The World Bank

Document of The World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR00002814

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-45930)

ON A PROPOSED CREDIT

Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 26,7 MILLION (US$ 40.00 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON

FOR A

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT-PHASE II

Public Disclosure Authorized June 25, 2014

Agriculture, Rural Development, Irrigation Unit (AFTAI) Sustainable Development Department Country Department AFCC1 Africa Region

Public Disclosure Authorized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective May 2, 2014)

Currency Unit = CFA Franc (CFAF) US$ 1.00 = CFAF 473

FISCAL YEAR January 1-December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFD Agence Française de Développement (French Development Agency ) AFTAR Agricultural and Rural Development Unit AIP Annual Investment Plan ANAFOR Agence National des Forêts (National Forest Agency) APL Adaptable Program Loan ARMP Agence de Régulation des Marchés Publics (Procurement Regulatory Agency) CAS Country Assistance Strategy CCPM Commission Communal de Passation des Marchés (Communal Procurement Management Committee) CDP Communal Development Plan CEFAM Centre de Formation de l’Administration Municipale (Local Government Training Center) CFAF CFA Franc COGE Comité de Gestion Environnmentale (Environmental Management Committee) COMES Conseil Municipal Elargi aux Sectoriels (Municipal Council Expanded to Sector) COPIL Comité de Pilotage au niveau Communal (Communal Steering Committee) CSE Comité de Suivi-Evaluation (Monitoring and Evaluation Committee) C2D Contrat Désengagement Désendettement (Disengagement Indebted Contract) DPP Development Action Plan for Pygmies ECAM II Enquête Camerounaise des Ménages (Household Survey II) ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FEICOM Fonds Spécial d’Equipement et d’Intervention Intercommunale (Special Fund for Council Management) GDP Gross Domestic Product GESP Growth and Employment Strategy Paper GPS Global Positioning System GOC Government of Cameroon ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Cooperation Bank) LSP Local Service Provider M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MINMAP Ministry of Public Procurement Markets

MINAS Ministry of Social Affairs MINATD Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization MINEP Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection MINEPAT Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development MP Micro-project MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework MTR Mid-Term Review NCU National Coordination Unit NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIS National Institute of Statistics O&M Operations and Maintenance PAD Project Appraisal Document PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit PNDP Programme National de Développement Participatif (National Community Development Program) PPR Procurement Post Review PRO-ADP Pro logiciel d’Appui au Développement Participatif (Support Software for Participatory Development) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PIB Public Investment Budget RCU Regional Coordination Unit SDE Services Déconcentrés de l’Etat (Devolved State Services) TSP Technical Service Provider TTL Task Team Leader

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Gregor Binkert Sector Manager: Severin L. Kodderitzsch Project Team Leader: Amadou Nchare ICR Team Leader: Amadou Nchare

REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT-PHASE II

CONTENTS A. Basic Information ...... vi B. Key Dates ...... vi C. Ratings Summary ...... vi D. Sector and Theme Codes ...... vii E. Bank Staff ...... vii F. Results Framework Analysis ...... viii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ...... xii H. Restructuring (if any) ...... xii I. Disbursement Profile ...... xiii

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ...... 1 1.1 Context at Appraisal ...... 1 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved) ...... 2 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and Reasons/Justification ...... 4 1.4 Main Beneficiaries ...... 7 1.5 Original Components (as approved) ...... 7 1.6 Revised Components ...... 10 1.7 Other Significant Changes ...... 10 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ...... 11 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry ...... 11 2.2 Implementation ...... 12 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization .... 14 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance ...... 15 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...... 19 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation ...... 19 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives ...... 19 3.3 Efficiency ...... 23 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating ...... 24 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts ...... 25 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops ... 27 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...... 28 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...... 28 5.1 Bank Performance ...... 28 5.2 Borrower Performance ...... 31 6. Lessons Learned ...... 32 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners ...... 33 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...... 35 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ...... 36 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 40

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ...... 42 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ...... 44 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ...... 46 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR (French version) ...... 47 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ...... 62 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...... 63 MAP ...... 65

TABLES Table 1: Outcome Indicator at Appraisal ...... 3 Table 2: Revised Baseline and Target Values of Performance Indicators ...... 6 Table 3: Major Issues, Date, Action Taken and Results Obtained ...... 13 Table 4: Initial Allocation and Actual Expenditures ...... 16 Table 5: Results Achieved for Component 1 Key Performance Indicators ...... 36 Table 6: Physical Realization of PNDP II by Sector ...... 37 Table 7: Results Achieved for Component 2 Key Performance Indicators ...... 38 Table 8: Results Achieved for Component 3 Key Performance Indicators ...... 39 Table 9: Comparison of Unit Costs of Social Infrastructures between PNDP II, Government Departments, and FEICOM ...... 41

A. Basic Information CM-Community Development Program Country: Cameroon Project Name: Support Project Phase- II Project ID: P113027 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-45930 ICR Date: 05/05/2014 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF Lending Instrument: APL Borrower: CAMEROON Original Total XDR 26.70M Disbursed Amount: XDR 26.70M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 26.70M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: PNDP Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 12/17/2008 Effectiveness: 01/29/2010 Appraisal: 03/25/2009 Restructuring(s): 10/30/2013 Approval: 06/18/2009 Mid-term Review: 01/29/2012 12/28/2011 Closing: 11/30/2013 11/30/2013

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Substantial Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance:

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Yes None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status:

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) General education sector 12 12 Health 12 12 Other social services 12 12 Sub-national government administration 52 52 Water supply 12 12

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Improving labor markets 15 15 Municipal governance and institution building 35 35 Other environment and natural resources management 23 23 Participation and civic engagement 5 5 Rural services and infrastructure 22 22

E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Gregor Binkert Mary A. Barton-Dock Sector Manager: Severin L. Kodderitzsch Karen Mcconnell Brooks Project Team Leader: Amadou Nchare Ousmane Seck ICR Team Leader: Amadou Nchare ICR Primary Author: Amadou Nchare Jonas Mbwangue

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project Development Objective is to improve delivery of priority basic services (in targeted communes) and extend the ongoing process of decentralization to new regions. The main beneficiaries will be the communes and communities supported during PNDP I (155) plus 167 non-covered communes, of which 110 are in the five new regions.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) Not applicable.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Eligible communes which have implemented subprojects have increased the rate of coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in at least one of the Indicator 1: following four sectors: health, education, potable water, and sanitation (number, %) Value 147 (50% 133 (45% quantitative or 0 communes) communes) Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Partly achieved. 133 communes out of 147 that have implemented subprojects Comments have improved their coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in the (incl. % sectors of health, education, water supply, and sanitation (achievement rate: 90 achievement) percent). Indicator 2: Students in Project area with improved access to education facilities (number) Value quantitative or 0 30,000 20,100 44,340 Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 44,340 students have better access to school facilities (incl. % (achievement rate: 221 percent). achievement) Indicator 3: People in Project area with improved access to health care facilities (number) Value quantitative or 0 130,000 102,000 428,925 Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 428,925 people have better access to health facilities (incl. % (achievement rate: 420 percent). achievement) Indicator 4: People with access to an improved water source (number) Value 0 120,000 70,000 437,100 quantitative or

Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 437,100 people have access to improved water points (incl. % (achievement rate: 624 percent). achievement) Households in Project area with better road access to markets and social services Indicator 5: (number) Value quantitative or 0 400,000 193,000 211,682 Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 211,682 households have better road access to markets (incl. % and social services (achievement rate: 110 percent). achievement) Eligible communes (99) in the five new regions that have prepared CDPs of a Indicator 6: quality acceptable to the Association (%) Value quantitative or 0 90% 100% Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. All eligible communes in the new regions have prepared CDPs of a (incl. % quality acceptable to the Association (achievement rate: 100 percent). achievement)

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Communes benefiting from the Project grant (number) – disaggregated by new Indicator 1: and old Value 325, of which 170 (quantitative 0 170 197 new or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 197 communes have benefited from the Project grant. (incl. % These include 178 new communes and 19 old communes (achievement rate: 116 achievement) percent). Indicator 2: New CDPs implemented (number) Value (quantitative 0 140 197 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 197 new CDPs have been implemented (achievement (incl. % rate: 141 percent). achievement) Indicator 3: Communes supported by the Project that have reflected priority investments in

the communal development plans and budgets (number) Value (quantitative 0 325; 100% 170 178 or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. 178 communes supported by the Project have reflected (incl. % priority investments in the communal development plans and budgets achievement) (achievement rate: 105 percent). Subprojects that have implemented the required environmental and social risk Indicator 4: mitigation measures and are functional (%) Value (quantitative 0 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. All subprojects implemented have integrated required social and (incl. % environmental measures (achievement rate: 100 percent). achievement) Improved community water points constructed in rural areas served by the Indicator 5: Project (number) Value (quantitative 0 600 338 1457 or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. The high rate of achievement reflects rural populations’ (incl. % high demand for water points (achievement rate: 431 percent). achievement) Indicator 6: Classrooms built and/or rehabilitated (number) Value (quantitative 0 470 238 739 or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded. The high rate of achievement reflects rural populations’ (incl. % high demand for classrooms (achievement rate: 310 percent). achievement) Indicator 7: Health facilities constructed, renovated or equipped (number) Value (quantitative 0 60 44 28 or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments (incl. % Partly achieved (achievement rate: 64 percent). achievement) Indicator 8 : Roads rehabilitated, rural (km) Value (quantitative 0 400 241 306 or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 02/12/2012 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved and exceeded (achievement rate: 127 percent).

(incl. % achievement) Indicator 9 : Land use and management plans prepared for communes (number) Value (quantitative 0 100 91 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Partly achieved. 91 land use and management plans were prepared (achievement (incl. % rate: 91 percent). achievement) Communes with a public information and citizen control mechanism of grant Indicator 10 : management in place and operational (number) Value (quantitative 0 195 10 or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Not achieved. The pilot citizen control mechanism was implemented in 10 Comments communes (achievement rate: 5 percent). This pilot allowed communes to better (incl. % understand the perception of their populations on the services provided and to achievement) consider improvements. A computer application was developed and put online. The pilot operation will be extended to other communes. External financial audit reports are produced on time and without any major Indicator 11 : reservations (%) Value (quantitative 0 100% 100% or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. All external financial audit reports were produced on time and without (incl. % any major reservations (achievement rate: 100 percent) achievement) At least one technical and financial audit on the use of the grant and the quality Indicator 12 : of achievements is carried out randomly each year (Yes/No) Value (quantitative No Yes Yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. Technical and financial audits on the use of the grant and the quality (incl. % of achievements were carried out by an independent consultant (achievement achievement) rate: 100 percent). A database on the quality of technical service providers (TSPs) is put in place Indicator 13 : and made available for public access (Yes/No) Value (quantitative No Yes Yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/12/2012 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. A database on the quality of TSPs was put in place and made available (incl. % for public access (achievement rate: 100 percent). achievement)

Biannual monitoring and evaluation reports produced within the agreed Indicator 14 : timeframes (Yes / No) Value (quantitative No Yes Yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 11/30/2013 Comments Achieved. Biannual monitoring and evaluation reports were produced within the (incl. % agreed timeframes (achievement rate: 100 percent). achievement)

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 11/11/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/28/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.53 Moderately 3 12/18/2010 Moderately Satisfactory 9.67 Unsatisfactory 4 02/08/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 9.67 5 08/01/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 16.75 6 02/24/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 22.37 7 11/06/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 28.27 8 05/27/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.03 9 12/29/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.17

H. Restructuring (if any)

ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made PDO Change DO IP in USD millions The reallocation of the Credit was necessary to reallocate funds among categories to take into account the stronger than expected absorption of funds by Category 2.This reallocation enabled an increase in resources 10/30/2013 S S 41.17 allocated to Category 2 of the financing agreement to finance the installments of grants (allocations) to 54 communes in the Northwest, Littoral, South West, Adamaoua, and Far North regions, and the update of the

I. Disbursement Profile

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

(a) Local Development and Decentralization in Cameroon 1. For more than a decade, the Government of Cameroon (GOC) has emphasized that rural development in the country depends primarily on local (i.e., provincial and commune) services and investments. Decentralization of government administration is crucial to providing these services and facilitating the financing of local priorities.

2. In a bid to promote local development and implement the decentralization agenda, the government adopted community-based approaches, using a participatory procedure to get beneficiaries actively involved in identifying their own development priorities and in planning interventions over the long term. Therefore, on February 20, 2004, the GOC in collaboration with the World Bank and other development partners prepared the Community Development Program (PNDP Programme National de Développement Participatif), implemented using an Adaptable Program Loan (APL) instrument with three four-year phases. The program’s long-term vision is that rural communes will collaborate with communities in the planning and control of local development by: (i) identifying and managing infrastructure and service needs; (ii) managing the resources needed to establish and maintain community infrastructures; and (iii) promoting good governance. The first phase of the program closed on November 30, 2009. Therefore, this ICR pertains to the second four-year phase of the APL.

(b) Poverty and Rural Situation 3. Despite significant progress in fighting poverty between 1996 and 2008, poverty still affects a large share of Cameroon's population, and poverty remains a major concern for the Cameroonian authorities.

4. In 2004, Cameroon’s GDP achieved a growth rate of 3.7 percent, which corresponded to an increase of about 1.0 percent in per capita income given the population growth rate of 2.7 percent. Thus, the GDP growth rate of 2.0 percent in 2005 resulted in negative per capita income growth. In 2006, the situation turned slightly positive again, as the real GDP growth rate rose to 3.5 percent, partly because of strong oil exports. In 2008, the GDP growth rate reached 3.9 percent, up from 3.5 percent in 2007. However, overall economic growth has not contributed significantly to reducing poverty in monetary terms in recent years. The GOC’s “second-generation” strategy to fight poverty aims to find means other than economic growth, such as provision of improved services, to ensure a more equitable distribution of earned revenues and more significant poverty reduction.

(c) Government Objectives and Strategies in the Sector 5. The government’s ownership of and commitment to the PNDP is evidenced by the fact that it was presented in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) as one of the main instruments of the GOC’s decentralization and local development strategy. As mentioned, the GOC has demonstrated its political will by forcefully implementing the decentralization agenda and by pursuing substantial poverty reduction in rural areas throughout the country. To promote local development, it has adopted community-based

1 approaches, using a participatory procedure to get beneficiaries actively involved in identifying their own development priorities and in planning interventions over the long term. This process has resulted in local or communal development plans (CDPs) that specify priorities among subprojects to be implemented.

6. The CDP is a powerful tool for selecting priority investments and forming a global and shared vision on local development at the communal and community level. The GOC’s decree of November 2008, which created and organized Cameroon’s 10 regions, confirmed its commitment to use CDPs to improve implementation of its decentralization agenda.

(d) Rationale for Bank Assistance 7. The Community Development Program Support Project is the World Bank’s key instrument to support the GOC’s efforts to promote local development and decentralization. The design of PNDP in three four-year phases demonstrates the Bank’s long-term support to the government’s agenda for local development and decentralization. The World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) is aligned with the government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and with its goal of poverty reduction through delivery of basic services, private sector-led growth, and improved local governance. PNDP I (the first phase) achieved its objectives and all triggers for the second phase were essentially achieved, thus allowing the Bank to move to the next stage.

8. PNDP I covered communes in five of Cameroon’s 10 regions, and it was planned that PNDP II would scale up the approach to cover the remaining five regions. The success of PNDP I led to high demand from the communes in all regions for the government to move to the second phase to allow them to benefit from the Project’s social, economic, and environmental impacts.

9. Justification for the World Bank’s participation in the second phase of PNDP was based on the same reasons observed at the predecessor project’s appraisal, that is: (i) the Bank has extensive multisectoral experience in Cameroon, allowing it to participate in efforts to harmonize support for community action plans; (ii) the Bank has acquired broad experience with community-driven development projects in Africa and is thus in a good position to draw lessons from similar development efforts; and (iii) PNDP II seeks to address the government’s long-standing decentralization agenda, facilitating development or improving the operational framework and capacity of communes to effectively manage their own development.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)

10. The original Project Development Objective (PDO) was to improve the delivery of specified basic social services (health, education, water and sanitation) in targeted communes and to extend the ongoing process in support of decentralization to new regions. The main beneficiaries were the communes and communities supported during PNDP I (155) plus 167 non-covered communes, of which 110 were in the five remaining regions.

11. The original outcome indicators were the following:

For service delivery: At least 5 percent increase in the rate of coverage of basic social services in one of the following four sectors for eligible communes (147) having implemented subprojects: health, education, water, and better road access to markets and social services (number) (as measured in the number of users over the baseline situation):  Students in Project area with improved access to education facilities (number);  People in Project area with improved access to health care facilities (number);  People with access to an improved water source (number);  Households in Project area with better road access to markets and social services (number).

For scaling-up of the program: Eligible communes (number) in the five new regions that have prepared CDPs of a quality acceptable to the Association (%).

Table 1: Outcome Indicator at Appraisal Outcome Indicators Target Values at the End of the Project Eligible communes (147) which have implemented subprojects (295) have increased the rate of coverage of 147 basic social services by at least 5 percent in at least one 50% of communes of the following four sectors: health, education, water, and sanitation (number, %) Students in Project area with improved access to 30,000 education facilities (number) People in Project area with improved access to health 130,000 care facilities (number) People with access to an improved water source 120,000 (number) Households in Project area with better road access to 400,000 markets and social services (number) Eligible communes (99) in the new five regions that have prepared CDPs of a quality acceptable to the 90% Association (%) Source: Project Appraisal Document (PAD), pages 32 and 36.

Key Performance Indicators 12. The main indicators for Project outputs (for details, see Outputs by Component in Annex 2) used to evaluate Project achievements included:  Communes benefiting from the Project grant (number) – disaggregated by new and old; new CDPs implemented (number);  Communes supported by the Project that have reflected priority investments in the CDPs and budgets (%);  Subprojects that have implemented the required environmental and social risk mitigation measures and are functional (%);  Improved community water points constructed in rural areas served by the Project (number);  Classrooms built and/or rehabilitated (number);  Health facilities constructed, renovated, or equipped (number);  Roads rehabilitated, rural (km);  Land use management plans prepared (number);

 Communes with a public information and citizen control mechanism of grant management in place and operational (number);  External financial audit reports are produced on time and without any major reservations (%);  At least one technical and financial audit on the use of the grant and the quality of achievements is carried out randomly each year (Yes/No);  A systematic evaluation system (scorecards) for the beneficiaries on the quality of procurements is put in place (Yes/No);  A database on the quality of technical service providers (TSPs) is put in place and is made available for public access (Yes/No);  Biannual monitoring/evaluation reports are produced within the agreed time frames (Yes/No).

