May 2007

Document of the World Bank

Report No. 39953-ECA

From Social Funds to Local Governanceand Social Inclusion ProgramsA Prospective Review From the ECA Region(In Two Volumes) Volume II: Technical Annexes

Human Development Sector UnitEurope and Central Asia Region

Report N

o. 39953-ECA

From Social Funds to Local G

overnance and Social Inclusion Programs

Volume II

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Table o f Contents

VOLUME 11: Technical Annexes

Annex 1: Portfolio o f SF/CDD Projects Funded by the WB -Financing Arrangements, .......................................................................................... .3 Annex 2: Project Development Objective o f Social Fund Projects funded by the WB.. .................................................................................................... ..5 Annex 3: CDD and SF ................................................................................. 8 Annex 4: Summary o f Available Data on SF Performance, ..................................... -10 Annex 5: Quality o f the Social FundCDD Portfolio in ECA.. .................................. 12 Annex 6: Description o f Oversight Bodies o f SF., ................................................ 16 Annex 7. Bosnia and Herzegovina - Intensity o f CDP Capital Funding Republika Serpska.. ............................................................................. ; .................. .19 Annex 8: Description o f Institutional Arrangements o f ECA SFs Involved in Local Infrastructure, ......................................................................................... .22 Annex 9: Information on Impact and Process Evaluations on Social Funds in ECA.. ....... 44

Vice President: Shigeo Katsu Sector Director: Tamar Manuelyan Atinc Sector Manager: Hermann von Gersdorff Task Team Leader: Rodrigo Serrano-Berthet

1

Annexes

2

Funded b th .; 'Arran ements *

'~

WB -Finandl 'ortfolio of v

Project Name

Annex. 1

Country

"G"dF? 1 4.8 I 12 Italy

Rural Development Project

Community Works Project

1.2 I 1995 C 6.0 1 5 .8 1 17.4 Italy 1999 C 9.0 1.5 Albania

2003 A 15.0 2.1 Second Community Works Project

Social Services Delivery

Social Investment Fund I

Social Investment Fund I1

Of 1 4.2 I 24.2 Italy

DFID 1 4.0 1 15.0 10.0

12

2001

1995

A

C 2.5

1 5.9 1 29.3 Donors 1.4 2000 2.0 A 20.0

25.0

- 15.0

Armenia

Social Investment Fund 111

1 0.12 1 33.3 Donors 6.67 1.5 2006

2004

A

A Azerbaijan 1.5 Of I 3.3 I 21.1 Japan Rural Investment Project Emergency Public Works & Employment Project Community Development Project CDP-

1.4

1 35.0 1 45 Donors 1996 C 10.0

Bosnia and Herzegovina A 2.6 1 15.0 I I 17.6 200 1

2007

1998

2003

5 -

Additional Financing

Regional Initiatives Fund

Social Investment and Employment Promotion (SEP)

SIEP, Additional Financing

UNDP 1 0.4 I 6.3

0.3 I 5.0 0.6

1 1 66.7 Bulgaria

2007 3.8 I I 24*4 - 20.0 1991 C

Social Investment Fund Project

Social Investment Fund Project 2

2.5

Georgia

5.8 USAID

(4.7) 2003 15.0

- 1.7 A

3

Netherlan ds w i n .

of Foreign 1.3 Affairs & 9.0

Min of Dev.

COOP)

Community Development 2001 C Fund Project I

10.3 Kosovo

I 4.0 I 0.4 I Foreign

2'9 o,9 Sources 15.1 (unidentifi

ed)

Village Investment Project

19.4

KYrgYz Republic

Second Village Investment I 2006 I A 1 1.0 I Project

15.0 6.5 DFID 13.2 35.7

Community Development 1 2002 I C 1 1.0 I Project

Foreign

al Inst.

SIDA; US

Institute

5.0 1 :I 1 Multilater 1 1: 1 9.6

15.0 Soros 19.8

Macedonia

Social Investment 1999 C 1.2 Fund

Moldova SIDA, US I

3.9 Soros Found.; Fin. Gap

20'o 3'7 Social Investment 2004 A 1.5 Fund Project I1

29.2

CESDF #+++ Social

Fund I Social Development 2002 A 6.2 20.0 Fund I1

A 14.5 Social Inclusion 2o06 Project (**) Pilot Poverty Alleviation 1997 C 0.7 Project Second Poverty Alleviation 2002 A 4.5 Project Social Risk Mitigation 2002 A 23.9 110.0 Project (**) Social Investment 2002 A 10.0 50.2

