Japan Social Development Fund Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006

Transcription

1 42687 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Cover photo by Michael Foley. CONCESSIONAL FINANCE AND GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS Japan Social Development Fund Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006 THE WORLD BANK Washington, DC THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN THE WORLD BANK Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN

2 Japan Social Development Fund Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006 THE WORLD BANK Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN

3 Message from the Chair of the JSDF Steering Committee Photo by Michael Foley.

4 The Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) has been in operation for six years. Over this period the Government of Japan has generously contributed $320 million to the Fund. Over 200 grants have been approved using the Fund s resources. JSDF is now building an enviable reputation as one of the most effective investments available to the World Bank in supporting innovative approaches to delivering direct benefits to disadvantaged groups in developing countries. The core of the JSDF is its regular program, which supports both project and capacity-building grants, working wherever possible with local governments, non-government organizations (NGOs) or civil society organizations (CSOs). Many of these grants support highly innovative approaches to social development, ranging from support to groups of widows in Indonesia to promotion of hand-washing with soap in Senegal and from early childhood development initiatives in Mali to promoting educational access to handicapped children in Cambodia.This program offers development professionals who come across innovative ideas to pilot these outside the framework of conventional World Bank-financed operations. The first generation JSDF projects are now complete, and this report, for the first time, includes reports on the projects that reached completion in FY06. It is impressive to see that, of the grants reviewed, 90 percent were ranked as Successful or Highly Successful and that in 14 out of 16 grants sustainability was ranked as Probable, Very likely or Certain. One of the great strengths of JSDF is its flexibility. Since its inception in 2000 JSDF has added four additional components.the creation of seed fund grants was agreed in 2002, and these are now frequently used to facilitate consultation with isolated or marginalized groups of potential beneficiaries. Also in 2002, a special JSDF Afghanistan window was created, and this is now a major feature of JSDF, with nine approved grants and $52 million allocated to the window. In December 2004, following the disastrous tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the Government of Japan approved an allocation from JSDF for post-tsunami reconstruction projects. Twelve grants benefiting five of the countries hit by the tsunami have been approved, and I myself had an opportunity to see the impact that two of these grants are having when I visited Aceh in June One was assisting young people in the town of Aceh to re-establish a community commitment through development of community radio stations, while another had assisted widows in a fishing village in reconstruction of their devastated homes and enterprises. During FY06 the Government of Japan approved a further innovative use of JSDF resources, to help those disabled following the Pakistan earthquake of October 8, Four grants have been approved, totaling over $6.5 million. iii

5 The four Pakistan earthquake grants all involve implementation by NGOs.The substantial use of NGOs as implementing agencies is one of the distinguishing features of JSDF. Of the 21 grants approved in FY06, 13 involved NGOs or CSOs as implementing agencies. There is now a substantial body of experience from JSDF projects, and it is appropriate to look at experience and lessons learned from experience to date. With support from the Government of Japan an independent program evaluation has been commissioned, and during FY07 the results of this evaluation and other evidence of progress to date, including the material in this annual report, will be used as the basis to review the program. It is already widely recognized that the Japan Social Development Fund is making a unique contribution to the welfare of marginalized and disadvantaged groups. On behalf of the World Bank, I and the JSDF Steering Committee members are most grateful to the Government of Japan for their continued strong support to the program. Arif Zulfiqar Director,Trust Fund Operations, and Chair, JSDF Steering Committee iv

6 Contents Message from the Chair of the JSDF Steering Committee Abbreviations ii vii Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 1 JSDF Origins and Objectives 1 The Five JSDF Programs 2 FY06 Program Highlights 3 Chapter 2: JSDF, FY01 to FY06 4 The Overall JSDF Program 4 The JSDF Regular Program 5 The JSDF Seed Fund 8 The Pakistan Earthquake Grants 9 The Special Program for Afghanistan 12 The Post-Tsunami Recovery Grants 12 Chapter 3: The JSDF Simplification Process 13 Chapter 4: JSDF Program Progress and Impact 15 Grant Quality Review and Approval Process 15 Grant Implementation and Reporting 15 JSDF Grants in Action 16 Impact of the JSDF Seed Fund 28 Working with Civil Society 29 Chapter 5: Review of JSDF Completed Grants 31 Chapter 6: JSDF Administration and Communication 34 Communication Processes 34 Further Information on JSDF 34 Annex 1: JSDF Project and Capacity Building Grants Approved in FY06 35 Annex 2: FY01 FY06 Regional Distribution of JSDF Grants 37 Annex 3: JSDF Seed Grants Approved in FY06 38 Annex 4: Special Program for Pakistan Earthquake Approved in FY06 39 v

7 Annex 5: Special Window for Afghanistan Approved in FY06 40 Annex 6: JSDF Post-Tsunami Recovery Grants Approved in FY06 41 Annex 7: List of Grants Completed in FY06 42 Annex 8: FY07 Annual Policy Document 45 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Contributions,Allocations and Disbursements, FY01 to FY06 2 Figure 2: Number of JSDF Grants by Year and Type, FY01 to FY06 4 Figure 3: JSDF Grants by Value and Type, FY01 to FY06 5 Figure 4: Number of Regular Program Grants bytype, FY01 to FY06 6 Figure 5: FY06 Regional Distribution of Regular Program Grants, by Value 6 Figure 6: FY06 Sectoral Distribution of Regular Program Grants, by Value 7 Figure 7:Afghanistan Rural Infrastructure Sub-Projects 18 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: Expected Features of JSDF Projects 1 Box 2: Pakistan: Promoting Independent Living Among Persons with Disabilities 10 Box 3: Pakistan: Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) of Persons with Disabilities 11 Box 4:Afghanistan: National Solidarity Project 16 Box 5: Ecuador: Law and Justice for the Poor 21 Box 6: Local Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russia 23 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of Featured Projects 16 Table 2: Implementation Progress in JSDF Target Areas as of August Table 3: FY06 Approved Grant Proposals by Recipient 29 Table 4: FY06 Approved Grant Proposals by Implementing Agency 30 vi

8 Abbreviations ADR AFR CBOs CBR CDCs CDD CN CSOs EAP ECA ERR FY GRM ILCs ILP GoJ JSDF LAC MNA MICs NGOs NSP PCP PHC SAR SC TFO TTLs Alternative Dispute Resolution Africa Region Community Based Organizations Community-Based Rehabilitation Community Development Councils Community Driven Development Concept Note Civil Society Organizations East Asia and the Pacific Eastern Europe and Central Asia Economic Rates of Return Financial Year Grant Reporting and Monitoring Independent Living Centers Independent Living Program Government of Japan Japan Social Development Fund Latin America and Caribbean Region Middle East and North Africa Middle-income Countries Non Governmental Organizations National Solidarity Program Peer Counseling Program Primary Health Care South Asia Region Steering Committee Trust Fund Operations Task Team Leaders vii