13. In addition to the PDO and key performance indicators, four triggers were identified for phase 3 of the PNDP:  The draft laws and decrees on decentralization prepared during the first phase of the Project will have been adopted and promulgated to pave the way for improved intergovernmental fiscal transfers. These are the law on local taxes, the law on the financial regime of communes, and the decree on the organizational chart and staffing of communes;  At least 90 percent (292) of communes supported by the Project will have reflected priority investments in their CDPs and budgets;  At least 80 percent (260) of the beneficiary communes will be satisfied with service delivery (as measured by monitoring scorecards and independent technical audits); and  The ‘‘Decentralization Charter” will be approved by the GOC.

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and Reasons/Justification

14. The PDO and key indicators were not revised. However, during Project implementation, baseline values were set to zero and target values for related indicators were accordingly amended in accordance with the PAD’s guidelines (see footnotes No. 5 and 6 on the arrangements for results monitoring, pages 36-37 of the PAD). In fact, given that the PNDP is a three-phase APL, the implementation progress of the Project was initially evaluated based on indicators with baselines reflecting the achievements of the first phase of the Project (PNDP I), while the results obtained reflect the cumulative progress of both Phase I and II. This presentation of the baselines and target values did not facilitate the identification of PNDP II’s achievements. Faced with this situation, the Africa Regional Core Operational Services Department (AFTOS) unit advised the task team to set all baseline values to zero and subtract the achievements of the first phase from the initial target values of the performance indicators of the second phase. Therefore, all baseline values of the indicators have been set to zero and the target values for some indicators have been modified to reflect only the achievements of the second phase. These indicators are: Students in Project area with improved access to education facilities; People in Project area with improved access to health care facilities; People with access to an improved water source; Households in Project area with better road access to markets and social services; Improved community water points constructed in rural areas served by the Project; Classrooms built and/or rehabilitated; Health facilities 4

constructed, renovated, or equipped; and Roads rehabilitated, rural. From July 22, 2011, the Project reported a zero baseline value and a net progress value based on progress made under PNDP II. Thus, from Implementation Status and Results Report (ISR) No. 6 to this ICR, all baseline values used are equal to zero to take into account only the results associated with PNDP II. Table 2 shows the revised baseline and target values of performance indicators. For this ICR, PNDP II results were compared against the revised targets of the performance indicators.

Table 2: Revised Baseline and Target Values of Performance Indicators of PNDPII Original (from PAD) Revised Difference Baseline Target between Value Values PDO Outcome Indicators Baseline Target target and Value value baseline values Eligible communes which have implemented subprojects have increased the rate of coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in 147 (50% 147 (50% The PDO is to improve 30 0 147 (50% delivery of priority basic at least one of the following four sectors: communes) communes) communes) services (in targeted health, education, potable water, and sanitation communes) and extend (number %) the ongoing process of Students in Project area with improved access 9,900 30,000 20,100 0 20,100 decentralization to new to education facilities (number) regions. The main beneficiaries will be the People in Project area with improved access to communes and 28,000 130,000 102,000 0 health care facilities (number) communities supported 102,000 during PNDP I (155) plus People with access to an improved water 0 70,000 50,000 120,000 70,000 167 non-covered source (number) communes, of which 110 Households in Project area with better road 0 193,000 207,000 400,000 193,000 are in the five new access to markets and social services (number) regions. Eligible communes in the new five regions that 0 have prepared CDPs of a quality acceptable to 0% 90% 90% 90% the Association Intermediate Results Results Indicators for Each Component 325, of 0 170 Communes benefiting from the Project grant 155 which 170 170 (number) – disaggregated by new and old are new New CDPs implemented (number) 0 140 140 0 140 Communes supported by the Project that have 155 ; reflected priority investments in the CDPs and 325; 100% 170 ; 100% 0 170; 100% 100% budgets (number, %) 1. Local Development Subprojects that have implemented the Support required environmental and social risk 80 100% 100% 0 100% mitigation measures and are functional (%) Improved community water points constructed 262 600 338 in rural areas served by the Project (number) 0 338 Classrooms built and/or rehabilitated (number) 232 470 238 0 238 Health facilities constructed, renovated or 0 44 16 60 44 equipped (number) Roads rehabilitated, rural (km) 159 400 241 0 241 Land use and management plans prepared for 0 100 0 100 100 communes (number) 2. Decentralization Communes with a public information and support for communes citizen control mechanism of grant - 195 195 0 195 management in place and operational (number) External financial audit reports are produced on time and without any major reservations 100% 100% 100 0 100% (%) At least one technical and financial audit on the use of the grant and the quality of 0 Yes 3. Coordination, Yes Yes Yes achievements is carried out randomly each management, M&E and year communication A database on the quality of TSP is put in place and made available for public access Yes Yes Yes 0 Yes (Yes/No) Biannual M&E reports produced within the Yes Yes Yes agreed timeframes (Yes / No) 0 Yes

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

15. The main beneficiaries were the communes and communities supported during PNDP I (155) plus 170 new communes. In these communes, the Project interventions contributed to empower rural communities in planning, implementing, and overseeing priority activities defined in their development plans. Efforts were made to directly target vulnerable groups, including women and indigenous communities (Pygmies). The targeted populations benefited from improved basic social services (education, health, water, and sanitation), and improved rural infrastructure (rural roads, bridges, rural markets, storage facilities, and rural community centers).

In addition to providing assistance to communities for the development of local or CDPs, the Project contributed financial resources to finance activities or subprojects contained in these plans. Local plans were developed through broad consultations between community stakeholders in accordance with sectoral priorities set at the national level. Local service providers (LSPs) were hired by the Project to provide technical support to communities in preparing development plans and subprojects. The process involved the participation of NGOs, decentralized technical ministries, and communal staff. Communal agents benefitted from capacity strengthening under the Project, which helped them play a more active role in the local development processes by improving the recovery of local taxes and overall budget preparation and execution.

1.5 Original Components

16. The three main components of the Project were described as follows at appraisal:

Component 1: Local Development Support: Appraisal: US$65.57 million (IDA- US$25.63 million; Government-US$32.94 million; Beneficiaries-US$7.00 million) Actual: US$68.69 (IDA-US$26.75 million; Government-US$36.62 million; Beneficiaries-US$5.32 million). 17. Component 1 aimed to help improve the socioeconomic conditions, increase the productivity of the natural resource base, and increase the incomes of the population in the communes supported by the Project. Achieving these goals required putting in place various infrastructures and socioeconomic investments. This component channeled grants to communes to co-finance their proposed investments (subprojects): either a CDP preparation activity or a CDP-subproject.

18. PNDP II focused on communes. In contrast to PNDP I, under which communities as well as communes prepared development plans, under PNDP II the CDP was the sole local planning tool, and the priorities of grassroots community organizations were taken into account in this document. Multidisciplinary teams composed of representatives of seven decentralized units of technical ministries or LSPs helped communes prepare the plans, using a participatory approach. The decentralized service units of the sectoral ministries ensured that the CDPs and their subprojects complied with national standards and policies. The municipal council in each commune examined and approved the CDP, and then transmitted the plan to the Divisional Officer (a representative of the ministry supervising the communes) for administrative validation.

19. To ensure equity, Project authorities allocated funds to communes annually, using criteria agreed upon beforehand. The annual allocation was determined in accordance with the following factors: the demographics of the population, the poverty level of the commune (administrative account, Household Survey-ECAM-II, 2007), the existing local fiscal system and the financing plan of the decentralized administration, and the size of the commune. The allocation covered the following: (a) expenditures for CDP preparation activities: (i) LSP contracts and the travel expenses of multidisciplinary sectoral teams for the preparation of the CDP; (ii) technical and environmental studies related to the design of feasibility studies for CDP subprojects (about 4 percent of the estimated micro-project (MP) grants based on lessons learnt from PNDP I); (iii) payment of salaries of select commune support staff on a gradually declining scale; and (iv) partial payment for those meetings of the municipal council that examine and approve development plans and subprojects, and for the sessions of the commune procurement commissions (for a maximum period of two years); and (b) expenditures for implementation of CDP-subprojects, including quality control (about 1 percent of the MP grants). The commune was notified of its allocated amount well ahead of time to allow it to be integrated into its budget. Depending on the allocation for the implementation of the CDP-subprojects, the commune executive board prepared an annual investment plan in accordance with the investment priorities of the commune (including the priority subprojects to be financed under the grants).

20. The allocation to communes was released in three steps. The first payment covered 100 percent of (a) as described above, while the second and third payments covered 60 percent and 40 percent of (b), respectively. Provision of the third payment was subject to approval of the participatory monitoring of subprojects’ implementation progress. The conditions for providing the grants and the eligibility criteria for subprojects were described in detail in the Project Implementation Manual.

21. PNDP II strived to make the funds transfer flow to communes easier than was the case under PNDP I. The funds were henceforth transferred from the Project’s Designated Account directly to a commune’s account, opened at a local bank for this purpose. This account was operated jointly by the mayor of the commune, the “Receveur Municipal,” and the PNDP regional coordinator, requiring the signatures of all three. To ensure adequate financial management and disbursement arrangements were in place for the communes, the commune designated/recruited a local accountant to maintain adequate books of accounts and prepare reports needed to monitor the commune’s activities. Transfers of the funds to a commune were not made until said accountant was identified and trained. The commune’s budget summary, the technical and financial Project execution reports, and the expenditure statements on the communal joint account were posted on the commune’s information board and made available to the public for transparency and good governance at the local level.

Component 2: Support to Communes within the decentralization framework: Appraisal: US$18.83 million (IDA- US$7.51 million; Government - US$12.05 million). Actual: US$16.43 million (IDA- US$6.50 million; Government - US$9.93 million). 22. This component aimed to strengthen institutional capacities in support of the decentralization process. It also provided assistance for the implementation of capacity- building activities for communes and other local stakeholders, such as LSPs and

multidisciplinary teams of the sectoral ministries, to enable them to assume an effective role as promoters of local development. The component was divided into two subcomponents:

Subcomponent 2.1: Institutional support to the decentralization process: Appraisal: US$8.78million (IDA- US$3.37 million; Government- US$5.41 million). 23. This subcomponent made it possible to: (a) improve the legal and regulatory framework through specific studies and activities and improve implementation of the Project at the commune and intercommunal levels; (b) help build the case for decentralization (e.g., by using M&E data on land use planning proactively to inform the public about the benefits of decentralization); and (c) improve budget management to increase performance of local tax collection for a sustained decentralization funding mechanism.

24. The Project supported specific studies and the preparation of draft decrees for the decentralization laws mentioned previously (paragraph 3) and finalization of the Decentralization Charter. It also financed workshops for finalization of the decrees, including relevant consultancy services for the workshops, and dissemination of the enacted laws and decrees. Furthermore, the subcomponent financed the acquisition of small cartography equipment and consultant services required for mapping of communes. The Project also financed study tours on decentralization and local development for the Technical Secretariat of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Local Services and the Mayors’ Association. Finally, it assisted the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization (MINATD) to develop and deploy financial and accounting management software for communes.

Subcomponent 2.2: Capacity-building: Appraisal: US$10.78 million (IDA- US$4.14 million; Government – US$6.64 million). 25. Strengthening the operational capacities of communes. Under this subcomponent, several capacity-building activities for the communes were carried out, such as: (a) financing of the development of an operations manual or guidelines for communes to improve their fiduciary management capacities (including procurement and financial control and reporting and the associated risk-mitigation measures); (b) organization of training workshops and study tours for cross-learning and sharing of good practices, through paired visits between high- and low-performing communes and study tours to neighboring countries for elected local representatives, communal procurement commissions, and community-based organizations; and (c) promotion of nationwide competitions for local governments on best practices on CDPs and on enhancing good governance and transparency.

26. Capacity building for local stakeholders. This activity aimed at strengthening and enhancing the skills of the participants other than those of the communal institutions – that is, LSPs, multidisciplinary teams, and TSPs – to enable them to support communes efficiently in the local development process. Workshops were organized to inform all stakeholders about the objectives and strategy of the Project and to equip ordinary citizens to participate in planning, implementing, and monitoring local development actions. To facilitate such capacity building, the Project financed technical assistance for training of LSPs and multidisciplinary teams to improve their quality of service. Furthermore, the Project promoted cooperation among the Project Coordination Units,

the decentralized offices of the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection (MINEP), and other relevant sector ministries, and helped organize an environmental training program for members of municipal councils, divisional administrative staff, and Project staff.

27. The Project funded: (a) acquisition of computer equipment for communes; (b) training of communal development and finance staff; (c) publication and dissemination of a participatory planning guide, as well as a guide for procurement procedures; (d) environmental training for members of municipal councils, divisional administrative staff, and Project staff; and (e) nine study tours and training on decentralization and local development for LSPs, multidisciplinary teams, TSPs, and local stakeholders other than commune authorities.

Component 3: Coordination, management, communication, monitoring and evaluation: Appraisal: US$17.87 million (IDA US$6.86 million; Government - US$11.01 million). Actual: US$14.60 million (IDA US$8.40 million; Government - US$6.20 million). 28. This component aimed to facilitate: (a) administrative, technical, and financial management of the program; (b) coordination among all institutional partners to ensure efficient support to communes for local development; (c) effective contractual arrangements with communes, sectoral ministries, and TSP/private-sector operators, NGOs (TSPs), including acquisition of the equipment necessary for implementing the program; (d) M&E of the performance and the financial, environmental, and social impacts of the program (including developing monitoring scorecards to assess beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the services provided by communes); and (e) development of communication activities to publicize and disseminate Project implementation tools and local development potential and practices.

29. The integrated financial management software was upgraded with additional tools to enable permanent access to accounting system information in the regions for analysis and to ensure timely synchronized consolidation of accounts.

30. Under this component, the Project financed: (a) rehabilitation of office spaces; (b) purchase of office equipment and vehicles; (c) training of the staff of the Project’s National Coordination Unit (NCU) and the Regional Coordination Units (RCUs); (d) consultant services, including for preparation and publication of manuals and establishment of an electronic library; and (e) monitoring of the implementation of environmental and social mitigation measures. It also helped pay for meetings of the program’s statutory supervisory and coordination organs and for the operating costs of the NCU and RCUs.

1.6 Revised Components 31. The Project components were not revised.

1.7 Other Significant Changes 32. No changes were made to the Project design. The only change that occurred during implementation was the reallocation of funds. The reallocation of the Credit was necessary to reallocate funds among categories to take into account the stronger than expected absorption of funds by Category 2 (Goods and services for CDP Preparation

Grants). Indeed, this reallocation of funds was agreed with the GOC during the Mid- Term Review (MTR) of the Project to account for changes in the costs of some goods and services. This reallocation enabled an increase in resources allocated to Category 2 of the financing agreement to finance the installments of grants (allocations) to 54 communes in the Northwest, Littoral, South West, Adamaoua, and Far North regions, and the update of CDPs for 10 communes included in PNDP I. The approval for level II was granted on October 30, 2013. The reallocation of funds was approved by the Country Director.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 33. The design of PNDP as a three-phase program demonstrated the Bank’s long-term support to the GOC’s Poverty Reduction Strategy. The World Bank’s CAS is aligned with the GOC’s PRSP and with its goal of poverty reduction through delivery of basic services, private sector-led growth, and improved local governance.

34. The Project design drew on lessons from the previous phase of this program and on similar ongoing and past operations in other countries in the region. In particular, the experiences gained from the ongoing experience in Burkina Faso and Mali and from a very similar project in Niger (completed in June 2008, and on which an intensive learning ICR was prepared) provided guidance for preparation and pre-appraisal of this Project. The MTR and the ICR of PNDP I concluded that the involvement of government authorities and sectoral ministries does not by itself improve the quality of services. For a program like PNDP to be truly effective, it must be accompanied by an improved legal and regulatory framework for decentralization, including a clear definition of the responsibilities of each participant (administration, communes, civil society, the Program Management Unit) and adequate resources to help municipalities prepare technical records, manage contracts, and monitor and control investment and other activities.

35. Moreover, the relevance of the Project design was recognized by the French Development Agency (AFD), which agreed to finance agricultural activities identified in the CDPs developed through funding from the World Bank and to use the Bank instrument to finance local development.

36. During Project preparation, six main risks were identified for PNDP II, including: (i) delays in completing the legal framework of decentralization, including laws and decrees for: (a) local taxes and the financial regime of communes; (b) guidance and supervision arrangements; (c) a Charter of Decentralization; and (d) the organizational chart and staffing of communes; (ii) delays in budget preparation, poor commune budget execution, and delays in procurement; (iii) poor financial capacity in rural communes; (iv) poor quality of contracts and service delivery to communes; (v) corruption in subproject implementation and hiring of local providers; and (vi) the potential reluctance of MINEP in Yaoundé to delegate authority for the approval of: (a) MP environmental impact assessments; and (b) environmental and social screening results to MINEP representatives at the regional and/or the divisional levels.

37. To mitigate these risks, the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) successfully implemented the following actions:

(i) Encouraged creativity in decentralization practices through nationwide competition for local governance on best practices; developed publicity material for decentralization, for instance, by using M&E data to inform the public about the benefits of decentralization and ensuring that the data from M&E were used even outside the Project; made decentralization a nationwide issue as the basis for improved service delivery; (ii) Provided support to communes to improve budget planning, execution, and control; applied simplified procedures for procurement; (iii) Increased staffing and training in communes to improve collection of local taxes, mobilize other resources, and improve budgeting; (iv) Clarified the responsibilities of different participants supporting communes; focused the CDPs and included sectoral policies in them; and developed sustainable and effective capacity in communes to enable them fulfill their duties; (v) Conducted periodic technical and financial audits of subproject implementation on a sample basis; built accountability mechanisms between stakeholders (budget publication); and (vi) Convinced MINEP that the screening of subprojects for potential adverse localized environmental and social impacts could be carried out at the regional/divisional levels; financed environmental impact studies for subprojects and relevant environmental training for all stakeholders at the national, regional, and communal levels; and supported the appointment of regional environmental focal points and development agents at the communal level.

38. The design of PNDP II followed the same participatory process used in PNDP I. Both the components and activities of PNDP II were developed on the basis of recommendations from beneficiaries and environmental and impact studies, as well as results from audit reports and feedback from partners. Participatory consultations were held in all 10 regions with the strong involvement of municipalities, NGOs, and sectoral ministries. These consultations were followed by validation workshops in each region to identify the priorities and specific needs of municipalities. The draft PAD was also validated in a national workshop involving all stakeholders before its approval by the government. This participatory approach is also reflected in the Project’s Implementation Steering Committees at the municipal, regional, and national levels.

