Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
Report Number : ICRR0021215
1. Project Data
Project ID Project Name
P091979 E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL)
Country Practice Area(Lead)
Kenya Agriculture
L/C/TF Number(s) Closing Date (Original) Total Project Cost (USD)
TF-96908 31-Dec-2014 6,390,000.00
Bank Approval Date Closing Date (Actual)
10-Jun-2010 30-Jun-2017
IBRD/IDA (USD) Grants (USD)
Original Commitment 5,500,000.00 5,500,000.00
Revised Commitment 5,500,000.00 5,185,288.85
Actual 5,499,999.15 5,185,288.00
Prepared by Reviewed by ICR Review Coordinator Group
Katharina Ferl Vibecke Dixon Christopher David Nelson IEGSD (Unit 4)
2. Project Objectives and Components
a. Objectives
According to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Special Climate Change Fund Grant Agreement of
August 21, 2012 (p. 5) and the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) (p. 6) the objective of the project was “to
improve the ability of participating districts and communities in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands to plan and
implement climate change adaptation measures. This objective will be achieved through: (i) strengthening
climate risk management and the natural resource base related knowledge; (ii) building institutional and
technical capacity for improved planning and coordination to manage current and future climate risks at the
district and national levels; and (iii) investing in communities’ priorities in sustainable land and water
management and in alternative livelihoods that helps them adapt to climate risk.”
Page 1 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
b. Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation?
No
PHEVALUNDERTAKENLBL
c. Will a split evaluation be undertaken?
No
d. Components
The project included three components:
Component 1: Climate information products, policy and advocacy (appraisal estimate US$1.46
million, actual US$2.25 million): This component was to finance the strengthening of capacity and
institutional coordination among national agencies to manage disasters and to better assess and respond
to climate risk through developing climate-related knowledge products to inform climate risk management
strategies in the (Arid and Semi-Arid Lands) ASALs and integrating climate action into the ASAL
development strategies and programs. Activities included the development of county management plans,
county climate risk profiles, community action plans, and a tool kit for screening agricultural investment
programs for climate risk.
Component 2: Climate risk management at district level (appraisal estimate US$1.37 million, actual
US$2.00 million): This component was to finance the integration of climate risk management into county
planning processes and programs through building capacity and supporting “climate-smart” public and
private investments to implement selected public and private sector interventions identified in county plans.
Activities included the construction of 14 mega intercommunity investments (ICIs) (13 water pans and one
camel milk value addition processing plant).
Component 3: Community-driven initiatives for climate-resilience (appraisal estimate US$2.67
million, actual US$1.25 million): This component was to finance the supporting of beneficiary
communities to adopt climate change adaptation strategies and investments to reduce climate related
vulnerabilities and strengthen their resilience to climate risk. Activities included the financing of micro-
projects to distribute adaptation information through trainings and demonstration of both, traditional and
new approaches, to climate change adaptation.
During the first and second restructuring and the Mid-Term Review adaptations were made to the
components to improve project performance and speed up the progress towards the achievement of the
PDO.
Under Component 1 the number of county CRPs was increased from 4 to 15. In addition, knowledge
products were revised to avoid duplication of products developed by other programs. The improvement of
the Early Warning System was moved to another project, the Kenya Climate Smart Project. The
development of a methodology and a tool for screening agricultural investment programs for climate risk
were added.
Under Component 2 the number of inter-community investments (ICIs) was reduced, the geographical
coverage was increased, and it was agreed to construct a total of 14 ICIs
Under Component 3 the initial scale of the community adaptation micro-projects was reduced and resulted
in a change in the overall component cost. The project had anticipated funding larger scale (i.e. size &
costs) but same number of community adaptation micro-projects, therefore the original target of 80 was
Page 2 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
never revised.
e. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
Project Cost: The project was estimated to cost US$6.32 million. Actual cost was US$5.50 million.
Financing: The project was financed by a US$5.50 million Global Environmental Facility Grant which was
completely disbursed.
Borrower Contribution: The Borrower was to make a budget allocation of US$0.69 million. The actual
budget allocation was US$0.13 million and covered, as agreed, all costs that were originally planned such
as salaries and operating costs.
Dates: The project was approved on June 10th,2010 and effective only two and a half years (29 months)
later, on November 21st, 2012. The original closing date was December 31st, 2014 and the actual closing
date was June 30th, 2017, i.e. a total of two and a half years’ (30 months’) extension.
The project was restructured four times:
• On June 29, 2012 the project was restructured to: i) link the project to a new IDA parent project, the
Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agri-Business project (KAPAP); ii) modify activities under the
different components to avoid duplication of activities that had been implemented outside the project
and modify the Results Framework accordingly; iii) transfer the project from the Ministry of State for the
Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and
Fisheries (MoALF); iv) reassign the coordination and implementation management to the Kenya
Agricultural Productivity Program Secretariat; v) adapt the financial management and procurement
arrangements of the KAPAP; vi) extend the closing date from December 31, 2014 to October 31, 2016
due to the delays in project effectiveness.
• On March 4, 2016 the project was restructured to: i) make further changes in the results framework; ii)
reallocate funds and make further adjustments to the financial and procurement arrangements; iii) link
the project to another IDA-funded project, the Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project.
• On October 14, 2016 the project was restructured to extend the closing date from October 31, 2016 to
April 28, 2017 to allow time to complete implementation of critical on-going activities that will inform the
preparation of the proposed Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) and thus make up for
the fourth month delay in the flow of funds to MoALF.
• On April 18, 2017, the project was restructured to extend the closing date from April 28, 2017 to June
30, 2017 to allow for the completion of the water pan in West Pokot since its completion was delayed
due to a drought.
3. Relevance of Objectives & Design
a. Relevance of Objectives
Page 3 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
According to the 2006 Nicholas Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and the findings of the
Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Kenya was among the countries most at risk of climate
change related weather events such as droughts and flooding. These extreme weather events had become
more frequent and intense and had a strong negative impact on the country’s agricultural production.
Especially, the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) is disproportionally vulnerable to these extreme weather
events. The PAD stated (p. 1) that the ASALs cover more than 80 percent of the country’s land mass and
produces 75% of Kenya’s livestock production and contributed almost 30% to the national Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) at the time of project appraisal.
The objective of the project supported the government’s Vision 2030 which envisages a sustained, inclusive
growth to end extreme poverty and improve opportunities for all. Furthermore, the project also supported the
country’s National Policy for Sustainable Development of ASALs which aimed to facilitate and fast-track
sustainable development in Northern Kenya and other arid lands by increasing investment in the region and
ensuring that the use of those resources is fully reconciled with the realities of people’s lives.
The objective was also well aligned with the objectives of the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (2010-
2013) which were to reduce inequality and social inclusion, managing resources constraints, and unleashing
Kenya’s growth potential. The project’s objective also supported the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy 2007–
2012 which addressed the need for Kenya to invest in adaptation to climate change and the Africa Action
Plan, which included support for decentralized institutional capacity and various investments that reduce the
risk from extreme climate events. The Bank’s most recent Country Partnership Strategy (FY14-18) also
focuses in one of its three main areas on promoting protection and potential to ensure all groups share in
advancing prosperity and helping the vulnerable to develop their potential.
Rating
High
b. Relevance of Design
The underlying assumption of how certain activities were to contribute to the achievement of the PDO was
clear and properly laid out. The project was designed to be a pilot, accompanying the Arid Lands Resource
Management Project II (ALRMP II) and targeting three beneficiary groups: the ASAL communities, county and
national government institutions, and private sector stakeholders. Furthermore, the project design included a
community driven development approach to promote the adoption of adaptation measures.
Activities to improve the ability of participating districts and communities in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands to
plan and implement climate change adaptation measures included the developing of knowledge products and
building capacity within national agencies to manage disasters and to better assess and respond to climate
risk. Knowledge products included the development of Climate Risk Profiles for project areas and counties
outside project areas as well as a methodology and tool for screening agricultural investment programs for
climate risk and Community Action Plans. In addition, capacity was built by training public and private
advisory agents in community climate risk management. Furthermore, activities aimed to improve climate risk
management at district level through supporting “climate-smart” public and private investments such as
financing mega intercommunity investments. Finally, activities included investments into micro-projects to
distribute information to climate change adaptation.