9

10 Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview JSDF ORIGINS AND OBJECTIVES The JSDF was established in June 2000 by the Government of Japan and the World Bank. The Fund was initially established in response to the devastating impact of the East Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. It has subsequently expanded to become a leading source of support for innovative approaches to providing direct support to the most disadvantaged groups in Developing Countries. The agreed objective of the JSDF is: to provide grants in support of innovative social programs to help alleviate poverty in eligible client countries of the World Bank Group In order to achieve this objective, JSDF supports Developing Country central and local governments, NGOs and CSOs in a wide variety of projects. All these projects are expected to meet certain fundamental criteria (see Box 1). Box 1 Expected Features of JSDF Projects JSDF projects are expected to: Be innovative introducing new approaches or ideas to development. Some may be entirely new innovations, others may involve introducing ideas that are new to the country in question, but have had success elsewhere; Directly respond to the needs of marginalized, vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. Marginalization may be a function of location, gender, age, ethnicity, physical fitness...; Provide reasonably rapid, demonstrable and sustainable benefits. JSDF will not support projects that will take many years to deliver benefits to the target population; Build capacity of local governments, NGOs and CSOs, empower the members of disadvantaged groups, and promote stakeholder participation in project activities. 1

11 Figure 1: Contributions, Allocations and Disbursements, FY01 to FY06 100,000 90,000 Contributions Allocations Disbursements 80,000 70,000 60,000 US$ ,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 The Government of Japan had provided $320m to the JSDF Fund by the end of FY06. Since the start of the program 215 grants have been approved, with a total value of $227m. As Figure 1 shows, the overall JSDF program has expanded slowly but steadily over the past six years. Disbursements were slow in the early years, but exceeded $35m in FY06. However, new program allocations were close to the FY03 levels at $34m. In FY06, following the earthquake in Pakistan, the Government of Japan generously provided grants through JSDF to assist the country in its reconstruction efforts. Furthermore, it continued to provide assistance to the countries recovering from the 2004 tsunami and also provided additional funding for capacity building in Afghanistan. THE FIVE JSDF PROGRAMS There are five different categories of JSDF grants: Regular program grants, which finance either project or capacity building grants aimed at introducing innovative programs which provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities; Seed fund grants.these are small grants provided to help in preparation of proposals for regular program grants, and particularly to provide resources to permit consultations to take place with proposed beneficiary groups, who may be remotely located or widely dispersed; Special grants to support a range of development and capacity building activities in Afghanistan; 2

12 Special grants to support recovery measures following the tsunami which struck on 26th December 2004; and Special grants for rehabilitating and revitalizing areas affected by the earthquake which hit Pakistan in October FY06 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS In FY06, 11 projects totaling $15.2m were approved under the regular program, of which seven were for projects and four for capacity building. Also, Pakistan was granted $6.5m to assist the earthquake victims in reconstruction activities (a total of four projects). In addition,afghanistan received $15m in support of activities of the National Solidarity Program. Furthermore, the tsunami victims received an additional $6m largely to support four projects in the context of the rehabilitation of their fisheries sectors. With the closure of a large number of grants awarded during the period of , an evaluation of the JSDF program was initiated. Broadly, its objectives were to: Review the progress and development impact to date of the JSDF; Assess the achievements of the JSDF as a whole and of selected grants, in the light of the Fund s objectives; and Make recommendations on ways in which the Fund might better achieve its objectives in the future. The evaluation team is due to report on its conclusions in December

13 Chapter 2 JSDF, FY01 to FY06 THE OVERALL JSDF PROGRAM Figures 2 and 3 show how the JSDF program has expanded steadily since FY01, in scale and in scope. Figure 2 shows that the number of approved JSDF grants was between 26 and 31 in FY01 and FY02, increased to 40 a year in FY03 and FY04, exceeded 50 in FY05, but decreased to 26 in FY06. The fall in FY06 is attributable to a combination of decrease in the submission of regular proposals and reduced demand for seed funding. Figure 3 shows that when the grants are viewed from a value perspective the picture changes. 1 Regular program grants started at a level of over $30m in FY01, fell significantly in FY02 and FY03, recovered their FY01 level Figure 2: Number of JSDF Grants by Year and Type, FY01 to FY Pakistan Post-Tsunami Regular Program Seed Fund Afghanistan 40 Number of grants FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 1 It will be noted that the data on grants approved in Figure 3 differs slightly from the data on allocations in Figure 1. Grants approved (Figure 3) are recorded in the year in which approval is received from Japan.Allocations are recorded subsequently by Accounts and sometimes a grant approved in June is not recorded as an allocation until July in the following financial year. 4

14 Figure 3: JSDF Grants by Value and Type, FY01 to FY06 70,000 60,000 Pakistan Post-Tsunami Regular Program Seed Fund Afghanistan 50,000 US$ ,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 in FY04 and increased sharply in FY05, to over $40m.The special grants to Afghanistan, while small in number, are very significant in value terms, accounting for much of the increase in FY04 and remaining significant in FY05 and FY06. The post-tsunami grants were half their FY05 levels in FY06, but together with the emergency grants in support of the reconstruction program in Pakistan reached the FY05 level. THE JSDF REGULAR PROGRAM There are two main types of JSDF regular program grants: Project grants that support either activities providing direct relief measures to poorer population groups or innovation and testing of new approaches, particularly in the social sectors. Project grants often use the Community Driven Development (CDD) approach which fosters local participation in the community s development. A JSDF grant may finance a standalone project, or pilot activities which may be replicated on a larger scale with World Bank Group or other financing. Capacity building grants which finance capacity strengthening and building activities, especially for NGOs, CSOs and local governments. The grants may be used to strengthen local communities, local governments, local institutions and/or NGOs, promote collaboration between local governments and communities and improve decision-making and accountability of local communities. Both project and capacity building grants are available to low and lower middle-income countries as defined in the 2005 World Development Report. 5

15 Figure 4: Number of Regular Program Grants by Type, FY01 to FY06 30 Project Capacity building FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Figure 4 shows the distribution of grants between the two categories since FY01. FY06 has seen a sharp decrease in both project and capacity building grants, with a sharper decrease in project grants. The JSDF agreement specifies that approximately 50 percent of total JSDF funds should go to eligible countries in East, South and Central Asia (see Annex 8). Figure 5 and Annex 1 show Figure 5: FY06 Regional Distribution of Regular Program Grants, by Value SAR $1.4m, 9% LAC $2.9m, 19% AFR $4.1m, 27% ECA $3.8m, 25% EAP $3.0m, 20% 6

