Japan Social Development Fund

1. Japan Social Development Fund Briefing Session FY09 Yolaine Joseph, PTO January 22, 2009

2. JSDF Briefing Overview • Introduction • JSDF Regular Program: • Purposes • Grant Types • Country eligibility • Changes in FY09 • GFR Application Form • Selection Criteria • Ineligible Activities/Expenditures • Pointers – what to remember when working on the proposal • