Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00002049 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-53299 TF-55386) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 3.70 MILLION TO THE ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES (OECS) FOR A OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT March 26, 2012 Sustainable Development Department Caribbean Country Management Unit Latin America and Caribbean Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective August 19, 2011) Currency Unit = East Caribbean Dollar EC$ 1.00 = US$ 0.37 US$ 1.00 = EC$ 2.7 FISCAL YEAR July 1– June 30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ANB Antigua and Barbuda CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEHI Caribbean Environmental Health Institute CERMES Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies CIDA Canadian International Development Agency DO Development objective DOM Dominica EC European Commission ECERA Eastern Caribbean Energy Regulatory Authority ECMC Engineering, Construction & Management Consulting Ltd. ECSPP Eastern Caribbean States Partnership Program EMP Environmental Management Plan ENCAPD Environmental Capacity Development Project ESDU Environment and Sustainable Development Unit FFEM Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial FMR Financial Management Report GEO Global Environmental Objective GEF Global Environment Facility GND Grenada ICR Implementation Completion Report IP Implementation Progress ISR Implementation Status and Results Report IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice LAC Latin America and the Caribbean M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPA Marine Protected Area MTR Mid-Term Review NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NEMMA North East Marine Management Area NEMS National Environmental Management Strategy NGO Non-Governmental Organization NICE National Implementation Coordinating Entity NPC National Project Coordinator ii NTAC National Technical Advisory Committee OAS Organisation of American States OD Operational Directive OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States OM Operational Manual OP Operational Policy OPAAL OECS Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods (project) PA Protected Area PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PERB Protecting the Eastern Caribbean Region‘s Biodiversity project PMS Participating Member States PSA Public Service Announcement PSC Project Steering Committee PSEPA Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area SFA Special Framework of Assistance SGD St. George‘s Declaration of Environmental Principles in the OECS SIDS Small Island Developing State SIE Site Implementing Entity SLU Saint Lucia SPAW (Protocol on) Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife SVG St. Vincent and the Grenadines TAC Technical Advisory Committee TBD To Be Determined TCMP Tobago Cays Marine Park TNC The Nature Conservancy TOR Terms of Reference TTL Task Team Leader UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar UWI University of the West Indies WIDECAST Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network WWF World Wildlife Fund XCD Eastern Caribbean Dollar Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy Country Director: Françoise Clottes Sector Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Sector Manager: Karin E. Kemper Project Team Leader: Anjali Acharya ICR Team Leader Anjali Acharya iii OECS COUNTRIES OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design ................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 7 3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 14 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome......................................................... 20 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 21 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 24 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 26 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 28 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 29 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 37 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 38 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 40 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 42 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 44 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 47 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 48 MAP iv A. Basic Information OECS Protected Areas Country: OECS Countries Project Name: and Associated Livelihoods Project Project ID: P073267 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-53299,TF-55386 ICR Date: 01/27/2012 ICR Type: Core ICR ORGANIZATION OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES Original Total USD 3.70M Disbursed Amount: USD 3.56M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 3.70M Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: B Implementing Agencies: OECS Secretariat/Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Organization of American States Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 01/29/2001 Effectiveness: 12/08/2004 08/26/2008 Appraisal: 03/08/2004 Restructuring(s): 12/09/2009 03/04/2011 Approval: 05/20/2004 Mid-term Review: 01/07/2008 04/22/2008 Closing: 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Implementing Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Agency/Agencies: v Overall Bank Moderately Overall Borrower Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Unsatisfactory Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Yes None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): GEO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 55 55 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 27 27 General industry and trade sector 8 8 Other social services 10 10 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Biodiversity 33 33 Environmental policies and institutions 16 16 Participation and civic engagement 17 17 Regional integration 17 17 Rural non-farm income generation 17 17 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy David de Ferranti Country Director: Francoise Clottes Caroline D. Anstey Sector Manager: Karin Erika Kemper John Redwood Project Team Leader: Anjali Acharya Garry Charlier ICR Team Leader: Anjali Acharya ICR Primary Author: Anjali Acharya Enos E. Esikuri Keiko Ashida Tao vi F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved) To contribute to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in the participating countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) by removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas (PAs), and increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of these areas. This will be achieved by: (i) strengthening national and regional capacities in the sound management of PAs; (ii) establishing or strengthening a number of demonstration PAs; (iii) providing economic sustainable opportunities for environmentally compatible livelihoods in buffer zones of project-supported PAs; and (iv) involving communities, civil society and private sector in the participatory management of the PAs. (The six OECS participating countries are: Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent & the Grenadines.) Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications The GEOs have not been revised. (a) GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Total ha of land under improved management for conservation and protection in Indicator 1 : six protected areas developed with project resources 24,693 ha of marine and terrestrial areas protected under the six demonstration sites. Management effectiveness Value At least 6,500 total improved by 11% (quantitative or Not available Not applicable ha (ANB), 63% Qualitative) (DOM), 6% (GND, 73% (SKN), 41% (SLU), and 82% (SVG) using the OECS scorecard system. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Exceeded (380% of target value). achievement) % of land in three new non-project supported protected areas that are effectively Indicator 2 : managed. Value At least 50% of Four PAs 0 Not applicable (quantitative or three new non- established under vii Qualitative) project supported the Project have PAs improved its management, measured by scorecards, which are North East Marine Management Area (ANB), Annandale Forest Reserve (GND), Central Forest Reserve NP (SKN), and Pointe Sable EPA (SLU). Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Exceeded. The USAID's PERB project provided management support to Comments Wallings Forest and Codrington Lagoon (ANB); Carib Territory (DOM); Nevis (incl. % Peak (SKN); Sandy Island/Oyster Bed Marine Park and Levera wetland (GND); achievement) and Kings Hill forest reserve (SVG). Indicator 3 : Improved protection of the habitat of 11 regionally endemic species The target 11 regional endemic species benefiting Selected endemic Improved from enhanced Value vertebrate species are protection of the preservation (quantitative or ANB 17; DOM 29; GRD habitat of 11 Not applicable through declaration Qualitative) 20; SKN 11; SLU 29; regionally endemic and improved SVG 22 species management of six sites supported by OPAAL. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Adequate quantities of the full range of skills necessary for effective PA planning Indicator 4 : and management are readily available While indicator is vague, considerable training was Value developed based on (quantitative or Not available Not available Not applicable country-specific Qualitative) training needs assessment and delivered. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments Achieved. Training included PA systems planning and management, ecological (incl. % gap analysis, PA awareness and communications, PA M&E, site M&E, achievement) financial management, sustainable financing, and finance and fundraising. Indicator 5 : There are a number of able "champions" and "leaders" (civil society or private viii sector groups) effectively driving the protected areas agenda. Indicator was vague, and no specific target was Value provided. NGOs are (quantitative or 0 Not applicable Not applicable active in specific Qualitative) management activities in two sites (ANB and SVG). Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Not Available. achievement) % of population in areas surrounding the six PAs adopt new livelihoods Indicator 6 : attributable to project efforts More than 500 people received training in livelihoods skills and over 200 people received seed funds. Value However, due to (quantitative or Not available 30% of population Not applicable the late provision of Qualitative) seed funds, it is premature to measure the actual adoption of new livelihoods attributable to project efforts. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Not Available. achievement) Indicator 7 : Increased visitation to PMS national park systems Cabrits NP: 66,099 visitors (312%); TCMP: 8,771 yachts and 90,011 Cabrits NP: 16,023 passengers (21% Value visitors total; 10% increase in and 16% (quantitative or Tobago Cays MP: 7,234 Not applicable number of visitors respectively). Other Qualitative) yachts and 77,015 parks are free passengers (2006) access, thus no means to track number of visitations. ix Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/22/2008 Comments (incl. % Achieved. achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Draft models of harmonized institutional arrangements by third year of the Indicator 1 : project Regionally harmonized institutional 50% of countries Value No harmonized framework in place. adopting (quantitative or institutional framework in Not applicable Harmonized PA institutional Qualitative) place systems policy and reforms model Act completed in the third year. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Indicator 2 : Customized Institutional arrangements in at least 3 PMS by end of the project Customization of institutional arrangements completed for ANB, SKN, GND, SLU, and SVG through 50% of countries Environmental Value adopting Capacity (quantitative or 0 Not applicable institutional Development Qualitative) reforms Project (CIDA); UNEP, the OECS Protecting the Eastern Caribbean Region‘s Biodiversity Project (USAID); EUSFA 2003 an OPAAL. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments 100% achieved. (incl. % x achievement) Indicator 3 : Number of PA system plans adopted by PMS by fifth year of the project. 3 systems plans updated (SLU, SVG, and GND); 2 new systems plan completed for ANB No systems plan in 2 At least 4 PA and SKN. The Value PMS; outdated systems system plans systems plans have (quantitative or plans in 4 PMS none of adopted by PMS Not applicable been formally Qualitative) which received official by fifth year of the approved by the government endorsement project. Cabinets of GND and SVG, while the other countries‘ approval is pending. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Partially achieved. achievement) Number of PA management supporting studies completed by third year of Indicator 4 : project. Sustainable financing study completed. Seminar Sustainable PA on protected areas Value finance study to highlight lessons (quantitative or 0 targeted for Not applicable learnt, best Qualitative) completion; 2 practices, etc. other studies TBD. which was agreed at MTR to be supported in lieu of 2 studies. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Indicator 5 : Number of PAs gazetted and /or strengthened by end of project 6 sites legally created and gazetted. 6 management plans At least 6 PAs Value 2 OPAAL sites pre- developed, four of gazetted and/or (quantitative or existed, but not Not applicable which have been strengthened by Qualitative) effectively managed officially endorsed end of project by the respective Cabinets. PAs in DOM and SLU have not yet been xi endorsed. Date achieved 12/07/2005 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/22/2008 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Number of livelihood programs/subprojects implemented by end of project Indicator 6 : resulting in 970 total ha under biodiversity friendly production systems; % of targeted local community would benefit from increase in income. Indicator revised at At least 13 MTR to 6 livelihood subprojects programs/subproje consisting of cts; 970 total ha several livelihoods under biodiversity activities. Launched Value friendly in all six sites, (quantitative or 0 production Not applicable disbursing grants to Qualitative) systems; at least 200 people; No data 30% of targeted is available on the local community total ha; No would benefit measures in from increase in increase in income income due to late start of activities. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Partially Achieved. achievement) Indicator 7 : Number of beneficiaries trained in small project facility (SPF) procedures Specific target not given, but as many as 75 persons from Value all PMSs were (quantitative or 0 Not available Not applicable trained in project Qualitative) proposal writing including SPF procedures. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Achieved. achievement) Number of training modules designed by end of first project year; Number of Indicator 8 : participants trained by end of project and working in PA management 14 training courses 6 training modules related to PA Value designed; 450 management (quantitative or 0 participants trained Not applicable developed; almost Qualitative) and working in PA 700 people trained management in, e.g., PA systems planning, ecological xii gap analysis, PA management, PA communications, PA M&E, site M&E, financial management, sustainable financing, fundraising etc. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Exceeded. achievement) Indicator 9 : % of the population aware of the importance of PAs Not available. Only KAP baseline survey was carried Value 70% of the out in 2008; a (quantitative or Not available population (as of Not applicable follow-up KAP Qualitative) 2008 KAP survey) survey was not undertaken due to budget constraints Date achieved 12/07/2010 04/30/2011 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Not Available. achievement) Key project personnel contracted by ESDU by end of second quarter of the first Indicator 10 : project year Value All project All project (quantitative or 0 personnel to be Not applicable personnel were on Qualitative) contracted board. Date achieved 12/07/2004 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Indicator 11 : M&E system established Regional Monitoring Framework update at least biannually. Fully-fledged M&E Value Project M&E system that includes (quantitative or 0 system to be Not applicable biodiversity Qualitative) established monitoring at the site level designed. Other reports prepared include FMR reports, PMS quarterly reports, xiii and annual reports. Date achieved 12/07/2004 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 07/31/2011 Comments (incl. % 100% achieved. achievement) Indicator 12 : Number of hits to project webpage developed in first 6 months Usage for the months of Mar-Jul 2008 averaged 344 hits per months, Aug 2008-Feb 2009 Value averaged 62 hits per (quantitative or 0 Not available Not applicable months. Qualitative) (Reformatting of OECS website in early 2008 prevented usage counts prior to that period.) Date achieved 12/07/2004 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 03/31/2008 Comments (incl. % Not Available. achievement) G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. GEO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 12/17/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 05/06/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.20 3 08/23/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.22 4 05/05/2006 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.32 Moderately 5 12/18/2006 Moderately Satisfactory 0.41 Unsatisfactory Moderately 6 05/31/2007 Moderately Satisfactory 0.62 Unsatisfactory 7 06/29/2007 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.62 8 12/09/2007 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.89 9 06/23/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.08 10 12/19/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.20 11 06/24/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.43 12 12/19/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.82 13 06/29/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.09 14 02/23/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.60 15 09/06/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.53 xiv H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made GEO Change GEO IP in USD millions Adjustment of particular financing percentage for the 08/26/2008 N S MS 1.12 remuneration of the Project Coordinator position. 12/09/2009 S S 1.82 Extension of closing date Reallocation to correct inadvertent misclassification of 03/04/2011 N S MS 2.60 expenditures under training and workshops and other operating costs. I. Disbursement Profile xv 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1.1.1. At appraisal, there was growing evidence of degradation of the Caribbean‘s biodiversity- rich ecosystems, particularly associated with poorly-planned coastal development, population growth, tourism, pollution, over-exploitation of living resources, accelerated sedimentation associated with changes in upstream land use, rapid expansion of coastal developments, and the introduction of exotic species. As a result, important biological systems, particularly beaches, coral reefs, wetlands, tropical forests and seagrass beds, were under intense pressure, threatening the region‘s biological diversity. 1.1.2. Recognizing the importance of the sustainable management of its natural resources and rich biodiversity, the Governments of the OECS Participating Member States (PMS) had made significant commitments to protecting their countries‘ resources as signatories to international conventions and through policy statements, legal and institutional instruments, recent environmental programs, and financial support of conservation activities through budget allocations. At the international level, the PMS were some of the first countries to ratify the Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD). In the wider Caribbean, five of the six countries had ratified the Cartagena Convention, an environmental treaty that serves as a vehicle for the implementation of global initiatives and legal instruments, such as the CBD. Finally, at the sub- regional level, the OECS Member States in 2000 issued and subsequently endorsed the St. George‘s Declaration, which includes a commitment to the conservation of biological diversity and the protection of areas of outstanding scientific, cultural, spiritual, ecological, scenic and aesthetic significance. 