Report No: ICR00006389 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-60210, IDA-D1840, TF-A7762) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 73.9 MILLION (US$100 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$11.58 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA AND A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 2.3 MILLION (US$3 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE INTEGOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY ON DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS PROJECT (DRDIP) IN THE HORN OF AFRICA October 28, 2024 Social Sustainability and Inclusion Eastern And Southern Africa CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Exchange Rate Effective {Sep 30, 2024} Currency Unit = Kenyan Shillings KSH 129 = US$1 US$1.36 = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR July 1- June 30: Kenya January 1 - December 31: Intergovernmental Authority on Development Regional Vice President: Victoria Kwakwa Country Director: Boutheina Guermazi Regional Director: Iain G. Shuker Practice Manager: Maria Gonzalez de Asis Task Team Leader (s): Matthew Stephens, Annette Akinyi Omolo ICR Main Contributor: Andrew James Roberts The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands CPMC Community Project Management Committee CDD Community Driven Development CRRF Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework CF Community Facilitator CIDP County Integrated Development Plan CIPIU County Integrated Project Implementation Unit DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DRDIP Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project DS Durable Solutions FDMM Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration FGS Federal Government of Somalia FMS Federal Member States FP Facilitating Partner GCR Global Compact on Refugees GOK Government of Kenya GRC Grievance Redress Committee HEIS Hands on Enhanced Implementation Support HOA Horn of Africa ICR Implementation Completion & Results Report IDA International Development Association IDP Internally Displaced Person IGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on Development K-DRDIP Kenya Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MTR Mid-term Review NAP Nairobi Declaration and Action Plan on Durable Solutions for Somali Refugees and Reintegration of Returnees in Somalia NCRI National Commission for Refugees and IDPs NDSS National Durable Solutions Strategy NEDI North and Northeastern Development Initiative NPIU National Project Implementation Unit NRM Natural Resource Management O&M Operations and Maintenance PIST Project Implementation Support Team RPSC Regional Project Steering Committee SM Social Mobilizer SOE Statement of Expenditure TA Technical Assistance The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ................................................................................................................................................. i I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................1 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .............................................................................................................................................. 1 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 4 II. OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................................................5 A. RELEVANCE OF PDO ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ............................................................................................................................ 6 C. EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................................................. 10 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME.......................................................... 11 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ............................ 12 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) .............................................................................................. 12 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................... 13 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................................ 15 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 16 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ................................................................................. 18 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ............................................... 28 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ................................................................................................. 30 ANNEX 4. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDO (EFFICACY) ............................................................................................. 31 ANNEX 5. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 42 ANNEX 6: BORROWER’S AND OTHER STAKEHOLDER’S COMMENTS ............................................................ 45 ANNEX 7: ADDITIONAL LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 46 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) DATA SHEET @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrbasicdata#doctemplate BASIC DATA Product Information Operation ID Operation Name Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project P161067 (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa Product Operation Short Name Investment Project Financing (IPF) HOA: Support to FD Impacts Operation Status Approval Fiscal Year Closed 2017 Original EA Category Current EA Category Partial Assessment (B) (Restructuring Data Sheet - 08 Dec Partial Assessment (B) (Approval package - 02 Apr 2018) 2023) CLIENTS Borrower/Recipient Implementing Agency Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), National Treasury State Department for the Development of the Arid and Semi-arid Lands (ASALs)/Ministry of East Africa DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE Original Development Objective (Approved as part of Approval Package on 01-Apr-2018) Project Development Objective (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project Development Objective is to improve access to basic social services, expand economic opportunities, and enhance environmental management for communities hosting refugees in the target areas in the Recipient's territory. s s s s s s s s s s s s s s @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrfinancing#doctemplate i The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) FINANCING Financing Source Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 103,000,000.00 103,000,000.00 105,252,851.19 IDA-D1840 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,146,629.37 IDA-60210 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 102,106,221.82 World Bank Administered 11,580,000.00 11,330,793.17 11,580,000.00 Financing TF-A7762 11,580,000.00 11,580,000.00 11,330,793.17 Total 114,580,000.00 114,580,000.00 116,583,644.36 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Amount Disbursed Date(s) Type Key Revisions (US$M) 27-May-2020 Portal 12.58 • Loan Closing Date Extension 12-Nov-2020 Portal 19.64 • Clients 12-Jul-2021 Portal 47.12 • Loan Closing Date Extension • Results • Risks 21-Feb-2022 Portal 67.02 • Disbursement Estimates • Loan Closing Date Extension • Implementation Schedule 01-Jun-2022 Portal 73.75 • Loan Closing Date Extension 16-Dec-2022 Portal 87.62 • Loan Closing Date Extension 18-Apr-2023 Portal 92.94 • Loan Closing Date Extension 30-Jun-2023 Portal 99.50 • Loan Closing Date Extension 08-Dec-2023 Portal 112.88 • Loan Closing Date Extension @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrkeydates#doctemplate KEY DATES Key Events Planned Date Actual Date Concept Review 04-Aug-2016 04-Aug-2016 ii The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Decision Review 21-Feb-2017 21-Feb-2017 Authorize Negotiations 10-Mar-2017 13-Mar-2017 Approval 26-Apr-2017 26-Apr-2017 Signing 23-May-2017 Effectiveness 20-Jun-2017 ICR/NCO -- Restructuring Sequence.01 Not Applicable 27-May-2020 Restructuring Sequence.02 Not Applicable 12-Nov-2020 Restructuring Sequence.03 Not Applicable 12-Jul-2021 Restructuring Sequence.04 Not Applicable 21-Feb-2022 Restructuring Sequence.05 Not Applicable 01-Jun-2022 Restructuring Sequence.06 Not Applicable 16-Dec-2022 Restructuring Sequence.07 Not Applicable 18-Apr-2023 Restructuring Sequence.08 Not Applicable 30-Jun-2023 Restructuring Sequence.09 Not Applicable 08-Dec-2023 Mid-Term Review No. 01 30-Nov-2021 22-Nov-2021 Operation Closing/Cancellation 28-Apr-2024 28-Apr-2024 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrratings#doctemplate RATINGS SUMMARY Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Modest ISR RATINGS Actual Disbursements No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating (US$M) 01 15-Oct-2017 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 02 30-Nov-2017 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 iii The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) 03 27-Jun-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.42 04 20-Dec-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.99 05 27-Jun-2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.52 06 28-Dec-2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 11.02 07 29-Jun-2020 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 17.01 08 23-Feb-2021 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 34.73 09 28-Sep-2021 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 56.31 10 15-May-2022 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 72.50 11 19-Dec-2022 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 87.62 12 30-Jun-2023 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 99.50 13 12-Jan-2024 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 116.83 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrsectortheme#doctemplate SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Adaptation Mitigation Major Sector Sector % Co-benefits Co-benefits (%) (%) Forestry 17 0 72 Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry Other Agriculture, Fishing and 24 0 0 Forestry Energy and Extractives Other Energy and Extractives 2 0 0 Public Administration Sub-National Government 3 0 0 Public Administration - Social 10 0 11 Social Protection Protection Social Protection 44 0 5 Themes Major Theme Theme (Level 2) Theme (Level 3) % Environment and Climate change Mitigation 16 Natural Resource Management Energy Access to Energy 2 iv The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Renewable Natural Resources Asset Forests Policies and 25 Management institutions Gender 75 Human Development Active Labor Market 17 and Gender Labor Market Policy and Programs Programs Skills Development 34 Public Sector Municipal Institution Public Administration 10 Management Building Fragility, Conflict and Violence Forced Displacement 51 Social Development and Protection Social protection Social Protection 34 delivery systems Flood and Drought Risk Disaster Risk Management 19 Urban and Rural Management Development Rural Infrastructure and Rural Development 48 service delivery v The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Practice Manager Robin Mearns Maria Gonzalez de Asis Regional Director Iain G. Shuker Global Director Ede Jorge Ijjasz‐Vasquez Robin Mearns Practice Group Vice President Juergen Voegele Country Director Diarietou Gaye Boutheina Guermazi Regional Vice President Makhtar Diop Victoria Kwakwa ADM Responsible Team Leader Varalakshmi Vemuru Matthew Stephens Co-Team Leader(s) G N V Ramana Annette Akinyi Omolo ICR Main Contributor Andrew James Roberts I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL 1. Forced displacement is a long-standing regional phenomenon in the Horn of Africa (HoA).1 In the early 1990s, conflict in Sudan and Somalia caused hundreds of thousands of refugees to seek asylum in Kenya, where the government pursued a policy of containing them in two main rural camps, Dadaab (Garissa County) and Kakuma (Turkana County). A combination of drought, famine and conflict in the region continued to swell numbers arriving in Kenya’s camps throughout the 2000s. At appraisal, Kenya hosted close to 500,000 refugees and asylum seekers. 2. Local communities around the Kakuma and Dadaab refugee camps lived in conditions of poverty and insecurity. Government service delivery had historically been weak in these areas. Many members of the host communities believed that refugees received special treatment from humanitarian agencies, causing social tensions. 3. Kenya’s 2013 elections brought into being a system of devolved government that represented the country’s biggest political transformation since independence in 1963. The main objective of the change – which established empowered Counties – was to bring the government closer to the community level, increase civic engagement, improve service delivery and achieve equality across Kenya by enabling local solutions to be found to local problems. 4. The Horn of Africa Initiative (HoAI) made the case for investing in development responses to forced displacement.2 Complementary to the HoAI, analytical work conducted by the World Bank and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2015 identified a set of negative impacts of refugee inflows (overcrowded basic service facilities, environmental degradation and competition over access to 1Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda 2The HoAI was launched on October 23, 2014 by World Bank President Jim Kim and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. It made the case that forced displacement posed challenges for reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development with peace and security in the region. Page 1 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) natural resources), while also highlighting generally positive impacts of the refugee presence on local economic development and livelihoods.3 This helped to frame forced displacement as not only a “crisis” or “emergency”, but also an “opportunity”, so long as the right policies and long-term programs are put in place. 5. In 2016, a regional operation followed, the Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the HoA (P152822), supporting three refugee-hosting countries of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Uganda; together with a grant to the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). DRDIP was a pioneering project, as one of the first major World Bank-financed operations on forced displacement at a time when no dedicated financing window existed and the international governing framework was not well established.4 DRDIP sought to harmonize policies for refugee inclusion at the regional level, via IGAD, while demonstrating the value of the development response through activities on the ground. Kenya aligned itself with this regional program and preparation for a US$100m IDA credit for Kenya began in early 2016.5 6. The project primarily supported host communities. This was partly because DRDIP pre-dated the World Bank’s special window for refugee-hosting countries and, like other hosts, Kenya was not willing to borrow for foreign nationals. But this decision was also based on the recognition that, as a first-generation development response, it was important to respond to host community concerns and sources of tension by targeting the negative impacts of the refugee presence. It would complement the existing short-term, humanitarian refugee response model with an approach that was government led and long-term in nature. 7. The project objectives were aligned with the Government of Kenya (GoK) priority to increase investment to northern counties. Turkana, Garissa, and Wajir – the refugee-hosting counties and project focus areas – were underdeveloped and faced poverty and unemployment, deficits in human capital and social service delivery, and weak basic infrastructure. These challenges were exacerbated by the long-term refugee presence. 8. DRDIP’s regional dimension. The project provided a US$3 million grant to IGAD’s Regional Secretariat for Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration (RSFDMM), which was created under the first DRDIP operation (P152822). Through this project (P161067), IGAD continued to formulate harmonized policies on forced displacement in the HoA, while facilitating inter-governmental knowledge exchange on operational responses. 9. Grant financing was provided for the project by the Government of Denmark. A total of US$11.58 million was provided to the project through two Additional Financings (AFs). Denmark also provided over US$1 million to the Bank for Hands-on Enhanced Implementation Support (HEIS), for financial management and procurement and to fund independent evaluations and beneficiary surveys. Theory of Change (Results Chain) 10. A project-specific theory of change (ToC) was not required at appraisal, so the ToC in Table 1 below was created based on the original design. The three outcomes of improving access to basic social services, expanding economic opportunities and enhancing environmental management were formulated to minimize the negative impacts of displacement on host communities while maximizing the positive. The institutional and policy support through IGAD under component five was intended to provide the enabling environment 3 World Bank & UNHCR (2015) Mixed Migration and Forced Displacement in the Horn of Africa. 