Development 1999 C 4.9 10.0

Romania

I 14.5

12.0 I I 12.7 I I Tajikistan

13.8 1 I I 18.3

h r k e y 133.9 +-+-t+ Ukraine Fund Pro ect

~

I I I I

265 49 103 800

- WB total L ' I I , U 6 T i y

Source: Nsour and Sum (2006) plus additional info gathered by authors, (*) As reported in PAD. Real local counterparts from communities and local governments i s usually higher than what planned in PAD. (**) includes only SF component

4

Anne: - FY

1999

-

2003

2001

-

2000

2006

2001

-

2001

2004

-

1999

2. Project Country

Albania

Albania

Albania

Armenia

Armenia

Bosnia- Herzegovina

Kosovo

Kosovo

Romania

bevelopment Ob Proj Title

Albania Community Works Project

Second community works project

Social Services Delivery Project

Social Investment Fund I1

Social Investment Fund 111

Bosnia Herzegovina Community Development Project

Community Development Fund Project

Community Development Fund 2 Project

Social Development Fund

ctive o f Social Fund Projects funded by the WB Project Development Objectives as stated in PAD

I. To alleviate small infrastructure bottlenecks by rehabilitating small, sustainable, social and economic infrastructure according to the development priorities of local governments and communities. 2. To build the capacity of local communities and local governments to promote local economic development

To alleviate local bottlenecks hindering development (including infrastructure and services) through processes of participatory local development as a result o f (a) improving access to quality social and economic infrastructure and social services through sustainable micro- projects, and (b) promoting institutional development at the local level

1, To improve standards of living of poor and vulnerable population groups in Albania by: (i) increasing their access to well targeted and effective social care services; (ii) assisting the Government o develop, monitor and evaluate more effective social policy; and (iii) improving capacity for planning, managing and delivering social care services with increased involvement o f local governments, communities and civil society. Improved basic social and economic infrastructure that can result in immediate improvements o f living conditions of the poor; build partnerships and stakeholder participation at the local level; enhance project ownership and sustainability; capacity building at the local level focusing on decentralized planning and management systems; promote private sector development

(i) Improving the quality and access, and increasing the coverage o f community infrastructure and services in poor communities, and for the most vulnerable groups in response to emerging critical needs; and (ii) Promoting complementary institutional capacity building at the community and municipal level so as to improve the quality and sustainability o f community investments and service delivery, increase accountability, and enhance greater stakeholder empowerment at the local level. a) To improve basic services and facilities for low-income and poor communities in under-served municipalities (through investments in non- revenue generating socially oriented projects and programs). b) to improve governance and capacity o f local governments to deliver services to the poor through better partnerships between poor communities and municipalities in investment identification and decisions.

1. To improve the quality and availability o f community infrastructure and services in poor and conflict-affected communities, and for vulnerable groups. 2. To support institutional capacity-building at the community and municipal level so as to improve the quality and sustainability o f service delivery and increase civic participation in local development. 1. Improve the quality, access, and availability o f community infrastructure and services in poor and conflict-affected communities, and for the most vulnerable groups, including returnees. 2. Promote institutional capacity building at the community and municipal levels so as to improve the quality and sustainability of service delivery, and enhance greater stakeholder participation and empowerment in local development. 1. Improve livelihoods of poor communities in rural areas and o f disadvantaged groups. 2. increase local organizational and self-help capacity.

5

1. improving the livelihood of Beneficiaries from poor rural communities and disadvantaged groups. 2. Promoting social capital enhancement and civic engagement among project beneficiaries.

Social Development Fund I1 (Phase 11) 2002

-

2006

Romania

To improve the living conditions and the social inclusion of the most disadvantaged vulnerable people in the Romanian society by: (i) improving the living conditions and social inclusion of Roma living in poor settlements; (ii) increasing the inclusiveness of ECE services in targeted areas; and (iii) improving the quality o f services for PWD, youth at risk and victims of domestic violence.

1. Improve the living conditions of poorer and vulnerable groups of the population in targeted communities. 2. Empower communities and vulnerable groups to address local social needs. 3. Assist the reform of social protection by creating models of targeting and service provision. To improve the living standards of poor and vulnerable people through micro-projects, microfinance services and community empowerment in areas served by the project.

To provide immediate support to the poorest affected by the economic crisis by: (a) building up the capacity of state institutions providing basic social services and social assistance to the poor (social risk management); (b) implementing a social assistance system (Conditional Cash Transfers - CCT) targeted to the poorest 6 percent of the population conditional on improved use of basic health and education services (social risk mitigation and prevention); and (c) increasing the income generating and employment opportunities of the poor (social risk prevention).

