world bank documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · lcds low carbon development strategy...

Document of

The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: ICR00004209

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT IDA-49690, IDA-57530

ON A CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 8.90 MILLION (US$ 12.56 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

Co-Operative Republic of Guyana

FOR THE UG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ( P125288 )

March 29, 2018

Education Global Practice

Latin America And Caribbean Region

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

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective November 29, 2017)

Currency Unit = Guyanese Dollar

GY$207.28 = US$1

US$0.003 = GY$1

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 - December 31

Regional Vice President: Jorge Familiar

Country Director: Tahseen Sayed

Senior Global Practice Director: Jaime Saavedra Chanduvi

Practice Manager: Reema Nayar

Task Team Leader(s): Hongyu Yang

ICR Main Contributor: Nicole Mammoser

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Additional Financing

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

CEN Country Engagement Note

CRIB Center for Research, Innovation and Business Development

GoG Government of Guyana

GRIF Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund

HR Human Resources

IDA International Development Association

ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IERR Internal Economic Rate of Return

LCDS Low Carbon Development Strategy

IRI Intermediate Results Indicator

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoE Ministry of Education

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PCU Project Coordination Unit (based in the MoE Planning Unit)

PDO Project Development Objective

RF Results Framework

SDR Special Drawing Rights

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics

UG University of Guyana

UGSTS(P) University of Guyana Science and Technology Support (Project)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DATA SHEET ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 5

A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................5

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................8

II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 10

A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 10

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ...................................................................................... 10

C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 17

D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 18

E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 18

III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 19

A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................ 19

B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 19

IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 20

A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 20

B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 21

C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 22

D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 22

V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 23

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 24

ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 36

ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 38

ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 39

ANNEX 5. BORROWER AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ....................................................... 45

ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................. 48

ANNEX 7. REVISED BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERED BY UG’S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FACULTIES ..................................................................................................... 49

ANNEX 8. RESEARCH GRANTS AWARDED ............................................................................. 50

The World Bank UG Science and Technology Support ( P125288 )

Page 1 of 50

DATA SHEET

BASIC INFORMATION

Product Information

Project ID Project Name

P125288 UG Science and Technology Support

Country Financing Instrument

Guyana Specific Investment Loan

Original EA Category Revised EA Category

Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B)

Related Projects

Relationship Project Approval Product Line

Additional Financing P156746-AF UG Science and Technology Support

08-Dec-2015 IBRD/IDA

Organizations

Borrower Implementing Agency

Co-Operative Republic of Guyana Ministry of Education

Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO

The objective of the Project is to strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG through infrastructure, research and curricular improvements while building the basis for improved facilities management and future growth. PDO as stated in the legal agreement

The objective of the Project is to strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG through infrastructure, research and curricular improvements while building the basis for improved facilities management and future growth.


Page 2 of 50

FINANCING

Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$)

World Bank Financing IDA-49690

10,000,000 10,000,000 8,848,550

IDA-57530

3,664,000 3,664,000 3,710,357

Total 13,664,000 13,664,000 12,558,907

Non-World Bank Financing

Borrower 1,400,000 610,000 610,000

Total 1,400,000 610,000 610,000

Total Project Cost 15,064,000 14,274,000 13,168,906

KEY DATES

Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing

23-Jun-2011 13-Dec-2012 27-May-2015 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017

RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING

Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions

04-Nov-2014 1.68 Change in Results Framework Other Change(s)

18-Sep-2015 4.03 Change in Results Framework

08-Dec-2015 5.40 Additional Financing Change in Results Framework

07-Feb-2017 10.40 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Reallocation between Disbursement Categories

KEY RATINGS

Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality

Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial


Page 3 of 50

RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Actual

Disbursements (US$M)

01 20-Sep-2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0

02 18-Apr-2012 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0

03 06-Nov-2012 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0

04 20-Jun-2013 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory .30

05 05-Jan-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory .95

06 06-Jul-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 1.62

07 25-Nov-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 2.29

08 18-Feb-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 3.49

09 23-Jul-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 4.03

10 17-Dec-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.40

11 23-May-2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 8.17

12 19-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 10.40

13 27-Jun-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 12.56

SECTORS AND THEMES

Sectors

Major Sector/Sector (%)

Information and Communications Technologies 35

Public Administration - Information and Communications Technologies

9

ICT Services 17

Other Information and Communications Technologies 9


Page 4 of 50

Education 65

Public Administration - Education 9

Tertiary Education 56

Themes

Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Human Development and Gender 92

Education 92

Access to Education 23

Science and Technology 23

Teachers 23

Standards, Curriculum and Textbooks 23

Environment and Natural Resource Management 9

Climate change 9

Mitigation 9

ADM STAFF

Role At Approval At ICR

Regional Vice President: Pamela Cox Jorge Familiar Calderon

Country Director: Francoise Clottes Tahseen Sayed Khan

Senior Global Practice Director: Keith E. Hansen Jaime Saavedra Chanduvi

Practice Manager: Chingboon Lee Reema Nayar

Task Team Leader(s): Robert J. Hawkins Hongyu Yang

ICR Contributing Author: R. Nicole Mammoser


Page 5 of 50

I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL

Context

1. Country context. At appraisal in May 2011, Guyana ranked 104 out of 169 countries in the Human Development Index and was the second poorest country in the Caribbean region. The international financial crisis in 2008-09 led to a decline in the annual growth that Guyana had experienced since 2006, but by 2011, projections showed positive growth prospects for the medium term. Projections were underpinned by gradual increases in export prices as the global economy recovered, implementation of major infrastructure projects, and development of a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) that would provide up to US$250 million in grants from Norway1 over four years (2012-2015).2

2. Sector context. In 2009, the Government of Guyana (GoG) was beginning to formulate its LCDS in an effort to move the country towards low carbon, climate resilient, low deforestation economic growth. The GoG recognized that improvements in science and technology education at the tertiary level would be critical to developing the skill sets required to execute the LCDS and to take advantage of related employment opportunities in low carbon economic sectors.3

3. As the sole public university in Guyana, UG played a central role in the development of human capital.4 However, inadequate funding over the years had constrained its potential.5 There was no financing available for research (a prime component in academic career development) in the four science and technology faculties, instructors did not have access to basic teaching tools (projectors, lab equipment, etc.), and physical structures suffered from a lack of maintenance.

4. The GoG sought Bank assistance in enhancing UG’s capabilities in order to better implement the LCDS. The Bank in turn determined that it could play a role in strengthening capacity at UG through the UGSTS Project, which would modernize the science and technology curricula and establish a research program, both improvements that could yield contributions to a low carbon economy. The Project directly addressed two of the three objectives6 emphasized in the Guyana Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for FY2009-12: improving education quality, and supporting the GoG’s efforts to address exposure to climate risk. The latter was accomplished through the Project’s focus on the UG faculties most relevant for science education in response to the human capacity and knowledge demands of the LCDS.

1 The Guyana REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) Investment Fund, called GRIF, received US$250 million from Norway to finance activities identified under the LCDS. IDA acts as Trustee to the GRIF. 2 Project Appraisal Document, May 2011. 3 Skill sets were required for employment in jobs related to improving energy efficiency, transitioning to clean energy, improving agricultural productivity, and slowing deforestation. Advances were needed in these areas to further address climate change in Guyana. 4 UG graduated 1,229 students in 2011, approximately 25% of whom earned degrees from UG’s four science and technology faculties. (Male students accounted for approximately 60% of enrollment in the science and technology faculties.) 5 At the time of appraisal, capital and recurrent expenditures had exceeded income at UG for four of the five previous years. Government support covered less than half of the cost of training each student, yet UG had not raised tuition rates since 1994. 6 Exposure to climate risk could be reduced in Guyana by limiting deforestation and forest degradation, which contribute to greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions, via the LCDS.


Page 6 of 50

Theory of Change (Results Chain)

5. The UGSTS Project focused on interventions that would improve the quality of education provided in UG’s four science and technology faculties by updating curricula, instituting research efforts, and upgrading classroom and laboratory spaces and ICT infrastructure. Project activities would also strengthen the science and technology faculties’ capacity for facilities management, and increase UG’s institutional capacity for decision making and strategic planning.

6. Project outputs would include revamped and reoriented curricula, the award of research grants, and modernized campus facilities. Further, a facilities management protocol would be formalized and instituted, and studies would be conducted to assist UG in capacity building in areas of decision making and planning for future growth.

7. Expected Project outcomes included: 1. increased faculty, student and employer satisfaction with the strength of UG’s science and technology degree programs; 2. improved facilities management at UG, ensuring that improvements to classrooms, laboratories and ICT infrastructure realized under the Project were maintained for years to come; and 3. UG’s bolstered ability to develop and carry out strategic initiatives, paving the way for the University’s future growth.

8. The Project’s Theory of Change as conceived at appraisal is represented in the following Results Chain:


Page 7 of 50

Project Development Objectives (PDOs)

9. The objective of the Project is to strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG through infrastructure, research and curricular improvements while building the basis for improved facilities management and future growth. This PDO statement includes three separate objectives that will be assessed individually: 1. strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG through infrastructure, research and curricular improvements; 2. build the basis for improved facilities management at UG; and 3. build the basis for future growth at UG.

Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators

10. Following are the three indicators defined at appraisal to assess achievement of each of the three parts of the

PDO:

PDO Indicator 1: Increase in student, faculty and private sector satisfaction with the strength of the four science and

technology faculties at UG, to gauge the degree of perception that the Project had strengthened the faculties through

infrastructure, research, and curricular improvements, which was the expected outcome.

PDO Indicator 2: New investments in buildings, equipment and ICT maintained in working order at UG, to ensure that

UG built the basis for improved facilities management, which was the expected outcome.

PDO Indicator 3: Studies produced by the Project are incorporated into the UG Strategic Plan, to ensure that UG built

institutional capacity in areas related to strategic planning as the basis for future growth, which was the expected

outcome.

Components

Component 1: Educational Quality Improvement Program (estimated total cost: US$1.9 million, of which IDA funds

of US$1.5 million / actual total cost: US$1.097 million, of which IDA funds of US$1.095 million)

Sub-component 1a / Curriculum Reform: Carry out a science curriculum reform process by updating and/or reorienting

UG’s existing curricula in order to support the LCDS by providing technical assistance on curriculum reform,

instructional design, and science content, and provide honoraria to UG lecturers participating in the curriculum reform

process.

Sub-component 1b / Research Grants: Carry out selected research relevant to the LCDS through the provision of

research grants to UG lecturers.

Component 2: Infrastructure Rehabilitation (estimated total cost: US$6.2 million, of which IDA funds of US$5.5

million / actual total cost: US$11.708 million, of which IDA funds of US$10.292 million)

Sub-component 2a / Building and Laboratory Rehabilitation: Support the rehabilitation and/or improvement of

existing science classroom and laboratory buildings of four faculties located on the UG campus that provide basic

teaching, and the improvement of campus-wide drainage.

Sub-component 2b / Laboratory Equipment: Provide scientific and multimedia equipment to the existing science

laboratory buildings that deliver practical science teaching and research.


Page 8 of 50

Sub-component 2c / ICT: Establish a campus-wide Internet network to connect UG’s faculties and libraries to the

Internet and prepare UG to connect to an international link to enable development of software applications, e-

learning tools, and digital content repositories to support the curriculum reform process (Sub-component 1a).

