Document ef The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 7804 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENI PROJECT (CREDIT 906-SO) JUNi 2,1989 Eastern Africa Region Country Department II Agriculture Operations This document has a restricted disnhultion and may be used by recipients only in the perfomance of thei offcicl duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disdosed witbout World Bank autho_aion. SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (June 1988) USS 1.00 - So.Sh 99.00 So.Sh. 1.00 - US$0.01 ABBREVIATIONS ADMB Australian Development Assistance Bureau CRDP Central Rangelands Development. Project GM v General Manager GOS Government of Somalia IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ERR Economic Rate of Return 4TZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit MLFR Ministry of Livestock, Forestry and Range NAHA Nomadic Animal Health Assistant NRA National Range Agency ODA Overseas Development Association, U.K. PCR Project Completion Report PCU Project Coordination Unit PM Project Manager PP Project Paper PPF Project Preparation Facility VLA Range and Livestock Associations RMEA Regional Mission in East Africa RMR Resource Management and Research SAR Staff Appraisal Report SNU Somali National University UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development WDA Water Development Authority WFP World Food Programme FOR OMFCIA6L USE ONLY THE WORtLD BANK Wasnton. D C 20433 U.S.A. June 2, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECT . AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Somalia Central Rangelands Development Project (Credit 906-SOj Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled 'Project Completion Report on Somalia Central Rangelands Development Project (Credit 906-SO)" prepared by the Africa Regional Office. No audit of this project has been made by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time. Attachment This document has restricted distribution and may be used by recipients or.ly in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorination. FO0UI OFFICIAL USE ONLY SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TaLle of Contents Paue PREFACE ............................................. BAIC DATA SHEET ................. i EVALUATION SUNHARY ................. v I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 Sectoral Background ............................. 1 The Central Rangelands Development Project Phase I ............................. 3 I$. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION. PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL . 5 A. Origin. 5 B. Preparation and Appraisal .5 C. Project Description. 7 III. EFFECTIVENESS AND INITTAL IMPLEMENTATION. . 10 A. Effectiveness .10 B. Initial Implementation and Design Problems . 10 C. The Mid-Term Review .12 IV. IMPLEMENTATION .14 A. Implementation Schedule . ........................ 14 B. Physical Implementation . . 15 C. Reporting . .18 D. Procurement . .18 E. Actual Costs and Disbursements .. 19 F. Audit ......................... 20 V. OPERATING PERFORMANCE ................................... 21 Technical Results ............................... 22 Project Weaknesses .............................. 23 VI. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE ............................... 24 CRDP ....................... 24 Range and Livestock Associations . . 26 Consultants ..................................... 26 Donors .......................................... 26 VII. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ................................... 27 Cost Recovery ................................... 27 Beneficiary Incomes ........................... . 27 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. VIII. LCONOMIC -ZEVALUATION ................................ .. 27 IX. SQMMLAY AND LESSONS LENAR. ..... ............... . . . ... 28 Follow-up Project. ............... ...... ......... 29 TABLES Table 1 i Physical Achievements - Table 2 a Disburseibnts by Financing Source Table 3 : Disbursements by Category Table 4 s Exchange Ratas Table 5 t Comparison between Appraisal Estimates and Actual Disbursements by Category Table 6 : Permanent Staff Table 7 s Project Implementation Schedule Table 8 : Implementation Schedule Chart - Range Management Component Table 9 s Implementation Schedule Chart - Soil and Water Conservation Component Table 10 : Implementation Schedule Chart - Extension Component: Agro-Pastoral Department Table 11 t USAID-funded Technical Assistance Tal,le 12 : Technical Assistance Other than USAID Funded ANNNEXES Annex 1 : Economic Analysis Annex 2 : WFP Comments on Project Evaluation MAPS Map 1 : Districts within CRDP Map 2 : Land Capability and Potential for Development PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CENTRAL RhNGELANDS DEVELOPM£NT PROJECT (CREDIT 906 SO) PREFACE This Project Completion report reviews the Central Rangelands Development Project for which an IDA Credit of US $ a 0 million was approved on April 25, 1979. The oriRinal Closing Date of June 30, 1986 was extended to December 31, 1989 to accommodate the delays in implementation which occurred at the beginning of the project period. The final disbursement under Credit 906-SO was made on August 4, 1988. This report was prepared by an FAOICP mission that visited Somalia in May 1988. Additional information was obtained from the 1979 Staff Appraisal Report Number 2163 SO, IDA and IFAD legal agreements dated, respectively, October and June 1979, the mid-term review report of June 1984, supervision and audit reports, project files, annual reports and project completion statistics, supplemented by interviews with both local and expatriate staff and field visits. This PCR was read by the Operations F-valuation Department (OED). The draft PCR was sent to the Borrower and cofinanciers for comments and they are attached to the Report (Annex 2). * ~~~~- ii - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT SOVALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 906-SO) BASIC DATA SHEET XEY PROJECT DATA Actual or Actual as Z of Item Appraisal Current Appraisal Expectat..on Estimate Estimate Total Project Costs (USS million) 46.3 46.5 100 IDA Credit Amount (US$million) 8.0 8.0 100 Cofinancing-Total (USS million) 32.3 31.9 99 IFAD 9.0 9.0 100 USAID 15.0 12.8 85 GTZ 4.0 6.9 172 WFP ',.3 2.9 67 ADAB 0 0.3 - Date "hysical Compcnents Cumpleted 6184 12/87 Proportion completed by that date (1) 100 SO EconomiC. Rate of Return (2) 15 -6 Institutional Performance mixed CUMULATIVE ESTIMATED A&MD ACTUAL DISBUISEMENTS FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 Appraisal Estimate (USS million) J.3 1/ 0.4 1.9 4.3 6.1 6.9 7.7 8.0 - _ Actual (US$ million) 0.0 0.5 2/ 1.2 2.4 4.2 6.3 7.1 7.6 7.9 8.0 Actual as 2 of Estimate 0 80.0 63.0 56.0 69.0 91.0 92.0 95.0 99.0 100.0 Date of Final Disbursement: June 1988 1/ Disburseuente under Project Preparation Facility (PPF). 2/ Including USS 0.3 million for PPF. PROJECT DATES Original Plan Actual First Mention in Files 06/79 11/79 Negotiations 03/79 03/79 Board Approval _ 04/79 Signing (Credit Agreement Date) 10/79 Effectiveness 09/79 06/80 Closing Date 06/86 12/87 - ill - ST^lF INPUTS (staff weeks) FY77 nXZ l78 F rY60 IrY81 n2 tY83 FY84 FY8 FY6 FY87 FYSS TOTAI Preappraisal 70.6 18.7 5. I - - 94 ' Appraisal - 92.0 37.8 - - - - - - - - 129.E Negotiation .2 - 12.8 - - - - 13.C Supervision - - 2.4 6.7 15.9 19.1 13.7 32.7 14.9 14.9 19.4 10.1 149.S Other - .3 .5 - .1 - .1 - - - - - 1.1 TOTAL 70.S 111.0 58.6 6.7 15.0 19.1 13.8 32.8 14.9 14.9 19.4 10.1 388.L MISSION DATA Date No. of Specialisation Performance Types of (mo.I/r.) Persons Reoresented */ Rating b/ Trend c/Problem d/ Identification 11/76 2 a-b - - Preparation 1/77-9/77 -----------------(joint WB/GOS team)------------------- Pre-appraisal 12/77 2 a - - - Appraisal 2/78 5 a-b - - - Supervisions Initial (prior to effectivenecs) 4/80 2 a-b 2 2 0/F Partial 11/80 2 a-b 2 1 OJT Full 3/81 3 a-b-f - - O/T/F Partial e/ 11/81 2 a-a 2 3 O/T/F Partial el 2/82 2 a-a 2 3 T/F Partial e/ 6/82 2 a-a 2 3 TIF/M Full 3/83 1 a 2 2 T/?/M Full 9/83 3. a 2 2 T/FIM Full f/ 10/83 3 a-b-g ft 2 3 MIT/F (Mid-Term Review) ( 3/84 3 a-a-f ) Full 6/b4 3 a-b-g ft 2 1 M/T/F Full 8/84 3 a-b-g ft 2 1 M/T/F Partial e/ 11/84 1 a 2 1 M/T/F/ Full 6/85 1 b 2 1 T/F/O Full 1/86 2 a-b 1/1/3/2 Partial 8/ 8/86 3 a-a-b 1/1/3/2 Full 3/87 1 b 1/1/3/2 Full 5/87 2 a-h lil/2/2 Partial h/ 12/87 4 a-b-d-i 1/1/2/2 OTHER PROJECT DATA Borrower: Somali Democratic Republic Executing Agenciess N'-ional Range Agency (NRA) Central Rangelands Development Project (CRDP) Fiscal Year: January 1 - December 31 Name of Currency: Somali Shilling (So.Sh.) Exchange Rate at Appraisal: 1 USS - So.Sh. 6.295 at Completion: 1 USS - So.Sh. 99.000 - iv - Follow-On Proiectss * Manic* Central Rangelatds Research and Development Project II Credit Number: 1957-SO Amount (US$ Million)t 19.0 Approval Date: 10/18/88 a/ a - Livestock specialist b - economist c - engineer d - range management sp. e - training sp. f - financial analyst g - project controller (IFAD) h - soil/water conser. sp. i - sociologist b/ 1: Problem-free or minor problems 2: Moderate problems 3: Major problems c/ Before 1986: After 1986: relating to 1: Improving Available funds 2: Stationary Project Management 3: Deteriorating Overall status d/ F: Financial M: Managerial T: Technical P: Political 0: Other 2/ Combined with other assignments. f/ Participation of IFAD staff. ,I Combined -lth formulation of Phase II. h/ Combined with pre-appraisal of Phase IJ. SOMALIA CENTRAL RNGL;ANDS DEVELOPENT ?PROJECT (CRZDIT 906 SO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT rVALUATION SUMMARY Introduction: The rangelands are a key productive resource for Somalia. The country is heavily dependant on exports of livestock produced on the rangelands. The Central Rangelands provides about 20 percent of sheep oxports, 40 percent of goat exports, and 10 to 20 percent of exports of camels and cattle. At Government's request, the Bank fielded an identification mission in November 1976. which agreed to prepare a project to develop the Central Rangelands. This was in line with the Government's agricultural development strategy, which placed major emphasis on improving livestock production while aiming at a more balanced development between the regions. Until then development efforts had favored the northern and southern regions, and the Shabelle and Juba riverine areas. Preliminary objectives were 'to stop the increasing deterioration of the rangelands and reduce the necesaity for pastoralists to lead a nomadic life...also, to 1-prove the quality and quantity of livestock production.' This project followed the financing of a Northern Rangelands Development Project by the Kuwait Fund, and the establishment of the National Range Agency to oversee rangelands utilization in the country. obiectives: The original objectives of the project were to: (i) consolidate and improve rangeland and livestock production in the Central Rangelands; (ii) improve pastoralists'incomes; and (iii) encourage, by improved range management, the gradual concentration of pastoral communities as this was considered conducive to the provision of social services. The project area, comprised three administrative regions (Hiran, Galgadud and Mudug) covering some 149,000 km2 - about one fifth of the total land area of Somalia. Total project costs were estimated at USS 46.3 million, with IDA contributing USS 8.0 million and the remainder funded by IFAD with SDR 7.0 million, USAID with about US$ 15.0 million, and smaller contributions from WFP and GTZ. Project objectives were to be achieved by aerial and ground surveys of rangeland resources, socio-economic surveys and continuous dialogue with the pastoralists, leading to the establicbment of grazing reserves, the formation of Range and Livestock Associations (RLA's) and the development of stock water supplies. Other components included the nonformal education of pastoralists, the formal education of project staff, the strengthening of the National Range Agency (NRA), the development of veterinary services and the establishment of tree nurseries, town shelter belts, soil and water conservation and range grazing cooperatives. - vi - IDlementation tinerience After eight years of implementation the project has not fully attained its objectives. It has contributed to an understanding of the dynamics of rangelands use in Central Somalia and to the de0vlopment of a strategy for future interventions. A aid term review in March 1984 resulted in a sharp reduction in scope and coverage of project activities, a shift in objectives towards more investigative activities, coupled with the installation of useful irfra*ttucture, and modifications in the structure of the project, giving increased autonomy to the project manager. Since the mid-term reviev, the project has put in place many useful interventions which have benefited about a third of the Central Rangelands population, particularly through the development of water points, veterinary and related services, and agropastoral extension messages. Most notable are the achievements from a technical and research standpoint. Benefits not directly quantifiable are important: the project has made a definite start towards establishing a permanent dialogue with pastoralists, formed a first group of range and livestock associations which are adopting the proposed range management interventions, and which constitute a focal point for other key activities such as infrastructural development and soil co!iservation. Through accumulation of information, the identification of lo.:al priorities and the permaneat testing of interventions, the project has been a major learning process for Government and donors. The institutional achievements have been m-ied. The organization and management of the project certainly improved as a result of the adjustments made at the mid-term review, which established the project as a separate operational entity within the Ministry of Livestock, For-estry and Range. However, unresolved logistics problems (fuel and equipment), the lack of incentives - both financial and professional - and low staff morale, management deficiencies and unsatisfactory coordination between components and donors, have all contributed to a declining performance in the recent past. While the formal education component has been relatively successful, the external training program, on the other hand, has not produced the desired results. Proiect Imoact Project efforts to strengthen the local institutions have had partial success. With infrastructure and staff development support from the project in its early phase, the National Range Agency developed into an agency capable of taking on more of the tasks devolved upon it for range management in Somalia. The reorganization subsequent to the mid-term review demonstrated that the project operated more effectively under its own management. Implementation was, however, slowed by the removal in April 1986 of a fully committed and dynamic project manager. Benefits expected at appraisal were overly optimistic. At the same ttme, the long-term nature of range management interventions and the importance of research were not sufficiently recognized. Although at the end of the project benefits from range development are as yet unquantifiable, the accumulation of knowledge and the progress made in understanding the pastoral and agropastoral systems in the Central Rangelands have been valuable. - vii - Hore tangible, but not substantial, benefits have been produced by the project's veteriuary service: and agropastorsl demonstrations/trials, as well as the water development component . notwithstanding the low output from boreholes that have been constructed but not fully equipped. Because of the late start-up of these activities, however, the first quantifiable benefits ocurred several years after the project began. An economic re- evaijation carried out on the basis of models and parameters provided by GTZ and the project's extension staff and taking ! ,o account those costs directly related to the benefits, yields a negative Economic Rate of Return of -6Z . Even if project implementation had been more rapid in the first stages of the project, and these relatively small bcaefits produced in earlier years, the project's Economic Rate of Return would still be negative. Sustainability The project was expected to create some revenue for Government through Ci) fees charged at stock water points, and (ii) the sale of veterinary drugs. Cost recovery has, in fact, come mainly from the latter as the first Nomadic Animal Health Ass-stants, trained in Ceel Dhere district, began the distribution of drugs in late 1986. The collection of water charges by the Water Development Authority (and not the National Range Agency, as proposed at appraisal) has been insignificant. The level of fees is insufficient to cover the complete cost of capital equipment and ensure adequate maintenance. Findinsa and Lessons The implementation of the project was an important learning process for Government and donors. Many useful interventions were identified and tested. Some key lessons were learned regarding implementation of projects in the Somali rangelands. First, regular supplies of fuel, vehicles and spares are an essential precondition to other activities. Second, infrastructure development and other modifications affecting pastoralists lives should be preceded by a thorough investigation of the consequences of these changes on the local environment. Agreement on the nature of the proposed interventions should be reached with the local inhabitants before the intervention is implemented. Third, the project can only be effective if it operates as a separate entity within the National Range Agency or tie Ministry of Livestock, Forestry and Range. Finally, Range and Livestock Associations should play a key role in guiding project activities in the rangelands. These lessons were incorporated in the design of a second phase project in the Central Rangelands. SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT S . - (IDA CREDIT 906-SO; PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION Sectoral Backaround 1. Agriculture contributes just over 50Z of GDP and within the sector livestock is by far the most important single activity, contributing an estimated 35Z of GDP. Livestock and its products constitute major components of the country's exports, representing an estimated 90Z of total earnings. As well as providing for the country' s total meat needs, the subsector also accounts for around two-thirds of total employment. 2. Notwithstandiig it-s key role, livestock presents limited overall development opportunities in the near term. Production systems of cattle, sheep, goats ard camels are traditional and extensive, based on the country's large rangeland resources. The latter comprise some 702 of the total land area and support an estimated 40.45 million animals. An accurate census has never been made nor would it be particularly meaningful as Somalia shares long boundaries with Kenya in the south and Ethiopia in the west, crossing historical ethnic and pastoral areas which in turn are regularly traversed by nomadic herders who comprise the majority of livestock owners. 3. While both pastoral and livestock resources are significant, their future growth will be slow for a number for reasons, namely: a. the rangelands are in their natural state and have low drymatter productivity. They are already stocked to capacity and future increases in carrying capacity depend on the introduction of effective, low-cost range management techniques to increase forage production and quality and to even out large seasonal variations in productivity due to low and erratic rainfall; b. research is proceeding in range improvement techniques but has only recently begun and is limited in scope; any development approach must take account of the special socio-ethnic circumstances surrounding livestock ownership and nomadic pastoral traditions. It must be oased on simple, low- technology, cost-effective interventions capable of application - 2 - to transhumant herds and flocks. Given the life and death stakes often involved in such harsh and unpredictable environments, proposed interventions must be thoroughly tested and of minimal risk to be acceptable in the nomadic contixt; c. interventions must also be conservation-oriented and carefully balance lIrestock increases with the rsuge's ability to sustain higher numbers - the slow and effective phasing of interventions with market prospects to ensure profitable and regular disposal of offtake is also essential to ensure long- term sustainability and avoid overgrazing and range degradation. 4. Given such conditionality and taking account of the fact that serious efforts to address problems have been undertaken in Somalia only since the early 1980s, there are ae yet few solutions and considerable more time and effort will be required to produce them. Such effort must also take full account of a further imnortant character-istic of the livestock subsector, namely the dichotomy existing between the economic need to increase GDP and export earnings and the nomads' immediate objective of subsistence and survival over long cyclical periods of drought and regeneration. The latter involves build-up of animal numbers in good years, mainly of female stock, in anticipation that a varying proportion will perish in the next drought. Such a pattern contributes neither to optimization of range output nor to regularity of export supplies. Furthermore, the heavy livestock losses in the worst drought years represent such severe and recurrent drains on the country's key resource as to make future growth planning highly risky, unpredictable and imprecise. 5. Present government strategy consists of stabilizing to the, extent possible the range'.' existing feed supply and livestock numbers, encouraging offtake (improving marketing, animal health, water and related services) for export of animals and hides and skins, gradually developing the feed base and stocking rate, and introducing drought risk aversion measures (strategic famine reserves, wet/dry season reserves, more productive varieties generally and selected drought tolerant species in special situations, more use of crop by-products and industrial waste where available). 6. Of all approaches, those considered to have the greatest theoretical benefits ind perceived applicability in the local context are range management interventions aimed at improving through grazing control (enimal numbers, type and distribution) the balance between animal requirements and forage supply and, in so doing, improving through "better management the quantity and quality of forage over time. The basic assumptions are to so manage the range as to maximize the application of those practices known to favor better pasture growth and a more favorable balance between palatable and unpalatable species and to minimize the application of unfavorable practices known to discourage them. The approach -3- relies heavily on the transference of practices considered to have been shown to be effective in North America and elsewhere, although claims for such effectiveness do not appear to be universally agreed by specialists in the field who appear divided in their views. 7. Basic to the approach is a full understanding of range ecology, of current nomad livestuck grazing and husbandry systems, and of the response and motivation of pastoralists. The approach is cautious, conservative and pilot-oriented. It seeks to avoid dislocation of existing, albeit imperfect, ways until better, proven, low-risk and appropriate ways can be demonstrated. The approach appears logical and obvious. It is also painstakingly slow and results cannot be assured. 8. The latter approach is currently that being adopted in the Central Rangelands Development Project (CRDP), and would be pursued in the CRDP approach to problem-solving and development. It is heavily subjective and fundamental and so far at least, after some eight years of CRDP, carries little guarantee of significant success apart from limited areas (veterinary, water and agropastoral interventions and examples where tangible though limitsd productivity increases have been shown possible). A key aspect determining its choice is the paucity of alternatives. That of massive intervention in an imperfectly understood traditional system using unproven methods was initially proposed and after prolonged consideration, rejected. The present approach is thus considered best on balance given the circumstances. The Central Ranaelands Development Proiect (Phase I) 9. Appraised in February 1978, CRDP (I) was approved by the Bank's Board on April 25, 1979, signed on October 24, 1979, but did not become effective until June 30, 1980. A six-year project, it involved a total investment of about US$46.3 million with multi-donor financing, comprising at appraisal the International Develcpment Association (IDA), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Overseas Development Association (ODA) and the World food Programme (WP). The ODA withdrew early on, and its comuitments were taken over by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). At a later stage, Australian aid (ADAB) was added to the already long list of agencies participating in the project's financing. 1/ 1/ Reviews by principal donors are contained in: USAID - June 1979 Original Project Paper, amended July 1986. Interim evaluation report, June 1987. GTZ - Forestry expert's Terminal report, April 1988. WFP - Interim evaluation-cum-appraisal report, January 1986. -4- 10. The original objectives of the CRDP, as stated in the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) 2I tot a. consolidate and improve rangeland and livestock productiont b. improve pastoralists'incomes; and c. encourage, by improved range management, the gradual concentration of pastoral communities as this was considered conducive to the provision of social services. The project area, located between latitudes 3010'N and 7040'N, comprised three administrative regions (Hiran, Galgadud and Mudug) covering some 149.000 km2 -about one fifth of the total land area of Somalia. 11. Project objectives were to be achieved by aerial and ground surveys of rangeland resources, socio-economic surveys and continuous dialogue with the pastoralists, leading to the establishment of grazing reserves, the formation of Range and Livestock Associations (RLAs) and the development of stock water supplies. Other components included thLe nonformal education of pastoralists. the formal education of project staff, the strengthening of the National Range Agency (NRA), the development of veterinary services and the establishment of tree nurseries, town shelter belts, soil and water conservation and range grazing cooperatives. 12. Not only was management of this complex project, over such a large area, difficult, but there were also inadequate data available on whicb to base the intended managerial interventions and a limited understanding of the pastoral socio-economic environment. The realization that the original objectives could not be attained during the project period and that expected benefits could be insignificant, added to the difficulties plaguing project implementation in the early years, led to a mid-term review which was agreed between all donors and GOS and carried out in the first part of 1984. The review mission recomended a number of changes both in the project design and management structure, which were implemented subsequently. 13. The closing date of the IDA credit (US$8 million), initially June 30, 1986, was extended twice to June 30, 1987 and December 31, 1987, with another six-month period to fully disburse the remaining funds. 2I Somalia: Central Ranaelands Develonment Project, World Bank Eastern Africa Region. Staff Appraisal Report No. 2163-SO, April 17, 1979. -5- II. PROJECT XDENTIFICATION, 1FREPARATION AND APPRAISAL A. Origin 14. A UNDP-assisted livestock development survey in 1966, followed by a survey of the northern rangelands four years later, led to the formulation in 1974 of the UNDP/FAO rangeland conservation anl development project. The project was prematurely terminated in 1976 due to the UNDP financial crisis, but its findings influenced the design of the Northern Rangelands Development Project (NRDP) - financed by the Kuvait Fund after it had been identified and appraised by IDA - as well as, subsequently, that of the CKDP. Initially to implement NRDP, the National Range Agency (NRA) was established in 1976 as a semi-autonomous organization headed by a General Manager directly responsible to the Minister, Ministry of Livestock, Forestry and Range (MLfR). 15. At Government's request, the Bank's Regional Mission in East Africa (RHEA) fielded an identification mission in November 1976, which discussed development opportunities and priorities with Government institutions, including the State Planning Commmission, and agreed to prepare a project to develop the Central Rangelands. This was in line with GOS' agricultural development strategy, which placed major emphasis on improving livestock production wh.ile aiming at a more balanceci development between the regions (until'then development efforts had tended to favor the northern and southern regions, and the Shabelle and Juba riverine areas). Project objectives at identification were 'to stop the increasing deterioration of the rangelands and reduce the necessity for pastoralists to lead-a nomadic life...also, to improve the quality and quantity of livestock production." The identification brief also brought up two issues, first that demographic and livestock data were as yet not available, second that basic data were also lacking on which to base the livestock water supply development program. B. Preparation and Appraisal 16. In January 1977 a joint GOS/Bank team 3/ began project preparation and, taking into account some of the changes put forward by Government, a preparation report - finalized by RMEA staff in Nairobi - was produced in October 1977. The most important modifications requested by Government were the inclusion in the project of a range inventory study (surveys of livestock numbers and movements, soils and vegetation in the project area) that would provide benchmark data for project activities in range management, and a marketing component to finance additional livestock marketing facilities. While the latter was eventually dropped in favor of a national livestock marketing project which the Kuwait Fund was, at the time, 31 Considerable part-time assistance was also provided by other Government staff and RMEA consultants in hydrogeology and range ecology. -6- interested to finance, the range inventory study - showing Government's concern for the lack of basic data - was incorporated at appraisal. 17. Project components developed during preparation comprised: a. range development (establishment of dry season grazing reserves over the whole project area together with three controlled grazing blocks, construction of access tracks, development of water points each with a pair of equipped boreholes and establishment of over 200 ha of fuelwood plantations near selected towns, creation of one trial cooperative ranch in each of the three regions); b. research (establishment of a National Range Research Centre); c. strengthening of services (veterinary, National Range and forestry) and training; d. technical assistance and project management (through a Project Coordination Unit), including the development of NRA headquarters. The major issue perceived by the Bank at that time was the large number (27) of expatriate staff required for the project. On Government's side, it is interesting to note that NRA had thought, at some point during preparation, that too much of the rangelands was going to be put under grazing reserves. The number initial 32 reserves proposed in the SAR - about 20Z of the Central Rangerands area, was eventually much reduced-during implementation. 18. Appraisal took place in early 1978, after a pre-appraisal mission in December 1977 had reconsidered two of the preparation components, i.e., the National Range Research Centre (it was decided that the establishment of such a center was premature in view of the scarcity of baseline data, the absence of graduate counterpart staff and the high cost of expatriate staff) and the cooperative ranches. While the overall project objectives remained the same, further significant changes were decided during appraisal: (1) The concept of a blanket coverage of the project area with stockwater points and the introduction of range management by opening and closing those water points in rotation was abandoned in favor of demarcation of town, village, famine and range grazing reserves covering 30Z of the area. Stockwater development was to be made conditional upon the formation of grazing associations, the acceptance of controls on rangeland use and the agreement by the local authorities to enforce restrictions on grazing as directed by the NRA - the designated implementing agency. (2) The training component was expanded considerably in the area of nonformal training of pastoralists, professional level training in the Faculty of Agriculture, and funds for postgraduate training in range management at overseas universities. -7- (3) The concept of a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was changed in favor of a general strengthening of the professional and administrative capacity of the NRA, whose General manager was to act at the same time as Project Manager. (4) The woodlot planting component was replaced by three nurseries and town shelter belts. (5) The proposed stwinningw of boreholes was abandoned as . costly and ineffective means of safeguarding stockwater supplies. Instead the maintenance capability of NRA was to be strengthened. (6) The project implementation period was expanded from four to six years as a result of the expanded Range Development component. 19. Following appraisal. major issues raised by internal reviewers in the Bank concerned the project size and cost, associated with the amount of required co-financing and the substantial technical assistance input. The latter, which the pre-appraisal mission had attempted to reduce significantly, was eventually made even larger than at preparation (over 30 posts to be provided at various stages of project implementation for a total of 100 man-years). After the yellow cover SAR had been thoroughly reviewed, it was however decided that the project was not *reducible to any significant extent," based on the technical judgment that innovations evenly dispersed over 30Z of the project area represented a critical mass' since it was consideread that improvements in a smaller area would be neutralized by an unacceptable level of grazing pressure. C. Project Description 20. CRDP original objectives and components. As CRDP was designed, in the late 1970s, in the wake of a disastrous drought with its attendant extreme overgrazing, range degradation, high animal mortality and human suffering, its principal aims were range development (including reversal of deteriorated areas), more and better forage, aversion of future drought effects, higher carrying capacity and offtake. with the resulting improved pastoralist incomes and living standards. Final components retained at appraisal were: - Range and water development, starting with a resource inventory and range ground survey, to be followed by: (1) the provision of staff, housing, offices, workshops, transport and equipment for the NRA field service in the project area; (2) the demarcation of 45 town and village grazing zeserves each of 400 km2, 12 famine reserves each of 600 km2 and 20 range grazing reserves each of 900 bm2; 8- (3) the drilling-and equipping of 32 boreholes, or stockwater ponds where appropriate, to provide supervised stockwater points in the famine and range grazing reservest and (4) the construction of 1,000 km of access tracks leading to range reserves and stockwater points. Nonformal training aimed at the promotion of the understanding and participation of the pastoralists to the project, with the provision of 9 man-years of professional services to conduct a survey of pastoral communities, train regional and district range educators, conduct seminars and workshops with pastoral elders and government officials and produce films and radio programs. Formal training in the form of: (1) 21.5 man-years of professional services in support of the Livestock and Range School at Afgoi (2 internationally kecruited lecturers in range management, 1 in animal husbandry and 1 in forestry); (2) establishment of a Range Management Department at the Faculty of Agriculture of the National UuLiversity of Somalia (provision of one instructor in range management as well as 20 man-years of post-graduate fellowships in range management); (3) other overseas training (20 additional man-years of fellowships); Range studies and trials, including an inventory of the Northern Rangelands; a research program based on the information provided by aerial and ground surveys (8.5 man-years of professional services); the establishment of shelter belts and nurseries at each of the three regional capitals (Galkayo, Dusa Hareb and Beletweyne) together with the provision for four years of an expatriate Technical Director of Forestry and a nursery specialist; and a total of 4 man-years of professional services in soil conservation and water spreading techniques and assistance to experimental grazing cooperatives in the project area. Stren8thening of the veterinary services, through the recruitment of three expatriate veterinary specialists based in Mogadishu and the extension of the post of Technical Director of Veterinary Services (previously financed under NRDP), the construction of a field diagnostic laboratory at Beletweyne and the equipping of six additional mobile vaccination teams and 12 mobile clinics. Development of the NRA Headquarters (technical assistance for a total of 30 man-years, establishment of a range monitoring unit, -9- development of a stockwater service, setting up of a central maintenance workshop and three regional small workshops, construction of a headquarters office building). 21. Proiect costs and financing. Total project costs were estimated at US$46.3 million (including physical and price contingencies representing about 38Z of base costs), of which 711 in foreign exchange. Because of the high project cost and numerous components, several development agencies had been called in to contribute with a combination of credits, loans and grants. 41 Under joint financing arrangements, IDA was to contribute a credit of US$8 million, and IFAD a loan of 7 million Special Drawing Rights (about US$9 million), sharing all disbursements in the ratio of about 8:17 to 9:17. Components covered by IDA and IFAD were the nonformal education and training, the building program and part of t.ie administrative and management support to the NRA, with a total of 67Z foreign exchange and 33Z local costs. 22. The USAID grant was to finance the range and stockwater development components, part of the formal education and training, the range investigations, soil conservation and grazing cooperatives components, technical assistance to NRA Headquarters, and the Range Monitoring Unit and Stockwater Service, except for the categories covered by IDA and IFAD. ODA (later replaced by GTZ) would finance technical assistance and specialized equipment for part of the formal training at the Livestock and Range School, the town shelter belts and nurseries, the Veterinary services and the Maintenance service. WFP would provide food for unskilled laborers. Government, whose contribution was expected at US$6 million, 5/ was to gradually take over all local salaries and allowances by year 4 of the project. 23. It was agreed at negotiations that as a condition of effectiveness of the credit, Government had deposited in NRA's project account with the Central Bank an advance in the amount of So.Sh. 5 million, to be replenished every six months until project cQmpletion. 24. Organization and Management. The project was to serve also as a vehicle for institutional strengthening of the NRA, its main executing agency; it provided support and staff training to the major Departments at headquarters (Administration; Range and Environment; Forestry; Research, Training and Planning, where a Monitoring and Evaluation Unit was to be established) and the NRA field services in the Central Rangelands, whose organization restod upon three regional range directors. Other implementing agencies were the Veterinary Department of MLFR for the veterinary services component, the Ministry of Education's Project Management Unit for the formal training at the Afgoi Livestock and Range School and the Faculty of Agriculture for training in range management. No executing agency was 4/ The search for co-financiers actually caused a slippage in the SAR processing and a delay in the submission to the Bank Loan Committee. 5/ This was changed to US$9 million in 1982. _ 10 - clearly des:Lgnated for water development activities. Grazing associations were to be formed by NRA in consultation with local government authorities. 25. Benefits; Almost two-thirds of project benefits were anticipated. to accrue from investments in range and water development. The remaining benefits were projected from improved veterinary services. IDAIIFAD investments relied upon USAID - and 4TZ-financed components for projected benefits. An ERR of 15? was estimated at appraisal. I1U. EFmFCTIVENESS AND INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION A. Effectiveness 26. CRDP was declared effective only in mid-1980, i.e., some nine months after the IDA credit agreement was signed. This delay was caused by difficulties in fulfilling the procedures necessary to satisfy conditions of effectiveness, including a gap (eventually filled by the NRA) of So.Sh. 1 million in the sum deposited by the Ministry of Finance to serve as a revolving fund for the project and a cross-effectiveness clause which required the ODA grant to be effective at the same date as the IDA credit. As ODA withdrew support in late 1979 (as a result of an-across-the-board reduction in British aid to Somalia), the clause was eventually waived. B. Initial Imolementation and Design Problems 27. Even after the project became operational, implementation was constrained by further delays: slow recruitment of technical assistance staff - in particular the vital range specialists under USAID funding - and delayed execution of the range ground survey, resulting in the late start-up of range reserve development and water drilling operations; slow progress in designing and calling tenders for the construction program (the initial overdesign of buildings had to be modified), causing a cost overrun of some 602 in this component barely one year following effecti"eness as local costs of construction materials had substantially increased during the time elapsed. At the same time, execution of the other components was adversely affected by the deteriorating security situation in the project area and by the influx of refugees from Ethiopia along with their livestock. 28. More seriously, there was a general concern from the very beginning that the technical base of the project was unproven, the risks involved had been largely underestimated and the scale and complexity of the proposed interventions were such that they could not be applied. Their implementation depended on the close and continuous cooperation (control) of diverse groups of independent nomadic herders who were highly individualistic and traditional with their own established opportunistic grazing habits. Central to these was the freedom and flexibility to move animals in large numbers quickly without impediment to seek the best grazing - 11 - in response to the area's sporadic and unpredictable rainfall. The project's planned, disciplined, relatively rigid approach (grazing coutvrl on a fixed area of land and restricted grazing reserves) in effect d'.rectly challenged these most basic pastoralist conventions and sought almost totally to replace them with an untried system. Modifications to Appraisal Approach 29. The consulting firm selected by USAID to implement the proposed range interventions, described formally in an August 1979 Project Paper, were the first seriously to question the appraisal approach on technical grounds in their April 1982 Inception Report. While recognizing the potential and need to improve the use of existing range resources and to develop them further, they proposed a much more moderate, flexible and technical approach emphasizing the need to improve existing nomadic ways gradually based on a thorough knowledge and understanding of them rather than to change them abruptly for a largely unproven substitute. Essentially, the Berger team questioned the feasibllity of establishing grazing reserves in over 302 of the CRDP area and felt that the area involved (4.3 million ha) was too large to control bearing in mind the mobility of nomadic pastoralists, their traditional rights to the use of land and their reluctance to accept discipline. Believing that the adoption of a fixed grazing system (e.g. four-block rest-rotation system) was premature, they suggested lowering the level of intervention to a more tolerable one and the implementation of project actions on a district-by-district basis. Implicit in this approach was the need for more data and information to provide a stronger technical underpinning on which to base larger-scale Interventions. 30. The consultant approach drastically changed the nature and scope of the project, giving it a survey/investigative/pilot orientation that would lay a firm technical base for the future although no direct benefits could be foreseen during the project's lifetime (contrasting sharply with high appraisal benefit expectations). It was endorsed locally and had a widespread effect on donor (particularly Bank-headquarters) attitudes that something was seriously wrong. 31. The consulting firm case was however sohtewhat undermined by their image/credibility, following the long delays on USAID's part in appointing the consultants. The team themselves did not present a strong, united front, particularly on the field approach; they were also divided on the usefulness of data produced by the earlier RMR 6/ resource inventory. Eventually the inception report was never accepted by USAID as an alternative design document superseding the Project Paper (PP),* although the consulting firm used it as the basis for implementation. An amendment to the original PP was prepared in 1986 by USAID, both to incorporate 6/ Resource Management and Research. - 12 - experiences gained with the project 71 and to reconcile differences between the 1979 PP and the consulting firm's inception plan; the latter effort was only partially successful as differences in basic project emphasis continued to exist, with the amnded PP recommending technological interventione while the LBI approach focussed on the evaluation of prospective technology. Organization and Management Co"straints 32. Management and coordination problems within NRA and with the project surfaced in the early stages of implementation; iL particulars the General Manager of NRA, although project manager (PM), could not devote full time to the project; _ the project "co-manager,* who was the de facto PM, was not fully competent and did not enjoy the respect of other Somali staff; - the project coordinator (expatriate technical assistance) lacked character and experience and was neither issue - nor priority - oriented; -- project inputs were not adequately inventoried, stored and controlled despite the best attempts of the expatriate Director of Administration, so that there was wide misapplication of vehicles. spares and fuel. 33. Tenuous links between project headquarters and the field resulted in a slippage in the implementation of the project's field inputs, and morale of both expatriate and local staff suffered. Attempts to rectify problems through normal supervision channels were unsuccessful due primarily to the inability of project management and senior NRA staff to implement agreed changes. C. The Mid-Term Review 34. From late 1982 to 1983, notwithstanding the progress in some areas such as the building program 8/ and the nonformal education component, project activities stalled in the key f'elds of range, water and veterinary development (GTZ also had financial/administrative difficulties and came on- 7/ A unilateral evaluation of its components by USAID in mid-1983 resulted principally in staff strengthening in range management and research while its initial suggestion to increase emphasis on research, data gathering and model testing and to delay production-oriented range interventions was strongly opposed by the NRA. 8/ After protracted bidding and evaluation procedures and the scaling down of the program, a contract was signed with a Chinese firm and construction commenced in July 1983. - 13 _ stream even later than AID, with their first specialists in post in late 1982; even then they remained very much apart, and were unwilling to cooperate on such matters as financial planing and procurement). Major project weaknesses had so crystallized by late 1983 that a review becuae essential, particularly as major donor groups were working completely independently of each other (Bank/IhAD, USAID, GTZ), and in a fragmented manner. By early 1984, because of the breakdown in liaison between the project coordinator, the USAID team leader and the GTZ team leader and the absence of overall direction from the PM and co-manager. the project lacked any semblance of control or coordination; despite isolated pockets of progress (nonformal training and Pstension, part of the range development, formal education, veterinary and mechanical services), the project had become a series of satellites working essentially in a vacuum. 35. Under Bmnk impulse, all doncrs and GOS took part in the project's mid-term review which, held in March 1984, aimed at critically examining all major aspects, including controversial issues. The conclusions of the review were that the vast area of the project made its supervision extremely difficult, that the weak organization and management structure nad resulted in deficient work planning and poor control of staff and resources and that the project had little prospect of generating benefits to the economy and to the population in the project area. 36. After some initial reluctance on the part of GOS about the need to reduce the project scope, complexity and geographical dispersion, specific changes to the project design and management were agreed; 9/ they included: a. Modification in the design of the project so that most components were to be implemented on a district by district basis, the first priority districts (one per region) being Bulo Burti, Ceel Dhere and Hobbio. Once development work was completed in one priority district it was to commence in another. b. Improvement of management by: Ci) the appointment of a full time Project Manager responsible to the General Manager of the NRA; (ii) the establishment of a Project Management Unit and the recruitment of an expatriate Field Manager 10/ ; and (iii) the setting up of a Steering Committee composed of representatives of the donors and appropriate GOS institutions. 9/ Letter dated 27th June 1985, from the General Manager, NRA, to representatives of the donors. 10/ This post was funded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. - 14 _ c. A reforaulation of the veterinary component as agreed between GTZ and the WLf. d. Transfer of the responsibilities and funding of the formal training component to the Faculty of Agriculture, Somali National University (SNU). * Reformulation of the water component in agreement with the Water Development Authority (tDA) and the USAID, so that water development could be expedited in priority districts with emphasis on the utilization of surface water supplies and on the rehabilitation of existing water sources. f. Continuation as planned of the forestry, the construction, and the workshop and vehicle maintenance components. All donors agreed that the new project direction was essential to build a firmer information and data base from which later, more substantive interventions could be launched. IV. IMPLEMENTATION 37. The redesigned and scaled-down project showed steady improvement as the various mid-term review recommendations were implemented. Given a new impetus under the direction of a full-time project manager who was both competent and committed, project activities, now focussed on the three priority'districts, stepped up markedly. While the objectives did not change. the approach used in achieving them evolved as project staff gained more experience with the pastoral and agropastoral systems of the Central Rangelands. Some essential changes were brought to the project approach: (1) Development of controlled grazing reserves changed from being a major project activity (as proposed at appraisal) to one in which a limited number of reserves were being formed and these as much on a trial basis as bona fide interventions. Although project reviews have shown doubt about the ultimate utility of grazing reserves, CRDP's working assumption has been that reserves can improve rangeland. (2) The original implicit assumption that range management and improvements would lead to greater livestock production increasingly changed to a feeling that considerably more knowledge was required about production systems in the project area before such a statement could be amplified and acted upon. Such knowledge was believed to be best obtained by using a systems approach whereby all components of a production system are considered. This approach was initiated through the adding - 15 - of a livestock specialist 11/ in the project and in the recognition of the importance of agropastoralism. (3) The approach to water development evolved from drilling new boreholes to placing more emphasis on developing smaller and/or more temporary water sources (including rainfall harvesting) which would spread grazing over larger areas yet not become ecologically dangerous. (4) The Extension/Nonformal education component increased its emphasis on gathering information to support the activities of other project components (thereby providing a substantial socio-economic input), acting as an intermediary between them and local pastoralists/agropastoralists and on developing an agropastoral demonstration and extension program. (5) Other activities absent in the original project design, e.g., sand dune fixation and the *barefoot' veterinary services through the Nomadic Animal Health Assistants (NAHAs) trained by GTZ, developed increasingly - the latter resulting in some of the more obvious project benefits. (6) Control of the Department of Botany and Range Management has shifted from the National Range Agency to the Faculty of Agriculture, SN. A. Implementation Schedule 38. CRDP (I) was implemented over a period of eight years and three months instead of the o.iginal six years (see implementation charts). Major causes for this delay were: - the varying rates of start-up of project components, most of those funded by IDAIIFAD becoming operational shortly after effectiveness (the building program started late but was completed in a fairly chort time) while USAID - and GTZ - financed coiponents suffered slippage due to funding and/or procurement and procedural delays; - in the years preceding the mid-term review, the very poor coordination between project headquarters and the field resulting in slow execution of field activities; - the unstable security situation in some locations of the project area during the initial years. 11/ Also team leader for the consulting firm since 1985. - 16 _ B. Physical Implementation 39. Project achievements have been as follows (see also Table 1): A resources inventory of the entire Central Rangelands has been carried out by air. On the ground surveys have been completed vithin the first three priority dist icts of range resources (by the USAID/the consulting firm's range ecologists), livestock numbers and seasonal movements, boundaries of traditional grazing areas and local perceptions about water requirements (nonformal education staff); livestock diseases (animal health component) and traditional livestock management practices (livestock specialist). In the beginning of 1987 the project initiated work in three additional priority districts, Jalalaksi, Ceel Bur and Haradheere. Significant progress has been made on range analysis, sociological investigations and animal production in two of these districts. Range management plans have been made by the range ecologists for 23 degaans 12/ covering a total area of 37,480 kmi, or some 80 of the three original priority districts. Using these ange management plans as a basis for range management, Range and Livestock Associations (RLAs) have been formed on 14 of these 23 degaans (present RLAs cover an area of 16, 877 km2, or 382 of the three original districts). Additional RLAs are in the process of being organized. RLAs represent the interests of those families who utilize a given degaan and within it, the same permanent water points and dry season grazing areas. These RLAs are organized by the project extension staff, but the RLA committees are composed of elders and other respected pastoralists of the degaan, local government and party authorities as well as religious leaders. Committee members are elected by the pastoralists of the degaan, and all RLA activities are managed by the committee. Rahge management plans, which include all types of management interventions, are now being prepared for the degaans in Jalalaksi and Ceel Bur districts. Range trend monitoring has also begun in these districts. Range ecology work will start in Haradheere district around mid-1988. Numerous management interventions have been implemented within RLA areas: 23 grazing reserves, 7 village conservation areas, 22 boreholes (of which 8 are good), 34 dugouts (31 good) for surface water supplies for livestock, 9 river water livestock 12/ Traditional grazing areas with permanent water points and dry season fodder sources. - 17 - access points (Shabelle river), 6 shallow hand-dug wells, 22 upgraded existing shallow wells, 3 tree nurseries at regional level and 7 at district level, 12 village shelterbelts, 13- berkeds (cement-linad surface water catcbments), 18 village tree planting programs, 8 (of which 5 on-going) stabilized sand dunes, 3 water erosion control sites, and woodlots and other tree plantations around the three regional capitals. A meteorological recording system has been initiated (10 rain gauges at present), and 6 automatic weather recording stations are on order by USAID. The Extension Component has established two agrosilvopastoral adaptive trial sites, one at Nooleeye and the other at Bulo Burti. They have also established a water spreading trial at Aborey, two species elimination trials, a seed multiplication unit and 8 agropastoral demonstrations on private farms. An animal disease monitoring program has been developed. A total ot 55 NAHAs have been trained in the first three priority districts and are providing drug-distribution and veterinary services for which there is high demand. Physical infrastructure has been constructed in the form-of 1 NRA/CRDP headquarters, 1 vehicle workshop and 10 internationAl staff houses in Mogadishu, 3 regional and 7 district CRDP centers comprising offices and staff houses, 13/ 1 central (Beletweyne) and 2 field veterinary investigation laboratories (Dusa Mareb and Galkayo) and veterinary and forestry staff housing. A functioning Department of Botany and Range Management has been 6stablished within the Faculty of Agriculture of the Somali National University; 34 students have graduated from it with B. Sc. degrees and 26 are currently in training. In terms of external tr&ining, 3 CRDP staff have received Diplomas of Natural Resources Managemeht in Australia and 8 others are now working on post-graduate programs in the USA while four have already returned t3 work in the project (seven others have not returned). F!ve CRDP staff members have been sent to Kenya for studies leading to a Masters Degree in Organization and Management, one of these has now returned. A large number of Somali staff have also received on-the-job training prior to their taking on positions of reoponsibility within the CRDP. 13/ Because of cost overruns due to the initial overdesign and delay in bid evaluation for the ouilding program, the number of staff houses was reduced by about 402 and the construction of 3 district centers was not undertaken. - 18 - - Other project staff have received training in veterinary *cience (advanced, short-term, courses) and forestry (diploma- level courses and study tours), all funded by GTZ. 40. ltmnagement interventions within'the first three priority districts have affected a probuble 30-40Z of the approximately 500,000 people living in the Central Rangelands. Host interventions have been directly and immediately applicable. A few, howel,er, such as shelterbelts, tree plantations and grazing reserves, will only begin showing useable results after several years. 41. Over and above the initiation of management interventions, a great deal of information and practical experience has been gained by all project components on the nature, functioning and practical implications of rangelands production systems within the Central Rangelands. 42. The project has also gained' from outside inputs - subsequent to the mid-term review - in the form of another review by consultants in 1985 and a highly successful workshop on Future RangeiLivestock Development Strategies for the Central Rangelands of Somalia in March 1986. The Consultant Report has been instrumental in making the project face the issues of increasing -agropastoralism and increasing enclosure, and has provided the theoretical underpinning for the remainder of the project activities, and the formulation of Phase II of the CBDP. The resultant information and experience has enabled the project to develop more practical techniques and approaches to meet its objectives as well as to develup objectives (for future use) that are more applicable to the potentialities and requirements of the Central Rangelands. This "state of knowledge' has been put to practical use in the production of a project preparation report for the second phase. C. Reporting 43. CRDP has been submitting - since 1981 - to Government and financing agencies annual reports which have been useful in assessing the progress made each year by the project components. Annual work plans and budgets are also prepared, after submission to Management by all CRDP departments and services of their programs of work for the coming year. Six-monthly reports are presented to the Steering Conmmittee, and detailed annual budgetary requests are made to GOS around September-October each year. Annual financial statements are submitted to IDA and IhAD, in addition to external audit reports to CRDP management when project accounts have been audited. v. Procurement 44. Procurement under the joint IDA Credit and IFAD-loan were to follow World Bank procurement guidelines: procurement of most vehicles, equipment and furniture has been subject to international competitive bidding, - 19 - initially through an overseas procurement agent whose poor services were later replaced by direct procurement by the Project Unit. Contracts for goods and services costing less than US$5,000 could, however, be procured by negotiated purchase and contracts for civil works, vehicles, furniture and equipment of less than US$25,000 have been procured also by negot.ated purchase after solicitation of a minimum three supplier quotations. Those of more than US$25,000 but less than US$100,000 could be awarded on the basis of competitive bidding advertised in Somalia and neighboring countries. The IDA/IFAD-funded construction program was contracted out to a local Chinese firm, while the infrastructure financed by GTZ (veterinary and forestry components) was built using local labor under the direct supervision of a GTZ construction expert. In general, difficulties in procurement for the project resulted from the different procedures used by the participating financing agencies, in particular USAID requiring the provision of US goods and services with delays as long as nine to twelve months, compared to one to four months for goods procured under IDA/IFAD regulations. E. Actual Costs and Disbursements 45. Total actual project costs can only be approximated, as exact figures on USAID and GTZ disbursements are not known (for GTZ estimates could not even be produced for 1987-88, so that the mission has made an educated guess on the amounts disbursed during those two years). 