Page 4 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
A shortcoming of the project design was that it did not take negative externalities into account, such as the
government's fiscal constraints, and the cancellation of the ALRMP II. Furthermore, while the project’s
objective was clearly specified, and the theory of change was sound and reflected in the Results Framework,
most indicators focused on outputs rather than outcomes.
Rating
Substantial
4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy)
PHEFFICACYTBL
Objective 1
Objective
To improve the ability of participating districts and communities in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands to plan and
implement climate change adaptation measures:
Rationale
Outputs:
• 15 Climate Risk Profiles (CRPs) were developed (four for the targeted project areas and eleven for
counties outside the project areas). However, the CRPs were not developed in time to inform the
preparation of the county climate risk planning and management process for KACALL as was originally
planned due to procurement delays. The ICR (p. 34) stated that they are being used under ongoing Bank
projects (the Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) and the Regional Pastoral Livelihoods
Resilience Project (RPLR)).
• Four Count Management Plans were developed and provided budgeted climate risk management
programs and were subsequently incorporated into County Integrated Development Plans. The ICR does
not state whether this implied that the planned target was achieved.
• Methodology and tool for screening agricultural investment programs for climate risk was developed,
achieving the target. However, the development was completed only a few months before project closing
due to procurement delays related to the lack of technical expertise in firms competing for the contract.
The tool will be used under the ongoing KCSAP and RPLR.
• 497 public and private advisory agents were trained in community climate risk management, surpassing
the target of 80 agents.
• All of the 156 KAPAP sub-projects were screened for improving response to climate risk, achieving the
target.
• 82 Community Action Plans (CAPs), which identified concrete climate risk management activities
reflected in the County Integrated Development Plan, were developed, surpassing the target of 80 CAPs.
• 156 community adaption micro-projects were developed and implemented, surpassing the target of 80
Page 5 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
projects.
• The project benefited 37,977 beneficiaries, surpassing the target of 10,000.
• 69% of beneficiaries were female, surpassing the target of 50%.
Intermediate Outcomes:
• Targeted training on safeguards and M&E improved the ability of county officials to integrate
environmental and social safeguards into community planning, and the ability of the community to monitor
and evaluate community adaptation activities. The training had a positive impact on the quality of the
demonstration activities, which received a satisfaction rate of 96% by participating farmers.
• 81% of public and private sector investments were rated satisfactory or better by beneficiary, just
surpassing the target of 80%.
Rating
Substantial
PHREVDELTBL
PHREVISEDTBL
5. Efficiency
The PAD did not include an Economic analysis and stated (p. 19) that the quantification of economic benefits
for the project as a whole was not deemed to be meaningful or to add significant value to the project’s design.
Instead, the PAD conducted a preliminary economic analysis for some CDC micro-projects, and the
economic impacts of climate change were discussed based on a literature review. The Internal Rates of
Return (IRRs) for these micro-projects (small scale irrigation, woodlots, beekeeping, and sustainable land
management) were estimated to be between 13 and 30 percent, assuming a discount rate of 10 percent.
At project closing, an ex-post financial analysis was conducted, assessing the financial viability of demand-
driven CDC activities under component 3 (for nine most popular enterprises for which data was available -
agriculture, dairy, local poultry, mango, and tomatoes) using the same methodology as the one included in
the PAD and also a discount rate of 10 percent. According to the Bank team “popular” was defined as
enterprises with the highest uptake rates which was determined by the technology type, physical and
economic accessibility, good market access, commercial value, significant potential to bring in higher incomes
and overall anticipated economic impacts.
The results were largely positive except for one dairy and one agriculture enterprise which had a negative Net
Present Value (NPV) and /or a benefit-cost ratio below 1. For all other enterprises the NPVs ranged from
US$667 to US$10,871 and the IRRs ranged between 18 and 262 percent.
Operational Efficiency:
The project experienced several significant implementation delays due to procurement and financial
management issues such as slow flow of funds, bottlenecks within the Ministerial Tender Committee, and
frequent institutional changes. Due to these issues the project’s closing date had to be extended three times
Page 6 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
from originally closing in December 2014 to June 2017. All this might be indicative of an inefficient use of
project resources.