Component 3: Institutional Capacity Building (estimated total cost: US$1.8 million, of which IDA funds of US$1.5

million / actual total cost: US$1.415 million, of which IDA funds of US$1.345 million)

Sub-component 3a / Project Management: Support capacity building within UG in the areas of management and

administration through the provision of technical assistance for curricular supervision, ICT, environmental and social

management, M&E, and facilities management.

Sub-component 3b / Studies: Support capacity building within UG in the areas of business and strategic planning

through the provision of technical assistance to carry out studies related to the establishment of a biodiversity

institute, a research and innovation fund, and a business development unit at UG, and an assessment of existing

human resources.

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION

Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 11. No changes were made to the three objectives included in the PDO statement.

Revised PDO Indicators 12. At Restructuring #1 on November 4, 2014, the Results Framework was updated. Baselines and targets were added and revised for both PDO and Intermediate Outcome Indicators to reflect data not available at appraisal, and one Intermediate Outcome Indicator was dropped. In addition, disbursement estimates were revised to reflect an 18-month delay in Project effectiveness that was unexpected and beyond the Project’s control. Although the Bank had approved the Project in June 2011, a change in government7 in November 2011 resulted in a decision-making paralysis that impeded meeting loan effectiveness conditions (execution of a Subsidiary Agreement between the Ministry of Education and UG, establishment of a Project Steering Committee, hiring of staff for the Project Coordination Unit, and finalization of a Project Operations Manual). Consequently, the Loan Agreement was not signed by GoG until September 2012, and the Project went into effect in December 2012. 13. At Restructuring #2 on September 18, 2015, original PDO Indicator 1 (“Increase in student, faculty, and private section satisfaction with the strength of four science faculties at UG”) was dropped from the Results Framework. It was decided that “satisfaction” would likely be influenced by factors outside the Project’s scope, and there was no way to fully control for this likelihood in a survey of satisfaction. A new PDO Indicator (“Number of research grants with at least one paper evaluated as successful”) was added to the RF to monitor the outcome of nascent research grant activities and to represent a measure of the impact of research efforts on capacity building in UG faculty and students. A second new PDO Indicator (“Number of reformed/strengthened programs offered”) was added to the RF to quantify the outcome of curriculum reform and to represent a measure of strengthened science and technology degree programs at UG.

7 While the People’s Progressive Party candidate was elected President in 2011, opposition parties won a majority of seats in Guyana’s National Assembly. Without a majority government, Guyana experienced a shutdown in decision making.


Page 9 of 50

Revised Components 14. The Project’s three components were not changed.

Other Changes

15. Additional Financing (AF) of US$3.66 million was requested by GoG in June 2015 in order to cover a shortfall in the Project budget. The shortfall was due to (i) SDR depreciation in relation to the US Dollar (the original credit amount of SDR6.2 million decreased from US$10 million equivalent at Project approval in June 2011 to US$8.6 million by November 2015), and (ii) to cost increases for infrastructure civil works resulting from inflation and design modifications.8 The Bank approved the AF in December 2015. In line with best practices with regards to citizen engagement, a Beneficiary Survey of UG faculty and students was conducted in 2017, and a corresponding Intermediate Outcome Indicator was added to the Project’s RF. 16. The additional funds enabled continuation of infrastructure improvements to the science and technology faculties, including procurement of laboratory equipment and furniture, thus ensuring that Intermediate Results Indicator 2 was achieved (a total of 13 buildings -- eight classrooms and five laboratories -- were rehabilitated and equipped), and that the original Project objective of strengthening UG’s science and technology faculties through infrastructure improvements was met.

17. Project funds were reallocated as part of Restructuring #3 on February 7, 2017. Savings (lower costs than estimated) of US$1.7 million achieved under Components 1 and 3 were used to finance additional rehabilitation work and equipment purchases for buildings and laboratories under Component 2. In addition, the Project closing date was extended for three months (until September 30, 2017) to complete civil works and deliver and install lab equipment under Component 2.

Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 18. The rationale for Restructuring #1 was to align the Project’s Results Framework with suitably realistic targets and

to ensure that the RF better reflected activities being carried out under the Project. The rationale for Restructuring

#2 was to further align the Project’s RF with Project activities in order to more fully capture the Project’s impact. The

rationale for Restructuring #3 was to use Project savings to further upgrade UG’s science and technology faculties for

the benefit of lecturers and students.

19. The Project’s second restructuring had a minor implication for the Theory of Change included in the PAD. The

PDO Indicator intended to measure (via a survey) the intended outcome of increased satisfaction with science and

technology faculties at UG was dropped. However, two new PDO Indicators were added to the RF to assess the same

objective (strengthened science and technology faculties). One tracked the number of successful research papers

produced, and the second tracked the number of revised academic programs offered in the faculties.

8 Costs estimates made in 2010 for the renovation of buildings and labs could not have encompassed unforeseen problems that arose during civil works and required correction. For example, asbestos in perimeter cladding, only discovered when a panel was damaged, had to be removed, and several adjoining structures also required repairs to correct electrical power and sewage issues. This work was not part of the Project’s original scope of work.


Page 10 of 50

20. The three restructurings did not alter the scope of the Project, and the elimination of one PDO Indicator and

addition of two others resulted in better measures of Project achievement. For these reasons, a split rating evaluation

is not used.

II. OUTCOME

A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs

Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating 21. The second of three strategic objectives articulated in the FY2016-18 Country Engagement Note (CEN) for Guyana is setting up the foundations for high quality education. The UGSTS Project was fully aligned with this objective in that it addressed the low quality of tertiary education graduates, a major constraint for long-term economic growth in Guyana, by boosting the caliber of education provided in UG’s science and technology faculties. The first strategic objective articulated in the CEN is enhancing Guyana’s resilience to natural disasters.9 Reducing climate change and disaster risk are key to this objective, and Guyana’s LCDS addresses both elements. The Project’s relevance lies in its success in improving UG’s capacity to teach and train professionals who will contribute to execution of the LCDS through their employment in related sectors. 22. The PDO has become even more relevant than it was at appraisal given Guyana’s emerging oil and gas industry.10 The improved science and technology faculties at UG will play a pivotal role in meeting the demand for skills required in the oil and gas sector (in particular, engineering and operations management). Guyana’s oil industry will also generate revenue that can be used by the Government to expand development and provide jobs in supporting sectors of the economy, including petrochemical refining, manufacturing, IT, telecommunications, and gold and diamond mining.11 Well-trained professionals graduating from UG can also apply their skills to jobs in these sectors.

23. The International Labour Organization’s recently published report, Skills for Green Jobs Study for Guyana (2017), includes a case study on the UGSTS Project. The report notes the Project’s relevance to the LCDS, which commits to incorporating low carbon development and climate change themes into the national education curriculum, as well as its relevance to Guyana’s shift to a green economy by reorienting UG’s curricula (particularly within the Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences) to address emerging labor market demands.

Relevance Rating: High

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome PDO / Part 1: Strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG through research, curricular, and infrastructure improvements

9 The third strategic objective prioritized in the CEN is laying the ground for private sector development. 10 The GoG granted Exxon an oil production license in June 2017. Petroleum production is expected to begin in 2020. The GoG will receive a royalty of 2% on gross earnings as well as 50% of profits from petroleum sales. 11 UG website, 2017.


Page 11 of 50

24. Establishment of a research program at UG. The objective of strengthening UG’s science and technology faculties through improvements to research was achieved, as evidenced through the result of PDO Indicator 1, “Number of research grants with at least one paper evaluated as successful.” This indicator tracked the number of research papers that met minimum standards of research quality and relevance to Guyana’s LCDS, and were either presented to local or national stakeholders, presented at an international conference, or submitted for publication. When the indicator was added to the RF in 2015, the baseline value for successful research papers was zero and the target was 10. The Project surpassed this target with the completion of 11 successful research papers on diverse topics including cancer cell lines, the potential for carbon storage in mangrove forests, and mining impacts on fish diversity in coastal and inland rivers. 25. A Research Technical Committee, comprised of seven UG faculty members and representatives from Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and the Office of Climate Change,12 developed UG’s first research grant program. The Committee began by identifying the most promising topics for a research agenda,13 taking into account feedback that resulted from a Stakeholder Workshop attended by officials from five organizations representing Guyana’s nine indigenous tribes. The workshop highlighted Amerindian concerns, including the need to support research topics including biodiversity, integrated natural resource management, energy efficiency, and waste management, as well as how Amerindians could shift from subsistence farming to alternative practices that would improve food production without driving deforestation, ensuring that these concerns would influence UG’s research agenda. 26. It then developed a template for research grant proposals and criteria to assess proposals in terms of relevance to the LCDS, potential for funding, and safeguards compliance.14 The Research Technical Committee also conducted two proposal calls, evaluated proposal submissions, and oversaw research as it was carried out by teams.15

27. Eleven of the sixteen research grants awarded under the Project were completed and evaluated as successful by the UG Evaluation Committee.16 Research teams presented their findings in April 2017 at UG’s inaugural Undergraduate Research Conference, and abstracts of their research papers were published in a commemorative booklet. (The 16 research projects are listed in Annex 8.) 28. In addition to exceeding the target for PDO Indicator 1, the role of the new research program in strengthening the science and technology faculties at UG is supported by the following:

a) A June 2017 Beneficiary Survey17 of UG faculty and students impacted by the Project showed positive feedback in all areas related to research grants, and particularly with respect to enhancing knowledge about low carbon

12 The Office of Climate Change, within the Ministry of the Presidency, is the entity with overall responsibility for consultations on the LCDS. It supports work on climate adaptation, mitigation and forest conservation across the GoG. 13 The list of possible research topics was lengthy and organized by six general thematic areas that were relevant to Guyana’s LCDS: inventory and assessment of resources and biodiversity, economic implications of resource utilization, socio-economic impacts of policy options, modeling scenarios (using satellite imagery or GIS), policy revisions and development, and ICT implications. 14 A local Environmental Specialist also reviewed submissions for compliance with environmental safeguards. The same consultant was engaged to ensure environmental compliance as infrastructure rehabilitation work was carried out. 15 Thirty-eight UG faculty members and dozens of undergrads were involved in conducting research under the Project. The students were paid

a stipend for their work. 16 The Evaluation Committee for research papers was comprised of UG faculty members (including an Indigenous Peoples specialist), and external experts from government agencies and the private and non-profit sectors. 17 The UGSTSP End of Project Evaluation (i.e., Beneficiary Survey) was a web-based survey developed and overseen by Dr. Troy Thomas, Director of Undergraduate Research at UG. Two hundred fifty-two individuals were surveyed (79% were students, 21% were faculty members) to gauge satisfaction with curricula reform, upgrade of physical facilities, and research grants. Survey constructs were scored on a five-point rating scale,


Page 12 of 50

development (research grants generated relevant knowledge), capacity building (research skills honed through research grants will positively impact academic careers), and establishment of a research culture (plans to continue engaging in research in the future). b) Anecdotal information offered by UG faculty during implementation and supervision missions attests to the following:

i. Faculty can now develop and evaluate research proposals, design research projects, conduct and supervise scientific research, and present research findings.

ii. The new research program prompted changes in UG’s institutional culture. For example, faculty and student researchers are now confident in their ability to conduct substantive research and to share knowledge generated through research with a wider audience. Further, research is viewed as having the potential to influence and expand teaching and learning, as well as to improve lives. One research project discovered that indigenous settlements were exposed to dangerous levels of mercury through fish consumption. Armed with this information, the affected Amerindian community could take action as they saw fit.

