43090-012: Social Protection of the Vulnerable in the Pacific (Cook

Implementation Completion Memorandum

Project Number: 43090-012 Grant Number: 9151 July 2019

Social Protection of the Vulnerable in the Pacific (Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, and Tonga) (Financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction)

This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB's Access to Information Policy.

JAPAN FUND FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (JFPR) IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION MEMORANDUM (ICM)

I. BASIC INFORMATION JFPR Number and Name of Grant: 9151-REG: Social Protection of the Vulnerable in the Pacific (Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, and Tonga) 2. Country (DMC): 3. Approved JFPR Grant Amount: Regional: Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Tonga $3.0 million: Cook Islands $900,000; Marshall Islands $1,200,000; Tonga $900,000 4. Grant Type: Project 5-A. Undisbursed Amount 5-B. Utilized Amount $247,594.74 $2,752,405.26 6. Contributions from other sources: $525,000.00 Source of Contribution: Committed Amount Actual Remark - Notes: Contributions: DMC Government $300,000.00 $0.00 In-kind ADB Incremental Costs $150,000.00 $387,500.00 For regional technical assistance support Private Sector $0.00 $0.00 Community/Beneficiaries $75,000.00 $0.00 In-kind Total $525,000.00 $387,500.00 7-A. GOJ Approval Date: 7-B. ADB Approval Date: 7-C. Grant Effectiveness Date: 10 June 2010 13 September 2010 18 January 2011 8-A. Original Grant Closing 8-B. Actual Grant Closing Date: 8-C. Account Closing Date: Date: 13 September 2013 30 June 2015 29 January 2018 9. Name and Number of Counterpart ADB (Loan/Grant): Cook Islands: Economic Recovery Support Program, Loan 2565-COO; approved October 2009 for $10.0 million. Marshall Islands: Public Sector Program, Loan 2659-RMI and 2950-RMI; approved August 2010 and November 2012 for $9.5 million and $5.0 million, respectively. Tonga: Economic Support Program, Grant 0185-TON; approved December 2009 for $10.0 million. 10. The Grant Recipients: (i) Primary beneficiaries: communities and vulnerable populations (women, youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, including children, outer islanders) in the selected pilot areas; (ii) National and local nongovernment organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs); and (iii) Government agencies responsible for social protection or planning.

11. Executing Agency (EA) and Implementing Agency (IA): (i) Cook Islands: EA - Ministry of Finance and Economic Management; P.O. Box 120, Rarotonga, Cook Islands; Tel: (682) 22878; Fax: (682) 29465; Mr. Garth Henderson, Financial Secretary. IA - Ministry of Internal Affairs. PO Box 98, Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islands; Tel: (682) 29370; Fax: (682) 23608 Ms. Anne Herman, Secretary. (ii) Marshall Islands: EA - Ministry of Finance; P.O. Box D, Majuro MH 96960; Tel: (692) 625 8311; Fax: (692) 456 2385; Ms. Maybeline Andon Bing, Secretary; IA - Ministry of Resources and Development; P.O. Box 1727, Majuro, MN 96960; Tel: (692) 625 3206/4020; Fax: (692) 625 3218; Ms. Iva Reimers Roberto, Secretary (iii) Tonga: EA and IA - Ministry of Finance and National Planning; PO Box 87, Nuku'alofa, Tonga; Tel: (676) 23066; Fax: (676) 26011; Mrs. Pilimilose Balwyn Fa’otusia, Chief Executive Officer. II. GRANT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

12. Description: The Regional Social Protection of the Vulnerable in the Pacific (the Project), focused on the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, and Tonga, and was designed to: (i) provide socioeconomic support to the vulnerable population to alleviate the impact of recent economic crises and weakening informal safety nets; (ii) assist the governments in building capacity to develop and implement effective safety net programs; and (iii) help the Project countries share good practices through regional conferences. For the purposes of the Project, the vulnerable population included disadvantaged women, children, unemployed youth, low-income households, people with disabilities including children, and the elderly. The three governments faced revenue shortfalls in 2009 and 2010 as a result of the deterioration in global economic conditions and this posed a threat to the continued delivery of essential social services such as health care and education, and an increased risk of poverty for vulnerable population groups. ADB had provided grant and loan assistance (as appropriate) in the form of a program for each country to enable the governments to stimulate the economy and respond to the economic downturns as well as put in place policy measures to protect the vulnerable (see Section 9). The Project supported this, enabling a direct focus on the vulnerable, developing service mechanisms to meet priority needs and providing direct employment. The households in the Pacific developing member countries have traditionally relied on support from extended family networks and strong community ties, which function as informal safety nets during crises. Traditional informal safety net mechanisms have been weakening with the growth of the cash economy, increasing rural urban migration, and population growth. In addition, as more people rely on wage income, they are at greater risk of losing their main source of livelihood during economic downturns, as many did during the global economic crisis. The Project supported the cash-for-work programs in the Marshall Islands and semiformal social safety net pilot models in the Cook Islands and Tonga to provide the basis for country-led social protection policy development and implementation. Given the limited capacity of the governments to reach dispersed populations in the outer islands, pilot models were developed to build on informal community mechanisms to provide targeted social services to vulnerable groups, with strengthened linkages between governments and community groups or NGOs. The nature and extent of vulnerable populations in the Pacific is not well understood, and governments have generally played a limited role in protecting the vulnerable through social safety nets. There is also little recognition of the importance of allocating public resources to social protection programs because of the traditionally strong informal support systems based on the family and the community. Governments do not regard these programs as priority areas for lending. It was anticipated that the governments would gain a better understanding of the welfare situation of vulnerable groups and the importance of building effective social protection programs by strengthening linkages to informal social safety nets through the Project. It was then designed to help develop semiformal safety net models, which governments can sustain and later expand with public resources. Once governments develop proven safety net models and gain experience in implementing them, then lending could be considered.

13. Grant Development Objective and Scope: The objectives of the Project were to (i) provide socioeconomic support to the vulnerable population to alleviate the impact of recent economic crises and weakening informal safety nets; (ii) assist the governments in building capacity to develop and implement effective safety net programs; and (iii) help the project countries share good practices through regional conferences. The Project had three components that were implemented in each country to address these objectives: (i) direct support to the vulnerable for socioeconomic inclusion; (ii) capacity building for social safety net policy development; and (iii) regional conference, knowledge sharing, and policy dialogue. Component A: Direct support to the vulnerable for socioeconomic inclusion: (a) Cook Islands: Home care and nursing services for the elderly and the disabled provided by NGOs and CSOs using output- based grants; (b) Marshall Islands: Cash-for-work coconut tree replanting Project to stimulate employment, promote food security, and mitigate climate change; (c) Tonga: Social services for vulnerable groups provided by NGOs or CSOs for Home care and nursing services for the elderly and services to young disabled children (0‒3 years); and Microcredit for disadvantaged women. Component B: Capacity building for social safety net policy development: (a) Cook Islands: Social welfare reform plan and public campaign and consultations for consensus-based reform; (b) Marshall Islands: Vulnerability assessments and capacity building of the government to monitor vulnerability and design social protection interventions; (c) Tonga: Public campaign and participation in improving social protection and capacity building of the government to monitor and design social protection interventions. Component C: Regional conference, knowledge sharing, and policy dialogue: Two regional events would be organized including an inception workshop and a Pacific safety net conference at conclusion. Knowledge products based on each country’s vulnerability assessments and regional dialogue on approaches to social protection would be published. As described in section 15B, extensive consultations were held with varied stakeholders during Project formulation, including concerned government agencies, targeted beneficiaries and NGO/CSOs. The Project comprised pilot projects which differed in each country, but all were appropriate for achieving the Grant objectives, providing support to the vulnerable and contributing to capacity building of government staff and NGOs. The pilot Project in the Marshall Islands adopted a different approach to that in the Cook Islands and Tonga, providing cash-for-work to targeted vulnerable people, rather than direct provision of support services to the vulnerable. The regional component drew on lessons from the pilot projects and can be further built on. Staff of the respective implementation agencies, and those of NGOs contract, were initially unfamiliar with ADB processes for contracts and reimbursement, which initially delayed project implementation. The design and monitoring framework and summarized project achievements for each country are included as Appendix 1.