Overall, the project’s efficiency is rated Modest.
Efficiency Rating
Modest
a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and/or Financial Rate of Return (FRR) at appraisal
and the re-estimated value at evaluation:
Rate Available? Point value (%) *Coverage/Scope (%)
0
Appraisal 0
Not Applicable
0
ICR Estimate 0
Not Applicable
* Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated.
6. Outcome
Relevance of objective is High given ASALs high vulnerability to climate change related extreme weather events
such as droughts and flooding. Relevance of design is rated Substantial as is the achievement of the PDO.
Efficiency is rated Modest. Taking everything together this results in an outcome rating of Moderately
Satisfactory.
a. Outcome Rating
Moderately Satisfactory
7. Rationale for Risk to Development Outcome Rating
The government continues to be committed to the climate change agenda as demonstrated through
implementing several climate change related policies and strategies. The project has also supported the
government’s agenda by strengthening some of the country’s institutional mechanisms. The ASALs will
continue to be vulnerable to extreme weather events such as droughts and flooding. Therefore, it will be critical
that adaptation activities will be scaled up. However, the ICR (p. 28) stated that even though the counties plan
to use the Community Action Plans and the County Integrated Development Plans as intended, they experience
a lack of actual budget allocations for climate change adaptation. Furthermore, at the national level the
mainstreaming of climate change issues in the agriculture sector was to be led by the Climate Change Unit.
However, following several institutional changes, staffing and funding challenges, the unit essentially became
Page 7 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
ineffective, presenting an institutional risk to the outcomes achieved. While there is currently a National Climate
Change Response Strategy and National Climate Change Action Plan in place, there is also need for a
centralized institutional mechanism for climate change mainstreaming and coordination at the sector level.
Resurrecting the unit within the Ministry would be critical. The Bank has ongoing operations (The National
Agricultural Rural Inclusive Growth and Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project) and is planning to have future
operations to support climate change adaptation efforts. Also, insecurity and conflict about water resources are
likely to continue. Therefore, it will be critical for the government to institutionalize and scale up conflict
management measures at the county level throughout the ASALs to prepare for potential larger scale conflicts.
a. Risk to Development Outcome Rating
Modest
8. Assessment of Bank Performance
a. Quality-at-Entry
The project design built on previous Bank projects such as the Arid Lands Resource Management Project I
and II and the Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agri-business Project (KAPAP). The ICR (p. 29) stated
that lessons learned and best practices from projects in Africa and other regions were taken into account. The
ICR (p. 12) also stated that the project’s objective was realistic and achievable. The Bank used the already
established community driven development approach
The Bank identified relevant risk factors. The risk of alternative sustainable Livelihood strategies to
pastoralism not to be taken up in the arid lands was rated as High. The Bank rated the country’s overall
financial management risk and the internal control risk as Substantial. However, the Bank underestimated the
impact of the fiduciary risk and did not identify the risk of frequent institutional changes such as the
elimination of the ministry originally responsible for the project, the transfer of the project to a new ministry,
reassignment of the project to a different implementation agency and Kenya’s devolution process, resulting in
implementation challenges. Also, the risk of continued and growing conflict, especially in arid districts was
underestimated. During the 2016/2017 drought clashes between project and non-project community
members took place.
The ICR (p. 12) stated that the project used the already existing implementation infrastructure of the AMRMP
II project in order to avoid any duplication and reduce operational costs. However, the unexpected
suspension and closure of the ALRMP II and the need to link the KACCAL to the KAPAP resulted in several
challenges. The KAPAP did not have the technical staff to manage a climate change project and had to hire
new staff resulting in significant implementation delays since the recruitment took almost two years. Another
shortcoming was that the project areas were expansive and distant from each other, making coordination
more challenging. Also, due to the long delays during project preparation, the original four years
implementation period decreased to two and a half years. Furthermore, the Results Framework had several
shortcomings (see section 10a for more details).