4 The IDA18 Sub-window for Refugees and Host Communities commenced in 2018. When the first DRDIP was approved (2016), the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework had not yet been launched and the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees was still two years away. 5 Kenya did not originally join the DRDIP regional operation in 2016 (P152822), as dialogue between the GoK and the World Bank on refugee inclusion was still ongoing. Splitting Kenya from P152822 also helped to manage the challenge of preparing a multi-country regional operation. Page 2 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) for achievement of the PDO in a way that was mutually reinforcing – progressive regional and national policies would create conducive conditions for operations, which in turn provided a practical demonstration of the value of inclusive, long-term development approaches to forced displacement. Table 1: Theory of Change for Kenya DRDIP Project Development Objective (PDO) 11. The Project Development Objective was to “improve access to basic social services, expand economic opportunities, and enhance environmental management for communities hosting refugees in the target areas in the Recipient's territory.” Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 12. The expected outcomes and PDO-level indicators from the project were as follows: • Beneficiaries with access to social and economic services and infrastructure (disaggregated by gender, host, and refugee communities (number); • Direct project beneficiaries (number), of which percent of females (percent); • Beneficiaries of economic development activities that report an increase in income (disaggregated by type of service, gender, and target group (number); • Land area where sustainable environmental management practices have been adopted as a result of the project (hectare); and • Regional Secretariat’s capacity assessment plan and annual progress reports reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries (number). Page 3 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Components 13. The project had five components. Component 1: Social and Economic Infrastructure and Services (original allocation US$45 million; actual cost US$58.94 million) aimed to improve community access to basic social services and infrastructure. Sub-component 1(a) Community Investment Fund provided funds directly to communities to implement priority subprojects they chose themselves. Most were construction or upgrading of water systems, schools, health facilities, markets and roads. All subprojects were aligned with County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs). Sub-component 1(b) Capacity for Local Planning and Decentralized Service Delivery provided capacity support to local officials and community institutions for project planning and implementation. 14. Component 2: Environmental and Natural Resource Management (original allocation US$20 million; actual cost US$17.45 million) funded activities to ameliorate adverse environmental impacts brought about by the refugee presence. Sub-component 2(a) on Integrated Natural Resources Management (NRM) supported restorative environmental measures such as tree planting, rainwater harvesting, and waste management. Labor-intensive public works (LIPW) was the instrument chosen to deliver, with a focus on women. Sub-component 2(b) Access to Energy funded the provision of solar systems and improved cooking stoves for households and public institutions. 15. Component 3: Livelihoods Program (original allocation US$27.5 million; actual cost US$28.21 million) supported the productivity of traditional and non-traditional livelihoods through community groups, with women and youth as key recipients. Two sub-components were supported, namely Sub-component 3(a) Support to Traditional and Non-Traditional Livelihoods and Sub-component 3(b) on Capacity Building of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) for Livelihoods. Support to CBOs included pastoralist groups, livestock marketing associations, farmer organizations, cooperatives, Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs), and Common Interest Groups (CIG). 16. Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and Knowledge Sharing (original allocation US$7.5 million; actual cost US$8.63 million) funded project management and M&E. 17. Component 5: Support to IGAD for Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration (original allocation US$3 million; actual cost US$3.15 million). Under this component, the project included Kenya in the DRDIP Regional Project Steering Committee (RPSC) and other operational knowledge exchange activities. It also supported the formulation of regional policies on forced displacement for the HoA and provided technical assistance on forced displacement for Somalia. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION 18. The project was approved on April 26, 2017, and became effective on June 20, 2017. The original financing envelope was US$103 million (US$100 million for GoK/US$3 million for IGAD) with a closing date of April 29, 2022. The final closing date was April 28, 2024. The project received AF of US$11.58 million from the Danish International Development Agency (Danida). It underwent nine restructurings, two of which included additional financing, as described in Table 2 below. Table 2: Restructurings and Additional Financing Operations Restructuring Date Details Restructuring 1/ January Received AF of US$8.18 million through the Kenya DRDIP Multi-Donor AF1 2019 Trust Fund (MDTF) from Danida. Nine results indicators were also increased to accommodate the AF. Page 4 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Restructuring 2 May 2020 Change of implementing agency from the Executive Office of the President to the State Department for the Development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) in the Ministry of Devolution. Restructuring 3 June 2021 Extended closing date of the Danida TF0A7762 grant from April 30, 2021, to April 29, 2022 due to delays caused by COVID-19. Restructuring 4 February Closing date for IDA Credit to GoK extended from April 30, 2022 to April 2022 28, 2023. Closing date for IDA grant to IGAD extended from April 30, 2022 to December 31, 2022. Danida grant closing date extended from April 29, 2022 to May 31, 2022. Restructuring 5 May 2022 Extension of closing date of the Danida TF from May 31, 2022 to April 30, 2023 to align with closing date of the IDA credit and to allow time to process a second AF. The project shifted to a different implementation model, working with Social Mobilisers and Community Facilitators instead of Facilitating Partners. Restructuring 6 December Extension of the closing date of IDA grant D1840 to IGAD from December 2022 31, 2022 to April 30, 2023. Restructuring 7/ February Processed second AF of US$3.4 million from Danida through TF0A7762 to AF2 2023 support cost overrun for infrastructure subprojects. The project was also restructured as follows: (a) some indicator targets were reduced in line with findings from the mid-term review; (b) closing date of TF0A7762 extended from April 30, 2023 to June 30, 2023; and (c) closing date of IDA credit extended from April 30, 2023 to December 31, 2023. Restructuring 8 June 2023 Closing date of the Danida TF0A7762 extended from June 30, 2023 to December 31, 2023. Restructuring 9 December Project closing date extended from December 31, 2023 to April 28, 2024, 2023 which was the final closing date. This was to allow time for ongoing subprojects to be completed and for the GoK to account for funds disbursed to the beneficiary communities. Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 19. The project PDO remained unchanged. A summary of changes to indicators is detailed in Table 3 below, including achievement relative to the original and revised/final targets. Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 20. There were no implications of the restructurings on the theory of change. II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDO 21. The relevance of the PDO is rated as High. Kenya continues to host a significant refugee population, with the number increasing from nearly 500,000 at appraisal to 800,000 at closure. 22. Aligned with Bank priorities. KDRDIP was aligned at appraisal with the World Bank strategy for forced displacement, the Africa Strategy and the HoA Initiative. KDRDIP contributed to key priorities in the Kenya Country Partnership Strategy FY2014-18 of reducing poverty and inequality through improved social service delivery for vulnerable groups, particularly women. At project closing, KDRDIP remained closely aligned with the Country Partnership Framework FY2023-2028 objectives to achieve greater equity in service delivery outcomes by elevating lagging regions (Objective 4); extending sustainable infrastructure to the last mile (Objective 5); and reducing extreme water insecurity in the face of climate change (Objective 7). Page 5 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) 23. Supportive of GoK and regional priorities. Together with the grant to IGAD under P152822, Kenya DRDIP contributed to the formulation of progressive policies on forced displacement in the HoA through the IGAD-led Nairobi Process. This process produced the Nairobi Action Plan and regional policies on refugee livelihoods, jobs, and self-reliance; refugee education; and refugee and cross-border health. The regional policy framework supported by DRDIP informed a new, progressive approach to refugee management in Kenya that was encapsulated in the Refugees Act of 2021. 24. Remained relevant to the evolving global framework for refugee management. Kenya DRDIP directly aligns with two of the four objectives of the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), namely to ease pressure on host countries and support refugee self-reliance. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 25. The project efficacy is assessed before and after the restructuring in February 2023, using the original targets and the revised indicators. The 2019 restructuring increased the value of several indicators, so there is no need to split the rating at that stage. The 2023 restructuring reduced several indicators to reflect operational realities in the face of COVID-19, insecurity and drought, necessitating application of the split rating. The PDO statement comprised three specific outcomes: (a) improve access to basic social services; (b) expand economic opportunities; and (c) enhance environmental management. Efficacy against each is assessed below. Table 3: Achievement relative to original and revised/final targets Target Percent achieved PDO Indicator Original Revision6 Final7 Achieved Original Final (PAD) Target Target Beneficiaries with access to 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,320,329 88% 88% social and economic services and infrastructure (number) Direct project beneficiaries 1,041,436 1,041,436 1,041,436 837,739 80% 80% (number) Female beneficiaries (%) 50% 50% 50% 47% 94% 94% Beneficiaries of economic 48,000 51,360 42,168 52,407 108% 124% development activities that report an increase in income Land area where sustainable 11,190 ha 11,970 ha 5,000 ha 4,674 42% 93% environmental management practices have been adopted as a result of the project (ha.) Regional Secretariat’s capacity 5 5 5 7 140% 140% assessment plan and annual progress reports reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries COMPONENT 1: Social and Economic Infrastructure and Services Beneficiaries that feel 70% 70% 70% 80% 114% 114% project investments reflected their needs (%) Beneficiaries that feel project 364,000 364,000 364,000 314,989 87% 87% investments reflected their needs (female) 6 1st AF/Restructuring 2019. 7 2nd AF/Restructuring 2023. Page 6 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Infrastructure investments for 70% 70% 70% 100% 143% 143% which local governments adopt recurrent budget allocations and/or O&M plans (%) Project-financed subprojects 80% 80% 80% 99% 124% 124% that are functioning or delivering services to communities six months after completion (%) COMPONENT 2: Environmental and Natural Resource Management Beneficiaries with access to 300,000 321,000 321,000 299,433 99% 93% improved energy sources (number) Area provided with irrigation and 1,000 ha. 1,070ha. 1,070 ha. 1,034 ha. 103% 97% drainage services (ha) Area provided with irrigation and 700 ha. 750 ha. 500 ha. 488 ha. 70% 98% drainage services – new (ha) Area provided with irrigation and 300 ha. 320 ha. 570 ha. 546 ha. 182% 96% drainage services – improved (ha) Workdays created for short-term 3,600,000 3,852,000 3,000,000 3,369,325 94% 112% employment in the subprojects COMPONENT 3: Livelihoods program Beneficiaries of livelihood- 80,000 85,600 56,225 64,701 81% 115% support activities Community-based organizations 2,700 2,890 2,890 3,538 131% 122% formed or reinforced and still operational one year after receiving funding COMPONENT 5: Support to IGAD for Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on FDMM Meeting of the Project’s 5 5 5 7 140% 140% Regional Steering Committee, knowledge sharing and learning workshops organized biannually by the DRDIP Regional Secretariat, reflecting the expanded mandate Outcome 1: Improve access to basic social services 26. The objective of improving access to basic social services, as measured by the number of ‘beneficiaries with access to social and economic services and infrastructure’ was largely successful. The project provided improved access to 1.32 million people against a target of 1.5 million (88 percent). The project funded 1,840 subprojects, with communities prioritizing water and sanitation (811 subprojects), education (564) and health (263). These activities increased access to public facilities, while the construction of housing helped staff retention for teachers and medical personnel. A before-after/treatment-control impact evaluation demonstrated that KDRDIP had a positive impact on improving access to services by reducing time and distance to, or increasing availability of public infrastructure, particularly education and water for domestic and livestock use (e.g., around 2.5 kilometers closer and reduction of over 30 minutes to access water compared to control areas). The evaluation also showed improved access to roads (16-minute reduction in time to access all-season roads in KDRDIP areas) and to market facilities for crops and livestock (9 and 15 km closer respectively in treatment areas). Women interviewed for the evaluation reported better access to maternity services and reduced travel time. School upgrading was reported to have improved learning environments and reduce overcrowding.8 8 Data from “CDD projects and local development in refugee-hosting communities: Evidence from Kenya.” Walelign et al, World Bank, 2024 Page 7 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) 27. PDO indicator 2 ‘direct project beneficiaries and percentage of which female’ was partially achieved. The project directedly benefitted 837,739 people against the target of 1,041,436 – an 80 percent success. Of the total beneficiaries, 47 percent were women (target 50 percent). Given the prevailing gender inequalities, particularly in Garissa and Wajir counties, the high participation of women is noteworthy. Outcome 2: Expand economic opportunities 28. As measured by PDO indicator 3, ‘beneficiaries of economic development activities that report an increase in income’, achievement of the outcome of expanding economic opportunities was successful. A total of 52,407 beneficiaries of economic development activities reported an increase in income at project close. This exceeded both the revised target of 42,168 following the 2023 restructuring and the original target of 48,000. The income increases are consistent with findings from a Gates Foundation assessment of the project’s livelihood activities, which reported ‘strong positive change’ on economic achievements and contribution to income and expenditure. By the end of the project, 64,701 people (organized into 4,977 community groups and 31 Producer Organizations) had benefited from the economic development activities, exceeding the revised target of 56,625.9 It fell short of the original target of 80,000 – this was not met because the project over-estimated the number of members per livelihood group. So, while the target for numbers of groups was met, the smaller membership saw a lower-than-expected achievement for total individual beneficiaries. The livelihood groups typically engaged in activities such as livestock marketing and trade, retail and table banking.10 Another indicator contributing to the achievement of this outcome is ‘workdays created for short-term employment in the subprojects’ (through the component three LIPW activities), where the project achieved 3.37 million against an original target of 3.6 million, which was revised to three million following the 2023 restructuring. While beneficiary surveys reported that a high proportion of the groups generated profits and were still operating one year after receiving KDRDIP funding, the impact evaluation showed limited effects on sale of livestock and income from employment, though positive results on sale of livestock products.11 This might suggest that the income gains were relatively small from the livelihood activities. 