14. Performance Indicators for the grant include performance indicators at impact and outcomes levels included in the DMF for each country, five overall Key Performance Indicators for the Project, and monitorable deliverables and outputs per component, as set out below. A. The anticipated impact and performance target were the same in each country: the welfare of vulnerable groups is safeguarded. B. The anticipated outcomes and performance targets differed slightly for each country: (i) Cook Islands: Government and NGOs have improved capacity to provide targeted social protection services to the vulnerable. (ii) Marshall Islands: Government support has improved food and income security of the vulnerable.

(iii) Tonga: Semiformal safety net models developed for effective delivery of social services to the vulnerable. C. The overall Key Performance indicators are set out below; the target dates are shown here as 2013 in line with the original grant approval, but the Project completion date was changed from September 2013 to December 2014 due to delays in initial start-up activities (Section D). (i) Poverty incidence and living conditions among the vulnerable in the Project areas are improved by 2013 compared with the 2010 baseline. (ii) Pilot cash-for-work programs and semiformal safety net models are implemented using output-based grant mechanisms. (iii) Information on the characteristics and geographic locations of vulnerable groups is collected and analyzed to ensure effective targeting of social assistance. (iv) Government capacity is enhanced for monitoring the vulnerable and developing effective social protection policies. (v) A Pacific social safety net conference was to be organized in 2013 (deferred to 2014 due to initial delays in project startup) to share the experiences of the participating countries and to promote policy dialogue on social protection systems. D. Component Performance Indicators are included in the following assessment table. Accomplish- ments Rating (HS, S, PS, Key Performance Indicator U1) Evaluation of Each Indicator: Impact Indicator: By 2016: Income of the S Overall the Project contributed to increased vulnerable in representative project areas income and more elderly and disabled increased by at least 5% compared with the receiving community services. The latest national household income data. beneficiaries who responded in the project Number of beneficiaries receiving community evaluation survey indicated income gains social services increased by at least 10% in as a result of the Project, such as additional representative project areas compared with income from the cash for work program in the 2010 vulnerability assessment. the Marshall Islands, microloans in Tonga, employment of additional home caregivers in the Cook Islands and Tonga, including additional working hours of the existing staff and additional income for small local business and some disabled who were involved in the meals on wheels services. The elderly care services piloted in the Cook Islands and Tonga also resulted to improved or additional homecare and/or nursing services which benefitted more elderly and disabled. However, comparison with pre-project level was not possible due to the absence of government statistics which supposed to provide the baseline data and vulnerability assessment in 2010.

1 HS = Highly Satisfactory; S = Satisfactory; PS = Partly Satisfactory; U = Unsuccessful.

Accomplish- ments Rating Key Performance Indicator (HS, S, PS, U1) Evaluation of Each Indicator: Country Outcome Indicators Cook Islands - Government and NGOs have improved capacity to provide targeted S In the Cook Islands (and Tonga) social protection services to the vulnerable. substantial training was conducted for NGOs and EA/IA staff on both service delivery and financial management, monitoring and reporting. In the Cook Islands this included specific training on standards of care services. There are five pilots implemented under this component and 16 new caregivers employed by three NGOs for pilot care services.

The gender component relating to the percentage of staff who are women did not directly refer to Component A, but four of the five pilots were led by women, all the caregivers employed were women, and 56% of direct beneficiaries were women. Some good impact studies have been provided in the evaluation reports for all three countries, based on survey interviews with selected beneficiaries.

Marshall Islands: Government support has S The evaluation survey demonstrated improved food and income security of the income and poverty difference between vulnerable. outer atolls and Majuro and central atolls but did not only concentrate on Project areas. Findings across the atolls reported by the government project completion report and evaluation survey reported that the majority of beneficiaries (except for Arno) believed project benefits at the family and community level exceeded pre-project expectations (see Section 16 below).

Tonga: Semiformal safety net models S Two models were developed and developed for effective delivery of social implemented, one for care of the elderly services to the vulnerable. and one for disabled children. Both were homecare based. Over 200 vulnerable persons directly benefited from the

programs, but as noted above, baseline data was not established so percentage of improvements cannot be made. The evaluation study provides impact studies at individual beneficiary level, and noted

cultural sensitivities in delivering home care

services, tasks normally carried out by families, which positively impacted delivery. Regular trainings were also provided to care workers and child development workers for effective delivery of services.

Specific Performance Indicators (i) Poverty incidence and living conditions S Baselines were not established to provide among the vulnerable in the Project comparisons, but the three evaluation areas are improved by 2014 (revised studies provided data on number of target date) compared with the 2010 beneficiaries and on impacts at individual baseline. levels, indicating success in improving living conditions for many beneficiaries (see Section 16 below). (ii) Pilot cash-for-work programs and S The cash-for-work programs in the Marshall semiformal safety net models are Islands focusing on coconut replanting were implemented using output-based grant successful on four of the five atolls and mechanisms. provided direct employment for 318 persons. The output-based home care services in the Cook Islands assisted 163 elderly persons with a disability with new homecare or nursing services through two NGOs. Direct social assistance was provided in Tonga to over vulnerable 200 persons through existing community groups and NGOs. (See the Design and Monitoring Framework in Appendix 1 for details.) (iii) Information on the characteristics and S A vulnerability assessment was competed for geographic locations of vulnerable Marshall Islands in 2015, including groups is collected and analyzed to development of vulnerability indices. For ensure effective targeting of social other countries, information has been assistance. developed, but based on pilot projects and pilot areas to ensure effective targeting of social assistance. A more universal coverage is needed to ensure effective targeting nationwide, which was not part of the project scope. (iv) Government capacity is enhanced for PS In all three countries the government monitoring the vulnerable and effectively developed, implemented, and developing effective social protection monitored project activities. They also policies. received trainings in monitoring the social services implemented under the Project. No specific social protection policies were developed but the improved capacity of the government is expected to assist them in developing or enhancing social protection policies including the existing government programs for the vulnerable groups.

(v) A Pacific social safety net regional S Regional conference organized in the conference is organized in 2014 (revised Marshall Islands in February 2014 (see C target date) to share the experiences of below). the participating countries and to promote policy dialogue on social protection systems.

Project Component Deliverables and Output Indicators

A. Direct support to the vulnerable for S Direct support successfully delivered in all socioeconomic inclusion: three countries. In the Cook Islands, 5 NGO • Community-based direct support or pilot Projects delivered additional or improved semiformal safety net models of home care services in 5 communities, services are provided for benefiting 163 elderly persons and persons vulnerable groups in 3–15 with disability. In the Marshall Islands, more vulnerable communities in each than 10 communities across 5 atolls country. participated in cash-for-work programs involving coconut replanting. Around 319 • Income-earning opportunities and people (209 male and 110 female) were living conditions are improved for at directly employed under the program. In least 700 people (at least 50% Tonga, 152 elderly and 47 disabled children women) receiving direct support or received assistance. In addition, 262 persons social assistance. (174 female and 88 male) received microloans under the microfinance component in Tonga. Over 900 persons benefited from improved income earning opportunities or living conditions, 60% of whom were women. Appendix 3 summarizes social protection program coverage in the three countries. B. Capacity building for social safety net S A vulnerability assessment was completed for policy development the Marshall Islands in 2015, including • Information on characteristics and development of vulnerability indices. For other geographic locations of vulnerable countries, information was developed, but groups is analyzed and effective based on pilot projects and pilot areas – a targeting of social assistance more universal coverage is needed to ensure developed. effective targeting nationwide. • Public communication and consultations are conducted to Project consultations were conducted in the build consensus on effective social Cook Islands and Tonga at startup and during protection policies. implementation, focusing generally on raising • Key government officials are awareness about the Project and effective trained to design and monitor social protection programs and implicitly on social protection models including social protection policies within the three semiformal safety net models. programs. In the Marshall Islands, the focus was more on effective cash-for-work programs to generate income and employment.

