World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/676571468103476023/...final disbursement under Credit 906-SO was made on August 4, 1988. This report was prepared by an FAOICP

Document ef

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 7804

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

SOMALIA

CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENI PROJECT(CREDIT 906-SO)

JUNi 2,1989

Eastern Africa RegionCountry Department IIAgriculture Operations

This document has a restricted disnhultion and may be used by recipients only in the perfomance ofthei offcicl duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disdosed witbout World Bank autho_aion.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

SOMALIA

CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(June 1988)

USS 1.00 - So.Sh 99.00So.Sh. 1.00 - US$0.01

ABBREVIATIONS

ADMB Australian Development Assistance Bureau

CRDP Central Rangelands Development. Project

GM v General Manager

GOS Government of SomaliaIDA International Development AssociationIFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

ERR Economic Rate of Return4TZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit

MLFR Ministry of Livestock, Forestry and Range

NAHA Nomadic Animal Health AssistantNRA National Range AgencyODA Overseas Development Association, U.K.PCR Project Completion ReportPCU Project Coordination UnitPM Project ManagerPP Project PaperPPF Project Preparation FacilityVLA Range and Livestock AssociationsRMEA Regional Mission in East AfricaRMR Resource Management and ResearchSAR Staff Appraisal ReportSNU Somali National UniversityUNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WDA Water Development AuthorityWFP World Food Programme

FOR OMFCIA6L USE ONLYTHE WORtLD BANK

Wasnton. D C 20433U.S.A.

June 2, 1989

MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECT . AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Somalia CentralRangelands Development Project (Credit 906-SOj

Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled'Project Completion Report on Somalia Central Rangelands DevelopmentProject (Credit 906-SO)" prepared by the Africa Regional Office. Noaudit of this project has been made by the Operations EvaluationDepartment at this time.

Attachment

This document has restricted distribution and may be used by recipients or.ly in the performanceof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorination.

FO0UI OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOMALIA



TaLle of ContentsPaue

PREFACE .............................................BAIC DATA SHEET ................. iEVALUATION SUNHARY ................. v

I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1

Sectoral Background ............................. 1The Central Rangelands Development ProjectPhase I ............................. 3

I$. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION. PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL . 5

A. Origin. 5B. Preparation and Appraisal .5C. Project Description. 7

III. EFFECTIVENESS AND INITTAL IMPLEMENTATION. . 10

A. Effectiveness .10B. Initial Implementation and Design Problems . 10C. The Mid-Term Review .12

IV. IMPLEMENTATION .14

A. Implementation Schedule . ........................ 14B. Physical Implementation . . 15C. Reporting . .18D. Procurement . .18E. Actual Costs and Disbursements .. 19F. Audit ......................... 20

V. OPERATING PERFORMANCE ................................... 21

Technical Results ............................... 22Project Weaknesses .............................. 23

VI. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE ............................... 24

CRDP ....................... 24Range and Livestock Associations . . 26Consultants ..................................... 26Donors .......................................... 26

VII. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ................................... 27Cost Recovery ................................... 27Beneficiary Incomes ........................... . 27

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performanceof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

VIII. LCONOMIC -ZEVALUATION ................................ .. 27

IX. SQMMLAY AND LESSONS LENAR. ..... ............... . . . ... 28

Follow-up Project. ............... ...... ......... 29

TABLES

Table 1 i Physical Achievements -

Table 2 a Disburseibnts by Financing SourceTable 3 : Disbursements by CategoryTable 4 s Exchange RatasTable 5 t Comparison between Appraisal Estimates

and Actual Disbursements by CategoryTable 6 : Permanent StaffTable 7 s Project Implementation ScheduleTable 8 : Implementation Schedule Chart - Range

Management ComponentTable 9 s Implementation Schedule Chart - Soil

and Water Conservation ComponentTable 10 : Implementation Schedule Chart - Extension

Component: Agro-Pastoral DepartmentTable 11 t USAID-funded Technical AssistanceTal,le 12 : Technical Assistance Other than USAID Funded

ANNNEXES

Annex 1 : Economic AnalysisAnnex 2 : WFP Comments on Project Evaluation

MAPS

Map 1 : Districts within CRDPMap 2 : Land Capability and Potential for Development


CENTRAL RhNGELANDS DEVELOPM£NT PROJECT(CREDIT 906 SO)

PREFACE

This Project Completion report reviews the Central RangelandsDevelopment Project for which an IDA Credit of US $ a 0 million wasapproved on April 25, 1979. The oriRinal Closing Date of June 30, 1986was extended to December 31, 1989 to accommodate the delays inimplementation which occurred at the beginning of the project period. Thefinal disbursement under Credit 906-SO was made on August 4, 1988.

This report was prepared by an FAOICP mission that visitedSomalia in May 1988. Additional information was obtained from the 1979Staff Appraisal Report Number 2163 SO, IDA and IFAD legal agreements dated,respectively, October and June 1979, the mid-term review report of June1984, supervision and audit reports, project files, annual reports andproject completion statistics, supplemented by interviews with both localand expatriate staff and field visits.