Social Inclusion Project Romania

Social Investment Fund Project 2002 Ukraine

Poverty Alleviation Project I1 2002 Tajikistan

Social Risk Mitigation ProjectLoan

2002 Turkey

1. To help participating local self-governments to use enhanced management skills and a participatory process in establishing local development plans and setting investment priorities. 2.) To help participating poor communities to apply for, manage and use micro-projects in a sustainable manner. 3. To help participating poor communities to benefit from improved social and economic infrastructure and related services.

To reduce poverty and increase social capital among the socially most vulnerable groups (long term unemployed and ethnic minorities) and poor communities, through targeted interventions that foster initiative and self- dependence in these communities.

Georgia Social Investment Fund I1 2003 Georgia

Social Investment & Employment Promotion Project

2003 Bulgaria

Social Investment Fund Project

1. help empower rural communities by strengthening their capacities to make decisions, organize, and manage; 2. improve the quality of basic social and economic services for rural populations in Moldova, particularly the poor. The project will contribute to the implementation of Moldova’s Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy by empowering poor communities and vulnerable population groups to manage their priority development needs. Improved living standards and increased use of infrastructure services for households in rural communities completing microprojects.

1999 Moldova

Social Investment Fund I1 Project 2004 Moldova

2004 Azerbaijan Rural Investment Project

KYrgYz Republic

6

2006

lource:

KYrgYz Republic

sour and Sum

Second Village Investment Project

006)

Alleviation o f rural poverty through (i) empowering communities to improve access to social and economic infrastructure services and employment opportunities by supporting income and employment generating investments in village infrastructure and in group-managed small enterprises and by helping communities and local authorities work together to achieve key development objectives at the local level; (ii) strengthening local self-government administrations. . .and councils, and grassroots institutions - making them more inclusive, accountable and effective at meeting villagers’ self-identified development needs.

7

Annex 3. CDD and SF’

Many C D D programs adopt a philosophy inspired by Robert Chambers’ livelihoods framework or Amartya Sen’s work on assets and capabilities. These frameworks emphasize the multiple “capitals” that individuals, households, and communities deploy to improve their well being: physical, financial, social, human, and natural. Access to, and effective utilization o f these assets are mediated by a set o f social, market, and governmental institutions that enhance or limit the extent to which households can access or deploy assets (capabilities). For example, investments in human capital through schooling may not be accessible to girls or ethnic minorities; or, even if the institutional framework allows poor people to have access to assets, the institutions may limit the return to those assets, e.g., the labor market may be discriminating, limiting certain professions to different social or ethnic groups.

The specific components o f well-being that are emphasized as program outcomes differ widely across CDD programs. However, al l share a common desired final outcome: improvement and well-being o f the target population2. What differs i s the component o f well- being targeted by the program. The different objectives can be grouped into three categories

0

health care). 0

Income (sustained, higher and/or less volatile). Access to services (improved services that directly affect well-being (e.g. water supply,

Empowerment (increase agency and ability to influence).

Framework to Organize CDD ADDroaches

Final Outcome

Program 0 b j ec tives

More and Better Better Institutions Distributed Assets (Inclusive, Cohesive,

outputs Accountable)

Program Asset Investment Activities

Source: Jorgensen (2006)

’ Based on Jorgensen (2006). * At least those funded by development agencies.

8

A social fund i s different f rom other instruments that follow a CDD approach. Operations based on the C D D approach can vary substantially in their design, depending on whether their main objective is to improve the well being o f the poor by influencing (i) their incomes, (ii) the public services they consume, or (iii) their level o f empowerment. Social Funds are a CDD instrument for increasing empowerment through collective action, and publicly provided services through a multisectoral approach (see graph below). While SF programs can sometimes include income, personal empowerment, and single sector service provision objectives, each o f these objectives i s part o f a different strategic framework, and thus are not included in this study.

Hierarchy of possible objectives o f CDD type projects

Income ‘&Private goods”

Increase assets

Improve return

on assets

/ \

Empowerment 5-2 Personal-

i.e., increased

agency

“Publicly provided

action- e.&, seetoral mobilization

ource: adapted from Jorgensen (2006).

