Report No: ICR00250 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT P128887 ON A GRANT STRATEGIC CLIMATE FUND (SCF) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$36.9 MILLION CENTRAL AFRICAN FOREST INITIATIVE (CAFI) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$27.25 MILLION GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$6.21 MILLION TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FOR THE IMPROVED FORESTED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PROJECT November 25, 2024 Environment, Natural Resources, and the Blue Economy Eastern and Southern Africa This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective October 3, 2024) Currency Unit = US$ = US$1 US$= SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 Regional Vice President: Victoria Kwakwa Country Director: Albert G. Zeufack Regional Director: Iain G. Shuker Practice Manager: Abdelaziz Lagnaoui Patrice Savadogo, Cyrille Valence Ngouana Kengne, Task Team Leader (s): Carolina Giovannelli ICR Main Contributors: Marit Dahl Hjort and Carlo Palleschi The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing AfDB African Development Bank ANSER National Agency of Electrification and Energy Services (Agence Nationale de l'Electrification et des Services Energétiques) BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio BERD Consulting Office for Research and Development (Bureau d’Etude pour la Recherche et le Développement) CAFI Central African Forest Initiative CIF Climate Investment Fund CDM Clean Development Mechanism CFCL Local Community Forest Concessions (Concessions Forestières de Communautés Locales CPF Country Partnership Framework DGM Dedicated Grant Mechanism DIA Delegated Implementing Agency DPO Development Policy Operation DRC Democratic Republic of Congo E&S Environmental and Social ER Emission reduction ERND Environment, Natural Resources and Development (Environnement, Ressources Naturelles et Développement) ERPA Emission Reductions Payment Agreement ERR Economic Rate of Return EX-ACT Ex-Ante Carbon Balance Tool FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FCV Fragility, Conflict and Violence FIP Forest Investment Program FIP-CU Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (Unité de Coordination du Programme d’Investissement pour la Forêt) FM Financial Management FONAREDD DRC REDD+ National Fund (Fonds National REDD+) FOREST Forest and Savanna Restoration Investment Program FRMi Forest Resources Management Engineering (Forêt Ressources Management Ingénierie) GEF Global Environment Facility GEMS Geo-Enabling Initiative for Monitoring and Supervision GHG Greenhouse Gas HIMO Employment intensive (Haute intensité de main-d'œuvre) ICCN Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature) ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report ICS Improved Cookstove IFC International Finance Corporation IFLMP Improved Forested Landscape Management Project IP Indigenous Peoples The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT IPE Invictus Power Enviro IPF Investment Project Financing LDC Local Development Committee MBKIS Mbuji-Mayi/Kananga and Kisangani Basins M&E Monitoring and Evaluation METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MRV Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification NDC Nationally Determined Contribution NGO Nongovernmental Organization NPV Net Present Value NRMP Natural Resource Management Plan OPERPA Support to the Operationalization of ERPA PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PES Payments for Environmental Services PGDF Sustainable Forest Management Program (Programme de gestion durable des forêts) PIREDD Integrated Project for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Programme Intégré pour la Réduction des Émissions de gaz à effet de serre dues à la Déforestation et à la Dégradation des forêts) PIU Project Implementation Unit PP Parent project PRODEKK Program of Agricultural Development and Connectivity in the Provinces of Kwilu and Kwango (Programme de développement agricole et de désenclavement dans les Provinces du Kwilu et Kwango) REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, including conservation, sustainable management and increase of forest carbon stocks REPROFCA Improved Cookstoves Producers’ Network (Réseau des producteurs des foyers culinaires améliorés) RF Results Framework ToC Theory of Change TLNR Tumba Lediima Nature Reserve TTL Task Team Leader UDD UMOJA Sustainable Development (UMOJA Développement Durable) WBG World Bank Group WOP Without Project WP With Project WWC Wildlife Works Carbon WWF World Wildlife Fund The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ....................................................................................................................................................... i I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................1 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................................................5 III. KEY FACTORS AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ..................................................................... 11 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .............................. 12 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 15 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................................................ 16 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ....................................................... 26 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ......................................................................................................... 28 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 29 ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ................................. 44 ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................ 47 ANNEX 7. CHANGES TO INDICATORS DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ 54 ANNEX 8. ASSESSMENT OF NET CARBON BALANCE ............................................................................................ 55 ANNEX 9. MAPS ................................................................................................................................................ 59 ANNEX 10. COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS DEVELOPED BY THE PIU, THE WORLD BANK TEAM, AND THE DIA FOR PIREDD MAI-NDOMBE ...................................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX 11. PHOTOS .......................................................................................................................................... 64 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT DATA SHEET @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrbasicdata#doctemplate BASIC DATA Product Information Operation ID Operation Name P128887 Improved Forested Landscape Management Project Product Operation Short Name Investment Project Financing (IPF) IFLMP Operation Status Approval Fiscal Year Closed 2014 Original EA Category Current EA Category Partial Assessment (B) (Restructuring Data Sheet - 23 Aug Partial Assessment (B) (Approval package - 17 May 2022) 2022) CLIENTS Borrower/Recipient Implementing Agency Ministry of Finance Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE Original Development Objective (Approved as part of Approval Package on 16-May-2022) The project development objective is to test new approaches to improve community livelihoods and forested landscape management, andto reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in selected areas in the Recipient's territory. s s s s s s s s s @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrfinancing#doctemplate FINANCING Financing Source Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) i The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT World Bank Administered 64,113,845.09 64,113,845.09 64,147,383.00 Financing TF-16869 36,900,000.00 36,866,462.09 36,866,462.09 TF-A5081 27,247,383.00 27,247,383.00 27,247,383.00 Total 64,147,383.00 64,113,845.09 64,113,845.09 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Amount Disbursed Date(s) Type Key Revisions (US$M)  Components  Results 28-Jun-2017 Manual 16.26  Legal Covenants  Additional Financing  Components  Results 30-Apr-2019 Manual 34.23  Safeguard Policies Triggered  Additional Financing  Procurement 12-Jan-2021 Portal 48.23  Institutional Arrangement  Results 07-Jul-2022 Manual 54.96  Additional Financing  Loan Closing Date Extension  Components  Results 23-Aug-2022 Portal 54.96  Loan Closing Date Extension  Implementation Schedule @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrkeydates#doctemplate KEY DATES Key Events Planned Date Actual Date Concept Review 01-Oct-2012 01-Oct-2012 Decision Review 16-Dec-2013 16-Jan-2014 Authorize Negotiations Not Applicable Approval 24-Jun-2014 24-Jun-2014 Signing 08-Oct-2014 08-Oct-2014 ii The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Effectiveness 07-May-2015 29-Apr-2015 ICR/NCO 31-Dec-2020 -- Additional Financing Sequence.02 Not Applicable 28-Jun-2017 Additional Financing Sequence.01 Not Applicable 07-Jun-2019 Restructuring Sequence.01 Not Applicable 12-Jan-2021 Restructuring Sequence.02 Not Applicable 23-Aug-2022 Mid-Term Review No. 01 15-Feb-2018 03-Feb-2018 Operation Closing/Cancellation 31-May-2024 31-May-2024 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrratings#doctemplate RATINGS SUMMARY Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial ISR RATINGS Actual Disbursements No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating (US$M) 01 29-Nov-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 02 23-May-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 03 08-Dec-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.15 04 12-Jun-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.10 05 13-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 10.24 06 12-Jun-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 14.50 07 07-Dec-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 21.44 08 27-May-2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 24.63 09 07-Dec-2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 30.96 10 24-May-2019 Satisfactory Satisfactory 35.16 11 27-Nov-2019 Satisfactory Satisfactory 40.55 12 03-Jun-2020 Satisfactory Satisfactory 43.80 iii The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 13 28-Dec-2020 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 48.23 14 07-Jul-2021 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 51.78 15 14-Jan-2022 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 55.08 16 28-Jul-2022 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 54.96 17 16-Feb-2023 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 56.69 18 31-Aug-2023 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 59.79 19 07-Mar-2024 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 63.36 20 29-Jun-2024 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 64.11 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrsectortheme#doctemplate SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Adaptation Mitigation Major Sector Sector % Co-benefits Co-benefits (%) (%) FY17 - Agriculture, FY17 - Forestry 81 0 100 Fishing and Forestry FY17 - Public FY17 - Sub-National Government 19 0 100 Administration Themes Major Theme Theme (Level 2) Theme (Level 3) % FY17 - Environment and FY17 - Climate change FY17 - Mitigation 55 Natural Resource FY17 - Renewable Natural Resources Management FY17 - Biodiversity 8 Asset Management FY17 - Agriculture FY17 - Finance FY17 - Finance for Development 9 Finance FY17 - Private Sector FY17 - Jobs 100 Development FY17 - Land FY17 - Urban and Rural Administration and 20 FY17 - Rural Development Management Development FY17 - Rural Markets 9 iv The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Practice Manager Benoît Bosquet Abdelaziz Lagnaoui Regional Director N/A Iain G. Shuker Global Director Jamal Saghir Valerie Hickey Practice Group Vice President N/A Juergen Voegele Country Director Eustache Ouayoro Albert G. Zeufack Regional Vice President Makhtar Diop Victoria Kwakwa ADM Responsible Team Leader Laurent Valiergue Patrice Savadogo Co-Team Leader(s) N/A Cyrille Valence Ngouana Kengn Co-Team Leader(s) N/A Carolina Giovannelli ICR Main Contributors Marit Dahl Hjort and Carlo Palleschi v The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Context 1. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is endowed with the world’s second-largest contiguous tropical rainforest, extraordinary agricultural and mineral resources, fertile land, megadiversity, and huge hydroelectric potential, while also being marked by significant development challenges, fragility and weak institutions. At the time of appraisal of the Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (IFLMP), 63.4 percent of the DRC’s population lived in extreme poverty, food insecurity plagued 71 percent, and 57 percent lacked access to basic health services (WB 2014). 1 2. Relative deforestation in the DRC was below the global average; however, the country ranked among the top ten for absolute forest cover loss. 2 Deforestation was concentrated in ‘hotspots’ around large cities and in densely populated pockets at the edges of the central basin’s large forest blocks. The primary drivers of deforestation were subsistence activities, particularly slash-and-burn agriculture and timber harvesting for fuel wood and charcoal (GoDRC 2012; Shapiro et al. 2023). The DRC adopted a National Strategy for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in 2012 (GoDRC 2012), with the support of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) REDD+ Readiness Program. The strategy aims to stabilize the forest cover on two-thirds of the country’s land by 2030. A National REDD+ Investment Plan was adopted in 2015 to implement the strategy (GoDRC 2015). The DRC REDD+ National Fund (Fonds National REDD+, FONAREDD) was established the same year and was first capitalized based on a Letter of Intent signed between the Government and the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) in 2016 (CAFI 2016). This marked the start of the REDD+ investment phase and allowed financing integrated REDD+ programs alongside national reforms, aligned with the World Bank’s and FCPF’s frameworks for the DRC forest sector.3 3. The World Bank initially financed IFLMP through the Forest Investment Program (FIP), housed by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and aimed at supporting REDD+ efforts in the DRC and seven other FIP pilot countries. The DRC Government designed three FIP programs with the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB), to target deforestation hotspots and enhance financing and conditions for activities addressing deforestation. Informed by research on deforestation causes and forest cover changes, IFLMP sought to help materialize the DRC’s National REDD+ Strategy and align with the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy for FY13–16 (WB 2013). IFLMP primarily targeted the Mai- Ndombe and Kongo Central Provinces, as they constituted Kinshasa’s fuel wood supply basins. 4 The selection of Mai- Ndombe was motivated by the jurisdictional REDD+ Program for which the DRC Government had submitted an FCPF Emissions Reductions (ERs) Program Idea Note in 2013 (FCPF 2013), supported by the World Bank. In 2018, the Government and the World Bank signed an Emissions Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA; P160320; WB 2018a), as the first large-scale jurisdictional program for results-based payments in the Congo Basin. 4. IFLMP was designed as an Investment Project Financing (IPF) to allow for stronger World Bank involvement, which was considered necessary due to the country’s fragility, limited resources, and weak governance. This financing 1 The population was estimated at 71 million people in 2012. 2 FCPF n.d.; WRI 2024. Over 2000-2022, the DRC lost about 6 million ha of primary forest, second only to Brazil (Global Forest Watch 2022). 3 See, e.g., the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy for FY13–16 (WB 2013), and (FCPF n.d.). 4 A map of all the areas targeted by IFLMP and its AFs is available in Annex 9. Before 2015, Mai-Ndombe and Kongo Central were part of the Bandundu and Bas-Congo Provinces. Deforestation in the Plateau District in Bandundu exceeded the national average, driven by agriculture and fuel wood. With a relatively high forest cover intact, the priority here was to implement activities aimed at avoiding deforestation. In the Bas-Congo Province, on the contrary, the focus was on regenerating deforested areas and promoting plantations and agroforestry. 1 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT instrument also allowed piloting innovative approaches, notably under Component 1, which took the form of an Integrated REDD+ Program aimed at generating ERs that could be bought under the ERPA. Theory of Change (Results Chain) 5. The Theory of Change (ToC) was implicit in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and assumed that investing in integrated REDD+ activities, private sector support and small-scale agroforestry systems would improve community livelihoods and forested landscape management and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in selected areas. In the long term, the investments were expected to foster a development model enabling further reductions in deforestation, lower risk of land use conflicts, more resilient rural communities, and increased private investment in key supply chains. To this end, IFLMP tested new approaches to improve community livelihoods and forested landscape management. New approaches were defined as practices that went beyond business as usual and included ‘technical approaches’ such as community management planning and ‘financial’ approaches such as Payments for Environmental Services (PES). 5 Through these and complementary approaches, the project sought to generate ERs for which the DRC could seek compensation through performance-based payment mechanisms (e.g., FCPF or carbon markets). The fragility marking the DRC context was reflected in the project outputs and outcomes related to improved social organization, community resilience and reduced risk of land use conflict. Critical assumptions for the ToC were, notably, that the government would maintain ownership of new approaches to improve community livelihoods and forested landscape management; and private entrepreneurs would remain interested in producing and distributing ICSs. Figure 1 has been created based on the information in the PAD. Figure 1 Theory of Change 5 PES are payments to an agent for services provided to other agents by means of a deliberate action aimed at preserving, restoring, or increasing an environmental service agreed by the parties (Karsenty 2011). Environmental services include actions or management methods that improve the state of the environment by enabling an ecosystem service to be increased (Treyer et al. 2023). 2 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Project Development Objective (PDO) 6. The PDO was to test new approaches to improve community livelihoods and forested landscape management, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in selected areas. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 7. The PDO can be split into three PDO outcomes, with four PDO indicators. Testing of new approaches is understood as a means to achieving the first two PDO outcomes. PDO Outcome 1 is to test new approaches to improve community livelihoods, assessed by Outcome Indicator b: People in forest and adjacent communities with monetary/non- monetary benefit from forests (including women and people of ethnic minorities or IPs). PDO Outcome 2 is to test new approaches to improve forested landscape management, assessed by Outcome Indicator c: Land area where sustainable land management practices were adopted as a result of project implementation; and Outcome Indicator d: Designing and implementing new approaches. PDO Outcome 3 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, assessed by Outcome Indicator a: GHG ERs (and removals) generated under the project. Components 8. Component 1 – Integrated REDD+ project for the Plateau District, or PIREDD Plateau (estimated: US$14.20 million; actual: US$46.13 million): 6 The component applied a landscape approach, and initially funded governance strengthening for sustainable natural resource management, capacity building for decentralized technical services, development investments per territorial plans, support for Local Development Committees (LDCs) in preparing and implementing these plans, and compliance with management plans through results-based financing contracts. Under the parent project (PP), the component was fully financed by FIP. The financing was increased by the Additional Financing (AF) and restructuring, with US$26.01 million financed by CAFI and US$5.92 million by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 9. Component 2 – Facilitation of private sector activities to reduce fuel wood emissions (estimated: US$8.00 million; actual: US$8.00 million): Subcomponent 2a co-financed 48 private initiatives for sustainable charcoal production through agroforestry projects. Subcomponent 2b supported entrepreneurs producing and disseminating ICSs and aimed to strengthen the coordination of the cookstove sector, notably by creating a National Alliance for Improved Cookstoves. The component was fully financed by FIP. 10. Component 3 – Promote small-scale agroforestry systems to reduce land-use emissions (estimated: US$10.50 million; actual: US$10.50 million): This provided technical assistance to smallholder farmers, farmer communities, and women’s organizations in Bas-Congo and rural Kinshasa, to help improve their production systems and develop agroforestry projects, offering an alternative to slash-and-burn agriculture 7 and a source of sustainable fuel wood. It also built an enabling environment at the community level, e.g., through community-based structures, producer organizations, and tenure clarification. The component was fully financed by FIP. 11. Component 4 – Project management and lessons learned (estimated: US$4.20 million; actual: US$5.73 million): Subcomponent 4a covered project implementation costs, and Subcomponent 4b funded consultations and information dissemination and knowledge management, such as data collection and studies for monitoring results. Under the PP, the component was fully financed by FIP. Under the two AFs and the restructuring, US$0.29 million was financed by GEF and US$1.24 million by CAFI. 6 Due to a technical glitch, there is an error in the Datasheet Financing table. The correct total financing (actual) is US$70.36 million, as shown here. 7 See ICRAF et al. (n.d.) 3 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 12. The project was subject to two AFs and one restructuring. Following the approval of the IFLMP PP on June 24, 2014 (P128887; WB 2014), a first AF was approved June 28, 2017 (P162837; WB 2017), a second AF was approved April 30, 2019 (P160182; WB 2019), and a restructuring was approved July 7, 2022 (P128887; Guigon 2022). The changes presented below were approved on these respective dates. 