revenue

management and reconciliation of accounts Limited experience with WB operations

With respect to OP 8.0, there were no conditions for financial management effectiveness considered for the project and that the first supervision mission was to be dedicated to monitor the application of mitigation measures with respect to appointment of financial officers, establishment of manual accounting system and updating the procedures as part of the operations manual. Moreover, the PCU was required to maintain accounting records and prepare financial statements according to international accounting and auditing standards. Audit and progress reports were to be submitted to IDA within the specified timelines. The financial management and performance were reviewed in the MTR in July 2009 which indicated that a notable advance was made since the previous mission in November 2008 since an experienced FM officer was recruited and in place, GNU released the second tranche and external audit conducted. Coordination with the accountants at the PIUs was in place and periodic reporting and settlement of advances improved. Nevertheless, two overriding issues were still pending respective of procurement of an automated accounting software and compensation of the project coordinator. Until then, the project maintained records on “Excel” along with manual books; however, the project opened an additional bank account in local currency to separate MDTF funds from GNU funds which was advantageous to distinguish between sources of funds and bank balances. Financial management was rated “moderately satisfactory” since latest supervision mission, improved to “satisfactory” in the 1st restructuring in June 2010, furthermore, there were neither anticipated risks nor additional financial management arrangements incurred since the financial management staffing at the PCU and PIUs was complete. As GNU confirmed meeting the expense of taxes and fees in support

80

of rehabilitation of basic infrastructures in the targeted localities, the additional funding was mainly MDTF. Moreover, FM performance has been acceptable to the FM mission in November 2009 when reporting was considered “satisfactory” and coordinator compensation resolved. The project has been consistently able to produce timely and complete financial reports and there were no outstanding audits since last in June 2009 or at the 2nd restructuring in 2012. Moreover, implementation of new accounting software was completed at the PCU to reconcile the previous system and rolled out to both eastern and western sectors. However, the most recent audit was in July 2012 which was said to have expressed an unqualified audit opinion. By the 3rd ISM complete budget and cash forecasts existed, meanwhile, the last ISM in April 2013 rated financial management arrangement as “satisfactory”; however, it indicated that undisbursed balance could pose a challenge given the remaining project duration unless the recommended arrangements agreed upon with the Bank were carried out properly.

2.5.POST COMPLETION OPERATION/NEXT PHASE The project employed the CDD approach which materialized creation of strongly productive beneficiary communities as follows:

Village development committees Private vets and CAHWs networks Non-water/IGA community groups Livestock market management boards Stock routes management GoS institutions and communities

This participatory planning process was positive that beneficiary communities were enabled to use project resources to implement sub-projects of their own choices; as a result, they have acquired varied technical, managerial and financing capacities and huge resources. Furthermore, the project worked out draft legislation and contractual linkages, endorsed later for ensuring the communities, ownership/partnership of their basic infrastructures to sustain availability of the services created during project implementation. On the other hand, the project helped creation of supervisory and monitoring bodies such as the SSCs, LCCs and VPACs/CBO and at the same time reinforced the roles of the pastoralists, farmers and livestock traders unions, SMDFs and the local financial system. Moreover, there is a treasure of gold experience from project implementation and competent staff, an amalgam of MDTF funded projects, IFAD, FAO and CDF projects to learn more from and build on. In the short run and in order to maintain the thrust of implementation and sustain the services and impact; arrangements for transition, in addition to gained reforms and institutional capacities, may include the followings:

SSCs and LCCs continue in place, reinforced with a clear mandate, supported by legal and microfinance advisors and auditors general coupled with MDTF/implementing agent follow up e.g. quarterly ISMs

Project structures, farmers and pastoralists unions, VPACs/CBOs, market boards, livestock traders union and women’s association continue in place

Formalize and authenticate institutional reforms/legal ownership/partnership of community projects and assets upon project closure in order to ensure intact and continued community management of the operations

Coordination and harmonization with other projects (a state consortium could be envisioned)

81

Community financing from own resources or through the financial system e.g. SMDF of the Bank of Sudan, Agricultural bank and other institutions

Close supervision and monitoring of the integrity, transparency, technical and managerial capacities and performance of project components

Provision of continuous capacity building to beneficiary communities/organizations through practical training, study tours, extension and advisory services

However, it is by far and most, imperative to revisit the legal framework and contractual agreements of these sub-projects and be raised to higher levels in the context of MARFR top priorities for sustainable legal and institutional reforms.

3. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES

3.1.ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE (excerpts)

In order to achieve its PDO, ILPM project struggled through its implementation by providing sufficient inputs to assist producing reasonable component outputs that have tangible outcomes, the benefits of which can be translated into improved and sustained livelihoods of beneficiary communities that:

Inputs; including cash, materials, equipment and community mobilization and participation; capacities built, legal frameworks, contractual agreements and technical, extension and advisory assistance were efficiently implemented

The output of each respective component was evidenced by the fact that communities were capacitated to produce subprojects which were “economically, socially, technically and environmentally well performing during project implementation”

The outcomes of the subprojects were evidenced by the fact that communities have “managed, gradually owned/shared/hired and been capacitated to finance and sustain those subprojects and the benefits at project completion”

The impacts were evidenced by the fact that “risks to development outcomes were identified and mitigated so that the benefits were eventually sustained and utilized to improve the livelihoods of beneficiary communities without ILPMP”

Nevertheless, it should be cautioned that true achievement of the PDO is, in fact, a synergy of sectored and interrelated interventions including institutional/legal reforms and conducive marketing policies; range management, improved husbandry practices and health programs; improved nutrition and disease control/management or eradication. On the other hand efficient marketing depends on the presence of a strongly established, firmly mandated and empowered national marketing body e.g. LMMCO and Gum Arabic Company. However, within the context of ILPM as a pilot project (Table 2); achieving the PDO was “satisfactory” based on assessing the complementary result of the PDO level indicators:

Average annual herd size of small ruminants per household was set at 31 sheep and 7 goats in 2009 as a baseline, increased to 35 and 9 in 2011 and progressed to 46 and 10 in 2013 through 2012

The total annual number of animals traded in the rehabilitated livestock markets started at 317,188 for sheep, goats, cattle and camels in 2009 as a baseline, reached 211,477 in 2011 progressed to 664,038 in 2012 and reached 422,175 in 2013

82

However, it could have been more capturing to the average herd size if the baseline value was set at the exact number of sheep and goats granted by ILPMP, followed and bi-annually measured for turn over including those died, sold and slaughtered; gifted and otherwise. Then the final average annual herd size was calculated including all values of fluctuation since that was the natural process under the prevailing rural circumstances of the operations. Also that the total annual number of animals traded in livestock markets might have been greater than recorded as some markets discounted the sale fee by reducing the numbers of animals transacted (30%) as an advantage to attract more market dealers as witnessed at Anuhoud and Elkhawei livestock markets.

1. Livestock development investment fund (US$ 13.1 million; 1st phase: 4.6, 2nd phase 8.5)

The outcome of water points/yards was “satisfactory” based on achievement of the following targets (annex 12 is also referenced) and regarding some shortcomings related to the inconsistency of the percentages among the subprojects and inefficiency of utilization of the VDC share of revenue apart from social services:

Cost of construction ranged between 111,000 – 203,173 (185,173 exceeding SPOM ceiling) in Umarda and Awamra of the sample. However, revenue from water sale indicated that water subprojects were profitable investments (Annexes 13.1-13.7) e.g. 64,903 against 26,599 for operation in Awamra and 75,602 against 12,783 for operation in Umarda and that recovery rate of 100% was virtually achieved in 2011, 2012 and 2013

Beneficiaries participated in the selection, design and management of the subprojects, distance travelled for fetching water from old sources drastically shortened, time saved for other businesses e.g. more time for attending school and conducting homework

Continuous supply of subsidized clean water through a generator to sustain supply, filtration or clean ground water and neighboring pollution sources avoided

The water points/yards were environmentally safeguarded through fencing, plantation to harvest spillage, latrines provided, hygienic design of catchment and humans and animals separated

The water points/yards were performing well without need for costly maintenance currently, generating reasonable revenue and securing recovery for operation and maintenance and VDCs were contributing to social services; however, contractual agreements are prone to alterations and that future financing is unpredictable

The outcome of restocking was “satisfactory”, based on achievement of the following targets (annex 12 is also referenced) and regarding few shortcomings related to efficiency of the operations:

The business proved profitable (Annexes 13.8-13.13) e.g. Wad shaaifoon, Wad alfaki (Sinja) and Umnamil (BNS), about 85% of CGs repaid the grant, acquired herds of varying sizes with best results in Wad shaaifoon in the sample; however, some although managed to repay failed to build up a flock taken as a worst case scenario (Wad alfaki)

Restocking was very hailed by all the beneficiaries because of the sense of ownership, social prestige and direct poverty reduction impact; however, external factors were also favorable (range conditions and absence of major disease epidemics)

Beneficiaries provided labor, grazing and additional feeding requirements, good follow up and improved animal health practices. However; repayment in cash affected the process in the eastern sector

There were no ill effects on the environment resulted from restocking around the beneficiary villages nor pressure on available rangeland nor water resources; conversely grazing is useful for improving soil fertility

Remaining herds were in good health, vaccinated against major diseases, public and private veterinary services were handy and some ewes gave birth and currently were supported by the

83

rainy season. Also that success stories triggered some VDCs to approach microfinance institutions for funding other CGs additionally to ILPM loan

2. Privatization of animal health services and livestock markets (US$ 2.2 million; 1st phase

0.7, 2nd phase 1.5)

2.1.Privatization of animal health services

The outcome of privatization of animal health services was “moderately satisfactory”, based on achievement of the following targets (annex 12 is also referenced) and regarding some shortcomings in the efficiency of operations:

The business was a profitable investment to private vets (Annexes 13.20-13.21) e.g. some generated around SDG 34,792 and is considered an unprecedented success story with respect to vaccination which was one of the main obstacles against privatization; however, private vets were given 41,715.2 and exempted of the 20% contribution which was eventually encouraging

The business was beneficial and handy to pastoral and rural communities; however, some failures to answer client calls were reported

There were no complaints by communities about competence and efficiency of the private vets and CAHWs; however, extension work and lab diagnosis were reported weak although above provided by the public service

There were no environmental hazards reported with respect to VCWMP The business was moving with good progress and more vets applied for contracting to provide

the service; however, 100% recovery was reported by three out of five vets, the other two were overdue for the aforementioned reasons and the sixth was yet due

2.2.Privatization of livestock markets

Considering the huge investment in the livestock markets coupled with the absence of a designated national marketing body following dissolution of LMMCO and notwithstanding completion constraints, the outcome was “highly satisfactory” based on achieving the following targets (annex 12 is also referenced) and regarding some shortcomings:

Increase in transactions and revenue from livestock markets and future returns (Annexes 13.14-

13.19) support the fact that livestock marketing was a profitable investment opportunity The markets provided comforting services to humans and animals, shade, loading and

unloading facilities, trucking, electricity and water supplies, fattening facilities and security compared to other non targeted markets in the implementing states e.g. estimated main beneficiaries around 21,800 and 1,200 additional beneficiaries in NKS at completion

Efficiency of market operations improved through board capacity, MIS and weighing techniques; registered traders, middle men, guarantors and stockbrokers, other dealers; fee discount and banking services were also planned etc

The markets were environmentally safeguarded by providing latrines, plantations, incinerators and plans for utilizing animal manure in the future

They were viable at completion, generating revenue from various sources, securing recovery, providing market information to dealers, completing the remainder of construction/rehabilitation with increasing animal flow and transactions; however, the contractual agreements are prone to unfavorable undercurrents

3. Project implementation and studies (US$ 4.7 million; 1st phase 2.4, 2nd phase 2.3)

84

The outcome of the component was “satisfactory” based on achieving the following targets and regarding some shortcomings in the capacities at the beginning of project implementation which were eventually improved later during implementation:

The project managed to implement its activities and deliver reasonable outputs Financial reports were produced timely and eventually accepted by the Bank and there were

neither outstanding audits nor interim financial reports Fiduciary and procurement processes were conducted as required with some minor

shortcomings in procurement Monitoring and evaluation was performed quarterly as per the result framework and ad hoc

internal assessments conducted The project was able to implement and achieve the grant objective and was compliant with all

covenants specified in the Legal Grant Agreement

4. Rehabilitation of demarcated livestock routes

The outcome of rehabilitation of the demarcated stock routes was “satisfactory”, based on achievement of the following targets (annex 12 is also referenced) and regarding some shortcomings related to lack of functionality of the planned services:

There was little evidence to support the fact that stock routes had direct economic returns as a result of investing money by ILPM; however, stock routes were very vital and decisive for survival of pastoral herds and livelihoods of pastoral communities. Moreover; pastoralists and rural herders play a major role in livestock production and marketing in the country and that conflicts over land threaten productivity of both. Thus it was imperative to rehabilitate the stock routes since they provided the only safer migratory link between summer grazing and the rainy season in absence of a serious settlement i.e. ranching strategy, policy and plan in the country.

Rehabilitation of the routes was very much appreciated by pastoral and rural communities exemplified by their active participation in seed collection and broadcasting, opening fire lines and demarcation of the routes. Certainly, care after the stock routes imbued pastoral communities with a feeling of belonging instead of abandonment and deprivation of rights.

The methods used in demarcation and rehabilitation of the routes were well designed, utilized new techniques, conducted through community mobilization and participation. Building stores for seeds and integrated service centers were highly valued as development assets by pastoral and rural communities regardless of incompleteness and lack of functionality at present. Also that, water points/yards were carefully aligned along the stock routes in the eastern sector

Environmental and social safeguards were planned such as incineration of dead animals, resettlement and compensation of evacuees

The rehabilitated and demarcated routes were utilizable and of a recognized status so far; however, protection by institutional reforms, plans and financing of rehabilitation in the future were unpredictable

3.3. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING

Based on the satisfaction with relevance of the project objective, design and implementation; achievement of the development objective and efficacy of project implementation; project efficiency was “satisfactory” as could be supported by the cost effectiveness of management and most of project operations. 3.4. OVERARCHING THEMES, OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS

85

3.5.1. Poverty impacts, gender aspects and social development

All restocking beneficiaries managed to repay their loans approximately (85-100%), recovered their 5% contribution and acquired herds of varying sizes and some already sold some male lambs to invest in agriculture in the current season; moreover, some VDCs managed to access the Agricultural Bank for funding other CGs apart from ILPM grant. However, approximately 100% of the water point/yard VDCs secured between 20-40% of the net revenue for maintenance and paid 30% to RWCs and accumulated sufficient funds (30%). Wad alfaki, Wad shaaifoon and Awamra were good examples of success, however; there were three trends of investing the revenue at completion by the VDCs: Some restocking VDCs intend to invest in water points/yards as new herds emerged and

demand for water increased with the proviso that eligible CGs were completed Some water subproject VDCs intend to invest the 30% in restocking since reliable water

sources were secured and restocking success stories spread in the neighborhood Some, both VDCs intend to invest in IGA activities such as fattening or trading in cereals e.g.

sesame instead of leaving the fund surplus to corrode in the account by time and inflation Most of the private vets started from scratch with regard to vaccination, field clinical work and equipment; however, all made good profits, three of them repaid their loans at completion, employed retired veterinary assistants and networked some CAHWs and opened branch pharmacies at key village markets. At completion two successful vets even deposited 10,000 at the supervising veterinary service in advance for procurement of vaccines for the second contract. Affiliated CAHWs generated income through negotiating due for treatment and vaccination with animal owners subject to approval by the employing private vet because there were no official employment contracts between the two parties so far. The rehabilitated livestock markets provided business and trade opportunities for sundry traders and service providers by the hundreds e.g. food and beverages sellers, manufacturers of leather work, farming equipment and husbandry devices, animal traders, butchers, laborers and porters, blacksmiths and many haberdashers and vendors, transporters and truckers to name just a few. Also that at each livestock market a cafeteria was built to provide food and refreshments to market goers in addition to public latrines. Moreover, it was voiced by several inhabitants in the neighborhood of the markets that security improved and that home prices soared up because of the police presence, water supplied and that public transport also improved. Gender has been mainstreamed in the strategies and procedures of the project and the operations manual, result framework and that M&E arrangements incorporated gender sensitive formats and indicators integrated in the project implementation and reporting. Moreover, beneficiary women were included in all training and capacity building conducted during implementation and community mobilization. Field findings revealed that women composed about 15-25% of the VDCs membership and were assigned management roles and female headed households utilized the restocking investment portfolio as satisfactorily as male beneficiaries. However; since animal trading is a male business, few females were represented in the livestock market boards e.g. Anuhoud livestock market board; nonetheless, livestock markets provided work opportunities for women as official market employees and female service providers (food, refreshments and hot beverages). The VDCs provided social services to their communities from the accumulated share of revenue by contributing to building of schools, mosques and health centers and supported opening of fire lines. Some women were trained in midwifery, others provided with tents for social gatherings and gas

86

cookers on loan basis to reduce dependence on charcoal and firewood as a means contributing to natural resource conservation.