This PCR was read by the Operations F-valuation Department (OED).The draft PCR was sent to the Borrower and cofinanciers for comments andthey are attached to the Report (Annex 2).

* ~~~~- ii -


SOVALIACENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(CREDIT 906-SO)

BASIC DATA SHEET

XEY PROJECT DATA

Actual or Actual as Z ofItem Appraisal Current Appraisal

Expectat..on Estimate Estimate

Total Project Costs (USS million) 46.3 46.5 100IDA Credit Amount (US$million) 8.0 8.0 100Cofinancing-Total (USS million) 32.3 31.9 99

IFAD 9.0 9.0 100USAID 15.0 12.8 85GTZ 4.0 6.9 172WFP ',.3 2.9 67ADAB 0 0.3 -

Date "hysical Compcnents Cumpleted 6184 12/87Proportion completed by that date (1) 100 SO

EconomiC. Rate of Return (2) 15 -6Institutional Performance mixed

CUMULATIVE ESTIMATED A&MD ACTUAL DISBUISEMENTS

FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88

Appraisal Estimate(USS million) J.3 1/ 0.4 1.9 4.3 6.1 6.9 7.7 8.0 - _

Actual (US$ million) 0.0 0.5 2/ 1.2 2.4 4.2 6.3 7.1 7.6 7.9 8.0Actual as 2 of Estimate 0 80.0 63.0 56.0 69.0 91.0 92.0 95.0 99.0 100.0

Date of Final Disbursement: June 1988

1/ Disburseuente under Project Preparation Facility (PPF).2/ Including USS 0.3 million for PPF.

PROJECT DATES

OriginalPlan Actual

First Mention in Files 06/79 11/79Negotiations 03/79 03/79Board Approval _ 04/79Signing (Credit Agreement Date) 10/79Effectiveness 09/79 06/80Closing Date 06/86 12/87

- ill -

ST^lF INPUTS(staff weeks)

FY77 nXZ l78 F rY60 IrY81 n2 tY83 FY84 FY8 FY6 FY87 FYSS TOTAI

Preappraisal 70.6 18.7 5. I - - 94 'Appraisal - 92.0 37.8 - - - - - - - - 129.ENegotiation .2 - 12.8 - - - - 13.CSupervision - - 2.4 6.7 15.9 19.1 13.7 32.7 14.9 14.9 19.4 10.1 149.SOther - .3 .5 - .1 - .1 - - - - - 1.1

TOTAL 70.S 111.0 58.6 6.7 15.0 19.1 13.8 32.8 14.9 14.9 19.4 10.1 388.L

MISSION DATA

Date No. of Specialisation Performance Types of(mo.I/r.) Persons Reoresented */ Rating b/ Trend c/Problem d/

Identification 11/76 2 a-b - -

Preparation 1/77-9/77 -----------------(joint WB/GOS team)-------------------Pre-appraisal 12/77 2 a - - -

Appraisal 2/78 5 a-b - - -

SupervisionsInitial (prior toeffectivenecs) 4/80 2 a-b 2 2 0/F

Partial 11/80 2 a-b 2 1 OJTFull 3/81 3 a-b-f - - O/T/FPartial e/ 11/81 2 a-a 2 3 O/T/FPartial el 2/82 2 a-a 2 3 T/FPartial e/ 6/82 2 a-a 2 3 TIF/MFull 3/83 1 a 2 2 T/?/MFull 9/83 3. a 2 2 T/FIMFull f/ 10/83 3 a-b-g ft 2 3 MIT/F(Mid-Term Review) ( 3/84 3 a-a-f )Full 6/b4 3 a-b-g ft 2 1 M/T/FFull 8/84 3 a-b-g ft 2 1 M/T/FPartial e/ 11/84 1 a 2 1 M/T/F/Full 6/85 1 b 2 1 T/F/OFull 1/86 2 a-b 1/1/3/2Partial 8/ 8/86 3 a-a-b 1/1/3/2Full 3/87 1 b 1/1/3/2Full 5/87 2 a-h lil/2/2Partial h/ 12/87 4 a-b-d-i 1/1/2/2

OTHER PROJECT DATA

Borrower: Somali Democratic RepublicExecuting Agenciess N'-ional Range Agency (NRA)

Central Rangelands Development Project (CRDP)Fiscal Year: January 1 - December 31Name of Currency: Somali Shilling (So.Sh.)Exchange Rate at Appraisal: 1 USS - So.Sh. 6.295

at Completion: 1 USS - So.Sh. 99.000

- iv -

Follow-On Proiectss

* Manic* Central Rangelatds Research and Development Project IICredit Number: 1957-SOAmount (US$ Million)t 19.0Approval Date: 10/18/88

a/ a - Livestock specialist b - economist c - engineerd - range management sp. e - training sp. f - financial analystg - project controller (IFAD) h - soil/water conser. sp. i - sociologist

b/ 1: Problem-free or minor problems2: Moderate problems3: Major problems

c/ Before 1986: After 1986: relating to1: Improving Available funds2: Stationary Project Management3: Deteriorating Overall status

d/ F: FinancialM: ManagerialT: TechnicalP: Political0: Other

2/ Combined with other assignments.

f/ Participation of IFAD staff.

,I Combined -lth formulation of Phase II.

h/ Combined with pre-appraisal of Phase IJ.

SOMALIA

CENTRAL RNGL;ANDS DEVELOPENT ?PROJECT(CRZDIT 906 SO)


rVALUATION SUMMARY

Introduction:

The rangelands are a key productive resource for Somalia. Thecountry is heavily dependant on exports of livestock produced on therangelands. The Central Rangelands provides about 20 percent of sheepoxports, 40 percent of goat exports, and 10 to 20 percent of exports ofcamels and cattle. At Government's request, the Bank fielded anidentification mission in November 1976. which agreed to prepare a projectto develop the Central Rangelands. This was in line with the Government'sagricultural development strategy, which placed major emphasis on improvinglivestock production while aiming at a more balanced development betweenthe regions. Until then development efforts had favored the northern andsouthern regions, and the Shabelle and Juba riverine areas. Preliminaryobjectives were 'to stop the increasing deterioration of the rangelands andreduce the necesaity for pastoralists to lead a nomadic life...also, to1-prove the quality and quantity of livestock production.' This projectfollowed the financing of a Northern Rangelands Development Project by theKuwait Fund, and the establishment of the National Range Agency to overseerangelands utilization in the country.

obiectives:

The original objectives of the project were to: (i) consolidate andimprove rangeland and livestock production in the Central Rangelands; (ii)improve pastoralists'incomes; and (iii) encourage, by improved rangemanagement, the gradual concentration of pastoral communities as this wasconsidered conducive to the provision of social services. The projectarea, comprised three administrative regions (Hiran, Galgadud and Mudug)covering some 149,000 km2 - about one fifth of the total land area ofSomalia. Total project costs were estimated at USS 46.3 million, with IDAcontributing USS 8.0 million and the remainder funded by IFAD with SDR 7.0million, USAID with about US$ 15.0 million, and smaller contributions fromWFP and GTZ.

Project objectives were to be achieved by aerial and ground surveysof rangeland resources, socio-economic surveys and continuous dialogue withthe pastoralists, leading to the establicbment of grazing reserves, theformation of Range and Livestock Associations (RLA's) and the developmentof stock water supplies. Other components included the nonformal educationof pastoralists, the formal education of project staff, the strengtheningof the National Range Agency (NRA), the development of veterinary servicesand the establishment of tree nurseries, town shelter belts, soil and waterconservation and range grazing cooperatives.

- vi -

IDlementation tinerience

After eight years of implementation the project has not fullyattained its objectives. It has contributed to an understanding of thedynamics of rangelands use in Central Somalia and to the de0vlopment of astrategy for future interventions. A aid term review in March 1984resulted in a sharp reduction in scope and coverage of project activities,a shift in objectives towards more investigative activities, coupled withthe installation of useful irfra*ttucture, and modifications in thestructure of the project, giving increased autonomy to the project manager.Since the mid-term reviev, the project has put in place many usefulinterventions which have benefited about a third of the Central Rangelandspopulation, particularly through the development of water points,veterinary and related services, and agropastoral extension messages. Mostnotable are the achievements from a technical and research standpoint.Benefits not directly quantifiable are important: the project has made adefinite start towards establishing a permanent dialogue with pastoralists,formed a first group of range and livestock associations which are adoptingthe proposed range management interventions, and which constitute a focalpoint for other key activities such as infrastructural development and soilco!iservation. Through accumulation of information, the identification oflo.:al priorities and the permaneat testing of interventions, the projecthas been a major learning process for Government and donors.

The institutional achievements have been m-ied. The organization andmanagement of the project certainly improved as a result of the adjustmentsmade at the mid-term review, which established the project as a separateoperational entity within the Ministry of Livestock, For-estry and Range.However, unresolved logistics problems (fuel and equipment), the lack ofincentives - both financial and professional - and low staff morale,management deficiencies and unsatisfactory coordination between componentsand donors, have all contributed to a declining performance in the recentpast. While the formal education component has been relatively successful,the external training program, on the other hand, has not produced thedesired results.

Proiect Imoact

Project efforts to strengthen the local institutions have had partialsuccess. With infrastructure and staff development support from theproject in its early phase, the National Range Agency developed into anagency capable of taking on more of the tasks devolved upon it for rangemanagement in Somalia. The reorganization subsequent to the mid-termreview demonstrated that the project operated more effectively under itsown management. Implementation was, however, slowed by the removal inApril 1986 of a fully committed and dynamic project manager.

Benefits expected at appraisal were overly optimistic. At the samettme, the long-term nature of range management interventions and theimportance of research were not sufficiently recognized. Although at theend of the project benefits from range development are as yetunquantifiable, the accumulation of knowledge and the progress made inunderstanding the pastoral and agropastoral systems in the CentralRangelands have been valuable.

- vii -

Hore tangible, but not substantial, benefits have been produced by

the project's veteriuary service: and agropastorsl demonstrations/trials,as well as the water development component . notwithstanding the low output

from boreholes that have been constructed but not fully equipped. Because

of the late start-up of these activities, however, the first quantifiable

benefits ocurred several years after the project began. An economic re-

evaijation carried out on the basis of models and parameters provided by

GTZ and the project's extension staff and taking ! ,o account those costs

directly related to the benefits, yields a negative Economic Rate of Return

of -6Z . Even if project implementation had been more rapid in the first

stages of the project, and these relatively small bcaefits produced in

earlier years, the project's Economic Rate of Return would still be

negative.

Sustainability

The project was expected to create some revenue for Governmentthrough Ci) fees charged at stock water points, and (ii) the sale ofveterinary drugs. Cost recovery has, in fact, come mainly from the latter

as the first Nomadic Animal Health Ass-stants, trained in Ceel Dhere

district, began the distribution of drugs in late 1986. The collection of

water charges by the Water Development Authority (and not the National

Range Agency, as proposed at appraisal) has been insignificant. The level

of fees is insufficient to cover the complete cost of capital equipment and

ensure adequate maintenance.

Findinsa and Lessons

The implementation of the project was an important learning process

for Government and donors. Many useful interventions were identified and

tested. Some key lessons were learned regarding implementation of

projects in the Somali rangelands. First, regular supplies of fuel,

vehicles and spares are an essential precondition to other activities.Second, infrastructure development and other modifications affectingpastoralists lives should be preceded by a thorough investigation of the

consequences of these changes on the local environment. Agreement on the

nature of the proposed interventions should be reached with the localinhabitants before the intervention is implemented. Third, the project can

only be effective if it operates as a separate entity within the National

Range Agency or tie Ministry of Livestock, Forestry and Range. Finally,

Range and Livestock Associations should play a key role in guiding project

activities in the rangelands. These lessons were incorporated in the

design of a second phase project in the Central Rangelands.

SOMALIA

CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS . -

(IDA CREDIT 906-SO;


I. INTRODUCTION

Sectoral Backaround

1. Agriculture contributes just over 50Z of GDP and within the sectorlivestock is by far the most important single activity, contributing anestimated 35Z of GDP. Livestock and its products constitute majorcomponents of the country's exports, representing an estimated 90Z of totalearnings. As well as providing for the country' s total meat needs, thesubsector also accounts for around two-thirds of total employment.

2. Notwithstandiig it-s key role, livestock presents limited overalldevelopment opportunities in the near term. Production systems of cattle,sheep, goats ard camels are traditional and extensive, based on thecountry's large rangeland resources. The latter comprise some 702 of thetotal land area and support an estimated 40.45 million animals. An accuratecensus has never been made nor would it be particularly meaningful asSomalia shares long boundaries with Kenya in the south and Ethiopia in thewest, crossing historical ethnic and pastoral areas which in turn areregularly traversed by nomadic herders who comprise the majority oflivestock owners.

3. While both pastoral and livestock resources are significant, theirfuture growth will be slow for a number for reasons, namely:

a. the rangelands are in their natural state and have lowdrymatter productivity. They are already stocked to capacityand future increases in carrying capacity depend on theintroduction of effective, low-cost range management techniquesto increase forage production and quality and to even out largeseasonal variations in productivity due to low and erraticrainfall;

b. research is proceeding in range improvement techniques but hasonly recently begun and is limited in scope; any developmentapproach must take account of the special socio-ethniccircumstances surrounding livestock ownership and nomadicpastoral traditions. It must be oased on simple, low-technology, cost-effective interventions capable of application

- 2 -

to transhumant herds and flocks. Given the life and deathstakes often involved in such harsh and unpredictableenvironments, proposed interventions must be thoroughly testedand of minimal risk to be acceptable in the nomadic contixt;

c. interventions must also be conservation-oriented and carefullybalance lIrestock increases with the rsuge's ability to sustainhigher numbers - the slow and effective phasing ofinterventions with market prospects to ensure profitable andregular disposal of offtake is also essential to ensure long-term sustainability and avoid overgrazing and rangedegradation.

4. Given such conditionality and taking account of the fact thatserious efforts to address problems have been undertaken in Somalia onlysince the early 1980s, there are ae yet few solutions and considerable moretime and effort will be required to produce them. Such effort must alsotake full account of a further imnortant character-istic of the livestocksubsector, namely the dichotomy existing between the economic need toincrease GDP and export earnings and the nomads' immediate objective ofsubsistence and survival over long cyclical periods of drought andregeneration. The latter involves build-up of animal numbers in good years,mainly of female stock, in anticipation that a varying proportion willperish in the next drought. Such a pattern contributes neither tooptimization of range output nor to regularity of export supplies.Furthermore, the heavy livestock losses in the worst drought years representsuch severe and recurrent drains on the country's key resource as to makefuture growth planning highly risky, unpredictable and imprecise.

5. Present government strategy consists of stabilizing to the, extentpossible the range'.' existing feed supply and livestock numbers, encouragingofftake (improving marketing, animal health, water and related services) forexport of animals and hides and skins, gradually developing the feed baseand stocking rate, and introducing drought risk aversion measures (strategicfamine reserves, wet/dry season reserves, more productive varietiesgenerally and selected drought tolerant species in special situations, moreuse of crop by-products and industrial waste where available).

6. Of all approaches, those considered to have the greatesttheoretical benefits ind perceived applicability in the local context arerange management interventions aimed at improving through grazing control(enimal numbers, type and distribution) the balance between animalrequirements and forage supply and, in so doing, improving through "bettermanagement the quantity and quality of forage over time. The basicassumptions are to so manage the range as to maximize the application ofthose practices known to favor better pasture growth and a more favorablebalance between palatable and unpalatable species and to minimize theapplication of unfavorable practices known to discourage them. The approach

-3-

relies heavily on the transference of practices considered to have beenshown to be effective in North America and elsewhere, although claims forsuch effectiveness do not appear to be universally agreed by specialists inthe field who appear divided in their views.

7. Basic to the approach is a full understanding of range ecology, ofcurrent nomad livestuck grazing and husbandry systems, and of the responseand motivation of pastoralists. The approach is cautious, conservative andpilot-oriented. It seeks to avoid dislocation of existing, albeitimperfect, ways until better, proven, low-risk and appropriate ways can bedemonstrated. The approach appears logical and obvious. It is alsopainstakingly slow and results cannot be assured.

8. The latter approach is currently that being adopted in the CentralRangelands Development Project (CRDP), and would be pursued in the CRDPapproach to problem-solving and development. It is heavily subjective andfundamental and so far at least, after some eight years of CRDP, carrieslittle guarantee of significant success apart from limited areas(veterinary, water and agropastoral interventions and examples wheretangible though limitsd productivity increases have been shown possible). Akey aspect determining its choice is the paucity of alternatives. That ofmassive intervention in an imperfectly understood traditional system usingunproven methods was initially proposed and after prolonged consideration,rejected. The present approach is thus considered best on balance given thecircumstances.

The Central Ranaelands Development Proiect (Phase I)