In all countries, key government officials were trained in designing and monitoring social protection models implemented under the Project.

C. Regional conference, knowledge sharing, and PS Regional inception workshop implemented policy dialogue at Project start up. Regional conference organized in Marshall Islands in February • One regional inception workshop and 2014. one Pacific conference are conducted Regional conference reports from the • Regional reports on vulnerability February 2014 workshop have provided assessments and pilot implementation details on vulnerability in the Pacific, of semiformal safety net models are mechanisms to address this, and a published. summary of support programs for • Regional technical assistance is countries. As noted in Appendix 3 and provided for the pilot implementation of Section 19, these need to be revisited and social protection models and for policy a paper on vulnerability assessment across dialogue among the Pacific island the entire Pacific completed, with countries. recommendations for scaling up the successful pilot programs, and targeting where appropriate. Regional technical assistance supported the program, but much of this expenditure has come from Component C of the program. Consultants were shared across countries.

15. Evaluation of Inputs: A. Input Costs. The JFPR grant of $3 million was distributed across three components as follows: Component A = $1,746,884; Component B = $683,116; and Component C = $570,000. An allocation of $150,000 was provided for incremental costs for ADB to cover regional assistance, including support for Component C. Per country overall allocation and disbursement shows 91% disbursement in Cook Islands, 88% in Marshall Islands and 96% in Tonga at the end of the Project. Funds were used as planned with core activities related to the achievement of outcomes having the biggest share in disbursement. Actual expenditure, by ADB heads of account, is set out in Appendix 2. Component A: Cook Islands: A total of $566,238 for home care and nursing services for the elderly and the disabled provided by NGOs and CSOs using output-based grants. Marshall Islands: A total of $542,636 for Cash-for-work coconut tree replanting to stimulate employment, promote food security, and mitigate climate change. Tonga: A total of $638,010 for social services for vulnerable groups provided by NGOs or CSOs for home care and nursing services for the elderly and services to young disabled children (0-3 years); Microcredit for disadvantaged women.

Component B: Cook Islands: A total of $141,762 for social welfare reform plan, public campaign and consultations for consensus-based reform. Marshall Islands: A total of $444,364 for vulnerability assessments, capacity building of the government to monitor vulnerability and design social protection interventions, Tonga: A total of $96,990 for public campaign and participation in improving social protection, capacity for government to monitor and design social protection interventions.

Component C: Cook Islands: $192,000, Marshall Islands $213,000, Tonga $165,000: for participation in the regional conferences, knowledge sharing, and policy dialogue: Two regional events organized including an inception workshop and a Pacific safety net conference at conclusion.

B. JFPR project formulation. The three economic support programs that the Project complemented and supported (Section 9 above) provided budget financing to allow implementation of government programs to stimulate the economies of the three countries, to mitigate the economic crises while also helping ensure continued delivery of priority social services. The economic support program in the Marshall Islands was different to those in the Cook Islands and Tonga, focusing on rationalization of the public sector to help address future fiscal constraints. The preparation of the budget support programs involved detailed social analysis and consultations on the impact of the crisis on socioeconomic conditions, including the impact on the vulnerable. The analysis highlighted the importance of effective social policies to mitigate the impact of the economic downturns on vulnerable household. The support to the Cook Islands and Tonga, specifically included outputs to help improve targeting of actions to support the vulnerable. The Marshall Islands’ component provided cash-for-work programs, targeted at the vulnerable on outer atolls. The preparation of the budget support program included extensive consultations and meetings with various government departments, local government officers, development partners, and affected stakeholders. The preparation of the Project built on this, with a participatory approach taken from design through implementation. Fact-finding involved local NGOs and faith-based organizations as well as government and development partners to support the efficient management and sustainability of semiformal safety model development. The NGOs working in local communities were consulted on the design of the skills development and community awareness components that serve the needs of rural communities. The analyses of vulnerability assessments helped identify target groups. It examined existing social service programs and mechanisms, identifying good practices and gaps in existing programs. This and the participatory consultations helped in the development of semiformal safety net models and other protection programs and pilot-testing of these models. The Project documentation and its appendixes is quite thorough and includes a summary analysis of poverty reduction and social strategies and included a gender action plan. As such, the Project was well prepared, but subsequent delays and difficulties in recruiting appropriate implementation consultants suggests that more should have been done on assessing implementation capacities.

C. Implementation. Implementation of pilot projects under Component A was delayed in all countries due to difficulties in identifying qualified candidates for project management and consequently the Project closing date was extended from 13 September 2013 to 31 December 2014. Covenants were mainly finance-oriented and were complied with, albeit with delays in submission of accounting and audit reports. 1. Cook Islands. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Management (MFEM) was the executing agency and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MINTAFF) was the implementing agency. The Project operated on four outer islands (Pa Enua) and on Rarotonga in the Southern Cook Islands. Five NGOs were engaged from August 2012 to July 2014 to provide home care and nursing care, and meals-on-wheels services, for the elderly and people with disabilities under Component A. Three NGOs provided home/nursing care services and the remaining two NGOs provided meals-on-wheels services (Section 16). Trainings were provided for NGO care givers and local MINTAFF staff on standards of care services, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Additional training was provided to MINTAFF staff from outer islands on broader welfare issues and disabilities as well as on monitoring and reporting. The project audit reports were delayed but submitted. A small cost saving was made. The end project evaluation reported that delays in accessing funds from ADB were a significant restraint on the effectiveness of the pilot programs, resulting in disruption to the services provided by the pilot projects and distracting pilot program managers from their other responsibilities, in particular the need to give attention to achieving sustainability. The DMF contained key performance measures to assist the monitoring and evaluation of the Project but reliance on government statistical reporting that is non-existent for baseline posed challenges in comparing the Project achievement with pre-project level.

2. Marshall Islands – the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was the executing agency and the Ministry of Resources and Development (MRD) was the implementing agency. The project manager was not recruited until August 2012. Coconut tree planting was carried out from June 2013 to September 2014, following signing of MOUs with each atoll local government. The MOA with the government listed the type of activities that would be rolled out and provided details regarding the amount of funding allocated for each activity. An output-based payment method using an imprest account was originally envisaged for the cash-for-work pilot projects but was changed to funding on a reimbursable basis at the government’s request. Implementation of Component A was delayed on the atolls by weather (King Tides) and transportation issues, which also impeded monitoring. Further delays in Component A were attributed to the delayed disbursement of funds to local governments. On Arno, there was a potential misuse of funds which was quickly and adequately addressed by the national government. Sawmills were purchased for the atolls for processing felled coconut trees, for which training was provided. Component B was executed on time but the, the end product was delayed due to the Marshall Islands’ government decision to not accept the initial Vulnerability Report drafted by the consultant which had to be rewritten. Further stakeholder consultations were conducted in order to enhance the usefulness of the Vulnerability Report. This delay also affected the timing of the end project evaluation report. Some reallocation of funds between components was necessary for training and the exit workshop, and a small saving was realized. Audit reports were delayed. 3. Tonga. The Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP) was the executing and implementing agency for the Project. Under Component A, elderly care services and early childhood intervention services were implemented for 2 years from August 2012 to July 2014. The programs were tendered out and two NGOs were selected: Ma’a Fafine Mo e Famili (MFF) for care services to the elderly, and the Mango Tree Center (MTC) for early intervention services to children with disabilities (age 0‒3). In addition, MFNP planned to review major government policies to assess the extent to which government policies address and support the needs of poor and vulnerable populations and outline major gaps in government policies and offer recommendations on how these or new policies can be more inclusive in addressing pro-poor concerns, budget allocations, and implementation. Generally, MFF and MTC implemented the programs effectively but delays in disbursement of funds impacted their service delivery to the elderly and disabled clients, while care workers and child development workers had restricted resources to travel to client homes. MFF revised its management system to incorporate the new pilot service and administration requirements for the program. Both NGOs developed internal fortnightly project staff meetings to look at challenges, successes and emerging issues. Capacity building continued throughout the program for care workers and child development workers. A total of US$280,000 was provided to the Tonga Development Bank (TDB) for a microcredit scheme, of which US$200,000 was for micro lending over 2 years. The amount of US$40,000 was allocated for financial skills training and business support programs over 2 years, and US$40,000 to support marketing activities of borrowers. There was a delay in commencing lending activities as the eligibility requirements were too stringent (requiring applicants to be free from any existing loans) and requiring larger surveys to identify beneficiaries. In addition, sessions and training in Ha’apai were postponed due to the devastating impacts of Cyclone Ian in January 2014. A small reallocation of funds was needed to cover training and public awareness campaigns. Audit reports were delayed. Performance of ADB, Governments/Executing Agencies and Consultants. The government completion reports and evaluation studies generally rated ADB’s performance as fully satisfactory, with regular review missions from ADB staff visiting the specific pilots, and good performance by the ADB-recruited project managers. The project managers held workshops and consultations with stakeholders in the outer islands on a regularly scheduled basis. Performance of other consultants, who supported Component C, and assisted Component B in each country, was also rated good. However, the consultant carrying out the vulnerability assessment in the Marshall Islands did not initially deliver a report up to expectations and it had to be redesigned and rewritten. Program delays were caused partly by the delay in the recruitment of the three country managers, but also due to lack of familiarity with ADB systems. The executing agencies performed satisfactorily. For the Marshall Islands, the government project completion report noted that ADB purchasing procedures proved to be cumbersome as any purchase above $100,000 had to be bid out and “shopping” required receipts for every small purchase; the requirement for providing supporting documents for statements of all expenditures provided an additional