1.1.3. The PMS had also begun the difficult task of translating these international and regional commitments into real efforts at the national level. In addition to completing national environmental management plans and comprehensive national environmental profiles, five of the six PMS had also completed national biodiversity strategy action plans. The shared objectives of these strategies included inter alia: (i) conservation of the country‘s diversity of ecosystems, species and genetic resources; (ii) establishment of protected areas; (iii) promotion of sustainable uses of these resources in support of human development with an emphasis on tourism; (iv) encouragement of the equitable distribution of the benefits derived from the use of biodiversity; (v) need to establish baseline data; (vi) improvement of institutional and management capacity; and (vii) facilitation of the participation of people and institutions in the management of biodiversity. The participating countries had also recognized the importance of establishing protected areas as the primary method of preserving biodiversity and conserving valuable natural resources assets. In the region, there were 98 gazetted protected areas (PAs) and an additional 9 PAs that were in the process of being created. Three of the PMS (Dominica, Grenada and St. Lucia) had already prepared national protected areas system plans. 1.1.4. Despite these significant efforts, there remained significant impediments to the full realization of a framework for managing protected areas that could protect the region‘s biodiversity from further degradation. These impediments included: (i) inadequate legislation and weak implementation and enforcement of existing laws; (ii) policy gaps, institutional overlaps and lack of coordination in natural resources management; (iii) limited human, financial 1 and material resources; (iv) limited sustainable economic opportunities; and (v) limited public support for conservation efforts. 1.1.5. The OECS PMS had inherited or enacted many laws related to biodiversity conservation and the protection of natural areas. Many of these laws and the areas protected under them had been in existence for a considerable time, and were obsolete at the time of appraisal, failing to reflect contemporary approaches to environmental management. Even at the national level, much less the regional level, these measures were not systematically related and did not provide a comprehensive framework for biodiversity conservation and protected areas. Perhaps more importantly, many of these laws had never been implemented by the promulgation of rules and regulations, which was one of the main reasons that they were not effectively enforced. Given these deficiencies, the relevant agencies did not have the institutional capacity to enforce the existing laws effectively. This problem was compounded by the fact that the legal framework allocated the responsibility for the management of protected areas between multiple agencies with their own separate mandates. The laws however did not guarantee effective collaboration. 1.1.6. In addition, there were several problems that were common to a number of OECS countries. Foremost among these was uncertainty about the extent and boundaries of protected areas, stemming from the vague manner in which these were defined in the governing laws. Another common problem was that the protection afforded to areas designated under older laws in the region was limited; for example reserves for forests often do not preclude the extraction of timber or fuel wood, or sanctuaries created under wildlife laws protect the game species but not the habitat. Further problems had emerged where new legislation had been enacted without the amendment or rationalization of the existing laws, leading to redundancy and jurisdictional conflict. The legislation adopted around the time of appraisal for the creation of National Parks and other types of protected areas had also demonstrated deficiencies that emerged in their implementation. Despite these shortcomings, there were a number of enactments that contained innovative provisions that were worthy of wider adoption and which could form the basis of a regional model to facilitate the consolidation of protected areas legislation for the PMS. 1.1.7. Participating Member States‘ (PMS‘) institutional arrangements were weakened by gaps in existing policies (e.g., the failure to incorporate environmental and social costs into economic decision-making) and overlaps and/or unclear institutional responsibilities for the conservation and management of biodiversity in many of the Member States (particularly with respect to the management of coastal resources). Institutional overlaps stem largely from the lack of a consolidated legal framework. The situation is further exacerbated by an absence of effective mechanisms for information sharing, integrated planning and collaboration among agencies in the implementation of programs and projects is a major constraint to PA management. As a result of these gaps, tourism and coastal development, upstream construction leading to erosion and sedimentation, and over-exploitation of resources continues without proper planning and coordination that would take into account the need to protect biodiversity. 1.1.8. While there existed a large number of protected areas in the region, many of them were not supported with the necessary financial and human resources to ensure the achievement of basic biodiversity conservation objectives, less their long-term sustainability. There was a need for a regional strategy and rationalization process to use scarce resources more efficiently to 2 conserve biodiversity of global importance. Like other small island developing states (SIDS), the OECS countries had a limited pool of persons with relevant professional and technical training and experience in biodiversity conservation and protected areas management. Funding, facilities and equipment for the responsible agencies, when available, were often inadequate. This was further compounded when various agencies under law had responsibility for managing protected areas, scattering limited resources. Where PA-generated revenue existed (e.g. through royalties and licensing fees), it typically went to the PMS‘ treasury department and could not be retained by the responsible governmental agency. 1.1.9. Limited financial and human resources had also prevented the collection of adequate data required for sound resource management and long-term sustainable planning efforts. The lack of coordination between agencies responsible for protected areas management had led to a piecemeal approach to data collection. Data, where they existed, were not accessible and available to policy makers, community members, regional stakeholders and managers. 1.1.10. In the OECS countries a significant proportion of the community was engaged in natural resource based activities, including agriculture and fisheries. In some areas, these traditional activities as presently practiced were not environmentally sustainable and adversely impacted the underlying natural systems. In many cases, the achievement of conservation objectives would depend upon the identification of viable alternative sustainable livelihoods and/or support to more environmentally sustainable practices. 1.1.11. In the OECS countries, mainstream socio-economic issues remained the primary national priority. Despite an increase in general environmental awareness, particularly amongst the young and some communities already involved in conservation efforts, direct support for conservation was still largely confined to members of environmental NGOs. 1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) 1.2.1. The GEO was to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in the participating countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) by removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas (PAs), and increasing the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of these areas. The project intended to achieve this by: (i) strengthening national and regional capacities in the sound management of PAs; (ii) establishing or strengthening a number of demonstration PAs; (iii) providing economic sustainable opportunities for environmentally compatible livelihoods in buffer zones of project-supported PAs; and (iv) involving communities, civil society and private sector in the participatory management of the PAs. The six OECS participating countries were: Antigua & Barbuda (ANB), Dominica (DOM), Grenada (GND), St. Kitts & Nevis (SKN), St. Lucia (SLU) and St. Vincent & the Grenadines (SVG). 3 Table 1. Key Performance Indicators Global Environment Key Performance Outcome/Impact Indicators Objective Indicators To contribute to the (i) institutional framework At least 6,500 total ha of land under conservation of biodiversity of reforms which will demonstrate improved management for global importance in the concrete improvements in conservation and protection in six participating countries of the management effectiveness of protected areas developed with Organization of Eastern national PA systems measured project resources. Caribbean States (OECS) by against baseline conditions by removing barriers to the mid-term and end of project At least 50% of land in three new effective management of (50% of countries showing non-project supported protected areas protected areas (PAs), and institutional reforms); that are effectively managed. increasing the involvement of civil society and the private (ii) number of protected areas Improved protection of the habitat of sector in the planning, and total hectares that conserve 11 regionally endemic species. management and sustainable globally significant biodiversity use of these areas. This will be (at least 6 PAs and 6,500 ha Adequate quantities of the full range achieved by: conserved and protected); of skills necessary for effective (i) strengthening national and protected area planning and regional capacities in the (iii) number of hectares of management are readily available. sound management of PAs; production systems that contribute to biodiversity There are a number of able (ii) establishing or conservation or the sustainable "champions" and "leaders" (civil strengthening a number of use of its components against society or private sector groups) demonstration PAs; baseline scenarios (at least 970 effectively driving the protected areas ha of production systems agenda. (iii) providing economic contributing to biodiversity sustainable opportunities for conservation); and 30% of population in areas environmentally compatible surrounding the six project developed livelihoods in buffer zones of (iv) number of people showing PAs adopt new livelihoods project-supported PAs; and improved livelihoods based on attributable to project efforts. more sustainable harvesting (at (iv) involving communities, least 30% of targeted local Increased visitation to PMS national civil society and private sector community would benefit from park systems (10% increase in in the participatory increase in income). numbers of visitors). management of the PAs. 1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 1.3.1. The GEO has not been revised. In June 2005, the key project indicators in a Logframe format were updated and migrated into the Results Framework and Monitoring Plan. There were several changes made in the outcome and output indicators throughout the Project, with some changes reflected in the Operations Manual, and others within ISRs. After the mid-term review, original indicators from the PAD were reverted to, and some revised indicators used. Reasons and justification for the many changes in the indicators were not clearly articulated in ISRs. 4 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 1.4.1 The Project‘s main beneficiaries include:  globally significant species as well as the habitats in which they occur; and  local populations who would benefit from these global benefits in the form of improved environmental integrity and natural amenity values (such as watershed protection), the protection of the resource base, and the development of sustainable tourism. 1.4.2 The target groups were those associated with protected areas, particularly where that association implied a dependency on the resources for livelihood support. Most of these groups resided near the protected areas and used the resources to support tourism, tourism-related activities, local recreational activities, and fisheries. 1.4.3. Also, the participating country‘s public sectors were to benefit from increased capacity for conservation management and co-management of natural resources. Local NGOs with field experience in the management of protected areas, and the local citizens and international visitors who visited the protected areas were also to benefit from the services supported by the project. 1.5 Original Components (as approved) Component 1. Protected Areas Policy, Legal, and Institutional Arrangements (Institutional Framework) (Total US$1.02 million, GEF US$0.84 million). 1.5.1. This component‘s objective was to achieve policy, legislative and institutional arrangement reforms (collectively termed PA institutional framework) in Participating Member States (PMS) leading to the evolution of a harmonized approach to protected areas creation and management in the OECS region. There were three sub-components: (i) policy, legal, and institutional arrangements reform; (ii) updating/preparing new national protected areas system plans; and (iii) supporting studies. 1.5.2. The component was aimed at supporting the following activities: (i) national reviews of existing policy, legal and institutional frameworks in PMS; (ii) a comparative analysis of national frameworks to include recommendations on a common approach to the development of policy, legislation and institutional arrangements for PAs establishment and management in the region; (iii) a regional symposium and endorsement of one or more common approaches; (iv) development of harmonized policy, legislation and institutional arrangement models supporting PA establishment and management for the region; (v) support for national actions leading to a more harmonized institutional framework; (vi) an assessment of the critical constraints affecting the conservation of biodiversity in the OECS region; (vii) evaluation of existing and potential mechanisms for the sustainable financing of PAs; and (viii) other demand-driven studies in support of component objectives to be defined in the first year of implementation. 5 Component 2. Protected Areas Management and Associated Alternative and New Livelihoods (Total US$3.55 million, GEF US$1.21 million). 1.5.3. The component‘s objective was to promote biodiversity management and conservation through the establishment of new and strengthening of existing protected areas, complemented by support for alternative and/or new livelihoods in areas in proximity to the aforementioned PAs. This component had three sub-components: (i) the creation of new and/or strengthening of existing PAs; (ii) supporting alternative and/or new sustainable livelihood opportunities in and around PAs; and (iii) Small Project Facility (SPF) capacity building and support. 1.5.4. This component was expected to support the following activities: (i) site inventories, demarcation and mapping of the PAs, establishment of biodiversity baseline; (ii) the development (or updating of existing) management plans and constituent sector plans; (iii) investments such as basic park infrastructure and equipment; (iv) an M & E program; (v) training and technical support that would be based on site-specific needs assessment; (vi) field studies and workshops to identify potential economic opportunities; (vii) review, evaluation, and selection of livelihood opportunities based upon their compatibility with conservation objectives, feasibility and cost-benefit; (viii) development of participation criteria and alternative livelihood subproject preparation; (ix) technical assistance and training for sustainable livelihood beneficiaries; and (x) implementation of alternative sustainable livelihood sub-projects. Component 3. Building Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation and PA Management and Increasing Environmental Awareness (Total US$0.74 million, GEF US$0.43 million). 1.5.5. This component‘s objective was to enhance national capacities and increase public support for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of PAs through education, training and awareness. The component included two sub-components: (i) training in support of establishment and management of PAs and sustainable alternative livelihoods; and (ii) increasing public awareness on the ecological, social and economic significance of PAs. 1.5.6. This component was expected to support the following: (i) completion of a national and regional training needs assessment; (ii) the design and implementation of regional and national training program(s) in PA management and sustainable livelihoods; (iii) the design of national public awareness strategies and country-specific action plans; (iv) the implementation of these action plans; and (v) equipment purchased to support public awareness strategies. Component 4. Project Management, M&E and Information Dissemination (Total US$2.26 million, GEF US$l.22m). 1.5.7. This component includes three sub-components: (i) project management, (ii) monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of overall project implementation, and (iii) design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy. This component was aimed at implementing the project in a timely and efficient manner, providing for the: (i) employment of additional staff for the ESDU (project coordinator, protected area‘s specialist, communications officer, and administrative assistant); (ii) purchasing of equipment; (iii) updating of ESDU‘s existing M&E program to meet 6 GEF and WB requirements; (iv) implementation of the M&E system; and (v) dissemination of project results. 1.6 Revised Components 1.6.1. The components have not been revised. 1.7 Other significant changes 1.7.1. There have been three minor restructurings. In the first, an adjustment has been made to a particular financing percentage for the remuneration of the Project Coordinator position (effective August 26, 2008). In the second, the closing date was extended for 15 months till July 31, 2011. In the third, a reallocation of less than 10% of the grant proceeds was requested and approved by the Bank. Other major aspects including the project objective, design, and implementation arrangements have not been changed. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry A. Lessons learned and applied to project design 2.1.1. Some lessons learned from previous OECS projects (e.g. OECS Ship-Generated Waste Management Project: P006970) were incorporated into the design of OPAAL. These include the following:  Regional approaches can provide for greater aid effectiveness in small island developing states through economies of scale, increasing synergies where human and financial resources are limited, and effective coordination of dissemination and replication of lessons learned. The original project proposal developed by the St. Lucia National Trust (May 2002) focused only on St. Lucia. With the promise of greater aid effectiveness, the Project concept was reformulated to be a 6-country project, after considerable consultation with key stakeholders. Also, designating an existing regional entity with a clear mission aligned to the project objectives provides an opportunity for an effective policy coordination and cross-fertilization at regional level.  To be effective, conservation needs must be combined with activities aimed at meeting socio-economic needs. The OPAAL Project design articulated this lesson so that all PAs would benefit economically from the associated livelihood activities that the project would finance. The Project also emphasized the use of participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques, and involved local communities in consultations.  Stakeholders must be engaged in co-managing resources, especially where there is a need to ameliorate weaknesses in institutional capacity in public sector agencies. During Project preparation, local stakeholders in all PMS provided critical input into project design and expressed a strong desire to participate in project implementation. The 7 Project design also included the role of Site Coordinators to serve as liaison with the local communities surrounding the selected protected areas. Components relating to awareness raising and training were built in to specifically show local communities the benefits of participation in the Project.  The need for mechanisms to be put in place to ensure that project activities are sustainable and fully integrated into national and regional on-going initiatives. The Project design sought to establish partnership arrangements with national and regional initiatives to maximize local and national benefits, and to fully incorporate PA management approaches into existing initiatives. As part of this, existing agencies (typically Departments of Forestry or Fisheries) were selected to serve as the national implementing agencies for each PMS. B. Design Issues 2.1.2. Project design was complex for the time-frame allocated for implementation. Given the limited institutional and technical capacities in the Member States, the Project design appears to have placed significant demands on partner agencies at the national and local levels. Compounding this was the time required for stakeholder mobilization, setting up implementation arrangements, and policy-level engagements in each PMS–which resulted in longer lead time before actual implementation could begin. 