Rwanda - Second Integrated Forestry Project

 Second integrated forestry project Report No: ; Type: Report/Evaluation Memorandum ; Country: Rwanda; Region: Africa; Sector: Forestry; Major Sector: Agriculture; ProjectID: P002221 Rwanda: Second Integrated Forestry Project (Credit 1811-RW) The Rwanda Second Integrated Forestry project, supported by Credit 1811-RW for SDR 11 million (US$14.1 million equivalent), was approved in FY87. Disagreements over the livestock component delayed loan effectiveness and forced IDA to suspend the equivalent of US$2 million in FY89. The credit closed in FY94 after a one-year extension and an undisbursed balance equivalent to US$7.68 million was canceled. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) which was prepared by the Africa Regional Office, is based mainly on documents from Bank files as most project documents and the offices in Rwanda were destroyed during the 1994 civil war. The project's objectives were to support the protection and conservation of Rwanda's remaining natural forests, to promote agroforestry in order to increase fuelwood supplies, and to continue work initiated under the Rwanda First Integrated Forestry and Livestock Development project (Credit 1039-RW). Specifically, the project aimed to increase wood production from industrial plantations and rural afforestation; protect natural forest ecosystems; develop a high- productivity cattle industry in areas where forests had been degraded; and strengthen the agencies responsible for forestry, agriculture, and livestock development. The project failed to achieve most of its objectives because of the devastating outbreaks of civil war in 1990 and 1994. But even without the civil war, the likelihood of successful project implementation was low because of weaknesses in project design and a shortage of counterpart funds. A component to take inventory of biodiversity in upland forests functioned satisfactorily, but the opportunity to apply the information gathered remains distant. Agroforestry and plantation activities were not economically viable in part because they depended on communal labor arrangements that broke down during the outbreak of civil war. The planned strengthening of the Forestry Department did not take place and government was unable to control entry into the public forest. Plans to monitor rural forestry never became operational. The government went ahead with a livestock component after IDA withdrew its support for this activity, putting in place an inappropriate and financially unsustainable system that failed totally when the civil war broke out. More than 12,000 head of cattle were slaughtered or removed from the country. Lacking a monitoring and evaluation system to determine if it served client needs and to assess impact, the agricultural extension component fell short of expectations. An economic rate of return ranging from 16 to 45 percent was expected at appraisal for various components, but these rates could not be reestimated. The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) agrees with the ICR in rating the outcome of the project unsatisfactory, sustainability as unlikely, and institutional development as negligible. The ICR and OED rate Bank performance as unsatisfactory because project appraisal was deficient. The experience with this project suggests that local people need to participate fully in project design and implementation if natural resources are to be managed successfully; that sustainable forest management is not possible in the absence of effective institutions and a sound policy framework on land use and incentives; that buffer zone forests and industrial plantations do not provide solutions to household energy problems; and that whenever possible, local forestry and resource conservation activities should be designed to become financially self-sustaining. Given the difficult circumstances under which the ICR was prepared and the extent of the information presented, its quality is considered to be satisfactory. While there was an ICR mission, its aide-memoire is not included in the ICR and no estimate of actual project costs is provided. Borrower comments on the ICR were invited but not received. No audit is planned.