9. Appraised in February 1978, CRDP (I) was approved by the Bank'sBoard on April 25, 1979, signed on October 24, 1979, but did not becomeeffective until June 30, 1980. A six-year project, it involved a totalinvestment of about US$46.3 million with multi-donor financing, comprisingat appraisal the International Develcpment Association (IDA), theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID), the Overseas DevelopmentAssociation (ODA) and the World food Programme (WP). The ODA withdrewearly on, and its comuitments were taken over by the Deutsche Gesellschaftfur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). At a later stage, Australian aid(ADAB) was added to the already long list of agencies participating in theproject's financing. 1/

1/ Reviews by principal donors are contained in: USAID - June 1979 OriginalProject Paper, amended July 1986. Interim evaluation report, June 1987.GTZ - Forestry expert's Terminal report, April 1988. WFP - Interimevaluation-cum-appraisal report, January 1986.

-4-

10. The original objectives of the CRDP, as stated in the StaffAppraisal Report (SAR) 2I tot

a. consolidate and improve rangeland and livestock productiont

b. improve pastoralists'incomes; and

c. encourage, by improved range management, the gradualconcentration of pastoral communities as this was consideredconducive to the provision of social services.

The project area, located between latitudes 3010'N and 7040'N, comprisedthree administrative regions (Hiran, Galgadud and Mudug) covering some149.000 km2 -about one fifth of the total land area of Somalia.

11. Project objectives were to be achieved by aerial and ground surveysof rangeland resources, socio-economic surveys and continuous dialogue withthe pastoralists, leading to the establishment of grazing reserves, theformation of Range and Livestock Associations (RLAs) and the development ofstock water supplies. Other components included thLe nonformal education ofpastoralists. the formal education of project staff, the strengthening ofthe National Range Agency (NRA), the development of veterinary services andthe establishment of tree nurseries, town shelter belts, soil and waterconservation and range grazing cooperatives.

12. Not only was management of this complex project, over such a largearea, difficult, but there were also inadequate data available on whicb tobase the intended managerial interventions and a limited understanding ofthe pastoral socio-economic environment. The realization that the originalobjectives could not be attained during the project period and that expectedbenefits could be insignificant, added to the difficulties plaguing projectimplementation in the early years, led to a mid-term review which was agreedbetween all donors and GOS and carried out in the first part of 1984. Thereview mission recomended a number of changes both in the project designand management structure, which were implemented subsequently.

13. The closing date of the IDA credit (US$8 million), initially June30, 1986, was extended twice to June 30, 1987 and December 31, 1987, withanother six-month period to fully disburse the remaining funds.

2I Somalia: Central Ranaelands Develonment Project, World Bank EasternAfrica Region. Staff Appraisal Report No. 2163-SO, April 17, 1979.

-5-

II. PROJECT XDENTIFICATION, 1FREPARATION AND APPRAISAL

A. Origin

14. A UNDP-assisted livestock development survey in 1966, followed by asurvey of the northern rangelands four years later, led to the formulationin 1974 of the UNDP/FAO rangeland conservation anl development project. Theproject was prematurely terminated in 1976 due to the UNDP financial crisis,but its findings influenced the design of the Northern RangelandsDevelopment Project (NRDP) - financed by the Kuvait Fund after it had beenidentified and appraised by IDA - as well as, subsequently, that of theCKDP. Initially to implement NRDP, the National Range Agency (NRA) wasestablished in 1976 as a semi-autonomous organization headed by a GeneralManager directly responsible to the Minister, Ministry of Livestock,Forestry and Range (MLfR).

15. At Government's request, the Bank's Regional Mission in East Africa(RHEA) fielded an identification mission in November 1976, which discusseddevelopment opportunities and priorities with Government institutions,including the State Planning Commmission, and agreed to prepare a project todevelop the Central Rangelands. This was in line with GOS' agriculturaldevelopment strategy, which placed major emphasis on improving livestockproduction wh.ile aiming at a more balanceci development between the regions(until'then development efforts had tended to favor the northern andsouthern regions, and the Shabelle and Juba riverine areas). Projectobjectives at identification were 'to stop the increasing deterioration ofthe rangelands and reduce the necessity for pastoralists to lead-a nomadiclife...also, to improve the quality and quantity of livestock production."The identification brief also brought up two issues, first that demographicand livestock data were as yet not available, second that basic data werealso lacking on which to base the livestock water supply developmentprogram.

B. Preparation and Appraisal

16. In January 1977 a joint GOS/Bank team 3/ began project preparationand, taking into account some of the changes put forward by Government, apreparation report - finalized by RMEA staff in Nairobi - was produced inOctober 1977. The most important modifications requested by Government werethe inclusion in the project of a range inventory study (surveys oflivestock numbers and movements, soils and vegetation in the project area)that would provide benchmark data for project activities in rangemanagement, and a marketing component to finance additional livestockmarketing facilities. While the latter was eventually dropped in favor of anational livestock marketing project which the Kuwait Fund was, at the time,

31 Considerable part-time assistance was also provided by other Governmentstaff and RMEA consultants in hydrogeology and range ecology.

-6-

interested to finance, the range inventory study - showing Government's

concern for the lack of basic data - was incorporated at appraisal.

17. Project components developed during preparation comprised:

a. range development (establishment of dry season grazing reserves

over the whole project area together with three controlled

grazing blocks, construction of access tracks, development of

water points each with a pair of equipped boreholes and

establishment of over 200 ha of fuelwood plantations near

selected towns, creation of one trial cooperative ranch in each

of the three regions);

b. research (establishment of a National Range Research Centre);

c. strengthening of services (veterinary, National Range and

forestry) and training;

d. technical assistance and project management (through a Project

Coordination Unit), including the development of NRA

headquarters.

The major issue perceived by the Bank at that time was the large number (27)

of expatriate staff required for the project. On Government's side, it is

interesting to note that NRA had thought, at some point during preparation,

that too much of the rangelands was going to be put under grazing reserves.

The number initial 32 reserves proposed in the SAR - about 20Z of the

Central Rangerands area, was eventually much reduced-during implementation.

18. Appraisal took place in early 1978, after a pre-appraisal mission

in December 1977 had reconsidered two of the preparation components, i.e.,

the National Range Research Centre (it was decided that the establishment of

such a center was premature in view of the scarcity of baseline data, the

absence of graduate counterpart staff and the high cost of expatriate staff)

and the cooperative ranches. While the overall project objectives remained

the same, further significant changes were decided during appraisal:

(1) The concept of a blanket coverage of the project area with

stockwater points and the introduction of range management by

opening and closing those water points in rotation was abandoned

in favor of demarcation of town, village, famine and range grazing

reserves covering 30Z of the area. Stockwater development was to

be made conditional upon the formation of grazing associations,

the acceptance of controls on rangeland use and the agreement by

the local authorities to enforce restrictions on grazing as

directed by the NRA - the designated implementing agency.

(2) The training component was expanded considerably in the area of

nonformal training of pastoralists, professional level training

in the Faculty of Agriculture, and funds for postgraduate

training in range management at overseas universities.

-7-

(3) The concept of a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was changed in

favor of a general strengthening of the professional and

administrative capacity of the NRA, whose General manager was to

act at the same time as Project Manager.

(4) The woodlot planting component was replaced by three nurseries

and town shelter belts.

(5) The proposed stwinningw of boreholes was abandoned as . costly

and ineffective means of safeguarding stockwater supplies.

Instead the maintenance capability of NRA was to be strengthened.

(6) The project implementation period was expanded from four to six

years as a result of the expanded Range Development component.

19. Following appraisal. major issues raised by internal reviewers in

the Bank concerned the project size and cost, associated with the amount of

required co-financing and the substantial technical assistance input. The

latter, which the pre-appraisal mission had attempted to reduce

significantly, was eventually made even larger than at preparation (over 30

posts to be provided at various stages of project implementation for a total

of 100 man-years). After the yellow cover SAR had been thoroughly reviewed,

it was however decided that the project was not *reducible to any

significant extent," based on the technical judgment that innovations evenly

dispersed over 30Z of the project area represented a critical mass' since

it was consideread that improvements in a smaller area would be neutralized

by an unacceptable level of grazing pressure.

C. Project Description

20. CRDP original objectives and components. As CRDP was designed,

in the late 1970s, in the wake of a disastrous drought with its attendant

extreme overgrazing, range degradation, high animal mortality and human

suffering, its principal aims were range development (including reversal of

deteriorated areas), more and better forage, aversion of future drought

effects, higher carrying capacity and offtake. with the resulting improved

pastoralist incomes and living standards. Final components retained at

appraisal were:

- Range and water development, starting with a resource inventory

and range ground survey, to be followed by:

(1) the provision of staff, housing, offices, workshops,

transport and equipment for the NRA field service in the

project area;

(2) the demarcation of 45 town and village grazing zeserves

each of 400 km2 , 12 famine reserves each of 600 km2 and

20 range grazing reserves each of 900 bm2;

8-

(3) the drilling-and equipping of 32 boreholes, or stockwaterponds where appropriate, to provide supervised stockwaterpoints in the famine and range grazing reservest and

(4) the construction of 1,000 km of access tracks leading torange reserves and stockwater points.

Nonformal training aimed at the promotion of the understandingand participation of the pastoralists to the project, with theprovision of 9 man-years of professional services to conduct asurvey of pastoral communities, train regional and district rangeeducators, conduct seminars and workshops with pastoral eldersand government officials and produce films and radio programs.

Formal training in the form of:

(1) 21.5 man-years of professional services in support of theLivestock and Range School at Afgoi (2 internationallykecruited lecturers in range management, 1 in animalhusbandry and 1 in forestry);

(2) establishment of a Range Management Department at theFaculty of Agriculture of the National UuLiversity ofSomalia (provision of one instructor in range managementas well as 20 man-years of post-graduate fellowships inrange management);

(3) other overseas training (20 additional man-years offellowships);

Range studies and trials, including an inventory of the NorthernRangelands; a research program based on the information providedby aerial and ground surveys (8.5 man-years of professionalservices); the establishment of shelter belts and nurseries ateach of the three regional capitals (Galkayo, Dusa Hareb andBeletweyne) together with the provision for four years of anexpatriate Technical Director of Forestry and a nurseryspecialist; and a total of 4 man-years of professional servicesin soil conservation and water spreading techniques andassistance to experimental grazing cooperatives in the projectarea.

Stren8thening of the veterinary services, through the recruitmentof three expatriate veterinary specialists based in Mogadishu andthe extension of the post of Technical Director of VeterinaryServices (previously financed under NRDP), the construction of afield diagnostic laboratory at Beletweyne and the equipping ofsix additional mobile vaccination teams and 12 mobile clinics.

Development of the NRA Headquarters (technical assistance for atotal of 30 man-years, establishment of a range monitoring unit,

-9-

development of a stockwater service, setting up of a centralmaintenance workshop and three regional small workshops,construction of a headquarters office building).

21. Proiect costs and financing. Total project costs were estimatedat US$46.3 million (including physical and price contingencies representingabout 38Z of base costs), of which 711 in foreign exchange. Because of thehigh project cost and numerous components, several development agencies hadbeen called in to contribute with a combination of credits, loans andgrants. 41 Under joint financing arrangements, IDA was to contribute acredit of US$8 million, and IFAD a loan of 7 million Special Drawing Rights(about US$9 million), sharing all disbursements in the ratio of about 8:17to 9:17. Components covered by IDA and IFAD were the nonformal educationand training, the building program and part of t.ie administrative andmanagement support to the NRA, with a total of 67Z foreign exchange and 33Zlocal costs.

22. The USAID grant was to finance the range and stockwaterdevelopment components, part of the formal education and training, the rangeinvestigations, soil conservation and grazing cooperatives components,technical assistance to NRA Headquarters, and the Range Monitoring Unit andStockwater Service, except for the categories covered by IDA and IFAD. ODA(later replaced by GTZ) would finance technical assistance and specializedequipment for part of the formal training at the Livestock and Range School,the town shelter belts and nurseries, the Veterinary services and theMaintenance service. WFP would provide food for unskilled laborers.Government, whose contribution was expected at US$6 million, 5/ was togradually take over all local salaries and allowances by year 4 of theproject.

23. It was agreed at negotiations that as a condition ofeffectiveness of the credit, Government had deposited in NRA's projectaccount with the Central Bank an advance in the amount of So.Sh. 5 million,to be replenished every six months until project cQmpletion.

24. Organization and Management. The project was to serve also as avehicle for institutional strengthening of the NRA, its main executingagency; it provided support and staff training to the major Departments atheadquarters (Administration; Range and Environment; Forestry; Research,Training and Planning, where a Monitoring and Evaluation Unit was to beestablished) and the NRA field services in the Central Rangelands, whoseorganization restod upon three regional range directors. Other implementingagencies were the Veterinary Department of MLFR for the veterinary servicescomponent, the Ministry of Education's Project Management Unit for theformal training at the Afgoi Livestock and Range School and the Faculty ofAgriculture for training in range management. No executing agency was

4/ The search for co-financiers actually caused a slippage in the SARprocessing and a delay in the submission to the Bank Loan Committee.

5/ This was changed to US$9 million in 1982.

_ 10 -

clearly des:Lgnated for water development activities. Grazing associationswere to be formed by NRA in consultation with local government authorities.

25. Benefits; Almost two-thirds of project benefits were anticipated.to accrue from investments in range and water development. The remainingbenefits were projected from improved veterinary services. IDAIIFADinvestments relied upon USAID - and 4TZ-financed components for projectedbenefits. An ERR of 15? was estimated at appraisal.

I1U. EFmFCTIVENESS AND INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION

A. Effectiveness

26. CRDP was declared effective only in mid-1980, i.e., some ninemonths after the IDA credit agreement was signed. This delay was caused bydifficulties in fulfilling the procedures necessary to satisfy conditions ofeffectiveness, including a gap (eventually filled by the NRA) of So.Sh. 1

million in the sum deposited by the Ministry of Finance to serve as arevolving fund for the project and a cross-effectiveness clause whichrequired the ODA grant to be effective at the same date as the IDA credit.As ODA withdrew support in late 1979 (as a result of an-across-the-boardreduction in British aid to Somalia), the clause was eventually waived.

B. Initial Imolementation and Design Problems

27. Even after the project became operational, implementation wasconstrained by further delays: slow recruitment of technical assistancestaff - in particular the vital range specialists under USAID funding - anddelayed execution of the range ground survey, resulting in the late start-up

of range reserve development and water drilling operations; slow progress in

designing and calling tenders for the construction program (the initialoverdesign of buildings had to be modified), causing a cost overrun of some602 in this component barely one year following effecti"eness as local costsof construction materials had substantially increased during the timeelapsed. At the same time, execution of the other components was adverselyaffected by the deteriorating security situation in the project area and bythe influx of refugees from Ethiopia along with their livestock.

28. More seriously, there was a general concern from the verybeginning that the technical base of the project was unproven, the risksinvolved had been largely underestimated and the scale and complexity of theproposed interventions were such that they could not be applied. Theirimplementation depended on the close and continuous cooperation (control) of

diverse groups of independent nomadic herders who were highlyindividualistic and traditional with their own established opportunisticgrazing habits. Central to these was the freedom and flexibility to move

animals in large numbers quickly without impediment to seek the best grazing

- 11 -

in response to the area's sporadic and unpredictable rainfall. Theproject's planned, disciplined, relatively rigid approach (grazing coutvrlon a fixed area of land and restricted grazing reserves) in effect d'.rectlychallenged these most basic pastoralist conventions and sought almosttotally to replace them with an untried system.