workload for those involved in the purchasing for the Project. Delays on funding releases also affected programs in the Cook Islands and Tonga. 16. Evaluation of Outputs and Results: Appendix 1 provides the DMF for each country setting out expected impact, outcomes and outputs, together with a column indicating achievements. 1. Cook Islands. A total of 163 elderly persons and persons with a disability received new home care services. The end program evaluation survey found that all the pilot programs have resulted in additional or improved home care and/or nursing services for the duration of project activities and to some extent since the pilots concluded. It reported that the pilot programs provided valuable care services for the elderly/disabled, including respite services for family care givers. The meals-on-wheels services provided by Atiu Disability and Learning Centre and Aitutaki Disability Center were also highly appreciated for quality and healthy local foods being offered regularly for many elderlies who live alone. In addition, 16 new caregivers were employed by three NGOs called Mangaia Disability Centre, Mauke Disability and Elderly Centre and Te Vaerua Rehabilitation Inc. for pilot care services and received professional caregiver training. The evaluation report includes impact studies of individuals who have benefited from the program. No beneficiaries interviewed had complaints about the quality of the care they received, likely as a result of the training that the Project provided and the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place. Atiu Disability and Learning Centre is continuing its meals-on-wheels services based on its own business model, while Aitutaki Disability Centre is raising funds to continue its services. The meals on wheels services in Aitutaki also provides jobs for people with disabilities who deliver food to the beneficiaries. MINTAFF required caregivers to receive training and are engaged in proper caregiver roles. The pilot programs have demonstrated that it is realistic to establish both meals-on- wheels and homecare/nursing services on a sustainable basis in the future by creating the necessary capacities and resource base. The Cook Islands has a relatively large social assistance program, with substantial allowances for various beneficiaries and services, including caregiver allowances. With Project support, MINTAFF established a social welfare information management system, an online database system designed to improve the efficiency of welfare benefits application procedures and increase accuracy of beneficiaries’ information. This includes information on eligibility rules and criteria.

2. Marshall Islands. The evaluation report indicated 318 persons who benefited directly from employment from the cash-for-work programs, although some reports note that over 700 persons benefited from the program. The pilot programs have encouraged replication on some atolls such as Namdrik where funds were raised to renovate the copra warehouse, and on Ebon. Training was provided in the use of sawmills. Originally the sawmills were to be allocated to atolls after signing of an MoU on usage and after completion of training on usage and safety, but two have been retained in Majuro, one by an NGO for further training use, and one by MOF to be lent to atolls for specific projects. At the end of the program, several workshops were held to discuss different implementation modalities of the replanting programs to facilitate replication on other atolls. The government submitted an end of report evaluation and a draft project completion report. The report focused on surveys of beneficiaries’ perceptions of project benefits and did not focus on what the Project delivered in the context of returns from replanting and anticipated long-term benefits from such replanting. Nonetheless, it confirmed that all the respondents from five atolls expressed positive views on the project impacts on local agriculture and environment. Majority of the atoll beneficiaries confirmed that the prospects of the project benefits being realized is very positive. However, there are variations in terms of the assessment on monetary gains with majority of women respondents expressing their unmet expectations than men. This owes to the different types of tasks that beneficiaries were involved, with higher paying tasks, such as community supervisors, mostly occupied by men in some atolls while majority of women respondents were planters. It should be noted, however, that some women have no source of income prior to the Project so they do recognize the gains and even commented on how the Project empowered them, although in some cases it did not meet their expectations including the delay in payments they experienced. Overall, 3 out of 5 atolls expressed positive views on the impacts, outcome and design of the Project while the two atolls provided mixed assessment. Lessons learned as a result of the evaluation interviews are very localized and relate mostly to implementation concerns such as need for tools inventories, but also for the need for the design to

demonstrate likely long-term benefits from replanting and not just immediate monetary gains, and consideration of different types of crops for

planting to help crop substitution. The interviews also provided some useful insights into challenges in implementing such a program on scattered atolls, which fed into the end program regional conference discussions. Under Component B, the initial Vulnerability Assessment Report was not initially accepted by the government and was redesigned after further consultations. The revised report provided a useful assessment of the characteristics of economic hardship and vulnerability in the Marshall Islands, which will facilitate targeting of future programs supporting social protection.

3. Tonga. Around 152 elderlies and 47 disabled children received assistance from elderly care and early intervention pilots. The MFF has taken over early intervention program for children with disabilities from MTC, in addition to its elderly care program, during project implementation. The pilot schemes were seen as successful by the government which has continued to supply funds for continuation of the programs, through the Social Protection and Disability Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). However, clear policies on standards of care services need to be established to ensure continued success. Initially there was some reluctance by beneficiary families to accept home care services which traditionally were the responsibility of families. This, together with the use of district officers to identify potential beneficiaries, created barriers to effective identification of prospective beneficiaries in the targeted communities. The early intervention program for children with disabilities relied on referrals from health practitioners. The services are now well established and continue to be implemented successfully in the targeted local communities despite the initial reactions and hesitation of some community leaders to accept the innovative pilot programs into their communities. The benefits of the program are many and both the service providers and beneficiaries readily speak of these benefits as discussed in the evaluation report. These include renewed respect for the elderly as part of the society and prevention of feeling isolated from within the family and community, and family members having more time for themselves. For the child disability program, a major benefit was an increased awareness and understanding of disabilities which addressed the prevalent myths and misconceptions about this topic. Beneficiaries included both the elderly and persons with disability and their family members and those that provide most of the care-work on a day-to-day basis, and home care workers and child development workers. The program was able to build the capacity of the family members, equipping them with new skills in continuing to provide care services for their elderly and their children with disabilities. This has helped ensure sustainability and cost effectiveness of the support services and, overall, demonstrating a good value for money. Under the credit component, 262 beneficiaries received microloans (174 female and 88 male) during the program period, mainly for weaving, vegetable growing, and small retailing. Repayments have been satisfactory and over half of the client beneficiaries reported that the loan allowed them to expand existing businesses and/or develop new ones to a satisfactory level. TDB continues to operate the credit scheme as a revolving fund. Component B was successful with government capacity improvement to design social protection models. A new Social Protection and Disability Division, responsible for the National Disability Inclusive Policy, has been established within the MIA.