Page 8 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
Quality-at-Entry Rating
Moderately Unsatisfactory
b. Quality of supervision
The Bank team consisted of staff with relevant technical and operational expertise from headquarters and from
the country office. The Bank team conducted supervision missions on a regular basis. During the critical
implementation phase between 2012 and 2016, missions were conducted twice a year as required, for a total
of 10 missions during that timeframe. Bank team missions included a mix of agriculture specialists,
economists, fiduciary and safeguards specialists. The Bank team successfully restructured the project four
times to adapt the project to changing circumstances and improve project performance. According to the ICR
(p. 29) the Mid-Term Review was critical for improving implementation progress and performance. The Bank
team identified shortcomings in financial management and provided support to strengthen the project’s internal
controls. The ICR (p. 29) stated that challenges related to M&E such as delays in data collection were followed
up closely. Also, the Bank team provided timely advice and support in regard to the Bank’s safeguard policies
and monitored the grievance redress mechanism regularly. According to the ICR (p. 29) all complaints were
recorded to have been addressed satisfactorily. The ICR also stated that overall supervision ratings were
candid and while the project was rated Unsatisfactory at the beginning of implementation, it was rated
Moderately Satisfactory when it closed. Even though the project had five different Task Team Leaders
throughout its implementation, not allowing continuity, the ICR (p. 29) stated that since three of the Task Team
Leaders were based in the country a closer interaction with the government was possible, and making up for
the lack of continuity. The Bank team was unable to solve the issue of slow funds which caused significant
implementation delays even though this problem was consistently mentioned to the government. The ICR (p.
29) stated that this was a common profile throughout the Bank’s project in the country.
Quality of Supervision Rating
Moderately Satisfactory
Overall Bank Performance Rating
Moderately Satisfactory
9. Assessment of Borrower Performance
a. Government Performance
The government showed its commitment to addressing climate change by putting in place its policy
agenda. However, given the challenging political turmoil after the 2007 election, frequent institutional
changes and constitutional reform process had a negative impact on project implementation. Also, the
project was negatively affected by the delays in project effectiveness, consistently slow flow of funds from
the Treasury, the delayed opening of a designated project account, long procurement processes and the
long recruitment process for hiring climate change experts at the national and county level.
Page 9 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
Government Performance Rating
Moderately Unsatisfactory
b. Implementing Agency Performance
The KAPAP Secretariat was responsible for the implementation of the project. According to the ICR (p. 30)
the secretariat worked with the Bank to coordinate mission field visits, regular internal national and county
level meetings, monitored safeguards and evaluated the performances of the service providers. The
Secretariat ensured fiduciary compliance. However, the secretariat lacked the necessary technical capacity
to support the project and it took a significant time until the capacity was available. Also, the ICR (p. 16)
stated that M&E data was not used to inform decision making or to modify actions to improve project
implementation.
Implementing Agency Performance Rating
Moderately Unsatisfactory
Overall Borrower Performance Rating
Moderately Unsatisfactory
10. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization
a. M&E Design
The project used the M&E system of the Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agri-business Project (KAPAP).
The ICR (p. 16) stated that data was collected from the national, county and community level. Data collection
at community level consisted of a combination of beneficiary participation to record and collect data on
activities. At county level the data was consolidated by the county M&E officers and at national level a final
overall data consolidation was conducted by the M&E officer of the KAPAP secretariat.
The project’s objective was clearly specified, and the theory of change was sound and reflected in the Results
Framework. Most of the intermediate results indicators were adequate to capture the contribution of the
project’s outputs toward achieving the PDO. However, several of the intermediate outcome indicators in the
original Results Framework were not sufficiently specific such as the intermediate outcome indicator which
measured “climate scenarios developed and adjusted to regional and provincial levels”. Also, most of the
indicators focused on outputs rather than outcomes.
b. M&E Implementation
The original Results Framework was modified during the June 2012 and March 2016 restructuring. One PDO
and three intermediate outcome indicators and three targets were modified to reflect changes in project scope
and institutional arrangements. The ICR (p. 16) stated that by the end of project implementation, data for all
indicators was collected and recorded in the Results Framework.
According to the additional information provided by the Bank team via email on May 13, 2018 the M&E data
was deemed reliable and of good quality. Data at project level was collected by participating community
Page 10 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
members. County level data was consolidated by the county M&E officers and then sent to the Secretariat at
national level. According to the Bank team, M&E staffing was deemed adequate.