2.2 Implementation

39. The three main factors that influenced Project implementation were: the accelerated preparation of municipal development plans, the Project’s MTR, and the reallocation of funds. Table 3 summarizes the majors issues, their date of occurrence, actions taken, and the results obtained.

Table 3: Major Issues, Date, Action Taken and Results Obtained Date Major Issues Actions Taken/Results Obtained 12/18/2010 Poor performance of the Project. Given that MPs that should be financed by The implementation progress was the Project should be removed from the rated moderately unsatisfactory priority needs of populations identified in (MU). Indeed, in December 18, CDPs, the Bank team decided to change the 2010, the Bank team found that the original preparation schedule and to progress status of the Project was accompany the Project team in the MU and that the disbursement rate preparation of the remaining 90 CDPs. was low (15.74 percent for the IDA Thus, in November 2011, 68 new CDPs credit). The main reason for the were developed. The financing of MPs poor performance of the Project was resulting from these new CDPs allowed for the delay in the preparation of a gradual increase in the disbursement rate CDPs. to 52.19 percent for IDA funds in January 2012. 12/28/2011- MTR of the Project. During the MTR, the issues limiting the 01/13/2012, Project’s performance were identified and recommendations made to accelerate Project implementation. 10/30/2013 Insufficient funds in Category 2 The reallocation of credit was approved by (Goods and services for CDP the Country Director on October 30, 2013. Preparation Grants). Indeed, this reallocation of credit allowed the Bank to not only cover the category overdraws proactively authorized by the task team during the supervision mission, but also and especially to significantly improve the Project’s disbursement rate. As of November 30, 2013, the closing date of the Project, the disbursement rate of IDA credit stood at 100 percent (according to Client Connection data of November 30, 2013, 26.70 million were disbursed out of SDR 26.70 million allocated).

40. Moreover, multiple constraints/risks were encountered in the implementation of the program, including: (i) delays in mobilizing communes’ contributions for implementation of their MPs, thus slowing their start; and (ii) LSPs’ poor knowledge of the socioeconomic environment of the MP sites. To mitigate these risks, the Project: (i) conducted resource mobilization advocacy and outreach campaigns; and (ii) provided all communes with special software (PRO-ADP or “Prologiciel d’Appui au Developpement Participatif”) to collect and store communes’ socioeconomic data.

41. Furthermore, another constraint encountered in implementation was the lack of an effective grievance redress mechanism (GRM) in the PAD. Indeed, during implementation, the Project experienced considerable delays in the treatment of six complaints filed by beneficiaries. Without an inclusive and open GRM, the uptake, tracking, follow-up, treatment, and feedback relied heavily on the willingness and responsiveness of the Project team.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization (a) Monitoring and Evaluation Design 42. The Project’s M&E was designed to capture the inputs, outputs, and outcomes of increased access to basic social services as well as the Project’s institutional impacts. Outcome and key performance indicators were clearly defined. Program M&E was implemented at municipal, regional, and national levels. At the municipal level, a steering committee comprising representatives of the municipality executive and sectoral ministries was established to monitor the elaboration of the CDP process. At the end of the CDP process, the committee was transformed into a body to monitor and evaluate CDP implementation. A municipal officer provided by the program followed the implementation of the commune’s Annual Investment Plan (AIP). This participatory M&E mechanism was developed by the Project at the local level.

43. Furthermore, the definition of the first PDO indicator (“Eligible communes (147) which have implemented subprojects (295) have increased the rate of coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in at least one of the following four sectors: health, education, water and sanitation (number, %)”) created confusion and led to different interpretations. To enable the different Project M&E actors to have the same understanding, the Bank team explained this indicator to them and the proper methodology for gathering information for this indicator.

(b) Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation 44. Using GPS and the PRO-ADP software, the necessary information concerning priority sectors and the preferences of the population to be supported was collected by a LSP. These data were used to establish baseline of the CDP’s subsectors and a map was produced to highlight priority infrastructures. The software identified the state of communes’ needs by sector. These data were also available online in the form of electronic maps (e-MAP). Municipal agents updated these data annually by evaluating the AIP of year (n) to plan investments for year (n +1). The AIP itself is from the three- year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Municipal officials sent information consolidated at both regional and national levels.

45. Furthermore, the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) conducted an impact assessment of the Project in 2013. This study helped to gather reliable data on the Project’s overall performance and impacts.

(c) Monitoring and Evaluation Utilization 46. The data from the M&E system were used by the municipalities themselves, as well as by the PCU, MINEPAT, other sectoral ministries, and development partners. The municipalities used these data to update their CDPs and priority investments, while the PCU used the M&E system not only to assess progress towards the achievement of the PDO, but also to warn regions regarding delays in the implementation of activities and detection of problems in procurement activities and to make necessary corrective measures. The PCU also informed MINEPAT on the state of the Project and of decisions to be taken to address problems identified. Other sectors and development partners were informed of Project achievements and ongoing investments in their sectors. Information from the M&E system was also shared with the general public through the Project website and a synthesis published in the widely disseminated Project newspaper, “Echo du PNDP.”

47. The M&E system established will be used beyond the duration of IDA's funding. Indeed, the program has received parallel funding from the AFD for agricultural activities identified in CDPs.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

48. The results of the evaluation of the PNDP II’s socio-environmental performance carried out in 2014 by an independent consultant demonstrated that the Project’s environmental and social management was satisfactory. Four operational policies were triggered, including the Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Indigenous People (OP 4.10), the Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12), and International Waters (OP 7.50). All communal and communities’ MPs were systematically subjected to a socio- environmental screening, which led to appropriate environmental measures that were incorporated into the technical and financial documents of the concerned subprojects. Subproject sites were carefully selected and sensitive areas and titled land were avoided. All LSPs and Project consultants were trained in the use of the safeguards screening forms. Neither involuntary resettlement nor intervention on international waters was recorded during implementation.

49. The OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment Safeguard was triggered due to the construction of small infrastructures (water points, markets, classrooms, health care centers, rural roads, rural electrification, latrines), as well as the generation of medical waste at health care centers. The Project’s environmental category was rated as B. To assess, mitigate, and monitor potential adverse environmental and social impacts, the borrower prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The ESMF outlines the institutional responsibilities for implementing the environmental and social management process for subprojects as well as the provision of relevant environmental training plans to ensure its effective implementation (for details, please refer to Annex 10 of the PAD). A medical waste management plan for health care centers was included in the ESMF. The ESMF was disclosed in Cameroon and at the Bank’s Infoshop prior to appraisal.

50. The Project triggered OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples, which led to implementation of the Development Action Plan for Pygmies (DPP). PNDP II focused on rural areas and thus affected the Pygmy population, an ethnic minority in the country. To take the Pygmy population into consideration under the program, a Development Action Plan for Pygmies (DPP) was formulated and published in 2003. The DPP was worked out and finalized during appraisal to ensure that the dignity, rights, and culture of the Cameroonian Pygmies would be respected and that they would benefit from the Project. During implementation, more than 800 million CFAF was allocated to 31 communes in the Central, East, and South regions to finance actions in favor of the Pygmy population.

51. The Project support allowed: (i) production of additional official documents for Pygmies (673 birth certificates, 415 National Identity Cards, 17 marriage certificates, etc.); (ii) establishment of small Pygmy-led agricultural farms at Bandevouri and Lokoundjé; and (iii) recognition of land rights to 15 Pygmy villages in the municipalities of Niete and Lokoundjé. The program also identified and funded the training of 15

Pygmy children in education and health careers, including: (i) eight caregivers (one year training), of whom six graduated in August 2013; (ii) one nurse graduate at the state nursing school (three years); (iii) two student teachers of technical education (three years); and (iv) four student teachers of general education (three years).

52. In summary, Project support empowered the Pygmy population by promoting the legal existence of Pygmies and their citizenship rights, increasing their capacity to participate in local political processes and governance, and thereby encouraging their social inclusion in national activities.

53. Fiduciary compliance. Special tools were developed to enable the effective implementation of procurement policies and procedures under the Project. Annual procurement plans were prepared regularly and submitted for World Bank approval. Key stakeholders, including grassroots communities, municipal committees, and procurement staff, received training in the approved procurement policies and procedures. However, the procurement post review (PPR) conducted by the Bank identified some shortcomings in the Borrower’s procurement processes, including: (i) some procurement complaints were not handled in a timely manner by the Project Implementation Unit (PIU); (ii) assistant accountants were recruited without the World Bank’s involvement and its non- objection, if applicable; (iii) contractual deadlines for paying providers were sometimes not respected by the PIU; and (iv) the execution of some procurement activities directly managed by the PIU experienced important delays.

54. With regard to financial management, Table 4 shows that at the time of Project closing, the disbursement rate stood at 100 percent for IDA credit. Throughout implementation, the Project was subject to annual technical and financial audits. No major irregularities were noted.

Table 4: Initial Allocation and Actual Expenditures Type Category of Amount Actual Balance Disbursement Expenditures Allocated Expenses (XDR) rate (%) (XDR) (XDR) (a-b) ((b/a)*100) (a) (b) Totals 26,700,000.00 26,699,990.33 9.67 100 1 Goods, minor 9,600,000.00 8,389,154.19 1,2010,845.81 works, training, operating costs and services for the Project 2 (2) Goods and 5,500,000.00 7,813,647.45 -2,313,647.45 services for CDP Preparation Grants 3 (3) Goods, works 11,600,000.00 10,583,458.98 1,016,541.02 and services for CDP Subproject Grants DA-A Designated Account 0.00 -91,641.79 91,641.79 DA-B Designated Account 0.00 5,371.50 -5,371.50 Source: Client Connection, May 22, 2014.

55. Despite the high rate of disbursement, the risk of ineligible expenditure is important. In spite of the task team effort to alert the PIU on the Project’s closure process, some activities were not delivered even after the grace period. About US$2 million remained in the communes’ bank accounts at the end of March 2014. Per disbursement rules, these outstanding balance needs to be refunded to allow proper closure of the Project’s Designated Account. As of today, there is a misunderstanding with the PIU on the refunding process, a situation that could lead the Bank to declare ineligible the US$2 million.

56. Governance problem. Some cases of fraud were reported during the Project implementation. The outstanding case is one reported by a service provider to Integrity Vice Presidency (INT). As of the closing date, no feedback had been received from INT on this case.

57. Moreover, the GOC has obtained parallel financing for the PNDP from other partners like KfW (the German Cooperation Bank) and AFD. To ensure and enhance synergy and efficiency, only investments not supported by other projects (or development partners) were eligible for IDA financing. Therefore, the results presented in this ICR are only those obtained with IDA funds. Coordination of interventions of technical and financial partners materialized through supervision missions of the Project, to which the AFD and KfW were regularly invited.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

58. PNDP mobilized additional financial resources from the AFD to continue to support communes in the implementation of their CDPs. With regard to MPs financed by the IDA resources (water, health centers, schools, warehouses, rural markets, electricity, etc.), PNDP helped the beneficiary communities in setting up management committees to ensure self-maintenance of these infrastructures. Moreover, a mechanism for collection of savings at each beneficiary household was established to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure financed by the Project. But some management committees for social infrastructure did not work well in the Central, South, and North regions, where people are accustomed to free public services.

59. Given the institutional challenges of the decentralization reforms and the gradual approach needed to capitalize on Project implementation experience, the GOC formulated the Community Development Program to be implemented using an APL instrument in three four-year phases.

60. Phase I’s successful implementation defined the approach and methods and allowed for their implementation in five of Cameroon’s 10 regions. In this phase, the Project funded studies supervised by MINATD, which led to laws and regulations on the decentralization process, including: Law 2009/011 of July 10, 2009, on financial regime of decentralized territorial entities; (ii) Law 2009/019 of December 15, 2009, on the local tax system; and (iii) Ministerial Order No.00136/A/MINATD/DCTD of August 24, 2009, which made enforceable standard tables of municipal jobs and the organizational chart of communes. The Project also supported the development of several planning tools, including: (i) the first methodological guide for regional and communal planning; (ii) the guide for stakeholders involved in the process and implementation of contracts financed by PNDP in the communes; and (iii) the methodological guide for the preparation of land 17

use and management plans for communes. Finally, 151 CDPs were prepared during this phase.

61. In PNDP II, local development responsibilities were gradually transferred from Project entities to communes, where community investment decisions are made based on priorities identified in the CDP. Phase II covered all 10 regions, but not all district communes of Cameroon – 31 district communes were not taken into account in the Project. During this phase, PNDP supported the recruitment of 262 financial agents, responsible for tracking fiscal assets, and 259 development agents, responsible for M&E for communes. These staff are operational and their personal contribution to the improvement of communal management is already noticeable and appreciated by 91 percent of mayors surveyed. Moreover, 178 new CDPs were prepared by the municipalities, revealing significant needs in basic social services (health, education, water, and sanitation), productive infrastructures, and capacity building.

62. The level of achievement of trigger indicators needed for the third phase is encouraging. Of the four trigger indicators, three have already been fully met, including: (i) Draft laws and decrees on decentralization prepared during the first phase of the Project were adopted and promulgated: (a) Law No. 2009 of December 15, 2009, on local taxation and its decree; (b) Law No. 011 of July 10, 2009, on the financial regime of communes; and (c) Rule No. 00136/A/MINATD/DCTD of August 24, 2009, making enforceable standard tables of municipal employment; (ii) At least 90 percent of communes supported by the Project reflected priority investments in their CDP and budget. At this stage, all new 178 communes with a CDP also have an AIP; and (iii) About 93 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied with PNDP services (CDPs, provision of communal agents, funding of MPs, capacity enhancement, and supply of equipment to communes).

63. With regard to the fourth trigger indicator (preparation and approval by the government of the Charter on Decentralization), the draft charter was prepared and is awaiting government approval. Given the Project’s positive track record, the GOC requested (by Letter No. 003356/MINEPAT/CAB of August 13, 2013) IDA funds to finance the third phase of the program (APL3). The third phase will be built on the success and lessons learned from the implementation of Phases I and II. It will consolidate what has been achieved and prepare an exit strategy. Meanwhile, the government has initiated discussions to transform the PNDP into a National Participatory Development Agency to ensure its sustainability.

64. Considering the diversity of actors involved in local development, PNDP recognizes that the opportunities and local challenges are as varied as the actors themselves. The first step toward the design of a third phase is to capitalize on its eight years of experience to meet the many needs of beneficiaries, summarized as follows: (i) development of the local economy of communes to help them mobilize fiscal resources to meet their equipment, public or community infrastructure, and public service needs; (ii) support for the government in the formulation of local development policies that will guide sectoral programs on the priorities expressed by the population; and (iii) development of a more diversified economic base for rural communities and an increased stock of basic infrastructure (water and sanitation, education, health, rural electrification infrastructure). In the new funding agreement with AFD, PNDP has integrated a new 18 component on agriculture that will benefit municipalities that have integrated agricultural activities in their MTEF.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Rating: High

65. The Project objectives, design, and implementation are highly relevant to Cameroon’s development priorities. Indeed, the PDO and components remain consistent with the GOC’s Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP) and the Bank’s CAS. By realizing socioeconomic infrastructures through local planning, PNDP II substantially improved communities’ access to basic social services. Throughout the planning process, all communes developed their CDPs, an innovative planning tool that addresses the potential of communes in all 28 sectors identified by the GESP.

66. PNDP II activities also supported the GOC’s decentralization strategy. They contributed to strengthening the capacities of the different actors of decentralization in Cameroon (mayors, municipal councils, LSPs, decentralized state services’ staff, and local communities) and to establishing a mechanism for decentralized funding through the allocation of funds to municipalities to finance their development activities.

67. For successful implementation of the program, two structural participatory models were developed, consisting of: (i) a diagnosis, including an institutional and landscaping management diagnosis; and (ii) strategic planning, resource mobilization, and activity implementation. In addition, incremental funding resources were provided for capacity building of municipal councils on project planning, management, procurement, and participative M&E.

68. Overall, the approach of the PNDP II has been recognized and adopted by the GOC. To ensure the effectiveness of public investment in rural areas, Circular No. 002 CAB/PR of July 9, 2012 of the President of the Republic of Cameroon, which relates to the preparation of the state budget, included CDPs among the main instruments that should guide the preparation of the Public Investment Budget (PIB) of the state for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

69. Moreover, given the satisfactory results obtained by the Project in supporting local development and decentralization, the government initiated, by Decision No. 022/SG/PM of March 28, 2014, a reflection to convert the PNDP into a National Participatory Development Agency.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rating: Satisfactory

70. The achievement of the PDO is rated “Satisfactory.” Indeed, according to the M&E data and the results of the independent impact assessment carried out at the end of the Project by the NIS, almost all outcome and intermediate outcome indicators were substantially achieved. The only exception was the intermediate outcome indicator on the number of communes with public information and citizen control mechanism for grants.

71. The level of achievement of the outcome indicators can be summarized as follows:

•Indicator 1: Eligible communes which have implemented subprojects have increased the rate of coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in at least one of the following four sectors: health, education, water, and sanitation. Objective: 50 percent of eligible communes (147) which have implemented subprojects have improved their coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in one of the four following areas: health, education, water supply, and sanitation. Achievement: 45 percent of communes (133) which have implemented subprojects improved their coverage of basic social services by at least 5 percent in one of the sectors of health, education, water supply, and sanitation (achievement rate: 90 percent).

• Indicator 2: Access to education facilities. Objective: the number of students with better access to educational facilities in the Project area will be 20,100 at the end of the Project. Achievement: 44,340 students have better access to school facilities (achievement rate: 221 percent);

• Indicator 3: Access to health care facilities. Objective: the number of people with better access to health care facilities will be 102,000 at the end of the Project. Achievement: 428,925 people have better access to health care facilities (achievement rate: 420 percent).

•Indicator 4: Access to improved water source. Objective: the number of people with access to improved water source will be 70,000 at the end of the Project. Achievement: 437,100 people have better access to improved water points (achievement rate: 624 percent).

• Indicator 5: Access to roads and social services. Objective: the number of households with better road access to markets and social services in the Project area will be 193,000 at the end of the Project. Achievement: 211,682 households have better road access to markets and social services (achievement rate: 110 percent).

• Indicator 6: Preparation of CDPs by eligible communes in the new regions. Objective: eligible communes (99) in the new regions have prepared a CDP of quality acceptable to the Association. Achievement: 100 percent of eligible communes in the new regions prepared CDPs of a quality acceptable to the Association (achievement rate: 100 percent).

