documents.worldbank.orgdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/802051467997563166/... · web...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00003426

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT(TF-13101)

ON A

GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 1.33 MILLION EQUIVALENT

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF MALDIVES

FOR A

ARI ATOLL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

June 19, 2015

Environment and Natural Resources Global PracticeMaldives Country Management UnitSouth Asia Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective November 2014)

Currency Unit = Maldivian RufyaaMVR 1.00 = USD 0.06

USD 1.00 = MVR 15.44

FISCAL YEARJuly 1 – June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BP Bank PolicyCAS Country Assistance StrategyCCAC Climate Change Advisory CommitteeCCTF Climate Change Trust FundEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESDD Environmental and Social Due DiligenceEU European UnionGDP Gross Domestic ProductGHG Greenhouse GasGoM Government of MaldivesICR Implementation Completion and Results ReportIDA International Development AgencyIEG Independent Evaluation GroupISN Interim Strategy NoteISR Implementation Status and Results ReportIWMC Island Waste Management CenterIWMP Island Waste Management PlanM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMEE Ministry of Environment and EnergyMEMP Maldives Environmental Management ProjectMoFT Ministry of Finance and TreasuryMVR Maldivian RufiyaaNPV Net Present ValueOP Operational PolicyPAD Project Appraisal DocumentPDO Project Development ObjectivePMU Project Management UnitSWM Solid Waste ManagementUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUSD United States Dollar

Senior Global Practice Director:Paula Caballero Sector Manager: Kseniya Lvovsky

Project Team Leader: Darshani De SilvaICR Team Leader: Darshani De Silva

MALDIVESAri Atoll Solid Waste Management Project

Contents

B. Key Dates....................................................................................................................vC. Ratings Summary........................................................................................................vD. Sector and Theme Codes...........................................................................................viE. Bank Staff..................................................................................................................viF. Results Framework Analysis.....................................................................................viiG. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs....................................................................ixH. Restructuring (if any)..................................................................................................xI. Disbursement Profile...................................................................................................x1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design................................................1

1.1 Context at Appraisal..............................................................................................11.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved).....................................................................................................................21.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification..............................................................................................21.4 Main Beneficiaries.................................................................................................21.5 Original Components (as approved).....................................................................31.6 Revised Components.............................................................................................31.7 Other significant changes......................................................................................3

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes...............................................32.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry.............................................32.2 Implementation......................................................................................................62.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization.......72.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance...............................................................72.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase.................................................................8

3. Assessment of Outcomes.............................................................................................93.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation..........................................93.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives.................................................93.3 Efficiency.............................................................................................................113.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating.............................................................123.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts...........................................123.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops....13

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome.........................................................135. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance......................................................14

5.1 Bank Performance...............................................................................................145.2 Borrower Performance.........................................................................................15

6. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................167. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors...............17Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing...........................................................................19Annex 2. Outputs by Component..................................................................................20Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis..................................................................23Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes........25Annex 5. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR........................26

(a) Executive Summary of Grantee’s ICR dated March 16, 2015........................26(b) Comments on Draft ICR..................................................................................28

Annex 6. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders........................32Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents.......................................................................33

A. Basic Information

Country: Maldives Project Name:Maldives Ari Atoll Solid Waste Management Project

Project ID: P130163 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-13101ICR Date: 03/04/2015 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Grantee:GOVERNMENT OF MALDIVES

Original Total Commitment:

USD 1.33M Disbursed Amount: USD 1.03M

Revised Amount: USD 1.03MEnvironmental Category: AImplementing Agencies: PMU/Ministry of Environment and Energy Environmental Protection Agency Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: EUROPEAN UNION Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs

B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 07/28/2011 Effectiveness: Appraisal: 06/17/2012 Restructuring(s): Approval: 12/23/2012 Mid-term Review: Closing: 09/30/2014 11/30/2014

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

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance IndicatorsImplementation

Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

NoQuality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

NoQuality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Moderately Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Solid waste management 100 100

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Climate change 60 60 Pollution management and environmental health 40 40

E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Annette Dixon Philippe H. Le Houerou Country Director: Francoise Clottes Diarietou Gaye Practice Manager/Manager:

Herbert Acquay Herbert Acquay

Project Team Leader: Darshani De Silva Sumith Pilapitiya ICR Team Leader: Darshani De Silva ICR Primary Author: Darshani De Silva

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document)The PDO of the project was to build technical and human resource capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll, thereby reducing the environmental risks to marine habitats and greenhouse gas emissions.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)No revisions.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 :

5 pilot islands participating in an integrated SWM system composed of: (i) waste segregation at the household level; (ii) composting of organic waste, recycling and storage of residual waste at the IWMC; and (iii) a transport system for the residual

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

No proper SWM practices in place in all participating islands

5 3

Date achieved 12/23/2012 09/30/2014 11/30/2014Comments (incl. % achievement)

60% of sites operational; Transport system for residual transfer to a regional disposal facility not in place.

Indicator 2 : All 5 targeted islands with functioning IWMCS have no observed spillageValue quantitative or Qualitative)

Targeted islands do not have functioning IWMCs 5 3


60% of sites with no observed spillage of solid waste to the beaches and coastal areas.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Five community-based island waste management plans are updated for the participating islands

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Consist of outdated island waste management plans 5 5

Date achieved 12/23/2012 09/30/2014 11/30/2014

Comments (incl. % achievement)

100% achievement; 5 island waste management plans updated and endorsed by the respective Island Councils and EPA.

Indicator 2 : 50% of households carry out segregation of solid wasteValue (quantitative or Qualitative)

Source segregation is not carried out by the communities

50% 90%


Over 90% households on average carry out waste segregation with 100% segregation in 3 islands.

Indicator 3 : Recycling and composting programs are effectively implemented in all five participating islands


No recycling and composting programs in place

5 4


80% of islands with recycling and composting programs; 100% of organic waste composted in 2 islands; 30% composted in 2 islands; 50% of recyclables with market value segregated in all 5 islands.

Indicator 4 : At least one community member in each participating island trained in SWM practices to manage IWMCs


Where IWMCs are present, there are no dedicated personnel to manage the centers

5 5


100% achievement.

Indicator 5 : At least two islands with targeted households pay user fees for island level waste management


Households in all participating islands do not pay user fees for SWM

2 4


200% achievement with 100% of all households in two of the islands paying user fees.

Indicator 6 : Industrial and municipal waste disposal capacity created under the projectValue (quantitative or Qualitative)

0.00 7.50 7.00 5.00

Date achieved 12/23/2014 09/30/2014 03/31/2014 11/30/2014Comments (incl. % achievement)

71% achievement with municipal waste disposal capacity of 4 islands fully established.

Indicator 7 : A strategy in place to operationalize the remaining EU-financed IWMCs in the Atolls of the Central Region


Currently there is no strategy to operationalize the EU- financed IWMCs in the Central Region

Central Region IWMC operationalizing strategy

Central Region IWMC operationalizing strategy developed


100% achievement.

Indicator 8 : Institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste developed


Functional institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste is not in place

Institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste

Institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste identified and documented


100% achievement.

Indicator 9 : Cost recovery system for the transfer of residual waste developedValue (quantitative or Qualitative)

There is no cost recovery system for the transfer of waste

Cost recovery system

Cost recovery system identified and in place


100% achievement.

Indicator 10 : All 5 islands’ residual waste transferred to a regional SWM facility


All waste are dumped in the island and occasionally transferred to a regional facility based on the availability of funds and transportation facilities

5 5


100% achievement at project closure. Sustainable system with the procurement of the barge is yet to be put in place.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP

Actual Disbursements(USD millions)

1 10/10/2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.20 2 12/23/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.20

3 05/01/2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.20 4 11/28/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.33

H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable

I. Disbursement Profile

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

1. Country and sector background. The Republic of Maldives is a small island nation located in the Indian Ocean. It consists of 26 major atolls and hundreds of smaller islands with a total land area of less than 300 square kilometers. Maldives has a population of 326,000. It is a middle-income country with a per capita income of over of US$7,177 (2013). The atolls are ringed by coral reefs that are among the world’s richest in biodiversity and aesthetic appeal and provide protection from storm surges and sea level rise and other climate risks. Out of the 1,192 small islands, some 190 are inhabited, about 105 have self-contained tourist resorts, and 21 are used for commercial activities. Islands with high population density confront growing problems of solid waste management and pollution from sewage and other effluents, hotels, fish-processing plants, ships, and other sources. With growing prosperity and buoyant tourism, the quantities of solid waste generated are exceeding local disposal and treatment capacity and threaten the country’s reputation as an unspoiled tropical “paradise”. An estimated 324,000 tons1 of solid waste were generated in Maldives in 2012 with a possible increment of 30% within the next 5 years. Geography makes Maldives especially vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, especially risks of intensifying weather events, such as inundation, extreme winds, and flooding from storms.

2. Project background. In Maldives waste management on inhabited islands is inadequate and underdeveloped. The majority of the waste is dumped onto the island foreshore and burned at low combustion temperatures. The uncontrolled disposal of waste is a threat to the coastal, marine and coral reef ecosystems. In addition, the burning of waste contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the time of project conception, Maldives did not have a functioning integrated solid waste management (SWM) system. This pilot project was proposed to develop technical, institutional and human resource capacity in targeted inhabited islands to manage municipal solid waste in a manner that would strengthen environmental outcomes and reduce the risks posed by climate change.