29. Curricular improvements. The objective of strengthening UG’s science and technology faculties through improvements to curriculum was achieved, as evidenced through the result of PDO Indicator 4, “Number of reformed/strengthened programs offered.” This indicator tracked the number of revised bachelor’s degree programs posted on UG’s website, where online registration occurs. At Project start in December 2012, the baseline value for reformed programs was zero and the target was 15. The Project fully achieved this target.

30. A Curriculum Reform Technical Committee, comprised of twelve UG Department Heads from the faculties of Technology, Agriculture and Forestry, Earth and Environmental Sciences, and Natural Sciences, worked closely with a group of consultants specializing in instructional design and content development to carry out a comprehensive curricular reform process.18

31. Over three years, the UG Technical Committees and consultants worked as a team to revise the curricula of 15 separate bachelor’s degree programs.19 The first step in this effort was to review each program to identify the courses in need of improvement. The team then consulted with key external stakeholders, including government members, private sector employers, NGOs, and community leaders, to understand the knowledge and skill sets that UG graduates in the science and technology fields needed to master, and to incorporate those in curriculum domains.20 Indigenous groups were also consulted on curricular reform via the Stakeholder Workshop referenced earlier in paragraph 25. This enabled Amerindian concerns, such as the need to provide training in areas key to their communities’ livelihoods, including sustainable farming and mining, and the need for courses that would promote the creation of low carbon industries in hinterland areas, to be incorporated in redesigned curricula.

32. The team then researched course content from international sources (mainly online course offerings and downloadable open courseware) in order to assess what content could be used or adapted for use by UG, and what

with a “3” response representing “neither agree nor disagree”. Overall, survey results were favorable for all three Project interventions. 18 Honoraria were paid to members of the Project’s Curriculum Reform Technical Committee, as well as to select additional supporting faculty, as compensation for the time, expertise and energy they dedicated to the Project. 19 Each academic program typically consisted of 32 courses. 20 UG faculty initially identified an extensive list of topics relevant to the LCDS, including GIS and remote sensing, climate change and modeling, hydrology, ground water management, alternative energy, agriculture resources management, natural resources management, sustainable forestry, and food and nutrition technology. The Situational Analysis conducted under the Curricular Reform sub-component of the Project subsequently confirmed the need to develop course content for many of these topics.


Page 13 of 50

courses would have to be developed from scratch. The consultants worked with the relevant Department Heads and faculty members to revise and develop courses and corresponding practical assessment methodologies. The academic programs were reviewed and approved by the Dean of the relevant faculty, followed by UG’s Academic Policy and Planning Committee, and submitted to UG’s Academic Board for final approval.21

33. The result is updated and reoriented curricula for 15 academic programs across four faculties (a list of the 15 revised bachelor’s degree programs is included in Annex 7). The revised curricula are focused on 21st century skills and knowledge, addressing the needs of Guyana’s labor market (including the oil and gas, mining, environmental and energy sectors), and supporting the GoG’s Low Carbon Development Strategy. In addition, UG now possesses a standardized process for curriculum reform that can be followed in the science and technology faculties to review and revise curricular elements on a regular basis.22

34. The new Year 1 courses were offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2015-16 in the Technology faculty, with the exception of the revised Architecture curriculum, which was offered for the first time at the start of the 2017-18 academic year.23 New Year 1 courses for bachelor’s degree programs in the Agriculture and Forestry, Earth and Environmental Sciences, and Natural Sciences faculties were offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2016-17. The revised curricula for the Agriculture and Forestry and Natural Sciences degree programs are also being taught at UG’s satellite campus in Berbice.24

35. In addition to achieving the target for PDO Indicator 4, the role of curriculum reform in strengthening the science and technology faculties at UG is supported by the following:

a) Beneficiary Survey results showed positive feedback in all areas related to curriculum reform, and particularly with respect to the relevance of the revised curricula (content reflects what should be taught at UG, content is more streamlined and practice-based) and faculty ownership and participation in the curriculum reform process (staff input was incorporated in new course outlines, staff feel committed to implementing new curricula).

b) Degree programs now align with both labor market needs and international standards, and graduates acquire practical training that prepares them to assume employment in LCDS-related sectors.

c) UG faculty now perform curricular reviews, design course outlines, and develop practice-based content and assessment methods for individual courses.

d) UG faculty offered anecdotal information during missions attesting that due to their hands-on involvement in the curricular redesign process they:

i. Have ownership over the curricula that they deliver in their classrooms, making them more confident and effective teachers;

ii. Are better able to assess where student learning falls short, and address deficiencies by adjusting course work in response;

21 UG’s Academic Board granted final approval only to the course outlines for Years 1 and 2 of each of the revised academic programs. This has allowed UG faculty the flexibility to modify the courses developed for Years 3 and 4 based on learnings garnered while teaching Years 1 and 2 of the curricula, and to incorporate into Years 3 and 4 courses the latest developments in different disciplines. At Project close, UG’s Academic Board had recently approved Years 3 and 4 courses for the study programs in the Technology faculty, as those were the first revised curricula to roll out in academic year 2015-16. 22 Instructors from non-targeted UG faculties also participated in the curriculum development training sessions that were led by consultants under the Curriculum Reform sub-component. 23 The roll-out of the redesigned Architecture curriculum was delayed due to a lengthy process to ensure that courses would align with regional and international accreditation criteria. 24 Six hundred students are enrolled at the Berbice campus, which is approximately 80 miles from Georgetown, in the town of Tain.


Page 14 of 50

iii. Share their new course outlines and insights with colleagues across departments to take advantage of synergies and overlaps in subject areas;

iv. Can lead colleagues in their academic disciplines in the process of continuous curriculum improvement.

36. Campus infrastructure improvements. UG’s Infrastructure Rehabilitation, Equipment, and ICT Technical

Committees25 led the rehabilitation of UG’s science and technology faculties in three areas: renovation of laboratory

and classroom buildings, procurement and installation of new laboratory equipment, and installation of a campus-

wide ICT network.

37. Buildings Rehabilitation. The Project funded much needed renovation work on eight classroom buildings and five

laboratories in the science and technology faculties. An architecture firm was contracted to design and supervise the

rehabilitation effort, and over two years, contractors carried out the work in phases.26 A final step was to renovate

UG’s drainage system, which has lessened flooding and fostered a more climate-resilient campus. Improved drainage

also yielded additional positive outcomes, including decreased class disruptions, lower risk of potentially harmful lab

materials infiltrating campus, and reduced mosquito activity. Throughout the civil works, the Infrastructure

Rehabilitation Technical Committee provided input on laboratory and classroom redesign and managed logistics

planning to ensure that classes continued while laboratories and classrooms were out of service due to renovation.

38. New laboratory equipment. The Project financed the procurement of state of the art scientific equipment to

furnish the rehabilitated laboratory spaces. The new equipment enables practical science teaching and research and

is vital to UG’s engagement in efforts to advance the LCDS. UG’s Equipment Technical Committee worked closely with

a consultant hired to guide equipment acquisition. The Committee provided recommendations for new equipment,

finalized a priority equipment list, and formulated technical specifications for equipment. It also assisted in evaluating

bids from various vendors and made purchase recommendations.

39. ICT network expansion. The Project supported the installation of a campus-wide fiber optic network and wireless

access points that now connect all UG faculties and libraries to the Internet, and to GoG’s e-Governance network,27

which provides bandwidth for the distribution of services to and from UG’s new network, and supplies UG with a link

to its Berbice satellite campus. An ICT Specialist was contracted to design and oversee installation of the network

infrastructure, and relied extensively on UG’s ICT Technical Committee, which strengthened its capacity by

formulating technical specifications for the procurement of networking equipment.

40. The Project also supplied UG’s science and technology classrooms with equipment (laptops, projectors,

interactive whiteboards) and instructional software (computer programs that include tutorials, problem sets,

simulations, etc.) to facilitate web-based learning of new concepts.28 The ICT Technical Committee investigated

25 The Infrastructure Rehabilitation Technical Committee was comprised of five UG science and technology faculty members, plus the head of UG’s Facilities Maintenance Division. The Equipment Technical Committee was comprised of five UG science and technology faculty members, plus a faculty member from UG’s School of Education and Humanities and the head of UG’s Center of Information Technology. The ICT Technical Committee was comprised of five UG science and technology faculty members, a faculty member from UG’s School of Education and Humanities, the heads of UG’s Center of Information Technology and Department of Software, and UG’s Deputy Registrar. 26 Exterior building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical and interior build-out phases. 27 The e-Governance feed is supplemented by pre-existing DSL lines in some campus buildings. 28 Some of the software procured under the Project is centralized in UG’s Center for Information Technology for use across campus faculties.


Page 15 of 50

equipment and software options, made procurement recommendations, and worked with the Curriculum Reform

Technical Committee to integrate the new classroom equipment and software into curricula that had been redesigned

under the Project.

41. The contribution of campus infrastructure improvements to strengthening the science and technology faculties

is substantiated by the following:

a) Beneficiary Survey results showed positive feedback in all areas related to infrastructure improvements,

and particularly with respect to the improved learning environment for students provided by the

rehabilitated buildings and labs, a more appealing campus due to rehabilitated buildings and better

drainage, and enhanced efficiency resulting from new IT infrastructure.

b) Laboratory work now takes place under safer conditions than previously, thanks primarily to ventilation

improvements and disposal of bio-hazardous waste.

c) UG now stores laboratory equipment in a temperature-controlled environment, ensuring its maintenance

and longevity.

d) High-speed Internet connectivity enables staff to access and develop digital content and e-learning tools

that support the new curricula, while students benefit from e-learning opportunities associated with the

new classroom equipment and software.

e) Faculty and student feedback offered anecdotally during missions attests that the rehabilitated buildings

and new laboratory equipment provide a more stimulating and productive teaching and learning

environment. Students report that they are learning more by working in smaller groups and conducting

a wider range of experiments, and their instructors concur.

PDO / Part 2: The UGSTS Project successfully built the basis for improved facilities management. 42. The objective of building the basis for improved facilities management at UG was achieved, as evidenced through the results of PDO Indicator 2, “Maintenance of buildings and equipment in 13 rehabilitated buildings and of ICT campus-wide.” This indicator separately tracked maintenance of building, equipment, and ICT assets per an inventory protocol developed under the Project. In December 2013,29 baseline maintenance values of 54%, 28% and 0% were set respectively for buildings, equipment and ICT network assets, while targets were set at 70%, 33%, and 100% respectively. The Project exceeded the maintenance targets for building and equipment assets (79% and 80%), while fully achieving the target for maintenance of ICT assets. 43. The Project addressed the absence of a systematic approach to facilities management within the science and technology faculties at UG. In 2013, a consulting firm was contracted to conduct an initial inventory to assess the level of building and laboratory maintenance at UG. In early 2017 the firm returned to conduct a follow-up inventory, again using a standardized protocol to assign a “level of maintenance” score ranging from 0 to 100% to each building, laboratory, piece of lab equipment, and network component impacted by the Project. A second firm worked with select members of the Infrastructure Rehabilitation, Equipment, and ICT Technical Committees to develop a Facilities Management Plan that incorporates the maintenance protocol and will be used by UG’s Facilities Management Department to ensure that assets are well maintained.

29 As stipulated in the May 2011 PAD, baselines and targets for PDO Indicator 2 would be set based on an inventory conducted during Year 1 of the Project (2013).


