Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003067 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-97185-NG) ON A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 6.8 MILLION EQUIVALENT TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA FOR A SCALING UP SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, KNOWLEDGE, AND COORDINATION June 28, 2014 Agriculture, Irrigation and Rural Development (AFTA1) Sustainable Development Department Country Department AFCW2 Africa Region i CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective February 28, 2014) Currency Unit = Nigerian Naira (NGN) 1.00 Naira = US$ 0.0061 US$ 1.00 = 163.95 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADPs Agricultural Development Programs BCA Benefit-Cost Analysis CDD Community Driven Development CEMP Critical Ecosystem Management Project CPS Country Partnership Strategy EIGs Economic Interest Groups ERR Economic Rate of Returns ESMP Environment and Social Management Plan FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCAs Fadama Community Associations FCT Federal Capital Territory FGN Federal Government of Nigeria FM Financial Management FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FUEF Fadama User Equity Fund GEF Global Environmental Facility GEO Global Environmental Objective ICR Implementation Completion Report IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction ISR Implementation Status Report LDP Local Development Plan LFDO Local Fadama Desk Office LG Local Government LGAs Local Government Areas M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MTR Medium Term Review NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy NFCO National Fadama Coordination Office ii NG Nigeria NGN Nigerian Naira NPC National Project Coordinator NPP Net Primary Productivity NPV Net Present Value OP/BP Operational Policy/Bank Procedure PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PMP Pest Management Plan RMF Results Monitoring Framework RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SFCOs State Fadama Coordination Offices SIL Specific Investment Loan SLM Sustainable Land Management TA Technical Assistance UN United Nations USD United States Dollar Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Marie Francoise Marie-Nelly Sector Manager: Martien Van Nieuwkoop Project Team Leader: Abimbola Adubi ICR Team Leader: Sheu Salau iii NIGERIA SCALING UP SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, KNOWLEDGE, AND COORDINATION CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information………………………………………………………………………….v B. Key Dates………………………………………………………………………………….v C. Ratings Summary………………………………………………………………………….v D. Sector and Theme Codes………………………………………………………………….vi E. Bank Staff…………………………………………………………………………………vi F. Results Framework Analysis……………………………………………………………...vii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs…………………………………………………..ix H. Restructuring ……………………………………………………………………………..ix I. Disbursement Graph……………………………………………………………………….x 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design................................. 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ........................................... 5 3. Assessment of Outcomes ....................................................................................... 11 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...................................................... 18 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance .................................................. 19 6. Lessons Learned..................................................................................................... 21 Annex 1: Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 22 Annex 2: Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 23 Annex 3: Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 30 Annex 4: Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes............. 35 Annex 5: Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 37 Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 39 Annex 7: Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 40 Annex 8: Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ...................... 42 Annex 9: List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 43 MAP……………………………………………………………………………….......45 iv A. Basic Information Nigeria Scaling Up Sustainable Land Country: Nigeria Project Name: Management Practice, Knowledge, and Coordination Project ID: P109737 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-97185 ICR Date: 06/28/2014 ICR Type: Core ICR FEDERAL REPUBLIC Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: OF NIGERIA Original Total USD 6.80M Disbursed Amount: USD 6.80M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 6.80M Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: L Implementing Agencies: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 01/22/2008 Effectiveness: 12/16/2010 11/25/2010 Appraisal: 03/29/2010 Restructuring(s): Approval: 07/08/2010 Mid-term Review: 07/16/2012 01/26/2012 Closing: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Moderate Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: v Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of No None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): GEO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Agricultural extension and research 34 34 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 14 14 Public administration- Agriculture, fishing and forestry 52 52 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Climate change 12 12 Land administration and management 83 83 Water resource management 5 5 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Marie Francoise Marie-Nelly Onno Ruhl Sector Manager: Martien Van Nieuwkoop Karen Mcconnell Brooks Project Team Leader: Abimbola Adubi Abimbola Adubi ICR Team Leader: Sheu Salau ICR Primary Author: Sheu Salau vi F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved) The project development and global environment objective is to improve the enabling environment for scaling up sustainable land management in participating communities. Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications The objective was not revised. (a) GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Stakeholder perception of the enabling environment for sustainable land Indicator 1 : management Value (quantitative or 3.23 6.00 5.66 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments This is a composite index tracking the change in SLM enabling conditions. It was (incl. % monitored through independent surveys of a random sample of stakeholders (see achievement) Annex 2 for details of methodology). The target was largely achieved (94%). Indicator 2 : Direct project beneficiaries (% female) (cumulative) Value 259,000 288,600 (quantitative or 0 (40% female) (42% female) Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments (incl. % The target was achieved and surpassed (111% achievement). achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Participating communities that have selected SLM sub-projects for inclusion in Indicator 1 : their Local Development Plans (LDPs) (cumulative %) Value 26% (= 1,924 (quantitative or 0 10% (= 740 FCAs) FCAs) Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was achieved and surpassed (260% achievement). (incl. % vii achievement) Community Associations reached through training and/or communications on Indicator 2 : SLM practices/planning (cumulative #) Value (quantitative or 0 7400 5185 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was 70% achieved because the IDA-funded parent project (Fadama (incl. % III) was not able to reach its targeted number of FCAs (i.e. 7400) during the achievement) implementation period of the incremental GEF project. People reached through training and/or communications on SLM practice / Indicator 3 : planning (cumulative #) Value (quantitative or 0 4714 3672 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was 78% achieved overall. Details for specific target groups (i.e. (incl. % community facilitators; extension & advisory staff; local, state & federal achievement) government staff) are provided in Annex 2. Indicator 4 : Local Government Areas trained in rural land use planning (cumulative #) Value (quantitative or 0 62 62 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments (incl. % The target was fully achieved (100%). achievement) State Governments participating in development of Nigeria's multi-sector SLM Indicator 5 : Investment Framework (cumulative #) Value (quantitative or 0 20 30 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments (incl. % The target was achieved and exceeded (150% achievement). achievement) Improved monitoring tools developed to track adoption of SLM practices and Indicator 6 : changes in land productivity (cumulative #) Value (quantitative or 0 2 2 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was fully achieved (100%). Tools to track adoption of SLM practices (incl. % and changes in land productivity were developed. In addition, a tool for achievement) estimating local and global benefits of SLM practices was developed. Indicator 7 : Key stakeholders trained in applying the monitoring tools (cumulative #) Value 0 75 90 (quantitative or viii Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was fully achieved and exceeded (120%). Training in applying the (incl. % tools was carried out for a wide range of key stakeholders (see Annex 2 for achievement) details) Indicator 8 : SLM Information System developed (Yes/No) Value (quantitative or 0 No Yes Qualitative) Date achieved 05/14/2010 12/31/2013 05/07/2014 Comments The target was fully achieved (100%). An SLM website was developed and the (incl. % IDA-financed parent project (Fadama III) project has an SLM information achievement) system in place for continued monitoring. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. GEO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 05/11/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/30/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.89 3 05/28/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.76 4 09/27/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.51 5 05/16/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.86 6 11/19/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.31 H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable ix I. Disbursement Profile x 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. Poverty, agriculture and the environment. At appraisal it was estimated that about seventy-six million rural Nigerians, mostly poor, derived their livelihoods from fragile and degraded lands. Natural capital which includes forests, protected areas, and agricultural lands were, and continue to be, a major source of income for the rural poor. However, unsustainable land-use practices especially in Nigeria’s floodplains and other areas prone to land degradation, over-exploitation of natural resources, and on-going climate variability all posed threats to maintaining the productivity of this natural capital. While there was an awareness of the detrimental impact of land degradation on agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods, there was very little knowledge, and consequently low adoption, of appropriate Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices to address the issue. 2. Although Nigeria was making progress on macroeconomic and sector reforms 1, poverty remained a major development challenge that would require strong growth in non-oil sectors to overcome. Recognizing the negative impact of land degradation on growth in non-oil sectors, the Government prioritized the fight against land degradation in its strategic documents. These documents (for example the 7 point agenda and the Vision 2020) make explicit reference to the importance of sustainable agricultural practices for increased food security, reduced poverty, and better livelihoods opportunities in rural areas. The Government’s decision to prioritize investments for sustainable agricultural productivity growth stemmed from the knowledge that land degradation slows down agricultural growth, increases poverty and vulnerability, and contributes to social tensions as well as threatens biodiversity. 3. SLM enabling environment. Diagnostic studies conducted during project preparation 2 , identified unpredictable policy and ineffective regulatory environment, limited institutional and technical capacities, insufficient budgetary allocation, and isolated knowledge environments as enabling environment constraints to the adoption of SLM practices. Limited institutional and systemic capacities frequently undermined 1 Nigeria was among the first countries to adopt and implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to improve governance of the oil and gas sector. In the financial sector, banking supervision was strengthened and the banking system was consolidated. The telecommunications sector was deregulated and the power sector was unbundled into companies for generation, transmission, and distribution. Privatization and concessioning were initiated in the ports, steel, mining, and petrochemicals sectors. The pension system was replaced with a fully-funded contribution system. 