Modifications to Appraisal Approach

29. The consulting firm selected by USAID to implement the proposedrange interventions, described formally in an August 1979 Project Paper,were the first seriously to question the appraisal approach on technicalgrounds in their April 1982 Inception Report. While recognizing thepotential and need to improve the use of existing range resources and todevelop them further, they proposed a much more moderate, flexible andtechnical approach emphasizing the need to improve existing nomadic waysgradually based on a thorough knowledge and understanding of them ratherthan to change them abruptly for a largely unproven substitute. Essentially,the Berger team questioned the feasibllity of establishing grazing reservesin over 302 of the CRDP area and felt that the area involved (4.3 millionha) was too large to control bearing in mind the mobility of nomadicpastoralists, their traditional rights to the use of land and theirreluctance to accept discipline. Believing that the adoption of a fixedgrazing system (e.g. four-block rest-rotation system) was premature, theysuggested lowering the level of intervention to a more tolerable one and theimplementation of project actions on a district-by-district basis. Implicitin this approach was the need for more data and information to provide astronger technical underpinning on which to base larger-scale Interventions.

30. The consultant approach drastically changed the nature and scopeof the project, giving it a survey/investigative/pilot orientation thatwould lay a firm technical base for the future although no direct benefitscould be foreseen during the project's lifetime (contrasting sharply withhigh appraisal benefit expectations). It was endorsed locally and had awidespread effect on donor (particularly Bank-headquarters) attitudes thatsomething was seriously wrong.

31. The consulting firm case was however sohtewhat undermined by theirimage/credibility, following the long delays on USAID's part in appointingthe consultants. The team themselves did not present a strong, unitedfront, particularly on the field approach; they were also divided on theusefulness of data produced by the earlier RMR 6/ resource inventory.Eventually the inception report was never accepted by USAID as analternative design document superseding the Project Paper (PP),* although theconsulting firm used it as the basis for implementation. An amendment tothe original PP was prepared in 1986 by USAID, both to incorporate

6/ Resource Management and Research.

- 12 -

experiences gained with the project 71 and to reconcile differences between

the 1979 PP and the consulting firm's inception plan; the latter effort was

only partially successful as differences in basic project emphasis continuedto exist, with the amnded PP recommending technological interventione while

the LBI approach focussed on the evaluation of prospective technology.

Organization and Management Co"straints

32. Management and coordination problems within NRA and with theproject surfaced in the early stages of implementation; iL particulars

the General Manager of NRA, although project manager (PM), couldnot devote full time to the project;

_ the project "co-manager,* who was the de facto PM, was not fully

competent and did not enjoy the respect of other Somali staff;

- the project coordinator (expatriate technical assistance) lacked

character and experience and was neither issue - nor priority -oriented;

-- project inputs were not adequately inventoried, stored andcontrolled despite the best attempts of the expatriate Directorof Administration, so that there was wide misapplication ofvehicles. spares and fuel.

33. Tenuous links between project headquarters and the field resulted

in a slippage in the implementation of the project's field inputs, and

morale of both expatriate and local staff suffered. Attempts to rectify

problems through normal supervision channels were unsuccessful due primarily

to the inability of project management and senior NRA staff to implement

agreed changes.

C. The Mid-Term Review

34. From late 1982 to 1983, notwithstanding the progress in some

areas such as the building program 8/ and the nonformal education component,

project activities stalled in the key f'elds of range, water and veterinary

development (GTZ also had financial/administrative difficulties and came on-

7/ A unilateral evaluation of its components by USAID in mid-1983 resultedprincipally in staff strengthening in range management and research whileits initial suggestion to increase emphasis on research, data gatheringand model testing and to delay production-oriented range interventions

was strongly opposed by the NRA.

8/ After protracted bidding and evaluation procedures and the scaling down

of the program, a contract was signed with a Chinese firm and

construction commenced in July 1983.

- 13 _

stream even later than AID, with their first specialists in post in late

1982; even then they remained very much apart, and were unwilling to

cooperate on such matters as financial planing and procurement). Major

project weaknesses had so crystallized by late 1983 that a review becuaeessential, particularly as major donor groups were working completelyindependently of each other (Bank/IhAD, USAID, GTZ), and in a fragmented

manner. By early 1984, because of the breakdown in liaison between the

project coordinator, the USAID team leader and the GTZ team leader and the

absence of overall direction from the PM and co-manager. the project lacked

any semblance of control or coordination; despite isolated pockets of

progress (nonformal training and Pstension, part of the range development,

formal education, veterinary and mechanical services), the project had

become a series of satellites working essentially in a vacuum.

35. Under Bmnk impulse, all doncrs and GOS took part in the project's

mid-term review which, held in March 1984, aimed at critically examining all

major aspects, including controversial issues. The conclusions of thereview were that the vast area of the project made its supervision extremelydifficult, that the weak organization and management structure nad resultedin deficient work planning and poor control of staff and resources and that

the project had little prospect of generating benefits to the economy and to

the population in the project area.

36. After some initial reluctance on the part of GOS about the need

to reduce the project scope, complexity and geographical dispersion,

specific changes to the project design and management were agreed; 9/ they

included:

a. Modification in the design of the project so that most componentswere to be implemented on a district by district basis, the firstpriority districts (one per region) being Bulo Burti, Ceel Dhere

and Hobbio. Once development work was completed in one priority

district it was to commence in another.

b. Improvement of management by:

Ci) the appointment of a full time Project Managerresponsible to the General Manager of the NRA;

(ii) the establishment of a Project Management Unit andthe recruitment of an expatriate FieldManager 10/ ; and

(iii) the setting up of a Steering Committee composed ofrepresentatives of the donors and appropriate GOSinstitutions.

9/ Letter dated 27th June 1985, from the General Manager, NRA, to

representatives of the donors.

10/ This post was funded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau.

- 14 _

c. A reforaulation of the veterinary component as agreed betweenGTZ and the WLf.

d. Transfer of the responsibilities and funding of the formaltraining component to the Faculty of Agriculture, SomaliNational University (SNU).

* Reformulation of the water component in agreement with theWater Development Authority (tDA) and the USAID, so that waterdevelopment could be expedited in priority districts withemphasis on the utilization of surface water supplies and onthe rehabilitation of existing water sources.

f. Continuation as planned of the forestry, the construction, andthe workshop and vehicle maintenance components.

All donors agreed that the new project direction was essential to build afirmer information and data base from which later, more substantiveinterventions could be launched.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

37. The redesigned and scaled-down project showed steady improvement asthe various mid-term review recommendations were implemented. Given a newimpetus under the direction of a full-time project manager who was bothcompetent and committed, project activities, now focussed on the threepriority'districts, stepped up markedly. While the objectives did notchange. the approach used in achieving them evolved as project staff gainedmore experience with the pastoral and agropastoral systems of the CentralRangelands. Some essential changes were brought to the project approach:

(1) Development of controlled grazing reserves changed from being amajor project activity (as proposed at appraisal) to one inwhich a limited number of reserves were being formed and theseas much on a trial basis as bona fide interventions. Althoughproject reviews have shown doubt about the ultimate utility ofgrazing reserves, CRDP's working assumption has been thatreserves can improve rangeland.

(2) The original implicit assumption that range management andimprovements would lead to greater livestock productionincreasingly changed to a feeling that considerably moreknowledge was required about production systems in the projectarea before such a statement could be amplified and acted upon.Such knowledge was believed to be best obtained by using asystems approach whereby all components of a production systemare considered. This approach was initiated through the adding

- 15 -

of a livestock specialist 11/ in the project and in therecognition of the importance of agropastoralism.

(3) The approach to water development evolved from drilling newboreholes to placing more emphasis on developing smaller and/ormore temporary water sources (including rainfall harvesting)which would spread grazing over larger areas yet not becomeecologically dangerous.

(4) The Extension/Nonformal education component increased itsemphasis on gathering information to support the activities ofother project components (thereby providing a substantialsocio-economic input), acting as an intermediary between themand local pastoralists/agropastoralists and on developing anagropastoral demonstration and extension program.

(5) Other activities absent in the original project design, e.g.,sand dune fixation and the *barefoot' veterinary servicesthrough the Nomadic Animal Health Assistants (NAHAs) trained byGTZ, developed increasingly - the latter resulting in some ofthe more obvious project benefits.

(6) Control of the Department of Botany and Range Management hasshifted from the National Range Agency to the Faculty ofAgriculture, SN.

A. Implementation Schedule

38. CRDP (I) was implemented over a period of eight years and threemonths instead of the o.iginal six years (see implementation charts). Majorcauses for this delay were:

- the varying rates of start-up of project components, most ofthose funded by IDAIIFAD becoming operational shortly aftereffectiveness (the building program started late but wascompleted in a fairly chort time) while USAID - and GTZ -financed coiponents suffered slippage due to funding and/orprocurement and procedural delays;

- in the years preceding the mid-term review, the very poorcoordination between project headquarters and the fieldresulting in slow execution of field activities;

- the unstable security situation in some locations of theproject area during the initial years.

11/ Also team leader for the consulting firm since 1985.

- 16 _

B. Physical Implementation

39. Project achievements have been as follows (see also Table 1):

A resources inventory of the entire Central Rangelands has beencarried out by air. On the ground surveys have been completedvithin the first three priority dist icts of range resources(by the USAID/the consulting firm's range ecologists),livestock numbers and seasonal movements, boundaries oftraditional grazing areas and local perceptions about waterrequirements (nonformal education staff); livestock diseases(animal health component) and traditional livestock managementpractices (livestock specialist).

In the beginning of 1987 the project initiated work in threeadditional priority districts, Jalalaksi, Ceel Bur andHaradheere. Significant progress has been made on rangeanalysis, sociological investigations and animal production intwo of these districts.

Range management plans have been made by the range ecologistsfor 23 degaans 12/ covering a total area of 37,480 kmi, orsome 80 of the three original priority districts. Using theseange management plans as a basis for range management, Rangeand Livestock Associations (RLAs) have been formed on 14 ofthese 23 degaans (present RLAs cover an area of 16, 877 km2, or382 of the three original districts). Additional RLAs are inthe process of being organized. RLAs represent the interestsof those families who utilize a given degaan and within it, thesame permanent water points and dry season grazing areas.These RLAs are organized by the project extension staff, butthe RLA committees are composed of elders and other respectedpastoralists of the degaan, local government and partyauthorities as well as religious leaders. Committee membersare elected by the pastoralists of the degaan, and all RLAactivities are managed by the committee.

Rahge management plans, which include all types of managementinterventions, are now being prepared for the degaans inJalalaksi and Ceel Bur districts. Range trend monitoring hasalso begun in these districts. Range ecology work will startin Haradheere district around mid-1988.

Numerous management interventions have been implemented withinRLA areas: 23 grazing reserves, 7 village conservation areas,22 boreholes (of which 8 are good), 34 dugouts (31 good) forsurface water supplies for livestock, 9 river water livestock

12/ Traditional grazing areas with permanent water points and dry seasonfodder sources.

- 17 -

access points (Shabelle river), 6 shallow hand-dug wells, 22upgraded existing shallow wells, 3 tree nurseries at regionallevel and 7 at district level, 12 village shelterbelts, 13-berkeds (cement-linad surface water catcbments), 18 villagetree planting programs, 8 (of which 5 on-going) stabilized sanddunes, 3 water erosion control sites, and woodlots and othertree plantations around the three regional capitals.

A meteorological recording system has been initiated (10 raingauges at present), and 6 automatic weather recording stationsare on order by USAID.

The Extension Component has established two agrosilvopastoraladaptive trial sites, one at Nooleeye and the other at BuloBurti. They have also established a water spreading trial atAborey, two species elimination trials, a seed multiplicationunit and 8 agropastoral demonstrations on private farms.

An animal disease monitoring program has been developed. Atotal ot 55 NAHAs have been trained in the first three prioritydistricts and are providing drug-distribution and veterinaryservices for which there is high demand.

Physical infrastructure has been constructed in the form-of 1NRA/CRDP headquarters, 1 vehicle workshop and 10 internationAlstaff houses in Mogadishu, 3 regional and 7 district CRDPcenters comprising offices and staff houses, 13/ 1 central(Beletweyne) and 2 field veterinary investigation laboratories(Dusa Mareb and Galkayo) and veterinary and forestry staffhousing.

A functioning Department of Botany and Range Management hasbeen 6stablished within the Faculty of Agriculture of theSomali National University; 34 students have graduated from itwith B. Sc. degrees and 26 are currently in training. In termsof external tr&ining, 3 CRDP staff have received Diplomas ofNatural Resources Managemeht in Australia and 8 others are nowworking on post-graduate programs in the USA while four havealready returned t3 work in the project (seven others have notreturned). F!ve CRDP staff members have been sent to Kenya forstudies leading to a Masters Degree in Organization andManagement, one of these has now returned. A large number ofSomali staff have also received on-the-job training prior totheir taking on positions of reoponsibility within the CRDP.

13/ Because of cost overruns due to the initial overdesign and delay in bidevaluation for the ouilding program, the number of staff houses wasreduced by about 402 and the construction of 3 district centers was notundertaken.

- 18 -

- Other project staff have received training in veterinary*cience (advanced, short-term, courses) and forestry (diploma-level courses and study tours), all funded by GTZ.

40. ltmnagement interventions within'the first three priority districtshave affected a probuble 30-40Z of the approximately 500,000 people livingin the Central Rangelands. Host interventions have been directly andimmediately applicable. A few, howel,er, such as shelterbelts, treeplantations and grazing reserves, will only begin showing useable resultsafter several years.

41. Over and above the initiation of management interventions, a greatdeal of information and practical experience has been gained by all projectcomponents on the nature, functioning and practical implications ofrangelands production systems within the Central Rangelands.

42. The project has also gained' from outside inputs - subsequent to themid-term review - in the form of another review by consultants in 1985 and ahighly successful workshop on Future RangeiLivestock Development Strategiesfor the Central Rangelands of Somalia in March 1986. The Consultant Reporthas been instrumental in making the project face the issues of increasing-agropastoralism and increasing enclosure, and has provided the theoreticalunderpinning for the remainder of the project activities, and theformulation of Phase II of the CBDP. The resultant information andexperience has enabled the project to develop more practical techniques andapproaches to meet its objectives as well as to develup objectives (forfuture use) that are more applicable to the potentialities and requirementsof the Central Rangelands. This "state of knowledge' has been put topractical use in the production of a project preparation report for thesecond phase.

C. Reporting

43. CRDP has been submitting - since 1981 - to Government and financingagencies annual reports which have been useful in assessing the progressmade each year by the project components. Annual work plans and budgets arealso prepared, after submission to Management by all CRDP departments andservices of their programs of work for the coming year. Six-monthly reportsare presented to the Steering Conmmittee, and detailed annual budgetaryrequests are made to GOS around September-October each year. Annualfinancial statements are submitted to IDA and IhAD, in addition to externalaudit reports to CRDP management when project accounts have been audited.

v. Procurement

44. Procurement under the joint IDA Credit and IFAD-loan were to followWorld Bank procurement guidelines: procurement of most vehicles, equipmentand furniture has been subject to international competitive bidding,

- 19 -

initially through an overseas procurement agent whose poor services werelater replaced by direct procurement by the Project Unit. Contracts forgoods and services costing less than US$5,000 could, however, be procured bynegotiated purchase and contracts for civil works, vehicles, furniture andequipment of less than US$25,000 have been procured also by negot.atedpurchase after solicitation of a minimum three supplier quotations. Thoseof more than US$25,000 but less than US$100,000 could be awarded on thebasis of competitive bidding advertised in Somalia and neighboringcountries. The IDA/IFAD-funded construction program was contracted out to alocal Chinese firm, while the infrastructure financed by GTZ (veterinary andforestry components) was built using local labor under the directsupervision of a GTZ construction expert. In general, difficulties inprocurement for the project resulted from the different procedures used bythe participating financing agencies, in particular USAID requiring theprovision of US goods and services with delays as long as nine to twelvemonths, compared to one to four months for goods procured under IDA/IFADregulations.

E. Actual Costs and Disbursements

45. Total actual project costs can only be approximated, as exactfigures on USAID and GTZ disbursements are not known (for GTZ estimatescould not even be produced for 1987-88, so that the mission has made aneducated guess on the amounts disbursed during those two years). 14/ Instill a different way, the WFP contribution in the form of "food for work"(for some 1,100 CRDP laborers) has been evaluated using average-fob prices,in current terms, of the commodities supplied. (For WFP comments on theproject see Annex 2). On those bases and with actual disbursements made byIDA, IFAD, ADAB and GOS, the total project cost amounts to US$46.5 million(Table 2b), i.e., about US$0.2 million over the appraisal estimate ofUS$46.3 million including contingencies - a cost overrun which is very smallgiven the time overrun of more than two years.

46. IDA and IFAD disbursements correspond to their respectivecommitments at appraisal, i.e., US$8 million (1980-88) and US$9 millionequivalent, with an exchange loss of about US$1.3 million for the IFADcontribution between 1980 and 1986. In the course of projectimplementation, GOS has made two requests in 1983 and 1984 15/ for areallocation of IDA funds (from Category 8 - Unallocated - to Categories 2to 5 and 7); 16/ a reallocation agreed by IFAD of the amounts of its loan

14/ Applying an annual inflation rate of 62 (World Bank Country Departmentestimates) to the amount estimated for 1986.

15/ This last one was authorized in October 1986.

16/ Civil Works, Vehicles, Furniture/Equipment, Technical Assistance andOperating Costs (see Development Credit Agreement).

_ 20 -

47. A comparison for the IDA credit between appraisal estimates ofdisbursements by category (Table 5 ) shows a relatively important costoverrun for capital goods (vehicles and machinery by about 362, equipmentand furniture by 12Z) and technical assis%ance, fellowships and professionalservices (by about 20Z), while actual construction costs are slightly belowappraisal estimates (but exceed the amount allocated to this item in theCredit agreement). Actual recurrent expenditures including local salariesand allowances are significantly less than their appraisal estimates,despite the extended disbursement period.

Sources of Finance

48. The difference in rates of start-up between the various projectcomponents and the slippage of GTZ components in particular, have meant thatwhile the IDA credit and the IFAD loan have closed (IFAD at the end of 1986and IDA in December 1987) and their funds fully disbursed, financial supportby USAID will continue through June 1989 and the GTZ veterinary and forestrycomponents (under separate funding) are now into their second phase - to becompleted at the end of 1990 - following a first phase which lasted aboutfour years and was evaluated favorably by the donor itself. ADAB'scontribution ended with the departure of the project's expatriate FieldHanager, while WFP's commitment to CRDP (I) will terminate in 1989.

49. As of mid-1988, USAID has disbursed about US$12.8 million(appraisal estimate, US$15 million) and GTZ an estimated US$6.9 million(appraisal estimate for ODA, US$4 million later increased to US$8 million byGTZ). The A5AB has contributed some US$300,000 and the WVP about US$2.9million. GOS' counterpart funding, on the other hand, has represented anequivalent of US$6.6 million (appraisal estimate of US$6 million, laterincreased to US$9 million).

F. Audit

50. Due to managerial constraints (the first, IDA-funded, expatriatefinancial controller left soon after his arrival in Somalia because ofhealth problems), no audit nor financial assessment of the project accountswas made before 1982. At the end of 1981 a renowned foreign audit firm(Pannell, Kerr and Forster) was finally appointed by Government with theapproval of IDA and IFAD, and an annual audit of accounting and controlprocedures in the project was performed until 1985. The audit reportsgenerally found the project's financial management satisfactory. However,two issues periodically raised related to a lam control of fixed assets anda badly kept recording of vehicle mileage and fuel use. Another problem -outside management control - has been the impossibility of quantifying theFederal Republic of Germany (GTZ)'s contribution to the project. Since1986, GOS has not appointed an audit firm for the CRDP nor for otherexternally-funded projects. Recently, the situation seems to have improved,with a letter from the Finance Ministry in April 1988 inviting theapplication of six audit firms; the one selected should carry out the auditof CRDP accounts for the years 1986 through 1988.

- 21 _

V. OPERATING PERFORMANCE

51. Imediately after the aid-term review, project pwrformance wentthrough a salutary high, activities intensified and staff morale wasrestored. Good progress was made in all components, concentrated in thepriority districts except for the forestry component which GTZ continued toimplement essentially around the three regional capitals. If the use ofvehicles and equipment was better controlled, however, two important aspectscontinued to impede CRDP's progress: unreliable fuel supplies through theNational Petroleum Agency (there had been an unsuccessful attempt by theProject Unit at importing its oVn diesel in 1985) and GOS' contribution tolocal staff salaries and operating costs at only about 702, causing at timesserious cashflow problems. Project operations have also suffered from thelack of coordination between the various components carried out by differentteams of technical assistance. While the continuous dialogue withpastoralist communities and the associated range management/conservationactivities have resulted from the combined efforts of the range specialistsand nonformal education staff, GTZ components have been somewhat detachedfrom the rest of CRDP - a feature emphasized by the fact that theiroperating base (Beletweyne) is located some 300 km away from projectheadquarters (Mogadishu). An added problem has been the unreli&bility ofWFP supplies of food for work affecting project forestry and conservationactivities, in particular in 1985186 when protracted negotiations for thesecond extension of the initial, country-wide WFP project 171 (of whichCRDP was only a part) resulted in a temporary breakdown in supplies.

52. In'the last year or so, some of the above constraints have appearedin even greater intensity than before. Frequent fuel shortages have limitednot only transport for the project but also water development and otheractivities depending largely on the use of heavy equipment (between Januaryand May 1988, for instance. only two dugouts had been built out of a totalof 15 planned for the whole year). Field visits of staff have been reducedoccasionally by difficulties in obtaining ?er diems and transport expenses,even at their inadequate level: in the absence of any substantial increasein real terms, 18/ staff earnings have lost much of their purchasing powerdue to the constant erosion of the domestic currency, particularly since1985 (the value, of the dollar has risen on the official market from aboutSo.Sh.6 in 1980 to So.Sh.40 in 1985 and to So.Sh.99 in 1987), and thedramatic price increases of consumer goods. 19/

17/ ORangelands Development and Reforestation,' Project SO 719.Negotiations took a particularly long time because of disagreementsbetween GOS and WFP on the poor management performance during theprevious phases.

18/ A directive from the Ministry of Finance has raised salaries by 150-200Z,with retroactive effect to April 1988.

19/ See Table 4 for exchange rates from 1980 to 1988.

_ 22 -

Technical Results

53. Although project achievements have *ncompassed various aspects -ringing fron soil and water conservation to animal health and forestry - itsultimate success rests on the usefulness of the range interventions it hasdeveloped and put in practice. In the course of project implementation theapproach to range development has altered drastically from broad-brushgrazing control of 302 of the total Central Rangelands area to carefullycontrolled, smaller-scale interventions involving three districts andestablished RLAs based on data relating to:

- herbage characteristics of range and general conditionassessment:

- social structure of families/clans using the area in question(degaan approach);

- grazing practices, seasonal animal movements, herd/flockstructures, animal composition (cattle, sheep, goats, camels);

- constraints - water, disease, internal parasites, flies(biting or tsetse), ticks (physical and disease problems),sol/rainfall (determining drylwet season grazing constraintsand/or opportunities);

- special circumstances (e.g., unusual marketing opportunities),agropastoral opportunities for broader-basedlivestock/crop/vegetablelfruit enterprises.

54. The most obvious, albeit unquantifiable, results from project rangemanagement interventions have been:

- a better understanding of the pastoral production system inthe Central Rangelands, and the development of a relationshipbased on trust between grazing associations and the ProjectUnit; this is measured by the awareness of and cooperationfrom the local population, the feedback on needs which havehelped change the project's course (agropastoralism, dugoutand shallow and hand dugwell water development, agroforestry)and the lack of conflict;

- the development and implementation uf an appropriate andmultidisciplinary approach to development in Somalia,combining the priorities of local coiDnities with thetechnical disciplines;

- beneficial environmental effects resulting from forestry andsoil conservation activities.

55. Other valuable technical findings are driving the new approach todevelopment in the rangelands: (i) the importance of Yihib (an evergreenforage bush) and the need to focus management on key limiting resources

- 23 -

such as this dry season fodder, rather than lirge areas of range; (ii) livefencing, and its implications for fencing maintenance; (iii) buffel grassand mung beans in the agropastoral systems; (iv) dugouts rather t"an bores,for improved utilization of fodder; (v) the actual incidence of diseases isnow known, thanks to the GTZ surveys; (vi) a pastoralist-based animalhealth system has been designed and put in place; (vii) the Department ofRange is in place and producing graduates.

56. Knowledge in all the above areas has been accumulating and doesprovide a strong technical base for recommendations to improve range andanimal productivity. In a May 1987 evaluation carried out by USAIDconsultants - two of which are highly qualified specialists in rangeresources from American Universities - it was concluded that the CRDP wasmaking wa valuable contribution to the educational, scientific andtechnological basis for future implementation of improved rangelandmanagement practices in Central Somalia."20/There is, however, theunsettling aspect of the lack of standardization in the range survey andreporting procedures adopted by the consulting firm's range ecologists ineach of the priority districts: future use of the information collectedand analyzed appears somewhat compromised by an uncommon data base.

57. The difficulties in doing research need to be stressed. Rangelandsin Sonalia have received very low priority in livestock research programs,including those of the International Livestock Centre in Africa (ILCA).Little is known, and little can be done. Researchers have given up, as thepotential for improvement on such a poor resource base is minimal. ButSomalia has no choice: the country is rangelands, dnd such research has togo forward. The pioneering aspects of the ecological and research aspectsof the project should be emphasized, and research efforts improved with theclose backing of a large international research institute such as ILCA, ora University in southwest USA.

Proiect Weaknesses

58. In the course of implementation, major project weaknesses have been:the inadequate use made of the aerial resource surveys (RMR) undertaken atthe beginning of the project; the inadequate equipping of the boreholes,and the poor management of bores and dugouts; the poor state of theherbarium; the disappearance of many vehicles into NRA and other places;the lack of climatic, soils and leaf nutrient data gathering; theincreasing danger from tree cutting for charcoal, which the project doeslittle about.

59. A major gap remains in the quantification of benefits from the listof project range management interventions. So far, quantified benefits areapparent only from veterinary, water and agropastoral interventions andthese are limited: data is as yet preliminary (one to two seasons) andrequires replication. Providing immediate benefits to both human andanimal populations, water development has turned out to be one of the mostsuccessful components of CRDP, particularly since the issue of permanent

20/ Interim evaluation report, USAID, June 1987.

- 24 -

boreholes having negative effects on the range and the slow process involvedin identifying appropriate sites 21/ came to be recognized. Projectveterinary services have also been very successful, but this success hasbeen mitigated to a certain extent by procurement and funding constraintsrelated to the national. non-project specific, Veterinary Drug Fund whichprovides the drugs distributed by the NARAs.

VI INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE

60. Proiect efforts to strengthen the local institutions bave hadpartial success. With infrastructure and staff development support from theproject in its early phase, the NRA developed into an agency capable oftaking on more of the tasks devolved upon it for range management inSomalia. The CRDP itself went through a series of institutional changes.The reorganization subsequent to the mid-term review demonstrated that theproject operated more effectively under its own management. Implementationwas, however, slowed by the removal in April 1986 of a fully committed anddynamic project manager. Later, CRDP was separated from the NRA as directedby the Minister, MLFR, in a letter dated November 30, 1987. 22/ The projectmanager is now directly responsible to the Itinister.

CRDP

61. The project has put in place a structure which is able to collectand analyze data on range and livestock in the Central Rangelands, as wellas identify areas which are of major interest to the local populations andwhere it can intervene successfully, such as animal health services,livestock/crop linkages, water point construction, sand dune stabilization.In this connection, a small, but effective extension department and audio-visual aid production group (slide shows, videos, radio programs) has beendeveloped for communication with a large, nomadic population.

62. Under the veterinary component supported by GTZ, an efficientsystem of Nomadic Animal Health Assistants has been created at the degaanlevel for sales of simple drugs and to provide minimal prescriptive adviceto pastoralists. NAMs are young volunteers selected from within an RLA,who receive a ten-day course in the identification and treatment of locallivestock diseases, and are followed up by project staff on a regular basis;their salary is paid for in cash or kind by the RLk. Drugs and medicinesare sold to participating RLks by the MLFR, for retail to pastoralists, whopurchase then on the recommendation and under the supervision of the NAEA.

21/ The attack on a drilling crew working in the Bulo Burti area resultedin the murder of an expatriate staff in late 1983.

221 Further confirmed in February 1988.

- 25 -

63. Institutional constraints have affected the progress of waterdevelopment activities to the extent that the project has had to depend, forthe drilling and maintenance of boreholes, on the poor performance of theWater Development Authority - the agency responsible for maintainingdrinking water facilities - as well as on other projects for specializedequipment (lowboy, etc.). Implementation would be more expeditious if workswere contracted out to private entrepreneurs rather than done on forceaccount.

64. Services established successfully within the project include amechanical workshop - managed efficiently by German master mechanics,although a need for renewing the equipment and buying new spares has emerged- a growing documentation center used by project and nonproject staff alike,and an administrative/financial unit which operates satisfactorily and hasdeveloped a reasonably good planning system.

65. Another project accomplishment has been the formal training ofstudents at the Somalia National University through the USAID-fundeddevelopment of a Department of Botany and Range Management, which provides atwo-year specialized course after a first two years of general agriculture,leading to a Bachelor of Science degree. Students are technically educatedand perform well on the job after graduation.

66. Staff growth and training. As shown in Table 6, there has been asubstantial increase in project permanent staff, from 108 in 1981 to 569 (ofwhich about 48Z at headquarters) at the end of 1987. The most importantincreases occurred in the initial years 1981-83 and in 1987. They have notcorresponded necessarily to an intensification of eroject activities, andmay have been carried out to the detriment of quality and real needs asthere seems to be an excess of support staff in relation to technicians.Likewise, despite the importance of women in extension activities, nospecial effort has been made to recruit and/or train more female staff (onlyone female extensionist and the head of the female extension se:tion out ofa total of 12 extension staff). Since the funding of local salaries andallowances has met with difficulties, the project would benefit from somestreamlining based on a realistic manpower development plan.