16 Figure 6: FY06 Sectoral Distribution of Regular Program Grants, by Value Multi-sector: Social Protection and Risk Management, 23% Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry, 21% Education, 9% Health and other Services, 4% Multi-sector: Social Development, Gender and Inclusion, 43% that in FY06 JSDF fell short of this target, with only about 40% of funds going to East Asia, South and Central Asia. However over the FY01 to FY06 period the target has been comfortably achieved, with over 50% of grants ($93m) going to South and East Asia alone. Annex 2 shows the regional distribution of JSDF grants. Figure 6 presents the sectoral distribution of FY06 regular program grants. Given the social development emphasis of JSDF it is not surprising that practically two-thirds of the grants are classified as social multi-sector, covering such areas as gender, social inclusion, social protection and risk management. Other major sectors are agriculture, fishing and forestry, and education. Some features of the projects approved in FY06 are noteworthy: Of the 11 projects approved by Japan, four of them focused on children and youth.the project supporting education for very poor children in Indonesia will improve primary and junior secondary school enrollment and performance in very poor communities that had been affected by a combination of economic crisis and widespread rural violence which had caused many schools to suspend or cease operation.the children and youth innovation fund in Honduras will finance NGOs, community-based organizations, and other communitysupporting organizations that are implementing innovative projects targeting vulnerable and at-risk children and youth, particularly those that have been affected by HIV/AIDS and those living with a disability under extreme poverty. In Kenya, a grant will strengthen inclusion, participation and empowerment of young people in development processes. It will address issues of economic self-reliance, life skills and well-being, empower youth and include them in leadership positions; and design programs that target underserved, disadvantaged youth and are gender-inclusive.the children and youth innovation fund in Turkey will improve the 7

17 situation of vulnerable and at-risk children and youth, with particular attention to children and youth affected by HIV/AIDS and those living with disability under extreme poverty. A number of programs focused on the development of sustainable models for the improvement of the livelihoods of rural communities. For example, in Indonesia the project will help the rural populations access knowledge, information and means of communication that will improve their livelihoods. Other projects will help them build capacity and improve their income. In the case of Guatemala, capacity will be built through expert assistance and training of local indigenous communities to create better job opportunities, improved income, increased access to infrastructure and a lower degree of marginalization.these activities will strengthen the capacity of the indigenous people to improve their livelihoods and their ability to plan in a participatory manner. In Orissa, India, a pilot project to improve the incomes of the poor informal workers and reduce poverty will be implemented. It will facilitate the development of sustainable livelihood systems centering on handlooms, sericulture and medicinal plants for vulnerable sections of society. A community based Aral Sea Fisheries Management Project in Kazakhstan will improve living conditions of fishing communities and communications among them and reduce environmental degradation. It will also support pilot work in both improving fish-smoking technology and establishing marketing associations to improve the income and the livelihoods of women traders. Reproductive health is another recurrent theme. In Ethiopia, a new JSDF project seeks to increase knowledge about reproductive health and risk issues and identify and implement local transport solutions aimed at improving access to health care and other basic social services. In Guinea, a project was approved which will pilot an initiative to use the existing Onchocerciasis community facilitators network to distribute family planning and HIV/AIDS interventions. This will contribute to improved access to reproductive health information and services in rural communities. Capacity building activities in the Philippines will enhance the accountability and efficiency of NGOs in delivering basic services to regions with high poverty incidence. The JSDF places particular emphasis on innovation, and the new grants in FY06 show that this remains a major feature. For example the Guinea project mentioned above is very innovative in that it will integrate reproductive health with the Onchocerciasis program thereby resulting in the acceleration of access to reproductive health information.the innovative features of the Kenya Youth Development project include a grant-making program to provide funds to youthserving organizations in support of a variety of activities including those that improve the livelihood of marginalized youth. It will also test the use of Community Driven Development approaches focused on youth which will help facilitate participation and inclusion of youth in community development. THE JSDF SEED FUND JSDF projects are intended to assist marginalized or disadvantaged communities, and when project proposals are reviewed it must be evident that the intended beneficiaries have been consulted and involved in project design.the process of participative consultation with communities who 8

18 are sometimes distant from capital cities requires special resource allocations. In this context, in March 2002, the Government of Japan agreed to the establishment of a special fund to facilitate this process. Grants not exceeding $50,000 are provided to Bank teams who are preparing possible JSDF applications and need resources to organize participatory activities. Seed fund grants are expected to be utilized within 12 months of grant approval and therefore to lead to a full JSDF proposal about a year after the seed fund is approved. Fifty-three seed fund grants have been approved since FY02. By far the largest number, 22, have been used in Africa, where 16 countries have benefited from seed fund grants. Other regions which have made substantial use of Seed Fund grants are East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA). Only one country, Indonesia, has used more than three seed fund grants. Annex 3 lists the seed fund grants approved in FY06. There were five seed fund grants approved during that year. It is clear that the geographical and disciplinary range of these grants is wide. Every World Bank region except the Middle East and North Africa (MNA) is represented. No country benefited from more than one grant. A range of subjects were covered, from story telling as a tool to promote accountability in the health sector in Malawi, to civil and community engagement in Armenia and Vietnam, community disaster management in Haiti and the Dominican Republic and strengthening social accountability and transparency of the judiciary in Russia. THE PAKISTAN EARTHQUAKE GRANTS On the morning of October 8, 2005, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake hit Pakistan and left great devastation in one of the most remote mountainous parts of the world and one of the poorest parts of Pakistan. It brought widespread destruction to the districts of Abbottabad, Manshera, Batagram, Shangla, Balakot and Kohistan in the North West Frontier Province and Muzaffarabad, Bagh and Poonch (Rawalakot) in Azad Jammu Kashmir and Islamabad. The worst affected parts of four Districts including Manshera, Bisham, Muzzafarabad and Bagh were completely flattened. According to the Government of Pakistan figures, over 73,000 people died and more than 70,000 had been severely injured or disabled. Over 2.8 million persons have been left without shelter. Eighty-five percent of the damage was in rural areas. The earthquake hit at 8:55 a.m. on Saturday morning, when children were in school. A very large number of deaths and injuries occurred among school children.an estimated 15,000 people injured had their limbs amputated and severe spinal cord injuries that left them paralyzed, unable to move. Fifteen thousand people were estimated to have been injured by paralysis/ amputation. In addition, there were numerous people with head and spinal injuries and those suffering from trauma.along with the high proportion of newly disabled from the earthquake, individuals already disabled lost many of their support systems, including family members on 9