2 Some of the background studies used were conducted by IFPRI and ICRISAT and include a (i) Cost- Benefit Analysis and Public Expenditure Review in Cross River, Sokoto and Niger States of SLM, with a sister study in Mali, and (ii) a regional study on climate/land dynamics with Nigeria’s north as a case study. A preparation study on community climate risk perceptions in Nigeria and other studies, including Global Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD), were conducted by ISRIC for UNEP. 1 government’s commitment to instituting sustainable land management. Often time, government institutions and ministries lacked personnel with technical or policy skills. At the same time, inter-institutional and intersectoral coordination and cooperation was lacking as was local-level empowerment. Further, extension services—the conduit through which farmers source advisory services at local levels—often suffered from budgetary cuts and low capacities for disseminating SLM technologies. At the local level, the stakeholders’ knowledge of sustainable land management practices relied on time- tested traditional techniques and knowledge that had been transferred through generations and which was not necessarily viable anymore. 4. National Fadama Development Project. At the time of appraisal, the Fadama project, which was hosting the project, had evolved into a large scale national community-driven rural development program and provided an important opportunity for mainstreaming SLM to secure long-term sector goals. Fadama II had a standalone GEF project, the Critical Ecosystem Management Project (CEMP), in the form of grant financing, using a demand-driven approach for two types of alternative land use practices, including: (i) land use changes in critical areas, such as riverbanks, flood-prone areas, groundwater recharge areas, and forest or natural habitats of significant biodiversity value and (ii) sustainable agricultural practices in Fadama areas added to IDA-supported Local Development Plans (LDPs). Under Fadama III, a GEF financing was mobilized in an amount of US$ 6.8 million to follow up on successful experiences and lessons from the CEMP. 5. Alignment with strategies of Nigeria and the World Bank. The Nigeria Country Partnership Strategy3 (CPS) was designed to support government priorities as outlined in Nigeria’s Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) and Vision 2020. The CPS which covered FY10-13 focuses on three main strategic areas of support to transform and diversify Nigeria’s economy, including: (i) improving governance; (ii) maintaining non-oil growth; and (iii) promoting human development, identified by the Government and reaffirmed in the stakeholder consultations. The CPS pillar on improving non-oil growth aimed to contribute to the expansion of productive land area under more sustainable management and integration of climate smart activities that improve the efficiency of land and water resources in rural communities. The Third National Fadama Development Project (Fadama III) which sought to increase the income of land and water resource users in a sustainable manner and this Global Environment Fund (GEF) project implemented under the Fadama III, which focused on improving the enabling environment for up scaling up sustainable land management practices, directly contributed to the second pillar of the CPS. 3 Report No. 32412-NG 2 1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators 6. The development objective of the project was to improve the enabling environment for scaling up sustainable land management in participating communities. 7. The key performance indicators were: i. Stakeholder perception of the enabling environment for sustainable land management 4 . ii. Number of direct project beneficiaries. 1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 8. The GEO was not formally revised. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 9. The primary beneficiaries included rural community groups exposed to the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of land degradation in 30 states plus FCT (estimated at about 259,000 individuals total). The secondary beneficiaries included public and private organizations at Federal, State and Local Government levels with responsibilities critical to the up scaling of climate-smart land management practices. 1.5 Original Components (as approved) 10. The GEF project comprised two components, including: (A) Capacity building, communications and information support; and (B) Monitoring, evaluation and knowledge. Each component of the GEF grant was incremental to the respective ‘baseline’ Fadama III project’s components. 4 This indicator was measured by a composite index using data collected from a simple, low-cost, perception-based survey. The survey covered the following areas: (i) political support, (ii) policy formulation such as land tenure, decentralization, and multi-sectoral planning, (iii) organizational structure, (iv) financial resources such as public expenditure trends, (v) knowledge, monitoring and evaluation, and (vi) legal and regulatory environment. The survey was administered independently three times during the life of the project to a sample size of 600 individuals from institutions at state, local government and communities. The institutions from where sample were drawn for endline tracking survey include: ADPs, Fadama offices, FCAs, FUGs, National Conservation Agency, Watershed management committees, SLM committees, River Basin Authorities, FEPA, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry for Local Government, Ministry of Land and Physical Planning, Forestry Division/Wild life, Universities/Tertiary, CBOs, NGOs, religious/community leaders, CGIARs, NARS, International Organizations. 3 Component A: Capacity Building, Communications and Information Support (US$6.0m, integrated with component 1 of the Fadama III Project) 11. This component had five sub-components, including: (a) Capacity building support for community organizations for local development planning (US$1.29 million): This component aimed at strengthening local development processes by raising capacity of stakeholders to include land degradation and climate risks in rural development planning, particularly as affecting smallholder agricultural production. The target audience included policy makers at national level, technical staff at State level (including SFCO Environmental Officers and Local Government Desk officers for Fadama III), development planners and project facilitators at local government level, extension services in ADPs and land users in Economic Interest Group (EIG) and FCAs. This sub-component funded SLM training program and production of training materials, customized for awareness and capacity building needs of the different stakeholders. (b) Capacity building of local governments for rural land use planning (US$1.51 million): This sub-component sought to build capacity of Local Governments (LGs) to carry out rural land use planning that guarantees improved productivity and long term sustainability of natural capital such as land, water and forest resources. Key interventions include support for participatory spatial planning (and natural asset mapping) and provision of GIS equipment to 62 LGs (2 per State and FCT). (c) Communications and advocacy (US$0.81million): This sub component was intended to raise level of awareness of stakeholders at all level about SLM and mobilize land users to invest in SLM practices. The sub component employed sensitization and advocacy campaign to complement the capacity building programs. The sensitization and advocacy campaign financed by the GEF incremental support to Fadama III was carried out through the use of media channels such as radio and TV, newspapers and other print media. (d) National and State coordination on land and water management (US$0.48million ): This sub-component sought to improve the effectiveness, capability, transparency, accountability and responsiveness of governments and other stakeholder to convene evidence and knowledge with a view to improving investment programming on climate-smart land and water management practices. In addition, the sub component was to help mainstream SLM practice and policy into States and national development planning. This sub component financed activities that strengthened the National SLM community to build a nationwide coalition on climate smart land and water management including: (i) preparation of SLM Investment Framework; (ii) workshops at policy and technical levels; (establishment of secretariat functions; (iii) communications; (iv) establishment of State SLM Committees, and (v) training on diagnostics and monitoring. (e) Community SLM Award (US$1.91million): This sub-component sought to incentivize participating FCAs that successfully implemented SLM sub-projects that have been financed under component 2 of Fadama III operation and that delivered public good. 4 Component B: Monitoring, Evaluation and Knowledge (US$0.80million financed by GEF, integrated with component 6 of the Fadama III project) 12. This component was intended to enhance the SLM dimensions of the M&E activities and MIS financed under the baseline project. This incremental funding covered development and application of: (a) monitoring tools to (i) track (through perception-based surveys) progress towards the project’s global environment objective of whether the enabling conditions for SLM (institutions, financing, and knowledge) were improving or deteriorating; (ii) track (by project officers and governments) adoption rates and spatial coverage of specific SLM practices; (iii) estimating the global and local environmental benefits from SLM practices tracked above; and (iv) lastly, tracking of changes in land productivity, land degradation, and overall ecosystem function. (b) an SLM information system and knowledge base that financed the development of a comprehensive knowledge base and dynamic information system on climate-smart soil and water conservation, and capacity support to ensure that the knowledge base was integrated into government decision making and extension services across sectors. 1.6 Revised Components 13. There were no revisions to the Project components during project life. 1.7 Other significant changes 14. There were no significant changes. The grant agreement was signed in November 2010 and the project became effective in May 2011 after a slight delay due to political situation in late 2010 and early 2011. In addition, towards the end of project preparation an indicator was introduced that measured “additional land areas under SLM”. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 15. The analysis of the country situation and strategic sector issues (i.e. negative impact of land degradation on the economy and livelihood of the poor including barriers to its adoption), as conducted as part of project preparation, was rigorous. This background analysis was sound because it reflects country conditions and was evidence based benefiting from a number of empirical analytics 5. 16. Project preparation also took into account priorities of all relevant national strategies of the government notably: (i) the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper called 5 Ibid3 5 National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS); (ii) 7 point agenda; (iii) Vision 2020; (iv) Nigeria’s UN National Action Programme to Combat Desertification, Climate Change and Biodiversity; and (v) CAADP and NEPAD Action Plan on the Environment in SSA. Overall, the preparation of the project was inclusive and broadly participatory 6 because of the extensive consultations with relevant stakeholders to ensure buy-in that were necessary for overall project success. 17. The project design reflected lessons learnt from the predecessor projects (Fadama II, its associated GEF and other SLM projects) and complemented the achievement of CEMP on SLM practices. For instance, it was noted that GEF stand-alone investments had limited success. This finding necessitated the integration of the GEF incremental grant into the mainstream of Fadama III implementation structures. Leveraging on already existing implementation arrangement and capacity in the preparation and implementation of the project helped save cost instead of maintaining two PIUs and narrowed initial project learning curves. In addition, it was noted that supply driven SLM interventions in the past have had limited participation and relevance, hence, the need to leverage of demand-driven, participatory approaches as adopted under the FADAMA parent project that provided opportunities for communities to take charge of their local development planning on the most pressing and relevant needs. Equally, the introduction of SLM awards, aimed at rewarding concrete results achieved, was another good element of project design that altered the incentive structures for the communities to adopt SLM practices and as well engendered behavioral change manifested in the number of communities that included SLM in their LDP 7. 