29. The project contributed to a significant increase in overall socio-economic welfare. The impact evaluation showed that, due to the consolidated effects of infrastructure provision (e.g., reduced travel time and improved access to services), livelihood investments, LIPW and natural resource management activities, households that benefitted from KDRDIP had a 32 percent increase in both total and food expenditure compared to those that did not. Outcome 3: Enhance environmental management 30. The outcome of enhancing environmental management, as measured by PDO indicator 4 ‘land area where sustainable environmental management practices have been adopted as a result of the project (hectare)’ was partially achieved. The indicator was revised downward to 5,000 ha. from the original 11,190 ha. after the mid-term review (MTR) owing to slow implementation caused primarily by COVID-19 and drought. At project close, 4,674 ha. had been restored (94% of revised target and 42% of the original target). Water scarcity due to the drought meant land restoration was not seen a priority by communities against the imperatives of food security and survival. The achievement is rated modest for the original target and significant for the revised target. 31. The project was partially successful in achieving targets for access to energy and irrigation. The project provided energy-saving stoves, streetlights, solar pumps for boreholes and solar panels for public facilities and homes. A total of 299,433 people benefitted from these activities (99% of original target of 300,000 and 93% of 9 Of these, 988 (21%) were women’s groups; 869 (19%) were youth groups and 74 (2%) were groups of persons living with disabilit ies. 10 Most of the groups engaged in livestock and retail, as these are familiar to people in the target areas. However, these also had the lowest profitability. The project did not hire technical partners which could have supported higher value activities such as beekeeping or dairy. 11 “CDD projects and local development in refugee-hosting communities: Evidence from Kenya.” Walelign et al, The World Bank, 2024. Page 8 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) the revised target of 321,000). The alternative energy sources reduced dependence on wood for cooking that had escalated tensions between host communities and refugees; improved the safety of women who did not have to venture far in search of firewood; and improved the health of women and children in refugee-hosting communities. The time saved by women collecting firewood enabled them to engage in productive activities.12 Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 32. The project efficacy was substantial before and after the restructuring when comparing results with the original and revised targets. Overall efficacy, therefore, is rated Substantial based on: (a) target for improved infrastructure and access to basic social services was almost fully achieved and the impact evaluation showed improved access (Substantial); (b) the target for expanding economic opportunities was achieved. Over 80 percent of beneficiaries reported an increase in income and the impact evaluation showed a significant overall increase in socio-economic welfare in project areas (High); (c) the environmental management outcome was partially achieved in terms of hectares under sustainable land management and irrigation and the target on renewable energy was substantially achieved. The results were modest prior to the restructuring and substantial after, for an overall rating of Modest, given 76 percent of component funds had been disbursed when the restructuring was approved. The combination of Substantial, High and Modest equates to an overall efficacy rating of Substantial. C. EFFICIENCY 33. Efficiency is rated as Substantial. The project demonstrated strong returns across a variety of investments under components 1, 2(b) and 3, while the estimated Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for component 2(a) (integrated natural resource management) is low. However, that sub-component represents less than ten percent of total project expenditure, thus does not significantly impact the overall efficiency rating. 34. Based on an economic and financial analysis to assess economic efficiency, the Net Present Value (NPV) is estimated to be US$35.8 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) of 28 percent over a fifteen-year period. Since the original PAD did not calculate an EIRR for the full project, a comparison between the two estimates is not possible. The project ERR is largely based on strong impacts of the component 1 infrastructure investments, energy investments under component 2(b) and the livelihoods program under component 3, discussed in detail in Annex 5. The ERR for 2(a) is considered low, as it assumes minimal increases in agricultural yield for land under sustainable management, as water requirements were inadequate. 35. The ICR analysis is based on total project disbursements of US$61.8 million across components 1, 2 and 3, equivalent to 61 percent of the full project value. Disbursements under component 4 and 5 have been excluded, along with capacity development investments under component 1. Benefits of the project include improved access to water, reductions in water-borne diseases, reduced vehicle operating costs, improved health outcomes, etc., all of which are discussed in Annex 4. The project investments are also likely to spur positive externalities, including increased economic and trading activity and employment due to time and cost savings in accessing essential infrastructure, improved overall health and follow-on economic opportunities. While data on these wider economic impacts is not available, it is worth noting that any one of these could vastly amplify the project impact. For example, each case of cholera and other water-borne diseases represents an economic loss in terms of the cost of treatment and lost productivity; thus, a reduction in such diseases due to WASH and infrastructure investments can spur ongoing economic gains. Similarly, improved community infrastructure and livelihood programs will enable beneficiaries to access more economic opportunities, spurring wider economic growth. 36. The project encountered operational delays, such as communities prioritizing Components 1 and 3 over 2, procurement challenges for the LIPW, drought and water shortages and supervision difficulties associated with 12 Discussions with project beneficiaries during November 2023 ISM. Page 9 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) COVID-19. That said, the project demonstrated allocative efficiency in reacting to these delays through various restructurings, including provisions to fast-track project activities and for additional infrastructure financing. D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 37. The overall outcome rating is Satisfactory, based on the above ratings for Relevance (High), Efficacy (Substantial) and Efficiency (Substantial). Before the 2023 restructuring, the overall outcome rating is Satisfactory, with 75 percent disbursement. After the restructuring, the project disbursed the remaining 25 percent of funds (IDA and Trust Fund), with the overall outcome remaining Satisfactory. This suggests that, on balance, the case for restructuring at a relatively late stage in project implementation was not strong. The rating is informed by the evidence presented above pertaining to the: (a) highly relevant PDO at both preparation and project completion, (b) mostly successful achievement of outcomes, and (c) substantial efficiency rating. While efficacy for outcome 3 was only modest prior to the 2023 restructuring, we assess the overall outcome rating as Satisfactory given the two key objectives of improving access to services and expanding economic opportunities – where most funds were allocated – were Substantial and High respectively. Applying the World Bank’s split rating evaluation methodology results in an overall outcome rating of Satisfactory. Table 4: Project Split Rating Calculation Rating Dimension Original Targets Final Targets Relevance of Objectives High Efficacy Substantial Efficiency Substantial 1 Outcome 1: Basic social services Substantial Substantial 2 Outcome 2: Economic opportunities High High 3 Outcome 3: Environmental management Modest Substantial 4 Outcome rating value Satisfactory (5) Satisfactory (5) 5 Amount disbursed (US$ million) 91.63 24.9513 6 Disbursement % 75 25 7 Weight value (Row 4 x 6) 5 x 75% = 3.75 5 x 25% = 1.25 8 Total weights 3.75 + 1.25 = 5 Overall outcome rating Satisfactory E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS 38. Policy impacts. Although the PDO does not explicitly express it, through the regional approach and the grant to IGAD, KDRDIP played a critical role in advancing progressive policies on forced displacement that underpinned achievement of the PDO. It also supported significant institutional strengthening for IGAD, which is now recognized as one of the main organizations driving the forced displacement agenda in the HoA. The target of PDO indicator 5 ‘Regional Secretariat’s capacity assessment plan and annual progress reports reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries’ was exceeded. The project added Kenya and Somalia to the DRDIP RPSC so they could benefit from research and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. KDRDIP supported IGAD to formulate and adopt regional policies on refugee employment and self-reliance, education and health. Technical assistance was also provided by IGAD to the Federal Republic of Somalia, which helped to formulate new policies on forced displacement. Key achievements included: (a) National Durable Solutions Strategy; (b) upgrade of national refugee and IDP registration systems; and (c) new Social Cohesion Policy. 39. Social cohesion. The project approach of directly targeting negative impacts of the refugee presence and addressing host community perceptions that refugees are favored over them led to improvements in social 13 The total final disbursement of US$116.58 million was $US2 million higher than the original financing amount due to exchange rate gains. Page 10 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) cohesion. The impact evaluation demonstrated that in DRDIP intervention areas, host community members were: (a) less likely to believe that refugees are not good people; and (b) less likely to believe that refugees are a security problem. 40. Gender. The project promoted women’s participation and voice in community structures. The Gates Foundation assessment of the livelihood component showed: (a) involvement in community groups enhanced women’s engagement in economic activities; (b) increased incomes translated into stronger decision-making roles in the household; and (c) women were increasingly seen as entrepreneurs rather than passive community members. Social interactions between women during LIPW activities alleviated stress and anxiety associated with the severe drought and the cash payment helped to feed families, keep children in school and meet medical costs. 41. Community engagement and inclusion. The project made notable efforts to enhance inclusion by ensuring representation of disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and groups (women, youth, elderly, people with disabilities, members of minority clans etc.,) in community structures. The project undertook an inclusivity assessment at the inception phase to understand the socio-economic characteristics of disadvantaged groups and vulnerable individuals. The generally high levels of community participation contrasted with typical government- led community consultation practices, with DRDIP community structures promoting inclusivity, participation and accountability in decision making. III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 42. Political uncertainty and security concerns. As evidence mounted that refugees were circumventing the camp policy to live in Nairobi, plans were drawn up to forcibly move them from cities to refugee camps. Resolution came in 2017 as the High Court of Kenya declared the GoK decision to close Dadaab and repatriate refugees unconstitutional. But the overall political environment was fraught at the time on an issue that remains politically sensitive. 43. The implementation model created tension with newly formed Counties. The funds flow from central government did not respect the devolved structures, which were new at appraisal. This was justified by the national government on the basis that refugee management is a central government responsibility.14 This soured relations with county governments, with some initially refusing to sign up to the project. Tensions between the national and county administrations remained an issue throughout implementation. There were also questions on the CDD model and the use of NGOs as Facilitating Partners (FPs), with counties wanting a more central role. 44. Area-based political economy concerns. Some local elites are engaged in commerce in and around the refugee camps. There stood to be significant losers if camp closures went ahead or, indeed, if the dominant humanitarian refugee response model was to be changed. These dynamics played out in the background during the preparation and implementation phases.15 45. The role of UNHCR during preparation was important. They were a constant source of encouragement, advice and facilitation. They were responsible for inviting GoK officials to Dadaab to witness the scale of the challenges on the ground. 14 This was also seen partly as a risk mitigation measure, as some funds on other projects in the Kenya portfolio channeled through Counties had experienced diversion. 15 ICR mission interviews. Page 11 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION 46. Litigation and elite capture. Litigation dogged the project throughout. This started with court appeals that delayed selection of the FPs for 12 months, severely slowing initial progress. Contention over the award of some contracts and political interference in some subprojects chosen by communities led to court cases, which saw activities in selected sub-counties suspended for months at a time on multiple occasions. 47. COVID-19 complicated community organization and inflated costs. COVID-related movement restrictions prevented community gatherings, which are essential for effective CDD. Training for project staff and communities during the height of the pandemic was conducted virtually, limiting knowledge gains. Project supervision was not possible for almost two years. The scope of some infrastructure subprojects was reduced due to the increased price of construction materials caused by disruption of global supply chains. The project responded by changing the objective of the second AF from the original plan of scaling-up livelihood activities to covering the cost overruns. 48. Kenya experienced the worst drought in a generation. The lack of water affected NRM and livelihood activities. In a region where livestock and crop-based agriculture are the dominant forms of livelihood, drought also affected the entire economy in the target areas, which experienced major outmigration of pastoralist communities. 49. Institutional changes. The project was originally anchored in the Executive Office of the President. It was later moved to the Ministry of Devolution and ASALs and then to the Ministry of Public Service, Gender, Senior Citizens Affairs & Special Programs. By close, it was housed in the Ministry of East African Community, the ASALs and Regional Development. While the technical staff remained the same, the institutional changes delayed financial transactions. Resolution of implementation challenges was also often delayed due to the constant turnover of senior management. 50. The performance of FPs was weak. Four FPs were hired to organize, train and mentor communities to ensure the CDD model was operational. They reported to the National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU), which lacked the capacity to provide the necessary intensive oversight. In some instances, county Project Implementation Support Teams (PISTs), comprising key technical staff from the county government, felt marginalized by the FPs. Following a government performance evaluation in 2021 and the MTR, the decision was made not to renew the FP contracts and to replace them with locally sourced Social Mobilisers (SMs) and Community Facilitators (CFs). While this transition had its own challenges, it was generally considered to have improved cost-efficiency, clarified lines of accountability and increased effectiveness. 51. Insecurity. Some subprojects could not be completed, as insecurity meant that contractors were unwilling to enter certain areas. Supervision by the Bank was also restricted. Travel to Garissa and Wajir counties was prohibited for the final year of implementation. To address these restrictions, the task team introduced remote monitoring, including beneficiary phone surveys, in 2022 and 2023. A firm was also contracted in January 2023 to conduct an in-depth technical and fiduciary review that covered all five sub-counties. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design 52. M&E indicators could have been better aligned with project outcomes. The M&E design had robust features, including a rigorous before-after/treatment-control impact evaluation and beneficiary phone surveys. Page 12 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) However, some of the results indicators were too input driven. For example, under component 3, indicators on ‘support to community organizations’ and ‘being in receipt of livelihood support activities’ do not automatically translate into higher-level outcomes. M&E Implementation 53. National level M&E. The National PIU was responsible for quarterly reporting, using data collected by project staff, complemented by data received from CFs. Data collection was a challenge in the first two years of the project, as some CFs were not paid on time or travel costs were not funded sufficiently, leading to underperformance. The project’s M&E tools were not always utilized, partly because training was conducted virtually during the COVID pandemic. Data collection improved in the second half of the project as training was conducted in-person and direct supervision became possible. 54. Monitoring during COVID and in highly insecure areas. At the time of the MTR – which, due to COVID, was the first field travel to see completed subprojects since the project began – the task team identified the need for more intensive field monitoring. This was covered by the Bank team in accessible locations. For places that were off-limits due to insecurity, TPM was required. Given the limited time remaining in the project after the MTR, the task team decided that, with the funds left in hand, the strategic choice would be to hire a firm for an in-depth technical and fiduciary review covering over 10 percent of subprojects in all five sub-counties rather than a third-party monitoring agent (TPMA) that would conduct regular monitoring. However, on balance, it would have been advisable, given the security conditions, to have a TPMA in place from the outset. M&E Utilization 55. M&E data was used to support changes in project implementation. For instance, after monitoring in the MTR, greater efforts were made to integrate investments across components and the PIU also decided that NRM subprojects would not proceed without guaranteed access to water. However, quality issues with data collection persisted throughout implementation. For instance, community reporting on new land areas under irrigation and adoption of ‘sustainable land practices’ was subjective, even with the technical support provided by CFs and SMs. The MIS did not fully serve its intended purpose of providing real-time project data. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 56. Based on the above analysis, the overall outcome rating of quality of M&E is assessed as Modest. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 57. The project was assigned Category B and triggered nine of the Bank’s environmental and social (E&S) safeguard policies: OP/BP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment), OP/BP 4.09 (Pest Management), OP/BP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples), OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement), OP 4.11 (Physical Cultural Resources), OP 4.37 (Safety of Dams) and OP/BP 7.50 (Projects on International Waterways). With the project funding infrastructure, livelihood and environmental management activities, the E&S risks were assessed as low to moderate. The high number of subprojects, their remoteness and insecurity stretched county safeguards staff, resulting in weak supervision of contractor compliance. 58. The final social and environmental ratings were both Moderately Satisfactory. Delays and challenges common to both social and environmental risk were attributed to: (a) Inadequate staffing and high turnover at the national and county-level PIUs; (b) slow production and low quality of E&S documentation; (c) lack of quality assurance at the NPIU level, with delays in addressing comments by Bank staff; and (d) Insufficient allocation of resources to support the development of safeguards instruments. Page 13 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) 59. Environmental and social risk management performance improved after the expiry of the FP contracts , as social development specialists at the county level were able to better take charge and ownership. The World Bank team was also able to directly support capacity-building and conduct field monitoring after COVID. 60. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). The GRM operated at the community, county and national levels and received a high number of complaints. Some were politically motivated – with the most common types relating to issues of exclusion, inadequate consultations and information. The effectiveness of the GRM was challenged by: (a) weak uptake at the community level;16 (b) lack of clarity between FPs and county officials; and (c) limited documentation and follow up of reported grievances and agreed resolutions. With stronger management oversight and World Bank support, improvements were made over the final 18 months of the project. Financial Management (FM) 61. FM arrangements worked, though with challenges. At appraisal, fiduciary risks were rated Substantial, which understated the challenge. The project target areas were remote, difficult to access, insecure and known for weak governance and high levels of elite capture. The CDD approach, which put money in the hands of communities is generally considered less prone to corruption, but the thousands of transactions and the vast project area added to the complexity of ensuring FM compliance. To address these challenges, the World Bank utilized funds from the Danida grant to provide HEIS on FM and procurement to strengthen government systems and capacities. 62. Resources allocated to FM were inadequate. The performance of project accountants at the NPIU was inhibited by them having other Ministry roles and responsibilities, a problem that was replicated at the county level. The project should have provided the option of hiring FM consultants to add capacity, however, the budget allocated for the project management component of 7.5 percent, while not unusual for projects in Kenya, in this context was insufficient. In such low-capacity, fragile environments, funding should be increased to support risk mitigating measures such as more capacity-building for project staff, increased number of FM specialists and CFs, more regular field supervision and audit, and third-party monitoring. Not doing this was a design error. 63. Capacity at the community level was initially very weak but improved over time. Most of the beneficiaries were unable to read and write in English or Kiswahili. The initial terms of reference of the FPs did not adequately cover FM. The project provided HEIS to counties and communities and developed standard FM reporting templates, which helped underpin gradual improvement in FM performance. 64. Disbursement of funds to the counties was delayed, attributed to slow processing of Authority to Incur Expenditure by the NPIU by up to four months into the financial year. In some cases, communities did not submit statements of expenditures (SOEs), which were required to maintain funds flow. More resources were required at the PIU level for regular follow up on SOEs in the field. The project could have adopted a report-based disbursement that provided for a three-month cash flow buffer. Procurement 65. The procurement risk rating was substantial from the beginning of the project, and, thereafter, lowered to moderate. The procurement performance rating was moderately satisfactory from project effectiveness to December 2022 and upgraded to satisfactory at project close. 66. The project had several cases of procurement non-compliance. A procurement post review (PPR) of national- level activities and a 2023 in-depth technical and fiduciary review identified weaknesses, including the use of 16GRM committees set up at the community level underperformed as evidenced by: (a) poor record keeping; (b) slow resolution of grievances; and (c) the large number of grievances which by-passed the GRM and were reported to the PIU and World Bank. Page 14 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) undisclosed evaluation criteria, procurement delays and missing contract management records in STEP. At the county level, reviews revealed communities had limited procurement and contract management capacities. Gaps included missing procurement and contract management records, inappropriate use of rated criteria (scores) in the evaluation of quotations, uncompetitive procurement procedures and overpriced items, incomplete contract management documentation and inadequate inspection, testing and acceptance procedures for deliverables. 67. The PPR and in-depth technical and fiduciary review recommended measures to enhance procurement capacity, including: (a) project teams at the national and county level needed relevant technical staff before project effectiveness; (b) activities in the procurement plan to align with the AWPB; (c) quality review committees needed to review all procurement documents; (d) inspection and acceptance committee to ensure that all deliverables were inspected and accepted before payment; (e) packaging of small subproject contracts into medium-value contracts would have ensured more competitive bids. There was also weighting towards price, which did not necessarily translate into quality. In other community development projects in Kenya, procurement sits with county governments, which has meant more medium-size contracts and higher quality procurement documents.17 C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 68. The project was timely and relevant. The design was based on comprehensive analytical work. The forced displacement agenda and the focus on host communities aligned with efforts by the GoK to strengthen poverty reduction in its marginalized northern counties. It also contributed to a shift in the refugee response model from humanitarian to long-term development and in the GoK’s political positioning on displacement. 69. The project components were relevant, and the combination of policy support and operational activities addressed the forced displacement agenda comprehensively. Bringing development to vulnerable people, with a focus on host communities, combined with support for progressive policies and laws for refugee inclusion was a holistic approach to advance the forced displacement agenda in Kenya. 70. There were some shortcomings in quality of entry, including: (a) misalignment between the design and the government’s policy of devolution to newly formed Counties; (b) project target area was too big for the available resources, making activities small and scattered and supervision resources insufficient; (c) communities required more intensive technical support, resulting in some quality and contract management issues; (d) the livelihoods component would have benefited from external TA to complement the limited and stretched capacities of county officials; (e) procurement processes favored many small sub-projects, meaning some value for money opportunities were lost; (f) more upfront efforts to address female time poverty could have led to more creative solutions under service delivery e.g., community childcare, and also under livelihoods, the promotion of gender-focused value chains and value addition; (g) some M&E indicators made measuring impacts challenging; and (h) environmental restoration demanded a larger-scale approach with more technical input. Quality of Supervision 71. The Bank team proactively identified implementation challenges, mitigated risks and worked intensively with government counterparts to address problems as they arose in a very difficult operating environment. Eleven Implementation Support Missions (ISMs) and multiple technical missions were conducted. The Bank provided intensive support to resolve environment and social issues, such as improving performance 17 For example, the National Agricultural and Rural Inclusive Growth Project (P153349) and Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project (P154784). Page 15 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) of the GRM, expediting screening and enhancing monitoring of compliance. Constant attention was also applied to fiduciary issues. After the MTR, the task team held bi-weekly safeguards and FM meetings for almost a year to work through problems and help secure an upgrade in ratings from Moderately Unsatisfactory to MS. 72. The project was initially led by a Task Team Leader (TTL) in Washington DC, together with a co-TTL in Nairobi. From mid-2021, both the TTL and co-TTL were located in Kenya. The project benefited from HEIS, courtesy of the Danida grant. The Danida funding gave the task team resources to hire dedicated procurement and FM specialists and a multi-disciplinary team of experts. It also helped to fund regular field travel for them to provide training and oversight, the high cost of which due to the security requirements (armored vehicles, security and police escorts, etc.) would have otherwise been prohibitive. The absence of such hands-on support was keenly felt during the COVID period, during which physical supervision was curtailed for two years. The Bank team addressed this through virtual missions and phone surveys. The use of drones was also piloted for monitoring, but their range was not sufficient to be useful. The resumption of physical missions in late 2021 demonstrated that there is no substitute for in-person monitoring and engagement. Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 73. Given the Moderately Satisfactory rating of the Bank’s performance in ensuring quality at entry and Satisfactory rating for supervision, the overall rating for the Bank’s performance is Moderately Satisfactory. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 74. Sustained long-term engagement uncertain. Massive developments deficits in the ASAL region, accumulated over decades, call for a long-term development horizon. Such a long-term commitment is generally uncertain given typical Bank project timelines. The region’s high exposure to climate shocks and security threats also pose a threat to development activity in the region generally, not just to KDRDIP. 75. Sustainability of investments. MOUs were signed with county governments for the operations and maintenance (O&M) of investments, including staff provision. The general inadequacy of county finances, however, is creating a growing conflict between their ability to fund strategic development investments vis-à-vis routine maintenance. The quality of most infrastructure subprojects was rated as adequate by the World Bank engineer. O&M training of community committees gives a reasonable level of certainty that routine maintenance will occur, though this will be more challenging for major repairs and boreholes, the maintenance of which is technically complex. The sustainability of some of the NRM investments is questionable due to water scarcity and declining community motivation once LIPW payments stopped. NRM subprojects in public institutions, such as schools and health centers, and those that supported existing, established woodlots have greater prospects for sustainability. The project approach of free distribution of improved cooking stoves and solar systems was favored at appraisal, however, subsequent learning highlights the need to create long-term, private sector market-driven solutions for renewable energy to ensure sustainability. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS18 76. Appropriate use of government systems. The project design, which favored national level control, did not take full advantage of the unique opportunity afforded by devolution. Greater use of government systems, including fund flows to Counties, whilst still putting communities at the center of decision-making are not mutually exclusive. Greater devolution of authority to the Counties would have prevented a number of the inter- governmental challenges that the project encountered throughout implementation. 18 Additional lessons and recommendations are included in Annex 7. Page 16 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) 77. Lack of systematic integration between components/concentration of resources. The CDD approach was designed to prepare comprehensive community development plans that could respond to the full range of needs and displacement impacts. A strong plan would see integration between component investments for mutually reinforcing outcomes. In practice, however, integration was patchy, which reduced overall impact. Furthermore, the project area was vast for the available resources. Greater impact could have been achieved by concentrating on a smaller number of sites, based on objective selection criteria. 78. Implementation structures need clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Some county officials felt undermined by the FPs and the CDD model where their technical advice, for example, on the appropriate location of subprojects, was not always heeded by communities. This resulted in finger pointing between communities and local government on the appropriateness of some designs, budgets, and the location of some subprojects. Better clarification of roles and responsibilities in the Project Operations Manual, and a recognition that communities need intensive facilitation and technical support to make sound decisions would have helped to address this issue. 79. Subprojects should have more adaptable budgets. Communities were led through a process of subproject identification and prioritization based on a set budget ceiling. The ceiling proved insufficient, partly due to cost inflation, and led to some subprojects being completed with poor design functionality. The need to address this through an Additional Financing later in the project delayed completion and use by communities of some facilities. In future, the budget ceiling should be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure ongoing adequacy. 