The key M&E challenges were related to delays in collecting and moving data from the counties to the
Secretariat as a result of poor infrastructure and network connectivity challenges in some of the counties. This
oftentimes delayed data consolidation and reporting at national level.
The Bank team stated in an email on May 13, 2018 that the likelihood of sustaining the M&E functions and
capacity after project closure is deemed high. At national level M&E specialists from the Ministry were used.
At county level, KACCAL used existing county M&E functions. These functions have remained even after
KACCAL’s closure and are proving valuable for other projects such the KCSAP. County Climate Change
Experts whose role also included an oversight dimension for M&E were integrated into the county
government structures after the project closed. In addition, as part of the KACCAL exit strategy, the National
Government signed MoUs with the Counties committing them to support activities\functions supported under
the project.
c. M&E Utilization
The ICR (p. 16) stated that M&E data was not used to inform decision making or to modify actions to
improve project implementation.
M&E Quality Rating
Modest
11. Other Issues
a. Safeguards
The project was classified as category B and triggered the Bank’s safeguard policies OP/BP 4.01
(Environmental Assessment), OP/BP 4.04 (Natural Habits), OP/BP 4.09 (Pest Management) and OP/BP
4.10 (Indigenous People). When the project was relinked to KPAP, OP/BP 4.04 was no longer triggered
since activities were only implemented on existing farmland and the project did not finance activities in
protected areas.
The project developed, disclosed and applied an Environmental and Social Management Framework
(ESMF), an Integrated Pest management Framework (IPFM), and an Indigenous People’s Planning
Framework (IPFF). Furthermore, all of the 156 micro-projects were screened according to the ESMF and an
Environmental Impact Assessment Studies were conducted fur all 14 ICIs. The project trained stakeholders
and beneficiaries in environmental and social safeguards before the sub-projects were implemented. Also,
the project conducted a social assessment to identify vulnerable marginalized groups/indigenous people
and ensure their inclusion in project activities.
The project also established a grievance redress mechanism (GRM) which used county level
implementation committees to channel conflict resolution and amicable settlement of disagreements. The
complaints were documented by the M&E officer in a complaint register at the CSU level. According to the
Page 11 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
ICR (p. 17) the project complied with all environmental and social safeguard requirements.
b. Fiduciary Compliance
Financial Management:
During project preparation the financial management risk was rated Substantial. A Country Policy and
Institutional Assessment identified weaknesses in governance and judiciary, corruption and the 2008 post-
election crisis. Since the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II faced several financial management
issues, the KACCAL project identified and implemented additional measures to strengthen its internal controls.
The ICR stated (p. 18) that the project fully complied with the Bank’s financial reporting requirements. The
Kenya National Audit Office prepared quarterly interim financial reports and annual audit reports in a timely
manner. The project experienced implementation delays due to the government’s slow internal bureaucracy
with the project’s internal flow of funds despite relatively simple flow of funds procedures. The ICR (p.29) stated
that FM reporting indicated that there were no identified incidences of fraud. According to the email sent by the
Bank team on May 13, 2018, the external auditor’s opinion was not qualified.
Procurement:
The Bank team stated via Email on May 13, 2018 that the project followed the Bank’s procurement guidelines.
Also, overall procurement capacity was adequate. At the national level there was a fulltime Procurement Officer
and a Procurement Assistant solely dedicated to the project. At the county and community level the project
relied on the County Procurement Officers to assist in procurement matters.
According to the ICR (p. 18) the project experienced significant procurement related delays. At the national
level delays resulted from bottlenecks within the Ministerial Tender Committee (MTF). The ICR (p. 14) stated
that these delays resulted in the non-alignment between fund receipt, annual workplans and budget and led to
the disruption of implementation sequencing of critical project activities such as planting materials for
demonstrations on tree planting, tree seedlings and grasses were distributed late in and out of season and
therefore not achieving the impact as planned. The Bank team stated via email on May 13, 2018 that the main
procurement bottlenecks in the MTF included: (i) difficulty in getting the committee members to constitute a
quorum on a timely basis which significantly delayed reviews; and (ii) the members were not professional
procurement officers and therefore could not give professional opinions on procurement matters. The Bank
consistently pushed the Government to speed up procurement processes during support missions but was
limited in what it could realistically achieve since KACCAL had to follow the country procurement systems. The
MTC has now been abolished by the Government because of numerous complaints from different ministries.