19 whom they were reliant for economic support.the absence of pre-existing safety nets coupled with the impact of the earthquake meant that disabled persons in particular needed external assistance geared towards long-term rehabilitation. The World Bank, along with the Asian Development Bank carried out a Damage and Needs Assessment which focused on the lost infrastructure and its $3.8b replacement cost. It also assessed the social damage. On November 19, 2005, there was a Donor s Conference in Islamabad that pledged $6 billion for relief and reconstruction.almost all of this was for emergency relief and longer-term reconstruction of physical infrastructure.at this conference, the Japanese Government announced that its $5m JSDF program would focus on disability. The Japanese Government exceeded its pledge and has contributed so far about $6.5m through the JSDF program.to date, four grants have been approved (see Annex 4).Two of the projects financed under the JSDF program are described in Boxes 2 and 3. Box 2 Pakistan: Promoting Independent Living Among Persons with Disabilities Component A. Establishment of Independent Living Centers Establishment of nonresidential Independent Living Centers (ILCs) staffed and organized by persons with disabilities for persons with disabilities, in administrative centers of the areas most affected by the earthquake, including Manshera, Bisham, Muzzafarabad and Bagh. These will provide training in Independent Living Program (ILP), Peer Counseling Program (PCP) and Attendant Service Training, for persons with disabilities to be integrated into the communities they live in and develop skills they need to lead full and productive lives. Carrying out of small works, including installation of ramps and building toilets that are disabledfriendly in ILCs. Recruitment of staff for ILCs, mostly consisting of persons with disabilities and emphasizing on gender balance and those who became disabled as aresult of the earthquake. Component B. Implementation of ILP; PCP; and Attendant Service Training Provision of training to persons with disabilities, including recently disabled ones, in ILP and PCP to help them acquire independent living skills specifically aimed at ensuring integration in the communities in which they live. Provision of training and attendant services to persons with severe disabilities. Component C. Outreach Program for Independent Living and Barrier Free Environment Undertake a civic engagement campaign and seminars in and around ILCs to promote independent living among persons with disabilities and barrier free environment in communities. Component D. Project Facilitation Office Establishment of a project facilitation office through strengthening the existing Milestone Society for Special Persons office, to coordinate, document and disseminate Project activities. Provision of Project management and support activities, including cost of supervision and hiring of staff. 10

20 Box 3 Pakistan: Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) of Persons with Disabilities Component A. Establishment of CBR Resource Centers. Establishment of a network of CBR Resource Centers equipped to accommodate training sessions for persons with disabilities and related organizations, to serve as focal points to develop, strengthen and enhance services for persons with disabilities in areas most affected by the earthquake. This includes ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to services and information; facilitating their inclusion in their communities through the development of knowledge about disability, including identifying their individual needs and methods for them to participate in mainstream activities; supporting them to access post-earthquake compensation; providing technical assistance to earthquake-affected persons in the construction of accessible houses and necessary adaptations; and providing livelihood skills training for them. Component B. Identification and Capacity Building of CBR Workers; Provision of CBR Services and Solutions to persons with disabilities. Identification of community workers to be part of a network of trained individuals able to provide rehabilitation support to persons with disabilities, their families and caretakers; find appropriate solutions to remove barriers to independence and inclusion of persons with disabilities in their communities; and train other local community workers to have basic knowledge of primary rehabilitation, psycho-social support techniques and accessibility. Recruitment of liaison officers as knowledge banks to disseminate information on post-earthquake compensation initiatives, government policies and other related information relevant to persons with disabilities. Provision of training to community workers to act as inclusion vectors and to identify and work with persons with disabilities, define individual needs and priorities, liaise and refer them to bestpractice services, and train other local stakeholders and raise awareness about their inclusion in communities. Development of disabilities awareness materials and training sessions through CBR Resource Centers with the participation of persons with disabilities, including the development of culturally and linguistically appropriate manuals which focus on inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities in the reconstruction process. Component C. Strengthening CBR Services Through Technical Assistance and Sub-Grants to Community-based Organizations (CBOs). Provision of technical assistance for CBOs, including utilization of CBR Resource Center experts, literature and training to strengthen the existing CBOs network and to support CBOs network partners to further the reach and quality of activities and services provided to persons with disabilities. Provision of sub-grants to selected CBOs to carry out sub-projects involving rehabilitation and reconstruction activities through a facilitated participatory planning process. These activities shall focus on, among other things, removing both physical and attitudinal barriers towards disability and promoting inclusion of persons with disabilities in community activities, including economic, political, social and cultural activities. Other activities will include developing and implementing inclusive approaches into CBOs existing reconstruction activities and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. 11

21 THE SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR AFGHANISTAN Since 2002, JSDF has been an active development partner of the Government of Afghanistan by supporting the enormous challenge of political, social and economic rebuilding. Through the special assistance window created for Afghanistan in March 2002, JSDF grant funding has supplemented and complemented the Government s national reconstruction and development efforts supported by the World Bank. Two new grants for Afghanistan were approved during FY06 under the JSDF Special Program (Annex 5). The two grants totaling $15m will supplement the original grant to the National Solidarity Program (NSP) which aims at laying down the foundations for strengthening community level governance. It supports community-managed sub-projects to allow 300 villages to improve their communities access to social and productive infrastructure. One of the additional grants will increase the coverage from 300 villages in 7 districts to 1,118 villages in 14 districts.the second supplemental grant will finance selected communities in Afghanistan that successfully completed the disarmament of illegal armed groups. These two grants bring the total number of grants financed under the Afghanistan Special Program to nine and the total amount allocated to the program to about $52m. THE POST-TSUNAMI RECOVERY GRANTS On 26th December 2004 a powerful undersea earthquake resulted in a tsunami which led to horrific impacts along the coasts of many Indian Ocean countries.there was an unprecedented response to the disaster from all over the world, and Japan, itself familiar with tsunamis, was one of the leading providers of immediate and longer term recovery assistance. One channel of their assistance was the JSDF. The Government of Japan agreed that JSDF grants might be used to finance activities directly providing reconstruction measures and improvement of services and facilities for poorer population groups in tsunami-affected countries. In order to facilitate the use of JSDF grants in these exceptional circumstances, the Government of Japan agreed that some of the usual limits on the use of JSDF grants could be relaxed. Grant applications could be considered from any country affected by the tsunami, proposals could be for additions to existing grants or for new grants, and did not necessarily need to complement existing Bank operations nor did they need to wait for the usual rounds of JSDF applications. By the end of FY06, 12 post-tsunami recovery grants had been approved by the Government of Japan.These grants benefit five of the countries hit by the tsunami, Indonesia, the Maldives, Sri Lanka,Thailand and Somalia. Details of the grants provided in FY06 are shown in Annex 6. 12