14/ In still a different way, the WFP contribution in the form of "food for work" (for some 1,100 CRDP laborers) has been evaluated using average-fob prices, in current terms, of the commodities supplied. (For WFP comments on the project see Annex 2). On those bases and with actual disbursements made by IDA, IFAD, ADAB and GOS, the total project cost amounts to US$46.5 million (Table 2b), i.e., about US$0.2 million over the appraisal estimate of US$46.3 million including contingencies - a cost overrun which is very small given the time overrun of more than two years. 46. IDA and IFAD disbursements correspond to their respective commitments at appraisal, i.e., US$8 million (1980-88) and US$9 million equivalent, with an exchange loss of about US$1.3 million for the IFAD contribution between 1980 and 1986. In the course of project implementation, GOS has made two requests in 1983 and 1984 15/ for a reallocation of IDA funds (from Category 8 - Unallocated - to Categories 2 to 5 and 7); 16/ a reallocation agreed by IFAD of the amounts of its loan 14/ Applying an annual inflation rate of 62 (World Bank Country Department estimates) to the amount estimated for 1986. 15/ This last one was authorized in October 1986. 16/ Civil Works, Vehicles, Furniture/Equipment, Technical Assistance and Operating Costs (see Development Credit Agreement). _ 20 - 47. A comparison for the IDA credit between appraisal estimates of disbursements by category (Table 5 ) shows a relatively important cost overrun for capital goods (vehicles and machinery by about 362, equipment and furniture by 12Z) and technical assis%ance, fellowships and professional services (by about 20Z), while actual construction costs are slightly below appraisal estimates (but exceed the amount allocated to this item in the Credit agreement). Actual recurrent expenditures including local salaries and allowances are significantly less than their appraisal estimates, despite the extended disbursement period. Sources of Finance 48. The difference in rates of start-up between the various project components and the slippage of GTZ components in particular, have meant that while the IDA credit and the IFAD loan have closed (IFAD at the end of 1986 and IDA in December 1987) and their funds fully disbursed, financial support by USAID will continue through June 1989 and the GTZ veterinary and forestry components (under separate funding) are now into their second phase - to be completed at the end of 1990 - following a first phase which lasted about four years and was evaluated favorably by the donor itself. ADAB's contribution ended with the departure of the project's expatriate Field Hanager, while WFP's commitment to CRDP (I) will terminate in 1989. 49. As of mid-1988, USAID has disbursed about US$12.8 million (appraisal estimate, US$15 million) and GTZ an estimated US$6.9 million (appraisal estimate for ODA, US$4 million later increased to US$8 million by GTZ). The A5AB has contributed some US$300,000 and the WVP about US$2.9 million. GOS' counterpart funding, on the other hand, has represented an equivalent of US$6.6 million (appraisal estimate of US$6 million, later increased to US$9 million). F. Audit 50. Due to managerial constraints (the first, IDA-funded, expatriate financial controller left soon after his arrival in Somalia because of health problems), no audit nor financial assessment of the project accounts was made before 1982. At the end of 1981 a renowned foreign audit firm (Pannell, Kerr and Forster) was finally appointed by Government with the approval of IDA and IFAD, and an annual audit of accounting and control procedures in the project was performed until 1985. The audit reports generally found the project's financial management satisfactory. However, two issues periodically raised related to a lam control of fixed assets and a badly kept recording of vehicle mileage and fuel use. Another problem - outside management control - has been the impossibility of quantifying the Federal Republic of Germany (GTZ)'s contribution to the project. Since 1986, GOS has not appointed an audit firm for the CRDP nor for other externally-funded projects. Recently, the situation seems to have improved, with a letter from the Finance Ministry in April 1988 inviting the application of six audit firms; the one selected should carry out the audit of CRDP accounts for the years 1986 through 1988. - 21 _ V. OPERATING PERFORMANCE 51. Imediately after the aid-term review, project pwrformance went through a salutary high, activities intensified and staff morale was restored. Good progress was made in all components, concentrated in the priority districts except for the forestry component which GTZ continued to implement essentially around the three regional capitals. If the use of vehicles and equipment was better controlled, however, two important aspects continued to impede CRDP's progress: unreliable fuel supplies through the National Petroleum Agency (there had been an unsuccessful attempt by the Project Unit at importing its oVn diesel in 1985) and GOS' contribution to local staff salaries and operating costs at only about 702, causing at times serious cashflow problems. Project operations have also suffered from the lack of coordination between the various components carried out by different teams of technical assistance. While the continuous dialogue with pastoralist communities and the associated range management/conservation activities have resulted from the combined efforts of the range specialists and nonformal education staff, GTZ components have been somewhat detached from the rest of CRDP - a feature emphasized by the fact that their operating base (Beletweyne) is located some 300 km away from project headquarters (Mogadishu). An added problem has been the unreli&bility of WFP supplies of food for work affecting project forestry and conservation activities, in particular in 1985186 when protracted negotiations for the second extension of the initial, country-wide WFP project 171 (of which CRDP was only a part) resulted in a temporary breakdown in supplies. 52. In'the last year or so, some of the above constraints have appeared in even greater intensity than before. Frequent fuel shortages have limited not only transport for the project but also water development and other activities depending largely on the use of heavy equipment (between January and May 1988, for instance. only two dugouts had been built out of a total of 15 planned for the whole year). Field visits of staff have been reduced occasionally by difficulties in obtaining ?er diems and transport expenses, even at their inadequate level: in the absence of any substantial increase in real terms, 18/ staff earnings have lost much of their purchasing power due to the constant erosion of the domestic currency, particularly since 1985 (the value, of the dollar has risen on the official market from about So.Sh.6 in 1980 to So.Sh.40 in 1985 and to So.Sh.99 in 1987), and the dramatic price increases of consumer goods. 19/ 17/ ORangelands Development and Reforestation,' Project SO 719. Negotiations took a particularly long time because of disagreements between GOS and WFP on the poor management performance during the previous phases. 18/ A directive from the Ministry of Finance has raised salaries by 150-200Z, with retroactive effect to April 1988. 19/ See Table 4 for exchange rates from 1980 to 1988. _ 22 - Technical Results 53. Although project achievements have *ncompassed various aspects - ringing fron soil and water conservation to animal health and forestry - its ultimate success rests on the usefulness of the range interventions it has developed and put in practice. In the course of project implementation the approach to range development has altered drastically from broad-brush grazing control of 302 of the total Central Rangelands area to carefully controlled, smaller-scale interventions involving three districts and established RLAs based on data relating to: - herbage characteristics of range and general condition assessment: - social structure of families/clans using the area in question (degaan approach); - grazing practices, seasonal animal movements, herd/flock structures, animal composition (cattle, sheep, goats, camels); - constraints - water, disease, internal parasites, flies (biting or tsetse), ticks (physical and disease problems), sol/rainfall (determining drylwet season grazing constraints and/or opportunities); - special circumstances (e.g., unusual marketing opportunities), agropastoral opportunities for broader-based livestock/crop/vegetablelfruit enterprises. 54. The most obvious, albeit unquantifiable, results from project range management interventions have been: - a better understanding of the pastoral production system in the Central Rangelands, and the development of a relationship based on trust between grazing associations and the Project Unit; this is measured by the awareness of and cooperation from the local population, the feedback on needs which have helped change the project's course (agropastoralism, dugout and shallow and hand dugwell water development, agroforestry) and the lack of conflict; - the development and implementation uf an appropriate and multidisciplinary approach to development in Somalia, combining the priorities of local coiDnities with the technical disciplines; - beneficial environmental effects resulting from forestry and soil conservation activities. 55. Other valuable technical findings are driving the new approach to development in the rangelands: (i) the importance of Yihib (an evergreen forage bush) and the need to focus management on key limiting resources - 23 - such as this dry season fodder, rather than lirge areas of range; (ii) live fencing, and its implications for fencing maintenance; (iii) buffel grass and mung beans in the agropastoral systems; (iv) dugouts rather t"an bores, for improved utilization of fodder; (v) the actual incidence of diseases is now known, thanks to the GTZ surveys; (vi) a pastoralist-based animal health system has been designed and put in place; (vii) the Department of Range is in place and producing graduates. 56. Knowledge in all the above areas has been accumulating and does provide a strong technical base for recommendations to improve range and animal productivity. In a May 1987 evaluation carried out by USAID consultants - two of which are highly qualified specialists in range resources from American Universities - it was concluded that the CRDP was making wa valuable contribution to the educational, scientific and technological basis for future implementation of improved rangeland management practices in Central Somalia."20/There is, however, the unsettling aspect of the lack of standardization in the range survey and reporting procedures adopted by the consulting firm's range ecologists in each of the priority districts: future use of the information collected and analyzed appears somewhat compromised by an uncommon data base. 57. The difficulties in doing research need to be stressed. Rangelands in Sonalia have received very low priority in livestock research programs, including those of the International Livestock Centre in Africa (ILCA). Little is known, and little can be done. Researchers have given up, as the potential for improvement on such a poor resource base is minimal. But Somalia has no choice: the country is rangelands, dnd such research has to go forward. The pioneering aspects of the ecological and research aspects of the project should be emphasized, and research efforts improved with the close backing of a large international research institute such as ILCA, or a University in southwest USA. Proiect Weaknesses 58. In the course of implementation, major project weaknesses have been: the inadequate use made of the aerial resource surveys (RMR) undertaken at the beginning of the project; the inadequate equipping of the boreholes, and the poor management of bores and dugouts; the poor state of the herbarium; the disappearance of many vehicles into NRA and other places; the lack of climatic, soils and leaf nutrient data gathering; the increasing danger from tree cutting for charcoal, which the project does little about. 59. A major gap remains in the quantification of benefits from the list of project range management interventions. So far, quantified benefits are apparent only from veterinary, water and agropastoral interventions and these are limited: data is as yet preliminary (one to two seasons) and requires replication. Providing immediate benefits to both human and animal populations, water development has turned out to be one of the most successful components of CRDP, particularly since the issue of permanent 20/ Interim evaluation report, USAID, June 1987. - 24 - boreholes having negative effects on the range and the slow process involved in identifying appropriate sites 21/ came to be recognized. Project veterinary services have also been very successful, but this success has been mitigated to a certain extent by procurement and funding constraints related to the national. non-project specific, Veterinary Drug Fund which provides the drugs distributed by the NARAs. VI INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 60. Proiect efforts to strengthen the local institutions bave had partial success. With infrastructure and staff development support from the project in its early phase, the NRA developed into an agency capable of taking on more of the tasks devolved upon it for range management in Somalia. The CRDP itself went through a series of institutional changes. The reorganization subsequent to the mid-term review demonstrated that the project operated more effectively under its own management. Implementation was, however, slowed by the removal in April 1986 of a fully committed and dynamic project manager. Later, CRDP was separated from the NRA as directed by the Minister, MLFR, in a letter dated November 30, 1987. 22/ The project manager is now directly responsible to the Itinister. CRDP 61. The project has put in place a structure which is able to collect and analyze data on range and livestock in the Central Rangelands, as well as identify areas which are of major interest to the local populations and where it can intervene successfully, such as animal health services, livestock/crop linkages, water point construction, sand dune stabilization. In this connection, a small, but effective extension department and audio- visual aid production group (slide shows, videos, radio programs) has been developed for communication with a large, nomadic population. 62. Under the veterinary component supported by GTZ, an efficient system of Nomadic Animal Health Assistants has been created at the degaan level for sales of simple drugs and to provide minimal prescriptive advice to pastoralists. NAMs are young volunteers selected from within an RLA, who receive a ten-day course in the identification and treatment of local livestock diseases, and are followed up by project staff on a regular basis; their salary is paid for in cash or kind by the RLk. Drugs and medicines are sold to participating RLks by the MLFR, for retail to pastoralists, who purchase then on the recommendation and under the supervision of the NAEA. 21/ The attack on a drilling crew working in the Bulo Burti area resulted in the murder of an expatriate staff in late 1983. 221 Further confirmed in February 1988. - 25 - 63. Institutional constraints have affected the progress of water development activities to the extent that the project has had to depend, for the drilling and maintenance of boreholes, on the poor performance of the Water Development Authority - the agency responsible for maintaining drinking water facilities - as well as on other projects for specialized equipment (lowboy, etc.). Implementation would be more expeditious if works were contracted out to private entrepreneurs rather than done on force account. 64. Services established successfully within the project include a mechanical workshop - managed efficiently by German master mechanics, although a need for renewing the equipment and buying new spares has emerged - a growing documentation center used by project and nonproject staff alike, and an administrative/financial unit which operates satisfactorily and has developed a reasonably good planning system. 