80. Engineering capacity needs to better incorporated into project design for climate adaptation and sustainability. Climate-resilient infrastructure in such harsh environments should be planned, designed, built and operated in a way that anticipates and adapts to changing conditions. The FPs, NPIU and CPIUs lacked adequate engineering capacity. Further, government infrastructure designs have not always kept pace with changing realities. Additional engineering capacity should have been part of the project structure. Technical assistance to update standard government designs for basic infrastructure such as schools and health facilities to climate- resilient standards would also be a useful input for future community development projects. Page 17 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrresultframework#doctemplate A. RESULTS FRAMEWORK PDO Indicators by Outcomes Increased access to social services Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 0.00 Feb/2017 1,041,436.00 Apr/2024 837,739.00 Apr/2024 Direct project beneficiaries Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved (Number) 0.00 Feb/2017 50.00 Jun/2022 47.00 Female beneficiaries Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved. (Percentage) Beneficiaries with access to social 0.00 Feb/2017 1,500,000.00 Apr/2024 1,320,329.00 Apr/2024 and economic services and Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved. infrastructure (Number) Expand economic opportunities Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Beneficiaries of economic 0.00 Feb/2017 42,168.00 Apr/2024 52,407 Apr/2024 development activities that report an Comments on achieving targets Achieved increase in income (Number) Enhance environmental management Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 0.00 Feb/2017 5,000.00 Apr/2024 4,674.00 Apr/2024 Page 18 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Land area where sustainable land Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved. management practices have been adopted as a result of the project (Hectare(Ha)) Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Regional Secretariat’s capacity 0.00 Feb/2017 5.00 Dec/2023 7.00 Dec/2023 assessment plan and annual progress Comments on achieving targets Achieved reports reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries (Number) Intermediate Indicators by Components Component 5 - : Support to IGAD for Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Meeting of the project’s regional 13 Dec/2023 steering committee, knowledge Comments on achieving targets Achieved sharing, and learning workshop organized annually by the Regional Secretariat, reflecting the expanded mandate. (Number) Meeting of the project’s regional 0.00 Feb/2017 5.00 Dec/2023 7.00 Dec/2023 steering committee, knowledge Comments on achieving targets The capacity assessment and implementation plan are endorsed by the Regional Project sharing, and learning workshop organized annually by the Regional Steering Committee in December 2020, on the expanded mandate of IGAD composed of Secretariat, reflecting the expanded IGAD’s member states participating in DRDIP mandate. (Number) Component 1 – Social and Economic Infrastructure and Services Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Page 19 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Beneficiaries that feel that Project 80 Apr/2024 investments reflected their needs. Comments on achieving targets Achieved (Percentage) 0.00 Feb/2017 70.00 Apr/2024 80.00 Dec/2023 Comments on achieving targets This will measure the extent to which decisions about the project reflected community preferences in a consistent manner. Data on this indicator was collected in the 600-person Beneficiaries that feel project second round iterative beneficiary phone survey conducted in June 2023. In the previous investments reflected their needs (percentage) (Percentage) round of survey conducted for the MTR the figure was 91%. The figure captures those who agreed or strongly agreedith the statement "subprojects chosen match the priority needs of the community". This will be verified in the endline assessment, which showed 80%. Beneficiaries that feel project 0.00 Feb/2017 364,000.00 Jun/2022 314,989.00 inv. reflected their needs - female (number) (Number) Beneficiaries that feel project inv. 314,989 Apr/2024 reflected their needs - female Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved (Number) Infrastructure investments in which 100 Apr/2024 local governments adopt recurrent Comments on achieving targets Achieved budget allocations and/or operation and maintenance plans (Percentage) Infrastructure investments for which 0.00 Feb/2017 70.00 Apr/2024 100.00 Dec/2023 local governments adopt recurrent Comments on achieving targets This will assess the appropriation of new infrastructure investments made by the local budget allocations and/or operation and maintenance plans government. Data on this indicator will be collected upon completion of the first round of (Percentage) infrastructure investments. Project-financed sub projects that are 99 Apr/2024 functioning or delivering services to Comments on achieving targets Achieved communities six months after completion (Percentage) 0.00 Feb/2017 80.00 Apr/2024 97.00 Dec/2023 Page 20 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Project Financed subprojects that are Comments on achieving targets This will assess the performance of the subproject financed by the project. Data on this functioning or delivering services to indicator will be collected six months after completion of the first round of infrastructure communities six months after completion (Percentage) investments. Component 2 – Environmental and Natural Resource Management Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 299,433 Apr/2024 Beneficiaries with access to improved energy sources (Number) Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved 1,034 Apr/2024 Area provided with irrigation and drainage services (Hectare(Ha)) Comments on achieving targets Achieved 570 488 Apr/2024 Area provided with irrigation and drainage services- new () Comments on achieving targets Partially achieved Area provided with irrigation and 546 Apr/2024 drainage services – Improved Comments on achieving targets Achieved (Hectare(Ha)) 3,369,325 Apr/2024 Workdays created for short-term employment in sub projects (Days) Comments on achieving targets Achieved 0.00 Feb/2017 1,070.00 Apr/2024 1,034.00 Dec/2023 Comments on achieving targets This indicator measures the total area of land provided with irrigation and drainage services Area provided with irrigation and under the project, including in (i) the area provided with new irrigation and drainage services, drainage services (ha) (Hectare(Ha)) and (ii) the area provided with improved irrigation and drainage services, expressed in hectare (ha). Data on this indicator will be collected upon completion of the first round of investments under Project Component 2. Area provided with irrigation 0.00 Feb/2017 500.00 Apr/2024 488.00 Dec/2023 and drainage services - New (ha) (Hectare(Ha)) Page 21 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Area provided with irrigation 0.00 Feb/2017 570.00 Apr/2024 546.00 Dec/2023 and drainage services - Improved (ha) (Hectare(Ha)) 0.00 Feb/2017 3,000,000.00 Apr/2024 2,791,188.00 Dec/2023 Work days created for short-term Comments on achieving targets This will assess the total number of work days created in all subprojects. Data on this employment in the subprojects (Number) indicator will be collected upon completion of the first round of investments under Project Component 2. Component 3 - Livelihoods Program Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 64,701 Apr/2024 Beneficiaries of livelihood support activities (Number) Comments on achieving targets Achieved Community-based organizations 3,538 Apr/2024 formed or reinforced and still Comments on achieving targets Achieved operational one year after receiving funding (Number) 0.00 Feb/2017 2,890.00 Apr/2024 3,538.00 Dec/2023 Community-based organizations formed or reinforced and still Comments on achieving targets This will determine the number of community-based organizations created or reinforced that operational one year after receiving remain operational. Data on this indicator will be collected one year after first disbursements funding (Number) to community-based organizations. 0.00 Feb/2017 56,225.00 Apr/2024 59,501.00 Dec/2023 Beneficiaries of livelihood-support activities (Number) Comments on achieving targets This will assess the number of beneficiaries that benefited from the project’s livelihood activities Page 22 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT B. KEY OUTPUTS Page 23 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Increased access to social services 2. Direct project beneficiaries PDO Indicators 4. Beneficiaries with access to social and economic services and infrastructure 1. A total of 1840 subprojects were completed. 685 of these were water projects, 564 were education facilities, 263 health facilities, 126 markets infrastructure, 75 roads and 74 sanitation facilities. 2. Capacity building of 1653 community members – Community Project Management Committees (CPMCs) on community driven planning processes, Key Outputs local development management, and community procurement or contracting (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 3. Enhanced capacity of local officials on decentralized service delivery. 24 capacity strengthening sessions were conducted for county government representatives that benefitted over 90 officials and resulted in positive outcomes such as development of MOUs, provision of PIST to support communities in technical backstopping and quality assurance, inclusion of KDRDIP interventions in the county budgets. Expand economic opportunities 5. Beneficiaries of economic development activities that report an increase in PDO Indicators income A total of 52,407 beneficiaries of economic development activities reported an Key Outputs increase in income. These beneficiaries came from different categories such as: (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 1. Beneficiaries from livelihood activities such as retail businesses, selling cattle 2. Beneficiaries selling their wares using markets constructed by KDRDIP Enhance environmental management 6. Land area where sustainable land management practices have been adopted as PDO Indicators a result of the project A total of 4,674 hectares of land was brought under sustainable land management Key Outputs practices. This land area included land under the following categories. (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 1.Land area under irrigation Page 24 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT 2.Land area that was cleared of prosopis and used for pasture and crops 3.Land area under agroforestry 4.Land area where soil conservation was carried out Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration 7. Regional Secretariat’s capacity assessment plan and annual progress reports PDO Indicators reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries Initially there were to be 5 annual reports but eventually 22 Progress reports were Key Outputs developed since reporting was on quarterly basis from 2017 to the end of 2023. (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 1. Reports shared Page 25 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT Component 5 - : Support to IGAD for Expansion of the Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration Meeting of the project’s regional steering committee, knowledge sharing, and Intermediate Results Indicators learning workshop organized annually by the Regional Secretariat, reflecting the expanded mandate. 1. Improved data for area-based development planning 2. New policy frameworks and legislative agendas. Key Outputs 3. Community Action Plans in Somalia using the CDD approach, ensured that local (linked to the achievement of the Component) communities generated ideas, with active participation of the returnees, IDPs and host communities Component 4 - Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Knowledge Sharing Intermediate Results Indicators 1. Monitoring field visits Key Outputs 2. M&E reports (linked to the achievement of the Component) 3.Knowledge sharing fora held Component 3 - Livelihoods Program 1. Community-based organizations formed or reinforced and still operational Intermediate Results Indicators one year after receiving funding 2. Beneficiaries of livelihood-support activities 1. Community and producer organizations groups formed and strengthened 3538 Key Outputs (linked to the achievement of the Component) 2.Market linkages Component 2 – Environmental and Natural Resource Management 1. Beneficiaries with access to improved energy sources 2. Area provided with irrigation and drainage services Intermediate Results Indicators 3. Area provided with irrigation and drainage services – New 4. Area provided with irrigation and drainage services – Improved Page 26 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa (P161067) ICR DOCUMENT 5. Work days created for short-term employment in the subprojects 1. Work days created (3,369,325)2. Complementary investments from the Off-grid Key Outputs Solar (linked to the achievement of the Component) Component 1 – Social and Economic Infrastructure and Services 1. Beneficiaries that feel project investments reflected their needs 2. Infrastructure investments for which local governments adopt recurrent Intermediate Results Indicators budget allocations and/or operation and maintenance plans 3. Project Financed subprojects that are functioning or delivering services to communities six months after completion 1. Improved public service delivery Key Outputs 2. Economic infrastructure. (linked to the achievement of the Component) 2. Beneficiaries that feel project investments reflected their needs (percentage) 6. Beneficiaries with access to improved energy sources 7. Area provided with irrigation and drainage services (ha) 11. Community-based organizations formed or reinforced and still operational one year after receiving funding 13. Meeting of the project’s regional steering committee, knowledge sharing, and learning workshop organized annually by the Regional Secretariat, reflecting the Intermediate Results Indicators expanded mandate. 4. Infrastructure investments for which local governments adopt recurrent budget allocations and/or operation and maintenance plans 5. Project Financed subprojects that are functioning or delivering services to communities six months after completion 10. Work days created for short-term employment in the subprojects 12. Beneficiaries of livelihood-support activities Page 27 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Matthew Stephens Team Leader Annette Akinyi Omolo Team Leader Annastacia Waithera Wacheke Financial Management Specialist Stephen Diero Amayo Financial Management Specialist Meron Tadesse Techane Financial Management Specialist Boaz Okoth Akello Procurement Specialist Mogesie Ayele Procurement Specialist Ben Okindo Ayako Miranga Environmental Specialist Margaret Auma Ombai Social Specialist Verena Phipps Gender & Conflict Winnie Achieng Adhoch Procurement Team Tom Omenda Team Member, Natural Resource Management Edwin Nyamasege Moguche Team Member, Financial Management Anna Lisa Schmidt Team Member, Social Development John Muratha Kinuthia Team Member, Social Development/Local Governance Diana Jemutai Sirma Team Member, Environmental Specialist Peter Muhati Mukhutsi Team Member, M&E Naseer Uddin Khan Team Member, LIPW Farida Abdullahi Hassan Team Member, Social Specialist Ganesh Kumar Seshan Team Member, Impact Evaluation Sorssa Natea Merga Team Member, LIPW George Ferreira Da Silva Team Member, Disbursement Soazic Elise Wang Sonne Team Member, Impact Evaluation Tom Opiyo Team Member, Civil Engineer Solomon Walelign Team Member, Impact Evaluation Page 28 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrannexstafftime#doctemplate B. STAFF TIME & COST Staff Time & Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of Staff Weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY17 36.472 317,388.27 FY18 2.345 12,061.84 FY19 0.825 4,778.79 FY20 0.000 580.55 FY22 0.000 87,332.00 FY24 0.000 162,188.00 Total 39.64 584,329.45 Supervision/ICR FY17 0.000 4,035.53 FY18 26.196 247,428.37 FY19 28.208 248,780.02 FY20 65.198 570,461.27 FY21 64.347 464,699.78 FY22 63.340 689,734.20 FY23 69.138 600,412.23 FY24 77.560 728,376.46 FY25 1.895 10,767.13 Total 395.88 3,564,694.99 Page 29 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Component Amount at Approval (US$M) Actual at Project Closing (US$M) Component 1 – Social and Economic 45.0 58.94 Infrastructure and Services Component 2 – Environmental and 20.0 17.45 Natural Resource Management Component 3 - Livelihoods Program 27.5 28.21 Component 4 - Project Management, Monitoring and 7.5 8.63 Evaluation, and Knowledge Sharing Component 5 - Support to IGAD for Expansion of the Regional 3.0 3.15 Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration Page 30 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 4. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDO (EFFICACY) A total of 1,840 subprojects were implemented under component one, across the five sub-counties of Lagdera, Fafi and Dadaab (Garissa), Turkana West and Wajir South, with Turkana West recording the highest number of subprojects (see Table 4.1). Under component 2, 586 subprojects were implemented, with the highest number in Fafi and Wajir sub- counties. Table 4.1: Number of Subprojects and Beneficiaries by County & sub-county: Component 1 Wajir County Turkana County Garissa County Sector Wajir South Turkana West Fafi Lagdera Dadaab Total WASH 36 9 9 11 9 74 Water 154 201 115 68 147 685 Health 35 126 26 23 53 263 Roads 19 19 14 6 17 75 Education 137 201 45 79 102 564 Markets and infrastructure 10 63 13 0 40 126 Sanitation 21 5 13 4 10 53 Total 412 624 235 191 378 1,840 Table 4.2: Number of Subprojects in Component 2, by Sub-county by Financial Year Sub County 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/24 TOTAL Dadaab 46 17 16 6 85 Fafi 105 37 29 4 175 Lagdera 20 15 17 7 59 Wajir 50 37 36 21 144 Turkana West 18 57 30 18 123 Total 239 163 128 56 586 Sub- component 1a - the Community Investment Fund was successful. As noted above, a total of 1840 sub projects had been funded by April 2024. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution by sector. The top three investments prioritized by communities were in the water, education and health sectors, respectively, while the fewest number of investments were in road infrastructure and sanitation. Page 31 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS BY SECTOR Markets and Sanitation WASH Infrastructure 3% 4% 7% Water 37% Education 31% Roads 4% Health 14% Figure 4.1: Distribution of subprojects by sector The emergence of water as the priority need for communities reflects the water scarcity generally in the ASAL region, which had been exacerbated by prolonged drought and COVID-19. Following the intervention of 68519 water subprojects, households reported reduced distance to water sources for domestic use and livestock use. More households reported they have access to improved and clean water for domestic use, but there was no increase in satisfaction with the quality of water provided.20 In Garissa County, the Haji Adan Village in Abakaile21 Ward in Dadaab Sub-county benefitted from a solar-powered borehole that was drilled and equipped by KDRDIP, improving access to 150 households living in the village. A total of 126 health sector subprojects were implemented, with the majority in Turkana West. Results from an endline evaluation of the KDRDIP health investments shows that households in the intervention areas reported the presence of more dispensaries and health center in their residential areas. These facilities offer level 2 and 3 primary care services in the national health delivery system in Kenya.22 This is a positive outcome, as community members do not have to travel far from their neighborhoods to access health services. In Garissa County two subprojects demonstrate the improvement in health services by the investments of KDRDIP. First, several staff houses were constructed at Modogashe Sub County Hospital in Lagdera, an intervention that helped staff retention, hence improving service delivery for the communities. Previously, women would travel to Garissa town to access maternity care, as there were few staff serving at the Modogashe Hospital. Secondly, a maternity block was constructed at the Benane Hospital, leading to improved services for the more than 100 mothers who give birth at this facility each month. Households in the KDRDIP intervention areas also reported the presence of more educational facilities, including nursery schools, lower and upper primary schools and secondary schools. As a result of the investments, 564 education subprojects in total, there was improved learning environment for students, while improvements in the boarding facilities such as at St. Leo Kakuma Boys Secondary school, led to improved student retention. Page 32 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) The St. Leo Kakuma Boys Secondary School in Lokore, Turkana West St. Leo Kakuma Boys’ Secondary School is a public secondary school located in Lokore in Turkana West Sub County. It is a boys only boarding school with students from South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya. Some of the factors plaguing the ASAL region in Kenya have traditionally included a lack of educational facilities generally, and especially ones without boarding facilities, leading to poor school enrollment as potential students resort to livestock rearing to support their households. Through KDRDIP funding, the school was able to construct new boarding facilities and renovate older ones. Additionally, a school science laboratory was constructed to be used by the students in the forthcoming national examinations. The impact of this investment includes a higher retention rate of students, given boarding facilities and assured meals. Through the improved boarding facilities, Kakuma Boys High School continues to attract students from host and refugee communities, promoting social cohesion in the school and beneficiary communities. In Garissa County, KDRDIP constructed an administration block and renovated five classrooms at Afwein Primary School, while the Mogodashe Girls secondary school got a multipurpose hall, a library and renovation of several classes. The intervention at Mogodashe Girls school helped to keep girls in school and minimized early marriage amongst the girls. The roads subprojects resulted in improved access to roads in the KDRDIP intervention areas compared to non-intervention areas, despite the low prioritization of roads compared to other sectors (Figure 1). The highest number of road subprojects were in Wajir South and Fafi sub-counties. A notable challenge facing the infrastructure subprojects was the question of functionality of the completed projects. Building health centers and dispensaries or classrooms alone could not improve service delivery, as the facilities need to be furnished with equipment and staff to be functional. The design of the project envisaged a shared responsibility between the Borrower and KDRDIP, such that the project delivered full equipment and infrastructure, while the government was to ensure staffing and personnel. The completion of infrastructure subprojects was affected by the inflationary effects of COVID-19, that pushed construction costs up. To fast track the functionality of the infrastructure subprojects, the second additional financing in 2023 from Danida was used for completion and operationalization of subprojects which were not fully equipped. However, the staffing of the facilities was progressively achieved. These initiatives led to the success of the component objectives, resulting in community ownership of the subprojects. A feature of the project design was that infrastructure maintenance and staffing requirements would be adopted by counties and accommodated under their operational budgets. This arrangement was formalized through the signing of non-legally binding memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The NPIU report for October 2023, notes that 90 percent of the total project investments were “owned” by county governments, except for those in Garissa County for the FY2021/22, as the county government had withdrawn its support for the project. This situation shifted as all the counties signed up MOUs committing to adopt the sub projects by the end of the project life cycle in April 2024. 19 KDRDIP Monitoring and Evaluation Data 20 K https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/mcas-community-leaders-praise-kdrdip-projects-call-for-extension/RDIP Impact Evaluation Report, 2024 21 https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/mcas-community-leaders-praise-kdrdip-projects-call-for-extension/ 22 Level 2 health care units are dispensaries which are run and managed by enrolled and registered nurses. Level 3 heath care units are health centers which are managed by a clinical officer and offer comprehensive care. Page 33 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) A look at the sector priorities for each of the project sub-counties reveals further information on the priority investments chosen by communities. Figure 2 highlights that water and education were the two top priorities across the sub-counties. Wajir South had a higher number of investments in sanitation, while Turkana West had the largest number in the health sector. Distribution of subprojects by sector and county 250 200 No of Sub projects 150 100 50 0 Wajir S. Turkana W. Fafi Lagdera Dadaab Sub County WASH Water Health Roads Education Markets and infrastructure Sanitation Figure 4.2: Distribution of sub projects by sector and county An Iterative Beneficiary Monitoring (IBM) Survey was conducted to identify issues or bottlenecks that may have been negatively impacting implementation. The surveys were administered to a sample of the project beneficiaries and may, therefore, not be representative. Two IBM surveys were conducted during the project cycle. The first conducted in December 2021 focused on: (i) the targeting of the vulnerable populations; (ii) awareness of the project and participation; (iii) quality of services delivered under the project; and (iv) the complaints mechanism. In the second IBM conducted in May 2023, the same four areas were covered including a set of questions for beneficiaries of the livelihoods program. In that IBM,23 there were notable improvements across these five areas. A considerably lower proportion of the respondents were considered vulnerable (45% vs 63%) compared to the first wave. There was an increase in the number of beneficiaries with awareness of the project objectives, especially for the support to host communities (20% to 34%). Close to seven out of ten respondents reported being invited to participate in meetings organized about the project in both waves. Those meetings provided an opportunity for community members to identify their priority investments. The majority of community members reported positive sentiments of how the project activities were run, although 15 percent of respondents were not aware of any KDRDIP interventions in their areas, compared to 12 percent in the first wave. More beneficiaries also reported using the complaints mechanism in the second survey compared to the first. Sub-component 1b – capacity for local planning and decentralized service delivery was partially achieved. This sub- component aimed to promote local government and community capacity for development planning and implementation. It sought to ensure the participation of community members in decision making about the project and to strengthen the administrative functions of the devolved government to enhance service delivery. The sub-component enlivens the 23 KDRDIP IBM 2nd Wave Report Page 34 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) community driven development approach, by ensuring community priorities, channeled through voices of the most vulnerable members within the Village Committees, guide the criteria for selection of projects including their location. At the onset of the project, the community level training was the responsibility of the Facilitating Partners (FPs), however, the quality of the FP performance was patchy. By June 2020communities in the project had been mobilized and the first set of community level institutions had been formed.24 Community-level planning sessions had been concluded in the 135 sublocations of the project areas, resulting in the finalization of 5-year Community Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs). At the onset of the project, a total of 16,000 training sessions for community members were held to create awareness of KDPDIP, resulting in acceptance of the project in the targeted communities, formulation of the community development plans, prioritization of the subprojects, and preparation of annual plans. A satisfaction survey by the NPIU notes that 98 percent of the targeted beneficiaries reported that the project investments reflected their needs.25 Another key group receiving training were Community Project Management Committees (CPMCs) who comprised existing school management boards, health management boards, Water User Association members and regular community members. CPMC members were elected at village assemblies and worked closely with Grievance Redress Committees to resolve grievances related to respective subprojects. They played critical roles in the procurement and implementation of subprojects, including advertising of tenders, procurement, handing of sites to contractors and supervision of the subprojects. On subproject completion, they made payments and handed over completed subprojects to communities or the government. Training sessions equipped them with skills to implement the prioritized subprojects, including financial management and reporting, procurement of goods, environmental and social safeguards, grievance redress mechanisms, and gender-based violence and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. There were few reports of poor performance of CPMCs such as poor documentation, filing and comprehension of some processes, but this may be attributed partially to the initial capacity building that was done virtually during COVID-19, which may have affected knowledge retention. The CPMCs, however, continued to receive technical support from the PIST to ensure quality control of the subprojects. Number of CPMCs trained by Sub County 700 615 600 500 403 400 369 300 232 172 200 100 0 Dadaab Fafi Lagdera Turkana west Wajir South 24 Implementation Status & Results Report (June, 2020) 25 KDRDIP Customer Satisfaction Survey 2022 Page 35 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) County government officials received training on how to enhance service delivery through various training programs. A total of 24 capacity strengthening sessions were conducted for county government representatives that benefitted over 90 officials and resulted in positive outcomes such as: (i) development of MOUs; (ii) provision of PIST to support communities in technical backstopping and quality assurance; (iii) inclusion of KDRDIP interventions in the county budgets; (iv) County governments approved the work plans by the County Steering Committees; and (v) Counties assisted in resolving grievances that arose during project implementation. Additionally, 50 PIST and 50 PIU members received training on their roles and responsibilities that improved the quality of subprojects implemented in the targeted counties. These resulted in development of Safeguards training manuals; GBV Action plan, Stakeholder Action Plans, compliance with safeguard requirements, and the resolution of grievances. PDO indicator 2 – direct project beneficiaries and percentage of which female was partially achieved. The project directedly benefitted 837,739 total beneficiaries against the target of 1,041,436 individuals, implying 80 percent success. Out of these total beneficiaries, 48.7 percent were women. Given the gender inequalities prevalent in the project area, women benefitted from the social and economic infrastructure and services whilst also gaining skills to independently set up their own economic activities. Women gained from community investments under Component 1 that led to improved access to water, health and education opportunities, and which also gave them opportunities to engage economically following the construction of market stalls. The project investments in water, education and health led to an improved quality of life for women who are normally tasked with the role of providing water for domestic consumption; nurturing and care these roles within the communities. The majority of the market projects are directly benefitting women26. These investments help to improve access to basic services and reduce women’s time poverty, freeing them up to pursue economic livelihood activities. Of the community groups set up under the project, 988 (21 percent) were led by women for the benefit of women. The following are some of the livelihood activities that benefitted women in Garissa County (see Table 5). Comparatively, in Turkana County, the majority of the women benefitted from table banking, livestock trading, retail shop and inter-loaning. Table 4.3: Community Groups Funded by KDRDIP FY 2022/23 GARISSA COUNTY Community Group Livelihood Activity Amount County Sub County Usalama Women Group Livestock Marketing Ksh. 500,000.00 Garissa Lagdera Tawakala Two Women Retail Shop Kshs. 500,000.00 Garissa Lagdera Group Mumtaz Women Group Clothes, Shoes and Ksh. 500,000.00 Garissa Dadaab Cosmetics Shop Lamm Women Vegetable, Grocery and Ksh. 500,000.00 Garissa Dadaab Development Cereal Shop Samatar Women Group Livestock Trade Ksh. 500,000.00 Garissa Fafi Faulu Women Group Retail Shop Ksh. 500,000.00 Garissa Fafi Source: Records of Livelihoods Program Manager A review of the livelihood subprojects conducted by the Gates Foundation reported that being involved in community groups enhanced women’s access to capital and entrepreneurial opportunities, as over 75 percent of the groups focused on income-generating activities.27 Women were more likely to engage in businesses related to traditional livelihoods such 26 Most of the market stall allocations were led by women (noted during interviews with community leadership in October 2023 field visit to Turkana West). 