22 Chapter 3 The JSDF Simplification Process A major initiative to simplify JSDF processes was completed during FY06.The objective was to streamline procedures so that World Bank task teams and recipient countries can access funds in a more effective way. The intended impacts of the process were to: expedite provision of grant funds to recipient countries for projects and capacity building; reduce the burden on Bank staff engaged in processing the grants; reduce delays in grant signing and activation; and increase the focus on grant outcome rather than outputs. The key outputs were: the process now starts with a concept note (CN) which provides critical information about the proposed grant. The task team leader (TTL) seeks clearance of draft CN from Trust Fund Operations (TFO). If cleared by TFO, thettl submits a grant proposal, using a simplified grant application form with increased focus on strategic context rather than technical assistance activities; a standard grant agreement which is automatically generated from the funding application, thus greatly reducing the workload of the Legal team; simplified expenditure categories to avoid frequent amendments to the grant agreement; a standardized disbursement letter available at the time of grant agreement signing; the funding proposal includes an entry addressing the proposed audit approach; 13

23 cost tables in the different parts of the proposal document are linked, so that when a change is made to one of the components, it is automatically updated in all the cost tables; the detailed cost table now includes a column for the procurement plan; all procedures for the whole life of a project are found in one place, Procedures for Processing JSDF Grant Documents ; processing period is normally 12 weeks from the call for proposals to submission to Japan; providing a basis for broader standardization of grant proposals; and TFO no longer clears requests for reallocations, as long as there is no change in the grant development objectives. The simplified processing procedures were received with widespread enthusiasm.the recommended length of the proposal is now 10 pages (including the one-page grant proposal as well as the grant supplementary information). 14

24 Chapter 4 JSDF Program Progress and Impact GRANT QUALITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS Proposals for JSDF grants are first vetted by technical reviewers and endorsed by the country lawyer, the country finance officer, respective World Bank Country Director and Sector Manager and the regional trust fund coordinator.the World Bank JSDF Steering Committee (SC) then reviews the proposals, which are either cleared, with minimal revisions, for submission to Japan, returned to task teams for revision and resubmission, or rejected.the SC recommends proposals that meet the JSDF criteria for approval by the Government of Japan (GOJ).The Ministry of Finance of the GOJ approves, rejects or requests more information on project proposals. Once approved by the Government of Japan, the legal counsel begins preparation of the Grant Agreement. GRANT IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING JSDF grant implementation requires compliance with the World Bank s Procurement and Financial Management Guidelines.These guidelines are the same as those required for World Bank loans and credits. The grant implementation period is a maximum of four years from the date of countersignature of the Grant Agreement. Grants can be implemented by local governments, NGOs, CSOs and/or community groups.world Bank Task Teams are required to submit grant progress reports on a yearly basis, excerpts of which are available on the JSDF website. A new process of review of completed JSDF grants has now been introduced. Chapter 5 presents the results of this first review, which covers all grants that completed activities in FY06. 15

25 JSDF GRANTS IN ACTION Projects that are selected for submission to Japan go through a rigorous process. Hence, they substantially meet the basic tenets of the JSDF program in terms of innovation and participation of the beneficiaries in grant preparation; addressing the needs of the poorest and/or most vulnerable groups; building the capacity of local governments, NGOs or community groups. Each year, a sample of JSDF projects is featured in the Annual Report to show the breadth of JSDF activities and to reflect the diversity of the portfolio.the following projects are featured in this report: Table 1: List of Featured Projects Grant Amount Approval Expected (US$) Date Completion Date Afghanistan: National Solidarity Project Original Grant 11,000,000 09/23/ /31/2007 Ist Supplemental Grant 10,011,842 11/01/ /31/2007 2nd Supplemental Grant 5,000,000 06/06/ /31/2007 TOTAL 26,011,842 Ecuador: Law & Justice for the Poor 1,780,000 06/06/ /30/2006 Russia: Local Governance and Civic Engagement 1,252,700 01/02/ /30/2007 Afghanistan: National Solidarity Project Amount of Grant: $26m (TF054367: $11m, 1st supplement: $10m, 2nd supplement: $5m). Grant Recipient/Executing Agency: Ministry of Rehabilitation and Rural Development Grant Objective: To lay the foundations for strengthening community level governance and support community-managed sub-projects comprising reconstruction and development that improve the access of rural communities to social and productive infrastructure and services. Grant components appear in Box 4. Box 4 Afghanistan: National Solidarity Project Component I: Community Rehabilitation and Development Program Block Grants are provided to communities to enable them to plan and implement sub-projects involving reconstruction and development activities identified through a facilitated participatory process at the community level. Component II: Implementation Support and Capacity Building This component is meant for technical and facilitation support at the central, district and community levels by the team of consultants and the facilitating NGO partners. Component III: Project Implementation and Management Project Implementation & Management Costs comprise the incremental expenses of project management. 16

26 As a result of a quarter-century of devastating civil strife and half a decade of serious drought, Afghanistan has some of the poorest social, economic and health indicators in the world. Rural Afghanistan is home to nearly 80 percent of the population. Most village roads are in need of culverts and bridges to make them passable throughout the year, the large majority of children do not have access to education or are taught under the open sky, there is almost no access to electricity in rural areas, and the majority of the country s population does not have access to safe drinking water. To address state building, local governance, warlordism, and to urgently provide basic rural infrastructure for irrigation, drinking water, electrification, rural roads and schools, the government has promoted a massive outreach effort to rural communities through the NSP since 2003.The program has been supported by IDA and several donors, including Japan through the JSDF program, under the leadership of the World Bank. The NSP builds on lessons learned from the JSDF funded NGO Support Program of $2m, which for the first time ever in Afghanistan established an operational partnership between NGOs and the Government.There have been three JSDF contributions to NSP I over the past three years, totaling $26m. This amount was earmarked for four provinces, namely Balkh, Bamiyan, Kandahar and Nangarhar. Photo by Mio Takada 17