Page 16 of 50

44. In addition to achieving the targets for PDO Indicator 2, the Project’s success in building the basis for improved facilities management at UG is supported by the following:

a) UG’s expressed enthusiasm with the new facilities, equipment and Internet network has sparked a culture of proactive maintenance at UG. Staff act quickly to deal with issues as they arise, and to seek assistance with maintenance-related problems that they are unable to attend to themselves. The Facilities Management Department’s required compliance with the new Facilities Management Plan ensures proactive maintenance into the future.

b) By actively protecting the GoG’s investments in the university, UG staff set a productive example for students.

PDO / Part 3: The UGSTS Project successfully built the basis for future growth at UG. 45. The objective of building the basis for future growth at UG was achieved, as evidenced through the result of PDO Indicator 3, “Studies produced by the Project are incorporated into the UG strategy.” This indicator tracked the incorporation of four studies into UG’s strategic planning efforts. At Project start in December 2012, the baseline value for incorporated studies was zero and the target was four. The Project fully achieved this target.

46. The Project addressed the need to bolster UG’s institutional capacity for strategic decision making and planning by supporting the execution of four studies. Capacity building took place as UG analyzed, prioritized and implemented the recommendations resulting from the studies. This outcome strengthened UG’s ability to advance its strategic initiatives and enhance financial sustainability, thus building the foundation for the University’s future growth.

47. An H.R. Management Study provided recommendations aimed at more effectively deploying personnel and improving the performance of teaching and non-teaching staff. At Project close, UG was phasing in several of the study’s recommendations, including establishing a dedicated H.R. Department, acquiring software to support H.R. data management, and implementing a performance management system to track productivity of staff relative to UG’s planning goals and departmental objectives.

48. Feasibility studies for a Business Development Unit and for a Research and Innovation Fund at UG resulted in a recommendation to establish a single commercial unit at UG, to be called the Center for Research, Innovation and Business Development (CRIB). Through CRIB, UG faculty members will pursue consulting opportunities to provide technical expertise and to conduct research for a fee. At Project close, UG’s Vice Chancellor had hired a Business Development Manager who will oversee establishment of the Center.

49. The results of a feasibility study to establish a Center of Excellence for the Study of Biodiversity moved from UG’s domain to the Department of the Environment within the Ministry of the Presidency, and have been incorporated into the framework for Guyana’s Green State Development Strategy.30 At Project close, the Ministry of the Presidency was advancing plans to establish a Center with funding from the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund.

50. In addition to achieving the target for PDO Indicator 3, the Project’s success in building the basis for future growth at UG is supported by the following:

30 The Green State Development Strategy builds on the LCDS and Guyana’s National Energy Policy 2018. The strategy guides Guyana’s socio-economic investments and development path toward realizing green economic growth, and will be completed during 2018. It has seven major themes: green and inclusive structural transformation, sustainable management of natural resources, transition towards renewable energy, resilient infrastructure and spatial development, human development and well-being, and international cooperation, trade and investment.


Page 17 of 50

a) UG’s Capacity Development Technical Committee sharpened administrative and managerial skills by writing TORs for the four studies, evaluating resulting bids, and collaborating with consultants to inform their work on the studies.

b) The Capacity Development Technical Committee strengthened its strategic assessment skills by prioritizing findings and recommendations from the studies,31 and advising UG’s Academic Policy and Planning Committee and Governing Council on how this information could be incorporated into UG’s planning efforts.

Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating

51. The UGSTS Project achieved the three objectives included in its PDO statement as measured by the PDO Indicators and the ICR rates overall Efficacy as Substantial. The associated assertions presented in the ICR to substantiate the Project’s success in strengthening UG’s science and technology faculties and building the basis for both improved facilities management and future growth at the University are based on logical assumption (i.e., UG staff built and expanded capacity through the process of implementing Project activities) and feedback reported anecdotally by UG students and faculty and through the 2017 Beneficiary Survey. The time constraint inherent in the Project mandated that the focus remain on implementation during its lifetime. As such, it was not possible to gather data-based evidence to supplement the assertion of PDO achievement (e.g., measurements confirming enhanced teaching quality). Further, since the first cohort of students to benefit fully from the Project’s interventions does not graduate until mid-2019, the Project timeline could not encompass assessments of the Project’s impact on labor market outcomes for UG graduates that could have provided further evidence for PDO achievement. 52. However, enrollment data for the science and technology faculties at UG suggests that Project improvements have indeed reinforced each other, increasing the attractiveness of the faculties for students. Each of the four faculties experienced a relative increase in its proportion of enrollment during the life of the Project, with the largest relative growth in enrollment at the Faculty of Natural Sciences (5.4%), which is the faculty that received the largest share of Project investment.32 This data reinforces the Efficacy rating of Substantial.

C. EFFICIENCY

Assessment of Efficiency and Rating

53. An economic analysis of the first and second components of the Project33 shows positive results in both the cost-benefit analysis and the Internal Economic Rate of Return (IERR). Specifically, we estimate the economic benefits of improvements to the four science and technology faculties and their effect in helping attract more students to academic fields with higher returns. We find evidence of a substantial shift in enrollment towards the four supported faculties during the life of the Project, and recent international evidence to support the expectation of a boost in returns from this type of shift. Using a discount rate of 5%, the per student cost of the UGSTS Project was US$973 per year, and the cost-benefit ratio of the Project was 5.4, which yielded an IERR of 9.62%. These results are robust under various sensitivity scenarios. The Project’s final IERR is meaningfully higher than estimations at the appraisal

31 The Capacity Development Technical Committee was supported in this work by select UG colleagues with expertise in the four areas that were studied. 32 See Figure 1 in Annex 4. 33 The analysis is based on the first and second components of the Project, which concentrated 90% of its resources, and includes US$3.66 million in Additional Financing approved in December 2015.


Page 18 of 50

stage (IERR of 6%) and at the Additional Financing stage (IERR of 5.5%). Moreover, it is expected that total Project benefits are in fact even higher than captured in the economic analysis due to various factors whose economic value is difficult to quantify (curriculum quality, research capacity, etc.) or to attribute to the Project due to a lack of precise data. Details of the economic analysis are included in Annex 4. 54. Project implementation was efficient in spite of delayed effectiveness, an Additional Financing, and a closing date extension. The Project team persisted in the face of an unexpected 18-month delay in Project effectiveness, encouraging a newly elected GoG to press ahead in meeting effectiveness conditions so that the Project could begin. The Bank team subsequently provided strong implementation support to the PCU, making up for time lost to the effectiveness delay and ensuring that the Project closed within three months of schedule. The Bank team also facilitated the GoG’s request for Additional Financing to cover a budget shortfall related to SDR depreciation and increased costs for civil works that could not have been anticipated at appraisal. The approved funds enabled completion of infrastructure enhancements at UG, and thus the achievement of the related part of the PDO. Implementation efficiency was further achieved when Project savings were reallocated between components to finance additional rehabilitation work and equipment purchases beyond the Project’s original scope. The three-month extension of the Project’s closing date was requested by GoG to ensure completion of the civil works and installation of the equipment.

Efficiency Rating: Substantial

D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING

E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS

Gender 55. Of the Project’s 15,187 total beneficiaries, 66% were female students at UG. Further, the Project lessened a

gender gap at UG’s male-dominated science and technology faculties, as the proportion of new female students

increased from 37% in 2012 to 42% in 2017. This is particularly notable given that overall female enrollment at UG

decreased slightly during the same period (0.8%). The uptick in female student enrollment reflects the Project's

improvements to curricula, research and physical infrastructure at UG, and the resulting heightened appeal of

pursuing science and technology-related degrees for Guyanese women. As larger numbers of these women graduate

and join the workforce each year, they will enjoy the higher salaries associated with STEM jobs, as well as increased

economic independence. By contributing to the economic growth of their communities, they will further Guyana's

development and stability.

Institutional Strengthening 56. As described above in Section II, the Project facilitated the development and expansion of UG’s capacity in many areas, particularly curricular review and enhancement, research grant award and research execution, facilities management, and strategic planning. These skills will serve UG as it executes on plans for its future growth and success. Having successfully managed implementation of another Bank project, the MoE’s Planning Unit (through the PCU) has strengthened its capacity to coordinate projects, monitor and evaluate data, and oversee procurement and fiduciary processes.


Page 19 of 50

Indigenous

57. Stakeholders consultations included significant inputs from several organization representing nine indigenous tribes which were incorporated into: i) curriculum improvements - e.g. community livelihoods, sustainable farming, low carbon industries (see page 12), and the research grant program - e.g. biodiversity, integrated natural resource management, mercury exposure and fish consumption (see page 11). Climate Resilience

58. The rehabilitation of buildings fostered a more climate resilient campus, in particular via improved drainage systems which lessened the risks of flooding (see page 14).

III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME

A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION

59. Project design addressed an issue of critical concern for Guyana by reforming UG’s science and technology curricula in order to reorient teaching and learning toward the LCDS and produce well-qualified graduates capable of assuming LCDS-related employment opportunities. Project design incorporated key stakeholders, ensuring that UG faculty and administrators developed capacity as they contributed to and advanced the Project through their participation on Technical Committees. Collaboration on Technical Committees also ensured that UG staff had the knowledge and skills to sustain Project improvements into the future.

60. The lack of a baselines for two of the original PDO Indicators required that a survey and an asset inventory be conducted during Year 1 of the Project. The survey was later deemed unreliable, resulting in the need for a restructuring to drop the original indicator and add two new indicators that would better measure the impact of Project activities (reformed curricula, new research program) on an outcome (strengthened UG faculties). 61. The plan for M&E was adequate, relying on the PCU to liaise with established entities within UG (various academic departments, the Facilities Management Department, the Center for Information Technology and the Registrar) for data collection and analysis. This ensured reliable and accurate tracking and evaluation of the RF.

62. The Project addressed social and environmental considerations by preparing an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework and an Environment Management Plan. As a result, the concerns of indigenous people were taken into consideration in the curriculum reform and research grant award processes, and adequate safeguard measures were incorporated into the Project to mitigate potential environmental risk from infrastructure works.

B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION

63. Project coordination, implementation, financial management and procurement duties were managed by the PCU, which was based in the MOE Planning Unit, while technical leadership resided at UG through the Technical Committees. This arrangement took logical advantage of existing pockets of expertise within MoE (experience managing Bank projects) and UG (knowledge of pedagogy and science and technology disciplines) while enabling further growth in capacity at both institutions.

64. Close Project supervision and support by the Bank team was critical to the success of the Project. After changes in Guyana’s leadership delayed the Project’s start, the Bank team guided the PCU through an accelerated period of


Page 20 of 50

implementation to compensate for lost time. The Bank team also facilitated two Project restructurings that set and adjusted indicator baselines and targets in line with Project activities in order to better measure Project impacts, an Additional Financing to ensure that Project activities could be completed and objectives achieved in spite of SDR depreciation and cost increases, and a final restructuring that reallocated Project savings toward infrastructure improvements and equipment upgrades beyond the Project’s original scope. 65. The Project benefitted from the capable and continuous support of a Project Steering Committee, comprised of UG’s Vice Chancellor, the Permanent Secretary of the MoE, a representative from the Ministry of Finance, representatives from Guyana’s private sector and an international NGO, and a professor from American University in the U.S. The Steering Committee was an effective advisor to the PCU, reviewing and providing input on annual project implementation plans and budgets, and exercising effective fiduciary oversight for the Project.

IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME

A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

M&E Design

66. The Project’s results chain was clear, and reflected adequately in indicators and targets that were established at the appraisal stage. During implementation, the RF was further refined through the first two restructurings,34 when indicators were dropped and added and targets were revised to reflect data not available at the appraisal stage and to better reflect Project activities and outputs. The restructurings allowed more effective monitoring of progress toward achieving the three outcomes included in the PDO statement. The PCU was charged with tracking and compiling data for the RF with the support of UG staff, and worked with the Bank team to evaluate the results. Beyond the M&E required to track and monitor the Results Framework, Project design also addressed UG’s general need for capacity growth in the M&E function by including elements that required UG to analyze results and implement recommendations to drive institutional improvements. (See M&E Utilization section below.)

M&E Implementation

67. Throughout the life of the Project, M&E was implemented effectively. Baseline and target data that was not available at appraisal for two of the original PDO Indicators was collected during Year 1, as planned. Data sources were reliable and the PCU was able to coordinate data collection with UG counterparts in a timely manner, providing the Bank team with good quality data to analyze and share. The M&E elements built into the Project’s components led to significant capacity growth at UG, and can be employed going forward to support future University planning efforts and projects.

M&E Utilization 68. M&E data provided sufficient evidence of progress toward and achievement of the PDO. It also informed the Project team’s decision, through Restructuring #3, to reallocate savings realized under Components 1 and 3 toward

34 The third Project restructuring did not impact the Results Framework.


Page 21 of 50

additional activities under Component 2. This shift allowed for added rehabilitation of the eight classrooms and five labs impacted by the Project, further enhancing the teaching and learning environment at UG. 69. Ongoing M&E processes linked to Project activities were utilized by UG in a variety of ways. For example, under the Research Grants sub-component, evaluation of proposals received at the first Call for Proposals led the Research Technical Committee to conduct additional training for UG faculty in preparation of research proposals, and to alter scoring procedures. As a result, the second call yielded improved proposals. UG instructors tracked and utilized learnings from their delivery of the new course content designed for Years 1 and 2 of the science and technology curricula to refine the newly designed content that would be delivered in Years 3 and 4. Information resulting from the studies carried out under the Project’s Institutional Capacity Building sub-component provided UG with a roadmap for improving the effectiveness of its personnel, and for establishing a commercial entity to enable faculty to provide technical and consulting expertise for a fee. The Facilities Management Plan developed under the Project provides UG with an ongoing M&E protocol that must be followed to ensure the maintenance of assets that are vital to its teaching quality and productivity. Finally, the Beneficiary Survey conducted in 2017 provided UG’s administration with faculty and student feedback on Project interventions, allowing UG to prioritize and address minor shortcomings as it sees fit. The result is that UG’s M&E capacity grew under the Project, and a new culture of “monitor, evaluate, and implement improvements” has firmly taken hold at UG.

Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E

70. The Overall Rating of Quality of M&E is Substantial. A minor shortcoming was that two restructurings were necessary to ensure that the RF aligned Project activities with outcomes and reflected the most accurate data available. As a result of the restructurings, M&E data collected in the RF provided sufficient and reliable evidence that the Project was on track to achieve its outcomes. Further, M&E elements embedded in Project activities allowed UG to make informed decisions and to implement related improvements at the University.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE

71. The Project complied with the following triggered safeguard policies: Environment Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09), and Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10).

72. An Environmental Management Plan was developed by the PCU under the Bank’s guidance. The plan covered safeguards related to natural habitats, forests and pest management. A local Environmental Specialist was hired by the PCU and worked on site during implementation of the infrastructure rehabilitation component of the Project to ensure full compliance with environmental mitigation measures. A World Bank Social Development Specialist worked with the Technical Committees for Research and Curriculum Reform to ensure that both Project sub-components addressed the concerns of Amerindian communities, as referenced earlier in paragraphs 25 and 31.

73. Based on assessments made by the Bank’s Financial Management Specialist, financial management performance was satisfactory during the life of the Project. The PCU submitted quarterly Interim Financial Reports of good quality to the Bank in a timely manner. The Audit Office of Guyana submitted prompt audited financial reports that were issued clean opinions and deemed free of internal control weaknesses. A final Project audit report for the period January 1 – September 30, 2017 will be sent to the Bank within six months of Project closing.


Page 22 of 50

C. BANK PERFORMANCE

Quality at Entry

74. The Bank worked with key stakeholders in Guyana to prepare a Project that addressed the need to improve tertiary education in science and technology disciplines and to strengthen institutional capacity at UG. The 18-month delay in Project effectiveness that resulted from a change in government once the Bank had approved the Project was unexpected and beyond the Bank’s control, as discussed in Section I.B.

Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 75. The Overall Rating is Satisfactory based on the Bank’s performance both in ensuring quality of entry and in carrying out Project supervision. A minor shortcoming was that two new PDO Indicators, designed to better measure the objective of strengthening the science and technology faculties, were added to the RF relatively late in the Project’s life, when nearly half of Project funds had already disbursed.

D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME

76. The main risk to development outcome is that Project achievement are not sustained due to lack of funds/budget shortfalls at UG. An increase in UG’s operating budget is necessary to sustain and expand curricula reform, a research program, and ongoing maintenance of rehabilitated buildings, new equipment, and the ICT network.35 At Project close, the University’s administration had publicly stated its intention to broaden its funding base beyond government support and student tuition to include planned giving, merchandising, public-private partnerships, grants and contracts.36 The assessment, decision making, and planning skills developed and strengthened by UG faculty and administrators under the Project will aid UG’s efforts to secure new sources of funding that can be used to maintain and build upon the Project’s successes.

77. UG has already demonstrated its commitment to building upon the Project’s improvements in several ways. The university is establishing a Center of Excellence for Teaching and Learning in order to support and expand the curricula review and revision process, and is putting in place an Internal Ethics Review Board so that future research carried out by faculty and students can be disseminated internationally. To support the new maintenance protocol, UG has hired an on-site mechanic to maintain equipment and an electrical engineer to manage the Facilities Management Department. The Deputy Vice Chancellor of Academic Engagement is reactivating UG’s long dormant Faculty Advisory Boards, which are comprised of businesspeople and members of trade groups, professional associations, and oversight bodies, and will provide UG’s faculty and students with an ongoing connection to employers. Finally, the Faculties of Social Sciences and Education and Humanities at UG have already followed the Project’s lead by examining their curricula in order to update and strengthen them.

78. The GoG has also demonstrated its commitment to building upon the Project’s improvements. In October 2017, the Ministry of Natural Resources signed an MOU with UG for a US$485,000 grant for academic year 2017-18.37 The funds will primarily provide the Faculty of Technology with additional equipment for its geology labs, and will also support ongoing curriculum development, training, and field research, all linked to Guyana’s emerging oil and gas sector. The first tranche of funds (US$218,000) has been disbursed to UG.


Page 23 of 50

V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

79. The Bank team’s close and ongoing support bolsters efficient Project implementation. During the life of the

Project, the PCU benefitted from technical training in the areas of procurement and financial management and from

the Bank team’s close implementation support. This assistance enabled the PCU to build and strengthen its capacity

to effectively manage the Project, ensuring that all activities were carried out in a timely manner.

80. Stakeholder involvement leads to Project ownership. The six Technical Committees comprised of UG staff that were established to collaborate on and advance each of the Project’s sub-components were the most critical element of the Project’s success in fostering capacity development at UG. Further, the direct involvement of stakeholders during Project implementation ensured that UG staff now possess the knowledge and skills necessary to sustain Project outcomes at the University.

81. Feedback loops between proposal calls lead to improved research proposals and projects. In response to numerous weak proposals submitted at the first Call for Proposals in May 2013, the Research Technical Committee took two steps that boosted the quality of proposals received at the second call in May 2014. First, the Committee conducted additional training for UG faculty in the preparation of a research proposal, with emphasis on literature review, experimental methodology options, accurate budgeting, and development of a realistic project timeline. The Committee also determined that all proposals must receive a minimum score of 50% in each of the seven categories of proposal evaluation criteria (Relevance/Alignment with LCDS, Potential Impact on Teaching and Learning at UG, etc.). This eliminated a problem witnessed in the first Call for Proposals, when some applications received both very high and very low scores on criteria, resulting in an average score that was sufficient for award of a research grant, despite significant weaknesses. 82. A Project communications strategy can help manage beneficiary expectations. During the Project, instructors faced a learning curve as they evaluated the most effective ways to integrate new laboratory equipment with new and improved course content. Both administrators and students expressed some dissatisfaction with resulting delays in the full use of UG’s upgraded laboratory facilities. A formal communications plan, preferably developed at Project start to guide messaging during the course of implementation, could have helped to set expectations around this issue. 83. Capacity building in the area of impact assessment during Project implementation can promote skills required for longer-term evaluation of Project impact. The Project clearly strengthened the science and technology faculties at UG in numerous ways, and the first cohort of students to benefit fully from the Project’s interventions will graduate with bachelor’s degrees in mid-2019. The Project timeline could not encompass assessments of the Project’s impact on labor market outcomes for UG graduates (employment rate, earnings, employer perceptions of graduates’ technical knowledge, etc.). However, it would have likely been feasible to incorporate a capacity building element into the Project to prepare UG to undertake this important follow-up work once the Project closed.

35 The PAD calculated that costs related to sustaining Project investments would be on the order of approximately 9% of UG’s annual expenditures. 36 UG website, 2017. 37 UG website, 2017.


Page 24 of 50

.

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS

A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Strengthen the four science and technology faculties at UG (Faculties of Technology, Agriculture and Forestry, Earth and Environmental Sciences, and Natural Sciences)

Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Formally Revised

Target

Actual Achieved at Completion

PDO 1--Strengthen science and technology faculties: Number of research grants with at least one paper evaluated as successful

Number 0.00 10.00 11.00

11-Sep-2015 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Target surpassed; 110% of target achieved. Indicator added at Restructuring #2 in September 2015 to measure the outcome of the research grant activities and to represent a measure of the impact on the science and technology faculties at the UG under the Project (i.e., strengthened capacity to design, conduct and disseminate research).


Page 25 of 50


Target


PDO 2--Basis for improved facilities management: Maintenance of buildings and equipment in 13 rehabilitated buildings and of ICT cam pus-wide (Buildings)

Percentage 54.00 30.00 70.00 79.00

31-Dec-2013 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Original target (30% increase) surpassed; 156% of target achieved. (Buildings) Revised target surpassed; 156% of target achieved. Baseline was set in Year 1 of Project (2013), as stipulated in the May 2011 PAD. Wording and targets revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Original wording: Basis for improved facilities management: new investments in buildings, equipment and ICT maintained in working order.


Target


PDO 2--Basis for improved facilities management: Maintenance of buildings and equipment in 13 rehabilitated buildings and of ICT cam pus wide (Equipment)

Percentage 28.00 30.00 33.00 80.00

31-Dec-2013 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Original target (30% increase) surpassed; 650% of target achieved. (Equipment) Revised target surpassed; 1,040% of target achieved.


Page 26 of 50

Baseline was set in Year 1 of Project (2013), as stipulated in the May 2011 PAD. Wording and targets revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Original wording: Basis for improved facilities management: new investments in buildings, equipment and ICT maintained in working order.


Target


PDO 2--Basis for improved facilities management:Maintenance of buildings and equipment in 13 rehabilitated buildings and of ICT camp us-wide (ICT)

Percentage 0.00 30.00 100.00 100.00

31-Dec-2013 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Original target (30% increase) surpassed; 333% of target achieved. (ICT) Revised target 100% achieved. Baseline was set in Year 1 of Project (2013), as stipulated in the May 2011 PAD. Wording and targets revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Original wording: Basis for improved facilities management: new investments in buildings, equipment and ICT maintained in working order.