2.1.3. Requiring the official endorsement of management plans impacted project implementation. The Project design did not allow any physical works on-site or livelihoods subproject investments until the PMS legislatures approved the respective PA management plans. This design element was intended to ensure a seamless integration between infrastructure works and the official management plans. However, the time-consuming process for the official endorsement of these management plans in several countries led to delays in investments such as infrastructure works and livelihoods subprojects– which, in turn, had impacts on project credibility with, and ownership by, local communities. 2.1.4. Need for customization of interventions to country context. While the design of the Project sought to apply a full range of interventions and instruments for effective protected areas planning and management, it also applied the same template to countries with different needs, arrangements and capacities. Greater attention to customization to the realities of each PMS in terms of institutional arrangements (e.g. selection of National Implementation Coordinating Entities [NICEs]), and existing capacities would have made for smoother implementation. C. Risk Assessment 2.1.5. The Project risk assessment clearly identified the country and sector risks. It correctly rated as substantial the potential risk of delays in implementation from the multi-country coordination efforts required in a regional project. Considerable effort was made to keep the implementation on track by the OECS Secretariat and NICEs. However, the circumstances were often more complex and varied than anticipated. 8 2.1.6. Also, the Project recognized the risk that PMS might not be committed to establishing the necessary and appropriate institutional framework for biodiversity management. However, the awareness raising mitigation measure was not sufficient to address this risk during Project implementation. Additionally, despite a budget of $1.22m for Project Management, significant capacity weaknesses affected the institutional arrangements in the PMS (at the national as well as site level), and impacted the overall management of the Project. 2.2 Implementation 2.2.1. The Project was restructured three times (level 2 restructuring). The first restructuring (in August 2008) enabled an adjustment of the particular financing percentage for the remuneration of the Project Coordinator position. The second restructuring (in December 2009) extended the project by 15 months. The third restructuring (in February 2011) was a reallocation to correct inadvertent misclassification of expenditures. A mid-term review (in April 2008) was very timely and reflected a key turning point in the Project. The review was instrumental in taking stock of Project achievements, identifying issues contributing to implementation delays, and making concrete recommendations to improve proactivity. Key factors that affected implementation included: 2.2.2. Delays in official endorsement of PA management plans affected project implementation. The MTR recognized that the official endorsement of management plans (required prior to on-site investments in infrastructure and livelihoods) was becoming a barrier to initial investments to establish physical presence, to increase protection of the areas and to garner public support in the surrounding communities. Revisions in the Operations Manual (in 2009) then allowed for infrastructure and other investments on evidence that the management plan had entered the process of formal endorsement by the respective countries. Since the Project was already significantly delayed, an extension of 15 months was required, which then allowed for the completion of all activities. 2.2.3. Institutional issues at the national and local levels led to slower implementation progress. While several NICEs worked effectively in ensuring timely progress on project activities, there was limited integration of OPAAL activities into their agency work plans. Similarly, some Site Implementing Entities (SIEs) were not always representative of communities and often lacked local― ‖; champions while others (like Tobago Cays Marine Park (TCMP)) owed its success to the quality of local leadership. Recognizing the importance of providing oversight to site-specific activities and liaising with local communities, the MTR strongly recommended that site managers be appointed fulltime. 2.2.4. Changes in staffing in implementing entities as well as in the Bank impeded continuity. There were some changes in the staffing at the implementing agency (e.g., the Protected Areas Specialist position) as well as delays in the replacement of staff, resulting in the stretching of ESDU core staff time. In the PMS, there were also changes at the site level (site coordinator positions were often lying vacant) which impacted the ground-level implementation of activities. Also, over the Project life, there were as many as four Bank TTLs (under 3 different Sector Managers) which somewhat impacted proactivity and consistency in client dialog. 9 2.2.5. Limited availability of regional expertise. The limited availability of consultants with suitable regional experience often led to delays (re-advertisements were sometimes needed) in the contracting of studies for this Project. Furthermore, procurement procedures used in advertizing and hiring consultants were reported to be time-consuming and having a relatively high administrative burden. 2.2.6. Close supervision of infrastructure works led to successful completion. There were a number of problems relating to the performance of contractors responsible for infrastructure works (see section 2.4). With delays in the completion of these works, the implementing agency made an astute decision (approved by the World Bank) to hire an engineering firm (replacing a vacant Protected Areas Specialist position) to provide design inputs, and manage these works in the participating Member States. The supervision oversight (including attention to quality and efficiency of construction) provided by the engineering firm (Engineering Construction and Management Consulting Ltd. (ECMC)) led to the timely and satisfactory completion of all Project infrastructure works. 2.2.7. Innovative approaches helped to stretch training and communications budgets: With a limited budget for training, the OECS-ESDU team was innovative in organizing opportunistic training activities (beyond the regular training) as part of other OPAAL-sponsored events such as subproject launches, stakeholder consultations or planning meetings. Similarly, the implementing agency employed innovative ways of communication to raise awareness including the production of documentaries, conducting media seminars, and memorabilia to promote the OPAAL ―brand ‖. 2.2.8. Support from the external co-financiers was critical to implement project activities: Funds provided by external co-financiers helped to finance critical elements within the overall program of activities under the OPAAL Project, supplementing GEF resources. Fonds Français pour 1’Environnement Mondial (FFEM) co-financed (US$1.64 million grant) several Project activities with an emphasis on Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) provided technical assistance with an ecological gap assessment, and rapid assessment and prioritization of PA management for Grenadines, St. Lucia, and St. Kitts and Nevis; as well as completed the gap analysis for Antigua and Barbuda (a total in-kind contribution of US$0.85 million). The OAS supported activities in St. Lucia including the communication plan, and financial support for the St. Lucia National Trust (US$0.17 million). 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 2.3.1. Reporting, monitoring and evaluation for the OPAAL Project included World Bank supervision; quarterly FMRs including financial reports and with procurement plans; annual work plans and reports; a mid-term review (MTR) commissioned by the World Bank; compliance with internal reporting within the OECS Secretariat; and the conduct of annual audits. In addition, the main instruments used to track progress were (i) the Results Monitoring Analysis Matrix, based on the project‘s logical framework; (ii) the Process Framework Monitoring and Evaluation Tool; and (iii) the management effectiveness scorecard prepared for all six demonstrations on three occasions (2006, 2008 and 2011). 10 2.3.2. M&E design: The design of the M&E for this Project, as reflected in the results framework, did not always establish clear links between objectives, outputs and indicators. There were seven outcome indicators in the original Logical Framework in the PAD and 12 output indicators; some of these indicators were insufficiently specific, lacked baselines and target values and did not clearly identify data collection methods. 2.3.3. Recommendations made at the Project Launch Workshop on the indicators suggested reducing to one outcome indicator viz. the measurement of PA management. Without any formal project restructuring, this change in the outcome indicators was reflected in a revised Operations Manual, and used in the first 3-4 project ISRs. However, after the MTR‘s recommendations, subsequent ISRs and Aide-Memoires reported on the original set of indicators in the PAD (see M&E implementation below). Accordingly, given the absence of any formal restructuring, the original indicators have been reported on in this ICR. 2.3.4. Implementation and utilization: As discussed above, there were some changes made to the outcome and output indicators throughout the life of the project (and not well articulated in related ISRs). The MTR made several recommendations to clarify indicators. For example, the livelihoods indicator was revised from the original target value of 13 subprojects (due to lack of definition of what these subprojects constituted) to a target of 6 subprojects (comprising one subproject per PMS; and each subproject then consisting of several livelihoods activities). Recommendations made at the MTR to adjust indicators were included in subsequent tracking, and the original set of PAD indicators was also reinstated. 2.3.5. More detailed information on the indicators available from aide-memoires was not always brought into the ISRs. Additionally, budgets for measuring indicators were sometimes inadequate. For example, a Knowledge Attitudes Practices (KAP) survey was required to be undertaken to establish a baseline for awareness of protected areas; this was carried out only several years into the project (in 2007) and there was no budget for a second survey to record actual improvements that might have been attributable to the Project. 2.3.6. In parallel to the results framework, a PA management effectiveness Scorecard was developed (adapted from a tool developed by the World Bank– WWF Alliance) and applied in the 6 PMS across three years viz. 2006, 2008 and 20111, to record improvements. While the scorecard ratings demonstrated improvements in management effectiveness at the PA sites, there is less information about how this used to inform decision-making or resource allocation. 2.3.7. Given the delays in the livelihoods subprojects, it was not possible to assess the impacts of this component by the time of the ICR. It would be beneficial to evaluate a sample of these subprojects is recommended to be undertaken in a year‘s time, to help provide key lessons on community-level impacts in terms of income generation, jobs creation and financial security. 1 Only ANB, SKN, and SLU have submitted in 2011. 11 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance A. Safeguards 2.4.1. The Project complied with World Bank safeguard policies identified in the PAD, viz. (i) Environmental Assessment (OD 4.01), (ii) Physical Cultural Resources (OP 11.03), and (iii) Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). Although the Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) policy was not triggered at the time of approval, the project applied the principles of this safeguard policy. 2.4.2. Environmental Assessment. The Project was rated as an Environmental Assessment Category ―B‖ based on the anticipated benefits to the environment from improved PA management, with only some of the investments were expected to have environmental impacts that were small-scale and narrow in scope (e.g., site-specific impacts associated with small-scale PA infrastructure; impacts associated with changing livelihood practices). An environmental management plan (EMP) was developed to ensure that potential future adverse impacts would be identified and addressed through the (i) inclusion of environmental mitigation measures in PA Management and Operational Plans; (ii) environmental screening of alternative and new sustainable livelihood activities; and (iii) list of activities/ sub-projects excluded from financing. 2.4.3. Physical Cultural Resources. This policy was triggered to take into account potential ―chance findings‖ of culturally important or historical or archeological sites, during project activities. The Operations Manual required that management plans to be developed for all protected areas under the Project would include regulations and procedures for the appropriate protection and preservation of these cultural properties consistent with the World Bank‘s policy. 2.4.4. Involuntary Resettlement. During project implementation, there was no expectation of involuntary physical displacement or resettlement of persons from the selected protected areas being supported under the project. However, as some livelihood activities could potentially be impacted, a Process Framework was developed that outlines the criteria and procedures to restore or improve livelihoods of affected peoples. The project has applied and appears to have complied with its Process Framework (OP 4.12) (contained in Annex 6 of the Operational Manual) for potential nonphysical displacement. The participatory social assessments, livelihood and needs assessments, and trainings carried out in all six OPAAL PA sites seem to have contributed to an evaluation of the potential adverse impacts on the human population in and around the PAs. This information in turn has fed into the draft management plans, and has been used for the design of multiple alternative livelihood activities ("action plans") for each PA. However, limited reporting on the Process Framework makes a proper evaluation of this safeguard somewhat difficult. 2.4.5. Natural Habitats. Under the Project, protected area sites clearly provide natural habitats for several national/regional endemic species and nesting sites for non-endemic migratory marine mammals, turtles and avian species. Therefore, OP4.04 should have been triggered. However, the spirit of the policy was applied in the Project, with all six sites having conducted detailed site preparation studies to identify potential environmental and socioeconomic adverse impacts of Project interventions, and related mitigation measures; and baseline environmental and socio-economic studies to determine the status of the resource base, the uses and the nature of communities associated with the site. 12 B. Financial management 2.4.6. Through the Project life, quarterly Financial Management Reports were submitted in a timely manner to the Bank with relevant information and the figures, and reconciled with Bank records. Similarly, Audit Reports were also submitted in a timely manner and performed in accordance with International Auditing Standards. A few issues relating to financial management design and implementation (and how they were addressed) are highlighted below. 2.4.7. Short reconciliation period: Financial management arrangement included the opening of separate bank accounts in each PMS, managed by the NICE, with the provision of a 30 day period for reconciliation of accounts. This requirement was considered by the PMS to be impractical for a regional project covering 6 islands with different capacities. 2.4.8. Co-mingling of funds in Grenada: The Audit Report for the Period 2009/2010 for the Project included a qualified with exception opinion on the internal control as the Bank Account for the revolving fund handled by the Grenada NICE had been unilaterally closed by the government to conform to a new law relating to the setting up of a Single Treasury Account. Subsequent follow-up by the OECS-ESDU as well as a Bank supervision mission resulted in the reinstatement of the Account, transfer of funds, and reconciliation of expenditures. 2.4.9. Co-financing funding delays: On a few occasions, the implementing agency experienced delays in processing payment from Fonds Français pour 1’Environnement Mondial (FFEM). Issues ranged from excess documentation (with detailed invoices) to delays in direct payments. With some delays, the vendors were ultimately paid with the corresponding donor‘s funds). 2.4.10. Approval for Overdraw of Category: During the Project grace period, the TTL authorized (with approval from disbursement) an overdraw of category 5 (subprojects livelihoods), for livelihoods activities financed in St. Kitts and Nevis. This required reallocation of funds to category 5, granted on an exceptional basis, was justified as the activities financed through the overdrawn amount were for sustainable livelihood activities consistent with the objectives of the project, and the project was close to the end of the grace period for disbursements. C. Procurement 2.4.11. Ex-post procurement reviews were conducted by the Bank‘s procurement specialist once every year since 2006. Most reviews found that the Recipient followed the Bank procurement guidelines; in some instances, these reviews made recommendations, which were followed by the implementing agency in a timely manner. Apart from supervision and reporting, procurement issues were often flagged during the implementation of the project, mostly due to the weak capacity in the PMS (both at the national level, and also among potential suppliers/ contractors). The main issues (and how they were addressed) are highlighted below. 2.4.12. National capacity to handle procurement processes: Many Project participants found the Bank‘s and OECS‘s procurement procedures too demanding and complex. In the countries, most project partners complained, for example, about the requirement for pro-forma invoices from small local suppliers (mostly unfamiliar with such practices). Repeated procurement training and provision of templates, as well as support from the implementing agency helped to build capacity. 13 2.4.13. Sourcing of suitable consultants: Given capacity weaknesses, the procurement procedures for advertising and hiring consultants often proved to be time-consuming and with a relatively high administrative burden. Also, with procedures designed for larger works, local suppliers would often exclude themselves citing the perceived complexity of the procurement processes. The limited availability of suitable regional expertise contributed to delays in some cases, but the hurdle was somewhat overcome by contracting from a broad range of sources. 2.4.14. Performance of contractors: The performance of contractors hired for the infrastructure works was mixed, with problems relating to inadequate contracting arrangements (poor specifications and drawings); price discrepancies between contractors and design engineers; weak capacity to supervise contracted works; and inaccurate budget estimates. The implementing agency‘s decision to recruit an engineering firm (ECMC) to oversee the infrastructure works in the last year of the project, led to the successful completion of all infrastructure works. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 2.5.1. Follow-on project requested: The OPAAL project was conceived and initiated as the first phase of a 15 year protected areas program for the OECS subregion. Its gains and achievements will be more fully realized and sustained with continuing activities building over the achievements of the past 6-7 years. At the final Project Steering Committee meeting in June 2011, the representatives from the PMS called for a follow-up (OPAAL-2) project–with the critical areas of environmental mainstreaming, land management, policy influencing and advocacy, partnerships, sustainable financing) as the focus of a next phase in the 15-year process. 