27 Moving from Traditional to Transformational Approaches to Women’s Economic Empowerment: A Review of the KRDIP Program, 2023 Page 36 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) as livestock and retail. Participation by women in such economic activities contributed to household income, which increased their decision making over household budgets, improving their financial autonomy. PDO indicator 3 - beneficiaries of economic development activities that report an increase in income was successful. The project sought to increase the number of people with productive income, especially through activities under component 3, through strengthening the value chains for selected commodities and promoting agribusiness. This involved forming new community-based groups of producer organizations/cooperatives and strengthening existing groups by giving them access to input and output markets; improving their access to financial services and strengthening the technical and advisory services to help the host communities identify viable business opportunities and income-generating activities. Additionally, the groups received training on group management, conflict resolution, savings, financial literacy, book- keeping and procurement. By the end of October 2023, a total of 4577 community groups and 31 Producer Organizations had been funded under component 3.28 Amongst these 988 (21 percent) were women groups; 869 (19 percent) were youth groups and 74 (2 percent) were groups of persons living with disabilities. By the end of the project, the cumulative figure of groups funded was 4,977. An evaluation of the projectreveals a limited impact of the livelihood activities, when considering income from livestock sales and formal employment, respectively. This implies that the livelihood program had a positive impact only on the livestock product sales.29 The Labor-Intensive Public Works (LIPW) approach also contributed to this PDO indicator through the number of beneficiaries who were enrolled in the LIPW scheme and the resultant number of workdays created.30 All activities for the Natural Resources Management were implemented through LIPW, taking up 65 percent of the sub-component budget - see the text box below for some examples. By the end of the project in April 2024, 3,369,325 workdays had been created for short term employment from all the subprojects. Following the review of final targets for the land under sustainable land management, the 2022/23 FY saw emphasis put on improving the provision of water for previously funded subprojects including:- ❖ Planting of tree nurseries (Saretho, Dahaley Primary School); planting of trees in different sites including farmlands, and most irrigated flood plains. ❖ Renovation of boreholes in Dadaab, including the installation of two storage water tanks and piping of the largest fruit orchard ❖ In Uthore in Wajir, supply of water storage and piping to support regrowth during drier periods ❖ In Turkana, rehabilitation of soil and water conservation structures in farms, including drilling of boreholes in Eyaal, Karodukunyka, and Lomidat. Source: KDRDIP Project Score Card, May 2023 When considered holistically, the combined effect of the investments – through improved access to water and reduced time to access schools and health facilities, coupled with LIPW cash payments and support from the livelihood program for some beneficiaries, the KRDIP project had a positive effect on welfare outcomes for the host communities. 28 Draft Implementation Completion Report Presentation by KDRDIP GOK Team in October 2023 29 KRDIP Impact Evaluation Report January 2024 30 The LIPW project employed a community-based system where poor and most vulnerable people were given an opportunity to earn 250 shillings a day for 12 days a month for six months. Page 37 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) PDO indicator 4 - land area where sustainable environmental management practices have been adopted as a result of the project (hectare) was partially achieved. The results indicator on the acreage of land to be restored was revised downward to 5,000 ha following the Mid Term Review, owing to slow implementation.31 The COVID-19 pandemic and the protracted drought had exacerbated the already complex challenge of water scarcity in the project areas, and land restoration was not seen a priority by communities who were struggling with food insecurity. Understandably communities opted to focus on securing water for domestic and livestock use, rather than utilizing it elsewhere. The decision by the NPIU to change tack and only implement the natural resource management activities in areas with good supply of water was prudent. Of the reduced target of 5,000 ha, a total of 4,674ha of land had been attained by the end of the project in April 2024. The revised low acreage target for this component reflects the low capacity of the beneficiaries to manage natural resources and the unique challenges presented by the predominant nomadic pastoralism. Dadaab sub-county had the highest achievement of land under sustainable management, at 1,875 ha, representing 40 percent of the total area covered. Lagdera sub-county had the least coverage at only 436 ha. A substantial portion of land was reclaimed in some of the project sites delivered through LIPW. In Eyaal Land Reclamation in Turkana, the LIPW cleared close to 400 acres of prosopis from the targeted 200 acres. The reclaimed land was later subdivided among community members for tilling and crop farming. Another example of success was reported in Uthole, Wajir South, where approximately 37 hectares of land was fenced for natural regeneration. In Dadajabura Community in Wajir County, local women and youth were involved in planning trees at the secondary school and health center compound to combat desertification. The communities reported positive impacts of the cash transfers received under the LIPW program. The beneficiaries from KDRDIP who were previously not targeted under the government’s Hunger Safety Net Program, benefitted from cash received under the LIPW, which cushioned them against the ravaging drought that had affected the northern frontier counties over a four-year period. In Turkana and Garissa counties, women benefitting from LIPW reported that they used the cash to address medical costs for their household members.32 Measuring access to energy was not part of the main project development objectives and is assessed as partly successful. Subproject activities included the provision of energy saving stoves, energy saving lighting, street lighting, use of solar pumps for boreholes and use of solar energy for public facilities (schools, and health facilities) and homes. A total of 299,433 individuals are reported to have benefitted from improved access to improved energy sources, out of an initial target of 321,000 representing a 93 percent achievement rate. The alternative energy sources provided under the project removed the strain on the dependence of wood for cooking that had escalated tensions between host communities and refugees; improved the safety of women who did not have to venture far in search of firewood and improved the health of women and children in the refugee hosting communities. The time saved by women collecting firewood enabled them to engage in other productive activities.33 The largest number of beneficiaries of these activities were in Dadaab sub- county, where over 150,000 refugees and host community members benefitted from access to alternative energy sources. Fafi sub-county recorded the highest beneficiaries of energy saving stoves and household lighting. A notable sustainability concern has been raised owing to the ‘free distribution’ model for the energy saving products, which can potentially undermine the creation of a long-term private sector market for renewable energy. These concerns remain, though to a lesser extent, for schools and health facilities that benefited from solar and cooking stoves, as they have access to budget for operations and maintenance. 31 Mid Term Review Mission November 22, 2021-February 28, 2022 32 KDRDIP ICR Draft Report, NPIU 33 Discussions with project beneficiaries during the Implementation Support Mission November 2023 Page 38 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) PDO indicator 5 - Regional Secretariat’s capacity assessment plan and annual progress reports reflecting the expanded mandate endorsed by participating countries was achieved.34 The KRDIP project was part of the Horn of Africa (HoA) Initiative that was being implemented in Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda and Kenya. IGAD, through its Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration (FDMM) Secretariat, plays an important role in policy advocacy and knowledge of operational responses for member states. Through support received from DRDIP Phase I (P152822), a Regional Secretariat on FDMM was established in Nairobi (later moving to Djibouti) to undertake several activities aimed at advocating for regional responses to FDMM, including: support policy dialogues of member states; generating evidence on FDMM; building capacities of countries and institutions in the HoA to response to FDMM; undertaking knowledge management and focused monitoring and evaluation of DRDIP implementation; forging partnerships between humanitarian and development actors in the HoA to rethink application of durable solutions; and consolidating the capacity of IGAD to respond to FDMM both regionally and internationally. Under DRDIP Phase II (this project), the IGAD Secretariat sought to expand its mandate to foster greater collaboration between the eight member states, including Somalia. Two phases were identified to meet this objective. The first was inclusion of Kenya as part of the DRDIP Regional Project Steering Committee (RPSC) so as to benefit from the Regional Secretariat-led activities of research, knowledge generation, and documentation of lessons learned to enhance the coordination, knowledge sharing and learning across the project countries. This would be followed by an assessment of the capacity, processes and system-building needs in support of return and reintegration including mapping of key actors by the Regional Secretariat, such that the entry of Somalia would benefit from these initiatives. In the second phase of the project, the project countries would be mobilized to engage on the Somali displacement challenge they commonly face, and engage the Government authorities in Somalia to lead the planning and coordination of displacement-responsive development in the places of return, and address displacement challenges more widely. The first phase of activities, including incorporating Kenya into the RPSC was achieved in Phase I. However, while it was envisaged that there would be two project offices in Nairobi and Djibouti, IGAD was relocated to Djibouti. The second objective of the phase I activity, notably the Capacity Assessment for Area-Based Development was commissioned in 2018 and finalized in March 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The overarching finding of the assessment was that representatives of government and non-governmental institutions responsible for developing areas of return and integration are deprived of information, technical and financial ability to appropriately anticipate and respond to the needs of displaced, returning and host populations.35 The levels of awareness and ability to implement proper development interventions are low at the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) level and non-existent at state and local government levels. The Assessment formed the foundational basis for Phase II of the DRDIP IGAD component, and the Somali Grant Implementation Plan 2020-2021 that outlines the action plan for engaging Somalia, was generated from the Capacity Assessment Plan. The biggest success of this component was the Federal Republic of Somalia joining the IGAD RPSC in June 2019, during the 4th Steering Committee Meeting in Djibouti.36 There was also a spillover effect as South Sudan and Somalia had a learning and exchange workshop in July 2020, hosted in Nairobi, Kenya. The Somalia delegation was represented by the NCFIR and the National Durable Solutions Secretariat in the Ministry of Planning, Investment and Economic Development. The South Sudan team was coordinated by the National Task Force Committee (NTC) made up of 15 Ministries and Commissions and chaired by the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs. 34 Findings are largely based on the Draft DRDIP IGAD Impact Evaluation Report, 2024 35 IGAD DRDIP Quarterly Report Vol 3, Issue 1, July 2020 36 https://igad.int/somalia-joins-the-steering-committee-of-igad-development-response-to-displacement-impact-project/ Page 39 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) The component was achieved through the following activities that align with the recommendations of the Assessment Plan. 5.1 Strengthening available data for area-based development planning In order to undertake area-based development planning, the government needs to collect and analyze data to inform planning in areas of return and reintegration. As the FGS had limitations in collecting data on refugees returns and internal displacement, DRDIP provided technical support to strengthen available data for development planning. This was achieved through the provision of TA to improve the capacity of the Federal Government as well as State and Local Authorities in all Federal Member States (FMSs) to regularly collect, collate and analyze their own data on displacement and returns. The main outcome was the development of digital data collection tool that could be deployed in remote areas, and training of users on how to use the tool. Through DRDIP support, the National Commission for Refugees and IDPs (NCRI) refugee and IDP registration system was upgraded. This was followed by a Training of Trainers session for the NCRI, to institutionalize the maintenance of the registry system. While the registration system has been set up, it is not currently in use owing to software proprietary issues, which challenges the sustainability of this investment. The second activity was developing and maintaining a GIS database for all FMSs that includes mapping of pressure points, services, spatial and master planning, including land tenure, administration and usage regimes. DRDIP deployed TA for the development of the GIS database. The third activity under this objective included provision of technical support to government to strengthen the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) systems. In May 2018, the IGAD RS convened the DRDRIP M&E and Geoinformation Working Group to establish a platform for experience sharing in mapping, spatial data collection, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and created linkages for data and information sharing among project countries. A meeting held in September 2022 set up a DRDIP data harmonization mechanism and methodological approaches for data collection. 37 This was a welcome move, as the Impact Evaluation report noted glaring gaps in the M&E of the project, with absence of an elaborate M&E plan and poor documentation of project milestones. 5.2 Improve coordination mechanisms at both Federal and Regional levels The GFS had established a Durables Solutions Secretariat (DSS) in July 2019, consisting of 14 government agencies working to coordinate humanitarian and development support for durable solutions at regional and district levels. However, these institutions worked within their institutional silos, leading to significant gaps in coordination of development programs targeting displaced, returning or host populations. DRDIP supported the streamlining of existing coordination mechanisms including the DSS to resolve overlaps that existed, through the development of the National Durable Solutions Strategy (NDSS). Within this forum, key actors were trained on the concept of Durable Solutions, and ways to better coordinate, exchange information, roll out joint initiatives and empower local communities. The result of this was that the Federal government developed their own approach to displacement challenges through effective coordination and leadership. The FMS NDSS Implementation plans became the reference documents for all upcoming projects and coordination on durable solutions, with even UN agencies aligning their own projects to the plans. 5.3 Development of policy frameworks and legislative agenda for durable solutions A Social Cohesion Policy was developed by the Ministry of Interior, Federal Affairs and Reconciliation (MOIFAR) and is currently awaiting cabinet approval. The policy was developed in a consultative manner that brought all key stakeholders on board. 37 https://igad.int/igad-drdip-represents-a-paradigm-shift-in-the-design-and-implementation-of-the-development-response-to-refugees/ Page 40 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) Through DRDIP support, the NCRI developed a strategic plan which empowers the Commission to own its roadmap to develop durable solutions. The strategic plan, however, did not stipulate how the Commission will work with other key partners, and this may render the coordination efforts ineffective. 