27 Results to Date Although it is difficult to account for the impact of the JSDF contribution alone, the following table (Table 2 below) shows the implementation progress in the JSDF target areas. NSP has thus far rolled out to 13 out of 16 districts (81%) in Balkh, in all 7 districts in Bamiyan (100%), 7 out of 18 districts (39%) in Kandahar, and 13 out of 22 districts (59%) in Nangarhar. Progress in Kandahar has unfortunately been hindered by a steadily worsening security situation, but other areas have made significant progress, benefiting a total of over 315,000 families or about 1.9 million people. Table 2: Implementation Progress in JSDF Target Areas as of August 2006 Activity Balkh Bamiyan Kandahar Nangarhar No. of communities mobilized No. of CDCs elected No. of Sub-projects financed No. of Sub-projects completed Total block grant disbursements US$8.1m US$8.3m US$7.9m US$7.7m Economic Impact and Returns Communities have consistently prioritized rural infrastructure sub-projects. They include: water supply and sanitation, transport (roads, bridges etc.), irrigation, rural energy, livelihoods, education, and others. More than 80 percent of all labor generated by these sub-projects has been absorbed within the communities. NSP has already created over 16.6 million labor days, giving the poor some income generating activities. Community implemented sub-projects have also proven to be more cost effective, often costing 50 percent or less than the cheapest commercial provider. Figure 7: Afghanistan Rural Infrastructure Sub-Projects Livelihoods, 10% Education, 7% Others, 2% Water Supply and Sanitation, 26% Rural Energy, 15% Irrigation, 19% Transport (Roads, bridges etc.) 21% 18

28 Returns on NSP outputs are immediate, and the evidence suggests that benefits to villagers are high. A sample of 22 selected sub-projects showed economic rates of return (ERR) averaging 26.3 percent to 60.8 percent, with an overall ERR weighted average of 38.2 percent. Social Impact and Community Perception Although quantifiable data is unavailable, external qualitative surveys and findings from the World Bank supervision missions suggest that NSP has brought some important social benefits. Key impacts include increased trust in government, empowerment of the people including women, strengthened democratic governance at the community level, and improvement in social cohesion within the community as well as between communities. First, NSP has helped increase community s trust toward the government. NSP already reaches out to over 70 percent of the villages across the country.this unprecedented level of outreach has not only boosted the government s visibility but also strengthened their legitimacy vis-à-vis the communities. For the first time in history, communities saw tangible benefits delivered by the government, which in turn led to the people s perception that the government was interested in their community. 2 The villagers perception contrasts sharply in non-nsp villages, where they feel the government neglects them completely. Photo by Mio Takada 2 Post-war Reconstruction & Development Unit,The University of York. (2006) Mid-term Evaluation of the NSP 19

29 Second, NSP has contributed to people s empowerment. Creation of Community Development Councils (CDCs) has greatly increased villagers participation in collective decisionmaking and project implementation. By introducing democratic elections, ordinary villagers who otherwise wouldn t have played a significant role in village governance are being selected as CDC members and playing a proactive role. By putting the problems into the hands of the community, NSP has nurtured their ownership and responsibility to solve their problems. Women s empowerment is mixed at best, but the inclusion of women in CDCs has, in some instances, opened up space for them to discuss ideas and potentially influence the decisionmaking process. 3 In conservative areas such as Nangarhar and Kandahar, women s substantial involvement is virtually impossible. Even in more liberal areas such as Bamiyan and Balkh, women participate but have yet to influence the decision-making process. But encouraging their participation has certainly helped the women become more sensitized to broader issues in the community.there are cultural barriers that still hinder women s participation, and this issue will continue to be addressed in the NSP II through more intensive facilitation as well as training for both men and women. Japan s continued support and engagement through JSDF is considered important for the NSP for two key reasons. One is to ensure the scale up of the NSP I to cover the entire country. It is crucial to roll out especially to volatile regions for equity, security, and political purposes. The other is to enable the NSP II to address key policy issues which have broader impacts on the overall governance in Afghanistan. Ecuador: Law and Justice for the Poor Amount of Grant: $1.78m Grant Recipient/Executing Agency: Projusticia Grant Objective: To improve access to alternative dispute resolution and qualified legal representation for poor rural and urban communities, indigenous people, and women and children. Grant components appear in Box 5. It is now increasingly accepted that countries will be unable to make sustainable progress in reducing poverty in the absence of equality before the law and legal empowerment of the poor. Without such equality and empowerment, the poor will remain without basic legal rights and opportunities and will be unable to protect themselves against arbitrary treatment. Even under the best of legal systems, the poor face numerous obstacles accessing justice sector services. For this reason, reducing the barriers that the poor face with regard to formal systems, providing access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and developing techniques to offer qualified legal representation for the poor are important ways in which international development assistance can promote law and justice for the poor and, in so doing, advance efforts to reduce poverty. 3 Kakar, Palwasha (2005). Fine-Tuning the NSP: Discussions of Problems and Solutions with Facilitating Partners Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit,Working Paper 20

30 Box 5 Ecuador: Law and Justice for the Poor Component 1: Indigenous Justice Comprehensive national study on customary indigenous law practice Inter-cultural consultative dialogue between civil, judicial and indigenous leaders established in 139 indigenous communities 2,881 community members trained on formal and informal customary legal processes through 22 regional and national workshops Component 2: Peace Culture Peace culture projects designed and implemented in 57 elementary and high schools 3,822 children trained as mediators in peaceful resolution of conflict techniques 362 teachers trained as peace culture trainers and facilitators Ministry of Education and Culture and Sports certified Human Rights diploma for participating high school students Component 3: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Services New ADR centers established and nationally certified for 12 poor rural communities 159 new mediators trained and certified National ADR network and clearinghouse established Component 4: Public Defense Services The Bar Associations of Quito and Guayaquil establish two legal service centers 150 lawyers trained and certified by a new fourth level national degree program certified by the CONESUP, the national education authority A total of 3,712 client cases attended to in Quito and over 11,000 cases and consultations attended to in Guayaquil by legal service centers. Building upon the International Development Association Judicial Reform Project ( ) and complementing the Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project and Poverty Reduction and Local Development Project, the Law and Justice for the Poor Project leveraged the growing expertise of the Ecuadorian non-governmental sector to empower poor people through legal services.working through twelve Ecuadorian non-governmental organizations in 21 of Ecuador s 22 provinces, the project developed a series of activities to empower indigenous communities, provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in rural areas, address growing youth violence, and support efforts to provide free legal assistance for the poor. The project s four inter-related components worked to embody all of the JSDF program s key objectives by responding directly to the needs of the poor, by facilitating capacity building and community empowerment as well as by supporting NGOs in their capacity to address needs that are not served by the formal justice sector. Results to Date Through a combination of research, training and pilot activities, NGOs implemented a series of sustainable activities to improve access to justice. 21