2.5.2. OECS Sustainable Financing Project: The World Bank has just approved an $8.75 million GEF project which will contribute to enhancing the long-term sustainability of PA networks in the OECS region by: (i) establishing sustainable financing mechanisms; (ii) strengthening Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks; and (iii) deploying a regional monitoring and information system for PA networks. The project concept was derived from the sustainable finance study carried out as part of the OPAAL project, and recognizes the importance of establishing sustainable financing mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. This new project is built upon and designed to complement the OPAAL project‘s achievement in policy, legal, and institutional reforms for PA management, building capacities, and raising awareness at the national level. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 3.1.1. Relevance of objectives. Project development and global objectives remain highly relevant. The Project focused on contributing to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in the OECS participating countries by removing barriers to the effective and participatory management of PAs for local, national, and global benefits. In terms of country priorities, the project objectives remain strongly aligned with existing policies on biodiversity conservation, the national environmental management strategies of individual countries, as well as the 2006 ratification of St. Georges Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability 14 in the OECS which identifies principles and guidelines for the use, conservation and management of the region‘s natural resources. 3.1.2. In terms of global priorities, the Project is well aligned with global commitments and agreements. By improving the national framework, and helping remove some of the barriers to effective management of protected areas, the OPAAL Project supports the goals and targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Programmes of Work on Protected Areas, and on Island Biodiversity; as well as the International Convention on Wetlands (two sites in the Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area (PSEPA) in St. Lucia are included on the List of Wetlands of International Importance). Additionally, part of the North East Marine Management Area in Antigua and Barbuda is listed as a priority Key Biodiversity Area by the Ecosystem Profile of the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot done by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 3.1.3. In terms of the Bank’s assistance strategy, the Project‘s objective remains strategically aligned with the Bank‘s 2010-2014 Regional Partnership Strategy for the OECS (Report No.: 53762-LAC) which includes a key objective building resilience–noting the importance of strengthening of environmental management (particularly in critical ecosystems) and related institutional strengthening and public awareness measures. The Project‘s investments in measures that protect and improve the ecological health of the natural ecosystems (e.g. in OPAAL targeted sites like Tobago Cays Marine Park in St. Vincent and the Grenadines) is an immediate, practical and viable approach to adapting to climate change while enhancing resilience to its impacts. 3.1.4. Relevance of design. The relevance of project design was high in several respects. First, with key potential economies of scale and shared ecosystem resources and challenges among the island states of the OECS, the appropriateness of a regional design has been evident.2 Second, the Project helped to identify policy, legislative and institutional arrangement reforms to create a harmonized approach to protected areas creation and management in the OECS region. This included the update and preparation of new national protected areas system plans as well as supporting studies and the strengthening of the OECS Secretariat as a key actor in conservation and sustainable development in the sub-region. Third, the project design was premised on the approach of overcoming the barriers to effective protected area management by giving specific attention to building institutional capacity and encouraging gainful community participation through the financing of associated livelihoods activities. The relevance of design was lower with respect to the sequencing of activities, the resource requirements, and the overall timeframe anticipated for implementation. Also, the relevance of the selected demonstration projects to the global, regional and national biodiversity conservation agendas was found to be uneven. 3.1.5. Relevance of project implementation. The relevance of project implementation was very high in terms of the development of harmonized policy, legislation and institutional 2 An IEG evaluation (in 2007) of Bank support for multi-country programs concluded that (a) the Bank should continue and expand its regional efforts, and (b) high development impact could be achieved if greater support for regional projects were coupled with the application of the lessons from past experience. More recent interventions in the OECS by the Bank (e.g., Sustainable Financing of Marine Protected Areas Project; the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience) and other donors (e.g., USAID climate change project) have also adopted the regional approach to designing related interventions that address biodiversity conservation. 15 arrangement models supporting PA establishment and management; the training conducted in support of establishment and management of PAs and sustainable alternative livelihoods; and the innovative communications and awareness raising activities carried out under budget constraints. The choice of the OECS Secretariat as the regional implementing agency continues to be validated in subsequent World Bank (e.g. the Eastern Caribbean Energy Regulatory Authority [ECERA] Project: P101414) and other donor (e.g. a USAID Climate Change project) projects. The relevance of implementation was lower with respect to the delays in endorsement of management plans, which led to postponement of other components such as the livelihood subprojects. In addition, proactivity and responsiveness to implementation issues was slow. 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives 3.2.1. Project objectives were achieved to a large extent. Considerable progress has been made in achieving the Global Environmental Objective of contributing to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in the participating countries of the OECS by removing barriers to the effective management of protected areas (PAs), and increasing the involvement of civil society and private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of these areas. 3.2.2. The achievements of this Project are evidenced by the successful attainment of the majority of the outcome indicators. Of the seven outcome indicators for the Project, five were either exceeded or achieved satisfactorily (see Annex 2). This multi-country project helped to strengthen national capacities in the management of PAs; established/ strengthened a number of demonstration PAs; provided opportunities for environmentally compatible livelihoods in PA buffer zones; and involved communities, civil society and private sector in the participatory management of the PAs. More specifically, the project made significant contributions towards achievement of the project objectives in the following areas:  Development/ strengthening of systems plans for protected area management in all the six PMS, and harmonization of institutional frameworks and policies. The review of policy, legislative and institutional frameworks led to drafting of legislation and regulations governing protected areas and fisheries management in 3 countries (Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines). In Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, inter-sectoral institutional coordination and collaboration have been demonstrably enhanced through Project facilitated activities. National protected area system plans were also formally approved by the cabinets of Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (draft Systems Plans are pending approval in the remaining 3 PMS).  Formal establishment of new protected areas, and improved management in pre-existing protected areas. Four new marine and terrestrial PAs were established and management strengthened in two of them. Through Project resources, a total of almost 25,000 hectares of marine and terrestrial areas were under conservation and protection in the six protected areas –far exceeding the original target of at least 6,500 hectares. Some of these PAs have local, national, regional and global significance in terms conservation and sustainable development goals (e.g. the PA site in Grenada is the largest forest area in the country, and contains several endemic species). In addition, 6 PA management plans for the targeted sites were prepared. The declaration and improved management of the six sites supported by OPAAL also contributed to the improved protection of habitat of the 11 regionally endemic species. 16  Evidence of increased PA management Score Card Summary Score for OPAAL sites effectiveness. The Project developed a Score 0.8 Card3 to provide a simple site-level tracking 0.7 2006 2008 2011 tool to facilitate reporting on management 0.6 effectiveness of the targeted PAs. Using the 0.5 score card, this assessment of how 0.4 effectively individual protected areas are 0.3 managed is a proxy for biodiversity status 0.2 and condition. The score card showed 0.1 marked improvements across three points in 0 time (2006, 2008 and 20114) in the SKN ANB DOM GND SLU SVG management effectiveness in 5 sites (while the Grenada site recorded as stable).  Increased awareness at local, national and regional levels of the importance of biodiversity, the need for protected areas, and the linkages between environmental management and livelihood opportunities. An innovative awareness and communication campaign included media seminars to encourage journalists to report on biodiversity conservation (an estimated 25 stories were catalyzed in print, radio, and TV), and the development of a Tool Kit for the Media on Biodiversity Conservation. These activities effectively established an OPAAL ―brand‖. Additionally, there is evidence of increased visitation to PMS national park systems (as reported in Cabrits National Park and TCMP –which have controlled access to visitors).  Enhanced capacity for biodiversity conservation through targeted training on PA management. Through the Project, about 14 training modules (exceeding the targeted 6 modules) related to PA management were developed, and almost 700 people (almost double the target 450) were trained in systems planning, management and communications relating to PAs, as well as in ecological gap analyses, site M&E, financial management, sustainable financing etc.  Increased participation of stakeholders in biodiversity conservation and PA management through the financing of livelihoods subprojects, and support to livelihood activities at the six targeted sites. The Project supported sustainable livelihood training (such as kayak handling, costing and pricing, arts and crafts, tour guiding, beekeeping, agro-processing, customer service, agro-tourism, entrepreneurship and marketing) for over 500 participants in the PMS and provided seed funding to about 200 beneficiaries for investments in various livelihood activities. With the livelihood subprojects financed very late in the project, it was premature to assess by Project closing their consequent impacts on incomes and livelihoods. Progress in engaging the private sector in PA management and biodiversity conservation was limited.  Enhanced capacities within the OECS Secretariat and national agencies, especially in project management, procurement, and communications. OPAAL activities have directly 3 Adapted from a tool developed by the World Bank – WWF Alliance for terrestrial Protected Area (Stolton S. et Al. 2003) and from other tools (Hocking M. et Al. 2000: Mangubhai S 2003) 4 Only ANB, SLU, and SKN have submitted the scorecard in 2011. 17 contributed to, produced, or at least substantially strengthened, a community of professionals from the sub-region who are now equipped with a number of planning and management tools for protected areas, livelihoods development and protected area management. Through this Project, the OECS Secretariat was strengthened as a key actor in conservation and sustainable development in the sub-region, with a significant program on biodiversity and protected areas.  Leveraging of additional funds for biodiversity conservation and protected areas management in the OECS: The OPAAL project included support from several external co- financiers (FFEM, TNC and the OAS) for several critical activities, and complementing the GEF resources. In addition, the Project also leveraged funds from UNEP/OECS, EU-SFA 2003, and CIDA for the customization of the PA Systems Policy and Model Act at national level. Also, USAID in partnership with the OECS-ESDU, provided about US$ 2 million for the OECS Protecting the Eastern Caribbean Region’s Biodiversity (PERB) Project to protect the region‘s rich biodiversity, while creating sustainable livelihoods through interventions at other sites in Antigua, Barbuda, Grenada, Carriacou, Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent. 3.3 Efficiency 3.3.1. As required for a full-sized GEF project, an incremental cost analysis was done during the project preparation. No formal economic analysis was completed for project implementation. However, the cost-effectiveness of park management under the project was comparable with that the average regional mean protected area budget for the Caribbean (see Annex 3 for details). 3.3.2. The livelihoods component involved providing grants for supporting livelihood activities to beneficiaries from communities around the targeted protected areas– and potentially represented increases in income levels among the grant recipients. However, due to the significant delays in the launch of livelihood activities in the PMS, it was very premature to try and measure by the end of the Project, the economic and financial impacts of these activities for the beneficiaries at the targeted sites. 3.3.3. In addition to lack of a quantitative measure, the efficiency of Project implementation (in practical terms) was affected by delays in the endorsement of management plans, limited capacity to deal with the World Bank‘s and OECS Secretariat‘s procurement procedures, and administrative complexities at national as well as site levels in the PMS. Other inefficiencies in the system were attributable to region-specific issues such as the limited pool of available consultants/ contractors. 18 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 3.4.1. The overall outcomes are rated as moderately satisfactory. The PDO/GEO remains highly relevant, and has been achieved through the Project activities. The design was largely relevant, building on potential regional synergies, and focused on overcoming barriers to PA management and encouraging gainful participation by local communities. On the strengths, the Project made significant contributions in terms of developing a systematic planning framework and approach to PA management; creating greater awareness at all levels of the importance of biodiversity and need for protected areas; improving the management effectiveness of the protected areas (measured by the Scorecard); and promoting capacity building and awareness raising for a wide range of actors. Innovative ways were developed to enhance communication and provide training opportunities. The livelihoods component–which included training and the provision of seed funds for livelihoods activities– expected to generate employment and income is for beneficiaries from local communities; however, the late launch of these activities makes it difficult to evaluate these impacts at this stage. The shortcomings include the requirement of endorsed management plans which delayed other activities, weak implementation support, and the mixed success of the institutional arrangements at the national and site levels. The limited institutionalization of Project activities may have potential impacts on sustainability. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 3.5.1. The project did not have an explicit poverty focus and therefore did not measure variables allowing for the quantitative assessment of its poverty impact. However, it is important to note that the issue of equity was given some weight by targeting local communities (through the SIEs) and especially those earning lower incomes, for training for livelihoods activities (and potentially availing of the grants). Measuring livelihood impacts would have been desirable given the potential employment/ income benefits; however with the delays in the launch of the livelihoods component, such an evaluation of impacts is premature. The implementing agency estimates by the end of the Project, about 100 jobs have been created through the livelihoods activities–with the majority of the beneficiaries being poor, women and the youth. 3.5.2. The gender dimension, which is highly relevant to natural resource based livelihoods, was neither explicitly included in the Process Framework Monitoring Tool, nor in a detailed document on social assessment, participation and process framework. However, a recent review of the OPAAL-sponsored training activities shows a good balance of participation on the basis of gender, and the livelihood sub-projects all included activities and business opportunities that are particularly relevant to women, with a high proportion of women taking advantage of training and seed funding in arts and craft and agro-processing. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 3.5.3. The Project directly contributed to OECS-ESDU‘s enhanced national and regional profile as well the capacity of ESDU to deliver large projects. This is validated by the fact that other 19 donors are currently financing and implementing even larger projects through ESDU (e.g. USAID Climate Change Project). The Project also enhanced the PMS-ESDU relationship and increased awareness of ESDU‘s capabilities in the countries through the working relationship and related interactions during the OPAAL Project. Additionally, with the promotion of a participatory approach, the Project has contributed to changing rules of engagement and mindsets in some of the departmental agencies among themselves and with public as it relates to PAs management and biodiversity conservation. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative, if any) ‖ 3.5.4. Through the Project, the OPAAL ―brand has been very effectively established and promoted, including through the development of a logo, accompanying materials and memorabilia. The final review of the project (Borrower Completion Report) reports that OPAAL was seen as more than the project, as a programme that pursues long-term objective, and “as a ‖. brand that can and should be used to the region’s benefits 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 3.6.1. There was no formal beneficiary surveys held during the Project– however there were some informal surveys of beneficiaries carried out in the context of livelihoods training (see Annex 5). No specific stakeholder workshops were convened in conjunction with preparation of this Core ICR. However, during the course of the project, a few stakeholder workshops were supported during the Project launch (at the regional level as well as at the national level), to share experiences and lessons learned relating to the OPAAL Project, and during the preparation of several studies (see Annex 6). Overall, the project benefited a wide range of stakeholders from national and local government staff, to NGOs and local communities. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 4.1. Economic downturn may affect livelihoods in the OECS countries since most of them are heavily dependent on tourism which in turn relies on sound economic conditions in source countries in North America and Europe. This is a systemic risk that is beyond the control of a project. Overall, the Project‘s objectives remain highly relevant. However, there is still a moderate level of risk and this section examines the potential factors that might hinder the Project‘s PDO outcomes from being maintained. 4.2. Sustainability of institutional arrangements within the PMS: The NICEs for this Project were selected from existing agencies with the mandate for managing protected areas; however, the limited integration of OPAAL activities into the work plans of some NICEs has implications for the longer-term sustainability of activities and processes in the PMS that were initiated and strengthened through this Project. Furthermore, it is unclear how many of the site-level coordinator positions will continue to be financed, which may affect the day-to-day management of the protected area sites, and the corresponding liaising with local communities. 