65. Another project accomplishment has been the formal training of students at the Somalia National University through the USAID-funded development of a Department of Botany and Range Management, which provides a two-year specialized course after a first two years of general agriculture, leading to a Bachelor of Science degree. Students are technically educated and perform well on the job after graduation. 66. Staff growth and training. As shown in Table 6, there has been a substantial increase in project permanent staff, from 108 in 1981 to 569 (of which about 48Z at headquarters) at the end of 1987. The most important increases occurred in the initial years 1981-83 and in 1987. They have not corresponded necessarily to an intensification of eroject activities, and may have been carried out to the detriment of quality and real needs as there seems to be an excess of support staff in relation to technicians. Likewise, despite the importance of women in extension activities, no special effort has been made to recruit and/or train more female staff (only one female extensionist and the head of the female extension se:tion out of a total of 12 extension staff). Since the funding of local salaries and allowances has met with difficulties, the project would benefit from some streamlining based on a realistic manpower development plan. 67. The external training program of CRDP has not been entirely successful. Six of the staff sent out on BSc. and MSc. training (up to four years) have not returned and amongst those who have come back, a few have left the project for better employment opportunities. Major reasons for this defection are the lack of incentives, including the low level of salaries (about 1,600 So.Sh. for a district range officer, 2,500-2,700 So.Sh. for a regional extension officer or a 'counterpart' at headquarters), and the absence of efforts on the project management's part to provide returning students with specific posts that are coamensurate with their new qualifications. A training program based on short-term courses in countries with a similar environment may be more appropriate in the future. On-the- job training has been carried out by the project's expatriate staff but a coherent, comprehensive program has been lacking, together with appropriate facilities. - 26 - 68. Mnagement aspects. Reduced staff motivation is also the result of the lack of coimnication vith current managemaent. Staff of technical departments have voiced complaints about not participating enough in the preparation of budgets for their operations, often adversely affected by the allocation of resources put at their disposal. Field operations have been less efficient due to the constant fuel and per diem shortages, and also since the departure of the expatriate Field manager. Further, the lack of an institutionalized system of regular staff meetings has resulted in lax coordination between the various project components or departments. 69. Due to these inefficiencies and a renewed decline in staff morale, the project appeared, in mid-1988, to have lost its momentum. Project activities will also be affected by the forthcoming departure of the large technical assistance CRDP has been operating vith and which cannot as yet be substituted, given the shortage of qualified counterparts. Although part of this technical assistance will be replaced in the follow-up project, those specialists with the longest and greatest experience of CRDP would have left by mid-1989. Ranae and Livestock Associations 70. Although their establishment has been slow due to the time required to establish comuinication with the members of the degaan and obtain their acceptance of the idea, RLAs formed through the project appear to be viable comunity - level organizations with which the Government, and the project, can interact in testing range management techniques (reserves) and designing and locating infrastructure (e.g., water points). Of the 14 RLAs established (although only nine management plans have naw been accepted and of these, seven are being implemented), the most successful ones are two in Ceel Dhere and two in Hobbio, each of which has managed rest-rotational grazing reserves on the coastal plain. Consultants 71. In general, the specialists recruited for the project, on an individual basis or through a firm, have been technically competent and committed. The range development component would have gained, however, from a more comprehensive approach to range survey and analysis. After the initial delays in the recruitment of USAID and GTZ experts, the project also suffered from the fact that the consultants have tended to represent the interests of donors (notwithstanding some of the earlier conflicts between USAID and the LBI group) rather than those of the CRDP as a whole and have operated in a more or less autonomous way. this would have been improved by the appointment of a Technical manager (preferably an expatriate) responsible for overall coordination. Donors 72. Of late, the effectiveness of the project's Steering Committee has been reduced by the irregularity of the two meetings to be held annually and their increasingly rubber-stamping nature. - 27 - VII . FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Coatt Recovery 73. The project was expected to create some revenue for Government through (i) fees charged at stock vater points, (ii) the sale of veterinary- drugs. Cost recovery has, in fact, come mainly from the latter as the first NHIAs, trained in Ceel Dhere district, began in late 1986 the distribution of drugs, at cost, for the MLFR (in Bulo Burti and Hobbio the NAHA network has been operating since 1987). The collection .of water charges by the MDA (and not the NRA, as proposed at appraisal) has been insignificant, coupled with an unreliable service although the level of fees is clearly insufficient: while the official cost of water charged by the WDA at a borehole in So.Sh. 10 per m3, the MASCOTT consultants found in 1986 that this fee had to be almost doubled (So.Sh. 18 per m3) to cover the complete cost of capital equipment and ensure adequate maintenance. Beneficiary Incomes 74. In the absence of hard data, only an indication based on herd/farm models can be given of the increase in incomes of those pastoralists and agropastoralists reached by the project. For a rangeland sheep/goat model with an average size of 256 animals and an agropastoral herd of 85 animals, the incrementa. offtake and sales resulting from improved animal health through the project's veterinary services would induce an increased annual income by about 27Z (from 550,000 to 700,000 So.Sh.) and 19Z (from 185,000 to 220,000 So.Sh.) respectively. For the hundred-odd agropastoral farmers that CRDP (I) is estimated to have assisted. yield increases in food crops and forage strips would bring a more substantial increase in income by over S0 (from 70,000 to 110,000 So.Sh.). VIII. ECONOMIC RE-EVALUATION 75. Benefits expected at appraisal were overly optimistic. At the same time, the long-term nature of range management interventions and the importance of research were not sufficiently recognized. Although, at the end of CRDP (I), benefits from range development are as yet unquantifiable, the accumulation of knowledge and the progress made in understanding the pastoral and agropastoral systems in the Central Rangelands have been invaluable. 76. More tangible, but not substantial, benefits have been produced by the project's veterinary services and agropastoral demonstrations/trials, as well as the water development component-notwithstanding the low output from boreholes that have beqn constructed but not fully equipped with storage tanks. Because of the late start-up of these activities, however, the first quantifiable benefits ocurred several years after the project began. An economic re-evaluation carried out on the basis of models and parameters provided by GTZ and the project's extension staff (also used in the - 28 - appraisal of CRDP Phase II) and taking into account those costs directly related to the benefits, yields a negative EM of -62 (see Annex 1). Even If project implementation had been speeded up in the beginning and these relatively small benefits produced in earlier years, the project's EU-would still be negative. rX. StMM(RY AND LESSONS LEARNED 77. During the initial years of implementation CRDP (I) came to be recognized as one of those large pastoral projects supported by the Bank in East Africa in the late 1970's, where massive, albeit untested, interventions were proposed in systems that were not fully understood. 23/ As such it was a particularly complex, costly project which rested on a weak technical base but addressed itself to a large, mostly unknown, pastoral community in an extensive project area. In addition it depended for its implementation on a relatively inexperienced institution and involved a multitude of donors. These shortcomings were not entirely ignored in the early stages of preparation and appraisal. The Bank went ahead withthe project, due to the Government's continued interest, and due to the importance of rangelands production vithin the somali economy. However, the project was larger than necessary. It should have been scaled back considerably in view of the uncertainties which existed regarding approach and technology to be used. 78. Because of procurement and procedural delays causing the late start-up of some of the project key activities (under the responsibility of specific financing agencies) as well as external factor. (security problems in part of the project area), it took GOS and donors more than three years to rectify the project's course, at a mid-term review which brought substantial changes to the project design, scope and organizational structure. CRDP (I) became a more manageable project, with its resources concentrated towards filling more attainable objectives in a geographically limited area (three out of thirteen districts). The vital range management component was to be approached on a pilot, more research-oriented, basis so that a firmer technical base could be established. 79. After eight years of implementation the project h.s not attained fully its objectives but has been able to understand the dynamics of rangelands in Central Somalia and develop a strategy for future interventions. Since the mid-term review it has realized many useful interventions which have benefitted about a third of the Central Rangelands population, particularly through the development of water points, veterinary and related services, and agropastoral extension messages. Most notable are the achievements from a technical and research standpoint. Benefits not 23/ Poor experience with these projects led to a highly discussed review by S. Sandford in 1981 ('Review of World Bank Livestock Activities in Dry Tropical Africa'), followed by a Bank workshop held in Addis Ababa in June 1983. - 29 - directly quantifiable are important: the project has made a definite start towards establishing a permanent dialogue with pastoralists, formed a first group of range and livestock associations which are adopting the proposed range banage ent interventions, and which constitute a focal point for other key activities such as infrastructural development and poil conservation. Through accumulation of information, the identification of local priorities and the permanent testing of interventions, the project has been a major learning process for Government and donors. 80. Overall, the institutional achievements have been mixed. The organization and management of the project certainly improved as a result of the adjustments made at the mid-term review, which established the CRDP as a separate operational entity within the MLF. However, unresolved logistics problems (fuel and equipment), the lack of incentives - both financial and professional - and low staff morale, management deficiencies and unsatisfactory coordination between components and donors, have all contributed to a declining performance in the recent past. In addition, if the formal education component has been relatively successful, the external training program, on the other hand, has not produced the desired results. 81. Veterinary staff are not well integrated within CRDP. They are, in effect, seconded to the project from the Ministry; their salaries are generally lower than those of CRDP staff and when the latter are increased, a special request has to be made to also raise those of veterinary staff. The fact that staff working on both the project veterinary and forestry components are attached to the GTZ teams (their per diems and allowances are "topped up' by the donor) emphasizes their relative autonomy from the rest of the project. Further, GTZ has expressed the desire to continue, in the future, their activities with extension staff of the Veterinary Extension Department of the MLFR rather than with CRDP'S own extension services, with whom coordination appears to be unsatisfactory. Follow-up project 82. A case for a second phase project is clearly based on the need to: - replicate, broaden and confirm the preliminary data on the benefits accruing from veterinary, water and agropastoral recommendations; - expand and accumulate essential time-phased data on the supposed benefits of grazing interventions (deferred grazing being the most important) to allow benefits to be quantified, recognizing the procedures to be both time-consuming and expensive; 241 and 24/ Much valuable data was lost in 1986-87, for example, by the need to open reserves and rest areas prematurely because of widespread drought in the CUDP area. - 30 - continue institutional development within CRDP, particularly that related to improving staff conditions of sarvice, training and other aspects of personal and career development. 83. 0owever, the issues which have emwose again will need to be addressed rapidly, in particulars - ensuring regular supplies of fuel and other operating materials, possibly through direct importation by the project; - offering project staff adequate levels of salaries and allowances (the recent increase is insufficient in real terms), e.g., through an indexation system; - carrying out a manpower development plan within the project Unit so as to streamline functions and responsibilities; - improving tbe present mana.!ement's style by encouraging greater communication with staff, and participation of technical units in the budgeting of their own operations; - obtaining a fimer commitment from GOS to provide th. required funds to finance local costs, while establishing safeguards for a stricter control of funds within the project; - with a smaller number of donors, ensuring more cohesion between project components by appointing an expatriate Technical Manager. -31- Table ' Page I SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS OEVELOPENT- PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CROP Physical Achievements A. Range Management 1. Herd Surveys: 1 in Ceel Ohere 1 in Nobbio 1 in eluo Burti 2. Monitorisig Studies of ftLocks at BuLo Burti 3. Range Site Description (RSD) and Range Condition Surveys (RCS): Location No. Size (kin) RSD comoletea in RCS compLeted in Ceel Ohere 12 8,430 1983 1986 Hobbio 7 24,000 1983 1983 BuLo Surti 12 12,500 1984 1984 Ceet Bur 6 4,000 1988 1988 Jatalaksi 12 6,000 1988 1988 4. Ranqe Trend Studies in - cel. Ohere - HobbiO - BuLo eurti - Ceet Sur - Jalalaksi 5. Range Management Plans: Location No. Size (km2) Years Ceel Dhere 6 8,430 1985-87 Hobbio 4 4,270 1983-87 eulo Burti 9 16,700 1984-88 Ceel Sur 4 a/ 2,080 1988 JaLalaksi 4 6,000 1988 6. Range and Livestock Associations (RLAs): Location No. Size (kin) Years Ceel Ohere 2 2,807 1985 Hobbio 4 4,270 1983-88 8uLo 8urti 8 9,800 1984-88 7. Deferred Grazing Reserves: Location No. Size (kim) Years CeeL Ohere 2 1,265 1985 Hobbio 2 2,210 1983 8uLo Burti 5 292 1987-88 8. Village Reserves: 3 in Ceel Dhere 4 in BuLo Burti 9. Rain Gauges (1C) a/ Overlao with degaans in Ceel Ohere district. - 32 - table I Page Z 8. Range Research MfQA): 7 studies completed. C. Soil and Water Development 34 dugouts (31 good): 4 Ceet Dhere, 14 Hobbio, 11 Suto Surti, 1 8eletweyne, 4 Ceel Our 22 boreholes (8 good): 5 Coot Dhere, 4 Nobbio, 9 Bulo Burti, 2 Ceel Bur, 2 Hareadheere 22 watLs rehabilitated: 11 Cclt Ohere, 4 Hobbio, 6 8ulo Burti, I JatlLaksi 13 berkeds: 3 Ceel Dhere, 3 Hobbio, 5 8ulo 8urti, 2 Jalalaksi Sand dune stabilisation (on-going): 23 ha Ceel Dhere, 10 ha Hobbio, 23 ha 9ulo Surti, 28 ha Ceel Bur, 20 ha Jalalaksi 12 sheltereelts in Ceel Ohere, Hobbia and Sulo 8urti districts 7 district nurseries: Ceel Dhere, Hobbio, 8ulo Surti, Ceel Sur, Jalalaksi, Haradheere Vil'age tree planting (on-goirg): Ceel Dhere, Hobbio, 8ulo Burti Fuelwood plantations: I ha Ceel Ohere dist., 12 ha Bulo 8urti dist. 380 km tracks constructed in Ceel Ohere, Hobbio, Bulo Burti districts D. Extension 1. Formation of RLAs (Ceel Dhere, Hobbio and 8ulo Burti): 29 surveys completed 15 committees elected 9 management plans accepted 7 management pLans implemented 2. Species elimination and growth trials. (multipurpose trees, fodder crops, etc.)