31 To support the ongoing government dialogue on how best to implement Article 191 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, consultations were held in 139 indigenous communities to establish an inter-cultural dialogue between civil, judicial and indigenous leaders. In so doing, teams produced a global review of indigenous customary law practices and identified those areas where additional training was required. Following the participatory development of training materials, specialized workshops and training activities were implemented throughout Ecuador for poor and rural indigenous communities. In support of these activities, cooperation agreements were signed with several additional indigenous organizations and community movements allowing the training materials developed to be used during replication activities. Photo by Projusticia Ecuador s Law on Arbitration and Mediation of 1997 encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to provide access to legal services to both poor urban and rural communities.whereas local providers have developed the means to meet some of the needs of the urban poor, both the formal justice sector and the majority of alternative dispute providers have been unable to meet the needs of the rural poor. By focusing on rural and difficult access areas, the grant provided the means to train new cadres of mediators and open 12 new and sustainable centers through agreements with local hosting municipalities. Additionally, the grant supported the creation of a national clearinghouse to bring together in formal meetings both rural and urban alternative dispute resolution practitioners in an effort to create a formal mechanism to exchange experiences and information and to begin to develop national standards for these services. Crime and violence affect the poor disproportionately and have become increasingly recognized as a development issue given that they are obstacles to sustainable economic development. In 22

32 Photo by Projusticia order to contribute to the development of techniques to address growing child and teen violence throughout Ecuador, activities designed to facilitate a culture of peace were developed and implemented in cooperation with local schools and municipalities under the guidance of national education authorities. Through a variety of educational methodologies and techniques, young people throughout Ecuador designed and directed a host of activities to create a new awareness on ways to address crime and violence and promote national human rights standards. 23

33 Despite constitutional guarantees for legal services and a right to defense, there are only 32 public defenders for a population that exceeds thirteen million inhabitants and extremely limited free legal services offered by NGOs and university clinics. By supporting the efforts of the Bar Associations of Guayaquil and Quito, the grant assisted with the development and formalization of a free and sustainable legal services model and provider network. In so doing, the model offered free legal representation to the poor on a wide array of legal matters. The project is now completed. It was among the projects evaluated by the independent consultant team and it was found to be very relevant to the context of weak legal systems, long waiting periods, less than adequate record on human rights and the needs of the target audience. It was also complementary to the Government strategy. Local Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russia Amount of grant: $1.2m Grant recipient/executing Agency: Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation Grant objective: To promote more effective and equitable socio-economic development in rural communities through building the capacity of formal and informal local governance institutions and increasing community participation and empowerment via civic engagement. Grant components are in Box 6. Box 6 Local Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russia Component 1: Planning Process and Selection to develop a detailed project implementation plan, select pilot territories, sub-contracted firms, rural municipal consultants, and legal advisors Component 2: Planning and Budgeting for Municipal Development to build capacity for municipal development; allocate resources more effectively; improve service provision; and plan for local development Component 3: Expanding Demand-driven Service Provision to foster mobilization of resources, private donations, public support for new models of service provision and community initiatives such as public/private service provision and social partnerships Component 4: Dissemination, Monitoring & Evaluation, Audit to disseminate via media, publications, Best Practices Toolkit on Self-Government, study tours and regional workshops, monitoring & evaluation and audit of project components Importance of the Grant in Post-Soviet Russia The specific challenges of socio-economic development in rural Russia include higher poverty and more restricted access to social services such as education and health. According to the 2004 Poverty Assessment, the incidence of poverty in rural areas is twice as high as in urban areas (30% vs. 15%). Rural poverty is also compounded by disempowerment since many rural 24

34 communities lack control over public resources and therefore have little incentive to promote economic growth or improve social service delivery. Moreover, access to public services such as education, health, and transport is limited as infrastructure deteriorates and service quality declines. Recent local government legislation passed by the federal government, much of which took effect in January 2006, provides the potential to empower rural communities in taking greater control over their lives and local resources and calling for greater budget autonomy and longterm development planning. However, in rural areas, decentralization alone may not be enough to guarantee an increase in the efficiency of governance. Low revenues in local budgets, little experience in delivering client-oriented services and participation mechanisms are significant impediments.additional efforts are needed to improve the managerial skills of rural leaders, foster new concepts of mechanisms of participation in decision-making processes, and to provide social services that match the demands of rural communities. If municipalities do not have the capacity in skills, tools and processes to take advantage of this opportunity, the new legislation specifies that these newly-created entities fall under the provision of state administration.this would limit the chance of making government more responsive and citizens more engaged in local development, causing the cycle of apathy and disempowerment to continue. So in the context of local governance reform efforts and the need to strengthen the capacity of rural local governments in the post-socialist environment, the agenda of this pilot project is undeniably important. Photo by Lubov Ovchintseva 25

35 Description of the Pilot Grant The JSDF grant of $1.2m to the Government of Russia aimed to address some of these challenges. Conceived as a vehicle to achieve substantial and measurable progress towards improving public sector management and mitigating social risks (two of the three objectives in the World Bank s Country Assistance Strategy for Russia ), the pilot project sought to achieve these aims by (1) delivering targeted technical assistance for the most critical problems facing Russia s local governments; (2) a decentralized mode of operation to maintain an active field presence in the targeted pilot territories; and (3) proven approaches to cost-effective training/technical assistance delivery, dissemination, replication, and parallel efforts to empower local expertise and build sustainable capacity in local partners. Results to date The JSDF grant has produced some significant and innovative results, including: i) Pro bono legal work with citizens on issues of public significance that fills a legal vacuum in rural areas and provides poor rural citizens with access to formal legal space and equal opportunities; Providing training by leading experts for rural leaders and communities on budgeting, service provision and community participation methods in local governance is part of the Local Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russia grant. Photo by Lubov Ovchintseva 26

36 ii) Legal advice to local governments on how to make laws on local government operational; iii) Analysis of legal environment conducted for pilot territories and recommendations made to improve the legal framework of local governments; iv) Creation of an inter-regional network of 18 Rural Municipal Consultants and Legal Advisors providing ongoing assistance to local governments and communities and building skills for future opportunities; v) Training for rural leaders and communities in budgeting, service provision and participatory methods for engaging the community in decision-making processes; vi) Supporting rural local governments to determine priorities and solutions for the next budget cycle with community participation via Service Improvement Action Plans; vii) Creating social funds and attracting non-budgetary resources to accomplish the identified priorities; viii) Analysis of services in health, education and public improvements and recommendations on monitoring and improving these services; and ix) Locality card (for investigating communities needs) developed and piloted in Perm and the Republic of Adygeya. In addition, the pilot project has inspired further innovational developments in mechanisms of local governance and funding not part of the original agenda. For example, the project supported and developed community foundations and resource centers for social initiatives in the pilot regions. The key role that young people play as agents of social change and actors in governing and improving village life has also begun to be explored by local and regional governments participating in the JSDF pilot grant. Building sustainable and innovative partnerships with civil society, local communities and NGOs and strengthening institutional capacity has been possible thanks to the specificities of the grant mechanism. The format of the JSDF grant offers several comparative advantages. Firstly, it facilitates institutional innovation and experimentation. It allows work to be carried out at settlement level to strengthen the capacity of formal and informal government. In addition, in middleincome countries (MICs) it endorses original programs that specifically target the neediest poor. It also represents an important contribution to the institutional dialogue with these countries by allowing innovative, pilot projects that can illustrate successful institutional practices.these can be scaled up in larger reform programs, combining Bank resources with national budgetary and other public resources as well as private funds. MICs can afford to incorporate the innovations into the national budgetary allocations, for example via publiclyfunded social development funds. This approach reduces the risk associated with extensive reform and leads to a more active and varied engagement with both governments and the population. 27