20 4.3. Future mission, role of the OECS Secretariat: The OECS Secretariat played a critical role (e.g., advocacy, cross-fertilization, and policy coordination are functions that are frequently mentioned by OECS partners) in OPAAL activities relating to strengthening biodiversity conservation, removing the barriers to effective protected area management, and encouraging community participation. Central to any debate regarding sustainability is the question of the future mission, role and program of the OECS Secretariat in this field of biodiversity and protected areas. 4.4. Sustainability of livelihoods activities: The Project provided sustainable livelihood training and provided grants for materials related to livelihoods activities, but insufficient attention seems to have been paid to organizational issues and marketing, which are keys to the success of micro-business enterprises. The livelihood-related seed funding itself was undertaken very late in the project, and is too recent to assess sustainability. But there are reasons for concern, since the success of these efforts will inevitably require continued support, and it is not clear which agency (at the regional or national levels) will be in the position to provide such support beyond OPAAL. 4.5. Availability of sustainable financing: Few PAs in the world are self-financing, and park funding generally relies on a mix of sources. Budgetary support by the PMS to PA management is insufficient and usually relies heavily on external sources. Recognizing the lack of adequate finance for PA management and development, the lack of predictable future income streams or appropriate mechanisms for creating future, sustainable revenue streams, a study on Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in the OECS was commissioned. Part of the financing gaps identified will be addressed in the newly approved World Bank/GEF OECS: Sustainable Financing & Management of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project (P103470). 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 5.1.1. The project was designed according to lessons learned from previous operations and best practice at the time, but the Bank effort to ensure quality at entry was mixed and had significant shortcomings. Strengths included undertaking several stakeholder consultations on proposed project design; promoting the harmonization of the legal and policy frameworks relating to biodiversity conservation /PA management in the PMS; and emphasizing the importance of developing sustainable livelihood activities around the protected areas. 5.1.2. Significant shortcomings related to the poor design of indicators within the M&E framework, complex institutional arrangements and failure to properly assess (and address) the low capacity at the national/ local levels. Risks related to project design were partially identified, and proposed mitigation measures were inadequate in some cases. A major design issue relating to the sequencing of project components was not recognized, and resulted in significant implementation delays. 21 (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 5.1.3. Responsiveness to implementation problems was slow, especially in the first 4 years of the project (i.e. two-thirds of the project life). Early supervision missions identified problems such as weak national capacities, implementing agency staff often stretched thin due to vacancies, that there was no communication strategy etc.; but there were delays in responding to the problems (responsiveness picked up after the MTR). The Bank mostly proposed measures (such as procurement training) to address problems. Importantly, recognizing the delays in Project implementation, the MTR recommended replacing a condition for site-level activities from official endorsement of management plans to evidence of submission for endorsement to the respective national authority. This led to the acceleration in site-level activities, as most PMS had completed or almost completed the management plan around the time of the MTR 5.1.4. Supervision inputs were inadequate: Biodiversity/protected areas expertise within the Bank team should have been strengthened. Team continuity and regularity of mission was somewhat affected by the change in staffing (including 4 TTLs over the project life). There were several comments in ISRs from the Sector Management Unit relating to the implementation delays; and from the CMU after the MTR. Concerns from management about disbursement lags could have been identified. The supervision budget was quite good and permitted regular missions with site visits. 5.1.5. Lack of candor and realism in supervision reporting: The ISRs were overly optimistic in their reporting of implementation progress. The IP was briefly rated as marginally unsatisfactory and then upgraded. The DO upgraded from MS to S after MTR on basis that DO "remains relevant." The ISRs included a reasonably good description of issues and progress, although there was little use of action items, although detailed in the Aide Memoires. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 5.1.6. The Bank effort applied to this project has been somewhat inconsistent, specifically during supervision. Considerable effort was dedicated to the initial preparation process, which yielded a participatory regional protected areas project with emphasis on encouraging sustainable livelihoods. The Project objectives and design were highly relevant in the OECS region in terms of addressing biodiversity conservation and protected area management. However, at supervision, slow responsiveness to addressing implementation delays, inadequate inputs in terms of technical expertise, and inadequate candor in reporting led to the delays in several activities. The MTR was very constructive in identifying issues, and providing recommendations for improving implementation progress; and the 15 month Project extension was instrumental in helping to complete all project activities. However, with the consequent Project delays leading to the late completion of the livelihoods activities (a key indicator for the Project success), impacts from these could not be measured by Project end. For these reasons, the Bank‘s overall performance is rated as moderately unsatisfactory. 22 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 5.2.1. At the project preparation and design stage, the PMS expressed their strong commitment and interest in the overall objectives and activities within the OPAAL project. This was also demonstrated in the considerable in-kind counterpart contributions towards the Project as reflected in staff time dedicated to project-related actions. At the national level, the effectiveness of project implementation was partly determined by the capacities of and relationships between the various agencies involved. Existing agencies (usually departments of Forestry or Fisheries) selected to serve as the NICEs usually had the mandate for managing protected areas–and were often able to effectively monitor the site implementing entities (SIEs). In some cases, the quality of local leadership was critical to the overall success of the Project activities at the PA sites. For example, the success of the TCMP owed much to the leadership provided by the then-Chairman of the TCMP Board. Furthermore, in several NICEs, the assigned National Project Coordinators (NPCs) were very committed in coordinating OPAAL activities, despite being overstretched. 5.2.2. Capacity weaknesses and institutional issues sometimes impacted the government performance. In some cases, rivalries between different government departments in some PMS affected the quality and efficiency of activities. Furthermore, the integration of OPAAL activities into the work plans of NICEs was often limited –thus weakening their ability to drive project – activities. Site-level coordinator positions were sometimes lying vacant restricting their role in day-to-day implementation and community liaising. The Project Steering Committee (PSC) met only once a year–thus somewhat limiting their guidance and input to Project implementation. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 5.2.3. The implementing agency for this project was the OECS-ESDU. Overall, they played a critical role acting as the key agent steering the Project in terms of achieving deliverables, overseeing implementation and coordination of project activities in all PMS, handling procurement and financial management procedures, and leading the campaigns for communications and awareness raising. The Project also benefitted from the detailed and timely reporting on project activities by the implementing agency. Due to weak capacities within the NICEs and SIEs, the implementing agency also provided considerable technical assistance (especially on procurement and financial management issues) to these entities. Key and timely decisions by OECS-ESDU (such as the hiring of an engineering firm to supervise works), especially in the final years of the Project helped bring about the successful completion of Project activities. However, the performance of OECS-ESDU was somewhat limited by the competing demands on core staff who had other substantive duties, often leading them to be overextended. In addition, the unit was also affected by some turnover of project-related staff including two changes in the Project Coordinator, and the departure of the Protected Areas Specialist–which placed additional burden on the core staff while replacements were sought. 23 (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 5.2.4. The overall borrower performance was rated as moderately satisfactory. The commitment of the participating Member States was evidenced in the higher than anticipated counterpart contributions. However, the institutional arrangements for project implementation at the national and local levels were sometimes not appropriate to the realities in each PMS. In terms of the implementing agency, overall management of project activities was satisfactory, with adherence to procedures; close supervision of national/ local level activities; considerable technical assistance to national/ local entities; and timely reporting. However, project coordination with NICEs and SIEs did not always function optimally, partly due to the staff changes and overstretched work programs of core OECS-ESDU staff, as well as limited capacity to respond at the NICE and SIE level. 6. Lessons Learned 6.1 A five-year project lifespan may not be adequate for regional biodiversity projects. Regional projects should have a realistic implementation time frame that takes into account the inherent challenges of coordination/ logistics across countries/jurisdictions. In biodiversity/ conservation projects, adequate time is needed to ensure there is a clear understanding among all stakeholders of the functions of protected areas, how livelihoods and surrounding communities can benefit, and implications for PA management and reporting. The average duration of single- country biodiversity/PA projects is typically 5 years; this six-country regional project would have benefitted from having 2 additional years to provide an appropriate ―incubation period‖ for ample national and regional consultations, awareness raising, and other preparatory activities to ensure readiness for implementation. 6.2 Using a coordinating implementing agency helps in the harmonization of policies on biodiversity conservation and protected area management. Equally, there is need for mandate and budget resources for national staff to internalize the regional priorities. The OECS Secretariat (and specifically the OECS-ESDU Unit) played a critical role in the overall management of this regional biodiversity project providing key functions relating to harmonization, coordination, technical assistance (such as procurement and financial management), training, awareness raising/communication, and monitoring and evaluation. The commitment of national institutions (including the NICEs and SIEs) is critical in implementation of country-level interventions; however, a clearer delineation of roles for the different entities and positions (such as the Site Coordinators) would have helped smoother implementation. 6.3 Biodiversity conservation and protected areas management requires intersectoral cooperation. Both terrestrial and marine protected areas were selected as demonstration sites in the OPAAL project; thus requiring intersectoral cooperation between departments of forestry, fisheries, and environment. When designing institutional and implementation arrangements, the project should consider potential turf issues among sectoral agencies in each country especially where project activities cut across sectoral (e.g., forestry department vs. fisheries department) boundaries and mandates –as these could contribute to stalling of activities. 24 6.4 Institutionalization of activities contributes to sustainability of biodiversity conservation programs and benefits to surrounding communities. The specific integration of the OPAAL activities within the work plans of the respective National Implementation Coordinating Entities (NICEs) within the PMS would have contributed to the longer-term sustainability of activities and processes in the PMS that were initiated and strengthened through this Project. Subsequent clarity on the role of NICEs and SIEs after Project closure would help provide guidance on the continuation of the larger program on biodiversity conservation in the OECS countries, as well as the day-to-day management of PA sites, and support to the livelihoods activities. 6.5 Flexibility is important in a dynamic context. Flexibility in project design can make implementation more robust by allowing projects to take advantage of opportunities as they arise and to modify the structure and nature of project elements if needed. This is important in the case of biodiversity/ conservation projects which require the gazetting of protected areas, and other activities (infrastructure, seed grants etc.) sequenced to follow the official approval of such areas. Flexibility during implementation to make changes (in this project, allowing for some ―no regrets‖ investments and not conditioning other activities on the official endorsement of management plans) would have helped prevent delays in project activities. 6.6 Technical skills mix is crucial for the quality of project design and implementation. The technical inputs throughout a project‘s life are often the critical elements to ensuring the intended outcomes. In this project, key biodiversity expertise (on Bank team and within the implementing agency) and communications expertise (on Bank team) were not consistently available, and may have contributed to low responsiveness in addressing Project challenges such as poorly-defined indicators, unexecuted baseline studies, late start of livelihood activities, and under-budgeting of awareness activities. 6.7 Local champions are critical for ownership and success. Regional projects such as OPAAL need to be ‗nationalized and localized‘ through the engagement of highly motivated national/local ‗champions‘ in order to ensure a high degree of ownership and success. This is especially true in situations where institutional/capacity systems are small or weak (as is the case in many Small Island States). In the OPAAL project, the role of the Site Coordinators was particularly important to successful site-level activities and liaising with communities. 6.8 Address capacity issues early in project life. Regional projects inherently have logistical complexities, especially in countries with low technical and administrative capacities. Investments in training and capacity building should be made early to strengthen counterpart implementation capacity relating to technical and fiduciary specialties. In addition, regional projects place a heavy demand on existing regional institutions (such as the OECS Secretariat), which are often thinly-staffed and pulled in many directions by Member States and donor agencies. For regional projects involving countries with capacity constraints, having a dedicated PIU –with full-time staff for essential functions such as procurement, FM, safeguards, and M&E financed by the project –might help to ensure smooth functioning. 25 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies The following comments were provided on January 22, 2012 by Mr. Keith Nichols, Head of Unit, Environment and Sustainable Development Unit, OECS Secretariat. In the opinion of the OECS Secretariat, the findings of the Bank and other stakeholders in this report represent a fair and accurate assessment of the performance and success of the OPAAL project. The Secretariat is firm in its belief that notwithstanding the areas in which improvements could have been made, OPAAL did more for the management of PAs in this region than any other previous activity. The relevance of this support is reflected in the expressed wish by participating member states for the retention of the OPAAL brand for advancing PA and related objectives beyond the closure of the project. It is important that the momentum of the OPAAL project be sustained, morphing into a long- term programme that will reflect not only the gaps and areas identified in the Borrower‘s Completion Report by steering committee members, but also to give attention to the impacts of climate change and climate variability on PAs. The mainstreaming of PAs into a comprehensive, forward-looking sustainable land management programme that considers the implications of climate change and climate variability will become even more essential as Member States plan on building economic and environmental resilience into a vision for the future. The Secretariat believes that OPAAL was well placed, timely, relevant and important to conserving biodiversity of global importance. The enhancement of the awareness and importance of PAs is predicated not only on the positive outcomes of the project, but by all the discussions, thoughts, opinions and feedback, both negative and positive, throughout the life of the project. It is for this reason that it is felt that the impact of OPAAL is much greater than assessed. The reformulation from a single country project into a six country project was a strategically important and sound decision from which there are no regrets, but only important lessons. (b) Cofinanciers The following comments were provided on January 26, 2012 by Mr. Julien Calas, Secrétariat du Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial, Agence Française de Développement The FFEM was invited to join this project by World Bank / GEF to share experiences of Marine Protected Areas Projects financed with FFEM (SMMA in St Lucia and other part of the world). The FFEM was interested also to support OECS in, eventually, fostering regional cooperation with French Caribbean territories, but FFEM expertise or regional cooperation opportunities weren‘t finally considered or used during implementation. For these two reason, the FFEM consider the value added of its contribution to this project as poor. As stated in the report, the numerous changes at World Bank and OECS/ESDU in the project team could perhaps have something to do with the abandon of some intentions which were at the beginning of the project. 