4. Component C scope included preparation of reports on vulnerability assessments and on pilot implementation of semiformal safety net models which were intended to be published, while a Pacific social safety net conference was meant to be organized to share the experiences of the participating countries and to promote policy dialogue on social protection systems. Due to implementation delays, it was decided that an end program regional conference to discuss pilot reports and vulnerability assessments would be more productive, with papers to be finalized later for publication. Unfortunately, publication did not happen, but the regional conference and related consultations had some very successful results. As part of the regional conference a draft paper was prepared covering NGOs delivering services as part of social protection in the Cook Islands and Tonga. This paper (and a refined follow-on paper) examined social protection systems and programs for the vulnerable in several Pacific countries including a summary of the systems and different types of support which should help in developing appropriate programs for all countries. Case studies were also prepared from the programs demonstrating the impact of the programs on the vulnerable. Annex 3 presents a

summary of these support systems and modalities, and some basic data for the three countries. The recommendations (Section 19) suggest the need to revisit and complete the paper on vulnerability assessment across the entire Pacific, with recommendations for scaling up the successful pilot programs including targeting where appropriate. The regional consultations and conference papers provided valuable contributions for developing a vulnerability index and data across the whole Pacific, which can be used for developing future programs. As set out in Section 18 the regional conference identified some of key challenges that governments and partners need to consider as they develop further programs addressing vulnerability.

17. Overall Assessment and Rating (HS, S, PS, U): Overall the Project is rated as successful (S). The Project was designed to develop and conduct pilot programs with a view to develop semi-informal safety net models for effective delivery of social services for the vulnerable. This was generally successful in the Cook Islands and Tonga, including raising awareness of the needs of vulnerable persons and the need for social development policies and programs, but there were mixed results in the Marshall Islands, mainly due to different levels of expectations from the beneficiaries. This is also partly due to the different nature of the Marshall Islands’ program, with emphasis on cash-for-work for vulnerable persons rather than addressing delivery of social protection programs and policies to assist the vulnerable (home care and nursing care, and meals-on-wheels services for the elderly and people with disabilities in Cook Islands, and elderly care services and early childhood intervention for disabled children in Tonga). The pilot programs in the Cook Islands, in particular, have demonstrated that it is realistic to establish both meals on wheels and homecare/nursing services on a sustainable basis in the future, and that the pilots created the necessary capacities and resource base to make this happen. In Tonga, the pilot programs helped overcome traditional reluctance for care services from outside the family and raised awareness on disabilities especially among children and problems of the elderly. While overall the Project is rated successful, sustainability of the project inputs and efforts needs to be followed- up. Some of the piloted programs continue, such as the microfinance scheme in Tonga, and the social programs in the Cook Islands and Tonga targeting the elderly and disabled people and children. However, the cash-for- work program in the Marshall Islands was a one-off and has not been replicated. The end-program regional conference in the Marshall Islands generated good dialogue and findings that can be applied elsewhere and could be further developed into a full report presenting vulnerability assessments and successful pilot programs replicable in other Pacific countries.

18. Major Lessons Learned:

The end-of-Project regional conference held in Majuro in February 2014 discussed issues and lessons learned from the pilot programs in the three countries. The conference findings noted that the formal social protection system, with some exceptions, is inadequate and weak in Pacific Island countries (PICs). Participants identified that this was largely caused by: • Social protection in the Pacific is relatively a new field for PIC governments. • The formal social security system, where it exists, does not extend to most informal sector workers. • Most PICs are witnessing unpredictable economic growth and have low social protection spending, providing few opportunities to increase expenditure on social protection. • PIC residents will generally not let their neighbor live in abject poverty, so the community and NGOs take the pressure off government and let it defer taking the hard decisions on social protection.

The key challenges identified include: • Governments need to know how effective their social protection programs are. Which part of the population is getting the greatest percentage of social protection spending? • How can those working in the informal sector be efficiently brought into the social protection net without putting too great a burden on those working in the formal sector? • How can women be more equitably treated in social protection programs?

• Could a system of targeted benefits be introduced? Does the country have the administrative capacity to introduce targeting? If targeting was introduced what criteria would be used to determine eligibility? • How will the Government deal with the issue of an ageing population and a population that is likely to suffer greater disability problems?

How does business work together with educators to develop curricula to meet the labor needs of business? • What type of employment programs can benefit the population most? Could there be a donor-funded program to focus on health education to alleviate the issues of diabetes and obesity? • Can governments continue to rely on donors and/or NGOs to solve their social protection issues? How can programs become sustainable for when donor funds end? • Education is the best way out of poverty. How can the social protection program assist in keeping children in school? • To what extent is the individual responsible for his/her own well-being? What is the role of government in looking after the individual?

The Conference proposed some key concerns that governments and partners need to consider as they develop further programs addressing vulnerability, including: • Financing social protection within available budgetary resources; • Developing partnerships with the voluntary sector; • Strengthening the administrative and institutional capacity of both government institutions and service providers; • Defining the various roles of central government, local government, and NGOs; and Designing Projects. Implementing them and monitoring activities for efficiencies. 19. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: The regional conference report discussions and findings should be revisited and a paper on vulnerability assessment covering the entire Pacific completed, with recommendations for scaling up the successful pilot programs, with targeting where appropriate. The evaluation report for the Cook Islands recommended that the issue of sustainability should be addressed right from the beginning of project activities, with the “Options for Sustainability” workshop to be held earlier in the project term, thereby ensuring an early focus on the issue by the pilot project managers. It is also recommended that ADB should consider reviewing the complexity of its administrative/financial procedures, at least for projects of this nature, given the likely low in-country implementation capacity and the impact of late disbursement of funds on the quality of the service provided. Projects of this nature should establish their own baselines rather than relying largely on statistical data from government sources which is likely to be too general for effective project monitoring, especially where support programs are targeted on specific groups and communities.

20. Additional Remarks, Comments and Suggestions: The ICM was not prepared immediately although the project activities were completed in 2015 due to delay in financial closing (29 January 2018) and staff movement within ADB.

111. PREPARATIONANDAPPROVAL-COOKISLANDS

Name of Person and designation/ Prepared by: Name of Institution/Signature .,,,_ Date (D1 - O(==i'l 1. Representative from Ms.AnneH erman - [; the Recipient / Secretary // Manager, JFPR-GIU: Ministry of Internal Affairs 14 J-, v 2. Project Officer, ADB: Ms. Ninebeth Carandang Senior Social Development Specialist Social Sectors and Public Sector Management Division I Pacific Department 1

Name of Person and designation/ Approved by: Name of lnstitution/Signature Date 0 ' 7 . C)G aiQ

1. Head of the Recipient and the Executing MFinancialr. Ga.rth SecretaryHenderson ['?, Agency MinistryofFi nancearidE conom ic ( ,l Management ,S /I %- \,_ 2. Head Of the MS. Anne Herman / / Implementing S t Agency: ecreary . ( (I Ministry of Internal Affairs ( ! / ,

1-5 Itl. PREPAFIATIONANDAPPROVAL-MARSHALLISLANDS

1 Da te _ Prepared by: NaNma-me:foPf eHnrssotl.ntuatl.nodhdl eSslq:gnnaatuioren/ II

1,. Representative M! . Iva Reimers Rober to ' Secrelaty Ministry of Resources and Development M JFPRGlU/ 1,44b(x/r, I froamnatgheer,Recipierit 2. Project Omcer, ADB: Ms. Ninebeth Carandang ( I Senior Social Deve!opmenl Specialist I Social Sectors and Public Sector Manageinent Division Pacific Department ffl

of Person and designation/ Name Date Approved by: Name of Institution/Slgnature Bing 1. Head of the Recipient Ms. Maybeline Andon and the Executing Secretary Agenc7 Ministry of Finance @%' 4'A

Reimers Roberto 2. Head of thei Ms. IQa Implementing Secretary and Development Agency: Ministry of Resources i(Q't/ >(h

'16 $11. PREPARATION AND APPROVAL -TONGA

Name of Person and designation Prepared by: Name of Institution/Signature Date ,47 1. Representative from Mrs. Pilimilose Baiyityn Faaotusia 41/ '/1 / , the Recipient / Chief Executive Orficer // (/ A ' /@ 0 'l Manager, JFPR- G!U MinislryorFinanceandNa(ionalPlann iri , /"I

2, Project Officer, ADB Ms. Ninebeth Carandang Senior Social Developmenl Specialist Social Sectors and Public Sector Management Division Pacific Department