72. The results of the impact assessment of the Project carried out by the NIS (2013)1 at the end of the Project indicate that:

• In the area of water and sanitation, the Project improved the living conditions of 437,100 people through the construction of 1,457 water points. This intervention helped to reduce the prevalence of waterborne diseases;

• In the education sector, the Project improved the conditions for education of 44,340 students through the construction of 739 classrooms and the provision of 13,710 benches. Moreover, the rate of success of students in examinations in schools of beneficiary villages rose by 2.76 percent, to 82.4 percent versus 79.8 percent for non- beneficiary villages;

• In the field of health, access to health care improved for 428,925 people through the construction and equipment of 28 health care centers. About 41 percent of households in beneficiary villages are now within 500 m of the nearest health center and 93 percent of beneficiary villages are within 5 km of the first health center versus 87 percent of non-beneficiary villages;

• In the transport sector, 18 villages comprising 25,873 households benefited from better transport conditions and travel through the construction or rehabilitation of 306 km of road and the construction of five culverts. The direct impact of the construction of rural roads in the communes was the reduction of transportation costs. Overall, these costs decreased from 400 CFAF to 200 CFAF per km by motorcycle in the Littoral region and from 200 CFAF to 100 CFAF per km by car in the centre region, based on the NIS (2013) survey results.

73. The impacts described above are similar to those reported by Wong (2012) on improving access to basic services, especially in health, education, and drinking water, in a study of the impacts of World Bank community-driven development programs.

74. Regarding support for decentralization, the actions of PNDP II strengthened the technical and operational capacities of communes so that they can effectively promote local development. Indeed, the Project supported: (i) Deployment of the financial and accounting management software (SIM_ba) in 53 communes. Based on the results of the first wave of implementation, a deployment plan was prepared and will be implemented in other communes;

1 This retrospective impact evaluation was performed at the end of the project by the NIS (2013) to measure the Project's impact on the beneficiaries’ living conditions. The sampling strategy used in the evaluation was both probabilistic and non-probabilistic. The probabilistic aspect was based on a stratified three-stage sampling: (i) the sampling unit of the first degree or primary unit was communes in which the PNDP operated since the launch of its second phase. The set of all communes identified at the time of the evaluation formed the sampling frame of the first degree (178 communes) in 10 regions of Cameroon; (ii) at the second degree, there were two types of statistical units: the subprojects of the communes drawn in the first degree and the villages of said communes; (iii) at the third degree, the statistical unit was households in villages selected at the second degree. The total sample size used for the evaluation consisted of 50 communes, 83 subprojects, 133 villages, and 1,405 households distributed in 10 regions of Cameroon. The Project's impacts on the beneficiaries’ living conditions vis-à-vis education, health, water, and sanitation were analyzed using the method of statistical matching (exact matching).

(ii) Training of 1,720 members of municipal procurement committees; (iii) Training of the decentralized state services’ staff, municipal staff, and LSPs on the inclusion of social and environmental aspects in the preparation and implementation of CDPs and subprojects; (iv) Preparation of 91 land use and management plans for communes; (v) Production of additional official documents to Pygmies (673 birth certificates, 415 National Identity Cards, 17 marriage certificates, etc.), which allowed them to become full citizens in Cameroon; (vi) The equipment of 329 municipalities with computers and GPS and of 209 communes with motorcycles, which improved data collection and working conditions in communes; (vii) Establishment of a mechanism for decentralized funding through the allocation of funds to municipalities to finance their development activities; (viii) Organization in April 2013 of a sub-regional seminar to exchange experiences on decentralization; (ix) Development and production of 325 CDPs, used by mayors to prepare AIPs that reflect the priority needs of communities. The Minister of Economy, Planning, and Regional Development (MINEPAT) stated in the PNDP newspaper (“Echos du PNDP,” No. 2) that: “The PNDP's experience in planning has been spreading in Cameroon as evidenced by the numerous requests expressed by some urban communes to benefit from this important planning tool;” (x) Recruitment of communal agents to enable local government to have access to qualified personnel. A total of 521 municipal employees, including 259 technicians and 262 financial officers, are currently stationed. These staff are responsible for tracking fiscal assets and for M&E at the communal level. Their personal contribution to the improvement of communal management is already noticeable. The data collected show that the contribution of these staff is particularly visible in the improvement of tax revenues, budget execution, archiving, and monitoring the implementation of CDPs and MPs, as well as in the collection of communes’ socioeconomic data. The payroll of these new staff was supported by the Project during the first two years and later by communes themselves. According to the performance assessment of these communal staff, most communes concluded that their provision was a pertinent response to the recurrent lack of qualified human resources in numerous rural communes. 91 percent of these staff had at least two years of experiences in community development-related issues, including local planning, project management, civil and rural engineering, accounting and management, banking, and insurance. Moreover, 91 percent of mayors interviewed were satisfied with the work done by communal staff made available by the Project.2 Financial officers favored the

2 A survey of beneficiaries' satisfaction with services provided by the Project was conducted in July 2013 in the Project intervention zones by an independent consultant. On the methodological level, the study involved a sample survey with a representative sample of each statistical unit identified as beneficiaries of the Project (communes, state decentralized services, service providers, grassroots communities, and Project staff). In each statistical unit, a sample was randomly selected. Thus, the total sample consisted of 66 municipalities, state decentralized services who work in the areas covered by the Project (education, health, water, and sanitation) in 30 selected departments, 198 communities distributed throughout the national territory, and project staff present in the survey areas. A survey guide was developed for each representative sample of beneficiaries. Conversational interviews and focus group discussion techniques 22

increase in tax revenues of communes. Indeed, municipalities have broadened their tax base and increased the level of tax collection. Overall, the performance of technical officers and financial officers was rated satisfactory. Specifically: (a) In the municipality of Mfou, the financial officer helped to increase the fiscal revenue by 300 percent, from 100 million CFAF in 2008 (without the financial officer) to 300 million CFAF in 2013 (with the presence of the financial officer). (b) In the municipality of Figuil, the financial officer helped to increase the fiscal revenue by 245 percent, from 162 million CFAF in 2010 (without the financial officer) to 397 million CFAF in 2013 (with the presence of the financial officer). (c) In the municipality of Moyuka, the financial officer helped to increase the fiscal revenue by 150 percent, from 340 million CFAF in 2010 (without the financial officer) to 510 million CFAF in 2013 (with the presence of financial officer). The contribution of the technical officer is particularly visible in the improvement of M&E, the implementation of CPDs, and in the collection of social infrastructure data.

3.3 Efficiency Rating: Satisfactory

75. As stated in the PAD, the PNDP II did not lend itself readily to ex ante cost- benefit analysis because: (i) all investments were demand-driven and their nature could not be known beforehand; and (ii) most eligible subprojects would be nonproductive, making the benefits difficult to quantify and value. Nonproductive subprojects aim to deliver basic social services in sector such as education (and capacity development), health, water and sanitation, and leisure and culture. Quantifying and valuing economic benefits in social sectors is generally a difficult task. Therefore, the ex ante economic analysis was not done at Project appraisal.

76. For the same reasons that existed during appraisal, no economic or financial analysis for the whole Project was done at completion. Also, because the appraisal mission did not attempt to prepare new financial analyses based on the MP investments observed under PNDP I, there was no basis for the ICR mission to repeat the computations for comparison.

77. Given the difficulties in quantifying the Project’s benefits, a cost-efficiency analysis was performed. Indeed, cost efficiency can be analyzed in terms of the unit cost of PNDP II infrastructure constructed versus the unit cost of similar infrastructure created by other approaches and agencies in Cameroon. Furthermore, subprojects were screened against a set of technical and economic criteria to ensure soundness with sectoral norms and cost efficiency.

78. The technical and financial audit of the Project, carried out on a random sample of 30 percent of communes by an independent auditor for the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and

were used by the consultant to gather information on beneficiaries’ perceptions regarding services delivery by the Project. Moreover, descriptive statistics were used in the data analysis.

2012, revealed that the Project was cost effective. It generated cost efficiencies, with savings on unit costs that were channeled into additional community infrastructure initiatives. Indeed, the average unit costs of constructing the social infrastructure subprojects were lower than those charged by government departments. For example, the average Project cost of building a classroom with standard dimensions amounted to 7,213,829 CFAF versus 9,000,000 CFAF by state services and 11,165,000 CFAF by FEICOM (Fonds Spécial d’Equipement et d’Intervention Intercommunale). In addition, the audit found that overall, socioeconomic infrastructures were built according to sectoral standards and the Project’s financial resources were used effectively and efficiently. The prices of various goods and services provided as part of the implementation of subprojects were generally determined by competition through tendering.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory

79. The overall outcome of the Project is rated “Satisfactory.” According to the results of both impact and beneficiaries’ satisfaction assessment studies, the Project’s performance was very encouraging and its PDO remains relevant. Access of populations to basic socioeconomic services is still one of the priorities of the GESP. One of the Project innovations shared by all stakeholders was the preparation of CDPs, which reflect the priority needs expressed by communities and their populations. Indeed, CDPs are the main planning tools now guiding the development of both the MTEFs and AIPs of Cameroon’s communes. In recognition of this high level of achievement, the President of the Republic, in Circular No. 002 CAB/PR of July 9, 2012 included CDPs among the main instruments that should guide the preparation of the PIB of the state for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

80. Almost all PDO indicators were substantially achieved and sometimes largely exceeded. Furthermore, PNDP II made significant progress towards the completion of the four APL triggers agreed between the GOC and the World Bank to move to the third phase. In fact, three of the four triggers have been met, including: (i) draft laws and decrees on decentralization prepared during the first phase of the Project will have been adopted and promulgated to pave the way for the improved intergovernmental fiscal transfer; (ii) at least 90 percent of communes supported by the Project (292) will have reflected priority investments in their CDPs and budgets; and (iii) at least 80 percent (260) of the beneficiary communes were satisfied with service delivery. Regarding the trigger on the preparation and approval by the GOC of the Charter on Decentralization, the draft Charter was prepared and is awaiting government approval.

81. The Project efficiently used resources to achieve its results and goals. As of November 30, 2013, the level of disbursement was satisfactory. The disbursement rate was 100 percent for IDA funding (about SDR 26.70 million out of SDR 26.70 million allocated). Throughout implementation, the Project was subject to annual technical and financial audits. No major irregularities were noted.

82. As noted above, the Project had a significant impact on improving the living conditions of rural populations by facilitating access to basic social services in rural areas.

83. Based on the relevance of the Project’s objectives, the substantial achievement of the PDO (efficacy), and the efficiency of Project-supported interventions, the overall outcome rating for the Project is Satisfactory.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

84. Poverty Impacts: According to the results of both the impact and beneficiaries’ satisfaction assessment studies, PNDP II activities contributed to job creation and the fight against poverty in Cameroon. Indeed, PNDP II contributed to local empowerment. The Project promoted the legal existence of Pygmies and their citizenship rights, increased their capacity to participate in local political processes and governance, and therefore encouraged their social inclusion in national activities. Moreover, during implementation, communities were actively involved in the identification, planning, selection, and control of priority investments financed by the Project. The participation of rural populations allowed good targeting of the priority needs of grassroots communities, and therefore improved resource allocation. In addition, the Project has contributed to the creation of jobs in rural areas by using LSPs and local contractors in the construction of some small-scale socioeconomic infrastructures. Moreover, the Project has created 521 direct jobs for municipal officials in communes covered. Furthermore, the participatory process used in the villages was a catalyst to grassroots local savings mobilization of about 2,363,317,444 CFAF (out of 3,139,304,253 CFAF planned), used as beneficiary contributions for implementation of MPs. Finally, the Project facilitated access to basic social services (health, education, water, and sanitation) at the local level; these non- monetary aspects are very important in the fight against poverty and in promotion of human development in rural areas.

85. Gender Aspects: Although there were no gender-specific indicators in the Project’s M&E systems, the Project benefited all segments of the population – men, women, and youth. Most MPs worked in favor of rural women. In beneficiary households of water and electricity MPs, women’s time spent in search of firewood and water drastically reduced, and many women now use the extra time to increase their farm productivity. In addition, access to water and modern energy paved the way for the development of small agricultural processing activities led by women. In the majority of beneficiary communes, rural women dominate the activities of agricultural production, processing, and marketing. They are therefore the first recipients of MPs that improve rural roads, agricultural markets, and warehouses.

86. With regard to the personnel provided by the Project to communes, an effort was made to recruit female staff. Out of the 259 communal development agents (technicians) recruited, 21 percent of them were women. Also, all 30 social workers transferred to the 30 communes involved in the implementation of the DPP by the Ministry of Social Affairs (MINAS) were women.

87. In most communes surveyed, women also participated in decision-making bodies and in the control of the local savings for maintenance of equipment and infrastructures. Thanks to the sensitization campaign carried out by the Project and the training of communes on gender issues, women now occupy positions of President and Treasurer in both steering management committees, showing their leadership in the governance of 25

MPs. Because of the dynamism of these women, all of the management committees of MPs have established savings and credit schemes. During the closing supervision mission, communities were advised to use the savings mobilized for the maintenance of infrastructure and equipment as an opportunity to provide small amounts of credit to women wishing to carry out income-generating activities.

88. Social Development: Education, health, and water access are the core areas of the social services promoted by PNDP. The implementation of MPs in the education sector improved school enrollment in beneficiary communities. For example, in the East region, the enrollment rate improved 15.26 percent in beneficiary households. Moreover, the intervention of PNDP II in the water sector improved the living conditions of 437,100 people through the construction of 1,457 water points.

89. Achievements of the program in the field of health increased the number of births attended by skilled health personnel, from 15 deliveries per month before the Project to 17 deliveries per month afterwards. The PNDP also helped bring health facilities nearer to households. Almost 41 percent of households in beneficiary villages are within 500 m of the nearest clinic, and 93 percent of these households are less than 5 km from the nearest clinic. In contrast, only 27.5 percent of households in non-beneficiary villages are within 500 m of the first health facility and 87 percent of them are less than 5 km from the first health center.

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

90. The Project strengthened organizational systems at all levels (local, regional, and national) to ensure the sustainability of its investments. At the municipal level, three types of committees including Project piloting (COPIL), monitoring-evaluation (CSE), and management (COGE) were respectively established to: (i) support the elaboration of CDPs; (ii) ensure the quality of CDPs and evaluate their rate of achievement; and (iii) ensure the maintenance of infrastructure and equipment financed by the Project. The Project promoted the establishment of Communal Procurement Management Committees (CCPM) in all communes to ensure good governance of communal contracts. Each municipality also established a Municipal Council Extended to Sector (COMES) that approves CDPs, priority investment plans, and budget allocations. At both the regional and national level, the Project organized knowledge-sharing and capacity-building forums to enhance the capacity of mayors in managing communal contracts and fiscal revenues.

91. Moreover, the GOC initiated discussions to transform the PNDP into a National Participatory Development Agency to ensure its sustainability. The draft decree was prepared and submitted to the government for approval. If the text is approved by the government, the PNDP will become a public administrative authority with greater financial autonomy and an independent managerial system.

92. Other impacts are noticeable in some municipalities that use CDPs as a tool for development. For example, the Commune of Bangangte mobilized foreign direct investment totaling 300 million CFAF to finance its city sanitation and electrical network expansion projects. The same commune received from FEICOM an award prize of 50

26 million CFAF for the best project submitted for funding activities extracted from its MTEF. Other communes are integrating in their AIPs innovative projects that will promote local economic development, taking into account their comparative advantage in terms of natural resources. Samples of projects include communal agricultural mechanization parks (Commune of Batouri), a communal agricultural initiative (Commune of Dibombari), and a communal timber park (Commune of Dimako).

93. The establishment of management committees for the maintenance of water infrastructure was a catalyst for the development of savings and credit unions in beneficiary villages. In total, more than 1,700 savings and credit unions are operational and women are playing a greater role in their management than before the Project. The combination of these savings funds may result in a microfinance institution self-managed by recipient villages.

94. One aspect that should be further improved by the Project is the governance of communal contracts. Indeed, with the arrival of the Ministry of Public Contracts (MINMAP), the CCPMs established by the PNDP disappeared to make room for departmental and regional commissions, managed by Divisional Officers and the regions’ governors. Many mayors deplore their lack of involvement in these committees, which oversee their contracts. During the PNDP II closing mission, the Bank recommended that the PNDP initiate a dialogue with MINMAP to address this critical issue.

95. Moreover, the GOC obtained parallel financing for the PNDP from other partners such as AFD and KfW. AFD provided 14.95 billion CFAF, intended to finance only agricultural activities identified as priority needs of populations in their CDPs. Currently, a study is underway to identify the crops and agricultural investment that will benefit from this funding. Furthermore, KfW’s funding, 3 billion CFAF, was used to finance only the activities of communes located in Cameroon’s extreme North region. KfW’s funding was closed.

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops

96. The balance of services offered by the PNDP II, as perceived by respondent beneficiaries, is encouraging and is characterized by:

(i) Excellent coverage of program interventions at the national level. In addition to the supply of equipment to communes, some of which is still being acquired (including motorcycles and completed computers), almost all targeted communes received four other services offered by the PNDP II, including: (a) development of their CDPs (100 percent); (b) funding and implementation of their MPs (94 percent); (c) provision of communal agents (77 percent); and (d) training/capacity building of their staff (96 percent). (ii) Strong ownership by communes of the CDP development process. Today, nearly three out of four target communes have a CDP aligned to the GESP, and the CDPs is being updated to align them to the GESP with the support of the program in all communes that have a former CDP. (iii) A satisfactory level of budget absorption. The level of consumption of global resource allocations to municipalities in PNDP II is 100 percent for IDA resources. In addition, IDA resources allocated for funding and implementation of MPs,

totaling 8.7 billion CFAF (or about 57 percent of budget funds for this activity) are fully consumed. (iv) Strong ownership by communes of planning and management mechanisms. Thanks to the capacity enhancement/training program, 53 communes benefited from the installation of the SIM_ba software to improve their accounting. The pilot introduction of a mechanism for citizen control of public action in 10 municipalities (one per region) is being duplicated in other municipalities. In addition, a database of service providers is available in all target communes and is generally available to the public. (v) The different categories of beneficiaries (communes, service providers, sectoral ministries and population) appear generally satisfied with the support received from the program. Overall, 93 percent of beneficiary communes are satisfied with the program’s services.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Significant

97. Each social infrastructure built with IDA funds has a management committee responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M). These committees work well in seven regions and support the recurring costs of maintenance and repair of the infrastructure built. In these regions, the likelihood that the stream of benefits will be sustained is high. In Central, South, and North regions, the management committees of community infrastructure do not work well as their capacity for collective action is weak. Indeed, communities in these areas have grown accustomed to receiving free benefits from state services and are reluctant to contribute to the maintenance cost of infrastructure. In these areas, the risk of losing these infrastructures is high because it only takes one small glitch for these infrastructures to be abandoned, despite the contribution of the communities to the investment costs and to the control of investment choices.