Target


PDO 3--Basis for improved growth: Studies produced by the Project are incorporated into the UG strategy

Text No Project-funded studies incorporated into the UG strategy

Incorporated All four studies are incorporated in the UG strategy

All four studies are incorporated in the UG strategy

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Both original and revised targets 100% achieved.


Page 27 of 50

Indicator target revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Indicator name revised at Restructuring #2 in September 2015. Original indicator name: Studies produced by the Project are incorporated into the UG Strategic Plan. (UG does not currently have a formal Strategic Plan.) Four studies were produced during the period 2014-16: 1) Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a Center of Excellence for the Study of Biodiversity; 2) Management Study of Human Resources at UG; 3) Feasibility Study for a Business Development Unit at UG; 4) Feasibility Study for a Research and Innovation Fund at UG.


Target


PDO 4--Strengthen science and technology faculties: Number of reformed/strengthened Programs offered

Number 0.00 15.00 15.00

11-Sep-2015 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): 100% achieved. Indicator added at Restructuring #2 in September 2015 to measure the outcome of curriculum reform and to represent a measure of the impact of strengthened science and technology study programs at UG under the Project. Indicator tracks the number of revised bachelor’s degree programs posted on UG’s website (http://www.uog.edu.gy), where online registration occurs. New Year 1 courses were offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2015-16 in the Technology faculty, with the exception of the Architecture program curriculum, which was offered for the first time during the 2017-18 academic year. New Year 1 courses in the Agriculture and Forestry, Earth and Environmental Sciences, and Natural Sciences faculties were offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2016-17.


Page 28 of 50

A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators

Component: Component 1: Improving curriculum, teaching and research


Target


Updated curricula in each of 4 science faculties

Text No updated curricula in the 4 science faculties

12 Revised curricula of 15 programs is approved by UG Academic Board

Revised curricula of 15 programs is approved by UG Academic Board

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 1: Original target surpassed; 125% of target achieved. Revised target 100% achieved. Indicator target revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014: target increased from 12 to 15 to incorporate all existing bachelor's degree programs in UG's four science and technology faculties. Curriculum updates achieved when course outlines for years 1-4 of study have been approved by UG Academic Board.


Target


Number of scientific research projects funded

Number 0.00 40.00 16.00 16.00

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017


Page 29 of 50

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 2: Original target not achieved; 40% of target achieved. Revised target 100% achieved. Indicator target revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014: Target reduced to 16 from 40 because research projects funded as of Restructuring #1 cost US$40,000 on average, rather than the planned US$15,000 on average.

Component: Component 2: Infrastructure rehabilitation


Target


Rehabilitate and equip laboratory buildings

Number 0.00 14.00 13.00 13.00

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 3: Original target not achieved; 93% of target achieved. Revised target 100% achieved. Indicator target revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014: Target reduced by one building because alternative financing sources (outside the Project) were identified to rehabilitate and equip the Center for Biodiversity. Project rehabilitated five laboratories and eight classroom buildings.


Page 30 of 50


Target


Campus-wide rehabilitation of the drainage systems

Yes/No N Y Y

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 4: 100% achieved. Indicator wording revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Original wording: Improve campus-wide drainage through new pumps and infrastructure in place and working.


Target


Existence of a single, working UG connection to external networks

Yes/No N Y Y Y

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 5: Original target, related to specific bandwidth capacity (2 Mbps) not relevant, as Project did not finance increased bandwidth. Revised target 100% achieved. Indicator wording and target revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014. Original wording: Increase bandwidth through campus-wide Internet network.


Page 31 of 50

Component: Component 3: Institutional capacity building


Target


Facility management plan established and under implementation

Yes/No N Y Y

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 6: 100% achieved.


Target


Forward looking studies completed

Number 0.00 4.00 4.00

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017



Target


Direct project beneficiaries Number 0.00 6300.00 14601.00 15187.00

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017


Page 32 of 50

Female beneficiaries Percentage 0.00 60.00 64.00 66.00

31-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017 30-Sep-2017

Comments (achievements against targets): Intermediate Results Indicator 8: Original target exceeded; 241% of target achieved. Revised target exceeded; 104% of target achieved. Indicator targets revised at Restructuring #1 in November 2014: Target revised to 14,601 in order to include cumulative enrolled students in the science and technology faculties during the years Project was underway. While revised curricula were first offered to students matriculating for the 2015-16 academic year, students enrolled during Year 1 of Project implementation in 2013 were able to benefit from the earliest improvements in classroom infrastructure, new equipment, and an improved ICT network. Project beneficiaries defined as UG students enrolled at the Turkeyen (main) campus at some point during the life of the Project (academic years 2013-14 through 2016-2017).


Target


Survey on beneficiaries Text No survey exists. Survey conducted, report published, and Action Plan prepared

Survey conducted, report published, and Action Plan prepared

08-Dec-2015 30-Jun-2017 30-Sep-2017



Page 33 of 50

Indicator added as a condition of Additional Financing approved December 2015. Online survey was designed by a UG Statistics professor to measure faculty and students’ level of satisfaction with curriculum reform, research grants, the improved learning environment (rehabilitated buildings and labs, new equipment), campus-wide Internet connectivity, and improved drainage infrastructure. It was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017, with 53 staff members and 199 students participating (38% first year students). The resulting Action Plan, developed by the Project Coordination Unit, is an effort to address shortcomings identified in the survey: 1. share results with science and technology faculties and university management; 2. administer a follow-up survey with clarified questions and option for qualitative feedback; 3. implement “easy fixes” (supplies in lavoratories); 4. build on enthusiasm around research grants by recognizing researchers and supporting faculty in pursuit of other research opportunities; and 5. explain to students and staff the rationale behind some aspects of Project (example: balance between local and international focus within academic programs).


Page 34 of 50

B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT

PDO / Part 1: Strengthen UG’s four science and technology faculties through infrastructure, research and curricular improvements

Outcome Indicators

1. PDO Indicator 1: Number of research grants with at least one paper evaluated as successful 2. PDO Indicator 4: Number of reformed/strengthened (bachelor’s degree) programs offered

Intermediate Results Indicators

1. IRI 1: Updated curriculum in each of four science (and technology) faculties 2. IRI 2: Number of scientific research projects funded 3. IRI 3: Rehabilitate and equip laboratory buildings 4. IRI 4: Campus-wide rehabilitation of the drainage system 5. IRI 5: Existence of a single working UG connection to external networks

Key Outputs by Component (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1)

1. Curricula updated and reoriented for 15 bachelor’s degree programs within UG’s four science and technology faculties 2. 16 grants awarded for LCDS-related scientific research carried out by UG faculty and students 3. Thirteen facilities (8 classrooms, 5 laboratories) renovated and outfitted with state of the art lab equipment 4. Campus-wide fiber optic network installed to connect all UG faculties and library to the Internet

PDO / Part 2: Build the basis for improved facilities management at UG

Outcome Indicators 1. PDO Indicator 2: Maintenance of buildings and equipment in 13 rehabilitated buildings, and of ICT campus-wide

Intermediate Results Indicators 1. IRI 6: Facilities Management Plan established and under implementation


Page 35 of 50


1. Facilities Management Plan developed and in use for ongoing maintenance and servicing of assets (classrooms, labs, equipment, networking components) as well as inventory assessments

PDO / Part 3: Build the basis for future growth at UG

Outcome Indicators 1. PDO Indicator 3: Studies produced by the Project are incorporated into UG’s strategy

Intermediate Results Indicators 1. IRI 7: Forward-looking studies completed


1. Four studies completed for UG to help prioritize decision making for strategic planning process


Page 36 of 50

ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION

A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS

Name Role

Preparation

Robert Hawkins Task Team Leader

Angela Demas Education Specialist

Janet K. Entwistle Operations Specialist

Noah Yarrow Education Specialist

Joshua Mandell Science and Technology Specialist

Ruth Tiffer-Sotomayor Environmental Safeguard Specialist

Javier Luque Economist

Darshana Patel Communications Specialist

Jason J. Paiement Social Specialist

Patricia Olivera Research Support

Paul Dowling Operations Analyst

Gerardo Segura Environmental Specialist

M. Mozammal Hoque Financial Management

Yingwei Wu Procurement Specialist

Jorge Luis Alva-Luperdi Lawyer

Victor Ordonez Finance Officer

Samuel Carlson Education Specialist

Paul Hebert Environmental Specialist

Ian Marfleet Architect

Geoffrey Abdulah Civil Engineer

Gerald Meier Environmental Specialist

Supervision/ICR

Hongyu Yang Task Team Leader

Zoila Catherine Abreu Rojas Procurement Specialist

David I Financial Management Specialist

M. Yaa Pokua Afriyie Oppong Safeguards Specialist

Jacqueline Beatriz Veloz Lockward Counsel

Javier Botero Alvarez Team Member

Maria Elena Paz Gutzalenko Team Member


Page 37 of 50

Ingrid Bjerke Team Member

Ximena Rosio Herbas Ramirez Environmental Specialist

Ian Marfleet Architect/Civil Works

Nicole Mammoser ICR Consultant

Peter Ballou Team Member

B. STAFF TIME AND COST

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost

No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs)

Preparation

FY11 41.977 277,810.85

FY12 0 0.00

Total 41.98 277,810.85

Supervision/ICR

FY12 4.600 24,389.32

FY13 14.204 92,006.56

FY14 18.487 104,243.32

FY15 15.350 106,205.64

FY16 18.112 115,020.03

FY17 15.966 106,400.74

FY18 10.413 78,038.75

Total 97.13 626,304.36


Page 38 of 50

ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT

Components Amount at Approval

(US$M) Actual at Project Closing (US$M)

Percentage of Approval

Component 1: Education Quality Improvement Program (includes curricula reform and research program)

US$1.9 million US$1.097 million 58%

Sub-component 1a: Curriculum Reform

US$596,935

Sub-component 1b: Research Grants US$500,000

Component 2: Infrastructure Rehabilitation


Sub-component 2a: Building and Laboratory Rehabilitation

US$8.375 million

Sub-component 2b: Laboratory Equipment

US$2.589 million

Sub-component 2c: ICT US$743,581

Component 3: Institutional Capacity Building


Sub-component 3a: Project Management

US$1.024 million

Sub-component 3b: Laboratory Equipment

US$391,079

Total US$9.9 million US$14.220 million*

(includes Additional Financing)

144%

*Of which actual IDA funding totaling US$12.559 million (88%).