Name of Person and deaigination oved b ,

Head of the Recipient Mrs. Pilimilose Balwyn Faaotusia and the Executing and Chief Execulive Officer Irnplementing Agency Minislry or Finance and Nalional Planning

17 ADB APPROV AL FOR COOK ISLANDS, MARSHALL ISLANDS AND TONGA

Name of Person and designation/ Approved by: Name oflnstitution/Signature Date

1. Director General, Ms. Ma. Carmela D. Locsin Pacific Department, ADB: Di rector G eneral Z Pacific Department 'Jr,/t - ' -tq7

2. Sector Director, Ms. Emma Veve ADB: Director Social Sectors and Public Sector Management Division PacificDepartment /

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORKS

Table A1.1: Design and Monitoring Framework for the Cook Islands

Design Summary Performance Targets and Indicators Achievements

Impact By 2016: Income of the vulnerable in Latest income data is 2004 Household Expenditure Survey (HES); HES The welfare of vulnerable representative Project areas increased planned for 2015-2016 financial year, appropriation delayed. Income reportedly groups is safeguarded by at least 5% compared with the latest has increased for the vulnerable over the Project period but this is not directly national household income data. attributable to the Project—Government doubled pensions for the over-70s and the minimum wage was increased from $5.00 per hour to $6.00 per hour in 2014 Number of beneficiaries of community and again from 1 July 2015 to $6.25. Given the challenges presented by the social services increased by at least attribution issue, an indicator based on an income measure was unlikely to be 10% in representative Project areas a useful measure for Component A. compared with the 2010 vulnerability assessment. The 2010 vulnerability assessment focused on climate change. It obtained data on housing, water supply etc., but did not address household economics.

Outcome By 2014: Number of social protection 2010 baselines not developed. Some baseline statistical data now being Government and NGOs programs by the government and NGOs collected, including some from 2011 National Census on Employment but the have improved capacity to increased by at least 20% against the attribution issue remains. provide targeted social 2010 baseline protection services to the The gender component relating to the percentage of staff who are women did vulnerable Number of government and NGO social not directly refer to Component A, but four of the five pilots were led by women, services staff (at least 50% women) all the caregivers employed were women, and 56% of direct beneficiaries were increased by 20% against the 2010 women (against the target in the Project’s Gender Action Plan of 50%). baseline Some good impact studies, but anecdotal and person specific.

Training on standards of care services has commenced for NGOs and local MINTAFF staff, and financial management training for NGOs.

1 Appendix Outputs By 2013: Output-based home care or Completed. Outputs Home care or nursing services designed and nursing services provided monitored by Ministry of Internal Affairs Five NGO pilot projects delivered additional or improved home care and nursing staff services. Evaluation survey confirmed quality and appropriateness to needs.

20 Appendix 1 Appendix 1 19

ith nd nd and ed 9 i) The e of high of e wheels service wheels JFPR: $0.9 million; in-kind Achievements

Inputs: Appraisal and Government $90,000 actual. and Communities Appraisal $45,000. $22,500. ADB incremental costs: Actual: (i) Atiu Disability and Learning Centre supplied quality meals on on mealsquality supplied Centre Learning and Disability (i)Atiu 30to beneficiaries; (ii) The Mangaia Disability Centre delivered home care and nursing services to 23 elderly people and Aitutaki persons with Disability disabilities; (ii Centre provided meals to 40 elderly and persons w disabilities once a week on the island Elderly Centre of (Te Ata o Aitutaki; Te Ra) (iv) piloted home-based Mauke caregiver service Disability for 19 a elderly persons (60+); and (v) Te Vaerua Rehabilitation Inc. train resulted in a high level of cooperation between the government and NGOs. More than consultations20 were conducted. wer Aitutaki)and(Atiu Projectspilot both providedby wheels on Meals quality and were delivered regularly and on time. The meals improved the diet of beneficiaries. theycare the of quality the aboutcomplaints no received survey evaluation The received and noted a range of benefits from provided the which homecare/nursing services contributed to improving income of security bothbeneficiaries and those the employed. socioeconomic well-being and Regional conference conducted in the conference report theon pilotprograms vulnerability. and Marshall Islands in February 2014; caregivers who delivered services to 65 families, involving 72 clients over the two-year Project period. A total of 163 elderly homecare persons or and persons nursing with services, a significantlyMINTAFF disability higher received monitored than new standards the informantskey beneficiariesand reported by quality high the to targetcontributed of of the 100. homecare/nursing services, which

Performance Targets and Indicators Two regional conferences with organized representatives at from each participating country least two At least one government regional report based vulnerability assessments on published; at least one regional policy dialogue report prepared At At least nursing threeand/or care home new delivered NGOs and/or services based on output-based grants CSOs 100elderly and least disabledAt people received new home services by NGOs or CSOs care or nursing At least five community forums organized public to discuss consultation and welfare reforms At least two options for social reform by the developed government welfare All Project progress reports submitted and as monitoring outlined Project by the and

Activities withMilestones: Output DirectA: support to the vulnerable for socioeconomic inclusion Output CapacityB: building for safety social policy development Output C: Regional conference,knowledge sharing,and policy dialogue Design Design Summary practitionershave shared their experiences on semiformal social protection models forvulnerable the bythe government and NGOs. safety Social net policies are developed and communicated to the bypublic the government Efficient and effective Projectmanagement services provided by the PMU Policy makers

Appendix 1 21 Appendix 1 19 ey lot oject authorities Achievements Government PCR reported uneven income improvements . Arno: 1000+ trees planted (impacted weather/king by tides) 7810 Ebon: coconut trees planted Namdrik trees (1): 3,000 planted • • •

programs. Number oftrees coconut (from evaluationsurvey}: Vulnerability assessment completed in 2015 used 2011 data. Completion evaluation survey did focusnot on DMF census indicators. as base for Demonstrated income and poverty difference between outer atolls and Majuro centraland atolls but did not specifically cover Project areas. Findings across the atolls reported in the Governmentevaluation reported PCR that most and beneficiaries completion(except for Arno) believed Pr misused funds one on atoll which affected implementation.) Cash-for-work coconut tree promote food security, and replanting mitigate climate change. Project provided Project nursery establishment, felling to of senile trees, replanting of seedlings and stimulateprocurement employment, of sawmills. More than 10 communities across 5 atolls participated in the pi Last household income and expenditures survey (HIES) was 2002. No baseline for Project 2010 (Local expectations. pre-Project exceeded level family the at benefits formen and women across five the atolls Vulnerability assessment completed in 2015 used 2011 census base for data. Data thus now exists at atoll level for 2011, but new HIES, or targeted surv forneeded Project activities. Islands Cook the assessment covered Vulnerability 2010 2010: for Baseline No only.

Table A1.2: Design and Monitoring Framework for the Marshall Islands Islands Marshall the for Framework Monitoring Design and A1.2: Table Performance Targets and Indicators High-yieldingtreesplanted 2013:coconut By 10in communities At least 200 workers (at least 30% women) employed for coconuttree planting New poverty data collected and updated by government. At least one poverty report and one in-depth vulnerability assessment report produced by the government By 2014: Percentage of vulnerable employed people in Project communities increased leastby at 20% against the 2010 baseline By 2016: representative IncomeProject areas increased by at of least the 5% compared with vulnerable the latest national household income data in community receiving beneficiaries of Number social services increased by at least 10% in representative Project areas compared with 2010the vulnerability assessment

Outputs Outcome Government support has improved food and income security of vulnerable the Design Summary Impact The welfare of vulnerable groups is safeguarded Direct support provided to the vulnerable for coconut plantingtree Government capacity identifyto the vulnerable population enhanced

22 Appendix 1

Appendix 1 19 n-

(22m/11w) Arno: 33 27 Ebon: (27m) Namdrik: (74m/74w) 148 (21m/15w) Mili: 36 Alinglaplap:75 (65m/10w) Namdrik (2): 4,000-5000 trees planted Mili: 700 coconut trees planted Alinglaplap:Information not reported • • • • • • • •