18. The GEO was clear and its design was simple with only two components and a limited number of measurable indicators that adequately captured the objectives. However, project scope and a number of the targets were somewhat ambitious, thereby raising some questions about the realism of project design 8. The use of the Composite Index developed under the SIP was cost effective and provided opportunities to discern contribution of the different elements of the enabling environment for the scale of SLM 6 The project preparation team included staff from the then Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources ( with the following departments; Federal department of Agriculture, land Management Division, department of policy Analysis, Monitoring ad Inspectorate , conservation agriculture, rural development), Federal Ministry of Environment, The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency(NESREA), Nigeria Meterological Agency(NIMET), Faculties from universities( University of Ife, Ibadan, Ilorin, Bayero University, Ebonyi state university), Fadama III National, state and zonal coordination offices, State ministries of agriculture, environment and natural resources, National Food Reserve Agency(now defunt), CSOs, and Federal Ministry of Finance. 7 About 1,924 FCAs from among the 5185 FCAs sensitized and trained selected SLM sub-projects for inclusion in their Local Development Plans with the support and intervention of the project. Without the project, these groups would have continued their traditional practices and would have further degraded the land. 8 The coverage of the project was rather ambitious even though the intention was to maximize advantage of using implementation structures of a large scale national project to develop resilient production system. 6 practices. In addition, the preparation of the Cross River State model SLM Investment Framework during preparation and financed from Fadama and TerrAfrica resources provided another advantage in that it improved project readiness for implementation. This was the model used by the National SLM committee and the project to coordinate and help articulate investment priorities for climate smart activities in the national and state agriculture investment plans. 19. Risks were appropriately identified and adequate mitigation measures put in place. Some of the risks identified included financial sustainability, and community demand for SLM. The financial sustainability was of concern at preparation because the SLM subprojects were derived from the LDPs of the parent project which were demand-driven. However, the identification of SLM practices with positive net returns and inclusion of the Fadama User Equity Fund (FUEF) as a sustainability measure mitigated this risk as at least 10 percent of the replacement value of the common assets of an EIG was saved annually. In addition, there were plans for marketing and assessment of profitability for income generating sub-projects while sub-projects for community-owned, small-scale infrastructure, and EIG owned assets included an Operations and Maintenance plan. During preparation, the awareness of suitable SLM practices for the various agro- ecological zones in the country was low. And because the parent project, FADAMA-III, was a CDD operation, it was envisaged that communities might demand SLM sub- projects that might not be suited to their specific agro-ecology situation. To guard against choosing wrong SLM practices, the task team prepared a list of SLM practices suitable to the agro ecology zones that was used in the sensitization and awareness campaign with the aim to inform and guide demands. 20. The Quality Assurance Group did not assess Quality at Entry. 2.2 Implementation 21. The GEF project started in May 2011 and was implemented as planned by the same set of staff implementing the Fadama III project at all levels. 22. Following project launch, progress made towards the achievement of the GEO was related to the following mutually reinforcing factors: (i) involvement of Fadama III staff in the preparation of the project, which made them familiar with the project even before implementation; (ii) the use of PIUs with hands on experience in CDD operations, community mobilization, familiarity with World Bank operational procedures and the use of dedicated CEMP M&E and FM staff for the GEF incremental grant; (iii) massive sensitization campaign and advocacy carried out by the project including the customized capacity building program for 5,185 FCAs and 3672 other stakeholders raised the level of awareness about SLM practices and caused behavior change among communities with 1924 FCAs 7 elaborating SLM subprojects in their LDPs compared a baseline of zero SLM subprojects; (iv) direct disbursement to communities conferred financial autonomy to beneficiaries, engendered ownership of the project and helped fast track project implementation.; (v) Likewise the establishment of multi-sector platform i.e. National SLM committee showed government commitment to take a coordinated multi sector approach to up scaling SLM practices and was instrumental to engaging with the states, other non-state actors and development partners on investment programming; and lastly (vi) adequate background analysis provided good entry points to nudge communities to adopt SLM practices. 23. Overall, implementation efficiency was high since the project cost and implementation period were as planned without any cost and time overrun. 24. A midterm review of the project, carried out in January and February 2012, revealed that there had been significant strides at achieving the PDO 9 . But more importantly, the following pending actions that would have increased the achievement rate of the project before the MTR were highlighted as follows, and which were addressed in the second leg of the project execution: (i) conclusion of training on land use plan mapping software for the selected LGAs; (ii) disbursement of awards to deserving FCAs/FUGs to scaling up of SLM sub-projects; (iii) developing tools for tracking vegetation cover and land degradation (NDVI or NPP); (iv) developing indicator tools for local and global environmental benefits; (v) integration of geospatial tools in knowledge base; and (vi) conclusion of SLM website, monitoring of SLM activities, tracking of NDVI or NPP and environmental benefits, and TA training and diagnostics. 25. After the midterm review, project disbursement accelerated with completion of outstanding tasks and studies 10 noted at MTR. By project closing the project was fully disbursed. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 26. The project designed and implemented an M&E system that focused appropriately on the key elements of project objectives as reflected in the result framework and result monitoring arrangements. Also, the M&E design included a quarterly reporting format 9 The enabling environment for scale up of SLM practices improved from a baseline value of 3.23 to 5.63 on a scale of 10 at midline. Also, a total of 1,230 LDPs out of a total of 3,931 LDPs contained 2,592 SLM sub-projects. Out of this, 1,650 (63.67 percent) SLM sub-projects were fully implemented. Grants disbursement status was 33.19 percent. 10 The studies conducted include studies to track enabling environment for SLM scale up, studies to track vegetation cover and land degradation, studies to track adoption of SLM practices including local and global benefits of the project. 8 and mission data collection template developed for both Fadama III and the GEF. Project M&E officers and facilitators were adequately trained at national and subnational levels. As a result, all the SFCOs were able to track and report regularly the evolution of output and outcome indicators. Further, the PIU also use the mission data collection template to collect project level data that feeds directly into the ISR. The template was used to collect information on project input (e.g. number training for different categories of stakeholders), output (No of LDPs with SLM and No of FCAs /FUG with SLM subproject, No of Investment Framework produced etc.) and outcome (perception of stakeholders) of the project where feasible. The M&E data sources included independent surveys and analysis carried out to track PDO (composite index) including a baseline done for Fadama III which covered GEF activities. 27. Data were also collected through Rapid Assessment and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) by the project. The M&E information formed the basis for the technical assistance carried out regularly by NFCO to states, engagement with policy makers at all levels and provided input into the focus of supervision missions. Both GEF and Fadama III data are being migrated into an SQL server –based project Management Information System (MIS) database called PANEX MIS and nearing completion. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 28. Safeguards. The project was classified as Category “B” and complied with the requirements of all safeguard policies triggered. The GEF grant triggered six safeguards policies, including: (i). Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), (ii) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), (iii) Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09), (iv) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), (v) Forests (OP/BP 4.36), and (vi) Project on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50). The instruments prepared under the parent project (ESMF, PMP and RPF) to address any negative environmental and social impacts of the project were adopted for the GEF. These instruments were disclosed in Nigeria and at the InfoShop. In addition, site specific ESMPs were prepared as project level mitigation measures and were implemented, and supervised by trained Environmental officers (EOs) across participating states during subproject cycle using screening forms and checklist to screen all eligible subprojects and the Environmental officer at the National level provided adequate oversight. No negative environmental impacts were reported during the project life. 29. Financial Management. The project submitted its Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) on a timely basis with one minor exception. In addition, the timeliness of the replenishment of applications helped the project to achieve a remarkable disbursement rate of 100 percent by closing. The project complied with all fiduciary covenants and all audits were carried out as at when due and were not qualified. The project was granted an audit waiver for the period ended 31 December 2011 because it was not cost effective to carry out an audit of few project activities. Internal audit review was consistently and regularly throughout project life. 9 30. Procurement. The supervision of the procurement activities of Fadama III and GEF was done regularly. During the regular review of NFCO procurement activities by the Bank, a weak capacity was found at the inception of the project but this was addressed through the restructuring of the unit with the recruitment of a seasoned procurement officer. Other measures taken were the implementation of procurement filing and tracking system in one location. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 31. The Bank Agricultural development Policy Operation-(AgDPO) in support of the ATA has succeeded in mainstreaming some concrete transition arrangement for broader Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) and SLM. The AgDPO whose program development objective is to strengthen the policy environment and institutional capacity to enhance agricultural productivity and market access among farmers, and to improve agriculture sector management has resulted in some catalytic activities. As a result of policy dialogue and engagement under the AgDPO series, a dedicated unit under the department of Land resources called Environment and Climate Change Unit (ECCU) has been established in FMARD to champion ATA climate smart agriculture agenda. This unit has a budget line to fund its action plan that is being developed. 