98. Following the municipal elections held in September 2013, significant overturn in the municipal executives in all 10 regions of Cameroon was witnessed. Approximately 80 percent of municipal executive members are new and have not yet mastered the participatory development approach and procedures for Project implementation. The low capacity of these new mayors and municipal councilors could have a negative impact on the short-, medium-, and long-term sustainability of the Project benefits in the municipalities concerned.

99. Moreover, given the high rate of replacement of mayors and members of municipal councils in every municipal election, there is a substantial risk that the development outcome in terms of organizational setup, budget, political will, and environment will not be maintained.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance

(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory

100. During PNDP II, the Project maintained its support to communes from PNDP I, targeted new eligible communes (110), and reached at least one community per commune. The Project completed key institutional reforms on decentralization and local development. Communes were targeted as the main beneficiaries of PNDP II services since local development responsibilities were transferred to them. To ensure quality at entry, the main components and their related activities were selected based on lessons learned from PNDP I and the priority needs expressed by communes, as highlighted in the various assessment studies, including beneficiaries’ satisfaction, environmental, external audit, and impact evaluations.

101. Lessons taken into consideration and reflected in the Project design included the need to: (i) continuously involve the public sector; (ii) ensure the quality of MPs; (iii) focus on CDPs as a tool for planning, budgeting, and programming; (iv) streamline funds transfers by directly channeling funds to the bank accounts of eligible communes; (iv) develop local procurement capacity; and (v) enhance environmental management capacity.

102. Actions undertaken for Project readiness included the:

(i) Establishment of a favorable environment for a better coordination mechanism characterized by: (a) regular dialogue/consultation workshop with partners on decentralization issues; (b) oversight of the steering committee of decentralization led by the MINATD; (c) periodic meetings with MINEPAT, MINEP, communes, TSPs, the Project team, and joint supervision missions. (ii) Amendment of the new operational framework, which integrated the expansion of the Project’s geographic coverage. (iii) Update of the Project Implementation Manual, M&E manual, and financial management manual. (iv) Recruitment of two accountants in the new NCU, one accountant in each RCU, and one internal auditor. (v) Recruitment of regional environmental focal points within each RCU.

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

103. Following the implementation of the IDA Credit in January 2010, four joint supervision missions were organized. These supervision missions were held respectively from May 10-19, 2010; October 14-15, 2010; December 28, 2011 to January 13, 2012 (MTR); and from December 9-23, 2013 (closing the Project). These supervision missions were effectively complemented by semi-monthly meetings held regularly to monitor the Project’s implementation progress. Therefore, the Bank team did not need more supervision missions.

104. The first two missions were considered as capacity enhancement supervision. Emphasis was placed on the analysis of the main lessons learned from the implementation of the first phase, monitoring the implementation of recommendations of the last supervision mission, implementation of the financing strategy, and the state of 29

implementation of PNDP II. Throughout these missions, new orientations and guidelines were given to the Project team on aspects related to the: (i) development and financing of CDPs; (ii) O&M of Project infrastructures and equipment; (iii) mechanisms for fund transfers to communes; (iv) support for procurement of communal goods and services, financial management, internal audits, and environmental aspects; as well as (v) implementation of the DPP; and (vi) coordination of PNDP donors.

105. Through the implementation of recommendations from the two previous supervision missions, the MTR concluded that the overall status of the Project was satisfactory. In fact, at MTR, the Project had achieved the following results: (i) all 68 CDPs of PNDP I and 34 new CDPs out of 110 originally planned in four new areas were developed; (ii) of the 20 Project indicators, 17 were informed by mid-term; and (iii) Project performance was enhanced by the implementation of MPs inherited from the first phase. The MTR noted that the whole implementation process of PNDP II was progressing satisfactorily and suggested that the results of the program would be achieved by the initial anticipated closing date of November 30, 2013.

106. After the MTR, several technical meetings to monitor the progress of Project implementation were held periodically between the PCU and the Bank team under the initiative of the Task Team Leader (TTL). Throughout these meetings, critical issues that could limit the Project’s success were fully investigated by the mission, partners, and the government. These included the: (i) reallocation of IDA credit; (ii) completion of the Project’s impacts; (iii) collaboration between the Project and the administrative authorities; (iv) blockages between certain mayors and communal treasurers regarding the implementation of MPs; (v) implementation of Project activities in the Bakassi Peninsula; (vi) relationship between the IDA Credit and the second generation C2D (AFD) funds under investigation; (vii) finalization of the remaining CDPs by the end of March 2012; and (viii) involvement of the decentralized services sector in program implementation. Solving these various problems was instrumental to the achievement of the Project’s objectives.

107. From the preparation of PNDP II until its implementation, the Bank’s leadership was instrumental to the achievement of the Project’s satisfactory performance. With regard to the design, both PDO outcome indicators and the choice of beneficiaries, components, and their related activities were identified based on the needs expressed by all stakeholders using a participatory approach. The Project design also reflected lessons learned from the PNDP I and is aligned to both the GOC’s GESP and the Bank’s CAS.

108. Each supervision mission was an opportunity not only to advocate at the highest level of government decision making (Prime Ministry, MINPAT, MINTAD, MINFI and MINEP) for addressing the constraints hindering proper execution of the Project, but also to enhance the ownership process of participatory local development by the beneficiary communes. At the end of each mission, a debriefing was presented to key decision makers from the government. These advocacy efforts accelerated the adoption and promulgation of texts on decentralization and facilitated the mobilization of government counterpart funding, as well as the direct transfer of funds to eligible communes to finance their MPs. 30

109. Technical meetings chaired by the Bank’s TTL were regularly held between the Project team, partners, the government, and municipalities to monitor the state of the Project. These were especially effective for researching corrective measures to address critical aspects such as: (i) Project coordination, (ii) improvement of the planning, budgeting, and programming process for communes’ priority investments and of the quality of MPs; (iii) compliance with the Bank’s fiduciary and procurement procedures; and (iv) inclusion of environmental measures in MPs.

5.2 Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory

110. For the GOC, PNDP is a success story in terms of local development in Cameroon. Its success is evidenced by the satisfaction of beneficiaries with regard to the quality of available basic social infrastructure and the impact of achievements on the living conditions of people and communes. The Project’s positive results have reassured both the GOC and development partners. Indeed, in its initial launch phase in 2004 with Bank resources, including IDA funds and state counterpart funds, MINEPAT, which oversees PNDP, advocated for an increase of PNDP resources in 2006 by mobilizing additional parallel financing from KfW and the C2D funds (AFD).

111. In PNDP II, MINEPAT requested the Bank to double its funding and AFD to triple the C2D funds. Motivated by the good performance of PNDP, MINEPAT also raised counterpart funds from the state budget so that the total amount mobilized by PNDP (11,074,315,900 CFAF) exceeded the amount originally planned (10,153,069,317 CFAF), achieving a mobilization rate of 109 percent. Thanks to the political will of the state, MINATD also facilitated the adoption and promulgation of texts on decentralization. Since 2012, the President of the Republic has, in its circular related to the guidelines on the preparation of the budget, instructed the government to use, among other planning documents, the CDP in the selection of projects to be retained as PIB. This is a great recognition of the importance of CDPs as the main planning tool for communes.

112. In the day-to-day implementation process, sectoral ministers were involved in all institutional frameworks established by the Project and in all supervision missions and technical meetings. One illustrative example is the transfer of 30 social work officers in 30 selected communes by MINAS to help implement the DPP. Other examples are the agreements signed between the Project and ANAFOR, FEICOM, CEFAM, ARMP, and MINMAP for reforestation, infrastructure development, and capacity building in procurement governance and management.

113. However, it should be noted that the counterpart funds were generally provided by the GOC with considerable delays.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

114. Given the Project’s results, the implementation of Project activities by the PIU was effective. However, the PPR conducted by the Bank identified some weaknesses, including: (i) some procurement complaints were not handled in a timely manner by the 31

PIU; (ii) assistant accountants were recruited without involvement of the World Bank and its non-objection if applicable; (iii) contractual deadlines for paying service providers were sometimes not respected by the PIU; and (iv) the execution of some procurement activities directly managed by the PIU experienced significant delays.

115. Moreover, during the life of the Project, some cases of fraud were reported. The outstanding case is the one reported by a service provider to INT. As of the closing date, no feedback had been received from INT on this case. Therefore, the implementing agency performance is rated “Moderately Satisfactory.”

116. The government has fulfilled all its obligations, including: (i) allocating counterpart funds; (ii) mobilizing additional resources from other development partners; and (iii) adopting legal texts of decentralization. In addition, the President of the Republic has recognized the important role of PNDP in poverty alleviation and wealth creation and instructed all sectoral ministries to use CDPs in preparation of the PIB. As an illustration, in March 2014, MINEPAT organized consultative workshops in the 10 regions to identify the needs of communes to be integrated in the PIB. These needs will be extracted from the CDPs in each region and then consolidated at the national level to give rise to the 2014 budgetary allocation on decentralization. However, it should be noted that the counterpart funds were generally provided by the GOC with considerable delays.

117. On the operational side, the level of investment of PNDP II was satisfactory according to the perception of beneficiary communes and the main target values of the Results Framework were achieved. Communal agents transferred to communes by PNDP generally improved management and collection of communal fiscal revenue. Management committees were established in all beneficiary villages for the maintenance and sustainability of infrastructure and equipment provided by the Project. A savings scheme system involving rural women in management was widespread in these management committees.

6. Lessons Learned

118. Several lessons were learned during PNDP II, including:

119. The CDP can be considered as a reference tool for planning and dialogue to support local development, but its level of ownership by line ministries remains weak. Indeed, participatory planning has identified sectoral priorities for local development but these need to be better taken into account in the PIB to consolidate and sustain the financing of local development. In addition, the level of coordination of support to local development is still insufficient.

120. Funding and implementation of multisectoral development priorities can improve access to basic social services, but mobilization of beneficiaries' contributions remains insufficient and the demand for economic investments very important. The impact study showed that the Project improved access to basic social services in different sectors (education, health, water, sanitation, and transport) and

32 generated many temporary and permanent jobs. However, households’ access to basic social services provided by the Project may still be limited by their low incomes.

121. The funding allocation system improves resource management by municipalities. Indeed, given the competition in the procurement process, mayors were able to achieve a greater number of MPs for their populations within their allocations.

122. The citizen control mechanism improves communes’ governance. The pilot citizen control mechanism implemented in 10 communes allowed the communes to better understand their populations’ perceptions of the services provided and to consider improvements. This operation is considered an effective tool of governance through which significant changes can be capitalized in communes. A computer application was developed and put online. The pilot operation will be extended to other communes.

123. Governance remains an important challenge for the promotion of local development in Cameroon. Despite IDA procedures, the participatory approach, and the capacity building of stakeholders, the Project failed to prevent governance issues that were raised during Project implementation. The Project focused on access to basic social services and placed little effort on the prevention, treatment, and management of complaints.

124. Decentralization is a very long-term process, exceeding Project deadlines despite the use of an APL. This justified the limited objectives that the program set for decentralization in PNDP II. Although Phases I and II helped to define the legislative and regulatory framework for decentralization by supporting the preparation of several draft laws and decrees, a lot still needs to be done to stimulate sustainable local development. Indeed, the transfers of responsibilities and resources to the municipalities are not yet being done optimally.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners

(a) Borrower/implementing agencies

125. The Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development noted the impressive involvement of the population in the identification and implementation of solutions for local development on the ground. This commitment was translated through citizens’ effective participation in the planning process and their contribution in building and maintaining their infrastructure. Increasing citizen control in the management of their communes or communities may ultimately strengthen the process of decentralization and its appropriation by the population.

126. PNDP’s experience in local planning is spreading in Cameroon. As attested by the numerous requests expressed by some urban communes that also want PNDP assistance in this process. The opportunity presented by the transition to PNDP III could lead the government to reconsider PNDP’s scope, which is currently limited to rural communes. The government has engaged in discussions in this direction.

(b) Cofinanciers (Embassy of France in Cameroon/French Development Agency)

127. PNDP represents two major financial commitments of AFD through the first and second C2D. The first funding covered an amount of 13 billion CFAF. France decided to support a second phase based on the strong success of the first funding. The assistance granted by AFD through the second C2D amounted to 14.95 billion CFAF. Field observations suggest that money is being well spent, evidenced by the close relationship with the rural population. The funded MPs are well prepared and meet the needs of rural populations.

128. Local development is an essential intervention of the French cooperation axis. If PNDP is today a model for local development programs/development of territories, it is because of its importance (financial volume and national coverage), but also because of its achievements (number of CDPs prepared, investment infrastructures, MPs in service, personnel trained and deployed in the rural communes, etc.). Its impacts on the population, particularly in terms of improving living conditions, are effective.

129. PNDP helped to improve living conditions in Cameroon. Two years ago, a convention was signed between my municipality and the PNDP for the provision of potable water infrastructure, including a tank of 20 m3. This helped to improve our living conditions. We have also benefited from the construction of two classrooms and the recruitment of communal agents. It is a great gesture for our population. The work done by PNDP facilitates teaching and learning activities in our schools. Our area is known for its rainy nature; we were uncomfortable and our pupils were regularly sick. The new classrooms are a gift from PNDP now and for the future.

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD million equivalents) Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (USD millions) Appraisal (USD millions)

Component 1: Local development 62.81 68.69 109% support Component 2: Decentralization 18.83 16.43 87% support for communes Component 3: Coordination, management, and monitoring and 17.14 14.60 85% evaluation Total Baseline Cost 98.78 99.72 101% Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 4.22 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 103.00 99.72 97% Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Financing Required 103.00 99.72 97%

(b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds Cofinancing (USD (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Borrower 56.00 53.12 95% Local Communities 7.00 5.32 76% International Development 40.00 41.28 103% Association (IDA) Total 103.00 99.72 97%

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Component 1: Local Development Support

1. Objective of Component 1: This component aims to help improve the socioeconomic conditions, increase the productivity of the natural resource base, and increase the incomes of the population in the communes supported by the Project. Achieving these goals requires putting in place various infrastructures and socioeconomic investments. This component will channel grants to communes to co-finance their proposed investments (subprojects): either a CDP preparation activity or a CDP- Subproject.

2. Output of Component 1: This component is rated Satisfactory (S). Except for the output related to the number of health facilities to be constructed, almost intermediate outcome relating to this component were achieved or exceeded (Table 5).

Table 5: Results Achieved for Component 1 Key Performance Indicators Component 1 Indicators Target Achievement Achievement Remarks against Target (%) Achieved and exceeded. Communes benefiting These include from the Project grant 170 197 116 178 new (number) – disaggregated communes by new and old and 19 old communes New CDPs implemented Achieved and 140 197 141 (number) exceeded. Communes supported by the Project that have reflected priority 170 (100%) 170 (100%) 100% Achieved. investments in their CDPs and budgets (number, %) Subprojects that have implemented the required environmental and social 100% 100% 100% Achieved. risk mitigation measures and are functional (%) Achieved and exceeded. This high rate Improved community of water points constructed in 338 1437 431% achievement rural areas served by the reflects the Project (number) high demand of rural populations. Classrooms built and/or Achieved and 238 739 311% rehabilitated (number) exceeded. Health facilities constructed, renovated or 44 28 64% equipped (number) Roads rehabilitated, rural Achieved and 241 306.14 127% (km) exceeded.

3. Table 6 summarizes the physical achievements of PNDP II by sector.

Table 6: Physical Realization of PNDP II by Sector Sectors Goods and services delivered Quantities Education Classrooms (number) 739 Desks (number) 13,710 Health Health centers constructed or rehabilitated (number) 28 Water and sanitation Wells (number) 442 Drillings (number) 419 Toilets (number) 524 Construction of water sources 596 (number) Transportation Rural roads constructed or rehabilitated (km) 306 Development infrastructure Market stands (number) 368 Storage facilities (number) 15 Market shelters (number) 26 Source: PNDP II’s impact evaluation (2013).

Component 2: Decentralization Support for Communes

4. Objective of Component 2: This component aims to strengthen institutional capacities in support of the decentralization process. It will also provide assistance for the implementation of capacity-building activities for communes and other local stakeholders, such as LSPs, multidisciplinary teams of the sectoral ministries, and Technical Service Providers (TSPs), to enable them to assume an effective role as promoters of local development. It will be implemented through two subcomponents including: (i) Institutional support to the decentralization process; and (ii) Capacity building. The Project will also fund: (a) acquisition of computer equipment for communes; (b) training of communal development and finance staff; (c) publication and dissemination of a participatory planning guide, as well as a guide for procurement procedures; (d) environmental training for members of municipal councils, divisional administrative staff, and Project staff; and (e) study tours and training on decentralization and local development for LSPs, multidisciplinary teams, TSPs, and local stakeholders other than commune authorities.

5. Ouputs of Component 2: Regarding the preparation of land use and management plans, the process for preparing CDPs involves a mapping exercise to ensure that land use plans are integrated into CDPs. Indeed, 91 out of 100 land use and management plans were prepared (91 percent). With respect to capacity building, significant activities were completed. In the 10 regions, mayors were trained on decentralization. Four regional workshops were organized to disseminate the guide on regional and local planning dissemination. Trainings on procurement were implemented to benefit regional procurement commissions, and staffs of several ministries (land, social, and environment) and mayors were trained in environmental and social safeguards. In total, 521 municipal officials were recruited by the Project to strengthen the capacity of communes (two staff for each commune). These staff are responsible for: (i) tracking fiscal assets; and (ii) M&E at the communal level. These staff are operational and their personal contribution to the improvement of communal management is already noticeable. The data collected

on the ground show that the contribution of these staff is particularly visible in the improvement of tax revenues, budget execution, archiving, monitoring the implementation of the CDPs, and the collection of social infrastructure data. Moreover, 91 percent of mayors interviewed are satisfied with the work done by communal staff made available by the Project. The payroll of these new staff was supported by the Project during the first two years and later by communes themselves. The citizen control mechanism was prudently tested in 10 communes. The pilot citizen control allowed communes to better understand their populations’ perceptions of the services provided and to consider improvements. This operation is considered an effective tool of governance through which significant changes can be capitalized in communes. A computer application was developed and put online. The pilot operation will be extended to other communes.

Table 7: Results Achieved for Component 2 Key Performance Indicators Component 2 Target Achievement Achievement Remarks Indicators against Target (%) Land use and management plans 91 100 91 Partly achieved. prepared for communes (number) Not achieved. The pilot citizen control was implemented in 10 communes. This pilot citizen Communes with a allowed the communes to public information and better understand the citizen control perception of their mechanism of grant 10 195 5% populations on the services management in place provided and to consider and operational improvements. A computer (number) application was developed and put online. The pilot operation will be extended to other communes.