-country Inception workshop conducted. Regional conference conducted in

2011 census completed. Vulnerability completed in 2015. Developed assessment vulnerability indices. Demonstrated income and drawing on the poverty difference between outer atolls and Majuro and census central atolls. transportation to due problem a was manner timely a in reporting and Monitoring and communications issues with delayed.Government prepared completion a the report in November 2015. outer islands Progress reports were In Marshallthe Islands Februaryin 2014; conference pilot reportprograms the on and vulnerability. Inputs: and (actual) Appraisal The evaluation survey reporteddirect employment of 318 JFPR: $1.2 million Government: in-kind contribution $120,000 Communities:i $120,000Government: contribution millionin-kind $1.2 JFPR: kind contribution: $30,000 ADB incremental costs: $60,000

All All Project progress and monitoring reports submitted as outlined by the Project Two regional conferences organized with at least two government representatives from each participating country At least one vulnerability regional assessments; report regional policy dialogue report prepared at based on least one

Activities withMilestones: Output DirectA: support to the vulnerable for socioeconomic inclusion Output CapacityB: building for safety social policy development Output C: Regional conference,knowledge sharing,and policy dialogue Efficient and effective Projectmanagement services provided by the PMU makersPolicy and practitioners have theirshared experiences on semiformal social protection models

Table A1.3: Design and Monitoring Framework for Tonga

Design Performance Targets and Indicators Achievements Summary

Impact By 2016: Income of the vulnerable in New HEIS, or targeted survey needed for Project activities. The welfare of representative Project areas increased by at vulnerable groups is least 5% compared with the latest national As above, no Baseline was prepared for 2010. The 2010 Vulnerability safeguarded household income data assessment referred to in the DMF covered the Cook Islands only.

Number of beneficiaries receiving community social services increased by at least 10% in representative Project areas compared with the 2010 vulnerability assessment

Outcome

Semiformal safety net By 2014: Percentage of vulnerable women No Baseline was prepared for 2010. The 2010 Vulnerability assessment models developed for and other groups receiving social assistance referred to in the DMF covered the Cook Islands only. effective delivery of or microcredit support is increased by at least social services to the 30% against the 2010 baseline vulnerable

Output At least 200 vulnerable people received Two NGOs were selected to deliver the support services: Fafine Mo e Direct support Ma’a social assistance through existing community Famili (MFF) for care services to the elderly, and the Mango Tree Center for provided to the groups or NGOs early intervention services to children with disabilities (age 0 3). Around 152 vulnerable by the ‒ elderly and 47 disabled children received assistance from NGOs under the government, NGOs, At least two social service models developed Project. MFF have taken over both programs, helping ensure sustainability. or CSOs by key government agency staff for delivery by NGOs based on output-based grant Two models were developed and implemented, one for care of the elderly and Improved government mechanisms one for disabled children. Both were home care based. The evaluation study capacity to design noted cultural sensitivities in delivering home-care services, tasks normally 1 Appendix By 2014: At least 300 vulnerable women social protection carried out by families. models received microfinance and training Around 380 people received training for microfinance—262 beneficiaries received microloans (174 female and 88 male) during the program period,

Efficient and effective At least 100 qualified women started mainly for weaving, vegetable development and small retailing. TDB continues 1Appendix Project management businesses with microcredit to operate the credit scheme. The evaluation study found that effectiveness was services provided by helped by the awareness and other training conducted before a loan was given. All Project progress and monitoring reports the PMU submitted as outlined by the Project

Policy makers and Two regional conferences organized with at In-country Inception workshop conducted. Regional conference conducted in practitioners have least three government representatives from the Marshall Islands in February 2014; conference report on the pilot programs shared their each participating country and vulnerability. experiences on semiformal social At least one regional report based on protection models vulnerability assessments published; at least one regional policy dialogue report prepared Activities with Milestones: Inputs: Appraisal and (actual) Output A: Direct support to the vulnerable for socioeconomic JFPR: $0.9 million Government: $90,000 in kind contribution Communities: inclusion $22,500 in kind contribution ADB incremental costs: $45,000 Output B: Capacity building for social safety policy development Output C: Regional conference, knowledge sharing, and policy dialogue

1 Appendix

SUMMARY PROJECT COSTS AND ALLOCATIONS

Total Contract Uncommitted Total Disbursed Undisbursed Category Allocated Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Cook Islands 3601 Equipment and Supplies 19,500.00 19,500.00 - 13,671.66 5,828.34 3801 Training, Conferences, Workshops, Seminars, Public Campaigns 234,000.00 245,618.33 (11,618.33) 193,045.13 40,954.87 3901 Grant Management 227,000.00 215,629.16 11,370.84 203,144.30 23,855.70 4801 Other Inputs 301,000.00 302,291.87 (1,291.87) 297,749.86 3,250.14 Total 781,500.00 783,039.36 (1,539.36) 707,610.95 73,889.05

Marshall Islands 3102 Consulting Services 365,000.00 364,166.64 833.36 364,166.64 833.36 3201 Civil Works 355,000.00 305,065.50 49,934.50 283,847.99 71,152.01 3602 Equipment and Supplies 140,000.00 132,797.39 7,202.61 123,016.76 16,983.24 3802 Training, Conferences, Workshops, Seminars, Public Campaigns 25,000.00 25,012.75 (12.75) 25,012.75 (12.75) 3902 Grant Management 90,000.00 58,578.49 31,421.51 58,578.49 31,421.51 Total 975,000.00 885,620.77 89,379.23 854,622.63 120,377.37

Tonga 3603 Equipment and Supplies 5,500.00 5,500.00 - 4,266.51 1,233.49 3803 Training, Conferences, Workshops, Seminars, Public Campaigns 58,500.00 63,842.18 (5,342.18) 60,735.72 (2,235.72) 3903 Grant Management 184,000.00 203,835.00 (19,835.00) 202,746.96 (18,746.96) 4802 Other Inputs 608,000.00 553,468.73 54,531.27 553,468.73 54,531.27 Total 856,000.00 826,645.91 29,354.09 821,217.92 34,782.08

Regional 1100 Consulting Services 337,300.00 346,192.85 (8,892.85) 346,192.85 (8,892.85) 1300 Trainings, Seminars 48,000.00 22,991.91 25,008.09 22,760.91 25,239.09 1900 Contingency 2,200.00 - 2,200.00 - 2,200.00 Total 387,500.00 369,184.76 18,315.24 368,953.76 18,546.24

GRAND TOTAL 3,000,000.00 2,864,490.80 135,509.20 2,752,405.26 247,594.74

2 Appendix

26 Appendix 3

SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES

A. Social Protection Categories and Types of Programs

Social Insurance

• Pensions • Unemployment Benefits • Health Insurance - but not universal health insurance • Other social insurance (maternity, disability benefits)

Social Assistance

• Assistance for the elderly (e.g., non-contributory basic allowances for the elderly, old- age allowances) • Health assistance (e.g., reduced medical fees for vulnerable groups) • Child protection (school feeding, scholarships, fee waivers, allowances for orphans, street children initiatives) • Family allowances (e.g., in-kind or cash transfers to assist families with young children to meet part of their basic needs) – excluding any transfers through the tax system • Welfare and social services targeted at the sick, the poor, the disabled and other vulnerable groups • Disaster relief and assistance • Cash/in-kind transfer (e.g., food stamps, food aid) • Temporary subsidies for utilities and staple foods - only if imposed in times of crisis and if targeted at vulnerable groups. General subsidies are excluded even if their rationale is to assist the poor • Land tax exemptions

Labor Market Programs

• Direct employment generation through public works programs – including food for work programs • Direct employment generation through loan-based programs – included if loans are subsidized and/or job creation is an explicit objective of the program • Labor exchanges and other employment services – if distinct from social insurance and including retrenchment programs • Unemployment benefits – if distinct from social insurance and including retrenchment programs • Skills development and training – included if targeted at groups (e.g., the unemployed or disadvantaged children. General vocational training is excluded).