13. While no changes were made to the PDOs during project implementation, the outcome targets for three of the four Outcome Indicators were changed. For Outcome Indicator a, the target increased from 3,250,000 metric tons of ERs and removals under the PP, to 9,600,000 under AF1, and to 11,500,000 under the restructuring. For Outcome Indicator b, the target increased from 120,000 beneficiaries under the PP (including 40,000 women), to 220,000 under AF1 (including 90,000 women, and 10,000 people of ethnic minorities / indigenous peoples [IPs]), and to 260,000 under the restructuring (including 115,000 women, and 15,000 people of ethnic minorities / IPs). For Outcome Indicator c, the target rose from 105,000 hectares (ha) under the PP, to 300,000 under AF1, to 350,000 under AF2, and to 368,000 under the restructuring. Annex 7 presents an overview of these changes. Revised PDO Indicators 14. No changes. Revised Components 15. The design of Component 1 was changed during project implementation. With the approval of AF1, the original Component 1 was renamed Component 1A, and a new Component 1B (PIREDD Mai-Ndombe) was added, absorbing the entire new financing of US$18.22 million. This expanded the investments to the entire Mai-Ndombe Province through existing subcomponents as well as four new subcomponents: value chain development for perennial crops, investments to restore connectivity among territories, microprojects for IPs, and support for family planning. With the approval of AF2, US$5.92 million was added to Component 1B. This financed the addition of one new subcomponent to support the Tumba Lediima Natural Reserve (TLNR) and the expansion of activities under three existing subcomponents. In addition, the AF scaled up project management under Component 4 with US$0.29 million. Finally, with the approval of the restructuring, Component 1B was scaled up by US$7.79 million and Component 4 by US$1.24 million, but no changes were made to the design of the components. Annex 3 summarizes these financing changes. Other Changes 16. Additional changes were made with each AF and with the restructuring. Under AF1, the targets for seven intermediate results indicators were increased, reflecting the scale-up of investments; and the legal covenants were updated to put in place a Steering Committee in the geographical area covered by the AF. The closing date was extended to 2022. Under AF2, the target for one intermediate results indicator was increased, reflecting the scale-up of investments, and two new intermediate results indicators were added to measure outputs of the investments in TLNR and REDD+ community projects. Furthermore, the existing safeguard documents and the Integrated Safeguards Datasheet were updated and redisclosed due to the additional activities financed. Finally, while the financial management (FM) and procurement arrangements for the PP remained in effect, the new applicable procurement rules and procedures fully applied to the GEF AF. Under the restructuring, the targets for seven intermediate results indicators were increased and 4 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT the project closing date was extended to 2024, to implement the scale-up of activities. Annex 7 summarizes the changes to the intermediate results indicators during project implementation. Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 17. AF1 was financed by CAFI to scale up the integrated REDD+ model to the entire Mai-Ndombe Province and strengthen alignment with the National REDD+ Strategy. The strategy had an emphasis on perennial crops such as coffee, cocoa, rubber and oil palm, and on support for family planning and IPs. The AF further sought to enable the implementation of ERPA Mai-Ndombe, by ensuring alignment with the jurisdiction recognized under FCPF and the intended timeline for the ERPA ER target. No changes were made to the ToC. 18. AF2 was financed by GEF to enhance the project’s contributions to biodiversity and conservation. As such, this sought to address gaps under the PP and AF1, and to support GEF 6 focal areas. The financing of two new community forests and their management plans allowed raising the target for the land area with adopted sustainable land management practices from 300,000 to 350,000 ha. It further aimed to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen biodiversity conservation, and enhance collaboration with IPs and local communities. A separate ToC was created for the AF, complementing but not changing the original ToC. The GEF ToC displays how its Indicators 1, 2, and 3 align with GEF 6’s climate change and biodiversity programs as well as match IFLMP’s Outcome Indicators a, b, and c. 19. The restructuring was approved to incorporate the second tranche of CAFI financing. The financing totaled US$30 million for PIREDD Mai-Ndombe (including administrative fees) and was disbursed in two tranches based on performance milestones from the 2016 Letter of Intent between the DRC Government and CAFI. The restructuring aimed to fully utilize the approved funding, enhance project sustainability, and ensure systemic ERs by collaborating with local authorities and stakeholders. The restructuring had no implications for the ToC. II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDO Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating 20. The PDO’s relevance is rated High, due to the project’s alignment with World Bank objectives, national and international commitments, and its level of ambition. Notably, the project is closely aligned with the World Bank Group (WBG) FY22–26 Country Partnership Framework (CPF; WBG 2022a) for the DRC. It supports the overall CPF objective to address drivers of fragility and conflict in the DRC, notably by supporting improved livelihoods and improving land use governance. IFLMP is aligned with the CPF’s third focus area on strengthening economic governance for increased private sector investment, its first cross-cutting theme on climate and environment, and its objective indicators on sustainable landscape management, climate-smart agricultural technologies, and revenue from forest carbon. Furthermore, the PDO is in line with the recommendations of the WBG DRC diagnostic reports Country Private Sector Diagnostic (IFC 2022) and Country Climate and Development Report (WBG 2023a) to reduce pressure on the DRC’s forests. The project also corresponds to the objectives of the Systematic Country Diagnostic for the DRC (WB 2018b) on leveraging natural resources and agriculture, strengthening governance, and promoting private sector involvement. Furthermore, IFLMP is aligned with the CIF ToC (CIF 2022) in contributing to improved sustainability, resource management, strengthened livelihoods, reduced GHG emissions, and enhanced carbon sequestration. 21. The project corresponds to DRC policies and commitments, notably the National REDD+ Strategy and Investment Plan. The Investment Plan emphasizes that the three FIP programs, and especially integrated programs such 5 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT as PIREDDs, are essential for realizing the DRC’s REDD+ goals. The Investment Plan prioritized interventions in Bandundu (today’s Mai-Ndombe) and three other provinces.8 IFLMP supported advancements across all seven pillars of the REDD+ Strategy and Investment Plan: agriculture, energy, forests, governance, demography, land use planning, and land tenure. Moreover, IFLMP applies the DRC’s national policy recommendations to take a landscape approach, relocate agriculture to degraded savanna areas, and reduce wood energy consumption (GoDRC 2022a; 2022b; 2021; 2020). IFLMP is also consistent with the 2022–26 National Adaptation Plan (GoDRC, 2021a), which prioritizes climate resilience in forest ecosystems, biodiversity, and agriculture; the revised Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC; GoDRC 2021b), with an increased national GHG ERs ambition of 21 percent and a specific target for forests and other land use sectors; 9 and the country’s 2030 commitments to restore 8 million ha of degraded land under the Bonn Challenge and protect the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 30 percent area-based conservation target. 22. IFLMP complemented other similar projects, demonstrating a comparatively higher level of ambition. Compared to the PIREDD in the Mbuji-Mayi/Kananga and Kisangani Basins (MBKIS), which was approved in 2013 under the DRC FIP Investment Plan, IFLMP set higher final targets for agroforestry plantations, sustainable charcoal production, and ICSs.10 Further, IFLMP covered more beneficiaries and hectares than the Mampu Agroforestry Project in Bas-Congo (Bisiaux et al. 2012).11 Similarly, IFLMP targets reflected a higher level of ambition than the World Bank’s Ibi Carbon Sink Project in Bas-Congo (WB 2009a).12 Finally, AfDB’s DRC projects under the Congo Basin Forest Fund aimed to alleviate poverty and mitigate climate change through sustainable forest management but had limited financial resources compared to IFLMP (AfDB 2018). B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome PDO Outcome 1: To test new approaches to improve community livelihoods 23. The project successfully tested new approaches to improve community livelihoods. Most notably, the project introduced an approach combining community-level territorial development planning with implementation incentives through PES. Components 1 and 3 supported the operationalization of LDCs and the participatory preparation of local sustainable natural resource management or land use plans. The PIREDDs established PES contracts in 89 percent of chiefdoms, or 96 percent of the target, rewarding communities and households for the deployment of sustainable agroforestry activities. Beyond this, the PIREDDs promoted the production of non-timber forest products and supported microprojects for IPs. New approaches to improve community livelihoods were further tested through technical assistance and equipment to encourage smallholder farmers to practice agroforestry under Component 3, and matching grants for private agroforestry initiatives under Subcomponent 2a. 24. The testing of new approaches led to an improvement in community livelihoods. This was measured by Outcome Indicator b, showing that 248,500 people obtained increased monetary or non-monetary benefits from forests under Components 1 and 3, or 96 percent of the target. The household surveys commissioned by the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) 13 recorded increases in household revenues compared to the pre-project period, with all observed increases 8 The four provinces accounted for 74 percent of the national forest cover and 73 percent of deforestation, 1990-2010. The Investment Plan stated that US$59.5 million was needed for the Mai-Ndombe PIREDD. 9 While the revised NDC target of 21 percent is not aligned with the REDD+ National Strategy, IFLMP’s ERs have contributed towards it. 10 It should be noted that IFLMP had a larger budget (US$70.36 million, including the AFs and Restructuring) than PIREDD MBKIS (US$21.5 million). 11 The Mampu Project benefitted 320 families and was conceived as the pilot of a project aiming to reforest 100,00 ha. 12 The Ibi project aimed to afforest or reforest 4,130 ha. 13 One survey in 2018 for the area covered by the PP (Multina/DMK 2018), and another one in 2024 for the area covered by the AFs (FIP-CU 2024a). 6 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT exceeding the 5 percent originally assumed in the 2014 PAD: The target population under PIREDD Plateau experienced an 8 percent revenue increase, with the highest increase reported in the Kwamouth District, and the population targeted by Component 3 saw a 17 percent rise in household incomes (Multina/DMK 2018). Under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe, the target population experienced a 63 percent increase in household revenues from agricultural activities (FIP-CU 2024a). Considering the risk that these benefits may gradually diminish once project support comes to an end, the cost-benefit analysis conducted for the ICR accounts for varying rates of income loss starting from the year following the project’s closure. The analysis shows that in a realistic scenario,14 despite an overall decrease, the average income in 2030 across project areas will remain approximately 11 percent higher than in the pre-project period, still exceeding the increase initially assumed in the PAD. 25. The project contributed to job creation and increased market sales, and it allowed beneficiaries to invest in improving their quality of life. In particular, the PIU recorded 2,596 new permanent jobs: 2,149 under Component 1 (including 140 for women), 288 under Subcomponent 2b, and 159 under Component 3 (including 13 for women) (FIP-CU 2024b).15 The 2024 household survey found a remarkable decline in the share of households’ agricultural production used for self-consumption: from 50 percent before the project to 23 percent after the project in Kongo Central, and from 41 percent before the project to 32 percent after the project in Mai-Ndombe. This indicates that a larger share now is sold at the market. Finally, in the interviews conducted in Mai-Ndombe during the ICR mission, beneficiaries and local authorities highlighted that households have been able to invest their additional income in, e.g., schooling for their children and rehabilitation of their houses. The interviewees attributed the observed livelihood improvements to the project investments, as no other projects of scale had been implemented in the area before or during the project period. PDO Outcome 2: To test new approaches to improve forested landscape management 26. The project successfully tested new approaches to improve forested landscape management. The two PIREDDs supported the following new land use activities going beyond business as usual, through PES, trainings, and local plans for land use and natural resource management: (a) sustainable agroforestry in savannas to limit primary forests cultivation and produce sustainable charcoal; (b) agroforestry in degraded forest to increase cash crop value and reduce new forest degradation; and (c) forest regeneration through exclosures and firebreaks. The innovative matching grant mechanism under Subcomponent 2a supported sustainable charcoal production, while technical assistance and equipment under Component 3 introduced new agroforestry practices. As tracked by Outcome Indicator d, the new agroforestry approaches were considered successfully designed and implemented under the PP. Beyond this, the GEF AF tested new approaches by improving management practices in the TLNR, expanding the scope of Sustainable Management Plans to enhance biodiversity conservation, and establishing community-managed forest concessions – managed among others by IPs. 27. The testing of new approaches led to an improvement in forested landscape management. The project directly supported sustainable land use management activities (agroforestry and exclosures or firebreaks) on a total of 376,565 ha or 102 percent of the project target. Additionally, the project placed 7,425,801 ha under sustainable management through the adoption of land use and natural resource management plans. A total of 40,970 farmers adopted an improved agroforestry technology promoted by the project, surpassing the target of 36,875. The household surveys conducted indicate that the investments triggered a behavioral change process through the adoption of more sustainable land use practices that limit pressure on forests: the 2024 household survey showed that 7 out of 10 households in the PIREDD Mai-Ndombe area and in Kongo Central had adopted agroforestry practices, compared to 3 out of 10 before the project 14Additional details on the methodology are available in Annex 4. 15The PIU’s assessment also shows 29,276 man-days of temporary jobs created in agroforestry activities, with 17,438 (59 percent) for women, during the project implementation period for Components 1 and 3. 7 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT started (FIP-CU 2024).16 In line with the survey findings, several beneficiaries interviewed during the ICR mission stated that the project taught them that cultivating in degraded land areas is possible, and many reported having partially or fully shifted their agricultural production to savannas. Indications of this can also be observed beyond the plantations established by the project, as communities in the project areas as well as some individual farmers have established their own fields for agricultural production in the savanna. However, further systematic data collection is needed to confirm whether non-beneficiary farmers are adopting improved agroforestry technology at scale and maintaining this practice over time. PDO Outcome 3: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 28. IFLMP ensured total net emissions of −29,494,168 tCO2e, or 256 percent of the project target. The project reduced GHG emissions through avoided deforestation as a result of sustainable land use activities under Component 1; carbon removals generated from afforestation and reforestation under Components 1 and 3 and Subcomponent 2a; and the production and distribution of 80,625 ICSs under Subcomponent 2b, surpassing the target of 70,000. 17 For the land use activities, the net ERs were measured based on monitoring data collected by the implementing partners and verified and triangulated by the PIU. Using this data, the carbon stock changes and GHG emissions per unit of land in tCO 2e were calculated with the help of the Ex-Ante Carbon-Balance Tool (EX-ACT), as per the World Bank’s standard methodology. For the clean cooking component, implementation data were used to calculate the ERs, also with EX-ACT, to maintain methodological consistency across all project elements. However, to prevent double counting of ERs between the land use and clean cooking activities – which both aim to reduce emissions from firewood consumption in the project area – the ex-post carbon balance was adjusted to exclude ERs from clean cooking (which amounted to 44,127 tCO 2e), so that only the ERs and removals from land-based activities are included, that is, 29,494,168 tCO 2e.18 Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 29. The overall efficacy rating is Substantial. This reflects the fact that all three PDOs are achieved, while considering the risks to the sustainability of the outcomes, which are discussed in the section on Risk to the Development Outcome. C. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating 30. An ex post analysis has been conducted to quantify the project’s incremental net benefits through a comparison of the without-project (WOP) and with-project (WP) scenarios. The ex post analysis reviewed the benefit streams considered at appraisal and also introduced new benefit streams. The full explanation is provided in Annex 4.19 While some data gaps were identified, these did not undermine the possibility of undertaking a sound assessment. The analysis accounted for all costs associated with both the PP, the AFs, and the restructuring. They enabled an expansion of project outcomes in alignment with the increased resources allocated. To address risks to outcome sustainability, five scenarios 16 Already in 2018, the share of households practicing slash-and-burn agriculture in forests had declined from 50 percent in 2014 to 38 percent in the Component 3 area, while a more modest decline was recorded in the PIREDD Plateau area, from 40 percent in 2014 to 39 percent in 2018 (Multina/DMK 2018). 17 Stakeholders interviewed during the ICR mission noted that beneficiaries are likely to continue using and repurchasing ICS, as they reduce annual expenses by around 54 percent through decreased charcoal consumption. (See Annex 4). However, further studies are needed to determine the scale of adoption of ICSs following the project’s closure. In this context, it is worth noting that respondents to a study conducted by CIRAD (2023) in Kinshasa highlighted both advantages and disadvantages of ICSs. The disadvantages included the cost and the limited lifetime of some models. 18 Further details on the calculations for Outcome Indicator a are available in Annexes 4 and 8 and in the M&E section. 19 Annex 4 provides information on the methodology, costs, benefits, assumptions and data gaps. The Annex also provides further details on the methodology applied at the PAD stage. 8 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT were developed: a realistic scenario, two pessimistic cases accounting for potential development risks, and two optimistic cases factoring in favorable conditions and additional support activities, such as road maintenance, with costs associated to these activities included in the analysis. 31. Under the realistic scenario, applying a 5 percent discount rate over 15 years with a carbon value of US$1/tCO2e, as in the PAD, the project yields a net present value (NPV) of US$216.4 million and a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 4.91, indicating strong economic viability, with an economic rate of return (ERR) standing at 71 percent. Under the same discount rate, time period, and carbon price, the analysis at appraisal indicated an NPV of US$45.9 million, with a BCR equal to 2.45, covering all PP costs. No ERR was calculated ex ante. Extending the ex post analysis to 20 years (to 2035), the NPV rises to US$290.7 million and the BCR to 6.26. If the shadow price of carbon is set at US$35 per tCO2e for 2015 with an annual growth of 2.25 percent,20 the NPV increases significantly to US$1 billion, with a BCR of 19.18. Even excluding carbon benefits, the results remain positive, yielding an NPV of US$275.1 million, a BCR of 5.98, and an ERR of 69 percent. Even under varying discount rates, the project remains economically viable, for both 15- and 20-year periods. The project shows positive NPVs, indicating viability, even across different scenarios. In the most pessimistic scenario, over 20 years, the NPV remains positive across all discount rates, even when carbon benefits are not factored in. 32. The project demonstrated good implementation efficiency, despite some delays resulting from the country context and external factors. These included disruptions due to COVID-19, logistical challenges in remote locations, cash flow constraints affecting PES delivery, and security concerns. The delayed construction of two berths in Mai-Ndombe impacted the timeline, but measures were taken to minimize any effect on efficiency. Overall, the PIU’s proactive measures to strengthen FM and the World Bank’s diligent fiduciary oversight helped maintain resource efficiency. 33. In conclusion, the efficiency rating is Substantial. The project achieved positive NPV and ERR, a favorable BCR, and demonstrated efficient use of resources, though some data gaps and implementation delays were recorded. Sensitivity analyses confirm viability with positive NPVs across different discount rates and scenarios. C. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 34. Considering that relevance is rated High, and efficacy and efficiency are rated Substantial, the overall outcome rating is Satisfactory. D. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) Gender 35. The project yielded benefits for women and involved them in local organization. A total of 11,593 women adopted improved agroforestry technologies (97 percent of the target), and 84,024 women obtained monetary or non- monetary benefits from forests (73 percent of the target). Interviews during the ICR mission indicated that women greatly benefitted from savanna plantations, as they are closer to their homes than the forest areas. However, additional efforts could have been made to further increase the number of women beneficiaries of the project. Beyond the direct land use activities, women also engaged in the LDCs through the project, with many managing finances, according to beneficiaries. Institutional Strengthening 36. IFLMP contributed to institutional strengthening at the local, provincial, and national levels. The project notably enhanced the capacity of the seven local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Kongo Central Province under 20 The low-carbon price trajectory has been applied (WB 2024). 