32. In addition, the Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management (NEWMAP) project in the amount of US$ 500 million which was developed by the government with the Bank’s support has taken on some of the good practices from the Fadama III GEF SLM on building effective coordination and an enabling environment for SLM. NEWMAP, with a fully blended GEF financing in an amount of US$ 3.96 million and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) funds in an amount of US$ 4.63 million, would complement achievements under Fadama III GEF SLM to develop sustainable land management and resilient production system. The objective of the Erosion and Watershed Management Project for Nigeria is to reduce vulnerability to soil erosion in targeted sub- watersheds. The project has four components, three of which addresses similar areas as Fadama III GEF including:(1) support for on-the-ground interventions to help reduce vulnerability to land degradation; (2) support to institutions and information services which will strengthen the enabling environment for effective implementation of erosion and watershed management; and (3) support to enhance Nigeria’s capacity to promote low carbon, climate resilient development. 33. Under Fadama III Additional Financing (AF), the Bank and the counterpart remained committed to promoting SLM practices starting in Kogi state where the AF is supporting the production of cassava by young farmers. SLM practices, that provide improved microclimate such as shelter belts are being promoted among others. 10 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 34. The project’s objectives, design and implementation remain relevant as they were at project inception. The project objectives were and continue to be consistent with the Government current development priorities of reducing vulnerability of the agriculture production system to climate variability as articulated in the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan for Climate Change in Nigeria – NASPA-CCN, National Policy on Climate Change 2012, and the National Agriculture Resilience Framework (NARF) 2014. These government policy and strategies recognize that SLM practices could deliver triple win goals of building adaption to climate change, stability in yields and removing the barriers to low--‐carbon development in the sector. 35. The project objectives are also consistent with the GEF-4 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy’s Objectives 1 (enabling environment for SLM) and 2 (up scaling SLM among communities), as well as Strategic Program 1 (support to sustainable agriculture and rangeland management). 36. Similarly, the project's development objective contributes to the achievement of some of the outcomes envisioned for the strategic cluster one of the FY14-2017 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for Nigeria (Report No 82501). The CPS clearly recognizes that agriculture productivity is sensitive to climate change and land degradation, and therefore promotes investment to build adaptation and reverse land degradation. The project objectives are therefore highly relevant. 37. The project design was also highly relevant to its objectives. Leveraging on an existing and well-functioning national CDD program under FADAMA-III provided the means of reaching target beneficiaries with capacity building to increase knowledge and competence in sustainable land management and its relatively quick scaling- up among participating communities. Furthermore, top-down SLM interventions and advisory services of the past had generally been ineffective in stimulating adoption and reaching the poor. The project design therefore contributed to providing communities the opportunity to elaborate SLM subprojects following a participatory process. Providing local communities a chance to take responsibility for choosing the type of investment they wanted, and for implementing and subsequently operating and maintaining it, was a proven development approach. In addition, the choice for the project of a large capacity- building program at all levels of government, beneficiaries and facilitators, was particularly important and relevant for Nigeria where the capacity to develop and disseminate SLM practices was weak. Therefore, the project design was practical and highly relevant to reach stated objectives. 38. The project was implemented within the planned period without extension and was fully disbursed. In addition, project activities were carried out without any cost overrun (stayed within 7 percent operating cost) which implies high level of operational 11 efficiency. Overall, drawing from the high relevance of objectives, design and implementation, the relevance of the project is rated as high. 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives Rating: Substantial 39. Physical achievement: The discussion on the project physical achievement is organized broadly around two pillars namely (i) institutional development and capacity building and (ii) knowledge management and provision of SLM Awards. 40. Institutional development and capacity building: The project objectives were largely achieved. Drawing from the findings of the diagnostic studies conducted during preparation, the project sensitized key stakeholders on the benefit of SLM. The capacity building program conducted, communication channels ( print and mass media) employed and the use of information education materials (35, 000 copies each of flyers and posters in English, Yoruba, Hausa, and Igbo) offered a spectrum of learning environments and provided learning opportunities that had not previously been available to these communities. For example, the weak capacity for SLM focused extension and advisory services were addressed by the project through capacity building to ADPs. As a result, the communities and institutions were considerably strengthened in their knowledge relating to improved awareness of the consequences of unsustainable use of land and the preparation of productive SLM subprojects including land use planning. Another important contribution of the project is the sensitization of the rural population regarding the important roles of both men and women in promoting sustainable land management 41. Capacity building for Local Development Planning: The sensitization and capacity building 11 carried out by the project resulted in attitude change among participating communities, and helped the communities to prepare 4,724 LDPs with 3,508 proposals for SLM sub-projects of which 93 percent (3,254) were fully implemented.. In terms of training and capacity building, the project reached 5,185 FCAs (75 percent level of achievement) and 3,672 individuals (77.8 percent achievement compared to target of 4,714) including project and government staff at the national and 11 Some of the training modules include :Fadama III GEF (Scaling up SLM practices, Knowledge & Coordination --Background & Objectives – Components, GEF and justification for GEF Intervention in Fadama III ,Training module on Integrated Resource utilization and management of Watershed, Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management (SLM): An overview, Training on the composite index for the enabling environment, Training module on Land/soil Management, Identification and preparation of SLM focused LDPs, Training module on Agroforestry Practices, SLM in Climate risk mitigation and adaptation, Ensuring Safeguards compliance in SLM (GEF) sub – project, Cost and benefits of SLM sub – projects, Project PDOs, Result Framework and Monitoring and The Community SLM Award. 12 sub national levels. In addition, the project capacity building resulted in 1,924 FCAs including SLM subprojects in their LDP. This is clearly more than the targeted 740 participating communities at appraisal. Other people reached through the capacity building included (i) 2,131 community facilitators- (ii) 521 Extension and advisory staff; (iii) 468 local government staff; (iv) 377 state government staff; and (v) 185 federal government staff. In effect, national, state and local institutions capacity for community- based demand driven approaches to sustainable land management practices has been strengthened. Overall, capacity building targets were substantially achieved. 42. Capacity building for Land use planning: Because land use planning capacity was weak at the local level and given its importance to sustainable land management the project supported 62 LGAs with computers and Arc GIS software for rural land use planning including capacity building. The target for capacity building for land use planning was fully achieved. 43. Capacity Building for SLM Investment coordination: In addition, the project sensitization and advocacy built broad consensus and political support among policy makers and facilitated the participation of more than 20 targeted state governments in the development of Nigeria’s model multi sector SLM Investment Framework. With capacity building support to the National SLM committee and series of consultation around priority setting with states, the model National Investment framework was developed using Cross Rivers as an example. The investment framework which was adopted by the government of Nigeria was validated in a policy workshop with a total number of 124 persons made up of Honourable Commissioner of Agriculture Kaduna state, the Permanent Secretaries of Ministries of Agriculture/Environment from the 36 states of the Federation and FCT, National Project Coordinators of relevant donor or government programs, SLM Committee, NGOs, CBOs, Fadama III Zonal and State Project Coordinators for the 36 states and FCT; and the officials of National Fadama Coordination Office. The immediate impact of the support is vibrant National SLM committee and a more coordinated cross-sectoral investment programming for SLM in Nigeria. 44. Knowledge and SLM Award: The project over achieved the development of knowledge product to track adoption and changes in land productivity as well as the tool to track local and global environmental benefit of SLM. In addition, the project developed an SLM website which is linked to Fadama III website and over achieve target on the training on the use of the tracking tools developed (90 individuals trained over 75 targets). This level of achievement points to a good project design and effective approach of working through the group for mutual interest and support. The project through is support to knowledge management is providing availability and access to knowledge on SLM. In terms of incentive, 135 out of the targeted 185 FCAs were rewarded by the project through the SLM award grant bringing the level of achievement to 100 percent. . 45. Project outcomes: There are two key performance outcome indicators for the achievement of GEO as stated in the Project Appraisal Document. Out of these two, one was almost fully achieved and the other was achieved exceeding the agreed target. What 13 follows is the assessment for each outcome indicator with linkages to corresponding outputs. 46. Stakeholder perception of the enabling environment for sustainable land management (Target: 6.0). The project achieved substantially the target on stakeholders’ perception (from 3.23 at baseline to 5.66 at project closing representing 94 percent achievement) and the number of direct beneficiaries (288,600~111 percent achieved). At the same time, the information and capacity building was so effective that project achievement went beyond just laying foundation for scaling up of SLM practices and it actually started scaling up SLM practices. For example, at project closing, about 286,621 hectares were brought under SLM practices across participating states. 47. No doubt, the project sensitization program for beneficiaries, policy makers and other key stakeholders including training programs has contributed to improved political support through improved level of awareness on the full consequences of land degradation and its potential impact on government effort at all levels to improve agricultural productivity, reduce vulnerability to climate change and negative impact on GDP 12. As noted in section 2.5, the AgDPO series has also contributed to mainstreaming climate smart agriculture in FMARD budget with the establishment of dedicated unit and a department of extension for climate response advisory services and capacity building program. This is in addition to the development of a National Agriculture Resilience Framework by FMARD as strategy to drive the agenda with the active participation of the National SLM committee. 48. The project support to the National SLM committee on the preparation and adoption of the National Investment Framework for SLM and engagement with non-state actors fostered multi sectoral planning and coordination. The project has equally contributed to laying the foundation for good coordination of SLM activities by providing opportunity for different actors to come together to act on reversing land degradation. 