67. The external training program of CRDP has not been entirelysuccessful. Six of the staff sent out on BSc. and MSc. training (up to fouryears) have not returned and amongst those who have come back, a few haveleft the project for better employment opportunities. Major reasons forthis defection are the lack of incentives, including the low level ofsalaries (about 1,600 So.Sh. for a district range officer, 2,500-2,700So.Sh. for a regional extension officer or a 'counterpart' at headquarters),and the absence of efforts on the project management's part to providereturning students with specific posts that are coamensurate with their newqualifications. A training program based on short-term courses in countrieswith a similar environment may be more appropriate in the future. On-the-job training has been carried out by the project's expatriate staff but acoherent, comprehensive program has been lacking, together with appropriatefacilities.

- 26 -

68. Mnagement aspects. Reduced staff motivation is also the result ofthe lack of coimnication vith current managemaent. Staff of technicaldepartments have voiced complaints about not participating enough in thepreparation of budgets for their operations, often adversely affected by theallocation of resources put at their disposal. Field operations have beenless efficient due to the constant fuel and per diem shortages, and alsosince the departure of the expatriate Field manager. Further, the lack ofan institutionalized system of regular staff meetings has resulted in laxcoordination between the various project components or departments.

69. Due to these inefficiencies and a renewed decline in staff morale,the project appeared, in mid-1988, to have lost its momentum. Projectactivities will also be affected by the forthcoming departure of the largetechnical assistance CRDP has been operating vith and which cannot as yet besubstituted, given the shortage of qualified counterparts. Although part ofthis technical assistance will be replaced in the follow-up project, thosespecialists with the longest and greatest experience of CRDP would have leftby mid-1989.

Ranae and Livestock Associations

70. Although their establishment has been slow due to the time requiredto establish comuinication with the members of the degaan and obtain theiracceptance of the idea, RLAs formed through the project appear to be viablecomunity - level organizations with which the Government, and the project,can interact in testing range management techniques (reserves) and designingand locating infrastructure (e.g., water points). Of the 14 RLAsestablished (although only nine management plans have naw been accepted andof these, seven are being implemented), the most successful ones are two inCeel Dhere and two in Hobbio, each of which has managed rest-rotationalgrazing reserves on the coastal plain.

Consultants

71. In general, the specialists recruited for the project, on anindividual basis or through a firm, have been technically competent andcommitted. The range development component would have gained, however, froma more comprehensive approach to range survey and analysis. After theinitial delays in the recruitment of USAID and GTZ experts, the project alsosuffered from the fact that the consultants have tended to represent theinterests of donors (notwithstanding some of the earlier conflicts betweenUSAID and the LBI group) rather than those of the CRDP as a whole and haveoperated in a more or less autonomous way. this would have been improved bythe appointment of a Technical manager (preferably an expatriate)responsible for overall coordination.

Donors

72. Of late, the effectiveness of the project's Steering Committee hasbeen reduced by the irregularity of the two meetings to be held annually andtheir increasingly rubber-stamping nature.

- 27 -

VII . FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Coatt Recovery

73. The project was expected to create some revenue for Governmentthrough (i) fees charged at stock vater points, (ii) the sale of veterinary-drugs. Cost recovery has, in fact, come mainly from the latter as the firstNHIAs, trained in Ceel Dhere district, began in late 1986 the distributionof drugs, at cost, for the MLFR (in Bulo Burti and Hobbio the NAHA networkhas been operating since 1987). The collection .of water charges by the MDA(and not the NRA, as proposed at appraisal) has been insignificant, coupledwith an unreliable service although the level of fees is clearlyinsufficient: while the official cost of water charged by the WDA at aborehole in So.Sh. 10 per m3, the MASCOTT consultants found in 1986 thatthis fee had to be almost doubled (So.Sh. 18 per m3) to cover the completecost of capital equipment and ensure adequate maintenance.

Beneficiary Incomes

74. In the absence of hard data, only an indication based on herd/farmmodels can be given of the increase in incomes of those pastoralists andagropastoralists reached by the project. For a rangeland sheep/goat modelwith an average size of 256 animals and an agropastoral herd of 85 animals,the incrementa. offtake and sales resulting from improved animal healththrough the project's veterinary services would induce an increased annualincome by about 27Z (from 550,000 to 700,000 So.Sh.) and 19Z (from 185,000to 220,000 So.Sh.) respectively. For the hundred-odd agropastoral farmersthat CRDP (I) is estimated to have assisted. yield increases in food cropsand forage strips would bring a more substantial increase in income by overS0 (from 70,000 to 110,000 So.Sh.).

VIII. ECONOMIC RE-EVALUATION

75. Benefits expected at appraisal were overly optimistic. At the sametime, the long-term nature of range management interventions and theimportance of research were not sufficiently recognized. Although, at theend of CRDP (I), benefits from range development are as yet unquantifiable,the accumulation of knowledge and the progress made in understanding thepastoral and agropastoral systems in the Central Rangelands have beeninvaluable.

76. More tangible, but not substantial, benefits have been produced bythe project's veterinary services and agropastoral demonstrations/trials, aswell as the water development component-notwithstanding the low output fromboreholes that have beqn constructed but not fully equipped with storagetanks. Because of the late start-up of these activities, however, the firstquantifiable benefits ocurred several years after the project began. Aneconomic re-evaluation carried out on the basis of models and parametersprovided by GTZ and the project's extension staff (also used in the

- 28 -

appraisal of CRDP Phase II) and taking into account those costs directlyrelated to the benefits, yields a negative EM of -62 (see Annex 1). EvenIf project implementation had been speeded up in the beginning and theserelatively small benefits produced in earlier years, the project's EU-wouldstill be negative.

rX. StMM(RY AND LESSONS LEARNED

77. During the initial years of implementation CRDP (I) came to berecognized as one of those large pastoral projects supported by the Bank inEast Africa in the late 1970's, where massive, albeit untested,interventions were proposed in systems that were not fullyunderstood. 23/ As such it was a particularly complex, costly project whichrested on a weak technical base but addressed itself to a large, mostlyunknown, pastoral community in an extensive project area. In addition itdepended for its implementation on a relatively inexperienced institutionand involved a multitude of donors. These shortcomings were not entirelyignored in the early stages of preparation and appraisal. The Bank wentahead withthe project, due to the Government's continued interest, and dueto the importance of rangelands production vithin the somali economy.However, the project was larger than necessary. It should have been scaledback considerably in view of the uncertainties which existed regardingapproach and technology to be used.

78. Because of procurement and procedural delays causing the latestart-up of some of the project key activities (under the responsibility ofspecific financing agencies) as well as external factor. (security problemsin part of the project area), it took GOS and donors more than three yearsto rectify the project's course, at a mid-term review which broughtsubstantial changes to the project design, scope and organizationalstructure. CRDP (I) became a more manageable project, with its resourcesconcentrated towards filling more attainable objectives in a geographicallylimited area (three out of thirteen districts). The vital range managementcomponent was to be approached on a pilot, more research-oriented, basis sothat a firmer technical base could be established.

79. After eight years of implementation the project h.s not attainedfully its objectives but has been able to understand the dynamics ofrangelands in Central Somalia and develop a strategy for futureinterventions. Since the mid-term review it has realized many usefulinterventions which have benefitted about a third of the Central Rangelandspopulation, particularly through the development of water points, veterinaryand related services, and agropastoral extension messages. Most notable arethe achievements from a technical and research standpoint. Benefits not

23/ Poor experience with these projects led to a highly discussed review byS. Sandford in 1981 ('Review of World Bank Livestock Activities in DryTropical Africa'), followed by a Bank workshop held in Addis Ababa inJune 1983.

- 29 -

directly quantifiable are important: the project has made a definite starttowards establishing a permanent dialogue with pastoralists, formed a firstgroup of range and livestock associations which are adopting the proposedrange banage ent interventions, and which constitute a focal point for otherkey activities such as infrastructural development and poil conservation.Through accumulation of information, the identification of local prioritiesand the permanent testing of interventions, the project has been a majorlearning process for Government and donors.

80. Overall, the institutional achievements have been mixed. Theorganization and management of the project certainly improved as a result ofthe adjustments made at the mid-term review, which established the CRDP as aseparate operational entity within the MLF. However, unresolved logisticsproblems (fuel and equipment), the lack of incentives - both financial andprofessional - and low staff morale, management deficiencies andunsatisfactory coordination between components and donors, have allcontributed to a declining performance in the recent past. In addition, ifthe formal education component has been relatively successful, the externaltraining program, on the other hand, has not produced the desired results.

81. Veterinary staff are not well integrated within CRDP. They are, ineffect, seconded to the project from the Ministry; their salaries aregenerally lower than those of CRDP staff and when the latter are increased,a special request has to be made to also raise those of veterinary staff.The fact that staff working on both the project veterinary and forestrycomponents are attached to the GTZ teams (their per diems and allowances are"topped up' by the donor) emphasizes their relative autonomy from the restof the project. Further, GTZ has expressed the desire to continue, in thefuture, their activities with extension staff of the Veterinary ExtensionDepartment of the MLFR rather than with CRDP'S own extension services, withwhom coordination appears to be unsatisfactory.

Follow-up project

82. A case for a second phase project is clearly based on the need to:

- replicate, broaden and confirm the preliminary data on thebenefits accruing from veterinary, water and agropastoralrecommendations;

- expand and accumulate essential time-phased data on thesupposed benefits of grazing interventions (deferred grazingbeing the most important) to allow benefits to be quantified,recognizing the procedures to be both time-consuming andexpensive; 241 and

24/ Much valuable data was lost in 1986-87, for example, by the need to openreserves and rest areas prematurely because of widespread drought in theCUDP area.

- 30 -

continue institutional development within CRDP, particularlythat related to improving staff conditions of sarvice,training and other aspects of personal and career development.

83. 0owever, the issues which have emwose again will need to beaddressed rapidly, in particulars

- ensuring regular supplies of fuel and other operatingmaterials, possibly through direct importation by the project;

- offering project staff adequate levels of salaries andallowances (the recent increase is insufficient in realterms), e.g., through an indexation system;

- carrying out a manpower development plan within the projectUnit so as to streamline functions and responsibilities;

- improving tbe present mana.!ement's style by encouraginggreater communication with staff, and participation oftechnical units in the budgeting of their own operations;

- obtaining a fimer commitment from GOS to provide th. requiredfunds to finance local costs, while establishing safeguardsfor a stricter control of funds within the project;

- with a smaller number of donors, ensuring more cohesionbetween project components by appointing an expatriateTechnical Manager.

-31- Table '

Page I

SOMALIA

CENTRAL RANGELANDS OEVELOPENT- PROJECT


CROP Physical Achievements

A. Range Management

1. Herd Surveys:1 in Ceel Ohere1 in Nobbio1 in eluo Burti

2. Monitorisig Studies of ftLocks at BuLo Burti

3. Range Site Description (RSD) and Range Condition Surveys (RCS):Location No. Size (kin) RSD comoletea in RCS compLeted in

Ceel Ohere 12 8,430 1983 1986Hobbio 7 24,000 1983 1983BuLo Surti 12 12,500 1984 1984Ceet Bur 6 4,000 1988 1988Jatalaksi 12 6,000 1988 1988

4. Ranqe Trend Studies in- cel. Ohere- HobbiO- BuLo eurti-Ceet Sur- Jalalaksi

5. Range Management Plans:Location No. Size (km2) Years

Ceel Dhere 6 8,430 1985-87Hobbio 4 4,270 1983-87eulo Burti 9 16,700 1984-88Ceel Sur 4 a/ 2,080 1988JaLalaksi 4 6,000 1988

6. Range and Livestock Associations (RLAs):Location No. Size (kin) Years

Ceel Ohere 2 2,807 1985Hobbio 4 4,270 1983-888uLo 8urti 8 9,800 1984-88

7. Deferred Grazing Reserves:Location No. Size (kim) Years

CeeL Ohere 2 1,265 1985Hobbio 2 2,210 19838uLo Burti 5 292 1987-88

8. Village Reserves:3 in Ceel Dhere4 in BuLo Burti

9. Rain Gauges (1C)

a/ Overlao with degaans in Ceel Ohere district.

- 32 -

table IPage Z

8. Range Research MfQA):

7 studies completed.

C. Soil and Water Development

34 dugouts (31 good): 4 Ceet Dhere, 14 Hobbio, 11 Suto Surti, 1 8eletweyne,

4 Ceel Our22 boreholes (8 good): 5 Coot Dhere, 4 Nobbio, 9 Bulo Burti, 2 Ceel Bur,

2 Hareadheere22 watLs rehabilitated: 11 Cclt Ohere, 4 Hobbio, 6 8ulo Burti, I JatlLaksi

13 berkeds: 3 Ceel Dhere, 3 Hobbio, 5 8ulo 8urti, 2 Jalalaksi

Sand dune stabilisation (on-going): 23 ha Ceel Dhere, 10 ha Hobbio, 23 ha 9uloSurti, 28 ha Ceel Bur, 20 ha Jalalaksi

12 sheltereelts in Ceel Ohere, Hobbia and Sulo 8urti districts

7 district nurseries: Ceel Dhere, Hobbio, 8ulo Surti, Ceel Sur, Jalalaksi,

HaradheereVil'age tree planting (on-goirg): Ceel Dhere, Hobbio, 8ulo Burti

Fuelwood plantations: I ha Ceel Ohere dist., 12 ha Bulo 8urti dist.

380 km tracks constructed in Ceel Ohere, Hobbio, Bulo Burti districts

D. Extension

1. Formation of RLAs (Ceel Dhere, Hobbio and 8ulo Burti):

29 surveys completed15 committees elected9 management plans accepted7 management pLans implemented

2. Species elimination and growth trials. (multipurpose trees, fodder crops, etc.)-

3. Hedgerow trials4. Demonstration farms5. Alley crepping trials6. Live fence hedging trials7. Strip anti-erosion trials8. Range extension and pastoral training9. RLA workshops and seminars10. Sand dune fixation workshops ano seminars11. Non-formal education/training:

- assistance to NAHA 1/ teams- village tree planting- village reserves and shelter belts

E. Animal Health/Veterinary Services

1. Livestock Surveys (1984-87) in Beletweyne, Ceel Dhere, Hobbio and Sulo Burti

districts

2. Livestock Treatments:68,000 antibiotic/antiparasitic treatments (1984-87)

95,000 animals treated during the drought emergency campaign (1987)

3. NAHA-Training (with regular follow-up every 2 months):

Ceel Ohere (3 villages): 11 in June 1986

Hobbio (3 villages and 2 RLA): 25 in June 1987

8ulo Surti (7 villages): 19 in December 1986

4. Staff Training

1/ Nomadic Animat HeaLth Assistant.

0

-33-

Table IPage 3-

F. Forestry

1. Nurseries (1 each in the three regionaL capitaLs of Betetweyne, Dusa Mareband Galkayo)

2. Woodtots and sheLterbeLts3. Adaptive triaLs4. Staff training

G. Infrastructure

1. NRA Headquarters (Mogadishu) 1/

2. 3 Regional and 7 District Centres (with Type C and D Staff Houses) 1/:BeletweyneButo BurtiDusa MarebAdadoCeet OurCeel OhereGa:kayoJaribanNobbioHaradheere

3. Veterinary Laboratory/Workshop, Office (forestry component) and 4 StaffHouses at SeLetweyne 2/

4. Veterinary Sub-Laboratory and Office (forestry component) each at Dusa Mareband GaLkayo 2/

1/ IDA/IFAD financed.

2/ GTZ financed.

ffIT3Al RANCELMsDS DfmWEiPUET PRO&JCT

JROECT CCIPLETWgN REPIRT

CRDP Diluursc_nt by Finaneina Source in 'i 1U23 Current Priee)

Calendar Year nuL 3 iSA 13L Am 2! iSA lal

Financing Source

IDA 474 1 600 1,177 1,763 2,U12 764 520 2U 216 3,66

IFAD 285 0" 1,566 2,865 2,790 1,032 Is - - 9,

USAID 144 794 1,626 2,218 370 1,156 2,831 2,U0 1,66 1 2

CTZ t/ - - 61 1,021 1,026 1,276 1,346 1,42928 7U9 *,077

ADS - - - - is 0 n 97 - U2

WFP g 142 277 744 406 282 683 a 412 136 2,904

COS t/ 43 179 251 *24 312 1,153 1&.64 1,484 776 6,55C 5

Total 1,698 2,919 5,66 3,671 7,911 5,864 6,547 6,078 8,722 46,446(_euwdd to

/ Actual for IDA, IFAD, ADAS and GOS; estimated by CROP Financial Cont-oller for tbe other donors.

2/ July to December./ Including som retroactive flnancing starting October 1979 for PPF.

j E*change lose applied to yearly disbursemet. on a pro rate baleO/ DM values converted Into US using International Monetary Fund exchange rates.

/ Voluo of 'food for worlk etimated on the basis of current average fob prices of WFP supplied cemoditlee (use by

WFP for planning snd budgeting purposes) plus freight/insurance and Internal transport costs.

Z/ Local costs converted into US3 using exchang rates supplied by Ministry of Finsnce (Tablo 4).

1/ January to June.3/ Mission estimtes.-

Sousr CROP

- 35 -

Table 2b

SOMAL I A

CENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT------------------------------------

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT-------------------------

Total Project Costs by Flnancing Source (In USS millon)

Financing Appraisal Current Current as % ofSource Estimate Estimate Appraisal Estimate

IDA 8.0 8.0 100IFAD 9.0 9.0 100USAID 16.0 12.8 85GTZ /a 4.0 6.9 173ADAB 0.0 0.3 -WFP 4.3 2.9 67GOS 6.0 6.6 110

-TOTAL 46.3 46.5 100

/a ODA was the original cofinancler but was later replaced by GTZ.



CRDP Disbursements - by Category ('000 USS, current )rices), excluding GTE