26 The FFEM applied Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness and decided to align to the World Bank procedures to implement this project. These procedures are less flexible than the usual FFEM ones. It is strange to read (2.4.9) that disbursement delays occurred only with FFEM as we remember very well during supervision mission the long discussions amongst WB TTL and OECS/ESDU about the disbursement difficulties and application of procurement and disbursement procedures. We will surely take this remark into consideration for future project cofinancing. We will care to keep our procedures the more flexible possible. We could perhaps invite, if possible, the World Bank to align this time with our procedures. (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 27 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage Components Estimate (USD Estimate (USD of millions) millions) Appraisal Component 1 – Protected Areas Policy, Legal, and 1.02 1.12 109.8% Institutional Arrangements Component 2 – Protected Areas Management and 3.55 4.26 120.0% Associated Alternative and New Livelihoods Component 3 – Building Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation and PA Management and Increasing 0.74 1.51 204.1% Environmental Awareness Component 4 – Project Management, M&E and 2.06 2.61 126.7% Information Dissemination Total Baseline Cost 7.37 Physical Contingencies 0.10 Price Contingencies 0.10 Total Project Costs 7.57 9.49 125.3% Project Preparation Facility (PPF) 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 Total Financing Required 7.57 9.49 125.3% (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Cofinancing Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Borrower In-kind 1.46 2.14 146.6% Fonds Francais de L'Environnement Grant 1.64 1.64 100% Mondial (FFEM) Global Environment Facility (GEF) Grant 3.70 3.58 96.8% Organization of American States (OAS) Grant 0.35 0.17 48.6% OECS Secretariat In-kind 0.42 1.12 266.7% The Nature Conservancy In-kind 0 0.85 Total 7.57 9.49 125.4% 28 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1: Protected Areas Policy, Legal, and Institutional Arrangements A regional protected areas policy and a model Act were developed based on a policy, legal and institutional review for all six Participating Member States (PMS), a comparative regional analysis, and through a review process that allowed for a participatory analysis of results and the formulation of a broader range of recommendations. The original intent of the project was to use this analysis, the regional policy and the model Act as the basis for a customized policy, institutional and legal reform process at the national level in all six countries, but the project did not get directly involved in such customization activities because they were being undertaken, in several PMS, with other sources of support such as the European Commission (EC) Special Framework for Assistance (SFA) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Resulting savings were reallocated to other project activities. Table 1. Outputs under Component 1 Component 1 Baseline (Yr 0) Actual as of Comments July 31, 2011 Draft models of No harmonized Harmonized institutional harmonized institutional framework framework in place: institutional in place harmonized PA systems arrangements by the policy and model Act third year of the completed in the third project (50% of year. countries adopting institutional reforms) Customized Customization based on Customization of Through Environmental Institutional completion of institutional arrangements Capacity Development Project arrangements in at harmonized completed for Antigua (ENCAPD/CIDA); UNEP, the least 3 PMS by end of institutional framework (ANB), St Kitts and OECS Protecting the Eastern the project (50% of Nevis (SKN), Grenada Caribbean Region‘s countries adopting (GND), Saint Lucia Biodiversity Project institutional reforms). (SLU), and St Vincent (PERB/USAID); European and the Grenadines Union SFA 2003 and OPAAL. (SVG). ANB completed through external funding. At least 4 PA system No systems plan in 2 3 systems plans updated The systems plans have been plans adopted by PMS PMS; outdated systems (SLU, SVG, and GND); 2 formally approved by the by fifth year of the plans in 4 PMS none of new systems plan Cabinets of GND and SVG, project. (project which received official completed (ANB and while other countries‘ approval responsible for government SKN). is pending. preparing final plan endorsement for submission to Cabinet of Ministers) At least two PA Sustainable PA finance Sustainable financing MTR agreed to have PA management study targeted for study completed. seminar instead of 2 additional supporting studies completion; 2 other Seminar on protected studies. completed by third studies TBD. areas to highlight lessons year of project. learnt, best practices, etc. 29 Component 2: Protected Area Management and Associated Livelihoods This component was aimed at establishing new and strengthening existing PAs, complemented by support for alternative or new livelihoods in areas in proximity to six OPAAL demonstration sites. The three sub-components were (i) the creation of new and strengthening of existing PAs; (ii) supporting alternative and new sustainable livelihoods in and around demonstration PAs; and (iii) Small Project Facility capacity building and support. (i) Creation of New and Strengthening of Existing PAs As targeted, all six PAs have been gazetted, four of which are new PAs and two have improved its management. Management plans have been developed or updated for all six sites, four of which have been officially endorsed by the Cabinet of respective countries. Two remaining management plans (Dominica and Saint Lucia) have not been endorsed yet. Each county has carried out training need assessment. Despite the delay in endorsing the management plans, all the infrastructure works in the demonstration sites have commenced and made significant progress. The environmental and socio-economic studies have been conducted for all six sites. Management effectiveness scorecards have been completed for all six sites. Site coordinators have been placed in all sites. (ii) Supporting alternative and new sustainable livelihoods in and around demonstration PAs; For all the sites, a feasibility study of livelihoods activities has been completed and training in livelihood skills has been provided to more than 500 people. The project financed more than the target number of sub-project (13 sub-projects), benefitting over 200 people in total. Sub-projects supported by the Project included seamoss faming, arts and crafts, tour guiding, fishing, agro- processing, farming, horseback riding, boat operations, and charcoal production. However, due to the very late start of these activities (as a result of sequencing activities), none have been completed and the impact of livelihoods activities could not be assessed. A breakdown of project expenditure on livelihood-related activities is provided below. Table 2: Breakdown of project expenditure on livelihood-related activities (in USD) Antigua and Dominica Grenada St. Kitts Saint St. Vincent Total Barbuda and Lucia and the Nevis Grenadines Feasibility studies 4,464 10,000 3,487 10,000 13,550 4,000 45,501 Training 11,904 20,000 13,950 20,000 14,158 16,000 96,012 Seed funds (first tranche) 18,600 54,275 69,240 16,100 20,553 65,305 244,072 Seed funds (additional) 0 12,200 0 63,239 60,000 40,000 175,439 Total seed funds 18,600 66,475 69,240 79,339 80,553 105,305 419,512 Awareness activities 9,300 10,500 2,455 5,500 6,994 3,100 37,849 M&E and administration 10,044 12,000 21,315 4,000 20,832 9,205 77,396 Total 54,311 118,975 110,448 118,839 136,086 137,610 676,270 Percentage seed funds 34% 56% 63% 67% 59% 77% 62% over total Number of direct 17 (recipients 40 / 72 35 / 59 81 / 135 14 / 59 37 / 142 224 / 502 beneficiaries of seed of seed funds) people people people people people people funds / training /35 (trainees) 30 (iii) Small Project Facility capacity building and support In all six PMS, training was delivered in proposal writing including SPF procedures. A total of 75 people have been trained. Component 3: Building Capacity for Biodiversity conservation and PA Management and Increasing Environmental Awareness This component was aimed at enhancing national capacities and increase public support for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of PAs through education, training and awareness. The sub-components were: (i) training in support of establishment and management of PAs and sustainable alternative livelihoods, and (ii) increasing public awareness on the ecological, social and economic significance of PAs. (i) Training in support of establishment and management of PAs and sustainable alternative livelihoods The Project carried out country-specific protected areas training needs assessments, as well as a comparative analysis. On this basis, the project team identified a number of priorities and opportunities under two main categories; protected areas management and skills related to livelihoods. Regarding the first category, training modules were developed on a number of themes related to protected area management and offered in the PMS, namely:  Boat handling, developed and delivered by Nova Scotia Community College (with the added benefit of offering accreditation from an established tertiary institution) in Dominica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (total 16 people);  Small business management, developed and delivered by Gns Services in Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (total 48 people);  Project planning and proposal writing, developed by Trevor Hamilton & Associates and delivered in Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (project proposal writing training was also facilitated earlier in the project by ESDU staff, prior to the activation of this specific aspect of the project) (total 102 people);  Literacy and numeracy to enhance small business management, developed by Philip J. Pierre Business Services Ltd. and delivered in Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia (total 48 people); and  Tour guiding and interpretation, developed by Tudor Enterprises Ltd. and delivered in Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (total 35 people). Other training delivered was in PA systems planning (32 people), ecological gap analysis (36 people), PA management (7 people), PA awareness and communications (85 people), PA monitoring and evaluation (42 people), site M&E (87 people), financial management (46 people), sustainable financing (62 people), and finance and fundraising (48 people). A total of 694 people have been trained. Also training was provided in a range of livelihoods skills and fields in support of the livelihoods sub-project. More than 500 people have been trained and many of them received seed funding. 31 The type of training related to livelihoods skills is listed in the following table: Table 3. Livelihoods Training Delivered Type # trainees PMS Seamoss cultivation and processing 25 ANB Arts and crafts 112 All six Tour guiding 61 ANB, DOM, GND, SVG Fishing 38 DOM Agro-processing 33 GND, SKN Small business management related, including funding 181 SKN, SLU, SVG and finance, marketing, entrepreneurship, customer service, costing and pricing Agro-tourism 18 SLU Kayaking and snorkeling 8 SLU Bee keeping 15 GND Boat maintenance 11 SVG Total 502 (ii) Increasing public awareness on the ecological, social and economic significance of PAs Awareness raising A regional awareness strategy was designed and the national environmental awareness action plans were formulated for all PMS. Some priority activities in the regional awareness strategy was implemented, which included the production of public service announcements (PSA) for radio and television; the production and dissemination of a documentary on protected areas in the sub-region; the production and presentation of exhibitions at several events in various countries; the conduct of a media awareness initiative (including national media workshops in all six PMS and a tour to the Grenadines for media workers from three countries); and the production and distribution of a media toolkit. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) baseline survey was conducted to provide input data for facilitating behavior change among local populations living in, and adjacent to PAs in relation to the environment. The survey focused on the wider population, as well as representatives of governmental-, nongovernmental, parastatal departments and agencies, and private entities having environment communication functions. A total of 1,479 interviews were conducted (1,334 household and 145 departmental) and demonstrated that 58.1% of regional population is somewhat aware and 18.1% very familiar of the importance of PAs. A follow-up KAP has not been carried out due to lack of funds. Communications Communications plans were formulated for all sites. A regional communications training workshop was held in St. Kitts and Nevis and national communications training activities in all PMS. For the branding of the project and the promotion of that brand at all levels, the project produced the following:  the design and use of a logo;  the production of various materials (folder, fact sheet, flyer);  the preparation and issuance of press releases;  TV spots, jingles and documentaries; 32  the production of a quarterly newsletter; and  the production of memorabilia promoting the OPAAL brand. OPAAL collaborated with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the University of the West Indies (UWI) Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) and the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network (WIDECAST) in the case of TCMP, to produce documentation, learning and dissemination. Component 4: Project Management, M&E and Information Dissemination This component was composed of three sub-components: (i) project management, (ii) monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of overall project implementation, and (iii) design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy. (i) Project Management The essential project personnel were on board during the project life, while there were a few turnover occurrences of key staff such as the Project Coordinator, the Accounting Assistant, and the Protected Area Specialist. The Operational Manual was finalized in the first quarter of 2005. The Project Steering Committee (PSC) was convened five times during the life of project. The National Implementation Coordinating Entities (NICEs) and the Site Implementing Entities (SIEs) have been appointed in each PMS. The former was responsible for preparing national annual work plans and budgets, day-to-day implementation of project activities at the national level, supervising the local site activities in collaboration with the SIEs, liaise with the Project Management Unit of the OECS on matters related to project implementation. The latter was set up with a PA Manager to carry out day-to-day management of the PA and related site-specific activities. (ii) Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of overall project implementation A fully-fledged M&E system that includes biodiversity monitoring at the site level was designed. Results Monitoring Framework has been updated at least biannually. The Process Framework Monitoring and Evaluation Tool was developed. FMR reports, PMS quarterly reports, and annual implementation reports have been prepared adequately. (iii) Design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy. The Project website has been created on the OECS site. Usage of the Project site averaged 434 persons visit per month (data from project initiation not available). A regional seminar was convened in July 2010 to extract and disseminate experiences and lessons learned and to strengthen processes associated with the establishment and management of protected areas in the region. The participants took stock of regional progress and issues in protected area management. The workshop covered a range of relevant topics, and allowed for the identification of lessons and recommendations that are adequately documented in a report. Project personnel at ESDU participated in a number of regional and international events that allowed for the sharing of experiences and the promotion of the project. Also, the Project Coordinator presented a paper at a major global protected areas congress. 33 Table 4. Achievements of the OPAAL Project, against Outcome and Output Indicators Indicator Baseline Original Target Actual Value at Completion Results (Outcome) Indicators, by Project Component Total ha of land under improved Not available At least 6,500 total ha Exceeded. 24,693 ha of marine and terrestrial areas protected under the six management for conservation and demonstration sites. Management effectiveness improved by 11% (ANB), protection in six protected areas 63% (DOM), 6% (GND), 73% (SKN), 41% (SLU), and 82% (SVG) using developed with project resources the OECS scorecard system. % of land in three new non-project 0 At least 50% of three Exceeded (in terms of project-supported PAs) Four PAs established under supported protected areas that are new non-project the Project have improved its management, measured by scorecards. The effectively managed. supported PAs four newly created PAs are North East Marine Management Area (ANB), Annandale Forest Reserve (GND), Central Forest Reserve NP (SKN), and Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area (SLU). In addition, the USAID-funded PERB project provided management support to Wallings Forest and Codrington Lagoon (ANB); Carib Territory (DOM); Nevis Peak (SKN); Sandy Island/Oyster Bed Marine Park and Levera wetland (GND); and Kings Hill forest reserve (SVG), including biodiversity status assessments, and management plans, infrastructure, etc. However, the management effectiveness of these non-project areas have not been measured. Improved protection of the habitat of Selected endemic Improved protection Achieved. The target 11 regional endemic species benefiting from 11 regionally endemic species vertebrate species of the habitat of 11 enhanced preservation through declaration and improved management of ANB 17; DOM 29; regionally endemic six sites supported by OPAAL. GND 20; SKN 11; species SLU 29; SVG 22 Adequate quantities of the full range Not available Not available Achieved. While indicator is vague, and no target was provided, of skills necessary for effective PA considerable training relating to effective PA planning and management planning and management are readily was developed based on country-specific training needs assessment, and available delivered (training included PA systems planning and management, ecological gap analysis, PA awareness and communications, PA M&E, site M&E, financial management, sustainable financing, and finance and fundraising). There are a number of able 0 Not applicable Not Available. Indicator was vague, and not specific target was provided. "champions" and "leaders" (civil NGOs are active in specific management activities in two sites (ANB and society or private sector groups) SVG). effectively driving the protected areas agenda % of population in areas surrounding Not available 30% of population Not Available. More than 500 people received training in livelihoods skills the six PAs adopt new livelihoods and over 200 people received seed funds. However, due to the late 34 attributable to project efforts provision of seed funds for livelihood activities , it is premature to measure the actual adoption of new livelihoods attributable to project efforts. Increased visitation to PMS national Cabrits NP: 16023 10% increase in Achieved. Cabrits NP: 66,099 visitors (312%); park systems visitors; TCMP: number of visitors TCMP: 8771 yachts and 90,011 passengers (21% and 16% respectively). 7,234 yachts and Other parks are free access, thus no means to track number of visitations. 77,015 passengers (2006) Indicator Baseline Original Target Actual Value at Completion Results (Intermediate Outcome) Indicators, by Project Component Component 1: PAs Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangements (institutional Reform) Draft models of harmonized institutional No harmonized 50% of countries adopting Achieved. Regionally harmonized institutional arrangements by third year of the project institutional framework institutional reforms framework in place. Harmonized PA systems policy in place and model Act completed in the third year. Customized Institutional arrangements in 0 50% of countries adopting Exceeded. Customization of institutional at least 3 PMS by end of the project institutional reforms arrangements completed for ANB, SKN, GND, SLU, and SVG through Environmental Capacity Development Project (ENCAPD/CIDA); UNEP, the OECS Protecting the Eastern Caribbean Region‘s Biodiversity Project (PERB/USAID); European Union SFA 2003 and OPAAL. Number of PA system plans adopted by No systems plan in 2 At least 4 PA system plans adopted Partially Achieved. 3 systems plans updated (SLU, PMS by fifth year of the project. PMS; outdated systems by PMS by fifth year of the project. SVG, and GND); 2 new systems plan completed for plans in 4 PMS none of ANB and SKN. The systems plans have been which received official formally approved by the Cabinets of GND and government SVG, while the other countries‘ approval is pending. endorsement Number of PA management supporting 0 Sustainable PA finance study Achieved. Sustainable financing study completed. studies completed by third year of project. targeted for completion; 2 other Seminar on PAs to highlight lessons learnt, best studies TBD. practices, etc. which was agreed at MTR to be supported in lieu of 2 studies. Component 2: Protected Areas Management and Associated Alternative and New Livelihoods Number of PAs gazetted and /or 2 OPAAL sites pre- At least 6 PAs gazetted and/or Achieved. 6 sites legally created and gazetted. 6 strengthened by end of project existed, but not strengthened by end of project management plans developed, four of which have effectively managed been officially endorsed by the respective Cabinets. PAs in DOM and SLU have not yet been endorsed. Number of livelihood 0 At least 13 livelihood Partially Achieved. Indicator revised at MTR to 6 programs/subprojects implemented by end programs/subprojects; 970 total ha livelihoods subprojects (one for each PMS 35 Indicator Baseline Original Target Actual Value at Completion of project resulting in 970 total ha under under biodiversity friendly consisting of several livelihoods activities). biodiversity friendly production production systems; at least 30% of Launched in all six sites, disbursing seed fund grants systems; % of targeted local community targeted local community would to 200 people; No data is available on the total ha; would benefit from increase in income. benefit from increase in income Increase in income is yet to be measured as seed funding started late in the project. Number of beneficiaries trained in SPF 0 Not specified Achieved. Specific target not given, but as many as procedures 75 persons from all PMS were trained in project proposal writing including SPF procedures. Component 3: Building Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation and PA Management and Increasing Environmental Awareness Number of training modules designed by 0 6 training modules designed; 450 Exceeded. 