49. Undeniably, the Government has a long standing commitment to fighting land degradation, but the support of the project to the National SLM committee and the good diagnostic studies done during project preparation provided an evidenced based policy dialogue which has generated renewed interest and commitment to prioritize investment on SLM. At the same time, the project has contributed to strengthening the capacity to develop and disseminate SLM practices at the state level. Along with the contribution of the project to multi stakeholder consultation and capacity strengthening, the project has also developed knowledge products (tool for tracking changes in land productivity, land degradation and overall ecosystem function and tool for tracking local and global benefits of SLM) which are hosted on the SLM website to the benefit of different categories of stakeholders. 14 50. Based on the analysis above, the achievement of project objectives is rated as substantial. 3.3 Efficiency 51. Efficiency is assessed by: (a) comparing the GEF incremental benefits expected at appraisal with the project's achievements; and (b) assessing CBA of Select SLM practices 52. GEF Incremental Benefits: The GEF incremental grant contribution to the baseline scenario was expected to be in the form of sensitization on the benefits of SLM, capacity building on the identification and inclusion of SLM compatible income generating subprojects in local development planning process, improved rural land use plan, financing of competitive community-driven grant facility to reward participating communities, support to improve institutional capacity to develop, disseminate and mainstream SLM practices in investment programming, and improved availability of and access to knowledge on SLM. The project has generated these expected benefits: • Sensitization and Capacity building: The project sponsored 600 sensitization visits, and used information education materials (35,000 copies each of posters and flyers) including other media channel (TV, Radio slots, & DVD) to disseminate information to 5,185 communities and 3,672 other stakeholders( including facilitators, extension workers, policy makers) on the benefit of sustainable land use and management. In addition, 468 extension workers were also trained to transfer knowledge and disseminate SLM technologies and practices relevant for local environment. As a result, there has been increased level of awareness and knowledge of stakeholders at local, state and federal level on sustainable land use and management. • Support SLM subproject activities: The project assisted 1,924 FCAs which is more than the targeted communities to prepare LDPs (26 percent over the 10 percent target) that incorporated sustainable land management practices relevant to their local needs. As part of the preparation of these community plans, training were conducted to strengthen local capacities of the FCAs at every stage of subproject cycle through implementation. Training on sustainable land use and management was also provided at the level of FCA to influence demand for SLM. • Rural Land use planning: The project trained 62 LGAs on rural land use planning and provided 62 computers and GIS software to enable them prepare their land use plans after project closing. The immediate impact of this is enhanced capacity to produce rural land use plan. • SLM Award: The project rewarded 132 FCAs for successful implementation of communities SLM subprojects. SLM subprojects usually produce public goods that not compensated for. Without an incentive, there is a tendency for communities not to adopt SLM because of its long term payback period. The SLM award helped to satisfy preference for short term benefit. 15 • Platform for multi-sector coordination: The project provided capacity building and study tour for the National SLM committee that eventually emerged as a platform for coordinating SLM investment programming and policy at the national and subnational levels. In addition, the grant supported the establishment of state SLM committee. By project closing, 24 states had SLM committees in place. 53. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Given that the GEF focus was on capacity building that does not have a direct economic benefit, a cost benefit of land management practices was carried out. The results showed that the land management practice that combine inorganic fertilizers have positive Cost Benefit Ratio greater than 1 which shows that they are profitable. 54. In addition to the incremental benefit and the CBA, project results were achieved within stipulated timeframe and within the limit of the appraisal budget. The GEF incremental grant was fully disbursed as planned; within the originally planned timeframe and based on the originally planned expenditure categories, and the project achieved intended outcomes and objective substantially. With respect to operational efficiency, the project was efficient. 55. Based on the incremental benefits achieved as a result of the GEF project, positive Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR) for SLM practices and operation efficiency with respect to budget and project timeframe, the project efficiency is rated as substantial. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory. 56. The rating of the overall project outcome was satisfactory based on the high relevance of project objectives, design and implementation; substantial achievement of the GEO and efficiency. The project contributed to country-level efforts to improve the enabling environment for the scaling up of Knowledge and Practices for SLM and complemented local efforts by communities to reverse land degradation. While promoting the sustainable use of land, the project helped to scale up environmentally sustainable and agro-ecologically appropriate SLM practices among participating communities. The project also built substantial capacity among local communities to promote and incorporate SLM considerations into their local development plans. Furthermore, as a result of the training provided to government staff at national and subnational levels and sustained engagement at the policy level, there is renewed commitment to develop a resilient production system with low carbon foot print. 16 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 57. Poverty Impact and Gender. The mainstreaming of the project into a CDD operation would mean that different segments of the rural poor have been reached. There is evidence of feminization of poverty and women’s increasingly vulnerability to climate change. The project’s deliberate effort to promote the participation of women would have had positive impact given the established link between environment, poverty and gender in the literature. 58. Social Development. The project CDD approach was participatory and relied on the capacity built in the communities through a range of interventions – sensitization, meetings, and visits, among others. The project mobilized communities in socially inclusive organization such as FCAs and EIGs to work on development issues of common interest thereby improving social capital. This approach is capable of reducing conflict among rural land users and could promote social stability. Given its strong capacity building focus, the project did leave behind communities with tremendous knowledge and learning to undertake similar initiatives on their own. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 59. The project's capacity building activities substantially improved the executing agency's managerial capacity and knowledge of SLM. Likewise, it has caused an attitude change among participating communities making more of them to demand for SLM subprojects in their LDPs. Project support to the National and state SLM committees has improved mainstreaming of SLM in policy dialogue and investment planning including multi sector coordination. The institutional strengthening provided to the staff of local government and the extension has contributed to effective land use planning and provision of relevant and demand responsive SLM advisory services. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative, if any) Not applicable. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 60. The ICR task team conducted interviews with the TTL, team specialists, the client, National SLM committee, GEF focal person in Nigeria. These interviews helped to clarify the context in which the project operated, and identify unintended positive impacts of the project. Informal interviews with direct beneficiaries occurred during missions to the project areas. 61. Stakeholders and beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with the Project result but wished project allocation to the FCA for subprojects were higher than it was. However, the beneficiaries liked the integration with the baseline project because beneficiaries were given planning and spending decisions. Also, because the baseline project provided them 17 other support needed to overcome initial investment constraints for SLM practices, the beneficiaries found the integration a useful means on reaching them. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate. 62. The overall risk to development outcome was rated moderate. The risk supporting this overall rating is discussed as follow: 63. Social risk to development outcome is rated low: It is expected that the communities and beneficiaries would be able to maintain the capacity built with the plans and subprojects. Also, the participatory approach of the project brought people together to work for the management of common assets and transferred responsibilities for restoring and protecting the soils to the communities including helping the beneficiaries to resolve collection action problem around natural resource management. 64. Institutional risk to development outcome is rated moderate: Although the project involved substantial capacity building program for government institutions at the national and sub national levels, the recent establishment of an Environment and Climate Change Unit (ECCU) with budget line at the Federal level and the preparation of the National Agriculture Resilience Framework that is being championed by the National SLM committee at FMARD points to a strong foundation for good institutional support. More so, the NEWMAP projects would continue to support relevant institutions responsible for erosion, climate change and SLM in Nigeria providing a means of sustaining engagement with key stakeholders. 65. Government ownership/commitment to development outcome is rated high: Undeniably, government is committed than ever before to building adaptation capacity and growth that is not vulnerability to climate change. A case in point is the establishment of a dedicated unit at a time when there is general cut in capital budget. Government commitment varies between federal and state levels. 66. Financial risk to development outcome is moderate: Financial sustainability of sub projects and profitability of SLM practices indicate that economic and financial risks to development outcomes are low. The subprojects are viable in the medium to long term because of positive ERR and Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR). 67. Environmental risk is low: Given that SLM practices are environmental friendly, environmental risk to outcomes is equally low. Sustainable management of land has positive impact on quality of life and reduction in conflicts through its effect on restoring soil fertility, improving agricultural productivity and consequently, better livelihood. 18 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory 68. The Bank’s performance in project identification, preparation, and appraisal is satisfactory. The project was well conceptualized and relevant to Nigeria’s situation where land degradation and climate variability post serious threats to rising uncertainties with rain fed agriculture. The design emphasized knowledge transfer, peer-learning and capacity building and other forms of institutional support needed at all levels to address the barrier to SLM adoption. In addition, the task team included core sector indicators on number of direct beneficiaries, and social inclusion (share of women who are classified as marginalized) as well as GEF (Strategic Investment Program) SIP for SLM on areas under SLM. The Bank team mobilized to prepare the project had requisite knowledge of the subject matter and the design benefitted from strong analytical underpinnings. 