nancing Source IDA IfAD 21 USAID WfP 3/ ADAU GOS 4/ TOTAL

Category \ excluding GTZ

PPF 5/ and misc. spares 288 288

Construction 2,640 3,336

Vehicles and machinery 1,089 1,326 3,677 13,113

Equipment and furniture 491 554

Technical assistance, professionat services *

and fetlowships 2,281 2,275 8,274 302 13,132

Local salaries and allowances 280 369 2,400 3,049

Operating costs 931 1,140 851 4,155 7,077

food rations (WFP) 2,904 2,904

TOTAL: 8,000 9,000 12,802 2,904 302 6,555 39,563

11 Actual for IDA, ;fAD, ADAB and GOS; estimated by CRDP financial Controller for the other donors.

2/ Exchange loss applied to yearly disbursements on a pro rata basis.

3/ Value of "food for work" estimated on the basis of current average fob prices of WfP supplied commodities(used by UfP for planning and budgeting purposes) plus freight/insurance and iAternal transport rosts.

4/ Local costs converted into USS using exchange rates supplied by Ministry of finance (Table 4).

5/ arR resource inventories and M.Sc. training for four staff (total PPF, USS 258,000).

Source: CRDP.

- 37 -

Table 4

SOMALIA


Exchange Rates (So.Sh. to USS), 1980 to 1988 1/

Year Day/Month Exchange Rate per S

1980 6th Nov. 6.2327

1981 5th Aug. 6.23271982 24th ApriL 12.4654

13th May 12.465414th Nov. 15.0160

1983 5th ApriL 15.-18th June 15.-3rd Aug. 15.-6th Oct. 17.5029th Nov. 17.50

19&4 25th Feb. 17.5021st May , 17.5010th July - 17.5028th Oct. 25.7412th Dec. 25.74

1985 9th Feb. 40.-29th ApriL 40.-20th JuLy 42.-27th Oct. 42.-10th Nov. 42.-

1986 8th Feb. 53.956th May 65.838th JuLy 73.753rd Aug. 77.7111th Nov. 89.5912th Dec. 89.59

1987 19th March 89.5912th May 89.5929th July 133.0220th Oct. 99.-5th Nov. 99.-22th Nov. 99.-

1988 Jan. o Junie 99.-

1/ DetaiLs of contributions from CIPL/ODD, Ministry of Finance.

Source: CRDP.

- 38 -

Table 5

SOMALIA



IDA Creditt Comparison Eetween Assraisal Estimatesand Actual Disbursements by Category

Appraisal Actual hmounts allocated inCateaory of ExDenditure Estimates a/ Disbursements the Credit Aareement

--------- (in US$ '000)…-------------_----_

Construction 2,840 2,640 2,120Vehicles and Machinery 800 1,089 710Equipment and furniture 440 491 380T.A., professional services

and fellowships b/ 2,140 2,569 1,600Local salaries and allowances 380 280 280Operating costs includingmaintenance E utilities 1,400 931 890

Unallocated - 2 000

TOTAL 8,000 8.000 8.000

- 39 -

Table 6

SOMALI A

CENTRAL RANGELANDS OEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CRD' Permanent. Staff 1/

..................... .................. *As Of. ... ..

31.12.81 31.12.82 31.12.83 31.12.84 31.12.85 31.12.86 31.12.87

Headquarters 18 79 151 171 166 209 271

Regions 90 191 248 245 241 221 298

TOTAL 108 270 399 416 407 430 569

1/ Exctuding about 1,100 WFP workers and 88 veterinary staff.

Source: CROP.

CINIlAL RtWGLAS DEVELOPIEUT PIOJECT

PrPere laratniioon Schedule

8 ~~~~~~~Proepara tno9W 191 t 9U1 . 91 198 __8 19_ 1P 198 --j RAN.GE SEVILOPIEM, - - i--- -1- -- 1 1- I -

Range GrauAd Survey I I I -1

Walter6 cteoont tatr tstmnt,tCS t * |i||vt L __1 ;_)|___ - -

t tI ItI i

iource idIenton an d 3 a I - -Ti .ng

Post GraduatevStu(Drel Rng)Ie-[t.

___ _ It d

hPArtuern Sunportns InvnoI

Balot uho t gaion adtann I :s[ R i 1 .foemal Servces,O Dvlourmentlo I PeinstGraduate anudi,flnegu.-

*II

wathern Sanervice vet~r *I -

I a7

IMage Inv A. igat .OSa *I I~*

- 41 - Table 8SO A AL I A

CVTVSaL RANGILAMSS CIVELOPtPEt PQCOttC

POJCCT CONPIttIOM REPORt

CasP t * iietvmtp"aitom SCHWA LI CHaRt

*AWAE "M*MIr N1 (oMOENTr

A c T I v I r 1 1979 1980 1961 t982 1963 1984 196S 1964 1987 1966

XrR Resouce tnventory X

! fiteo x

juto 4urti I X X.JatataIks1 X X

Range condition surveys.Ce.k Ohere X X x.Coot our ."obbo X X.Buto aurti Xx X X X

.Jatitaksi I ARange _trend *oniroring.reot Ohere X X x

Ctat 6ul, I

.Auto kwrti X x x- X

.Jatataksl (a aans

.HWo X

O"ganid d Ring rnd Livestock

.Ceet Ohere X

I uto eutx

.Outo Surti U

.HOmbl C . ' X I

.Rgesaons efentaotnsX X

.Ceet Or (4 pw wut. retei .SuSo Srti (9 Gegains) X X.Jatatahsi (4 degafis X.WO~bbo (4 deguans) X X

o.tendC grue ing t eseraes v I2).Coet shee u x I.OuLo Sijtti I X (5.H0aoo X (2)

vt *ereves x x xIx x X

.Outo Ourti X X X X X

fthor St t *tudI es.E fIcts of a ye.rs orotect ionfro- gra*ing X x

.RAtponst or vsgatation totlnd uXe intensity gradients X x t t X .Ot othee atuiies

in et l Ohert *RG tricatat

! .Drougnt srroef Study X X

I i gauges. etc.I.;eet bhere I * X

CGther stations in district X X.Al. other StatiOns x X

Other activities.CeeL Sler, *~erialn^tane. otantir9 X*lUoboio: isil. fddOer far. X X t X

Ga.uaan (^lin. reserve 11 Xorouqnt Surve, of S aegaans X

1/ ReServe c isted orior to tROP.

S O M A L I A



CDRP I - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CHART

Soil and Water Conservation Component

Activity 1979 1980 1961 1982 1983 198K 1985 1986 1987 19No _tks

Dugouts - - - - - 9 (8) 5 (4) 9 (8) 9 (9) 2 (2) G3bgodfbreholes - - - - - 9 (3) 4 (3) 8 (2) 1 -) - (0good but 5 wit!"u

stctag tawi,lts Rehabititdtion - - - - - 4 1. 6 - 1Civil Works - - - - - - - - 1 - Ntt cuxleted.&erkets - - - - - - 2 9 -2

Sard Dke StabiLizaticn * G -- going.Sheltertelts - - - - - 11 - - - 1Njrseries - - - - - - 5 2 -

Vi(lag Tree Plantations - - - - - - e t gDirg.fuelwod Pantaticns - - - - - - - 2 - 1Track Ccrnstruction - - - - 152 km - 1 km - 200 k ,

Erosicn Cantrol - - - - - 2 - -

Water Spredding - - - - - 1

Water Harvesting (xts) - - - - - - - - 5 4River Access Points - - - - 4 - - -

S O MA L I A



CRDP I - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CHART

Extension Component: Agro-Pastoral Department

Activity 1979 19to 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 June 1988

1. Species Eliminationand Growth Trials

2. Hiedge Row Trials _________

3. Deronstration Farms _3 _________

4. Atley cropping *_-_-_-__

5. Revegetate Parren Land _ >

6. Live Fence Hedging _ -

7. Strip Antierosion Trials

8. Agro-pastorat Surveys

and Investigations

9. Anatysis Surveys, Write-up ___Reports

10. Crop and Fodder VarietyTrials

11. Extension of Results

- Intensification of activities.

.

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

- 44 - Table 11

SOMALI A

CENYRAL RANGELA1S DEVaORN FROJECT

FROJECT COMPETION REIR

USAID-fu-dd Tectiical Assistwie

1979 198D 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

CRGP RANE KV*MV

.Te Lmader/Range fagmwt (36 .') .te Leadr/AnimL Htbwxy (46 MD.Raige EcoLogist (30 r/r).ai"ge EcoLogist (20 Mm).Raige Ecologist (70 n/r).Range EcoLogist (55 r/n).Range EcoLogist (25 m/m).SoiL & water Consevationist I (48 m/nm).Soil & Water Conervationist II (24 m/im).taxonmist (4*1 /rn).GeeraL Services Expert (23 m/m).Cooperative Adviser (17 m/m).Stock Water Director (14 /rm).Pbnitoring ConwLtant (2 /) -.System Aalyst (2 r/) -.Rnge CorsuLtat (yeary 3 m) - - - - - - - - -.CiviI Ergireer (1 m/rm).ftraL Sociologist (10 m/m)

FOA

.Coordinator (61 mM) *

,Lecttuer, Range Mtagernst (22 Mn/rn).Lctu-er, Range Science (46 mm/).LctAe (36 m/m).LecturerA)tah St. th. (27 mn/)

UTAH STAtE UIESTY

.Coordinator (4 /rn)

.Research ard TriaLs Expert (1 mn).Range Field TechnoLogist (25 m/rm).Instnjctor, Afgoi SchoL (24 W/m)

* LitiL early or mid-1989.

Table 12- 45 -

*SOMOALIA

CENTRAL RANOELANDS DIVCLOPMCNT PROJECT

PROJECT CAMPLZTiON REPORT

Technical Assistance Other than USAID Funded

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

TDA/1FAD-Fundod

Project Coordinator ITechnical Director

Admin. (NRA)Financial Controller i -Range Training Officer

than Adult EducationOfficer

Range Training Officer '*

GTZ-Funded

Voterinary/ForestryTeam Leader

Disease InvestigationOfficer

Field Veterinary Officer I **Aimal Prod. AdivsorConstruction EngineerMaster Mechanic ' L J **Nursery SpecialistForestry Specialist I . I **

Teacher at Afgoi School(Forestry)

ADA-Funded

Field Manager

* Until mid-1989** Until end-1990.

-46- Annex 1

SOMALIACENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT


Economic Analysis

Assumptions

1. Given the re?earch orientation adopted after its aid-term review, most ofCUDP (I) benefits are unquantifiable. However, an economic re-evaluation of theproject has been attempted using the following assumptionst

A. Benefits

Those benefits that can be quantitied come from three projectcomponentst

- Water development, with a total of 5 boreholes 1/ and 31dugouts constructed bereen 1984 and mid-1988, producing waterfor livestock C3000 a per dugout during two months of theyear, 20,000 a per bore all year round) and increasing theavailability for forage - see Table 1.

- Veterinary services, through the RANA system which started tooperate in 1986 in Coel Dhere district and the following yearsin Hobbio and Bulo Burti districtst beneficial effectstranslating into lower mortality and higher offtake rates, asestimated by GTZ, have been calculated on the basis of two herdmodels 21 (i) an agropastoral sheep/goat model (with anaverage size of 85 animals); and (Li) a rangeland/pastoralsheep/goat model (average size, 256 animal) - see Tables 2and 3.

- Agropastoralism, with project activities starting in this fieldin 1986 and estimated to reach a total of 120 farmers over theyears 1986-88 (phasing assumptions 152, 302 and 552respectively); benefits from this component have beencalculated using a mixed farm model with data on crops(sorghum, cowpea, mungbeans and forage strips), in the withoutand with project situations, provided by CRDP extensionstaff 3/ - see Table 4.

1/ Three other bores have been built in compounds where district centers arelocated, for use by project staff.

21 See CRDP (II) Appraisal Report.

3/ Same as footnote 2.

- 47 -

AU. benefits bave been expressed in economic terms using constant

1988 export parity prices of meat, milk and sorghum (Tables 5 to 7).

J. Costs.

Only those costs (based on actual disbursements In US dollars)

directly relating to the quantifiable benefits have been taken

Into account - they have been estimated to bet

- 402 of the costs of the buildLig program (ISAIIFAD).

- 602 to 80S of the project management support costs

(IDAIIVAD, GOS),- lOOZ of the nonformal education component cost

(IDA/hFAD),- OOZ of the ADAB-funded Fleld Manager post,

- soil and vater development costs, taken at 20S of USAID

disbursements,costs of veterinary services, estimated at 751 of total

fTi dlsbursements.

All these costs have been translated lnto constant 1988 ptrces

using the SomalLa tradLng partners CPSI 4 and gtossly adjusted

wLth the following parameters:

- average foreign exchange content 772average local cost 232official exchange rate 100 (So.Sh to the S)

shadow exchange rate 203 (So.Sh to the S)

Results

2. The project's DRR calculated over 20 years is .61 (Table 8) - the result

of very small benefits occurring some flve years after the project began, due

to the late startup of those activitLes whlch have yLelded the only tangible

benefits from the project. A sensitLvLty analysis bringing these benefLts

forard (i.e., in a situation where a reasonable Lmplementation schedule could

have been expected), however, still yields a negative 321 (Table 9).

41 Country Department (World Bank) estimates. 1980,17.92; 1981, 13.5S;

1982,10.4Z; 1983,10.62; 1984, 9.91; 1985, 8.32; 1986, 5.8%; 1987, 62.

- 48- Annex ITable 1

CENTAL WELANS OEVELOMIIT P ECT, PHASE I6EMFITS F ROM MTE VELOPET

VA 196 191" 19m 2 18 19 1"S 191 17 1981U 919 19~~~~~~~~~~... . .... .................. ........... ......... _,......... ............ -. ---*@ --@-----

LINITS U ICETWAL ATER AVAILABILITY (to suwert weess to new grazing aress)~~~~. . ..... . . ........ . .... ........ .

AmE I UK muS (Cu. me.) 1 4 5MATER POSUCTIOU (16 3/1R) 2066 /UNIT 21 U 1N In to 160

MM I OUG S (COI. NO.) 8' 12 26 29 31NATEO PRSCTISI (" 12/2156) 3,606 IUNIT 24 31 61 II 93 93

Estiatien of biuls Atfected by Addltionl 2 bnoths of Duout Moter Availability:

AJUSTED INC. UTER VAILABLE ./ ('160 N3) IA 22 36 52 56 56S/¢ (000) SUPTEO Y UATER: .11 N3/2 50/S4 e/ 131 196 327 *75 567 St7

Increnntal Animl Suowt Cioscity treo a Year of Borehole Vater Avail1abiity:. . ....... ...... . ..................

ADJWUSTED IC. MATER AVAILABULE b/ (41n N31 16 64 of 8O as as

INC. 5/C C.660 n3jYE/S-6 el ('6tU S-6) 24 97 121 121 121 121

MINKLS NEFITiNG FRON IKCRElElNTA.L UTER (IN 5-C) 155 293 *U 596 628 621% POECT ARA POUTEN (S-0 muivalt) 23510 8.78 1.2* 1.9l 2.5% 2.7* 2.7n

UFECT Of IKCREIUITAL FORMAS AVAILAILITY

Additial Fr Available:~~~. ..... ...........

INK. AREA AVAILABLE FOR RAZING (SO Ktl): AR oUGOuT: 314 KN2 (ASSUMIN6 It III RADIUS)AROITIOALL FORA6E ACCESSIBLE (LAS I V1(SO itn): 2513 3771 6283 9111 5739 9739t1 PorJCT AREA: (SO KR) 1USU 2* 31 As 68 7n 7nADOITIOUL FORAME USD (46 * Of ACCESSILEI: 1n05 150 2513 3644 3896 396

Calculation of Animls Ihich Use Nely Accssible Areo:

AERAG STOCKING RATE IN TLU PER SO KR: dl 15.7TLU 11 ICLY ACCESSIRLE AREA ('6 TLU) 16 24 39 57 61 61SHEEP/GOAT EOUIVALENT ('IU S-C) e/ I 151 237 395 572 612 612* PRECT AR PWUIAT'N (S-6 eivalent) 23511 1.7n I." 1.7n 2.48 2.6 2.6n

Effect on Offtake of Nwly Accessible Fgrae

INC. TURNOFF 0 1.58 (LAGGED 6 1 I) flIHo S-61 6.79 1.18 1.97 2.16 3.16 3.16INC KEFWITS (NEAT) (CtON) u/ (SIM 7232 10849 18142 26219 281027 26127INC. RIL PRO TUCtION (ECON) h/ (SS I6) 13017 IV528 32547 47194 SU048 5S14

TOTAL ECON BENFITS (556061 26249 31378 50629 73412 7875 78475

el ALLOVAKCE FOI UAST1AGE EVAPORATION AND USE BY PEOPLE. fR OUGOUTS 408b/ ALLOVANCE FOR WASTAGE AND USE BY PEOPLE. FROl BOREHOLES: 21%c/ SHEP AND COAT UAtER CONSJUNPTION IS ETInATED AT SORE 55 LlMO, OR 0.116 l3 FOR 2 MONTHS (1.661 FOR TEAR).di FRM MM CElSUS 1979 AID PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.el I TLU a 1.2 COELS. I.1 SHEEP/GOAT, 6.3 COV.f/ EllEIIENTAL TURIOFF REDUCED FMM SHEEPIGOAT IOOEL M2tl TO 6.5%. TURNOFF LAG6ED BY I YEAI.e/ EXPORT PAIIITY PRICE FOR ALL CLASSES OF SHEEPICOATS (SS/ANINALI: 9165hi MILK 8ENEFITS SANE PROPORTION Of MEAT BENEFITS AS IN RANGELANDS SHEEP/GOAT IIODEL 1868

- 49 -

Annex ITable 2

CNTRSL WM Bi CE9l!t PIMOECT, PASE IWASRIML S 1EEPIOT NOUEL (10 HtES AVSE SIZE 85 EACHI

1i5 1 199. 1987 IlS 1999 1990 1991 I992 I1: 1,94

Opening StoCK: 640 N 40 440 U40 40 c40 440 .40 O 040Births 4a 418 409 408 40s 405 4a 409 4S a soa

Deaths l(l yr) 1U1 177 172 167 167 167 17 1U7 167 147Closing Stacikt 40 U4 640 440 440 440 40 cS 64 O40Total Sale/Cansumptiaa U27 232 2: 241 241 241 41 241 241 241

Offtake (Avge Nerd of S3i 27? 2?2 252 2a? 282 at2 .? :92 18? 292Nortality (0-1) 23? 212 '2c 192 192 192 Liz 192 192

Incroental Sales Animals: 5 9 14 14 14 !4 14 14 14Price of one shet l/goat (Saih): S172 6600 7027 7455 7882 9310 3737 °l! ;083Incrcental Value Otftake (SaSh): 29132 b23CO 99504 105559 111613 117663 12;722 1.9776 1:8615

Incr. Nilk Prod'n litre per herd) 94 169 252 252 252 * 52 252 252 252Value of I litre milk (SoShIl): 70Inc. NMlk Value (1 herdi (SoSh) !390 11760 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640 17640inc. Nilk Value (10 herasl (SaSh) 58500 117600 17400 176400 176400 176400 176400 17640)0 ! I04

Increase in Yeight in Young AnimlstPrice Effect 31 15S 4370 9345 14926 15834 16742 17450 19559 i4466 19292

Cost ledecinn/lincralsPer herd (SoSh) 1190 !127 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064 9064Per 10 herds (SoSh) 11900 51270 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640 90640

Net Increwntal Benefits10 Agropastoral Herds (S3Sh): 80402 137975 200190 207153 214115 221079 229040 535003 Z3366933u*38223sUZ :zw*g 2*m*u:uznUCz3z*" z U3u2nz3uus2:3u8asu2z:

Oelivery Iechnism and PhasingAdditional NWs isAropatoral Areass 11 19 25Cumulative MM's available: 11 30 55 55 55 55 55 55 55Nerds Assisted per Ml: 15Iacraeetal Herds Assisteds 165 285 375 0 0 0 0 0 0Cmlative Herds Assisteds 145 450 925 925 525 825 925 925 975Adoptio Rate: 652Incretal Heds Adopting: 140 242 319 0Cmlatie Herds Adptinng 140 33 701 701 701 701 701 7C1 701

Incrstnul lenofit Streaom froes Agropastoral Sheep/oat Heors

(saSh '001)0Accumuiation of Benefit Streaus 1996 1937 1998 1739 1990 L991 1992 1ii3 0i94

Year I Herds 140 1126 1932 :303 4700 2998 3095 :93 ;i :270,Ytar 2 Hercs :12 !944 3=9 4945 6013 5112 0 5!I, j I3Year I Herds 317 1565 4401 6336 '603 *3;3 )52 7:24Total 701Total Incresental Eeimlits 1:1 1577 8705 12146 14397 14985 ::7; 145351 16::

note: hi1 a!ts:atis :i Orafi t a^o ::etr:::ats ;i:;lid 6. 3t2 'terinarn Tean.vna r7Shra1iSt .,it :..eV tflt -a; Plas=ois t; acnisve qis n trair ls;a'isnce.

Annex 1Table 3

EINE AOEuS CEVELi:NT PRO2E'. 1N49E IhR416M SWitEP/SOAT IOIEL tlO 1S AiiE SIZE 25h E;CN)

auhaa s _ _ usuzuuu_ uaaas u sus sstaasuuuuuuusa#us#susuuaszuzsusta sstusuamuuuu

1985 1986 1587 19Ln 1289 1990 *991 1992 1993 1994

Opemig Stack. 1730 1730 1750 1750 1750 :730 1750 1750 1730 1730

Birthi 1194 1194 1194 1114 1194 1194 U194 1194 1194 1194

aths ( ,r) 534 51I 502 414 486 484 48 49 486 484

Closing Stocks 1750 17V0 1730 150 150 1750 1750 1750 1730 1730

Total SuleulCms7utios 6O 674 62 707 .'07 707 707 707 707 707

OffUke Rate (lAgv Hrd 2561 261 21 n7% 291 291 291 291 291 291 281

Nhtlity 10-11 231 2 201 19% 191 1mZ 191 191 191 19l

Incruutal saln lshigts): 14 32 49 48 49 8 48 48 48

Price of o sheplgoat (SaSh): 6172 t60 964 7290 7549 7780 7n7 916 9093

Incrasaatal Value Gfftake (SaSh): ;3065 :,741 332114 347091 35i92a 370931 360362 43951 43U3041

Incr. hilk Prodn (litrs per htrd) 425 es0 1275 1275 :275 1275 175 1275 1275

Value of I litre silk (SOWU1 : 70Inc. Hilk Value (1 hard)lSoShls .9750 59500 99250 69250 69250 89250 89250 19250 992!0

Inc. fllk Value (10 hardsaShb): 9N7500 595000 92500 992500 892500 892500 892500 892500 892500

Incresse i Ieight in Yoq Ang uls:Price f ttat of 151 14713 3144 49917 52064 53M 55640 57054 65543 64956

cot dciaeenllln lsPer rd ISOSh) 354 17r4 3CS84 30884 5084 a0884 30894 30894 30994

Per 10 Hrds (SSb 3!840 - 172340 08840 308990 308840 309940 308840 309840 309840

Not Incraaatal Bsetfits10 aglmnds bards (StSh) 374458 63895 965591 992814 997577 1010231 1021077 1096153 1081657

Delivery uachaniss and Phasing

Additimal MMi : 11 19 25Cmlativ ANI's available: 11 '0 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

Ragelmd Hards Asisted /NAHAt 15lncrementel Herds Asuisted: 165 285 375 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cumlative Herds Asisted: 145 450 325 525 825 925 925 825 925

Adoption Rate: 85%lncreatal Herds Adopting: .40 :42 S:9 0Cwulative Heres Ado:tin: .40 ;s 70': 'G JI 1% 701 701 701 701

;n: !*-ent&1 ' ar.O4it itrtam ;rcz taSi4vim ;hietigoat herds

Accuaulation of leretfit 2tratus i ;-7 :H ! 9 3 :9 1N1 192 1993 194

Year I Herds "0o ':S: i:4 9 Isa :7!9 :7396 14,43 14425 15206 "1506

Ytar 2 Herds ::' : : 67 4-534 14141 :44,8 :4710 :!283

Year 3 Hari ;: :I'4 .11.3 :;8C2S 2 ::iS3 :22i4 ;25J7

':ta: '!total 1ncreer.u1 31a6f;qi !:42 :;.;' '15) '! 3 -:"3 .9i;e 7`143 7'.03

uiae: 41: as::atis -* :nsef.ts *-: ::et'.l:i-s 3:4;l.a :. 'aterttirlt T'am.

- 51- -znAnnex ITable 4

(f el. Prim) 5SOHLCuERA RAKLII KWLUMT PECT, PA I

Iuwbautal Obiva litS trIi Arutuiu Fwun

Tow 1 2 5 £ S 7 8 9 1t

IUC NtIL UWtTSfrom One Aw astwsl fVrn: .365 2852 1315 21633 33912 31912 33912 31912 33912 31912