5.4 Strengthen community-based planning and align Community Action Plans with government plans at Federal and Regional levels One of the weaknesses identified by the Assessment was the low level of community engagement in identification of development needs within locales. To make displacement solutions sustainable, there was an urgent need to combine the top-down flow of resources and the bottom-up identification needs of returning, displaced and host communities. DRDIP supported the implementation of Community Action Plans in all FMS and using the CDD approach, ensured that local communities generated these ideas, with active participation of the returnees, IDPs and host communities in CDD meetings. DRDIP helped to merge the concepts of CDD and area-based planning in Somalia. While ‘Durable Solutions’ was the popular concept to discuss displacement and its responses, this was assimilated to ‘Development Responses’ as reflected in DRDIP project approach. Page 41 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 5. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 1. As part of the efficiency analysis for this ICR, the task team conducted an economic and financial analysis (EFA) for this Project. This Annex describes the methodology used for that analysis. To the extent possible, the ICR analysis is based on actual data gathered as part of the M&E efforts of the program. This analysis is organized according to investment type, as laid out in the results framework. 2. The total ERR for all investments under Components 1, 2 and 3 is estimated at 28 percent over a 15-year period. The NPV is estimated at US$35.8 million at a 12 percent discount rate, and US$76.9 million at a six percent discount rate. 3. The original PAD evaluated economic viability for specific potential investments rather than across the project. As such, a direct comparison between the ERR calculated as part of this ICR and that of appraisal was not possible. 4. For the purpose of this analysis, these economic benefits are considered the income of the project investments - therein applying the discounted cash flow model for financial analysis of private investments within the context of a World Bank project. Key variables used as assumptions in this analysis have been tested for sensitivity to ensure robustness of the overall analysis and the project interventions. Returns for each investment type have also been estimated as part of this analysis, as discussed below. 5. Additional spillover effects and growth nearby project investments is likely to amplify their impacts, especially as beneficiaries who may have otherwise died or suffered from severe illness were able to access jobs, build businesses, and make other growth-enabling investments. This amplified impact will essentially create a multiplier effect related to the investments under this project. However, this multiplier effect has not been included in the project economic analysis for several reasons: i) for the sake of conservatism; ii) difficulties in attribution and measurement associated with using a sweeping multiplier; and iii) difficulties in determining the correct size and timing of the multiplier effect. Given this exclusion, the impacts from this Project, especially social benefit spillovers, will likely be underestimated in the analysis. 6. These social benefits include time and money saved due to improved access to water, reduced repair costs for land maintenance associated with climate change related disasters, improved health outcomes resulting in greater economic opportunities, reduced vehicle operating costs and potential conflict mitigation due to the reduced divide between host and refugee communities. 7. The analysis is based on these channels of impact for the different investment categories. Each of these has been tested for sensitivity. - Component 1 - Educational investments: Investments in education are expected to result in income increases of 10 percent over a baseline annual income of US$100 five years after the intervention across the 397 subprojects. Also worth noting is that education investments are associated with reductions in both child and maternal mortality which would amplify this impact; however, these benefits are difficult to estimate and have been excluded from the analysis.38 The NPV of these investments is estimated at US$7.2 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 29 percent. - Component 1 - Public health investments: The analysis assumes that each public health facility serves approximately 5,000 people, resulting in 50 maternal lives saved per year and a 15 percent reduction in other 38 Global Partnership for Education, https://www.globalpartnership.org/education/the-benefits-of-education. Page 42 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) causes of morbidity (baseline morbidity of 19 percent).39 The analysis extrapolates this to the total of 661,692 beneficiaries noted in the project results framework. The NPV of these investments is estimated at US$11.2 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 85 percent. This high NPV is due to the total impact of reduced morbidity, meaning that by saving lives, the investments have a tremendous return. - Component 1 – Markets: The project supported 126 market subprojects. To account for the benefits associated with these investments, the analysis assumes that each market serves approximately 500 people, enabling a 10 percent increase in income due to the improved market opportunities from an average initial income of US$500 annually. Based on these assumptions, the NPV of these investments is estimated at US$3.1 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 48 percent. - Component 1 - Road rehabilitation investments: Road and drainage investments will enable increased income for local residents, along with a small reduction in traffic fatalities. This increase in income is due to better access to economic opportunities, reduced flooding risks, better connectivity (value of time saved), and reduced vehicle operating costs. At baseline, the analysis assumes a village size of 500 residents40 living in close proximity to 5 km units (i.e., subprojects) of road investments, with 10 lives saved per km41 and a 10 percent increase in income (with baseline annual income 500 US$). These assumptions have been extrapolated to the total of 43 road subprojects. Based on these assumptions, the NPV of these investments is estimated at US$1.3 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 30 percent. - Component 1 - WASH services: Water and sanitation investments result in reduced morbidity from diarrhea and other waterborne diseases, along with time and cost savings for local households to access water. The analysis estimates 60 household beneficiaries per subproject, with a 5 percent reduction in the morbidity associated with water-borne diseases and unsafe water from a baseline of 29 percent.42 The NPV of these WASH investments is estimated at US$9.2 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 34 percent. - Component 2 - The analysis is based on 22,027 household beneficiaries of agricultural inputs and livestock support provisions, including 8,856 female-led households, as noted in the Results Framework. For each household beneficiary, baseline income is assumed to be US$1,000 for male-led households and US$750 for female-led households. Steady state income growth is assumed to be 1 percent, with an additional 5 percent for beneficiaries for three years following the project interventions. Additionally, the analysis incorporates the value of livestock saved, assumed to be 20 percent of those treated (3,044,023 as demonstrated in the Results Framework), with an average value of US$100. The NPV of these investments is estimated at US$33.4 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 94 percent. - Component 2a – Integrated Natural Resource Management: The Results Framework indicates that 4,674 ha were put under sustainable land management practices as part of the project. In general, the implementation of such practices is expected to improve agricultural yields. However, given that the project’s approach to sustainable land management did not adequately take into account the associated water requirements, the analysis assumes a minimal increase in agricultural yields. The analysis assumes 20 household beneficiaries for 39 This morbidity assumption is based on proxy data used in vulnerable communities in Sub-Saharan Africa with a mix of host and refugee communities (Somalia and South Sudan). 40 Average village size according to IOM based on a Village Assessment Surveys conducted in 2023 ranges from 500-1,000 households. The analysis assumes less than half of each village’s residents (500) are impacted by the interventions. https://dtm.iom.int/kenya 41 Average of 13.2 reduced to 5 lives saved per km of road rehabilitation. Burden of Road Injuries in Sub-Saharan African, http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/356861434469785833/Road-Safety-Burden-of-Injuries-in-Africa.pdf. 42 Based on WHO data, 2016 to estimate the morbidity rate at the outset of the project. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.SDGWSHBOD392v Page 43 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) each impacted hectare, with a baseline yield of 2.4 tons of wheat per ha43 and an average price of 358 US$.44 At steady state the analysis assumes beneficiary income growth of 0.5 percent annually, with an additional 0.25 percent growth for 50 percent of these beneficiaries. For the LIPW created through this component, the analysis assumes each LIPW workday is worth US$5. With these assumptions, the NPV of these investments is estimated at -US$1.2 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 5 percent. - Component 2b – Energy: Investments under this component impacted a total of 299,443 beneficiaries. The analysis assumes baseline average income of US$500 per year for each of these beneficiaries, growing at 1percent annually. As a result of the project energy investments, the analysis assumes an additional income growth of 2 percent for these beneficiaries over three years given the increased access to economic opportunities, lower generator costs, etc. Based on these assumptions, the NPV is estimated at US$8.1 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 68 percent. - Component 3 – Livelihoods program: The analysis assumes that beneficiaries of the livelihoods programs under this component will demonstrate increased annual income growth of 5 percent for a short period of time (3 years) following receipt the program, and then return to a steady state income growth rate of 1 percent annually. This component supported 4,977 community groups and 31 producer organizations. Based on NPIU data, the average community group income ranges KSH 30,000-50,000 per month, with pre-project growth of 24 percent annually and current growth estimated at 46 percent. Given the difficulty in separating the impact of the capacity support programs also under this component, the analysis also incorporates these investments. With these assumptions, the NPV of these investments is estimated at US$2.5 million at a 12 percent discount rate, with an ERR of 15 percent. 8. Additional assumptions used in the analysis include: • Value of a statistical life: US$ 2,394.45 • Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs: O&M costs for infrastructure vary widely. These costs include water treatment, road resurfacing, maintenance of various types of infrastructure, cleaning, energy and staff costs. As such, the analysis uses a conservative assumption of 5 percent of the investment costs for annual O&M. 9. The results of our analysis are summarized in the table below: NPV (12 percent discount rate) 35.8 million NPV (6 percent discount rate) 76.9 million ERR (percent) 28 10. The results of our sensitivity analysis are summarized below: Sensitivity condition ERR (percent) 100 percent increase in O&M costs 25 50 percent decrease in O&M costs 29 8 year only impact 14 43 https://ipad.fas.US$a.gov/countrysummary/Default.aspx?id=KE&crop=Wheat 44 https://www.indexbox.io/store/kenya-wheat-market-report-analysis-and-forecast-to- 2020/#:~:text=Whatpercent20ispercent20thepercent20averagepercent20export,9.5percent25percent20againstpercent20thepercent20previousper cent20year . 45 Kip Viscusi, W., and Clayton J. Masterman. “Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life.” https://law.vanderbilt.edu/phd/faculty/w-kip-viscusi/355_Income_Elasticities_and_Global_VSL.pdf. Page 44 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 6: BORROWER’S AND OTHER STAKEHOLDER’S COMMENTS Mr. Wilfred Omari, Project Manager, Kenya DRDIP, Project Implementation Unit – State Department Arid and Semi-Arid Lands and Regional Development, Ministry of the East African Community (EAC), the ASALs and Regional Development. We have gone through the report. It is objective, well balanced and generally reflects your perspective as per our performance.46 Comments received October 14, 2024. Ms. Fathia Alwan, Director, Health & Social Division, Inter-governmental Authority on Development We reviewed the report and the IGAD component under that grant has been captured well. We have no further comment on the report. Comments received October 20, 2024. Ms. Nancy Njenga, Programme Officer, Royal Danish Embassy, Kenya I have reviewed the ICR and find the technical part satisfactory. We look forward to the final report. Comments received October 15, 2024. 46 Editorial inputs provided by the PIU have been addressed in the main body of the ICR. Page 45 The World Bank Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa ICR DOCUMENT (P161067) ANNEX 7: ADDITIONAL LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. HEIS support essential in challenging context. The Danida funds to support HEIS were crucial for effective implementation support and monitoring by the World Bank. Given the governance challenges in the project areas, the funds from Danida equipped the Bank to provide additional technical assistance to the government at all levels, particularly on fiduciary management, including training and coaching. Field travel, with associated security costs was extremely expensive. The HEIS funding allowed the Bank team to regularly travel to project sites and to respond to problems when they arose. None of this would have been possible with regular World Bank supervision budgets. 2. Contractor capacity – balancing social license to operate with quality. The project decided to restrict bidding on contracts to companies registered in the relevant sub-counties. This was considered essential from a security perspective, given low acceptance of outsiders in the project locations. However, it restricted the pool of qualified bidders, weakened competitive tension and may have contributed to elite capture. Future projects should explore options to expand the pool of contractors, while still balancing security concerns. 3. Understanding the political economy. In a context of high insecurity, weak governance and limited state presence, the project experienced large numbers of complaints, particularly in Garissa and Wajir. A thorough political economy assessment on local leadership and clan structures, including a detailed stakeholder engagement plan on how to balance conflicting political interests might have helped the project to mitigate risks and minimize time spent dealing with issues after they arose. 4. National policy shifts likely demand a different approach to future investments. Kenya’s policy is now to integrate host communities with refugee settlements. Government is demanding fewer, larger anchor investments at higher unit costs e.g., large urban market schemes, hydraulic infrastructure schemes for surface/rainwater capture, desalination plants, access road infrastructure, which are fully aligned with county priorities. There is a balance to be struck between small-scale community projects and the larger anchor investments. 5. Support to project monitoring and technical guidance needed to be higher. County and sub-county level staff are dedicated and motivated, but they had other full-time job responsibilities. To expect sufficient sub-project monitoring and technical services was unrealistic given capacity and the vast project area. SMs lacked transport facilitation to move around sub-project sites. Payment rates remained an issue for many. Given the challenging operating context, more funds should have been allocated to technical assistance, monitoring and fiduciary compliance. 6. Ensuring improved access to services translates into better service delivery. While KDRDIP met the PDO objective of increasing access to basic services, the Impact Evaluation showed minimal or no increase in satisfaction with the quality of services. This indicates that, for instance, for water the project improved access, but at the same level of quality as existing sources. For health and education facilities, possible explanations for the minimal increase in satisfaction are: (a) some facilities were not fully equipped when the data was collected; and (b) some facilities – particularly health centers – remained with a lack of medical personnel despite government commitments to provide them. Attracting qualified personnel to remote, insecure areas is difficult. It could also be that an increase in satisfaction levels takes more time to accrue and the data was simply collected too early. Future projects should guarantee that all infrastructure subprojects are fully equipped, ensure necessary personnel are fully budgeted and conduct regular user satisfaction surveys to better track impacts of improved infrastructure on the quality of services. Completing subprojects well before project closure would also provide time for impact evaluation data collection to take place when benefits are actually accruing. Page 46