69. The integration of the project under an on-going CDD operation, FADAMA-III, and the incorporation of the SLM award to incentivize beneficiaries in the project were novel. This integration has helped to address the shortcoming of the past top down advisory services which has had limited success and offered the ability to tailor interventions to the local context. The project objectives were consistent with government and Bank strategies at appraisal and project closing. However, targets and scope appeared somewhat ambitious even though it was meant to expand reach and opportunities for up-scaling SLM practices to a large number of beneficiaries. It however, did not substantially affect the achievement of the PDO. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 70. The Bank performance in supervision is rated Satisfactory. The Bank organized a joint mission World Bank/FGN regularly that was focused on the achievement of the GEO for the project. The Bank mobilized the right mix of expertise that included a natural resource specialist for project supervision. The Bank team recognized the need to, and did, provide support to building NFCO's capacity, particularly in procurement, safeguard and financial management. It also provided prompt assistance to reorganize the procurement unit which facilitated expeditious implementation of project activities despite startup delay. 19 (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 71. The overall Bank performance is rated moderately satisfactory. The Bank team paid great attention to the quality of project supervision and made timely recommendations to improve implementation. 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 72. The government showed strong commitment to this project and embraced the participatory approach in local development planning. Also, the establishment of the National SLM for multi sector stakeholder consultation reflects government commitment to the fight against land degradation in Nigeria. The establishment of the ECCU unit as a direct outcome of the policy dialogue under the AgDPO reinforces government sustained commitment to develop resilient production system. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 73. The performance of the implementing agency was satisfactory. The PIU had experienced and competent staff and was able to fully disburse the GEF grant in time. Throughout implementation, the project complied with all legal covenants satisfactorily. Financial audit reports were submitted when due. All audit reports had unqualified audit opinions and were acceptable to IDA. In sum, the PIU has provided evidence of professional commitment, and a capacity to learn rapidly from project preparation and implementation experience. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 74. The overall performance of the Borrower was satisfactory. The Borrower demonstrated a high level of commitment to project objectives and the PIU managed M&E, fiduciary and safeguards requirements satisfactorily leading to a full disbursement of the grant which is not common in Bank executed grant. 20 6. Lessons Learned 75. Utilizing a CDD approach, with community capacity building as an entry point, can be effective for promoting sustainable livelihoods of communities who depend directly on their natural environment and improving governance of SLM. The project demonstrated the positive role of trained communities; facilitator and other stakeholder can play in restoring degraded soils. Through this bottom-up approach that expanded local capacity and promoted community empowerment, the project achieved important results in improving the enabling environment for scaling up of SLM. Individual participating communities and network of facilitators including other key stakeholder drove project implementation processes through participatory model that promoted co-responsibility. 76. Sustainable Land Management efforts provide an important opportunity to engage women as active agents of reversing land degradation rather than passive recipients of adaptation support. Women are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of land degradation, and this must be addressed when supporting communities’ ability to reverse its negative impact and adapt to climate variability. This way, project will achieve twin goal of addressing land degradation and as well promote gender mainstreaming in natural resource management. 77. Incentives matter for scaling up SLM practices. Reducing land degradation and adoption of SLM often comes at a cost and tend to require medium to longer term investment by land user. However, some market failures such as lack of credit, technology or knowledge could serve as barrier to such investment. Market based incentives such as co-financing (matching grant) from government have proven to be effective in helping land user overcome initial investment constraints. 78. Ambitious targets overstate the scope of what project could deliver. There is a need to balance between having maximum project impact and overstating scope of what project can realistically achieve. Unrealistic targets limit the scope of impact of project upfront and places undue burden on project implementation unit to deliver results. During project preparation it is important to set realistic targets so as not to overstretch PIUs or spread impact of project too thinly. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners: (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 79. A summary of the Recipient’s ICR is presented in Annex 7. (b) Cofinanciers (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 21 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million equivalent) Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (US$ millions) Appraisal (US$ millions) Capacity Building, Communication and Information Support Capacity building for FCA 1.29 1.31 101.5 Capacity building for LG for 1.51 1.96 129.8 rural Communication outreach 0.81 0.45 55.5 National and State 0.48 0.48 100 coordination Community SLM award 1.91 1.80 94.2 Sub-total 6.00 6.00 100 Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring tools 0.66 0.65 98.5 SLM information system 0.14 0.15 107.1 Sub-total 0.80 0.80 100 Total 6.80 6.80 100 (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Co- Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds financing (US$ millions (US$ millions Appraisal ) ) Borrower 0.00 0.00 0.00 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 6.80 6.800 100 22 Annex 2: Outputs by Component Project Output Output Indicators ( as in Actual Achievement PAD) Global Environmental Objective Indicators Stakeholder perception of An index of 5.66 as enabling environment for against the end-line sustainable land management target of 6.00 was To improve the enabling achieved, representing environment for scaling up 93.33percent sustainable land achievement. management in Direct project beneficiaries A total of 288,600 direct participating communities. beneficiaries over the targeted 259,000. This represents 111 percent achievement. Component A: Capacity Building, Communications and Information Support Over achieved. 26 percent of the registered FCAs included SLM in their LDPs over 10 percent target. Improved participation of Participating communities that This target was over communities in have selected SLM sub-project achieved as 1,924 FCAs management of natural for inclusion in their LDPs over 740 participating resources FCAs that their LDPs were approved for implementation included 3,500 SLM subprojects in their LDPs. Improved capacity of Community associations A total of 5,185 persons stakeholders to advise on reached through trainings have been reached out of or implement SLM and/or communications on a target of 7,400. This SLM practice/planning represented 70.1 percent achievement. People reached through 3,672 reached out of training and/or target of 4,714. This communications on SLM represents 77.8 percent practice/planning achievement. (a) Community facilitators 2,131 reached out of targeted 2,500, representing 85 percent achievement (b) Extension and advisory 521 reached out of 814 staff targeted. This is 64 percent performance. 23 (c) Local government staff 468 reached out of 700 expected, representing 67 percent. (d) State government staff 377 reached over 500 target value. This represents 75.4 percent performance (e) Federal government staff 185 reached out of targeted 200, representing 92.5 percent performance. Strengthened capacity of LGAs trained in rural land use 62 LGAs received participating LGAs for planning training on land use participatory planning planning out of targeted 62. This is 100 percent achievement. Improved capacity of State governments 30 states out of targeted Federal and State participating in development of 20 (150 percent) institutions to coordinate Nigeria’s multi-sector SLM participated in the on rural land and water Investment Framework development of multi- management across (cumulative number of State sector SLM Investment sectors. governments. Framework. Component B: Monitoring, Evaluation and Knowledge Knowledge on SLM is Improved monitoring tools The two (2) tools increasingly accessible to developed to track adoption of developed, representing stakeholders SLM practices and changes in 100 percent achievement. land productivity (number of tools) Key stakeholders trained in 90 key people trained on applying the monitoring tools applying monitoring tools (number per year) SLM information system Fully achieved. SLM developed information system developed Annex 2-Appedix 1: A brief on Composite Index: Composite Index Introduction A Composite Index (CI) for SLM Enabling Environment was designed to measure political commitment and the relative strength of the enabling environment. It is made up of six components: (i) political support; (ii) policy formulation such as land tenure, decentralization and multi-sectoral planning; (iii) organization structures; (iv) financial resources such as public expenditure trend; (v) knowledge, monitoring and evaluation; and (vi) legal and regulatory environment. The Composite Index was developed and 24 applied during project preparation and at mid- term as a simple and low-cost perception based survey among experts on the extent to which the enabling conditions for SLM (institutions, financing, knowledge, etc) are improving or deteriorating. The CI was developed as part of the GEF Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) and it is being used widely under GEF financing. Project Scope and Methodology CI is constructed from a perception based survey implemented as part of project activities. It was administered to key informant and actors in the program. For the end line survey, two states (see figure 1) were randomly selected for the exercise (2 states per geo- political zone-) and the instrument was administered to a sample of 600 individuals from varied organization. The intuitions from where sample were drawn include ADPs, Fadama offices, FCAs, FUGs, National Conservation Agency, Watershed management committees, SLM committees, River Basin Authorities, FEPA, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry for Local Government, Ministry of Land and Physical Planning, Forestry Division/Wild life, Universities/Tertiary, CBOs, NGOs, religious/community leaders, CGIARs, NARS, International Organizations, etc. Project Sample Two states were selected from each geo-political zone. From each state, ten local governments where Fadama was active were selected. Ten (10) institutions were selected at the state level, another ten (10) institution selected from the ten local government and three participating communities per state. Altogether, a total of 50 key informants were selected per state giving a total of 600 key informants. 25 Figure 1: Map of Nigeria Showing the Two States Selected in Each of the Six Zones Findings: Status of Enabling Environment in Nigeria Table 2 contains the synthesized means of Composite Index (CI) of the institutions covered at the State, Local Government and Community levels. It also gives the overall mean for the States, and from these means the National mean (CI) value was obtained to give an idea of the stakeholder perception of the improvement or deterioration of Enabling Environment for Sustainable Land Management at the end of the Fadama III GEF project. When the overall mean scores of the States were compared it was observed that the highest mean score was recorded by Cross Rivers (6.52) followed by Taraba (6.41), Imo (6.35), Ondo (6.25), Ogun (6.23), Abia (6.21), and Kogi (6.15). However, the states with the lowest mean scores were Kebbi (3.28), Gombe (4.09), FCT (5.30), Delta (5.44) and Jigawa (5.74). The disaggregation of the mean scores in each state into layers of state, local government and communities did not show any particular pattern across the states. However, the results shown on Table 2 show that the lowest score on the enabling environment was at the Local Government Level (5.49) followed by the State Level (5.63) while the Community Level (5.83) recorded the highest value. 