NIGER Community Action Program and Community-Based Integrated Ecosystem Management Project Phase I and II Report No. 155367 DECEMBER 31, 2020 © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: World Bank. 2021. Niger—Community Action Program and Community-Based Integrated Ecosystem Management Project. Independent Evaluation Group, Project Performance Assessment Report 155367. Washington, DC: World Bank. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: [email protected]. Report No.: 155367 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT NIGER COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (CAP-1) AND COMMUNITY-BASED INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT (IDA-H3460, IDA-H0250, TF-52053) AND COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (CAP-2) AND COMMUNITY-BASED INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT (APL PHASE II) (IDA-H4230, TF-92411) December 31, 2020 Financial, Private Sector, and Sustainable Development Independent Evaluation Group Abbreviations AIP annual investment plan CAP Community Action Program CDD community-driven development CDP communal development plan GEF Global Environment Facility ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association IEG Independent Evaluation Group LDP local development plan LIF local investment fund M&E monitoring and evaluation NGO nongovernmental organization PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO project development objective PMU Project Management Unit PPAR Project Performance Assessment Report All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. IEG Management and PPAR Team Director-General, Independent Evaluation Ms. Alison Evans Director, Financial, Private Sector, and Sustainable Development Mr. José C. Carbajo Manager, Infrastructure and Sustainable Development Mr. Christopher Nelson Task Manager Ms. Lauren Kelly This report was prepared by Lauren Kelly and Christian Freymeyer who assessed the project in July 2019 and prepared this report, with the support of Joy Butscher, Omar Moumouni, Oumou Moumouni, and Aminou Rio Rio. The report was peer reviewed by Matt Turner and panel reviewed by Jack van Holst Pellekaan. Vibhuti Khanna and Viktoriya Yevsyeyeva provided administrative support. ii Contents Project Data ....................................................................................................................................................... vi Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... viii What Worked ............................................................................................................................................. viii What Didn’t Work ........................................................................................................................................ x Risks to the Sustainability of Development Outcomes................................................................... xi Lessons ........................................................................................................................................................... xi 1. Background, Context, and Design ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Objective, Financing, Theory of Change, and Program Design .................................................. 3 Theory of Change ........................................................................................................................................4 CAP Design .................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. What Worked, What Didn’t Work, and Why? ................................................................................... 9 A. Intended and Achieved Results .......................................................................................................... 9 CAP-1 Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 CAP-2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 B. What Worked ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Support for Niger’s Decentralization Process ................................................................................................ 15 The Contribution of Microprojects to Participatory Local Planning and Development .................. 18 Microprojects Were Profitable, and Environmental Projects Were the Best Performers. .............. 20 Land Regeneration Projects Enabled Many Short-Term, Vulnerability-Reducing Benefits. .......... 22 CAP Investments in Human Capital Effectively Supported Sustainable Land Management Practices, but Support Has Waned since the Project Closed................................................................... 25 C. What Didn’t Work ................................................................................................................................ 27 Niger’s Decentralization Process Is Ongoing but Fragile. ......................................................................... 27 Despite CAP’s Rural Decentralization Goals, A High Share of Microprojects Went to Urban Areas Near the Capital. ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Many Land Restoration Aims Were Achieved, but There Was a Lack of Adequate Finance to Oversee and Maintain the Land-Related Benefits. ...................................................................................... 34 Customary Land Tenure Arrangements at Regeneration Sites Lacked Clarity, Which Undermined the Potential for Wider Distributional Outcomes. ............................................................. 35 Neglected Pastoral Issues .................................................................................................................................... 37 4. Lessons .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 iii Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Boxes Box 1.1. The Great Green Wall ........................................................................................................................ 3 Box 3.1. Migrating Youths Earn Meager Living Abroad ..................................................................... 26 Box 3.2. Budgets for Social Services Decline in Diffa as National Security Spending Grows ....... 30 Figures Figure 2.1. CAP Theory of Change ............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.1. CAP-1 Intended Objectives and Actual Decentralization-Related Results ............... 10 Figure 3.2. CAP-1 Intended and Actual Land- and Resource-Related Results ............................ 12 Figure 3.3. CAP-2 Intended Objectives and Actual Decentralization and Resource Mobilization–Related Results ....................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3.4. CAP-2 Intended and Actual Land- and Resource-Related Results ........................... 14 Figure 3.5. Actual Annual Public Budget Transfers as Percentage of Requested Budgets (Annual Average 2014–17), by Commune ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.6. Average Annual Commune Public Budget (2014–16) for Six Regions Analyzed Compared with CAP-3 Financing (2014–16) ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 3.7. CAP-1 and CAP-2 Projects Located in the Chef Lieux, by Region ............................. 18 Figure 3.8. The Greening of the Sahel (1981–2014) .............................................................................. 23 igure 3.9. Average Commune Budget, Average per Capita