9 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Component 3 through trainings, engagement, and equipment provision to be used after project’s closure. The project also collaborated closely with provincial authorities, who determined infrastructure support under the PIREDDs and have taken over the management of the PIREDDs’ equipment post project closure. Finally, lessons from local land use plans under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe influenced the inclusion of community-level planning in the 2020 National Land Use Planning Policy. Mobilizing Private Sector Financing 37. The project successfully mobilized private sector investment in agroforestry and clean cooking through innovative co-financing schemes. In particular, Subcomponent 2a provided US$3,930,450 of matching grants to 48 private operators, who in turn invested US$4,032,050 in agroforestry plantations. Despite the DRC’s challenging business environment,21 this co-financing scheme proved successful, resulting in a remarkable 5,493 ha of agroforestry plantations. This model laid the foundation for scaling up private sector mobilization for agroforestry under the World Bank’s DRC Forest and Savanna Restoration Investment Program (FOREST IPF; P178642; WBG 2023c), which will provide matching grants and develop new de-risking mechanisms to unlock local commercial banks’ capital for agroforestry development. Private sector financing was also mobilized through Subcomponent 2b, supporting seven firms producing and/or distributing ICSs, which together invested US$186,165 of their own resources. Under the realistic scenario with a 5 percent discount rate, the NPV up to 2035 is positive for all firms except Environnement, Ressources Naturelles et Développement (ERND),22 indicating that the investments generally delivered positive outcomes. Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity 38. The project supported disadvantaged groups, notably IPs, through microprojects and PES. A total of 1,616 individuals from ethnic minorities or IPs gained monetary or non-monetary benefits, or 11 percent of the target; efforts could have been made to reach a higher number of IPs. Nonetheless, the project triggered behavioral change and social innovations enhancing IPs’ inclusion, confidence, and engagement in local assemblies. The acquisition of soft skills helped reduce barriers, fostering peaceful coexistence and cooperation between IPs and local communities. Co-location of some microprojects and experience sharing with the Forest Dependent Communities Support Project (P149049; WB 2016) funded by the Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM) and CAFI contributed to increased livelihood benefit for IPs. Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 39. IFLMP laid the groundwork for several other REDD+ projects, notably financed by the World Bank and CAFI, providing lessons learned for PIREDDs in eight other provinces. FONAREDD, CAFI, and other stakeholders interviewed during the ICR mission described PIREDD Mai-Ndombe as the most successful of the PIREDDs in the DRC, due to the high number of simple land use plans established, the size of the area with sustainable land management practices adopted, the PES model, the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system, the safeguards system, and the resolution of grievances. It created a blueprint for policy development in land use planning and PES mechanisms, including contracts and governance frameworks. Moreover, IFLMP informed the design of both the FOREST IPF and its AF, with the latter drawing on the experiences with PES to pilot an ambitious national PES program (CAFI, n.d.a). IFLMP also shaped a new Development Policy Operation series supporting the DRC’s program of reforms on forest and climate change with US$750 million approved to date (WB 2022a; WB 2023a). Finally, and as intended in advance, the removals and ERs generated under PIREDDs Plateau and Mai-Ndombe contributed to those reported under the Mai-Ndombe ERPA. This illustrates how Phases 2 and 3 of REDD+ were supported in parallel through IFLMP and the ERPA. 21 The DRC ranked 183 among the 189 countries covered in the World Bank’s Doing Business 2014 index (IBRD/WB 2013). 22 The firm ‘Biso Na Bino’ failed in 2023. More details on the analysis are available in Annex 4. 10 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT III. KEY FACTORS AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 40. A key factor in preparing IFLMP was FIP’s intent to help generate ERs for purchase by the Bank through the FCPF. Furthermore, the project design was influenced by the DRC National REDD+ Strategy, the DRC FIP Investment Plan, and lessons learned from the Forest and Nature Conservancy Project (P100620; WB 2009b). Concurrently, the United Nations Development Programme prepared FONAREDD to manage carbon revenues. Thus, IFLMP was a crucial part of the REDD+ Program in the DRC, integrating relevant partners, projects, and facilities from the conception stage. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION 41. IFLMP ensured positive synergies with other programs, which in turn leveraged its strengths and innovations. With PIREDD Mai-Ndombe being part of the project portfolios of FONAREDD, CAFI, and the Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (Unité de Coordination du Programme d’Investissement pour la Forêt, FIP-CU), the DIA frequently exchanged learnings with the implementing partners of other PIREDDs and national REDD+ programs. 42. The sustained commitment and support of political-administrative and traditional authorities enabled the significant gesture of land allocation to beneficiaries. This was essential for establishing plantations and microprojects. 43. The World Bank’s convening power helped mobilize AF from CAFI and GEF and facilitate access to global carbon market mechanisms. Furthermore, the Bank ensured dialogue with civil society organizations on project implementation. 44. The DRC’s weak infrastructure affected project implementation. In particular, poor transport infrastructure and the remoteness of the project locations increased the cost and complexity of implementing and monitoring activities in the field, notably for IP forest communities. However, the project mitigated this challenge by investing in improved roads, bridges, and waterways, benefiting both the beneficiaries and project implementation. Remote locations, along with lack of digital tools for receipt transfer and wiring delays between Congolese banks, also created bottlenecks in submitting proof of payment from the DIA to the PIU. This caused some delays in PES issuance, sparking frustration among beneficiaries. Consequently, the PIU also had to pause some activities under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe and stretched financial resources to maintain human resources and logistics. However, as detailed in the assessment of Bank Performance, the Bank team took proactive measures in response to this and ensured that the project remained resource-efficient. 45. The Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV) context also impacted implementation. Local conflict erupted between the ethnic groups of Nunus and Tendes in Yumbi, under PIREDD Plateau, in December 2018, leading to 200 deaths . No project staff or beneficiaries were harmed, but the DIA closed the local project office and evacuated staff, and implementation was delayed, especially PES payments. 46. COVID-19 restrictions resulted in some delays, as for other projects across the globe. Notably in PIREDD Mai- Ndombe’s engagement with LDCs, signing of PES contracts, and establishment of nurseries and oil palm plantations. The March 2020 project Steering Committee meeting also got cancelled. The project adopted a COVID prevention plan mid- 2020, accelerating progress in early 2021 despite new restrictive measures. The PIU, the DIA, and the World Bank adopted measures to continue project activities throughout the pandemic, including communication tools such as WhatsApp and the Geo-Enabling Initiative for Monitoring and Supervision (GEMS) framework (WBG n.d.). 47. The DRC Government approved the auction of 16 oil blocks in May 2022, one of which would overlap with the TLNR, according to Greenpeace (Harris and Mavambu 2022; MJPE et al. 2022). The Bank team monitored the situation 11 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT closely with the client, setting conditions for continued support in TLNR23 and preparing a vulnerability assessment, and partook in dialogue with development partners. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design 48. While the ToC in the PAD did not distinguish clearly between outputs, short-, medium- and long-term outcomes, 24 it presented expected changes per component, and the output and outcome indicators in the Results Framework (RF) were well designed. They allowed monitoring progress towards the three PDO outcomes . It is worth mentioning that the PIU tracked important aspects beyond the RF. Given their relevance to the PDO, it would have been beneficial to adopt additional RF indicators to allow formally tracking these aspects. Notably, in addition to Outcome Indicator b, an indicator measuring the magnitude of benefits accrued would have been useful. Despite the absence of such an indicator, the surveys commissioned by the PIU quantified households’ income increases compared to the pre- project baseline, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment. Moreover, in addition to Outcome Indicator c, a separate indicator for hectares covered by sustainable land use or natural resource management plans would have been beneficial. M&E Implementation 49. The PIU applied an adequate approach in tracking progress towards the indicator targets. Among others, it adjusted the approach for measuring progress toward Outcome Indicator a. Instead of using the ERPA program’s reference level as suggested by the PAD, the PIU and the Bank team agreed to rely on land use monitoring data and EX-ACT, as the reference level pertained to the ERPA, which was approved as a separate project in 2018. IFLMP’s ERs contributed to those reported under the ERPA’s MRV system covering the same area. Under Outcome Indicator d, the PIU measured progress based on an initial set of new approaches and exceeded the target during the PP period, although implementation continued during the AFs: these tested additional approaches, such as community forest management under the GEF AF, demonstrating achievement beyond what was measured by the RF. Finally, for the intermediate indicators, the approach for tracking had been adequately predicted. For the indicator on metric tons of biomass produced, the PAD anticipated measurements based on forecasts, as the project duration was too short for acacia harvest. This was confirmed during implementation, with results reflecting the stock of planted, standing acacias, not the actual sustainable wood energy produced. M&E Utilization 50. The PIU applied a rigorous system for data collection and verification. Reporting on land use activities for PES issuance fostered a robust system and a strong incentive for verifying and communicating the results on the ground. The data collected were verified by the DIA’s MRV experts and the PIU’s geographic information system expert, ensuring triangulation. The data collected informed PES payouts and updated indicator targets in the AFs and restructuring. The 23 As a condition for non-objection to a key activity supporting the delineation of the TLNR, the Bank team requested the PIU to ask the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature, ICCN), in charge of TLNR, to clarify in cooperation with the Ministry of Hydrocarbons any overlap between block #22 and TLNR and ask the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to share the E&S studies clarifying impacts and alignment between the environmental and sectoral legislation for oil exploration. 24 The requirements currently in place for the design of the ToC in the PAD were not yet adopted at the time of approval of IFLMP. 12 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT M&E systems used under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe, including GEMS and KoboCollect, enhanced real-time data collection and analysis, and influenced other PIREDDs in the FONAREDD portfolio, demonstrating the PIU’s effective M&E utilization. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 51. The overall M&E quality rating is Substantial. It sufficiently assessed the achievement of the objectives and tested the Results Chain. However, minor improvements to the M&E design could have been made to better capture all relevant project investments results. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 52. The project complied with all the triggered safeguards policies, and the safeguard performance of the project was rated Moderately Satisfactory at project closure. The following Safeguard policies were triggered under the PP and remained relevant throughout implementation, with no new policies triggered: Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01, Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04, Forests OP/BP 4.36, Pest Management OP 4.09, Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11, IPs OP/BP 4.10, and Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12. The project completed the planned mitigation activities: Environmental and Social Management Framework, Integrated Pest Management Plan and a Cultural Resources Management Framework (FIP-CU n.d.a). Project activities were well implemented, with no major environmental and social (E&S) issues. The PIU submitted quarterly E&S monitoring reports detailing the implementation of E&S safeguards and a summarizing E&S closure report. The project recorded and reported 16 incidents through the E&S Incident Response Toolkit during implementation, mainly traffic accidents. These have all been properly closed. Drawing on this experience, a code of conduct for driving and a checklist tool to mitigate the risk of accident have been developed for FOREST. Furthermore, the project operated a feedback and grievance redress mechanism built based on the one developed at the national level for the REDD+ process (FIP-CU n.d.b). According to the FIP-CU, a total of 232 complaints were filed: 99 for the PP, 113 under AF1, and 20 under AF2. All complaints have been resolved to the satisfaction of complainants. 53. The project’s FM arrangements were adequate, with FM and procurement both rated Moderately Satisfactory at project closure. The final fiduciary risk rating was Moderate – downgraded from High in 2024, particularly due to the incomplete list of project commitments and reconciliation statement of billings and payments made to the DIA up to the closing date. The largest contract of US$15,203,209 was signed on May 17, 2018, with FRM Ingenierie (FRMi) / Wildlife Works Carbon (WWC) as the DIA for PIREDD Mai-Ndombe, ending on December 31, 2022. Another US$7,650,000 contract was signed with the same firm on October 11, 2022. The PIU ended the DIA contract in February 2024, but the construction of two berths in Mai-Ndombe remained incomplete, and the Lediba boat-ferry had been finalized but not yet transported to Nioki. Therefore, the PIU ensured its delivery and processed the final payment before May 31, 2024. At project closure, berth construction was 50 percent complete due to insecurity and high water levels. The PIU received a commitment from provincial authorities to invest part of their ERPA share to complete the construction. This action was appropriately closed in line with the Bank’s fiduciary management guidance to avoid post-project reputation risk. C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 54. The Bank designed robust implementation arrangements that made the project likely to achieve planned outcomes and consistent with the World Bank’s fiduciary role. The Bank relied on the FIP-CU – which had been set up by the DRC Government as the PIU for IFLMP and PIREDD MBKIS – as a strong, centralized PIU to oversee technical coordination and FM, supported by local implementing partners proposed by the PIU and approved by the Bank team. This made the project more likely to achieve planned outcomes and consistent with the World Bank’s fiduciary role. The implementing partners were adapted to the various project components and areas. Under Component 3, seven NGOs 13 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT with strong anchoring in the then Bas-Congo Province were selected as local implementing partners, enabling the project to benefit from their local expertise and contributing to the sustainability of project outcomes. For Component 1, two different DIAs with experience operating in the project context were selected: World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for PIREDD Plateau and the consortium FRMi-WWC for PIREDD Mai-Ndombe. The DIA operating model, entrusted with technical and fiduciary management, was well suited to the context. Finally, Component 2 was directly implemented by the PIU, while relevant partners, notably private sector entities, were involved. Quality of Supervision 55. The Bank team proactively adopted measures to facilitate the achievement of the desired development outcomes amid a country context of poor governance, weak institutions, and fragility. The Bank team helped ensure that the FIP-CU served as the PIU for IFLMP until project closure, maintaining the core FIP-CU team over 10 years, including for the AFs and restructuring. As a testament to its quality, the FIP-CU later served as the PIU for the Bank operations ERPA (2018), Support to the Operationalization of the ERPA (2022), and FOREST (2023). Furthermore, the Bank team proactively introduced measures to strengthen FM in cooperation with the PIU,25 which later has benefited FOREST. The project had three Task Team Leaders (TTLs) over its 10-year implementation period, with gradual, smooth transitions between them, as noted by government stakeholders during the ICR mission. Finally, the Bank team organized a safeguards mission for PIREDD Mai-Ndombe in March 2022, focused on TLNR activities,26 and requested an action plan from the PIU and the DIA. Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 56. The World Bank Performance is rated Satisfactory. The Bank team ensured strong systems and measures to enable the achievement of the development outcomes, adapted to the country context. Only minor shortcomings were identified, e.g., the M&E design could have been strengthened additionally at entry, as highlighted in the M&E section. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 57. The sustainability of the improvements in community livelihoods and forested landscape management could be at risk due to systemic challenges and structural weaknesses. The country’s weak agroforestry value chain could result in a reversal of household revenue increases and new jobs created once PES are discontinued, if households are unable to maintain agroforestry activities and sell their yields. Sustainable land use practices could further be at risk of being reversed due to local technical services’ limited capacity to follow up and prevent post-project gaps, unless capacity- building efforts are sustained through continued investment, local government commitment, and adequate incentives for civil servants. A discontinuation of awareness raising on the value of sustainable practices and communities’ ownership of the land use activities could exacerbate this risk. Moreover, the fragile security situation in the Mai-Ndombe Province could trigger conflict situations forcing beneficiaries to abandon their lands and thus result in a regression to less sustainable practices or hectares lost. Furthermore, the lack of comprehensive trainings on assisted natural regeneration and improved charcoal production techniques, as the DIA was unable to complete this before project closure, could mean that sustainable charcoal production may not be completed.27 Beyond this, the limited technical and financial resources of the Office de Route, in charge of maintenance of the new roads, bridges, berths and ferryboat, may cause a reversal of 25 The Bank recruited a new fiduciary specialist in April 2019 to strengthen FM; agreed on an action plan with the PIU in June 2020 to address fiduciary challenges related to cash flows and closely monitored its implementation; ensured the reimbursement of US$63,000 of ineligible PIU expenses under PIREDD Plateau by September 2020; and raised the ceiling for advance payments to the DIA to tackle payment delays. 26 The mission concluded that IP microprojects were finalized but needed consolidation, leading to a downgrade in the project safeguards rating from Satisfactory to Moderately Satisfactory. 27 Learning exchange visits to Mambu Ibi for about 50 LDC members were organized under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe. A PIU mission in 2023 found traditional techniques still used for mature acacias in the project areas for Subcomponents 2a and 3 (FIP-CU 2023). 14 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT the benefits related to the evacuation of agricultural produce, reduced travel time, and a surge in traffic volume.28 Finally, the poor functioning of the Congolese Alliance for Improved Cookstoves and Combustibles, according to stakeholders interviewed during the ICR mission, could also be a bottleneck to advancing the ICS value chain. 58. Several new programs help mitigate the identified risks. Income from carbon credits under ERPA Mai-Ndombe can fund community-level investments, sustainable land use planning, local governance mechanisms for forest management and agriculture, and value chain strengthening, supporting the transition from PES to self-sustaining agricultural income. PIREDD Plateau 2.0, financed by CAFI, can potentially address gaps in the training on improved charcoal production techniques (CAFI n.d.b). FOREST will strengthen agricultural value chain development as well as work with effective clean cooking institutions, notably the National Agency of Electrification and Energy Services ( Agence Nationale de l'Electrification et des Services Energétiques, ANSER) (WB 2023b). V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59. Agroforestry investments will not secure long-term community revenues without evolved agricultural value chains. While IFLMP invested in infrastructure aimed at facilitating the evacuation of agricultural produce, more could have been done to strengthen the value chain. Recommendation: Invest in the development of agricultural value chains, notably for perennial crops; strengthen partnerships with the private sector; and address market barriers. FOREST reflects this recommendation, allocating most of its budget to the development of agroforestry and forest value chains. 