9

Annex 4 - Summary o f Available Data on SF Performance

Name of SF

Impact Evaluation. Table below summarizes the type of impact and process assessments conducted by SF (which are more detailed in Annex 8). Even though it i s not a complete l ist, it i s clear that almost al l SFs have made efforts to assess the results o f their activities. Even though many o f the study reports are titled as Impact Assessments, they are actually beneficiary assessments. Very few o f the actual impact assessments are properly designed - with both control groups and collection o f baseline information.

Type of study

Albanian ADF

I I Beneficiary I Impact I Cost Effectiveness I Other I 2006 2006

Armenian SIF

Bosnia and Herzegovina CDF Bulgaria SIF

Georgia SIF Kosovo CDF

1997,2000, 2002,2003 2006 2002,2006

2006 2004 baseline

study 2000,2003

2005 2003 Macedonia SIF Moldova SIF Romania SDF

2005 200 1 2004

1999,2000,2002 2004,2006 2006 Tajikistan NSIF

Several factors make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions regarding cost effectiveness o f the SF investments in 3

ECA:(i) the construction markets were/are not stable and developed enough, which doesn’t allow to compare sub- projects implemented in different periods o f time and in different areas; (ii) the construction and service quality standards are underdeveloped, which doesn’t allow to find equivalent comparators; (iii) any projects, both governmental/NGO and localhnternational, are not transparent enough, which does not allow to receive relevant information on other projects’ costs.

10

2007 (not 2005, completed yet) Technical

Turkey SRMP

~. audit

4 in 2006

Type o f road Traffic Average cost

RSDF Roads from poor Low 3,13 -4,61

L i f e time Average cosdlife time span (years) span ($/sqm/year) 2 1,93

I construction Source: annex 8 (*) Most common types o f implemented projects are studied (**) International NGOs implementing similar projects for Armenia and Kosovo; WE3 financed projects PIU for Tajikistan

RDP

SAPARD

Another aspect o f the SF cost effectiveness i s the operational costs/overheads. Usually for SFs it i s about 7-8 per cents o f total project cost, and as a ru le i s between 5 and 10 % ( e.g. about 8% for B&H CDP, 9.5% for Tajikistan NSIFT, 8% for Armenian SIF or 5% for Moldova SIF). In all ECA region countries it i s significantly lower than overheads in the similar projects implemented by other agencies, including international organizations.

villages Communal roads Medium 7,39 - 8,91 4 2,03

Main roads o f the High 13,67 - 15,07 6-8 2,05 commune

11

Annex 5: Quality of the Social Fund/CDD Portfolio in ECA4

The number of social fund projects rated satisfactory or highly satisfactory for Implementation Progress in ECA i s 88%, (80% i s rated satisfactory and 8% highly satisfactory), with only 4% of the portfolio being rated unsatisfactory (Chart 1). In ECA, both the Kyrgyz Republic Village Investment Project I and the Romania Social Development Fund I1 were rated highly satisfactory. Only the Albania Social Services Delivery Project was received an unsatisfactory rating.

Quality. Implementa

Chart I: Overall Implementation Progress

20 18 16 14 12

Number of projects 10 0 6 4 2 0

HS S Ms U

Rating

Seventy-six percent o f ECA's social fund projects have a satisfactory Development Objective rating, with 12% o f the portfolio being rated as highly satisfactory and 4% unsatisfactory (Chart 2). Again, the Kyrgyz Republic Village Investment Project I was rated highly satisfactory and both o f the Romania Social Development Fund Projects (I and 11) were rated highly satisfactory. The Albania Social Services Delivery Project received an unsatisfactory rating, mainly due to delays in implementation o f the activities under community-based services component, where most o f project's funds are allocated.

The portfolio quality review reflects the ratings o f 25 social fimd projects in the ECA region: Albania: 4

Community Works Project (PO5 1309); Second Community Works Project (P077297); Social Services Delivery (PO553 83); Rural Development Project (P008273). Armenia: Social Investment Fund I (P035768); Social Investment Fund I1 (P057952). Azerbaijan: Rural Investment Project (P076234). Bosnia and Herzegovina: Community Development Project (P070995); Emergency Public Works and Employment Project (P020577). Bulgaria: Social Investment and Employment Promotion (P069532). Georgia: Social Investment Fund Project (P039929); Social Investment Fund Project 2 (PO7436 1). Kosovo: Community Development Fund Project I (PO728 14); Community Development Fund I1 Project (P079259). Kyrgyz Republic: Village Investment Project I (P073973); Village Investment Project I1 (PO366 1 1). Macedonia: Community Development Project (PO767 12). Moldova: Social Investment Fund Project (P044840); Social Investment Fund Project I1 (PO0793 14). Romania: Social Development Fund I (P049200); Social Development Fund I1 (P068808); Social Inclusion Project (P093096). Tajikistan: Pilot Poverty Alleviation Project (P044202); Second Poverty Alleviation Project (P008860). Turkey: Social Risk Mitigation Project (P074408). Ukraine: Social Investment Fund Project (P069858).