3. A multi-donor Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF) was established in December 2009 to strengthen the country’s resilience to climate change related risks. Financing to the CCTF was received from the European Union and the Government of Australia. With support from CCTF, Government of Maldives (GoM) proposed to undertake a pilot project on integrated SWM in the Ari Atoll to demonstrate island level management of solid waste with the aim to improve environmental outcomes and reduce GHG emissions. The total investment of the project was USD 1.33 million.

4. Rationale for Bank assistance. The project was aligned with GoM’s priorities and the World Bank’s 2008-2012 Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). The CAS acknowledged that environmental degradation and climate change posed significant threats to economic prosperity and identified strengthening of environmental management and building greater resilience to

1 324,000 tons of solid waste was generated in 2012 by the resident population and 958,025 tourists that entered the country. An estimated 860 metric tons per day (mtpd), or 312,075 metric tons per year, of solid waste is discarded in the Maldives. About 21% is attributed to tourism with the balance divided among urban areas (65%) and island communities (35%). An estimated 134 mtpd of solid waste is generated by the 101 resorts in the Maldives; whereas, the safari vessels (157 boats) discarded an average of 8.0 mtpd. (Source: Peterson, C. 2013. Assessment of Solid Waste Management Practices and Its Vulnerability to Climate Change Risks in Maldives Tourism Sector, Submitted to Minsitry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Republic of Maldives, 19pp) 1

climate variability and change as major pillars. Climate change also emerged as an important priority in the Bank’s deepening engagement in promoting responsible stewardship of global public goods. Maldives represented an iconic case of a small island economy facing unprecedented threats from climate change due to sea level rise. The country’s approaches to these challenges were to bring about important lessons for other small island states that depend on coastal resources for economic development and environmental security.

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

5. The PDO of the project was to build technical and human resource capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll, thereby reducing the environmental risks to marine habitats and GHG emissions.

6. The key PDO indicators were:

Five pilot islands participating in an integrated SWM system composed of: (i) waste segregation at the household level; (ii) composting of organic waste, recycling and storage of residual waste prior to final disposal at island waste management center (IWMC) level; and (iii) a transport system for removal of the residual waste from the IWMCs and disposal at the Regional Waste Management Facility in Thilafushi Island.

All five targeted islands with functioning IWMCs and no observed spillage.

7. The PDO indicators were formulated to reflect intermediate outcomes, because of the short implementation period and the project’s pilot nature.

8. The original project implementation period was 19 months.

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

9. The PDO was not revised.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

10. The project’s principle beneficiaries included the Central Region of Maldives and the targeted island communities of Dhigurah, Fenfushi, Ukulhas, Thoddoo and Dhangethi of the Ari Atoll. These communities were to directly benefit from the demonstration and operation of island level integrated SWM system. The targeted communities included about 770 households with approximately 4,509 people. In addition, individuals and institutions beyond the pilot islands including Island and Atoll Councils other inhabited islands and atolls, few interested resorts, staff of Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) and Environment Protection Agency (EPA) benefited from the projects’ technical and institutional development activities.

1.5 Original Components (as approved)

2

11. Component 1: Development and implementation of an island level integrated SWM system (USD 605,750). Component 1 aimed at building institutional capacity of the Island Councils and communities in the five islands to plan and implement an island level integrated SWM program. The component had 4 sub-components: (a) community participation in source segregation of solid waste; (b) implementation of an island level recycling and composting program at the IWMCs; (c) institutional capacity building of Island Councils and communities for planning and managing an effective island level integrated SWM system; and (d) development of a strategy to operationalize IWMCs in the atolls of the Central Region.

12. Component 2: Development of institutional arrangements and implementation of a waste transfer system for off-island disposal of residual solid waste (USD 579,500). Component 2 aimed at developing and demonstrating an effective institutional model to transfer residual waste from the participating islands of Ari Atoll to a regional facility for all Central Region atolls. The component comprised: (a) the development of a viable institutional mechanism, which could include a public-private partnership, for the transfer of residual waste to the Thilafushi Island facility; (b) development of a cost recovery mechanism for the residual waste transport system; (c) procurement of a barge and associated equipment for the transfer of residual waste; and (d) transfer of residual waste from the participating pilot islands to a regional SWM facility.

13. Component 3: Project Management (US$29,450). Component 3 aimed at establishing an effective mechanism for project implementation, including monitoring and reporting of the implementation progress through the Project Management Unit (PMU) in MEE. MEE was to have overall responsibility for implementing the project and for ensuring that the project objective was met. EPA had an executing responsibility.

1.6 Revised Components

14. The components were not revised.

15. However, during the project implementation period, a joint decision was taken that once the island-level integrated system is in place, the residual waste will be transferred to engineered regional waste management facility in the North Central Region, as the contract for rehabilitation of the Thilafushi waste disposal site has been cancelled.

1.7 Other significant changes

16. Project schedule. The original closing date of September 30, 2014 was extended to November 30, 2014 to assist GoM in completing the project activities and consolidating the project results.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

3

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

12. Soundness of background analysis. The background analysis was appropriate. The Maldives had sound policies in place for addressing impacts of climate change and on environmental management. However, supporting legislation and implementation practices did not exist and institutional capacity was low. GoM was committed to highlighting the importance of climate change for small island states and drawing international attention to secure resources for addressing climate change impacts. IDA-financed Maldives Environmental Management Project (MEMP) had already initiated a dialog, assessments, and consultations on SWM in inhabited islands. A solid waste management regulation was drafted in 2012 in support of the existing National Solid Waste Management Policy, which mandated all inhabited islands establish IWMCs, prepare island waste management plans and operate an integrated solid waste management system.

13. The project design was informed by the lessons learned from ongoing and completed projects, including MEMP that was piloting a regional model for SWM, and an EU-financed trust fund for post-tsunami recovery and SWM in the Central Region atolls. The design also took into account experiences of SWM activities supported by Australian Assistance for International Development, Canadian Red Cross, and United National Development Program (UNDP) in Maldives and the composting model established in local authorities in Sri Lanka. It took waste composition2 into consideration when proposing solutions to be piloted. It adequately considered the importance of consultation, assessment of local conditions, community participation and decision-making, capacity in operating island-level SWM systems, and a regional approach to transfer waste to an off-island regional facility. The design relied on existing institutional set up and responded to new regulatory frameworks and focused on strengthening the capacity of EPA at the national level, Island Councils, and island communities.

14. At the project formulation, Maldives did not operate a fully functioning and properly integrated SWM system, including fee-collection and payments to service providers. The design was therefore guided by the need to develop a scalable and replicable model for integrated SWM on inhabited islands that included cost-effective, waste management technologies accessible and understandable to island residents. This included initial segregation of waste to degradable and non-degradable by the island community, regular collection of segregated waste by Island Councils, composting of degradable waste and separation of marketable non-degradable waste (mainly plastics, aluminum cans and glass) at the IWMC.

15. Ari Atoll was selected for piloting to ensure operationalizing the IWMCs established by the EU-financed and Bank-administers tsunami reconstruction project. EU’s request under the CCTF was to operationalize all sixteen sites financed under the tsunami reconstruction project. However, the number demonstration sites was reduced to five, taking into account the limited

2 Island community solid waste was reported to have a high organic fraction (70%). Recyclables (metals and plastics) account for only 3% of discards; while the balance of the solid waste is classified as residuals. At tourist resorts the organics fraction was estimated to account for 89% of discards. The primary components being food waste (40%) and garden / yard (landscaping) waste (38%). On safari boats there are no landscaping wastes causing food waste to be 67% of wastes from vessels. (Source: Peterson, C. 2013. Assessment of Solid Waste Management Practices and Its Vulnerability to Climate Change Risks in Maldives Tourism Sector, Submitted to Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Republic of Maldives, 19pp)

4

budget allocation for the project and ensuring critical mass of islands needed to justify operating a barge for off-island disposal, while it was recognized that it will be still challenging with the capacity constraints and short time for implementation.

16. An institutional framework for project implementation was set up, with overall implementation responsibility resting with MEE while EPA was to take the lead on technical aspects, and Island Councils were to manage the processes at island-level. The use of the existing PMU established for MEMP to provide operational support, supplemented with additional staff provided a cost-effective approach to manage the project. The project was consistent supported the decentralized governance framework that was established at the time of project preparation. The design recognized that local stakeholders need to be aware and take ownership of the project to ensure their participation and contribution necessary for a more effective management of solid waste. Identification of the operating modality of off-island transfer of residual waste was included as part of the project activities, as it required analysis and development of a viable mechanism and an operator.

17. Risk assessment. The overall risk of the project was rated substantial. The rating proved to be appropriate for the type proposed interventions, which involved changes in attitude of island communities, likely level of delivery, effort of monitoring, capacity and commitment of the implementing agency. The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) identified number of potential risks and mitigation measures. Cost recovery aspects were identified as a design risk at preparation. While the participating islands managed to introduce the user fees for island-level SWM activities, delays in finalizing the cost recovery study for the regional transport system, time needed to complete the construction of the vessel for waste transfer, and finalizing the agreement to undertake off-island waste transfer through the utility company, left the project with insufficient time to implement all necessary measures during the project life. Some of the fiduciary challenges that emerged during implementation were not fully identified under risk assessment during preparation. The project was categorized as environmental category “A” to ensure environmental risks associated with inadequate management of solid waste including (a) pollution of coastal and marine ecosystems, which can result in the destruction of coral reefs, impacting reef fishery, reduction of adaptive capacity to climate change and disasters, and blemishing the pristine appearance expected by the tourisms industry; (b) pollution of ground water; and (c) air pollution due to burning that contributes to release of dioxins and furans and repertory diseases were addressed through the project design.