60. Combining sustainable land use activities with territorial development planning increases the chances of succeeding in improving community livelihoods and forest landscape management. IFLMP has demonstrated the value of taking a landscape approach and linking local natural resource management or land use plans with implementation incentives. The participatory, bottom-up development of local land use and natural resource management plans, facilitated by the operationalization of LDCs, was an essential part of this. Recommendation: Expand and strengthen this approach across projects, standardize the PES model, enhance the quality of land use plans, and strengthen the role of LDCs. The combination of land use planning and PES has already been adopted by several other PIREDDs in the DRC, as well as by FOREST. The PES program envisaged under the FOREST AF can foster enhanced quality and standardization. 61. Extending PES beyond the initial cultivation cycle enables a more successful phaseout of incentives. This can allow communities to continue planting and generating revenues from agricultural produce in time for PES phaseout and thus sustain a source of income after project closure. PIREDD Plateau and PIREDD Mai-Ndombe showed that five years were insufficient for sustained planting and revenue. Recommendation: Ensure that future DRC agroforestry projects last seven to ten years. In line with this recommendation, FOREST has adopted a seven-year duration to optimize investment profitability and sustainable charcoal production. 62. One-off REDD+ payments have limited impact without sustained revenue streams incentivizing ERs. The World Bank’s success in Mai-Ndombe was largely due to the alignment of IFLMP and the ERPA, covering the same geographic area, thus providing an avenue for selling the ERs generated, though carbon credit sales have yet to materialize. However, given ERPA's time limit, identifying structural ways of sustaining revenues remains essential, notably through new carbon market mechanisms, including by tapping into the voluntary carbon market. This will allow creating a positive revenue cycle, generating more carbon credits to be sold. Recommendation: Foster long-term revenue sources such as carbon credits or other market or results-based payments to fund forest management and incentives for sustainable land use practices. The FOREST IPF exemplifies this by including a component for creating a new ER program. 28 For a more in-depth analysis of the impact of maintenance activities (and the lack thereof), see the scenario building in Annex 4. 15 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrresultframework#doctemplate A. RESULTS FRAMEWORK PDO Indicators by Outcomes To test new approaches to improve community livelihoods 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 Jun/2014 240,000.00 May/2024 248,500.00 Jun/2023 Comments on achieving targets This corresponds to the direct beneficiaries of activities under Components 1 and 3 under the parent project People in forest & adjacent and Component 1 under the CAFI AF. The total number of people obtaining monetary/non-monetary benefits community with monetary/non- from forests due to the project was 248,500, or 96% of the final target of 260,000. (NB: The final target was set monetary benefits from forest at the time of restructuring in 2022 but is not reflected correctly in this table due to a system glitch.) Among (Number) these, 110,000 beneficiaries were recorded under the parent project, or 92% of the parent project target of 120,000. 0.00 Jun/2014 115,000.00 May/2024 84,024.00 Jun/2023 People in forest and adjacent Comments on achieving targets Under the parent project, there were 58,400 women beneficiaries, or 146% of the end target (40,000). Under community with benefits from the CAFI AF, an additional 25,624 women beneficiaries were recorded. The total of 84,024 corresponds to 73% forest-female (Number) of the final target of 115,000. People in forest&adj. commy 0.00 Jun/2014 15,000.00 May/2024 1,616.00 Jun/2023 with benefit from forest- Comments on achieving targets There were 1,616 IP beneficiaries under the CAFI AF. This corresponds to 11% of the final target of 15,000. Ethnic minority/indigenous (Number) To test new approaches to improve forested landscape 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 Jun/2014 8.00 Dec/2019 28.00 Jun/2023 Page 16 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Comments on achieving targets Designing a new approach: (i) Payment for Environmental Services (PES) rewarding - and technical support to - efforts in agroforestry (1 point) and in the fight against bush fires (1 point) based on exclosures; (ii) Support the private sector by subsidizing agroforestry investments in the field and supporting smallholder farmers with technical support (1 point); and (iii) promoting the production of non-timber forest products out of the Designing and implementing new agroforestry models (1 point). Implementing a new approach (1 points per year): 12 points as the four new approaches (Number) approaches described above have been implemented for three years. Satisfactory implementation (1 points per year): 12 points as the four new approaches described above have been satisfactorily implemented for three years. The total score: 4 + 12 + 12 =28 This reflects the new approaches implemented under the parent project. In addition, new approaches were tested and implemented under the CAFI AF and GEF AF. 0.00 Jun/2014 368,000.00 May/2024 376,565.00 Mar/2024 Comments on achieving targets While the PIU had decided over the course of the project to account for the total area covered under the sustainable natural resource management and land use plans developed by communities, the current Bank Team understands that at project design, the targets were related to areas covered by actual outputs in terms Land area where sustainable land of tree plantations and exclosures. This is more consistent with the end target of 368,000 ha, while the PIU’s mgt. practices were adopted as a approach reported results 10 times larger. Based on the updated approach, the area where sustainable land result of proj (Hectare(Ha)) management practices were adopted as a result of the project (covering the parent project, CAFI and GEF AFs) is 376,565 ha (102% of the target), supported by 7,425,801 ha covered by natural resource management and land use plans, and broken down as follows: 25,117 ha of agroforestry plantations; 183,813 ha of exclosures; and 167,635 ha under Local Community Forest Concessions. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 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 Jun/2014 11,500,000.00 May/2024 29,494,168.00 Jun/2023 Comments on achieving targets Based on the ex-post carbon balance assessment conducted using EX-ACT, IFLMP has a total mitigation potential of 29,538,295 tCO2. This consists of 29,494,168 tCO2 of removals and avoided emissions from land- based activities, and 44,127 million tCO2 emission reductions from the clean cooking component. However, to GHG emission reductions (and prevent double counting of emission reductions between the land use and clean cooking activities —which both removals) generated under the aim to reduce emissions from firewood consumption in the project area—the ex-post carbon balance was project (Metric ton) adjusted to exclude emission reductions from clean cooking, so that only the emission reductions and removals from land-based activities are included. Considering the project's implementation period of ten years, with an assumed capitalization period of another 10 years, a total accounting period of 20 years was applied to calculate these results. The evolution dynamics are assumed to be linear, and Default 'Tier 1' coefficients are used. Intermediate Indicators by Components Page 17 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Integrated REDD+ Projects in the Mai Ndombe Province 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 Jul/2014 93.00 May/2024 89.00 Jun/2023 Chiefdom (Chefferie) with Performance-Based Incentives and Comments on achieving targets Out of the 215 Local Development Committees (LDCs) identified in the former Plateaux District of the Mai- Investments mechanisms in place Ndombe Province (PIREDD Plateau), 155 signed contractual arrangements with the project based on (Percentage) performance-based incentives. Adding the former Mai-Ndmbe District (PIREDD Mai-Ndombe), this is 568 out of 600 expected with the second tranche of CAFI as of June 2023. The total is 723 out of 815 or 89%. 30.00 May/2019 55.00 Dec/2022 43.00 Jun/2023 Comments on achieving targets Indicator related to the new GEF AF which has started implementation in 2021. The PIU has been working with Management Effectiveness Tracking The Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN). Metholdogy: In principle they should have in the RF put Tool (METT) score for Tumba Lediima "percentage" In fact METT Assessment Form: the assessment is structured around 30 questions. The Natural Reserve (Number) assessment is made by assigning a simple score ranging between 0 (poor) to 3 (excellent). A final total of the score from completing the assessment form is calculated as a percentage of the total score from those questions that were relevant to a particular protected area. 0.00 May/2019 2.00 Dec/2022 2.00 Mar/2024 Community sub-projects registered Comments on achieving targets Indicator related to the new GEF AF which has started implementation in 2021. Sub-projects have been as REDD+ sub-projects (Number) prepared, approved and registered with the following number 06/23 & 07/023 by the National REDD+ coordination.The first is on “Support for agroforestry and forest conservation for the community of the Mpenge” and the second “Support for reforestation and savanna protection in the community of Mbantin”. Facilitation of Private Sector Activities to Reduce Fuel Wood emissions 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 No Jun/2014 Yes Dec/2019 Yes Jun/2020 Production of improved cookstoves (Yes/No) Comments on achieving targets Marketing of cookstoves is undertaken by a group of entreprises: BNB, BASCONS, ERND, IP, MEDRARA, REPROFA and UMOJA. The project support ended in December 2019. ACCES-compliant cookstoves 0.00 Jun/2014 70,000.00 Dec/2019 80,625.00 Jun/2020 delivered to the Kinshasa market (Number) 0.00 Jun/2014 7.00 Dec/2019 5.00 Jun/2020 Improved organization of the sector (Number) Comments on achieving targets The Alliance has a Board of Directors; affiliated members contribute fees to the Alliance in conformity with the organization's governing texts. The development of the Consumer Engagement Strategy was finalized. The Page 18 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT indicator measures a score defining the level of organization of the sector. To calculate the score, each of the following achievements will be given one point: establishment of the National Alliance (1 point), operation of a sustainably-funded National Alliance (1 point per year), design and implementation of consumer engagement strategy (1 point), national network/trade fair events (1 point per event for 2 events)" Promote small-scale agroforestry systems to reduce land-use emissions 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 Jun/2014 2,100,000.00 May/2024 2,355,309.00 Mar/2024 Comments on achieving targets At project closure, the PIU reports that 2,355,309.00 metric tons of fresh biomass have already been produced in the field as a result of the 21,219 ha of acacia plantations installed since 2015 and still standing. The decrease from the previous ISR is due to exclusion of 3751 ha which is no Acacia (perennial and palm oil plantation) and Biomass (energy) produced in a was mistakenly added. The calculation is based on a species specific model (Acacia) that was developped and sustainable manner (Metric ton) the calculation should exclude area of palm oil and perennials. The model assumed each hectare of Acacia yield 111 Ton of Dry matter. Hence: Parent project established: 17 166 hectares of Acacia resulted in 1 905 426 Ton Dry matter of biomass. CAFI established 3777 hectares of Acacia plantation resulting in 419 247 Ton Dry matter of biomass. GEF established 3777 276 hectares of Acacia plantation resulting, 30 636 Ton Dry matter of biomass. Total: 1 905 426 + 419 247 + 30 636= 2 355 309 0.00 Jun/2014 35,000.00 May/2024 25,117.00 Mar/2024 New agroforestry plantations that Comments on achieving targets 25,117 hectares of agroforestry plantations. Component 1: 12,021 ha including 4,070 ha under PIREDD Plateau received technical support from the (81% of the FIP objective), 5,874 ha under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe (97% of the CAFI objective), and 1801 ha of project (Hectare(Ha)) perennials under PIREDD Mai-Ndombe (30% of the CAFI objective) and 276 ha under the GEF additional financing; Component 2: 5,493 ha (55% of the objective of the parent project); and Component 3: 7,603 ha (152% of the FIP objective). Participants in consultation activities 0.00 Jul/2014 90,000.00 May/2024 286,781 Jun/2023 during project implementation Comments on achieving targets Target is 30,000 of which 25,000 FIP +CAFI T1+GEF and CAFI Tranche 2 added 5,000 women beneficiaries . The (number) (Number) PIU final report indicate 86034 (286.86% of the objective). Participants in consultation 0.00 Jul/2014 30,000.00 May/2024 86,034 Jun/2023 activities during project implementation - female (Number) Farmers from the targeted villages 0.00 Jun/2014 36,875.00 May/2024 40,970 Jun/2023 who have adopted an improved agro- Comments on achieving targets Target is 37,375 farmers (FIP +CAFI T1+GEF 20 000 and CAFI T2 17 375) of 12,000 female. At project closure, the forestry technology promoted by the PIU reports that 40 970 farmers adopted improved agroforestry technology of which 11 593 women project (Number) Page 19 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Farmers from the targeted 0.00 Jun/2014 12,000.00 May/2024 11,593 Jun/2023 villages who adopted an improved agro-forestry. technology promoted by project ? female (Number) Page 20 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT B. KEY OUTPUTS KEY OUTPUTS To test new approaches to improve community livelihoods 2. People in forest & adjacent community with monetary/non-monetary benefits PDO Indicators from forest 1. 248,500 people (including 84,024 women and 1,616 people of ethnic minorities or indigenous groups obtained monetary or non-monetary benefits from forests, under Key Outputs Components 1 and 3. (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 2. 2,596 new permanent jobs created: 2,149 under Component 1 (including 140 for women), 288 under Subcomponent 2B, and 159 under Component 3 (including 13 for women). To test new approaches to improve forested landscape management 5. Designing and implementing new approaches PDO Indicators 6. Land area where sustainable land mgt. practices were adopted as a result of project implementation 1. 376,565 ha benefited from direct investments in sustainable land use management activities (agroforestry, and exclosures or firebreaks) under Components 1 and 3 and Key Outputs Subcomponent 2a. (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 2. Land use and natural resource management plans established for 7,425,801 ha under Component 1. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation PDO Indicators 7. GHG ERs (and removals) generated under the project Based on the ex-post carbon balance assessment conducted using EX-ACT, IFLMP has Key Outputs a total mitigation potential of 29,538,295 tCO2e. This consists of 29,494,168 tCO2e of (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) removals and avoided emissions from land-based activities, and 44,127 million tCO2e ERs from the clean cooking component. However, to prevent double counting of ERs Page 21 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT between the land use and clean cooking activities—which both aim to reduce emissions from firewood consumption in the project area—the ex-post carbon balance was adjusted to exclude ERs from clean cooking, so that only the ERS and removals from land-based activities are included. Considering the project's implementation period of 10 years, with an assumed capitalization period of another 10 years, a total accounting period of 20 years was applied to calculate these results. The evolution dynamics are assumed to be linear, and Default 'Tier 1' coefficients are used. Knowledge management and program Coordination (Component 4) Intermediate Results Indicators 1. Project website (www.pifrdc.org) operationalized as of November 2017 2. Feedback and grievance redress mechanism set up Key Outputs 3. Knowledge and communications material on the achievements and impact (linked to the achievement of the Component) of the project produced (see Annex 7.3) 4. Geographic tools to link data for M&E established Promote small-scale agroforestry systems to reduce land-use emissions (Component 3) 8. Biomass (energy) produced in a sustainable manner 9. New agroforestry plantations that received technical support from the project Intermediate Results Indicators 10. Participants in consultation activities during project implementation (number) 12. Farmers from the targeted villages who have adopted an improved agro- forestry technology promoted by the project Key Outputs 1. 9,868 ha of exclosures in savanna and forest areas established (linked to the achievement of the Component) 2. 7,603 ha of agroforestry plantations established Page 22 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Facilitation of Private Sector Activities to Reduce Fuel Wood emissions (Component 2) 5. Production of improved cookstoves Intermediate Results Indicators 6. ACCESS-compliant cookstoves delivered to the Kinshasa market 7. Improved organization of the sector 1. 80,625 ACCESS-compliant cookstoves delivered to the Kinshasa market 2. The National Alliance for Improved Cookstoves established Key Outputs 3. Consumer Engagement Strategy developed (linked to the achievement of the Component) 4. 5,493 ha of agroforestry plantations established through the matching grant scheme under Component 2a Integrated REDD+ Projects in the Mai Ndombe Province (Component 1) 2. Chiefdom (Chefferie) with Performance-Based Incentives and Investments mechanisms in place Intermediate Results Indicators 3. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) score for Tumba Lediima Natural Reserve 4. Community sub-projects registered as REDD+ sub-projects PIREDD Plateau: 1. 215 LDCs operationalized in the four territories 2. 133 Natural Resource Management Plans (NRMPs) validated, with 2,716,869 ha placed under sustainable management plans 3. 155 LDCs (7,282 households) benefited from PES, with around US$1.36 Key Outputs million paid in the field and reinvested in microprojects at the community and/or household level (linked to the achievement of the Component) 4. 4,070 ha of agroforestry plantations established 5. 149,989 ha of exclosures in savanna and forest areas established (13,944 including 9,669 ha supported by PES (accounting for losses), and 136,045 of primary forest identified by communities for conservation without PES) 6. 252 km of roads rehabilitated, including 17 bridges constructed Page 23 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT PIREDD Mai-Ndombe: 1. 568 LDCs operationalized with 568 NRMPs validated, with 4,536,630.62 ha placed under sustainable management plans. 2. 5,874 ha of agroforestry plantations and 1,801 ha of perennials established. 19,566 ha of exclosures in savanna and forest areas established. 3. 4 Councils for Agriculture and Rural Management at the territorial (CART) level and 15 Rural Agricultural Management Committees operationalized. 4. About US$1.7 million in PES paid to communities, with 74 concessioner farmers (including 2 women and 2 IPs), 349 communities and 14,947 farmers (including 3,308 women and 323 IPs) are direct beneficiaries of the project. 5. 210 km of road restored through the employment intensive (haute intensité de main-d'œuvre, HIMO) approach (Mushi-Mbali axis) and 32 bridges (of which 3 metal bridges of 46 m rehabilitated in Ngapoko) and 10 road culverts completed. Four office buildings constructed. One ferryboat completed and delivered. Two berths in Mai-Ndombe at 50 percent completion. 6. Nearly 8,399 households (58,793 people) sensitized on issues related to family planning, HIV, and Ebola. Provincial Multisectoral Family Planning Committee operationalized and peer educators within the LDCs trained on family planning. GEF AF: 1. 276 ha of agroforestry plantations established. 2. 4,390 ha of forest protection established. 3. On-the-ground investments in TLNR completed: infrastructure construction (offices, housing, basic park infrastructure), reinforcement of patrols and park management operational costs, upgrading of ICCN administrative, financial management and human resources capacity and publication of METT report (https://rb.gy/4xdgw8). 4. Investments (plantation, cash for work and reinvestment in income generating activities, production of management plan documents) in 75 villages under simple land use plans established by PIREDD Mai-Ndombe. 5. Four Local Community Forest Concessions established, with 172,301 ha under management. At project closure, the 4 Local Community Forest Page 24 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Concessions (Concessions Forestières de Communautés Locales, CFCL) were still pending validation by the provincial authorities due to political instability.29 29The Sustainable Forest Management Program (PGDF) implemented by the DRC’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and supported by the French Development Agency and CAFI will follow up on this activity from IFLMP, to complete the registration of the community forest concessions. Page 25 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Cyrille Valence Ngouana Kengne Team Leader Carolina Giovannelli Team Leader Jonas Bamukwamire Kasereka Financial Management Specialist Guy Kiaku Kindoki Procurement Specialist Mamata Tiendrebeogo Procurement Specialist Christophe Ngongo Muzyumba Environmental Specialist Alexis Manirambona Environmental Specialist Donat Vema Tunamau Social Specialist Boyenge Isasi Dieng Social Specialist Grace Muhimpundu Social Specialist Luc Sukadi Mbayo Procurement Team Julie Luvisa Bazolana Procurement Team Patrice Savadogo Team Member Andrianina Noro Rafamantanantsoa Team Member Joelle Mudi Nke Team Member Ellen J. Tynan Team Member Carlo Palleschi Team Member Marit Dahl Hjort Team Member Ana Elisa Bucher Team Member German Obando-Vargas Team Member Page 26 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT @#&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 FY12 18.347 113,338.12 FY13 19.086 179,396.65 FY14 25.113 162,217.63 FY15 8.195 62,951.80 FY16 0.000 3,486.97 Total 70.74 521,391.17 Supervision/ICR FY15 0.000 80.80 FY16 12.870 77,028.52 FY17 32.825 210,837.70 FY18 15.157 133,617.04 FY19 4.290 94,345.00 FY20 37.623 256,353.12 FY21 5.171 24,309.01 FY22 2.525 6,864.97 FY23 2.300 6,632.28 FY24 4.145 11,952.52 FY25 0.975 2,972.19 Total 117.88 824,993.15 Page 27 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Amount at Approval (US$, Actual at Project Closing Component millions) (US$, millions) Integrated REDD+ Projects in the Mai Ndombe Province 46.1 46.1 Facilitation of Private Sector Activities to Reduce Fuel 8.0 8.0 Wood emissions Promote small-scale agroforestry systems to reduce 10.5 10.5 land-use emissions Knowledge management and program Coordination 5.7 5.7 Summary of Changes to Approved Financing, per Component and Subcomponent Component and Subcomponents PP (2014) 1st AF (2017) 2nd AF (2019) Restructuring (2022) Total Integrated REDD+ Projects in the Mai-Ndombe Province: PIREDD Plateau (1A) Component 1 financed by FIP, and PIREDD Mai-Ndombe (1B) financed by CAFI and GEF Strengthening governance 1Ba: 2.60 1.23 0.19 4.02 Capacity building for decentralized 0.25 0.61 1Bb: 0.36 - administration Implementation of Sustainable Management 1A: 14.20 5.99 17.39 1Bc: 8.83 2.57 Plans Value chains 1Bd: 0.72 - 0.32 1.04 Connectivity investments 1Be: 4.46 - 0.45 4.91 Support to vulnerable communities (IPs) - 1Bf: 0.78 0.70 0.45 1.93 Family planning - 1Bg: 0.47 - 0.16 0.63 Protected areas - - 1Bh: 1.42 - 1.42 Subtotal Component 1 14.20 18.22 5.92 7.79 46.13 Component 2: Facilitation of private sector 8.00 — — — 8.00 activities to reduce fuel wood emissions Component 3: Promotion of agroforestry 10.50 — — — 10.50 systems to reduce land-use emissions Component 4: Knowledge management and 1.24 4.20 — 0.29 5.73 program coordination 9.03 Total 36.90 18.22 6.21 70.3630 30Due to a technical glitch, there is an error in the Financing table in the Datasheet. The correct approved total financing is US$70.36 million, as included here. A technical glitch has also caused duplication of information between the manually inserted and portal-generated elements in the table on Restructuring and/or Additional Financing in the Datasheet. Page 28 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS A. Methodology and Results at Appraisal and Additional Financings 1. At appraisal in 2014, using the WOP/WP method, the NPV and BCR were calculated over 15 years with 5 percent, 10 percent, and 20 percent discount rates. Costs were calculated on the basis of the project budget. Regarding benefits, three main streams of expected benefits were considered in the PAD: (a) carbon benefits from avoided deforestation, afforestation, and reforestation, and ICSs; (b) livelihood increases from agroforestry activities; and (c) private benefits, such as health benefits and time savings, from clean cooking. Carbon Benefits 2. In terms of mitigation potential, three different types of direct GHG savings were identified in the PAD:  Avoided deforestation as a result of activities under Component 1.  