Page 39 of 50

ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS

1. With the support of the World Bank, the Government of Guyana supported the strengthening of the science and technology faculties at UG. This support mainly consisted of infrastructure rehabilitation, equipment upgrades, research capacity development, curricular reform and institutional capacity building. Total Project costs were US$14,200,000, of which $12,557,000 was financed by an IDA credit. 2. In an attempt to specifically enhance Guyana’s scientific and technological human capital and its research and productive capacity, the Project focused its interventions on the four science and technology faculties38: the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, the Faculty of Natural Sciences, the Faculty of Technology, and the Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Before the Project, these faculties’ facilities lacked an adequate environment for teaching and learning sciences, with “dilapidated laboratories” and “antiquated equipment”39. The Project committed the majority of its investment to infrastructure rehabilitation (82%), modernizing these faculties and their equipment, thereby improving the learning environment. Moreover, through a quality improvement program that included curricular reform and research grants, the Project sought to increase the relevance of UG’s academic offerings. 3. The effects of curricular reform, research, infrastructure and equipment investments on key education outcomes such as learning are mixed in the literature. Still, the Project demonstrated the positive effects of these interventions on the subjective experience of the University community; a survey conducted toward the end of the Project showed high student satisfaction with the state of the new facilities, with newer students showcasing even higher approval.40 A positive subjective experience may translate into economic benefits by helping improve student retention, productivity (learning), or, most crucially for our analysis, the attractiveness of a degree program. 4. While the attractiveness of a school or program is hard to quantify, in the case of Guyana both enrollment data and anecdotal evidence41 are highly suggestive of the Project’s effect in increasing the relative attractiveness of the science and technology faculties. As Figure 1 illustrates, enrollment figures during the life of the Project showed a sustained increase in the relative enrollment of the science and technology faculties with respect to the non-science faculties (11.75%). Tellingly, every supported faculty experienced a relative increase in their proportion of enrollment as compared to the start of the Project, with the largest relative growth coming from the Faculty of Natural Sciences (5.4%), which is the faculty that received the largest share of Project investment.

38 The term “four science and technology faculties” is not fully accurate, as there is a fifth: the Faculty of Health Sciences, which was not directly impacted by the Project. For consistency, we maintain the original nomenclature with the clarification that “science and technology faculties” hereby more accurately describe the faculties supported by the Project. 39 Trevor Hamilton and Associates. Consolidated Report for Enhancement of the Regulatory Framework for the Improvement of Operations at the University of Guyana (2012). 40 Thomas, Troy. UGSTSP End of Project Evaluation (2017). 41 Informal on-site focus groups with current students confirmed students’ satisfaction with the state of the facilities and reforms, the higher likelihood that they would recommend their science or technology program due to the recent curricular reforms and infrastructure upgrades, and the expectation that more students will enroll in the science and technology faculties.


Page 40 of 50

Figure 1: Change in the proportion of enrollment by faculty during the life of the Project

5. The relative attractiveness of the science and technology programs is of significant economic interest because international evidence has consistently shown high heterogeneity in returns across programs, with science and engineering degrees exhibiting far higher returns than the alternatives. Indeed, recent evidence from Latin America appraised the dramatic difference in returns across various types of fields.42 6. To calculate these differential returns for the case of Guyana, we use the results from a recent study on returns to higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean (Espinoza and Urzua, 2016). In particular, Guyana’s returns are estimated as the average of the returns between a high-returns country (Chile) and a low-returns country (Peru).43 This study uses the standard labor economics model for estimating returns to education, the Mincer equation (1974):

Y = 𝛼 + 𝛽 S + 𝛾𝑋 + ε where Y is the increase in adult earnings, S represents years of schooling, 𝑋 is a set of variables, including labor

42 Espinoza, Ricardo, Urzua, Sergio. The Economic Returns to Higher Education: Funding, Coverage and Quality in Latin America (2016). Background paper to: Ferreyra, Maria Marta, Avitabile, Ciro, Botero Alvarez, Javier, Haimovich Paz, Francisco, Urzua, Sergio. At a Crossroads: Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Directions in Development—Human Development. World Bank, Washington, DC (2017). 43 Chile is a country with relatively high returns to education within Latin America and the Caribbean (fourth highest in the continent according to Ferreyra et al. (2017)), while Peru has relatively low returns within the region (fourth lowest). Due to the lack of any reliable estimates for Guyana, we assign Guyana the average returns between Chile and Peru, which is equivalent to being slightly below the average returns for the whole region. Off-the-cuff calculations from public servant data and consultations with UG and the Ministry of Education all suggest that our calculations underestimate the returns to higher education in Guyana, which seem higher than the returns in Chile. Due to lack of robust proof, we choose to use the more conservative estimates presented in this analysis.

26.33% 27.73% 28.03% 28.81% 29.40%

38.08%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018

Pro

port

ion

of

tota

l en

roll

men

t

Academic Year

Affected Faculties

Non-affected faculties

Faculty of Agriculture and

Forestry

Faculty of Education and

Humanities

Faculty of Health Sciences

Faculty of Natural Sciences

Faculty of Social Sciences

Faculty of Technology

Faculty of Earth and

Environmental Sciences


Page 41 of 50

market experience, its square, and other controls, and ε is an error term. The main outcome of interest is 𝛽, the coefficient on years of education, which is differentiated across programs and used to calculate the return to program i (r [i]), through the following equation:

r (𝑖) =NPV (𝑖) − NPV

NPV

where NPV(i) represents the discounted value of future annual earnings obtained after graduating from program i (net of tuition costs), and NPV represents the present value of earnings associated with the alternative of “not pursuing higher education studies after high school graduation” (Ferreyra et al., 2017). This equation is used to compute returns to education across a variety of programs in Chile and Peru, which this analysis uses to estimate returns for Guyana. We impute these differential returns to UG faculties by matching each faculty to the returns of the closest field available. Next, we weight each faculty by its proportion of overall students at the University. 7. We find that attending one of the science and technology faculties has average returns of 88.6% in contrast with returns of 29.2% for the other faculties (Figure 2). Thus, if the Project indeed managed to attract more students to the science and technology faculties, students who underwent this substitution are likely to experience significantly higher returns across their life cycle.

Figure 2: Estimated Returns to Higher Education by UG Faculty

UG Faculties Returns to closest degree (Chile)

Returns to closest degree (Peru)

Returns estimates for Guyana

Proportion of Enrollment by faculty (2017)

Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry

62.7% 33.0% 47.9% 3.39%

Faculty of Education and Humanities

7.52% -18.5% -5.5% 16.96%

Faculty of Health Sciences 101.47% 7.1% 54.3% 13.04%

Faculty of Natural Sciences 115.29% 49.4% 82.3% 16.65%

Faculty of Social Sciences 46.96% 27.8% 37.4% 31.92%

Faculty of Technology 163.47% 49.4% 106.4% 14.78%

Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences

115.29% 49.4% 82.3% 3.26%

Science faculties (weighted) 129.3% 47.9% 88.6% 38.08%

Non-science faculties (weighted)

47.6% 10.8% 29.2% 61.92%

Cost-Benefit Analysis

8. Total Project costs were US$14,220,000 with the following distribution by component: Component 1, Educational Quality Improvement Program, US$1,097,000 (7.7%), Component 2, Infrastructure Rehabilitation, US$11,708,000 (82.3%), and Component 3, Institutional Capacity Building, US$1,415,000 (10%). From an efficiency point of view, these costs were higher than originally estimated (due to SDR/US$ exchange rate fluctuation and cost increases for infrastructure civil works), meaning that the Project necessitated additional


Page 42 of 50

funding to complete its original objectives, specifically US$4.32 million in additional resources, of which US$3.709 million came from IDA Additional Financing. For the purposes of the model, we only cost Components 1 and 2 (90% of overall financing), since quality improvements to the learning environment, curricular offerings and research capacity would be primarily responsible for attracting students to the science and technology faculties. We distribute these costs across the life of the Project according to the disbursement data, and assume that government spending follows an equivalent time distribution. 9. To estimate the overall benefits, we follow the preparation’s key assumptions and utilize the latest available data to calculate the employment rate, graduation rate, enrollment rate, and returns to education. The key parameters are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Key Parameters

Baseline Assumptions

Discount rate 5%

Studying age 18-21

Working age 22-60

Number of years the intervention has an impact 25

Number of years the current trends continue 0

Salary returns received by those with incomplete higher education (Espinoza and Urzua, 2016) 35%

Proportion of students in the science and technology faculties without the Project (value at Project start) 26.33%

Calculations

Future number of new students enrolled (average new students during the life of the Project) 2,485

Secondary graduate average wage (2016)44 $3,196

Graduation rate 59%

Employment rate 96%

10. The benefits derive from the assumption that observable increases in the proportion of students enrolling in the science and technology faculties stem from the Project interventions. We understand the expected proportion of students at the science and technology faculties without the support of the Project to be the proportion of enrollment at the beginning of the Project (2012); increases in enrollment from this anchor baseline (and the additional returns from having more students in higher-return fields) are attributed to the Project.

44 Salary data in Guyana is extremely scarce. Clear data on salary levels by education level is not available from UG nor the statistics and data offices of the government. The approximation used to estimate the salary of secondary education graduates (the baseline for higher education returns) is the minimum salary of public servants. Public servants require at a minimum a secondary education degree, which guarantees accounting for a secondary education completion premium. Moreover, since it is the minimum salary, it is unlikely to be an overestimation. This data is updated annually and publicly available (Guyana Ministry of Finance. National Budget Speech. Guyana National Printers Limited. Georgetown, Guyana (2017)). Finally, this methodology seems to follow the one used in the economic analysis at the preparation stage.


Page 43 of 50

11. The overall IERR is 9.62%, with total benefits equal to $71,049,244 (in 2017 dollars) and a cost-benefit ratio of 5.4. This IERR is meaningfully higher than the estimations at the appraisal stage (IERR of 6%) and at the Additional Financing stage (IERR of 5.5%). Robustness Checks 12. The economic analysis underwent various sensitivity analyses to validate the soundness of the conclusions. First, the Project remains meaningfully beneficial even under a discount rate of 10% (IERR of 4.6%). The Project breaks even at a discount rate of approximately 15%. Second, this analysis was unable to account for any trends in enrollment before the Project start (the data was unavailable); it is conceivable that the proportion of students in the sciences had been rising independently of the Project. To evaluate this hypothesis, the sensitivity assumed that the Project’s value added was only observable during the last year, when the proportion of students in the sciences experiences a noticeable jump.45 Attributing the Project’s impact to this discontinuity alone still shows benefits that are high and above those anticipated at the preparation stage (IERR of 7.01%). On the other hand, the current analysis does not account for any continuation in the trend, i.e. the possibility that the reforms supported by the Project could have an even more profound effect on the enrollment in the sciences in the upcoming years.46 Extending the trend of enrollment growth in the sciences for only five years (before stabilizing) would produce an IERR of 12.68%. Third, due to the inability to find any reliable estimates for higher education returns in Guyana, the analysis computed an average between two countries with extensive data but different premiums for higher education (higher education has high returns in Chile and low returns in Peru, relative to the regional average). Under a low returns scenario (as Peru), the Project would still have an IERR of 7.72%; under a high returns scenario (as Chile), the Project’s IERR would increase to 11.20%.

Intangible Benefits 13. The general scarcity of data in Guyana and the Project’s substantial impact on outputs whose economic value is difficult to assign (e.g., curriculum quality, research capacity, student satisfaction, strategic management capacity, facilities management capacity) lead to economic benefits that likely underestimate the Project’s true impact. The consequence of these intangible benefits is nonetheless real and supported by anecdotal evidence. Some key intangible benefits that support the idea of higher benefits are:

• Improvements in graduate salaries: the Project’s original economic analysis argued for a likely increase in the salaries of graduates stemming from improvements in the quality of education due to the curricular reforms, the better alignment of programs with the labor market, students’ greater exposure to research, and better learning conditions. Due to Guyana’s lack of relevant data, progress in graduates’ salaries cannot be assessed. Still, following the original economic analysis’s estimates of a yearly salary growth between US$120-$300 (an increase equivalent to less than 5 percent of an average graduate’s salary), we see a meaningful growth in returns.