18. Adequacy of government commitment. At preparation, the government was committed to CCTF and the project objectives. This was demonstrated by the establishment of a high-level Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC) for oversight and accountability of the CCTF, chaired by the Vice-President of Maldives, and the prominence given to find cost-effective and practicable solutions to the SWM problem. Recognizing the economic significance of its environmental assets, the National Planning Council, headed by the President of Maldives, mandated the adoption of sound environmental practices. GoM had developed a National Adaptation Program of Action in 2006, a Strategic Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in 2009 and a National Solid Waste Management Policy and regulation in 2008 and 2012, respectively, which ensured the relevance of the project objective.

5

19. Adequacy of participatory processes. The preparation included a participatory process of engaging the beneficiary Island Councils and communities in the planning, implementation and monitoring of activities. The project design included island waste management planning carried out by the community with the support of respective Island Council and EPA.

2.2 Implementation

20. Implementation progress was moderately satisfactory for most of the project duration, as reported in the Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs). After a slow start-up during the first six months, implementation accelerated. A number of operational challenges were encountered. A Project Manager was appointed only during the second half of project implementation. MEE technical staff proved to be unresponsive to resolve project implementation issues in a timely manner. MEE management was alerted by the Bank of the situation, but the necessary measures to address these challenges were not fully implemented. SWM Coordinator who was designated on full-time basis during the final six months of project implementation did not prove to be effective in providing timely technical leadership and inputs for project activity implementation. Procurement delays occurred because of weak capacity of service providers for works within the country and little international interest to respond to various project requirements. Some of the procurement challenges were addressed by changing the scope of technical specifications of works to minimum requirements and by procuring some of the services within Maldives that were originally to be acquired internationally. Taking country circumstances into consideration, these changes were deemed acceptable in terms of procurement management and technical requirements. However, these changes did not address the issue of lack of time for full implementation.

21. Because of the high expectations from all the participating islands to implement island-level SWM system, it was not possible to restructure the project to reduce the number of islands and accelerate implementation through downsizing. This would have caused significant reputational damage to GoM, the World Bank, and CCTF donors. Because of the relatively short implementation period of less than 2 years and due to limitations imposed by CCTF agreement, implementation of the participatory processes to ensure readiness of the communities and formulation of island waste management plans were challenging. However, with the leadership of the Island Councils and awareness creation given by the project assured change in attitude of the participating communities. Stakeholders responded positively to training on composting and this knowledge expanded beyond the five pilot islands and EPA and spread over to additional 60 islands by project closure.

22. Implementation was also impacted by the limited availability of qualified SWM experts in Maldives. GoM provided assurance that project activities that remained uncompleted by the closing date would be completed by the Government using own resources. These included completing the reconstruction of IWMC in Thoddoo, completion of construction of the waste transfer vessel, finalization of the service agreement with FENAKA (the utility company) the off-island waste transfer and operation and maintenance of the vessel and ensuring all five island SWM systems are fully operational.

6

23. CCAC functionality ceased with the change in the government in November 2013 and project oversight was taken on by MEE. However, a new structure did not get fully established during project duration and effective monitoring, troubleshooting, and continuous enhancement of interventions did not get instituted as expected. The initial role of taking technical leadership envisaged from EPA was reduced significantly.

24. Mid-term review was not undertaken, which was considered to be acceptable in view of the short implementation time. The Bank provided semi-annual implementation support in addition to continuous support and monitoring virtually and during other missions to Maldives. The project successfully implemented the risk mitigation measures identified during preparation concerning stakeholders, environmental management and community participation.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

25. M&E design. The results framework and many of the indicators were adequate to report on the achievement of the project, particularly at the output level. The PDO was covering short-, medium- and long-term outcomes, making it difficult to achieve during project period. For some results, the number of sub-indicators was too large preventing the proper reporting of project achievements. The second PDO indicators on functioning IWMCs and no observed spillage were too subjective, as there was no explanation of the definitions and scope and they overlapped with the first PDO indicator. No indicator were devised to measure GHG emission reductions. In 2013, one core sector indicator on industrial and municipal waste disposal capacity created under the project was introduced. Irrespective of the short-comings, the M&E mechanism with indicators for all outputs provided opportunities for continuous feedback regarding the extent to which the project was achieving its results; allowed the identification of potential problems at an early stage and possible solutions; and allowed for monitoring the efficiency with which the different components of the project were implemented.

26. M&E implementation and utilization. PMU collected M&E data on a regular basis and reported on indicators as part of the trimester progress reporting. No project-specific monitoring information system was established because of the small project size and short implementation period. M&E tasks were carried out by PMU. Data collection was undertaken primarily by the SWM Coordinator with the feedback from Island Councils and was used for reporting of project activities. However, timely corrective actions in response to issues identified through the M&E were not put in place fully by the project team. Verification of results reporting and accounting the detail of achievements during the implementation support missions by the Bank, ensured the continuous identification of implementation challenges.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

27. Safeguard compliance. The project was categorized as an environmental category “A”. An environmental and social due diligence (ESDD) report was prepared during project preparation to guide the management of potential environmental and social impacts. An ESDD Coordinator was appointed to manage the project’s safeguards aspects. Environmental and social safeguard compliance is rated satisfactory. All environmental and social safeguard instruments as per the OP/BP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment and GoM’s environmental

7

impact assessment and SWM regulation for IWMCs were in place and complied with during project implementation. All five sites were assessed to identify existing environmental and social issues, as well as issues associated with construction of composting pads and operationalizing IWMCs. Environmental and Social Management Plans were prepared for all sites based on the findings of the assessment. The four sites that were under operation at project closure were successful in improving the environmental condition of the islands. Solid waste brought into the IWMCs were contained by erecting wire-meshed fence around the centers and compositing pad was designed and constructed to capture the leachate and reusing it for the composting process. There were no significant negative social impacts due to upgrading and operation of IWMCs, as all five sites are located well away from residential areas. The environmental and social management plans were monitored and reported. There were no cases of environmental or social issues that were not successfully managed during implementation.

28. Fiduciary compliance. Financial and procurement management are rated satisfactory. Fiduciary covenants were complied with during implementation. Internal controls were in place and financial management system and records were adequate. Procurement implementation was satisfactory.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

29. The arrangements for sustaining the project’s outcomes were assessed as adequate. The following actions were taken by GoM to sustain the project’s impact:

30. Institutional. On-going World Bank operations within MEE and the continuation of PMU under the second phase of the CCTF are likely to ensure the full achievement and continuation of project impacts into the future. A Solid Waste and Pollution Management Department recently established in MEE will take a lead in updating and implementing the SWM policy and expanding the oversight function. With the technical capacity built in Island Councils and physical investments provided by the project to the pilot islands, the knowledge and ownership for operations and maintenance of IWMCs are in place. Ukulhas, which provided training to other Island Councils and Fenfushi with the high performance and commitment are expected to be further developed as training facilities for island level SWM.

31. Financial. The project was designed and implemented as a pilot and provided the basic financing to operationalize existing IWMCs. Despite government budget constraints, GoM provided budgetary financing to one of the project’s pilot sites and more recently for project expansion to two other islands in the Ari Atoll, demonstrating the commitment to the project objectives. Island Councils are planning to: (a) continue raise funds for the operation and maintenance through user fees, an approach piloted by the project; (b) sell recyclables and compost; and (c) seek supplemental financing from other sources such as UNDP’s Global Environmental Facility Small Grants Program and resorts located in the Atoll. GoM is also committed to initially subsidize the operation of the waste transfer vessel until the cost-recovery system is fully established with the participation of other inhabited islands and resorts in the atoll.

8

32. Technical. The project provided adequate capacity building to manage simple island waste management systems. The experience and capacity gained by Island Councils will ensure planning and adoption of SWM at local levels. Ukulhas Island Council and the new SWM Department in MEE are equipped with staff with knowledge on SWM to provide technical support to inhabited islands. SWM Department’s recognition of the lessons learned and the current efforts made to incorporate the lessons in the on-going and planned SWM investments will assure results envisaged by those activities will be fully met.

33. Policies. GoM recognized the suitability of the project’s integrated SWM approach for the country in the context of scarce land resources, threats to the environment, and high cost of transportation and complete disposal. The integrated SWM approach at island level has already been adopted in North Central Region under MEMP and many of the inhabited islands across the country that have IWMCs. It is also included in the design of the second phase of CCTF and the SWM system for the Southern Region proposed by MEE. Government’s policy is that all inhabited islands should have fully operational IWMCs to manage 100 percent of the organic waste through compositing and recycling marketable non-organic waste with only a small waste residue that would require final disposal. Supporting regulation is already in place.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

34. The objective of the project, namely to build technical and human resource capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll, thereby reducing the environmental risks to marine habitats and GHG emissions, remains highly relevant, timely and appropriate to Maldives’ commitment to become carbon neutral by 2020, Vision 2020 that highlights the county’s commitment to act against ecological degradation and achievement of commitments under National Solid Waste Management Policy of 2008 and Regulation of 2012.