Overall, according to the Bank team, the project’s finance and procurement management issues were handled
in compliance with the existing GoK procedures and Bank guidelines. Kenya’s Public Finance Management Act
and guidelines were the key documents which guided project FM issues. Procurement was in accordance with
Kenya’s Procurement Act and World Bank approved procurement plans. The Secretariat flagged fiduciary
issues to the Ministry on time as well as sought the guidance from the Bank team on how to resolve them.
c. Unintended impacts (Positive or Negative)
NA
Page 12 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
d. Other
---
12. Ratings
Reason for
Ratings ICR IEG
Disagreements/Comment
Moderately Moderately
Outcome ---
Satisfactory Satisfactory
Risk to Development
Modest Modest ---
Outcome
Since the Quality of Entry was
rated Moderately
Unsatisfactory and
Supervision was rated
Moderately Satisfactory, the
ICRR guidelines state that the
Moderately Moderately rating for the overall Bank
Bank Performance
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Performance will be
determined by the overall
Outcome Rating. The overall
Outcome rating was
Moderately Satisfactory and
thus tips Bank Performance
above the satisfactory line.
Moderately Moderately
Borrower Performance ---
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory
Quality of ICR Modest ---
Note
When insufficient information is provided by the Bank for IEG to arrive at a clear rating, IEG will downgrade the
relevant ratings as warranted beginning July 1, 2006.
The "Reason for Disagreement/Comments" column could cross-reference other sections of the ICR Review, as
appropriate.
13. Lessons
The ICR (p. 31) provides useful lessons learned, adapted by IEG below:
• It is critical for projects that include the CDD approach to allow for sufficient time for consultations,
community mobilization and sensitization before project activities are being implemented. This
project, due to critical implementation delays, did not allow for sufficient time for consultations and
Page 13 of 14
Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review
E- Adaptation Climate Change (KACCAL) (P091979)
sensitization initiatives. The Bank team stated in an Email sent on May 13, 2018 that according to
beneficiaries consulted during preparation of the end of project impact evaluation study, a longer
implementation timeframe would have allowed for the following: (i) longer technology demonstration and
training period, and therefore more time to absorb and internalize the information; (ii) a higher number of
beneficiaries to be reached; (iii) and a higher uptake rate of adaptation technologies and practices for
improved resilience. For those adopted technologies that had particularly strong potential for higher earnings,
more beneficiaries would have had an opportunity to reap the benefits of improved economic impacts.
• For agricultural project it is important that budgetary planning and the flow of funds are aligned
with climatic patterns/seasonality instead of the government’s budgetary cycle. In this project the
delay in flow of funds from the treasury to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries had a negative
impact on the implementation of project activities such as the delivery of seeds during drought season.
• Taking socio-economic factors into account is critical for ensuring the uptake of climate adaptive
technologies by local communities. In this project, in some cases, such as in apiculture, the uptake of
modern/improved bee hives, while being considered highly effective, proved to be cost prohibitive for many
beneficiaries in some of the counties due to the high cost of the technology.
14. Assessment Recommended?
No
15. Comments on Quality of ICR
The ICR provides a good overview of project preparation and implementation and estimated the NPV and IRR
for a few sub-projects. The ICR is concise and internally consistent. However, the ICR does not provide
sufficient information on critical areas such as financial management, procurement, M&E, and how the project
was affected by various political crises. Also, the ICR mentions the government’s Vision 30 and National Policy
for Sustainable Development of ASALs but does not provide any details. Furthermore, even though the ICR
provides interesting lessons learned, it does not explain what the impact of project shortcomings such as
shortened implementation time for CDD activities was. Finally, the ICR is not outcome driven and does not
provide sufficient analysis to show how the outputs produced under the project led to the outcomes.
a. Quality of ICR Rating
Modest
Page 14 of 14