14 training courses related to PA end of first project year; Number of participants trained and working in management developed; almost 700 people trained participants trained by end of project and PA management in, e.g., PA systems planning, ecological gap working in PA management analysis, PA management, PA communications, PA M&E, site M&E, financial management, sustainable financing, fundraising etc. % of the population aware of the 70% of the population Not specified Not Available. Only KAP baseline survey was importance of PAs (as of 2008 KAP carried out in 2008; a follow-up KAP survey was survey) not undertaken due to budget constraints Component 4: Project Management, M&E and Information Dissemination Key project personnel contracted by 0 All project personnel to be Achieved. All project personnel were on board. ESDU by end of second quarter of the contracted first project year M&E system established 0 Project M&E system to be Achieved. Regional Monitoring Framework update established at least biannually. Fully-fledged M&E system that includes biodiversity monitoring at the site level designed. Other reports prepared include FMR reports, PMS quarterly reports, and annual reports. Number of hits to project webpage 0 Not available Not Available. Usage for the months of Mar-Jul developed in first 6 months 2008 averaged 344 hits per months, Aug 2008-Feb 2009 averaged 62 hits per months. (Reformatting of OECS website in early 2008 prevented usage counts prior to that period.) 36 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis A formal ex-post economic analysis has not been prepared. Incremental Cost Analysis: As required for a GEF project, an Incremental Cost Analysis was used for the project‘s economic and financial analysis at appraisal. Benefits under the Baseline Scenario in biodiversity conservation were assumed to be increased environmental awareness and management in PMS; limited benefits from harmonization and economies of scale at regional level; limited participation of communities in the management of local resources, with limited support and funding available for the creation and co-management of both new and existing PAs. The total Baseline costs were estimated at US$5.1 million. The Project was estimated to provide multiple benefits at both national level and regional level – contributing to establishment, gazetting of protected areas; contributing to improved management of the six demonstration sites (thus enhancing protection of the habitat of more than 11 regionally endemic species); strengthening the policy and planning frameworks for biodiversity conservation and protected area management; renovating infrastructures necessary for improving the protected areas management; and supporting awareness of these protected areas through effective communication strategies and tools. The total incremental cost calculated at appraisal was US$7.6 million, of which US$3.7 million was to be financed by the GEF. Cost-effectiveness estimate: Another way to assess cost-effectiveness could be on the basis of comparing PA management cost per unit area with other countries. The project provided a degree of protection and management of PAs for 6.5 years at regional and national levels. The total project expenditures were US$3.58 million and the total area managed under the project was 24,693ha (= 247km2), which translates to about US$2,230/km2/year. The cost directly associated with PA management (Component 1-3) was US$2.48 million, which translates to the annual cost of PA management of about $1,545/km2/year. This is broadly consistent with the regional mean protected area budget for the Caribbean estimated at US$1,043/km2/year in the 1996$5 (translates to about $1500/ km2/year today). Economic impacts from Livelihood Activities: Although alternative livelihood activities have been commenced in all six protected areas, there has not been enough time elapsed to measure the benefits of the interventions. Therefore, the results of these activities are not considered in this analysis. It is strongly recommended to carry out such an analysis about a year after Project closing. 5 James, A., M. Green and J.R. Paine. A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff. WCMC Biodiversity Series 10. WCMC 1999. 37 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Responsibility Lending Garry Charlier Sr. Rural Development Specialist MNSAR TTL Random DuBois Sr. Environmental Adviser FAO/CP Sr. Natural Res. Management Samuel Wedderburn EASER Specialist Benoit Blarel Operations Manager ECSSD Sector Leader Judith Lisansky Sr. Anthropologist LCSSO Claudia Alderman Sr. Environmental Specialist Jan Post Sr. Environmental Specialist Mariana Montiel Sr. Counsel LEGLA Fabienne Mroczka Financial Management Specialist LCSFM Guido Paolucci Sr. Procurement Specialist Edward Daoud Disbursement Officer GEF Regional Karin Shepardson Program Manager ENVGC Coordination Jackson Morrill Consultant Supervision/ICR Garry Charlier Sr. Rural Development Specialist MNSAR TTL Douglas J. Graham Sr. Environmental Specialist EASVS Samuel Taffesse Sr. Operations Officer AFMZW TTL Robert Ragland Davis Sr. Forestry Specialist LCSAR Random DuBois Sr. Environmental Adviser FAO/CP GEF Regional Jocelyne Albert Sr. Regional Coordinator LCSSD Coordination Ramon E. Anria Program Assistant LCSSO Marcus Wishart Sr. Water Resources Specialist AFTWR Judith M. Lisansky Sr. Anthropologist LCSSO Mariana Coelho Ottoni Junior Professional Associate Mendonca Carolina J. Cuba Hammond Program Assistant LCSAR Kevval Andrea Hanna Operations Analyst CSASC Patricia De la Fuente Hoyes Senior Finance Officer CTRLN Svetlana V. Klimenko Sr. Financial Management Specialist LCSFM Judith C. Morroy Consultant LCSPT Ahmadou Moustapha Ndiaye Manager, Financial Management ECSO3 Maria Lourdes Noel Senior Program Assistant LCSEN Guido Paolucci Sr. Procurement Specialist Maritza A. Rodriguez De Sr. Financial Management Specialist LCSFM Pichardo 38 Seyoum Solomon Consultant PPIAF Glenn S. Morgan Regional Safeguards Adviser LCSDE TTL Anjali Acharya Sr. Environmental Specialist LCSEN TTL/ICR Enos E. Esikuri Sr. Environmental Specialist LCSEN ICR Keiko Ashida Tao Operations Analyst LCSEN ICR (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY01 24.59 FY02 82.18 FY03 112.96 FY04 279.51 FY05 4.06 FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 0.00 Total: 503.30 Supervision/ICR FY01 0.00 FY02 0.00 FY03 0.00 FY04 0.00 FY05 86.11 FY06 71.93 FY07 94.74 FY08 97.61 Total: 350.39 39 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results There was no formal beneficiary surveys held during the Project. However there were some informal surveys of beneficiaries carried out in the context of the livelihoods training. Survey related Livelihoods Training and Seed Funds Beneficiary surveys regarding livelihoods training were conducted in all sites except Dominica. Methodologies: The methodologies were not consistent among the countries as different consultants were hired to develop the survey. In Grenada, the respondents were randomly chosen from the trainees and a focus group meeting was held where the respondents were able to discuss the OPAAL Project in a structured forum by providing answers to the questions posed by the Consultant. The number of respondents present at the focus group meeting was 25 and there were an adequate number of males and females represented. In St. Kitts and Nevis, face-to-face in-home interviews with beneficiaries and self-administered questionnaires were used. A total of thirty-eight (38) questionnaires were administered, of which 61% were male. In Saint Lucia, 7 livelihood operators were interviewed as part of the survey. In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, evaluation was conducted at end of each training workshop. General Results: The information obtained from the survey is compiled in a report for each country. In general, more people felt that various training delivered was relevant and useful, while minority percentage of the respondents expressed their dissatisfaction or expressed that their expectations were not met. The following summarizes the feedback received: Positive responses: Topics presented were relevant and very timely given the present state of the economy in the PMS. The facilitators were very knowledgeable and the trainings were well delivered. Some of the short-term benefits of the project identified by the respondents are that the project was able to provide them with the technical knowledge and the tools and equipment required in starting our business. There is a general sense of confidence amongst the various trainees that the profitability and sustainability of their enterprises has been greatly enhanced from the resources provided by the OPAAL seed funding. The respondents expressed their intention to expand their activities once they established themselves. Some even saw their expansion being able to facilitate the creation of employment for others. Negative responses: The time allocated for the training was too short to process a lot of information. Some felt that further information and training are required to be able to continue making the products without supervision of the trainers and turn the production into a sustainable livelihood. Some training (e.g., bee keeping) did not meet the expectations of the trainees. For example, bee keeping training was not truly hands-on and not conducive to turning it into a sustainable livelihood. Small business management did not provide information on how to start a business, develop business plan and how to cost production, etc. General comments on the Project: The responses are split regarding the Project‘s contribution to sustainable development and conservation of biodiversity and to increasing awareness of the linkages that can be forged between natural resources and livelihoods activities. Some countries 40 show positive perceptions regarding these aspects and some others do not. In case of SVG, it was reported that most noticeable change amongst all the user groups is in the area of environmental stewardship and general buy-in to the goals and objectives on the TCMP. Following the trainings on environmental stewardship, resources users were able to directly link the sustainability of the natural resources of the TCMP and the sustainability of their livelihood. The heightened understanding of the links between the sustainability of their livelihoods and the sustainability of the marine environment has lead to an increase in reporting of activities that run counter to the goal and objectives of the MPA (incl. illegal fishing and waste disposal). 41 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results No specific workshops were convened in conjunction with preparation of this Core ICR. There were several consultations held during project preparation, which contributed to the current design of the project as well as the selection of the first three target PAs as well as raising awareness among stakeholders of the multiplicity of issues surrounding areas of critical biodiversity on the islands. In addition, a social assessment undertaken during project preparation included a stakeholder analysis and consultations with stakeholders to contribute to site-specific action plans to be developed under the project Moreover, during the course of the project, a few stakeholder workshops were supported during the Project launch (at the regional level as well as at the national level); and to share experiences and lessons learned relating to the OPAAL Project. In addition, various studies undertaken for the Project held workshops with stakeholders to obtain inputs. Overall, the project benefited a wide range of stakeholders from national and local government staff, to NGOs and local communities. A summary of the major stakeholder workshops described below: Project Launch Workshop: The workshop to launch the Project was held in Castries, St. Lucia, on December 14-16, 2004. Represented at the workshop were the following agencies: (i) the OECS Secretariat and its Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU), (ii) Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Environment, Marine Resources, Agro Industry of Antigua and Barbuda, (iii) the Ministry of Health, Social Security, the Environment & Ecclesiastical Relation of Grenada, (iv) the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Planning Unit of St. Kitts and Nevis, (v) the St. Lucia National Trust, (vi) the Office of the Prime Minister and the Tobago Keys Marine Park of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, (vii) Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI), (viii) the French Embassy to the OECS Member States, and (ix) the World Bank. At the workshop, the project‘s objectives, components, and planned activities were presented as well as institutional and implementation arrangements. The next steps in initiating project implementation were also discussed, including a series of National Project Launch Workshops, annual work program and first-year planned activities, financial management and flow of funds, procurement plan, establishment of a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation System, and update of the Project Operational Manual. National Launch Workshops: As a follow up to the regional launch workshop, national project launch workshops were conducted in all PMS with participation of a broad range of stakeholders and high level political leaders. While the completion of national launch workshops took longer than anticipated (June-July 2005 instead of end of February 2005) due to country-specific situations, these events provided the opportunity to raise OPAAL‘s profile and to present and discuss the project‘s objectives, activities, implementation arrangements, etc. with a broad range of stakeholders at the national levels. The national launch workshops also resulted in the finalization of the six detailed national annual work plans that provided the basis for the preparation of the consolidated regional annual work plan. 42 Workshops related to Studies Supported by the Project: Environmental and Socio-economic Studies as part of the establishment of PAs:  Workshop held with key stakeholders including governmental agencies, area residents, fishermen, tourists, tour boat operators and divers.  Included baseline environmental and socio-economic studies resulting in the status of the resource base, its use and the nature of communities associated with the site; and detailed site preparation studies resulting in identification of adverse environmental or socio- economic impacts. Opportunities for Sustainable Livelihoods Study:  A series of workshops was held near each of the six OPAAL sites between January and March, 2006 with stakeholders of each Project site;  Subproject ideas for funding under the livelihoods component were scoped out; and  Preliminary findings were presented and feedback obtained. Feasibility Studies of Livelihoods Subprojects to determine their economic viability:  Workshops with stakeholders living adjacent to the Project sites; and  Inputs to agreements signed between the Site Implementing Entities (SIE) and the National Implementation Coordinating Entities (NICE) to govern the implementation of these livelihood-related activities. Financial Sustainability Study:  All six OPAAL sites were visited by the consultants in February 2009 to gather background information. At subsequent participatory workshop held in June 2009 in Saint Lucia, a preliminary draft report based on the findings of the country visits was discussed.  Stakeholders from all six participating states contributed to refining the analysis and influence the study‘s recommendations. Workshop on Sharing of Experiences of the Tobago Cays Marine Park (TCMP): The workshop was held in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in February 2010 to highlight the successes of, and lessons learnt from, the TCMP especially as these relate to institutional mechanisms. The outcomes of the workshops included (i) a network built and sharing between counterparts (specifically, site coordinators); (ii) a forum for site coordinators and other persons to examine common issues and learn from the experience of counterparts; and (iii) reiteration of processes and best practices as these relate to planning, procurement, reporting, communications and conflict resolution. Lessons Learned and Dissemination Workshop: A regional stakeholder workshop was convened in July 2010 to extract and disseminate experiences and lessons learned and to strengthen processes associated with the establishment and management of protected areas in the region. The workshop brought together a large number of participants and made recommendations on various themes such as conserving biodiversity through protected areas; lessons from survey on Knowledge Attitudes and Practices; achieving effective M&E of PA with limited resources; innovative financial solutions to managing PAs; management planning for PAs, etc. The participants in general expressed usefulness and relevance of this workshop. 43 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The Recipient‘s final review was carried out between 1 May and 15 July 2011 by Gillian Cooper and Yves Renard, under the terms of a contractual agreement with the OECS Secretariat. Methodology. This evaluation is based on six criteria which provided the overall framework for the gathering and analysis of information and opinions: (i) relevance, (ii) impacts, (iii) effectiveness, (iv) efficiency, (v) equity, and (vi) sustainability. The main activities and sources of information have been the following:  an orientation meeting with ESDU staff (5 May);  a desk top review of all relevant documents;  country and site visits to Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada and Saint Lucia, with meetings with national and local stakeholders, and with the observation of and participation in two community meetings (Grenada and Saint Lucia) and one technical meeting to prepare a site monitoring scorecard (Saint Lucia);  individual interviews (both in person and by phone) with a range of project stakeholders at local, national, regional and international levels;  a preliminary analysis of the data and information collected, and the preparation of a short paper presenting preliminary findings;  participation in and presentation to a meeting of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) held in Saint Lucia on 6 June, with feedback provided by the PSC on the preliminary findings;  conduct of additional interviews to complete the analysis and validate or modify findings;  drafting and submission of a draft final report for review by project stakeholders;  revision of the report and preparation of this final version. This evaluation does not encompass financial and project management audit, which is assessed separately. Main findings Relevance. The OPAAL project was, and still is, relevant to existing policies, agreements and commitments at all levels including (i) the CBD and its Programmes of Work on Protected Areas and on Island Biodiversity, (ii) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to its adaptation agenda, (iii) the International Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), (iv) the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean, known as the Cartagena Convention, especially its Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW), (v) the Revised Treaty of Basseterre, (vi) the St. George‘s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS, and notably its Principle 13 (incorporated into Goal 3 of the revised version of the SGD), and (vii) many national policies and policy instruments, including the national environmental management strategies of individual countries. Impacts. In spite of significant constraints and issues, and of the difficulty to assess impacts at this stage, it is clear that the OPAAL project was able to achieve tremendous outcomes, and that it has made a very positive contribution to conservation and sustainable development in the Participating Member States (PMS) and in the region as a whole. For example, policy change and a far more coherent and systematic planning framework and approach to protected areas and biodiversity were developed in the six PMS. New protected areas were formally established and 44 management of existing protected areas has improved. Various training sessions were provided to a wide range of actors in conservation and protected area management, including staff of management agencies, local resource users and media personnel. The OECS Secretariat has been strengthened as a key actor in conservation and sustainable development in the sub-region. Exchanges of experiences and skills between countries and institutions were promoted. There are however areas where the project did not produce