37 Playground in Republic of Adygeya: the result of a small community-based grant designed and built by residents of the village in partnership with a local community foundation. Photo by Lubov Ovchintseva The Government s commitment and engagement to discussion of local government reforms has intensified over the last few years. The strong commitment and active involvement of regional, district and settlement local government officials and consultants in the pilot territories largely explain the project s successes. Overall, in a country that abandoned socialism less than a quarter of a century ago, the Local Governance and Civic Engagement project has facilitated an important step along the long road to effective and efficient local governance carried out by elected officials with dynamic civic engagement. IMPACT OF THE JSDF SEED FUND In March 2002, the Government of Japan agreed to the establishment of the JSDF Seed Fund to support the additional costs inherent in the preparation of JSDF grant proposals. Since JSDF grants are intended to finance demand-driven activities, there is a need to carry out intensive consultations with stakeholders to ensure that a participatory approach is followed in the design of grant activities. Hence, the program finances seed grants of up to US$50,000 to enable task teams to elicit directly the input of beneficiary communities, civil society groups, NGOs and local government counterparts. JSDF Seed Fund grants can disburse for up to 28

38 12 months, at the end of which the task team would in principle submit a well-developed JSDF grant proposal. There is no expectation that every seed fund proposal would lead to a JSDF proposal, or that every proposal that was prepared using a seed fund grant would be approved by the JSDF Steering Committee.The objective of consultation is to compare the originally conceived project with the needs and expectations of the target communities, and it is to be expected that at times there may be a disconnect, or the discovery that other projects are in fact addressing the communities needs. Nevertheless, seed fund proposals are reviewed carefully and critically to increase the likelihood of development of a successful proposal. It is worth noting that while in the first two years of the seed fund operation, few of the seed fund grants resulted in proposals approved by the Steering Committee. From FY02 FY06, 53 seed fund requests were approved, resulting in 27 proposals which were approved by Japan. In FY06 in particular, there was only one proposal submitted to and approved by the Steering Committee out of the 5 seed grants approved. Hence, over 50% of the seed funds have resulted so far in a proposal over the FY02 FY06 period. WORKING WITH CIVIL SOCIETY The JSDF encourages the participation of NGOs and CSOs in the planning, preparation and implementation of grants. Experience suggests that high quality NGOs can reach the poor in ways that government projects cannot. Under the JSDF, an NGO/CSO can be both the recipient and the implementing agency, although sometimes, depending on a country s laws or the government s preference, a government agency is the recipient and the NGO/CSO, the implementing agency. Implementation may also be jointly carried out between the NGO/CSO and the government. The following tables give the breakdown of grant proposals approved in FY06.Table 3 shows that the government is the recipient in 14 of JSDF grants. Table 3: FY06 Approved Grant Proposals by Recipient Number of Grants Percentage Government NGO/CSO 7 33 TOTAL

39 Table 4 shows that the benefit of using an NGO/CSO as implementing agency is recognized. Fifty-two percent of the grants approved in FY06 are implemented by NGO/CSOs and an additional 10% are jointly implemented by an NGO/CSO with a government agency. Table 4: FY06 Approved Grant Proposals by Implementing Agency Number of Grants Percentage Government 8 38 NGO/CSO Joint Govt/NGO/CSO 2 10 TOTAL A JSDF grant can empower NGOs and CSOs that may be working on a small scale to expand very much needed interventions. By supporting NGO/CSOs, JSDF is able to contribute to capacity building and sustainability of activities that will assist the most vulnerable populations. 30

40 Chapter 5 Review of JSDF Completed Grants The purpose of the review of completed grants was to learn from the experiences of grant implementation and particularly to provide feedback that could lead to program improvements. The review was carried out on 18 grants which closed in FY06, with end disbursement dates on or before October 31, The list of completed grants is shown in Annex 7. Of the 18 grants reported on, capacity building grants account for over 60% of the grants and are distributed throughout the Bank s six regions. However, in terms of amount provided, most of the grants went for project activities (54%). The closed projects were in all Bank regions, with 6 of the 18 projects in South Asia, 5 in East Asia and the Pacific, two each in Africa, Europe and Central Asia and Latin America, and one in the Middle East and North Africa Region. The grants addressed issues in 14 different countries, with Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and India all receiving two grants. The review methodology was based on grant completion reports prepared by TTLs in the Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM) System and the data from SAP and Trust Fund Accounting Department. Performance of the grants was rated on a six point rating scale: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Moderately Satisfactory, Moderately Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory, and Highly Unsatisfactory. In this report, the ratings have been aggregated as Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory and Moderately Satisfactory. In addition to the above assessments, the GRM reports also provide information on other key aspects of the JSDF program objectives, e.g. participation of communities/civil society organizations; sustainability of implemented activities after closure of the 31

41 grant; and lessons learned under the grant that can be used in other Bank projects and in scaling up grant activities. Of the 18 grants reviewed, two were clearly unsuccessful (the Jharkand Participatory Forest Management Project in India, abandoned after 10% of the grant was disbursed, and the project in Sindh, Pakistan, which was dropped without any disbursement). In terms of the achievement of development objectives, three of the projects were rated as highly successful (one in Afghanistan, one in India and one in the Philippines). However, only one project was rated as marginally successful (in Jordan), so out of the full 18 projects close to 90% were successful or highly successful, an impressive achievement in a program which supports innovative projects targeted at exceptionally disadvantaged groups. As regards grant implementation performance, again excluding the two fully unsuccessful projects, one project was recorded as highly successful (the same urban poor renewal project in the Philippines). Four projects were only marginally successful. Two-thirds of the projects were successful or highly successful. The reports do shed light on the extent to which some of the broader objectives of JSDF are being achieved in the 16 projects where activities were implemented. In 13 of these 16 grants it is reported that all or virtually all the planned grant objectives and outputs were achieved. In one case achievement was partial, and in two it was disappointing. It should again be noted that given the pilot and innovative nature of JSDF projects, the fact that over 80% of projects that got off the ground delivered on their objectives is impressive. Sustainability and replicability are two of the criteria against which the success of JSDF interventions should be measured. Of the 16 grants, 11 report that the activities are certain or very Egyptian children making crates 32