3.5.2. Institutional changes/strengthening

There, seems to be little risk to sustain privatization of animal health and non-water projects since the elements of personal ownership, management and financing through the community organizations and SMFI were already in place, given that there are no irreversible setbacks to the laid legal framework or recognition of the considered status of the VDCs and producers, groups developed during implementation. On the other hand, risk to sustainability of livestock markets and water projects appears to be considerable and even inevitable because the current contractual linkages can probably not stand the test of revenue needs by the implementing states or localities after project closure. Conversely, risk to sustain the rehabilitated stock routes is mainly due to inability to maintain them at the supposedly right times as there is no cash revenue that can be accrued from rehabilitation to return at least the cost. In the long run after the transition period, the plan of development may include the following:

Presence of strongly mandated oversight state/locality structure assisted by implementation supervisory sub-structure composed of the relevant state authorities

Support to sustain implementation of the components by strengthening the supervising GoS and state departments (SMAARI, primarily, Animal Resources and Range, RWC and ministry of social welfare) and retention of ILPM created implementation structures as a concrete unit with the view to develop into a “pastoral and rural development department” weaned from the ministry of finance by linking to microfinance institutions.

Creation of “end product VDCs” for livestock breeding, fattening, agro-processing and marketing societies in addition to the existing CBOs

Transformation of the livestock markets into a “state public/private partnership companies”

4. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES

Table (3) below identified the key risks associated with development outcomes based on the criteria of risk, assessment of impact and likelihood of occurrence.

Table (3) Risks to development outcomes and overall rating of risk

Development outcome Risk Criteria Impact Likelihood Overall

rating

Continuation and utility of SSCs, LCCs, VPAC, VDCs, Market boards, ILPM assets

Post closure break up of LGA agreement

Government ownership/ Commitment

High High High

Continuation and utility of revenue and social benefits of water points/yards

Post closure break up of contractual agreements


Significant High Significant

Continuation and utility of benefits of granted household herds

Disease outbreaks Technical Low Low Low

Continuation and utility of benefits of privatized animal health services

Post closure break up of legal agreement


Moderate Low Low

Continuation and utility of Post closure break Government High High High

87

Table (3) Risks to development outcomes and overall rating of risk

benefits of privatized livestock markets

up of contractual agreements

ownership/ Commitment

Continuation and utility of benefits of rehabilitated livestock routes

Lack of route protection backed up by institutional reform


High High High

5. ASSESSMENT OF BANK PERFORMANCE

5.3 Rating and justification of rating of overall bank performance

The Bank performance to ensure quality at entry was “satisfactory” based on the following observations:

The Bank examined with positive results the relevance of project context, development objective and design for the assistance in terms of its global, regional, country and sector strategies

It stipulated conduction of risk assessment with the aim of drafting a resettlement policy plan, environmental and social management framework and veterinary chemical waste management plan

It addressed positively, in line with JAM, the financial, fiduciary, procurement and monitoring and evaluation capacities and improved the staff capacities prior to project implementation

Funding, inputs and supplies; midterm review, implementation processes and performance supervision missions were proactively arranged

It assured that poverty, gender and social development aspects were well included in the objectives of the various components of the project

The quality of the Bank supervision was “satisfactory” based on the following observations:

There was a plan in place for supervising the project implementation, monitoring and assessment of the performance including an MTR, four ISMs and other ad hoc missions.

Supervision was timely and included management, financial, fiduciary and procurement performance; implementation of the components at the field level, M&E and meetings with high level officials, stakeholders and the beneficiaries

The various missions followed achieving the project objective by monitoring and improving the result framework, outcomes and impact assessment and made recommendations and called for actions to address the challenges as aforementioned for each mission and the Bank was quite attentive to see those actions applied.