~~~~~~~~......... ............... _.__............ .... _... .....................

Yea 1936 I98 19$

fwurs Adootliw too Tr: is 36 6

Ina tal lOtit str*us frog A0roeitorelus

00% IM)

1,36 1987 1988 1is9 it" 199 19 199 1994 19s

Yew I F tm Is -6 U 237 379 Su 556 556 556 556 556Tow 8 Ifwa 36 -131 133 i7 757 111 1113 1113 1113 1113TOW 9 fa4ws 66 -24 138 8 138S 234 236 2343 2646

Total fuws 121

total trbftal Bestit fruAg tw.n al Intwrentieaw -65 -79 16 16S 2182 3357 379 379 37 376

neet *....... .......... ............... __ e..... .e.e nfne.en.ee.e..._._

l.

52 Anex ITabe 5

3G"ALIA

Central Rangelands DOvelopsent Project, Pasu I

SHEEP AND GOATS : Export Parity Price Calculation

.ia8 1995 :000

CIF Saudi Arabia/Yemen (US$/Head) 3/ 42 is 56

Freight/Feed WUS$i/ead) 6 S i

FOB Berbera (US$/Head) 36

FOB Berbera ISS/Head) 1121855 203 r USS 1.00) 7309 10633 10177

Internal Transpo,t 41(Robys to arberal 450 450 450

Marketing uargin/Nortality lOZ 696 1Q18 973

Liveweight in Range (SS per head) 6172 q165 8755

NOTES:1J Offical uichang. rate SS per US Dollar: 1002/ Shadow ezchange rate SS per US Dollar: 20331 Projected using smae rate of increase as Xorld Bank projections for beef,

froe guidelines of January 27, 1998.4/ Burao-Berbe'ra (per sheep/goat) SS 100

Galcaio-Burao (per shenp/goat) SS ^0-Hobyo-Galcaio (per shuepigoat) SS 150

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - --- --- - _....... .. .

-53-

Annex 1Table 6

SuMALIA

Cantral Rangelands Dhvelapsent Pro.ect, Phase I

Export Parity Price: MILK

1969 1995 2000

Skis hilk Powder USC/ton (1985 ccnst) 784 33S 465FOB Europe US1lton (1998 const) 1100 1172 652

Coconut Oil US9/ton (1995 const) 390 589 9'0CIF Rotterdas LSI/tan (1986 ccnst) 547 826 744

Freight and nsurance 27 31 32

Milk FOB Mogadishu US/1ton (1988 const) 1127 1203 684SS/ton (1998 const) 228771 244Z109 138932

Gil FOB Mogadisnu USC/tan (1989 const) 574 857 776SS/ton (1988 const) 116557 174046 157445

Port Handling SS/ton (1988 const) 2720 2720 2120

Milk Powder In Factory SS/ton (1989 coast) 231491 246929 141652Oil in Factory SS/ton (1968 const) 119277 176746 160165

SHP per litre milk 92Oil per litre siik 3.52Processing Costs/litre 'JSS 0.15

Peconst. "ilk in Nog SS/kg (1989 const) 55 :9 49

Transport Central Range SS/kg (1988 const) 6.-2. 6.2 8.2(600 kn) 1/

;resiua o'r CWeis "iik 1I%

F.r!gata Va;t 71 5 63

: -nn;rt it ,IiS _;;'; "ItCz., k;___________________- - - --- - -- - _ _ _ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- -________________--- - -- ---

-54- Annex 1Table 7

SONALIA

Central Ranglands Deelopeent Project - PhaM I

Export Parity Price: SCRum

1998 1995 2000

FDS Gulf Parts US1/ton (1987 const) *3 i9 92US$/tan (1999 const) S2 95 ;9

Frdight and Insurance 27 31 32

CIF Attica Destination 89 126 131

Freight and insurance troa No3adishu 24 '23 28

FOS Mogadishu US5/tan (1988 const) 65 S9 103SS/ton (1988 coast) 13243 19995 20851

Port Handling 2720 2720 2720

Transport Fare - Store 1200 1200 1200

Fareqate Value 9323 14075 16931

.I SS to the US Dollar (Shadov) 203 203 203

55 Amnex ITable 8

SCStCENTRI. MUEELMID DEVEL0PWIT PROJECT, PtSE ICalculatior of Ecmkoic Costs aad kotfits

(Sash 000)

1910 1981 12 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1998 1995 1990 191 199X

ECaItC IEI TISt

f4ropstoral Firmn -5 -79 100 1040 2182 3057 3057Alrupastoral Hws Wh21 3897 870G 12141 14397 14895 15373Pastoral iNrd% 5242 19351 41530 59305 18553 b963 705bSMtor Rulatu kot its 20249 30378 5029 712 78473 78475 18475 71475

Total smits 202 381 72783 748 14991 1307 116053 117470

ECWOIC PRECT COSTS 134800 215400 401100 b72000 680300 444700 371900 359200 179100 72200 72200 72200 72200

PET lEIItT STREN -134800 -215400 -401100 -672000 -68030* 424451 -335219 -281417 -54352 M7771 91407 9385 "27C

Ecomeic Rti of keturn -U1

56 Annex ITable 9

*iC.NALIACENtRlA RANDDS rDEEO T PRMIJECT FME;.EEcosic Casts nd Bnef its - 6nsit1xvt 43a1vs:s

1960 19U 1982 1M 1964 1983 IM6 1967 L1a9 :1989 1990 1991 1'

]IC IIWITS:

ropostpl Fares -65 -79 100 1040 2182 3057 30:7 3057 30:7 3057 ;

Opstrtal Hfrda 1126 3877 9706 :214U6 14391 14985 153T 15841 16252 1414 16I

itural lirds 5242 1955 41530 8305 68553 69636 7" . 72143 74063 76139 761

tor Ralatd ghnefits 20249 30s7 50629 73412 78475 76475 79475 76475 78475 78475 7475 794

tat ul f its 20249 3681 M7 3 123743 149966 163607 16A053 167470 169536 171947 174145 1741

'NIIC PROJECt COSTS 13400 265400 40110062000 680300 4440 371900 359200 179100 72200 72200 72200 72

!NIT STREAN -134800 -245151 -U4419 -599217 -556552 -294734 -209293 -193147 -106 9736 99"647 101945 101I

naic Rate of Retr -4.11

Annex 2Page 1

World Food BarnaamijkaProgramme Cuntada Add_unka

* lw Hl Aid OrpfnizatZtNm ot thI ttLntt.d Natitwio SvsternWP/SOK1/463189 Mogadishu 15 April 1989PRO 40/719/I1

Dear Mr. Donaldson,

VIP Assistance CRDP under San 719/II

I would like to thank you for your letter dated March 15, 1989and its attachment. I found the reports on CRDP, comprehensive,informative and quite useful.

I agse with the assessment of the project and would wish tounderscore the need to emphasise a number of obstacles and conetraintsthat CRDP had faced or is stUll facing. It is felt that the removal ofthese constraints is a necessary and sufficient condition to render WFPiuput adequately effective.

WIP has been assisting the rangeland development and afforestationi Smalia since 1974 under project 719 and expinsion; project no. 719Is inplemented by the National Range Agency, NRA. The central rangelandsdevelopment project has been operating under the NRA and receiving itsfood entitlement from it. VFP inputs to the CRDP started in 1979 and iscontinuing under project SOM 719/II. Since its inception, an average of1500 CRDP workers have been receiving VFP food basket as part payment ofwages. The WFP food basket is worth, at least, So.Sh. 7500 at today'smarket price.

In view of the high value of the food ration, labour turn out hasbeen good and workers' commitment to the project reasonable. Althoughproject's activities have been proceeding fairly good, the followingobservations need to be put on record:

i) The targets stipulated in thd work plan were too ambitious.

ii) Project's activities are scattered over small units,consequently the labour force bah been employed withflexibility. This has rendered monitoring and assessmentdifficult.

f ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. I..Mr. Graham DonaldsonDivision ChiefAgriculture, Infrastructure & Human ".esourcesOperation Evaluation DepartmentWorld BankMogadishu

PO. Box 24M-Og8aShuSmall*telw0one: S*1STelex: U5*1 00

-5S8 - Annex 2Page 2

iii) The project does not hav, any *pecific work norms or recordson labour productivity and global achievemnts.

The cash component of the wage. and benefits to the workers are solow that only women, old men and children accepted to work-for the project..

Paymunt of the salary is done with irregularity and repeateddelays. This has negatively affected labour productivity andworkers' moral.

In some areas, shortage of tools and equipment hamper productivity.

Community participation is lacking and dependency of the workerson food, as wage payment, is increasing.

No provision has been made for sustainability and transferof the amenities created to the local population.

In order to enhance ichievement and improve performance, the projectneeds to take the following action:

Establishaent of works norms to monitor activities and labourproductivity.

- Establishment of recoras on achievements.

- Increase the cash component of wages to attract and stabilizevalid male labour force.

- Endeavour to pay salaries as regularly as possible.

- Demotion of food as part payment of wages In favour of foodas an Incentive for community works.

- Promotion of community participation with a view to takingan active part in the control and maintenance of resourcescreated.

Yours arely,

A. Ret ch Director of Operations, a.i.

- 59 -

SOMALIACENTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Projet Compltion Re ort

Districts vithin CDP

ETHIOPIA'

.~~~~~~~o I OCIEAN

£~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-K-~4k

. ~ ~ ~ ~ E E\ WBEl / \

0 o_MA- -- N,g D mW'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~-oiiist Usu Owd(hp.

S~~~_t-/.. .......-z _

- 60 -

SOMALIACEIUTRAL RANGELANDS DEVELOPhENT PROJECT

Project Casplecton Report

Land Capability and Potentlal for Developunta

ETHioPIA|

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w :@. :a i~U tn. W~mf-.t

z~~~~~~ - - o -

~~~~~~~~- .- ,. *

._,, N P_t z X ...................... -... em a .m... - ,, .t-Fet,,,_~tsf t n"t*

/~~~~~~~~~ M. - - 0 _m_-

M m / :m o Sm.....:* _"_.-

...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m - m..M d. im i

. /~~~~~~~~~~~~m @ -. . -1a-

o e. - m. . -

O n . - . * - eq a

Documents

World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/676571468103476023/...final disbursement under Credit 906-SO was made on August 4, 1988. This report was prepared by an FAOICP