26 Table 2: Composite Index Values for Nigeria (May 2012 and May 2014) State Level Mean Local Community Overall State Mean Government Level Level Mean Mean May May May May May May May May 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 5.52 5.63 5.75 5.49 5.68 5.83 5.63 5.66 Composite Index ( scale of 10) 5.63 5.66 Table 2: Instruments Statement SE- SN N Mean Mean I. POLITICAL SUPPORT Federal government support exists for effective SLM policies and 10 4.90 .526 1 programs. State government demonstrates effective SLM policies and 10 5.30 .761 2 programs. State ADPs support effective implementation of SLM policies and 10 5.00 .699 3 programs. 4 Local government supports effective SLM policies and programs. 10 3.50 .764 5 Public opinion supports effective SLM programs and policies. 10 3.60 .897 Top civil servants outside of the Ministry of Environment recognize 10 4.00 .882 6 SLM as a priority problem. Major producer organizations support effective SLM policies and 10 4.80 .593 7 programs. 8 Private sector leaders support effective SLM policies and programs. 10 4.40 .600 9 NGO leaders support effective SLM policies and programs. 10 6.80 .663 Professional associations (e.g., farmer, herder, and extension 10 6.00 .333 10 organizations) support effective SLM policies and programs. There are local activities to build support for effective SLM 10 5.90 .623 11 programs aimed at high-level political and community leaders. II. POLICY FORMULATION A favourable national SLM policy exists, and accounts for climate 10 5.00 1.183 1 change impact on rural land use. Specific and realistic SLM strategies embedded in PRSP (Poverty 10 4.80 .998 2 Reduction Strategy Papers) or equivalent. 3 Specific and realistic SLM strategies to meet sectoral goals exist. 10 5.40 1.222 4 A national coordinating body exists and functions effectively. 10 5.70 .844 5 Ministries other than MOE are involved in SLM policy formulation. 10 6.60 .686 Policy dialogue and formulation involves NGOs, community 10 6.20 .904 leaders, and Representatives, extension services, local governments, 6 farmers, private sector representatives and special interest groups. 27 International organizations have facilitated SLM policy formulation 10 7.40 .733 7 through the provision of technical assistance and guidelines. International organizations have facilitated governance for SLM at 10 7.00 .775 all levels through the provision of technical assistance and 8 guidelines. Key decision makers and stakeholders are aware of the impact 10 7.40 .600 9 climate change will have on land management. III. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE A National SLM Program exists and is placed high in the 10 3.90 .657 1 government structure. The SLM Director is full-time and reports to an influential superior 10 5.20 .841 2 officer. A multi-sectoral SLM approach has been implemented and 10 4.60 .792 3 functions reasonably well. 4 NGOs are formally included in the SLM Program. 10 5.30 .817 5 Producer organizations are formally included in the SLM Program. 10 5.50 .778 Efforts are made to enhance community and local government 10 7.80 .554 6 participation in SLM. There is good coordination among SLM activities of the national 10 4.30 .989 government, state government, local government, NGOs, private 7 sector and international donors. IV. PROGRAM RESOURCES 1 Public expenditures toward SLM seem to be increasing. 10 4.40 .897 2 SLM resources are allocated according to priority guidelines. 10 6.20 .952 There is no gap between budgetary allocation and amount released 10 4.40 .980 3 for SLM activities. SLM resource allocation decisions are based on considerations of 10 4.00 1.135 4 the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Current funding can be used flexibly in order to support effective 10 4.90 1.149 5 new SLM programs. There are technically competent professionals staffing the SLM 10 5.90 1.130 6 program. 7 The private sector plays a significant role in funding SLM activities. 10 6.30 .844 8 The SLM program is organized to enhance long-term sustainability. 10 6.70 .978 There is no delay in the assignment and delivery of authorised 10 5.50 .734 9 budget. V. EVALUATION, MONITORING AND RESEARCH Operational and financial plans are developed that correspond to 10 5.60 .909 1 objectives and targets. SLM evaluation, knowledge management and research results are 10 6.10 .809 2 actively employed in policy formulation and program planning. Mechanisms and structures for SLM monitoring and evaluation, 10 5.50 .719 3 such as a formal evaluation unit, exit within the program. 4 Special studies are undertaken as needed to improve the SLM 10 6.50 .703 28 program. Environmental impact assessments and resource baselines are used 10 6.10 .823 in problem assessments, project design, implementation and 5 monitoring Currently available geographic information systems (GIS) are used 10 7.30 .651 to assemble relevant data layers (biophysical, economic, 6 environmental, infrastructure and social). There is sufficient training, organization, motivation and 10 4.00 .966 7 involvement of staff at various levels VI. LEGAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT National government actively supports decentralization to states for 10 4.40 .872 1 natural resource management. National government actively supports decentralization to local 10 4.70 .578 2 governments and communities for natural resource management. Legal and regulatory requirements related to SLM are enforced at 10 5.50 .806 3 the relevant levels. States have capacity to design and execute regulations to manage 10 5.60 1.127 4 natural resources. Local governments and communities have capacity to design and 10 4.60 .945 5 execute regulations to manage natural resources. There is rational land administration providing incentives for land 10 5.60 .777 6 users and land holders to adopt SLM. 7 Usufruct rights and/or property ownership are in place and enforced. 10 4.00 .516 In principle, land users involved in SLM have adequate access to 10 3.80 .712 8 markets. 9 Input and credit services for SLM are available. 10 3.80 .800 10 Prices affecting SLM-related producers respond to market signals. 10 5.00 .907 No legal and regulatory barriers exist to knowledge dissemination 10 5.00 .931 11 on SLM and market prices. 29 Annex 3: Economic and Financial Analysis Introduction 1. The extent of the economic analysis for the project is limited for several reasons. First, as normally done for GEF projects, an incremental cost analysis was used in designing the project. Second, the GEF incremental grant is not an investment project because of its exclusive focus on capacity and institutional development including awareness creation for SLM practice and policy at national, state and local level to stimulate demand for land improvement investment in the baseline operation. It was meant to deliver incremental benefit to the baseline project which is in this case Fadama III. 2. In order to get an idea of economic costs and benefits at project end CBA analysis was undertaken of selected farmers practicing Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) as supported under the project. In Niger State, farmers growing rice, maize, millet and cowpea were sampled randomly while those farmers growing cassava were sampled in Kogi State. With these data, the NPV and BCR of the different land management options practiced under the SLM were analyzed for economic viability. SLM subprojects 3. About 46 percent of SLM subprojects funded were vegetable, fertilizer and manure category. This is not surprising given that Fadama itself is floodplain agriculture where high value crops are grown. The next most common subprojects were on livelihood diversification which is a key focus on the parent project. 30 Table 3.1 Distribution of SLM subproject Investments Returns Horizon 13 Climate Change Environmental Subproject Number Percentage adaptation benefit benefit SH MT LT Reduced Alternative source deforestation and Woodlot 168 5.2 Ω of wood and forest degradation, building materials carbon sink retained Reduced pressure for agricultural Livelihood land conversion, Orchard 482 14.8 Ω diversification more biomass, and reduced erosion. Agro-biodiversity Soil retention and Reduced soil loss Erosion control 147 4.5 Ω Ω fertility and siltation Reduced Alternative source deforestation and Nursery 287 8.8 Ω of seed, and fuel forest degradation, fodder carbon sink retention Increased soil fertility, reduced Income and erosion, more Agroforestry 474 14.6 Ω Ω Ω livelihood biomass, carbon, diversification land productivity and rainfall infiltration Reduced soil loss and siltation, more Soil moisture and biomass, more fertility, water Shelter belts 60 1.8 Ω Ω availability and carbon, greater water infiltration, infiltration greater land productivity Reduced soil loss and siltation, more Soil moisture and biomass, more Roadside fertility, water 79 2.4 Ω Ω availability and carbon, greater planting water infiltration, infiltration greater land productivity Terracing 35 1.1 Ω Ω Soil moisture and Reduced soil loss fertility, water and siltation, more 13 SH stands for short term, MT-medium term and LT-long term 31 availability and biomass, more infiltration carbon, greater water infiltration, greater land productivity Greater access to water for More biomass and Earth dam 40 1.2 Ω agriculture, soil carbon improved soil moisture Soil fertility and Vegetable , Soil moisture and structure, soil fertilizer and 1,478 45.4 Ω retention, carbon, water manure( ISFM) livelihood infiltration Greater access to water and More biomass and Rainwater 5 0.2 Ω harvester resilient to soil carbon drought 100 TOTAL 3,255 Methodology 4. A cost benefit analysis which is an economic evaluation of sustainable land management practice called Integrated Soil fertility Management which is practiced across all the agro-ecological zones in Nigeria was used. The CBA considered cash flow for the land management practices and provided the estimates for the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio. Four land management scenarios were considered including: (i) only inorganic fertilizer; (ii) only organic fertilizers; (iii) both; and (iv) none, which served as a baseline scenario. 5. The following procedures were followed: • Review of existing farm level data recorded by the SLM Projects in Niger and Kogi States. • Field visit to the selected states to augment and validate the existing data, • Identification of the farm inputs employed by the farmers • Estimation of financial and economic input and output prices Conversion of Financial to Economic Values and Assumptions 6. To convert from financial to economic values, the following items were excluded from economic analysis calculations namely: All transfer payments including: taxes, subsidies and other forms of grants, and loan repayment. All non-traded inputs and 32 outputs prices were converted from financial to economic prices to reflect the opportunity cost of inputs using a standard conversion factor (SCF) of 0.9297 14. 7. The following financial values were adjusted to reflect economic values: • Fertilizer and agrochemicals, seed and other input costs were adjusted to the real value since the beneficiaries benefited from the 50 percent incentive under the input support of the parent project, Fadama III. • The assets that were used in the production of the crops under the SLM GEF were also adjusted since the beneficiary groups got 30 percent support for asset acquisition. This was appropriately adjusted too. • Most Fadama III farmers accessed land were through informal means and the amount paid for the use of such lands did not reflect the market value. We adjusted this by using the actual market value that would have been paid for the use of the land per annum under a leasehold arrangement. • Preparation of NPV and BCR for each of the scenarios with the assumption that there will not be an annual increase in the total cost and benefits since the December 2013 constant prices were used in obtaining the cost and benefits. • A 22 percent rate of interest, which is the opportunity cost of capital (prime lending rate of commercial banks) in the economy, was used for discounting. Table 1.Summary of economic analyses of crops under SLM practices in Niger and Kogi States 15 State Crop Land management option NPV (N’000) BCR Kogi Cassava Inorganic fertilizer 817,498.5 2.6311 Organic fertilizer - - Both organic and inorganic - - None 557,587.8 2.6816 Niger Maize Inorganic fertilizer 660,965.2 3.4769 Organic fertilizer 325,919.3 2.1832 Both organic and inorganic 208,223.7 1.6777 None -110,499 0.4374 Rice Inorganic fertilizer 935,301.9 3.6471 Organic fertilizer -125,390 0.5781 Both organic and inorganic -148,013 0.5372 None -257,155 0.1179 Millet Inorganic fertilizer 205646.5 1.6638 Organic fertilizer 244,592 1.903 14 The official exchange rate of naira to dollar was N155.23 while at the parallel market a dollar was exchanged for N166.97. The ratio of the two gave the SCF of 0.9297 33 Both organic and inorganic 218,532.9 1.7360 None -137,990 0.3591 Cowpea Inorganic fertilizer 767,922 3.9200 Organic fertilizer 1,503,878 6.2602 Both organic and inorganic 1,873,287 7.8258 None 63466.76 1.2847 Source: Result of field dataset The table shows that crop production shows different cost benefit ratios and NPV for different land management practices. From the table, a land management practice that combines both organic and inorganic tends to be more profitable than those being grown without fertilizers. Maize and millet production without fertilizers came up with negative NPVs and less than one BCR, showing no profitability. In the case of rice, NPV and BCR were only positive for production with inorganic fertilizers only. Among all crops, cowpea came out as most profitable. This is followed by rice, cassava, maize and millet. 