Carbon removals generated from afforestation and reforestation under Components 1 and 3 and Subcomponent 2a.  ERs from ICSs under Subcomponent 2b, following the Small-scale Methodology (AMS-II.G.). The calculations assumed that households would continue using ICSs beyond the stove’s expected life-span. Livelihood Benefits from Components 1 and 3 3. To estimate the impact in terms of improved livelihoods from agroforestry activities, the PAD assumed an increase of US$7 per individual affected by the activities under Components 1 and 3. This is based on five key assumptions: (a) the project would result in a 5 percent increase in per capita income; (b) this increase would fully occur in the first year of the project; (c) the baseline income of US$142, adjusted for urban-rural differences, was assumed to be a reasonable approximation, despite not being disaggregated for specific regional variations, to be used as the baseline; (d) the target population would be progressively reached in a linear manner throughout the project’s implementation; and (e) once the income increase was achieved, both the increased income and the number of targeted individuals would remain stable over time. Private Benefits from Clean Cooking 4. The projected adoption of ICSs was expected to not only reduce GHG emissions but also deliver private benefits such as health benefits and time savings. These benefits were quantified and monetized at appraisal using the median value identified in Jeuland and Pattanayak's (2012) study on the transition from traditional stoves to ICSs. The estimation was based on two key assumptions: (a) the number of ICSs distributed would correspond directly to the number of households reached, assuming a 1:1 ratio between ICS units and households; and (b) the target number of ICSs would be achieved incrementally in a linear fashion over the project’s duration. 5. According to this methodology, over a 15-year analysis period and with carbon benefits priced at US$1/tCO2e, the PAD showed an NPV at 5 percent discount rate equal to US$45.9 million, with BCR equal to 2.45. No ERR was calculated. Since carbon benefits played a dominant role in the economic analysis, the PAD also conducted a separate analysis excluding these benefits. Using the same methodology, the results indicated that the project was not financially viable, with NPVs of −US$16.7 million (5 percent discount rate), −US$15.5 million (10 percent discount rate), and −US$12.3 million (20 percent discount rate). However, when the projected livelihood increase was raised from 5 percent to 20 percent, and Page 29 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT the high value for health benefits from clean cooking (based on Jeuland and Pattanayak 2013) was used in place of the median value, the NPV turned positive, showing US$18.1 million (5 percent discount rate), US$8.1 million (10 percent discount rate), and US$0.083 million (20 percent discount rate). 6. The calculations for the AFs, conducted over 15 years using the same discount rates as in the PAD, followed the original methodology. The main difference was that the baseline income per person used to calculate livelihood benefits for the population targeted under the AF was set at US$307.5. Additionally, the emission reduction estimates from AF activities were calculated not only using the PAD’s carbon price of US$1/tCO2e but also using a higher price of US$70/tCO2e. For the AFs, over a 15-year analysis period and with carbon benefits priced at US$1/tCO 2e, the NPV at 5 percent discount rate was calculated equal to US$51.8 million, with a BCR of 4.13. The NPV was not calculated at restructuring. B. Methodology at Completion 7. For this analysis, the ICR compared the WOP and WP scenarios to quantify the incremental net benefits. This approach enabled a comprehensive comparison between the actual outcomes of the project’s implementation and the counterfactual scenario of what would have occurred in its absence. By employing this method, the analysis could capture the added value and benefits directly attributable to the project across various dimensions. The analysis accounted for all costs associated with both the PP, the AFs, and the restructuring, calculated in US dollars to reflect actual disbursements during implementation. The same discount rates of 5 percent, 10 percent, and 20 percent used in the PAD were applied. 8. To ensure a meaningful comparison, the completion analysis adhered to the approach used during appraisal, focusing on the same three main streams of benefits. However, unlike the ex ante appraisal, which relied on projections and assumptions, the completion analysis incorporated actual data from the project’s outcomes. Additional adjustments were made to provide a more accurate and realistic assessment. The following is a detailed description of how the completion analysis reevaluated these three benefit streams in comparison to the original appraisal. Carbon Benefits 9. To calculate carbon benefits at project completion, the ICR uses EX-ACT to quantify GHG savings in three key areas: (a) avoided deforestation; (b) afforestation and reforestation; and (c) ERs from ICS. This approach differs from the PAD, which measured ERs from ICSs using the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Small-scale Methodology (AMS-II.G.). Applying EX-ACT to the clean cooking component ensures methodological consistency across all project components. 31 10. As per Outcome Indicator a, GHG ERs and removals generated under the project should be accounted for. This is understood to mean ERs and removals generated from the investments made under the project and thus also accounting for their capitalization period (with an estimated duration of 10 years). This is particularly relevant given the nature of the investments in afforestation and reforestation activities: the CO2 removals and avoided emissions resulting only materialize a few years after the planting or protection of trees, due to their biology. 11. According to this approach, EX-ACT showed that the project has a total mitigation potential of 29,494,168 tCO2e removals and avoided emissions from land-based activities and 44,127 tCO2e ERs from the clean cooking component. However, to prevent double counting of ERs between the Forest Management and Clean Cooking components – both of which aim to reduce emissions from firewood consumption in the project area – the ex post carbon balance has been adjusted to exclude ERs from clean cooking, so that only the ERs and removals from land-based activities are included, amounting to 29,494,168 tCO2e. 31 A detailed explanation of the methodology used for the net carbon balance is provided in Annex 8. Page 30 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Livelihood Benefits from Components 1 and 3 12. For livelihood benefits stemming from agroforestry activities under Component 1 (PIREDDs Plateau and Mai- Ndombe) and Component 3, the ICR relied on field studies commissioned by the PIU in the intervention areas to assess both monetary and non-monetary benefits (such as self-consumption) for the targeted individuals, comparing the WOP and WP scenarios. These studies allowed for a more detailed and disaggregated analysis, which was not feasible ex ante, when a standard 5 percent income increase was assumed across all the project intervention areas. Specifically, households targeted under Component 3 experienced a 17 percent increase in incomes (including monetary and non-monetary benefits), those in the Plateau saw an 8 percent increase (Multina/DMK 2018), and a 63 percent increase was recorded in Mai-Ndombe (FIP-CU 2024a). It has to be acknowledged that the 2018 survey was carried out more than a year before the PP activities were closed and therefore only painted a partial picture of the revenue increases. Moreover, the household data surveys for Mai Ndombe might understate the results of the project, given that the full benefits of perennial crops supported by the AF had not fully emerged at the time of survey completion. Unlike the ex ante analyses feeding into the PAD and the AF project papers, which assumed a linear progression in reaching the target population throughout the project’s duration, the ICR leveraged actual data on the distribution of people with benefits over time. Additionally, instead of assuming an immediate full increase from the first year as done in the PAD, the income growth was distributed evenly over four years to provide a more realistic assessment. Furthermore, while the ex ante analysis assumed no decline in income over time, the ICR accounted for varying rates of income loss starting from the year following the project's closure onwards, to reflect the risk that the benefits may gradually diminish once project activities and support come to an end. ● Very pessimistic: a 15 percent annual reduction in the average income increase ● Pessimistic: a 10 percent annual reduction in the average income increase ● Realistic: a 5 percent annual reduction in the average income increase ● Optimistic: no decline in income ● Very optimistic: a 5 percent annual rise in the average income increase Private Benefits from Clean Cooking 13. Private benefits, which include health benefits and time savings, were calculated using a more recent reference than the Jeuland and Pattanayak (2012) study used at appraisal, specifically drawing on the work of Jeuland, Tan Soo, and Shindell (2018). While the PAD assumed one ICS per household, the ICR considered an average of 2.31 ICSs per household, as indicated in the closing report by the Consulting Office for Research and Development ( Bureau d’Etude pour la Recherche et le Développement, BERD).32 Private benefits calculations are affected by the question of what happens once the initial life-span of the ICSs disseminated through the project ends. The analysis assumed a gradual retirement of stoves, beginning in the third year with 25 percent of stoves phased out, followed by 38 percent in the fourth year, 28 percent in the fifth, and 9 percent in the sixth. This approach mirrors the methodology used in the BERD evaluation closing report (BERD 2019). Should households revert to using Tier 1 traditional stoves, the associated health benefits would be lost. As previously mentioned, the PAD assumed that once the target number of ICSs was reached, this number would remain constant, leading to the assumption that private benefits would also remain stable over time. To provide a more realistic assessment, health benefits were calculated using different percentages of households continuing using ICSs once the initial lifespan of the ICSs disseminated through the project ends. 32Bureau d’Etude pour la Recherche et le Développement (BERD) was recruited as a technical assistant to support the PIU in the implementation of Subcomponent 2b of the PGAPF. Page 31 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ● Very pessimistic: 30 percent of beneficiary households will continue buying ICS ● Pessimistic: 50 percent of beneficiary households will continue buying ICS ● Realistic: 70 percent of beneficiary households will continue buying ICS ● Optimistic: 85 percent of beneficiary households will continue buying ICS ● Very optimistic: 100 percent of beneficiary households will continue buying ICS 14. In addition to the revised versions of the three main benefit streams from the ex ante assessment, the completion analysis incorporates additional benefit streams that were not originally included. These are outlined below. Fuel Savings, Net of the Cost of Stoves, for Households Targeted by ICS Dissemination 15. The ICR also accounts for the economic benefits resulting from the transition from Tier 1 stoves to Tier 3 ICSs. These benefits were assessed by comparing operating costs driven by fuel savings, as Tier 3 stoves consume significantly less charcoal than traditional Tier 1 stoves. Operating costs were calculated based on the price per unit of charcoal (US$0.21 per kg), annual charcoal consumption per household (950.76 kg), and the thermal efficiency of the stoves – 0.149 for Tier 1 and 0.331 for Tier 3 ICS.33 These expenses were then assessed in both the WP and WOP scenarios, with fuel savings quantified by comparing the two contexts. 16. To accurately assess net benefits, fuel savings were computed net of the cost of stoves borne by households. The cost of Tier 1 stoves is assumed to be US$4 and applies to the WOP scenario and to the WP scenario only for households switching back from Tier 3 to Tier 1 stoves. The lifetime of a Tier 1 stove is estimated at one year, meaning households incur this cost annually. Calculating the cost of Tier 3 stoves for the WP scenario is more complex, as each company sets its own prices and offers different sizes (small, medium, large). While the price per model is known for each firm, the number of units sold by each firm is not. Consequently, the purchase cost of ICSs is calculated as an average of the different model prices per firm, amounting to US$23.18. The lifespan of ICSs is estimated following the same approach outlined in the BERD closing report, as previously discussed. For greater accuracy in future projects, it would be beneficial to collect detailed data on the number of units sold per model by each firm. 17. According to these calculations, charcoal consumption can be reduced by about 54 percent and thus associated expenses. This was confirmed by stakeholders interviewed during the ICR mission, who noted that beneficiaries tend to prefer sticking to ICSs once they have switched to more efficient stoves, as these consume less and help save money. However, to provide a more realistic outlook, fuel savings and stove costs are calculated based on the same percentage of households adopting ICSs as outlined in the five scenarios discussed in the section ‘private benefits from clean cooking’. Firms in the Clean Cooking Sector Supported by Matching Grant Schemes 18. Unlike the PAD, which did not account for the firms' perspectives, the ICR considered the profits generated by the firms supported by the project in the clean cooking sector. Calculations were performed individually for each firm (producers and sellers). The WOP scenario was reconstructed using information provided by the firms in their applications for co-financing submitted to FIP-CU. The data allowed for an understanding of each firm's sales levels, costs, and selling prices, which were then used to estimate a baseline scenario that would have existed without the project. For the project period, revenues and costs for each firm were calculated based on the actual number of ICS units sold. 33The thermal efficiency values used in the ICR differ from those in the PAD (0.1 for Tier 1 and 0.382 for Tier 3) as the ICR relies on the values provided by CERERK, based on actual performance measurements of Tier 1 stoves and ICS disseminated through the project. Page 32 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 19. A question arises about whether firms will be able to maintain the same level of sales as during the project also after the project ended. Unfortunately, ex post evidence-based data are not available. Therefore, estimated different percentages under various scenarios were estimated, based solely on the total number of ICSs sold in 2019. ● Very pessimistic: 15 percent annual reduction in the number of ICSs sold ● Pessimistic: 10 percent annual reduction in the number of ICSs sold ● Realistic: 5 percent annual reduction in the number of ICSs sold ● Optimistic: 2 percent annual reduction in the number of ICSs sold ● Very optimistic: Same number of ICSs sold as during the project. However, even in this scenario, the aggregate number of stoves sold would be lower compared to during the project because Biso Na Bino34 failed in 2023.35 20. These percentages are applied until production returns to its pre-project levels, after which it is assumed that the firm will maintain this same level of output. Under the WOP scenario, the number of ICS units sold is assumed to remain constant at the level recorded when the firm applied for financing under IFLMP. In the case of ERND, however, the project's production levels fell below those before its inception, primarily due to factors beyond the project's control, such as the owner's death and the resulting management difficulties. Since these issues are independent of the project's existence, it is likely that the reduction in production would have occurred even without the project. Therefore, a similar reduction in production was also considered in the WOP scenario. It has been assumed that the scenarios for firms are independent of those projecting the percentage of households that continue to use ICSs beyond the project's lifespan. This distinction arises because households have the option to purchase ICSs from various firms, while firms can target different households. As a result, the dynamics governing household behavior and firm sales are shaped by distinct factors, and therefore, have been evaluated separately. 21. Another point to consider relates to firms’ activities that were cofinanced by the project. These activities do not cover production costs but are mainly related to marketing efforts. Therefore, when computing the profit per firm, the entire production costs have been considered as the firm's responsibility. The unitary production costs per stove cover all costs, including fixed costs. A question arises about whether firms will continue spending the same amount on marketing- related activities after the end of the project. According to sector experts within the FIP-CU interviewed for this ICR, the amount spent by firms on marketing after the end of the project has been negligible. Since the lack of specific data on this element, it has not been possible to provide accurate figures. Therefore, it has been assumed that after the project firms did not maintain any marketing costs as during IFLMP. It is important to stress that in the WOP scenario, no firms incur marketing-related costs, as such investments were either nonexistent or very negligible before the project began. 22. Based on the WP/WOP approach outlined above, under the realistic scenario, the investments made by firms under the project resulted in a positive NPV at a 5 percent discount rate, calculated through 2035, for all firms except ERND and Biso Na Bino (see Table 4.1.). ERND, as mentioned earlier, encountered external challenges, while Biso Na Bino failed. It is important to note that Biso Na Bino's failure cannot be attributed to its participation in the project. On the contrary, the project provided substantial support, and since Biso Na Bino did not contribute any of its own funds to marketing activities, it is reasonable to conclude that the company would have failed even without the project's assistance. 34 Biso Na Bino is one of the seven firms receiving support under the project. The others are Bascons, Invictus Power Enviro (IPE), ERND, MEDRARA, Réseau des producteurs des foyers culinaires améliorés (REPROFCA), and UMOJA Développement Durable (UDD). 35 It is assumed that firms that previously procured stoves from Biso Na Bino will be able to source replacement stoves from other producers at the same unit purchase cost and selling price. Page 33 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Table 4.1. NPV Per Firm, US$, 5 Percent Discount Rate until 2035 Biso Na Scenario Medrara ERND UDD Bascons IPE REPROFCA Bino Very 260,021 −408,597 −2,805 107,796 −19,664 7,536 n.a. pessimistic Pessimistic 353,804 −365,233 −174 136,587 −4,319 13,495 n.a. Realistic 495,565 −299,684 7,103 167,440 28,461 29,995 n.a. Optimistic 615,624 −244,171 25,018 190,866 57,733 70,627 n.a. Very optimistic 715,816 −197,843 50,424 212,456 82,161 131,693 n.a. 23. Analyzing the employment opportunities created by the firms supported through the project would have been highly advantageous. Although firms initially provided, when applying for project funding, estimates of the number of additional workers they intended to hire, the absence of follow-up data collection has made it impossible to assess the actual employment impact. Future initiatives should implement robust data collection mechanisms to capture this critical metric, thereby enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness. Carbonization as a Result of Agroforestry Activities under Components 1 and 3 24. Among the benefits of agroforestry activities under Components 1 and 3, this analysis also considers the revenues from carbonization of acacia trees planted through the project in savanna areas. This is a key element of the ToC, as it allows beneficiaries to produce sustainable charcoal, providing an important income source while reducing pressure on natural forests. While some beneficiaries may adopt improved carbonization, this analysis has taken a more conservative approach, assuming that beneficiaries will continue using traditional methods. Therefore, the WP scenario assumes revenue from traditional carbonization in the acacia forests established by the project. In contrast, the WOP baseline assumes beneficiaries would have continued carbonization using trees from primary and secondary forests, a practice that not only harms forest conservation and increases CO2 emissions but also yields approximately 25 percent less than carbonization with acacia wood. This assessment is based on the assumption that in the WOP scenario, beneficiaries would have exploited for carbonization the same number of hectares as what was planted through the project. 