Component 3: Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Communication

6. Objective of Component 3: This component facilitates: (a) administrative, technical, and financial management of the program; (b) coordination among all institutional partners to ensure efficient support to communes for local development; (c) effective contractual arrangements with communes, sectoral ministries, TSP/private- sector operators, and NGOs (TSPs), including acquisition of the equipment necessary for implementing the program; (d) M&E of the performance and the financial, environmental, and social impacts of the program (including developing monitoring scorecards to assess beneficiaries’ satisfaction with services provided by communes); and (e) development of communication activities to publicize and disseminate Project implementation tools and local development potential and practices. The integrated financial management software will be upgraded with additional tools to enable permanent access to accounting system

38 information in the regions for analysis and ensure timely synchronized consolidation of accounts.

7. Output of Component 3: Four intermediate outcome indicators relating to this component were achieved. Furthermore: (i) external financial audit reports are produced on time and without any major reservations; (ii) a database on the quality of TSPs is in place and available for public access; and (iii) biannual M&E reports are produced within the agreed time frames. M&E work is performed at all levels (national, regional, local), and the financial management software was upgraded. The financial management function was rated Moderately Satisfactory (MS). Interim Financial Reports are submitted in a timely manner and judged acceptable and are now prepared regularly, but: (i) external auditor recommendations on internal control have not been implemented fully; and (ii) delays have been experienced in the financial reporting process between communes, the Regional Coordination Units, and the Project Coordination Unit. The procurement function was rated Moderately Satisfactory (MS). Indeed, some procurement complaints were not handled in a timely manner by the Project. The execution of activities directly managed by the National Coordination Unit has fallen behind schedule.

Table 8: Results Achieved for Component 3 Key Performance Indicators Component 3 Indicators Target Achievem Achievement Remark ent against Target (%) External financial audit reports are produced on time and 100 100% 100 Achieved without any major reservations (%) At least one technical and financial audit on the use of the grant and the quality of No Yes 100 Achieved achievements is carried out randomly each year A database on the quality of TSPs is put in place and made No Yes 100 Achieved available for public access (Yes/No) Biannual M&E reports produced within the agreed No Yes 100 Achieved timeframes (Yes / No)

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

Cost Efficiency Analysis of Social Infrastructures

1. As stated in the Project Appraisal Document, the PNDP II did not lend itself readily to ex ante cost-benefit analysis because: (i) all investments were demand-driven and their nature could not be known beforehand; (ii) most eligible subprojects would be nonproductive, making the benefits difficult to quantify and value. Nonproductive subprojects aim to deliver basic social services in sectors such as education (and capacity development), health, water and sanitation, and leisure and culture. Quantifying and valuing economic benefits in social sectors is generally a difficult task. Therefore, the ex ante economic analysis was not done at Project appraisal.

2. For the same reasons that existed during appraisal, no economic or financial analysis for the whole Project was done at completion. Also, because the appraisal mission did not attempt to prepare new financial analyses based on the MP investments observed under PNDP I, there was no basis for the ICR mission to repeat the computations for comparison.

3. Given the difficulties in quantifying the benefits of the Project, a cost-efficiency analysis was performed. Indeed, cost efficiency can be analyzed in terms of the unit cost of PNDP II infrastructure constructed versus the unit cost of similar infrastructure created by other approaches and agencies in Cameroon. Furthermore, subprojects were screened against a set of technical and economic criteria to ensure soundness with sectoral norms and cost efficiency.

4. The technical and financial audit of the Project, carried out on a random sample of 30 percent of communes by an independent auditor for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, revealed that the Project was cost effective. It improved cost efficiency, with savings on unit costs that were channeled into additional community infrastructure initiatives. Indeed, the Project’s average unit costs of constructing social infrastructure subprojects were lower than those charged by government departments. For example, the average Project cost of building a classroom using standard dimensions amounted to 7,213,829 CFAF versus 9,000,000 CFAF using state services and 11,165,000 CFAF using FEICOM (Fonds Spécial d’Equipement et d’Intervention Intercommunale). In addition, the audit found that overall, socioeconomic infrastructures were built according to sectoral standards. Table 9 compares the unit costs of social infrastructures associated with PNDP II, government departments, and FEICOM

Table 9: Comparison of Unit Costs of Social Infrastructures between PNDP II, Government Departments, and FEICOM Social infrastructure Unit costs of social infrastructures (CFAF) PNDP II Government FEICOM Departments Classroom 7,213,829 9,000,000 11,165,000 Cost difference with PNDP II - 25 55 (%)(a) Drilling 7,426,665 9,500,000 10,500,000 Cost difference with PNDP II - 28 41 (%) (a) Well 4,364,489 8,000,000 7,500,000

Cost difference with PNDP II - 83 72 (%) (a) Source: PNDP II Technical and Financial Audit (2013). (a) Note: Cost difference with PNDP II (%)=((Government or FEICOM unit cost - PNDP II unit cost)/PNDP II unit cost)*100)

5. Table 9 shows that the unit costs for classrooms constructed by government departments and FEICOM were 25-55 percent higher than those built through the CDP approach in the PNDP II.

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team Members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Ousmane Seck Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Team Leader#1 Edeltraut Gilgan-Hunt Environmental Specialist AFTEN Senior Natural Resources Mgmt. Emmanuel Y. Nikiema AFTN1 Specialist Lucienne M. M'Baipor Senior Social Development Specialist AFTCS Emeran Serge M. Menang Environmental Specialist AFTN1 Evouna Kouami Hounsinou Messan Procurement Specialist AFTPC Fridolin Ondobo Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Nathalie Munzberg Senior Counsel LEGAF A. Oury Diallo M&E Specialist FAO-CP G. Baltissen Decentralization Specialist Consultant Aissatou Diallo Senior Financial Officer LOAG Germaine Mafougong Program Assistant AFTAR Marie-Claudine Fundi Language Program Assistant AFTAR Rural Development Consultant, Turto Turtiainen Consultant Financial Analyst

Supervision/ICR Ousmane Seck Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Team Leader#1 Helene Simone Ndjebet Yaka Operation Analyst AFCC1 Bernadette DjapaNyanjo Procurement Assistant AFCC1 Jeanne d'Arc Edima Team Assistant AFCC1 Marie-Claudine Fundi Language Program Assistant AFTA1 Sekou Keita Consultant AFTME Lucienne M. M'Baipor Senior Social Development Specialist AFTCS Emeran Serge M. Menang Senior Environmental Specialist AFTN1 Evouna Kouami Hounsinou Messan Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPW Senior Natural Resources Mgmt. Emmanuel Y. Nikiema AFTN1 Specialist Amadou Nchare Agricultural Economist AFTA2 Team Leader#3 Manievel Sene Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTA2 Team Leader #2 Enagnon Ernest Eric Adda Financial Management Specialist AFTMW Mountaga Ndiaye ET Consultant AFTPW Helene Pieume Public Information Associate AFRSC

(b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) USD thousands (including Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending

FY09 14.78 53,750.71 Total: 14.78 53,750.71 Supervision/ICR

FY10 16.97 82,431.92 FY11 33.29 69,551.50 FY12 35.45 67,110.02 FY13 29.09 44,267.63 FY14 21.70 37,007.23 Total: 136.50 300,438.30

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results

Beneficiaries’ Assessment of Services Provided by PNDP II (Summary Note)

1. In January 2010, PNDP, a multi-donor program that supports the efforts of the Government of Cameroon (GOC) in the decentralization process, particularly in the financing of the development of Communal Development Plans (CDPs), micro-projects (MPs), basic infrastructure, and institutional strengthening of communes, entered its second phase. After four years of intervention during which PNDP expanded its operations in all regions of Cameroon, the National Coordination Unit (NCU) commissioned a study on beneficiaries’ evaluation of the services provided. Results from this study will guide the third phase of the Project. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the activities of the program. More specifically, the study’s specific objectives were to: (i) rate the overall assessment of the beneficiaries on the implementation of the program; (ii) obtain the opinion of communes and other beneficiaries on the implementation of activities; (iii) determine the percentage of beneficiary communes and other beneficiaries who are satisfied with services provided by the program; (iv) analyze the constraints faced by beneficiaries in the implementation of the program (procedure, condition of funding, timely implementation, nature of the achievements, areas of intervention, etc.); and (v) identify beneficiaries’ expectations in terms of improving the implementation of the PNDP.

2. Accordingly, this report presents the results of the survey administered to the recipients of services provided by PNDP II. The survey was conducted using a representative sample of 66 beneficiary communes spread over the national territory. Twenty percent of the communes were randomly selected from among the 329 communes covered by PNDP II, using a stratified sample methodology. The representativeness of each type of MP (education, health, water and sanitation, transportation, electrification, etc.) was taken into account, as well as their degree of implementation (not started, in progress, completed). The regional distribution was proportional to the number of beneficiaries per commune area. Data were collected mainly through interviews with the main beneficiaries of the program, namely: (i) executive councils; (ii) devolved state services; (iii) service providers; (iv) communities; and (v ) PNDP staff.

3. Respondents’ perceptions of the outcome of services offered by PNDP II are encouraging and indicate: (iv) Excellent coverage of program interventions at the national level. In addition to the supply of equipment to the communes, some of which is still being acquired (including motorcycles and complete computers), almost all targeted communes received the other four services offered by PNDP II. Indeed, all targeted communes (100 percent) benefited from the support of the program to develop their CDPs; 94 percent received funding for the implementation of their MPs; 77 percent were provided with communal staff; and 96 percent received training/capacity building of their staff.

(ii) Strong ownership of CDPs. Today, nearly three out of four targeted communes have a CDP aligned to the GESP, and CDPsis being updated with the support of the program in all those that have none now. (iii) A satisfactory level of consumption of allowances. The level of consumption by PNDP II of the global allocations to communes was 100 percent under IDA resources. (iv) Strong ownership of the planning mechanism and management by targeted communes. Indeed, thanks to PNDP II, 53 communes received the software SIM_ba to improve their accounting. The pilot introduction of a mechanism for citizen control of public action in 10 municipalities (one per region) already resonates with other communes. In addition, a database of service providers is available in all targets communes and is generally available to the public.

4. The different categories of beneficiaries (communes, providers, devolved state services, populations) appear generally satisfied with the support received from the program. Overall, 93 percent of beneficiary communes are satisfied with the program’s actions (supporting the development of CDPs, provision of municipal officials, funding and implementation of MPs, training/capacity building, provision of equipment). Indeed, 91 percent of beneficiary communes declared their satisfaction with the support for the development of CDPs. The provision of municipal employees was rated favorably in 93 percent of communes covered. The majority (94 percent) of communes were satisfied by the funding given to them to implement their MPs, and with the provision of equipment to improve their accounting system, while 95 percent were satisfied with the training and capacity-building programs received from PNDP. Most (96 percent) of the devolved state services beneficiaries were also satisfied with PNDP. Similarly, service providers were generally very satisfied with the PNDP. Overall, 92 percent of beneficiary communes were satisfied with PNDP support.

5. However, multiple constraints were encountered in the implementation of the program. These include: (i) delays in mobilizing the communes’ contribution for the implementation of MPs, thus slowing their start; (ii) LSPs’ limited financial resources, which lengthened the delivery of public orders; (iii ) insufficient monitoring of the work of service providers by communes; and (iv) providers’ poor knowledge of the socioeconomic environment of the sites.

6. Given the diversity of actors involved in local development, PNDP must recognize that opportunities and local challenges are as varied as the actors themselves. Also, PNDP must capitalize on its eight years of experience to meet the multifaceted needs of beneficiaries, which are as follows: (i) Development of communes’ local economies to help mobilize additional fiscal resources to meet their needs in terms of public or community infrastructure and public services; (ii) Development of a more diversified economic base for rural communities and an increased stock of basic infrastructure (water and sanitation, education, health, and rural electrification infrastructure).

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

(Not Applicable)

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR (French version)

Rapport d’achèvement du Gouvernement

1. Description du Projet, Contexte et Objectif de développement

1. Depuis plus d’une décennie, le Gouvernement camerounais n’a cessé de déclarer que le développement rural reposait principalement sur les services et les investissements des collectivités locales (c.à.d. régionales et communales). La décentralisation de la structure administrative est donc importante pour fournir de tels services et faciliter le financement des projets et activités au niveau des collectivités.

2. Selon l’Article 1 de la Constitution de 1996, « La République du Cameroun est un état unitaire décentralisé. La décentralisation de l’administration au niveau des collectivités locales est représentée par les régions et les municipalités. » Quoique longtemps retardé, le Gouvernement a démontré son engagement à la mise en œuvre de la décentralisation administrative sur toute l’étendue du territoire. En juillet 2004, une loi- cadre sur la décentralisation fût votée, posant les fondements réglementaires régissant les communes et les régions. En novembre 2008, le Gouvernement a fait voter la loi portant sur l’organisation et le fonctionnement d’une administration décentralisée en « régions, préfectures et sous-préfectures. ». Un plan d’action (2005-2009) fût élaboré. De plus, un plan comptable propre aux communes, fut adopté et disséminé en 2006. Des mesures pour le renforcement des capacités des maires et cadres municipaux furent adoptées au Colloque National des Maires sur les franges des Afri-cités de 2004.

3. En 2007, le Gouvernement est parvenu à organiser les élections municipales et en janvier 2008, a adopté les lois qui créent le comité des services locaux et le comité interministériel de la décentralisation. Une série de lois importantes visant à améliorer le cadre légal et réglementaire sur la décentralisation ont été élaborées, quoique n’étant pas encore adoptées et promulguées. Elles comportent les lois sur la taxation locale et le régime financier des communes et le décret sur la chartre organisationnelle et le recrutement du personnel des communes. La mise en œuvre de ces instruments légaux sera accompagnée d’un transfert financier des ressources et des personnels d’appui aux communes afin qu’elles puissent formuler et évaluer la mise en œuvre des microprojets de développement local.

La Situation et la pauvreté du monde rural 4. En dépit des progrès enregistrés dans la lutte contre la pauvreté entre 2006 et 2008, la pauvreté touche encore une grande partie de la population camerounaise et demeure un souci majeur pour les autorités camerounaises. Selon l’enquête Camerounaise des Ménages III (ECAM III, 2007), plus de 52.1% des Camerounais en zone rurale vivaient dans la pauvreté en 2001. Ce chiffre a atteint 55% en 2007 reflétant une détérioration des conditions de vie des populations des zones rurales. Par conséquent, le monde rural doit être le point focal des efforts pour lutter contre la pauvreté. L’augmentation croissante des prix des denrées alimentaires mondiales va certainement réduire la sécurité alimentaire du Cameroun et avoir des conséquences néfastes comme : la baisse du pouvoir d’achat et le manque d’accès aux denrées bon marché pour les groupes vulnérables au vu de l’incidence élevé de la pauvreté en milieu rural dans le pays. 47

5. Selon la revue du Gouvernement sur les programmes de réduction de la pauvreté en 2006, la croissance sur le plan macroéconomique peut être rapidement refléter sur la pauvreté, si mesuré en termes monétaires (les autres unités de mesures de la pauvreté incluent le logement, la nutrition, et les services sociaux). Dans ce cadre ci, cet indicateur doit être utilisé pour d’abord mesurer le revenu par habitant (parce que la population est croissante), et ensuite, démontrer l’effet relatif de la croissance sur ce type de pauvreté. Par exemple en 2004, le taux de croissance de 3.7% du produit national brut correspondait à une augmentation de 1.0% du revenu par habitant, parce que la population avait augmenté à un taux de 2.7%. Par conséquent, le taux de 2.0% du PNB en 2005 a fortement diminué le revenu par habitant. En 2006, la situation était sensiblement positive car le taux de croissance du PNB est passé à 3.5%, ceci, en partie grâce aux bons résultats enregistrés des exportations pétrolières. En 2008, le taux de croissance du PNB est de 3.9% ; Soit une hausse par rapport à 2007 (3.5%). Cependant, la croissance économique d’une vue globale n’a pas considérablement contribué à la réduction de la pauvreté en termes monétaires ces dernières années. La stratégie de « deuxième génération » du gouvernement pour combattre la pauvreté a pour objectif d’identifier d’autres moyens en dehors de la croissance économique, tels que l’amélioration des services, pour assurer une distribution équitable des revenus et une diminution significative de la pauvreté.

Objectif de développement 6. L’objectif de développement du PNDP-II est resté le même que celui du PNDP I qui est d’appuyer le Gouvernement du Cameroun dans la mise en place d’un mécanisme efficace de transfert des ressources aux collectivités afin d’améliorer l’accès aux services sociaux de base (Santé, éducation, eau et assainissement) dans les communes cibles et d’étendre l’appui au processus de décentralisation en cours dans les nouvelles régions. 7. Au regard du niveau persistant de pauvreté en milieu rural matérialisée par les besoins en services sociaux de base et l’absence d’emploi stable et à la lumière des avancées significatives réalisées dans le processus de décentralisation, notamment le transfert progressif des compétences aux communes, cet objectif est resté pertinent tout au long de la deuxième phase et pourra à la troisième, connaître une consolidation avec un accent mis sur le développement de l’économie locale. En outre, les résultats de l’audit technico-financier des allocations aux communes, de l’évaluation par les bénéficiaires, menés par des consultants indépendants ainsi que ceux de l’évaluation d’impact conduite par l’Institut National de la Statistique (INS), ont démontré que l’objectif du programme est pertinent. Le montage du projet axé sur trois composantes a permis de : (i) tester à travers le système d’allocation budgétaire un mécanisme de transfert des fonds publics à 329 communes dans les 10 régions du Cameroun ; (ii) appuyer les réformes institutionnelles nécessaires à la mise en œuvre du processus de décentralisation ; (iii) positionner le Plan Communal de Développement comme un outil important de la programmation des investissements au niveau local.

8. La responsabilisation de la commune à travers son organe délibérant assisté par les sectoriels a assuré une coordination et une harmonisation des actions du Programme avec les différentes stratégies sectorielles. Cette synergie d’action a ainsi permis de limiter les risques de duplication et de gaspillage des ressources.

Changement majeur survenu lors de la mise en œuvre 9. A la revue à mi-parcours, le changement majeur a été celui apporté à la forme du Cadre de résultats. En effet, le cadre de résultat initial avait présentait une situation de référence qui correspondait aux valeurs atteintes par le Programme à la fin de sa première phase. Il a été convenu avec les partenaires de ramener les valeurs de la situation de référence à Zéro et d’ajuster les valeurs cibles en conséquence.