34 Annex 4: Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Simeon Ehui Task Team Leader(original) AFTAR Task Team Leader(current) and Adubi Abimbola AFTAR Sr. Agriculture Specialist AFTAG Chita Oje Team Assistant 1 Natural Resources Management Stephen Danyo AFTEN Natural Resources Specialist Lucas Akapa Senior Operations Officer AFTAR Operations Amos Abu Senior Environment Specialist AFTEN Environment Senior Social Development Social Chukwudi Okafor AFTCS Specialist Development Africa Olojoba Senior Environmental Specialist AFTEN Environmental Akinrinmola Oyenuga Financial Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Akinyele Management Sunday Acheneje Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement Manush Hristov Senior Counsel LEGAF Legal Modupe Dayo Olorunfemi Team Assistant AFCW2 Team Assistant Ngozi Malife Team Assistant AFCW2 Team Assistant Azra Lodi Team Assistant AFTAR Team Assistant Nina Doetinchem Consultant AFTEN Consultant Chika Ezeanya Consultant AFTEN Consultant Daniel Sellen Peer Reviewer AFTAR Peer Reviewer Foluso Okunmadewa Peer Reviewer AFTSP Peer Reviewer Supervision/ICR Abiodun Elufioye Program Assistant Program Assistant Program Assistant AFCW2 AFCW2 Program Assistant Senior Operations Lucas Kolawole Akapa Senior Operations Officer AFTA1 Officer Senior Mary Asanato-Adiwu Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPW Procurement Specialist Abimbola Adubi Sr Agricultural Spec. AFTA1 Sr Natural Resources Mgmt. Natural Resources Stephen Danyo AFTN3 Spec. Mgmt. Spec. Akinrinmola Oyenuga Financial Sr Financial Management AFTM Management Akinyele Specialist W Specialist 35 Consultant TTL and author Sheu Salau AFTA1 ICR Bolarin Omonona Consultant AFTAI ICR mission (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle US$ Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY08 140.37 110.04 Total: 140.37 110.04 Supervision/ICR FY 12 80.96 56.68 FY13 90.54 61.97 FY14 130.41 32.92 Total: 301.91 151.57 36 Annex 5: Beneficiary Survey Results 1. As part of the beneficiary engagement during the ICR mission, interviews were held with the Chairman National SLM and some select state SLM Committees, GEF Focal person at Federal Ministry of Environment, TTL and task team members. In addition, meetings were held with the PIUs of the SFCOs visited, and the ICR mission also interacted with project facilitators, MDAs at state level and project beneficiaries during field visit including some SLM awardees. 2. Overall, beneficiaries were satisfied with the impact of the project and lauded its relevance to alternative livelihood (see table 1). They particularly appreciated that Fadama III helped them to overcome initial binding constraints i.e. low short term benefits of SLM by providing them access to funds and advisory services to grow their traditional staple crops. Some of the beneficiaries liked the project ability to encourage women participation in farming and marketing activities through its target on gender. Table 1: Relevance to Beneficiaries Needs No of Persons Percentage Highly relevant 67 93.1 Relevant 5 6.9 Less relevant 0 0 Not relevant 0 0 Total 72 100 Source: ICR mission 2014 3. The project focused on capacity building, and its massive sensitization campaign touched many cadres of staff at all levels including participating communities. As a result, there was general agreement that for the first time, the project provided opportunities for the different actors to engage, to have a full understanding of the consequences of the land use practices and to begin to take collection action at planning for SLM investment, developing technologies and disseminating same including replenishing their degraded natural capital. About 67 percent of the communities (see Table 2) interviewed during the ICR mission confirmed that the training has increased their level of awareness and stimulated their appetite to demand for livelihood activities that will help protect their land. Table 2: Extent of utilization of capacity building No of Persons Percentage Less extent 4 5.6 some extent 7 9.9 Very large extent 60 84.5 Total 71 100 Source: ICR mission 2014 37 4. Some beneficiaries (8 percent) noted that they experienced competition for labor between traditional staples and some SLM subprojects. While others confirmed that they received premium for their product (92 percent). 5. Regarding the GEF envelope, there was consensus that the allocation was small and that the envelope for SLM Award was even smaller in their assessment. They gave example, that not all the 5 best subprojects selected were eventually rewarded by the project. 6. Beneficiaries revealed that GEF incremental support is helping them to reverse land degradation and at the same time has helped to address technology access constraints. Overall, beneficiaries agreed that the project was relevant to their conditions and showed strong temporal preference for SLM with short term benefits including those with less demand for labor. 38 Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any) 39 Annex 7: Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR 1. Scaling up Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Practices, Knowledge and Coordination (Fadama III GEF) is a three and half year incremental grant to the Federal Government of Nigeria, focused on mainstreaming SLM in Nigeria’s agricultural sector. The incremental GEF fund of $6.8milllion supported Capacity Building, Communications and Information Support, as well as Monitoring, Evaluation and Knowledge components that were fully integrated into the base Fadama III Project. Implementation took place in 30 States and the FCT from May 24, 2011 to December 31, 2013. 2. The development and global environment objective of the SLM Fadama III GEF was to improve the enabling environment for scaling up sustainable land management in participating communities. Stakeholder perception of the enabling environment was measured by a composite index (CI) ranging from 0 – 10, which gave the extent to which the enabling conditions for SLM (institutions, financing, knowledge, etc.,) were improving or deteriorating. An independent tracking of the CI gave a national average of 5.66 at project completion. 3. Of the 7,400 FCAs made up of about 259,000 individuals that were estimated to be direct beneficiaries, 40 percent (103,600) was expected to be females. Actual value achieved at completion was 288,600 comprising 58 percent males and 42 percent females. The shortfall is attributed to the late release of fund. On inclusion of SLM activities in the LDPs, 1,924 FCAs out of 4,724 participating in the base Project, achieved 3,500 subprojects approval. At project end, 2,971 SLM subprojects were fully implemented across the participating States an achievement of 168 percent which is attributed to increased understanding of the benefits of SLM practices/technologies. With respect to communication, 5,185 FCAs of the estimated original target of 7,400 were reached through training and/or sensitizations on SLM practice/planning, giving a percentage of 70. This is attributed to extensive awareness creation mounted among the community associations. 4. The various cadres of staff that benefited from training/communications were 2,131 Facilitators out of targeted 2,500 (85%); 521 out of estimated 814 Extension and Advisory Staff were trained (64%); Local Government staff 468 out of 700 (66.8%), State Government 377 out of 500 (75.4%); and Federal Government staff 185 out of 200 (92.5%). 60 LGAs of the targeted 62, were trained in Rural Land Use Planning. 5. The NFCO printed and disseminated 300 copies of SLM Investment Framework to States, Parastatals and Agencies. Two States (Gombe and Cross River) that actively participated in the development of Nigeria’s multi sector SLM investment framework along with the other 28 states were able to produce their State-specific investment framework. 40 6. In Monitoring, Evaluation and knowledge component, three (tools to track adoption, local and global benefit and land productivity change) improved monitoring tool over the targeted two was developed to track adoption of SLM practices and changes in land productivity, giving an achievement of 150 percent. 90 key stakeholders over the 75 key stakeholders targeted were trained in applying the monitoring tools. SLM information system has been developed i.e the website and parent project MIS is being finalized. Project performance in ISR rated Development objective, implementation progress and actual disbursement satisfactory. 7. Some of the lessons learnt during implementation included the fact that funding was limited in that the $6.8 million was insufficient to cover the 30 States and FCT. Secondly, some States did not clearly understand financial implementation arrangements. Thirdly, some of the SLM Committees had to disagree over who would chair until the National SLM committee came to the project rescue to resolve the issue. 8. Bank performance was satisfactory. The task team was acted promptly to resolve any implementation challenges including advocacy visits to policy makers at the state level on counterpart fund payment. However, turn around for No objection request could be improved. 9. With respect to economic and financial analysis conducted, The NPVs of SLM subproject are greater than zeros while the ERR of between 44.6 and 48.3 percent were greater than the estimated cost of capital of between 20 and 25 percent. This means that the three SLM models practiced by the Fadama III farmers in the country are viable. 10. It is recommended that in future projects of this nature funding envelop should be enlarged. Transition arrangements include: Sourcing and leveraging other opportunities for maintenance and follow up grant; linking up with Agro forestry units, ADPs, Extension departments of MOAs as well as with other existing similar projects; and Involving national SLM committee to coordinate follow up actions. 41 Annex 8: Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 42 Annex 9: List of Supporting Documents 1. Aide Memoire 2009-2013. 2. Implementation Status Report 2010. 3. GEF Project Identification Form. 4. Liniger, H.P., R. Mekdaschi Studer, C. Hauert and M. Gurtner. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 5. Republic of Niger Impacts of Sustainable Land Management Programs on Land Management and Poverty in Niger Report No. 48230-NE 6. Sustainable Land Management and Poverty Alleviation by Stein Holden http://arken.umb.no/~steiho/Sustainable%20Land%20Management%20and%20P overty%20Alleviation.pdf 7. FMARD 2013 Building Resilience in Nigeria’s Agriculture Value--‐Chains through “Climate Smart” Policies, Programs and Actions 8. IFPRI 2012 Medium-term impact of Fadama III project in collaboration with Nkonya E., D, Phillip, E. Kato, B. Ahmed, A. Daramola, S. B., Ingawa, I. Luby, E. A. Lufadeju, M. Madukwe, and A. G. Shettima. 9. Conduct of Independent Tracking of Composite Index to Measure Improvement In the Enabling Environment of Sustainable Land Management. M. A. Hussaini on May 2014. 10. BTOR SLM ICR mission to Oyo, Osun, Kaduna And Niger State. 11. World Bank Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) (2010-2013) Report No. 46816- NG approved 2009. 12. Joint World Bank-IFC-MIGA Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) FY2014- FY2017. 13. GEF Project Appraisal Document (PAD) 2010 Report No: 548.88-NG. 14. A Study To Develop A Monitoring Tool To Estimate The Global And Local Environmental Benefits From The SLM Practices Adopted Under Fadama III Project Aminu Suleiman December 2013. 43 15. Development Of A Tracking Tool For The Adoption Of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Practices Among Fadama Beneficiaries In Nigeria. FMARD March 2014. 16. A study to develop and apply a monitoring tool that will track changes in in land productivity, land degradation and overall ecosystem functions Nationwide FMARD 2014. 17. Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) Blue print. 44 45