- 3. Hedgerow trials 4. Demonstration farms 5. Alley crepping trials 6. Live fence hedging trials 7. Strip anti-erosion trials 8. Range extension and pastoral training 9. RLA workshops and seminars 10. Sand dune fixation workshops ano seminars 11. Non-formal education/training: - assistance to NAHA 1/ teams - village tree planting - village reserves and shelter belts E. Animal Health/Veterinary Services 1. Livestock Surveys (1984-87) in Beletweyne, Ceel Dhere, Hobbio and Sulo Burti districts 2. Livestock Treatments: 68,000 antibiotic/antiparasitic treatments (1984-87) 95,000 animals treated during the drought emergency campaign (1987) 3. NAHA-Training (with regular follow-up every 2 months): Ceel Ohere (3 villages): 11 in June 1986 Hobbio (3 villages and 2 RLA): 25 in June 1987 8ulo Surti (7 villages): 19 in December 1986 4. Staff Training 1/ Nomadic Animat HeaLth Assistant. 0 -33- Table I Page 3- F. Forestry 1. Nurseries (1 each in the three regionaL capitaLs of Betetweyne, Dusa Mareb and Galkayo) 2. Woodtots and sheLterbeLts 3. Adaptive triaLs 4. Staff training G. Infrastructure 1. NRA Headquarters (Mogadishu) 1/ 2. 3 Regional and 7 District Centres (with Type C and D Staff Houses) 1/: Beletweyne Buto Burti Dusa Mareb Adado Ceet Our Ceel Ohere Ga:kayo Jariban Nobbio Haradheere 3. Veterinary Laboratory/Workshop, Office (forestry component) and 4 Staff Houses at SeLetweyne 2/ 4. Veterinary Sub-Laboratory and Office (forestry component) each at Dusa Mareb and GaLkayo 2/ 1/ IDA/IFAD financed. 2/ GTZ financed. ffIT3Al RANCELMsDS DfmWEiPUET PRO&JCT JROECT CCIPLETWgN REPIRT CRDP Diluursc_nt by Finaneina Source in 'i 1U23 Current Priee) Calendar Year nuL 3 iSA 13L Am 2! iSA lal Financing Source IDA 474 1 600 1,177 1,763 2,U12 764 520 2U 216 3,66 IFAD 285 0" 1,566 2,865 2,790 1,032 Is - - 9, USAID 144 794 1,626 2,218 370 1,156 2,831 2,U0 1,66 1 2 CTZ t/ - - 61 1,021 1,026 1,276 1,346 1,42928 7U9 *,077 ADS - - - - is 0 n 97 - U2 WFP g 142 277 744 406 282 683 a 412 136 2,904 COS t/ 43 179 251 *24 312 1,153 1&.64 1,484 776 6,55C 5 Total 1,698 2,919 5,66 3,671 7,911 5,864 6,547 6,078 8,722 46,446 (_euwdd to / Actual for IDA, IFAD, ADAS and GOS; estimated by CROP Financial Cont-oller for tbe other donors. 2/ July to December. / Including som retroactive flnancing starting October 1979 for PPF. j E*change lose applied to yearly disbursemet. on a pro rate bale O/ DM values converted Into US using International Monetary Fund exchange rates. / Voluo of 'food for worlk etimated on the basis of current average fob prices of WFP supplied cemoditlee (use by WFP for planning snd budgeting purposes) plus freight/insurance and Internal transport costs. Z/ Local costs converted into US3 using exchang rates supplied by Ministry of Finsnce (Tablo 4). 1/ January to June. 3/ Mission estimtes.- Sousr CROP - 35 - Table 2b SOMAL I A CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ------------------------------------ PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ------------------------- Total Project Costs by Flnancing Source (In USS millon) Financing Appraisal Current Current as % of Source Estimate Estimate Appraisal Estimate IDA 8.0 8.0 100 IFAD 9.0 9.0 100 USAID 16.0 12.8 85 GTZ /a 4.0 6.9 173 ADAB 0.0 0.3 - WFP 4.3 2.9 67 GOS 6.0 6.6 110 -TOTAL 46.3 46.5 100 /a ODA was the original cofinancler but was later replaced by GTZ. CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CRDP Disbursements - by Category ('000 USS, current )rices), excluding GTE nancing Source IDA IfAD 21 USAID WfP 3/ ADAU GOS 4/ TOTAL Category \ excluding GTZ PPF 5/ and misc. spares 288 288 Construction 2,640 3,336 Vehicles and machinery 1,089 1,326 3,677 13,113 Equipment and furniture 491 554 Technical assistance, professionat services * and fetlowships 2,281 2,275 8,274 302 13,132 Local salaries and allowances 280 369 2,400 3,049 Operating costs 931 1,140 851 4,155 7,077 food rations (WFP) 2,904 2,904 TOTAL: 8,000 9,000 12,802 2,904 302 6,555 39,563 11 Actual for IDA, ;fAD, ADAB and GOS; estimated by CRDP financial Controller for the other donors. 2/ Exchange loss applied to yearly disbursements on a pro rata basis. 3/ Value of "food for work" estimated on the basis of current average fob prices of WfP supplied commodities (used by UfP for planning and budgeting purposes) plus freight/insurance and iAternal transport rosts. 4/ Local costs converted into USS using exchange rates supplied by Ministry of finance (Table 4). 5/ arR resource inventories and M.Sc. training for four staff (total PPF, USS 258,000). Source: CRDP. - 37 - Table 4 SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Exchange Rates (So.Sh. to USS), 1980 to 1988 1/ Year Day/Month Exchange Rate per S 1980 6th Nov. 6.2327 1981 5th Aug. 6.2327 1982 24th ApriL 12.4654 13th May 12.4654 14th Nov. 15.0160 1983 5th ApriL 15.- 18th June 15.- 3rd Aug. 15.- 6th Oct. 17.50 29th Nov. 17.50 19&4 25th Feb. 17.50 21st May , 17.50 10th July - 17.50 28th Oct. 25.74 12th Dec. 25.74 1985 9th Feb. 40.- 29th ApriL 40.- 20th JuLy 42.- 27th Oct. 42.- 10th Nov. 42.- 1986 8th Feb. 53.95 6th May 65.83 8th JuLy 73.75 3rd Aug. 77.71 11th Nov. 89.59 12th Dec. 89.59 1987 19th March 89.59 12th May 89.59 29th July 133.02 20th Oct. 99.- 5th Nov. 99.- 22th Nov. 99.- 1988 Jan. o Junie 99.- 1/ DetaiLs of contributions from CIPL/ODD, Ministry of Finance. Source: CRDP. - 38 - Table 5 SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT IDA Creditt Comparison Eetween Assraisal Estimates and Actual Disbursements by Category Appraisal Actual hmounts allocated in Cateaory of ExDenditure Estimates a/ Disbursements the Credit Aareement ---------(in US$ '000)…-------------_----_ Construction 2,840 2,640 2,120 Vehicles and Machinery 800 1,089 710 Equipment and furniture 440 491 380 T.A., professional services and fellowships b/ 2,140 2,569 1,600 Local salaries and allowances 380 280 280 Operating costs including maintenance E utilities 1,400 931 890 Unallocated - 2 000 TOTAL 8,000 8.000 8.000 - 39 - Table 6 SOMALI A CENTRAL RANGELANDS OEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRD' Permanent. Staff 1/ ..................... .................. *As Of. ... .. 31.12.81 31.12.82 31.12.83 31.12.84 31.12.85 31.12.86 31.12.87 Headquarters 18 79 151 171 166 209 271 Regions 90 191 248 245 241 221 298 TOTAL 108 270 399 416 407 430 569 1/ Exctuding about 1,100 WFP workers and 88 veterinary staff. Source: CROP. CINIlAL RtWGLAS DEVELOPIEUT PIOJECT PrPere laratniioon Schedule 8 ~~~~~~~Proepara tno9W 191 t 9U1 . 91 198 __8 19_ 1P 198 -- j RAN.GE SEVILOPIEM, - - i--- -1- --1 1- I - Range GrauAd Survey I I I - 1 Walter6 cteoont tatr tstmnt,tCS t * |i||vt L __1 ;_)|___ - - t tI ItI i iource idIenton an d 3 a I - - Ti . ng Post GraduatevStu(Drel Rng)Ie-[t. ___ _ It d hPArtuern Sunportns InvnoI Balot uho t gaion adtann I :s[ R i 1 . foemal Servces,O Dvlourmentlo I PeinstGraduate anudi,flnegu.- *II wathern Sanervice vet~r *I - I a7 IMage Inv A. igat .OSa *I I~* - 41 - Table 8 SO A AL I A CVTVSaL RANGILAMSS CIVELOPtPEt PQCOttC POJCCT CONPIttIOM REPORt CasP t * iietvmtp"aitom SCHWA LI CHaRt *AWAE "M*MIr N1 (oMOENTr A c T I v I r 1 1979 1980 1961 t982 1963 1984 196S 1964 1987 1966 XrR Resouce tnventory X ! fiteo x juto 4urti I X X .JatataIks1 X X Range condition surveys .Ce.k Ohere X X x .Coot our ."obbo X X .Buto aurti Xx X X X .Jatitaksi I A Range _trend *oniroring .reot Ohere X X x Ctat 6ul, I .Auto kwrti X x x- X .Jatataksl (a aans .HWo X O"ganid d Ring rnd Livestock .Ceet Ohere X I uto eutx .Outo Surti U .HOmbl C . ' X I .Rgesaons efentaotns X X .Ceet Or (4 pw wut. retei .SuSo Srti (9 Gegains) X X .Jatatahsi (4 degafis X .WO~bbo (4 deguans) X X o.tendC grue ing t eseraes v I2) .Coet shee u x I .OuLo Sijtti I X (5 .H0aoo X (2) vt *ereves x x xIx x X .Outo Ourti X X X X X fthor St t *tudI es .E fIcts of a ye.rs orotect ion fro- gra*ing X x .RAtponst or vsgatation to tlnd uXe intensity gradients X x t t X .Ot othee atuiies in et l Ohert *RG tricatat ! .Drougnt srroef Study X X I i gauges. etc. I.;eet bhere I * X CGther stations in district X X .Al. other StatiOns x X Other activities .CeeL Sler, *~erialn^ta ne. otantir9 X *lUoboio: isil. fddOer far. X X t X Ga.uaan (^lin. reserve 11 X orouqnt Surve, of S aegaans X 1/ ReServe c isted orior to tROP. S O M A L I A CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CDRP I - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CHART Soil and Water Conservation Component Activity 1979 1980 1961 1982 1983 198K 1985 1986 1987 19No _tks Dugouts - - - - - 9 (8) 5 (4) 9 (8) 9 (9) 2 (2) G3bgod fbreholes - - - - - 9 (3) 4 (3) 8 (2) 1 -) - (0good but 5 wit!"u stctag ta wi,lts Rehabititdtion - - - - - 4 1. 6 - 1 Civil Works - - - - - - - - 1 - Ntt cuxleted. &erkets - - - - - - 2 9 -2 Sard Dke StabiLizaticn * G --going. Sheltertelts - - - - - 11 - - - 1 Njrseries - - - - - - 5 2 - Vi(lag Tree Plantations - - - - - - e t gDirg. fuelwod Pantaticns - - - - - - - 2 - 1 Track Ccrnstruction - - - - 152 km - 1 km - 200 k , Erosicn Cantrol - - - - - 2 - - Water Spredding - - - - - 1 Water Harvesting (xts) - - - - - - - - 5 4 River Access Points - - - - 4 - - - S O MA L I A CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CRDP I - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CHART Extension Component: Agro-Pastoral Department Activity 1979 19to 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 June 1988 1. Species Elimination and Growth Trials 2. Hiedge Row Trials _________ 3. Deronstration Farms _3 _________ 4. Atley cropping *_-_-_-__ 5. Revegetate Parren Land _ > 6. Live Fence Hedging _ - 7. Strip Antierosion Trials 8. Agro-pastorat Surveys and Investigations 9. Anatysis Surveys, Write-up ___ Reports 10. Crop and Fodder Variety Trials 11. Extension of Results - Intensification of activities. . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 - 44 - Table 11 SOMALI A CENYRAL RANGELA1S DEVaORN FROJECT FROJECT COMPETION REIR USAID-fu-dd Tectiical Assistwie 1979 198D 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 CRGP RANE KV*MV .Te Lmader/Range fagmwt (36 .') .te Leadr/AnimL Htbwxy (46 MD .Raige EcoLogist (30 r/r) .ai"ge EcoLogist (20 Mm) .Raige Ecologist (70 n/r) .Range EcoLogist (55 r/n) .Range EcoLogist (25 m/m) .SoiL & water Consevationist I (48 m/nm) .Soil & Water Conervationist II (24 m/im) .taxonmist (4*1 /rn) .GeeraL Services Expert (23 m/m) .Cooperative Adviser (17 m/m) .Stock Water Director (14 /rm) .Pbnitoring ConwLtant (2 /) - .System Aalyst (2 r/) - .Rnge CorsuLtat (yeary 3 m) - - - - - - - - - .CiviI Ergireer (1 m/rm) .ftraL Sociologist (10 m/m) FOA .Coordinator (61 mM) * ,Lecttuer, Range Mtagernst (22 Mn/rn) .Lctu-er, Range Science (46 mm/) .LctAe (36 m/m) .LecturerA)tah St. th. (27 mn/) UTAH STAtE UIESTY .Coordinator (4 /rn) .Research ard TriaLs Expert (1 mn) .Range Field TechnoLogist (25 m/rm) .Instnjctor, Afgoi SchoL (24 W/m) * LitiL early or mid-1989. Table 12 - 45 - *SOMOALIA CENTRAL RANOELANDS DIVCLOPMCNT PROJECT PROJECT CAMPLZTiON REPORT Technical Assistance Other than USAID Funded 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 TDA/1FAD-Fundod Project Coordinator I Technical Director Admin. (NRA) Financial Controller i - Range Training Officer than Adult Education Officer Range Training Officer '* GTZ-Funded Voterinary/Forestry Team Leader Disease Investigation Officer Field Veterinary Officer I ** Aimal Prod. Adivsor Construction Engineer Master Mechanic ' L J ** Nursery Specialist Forestry Specialist I . I ** Teacher at Afgoi School (Forestry) ADA-Funded Field Manager * Until mid-1989 ** Until end-1990. -46- Annex 1 SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Economic Analysis Assumptions 1. Given the re?earch orientation adopted after its aid-term review, most of CUDP (I) benefits are unquantifiable. However, an economic re-evaluation of the project has been attempted using the following assumptionst A. Benefits Those benefits that can be quantitied come from three project componentst - Water development, with a total of 5 boreholes 1/ and 31 dugouts constructed bereen 1984 and mid-1988, producing water for livestock C3000 a per dugout during two months of the year, 20,000 a per bore all year round) and increasing the availability for forage - see Table 1. - Veterinary services, through the RANA system which started to operate in 1986 in Coel Dhere district and the following years in Hobbio and Bulo Burti districtst beneficial effects translating into lower mortality and higher offtake rates, as estimated by GTZ, have been calculated on the basis of two herd models 21 (i) an agropastoral sheep/goat model (with an average size of 85 animals); and (Li) a rangeland/pastoral sheep/goat model (average size, 256 animal) - see Tables 2 and 3. - Agropastoralism, with project activities starting in this field in 1986 and estimated to reach a total of 120 farmers over the years 1986-88 (phasing assumptions 152, 302 and 552 respectively); benefits from this component have been calculated using a mixed farm model with data on crops (sorghum, cowpea, mungbeans and forage strips), in the without and with project situations, provided by CRDP extension staff 3/ - see Table 4. 1/ Three other bores have been built in compounds where district centers are located, for use by project staff. 21 See CRDP (II) Appraisal Report. 3/ Same as footnote 2. - 47 - AU. benefits bave been expressed in economic terms using constant 1988 export parity prices of meat, milk and sorghum (Tables 5 to 7). J. Costs. Only those costs (based on actual disbursements In US dollars) directly relating to the quantifiable benefits have been taken Into account - they have been estimated to bet - 402 of the costs of the buildLig program (ISAIIFAD). - 602 to 80S of the project management support costs (IDAIIVAD, GOS), - lOOZ of the nonformal education component cost (IDA/hFAD), - OOZ of the ADAB-funded Fleld Manager post, - soil and vater development costs, taken at 20S of USAID disbursements, costs of veterinary services, estimated at 751 of total fTi dlsbursements. All these costs have been translated lnto constant 1988 ptrces using the SomalLa tradLng partners CPSI 4 and gtossly adjusted wLth the following parameters: - average foreign exchange content 772 average local cost 232 official exchange rate 100 (So.Sh to the S) shadow exchange rate 203 (So.Sh to the S) Results 2. The project's DRR calculated over 20 years is .61 (Table 8) - the result of very small benefits occurring some flve years after the project began, due to the late startup of those activitLes whlch have yLelded the only tangible benefits from the project. A sensitLvLty analysis bringing these benefLts forard (i.e., in a situation where a reasonable Lmplementation schedule could have been expected), however, still yields a negative 321 (Table 9). 41 Country Department (World Bank) estimates. 1980,17.92; 1981, 13.5S; 1982,10.4Z; 1983,10.62; 1984, 9.91; 1985, 8.32; 1986, 5.8%; 1987, 62. - 48- Annex I Table 1 CENTAL WELANS OEVELOMIIT P ECT, PHASE I 6EMFITS F ROM MTE VELOPET VA 196 191" 19m 2 18 19 1"S 191 17 1981U 919 19 ~~~~~~~~~~... . . ... .................. ........... ......... _,......... ............ -. ---*@ --@----- LINITS U ICETWAL ATER AVAILABILITY (to suwert weess to new grazing aress) ~~~~. . ..... . . ........ . .... ........ . AmE I UK muS (Cu. me.) 1 4 5 MATER POSUCTIOU (16 3/1R) 2066 /UNIT 21 U 1N In to 160 MM I OUG S (COI. NO.) 8' 12 26 29 31 NATEO PRSCTISI (" 12/2156) 3,606 IUNIT 24 31 61 II 93 93 Estiatien of biuls Atfected by Addltionl 2 bnoths of Duout Moter Availability: AJUSTED INC. UTER VAILABLE ./ ('160 N3) IA 22 36 52 56 56 S/¢ (000) SUPTEO Y UATER: .11 N3/2 50/S4 e/ 131 196 327 *75 567 St7 Increnntal Animl Suowt Cioscity treo a Year of Borehole Vater Avail1abiity: . . ....... ...... . .................. ADJWUSTED IC. MATER AVAILABULE b/ (41n N31 16 64 of 8O as as INC. 5/C C.660 n3jYE/S-6 el ('6tU S-6) 24 97 121 121 121 121 MINKLS NEFITiNG FRON IKCRElElNTA.L UTER (IN 5-C) 155 293 *U 596 628 621 % POECT ARA POUTEN (S-0 muivalt) 23510 8.78 1.2* 1.9l 2.5% 2.7* 2.7n UFECT Of IKCREIUITAL FORMAS AVAILAILITY Additial Fr Available: ~~~. ..... ........... INK. AREA AVAILABLE FOR RAZING (SO Ktl): AR oUGOuT: 314 KN2 (ASSUMIN6 It III RADIUS) AROITIOALL FORA6E ACCESSIBLE (LAS I V1(SO itn): 2513 3771 6283 9111 5739 9739 t1 PorJCT AREA: (SO KR) 1USU 2* 31 As 68 7n 7n ADOITIOUL FORAME USD (46 * Of ACCESSILEI: 1n05 150 2513 3644 3896 396 Calculation of Animls Ihich Use Nely Accssible Areo: AERAG STOCKING RATE IN TLU PER SO KR: dl 15.7 TLU 11 ICLY ACCESSIRLE AREA ('6 TLU) 16 24 39 57 61 61 SHEEP/GOAT EOUIVALENT ('IU S-C) e/ I 151 237 395 572 612 612 * PRECT AR PWUIAT'N (S-6 eivalent) 23511 1.7n I." 1.7n 2.48 2.6 2.6n Effect on Offtake of Nwly Accessible Fgrae INC. TURNOFF 0 1.58 (LAGGED 6 1 I) flIHo S-61 6.79 1.18 1.97 2.16 3.16 3.16 INC KEFWITS (NEAT) (CtON) u/ (SIM 7232 10849 18142 26219 281027 26127 INC. RIL PRO TUCtION (ECON) h/ (SS I6) 13017 IV528 32547 47194 SU048 5S14 TOTAL ECON BENFITS (556061 26249 31378 50629 73412 7875 78475 el ALLOVAKCE FOI UAST1AGE EVAPORATION AND USE BY PEOPLE. fR OUGOUTS 408 b/ ALLOVANCE FOR WASTAGE AND USE BY PEOPLE. FROl BOREHOLES: 21% c/ SHEP AND COAT UAtER CONSJUNPTION IS ETInATED AT SORE 55 LlMO, OR 0.116 l3 FOR 2 MONTHS (1.661 FOR TEAR). di FRM MM CElSUS 1979 AID PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS. el I TLU a 1.2 COELS. I.1 SHEEP/GOAT, 6.3 COV. f/ EllEIIENTAL TURIOFF REDUCED FMM SHEEPIGOAT IOOEL M2tl TO 6.5%. TURNOFF LAG6ED BY I YEAI. e/ EXPORT PAIIITY PRICE FOR ALL CLASSES OF SHEEPICOATS (SS/ANINALI: 9165 hi MILK 8ENEFITS SANE PROPORTION Of MEAT BENEFITS AS IN RANGELANDS SHEEP/GOAT IIODEL 1868 - 49 - Annex I Table 2 CNTRSL WM Bi CE9l!t PIMOECT, PASE I WASRIML S 1EEPIOT NOUEL (10 HtES AVSE SIZE 85 EACHI 1i5 1 199. 1987 IlS 1999 1990 1991 I992 I1: 1,94 Opening StoCK: 640 N 40 440 U40 40 c40 440 .40 O 040 Births 4a 418 409 408 40s 405 4a 409 4S a soa Deaths l(l yr) 1U1 177 172 167 167 167 17 1U7 167 147 Closing Stacikt 40 U4 640 440 440 440 40 cS 64 O40 Total Sale/Cansumptiaa U27 232 2: 241 241 241 41 241 241 241 Offtake (Avge Nerd of S3i 27? 2?2 252 2a? 282 at2 .? :92 18? 292 Nortality (0-1) 23? 212 '2c 192 192 192 Liz 192 192 Incroental Sales Animals: 5 9 14 14 14 !4 14 14 14 Price of one shet l/goat (Saih): S172 6600 7027 7455 7882 9310 3737 °l! ;083 Incrcental Value Otftake (SaSh): 29132 b23CO 99504 105559 111613 117663 12;722 1.9776 1:8615 Incr. Nilk Prod'n litre per herd) 94 169 252 252 252 * 52 252 252 252 Value of I litre milk (SoShIl): 70 Inc. NMlk Value (1 herdi (SoSh) !390 11760 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640 inc. Nilk Value (10 herasl (SaSh) 58500 117600 17400 176400 176400 176400 176400 17640)0 ! I04 Increase in Yeight in Young Animlst Price Effect 31 15S 4370 9345 14926 15834 16742 17450 19559 i4466 19292 Cost ledecinn/lincrals Per herd (SoSh) 1190 !127 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064 Per 10 herds (SoSh) 11900 51270 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640 Net Increwntal Benefits 10 Agropastoral Herds (S3Sh): 80402 137975 200190 207153 214115 221079 229040 535003 Z33669 33u*38223sUZ :zw*g 2*m*u:uznUCz3z*" z U3u2nz3uus2:3u8asu2z: Oelivery Iechnism and Phasing Additional NWs is Aropatoral Areass 11 19 25 Cumulative MM's available: 11 30 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Nerds Assisted per Ml: 15 Iacraeetal Herds Assisteds 165 285 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cmlative Herds Assisteds 145 450 925 925 525 825 925 925 975 Adoptio Rate: 652 Incretal Heds Adopting: 140 242 319 0 Cmlatie Herds Adptinng 140 33 701 701 701 701 701 7C1 701 Incrstnul lenofit Streaom froes Agropastoral Sheep/oat Heors (saSh '001)0 Accumuiation of Benefit Streaus 1996 1937 1998 1739 1990 L991 1992 1ii3 0i94 Year I Herds 140 1126 1932 :303 4700 2998 3095 :93 ;i :270, Ytar 2 Hercs :12 !944 3=9 4945 6013 5112 0 5!I, j I3 Year I Herds 317 1565 4401 6336 '603 *3;3 )52 7:24 Total 701 Total Incresental Eeimlits 1:1 1577 8705 12146 14397 14985 ::7; 145351 16:: note: hi1 a!ts:atis :i Orafi t a^o ::etr:::ats ;i:;lid 6. 3t2 'terinarn Tean. vna r7Shra1iSt .,it :..eV tflt -a; Plas=ois t; acnisve qis n trair ls;a'isnce. Annex 1 Table 3 EINE AOEuS CEVELi:NT PRO2E'. 1N49E I hR416M SWitEP/SOAT IOIEL tlO 1S AiiE SIZE 25h E;CN) auhaa s _ _ usuzuuu_ uaaas u sus sstaasuuuuuuusa#us#susuuaszuzsusta sstusuamuuuu 1985 1986 1587 19Ln 1289 1990 *991 1992 1993 1994 Opemig Stack. 1730 1730 1750 1750 1750 :730 1750 1750 1730 1730 Birthi 1194 1194 1194 1114 1194 1194 U194 1194 1194 1194 aths ( ,r) 534 51I 502 414 486 484 48 49 486 484 Closing Stocks 1750 17V0 1730 150 150 1750 1750 1750 1730 1730 Total SuleulCms7utios 6O 674 62 707 .'07 707 707 707 707 707 OffUke Rate (lAgv Hrd 2561 261 21 n7% 291 291 291 291 291 291 281 Nhtlity 10-11 231 2 201 19% 191 1mZ 191 191 191 19l Incruutal saln lshigts): 14 32 49 48 49 8 48 48 48 Price of o sheplgoat (SaSh): 6172 t60 964 7290 7549 7780 7n7 916 9093 Incrasaatal Value Gfftake (SaSh): ;3065 :,741 332114 347091 35i92a 370931 360362 43951 43U3041 Incr. hilk Prodn (litrs per htrd) 425 es0 1275 1275 :275 1275 175 1275 1275 Value of I litre silk (SOWU1 : 70 Inc. Hilk Value (1 hard)lSoShls .9750 59500 99250 69250 69250 89250 89250 19250 992!0 Inc. fllk Value (10 hardsaShb): 9N7500 595000 92500 992500 892500 892500 892500 892500 892500 Incresse i Ieight in Yoq Ang uls: Price f ttat of 151 14713 3144 49917 52064 53M 55640 57054 65543 64956 cot dciaeenllln ls Per rd ISOSh) 354 17r4 3CS84 30884 5084 a0884 30894 30894 30994 Per 10 Hrds (SSb 3!840 - 172340 08840 308990 308840 309940 308840 309840 309840 Not Incraaatal Bsetfits 10 aglmnds bards (StSh) 374458 63895 965591 992814 997577 1010231 1021077 1096153 1081657 Delivery uachaniss and Phasing Additimal MMi : 11 19 25 Cmlativ ANI's available: 11 '0 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Ragelmd Hards Asisted /NAHAt 15 lncrementel Herds Asuisted: 165 285 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumlative Herds Asisted: 145 450 325 525 825 925 925 825 925 Adoption Rate: 85% lncreatal Herds Adopting: .40 :42 S:9 0 Cwulative Heres Ado:tin: .40 ;s 70': 'G JI 1% 701 701 701 701 ;n: !*-ent&1 ' ar.O4it itrtam ;rcz taSi4vim ;hietigoat herds Accuaulation of leretfit 2tratus i ;-7 :H ! 9 3 :9 1N1 192 1993 194 Year I Herds "0o ':S: i:4 9 Isa :7!9 :7396 14,43 14425 15206 "1506 Ytar 2 Herds ::' : : 67 4-534 14141 :44,8 :4710 :!283 Year 3 Hari ;: :I'4 .11.3 :;8C2S 2 ::iS3 :22i4 ;25J7 ':ta: '! total 1ncreer.u1 31a6f;qi !:42 :;.;' '15) '! 3 -:"3 .9i;e 7`143 7'.03 uiae: 41: as::atis -* :nsef.ts *-: ::et'.l:i-s 3:4;l.a :. 'aterttirlt T'am. - 51- -zn Annex I Table 4 (f el. Prim) 5SOHL CuERA RAKLII KWLUMT PECT, PA I Iuwbautal Obiva litS trIi Arutuiu Fwun Tow 1 2 5 £ S 7 8 9 1t IUC NtIL UWtTS from One Aw astwsl fVrn: .365 2852 1315 21633 33912 31912 33912 31912 33912 31912 ~~~~~~~~......... ..............._.__............ .... _... ..................... Yea 1936 I98 19$ fwurs Adootliw too Tr: is 36 6 Ina tal lOtit str*us frog A0roeitorelus 00% IM) 1,36 1987 1988 1is9 it" 199 19 199 1994 19s Yew I F tm Is -6 U 237 379 Su 556 556 556 556 556 Tow 8 Ifwa 36 -131 133 i7 757 111 1113 1113 1113 1113 TOW 9 fa4ws 66 -24 138 8 138S 234 236 2343 2646 Total fuws 121 total trbftal Bestit fru Ag tw.n al Intwrentieaw -65 -79 16 16S 2182 3357 379 379 37 376 neet *....... .......... ............... __ e..... .e.e nfne.en.ee.e..._._ l. 52 Anex I Tabe 5 3G"ALIA Central Rangelands DOvelopsent Project, Pasu I SHEEP AND GOATS : Export Parity Price Calculation .ia8 1995 :000 CIF Saudi Arabia/Yemen (US$/Head) 3/ 42 is 56 Freight/Feed WUS$i/ead) 6 S i FOB Berbera (US$/Head) 36 FOB Berbera ISS/Head) 1121855 203 r USS 1.00) 7309 10633 10177 Internal Transpo,t 41 (Robys to arberal 450 450 450 Marketing uargin/Nortality lOZ 696 1Q18 973 Liveweight in Range (SS per head) 6172 q165 8755 NOTES: 1J Offical uichang. rate SS per US Dollar: 100 2/ Shadow ezchange rate SS per US Dollar: 203 31 Projected using smae rate of increase as Xorld Bank projections for beef, froe guidelines of January 27, 1998. 4/ Burao-Berbe'ra (per sheep/goat) SS 100 Galcaio-Burao (per shenp/goat) SS ^0- Hobyo-Galcaio (per shuepigoat) SS 150 _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - --- --- - _....... .. . -53- Annex 1 Table 6 SuMALIA Cantral Rangelands Dhvelapsent Pro.ect, Phase I Export Parity Price: MILK 1969 1995 2000 Skis hilk Powder USC/ton (1985 ccnst) 784 33S 465 FOB Europe US1lton (1998 const) 1100 1172 652 Coconut Oil US9/ton (1995 const) 390 589 9'0 CIF Rotterdas LSI/tan (1986 ccnst) 547 826 744 Freight and nsurance 27 31 32 Milk FOB Mogadishu US/1ton (1988 const) 1127 1203 684 SS/ton (1998 const) 228771 244Z109 138932 Gil FOB Mogadisnu USC/tan (1989 const) 574 857 776 SS/ton (1988 const) 116557 174046 157445 Port Handling SS/ton (1988 const) 2720 2720 2120 Milk Powder In Factory SS/ton (1989 coast) 231491 246929 141652 Oil in Factory SS/ton (1968 const) 119277 176746 160165 SHP per litre milk 92 Oil per litre siik 3.52 Processing Costs/litre 'JSS 0.15 Peconst. "ilk in Nog SS/kg (1989 const) 55 :9 49 Transport Central Range SS/kg (1988 const) 6.-2. 6.2 8.2 (600 kn) 1/ ;resiua o'r CWeis "iik 1I% F.r!gata Va;t 71 5 63 : -nn;rt it ,IiS _;;'; "ItCz., k; ___________________- - - --- - -- - _ _ _ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- -________________--- - -- --- -54- Annex 1 Table 7 SONALIA Central Ranglands Deelopeent Project - PhaM I Export Parity Price: SCRum 1998 1995 2000 FDS Gulf Parts US1/ton (1987 const) *3 i9 92 US$/tan (1999 const) S2 95 ;9 Frdight and Insurance 27 31 32 CIF Attica Destination 89 126 131 Freight and insurance troa No3adishu 24 '23 28 FOS Mogadishu US5/tan (1988 const) 65 S9 103 SS/ton (1988 coast) 13243 19995 20851 Port Handling 2720 2720 2720 Transport Fare - Store 1200 1200 1200 Fareqate Value 9323 14075 16931 .I SS to the US Dollar (Shadov) 203 203 203 55 Amnex I Table 8 SCSt CENTRI. MUEELMID DEVEL0PWIT PROJECT, PtSE I Calculatior of Ecmkoic Costs aad kotfits (Sash 000) 1910 1981 12 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1998 1995 1990 191 199X ECaItC IEI TISt f4ropstoral Firmn -5 -79 100 1040 2182 3057 3057 Alrupastoral Hws Wh21 3897 870G 12141 14397 14895 15373 Pastoral iNrd% 5242 19351 41530 59305 18553 b963 705bS Mtor Rulatu kot its 20249 30378 5029 712 78473 78475 18475 71475 Total smits 202 381 72783 748 14991 1307 116053 117470 ECWOIC PRECT COSTS 134800 215400 401100 b72000 680300 444700 371900 359200 179100 72200 72200 72200 72200 PET lEIItT STREN -134800 -215400 -401100 -672000 -68030* 424451 -335219 -281417 -54352 M7771 91407 9385 "27C Ecomeic Rti of keturn -U1 56 Annex I Table 9 *iC.NALIA CENtRlA RANDDS rDEEO T PRMIJECT FME;.E Ecosic Casts nd Bnef its - 6nsit1xvt 43a1vs:s 1960 19U 1982 1M 1964 1983 IM6 1967 L1a9 :1989 1990 1991 1' ]IC IIWITS: ropostpl Fares -65 -79 100 1040 2182 3057 30:7 3057 30:7 3057 ; Opstrtal Hfrda 1126 3877 9706 :214U6 14391 14985 153T 15841 16252 1414 16I itural lirds 5242 1955 41530 8305 68553 69636 7" . 72143 74063 76139 761 tor Ralatd ghnefits 20249 30s7 50629 73412 78475 76475 79475 76475 78475 78475 7475 794 tat ul f its 20249 3681 M7 3 123743 149966 163607 16A053 167470 169536 171947 174145 1741 'NIIC PROJECt COSTS 13400 265400 40110062000 680300 4440 371900 359200 179100 72200 72200 72200 72 !NIT STREAN -134800 -245151 -U4419 -599217 -556552 -294734 -209293 -193147 -106 9736 99"647 101945 101I naic Rate of Retr -4.11 Annex 2 Page 1 World Food Barnaamijka Programme Cuntada Add_unka * lw Hl Aid OrpfnizatZtNm ot thI ttLntt.d Natitwio Svstern WP/SOK1/463189 Mogadishu 15 April 1989 PRO 40/719/I1 Dear Mr. Donaldson, VIP Assistance CRDP under San 719/II I would like to thank you for your letter dated March 15, 1989 and its attachment. I found the reports on CRDP, comprehensive, informative and quite useful. I agse with the assessment of the project and would wish to underscore the need to emphasise a number of obstacles and conetraints that CRDP had faced or is stUll facing. It is felt that the removal of these constraints is a necessary and sufficient condition to render WFP iuput adequately effective. WIP has been assisting the rangeland development and afforestation i Smalia since 1974 under project 719 and expinsion; project no. 719 Is inplemented by the National Range Agency, NRA. The central rangelands development project has been operating under the NRA and receiving its food entitlement from it. VFP inputs to the CRDP started in 1979 and is continuing under project SOM 719/II. Since its inception, an average of 1500 CRDP workers have been receiving VFP food basket as part payment of wages. The WFP food basket is worth, at least, So.Sh. 7500 at today's market price. In view of the high value of the food ration, labour turn out has been good and workers' commitment to the project reasonable. Although project's activities have been proceeding fairly good, the following observations need to be put on record: i) The targets stipulated in thd work plan were too ambitious. ii) Project's activities are scattered over small units, consequently the labour force bah been employed with flexibility. This has rendered monitoring and assessment difficult. f ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. I.. Mr. Graham Donaldson Division Chief Agriculture, Infrastructure & Human ".esources Operation Evaluation Department World Bank Mogadishu PO. Box 24 M-Og8aShu Small* telw0one: S*1S Telex: U5*1 00 -5S8 - Annex 2 Page 2 iii) The project does not hav, any *pecific work norms or records on labour productivity and global achievemnts. The cash component of the wage. and benefits to the workers are so low that only women, old men and children accepted to work- for the project.. Paymunt of the salary is done with irregularity and repeated delays. This has negatively affected labour productivity and workers' moral. In some areas, shortage of tools and equipment hamper productivity. Community participation is lacking and dependency of the workers on food, as wage payment, is increasing. No provision has been made for sustainability and transfer of the amenities created to the local population. In order to enhance ichievement and improve performance, the project needs to take the following action: Establishaent of works norms to monitor activities and labour productivity. - Establishment of recoras on achievements. - Increase the cash component of wages to attract and stabilize valid male labour force. - Endeavour to pay salaries as regularly as possible. - Demotion of food as part payment of wages In favour of food as an Incentive for community works. - Promotion of community participation with a view to taking an active part in the control and maintenance of resources created. Yours arely, A. Ret ch Director of Operations, a.i. - 59 - SOMALIA CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Projet Compltion Re ort Districts vithin CDP ETHIOPIA' .~~~~~~~o I OCIEAN £~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -K-~4k . ~ ~ ~ ~ E E\ WBEl / \ 0 o _MA- -- N,g D mW' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-oiiist Usu Owd(hp. S~~~_t-/.. .......-z _ - 60 - SOMALIA CEIUTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPhENT PROJECT Project Casplecton Report Land Capability and Potentlal for Developunta ETHioPIA| .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w :@. :a i~U tn. W~mf-.t z~~~~~~ - - o - ~~~~~~~~- .- ,. * . _,, N P_t z X ...................... -... em a .m... - ,, .t-Fet,,,_~tsf t n"t* /~~~~~~~~~ M. - - 0 _m_- M m / :m o Sm.....:* _"_.- ......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m - m..M d. im i . /~~~~~~~~~~~~m @ -. . -1a- o e. - m. . - O n . - . * - eq a