12

Chart 2: Project Development Objective

20 18 16 14 12

Numbor of projoots 10 8 6 4 2 n

Overall, all project implementation progress indicators were rated satisfactory, (88% for project management, 80% for financial management, 84% for counterpart funding and procurement, and 76% for M&E). The M&E indicator was the most poorly rated in the ECA portfolio - 16% were rated as moderately satisfactory and 4% as unsatisfactory. Twelve percent o f the ECA portfolio was rated highly satisfactory in project management, the most highly rated indicator in project implementation.

Chart 3: Ratings of Implementation Indicators

The dominant risk flags for the ECA social fund projects were exogenous - of which 50% o f the critical risk projects were attributed to risky country conditions. Only 4% o f the projects experienced effectiveness delays and environmental problems5 respectively (Chart 4). None o f the projects received red flags for counterpart funding and slow disbursement.

Effectiveness delay i s flagged when the elapsed time between Board presentation and effectiveness i s more than nine months for investment and more than three months for adjustment and emergency operations. Environmental flag refers to a project being rated 3 or 4 in the last Project Review.

1 1

isk Flags for Social F w ~ ~ Projects (# Flags)

Effectiwness Countepalt Environment Slow Country Record Delay Funds Flag Disbursement

lity at E n t ~ an s ~ t i s f a c t o ~ or ~ f a c ~ o ~ ~ During QAG’s Quali

lity o f $ u ~ ~ ~ i s i o n for ECA social fun

(QEA) and Quality o f Supervision (QSA) exercises between 2000-2006, six social fund projects in the ECA portfolio were reviewed. One o f the social funds projects received highly satisfactory ratings and 5 received satisfactory ratings. The former was the Albania Second Community Works project.

Fund, Tajikistan Poverty Alleviation Fund I, Bosnia-Herzegovina Emergency Public Works & Employment Project, and Romania Social Development Fund I) received satisfactory rating with respect to quality o f the ICR. Out o f these, two received moderately satisfactory ratings on project outcomes, and two received satisfactory ratings by IEG. In 75% o f the cases, IEG downgraded the ICR ratings, (if ICR indicated satisfactory, ratings were downgraded to a modestly satisfactory, if ICR indicated highly satisfactory, the project was downgraded to satisfactory). In the case o f Armenia, IEG indicated that although the project had yielded significant benefits in very difficult country circumstances, outcomes were less than satisfactory in relation to the stated project objectives. In the case o f Romania, IEC downgraded the project to satisfactory because convincing evidence o f impact was lacking in the ICR.

Investment Fund Development Fund I

14

Sustainability ICR IEG Bank

Assessments on institutional development were viewed as a mix o f both substantial and modest. In the case o f Tajikistan and Romania, the ICR and IEG ratings coincided. For Armenia, IEG downgraded the ICR rating o f substantial to modest. The only exception was the Bosnia-Herzegovina project in which IEG upgraded the project from modest to substantial. According to IEG, this was attributed to the view that the strengthening o f municipal governments promoted by the project in these difficult circumstances warranted a rating of “substantial”.

Likely Likely Likely Likely Non-evaluable Unlikely Likely Likely

Sustainability ratings were all identified as likely in the ICRs but were only marked likely in 50% o f the cases. The other 50% was downgraded by IEG to unlikely, in the case o f Tajikistan, or “non-evaluable” in the case o f Armenia, In the case o f Tajikistan, “likely sustainability o f social fund operation through continued IDA and/or other donor fbnding”, as indicated in the ICR are not sufficient for an IEG rating o f sustainability.

In 100% of the cases, both the Bank performance and Borrower performance ratings were attributed the same ratings and matched both ICR and IEG ratings. Bank performance ratings varied substantially, ranging from unsatisfactory to highly satisfactory. Similarly, borrower performance reflected the same ratings as those indicated under Bank performance.

15

t

BOX x: The Kyrgyz’s ARIS Supervisory Board: Equal Representation for Central Government, Local Government, and Civil Society

The Community Development and Investment Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic (ARIS) was established by an edict from the President o f the Republic on October 15, 2003. Its central objective i s to support sustainable poverty alleviation in the Kyrgyz Republic, by providing assistance to communities and local self-governments to address local social and economic problems by strengthening their capacity to identify and prioritize local problems, to develop appropriate action and investment plans, to mobilize resources, and to design, implement and manage investments aimed at addressing local priority issues.