35. Improved SWM management is also relevant and important to reduce long-term public expenditure and to increase the resilience of the coastal and marine ecosystems and island communities to natural disasters and impacts of climate change. The project responded to GoM’s strategies, policies and legislation on climate change, environment, tourism and fisheries. Specifically, the Strategic National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (2010-2020) emphasizes the importance of minimizing waste-related pollution to climate risk mitigation systems such as coral reefs, which have high economic relevance to the tourism and fishery industries by developing an integrated waste management system.

36. The design of the project remains highly relevant and appropriate, although focus may be more relevant if shifted towards climate change adaptation. Arrangements for successful scale-up require a coordinated approach because of the involvement of various institutions with different mandates, as well as a higher level advisory and management mechanism to ensure leadership and collaboration. GoM’s commitment to SWM and the project activities generated a significant change nationally and locally in the recognition and acceptance of the importance of an integrated and more environmentally acceptable approach to SWM.

9

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives

37. Achievement of the PDO is rated moderately satisfactory. This rating is based on the following achievements against the two indicators - five pilot islands participating in an integrated SWM system all five targeted islands with functioning IWMCs and no observed spillage:

38. All five islands prepared island waste management plans under the project that were endorsed, adopted and implementation commenced. Four IWMCs were provided with project resources to upgrade the existing facilities. IWMC in Thoddoo that had been impacted by coastal erosion was reestablished. Fully functional island SWM systems were in place for three of the islands – Ukulhas, Fenfushi and Digurah with over 90 percent of households segregating waste at the household level and composting organic waste and recycling and storing residual waste at IWMC level. Waste segregation in other two islands, Dhangethi and Thoddoo, were also in place (over 90 percent). However, composting, recycling and storage functions did not become fully operational in these locations. Overall, the project achieved 40 percent above the target for household segregation and 60 percent of the target in composting, recycling and storage at IWMCs. At project closure, four islands (200 percent above the target) with targeted households were paying user fees for island-level waste management.

39. The project was designed to develop 100 percent share of the municipal solid waste generated in all five pilot islands to be managed through the integrated SWM system established. At the time of implementation completion, 71 percent of the targeted disposal capacity was instituted within four of the islands. With the completion of Thoddoo IWMC and commencement of operating the waste management system post-project competition, 100 percent of the target has been met.

40. The project was successful in strengthening institutional and island community capacity for managing solid waste and contributing to changing the attitudes of island communities on the importance of SWM. Community members of all 5 islands were trained in SWM practices achieving 100 percent of the target. The country’s SWM knowledge increased with the training and technical assistance provided to MEE, EPA, Island Councils and community members of the pilot islands. In turn, Island Councils shared their expertise on the management and monitoring of solid waste with representatives of 30 other Island Councils and resorts. The project enhanced EPA’s capacity to raise awareness on SWM and implement the SWM regulation more effectively. The expanded partnership and linkages between EPA and Island Councils enabled the replication of SWM best practices in many parts of the country and institutionalizing SWM within MEE with the establishment of a dedicated department.

41. There was a delay in setting up of a transport system for removal of the residual waste from IWMCs and disposal at a regional waste management facility, which resulted in a delay in finalizing the operational and management agreement with a utility company. An interim solution using a hired boat was provided to transfer the residual waste out of the inhabited islands until transfer facility is fully established. An institutional mechanism and cost recovery system were identified by MEE through the project and dialog with the proposed utility company

10

was initiated to transfer the responsibility of managing the regional waste transfer system of the residual waste out of inhabited islands to a regional SWM facility.

42. At project closure, three of the pilot islands - Ukulhas, Fenfushi and Digurah - were able to manage the solid waste within the respective IWMCs and controlling spillage to coastal and marine waters. Dhangethi also managed to reduce the level of spillage soon after project closure with improved functionality of its IWMC. Household waste collection, transport and waste management at IWMC were in place in these four islands. A spillage assessment undertaken after project closure found some level of spillage caused by the phase out of the residual waste transfer, inadequate funds available at Island Councils to undertake their own transfer, and a delay in operationalizing the regional waste transfer system, potentially undermining earlier successes. However, the achievements of post project completion signify the realization of the short- and medium-term outcomes of the project.

43. The project also developed a strategy to operationalize the remaining IWMCs in the Central Region and secured GoM commitment to provide financing to the development of these IWMCs. The model of integrated SWM system is now in the process of being replicated in over 100 inhabited and resort islands.

3.3 Efficiency

44. The project employed a cost-effectiveness approach as expected project benefits were not directly measurable in monetary terms. Cost effectiveness analysis took into account the costs of various options and evaluated different alternatives with similar objectives. A road map to preclude the dumping of waste or debris in areas visited by tourists, such as dive sites and beaches, as well as the lowering of GHG emissions was put in place. Project results by closure indicated that full achievement of the cost-effectiveness will require all pilot islands in the Ari Atoll participating in managing solid waste in the island level. The project partially achieved the primary benefits of substantial improvement to the environment through the reduction of threats to marine assets from degradation caused by indiscriminate disposal of solid waste through the introduction of systematic management of waste disposal sites and composting plant. However, by the project closing date only three islands were fully operationalizing the IWMCs.

45. However, the project was able to change the attitude of the island communities in the five pilot islands, as well as about another 60 islands and resorts through capacity building and awareness creation. Island Councils benefited from the training improving their knowledge on the establishment and maintenance of island level integrated waste collection, transport and management systems. The project had a significant demonstration effect to sensitize other island communities and Island Councils of Maldives on how to better manage the environment and solid waste. Monetary gains were realized from the user fees collected from households by three of the pilot islands – Dhigurah, Fenfushi and Ukulhas –, through the sale of compost and payments received for composting organic waste of nearby resorts. This allowed cost-recovery for continuation of operations and maintenance of the island SWM systems. The project’s environmental and social benefits were expected to be significant although not easily quantifiable in short-term. These will become more visible only with the long term operations of the SWM system in the pilot islands as well as other inhabited and resort islands in the Atoll.

11

46. At the project preparation it was assessed that the proposed project is more cost effective with a net present value (NPV) of cost (12 percent discount rate over 15 years) amounting to US$2.5 million, which was considerably less than the individual island options with the cost NPV ranging from US$7.7 to US$20.2 million. This analysis continues to be applicable even with partial achievement of the project outcomes at project closure and based on the progress made up-to-date. The technical know-how put in place, the ownership shown by Island Councils and communities, replicability of the investment demonstrated by the project and significantly high likelihood of fully achieving the intended outcomes expected within the next few months imply that as a pilot intervention, the project investments were justifiable.

47. It is to be noted that the project did not utilize the entire grant that was provided, as some of the activities were not completed during the implementation period.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating

48. The overall outcome is rated moderately satisfactory. The project outcomes are consistent with Maldives’ long-term vision and short to medium term development strategies, as well as the Bank’s ISN. The project objectives, design and implementation in relation to the development of scalable and replicable model for integrated SWM on inhabited islands, based on simple and cost-effective waste management technologies that are accessible and understandable to island communities was highly relevant. However, the PDO was only partially achieved with 60 percent of pilot islands fully establishing technical capacity through operational island SWM systems and 100 percent of pilot islands developing their human resources capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll. Some of the key activities were not completed prior to project closure. While 100 percent of funds were disbursed prior to project closure, only 78 percent of the grant was utilized as a result of operational and technical challenges compounded by short implementation period. MEE has completed most of the delayed activities and commitment to follow on with the second phase of the CCTF. The relevance of project outcomes once fully achieved and expected long-term benefits to island communities were confirmed by the high positive responses of the stakeholders interviewed during the last implementation support mission in November 2014. The design elements of this project are adopted by SWM projects prepared for other islands. Implementation of the project activities was financially sound, allowing for additional outputs especially to enhance the human capacity on SWM in Maldives.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

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

49. The project did not have specific poverty reduction or gender and social development objectives. A total of 2,066 women and 2,443 men benefited from the project. During implementation, over 90 percent of female participation at household-level waste segregation and about 30 percent of female participation during community-level awareness building and preparation of island waste management planning were observed. The project contributed to inter-community transfer of knowledge beyond the project boundary.

12

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

50. The project contributed significantly to institutional change and strengthening. The engagement of island communities with Island Councils was fundamental to the project and satisfactorily achieved through the awareness creation programs, waste management training and island SWM planning process. These efforts strengthened the linkages, relationship and coordination between MEE and Island Councils. MEE has created a dedicated department for the SWM subject with staff trained by the project. This department has already commenced updating of the National SWM Policy based on the experience gained through the project implementation.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)

51. The President of Maldives awarded Ukulhas Island Council, the Maldives Green Leaf Award for exemplary performance in sustainable waste management. Ukulhas was the first island in the Maldives to successfully initiate a municipal solid waste composting program and was among the first communities to introduce a waste collection fee for households and a ban on plastic on the island. Ukulhas Island Council is geared towards becoming a field training site for island-level SWM. The Council trained an additional 30 inhabited islands and resorts during project implementation (without project financing) and contributed to expanding the project outreach beyond the Central Region.