Restructuring for additional financing from MDTF and GoS disbursements were successful so that implementation was expedited in most aspects

Closing arrangements were described clearly and in ample time including recommendations to fill the gap following project closure

Based on the foregoing rating of the Bank in ensuring quality at entry and quality of supervision, the rating of overall bank performance was “satisfactory”. 5. LESSONS LEARNED

1. The project could have been designed by focusing implementation in one or two states with a control state to assess more approximately the partial contribution of the project in achieving the development objective

2. Institutional reforms and legal frameworks were of paramount importance to sustainability of most ILPMP implemented components, particularly, livestock markets, stock routes and water

88

projects. Jeopardy to gained outcomes and expected impacts was high unless reforms had been enacted and enforced at the federal and state levels as a prerequisite to piloting in the implementing states.

3. Avoidance of delays in financial disbursements and early capacity building of the implementing staff were expedient factors in implementation

4. LMMCO experience indicated that an efficient approach to privatize livestock markets was through transforming them into a public company or corporation, however; as the process might take a long time and need for legal reform, the exit strategy could have been aimed at transforming each rehabilitated market into “a nucleus of a state livestock marketing

company” based on public/private partnership. Such a state company can grow rapidly by affiliating other branch markets in the state and by its mandate can overcome many of the constraints ILPMP experienced

5. Consistency in implementation was important to focus the impact of the interventions e.g. repayment of restocking loans and division of the shares of water projects and livestock markets

6. As there were no imminent needs for maintenance presently, the market maintenance share could have been directed to complete the unfinished works in addition to available ILPMP funds

7. Expanding investment to include agro-processing and fattening could have added more impact to LDIF component.

8. Marketing VDCs could have been initiated to help, from within, the producing communities to market their animals and byproducts to remove the intervention of middle men

9. Linking IGA VDCs with microfinance institutions provided a great chance to expand investment by beneficiaries and must be sustained and propagated

10. Selection of CAHWs by the private vets was a suitable approach to networking based on a formal contract or salary as compared to those not

89

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders

Not applicable.

90

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

Gross, D.R. and A. Kardash (2012) Environmental and Social Safeguards Performance Review

- Sudan National Multi Donor Trust Fund Portfolio, final report, August.

ICF GHK (2013), Independent Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund in Sudan, Final Evaluation Report, February 19.

ILPM-PCU (2012), Internal Impact Assessment Report March-April 2012. The Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries – The Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project – Project Coordination Unit (ILPM-PCU)

ILPM-PCU (2013), ILPM Quarterly Progress Report October-December 2012. The Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries – The Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project – Project Coordination Unit (ILPM-PCU)

MDTF (2007), Proposed MDTF Grant to the Government of National Unity for a Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project – A Pilot, Final Project Proposal, July 2. Multi-Donor Trust Fund-National (MDTF).

MDTF (2011), MDTF-N: Assessment of Program Sustainability, final report, October 23. Multi-Donor Trust Fund-National (MDTF).

OPCS (2011), Implementation Completion and Results Report – Guidelines, Update 10/05/2011. Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) – World Bank. Washington.

PWC (2012), Functionality Assessment Report - World Bank, National Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF-N) Administrator, Khartoum. Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) – Kenya.

VPAC (2011), Veterinary Privatization Assessment Report. December 2011. Veterinary Privatization Assessment Committee (VPAC).

World Bank (2010), Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project Restructuring of Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project – A Pilot Project and an MDTF-NS – Additional Financing of USD 2.51 Million Grant (TF090693). June 2010.

World Bank (2013), Gender Performance Review of the National Multi-Donor Trust Fund – Republic of Sudan.

World Bank (2013), Interim Strategy Note (F2014-2015) for the Republic of the Sudan. November 2013.

World Bank (several years), Implementation Status and Results Report (ISR).

92

Change ID Date of Request

Type of Change (from dropdown or manual entry)

Change description (include expected behavior, rationale, where the request originated from, etc)

JIRA Number

Date Completed

Comments (Optional

Sudan - Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project - A Pilot - Implementation Completion...

Documents

Transcript of Sudan - Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project - A Pilot - Implementation Completion...