25. Since carbonization of acacia typically begins in the seventh year after planting and both Components 1 and 3 lasted only five years, field studies conducted at completion were unable to capture the economic benefits of carbonization. Consequently, the estimates were not based on detailed data collection but informed by observations and regional knowledge from similar projects. As highlighted in the lessons learned section of this ICR, extending future agroforestry activities to at least seven years – the minimum time required to complete the agroforestry cycle – would allow for the collection of data on carbonization, a critical element in the ToC of such projects. Similar challenges were encountered when building the WOP scenario, necessitating the estimation of net benefits in the absence of an evidence-based baseline. In the absence of comprehensive data, estimates were informed by observations and insights gathered during site visits. Yearly net revenue from carbonization per hectare was estimated at US$2,100 for the WP scenario and US$754 for the WOP scenario, assuming charcoal sales in Kinshasa. In future projects, greater emphasis should be placed on establishing a robust ex ante baseline to accurately assess the costs and revenues associated with the utilization of forest resources. 26. To estimate the area designated for carbonization, the number of hectares recorded at project completion could serve as a reference point. However, it was deemed prudent to adopt a more conservative estimate by assuming, starting from the year following the project's closure onwards, a smaller number of hectares will be utilized for carbonization than those documented at the project's conclusion. This adjustment accounts for potential losses resulting from factors such as Page 34 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT fires, mismanagement, and other unforeseen circumstances. The same percentages have been adopted for the WOP scenario. ● Very pessimistic: a 10 percent annual reduction in hectares ● Pessimistic: a 5 percent annual reduction in hectares ● Realistic: a 2 percent annual reduction in hectares ● Optimistic: no decline in hectares ● Very optimistic: no decline in hectares. Matching Grant Support Agroforestry Activities under Subcomponent 2a 27. The completion analysis also accounted for the benefits generated by the project's support to 48 individual farmers through the matching grant schemes under three distinct plantation models: simplified, semi-integrated, and integrated. 36 The hectares planted as part of the project were supplementary to the land beneficiaries already owned, meaning that any gains from these additional hectares represent a net increase in their income. Beneficiaries under each plantation model had already been following the same model before the project, so no income gains from switching plantation models were considered. Consequently, the net benefits of the project can be attributed solely to the expansion of cultivated land, as the project facilitated access to additional hectares for beneficiaries. 28. In 2023, the FIP-CU conducted a follow-up mission to assess the plantations established with private sector beneficiaries (FIP-CU 2023). It found that nearly all beneficiaries experienced a reduction in the number of hectares under cultivation. According to the results of the mission, the primary reasons for this reduction include an increase in bushfires and a deteriorating security situation, which compelled many beneficiaries to abandon their lands, leaving them unmanaged and uncontrolled. While the mission provided the total amount of hectares lost from the end of the project until 2023 (5,493 at conclusion of the project in 2019 against 3,251 ha in 2023), it did not specify the annual loss within this time span. To estimate this, it was assumed that the average reduction, compared to the hectares recorded in 2019, occurred uniformly each year. This average reduction was calculated for each beneficiary based on the hectares verified in 2019 and those observed in 2023. 29. While evidence-based data were used to estimate the reduction in hectares up to 2023, any projections beyond that year can only be estimated. It would be unrealistic to assume that the loss of hectares will completely halt, so the analysis for all the time span considered anticipates continued losses beyond 2023 but at varying rates throughout the time frame considered. ● Very pessimistic: an increase in the annual percentage loss by 10 percent ● Pessimistic: an increase in the annual percentage loss by 5 percent ● Realistic: continuation of the same annual percentage loss experienced between 2019 and 2023 ● Optimistic: a decrease in the annual percentage loss by 10 percent ● Very optimistic: a decrease in the annual percentage loss by 15 percent. 36 (a) Simplified model: association of acacia (or other fast-growing trees) and subsistence food crops, for which 60 percent of project cost was provided in co-financing; (b) Semi-integrated model: association of acacia, subsistence food crops, and fruit trees, with 50 percent co-financing; and (c) Integrated model: association of acacia, subsistence food crops, fruit trees, and beekeeping, with 40 percent co-financing. Page 35 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 30. These percentages are calculated for each beneficiary based on the loss recorded between 2019 and 2023. For three beneficiaries, this figure is not available because they could not be reached during the FIP-CU field mission. For these beneficiaries, the percentage reduction between 2019 and 2023 was estimated based on the average reduction observed among the other 45 beneficiaries who were interviewed. 31. Revenues per hectares per each beneficiary are based on estimates derived from data provided by agroforestry experts during their follow-up visit to the regions. However, since this visit was intended for general assessment rather than systematic data collection on revenues and costs – unlike the specific surveys conducted for agroforestry activities under Components 1 and 3 – the evaluation for this component had to rely on general estimates. These estimates, while not based on detailed data collection, are informed by observations and regional knowledge gathered during the visit. 37 To improve accuracy in future projects, it would be important to ensure comprehensive assessments of all activities, including those under the matching grant component. 32. Yearly costs per hectare were estimated at US$1,000 for the simplified model, US$1,500 for the semi-integrated model, and US$1,800 for the integrated model. These figures were used to calculate the portions covered by both the beneficiary and the project. However, these estimates do not include the costs of acacia exploitation, which are incurred in the seventh year when carbonization begins and are the responsibility of the beneficiary. Additionally, beekeeping costs were the sole responsibility of each beneficiary, as the project only provided technical assistance for this activity. From years 1 to 6, only the costs borne by the beneficiary were considered, since the project's contributions are already accounted for in the project budget. For the subsequent plantation cycles, all costs were borne solely by the beneficiary and were therefore fully included in the calculations. 33. While some beneficiaries may adopt improved carbonization, this analysis has taken a more conservative approach, assuming that beneficiaries will continue using traditional methods. The initial plantations, established in 2017, covered a relatively small number of hectares, limiting the start of carbonization to 2023. As a result, actual data on carbonization are minimal. When calculating the benefits, only beneficiaries who reported being able to carry out carbonization and were verified by the FIP-CU mission in 2023 were included. This selective approach ensures that the benefit calculations are based on realistic and verifiable activities. For future acacia exploitation, it is assumed that all beneficiaries will be able to engage in traditional carbonization, provided they still have available hectares (according to the percentage reduction outlined above). Benefits from Payment for Ecosystem Services under Component 1 34. Among the benefits triggered by the project, the analysis included PES, which played a significant role in improving beneficiaries’ livelihoods. In fact, in addition to the increased revenues from agroforestry production, beneficiaries under Component 1 (PIREDD Plateau and PIREDD Mai-Ndombe) also received PES through Local Development Committees (LDCs). This additional income stream further contributed to the enhancement of their livelihoods, offering both financial and environmental benefits. According to the Multina/DMK study conducted in 2018 in the Plateau District (Multina/DMK 2018), PES were mainly used to finance the acquisition of new equipment and the rehabilitation of homes. A similar study conducted in Mai-Ndombe (FIP-CU 2024a) reported some illustrative examples: in Isaka, PES were used for the rehabilitation of four schools damaged by heavy rains and the rehabilitation of a bridge connecting the village to the production fields. In Konkia, PES supported medication for the health center and the construction of the LDC office. Part of revenue per hectare was estimated at US$1,250 for manioc, US$1,800 for groundnut, US$1,820 for maize, and US$1,925 for fruit, with an 37 Yearly additional US$63 per beehive and US$3,000 for charcoal. Since the mission revealed that beneficiaries in simplified and semi-integrated models also engaged in beekeeping, not just those in the integrated model, revenue from beekeeping was calculated for all who reported practicing it. To ensure a more accurate reflection of varying capacities among beneficiaries, the number of beehives per hectare was adjusted based on the model: 10 beehives in the simplified model, 20 in the semi-integrated model, and 80 in the integrated model. Page 36 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT the money from PES and the sale of oil and honey is used to operate a village fund. Non-LDC member households borrow and repay with an interest rate of 25 percent to the LDC, while LDC member households borrow and repay without interest. In addition to including PES disbursed, it would have been valuable to also incorporate information on how these funds were utilized and the returns they generated. Future projects could consider collecting this information. Income Increases for Transporters as a Result of Road Rehabilitation under Component 1 35. This section quantifies the net benefits associated with infrastructure works realized in the Plateau District (roads, bridges, and ferries), by using the WOP/WP method. This comparison assesses the kilometers of road rehabilitated against the WOP scenario, which estimates what would have happened to these same roads if the project had not been implemented. Bridges are considered instrumental for the success of road rehabilitation. 36. The benefits of road rehabilitation and bridge construction might be extensive, ranging from reduced travel time, increased transportation volume and vehicle speed, easier evacuation of agricultural products, to improved market access, as well as enhanced access to essential services such as health care. Improved road conditions would save time for transporters engaged in taxi-moto and vehicle transportation services, allowing them to travel more quickly and safely, which reduces fuel and maintenance costs, increases turnover, and boosts revenue. 37. The completion analysis focuses exclusively on the benefits derived from increased revenue for transporters, as the study (FIP-CU 2024) commissioned by the FIP-CU provided data specific to this aspect, detailing net profits before and after the project. Notably, the monthly income earned by these transporters saw a remarkable increase with the arrival of the project, rising from US$41 before the project to US$149 afterward. A broader assessment of the other potential benefits mentioned earlier was not feasible due to the absence of data for both ex ante and ex post scenarios; therefore, the benefits from improved infrastructure are likely greater than the results from this analysis. Even with respect to transporter benefits, the analysis lacked precise figures regarding the number of transporters before and after the project. To address this limitation, the percentage increase in traffic was estimated using data from the Programme de développement agricole et de désenclavement dans les Provinces du Kwilu et Kwango (PRODEKK), supported by Enabel (Enabel 2018). This program conducted a similar road rehabilitation project in Bandundu, employing the ‘hot spot’ technique38 as was done in IFLMP, over a comparable distance and timeline. As a result, the outcomes of that program were deemed an appropriate reference for estimating the impact of the road component in this ICR analysis. PRODEKK led to a 16.15 percent increase in motorcycle traffic and a 6.57 percent increase in vehicle traffic. Due to the lack of actual data on the number of users and to better represent a gradual increase, the number of users has been linked to the kilometers rehabilitated through an affine linear function,39 ensuring the 16.15 percent increase in motorcycle traffic and 6.57 percent increase in vehicle traffic is achieved by the end of the project, as recorded in PRODEKK. The baseline number of motorcycles and vehicles is estimated at 20 and 1 per day, respectively. These estimates, informed by observations and insights gathered during site visits, are conservative, particularly when compared to PRODEKK, which estimates over 100 units per day. However, in the absence of specific data collected before the project’s onset, a more cautious approach was taken to avoid inflating the results. 38 Thisrefers to rehabilitation efforts that focus on critical areas along a road that are particularly damaged or deteriorated. By targeting these specific sections, the approach is more cost-effective compared to a full-scale road reconstruction, allowing for efficient use of resources while improving overall road usability and safety. 39 The number of road users is linked to the number of rehabilitated kilometers through the function: road users = a × (kilometers restored) + b, where a represents the rate of change in the number of users for every additional kilometer rehabilitated and the term b is a constant that accounts for the baseline number of users even when no kilometers are rehabilitated. This function provides a simple way to estimate gradual increases or decreases in users based on the available infrastructure. Page 37 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 38. As underlined in the risk section, the sustainability of the benefits derived from the project is heavily dependent on the level of maintenance performed in the years following its completion. Indeed, inadequate maintenance might affect road accessibility, reduce traffic, and consequently lead to a decline in transporters’ revenue. While the Office de Routes is responsible for the maintenance, their limited technical and financial resources might hinder their ability to perform these tasks effectively. To account for these risks to the project’s long-term sustainability, the analysis models future motorbike traffic under various infrastructure development and maintenance scenarios, ranging from very pessimistic to very optimistic. The declines in users, if kilometers are lost due to lack of maintenance, are captured using the same linear function explained above, ensuring a proportional decrease in the number of users as road conditions deteriorate. Bridges are excluded from these scenarios, as it is assumed they will not deteriorate to an extent that the durable materials and construction techniques used will prevent any deterioration substantial enough to affect the project's outcomes within the time span considered in this analysis. 39. Another critical factor that could substantially affect the transport connectivity envisioned by the project is the full operationalization of the ferry planned for Lediba. Although the ferry has been completed and delivered, the construction of the two berths in Mai-Ndombe is still ongoing due to security issues and water flow conditions. The ferry is considered a critical complement that amplifies road transportation. It is estimated that once the ferry becomes fully operational, transport volumes could further increase by up to 100 percent annually compared to the scenario without the ferry. Additionally, the ferry is expected to boost waterway traffic, enhancing trade and access to regional markets, and generating increased revenues and transport fees, though precise estimates were not possible due to a lack of data thus, the analysis focuses only on the impact of the ferry on road transportation. Given the ongoing construction of the berths, it is realistic to consider the full operationalization of the Lediba ferry as feasible in the near future. It is important to note that, without the project, the anticipated increase in transport volume resulting from the operational ferry would not have occurred and was therefore not factored into the WOP scenario. 40. Based on these considerations, five scenarios were built. ● Very pessimistic: 20 percent annual reduction in kilometers of restored roads due to lack of maintenance and no operational ferry ● Pessimistic: 15 percent annual reduction in kilometers of restored roads under the project due to lack of maintenance and no operational ferry ● Realistic: 10 percent annual reduction in kilometers of restored roads due to lack of maintenance and an additional increase in traffic by 40 percent as a result of the operational ferry ● Optimistic: 5 percent annual reduction in kilometers of restored roads due to lack of maintenance and an additional increase in traffic by 70 percent as a result of the operational ferry ● Very optimistic: no change in kilometers of restored roads (regular maintenance performed) and an additional increase in traffic by 100 percent as a result of the operational ferry 41. With respect to the costs associated with this analysis, during the project implementation, the costs were those outlined in the project budget. Following the project’s completion, the analysis accounted for maintenance costs per kilometer, which, as noted earlier, is a crucial component to the long-term success of the project. These maintenance costs were estimated based on those incurred during maintenance efforts performed throughout the project. In the WOP scenario, annual maintenance costs are lower due to the absence of rehabilitated roads, resulting in reduced infrastructure requiring upkeep (US$1,200 year per km). Conversely, in the WP scenario, annual maintenance costs are higher, reflecting the more extensive requirements associated with the rehabilitated road network (US$1,699 year per km). Additionally, annual bridge maintenance costs were included in the WP scenario (US$1,000 year per km). Page 38 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT C. Results and Sensitivity Analysis at Completion 42. Following the methodological approach outlined above, an analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the benefits of financing the implementation of IFLMP in the DRC outweigh its costs. To compute GHG benefits while deviating as little as possible from the original analysis, a price of US$1/tCO 2e was used. However, since this figure differs significantly from the value of carbon storage in forests, a higher price was also considered. Consequently, an additional computation was performed, using the low-carbon price trajectory to maintain a conservative approach, with the price set at US$35/tCO2e for 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.25 percent (WB 2024). 43. Under the realistic scenario, applying a 5 percent discount rate over 15 years with a carbon value of US$1/tCO2e, as in the PAD, the project yields an NPV of US$216.4 million and a BCR of 4.91, indicating strong economic viability, with an ERR standing at 71 percent (Table 4.2). Table 4.2. Realistic Scenario: 15-Year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits - applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 216,367,554 136,916,236 59,709,242 US$1/tCO2e BCR 4.91 4.08 2.95 NPV US$ 676,974,653 427,634,854 191,931,379 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 13.25 10.62 7.28 All benefits excluding ERs - not applying a NPV US$ 205,587,968 130,013,262 56,479,988 carbon price BCR 4.72 3.92 2.85 44. Extending the analysis to 20 years – up to 2035 (Table 4.3.), which is a more appropriate time span given that the activities under the AF were completed only in 2024, results in a higher NPV of US$275.1 million and a BCR of 5.98, at 5 percent discount rate and excluding carbon benefits. These figures increase further when carbon benefits are included. When carbon is valued at US$1 per tCO2e, as in the PAD, the NPV rises to US$290.7 million and the BCR to 6.26. However, if the shadow price of carbon is set at US$35/tCO2e for 2015 (low price trajectory) with an annual growth rate of 2.25 percent, the NPV increases significantly to US$1 billion, with a BCR of 19.18, indicating that the project delivers an economic return of more than 20 times the investment. 45. Even under a sensitivity analysis for varying discount rates, the project remains economically viable. At a 10 percent discount rate, the NPV over 20 years – including all benefits, with carbon benefits valued in the low-price trajectory – stands at US$567.5 million. The program also remains viable without accounting for the social value of carbon, with an NPV of US$160 million at the same 10 percent discount rate. The project continues to show positive NPVs, indicating viability, even when a 20 percent discount rate is applied. Table 4.3. Realistic Scenario: 20-year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits – applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 290,706,221 168,910,333 66,427,129 US$1/tCO2e BCR 6.26 4.80 3.17 NPV US$ 1,004,677,756 567,459,403 220,834,650 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 19.18 13.76 8.23 Page 39 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT All benefits excluding ERs – not applying a carbon NPV US$ 275,125,977 159,957,289 62,773,466 price BCR 5.98 4.60 3.06 46. This analysis also included a sensitivity assessment by adjusting the selected scenarios. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the characteristics of the five scenarios. Alongside the realistic baseline, scenarios include very pessimistic and pessimistic cases that account for potential risks, as outlined in the ‘risk to development’ section. For example, income growth variations and post-project land loss rates reflect the risk of discontinuation of revenues from agroforestry and incomplete charcoal production activities. Similarly, shifts in ICS usage – such as reduced adoption or a return from Tier 3 to Tier 1 stoves – signal potential sustainability challenges. Reduced rehabilitated road kilometers are also considered, reflecting risks related to road maintenance gaps. It is important to note that even in the most pessimistic scenario, the NPV remains positive across all discount rates, albeit reduced. Excluding carbon benefits, with a 5 percent discount rate over 20 years, the NPV is equal to US$205.6 million (Table 4.5). Optimistic and very optimistic cases are also examined, showing substantial increases in NPV and BCR, based on moderate assumptions about improvements. These scenarios factor in favorable external conditions and stronger support through additional activities, such as road maintenance, with associated costs of these activities included in the analysis. Table 4.4. Characteristics of the Scenarios Very Pessimistic Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic Very Optimistic Annual percentage change in average income growth for activities under Components 1 and 3 beginning from the year after the project's closure 15% decline in the 10% decline in the 5% decline in the No decline in the 5% increase in the average income growth average income average income average income average income growth growth growth growth Percentage of targeted households continuing to adopt ICSs, purchasing a replacement when needed 30% 50% 70% 85% 100% Annual percentage change starting in 2020 in the number of ICSs sold by firms supported by matching grant schemes 15% reduction 10% reduction 5% reduction 2% reduction No reduction Annual change in the percentage of hectare loss starting in 2024 for private beneficiaries supported under Subcomponent 2a 10% increase in the 5% increase in the Same annual loss as 10% decrease in the 15% decrease in the annual percentage loss annual percentage loss between 2019–2023 annual percentage loss annual percentage loss Annual reduction in hectares used for charcoal production under Components 1 and 3, beginning from the year after the project's closure 10% reduction 5% reduction 2% reduction No decline No decline Percentage annual reduction in kilometers of restored roads due to lack of maintenance beginning from the year after the project's closure, and impact of the ferry (if operational) 20% annual reduction in 15% annual reduction 10% annual reduction 5% annual reduction in No reduction in km km restored and no in km restored and no in km restored and km restored and restored and increase operational ferry operational ferry increase in traffic by increase in traffic by in traffic by 100% as a 40% as a result of the 70% as a result of the result of the operational ferry operational ferry operational ferry Page 40 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Table 4.5. Very Pessimistic Scenario: 20-Year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits – applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 221,152,771 127,792,868 49,329,509 US$1/tCO2e BCR 5 3.87 2.62 NPV US$ 935,124,306 526,341,938 203,737,031 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 17.92 12.83 7.67 All benefits excluding ERs – not applying a carbon NPV US$ 205,572,527 118,839,824 45,675,846 price BCR 4.72 3.67 2.5 Table 4. 6. Pessimistic Scenario: 20-Year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits – applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 232,225,220 133,788,616 51,376,513 US$1/tCO2e BCR 5.2 4 2.68 NPV US$ 946,196,756 532,337,686 205,784,034 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 18.12 12.97 7.74 All benefits excluding ERs – not applying a carbon NPV US$ 216,644,977 124,835,572 47,722,850 price BCR 4.92 3.81 2.56 Table 4.7. Optimistic Scenario: 20-Year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits – applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 360,817,134 207,984,055 81,261,972 US$1/tCO2e BCR 7.53 5.68 3.66 NPV US$ 1,074,788,669 606,533,126 235,669,494 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 20.44 14.64 8.72 All benefits excluding ERs – not applying a carbon NPV US$ 345,236,890 199,031,012 77,608,310 price BCR 7.25 5.48 3.54 Table 4.8. Very Optimistic Scenario: 20-Year Analysis Period Discount Rates 5% 10% 20% All benefits – applying a carbon price of NPV US$ 425,636,475 243,046,955 94,141,001 US$1/tCO2e BCR 8.7 6.47 4.08 NPV US$ 1,139,608,010 641,596,025 248,548,523 All benefits, low-carbon price trajectory BCR 21.62 15.43 9.14 All benefits excluding ERs – not applying a carbon NPV US$ 410,056,231 234,093,911 90,487,338 price BCR 8.42 6.26 3.96 Page 41 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 47. The total project cost, which is the one considered in this analysis, includes the PP, the AFs, and the restructuring. As outlined in Annex 3, while Components 2 and 3 did not receive extra funding, Component 1 was allocated additional resources, not as a corrective measure for underperformance but to expand the geographical scope of the initial investments and extend the range of activities financed. As a result, additional households in the province have been enabled to better manage forest resources and benefit from improved livelihoods, as well as better market access through road improvement. Specifically, the additional US$22 million for Subcomponents 1Ba-c facilitated a scaling-up of initial investments across the entire Mai-Ndombe Province, contributing to livelihood improvements, as demonstrated in the analysis and household data surveys, though the impacts may be even understated, given that the full benefits of perennial crops supported by the AF had not fully emerged at the time of survey completion. The AF also funded investments to improve infrastructure connectivity among territories, an element absent in the PP but intentionally added to the AF, recognizing its importance for project success. Indeed, as outlined above, the activities undertaken under the AF for road improvements, though highly reliant on sustained maintenance after project completion, have proven crucial to ensure easier evacuation of agricultural products and improved market access, among others. However, the output financed under the new activity in Subcomponent 1Be, the Lediba ferry, remains pending transport to Nioki, though it is expected to be resolved in due course. Moreover, the additional US$1.42 million enabled the project to expand its outputs by strengthening protection efforts, particularly supporting the TLNR, though these impacts were not incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis due to challenges in quantification. Overall, the AFs and the restructuring enabled an expansion of project outcomes in alignment with the increased resources allocated. 48. While the analysis accounts for all project costs, it does not fully capture several significant benefits – both unquantifiable and quantifiable yet unmeasured – indicating that the true rate of return is likely higher than the current estimate. In addition to biodiversity protection in the TLNR, unquantifiable benefits include overall improvements in soil erosion control, expansion of wildlife habitats, increased biodiversity, support for forest policy reforms, and strengthened institutional capacity. Additional gains could arise from reducing costs, risks, and uncertainties linked to weak land management practices and conflicts over natural resources, as well as from the support to improve family planning in farmers’ households. Moreover, as discussed in detail in section C of this Annex, the project generated several quantifiable benefits that were not measured due to the lack of consistent ex ante and/or ex post data. These include economic advantages from road rehabilitation, such as improved access to markets, better availability of essential services, and enhanced national connectivity; wage increases from employment opportunities created in rural areas and the clean cooking sector in Kinshasa; the development of a sustainable charcoal industry; and returns on capital accumulation triggered by PES. Although not fully captured in the initial analysis, these combined benefits underscore the broader positive impacts of the project, significantly enhancing its overall value for money. D. Efficiency of Implementation 49. The project demonstrated good implementation efficiency, effectively utilizing project funds while meeting – and in some cases exceeding – planned performance indicators. The organizational arrangements proved to be robust and well- suited to the project's complexity and duration. The transition of the World Bank’s Task Team Leader was well-prepared and smoothly executed, ensuring continuity in project activities without any disruption. 50. A significant implementation challenge arose in the delivery of PES. Logistical difficulties in accessing intervention areas, combined with cash flow constraints, were primarily due to bottlenecks in the submission of proof of payment from the DIA to the PIU, government-imposed bank transfer limits, and delays in the Congolese banking system. Despite these challenges, the project remained resource-efficient, driven by the commitment of the PIU and the proactive fiduciary measures implemented by the World Bank, as further discussed in the ‘quality of supervision’ section. Page 42 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 51. The project also demonstrated resilience in addressing unforeseen external factors that presented challenges but did not significantly impede overall implementation efficiency. Security concerns in certain areas, along with the COVID-19 pandemic, compounded the difficulty of accessing remote regions, leading to delays in the execution of some activities due to travel restrictions. The construction of two berths in Mai-Ndombe remains pending due to security risks and challenging water flow conditions. However, given the commitment from the provincial authorities, as outlined in the fiduciary section, it is reasonable to expect that this will be completed without adversely affecting the project's overall efficiency. Page 43 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 1.1 Comments from the borrower and implementing partners 1. A total of 29 representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Ministry of Finance, the DIAs (Consortium FRMi-WWC, and WWF), farmers and private sector beneficiary representatives, civil society organizations (REPALEF, and GTCR-R), and local implementing partners provided comments on the ICR verbally during a stakeholder workshop on August 13, 2024. This modality for providing comments had been agreed upon with the PIU. The input received is summarized below.  Model project: PIREDD Mai-Ndombe has served as model for the other PIREDDs in the DRC.  Project duration: It is crucial to plan for the exit strategy of the project from the start. If the duration of investments in perennial cultures is too short, there is a risk of reversal of results. Seven years may not be long enough to achieve sustainable charcoal production; ten years may be a more suitable duration.  Investments in sustainable land use: o To ensure community ownership of agroforestry activities as well as long-term sources of revenue, investing in value chain development is crucial, notably for perennial crops such as cocoa. IFLMP offers lessons learned on agricultural value chain development. o The combination of spatial planning and investments in sustainable land use activities is essential. Spatial planning provides communities guidance to follow even after project closure. o In planning for long-term sources of income, agroforestry projects should also consider options beyond the generation of carbon credits, for example, linked to timber and non-timber products. Investments in this area should draw on research findings. o It is important to capitalize on ERPA and other projects to ensure continuity and avoid reversing the gains made by IFLMP, notably to mitigate the risk of communities’ returning to land use practices that are even worse than before the project.  Support to local communities: o IFLMP helped improve relations among local populations and indigenous communities. o It is important to draw lessons learned from the IFLMP activities geared toward IPs, in particular from the implementation of microprojects for IPs. In this regard, it is relevant to look at the links with the World Bank’s DGM-funded DRC Forest Dependent Communities Support Project. o IFLMP’s support to local community forests could have been expanded further to achieve improved results.  Involvement of local and provincial actors: o Many of the other PIREDDs in the DRC have not ensured the involvement of NGOs as IFLMP did. Without proper involvement of local and national NGOs as well as the local and provincial public administration, it is difficult to sustain project results. o Local communities must take ownership of the project for outcomes to be sustained. o IFLMP involved local technical services much more than other similar projects. However, reviewing the mechanisms for the involvement of technical services can benefit other projects. Page 44 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT o Significant efforts were made to involve local authorities. However, political instability posed some challenges with regard to fostering continuity in the collaboration. o If LDCs are perceived merely as project beneficiaries, rather than as partners, this increases the risk of reversal of project outcomes. There is room to consider how to give clearer responsibilities and a strengthened status to the LDCs. o It is crucial to involve the rural development administration alongside the land use planning administration, to ensure synergies. o It is important to insist on government ownership of future similar projects, and further on having adequate project steering committees, ensuring the inclusion of all stakeholders.  Communication: o Adequate communication with beneficiary communities is essential to ensure the adoption of sustainable land use practices. o Particularly for Component 3, the communication activities conducted were crucial in fostering a change in mindset and thus laid the groundwork for the sustainability of project outcomes.  Protected areas. The project secured improved management of the TLNR. However, the TLNR activities faced some complexities, partly because the nature reserve straddles two provinces and because of leadership changes in the ICCN.  Monitoring and evaluation: o Some baseline data were missing in the IFLMP PAD. The PIU has tried to remedy this within the framework of the FOREST IPF. o The difference in the level of increase in household income observed between Mai-Ndombe and Kongo Central mirrors differences in characteristics between the two provinces.  Safeguards: o Considering the project’s management of safeguards and of grievances and complaints is essential. 1.2 Comments from the co-financiers 2. Representatives of the co-financiers of the project, CAFI and GEF, provided verbal input as well as written comments on the sections that concerned them directly. Their input is summarized below.  The representatives from CAFI highlighted the relevance of PIREDD Mai-Ndombe to the REDD+ agenda of the DRC and its key partners. They further stated that the project has been a leader among the PIREDDs, successfully testing new approaches later used by other REDD+ projects in the DRC, for example, related to PES and land use planning. PIREDD Mai-Ndombe allowed creating new tools and building capacity, including by training staff that later moved on to work for other PIREDDs. Moreover, CAFI emphasized that the PIREDD contributed to a culture of performance-based land use activities while also suggesting that other projects can benefit from further standardization of PES with clearer minimum quality requirements in contracts and improved quality of local land use plans.  The representative from GEF emphasized, among others, that the rationale for the GEF AF was to add value to the existing project, notably through the operationalization of the TLNR, empowerment of IPs and local communities, and capacity building of provincial decentralized authorities. The representative also Page 45 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT highlighted the value of drawing lessons learned from the model of collaboration between the World Bank, CAFI, and GEF. 1.3 Comments from other stakeholders The ICR authors received verbal comments and input from more than 65 stakeholders and beneficiaries, gathered through qualitative interviews. Most of the interviews took place during the ICR mission in Kinshasa and Mai-Ndombe in April, 2024. The stakeholders interviewed included representatives from national, provincial and local authorities, FONAREDD, FIP-CU, the DIAs, local implementing partners, civil society organizations, and previous TTLs and FM specialists of the project. Their input is reflected in the ICR. Page 46 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS African Development Bank Group (AfDB). 2018. “Independent Evaluation of the Congo Basin Forest Fund: Summary Report”. https://idev.afdb.org/sites/default/files/Evaluations/2020-03/CBFF%20Evaluation.pdf. Bisiaux, F., Peltier, R., and Muliele, J-C. 2012. “MAMPU, sur les plateaux Batéké, en R.D. Congo, le projet qui réconcilie Agroforesterie et production de bois-énergie”. CIRAD. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/564862/. Bureau d’Etude pour la Recherche et le Développement (BERD). 2019. “Rapport fin de mission”. Central African Forest initiative (CAFI). 2016. “Letter of Intent for the Establishment of a Partnership Between the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and The Central African Forest initiative (CAFI) on the Implementation of the National REDD+ Framework Strategy and Investment Plan of the DRC”. https://www.cafi.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/LOI%20V7%20Final%2018%20April%202016%20-ENG%20- %20with%20logos.pdf. Central African Forest initiative (CAFI). n.d.a (accessed November 22, 2024). “Performance-Based Financing in the DRC: CAFI's Next Phase focuses on Payments for Environmental Services, Building Local Capacity”. https://www.cafi.org/countries/democratic-republic-congo/performance-based-financing-drc-cafis-next-phase-focuses- payments-environmental-services-building. Central African Forest initiative (CAFI). n.d.b (accessed November 22, 2024). “Sustainable management of natural resources in the former Plateaux District in Mai-Ndombe Province - PIREDD Plateaux”. https://www.cafi.org/countries/democratic-republic-congo/integrated-redd-program-strengthening-local-actors- development-and-sustainable-management-natural. Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD). 2023. “Nouvelle étude sur la consommation en énergie domestique des ménages urbains de la RDC”. https://ur-forets- societes.cirad.fr/actualites/nouvelle-etude-sur-la-consommation-en-energie-domestique-des-menages-urbains-de-la-rdc. Climate Investment Funds (CIF). 2022. “Theory of Change for the Climate Investment Fund”. https://www.cif.org/sites/cif_enc/files/meeting-documents/joint_ctf-scf_tfc_25_4.2_cif_theory_of_change_final_0.pdf. Enabel. 2018. “Rapport final: PRODEKK”. http://www.diplomatie.be/oda/36520_ENABEL_FIN_REPORT_RDC1116111_24_RapFin_2018-12- 04_000_20181206141055.pdf Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). 2013. “Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN); Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo; ER Program Name: Mai Ndombe REDD+ ER Program; Date of Submission or Revision: May 17, 2013”. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/ER-PIN_DRC_17May2013_0.pdf. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). n.d. (accessed November 22, 2024). “Congo (Democratic Republic of)”. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/country/congo-democratic-republic. Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (FIP-CU). 2024a. “Rapport final de l’analyse économique du Projet de Gestion Améliorée des paysages forestiers". https://www.ucpif.cd/doc-155. Page 47 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (FIP-CU). 2024b. “PGAPF et ses financements additionnels : Rapport terminal". Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (FIP-CU). n.d.a (accessed November 22, 2024). “Mécanisme de Gestion de Plaintes”. https://ucpif.cd/page-72. Forest Investment Program Coordination Unit (FIP-CU). n.d.b (accessed November 25, 2024). “Instruments de gestion des risques environnementaux et sociaux”. https://www.ucpif.cd/sauvegarde.php?p=3. Global Forest Watch. 2022. “Forest Loss Remained Stubbornly High in 2021”. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/insights/global-tree-cover-loss-data-2021/. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2022a. “Politique de l’Agriculture Durable de la République Démocratique du Congo”. FAOLEX Database. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC214543. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2022b. “Politique Nationale de l’Energie de la République du Congo”. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-10/UNDP-CD- Politique%20Nationale%20de%20l%27Energie%20de%20la%20RDC_Version%20Rev%20de%20mai%20202203102022.pd f. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2021a. “Plan National d’Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques (2022-2026)”. FAOLEX Database. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC217107. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2021b. “Contribution Déterminée à l’échelle Nationale révisée”. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/CDN%20Revis%C3%A9e%20de%20la%20RDC.pdf. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2021c. “Document de politique foncière nationale”. https://medd.gouv.cd/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=7452. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2020. “Politique Nationale d’Aménagement du Territoire”, https://amenagement.gouv.cd/Outils%20de%20planification/PNAT.pdf. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2015. “Plan d’investissement REDD+. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)”. https://www.cafi.org/sites/default/files/2021- 02/DRC_2015_Plan%20Investissement%20National%20REDD%20RDC%2024%20Novembre%202015.pdf. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2012. “Stratégie-Cadre Nationale REDD+ de la République Démocratique du Congo”. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/Strategie- cadre%20nationale%20REDD%20de%20la%20RDC.pdf. Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (GoDRC). 2010. “Readiness Plan for REDD 2010-2012”. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/R-PP_V3.1_English_July2010.pdf. Guigon, P. 2023. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (GEF AF) - P128887 - Sequence No: 18”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099083123114538045/p12888706d0fa70dc08ae70eb44e2b8a3b4. Page 48 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Guigon, P. 2023. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 17”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099110002162379998/p12888705fa7bd0f50a34101e53f4e2d0c7. Guigon, P. 2022. “Disclosable Restructuring Paper - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099310308082223586/p128887039d5010d30a182016f8e574e02a. Guigon, P. 2022. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 16”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099530107282232774/p12888707f1e3001e0aae40c67c6822ee50. Guigon, P. 2022. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 15”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099830001142219018/disclosable0ve07000sequence0no00015. Guigon, P. 2021. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 14”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/972881625667017522/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-14. Guigon, P. 2020. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 13”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/509061609163679232/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-13. Guigon, P. 2020. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 12”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/864861591192669036/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-12. Guigon, P. 2019. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 11”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/657051574887346346/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-11. Harris, T. and Mavambu, R. 2022. “Congo’s Oil Ministry greenwashing exposed: New oil blocks overlap Protected Areas, maps reveal. Greenpeace”. https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/press/51567/congos-oil-ministry-greenwashing- exposed-%EF%BF%BCnew-oil-blocks-overlap-protected-areas-maps-reveal/. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) / The World Bank (WB). 2013. “Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises”. https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB14-Full-Report.pdf. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC), International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF) and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). n.d. (accessed November 22, 2024). Page 49 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT “Alternatives to slash-and-burn: A global strategy.” https://apps.worldagroforestry.org/Units/Library/Books/PDFs/75_Alternatives_to_slash-and-burn.pdf. International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2022. “Country Private Sector Diagnostic: Creating Markets in the Democratic Republic of Congo - Putting National Resources to Sustainable Productive Use”. https://www.ifc.org/en/insights- reports/2022/cpsd-democratic-republic-of-congo. Jeuland M., Tan Soo J., and Shindell D. 2018. “The Need for Policies to Reduce the Costs of Cleaner Cooking in Low- Income Settings: Implications from Systematic Analysis of Costs and Benefits.” Energy Policy 121: 275–285. ISSN 0301- 4215. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421518304178. Jeuland, M. A., and Pattanayak S. K. 2012. “Benefits and Costs of Improved Cookstoves: Assessing the Implications of Variability in Health, Forest and Climate Impacts”. PLoS ONE 7 (2): e30338. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3278415/pdf/pone.0030338.pdf. Karsenty, A. 2011. ”Combining Conservation Incentives with Investment.”, CIRAD. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/589276/1/Perspective_7_Karsenty_ENG.pdf. Multina/DMK. 2018. “Rapport final de l’étude socio-économique dans la zone de la mise en œuvre de la Composante 1 du PGAPF du PIF". MJPE, 350Africa.org, Greenpeace Africa, IDPE asbl, REDD, Rettet den Regenwald e.V and Dynamique Pole. 2022. “We’ll keep our forests, you keep your dollars! Local voices against Congo’s oil auction”. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-africa-stateless/2022/09/38e752f8-oil-blocks-report-english-v1.2.pdf. Shapiro, A. et al. 2023. “Small scale agriculture continues to drive deforestation and degradation in fragmented forests in the Congo Basin (2015–2020)”, Land Use Policy, Volume 134, 106922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106922. Treyer, S., Karsenty, A. and Mushiete, O. 2023, “International biodiversity finance: reframing payments for ecosystem services within a co-investment for sustainable development approach”. IDDRI. https://www.iddri.org/en/publications- and-events/issue-brief/international-biodiversity-finance-reframing-payments-ecosystem. Valence, C. 2024. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (GEF AF) - P128887 - Sequence No: 20”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099062924155022469/p1288871aec3630021a4351ca9321c667af. Valence, C. 2024. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (GEF AF) - P128887 - Sequence No: 19”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099030724085538031/p128887135e42a0f118c231d5699813668b. Valiergue, L. 2019. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 10”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/712191559115484139/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-10. Valiergue, L. 2018. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 9”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- Page 50 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT reports/documentdetail/825761544190906905/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-09. Valiergue, L. 2018. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 8”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/259131527425667258/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-08. Valiergue, L. 2017. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 7”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/440091512681432941/disclosable-version-of-the-isr-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-sequence-no-07. Valiergue, L. 2017. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 6”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/172201497279760543/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-06. Valiergue, L. 2016. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 5”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/663291481645885786/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-05. Valiergue, L. 2016. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 4”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/412671468234859662/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-04. Valiergue, L. 2015. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 3”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/978791468245393159/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-03. Valiergue, L. 2015. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 2”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/892681468025754453/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-02. Valiergue, L. 2014. “Disclosable Version of the ISR - DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project - P128887 - Sequence No: 1”. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/790291468234295850/congo-democratic-republic-of-drc-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-p128887-implementation-status-results-report-sequence-01. World Bank (WB). 2024. “2024 Guidance Note on Shadow Price of Carbon in Economic Analysis”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099553203142424068/idu1c94753bb1819e14c781831215580060675b1. Page 51 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT World Bank (WB). 2023a. “Democratic Republic of Congo - Second Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Foundational Economic Governance Reforms Development Policy Financing”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099155503132340239/bosib029db93e70900874501536c86692d3. World Bank (WB). 2023b. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Forest and Savanna Restoration Investment Program Project”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099051523182536762/bosib07228eeae0850a279051484db98ddf. World Bank (WB). 2022a. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Foundational Economic Governance Reforms Development Policy Financing”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/674011655914223908/congo-democratic-republic-of-foundational-economic-governance- reforms-development-policy-financing. World Bank (WB). 2022b.“Congo, Democratic Republic of - Support to the Operationalization of the Emission Reductions Payment Agreement Under the Maï-Ndombe er Programme Project”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/099740008222219881/p170835045e2840c088800d1ae41cf15b9. World Bank (WB). 2019. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Improved Forested Landscape Management Project : Additional Financing”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/213891560218526630/congo-democratic-republic-of-improved-forested-landscape- management-project-additional-financing. World Bank (WB). 2018a. “Purchase / Sale of Emission Reductions (ER) to be generated under the Mai Ndombe ER Program”. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P160320. World Bank (WB). 2018b. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Systematic country diagnostic”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/171101529346675751/congo- democratic-republic-of-systematic-country-diagnostic. World Bank (WB). 2017. “Mai-Ndombe REDD+ Integrated Project under CAFI”. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P162837. World Bank (WB). 2016. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Forest Dependent Communities Support Project”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/773161468185641782/congo- democratic-republic-of-forest-dependent-communities-support-project. World Bank (WB). 2014. “Congo - Improved Forested Landscape Management Project”. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/712601468026110807/Congo-Improved-Forested-Landscape- Management-Project. World Bank (WB). 2013. “International Development Association International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Country Assistance Strategy for the Democratic Republic of Congo for the Period FY2013- FY2016. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/664211468246896400/pdf/661580CAS0Box30C0disclosed050160130.pd f?_gl=1*y25l0v*_gcl_au*MTE1MTYxMjEzNy4xNzIyNjE2NDQz. Page 52 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT World Bank (WB). 2009a. “BCF – IBI Carbon Sink – Bateke.” https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects- operations/project-detail/P096414. World Bank (WB). 2009b. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Forest and Nature Conservation Project”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/827841468025803662/congo- democratic-republic-of-forest-and-nature-conservation-project. World Bank Group (WBG). 2023a. “Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Country Climate and Development Report 2023”. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/b1dd27cc-249f-4380-9b73-80cb8f695a43. World Bank Group (WBG). 2022a. “Congo, Democratic Republic of - Country Partnership Framework for the Period FY22- 26”. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/214221646062568502/congo-democratic-republic-of-country-partnership-framework-for-the- period-fy22-26. World Bank Group (WBG). n.d. (accessed November 22, 2024). “Geo-Enabling initiative for Monitoring and Supervision (GEMS)”. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/geo-enabling-initiative-for-monitoring-and- supervision-gems. World Economic Forum. 2024. “World Environment Day: An A-Z of the World’s 17 Megadiverse Countries.” https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/environment-day-biodiversity-world-megadiverse- countries/#:~:text=What%20is%20megadiversity%3F,well%20as%20a%20marine%20ecosystem. World Resources Institute (WRI) (2024), “Top Ten List.” https://research.wri.org/gfr/top-ten-lists#the-top-10-countries- for-total-tree-cover-loss-from-2001-to-2023. Page 53 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 7. CHANGES TO INDICATORS DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 7.1. Changes to Outcome Indicator targets during Project Implementation Table 7.1. Revised Outcome Indicator Targets Revised Revised Final target Original Outcome Indicator Target (AF1, Target (AF2, (Restructuring, Target (2014) 2017) 2019) 2022) (a) GHG ERs (and removals) generated under the project (metric ton) 3,250,000 9,600,000 No change 11,500,000 (b) People in forest and adjacent communities with monetary/non- 120,000 220,000 No change 260,000 monetary benefit from forests (number) (i) Female 40,000 90,000 No change 115,000 (ii) Ethnic minority/indigenous people 0 10,000 No change 15,000 (c) Land area where sustainable land management practices were 105,000 300,000 350,000 368,000 adopted as a result of project (ha) (d) Designing and implementing new approaches (number) 8 No change No change No change 7.2. Changes to Intermediate Results Indicators during Project Implementation Table 7.2. Changes to Intermediate Indicators Revised Revised Revised target Original Target Intermediate Indicator Target (1st Target (2nd (Restructuring (PP, 2014) AF, 2017) AF, 2019) 2022) Biomass (energy) produced in a sustainable manner (metric 802,500 1,755,000 No change 2,100,000 tons) New agroforestry plantations that received technical support 20,000 29,000 No change 35,000 from the project (ha) Chiefdom (Chefferie) with Performance-Based Incentives and 50 50a 55 93 Investments mechanisms in place (percentage) Participants in consultation activities during project 30,000 70,000 No change 90,000 implementation (number) Participants in consultation activities during project 10,000 25,000 No change 30,000 implementation – female (Number) Farmers from the targeted villages who have adopted an 20,000 33,500 No change 36,875 improved agroforestry technology promoted by the project Farmers from the targeted villages who adopted an improved 7,000 11,000 No change 12,000 agroforestry. technology promoted by project - female Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) score for n.a. n.a. 55.00 No change Tumba Lediima Natural Reserve (Number) Community sub-projects registered as REDD+ sub-projects n.a n.a 2.00 No change (Number) Note: a. While the indicator is measured in percent, the area to which the percentage applied increased with the AF. Page 54 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 8. ASSESSMENT OF NET CARBON BALANCE 1. The ex post carbon balance assessment has showed that IFLMP has a total mitigation potential of 29,494,168 tCO2e removals and avoided emissions from land-based activities and 44,127 tCO2e ERs from the clean cooking component (see table 6.2). However, it is important to note that both forest management and clean cooking activities aim to reduce emissions from firewood consumption in the project area. To prevent double counting of ERS across these two activities, the ex post carbon balance reported for the project will only include the ERs and removals from land-based activities, which amount to 29,494,168 tCOaa2e. 2. The assessment used EX-ACT, developed by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2010, to estimate land- based ERs. EX-ACT calculates the carbon stock changes and GHG emissions per unit of land in tCO2e per hectare per year. Table 6.3 provides the data inputs used to estimate the net carbon balance of the IFLMP project. The DRC has a tropical moist climate and low-activity clay soil type. The project's implementation phase lasts for 10 years, with an assumed capitalization period of another 10 years, leading to a total accounting duration of 20 years. The evolution dynamics are assumed to be linear, and Default 'Tier 1' coefficients are used. It is worth noting that the monitoring framework in the PAD indicates that the ERs derived from indirect investments aiming at improving energy efficiency of cookstoves were measured according to the CDM Small-scale Methodology (AMS-II.G.) However, the ICR analysis relies on EX-ACT instead, to ensure consistency in the approach across all the projects’ investments. At the time of the project approval, EX-ACT was not widely accepted in the scientific community and project designers as it is today. It now allows for a robust assessment, including clean cooking activities. Table 8.1. IFLMP Ex-Post Carbon Balance Assessment Conducted with EX-ACT Project Activities WOP WP Balance Deforestation 5,065,246 0 −5,065,246 Land use changes Afforestation 0 −10,159,399 −10,159,399 Other land-use 0 −296,077 −296,077 Cropland Perennial 0 −771,675 −771,675 Forest management 8,890,034 −4,311,737 −13,201,771 Total land-based activities 13,955,280 −15,538,888 −29,494,168 Clean cooking. 147,089 102,962 −44,127 Total emissions, tCO2e 14,102,369 −15,435,927 −29,538,295 Total emissions, tCO2e/ha 67.5 −73.9 −141.4 Total emissions, tCO2e/ha/yr 3.4 −3.7 −7.1 Page 55 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Figure 8.1. EX-ACT Detailed Results DETAILED RESULTS Project name IFLMP Continent Central Africa Project duration (in years) Total area (ha) 208,930 Global warming potential Country Democratic Republic of the Congo Implementation Phase 10 Mineral soil 208,930 CO2 1 Climate Tropical Capitalization Phase 10 Organic soil 0 CH4 34 Moisture Moist Total Duration of Accounting 20 Waterbodies 0 N2O 298 Tier 2 Tier 2 Specific GHG Annual GROSS FLUXES SHARE PER GHG OF THE BALANCE fluxes AVERAGE ANNUAL EMISSIONS emissions In tCO2-e over the whole period analysis In tCO2-e over the whole period analysis In tCO2-e/yr ALL NON- PROJECT COMPONENTS WITHOUT WITH BALANCE CO2 BIOMASS CO2 SOIL N2O CH4 AFOLU WITHOUT WITH BALANCE EMISSIONS* Deforestation 5,065,246 0 -5,065,246 1 -4,805,678 -258,761 -808 0 253,262 0 -253,262 Land use Afforestation 0 -10,159,399 -10,159,399 1 -8,673,751 -1,485,648 0 0 0 -507,970 -507,970 changes Other land-use 0 -296,077 -296,077 1 -19,085 -276,992 0 0 0 -14,804 -14,804 Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cropland Perennial 0 -771,675 -771,675 1 -730,534 -41,141 0 0 0 -38,584 -38,584 Flooded rice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grasslands & Grasslands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livestock Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest mngt. 8,890,034 -4,311,737 -13,201,771 1 -12,935,212 0 -54,632 -211,928 444,502 -215,587 -660,089 Inland wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coastal wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fisheries and aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inputs & Invest. 147,089 102,962 -44,127 1 0 0 -44,127 7,354 5,148 -2,206 Total emissions, tCO2-e 14,102,369 -15,435,927 -29,538,295 ↓ Check issue -27,164,259 -2,062,542 -55,440 -211,928 -44,127 705,118 -771,796 -1,476,915 Total emissions, tCO2-e/ha 67.5 -73.9 -141.4 ↓↓ -130.0 -9.9 -0.3 -1.0 -0.2 Total emissions, tCO2-e/ha/yr 3.4 -3.7 -7.1 ↓↓↓ -6.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.0 + = Source / - = Sink ↓↓↓↓ Results presented here include GHG fluxes on mineral and organic soils Check issue Uncertainty level tCO2-e/yr Percent See further down for detailed results on organic soils Check issue WITHOUT 705,118 33% * Includes fisheries, acquaculture and inputs & investments that are not included in the AFOLU definition. Check issue WITH -771,796 36% Check issue BALANCE -1,476,915 35% Source: Author’s elaborations using EX-ACT software. Table 8.2. Data Inputs Used to Estimate the Net Carbon Balance of IFLMP (2014–2024) Section Parameter Value Units Climate Tropical Moisture Moist Soil Type Low-activity clay soils 1.2 Project site and Implementation phase 10 years duration Capitalization phase 10 years Project duration (in years) Total duration of 20 years accounting 100 year Fifth Assessment Source: Report with climate change 1.3 Global warming feedback potential CO2 1 CH4 34 N2O 298 1.4 Reference soil Soil Organic Carbon reference 38 tC/ha organic carbon stock level Type of vegetation that will be 2.1 Deforestation Tropical rainforest deforested Page 56 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Section Parameter Value Units HWPs 0 (tDM/ha) Fire used? NO Final land-use after Degraded land deforestation land-use type Agroforestry system — Start 145,958 ha Without 141,725 ha Forested area (ha) Dynamics of change Linear With 145,958 ha Dynamics of change Linear Final land-use Tropical rainforest Fire used? NO Initial land-use Degraded land 2.2 Afforestation and Initial agroforestry system — reforestation Without — ha Dynamics of change Linear Reforested area (ha) With 21,219 ha Dynamics of change Linear Other land-use change Oil palm Fire used? NO Initial land use Degraded land Final land use Oil palm Without – ha Dynamics of change Linear Area of land use change (ha) With 2,097 ha 2.3 Other land use Dynamics of change Linear changes Other land-use change SHADED PERRENNIALS Fire used? NO Initial land use Degraded land Final land use Shaded Perennial Without — ha Dynamics of change Linear Area of land use change (ha) With 1,801 ha Dynamics of change Linear Perennials converted from Description non-forest LUs Agroforestry systems Agroforestry - default 3.2. Perennial Tillage management No tillage cropping systems Input of organic material Medium C input (for example, Residue/biomass burning NO agroforestry, Start ha orchards, tree crops ) Without ha Area(ha) Dynamics of change Linear With 3,898 ha Dynamics of change Linear Type of forest vegetation that Tropical rainforest will be managed Page 57 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Section Parameter Value Units Start Low Forest degradation level Without Moderate With Very low Without YES Fire occurrence With NO Without 1 years Fire periodicity With 1 years Without 1.0% Fire impact (% burnt) With 1.0% 5.1 Forest degradation and Start 37,855 ha management Without 37,855 ha Forested area (ha) Dynamics of change Linear With 37,855 ha Dynamics of change Linear None 0% Very low 10% Forest degradation level Low 20% (biomass loss) reference values Moderate 40% Large 60% Extreme 80% 9.2 Energy Start — tdm/year consumption (Clean Solid Wood Without 55,177.73 tdm/year cooking component) With 38,624.41 tdm/year Page 58 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 9. MAPS 9.1. Map of Project Intervention Areas Page 59 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 9.2. Map of Agroforestry Plantations and Exclosures Page 60 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 9.3. Map of Project Protected Areas Intervention Page 61 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT 9.4. Map of Road Infrastructures Page 62 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 10. COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS DEVELOPED BY THE PIU, THE WORLD BANK TEAM, AND THE DIA FOR PIREDD MAI-NDOMBE  www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUyuwUdJgiY&t=618s  www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xy8kQzjOTE&t=7s  www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2IZF0Vl9E  www.youtube.com/watch?v=OICisMLbB3k  www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd6t8Zxjs1Y&t=93s  www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKdKX9QalYQ  www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaf7lxKfYt8  www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts7FizWzuco  www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp25sXo-9p8  www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nfw5RAiQ4k  www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2srOEkBfBQ  www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJYf-c3o9rQ&t=43s  www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cFiEZGYVYo  https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=G7CZiLjjS_4#bottom-sheet  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTytGeRRgtQ  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbV_kZiy6YM  https://www.banquemondiale.org/fr/news/feature/2022/11/15/in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-people- centered-solutions-to-forest-degradation Page 63 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 11. PHOTOS The photos were provided by the FIP-CU. Figure 11.1. Agroforestry and Reforestation Intervention Figure 11.2. Dissemination of Improved Planting Material (Cassava) Page 64 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Figure 11.3. Value Chain Development Intervention Figure 11.4. Indigenous Peoples Microprojects Page 65 The World Bank Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887) ICR DOCUMENT Figure 11.5. Transport Infrastructure Figure 11.6. Socio-Economic Benefits of the Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Page 66