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

52. No targeted beneficiary survey or stakeholder workshop were undertaken. During the preparation of the grantee project completion report, interviews were conducted. However, the sample used was not representative.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome

53. Rating: Substantial

54. The risk to the development outcome is rated substantial. Implementation delays that resulted in delay of (a) the establishment of a residual waste transfer system; (b) fully operationalizing IWMC in Dhigurah; and (c) completing construction and operationalizing IWMC in Thoddoo, are main factors that contributed to the substantial risk to the development outcome. These risks may be addressed through the implementation of second phase of the CCTF which provides the opportunity to further consolidate the results of the project. In addition, MEE provided its commitment to finance and manage activities uncompleted by project closing date. However, the complete achievement of project intermediate outcomes (short- and medium-term aspects) will not be adequate to fully achieve the long-term aspects of the development outcome of the project, which is linked to the participation of other inhabited islands and resorts in the Atoll.

55. Sustainability risk of project achievements is considered low because of ownership and commitment of communities and Island Councils to the achievements of the project. There is

13

adequate institutional capacity and community ownership to sustain the investments in the pilot islands. The risk of negating the effective SWM due to lack of resources is assessed to be moderate. While the project introduced cost-effective model of municipal waste management at the island level, due to high transportation cost, non-participation of resorts in the regional SWM system and challenges in adopting a self-sustaining cost-recovery system for regional transport could delay the successful implementation of the regional SWM model. Given the country-wide investments are being made on SWM through external resources and own financing, GoM is committed to ensure achievement of the regional system. The stakeholders recognize the long-term engagement especially by MEE with Island Councils and financial support will be necessary to achieve a fully functional SWM system that will bring about positive climate change and environmental outcomes.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry

56. Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

57. Bank performance during project identification, preparation, and appraisal was moderately satisfactory. Bank team fully considered the adequacy of project design, technical, financial, economic and institutional aspects, as well as procurement, financial management and safeguards. Project design was informed by the implementation experiences of similar projects in Maldives. The piloting approach gave space for learning and to take adaptive management decisions. The participation of key government stakeholders ensured that the design was in line with Maldives policy and regulatory directions on managing environmental degradation and climate change risks and acceptable to the project beneficiaries. The design took challenges associated with geographical spread of inhabited islands and technical capacity, adequately into consideration. However, the design failed to (i) propose a more achievable PDO taking the pilot nature of the project into account; (ii) identify indicators that will sufficiently measure all aspects of the PDO such as the GHG-emission reduction, and (2) assess the risks and mitigation measures associated with procurement challenges in Maldives and human capacity constraints of EPA/MEE to participate in the project adequately.

58. Project preparation was carried out with qualified Bank personnel who provided the required technical skill mix necessary to address sector issues and develop the project. The Bank allocated adequate resources to ensure the quality of preparation and appraisal. The team recognized the importance of consistency with the CAS and government priorities in the sector. The Bank maintained a consistently good working relationship with the government and its institutions during preparation and appraisal.

(b) Quality of Supervision

59. Rating: Satisfactory

14

60. Bank supervision is rated satisfactory. The skill mix of the Bank team during supervision was appropriate for a project of this nature and included technical, environmental, procurement, and financial management specialists. Bank team provided adequate direction to the client. Procurement and financial management staff worked closely with PMU to explain the applicable fiduciary policies and procedures. Bank team monitored safeguard compliance and guided the ESDD Coordinator to ensure significant issues are addressed in a timely manner. The team continuously alerted GoM, MEE and PMU about issues that emerged during implementation and facilitated corrective actions. The team reported candidly and timely on project progress and issues through ISRs. ISR ratings on achievement of the PDO and implementation progress were realistic. Sufficient staff resources were made available for supervision. However, the supervision budget was insufficient to undertake regular close monitoring of project implementation at the pilot island level. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance


62. In view of the moderately satisfactory rating for quality at entry and satisfactory rating for supervision, overall Bank performance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory in accordance with the Independent Evaluation Group’s (IEG) harmonized rating criteria.

5.2 Borrower Performance(a) Government Performance

63. Rating: Satisfactory

64. GoM, led by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury (MoFT), demonstrated strong commitment to the objectives of the project starting from preparation. Government commitment declined somewhat with CCAC that provided the governance and accountability structure for the CCTF was discontinued. However, this responsibility was delegated to MEE. MoFT continued to be committed to bring about cost-effective solutions to the SWM problem in the country and therefore, provided necessary backstopping when needed. MoFT responded promptly to issues as and when they arose. The flow of funds between the Designated Account and PMU was satisfactory. There were no reports of any delays in fund releases or shortfalls.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance


66. MEE played an important role in project implementation by providing guidance to PMU. However, overall coordination within the Ministry and its relevant agencies/departments was relatively poor. There were delays in appointing a Project Manager which resulted in many challenges during implementation. Troubleshooting was slow and therefore, solutions were often delayed. Appropriate levels of review and approval were in place. Financial accountability and follow-up were observed, expenditures were duly authorized before they were incurred and documentation was maintained properly for periodic review.

15

67. EPA as key executing agency played a significant role during the project preparation. Its role in project management diminished during implementation and was confined to the participation of the SWM expert as SWM Coordinator and another staff member as the ESDD Coordinator.

68. PMU took the leadership in the overall management of the project with guidance from the MEE management. PMU was moderately effective in performing project management, M&E, and reporting. SWM Coordinator was not fully integrated into PMU, which resulted in delays providing technical inputs to the project. Fiduciary performance was satisfactory throughout implementation. The submissions of quarterly Interim Unaudited Financial Reports were timely in most instances but experienced some delays from time to time. Procurement compliance was satisfactory with good management of procurement records and submission of updated procurement plans in a timely manner. Procurement post reviews did not find any significant deviations from agreed procedures or lack of necessary documentation. PMU submitted all required trimester reports in a timely manner. The reports provided feedback on the project’s progress and served as useful inputs to Bank supervision missions. Responsiveness to reporting beyond minimum reporting requirements was poor, particularly for Bank follow-up requests related to implementation challenges and delays.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance


70. With satisfactory ratings for Government and moderately satisfactory rating for MEE, EPA and PMU performances, overall borrower performance is rated moderately satisfactory in accordance with IEG’s harmonized rating criteria. At the time of project closure, the Government had complied with all agreed grant requirements. However, the Government could not fully utilize the grant and complete all project activities during the implementation period.

6. Lessons Learned

71. A simple project design is important for a country with limited resources and prior experience that was still developing its approach to address a national priority. Such a design recognizes the need for allowing sufficient time for capacity building to become fruitful and for implementing agencies to take on increasingly complex activities at the right time. Piloting is critical in building knowledge and expertise of the project team, local officials and the communities and testing new techniques prior to scaling up in a larger geographical area.

72. Use of services of a project management unit with adequate technical and operational support for a country/implementing agency with limited human resources is also important for the project to be delivered effectively and efficiently. Availability of leadership to the implementing structure such as a dedicated Project Director is essential. While this approach may not provide capacity development of implementing agency in managing projects, it provides a higher potential for the project to achieve its intended outcomes.

73. An effective and functioning advisory structure and a coordination mechanism are

16

essential to guide the project implementation, provide technical advice, identify learning and best practices, bring together various partners of the project and instill better ownership at the national level. Hence, bringing practitioners together, creating and enhancing synergies, and encouraging joint decision-making are basis to a project’s success. The appointment of such structures ensure that the technical knowledge for implementing project activities is consolidated and made available to build strong ownership of the project among stakeholders. In addition, collaboration among relevant government institutions, as well as with other donor agencies on sectoral, as well as cross-sectoral issues can help address them expeditiously. The synergy created by such collaboration and cooperation enables the government to carry out related policy changes more effectively, as well as ensures the limited finances are fully utilized.

74. Flexibility for extending the project duration for a pilot project to ensure all key activities are completed before project closure is essential to ensure the purpose of the pilot is met, which is to test an innovative idea/approach or new technologies.

75. Defining a PDO that is simple and clear, with monitorable indicators is important for pilot projects to be able to demonstrate (a) impacts particularly at institutional and implementation levels; and (b) replicability.

76. Island economies with extensive geographic spread requires integrated approach/model that is scalable and replicable and which is affordable (capital investment and operation) and uses simple, understandable and accessible technologies. It is also necessary to introduce best practices – for example, waste reduction through changes in consumption patterns and reuse of waste.

77. Open windrow composting is one of the best options for managing organic waste in small islands with limited resources, as it requires only an initial investment of a compost pad and the leachate can be re-used, which significantly reduces the potential water contamination. While it is labor intensive, operational cost is low and need only replacement of few equipment for creating and turning piles. However, it is important to assess potential uses and market for cost recovery in order to sustain the operation further.

78. Early attention to operational aspects of the system (in this case both the island solid waste management and regional waste transfer and disposal systems) that requires commitment and agreement of stakeholders such as addressing cost-recovery, identifying suitable and cost-effective regional modality and forming related agreements, establishing institutional mechanisms for overall management, setting up of marketing mechanism and launching partnerships to achieve economies of scale on long-term will provide opportunity to address issues that may arise related to sustaining the investments.

79. Timely identification of alternative funding sources/financing mechanisms to cover potential shortfalls and/or provide temporary subsidies will be necessary until a cost-recovery system for the total solution (service) is fully functional. Increasing collection rates will involve a significant upfront increase in service quality accompanied by gradual increase in household and business contribution towards cost recovery.