Appendix 3 27

B. Pacific Country Social Protection Programs

Country Social Insurance Social Assistance Labor Market

Cook Islands National Superannuation Cook Islands has one The Social Impact (Pension) Fund - of the most extensive Fund (SIF) previously employers and their social protection known as Community employees pay 5% of systems of the PICs, a Initiative Scheme (CIS) salary. Retirement age is system that is on par, supports the delivery 60 although early in terms of the breadth of services by civil retirement is available of benefits paid, with society organizations from age 55 in the case of the systems of OECD to help meet the needs disability or redundancy. countries. of the vulnerable members of the Pension/Welfare community, such as benefit is a universal achieving gender benefit (currently $500 equality, protecting per month) paid to all and promoting rights of Cook Islanders aged children and young 60 and over. A higher people, protecting and benefit ($625 per promoting rights of week) is paid to those people with disabilities, 70 and over. assisting the elderly, the prevention and Monthly child benefit elimination of domestic of $66 is paid to violence, and children under the age addressing mental of 12. health.

Caregiver’s allowance of $165 per month

Destitute and Infirm Persons Relief is paid to those people assessed as having no access to a livelihood. The current benefit is $165 per month quarterly power subsidy of $60 paid to welfare recipients assessed as having a total income of less than $600 per month.

Tonga Government's formal Free education The Ministry of Youth, social protection program Training, Employment is limited to the Tonga Subsidized health and Sports offers skills Retirement Fund system development and providing a contribution- training opportunities based pension and old to unemployed youth.

Country Social Insurance Social Assistance Labor Market

age savings scheme for Social welfare scheme Seasonal worker Government employees. for the elderly (over program (Australia and 70). New Zealand) About 11% of private sector employees have Tonga has had a access to their own strong system of retirement benefit whereby support for scheme. the vulnerable has been provided by family members and/or communities.

Faith-based organizations and NGO’s provide support to others in need - annual grants to these are allocated by the Prime Minister and Legislative Assembly.

Marshall Islands Marshall Islands Social Feeding Program – National Training Security Trust Fund – government meets Program for Employers and two-thirds of cost of Fishermen employees pay 7% each lunch for school to the fund to receive children. National Fisheries retirement, disability, and Development Plan survivor’s benefits. Special Education Program provision of ADB coconut palm Employees pay 3.5% of free appropriate public replanting scheme wages for sickness and education to children maternity benefits. with a disability aged 3 to 21.

Papua New Pension arrangements for Child protection Skills development Guinea civil Servants, Police and programs programs Military. Compulsory pension scheme for Temporary assistance Scholarship private employers with 20 and relief during or more employees. disasters

Work injury scheme for National policy on employers with 10 or disability more employees Scholarship programs Mandatory employer financed sick leave of up to 9 days a year

Paid maternity leave of up to 12 weeks for public sector employees

Country Social Insurance Social Assistance Labor Market

Fiji Compulsory 8% Poverty Benefit Scholarship programs contribution by employees Scheme (PBS) and employers for all designed to pay the registered companies to poorest 10% of Fiji National Provident household $150 per Fund month, inclusive of $30 food voucher. Pays benefits on retirement, incapacity, Social pension scheme migration, and death of $30 per month to all elderly citizens 70 and Provides benefits prior to over retirement for housing assistance, Medical Care and Protection assistance, Education program for children Assistance, Funeral Poverty alleviation Assistance, and Unemployment Budget support for Education, Health and Housing

Solomon Islands Solomon Islands Limited education and Expand youth Provident Fund – all health infrastructure employability workers who earn at least and services $120 a month – special Strengthen the quality scheme for public sector. Expand early and relevance of Employee 5%, employer childhood education technical and 7.5%. (ECE) vocational training provision (through Provides retirement, Improve basic Rural Training disability and death education quality Centers) benefits

Industrial accidents scheme

Lumpsum unemployment benefit

Vanuatu Vanuatu National Free health care Seasonal worker Provident Fund for those program in formal employment Disaster Risk earning at least VT 3,000 Management Plan ($US 31) per month National Disability Contribution rate 4% by Policy and Plan of employer and employee Action

Provides retirement, A group of landowners disability and death have established their benefits own old age pension

Country Social Insurance Social Assistance Labor Market

Employer financed sick and maternity leave

One month’s severance pay for each year of employment

Kiribati Kiribati Provident Fund – Education subsidies Copra Fund – contribution of 7.5% by Scholarships to minimum price for employers and employees children with physically copra to encourage challenged parents people to stay on outer Benefits on retirement, islands disability, death, and Elderly Cash Transfer permanent emigration. Fund - $50 for all 70 Training programs for and over - $40 for all sailors, job creation in Small loan facility for 67 and over fisheries, scholarship contributors programs

Workers compensation scheme

Nauru A closed superannuation Birth Payment - $100 fund on birth of each child

Unemployment Funeral benefit - $2000 or $500 for stillborn Retrenchment allowance child of $75 per fortnight for 6 months paid to retrenched Disability allowance of public employees $75 per fortnight (whether unemployed or not) School feeding program – 2 meals a week for $1 each

Allowance for the Elderly over age 60 of $75 per fortnight if not other benefit payable

Community Development Fund

Samoa Samoa National Provident SCBS – universal Fund for employees in the pension scheme for all formal sector – aged over 65 of US$65 contribution 5% by both per month (July 2010) employer and employee providing retirement, Free healthcare

Country Social Insurance Social Assistance Labor Market

disability, and survivor’s School fee relief benefits program

Workers’ compensation scheme for those in the formal economy

Tuvalu Tuvalu National Provident Disability Support Income Generating Fund – employers and through Red Cross Programs for Women employees pay 10% of through National wages each for Disaster Relief Council of Women retirement, disability, and Program survivors’ benefits. Microcredit loans Disaster Relief through through Tuvalu Contributors over 45 can Red Cross Development Bank access a program to fund home improvements. Home Visits for the Elderly

Childcare Benefit

Public Health Program

32 Appendix 3

C. Basic Data for Three JFPR Project Countries Category Tonga2 Cook Islands3 Marshall Islands4

Population Data

Date of last census 2011 2011 2011 Total population 103,252 14,974 53,158 Change over last census +1.2% (2006) -10.7 (2006) +4.6 (1999) Greatest concentration of 73% live on the 70.6% live on the 52.3% live on Majuro population Island of Tongatapu Island of Atoll Rarotonga Rural population 77% 72% 65% Population under 15 37% 29% 41.6% Working age population 54% 58% 54% Population 60 and over 8% 13% 4.4% Population 60 and over 8% - 2000 10% - 2000 3% - 2000 13 – 2050 23% - 2050 12% - 2050 Greatest concentration of 12% in Ongo Niua’s 21.5% in Mangaia n.a. elderly in percentage terms 8 – 9% elsewhere 8 to 18% elsewhere

Poverty and Disability Data

UN HDR Ranking 95 101 155 Percentage below basic 22.5% (2009) 28.4% (2008) 20% - 2009 national poverty line Major poverty center Tongatapu - 44.9% 9.5% of Rarotonga n/a Other islands 22.9% residents had no income. Islands ranged from 5.5 to 18%% Population suffering from 14% 8% 12% of women some sort of disability 11.3% of men Range on islands 9 to 23% 1 to 23% n/a Children under 5 suffering a 230 of whom 186 n/a n/a disability were on Tongatapu Obesity rate 70% - female 68% - female 46.5% (nationally) 47% - male 605 – male Diabetes rate 12% 8.7% 34.9

2 All statistics for Tonga from 2011 Census of Population and Housing, and Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009. 3 Unless otherwise stated, statistics come from Cook Islands Census 2011. 4 Unless otherwise stated, all statistical data is from Economic Policy – Planning and Statistics Office, Marshall Islands Census 2011.

Appendix 3 33

Category Tonga5 Cook Islands6 Marshall Islands7

Population Data

Poverty and Disability Data

5 All statistics for Tonga from 2011 Census of Population and Housing, and Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009. 6 Unless otherwise, stated statistics come from Cook Islands Census 2011. 7 Unless otherwise, stated all Statistical Data is from Economic Policy – Planning and Statistics Office, Marshall Islands Census 2011.