One o f the most salient features of this Agency i s the way it has organized its governing body, establishing clear rules that ensure continuity and representation along time.

Different i?om most other SF, where the board i s dominated by central government officials, the ARIS’ board gives equal weight to the voice of local government representatives and civil society representatives . Each o f these three groups have seven members in the board. They are selected as follows: 0 Central government: one representative i?om each of the following: the President, the Primer Minister,

and the Ministries o f Finance, Local Self-Government, Justice, Education, and Health. 0 Local self-government bodies, four from LSG o f rural communities, elected in a meeting of the

Association o f Local Self-Government o f Villages and Settlements - the body which groups the rural communities. Following the same rationale, the representative from urban communities must be elected in a meeting of the Association o f Towns - the body that groups urban communities. Civil society organizations: candidates are nominated by the Executive Director and approved by a simple majority of the other members o f the Supervisory Board.

Another salient feature i s the rotation and permanency of Supervisory Board members. ARIS’s Charter not only establishes the terms that each member will serve, but also the form o f election for replacing them. For instance, article 18, in its part (a) explains: “TO facilitate and ensure broad representation over time o f local governments and civil society, the four heads of Aiyl Okmotus on the Supervisory Board serve staggered terms of four years, the six representatives of non-governmental organizations on the Supervisory Board serve staggered terms of three years, and the mayor or town council chairperson serves a two-year term. A member o f the Supervisory Board whose term i s ending i s replaced by a representative of the same constituent group.”

The principle o f proportional representation also stands out when deciding on the authorities of the Supervisory Board. ARIS counts with a Chairperson and two Deputy Chairpersons that are annually elected from among the members of the Supervisory Board, by a simple majority o f votes o f the members present and voting. This means that any of the members - governmental and non-governmental - could be holding this position, as long as it i s voted by its peers. Furthermore, the Chairperson and the two Deputy Chairpersons are elected from the three different constituent groups composing the Supervisory Board, to ensure that each group i s represented.

Source: [web link here]

18

Annex 7. Bosnia and Herzegovina - Intensity o f CDP Capital Funding Republika Serpska (sorted in descending order by average annual SF capital investement per

19

Average annual CDP

capital investment per capita

covered) (Yeam***

20

5.2 I 2.9

21

. .

$ t d 3

6 .

3

r% *E B 3 11 8 e .- I

e, - 51

e m e 4J

3

.- v)

3 P 2 2 a 6

*

CI

I

e f Lc)

e 'C

e P 0

- - s I

a 3

.

rn rn 4

.

4.

rn

m

(u

. .

.

. .

. .

z I-

L

E

M

.- e

k.

M z ?: *

- : 3

4 f * e,

.- e (111 M

'6 'c)

e .- v1

a

m .

u 8

.

. .

.

. .

.

e .- - P s1 B B g I 3

e 51

e a

* 0

.- f v) . .

.

.

- L e a 4 * 0

.-. e m

.

- L e a 4 P 2 .- e 3.

vi

3 a a i; e B

W

.v

2..

rn

.

c)

3

.- e, 3

.- a

0

0

0

m

L-

.

F

0

m

Ti 3

!

00

0

i: P s e E - .- a e e

E

-

u 6 ;

Y E - .- a Y E

e . .

i: I g ¶

E.

.

. a

m

m

. .

.

. .

.

.

Y 2 - U

m e 'C

8 5 E 9 P e *

.- 2 3.

. m

d

m

. . .

4

e, '7

g E z P

VI

B n

2

i u

.

a 3

.

vi

.

IA

m

c

a 0

0

0

0

00

00

0

0

.

v1 U

'E 8 4 m 2.

I

51

.- 0

00

. .

.

8.

J

r

.

Y

. .

. .

. 3

.

$

. .

m

d

+

N

N

N

21

8 s W-

c

I-

PP

m"d

ti 0

-N

P

O

00

C

ON

f 9 u I

4

I

m E %

I

El

nu,

00 d

(D

0

0

N

rB

I W

0

0

N

0

N

3 E E

-2 7

Me .I

E

El

d

%

'C m

vu

) G

in

0

IA

Y I 0

3

3

N

a

w

m

z

v c

a

m

a

._

N

E 7

h n f -

a 8

a b f

f c

v) *

%