17

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors (a) Grantee/Implementing agencies

80. MoFT provided comments for the draft ICR. MoFT raised the importance of (i) commitment of MEE to ensure the project outcomes are met by ensuring the pending activities are completed and sustainability is maintained, and (ii) incorporating lesson learned by the project, especially related to design and implementation challenges, into future projects. The comments also included misinterpretation of the draft review such as positive points taken negatively for which responses will be shared with the final report. Details of the comments received are provided in Annex 5.

(b) Cofinanciers/Donors

81. Comments were received by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Government of Australia, which focused on request for additional details on some aspects related to results, sustainability, efficiency and case studies, which were shared and suggestions for lessons learnt. The details are provided in Annex 6. While the review was acknowledged by EU, no specific comments was provided.

(c) Other partners and stakeholders

82. NA

18

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate (USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Component 1: development and implementation of an island level integrated SWM system

0.606 0.594 98.00

Component 2: Development of institutional arrangements and implementation of a waste transfer system for off-island disposal of residual solid waste

0.578 0.383 66.26

Component 3: Project Management3 0.029 0.057 196.00Total Baseline Cost 1.213 1.034

Physical Contingencies 0.450

0.000

0.00

Price Contingencies 0.663

0.000

0.00

Total Project Costs 1.328 1.034Project Preparation Costs 0.000 0.000 0.00

Total Financing Required 1.328 1.034

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Cofinancing

Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Trust Funds 0.00 0.00 Maldives Climate Change Trust Fund 1.33 1.33 100

3 The project management cost included costs of the Project Manager, Financial Management Officer and Procurement Officer. The Project Manager was provided for all 5 projects under the PMU and the other two officers were provided for the other two grants under the CCTF.

19

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Component 1: Development and implementation of an island level integrated SWM system

Sub component 1.1: Community participation4 in source segregation of solid waste

(i) Community awareness programs to encourage community participation in island level SWM 100 percent of island community aware of the project. About 50 percent on average per island participated in awareness creation programs.

(ii) Updated Island Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) All 5 IWMPs updated and endorsed by the respective Island Councils.

(iii) Household level segregation of solid waste 100 percent waste segregated into organic and non-inorganic at the household level in

Digurah, Fenfushi and Ukulhas. About 75 percent and 85 percent waste segregated in Thoddoo and Dhangethi.

(iv) An effective system of waste collection and transport to the IWMCs An effective system of waste collection and transportation to the IWMCs in place in

Thoddoo, Fenfushi and Ukulhas managed by private contractor in Thoddoo and Island Councils in Fenfushi and Ukulhas.

Sub component 1.2: Implementation of an island level recycling and composting program at the IWMCs

(i) Effective composting of the organic fraction at the IWMCs. Composting pads built in Fenfushi, Digurah, Dhangethi and Thoddoo and existing

composting pad extended in Ukulhas 100 percent of organic waste composted at IWMCs in Fenfushi and Ukulhas. 30 percent organic waste composted at Digurah and Dhangethi. No composting at Thoddoo – IWMC was completed only recently. Composed waste is used within the island, except in Ulkulahs it is sold to nearby

resorts. Composting equipment provided to all five islands

(ii) Segregation of recyclable waste that has a market for resale All 5 islands segregate 50 percent of the recyclable wastes (aluminum cans, plastics,

glass bottles and part of metals) with a market value. Equipment such as bottle crushers and aluminum can crushers provided to all five

islands

4 Results are based on the number of community members interviewed

20

(iii) Baling and temporary storage of residual waste in a safe and environmentally responsible manner at the IWMCs until the waste is transferred for off-island disposal Digurah, Fenfushi and Ukulhas undertake baling and temporary storage.

Sub component 1.3: Institutional capacity building of the Island Councils and communities for planning and managing an effective island level integrated SWM system

(i) Training for Island Councils and IWMCs in intra-island SWM Training provided on the development of island waste management plan, composting

and creation of awareness among the communities. A total of 75 individuals received training in composting at the Weligama Municipal

Solid Waste Management site in Sri Lanka including 5 staff of MEE, 8 staff of PMU, 59 island council members, 1 lecturer from Maldives National University, 3 staff from FENAKA (barge operator), and 2 from TV Maldives.

A training video was prepared by TV Maldives for future training purposes and for awareness creation.

(ii) An institutional mechanism for island level SWM that includes waste collection, transport and operations of the IWMCs An institutional mechanism identified with different management options:

Communities indicated preference for the Island Councils to manage the island SWM system as a private company would mean higher cost of payment from the community-side. As an island level responsibility, the Island Council would need to make the final decision on the long-term mechanism based on the cost-effectiveness and appropriateness.

(iii) Introduction of cost recovery system through user fees for sustainable management of IWMCs User pay fees were introduced in all 5 islands. Appropriate cost recovery mechanisms implemented through cost sharing

arrangements based on the polluter pays principle at island levels in Thoddoo, Fenfushi and Ukulhas.

100 percent of households in Ukulhas and Fenfushi pay user fees for the SWM service at the island level managed by the Island Council.

Sub component 1.4: Development of a strategy to operationalize the remaining EU-financed IWMCs in the atolls of the Central Province

(i) A strategy for operationalizing the remaining EU-financed IWMCS in the atolls of the Central Province A strategy for the remaining EU-financed IWMCs developed with the inclusion of an

institutional model for the operation of island level integrated solid waste management systems based on the island waste management model being implemented in the five pilot islands.

21

Component 2: Development of institutional arrangements and implementation of a waste transfer system for off-island disposal of residual solid waste

(i) Develop a viable institutional mechanism, which could include a public-private partnership for the transfer of residual waste to the Thilafushi Island facility An institutional mechanism developed which proposes a utility company – FENAKA

- to manage the transfer of residual waste. Residual waste originally planned to be transferred to Thilafushi as it was expected to

be rehabilitated, which is now delayed as the public private partnership arrangement facilitate by IFC has been cancelled. Therefore, the residual waste will be transferred to Vandoo RWMF in the North Central Region.

FENAKA was selected for waste transfer in Ari Atoll because the same company will manage the transfer system and RWMF in the North Central Region.

(ii) Development of a cost recovery mechanisms for residual waste transport system Cost recovery model developed for residual waste transport system, which identifies

the importance of participation of the remaining inhabited islands and resorts in the Ari Atoll for full cost-recovery on long-term.

(iii) Procurement of a barge and associated equipment for the transfer of residual waste Barge construction has been completed – post project closure (associated equipment

are part of the same contract).

(iv) Transfer of residual waste from participating pilot islands to a regional SWM facility Waste transfer model identified and draft waste transfer and transportation contract

and draft waste transfer barge operation and maintenance contract in place One-time transfer provided by the project before project closure; due to lack of the

barge transfers are on hold. Transfer cost is too high to be undertaken at the island level.

The Barge is planned to be handed over to the operation soon. Operator is in the process of selecting a crew for the barge.

22

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

The economic analysis for the proposed project utilized a cost-effectiveness approach because the expected project benefits were not readily measurable in monetary terms. The technique took into account the costs of various options and evaluates different alternatives with similar objectives.

The primary project benefit of substantial improvement to the environment through the reduction of threats to marine assets from degradation caused by indiscriminate disposal of solid waste and the introduction of systematic management of waste disposal sites and composting plants was only partially achieved. This was as a result of not establishing the waste transfer system that is crucial in the sustainability of the solid waste management systems and practices that were put in place in the pilot islands. Therefore, there is still an overflow of waste outside the IWMCs, which could move into the nearby coral reefs and limited level of burning contributing to GHG emissions. The benefit of capacity building activities to sensitize the communities on the importance of SWM, train them on good practices such as waste segregation, composting, etc. and ability to provide the knowledge beyond the participating island were fully achieved. The project’s expectation to have a significant demonstration effect to sensitize other island communities and Island Councils of the Central Region atolls (i.e., those beyond the five targeted islands) to participate in a better managed and environmentally sound SWM system was also fully achieved as the model is already being replicated over 100 inhabited and resort islands.

While many of the benefits of the project cannot be quantified, it is expected that the benefits would substantially outweigh the costs. Because the quantitative measurement of the benefits was not possible, the technique applied here is the cost-effectiveness approach. It is the same one used for the economic analysis of the SWM component of the IDA-supported MEMP including assumptions as those for MEMP. In addition, the cost figures were extrapolated from the data related to various options analyzed for the SWM component of MEMP.

Table 1 presents the investments undertaken under the project and compares them to the non-project options in terms of capital and operating costs. The top part of Table 3 presents the costs of the proposed project related to the following: (i) household level waste segregation program; (ii) retrofitting of the IWMCs in the pilot islands to enable composting, recycling and storage of residual waste; (iii) operating and maintenance costs of the IWMCs; (iv) purchase of one barge for the residual waste collection and transport to the Thilafushi facility; and (v) recurrent expenditures for transport to Thilafushi for final disposal.