expected impacts, particularly with respect to the capacity of national organizations, including the six National Implementation Coordinating Entities (NICEs). In all but one of the demonstration sites, the impacts from livelihood activities have not yet been visible due to the late start of these activities. In the case of the TCMP that started earlier than others, tangible economic impacts have been observed, especially on the fishers who have been helped with equipment and are now able to engage in a more diverse range of economic activities. Effectiveness. The main approach used by the project was to ― ‖ remove the barriers to effective and efficient management, and this was entirely appropriate. The project was based on a thorough analysis of the issues and constraints to effective management of protected areas at the time of design, and identified activities aimed at addressing the issues and removing the barriers. This is an approach that can certainly be recommended for similar initiatives and interventions. Regional approaches provide for greater aid effectiveness in managing projects for small island developing states (SIDS). However, a reduction in transaction costs does not always translate into aid effectiveness. A distinction must be made between activities that are best supported at regional level (e.g. policy analysis and reform, capacity-building, provision of technical assistance and expertise, documentation) and those that are best implemented by national and local organizations (e.g. management planning, enforcement, support to sustainable use and facilitation of socio-economic development processes). The institutional arrangements for project coordination and implementation at national level (National Technical Advisory Committees (NTACs)) and site levels (Site Implementing Entities (SIEs)) were not all put in place and did not function optimally. This is because some of the expectations to national entities may have been too high, and the project may not have taken into account the serious economic and fiscal challenges faced by the countries. Also for the National Project Coordinators (NPCs), OPAAL activities were additional to their regular responsibilities. An exceptional case was St. Vincent and the Grenadines where all responsibilities were, for all — practical purposes, delegated to a multi-stakeholder board the Tobago Cays Marine Park (TCMP) — Board appointed by the Government. At the level of the demonstration sites, many of the challenges and weaknesses of the OPAAL project are attributed to a lack of local ‗ownership‘ to project activities. Several reasons were identified, including the complexity of project design, the time spent between design and implementation, and high turn-over of personnel and capacity issues in some of the national agencies. However, the main reason was that most of the PAs have not been successful in establishing participatory management frameworks. In the case of TCMP there is a multi- stakeholder board appointed by the Government. In all other instances, there is no formal involvement of non-state actors in the management of the PAs. 45 While the OPAAL project has supported useful local studies and provided the expertise available within ESDU, it was not designed and structured so as to provide cutting-edge scientific and technical guidance and support, such as services and training in mapping and management of geographic information systems, technical publications, local seminars, or more active collaborations with scientific institutions. Efficiency. There is a view among many of the project partners that the design of the project was overly ambitious in terms of budget for the planned activities, time frame to implement, the range of activities involved, and the multiples levels of responsibility. Among these, the main issue that has impacted negatively on project implementation has been the scheduling and sequencing of activities, for three main reasons: (a) the fact that projects of this kind always take ‖, time to―get up and running (b) the requirement, by GEF and the World Bank, that PA management plans be prepared and approved before field interventions could be implemented, and (c) the delays in delivering studies and preparing management plans in some countries. The Project has been well-managed with competent staffing at the OECS secretariat, detailed and timely reporting to the World Bank and the FFEM, good monitoring instruments, good compliance with legal requirements, and some flexibility in systems and procedures. Most of the instruments and processes of reporting and monitoring, including the mid-term review, the periodic reports, and monitoring missions have been effective and efficient. There were however some weaknesses, for example the reliability and soundness of the results of the scorecard has not been demonstrated, because it is simplistic by design and its preparation is based largely on availability of information and subjective information of the person who fills it in. Financial management systems and procedures for disbursements functioned well. The main issue came from the procurement procedures of the World Bank, and to a lesser extent those of the OECS Secretariat, which were too demanding and complex for small and local contracts. Equity. It does not appear that equity issues have received much explicit consideration in the design and implementation of the OPAAL project. For example, the gender dimension which is highly relevant to natural resources-based livelihoods was not included in the Process Framework Monitoring Tool, and was not covered in a detailed document on social assessment, participation and process framework. Sustainability. While the OPAAL project has made significant advances in protected area management, it has only partially addressed some of the fundamental issues and challenges that are still affecting the effectiveness of management and preventing the full integration of protected areas in the national development processes and frameworks of OECS countries. To address this issue, the processes that the project initiated must be continued, and the initial commitment to a 15-year program must be respected by all involved. The livelihood activities have started very late in the project life that the countries need to continue support them to see its impacts. Also the promotion of natural resource based livelihoods and businesses require different set of skills, including community development, participation and business. Accordingly, there is a need for ESDU and national PA management agencies to forge alliances with the institutions with relevant skills and experience in the region. 46 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 47 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents World Bank documents:  Project Appraisal Document  Global Environment Facility Trust Fund Grant Agreement  Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs)  Aide Memoires from Supervision Missions  Mid-Term Review  Restructuring Papers  Quality Assurance Group Evaluation, 2009  World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. The Development Potential of Regional Programs: An Evaluation of World Bank Support of Multi-country Operations. World Bank 2007. Others:  Final Review of the OECS Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods (OPAAL) Project, by Yves Renard, Facilitation and Management Services, 14 July 2011.  The WWF-World Bank Alliance‘s Scorecard to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas adapted for Protected Areas of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States  OECS Model Protected Areas System Act  Monitoring and Evaluation Manual for OPAAL Project Demonstration Sites  Regional Protected Areas Training Needs Assessment, by Kemraj Parsram, February 2007  Protected Areas Training Needs Assessments for each of the six PMS, by Kemraj Parsram, January 2007  OECS Policy on Protected Areas Systems  Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in the OECS, Final Report, The Environment and Development Group, September 2009  Comparative Analysis for Development of a Harmonised Protected Areas Management Framework within the OECS Region, by Lloyd Gardner, Environmental Support Services, LLC, January 15, 2007  Assessments of Sustainable Livelihood Sub-projects in five PMS (Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines)  Gender Perspective of Livelihoods Sub-projects, by David T. Popo, OECS Secretariat, ESDU  Chambers, Claudia, M, 2007. Environmental Awareness in the OECS: Report of a KAP (Knowledge Attitude and Practice) Survey conducted in Six OECS Member States. Environment and Sustainable Development Unit, OECS Secretariat, Saint Lucia.  System Plans for Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia. 48  OPAAL PA Policy Review PLI Country Reports for Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines  Management Plans for North East Marine Management Area, Cabrits National Park, Annandale and Grand Etang Forest Reserves, Central Forest Reserve, Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area, and Tobago Cays Marine Park  Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies for Northeast Marine Management Area, Annandale and Grand Etang Forest Reserves, Cabrits National Park, Central Forest Reserve, Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area, Tobago Cays Marine Park  National Awareness Action Plans for Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines  James, A., M. Green and J.R. Paine. A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff. WCMC Biodiversity Series 10. WCMC 1999. 49 IBRD 39077 65° 60° British 61°55' 61°50' Virgin Islands Anguilla (UK) AT L A N T I C Puerto Rico (US) U.S. Virgin (UK) St. Martin (Fr) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Islands (US) St. Maarten (Neth) St. Barthelemy (Fr) OCEAN Saba (Neth) OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND St. Eustasius (Neth) ST. KITTS and NEVIS ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Area of map 17°20' ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT 17°20' See IBRD 39080 Montserrat (UK) NORTHEAST MARINE MANAGEMENT AREA Guadeloupe (Fr) PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED BY THE PROJECT DOMINICA See IBRD 39078 15° 15° SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Martinique (Fr) Car i bbe an PARISH CAPITALS Se a SAINT LUCIA NATIONAL CAPITAL See IBRD 39081 ST. VINCENT BARBADOS RIVERS and the 0 50 100 150 GRENADINES MAIN ROADS See IBRD 39082 MILES RAILROAD GRENADA 17°15' 17°15' See IBRD 39079 PARISH BOUNDARIES 0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers TRINIDAD and TOBAGO 10° R.B. DE VENEZUELA 10° 0 2 4 6 Miles 65° 60° 61°45' 61°40' This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or Cedar acceptance of such boundaries. 17°10' Grove 17°10' St. John's Harbour Parham Northeast Marine Harbour ST. JOHN’S ST. Management Area ST. GEORGE Parham JOHN Five Islands Harbour ST. PETER Willikies Village 17°05' ti g ua A n tigu a 17°05' All Saints Bolands ST. PHILIP Sweets Freetown ST. MARY ST. PAUL Willoughby Bay Carlisle Nelson's Dockyard 17°00' 17°00' 61°55' 61°50' 61°45' 61°40' FEBRUARY 2012 IBRD 39078 61°30' 61°45' DOMINICA Dominica OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED BY THE PROJECT Passage ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Cape Capucin Carib Point CABRITS NATIONAL PARK NATIONAL CAPITAL RIVERS Cabrits Vieille Case MAIN ROADS National Park Douglas Bay PARISH BOUNDARIES Prince Rupert Calibishie Bluff Point Crompton Point Portsmouth Glánvillia SAINT Wesley Prince H ampste ad Rupert Bay JOHN Pi c a rd ed ll Marigot Bay we lle Ha Point Ronde lvi Marigot T Me SAINT Pagua Bay ANDREW AINT S Caribbean SAINT ANDREW Pagua Point 15°30' PETER Salibia 15°30' Sea Colihaut SAINT Dominica JSO S NP HJ O S E P H Pa gu a Morne Raquette AIE T i er ch ou Castle Bruce ac M 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Salisbury Lay ou S S ANN T AI I T AV I I DD AVDD i l le 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles F ell e B Saint Joseph Grand Marigot Bay This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Pointe à Peine shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any Petite endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Soufrière Bay t lfa s Rosalie Point SAINT Be 61°30' Rosali Rosalie e Mahaut PA U L Rosalie sa cre Bay Mas 65° British Virgin Islands Car ibbe an Anguilla (UK) 60° AT L A N T I C Puerto Rico (US) (UK) Massacre U.S. Virgin Islands (US) Se a St. Maarten (Neth) St. Martin (Fr) St. Barthelemy (Fr) OCEAN Saba (Neth) Point Giraud St. Eustasius (Neth) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA La Plaine ST. KITTS and NEVIS See IBRD 39077 See IBRD 39080 u a se SAINT Montserrat (UK) Ro ROSEAU SE IN G G A O RT E Guadeloupe (Fr) GEORGE Temps SAINT u DOMINICA Perd PAT R I C K 15° 15° Pointe Michel Martinique (Fr) Caribbea n SAINT 15°15' LUKE Point Saint Jean 15°15' S e a SAINT LUCIA Berekua Grand Carib See IBRD 39081 ST. VINCENT BARBADOS Soufrière Bay Point and the Soufière Bay SAINT GRENADINES 0 50 100 150 See IBRD 39082 Scotts Head MARK MILES Scotts Head Pointe des Fous GRENADA See IBRD 39079 Martinique Passage TRINIDAD and 6130' TOBAGO 10° R.B. DE VENEZUELA 10° 65° 60° 61°45' FEBRUARY 2012 IBRD 39079 65° 60° British 61°40' 61°35' Virgin Islands Anguilla (UK) AT L A N T I C Puerto Rico (US) U.S. Virgin Islands (US) (UK) St. Maarten St. Martin (Fr) OCEAN GRENADA (Neth) St. Barthelemy (Fr) Saba (Neth) St. Eustasius (Neth) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND 61°45' ST. KITTS and NEVIS See IBRD 39080 See IBRD 39077 12°20' ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT 12°20' Montserrat (UK) ANNANDALE AND GRAND ETANG Diamond I. Guadeloupe (Fr) FOREST RESERVES DOMINICA Ronde See IBRD 39078 Island 15° 15° PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED Martinique (Fr) BY THE PROJECT C aribbea n SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Se a SAINT LUCIA See IBRD 39081 PARISH CAPITALS Caille I. ST. VINCENT BARBADOS and the NATIONAL CAPITAL 0 50 100 150 GRENADINES See IBRD 39082 RIVERS London MILES MAIN ROADS Bridge GRENADA Area of map 12°15' 12°15' PARISH BOUNDARIES 12°15' TRINIDAD and Caille Island TOBAGO Sauteurs Sandy I. 10° R.B. DE VENEZUELA 10° Levera 65° 60° Pond Grenada Bay 61°50' 61°45' SAINT Victoria SAINT ic k tr . Pa This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. PATRICK Lake St The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any MARK Antoine St. endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. M Tivoli ark s 12°10' Gouyave 12°10' SAINT Grenada Great Grand Roy JOHN Paradise River eat Bay Gr Caribbean Pecher St. CyrSAINT Grenville Grenville SAINT ANDREW Bay Sea Annandale Forest Reserve ANDREW Grand Étang Marquis BeAnnandale au Grand Étang ej Vendôme Forest Reserve s 12°05' ou 12°05' r SAINT Mt. Agnes Les ST. GEORGE'S GEORGE Avocats SAINT Saint David's Belmont DAVID Grand Anse Bay Corinth Calivigny Point 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 12°00' Salines 12°00' 0 1 2 3 Miles Glove Island 61°50' 61°45' 61°40' 61°35' FEBRUARY 2012 IBRD 39080 62°45' 62°30' 17°30' 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles ST. KITTS AND NEVIS C a r ibbean OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT S ea CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE NATIONAL PARK Willett's Bay Ba y Saint Paul's ut Sandy S a in t PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED Gh BY THE PROJECT Sadlers K itts s 1 son' 3 P ar Newton Ground SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Nicola Town NATIONAL CAPITAL Belle Tete Central 2 5 G hu t RIVERS Sandy Point Town Forest le y's Pump Bay t Ott Cayon MAIN ROADS R. hu Reserve yon nG Ca 4 7 RAILROADS s R. wi d Half Way Tree Go National ld ie in gf PARISH BOUNDARIES W Monkey Hill Village Park Old Road Town 9 Challengers 6 Boyd's Bloody Point BASSETERRE PARISH: Ba y 8 rr e B a ss et e 1. Saint Paul Capesterre 2. Saint Anne Sandy Point Ba y 3. Saint John Capesterre ia r's S out h Fr 17°15' 4. Saint Thomas Middle Island 17°15' Great 5. Christ Church Nichola Town Salt Bay 6. Trinity Palmetto Point C ar ibb e an Pond M o s q u it o 7. Saint Mary Cayon Booby Island s 8. Saint George Basseterre Sea ow r 9. Saint Peter Basseterre Newcastle ar Nag's N 62°45' Head e Burnaby Th 65° 60° British G hut Virgin Islands Anguilla (UK) AT L A N T I C Whitehall Puerto Rico (US) U.S. Virgin (UK) St. Martin (Fr) 10 n ntai Islands (US) St. Maarten OCEAN (Neth) St. Barthelemy (Fr) Cotton Fo u Saba (Neth) Ground St. Eustasius (Neth) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ST. KITTS and NEVIS See IBRD 39077 Ne vi s 11 Montserrat (UK) Zion Charlestown 12 hu t Guadeloupe (Fr) 14 G fu r Sul Gingerland DOMINICA Brown Hill See IBRD 39078 15° 15° PARISH: 13 Red Martinique (Fr) Cliff Caribbea n 10. Saint James Windward 11. Saint Thomas Lowland S e a SAINT LUCIA See IBRD 39081 12. Saint Paul Charlestown ST. VINCENT BARBADOS 13. Saint John Figtree and the 0 50 100 150 GRENADINES 14. Saint George Gingerland See IBRD 39082 MILES GRENADA See IBRD 39079 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information TRINIDAD and shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank TOBAGO Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 1700' 17°10' 10° R.B. DE VENEZUELA 10° 62°30' 65° 60° FEBRUARY 2012 IBRD 39081 65° 60° British 61°00' Virgin Islands Anguilla (UK) AT L A N T I C Puerto Rico (US) U.S. Virgin Islands (US) (UK) St. Maarten St. Martin (Fr) OCEAN SAINT LUCIA (Neth) St. Barthelemy (Fr) Saba (Neth) St. Eustasius (Neth) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND ST. KITTS and NEVIS See IBRD 39080 See IBRD 39077 ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT Montserrat (UK) POINTE SABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA Guadeloupe (Fr) DOMINICA See IBRD 39078 Sai nt Lu ci a C hannel 15° 15° Cap Point Martinique (Fr) Caribbea n Pigeon Island S e a SAINT LUCIA Gros Islet ST. VINCENT BARBADOS Rodney Bay and the 0 50 100 150 GRENADINES See IBRD 39082 MILES Cape Marquis GRENADA GROS See IBRD 39079 Dauphin Choc Bay ISLET Pointe Seraphine TRINIDAD and DAUPHIN TOBAGO Grand CASTRIES Anse Grand 10° R.B. DE 65° VENEZUELA 60° 10° 14°00' Anse 14°00' Grande Cul Bay de Sac Bay 61°10' CASTRIES Sans Soucis Cul de Sac Marigot Bay La Croix PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED Maingot BY THE PROJECT SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Anse La Raye Denn er y NATIONAL CAPITAL ANSE DENNERY Fond d'Or Bay RIVERS LA RAYE Dennery Canaries CANARIES MAIN ROADS PARISH BOUNDARIES Praslin Praslin Bay Grand Caille Point PRASLIN Mon Trou Gras Point Soufrière Repos Soufrière Bay SOUFRIERE 13°50' Ca 13°50' ne Anse de Piton es ll MICOUD Micoud Vierge Point Gros Piton Point Caribbean CHOISEUL Desurisseau Londonderry Sea Choiseul LABORIE VIEUX FORT Scorpion Island Nature Reserve Laborie Laborie Pointe Sable 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Bay Environmental Protection Area 0 1 2 3 Miles Vieux Fort Vieux Fort Maria Islands Bay Nature Reserve This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Cape Moule Chique C a r ib b e a n Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Sai nt Vi ncent Passage Sea 61°10' 6100' FEBRUARY 2012 IBRD 39082 65° 60° British 61°15' Anguilla (UK) AT L A N T I C Puerto Rico (US) Virgin Islands Saint Vincent Channel U.S. Virgin (UK) St. Martin (Fr) Islands (US) St. Maarten OCEAN Fancy (Neth) St. Barthelemy (Fr) Saba (Neth) St. Eustasius (Neth) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ST. KITTS and NEVIS See IBRD 39077 See IBRD 39080 Montserrat (UK) Orange Hill Guadeloupe (Fr) Richmond SAINT TTE Chateaubelair DAVID RLO DOMINICA Georgetown See IBRD 39078 SAINT Cumberland CHA 15° 15° C aribbea n Martinique (Fr) 13°15' PATRICK S a int 13°15' Barrouallie Se a SAINT LUCIA Vi n cent See IBRD 39081 ST. VINCENT BARBADOS Layou and the Biabou GRENADINES 0 50 100 150 SAINT Mespotamia MILES ANDREW GRENADA KINGSTOWN Stubbs See IBRD 39079 Calliaqua SAINT GEORGE TRINIDAD and TOBAGO Bequia Channel 10° R.B. DE VENEZUELA 10° 65° 60° 61°15' Bequia Cari bbe an Port Elizabeth Sea 13°00' ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 13°00' OECS PROTECTED AREAS AND Derrick Petit Nevis ASSOCIATED LIVELIHOODS PROJECT Pigeon Isla á Quatre Battowia TOBAGO CAYS MARINE PARK Baliceaux ries Pillo All Awash S The PROTECTED AREAS SUPPORTED E BY THE PROJECT Dovers I N 100 METER BUFFER ZONE Mustique SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS D Petit GRENADINES Mustique A PARISH CAPITALS N NATIONAL CAPITAL Savan E RIVERS Petit R Canouan MAIN ROADS G 12°45' 12°45' PARISH BOUNDARIES E Canouan T H Canouan C a r i b b e an North Mayreau Channel Sea 100 meter buffer zone Tobago Mayreau Cays Tobago Cays South Mayr Marine Park eau C hann 0 2 4 6 Kilometers el Ashton Union Clifton Palm I. (Prune I.) 0 2 4 6 Miles Mar tiniq ue C hann el This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Petit St. Vincent Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 12°30' 61°30' G R ENA DA 61°15' 12°30' FEBRUARY 2012