2. Eléments clés ayant affecté l’exécution d Programme et l’atteinte des résultats

10. La qualité encore perfectible des microprojets. Dans le cadre de la phase 2 plusieurs mesures visant à améliorer la qualité des microprojets ont été prises notamment (i) l’élaboration des plans type par secteur ; (ii) la réalisation de l’étude de faisabilité des microprojets par les ingénieurs, (iii) l’adjonction d’un contrôleur à chaque microprojet et (iv) le recrutement au sein des unités de mise en œuvre du Programme d’un ingénieur chargé des infrastructures. Malgré toutes ces dispositions, la qualité des microprojets réalisés dans le cadre du PNDP reste encore perfectible. La question mérite d’être approfondie en vue des interventions futures.

11. La nécessité de promouvoir les activités de développement économique. Le processus d’identification des microprojets procède d’une démarche participative et démocratique. Cependant, avec la précarité du cadre de vie des populations en milieu rural, les microprojets socio-collectifs l’emportent très aisément sur les microprojets de développement économique lors du choix démocratique. Dans un tel contexte, le faible niveau de revenu des ménages rend dans certains cas difficilement accessibles les différents services sociaux de base mis à leurs dispositions par le PNDP. Ce qui justifie davantage la nécessité d’encourager des activités pouvant permettre de relever le niveau de revenu des ménages et l’assiette fiscale. Il apparaît donc indispensable d’envisager plusieurs guichets de financement des microprojets des communes, dont l’un pour les microprojets sociaux et l’autre pour les microprojets économiques.

12. La reconnaissance du PCD à améliorer. Malgré la prise de conscience de plus en plus forte de l’importance des PCD, certains acteurs ne reconnaissent toujours pas en ce document, le canal idéal de financement du développement au niveau local. Avec pour conséquence des doublons et des actions non pertinentes sur le terrain. Le PCD devrait revêtir un caractère obligatoire et s’imposer à tous. Un texte pourrait servir à lui attribuer ce caractère impératif.

13. La nécessité de clarifier la notion de maître d’ouvrage avec l’arrivée du MINMAP. La logique du processus de décentralisation voudrait que les maires, moyennant un accompagnement adéquat soient de plus en plus responsabilisés quant à leurs rôles de maîtrise d’ouvrage. Or dans le contexte actuel, cette maîtrise d’ouvrage se trouve partagée entre plusieurs acteurs (Maire, MINMAP, sectoriels). Il importe donc de clarifier davantage le rôle de chaque acteur.

Mécanisme de suivi évaluation 14. Le système de suivi et d’évaluation du PNDP II est destiné à consolider et à améliorer le système utilisé pendant la première phase du programme. Il sera organisé à trois niveaux : communal, régional, et national.

15. Le niveau de la commune sera le niveau opérationnel du système. Les agents de développement des communes seront formés à faire le suivi de la mise en œuvre des PDC et à faire la collecte et la transmission des données au niveau régional. Ces données vont servir de feedback aux communes sur la mise en œuvre du PNDP et des indicateurs de suivi sur l’environnement, afin de déterminer l’efficacité des mesures d’allègements environnementaux des microprojets et évaluer si les microprojets implantés ont été mis en œuvre dans un cadre environnemental et social durable. Les données collectées au niveau des communes seront consolidées au niveau régional par l’officier régional chargé du suivi et de l’évaluation du projet. Les données ainsi collectées seront consolidées et analysées dans chaque région et seront par la suite transmises au spécialiste du suivi et de l’évaluation au niveau central.

16. Les rapports de suivi et d’évaluation, comprenant les résultats de suivi sur l’environnement, seront publiés trimestriellement au niveau régional et des communes, et tous les 6 mois au niveau central. Les rapports semi annuels seront mis à la disposition des ministères sectoriels et des partenaires de développement. De plus, les ministères sectoriels seront étroitement associés aux missions de suivi et de supervision internes et externes, à travers lesquelles ils vont s’assurer que les activités entreprises sont en accord avec les normes et politiques nationales. Le projet va aussi lancer des études spécifiques et des évaluations d’impact indépendantes si cela est nécessaire ou au plus tard à mi- parcours du projet.

17. Suivi de l’environnement. Au niveau du projet, le système de suivi et d’évaluation du PNDP va intégrer les indicateurs environnementaux de suivi afin de déterminer (a) l’efficacité des mesures d’atténuation environnementale, lors de la mise en œuvre des microprojets, et (b) la durabilité sociale et environnementale des microprojets en exécution.

18. Au niveau des microprojets, les indicateurs de suivi sur l’environnement vont mettre l’accent sur (a) le nombre de microprojets entrepris d’une manière durable sur le plan social et environnemental; (b) le nombre des centres de santé qui auront adoptés des mesures de gestion des déchets; (c) le nombre de microprojets basés dans les marchés qui auront adoptés des mesures de gestion des déchets; (d) le nombre de femmes participant à la formulation des microprojets; et (e) le nombre de femmes qui gèrent des points d’eau afin de déterminer si les critères de genre et les mesures d’atténuation sont incorporés dans la formulation et la mise en œuvre des microprojets.

19. Comme il a été mentionné plus haut, les résultats de suivi sur l’environnement seront inclus dans les rapports de progrès trimestriels du PNDP afin d’informer le personnel, des éventuels manquements qui pourraient apparaître. A mi-parcours et à la fin du PNDP II, les audits sur l’environnement seront menés afin de mesurer l’impact social et environnemental des microprojets financés par le PNDP II.

Troisième phase 20. La 3ème phase sera la phase de consolidation. A ce titre, elle contribuera à financer les priorités identifiées lors des phases précédentes avec un accent sur : (i) la consolidation de la couverture nationale du Programme à travers la prise en compte des communes d’arrondissement dont la plupart sont constituées à plus 60 % des zones

50 rurales; (ii) l'appui institutionnel et le renforcement des capacités des communes, visant à développer un mécanisme d’auto financement du développement local.

A. Objectif de développement du Programme 21. L’objectif de développement de la troisième phase sera d’améliorer l’accès aux services sociaux de base (santé, éducation, eau et assainissement, voies d’accès de meilleure qualité) et développer les opportunités de l’économie locale afin d’accroître le revenu des populations à travers la consolidation des acquis en matière de décentralisation dans les communes couvertes.

B. Zone d’intervention et bénéficiaires 22. La zone d’intervention du projet d’appui va couvrir les 10 régions du PNDP II et va s’étendre aux communes d’arrondissement non encore couvertes. Le plan de couverture sera élaboré sur la base de critères définis en collaboration avec les maires, les services administratifs du Gouvernement, la société civile, et les partenaires de développement. Les principaux bénéficiaires sont les populations des 329 communes ayant participé au PNDP II et celles des 31 communes d’arrondissement.

C. Principale innovation 23. La principale innovation concerne la première composante qui a pour but d’améliorer les conditions socio-économiques, d’accroître la productivité des ressources naturelles de base, et d’augmenter les revenus des populations dans les communes cibles du Programme. A ce titre, le financement des microprojets se fera en deux volets : - (i) un volet pour les équipements et infrastructures socio-collectifs, pour lequel chaque commune aura une allocation prédéfinie en fonction des critères préalablement négociés ; - (ii) un deuxième volet sur la valorisation de ressources naturelles permettant de dynamiser l’économie locale, pour lequel un guichet sera ouvert à toutes les communes sur une base compétitive. Le budget de chaque volet sera défini pendant la formulation du projet. Pour ce volet, il ne s’agira pas du financement direct des activités génératrices de revenu auprès des opérateurs économiques ou des organisations professionnelles (GIC, GIE, OP, etc.), mais d’aider les communes à mettre en place un environnement favorable au développement des activités économiques qui méritent un levier structurant en amont.

3. Evaluation des résultats atteints 24. Le niveau de réalisation des objectifs est surtout mesuré grâce à des indicateurs de performance contenus dans le cadre des résultats du Programme et des indicateurs déclencheurs. A ce sujet, il est important de souligner que le crédit IDA qui finance le PNDP est un Prêt Programme Evolutif (APL) de trois phases, pouvant se dérouler simultanément à condition que les critères de déclenchement préalablement définis au début de chaque phase soient atteints.

Niveau de réalisation des indicateurs déclencheurs de la troisième phase. Sur les quatre indicateurs déclencheurs, trois ont été entièrement atteints, notamment : (i) les projets de lois et décrets sur la décentralisation préparés pendant la première phase du projet ont été adoptés et promulgués. Il s’agit de (a) la loi 2009/019 du 15 décembre 2009 portant fiscalité locale des CTD et des Décrets sur les comités des impôts locaux ; (b) la loi 2009/011 du 10 juillet 2009, portant régime financier des Collectivités

Territoriales Décentralisées(CTD) et (c) l’Arrêté n°00136/A/MINATD/DCTD du 24 août 2009, rendant exécutoires les tableaux types des emplois communaux ; (ii) Au moins 90% des communes appuyées par le projet ont reflété les investissements prioritaires dans les plans communaux de développement et le budget. Au stade actuel, toutes les 178 nouvelles communes qui ont élaboré un PCD contenant un plan d’investissement annuel (PIA) représentant la partie investissement du budget de la commune. Ce qui correspond à un taux de 100%. (iii) Du niveau de satisfaction des bénéficiaires qui était fixé à 80%. L’évaluation par les bénéficiaires montre que 93% des Communes bénéficiaires sont satisfaites des actions du Programme (appui à l’élaboration des PCD, mise à disposition des agents communaux, financement et mise en œuvre des Micro-Projets, formation/renforcement des capacités, fourniture d’équipements). (iv) De la préparation et de l’approbation par le Gouvernement de la Charte sur la Décentralisation. Le projet de la Charte a été préparé et est en cours d’approbation par le Gouvernement. Globalement le niveau de réalisation des déclencheurs est satisfaisant.

Indicateurs de performance Les performances du Programme, tels que mesurées par le cadre des résultats joint en annexe 1, sont globalement satisfaisantes. S’agissant de l’objectif de développement, le pourcentage de communes ayant amélioré l’accès aux services sociaux de base d’au moins 5% dans l’un des secteurs : éducation, santé, eau-assainissement et transport, se situe à 80,3% selon l’évaluation indépendante réalisée par l’INS. En effet, au cours de la deuxième phase, le Programme a couvert 329 communes et financé 1 864 microprojets (816 sur IDA) dont 939 sont achevés et fonctionnels (763 sur IDA). Dans le secteur « Eau et assainissement », le PNDP a amélioré les conditions de vie de 737 100 personnes à travers la construction de 1 457 points d’eau et 524 latrines. Cette intervention du PNDP dans le domaine de l’hydraulique a ainsi permis d’amoindrir la fréquence d’apparition des maladies hydriques. En effet, dans les localités où le PNDP a intervenu, la prévalence des maladies d’origine hydrique est passée de 61,8% à 9,2%. Dans le secteur de l’éducation, le PNDP a amélioré les conditions d’éducation de 44 340 personnes à travers la construction et l’équipement de 739 salles de classe et 13 710 tables-bancs. Avec ces réalisations, les effectifs des élèves dans les écoles ayant bénéficié des apports du PNDP se sont accru de 6 points et le taux d’admission dans ces écoles s’est accru de 2,76%. Les taux d’admission dans les villages bénéficiaires des microprojets d’éducation est de 82,4% contre 79,8% pour les villages non bénéficiaires. Dans le domaine de l’électrification, PNDP a amélioré les conditions de vie de plus de 40 000 ménages à travers l’extension du réseau électrique sur 40,37 Km dont 12,46 de moyenne tension et 27,91 de basse tension. Dans le domaine de la santé, l’accès aux soins de meilleure qualité a été amélioré pour 428 925 personnes à travers la construction et l’équipement de 28 Centres de santé. Comme impact de ces interventions, près de 41% de ménages vivant dans les villages bénéficiaires de microprojets sont à 500 m de la première formation sanitaire, et 93% de ces villages sont à moins de 5 km de la première formation sanitaire. Au contraire, seuls 27,5% des ménages des villages non bénéficiaires sont à moins de 500 m de la première formation sanitaire et 87% d’entre eux sont à moins de 5 km de la première formation sanitaire. 52

Dans le domaine des transports, 18 villages constitués de 25 873 ménages ont été désenclavés à travers la l’aménagement ou la réhabilitation de 306,4 Km de route et la construction de 5 ponceaux, 2 radiers et 3 dalots. L’impact direct de l’aménagement des pistes rurales dans les communes a été la réduction des coûts de transport. Globalement, ces coûts sont passés de 400 FCFA à 175 FCFA au km et à moto, et de 200 FCFA à 105 FCFA au km et en voiture Dans le domaine des infrastructures marchandes, le PNDP a contribué à développer l’économie locale à travers la construction de 26 hangars et 368 comptoirs, 144 boutiques, 15 magasins de stockage dans les marchés. En vue de renforcer les capacités d’intervention des communes, le Programme a accompagné les communes pour combler les postes d’agents communaux encore vacants. Au total, 521 agents communaux dont 259 agents techniques et 262 agents financiers sont actuellement en poste. Ces personnels des communes sont opérationnels et leur contribution à l’amélioration de la gestion dans les communes concernées est déjà perceptible. Des données collectées sur le terrain en rapport avec la présence de ces agents, il ressort que la contribution de ces agents dans les communes est particulièrement visible dans l’amélioration des recettes, le taux d’exécution budgétaire, l’archivage, le suivi de la mise en œuvre des PCD, le suivi et la redynamisation des comités de gestion des microprojets, la collecte des données sur les infrastructures socio- collectives. Quatre-vingt-onze pour cent des exécutifs municipaux interrogés affirment que le recrutement des agents avec l’appui du PNDP a permis de résoudre au moins partiellement le problème de ressources humaines dans leurs communes. Les agents recrutés ont un niveau assez élevé sur le plan académique et professionnel. En effet avant leur recrutement, plus de 90% des agents techniques justifiaient d’un niveau au moins égal à BAC+3 et d’au moins 2 années d’expériences professionnelles dans des domaines plus ou moins connexes au développement communautaire. Les agents financiers recrutés quant à eux justifient à près de 73% d’un niveau d’étude supérieur ou égale à BAC+2 avec une prédominance des agents spécialisés dans la comptabilité et gestion, les sciences économiques et les sciences juridiques. S’agissant de leur implication dans les communes, l’ensemble des agents communaux s’attèlent à bien exécuter les missions qui leurs ont été assignées comme en témoigne l’appréciation de leurs rendement par les exécutifs municipaux. En effet, 71% des exécutifs interrogés jugent au moins bonne la performance de leurs agents techniques, tandis que 67% jugent au moins bonne la performance de leurs agents financiers. Par ailleurs, de l’avis des exécutifs municipaux, la présence des agents communaux auraient ainsi permis d’améliorer la gestion et le fonctionnement des Communes. En effet, dans 50% des cas les agents de développement auraient permis d’améliorer le niveau d’exécution du budget des communes grâce à leur implication dans le suivi régulier de l’exécution des activités et projets programmés, leur appui-conseil pour l’élaboration d’un budget plus réaliste et leurs implications dans les activités de recherche de financement. L’importance de la présence des agents est tout aussi perceptible au niveau de la qualité du suivi de l’exécution et de l’entretien des ouvrages des communes. En effet, près de 85% des agents de développement auraient ainsi permis aux communes d’améliorer la qualité du suivi de l’exécution des ouvrages grâce à leurs descentes régulières sur le terrain pour le suivi-contrôle de l’exécution des travaux. Tandis que, 75% auraient permis d’améliorer la qualité du suivi de l’entretien et de la maintenance des ouvrages communaux grâce à la mobilisation courante des membres des COGES et la recherche des solutions endogènes.

Pour les agents financiers, l’impact de leur présence est perceptible dans les communes, notamment à travers l’amélioration de la gestion comptable et la gestion financière. En effet, près de 66% de communes déclarent une amélioration de leur gestion comptable grâce au concours de leurs agents financiers. De plus, les différents documents comptables sont désormais produits dans les délais recommandés dans près de 72% de communes et un système d’archivage des documents a été mis en place dans 80% de communes dotées en agents financiers. En ce qui concerne l’amélioration de la gestion financière, 64% de communes ont connu une amélioration de leurs recettes. En ce qui concerne l’appui à la décentralisation, les actions du PNDP II ont visé essentiellement le renforcement des capacités opérationnelles des communes, afin qu’elles puissent promouvoir efficacement le développement local. A ce titre le Programme a appuyé : (i) La mise en application du nouveau plan comptable sectoriel des communes à travers le déploiement à titre pilote du logiciel Sim_ba dans 53 communes. Sur la base de l’évaluation de cette première vague de mise en œuvre, un plan de déploiement a été préparé et sera mis en œuvre dans 100 nouvelles communes en 2014 ; (ii) La formation de 889 membres des commissions communales de passation des marchés. Avec l’avènement du MINMAP, le Programme a redéfini les cibles pour les formations qui ont été dispensées en collaboration avec l’ARMP sur le Code des marchés publics camerounais et sur les Directives simplifiées de la Banque mondiale consignées dans le Guide élaboré à cet effet à l’intention des acteurs intervenant dans le processus de la passation des marchés et de l’exécution des contrats par les maîtres d’ouvrage. A ce jour toutes les commissions régionales et départementales de passation des marchés ont déjà été formées à l’Extrême-nord, au Nord-ouest et au Sud-ouest. (iii)La formation de tous les délégués régionaux et départementaux, ainsi que le personnel communal sur la prise en compte des aspects socio-environnementaux dans l’élaboration des PCD et des microprojets. (iv) Le recrutement de 513 agents communaux (dont 257 financiers et 256 techniques). Ces agents ont contribué à renforcer les capacités des communes dans la mise en œuvre de leurs PCD et ainsi que dans la gestion communale. (v) La fourniture des équipements. Les 329 communes ont été équipées en ordinateurs et en GPS, leur permettant entre autres de collecter les données et d’améliorer les conditions de travail du personnel communal. Les motos ont été acquises et distribuées pour 209 communes. Pour les 120 communes ne disposant pas encore de ce matériel, une commande est en cours sur financement C2D ;

Aspects socio-environnementaux Selon les conclusions de l’évaluation socio-environnementale réalisée en 2013 pour la phase, la prise en compte des aspects socio – environnementaux dans le dispositif institutionnel et structurel s’est renforcée depuis 3 ans au niveau de toutes les instances. Tous les microprojets financés ont fait l’objet d’un screening socio-environnemental, donnant lieu à des mesures environnementales appropriées qui ont été intégrées dans le montage technique et financier du microprojet concerné. Les sites d’implantation des microprojets ont été retenus avec le plus grand soin, évitant les zones sensibles et les terrains titrés. Des actes de donation des sites ont été fournis. Par ailleurs, au cours de la phase 2, la qualité du PCD s’est améliorée à la faveur de l’approche sectorielle et la prise en compte systématique des compétences transférées aux communes, y compris celles du décret n°2012/0882/PM du 27 mars 2012 en matière 54 d’environnement. Outre la consolidation des acquis du PGDT clôturé en mars 2012, le Programme a travaillé avec le partenaire GIZ à l’intégration des aspects changements climatiques dans le PCD. De même, à la faveur des fonds du C2D, le Programme a bénéficié d’un financement de 3 millions Euros pour la mise en œuvre d’environ 05 projets communaux/intercommunaux REDD, représentatifs des 05 zones agro écologiques du Cameroun, en appui à la stratégie nationale pilotée par le MINEPDED. L’étude de faisabilité vient d’être bouclée et l’opération va démarrer dans les prochains jours. Compte tenu du fait que le temps imparti à la mise en œuvre du projet est insuffisante pour garantir la certification des crédits carbones, le Programme compte solliciter d’autres bailleurs pour la mobilisation des ressources additionnelles. Pour ce qui est de la mise en œuvre du Plan de Développement des Peuples Pygmées (PDPP), il avait été convenu que le dispositif de mise en œuvre s’appuie sur le personnel du MINAS au niveau communal. Une convention entre le MINEPAT et le MINAS a été signée à cet effet en 2012 et par décision n° 002/B du 09 avril 2013, le Ministre des Affaires Sociales a désigné, à titre spécial, 31 Chefs Service d’Action sociale pour mettre en œuvre l’opération dans les 31 communes bénéficiaires des 03 régions de l’Est, du Centre et du Sud. Ceux-ci ont été formés en juillet 2013. Parallèlement à la mise en place de ce dispositif, les activités du PDPP se sont poursuivies et ont abouti à la production des pièces officielles supplémentaires (673 actes de naissances, 415 CNI, 17 actes de mariage, etc.), la mise en place de 1,1 ha de champ de banane-plantain et manioc à Bandévouri et de 1 ha de banane-plantain dans la commune de Lokoundjé, la reconnaissance des droits d’usufruits pour 15 villages pygmées dans les communes de Niété et de Lokoundjé, etc. Le Programme a également identifié et subventionné la formation de 15 enfants pygmées aux métiers de l’éducation et de la santé. Il s’agit de : (i) 08 aides-soignants (1 an de formation) parmi lesquels 6 sont diplômés depuis août 2013 et leur dossier d’intégration à la Fonction Publique est en cours ; (ii) 01 Infirmier diplômé d’Etat (3 ans), (iii) 02 élèves instituteurs de l’enseignement techniques (3 ans) et (iv) 04 élèves instituteurs de l’enseignement général (3 ans).