The non-project options are presented in the lower part of Table 1 and they assume that each island would establish its own SWM system independently. That is, the options would differ from the integrated system under the project. Five waste disposal options were evaluated: (i) no compaction with separation of recyclables; (ii) semi-compaction with separation of recyclables; (iii) heavy compaction with separation of recyclables; (iv) semi-compaction with separation of recyclables and organic waste; and (v) no compaction with separation of recyclables and organics. The costs of the non-project alternatives would vary with the extent of waste compaction and the scope for recycling and composting at the IWMCs. At appraisal, it was

23

assessed that the proposed project is more cost effective with a net present value (NPV) of costs (12 percent discount rate over 15 years) amounting to US$2.5 million, which is considerably less than the individual island options with the cost NPV ranging from US$7.7 to US$20.2 million. This analysis continues to be applicable even with partial achievement of the project outcomes due to the technical know-how put in place, the ownership shown by Island Councils and communities, replicability of the investment demonstrated by the project and significantly high likelihood of fully achieving the intended outcomes expected within the next few months, as the GoM has committed to complete all investments and ensure the pilot system is in operation.

Table 1: Cost effectiveness of Ari Atoll Project (in thousands of US$)1/

NPV2/ Investment periodAri Atoll Project OptionProject investment cost 1,034GoM investment cost 294Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 671Recurrent/operating cost (up to 2026) 1,501NPV for Ari Atoll project option 2,487

Island option 1 – No compaction with separation of recyclablesInvestment cost 26,920Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 540Recurrent/operating cost (annual cost till 2026) 604NPV for island option 1 20,210

Island Option 2 – Semi-compaction with separation of recyclablesInvestment cost 21,072Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 540Recurrent/operating cost (annual cost till 2026) 604NPV for island option 2 15,989

Island Option 3 – Heavy compaction with separation of recyclablesInvestment cost 12,855Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 540Recurrent/operating cost (annual cost till 2026) 604NPV for island option 3 12,620

Island Option 4 – Semi-compaction with separation of recyclables and organicsInvestment cost 8,376Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 540Recurrent/operating cost (annual cost till 2026) 604NPV for island option 4 8,340

Island Option 5 – No compaction with separation of recyclables and organicsInvestment cost 9,614Recurrent/operating cost during investment period 540Recurrent/operating cost (annual cost till 2026) 604NPV for island option 5 7,718

1/ The cost-effectiveness approach used for the proposed project is based on the same technique applied to SWM component of the ID-financed MEMP. See Annex 9 of the PAD of MEMP, Report No. 43418-MV.

24

2/ Net present value at 12 percent calculated over 15 years

25

Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/Specialty

Lending/Grant Preparation Sumith Pilapitiya Lead Environmental Specialist Task Team Leader Marinela Dado Senior Operations Officer Task Team Leader Darshani De Silva Environmental Specialist Safeguards Eashwary Ramachandran Operations analyst Operations Sunethra Samarakoon Procurement Specialist Procurement Supul Wijesinghe Financial Management Specialist Financial management Wen Zhou Legal Associate Lawyer Arundathy Gunawardena Short Term Temporary Team assistanceSupervision/ICR Sumith Pilapitiya Lead Environmental Specialist Task Team Leader Marinela Dado Senior Operations Officer Task Team Leader

Darshani De Silva Environmental Specialist Safeguards / Task Team Leader

Mokshana Wijeyeratne Short-Term Consultant Safeguards Eashwary Ramachandran Operations analyst Operations Sunethra Samarakoon Procurement Specialist Procurement Supul Wijesinghe Financial Management Specialist Financial management Enoka Abeygunawardena Financial Management Specialist Financial management Subrata Pradhan Finance Analyst Disbursement Janardhanan Ramanujam Senior Finance Assistant Disbursement Niluka Sriskanthan Team Assistant Team assistance Kerima Thilakasena Program Assistant Team assistance

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project CycleStaff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY 13 3Total: 31/

Supervision/ICR2/ FY 13 0FY 14 0FY 15 0

Total: 02/

1/ Bank Budget2/ USD 20,000 was initially provided as Bank Budget was lending and supervision. Only USD 2,960.46 was utilized during lending and remainder was removed from the project by end of FY14. Trust Fund budget of USD 50,000 allocated for supervision. No budget for the ICR.

26

Annex 5. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

(a) Executive Summary of Grantee’s ICR dated March 16, 2015

The project development objective (PDO) for the Ari Atoll Solid Waste Management Project is to build technical and human resource capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll, thereby reducing the environmental risks to marine habitats and greenhouse gas emissions. The pilot project developed and implemented an integrated solid waste management (SWM) system and also built the capacity of the respective Island Councils and communities to manage solid waste. Thus, the project included the following components;

i. development and implementation of an island level integrated SWM system; ii. development of institutional arrangements and implementation of a waste transfer system

for off-island disposal of residual solid waste; and iii. project management.

This report is based on a study that covered the project implementation completion which covered all three components of the project. This Project Implementation Completion Report reviewed the current project design and implementation taking into account, but not limited to the following;

a. sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency of achieving project results, of the institutional development and implementation arrangements including the implementation support provided by the World Bank;

b. community participation in decision making; c. impact and effectiveness of activities carried out under each component; and d. compliance towards fiduciary and safeguards requirements.

The study highlights changes that have taken place and identify outcomes of the project in light of the project interventions. Since the project outcomes, in particular, would depend on a number of factors, some within the control of the project and some outside the project, it is necessary to estimate the 'net effect' of the project after taking into account the non-project interventions. More specifically the study reviewed: (i) achievement and realism of project development objectives and outcome indicators, and (ii) the understanding and compliance with project principles by key stakeholders including the project management. The study also identified institutional, social, environmental, financial and other impacts of the project at the local level as well at the higher levels resulting from the implementation of the project.

The report covers in detail the assessment of PDOs, components, project management and implementation, sustainability and lessons learnt in the project. Further, the write-ups are backed by the data collected through the extensive beneficiary survey conducted for a randomly selected sample in each island. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods were applied in order to study the impact of the project in-depth. The detailed outcome and results indicators was the basis for the development of all survey instruments and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) guidelines. PRA information was quantitatively analyzed, synthesized and reported to support qualitative indicators

27

Key Achievements

The key achievements of the project based on the results framework are summarized in the Table below:

PDO Level Results Indicators Status as at February 05, 2015.The development objective of the project is to build technical and human resource capacity to effectively manage solid waste generated in selected inhabited islands of the Ari Atoll, thereby reducing the environmental risks to marine habitats and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indicator One: Five pilot islands participating in an integrated SWM system composed of: (i) waste segregation at the household level; (ii) composting of organic waste, recycling and storage of residual waste prior to final disposal at the IWMC level; and (iii) a transport system for removal of the residual waste from the IWMCs and disposal at the regional waste disposal facility in Thilafushi Island

Three islands (Ukulhas, Fenfushi and Dhigurah) have source segregation, composting and recycling and storage of residual waste at IWMCs. Transport system for final disposal of residual waste has not been realized as yet. This is because the construction of vessel is yet to be completed.

Indicator two: All five targeted islands with functioning IWMCs have no observed spillage

No observed spillage at Ukulhas and Fenfushi. Although Dhigurah has reduced the spillage by the community, the island is currently undergoing with several difficulties as the Safari boats disposing their garbage into the woods of the Island during midnight without informing the island council.

Intermediate Result (Component 1): Development and implementation of an island level integrated SWM systemIndicator one: Five community-based Island Waste Management Plans are updated for the participating islands

IWMPs have submitted to EPA for approval.

Indicator two: 50% of households carry out segregation of solid waste

Ukulhas, Fenfushi and Dhigurah are carrying out segregation.

Indicator three: The recycling and composting programs are effectively implemented in all five participating islands

Recycling and composting are effectively implemented in Ukulhas, Fenfushi and Dhigurah

Indicator four: At least one community member in each participating island is successfully trained in SWM practices to manage the IWMC

Training conducted in all islands.

Indicator five: At least two islands with targeted households pay user fees for island level waste management

Fee for service to the waste collection and transport has been set-up in the islands of AA. Ukulhas and ADh. Fenfushi through AAWMP.

Indicator six: A strategy in place to operationalize the remaining EU-financed IWMCs in the Atolls of the Central Province

A final report on Central Province IWMC operationalizing strategy in place.

Intermediate Result (Component 2): Development of institutional arrangements and implementation of a waste transfer system for off-island disposal of residual solid wasteIndicator one: Institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste developed

A final report on Institutional mechanism for transfer of residual waste in place.

Indicator two: Cost recovery system for the transfer of residual waste developed

A final report on Cost recovery system in place.

Indicator three: All 5 islands’ residual waste transferred to a regional SWM facility

The construction of the vessel is on-going.

Further, it could be seen that from the procurement schedule that project made huge savings on different consultancies as some of the work were done by individuals rather than firms which

28

reduced the cost. Thus, the following figure gives the summary of disbursement profile of AAWMP by quarter.

Figure 1: Summary of disbursement profile of AASWP by Quarter, April 2013 – January 2015

A p r - J u n 1 3

J u l - S e p 1 3

O c t - D e c 1 3

J a n - M a r 1 4

A p r - J u n 1 4

J u l - S e p 1 4

O c t - D e c 1 4

J a n 1 - 2 1 , 1 5

MVR 0.00

MVR 50,000.00

MVR 100,000.00

MVR 150,000.00

MVR 200,000.00

MVR 250,000.00

MVR 300,000.00

MVR 350,000.00

MVR 400,000.00

MVR 450,000.00

MVR 6,227.44 MVR 5,959.57

MVR 26,238.85 MVR 20,570.36

MVR 190,937.85

MVR 231,673.65

MVR 387,219.45

MVR 165,205.57

dISBURSEMENT PROFILE

(b) Comments on Draft ICR

MoFT provided comments to the ICR directly within the report, which are presented below including the reference to the specific sentence or paragraph:

Draft ICR Reference MoFT Comment [bank responses where appropriate are in brackets]

Under Currency Equivalence: USD 1.00 = MVR 15.44

15.42. This should not go above this for official purpose[The Bank requires the report to take the exchange rate Bank maintains into account]

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at EntryRisk Assessment: However, some of the project level risks such as fiduciary challenges were not fully

This implies that the level of GOM commitment was not to this level during the implementation?[Please note the report is structured based on a common format used across all projects. Therefore, this section only looks at the commitment during

29

identified. preparation as the sub-heading 2.2 specifies. So, this does not imply the status at implementation which is presented later in the report.]