45 Many of the Project key interventions, most noticeably the completion of the infrastructure rehabilitation, were not completed until the last two years of the Project’s life, which could explain the discontinuity in the 2017 enrollment. Still, many of the curricular reforms, equipment upgrades, and some rehabilitations took early on, so only assigning impact to the last year seems too conservative for the main cost-benefit calculations. 46 The continuation in the trend is a highly reasonable assumption since some interventions are still being delivered (some equipment was purchased but has not yet been installed in classrooms) and dissemination of information about UG’s upgrades takes time. This continuation was not modeled in the main analysis to remain conservative in the assumptions.


Page 44 of 50

• Postgraduate degrees: the new infrastructure, equipment and research grants have allowed the science and technology faculties to increase the offering of postgraduate degrees. A few of these degrees have already been initiated (e.g., Master of Agro-Technology and Business, inaugurated in 2017), but many more will be developed over the next couple of years. Substantial international evidence has shown suggestive correlations between postgraduate education and research capacity on innovation, entrepreneurship, and ultimately, economic growth, in addition to higher private returns from additional education. These benefits, though currently immeasurable, are realistic sub-products of the Project’s support.

Efficiency 14. Under conservative assumptions, the Project’s benefits are over 50 percent higher than originally estimated, and these results are robust under several sensitivity calculations. Moreover, due to the scarcity of quality data in Guyana, many likely sources of benefits could not be calculated or attributed to the Project, and many of the assumptions had to be more modest than the likely reality. The main source of inefficiency was the need for additional resources to attain the Project’s original objectives; however, even the inclusion of these additional costs has shown to produce large benefits. 15. Overall, the Project’s efficiency is assessed to be Substantial.

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

100 150 200 250 300

IER

R

Change in income per year in US$ due to the Project

Additional Benefits with Salary Increases


Page 45 of 50

ANNEX 5. BORROWER AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Borrower’s Implementation Completion Report

IDA Credit Numbers 4669-GY and 5753-GY University of Guyana Science and Technology Support Project

November 2017 The University of Guyana Science and Technology Support Project (UGSTSP) was executed over the period December 2012 to September 2017 with an IDA Credit of SDR 8.89 million (equivalent to US$12.558 million). This report outlines the Borrower’s assessment of the design and implementation of the UGSTSP.

Assessment of the Objective, Design and Implementation of the Project Objectives. At the time of Project completion, there were four PDO Indicators and nine Intermediate Result Indicators. During the course of Project implementation, one original PDO Indicator was dropped, one original PDO Indicator has its target revised, and two new PDO Indicators were added to the Results Framework. In terms of Intermediate Results Indicators, one original indicator was dropped, one new indicator was added, and five indicators had their targets revised. These modifications resulted in more realistic and achievable indicators. Project Design and Implementation Component 1, Education Quality Improvement Program, supported:

• Sub-component 1A, Curriculum Reform: Carrying out of a science curriculum reform process by updating and/or reorienting the existing curricula of UG aimed to support the LCDS through, inter alia, the provision of technical assistance on curriculum reform, instructional design and science content, and the provision of honoraria to selected UG lecturers participating in the curriculum reform processes. At Project close, 15 programs that benefitted from revision had been introduced to UG students.

• Sub-component 1B, LCDS Research: Carrying out of selected research relevant to the LCDS through the provision of Research Grants to nominated UG lecturers. At Project close, eleven of the sixteen Research Grants awarded were successfully completed.

Component 2, Infrastructure Rehabilitation, supported:

• Sub-component 2A, Building and Laboratory Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation and improvement of existing science laboratory buildings of the four faculties at UG, supplemented by improvement of campus-wide drainage. At Project close, renovation works were completed on thirteen buildings across UG’s four science and technology faculties, and the drainage network was rehabilitated.

• Sub-component 2B, Laboratory Equipment: Provision of scientific and multimedia equipment to the existing UG science laboratory buildings aimed to support practical science teaching and research activities. At Project close, all equipment was installed and in use.

• Sub-component 2C, ICT: Establishment of a campus-wide Internet network within UG to connect its faculties and libraries to the Internet. At Project close, a fiber optic ring and wireless network were installed around the campus, and related classroom equipment and instructional software had been


Page 46 of 50

procured and was in use in classrooms. Component 3, Institutional Capacity Building, supported:

• Sub-component 3A, Project Management: Technical assistance to develop managerial and administrative capacities in curricular supervision, information and communication technology, environmental and social management, monitoring, evaluation, and facilities management. At Project close, institutional capacity had been built via, inter alia, the elaboration of an Environmental Management Framework, a Facilities Management Plan, and a project website.

• Sub-component 3B, Feasibility Studies: Technical assistance on strategic business planning matters. At Project close, four studies were conducted (related to establishment of a biodiversity institute, a business development unit, and a research and innovation fund, and an assessment of UG’s human resources), and the findings were informing planning efforts underway at UG and at the national level.

Assessment of the Project Outcomes vis-à-vis Objectives The Project achieved its Development Objective of strengthening the four science and technology faculties at UG through infrastructure, research, and curricular improvements while building the basis for improved facilities management and future growth. These achievements were measured by the four PDO Indicators, all of which were achieved or exceeded, and nine Intermediate Result Indicators, all of which were achieved. Evaluation of the Ministry of Education during the Preparation and Implementation of the Project The Project benefitted from existing capacity within the Ministry of Education. At the time of commencement, the Finance Officer and Procurement Specialist possessed direct experience in the implementation of other World Bank funded projects in the Ministry, while the Project Coordinator and Finance Assistant possessed experience in other donor funded projects. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education provided direct fiduciary oversight while the Deputy Permanent Secretary provided internal financial control functions. This was a clear demonstration of the Ministry’s commitment to facilitate timely implementation. While there was a change in administration nationally during Project implementation, this did not negatively affect the timely completion of Project activities. Evaluation of the Bank during the Preparation, Implementation and Supervision of the Project The Bank team supported and worked effectively with the Government and other stakeholders toward successful implementation of the Project. Periodic missions to supervise financial, procurement and project management aspects of the Project were beneficial for all involved. In particular, continuous technical support from the Bank’s experienced Procurement and Financial Management Units, including annual fiduciary training, was very constructive. Further, the Bank’s assistance in facilitating three Project restructurings and the provision of additional financing enabled the realization of all Project objectives. Lessons Learned


Page 47 of 50

The direct involvement of the beneficiaries, vis-à-vis the composition of the technical committees for the six sub-components of the Project, allowed for strong Project ownership, which was critical for successful implementation and for maintenance and sustainability of outcomes. This approach should be replicated in future project designs. At the time of Project design, not all baselines were available, but targets where nonetheless set. This was a design shortcoming that resulted in the need for restructuring of Project indicators so that they aligned with baselines once established. It is critical for the Project Team to pay careful attention to the development of technical specifications and descriptions of physical works and equipment. Consideration must be given to compatibility with existing equipment and facilities, complementary project activities, and future plans. Future Arrangements for Sustainability of Project Results One of the fundamental considerations in the design of the Project was the importance of sustainability beyond the implementation timeframe. To address this, the University established Technical Committees comprised of faculty to support implementation under each Project sub-component. This enabled a great deal of capacity growth, which, coupled with institutional knowledge, will help to ensure the sustainability of Project achievements going forward. The Project also incorporated the execution of studies that could potentially lead to additional revenue generation opportunities at UG while positively impacting the sustainability of Project outcomes. For example, the establishment of a research and innovation fund at UG could reinforce the “research and knowledge sharing” culture that was introduced at the University under the Research Grant sub-component of the Project. Finally, facilities management capacity at UG was strengthened via the completion and initial implementation of a Facilities Management Plan. The Plan emphasizes preventative maintenance practices that are much less costly than the required repairs that would surely result if the maintenance protocol was not routinely followed. This promotes the sustainability of the Project’s extensive investments in enhanced facilities, new equipment, and an upgraded ICT network for the science and technology faculties.


Page 48 of 50

ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

International Labour Organization, Skills for Green Jobs Study - Guyana, 2017. The University of Guyana, Annual Report 2015/16, 2016. The World Bank, Country Assistance Strategy for Guyana for the Period FY 2009-2012, 2009. The World Bank, Country Engagement Note for the Cooperative Republic of Guyana for the Period FY16-18, 2016. The World Bank, project files for the University of Guyana Science and Technology Support Project:

Additional Financing Agreement (December 2015) Aide Memoires from Bank Supervision Missions (2011-2017) Indigenous Peoples Planning Frameworks (April 2011, July 2015) Project Appraisal Document (May 2011) Project Financing Agreements (September 2012, December 2015) Project Information Document/Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (November 2015) Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Credit (December 2015) Project Restructuring Papers (November 2014, September 2015, February 2017) Project Implementation Status Reports (Sequence 1 – 14, 2011-2017)


Page 49 of 50

ANNEX 7. REVISED BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERED BY UG’S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FACULTIES

Revised programs in the Faculty of Technology: (Revised courses offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2015-16) 1. B.O.E. in Applied and Exploration Geology 2. B.S. in Civil with Environmental Engineering 3. B.S. in Electrical Engineering 4. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering 5. B.S. in Architectural Technology* Revised programs in the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry: (Revised courses offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2016-17) 6. B.S. in Agriculture 7. B.S. in Forestry Revised programs in the Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences: (Revised courses offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2016-17) 8. B.A. in Geography 9. B.S. in Environmental Studies Revised programs in the Faculty of Natural Sciences: (Revised courses offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2016-17) 10. B.S. in Biology 11. B.S. in Chemistry 12. B.S. in Computer Science 13. B.S. in Mathematics 14. B.S. in Physics 15. B.S. in Statistics * Revised courses in UG’s Architectural Technology program were offered to incoming first-year students beginning with academic year 2017-18 due to lengthy regional and international accreditation processes for this degree.


Page 50 of 50

ANNEX 8. RESEARCH GRANTS AWARDED

Research presented at UG’s inaugural Undergraduate Research Conference (April 2017): 1. Effects of Momor-dica Charantia (Corilla) on Secondary and Primary Cancer Cell Lines 2. Estimating the Carbon Storage Potential of the Mangrove Forests in Guyana 3. Exploring the Integration of Environmental Education in the Mathematics Curriculum 4. Anti-microbial Activity of Selected Fruits and Vegetables Against Selective Pathogenic Micro-organisms (E. coli, D. aureus, K. pneumonia, C. albicans) 5. An Investigation into the Culture and Propagation of Edible Mushrooms on Different Substrates in Guyana 6. Investigating the Antimicrobial Potential of Azardirachta Indica and Syzygium Cumini Seeds Against Microbial Pathogens in Diabetic Foot 7. Designing a Dual Approach Composite Material Filter for Household Water Treatment 8. Impacts of Artisanal and Small-scale Mining and their Associated Road Infrastructure on Biodiversity 9. Examining the Impact of Mining on Fish Diversity and Diet in Coastal and Inland Rivers of Guyana 10. Assessing Prehistoric Diet Breadth and Settlement to Model a Low Carbon Way of Life 11. Effects of Educational Intervention about “Bush Medicine” on the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Pharmacists and Physicians 12. Determination of Aflatoxins in Paddy, Rice and Rice By-products in Guyana The following research, awarded grant funding under the Project, continued underway at Project close: 13. Estimating the Use of Solar Generated Steam Power in UG’s Thermodynamics Laboratory 14. An Experimental Approach to Economic Behavior, Culture and Institutions in Support of Low Carbon Development 15. Assessing Wind Energy Potential on Guyana’s Coastland 16. Examining Architectural and Urban Adjustments for the Effective Harvesting of LCDS Benefits

world bank documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · lcds low carbon development strategy...

Documents