Aspects fiduciaires Le financement de la 2ème phase met en action outre les fonds IDA, Etat BIP /BFP et la contribution des bénéficiaires, les fonds C2D de la coopération française et ceux de la convention séparée de la coopération allemande. En dehors des fonds C2D dont le 1er déblocage a été effectif en décembre 2012, les autres financements sont pris en compte à partir de fin mars 2010, date de dépôt initial du crédit IDA. Pour ce qui est des fonds KFW, il s’agit du reliquat de la convention séparée à fin mars 2010. La contribution au financement et la mobilisation y relative s’établissent ainsi qu’il suit par source de financement et globalement en francs CFA :

Tableau n°1 : Sources de financement du PNDP II Sources de Taux de Prévus Mobilisés financement Mobilisation IDA II 19 560 000 000 20 193 571 303 103% ETAT BIP/BFP 10 153 069 317 11 074 315 900 109% ETAT C2D II 37 894 635 892 11 814 000 000 31% KFW 3 772 000 000 3 049 246 191 81% BENEFICIAIRES 3 139 304 253 2 363 317 444 75% TOTAL 74 519 009 462 48 494 450 838 65%

Les trois catégories de dépenses prévues dans la phase 2 du Programme sont : - Catégorie 1 : Biens, petits travaux, fonctionnement - Catégorie 2 : Biens et services pour la préparation des PDC - Catégorie 3 : Biens, travaux et services destinés aux Microprojets

Ces dépenses s’analysent ainsi qu’il suit :

Tableau n°2 : Niveau de décaissement des fonds par source de financement ETATBIP ETAT BENEFI IDA II /BFP C2D II KFW CIAIRES TOTAL MONTANT 19 560 10 153 37 894 3 772 000 3 139 304 74 519 FINANCEM 000 000 069 317 635 892 000 253 009 462 ENTS DECAISSE MENTS - 6 176 406 7 614 514 5 762 213 436 947 19 990 Catégorie 1 998 381 238 543 082 160 5 764 504 360 773 2 476 814 8 602 092 Catégorie 2 010 272 996 278 7 790 408 766 287 1 149 029 2 421 257 2 363 317 14 490 Catégorie 3 456 724 800 176 444 300 600 19 731 8 741 575 9 388 058 2 858 204 2 363 317 43 082 TOTAL 319 464 377 034 719 444 475 038

TAUX DE DECAISSE 101% 86% 25% 76% 75% 58% MENT

S’agissant en particulier du financement IDA ( Crédit N° 4593 CM ), l’on peut relever qu’il a été complètement décaissé ; avec en prime un niveau de mobilisation de francs CFA de 20 193 571 303 nettement supérieur au montant du crédit évalué à 19 560 000 000 suivant le cours de référence fixé par l’accord de crédit susvisé à 489 francs CFA pour un dollar Us.

Tableau n°3 : Soldes des comptes bancaires communaux sur financement IDA Soldes Reste à payer sur activités réceptionnées avant issus le 30 novembre 2013 Monta Mont des Solde nts ants Relev Ré Agent hors Reçus Décais és Etud Frai gio s engag au sés au banca es de CC PDP s n PCD com MP emen 30/11/2 30/11/ ires faisa PM P Banc muna t 013 2013 au bilité aires ux 30/11/ 2013 1 287 924 360 41 3 234 73 621 090 845 031 6 000 1 275 893 899 746 AD 884 886 906 966 000 000 048 333 559 2 897 1 814 1 063 137 15 16 57 8 716 111 892 235 424 174 812 260 724 608 267 577 CE 123 094 158 348 572 000 189 477 409 163 1 741 1 106 709 14 168 4 412 106 322 715 717 829 3 090 784 634 131 248 ES 097 339 553 450 000 315 371 287 130 468 204 263 119 45 7 21 007 589 418 410 416 636 69 118 837 EN 617 314 303 001 000 147 254 901 1 223 892 582 56 456 68 647 031 228 978 686 563 LT 668 941 792 918 469 405 278 196 82 N 944 912 82 032 032 O 944 172 772 772 1 304 1 052 512 15 86 395 14 N 329 164 228 017 934 534 741 W 790 202 748 617 569 747 815 1 464 1 114 510 112 54 2 334 O 154 308 956 629 519 3 913 340 739 2 814 U 449 400 000 113 475 274 000 851 287 1 670 830 956 108 23 138 9 324 350 342 340 051 786 666 1 632 206 525 066 168 SU 223 774 805 146 451 700 481 829 125 073 1 517 1 164 473 13 24 2 387 34 S 886 169 124 822 681 9 588 975 557 498 W 695 878 138 384 802 979 000 027 946 13 854 9 299 5 514 547 328 35 5 364 34 3 331 866 To 149 558 00 028 871 839 759 315 714 297 000 229 tal 490 0 175 575 237 953 000 985 872 502 051

Au 30 novembre 2013, la situation des soldes des comptes joints abritant les subventions accordées par l’Etat du Cameroun aux communes sur Crédit IDA indiquait, comme le

57 montre le tableau ci-dessous, qu’un montant total de 5 514 028 175 FCFA était encore disponible dans les comptes joints au. Ce montant se compose de 4 647 799 124 FCFA destinés aux règlements des prestations réceptionnées avant le 30 novembre 2013 et de 866 229 051 FCFA qui correspondent au solde des différents comptes joints en rapport avec les activités non encore achevées au 30 novembre 2013 et dont plusieurs à date sont déjà achevées. Il importe de préciser également que ces comptes contiennent outre les contributions des bénéficiaires pour le cofinancement de leurs microprojets mais également les retenues de garanties des prestataires.

Principaux impacts Les principaux impacts des réalisations physiques du PNDP tels qu’ils ressortent dans les rapports des évaluations indépendantes réalisées par les consultants et l’Institut National de la Statistique se résument ainsi qu’il suit : a. Selon l’évaluation par les bénéficiaires des services fournis par la phase II du Programme, les résultats se présentent comme suit : i. une excellente couverture des interventions du Programme au niveau national : En effet, toutes les Communes cibles, sans exception (soit 100%), ont bénéficié de l’appui du Programme ; ii. une bonne appropriation du processus de planification au niveau local : les 178 communes cibles de la phase 2 disposent actuellement d’un PCD élaboré suivant les dispositions du Guide de planification élaboré par le MINEPAT et ses partenaires et arrimé au Document de Stratégie pour la Croissance et l’Emploi (DSCE). Les 151 communes couvertes lors de la 1ère phase, disposant d’un PCD arrimé au DSRP, sont en cours d’actualisation. Ce document qui est devenu un document de référence dans la programmation des investissements publics au niveau communal, a permis à certains exécutifs municipaux à négocier des partenariats avec certains organismes publics et privés tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur du pays. Par ailleurs, depuis 2012 les circulaires du Chef de l’Etat relatives à la préparation du budget d’investissement public instruisent de se référer au PCD ; iii. un niveau satisfaisant de consommation des allocations : la dotation de fonds IDA alloués au financement des subventions aux communes, qui s’élevait à 8,7 milliards de FCFA, est à ce jour consommée à 100% ; iv. Les différentes catégories de bénéficiaires (Communes, Prestataires, Services Déconcentrés de l’Etat (SDE), Populations) apparaissent globalement satisfaites des appuis reçus du Programme. En ce qui concerne les Services Déconcentrés de l’Etat (SDE), 96% sont globalement satisfaits du PNDP. De même, les prestataires de services sont dans l’ensemble très satisfaits du PNDP. Quant aux communautés bénéficiaires des microprojets, 92% en sont satisfaites en raison de leur implication dans l’identification et la gestion.

b. L’audit technico-financier de l’utilisation des allocations par les communes pour le compte des exercices 2010 et 2011 de la phase II du Programme a relevé que les fonds du PNDP alloués aux Communes ont été utilisés conformément aux accords de financement. Aucun cas de fraude et de corruption n’a été décelé. De manière spécifique l’audit relève que : i. Les exécutifs communaux sont dans l’ensemble unanimes sur l’apport positif des Agents Communaux recrutés par le programme et comptent renouveler leurs contrats. Une formation continue de ces agents est toutefois nécessaire ; ii. L’archivage s’est considérablement amélioré au niveau des communes. iii. Les travaux des microprojets sont bien exécutés en dépit de quelques cas isolés de malfaçons relevés dans certains microprojets. Tous les microprojets réceptionnés sont mis en exploitation au profit de la population bénéficiaire. iv. L’adhésion des maires a facilité la mise en œuvre des activités du programme. Toutefois, une plus grande implication du Secrétaire Général de la Commune dans le processus contribuerait à de meilleurs résultats. v. Les acquisitions des biens et services financées par cette allocation ont fait l’objet des marchés passés conformément aux dispositions des accords de financements applicables fondés sur les procédures simplifiées de passation des marchés de la Banque Mondiale ; toutes ces opérations ont été totalement enregistrées dans les livres comptables des communes ; vi. Les ressources du programme ont été utilisées dans un souci d’efficience.

4. Evaluation de la performance de la Banque mondiale Les partenaires techniques et financiers ont apporté un appui dans la mise en œuvre du PNDP II. S’agissant de la Banque mondiale, les Chargés de projets qui se sont sucédées lors du PNDP II ont apporté une assistance technique considérable. Ils ont participé, à la définition d’une méthodologie d’élaboration des Plans Communaux de Développement (PCD) arrimé à la Stratégie du Gouvernement pour la Croissance et l’Emploi. Par ailleurs, l’équipe de la Banque a contribué efficacement à doter toutes les 178 nouvelles communes d’un PCD avant la revue à mi-parcours. En ce qui concerne l’AFD, en collaboration avec le STADE-C2D, elle a facilité la gestion des fonds C2D en contribuant à l’harmonisation du manuel des procédures notamment dans le domaine de passation des marchés à celles arrêtée avec la Banque mondiale. Cette harmonisation a permis le décaissement rapide des ressources allouées au Programme au titre du deuxième C2D.

5. Leçons apprises Planification Locale. A travers une démarche pédagogique visant l’apprentissage du processus aux Communes qu’il encadre, le PNDP a accompagné jusqu’à date 329 communes dans l’élaboration de leurs Plans Communal de Développement. Ce document qui favorise la participation de tous les acteurs au niveau local, définit la vision à long terme de développement social, économique, environnemental et culturel de la Commune. De par son organisation en secteur, le PCD est un outil idéal pour l’identification des 59 besoins sectoriels à consolider dans le cadre de l’élaboration du Budget d’Investissement Public. Ainsi, l’élaboration des Plans d’Actions Prioritaires (PAP) de chaque ministère pourrait s’inspirer de ces PCD sous la coordination du MINEPAT. Base de données nationale sur les communes. Au cours de la mise en œuvre de sa deuxième phase, le PNDP a conçu une base de données évolutive qui contient toutes les données des infrastructures socio-collectives et marchandes des communes. Une interface connexe à cette base de données permet de produire des cartes thématiques qui facilitent la planification et l’aménagement au niveau local. Un mécanisme a été mis en place en vue de s’assurer de la mise à jour continue de cette base de données dans chaque commune. Ce mécanisme implique les délégués départementaux et régionaux du MINEPAT et permettra à terme de disposer en temps réel des informations précises sur chaque commune.

Contrôle Citoyen. Le PNDP a réalisé une expérience pilote de contrôle citoyen à travers la méthode du «Scorecard» dans 10 communes. Cette expérience a permis aux populations de donner un avis sur les services fournis par leurs collectivités et d’envisager des améliorations. Cette opération a fait ses preuves comme un outil de gouvernance efficace à travers lequel des changements considérables peuvent être capitalisés dans la commune. Afin de pérenniser ce mécanisme, il est envisagé de rattacher son opérationnalisation à une structure pérenne et de réfléchir sur le financement de sa mise en œuvre.

Instance de coordination au niveau local. Au cours de la deuxième phase du PNDP, le Conseil Municipal Elargi aux Sectoriels (COMES) a été l’instance de mise en cohérence des actions de développement avec les politiques sectorielles dans le cadre du PNDP. Il est donc important que cette instance soit consolidée et valorisée dans chaque commune afin d’éviter des doublons et garantir la synergie et l’adéquation des actions de développement au niveau communal. Cette instance devrait entre autres avoir pour missions, la coordination des actions au niveau communal (BIP, ONG, projets/programmes, etc.), la synergie des interventions de tous les acteurs et la promotion de l’intercommunalité. La participation des sectoriels à cette instance pourrait être supportée entre autres par la Dotation Générale de la Décentralisation dédiée au fonctionnement.

Gestion des allocations budgétaires par les communes. Au cours de la 2ème phase, le PNDP a procédé au financement des communes sur la base des allocations. Ce système a permis de renforcer les capacités des maires en maîtrise d’ouvrage, les disposant ainsi à exercer les compétences qui leur sont progressivement transférées par l’Etat central. Il a également permis une plus grande efficience dans la gestion de ces ressources. En effet, avec le jeu de la concurrence au cours du processus de passation des marchés, les maires ont été en mesure de réaliser un plus grand nombre de microprojets et faire profiter un maximum de populations.

La capitalisation des acquis du PNDP. Avec l’expérience satisfaisante des phases 1 et 2 de la mise en œuvre du PNDP, on note tout de même que l’appropriation des enjeux et des mécanismes de maîtrise d’ouvrage demeure assez lente au niveau des communes. Cet état de chose inhérent à toute mutation sociale, devrait pousser à réfléchir sur un moyen d’accompagner le processus de décentralisation, afin d’en assurer le succès. A cet effet, les résultats et expériences du PNDP pourraient être capitalisés dans le cadre d’une

60 agence de développement local qui s’occuperait de l’appui à la Maîtrise d’ouvrage, étant entendu que la configuration actuelle des structures d’accompagnement des communes est déjà dotée d’organismes dédiés au financement des communes.

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders

(No comments have been received)

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

Institut National de la Statistique. 2014. Evaluation de l’impact de la deuxième phase du Programme National de Développement Participatif. Rapport final, Janvier 2014.

MINEPAT.2010. Document de Stratégie pour la croissance et l’emploi. Août 2009.

PNDP. 2013. Evaluation par les bénéficiaires des services fournis par le PNDP II. Rapport final, Juillet 2013.

PNDP. 2013. Evaluation de la maintenance des ouvrages, de la fonctionnalité des comités de gestion ainsi que la capitalisation des bonnes pratiques dans le cadre du PNDP II. Rapport final, Août 2013.

PNDP. 2013. Evaluation de la performance socio-environnementale du Programme National de Développement Participatif-phase II (PNDP II), Rapport final, Janvier 2014.

PNDP. 2013. Magazine d’information du Programme National de Développement Participatif. Vol#001 Juillet-Aout-Septembre 2013.

PNDP. 2013. Magazine d’information du Programme National de Développement Participatif. Vol#002 Octobre-Novembre-Décembre 2013.

PNDP.2013. Audit technique et financier de la mise en œuvre du programme national de développement participatif (PNDP), dans sa deuxième phase, exercices 2010, 2011 Rapport final, juillet 2013.

PNDP. 2013. Audit technique et financier de la mise en œuvre du programme national de développement participatif (PNDP), dans sa deuxième phase, exercice 2012. Rapports finaux, Décembre 2013.

PNDP. 2014. Rapport d’achèvement du Gouvernement relatif à la mise en œuvre de la deuxième phase du PNDP. Mars 2014.

PNDP. 2014. Evaluation de la performance socio-environnementale du PNDP II. Rapport final, Janvier 2014.

Wong Susan. 2012. What have been the impacts of World Bank Community-Driven Development Programs? CDD Impact Evaluation Review and Operational & Research Implications. Social Development Department, Sustainable Development Network, Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2009. Project Appraisal Document (PAD). Mai 2009.

World Bank. 2010. Country Assistance Strategy for the republic of Cameroon (CAS). February 2010.

World Bank. 2010. Aide-Mémoire Mission de Supervision-PNDP II. Mai 10-19, 2010.

World Bank. 2010. Aide-Mémoire Mission de Supervision-PNDP II. Octobre 14-15, 2010.

World Bank. 2010. Aide-Mémoire Mission de Supervision. Mai 10-19, 2010.

World Bank. 2012. Aide-Mémoire Mid-Term Review, PNDP II. Janvier 13, 2012.

World Bank. 2013. Aide-Mémoire Mission de Clôture du PNDP II. Décembre 23, 2013.