2.2 Implementation:…procurement issues and inadequate technical backstopping, which negatively affected its implementation progress. The grants funds were fully disbursed; but about 22 percent of the funds were returned by end of disbursement period. Outcome and output targets were partially met by the revised closing date.

WB as well as GOM should try to incorporate lessons learned from this project for smoother implementation of ongoing/future projects! [The Bank fully agrees]

2.2 Implementation:This was compounded by the availability of only one qualified SWM expert in Maldives who was working on part-time basis for the project while managing responsibilities assigned by EPA.

Sustainability is questionable! What is MEE’s plan to address this issue?[MEE has already taken actions to set up a new unit for addressing SWM issues in the country. It will be important to build technical capacity of the staff who will be recruited into the unit.]

2.2 ImplementationOperational challenges:Newly appointed Project Manager was faced with challenges such as unresponsiveness of MEE technical staff, as well as lack of time to resolve project implementation issues. While MEE management was alerted about the situation, changes desired to address the challenges were not fully realized. Monthly monitoring and reporting of the status of project activities by the SWM Coordinator was introduced during the second year, which was also not successful due to lack of responsiveness; hence significant delays in submissions.

This shows lack of commitment of the sector Ministry, without which the delivery and performance of the Ministry is in question!

…and few activities were not completed by the extended project closing date

What is the possible impact to the deliverables? Rating of the project?[While the MEE has moved forward in completing the deliverables since the project closure, as the ICR review is focused up to the time of project closure, the rating has come down to moderately satisfactory. However, the delayed deliverables could have been easily achieved within the project if the operational challenges were addressed in a more timely manner]

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation and UtilizationM&E Design:The indicators of the result framework were adequate to report on the achievement of the project, particularly at the output level. However, due to numerous sub-indicators involved on some of the results, accurate quantification of the achievements was not possible. In addition, there was no indicator to measure GHG emission reductions.

Important to note for future projects![The Bank agrees]

Safeguard and Fiduciary ComplianceSafeguard compliance: There were no significant negative social impacts due to the operation of the IWMCs, as all five sites are located well away from residential areas within their respective islands.

Meaning there was no significant improvement due to this project. [Interpretation of the sentence by MoFT is incorrect]

30

3.2 Achievement of Project Development ObjectivesHowever, inclusion of multiple targets, especially in the case of PDO first indicator with different levels of achievements made it difficult to quantify the achievement of the outcomes.

To be noted for future/ongoing projects[The Bank agrees]

The project is rated moderately satisfactory vis-à-vis the achievement of the PDO. The overall project achievements are partially significant with the results below the targets because of delays in operationalizing the IWMCs and waste transfer vessel. Therefore, at project closure, the targets related to reducing environmental degradation towards effective protection of coastal and marine ecosystems, reducing the contribution to GHG emissions and increasing the capacity to respond to solid waste management issues were met with low efficacy. The status of achieving the key PDO outcome targets and related intermediary targets is presented below

What are the measures taken by the Bank and MEE to avoid such outcomes in future projects?[From the Bank side, the Country Director has made a decisions that all projects will need to be supported by staff in based in Sri Lanka office so support can be provided in a regular basis – beyond the formal once in 6 months implementation support the Bank generally provides. This will allow identification of issues early and correcting them. However, the Bank will need full commitment of MEE and support from MoFT for the projects to work, especially in cases like this where extension of time is not possible due to donor requirement]

An institutional mechanism and cost recovery system were identified by the MEE through the project and initial dialog with the proposed utility company was commenced.

MOFT like to know MEE’s plan stated here![MEE is in dialogue on this matter and this is expected to be finalized in April]

…of new spillage due to the phase out of residual waste transfer by the project, inadequate funds available at Island Councils to undertake their own transfer and the proposed waste transfer system not in place

The sector Ministry should take necessary action to avoid such issues. Otherwise the intended project outcome is compromised!

The above assessment confirmed that lack of a transfer system would undermine the success of the integrated SWM system at the island level

A key factor which should be considered and risks properly addressed in the project[The Bank agrees]

due to short implementation period and other challenges related to the country context such as procurement issues,

Something WB/MEE should foresee if proper planning at the design stage was done![The Bank agrees]

The policy and institutional issues around SWM, especially regional model and management of waste transfer system, were to be addressed by the on-going MEMP and are yet to be finalized

Projects should be formulated in a manner to avoid delay of one project impacting the performance of other projects! Point to be noted for future projects![The Bank agrees]

3.3 EfficiencyHowever, the project only partially achieved the primary benefits of substantial improvement to the environment through the reduction of threats to marine assets from degradation caused by indiscriminate disposal of solid waste and the introduction of systematic management of waste disposal sites and composting plants.

If there was no significant improvement to the environment due to this project, it undermines the whole purpose/objective of the project![The Bank agrees. However, MEE has taken the responsibility to complete the pending activities. Most of the physical activities have completed as of now, except the agreement with the utility company. Our recommendation is to review the outcome of the project in another few months’ time and report on it.]

5.2 Borrower Performance(a) Government Performance…and dis-functioning of the CCAC that provided the governance and accountability structure.

The discontinuity of the CCAC should not have affected the project if the Implementing agency, MEE took such issues to the necessary levels for possible solutions![The Bank recommends a higher level committee that looks at governance and accountability structures, as practiced in many of our countries. Since there is

31

limited number of people, we also recommend in the case of Maldives that they should not set up project level governance/accountability structures, but have one that for example covers all projects on climate change.]

(b) Implementation Agency PerformanceFinancial accountability and follow-up were observed, expenditures were duly authorized before they were incurred and documentation was maintained properly for periodic review.

MEE has a fully functional full time based PMU to oversee all aspects of the project. Therefore not adhering to the financial regulation is an issue to be concerned of![Interpretation of the statement by MoFT is incorrect]

32

Annex 6. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders

Following comments were received by DFAT:

Thanks for sharing the completion report. It is a good report - an easy read and comprehensive.

The rating and assessment seem fair. Was an independent review undertaken of this pilot?

Results – (Annex 2) It would be useful to include the targets here. As it currently reads, it’s difficult to ascertain whether the program achieved what it set out to achieve (eg X individuals received training, but what was the target?).

Gender – Whilst the report notes that 46% of the project beneficiaries are female, the project overall seems to have missed an opportunity to better integrate gender equality issues. For example, supporting any leadership opportunities for women. It would be useful if there were some reflection in the lessons learned section as to how gender could have been better integrated.

Sustainability – The report notes that ‘the risk of reversing or losing the institutional and community capacity for anticipating and managing land degradation is considered low’ based on stakeholder consultations. It would be useful to include some more detail on the nature of these consultations – how many beneficiaries were included, did it involve surveys etc. Would also be interesting to know if there are any plans for future follow up surveys?

Efficiency – The report claims that the project successfully changed the attitudes of the island communities in the five pilot islands (p14). It would be useful to include more detail on what this assessment is based on.

Case study(s) – It would be great if the report could include some short case studies + photos that can be used for public diplomacy (eg website).

Lessons Learnt - Given the challenges identified in realising the regional aspect of the project, it might be useful to include some reflections in the lessons learnt on whether this could have been managed/approached any differently.

33

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

Aide Memoires and Management Letters of Ari Atoll Solid Waste Management Project Conceptualizing a waste cost recovery model for Ari Atoll, Ministry of Environment and

Energy Environment and Social Due Diligence Monitoring Report, Ari Atoll Solid Waste

Management Project Environment and Social Due Diligence Report, Ari Atoll Solid Waste Management Project Environmental Management Plans of 5 pilot islands, Ministry of Environment and Energy Environmental Protection and Preservation Act (4/93) Fourth Tourism Master Plan (2013-2017) GNI (Atlas) - 2013, World Bank Implementation Support and Results Reports Institutional Framework for the Operation of a Waste Transfer System for Ari Atoll National Biodiversity Action Plan for the Maldives of 2002 National Environmental Action Plans of Maldives (3 plans) Preliminary Project Implementation Completion Report. Ministry of Environment and

Energy Project Appraisal Document of Ari Atoll Solid Waste Management Project, Report No.

72613-MV Project Appraisal Document of Maldives Environmental Management Project, Report No.

43418-MV Spillage reports of 5 pilot islands, Ministry of Environment and Energy Strategic National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation

(2010-2020) Strategy to Operationalize IWMCs - EU Financed Islands of AA. Maalhos, AA. Feridhoo

and ADh. Dhidhdhoo, Ministry of Environment and Energy Vision 2020 of Maldives World Bank Group’s Maldives Interim Strategy Note for the period of FY14-FY16 - Report

No: 86176-MV World Bank Maldives Country Assistance Strategy 2008-2012

34

MAP

35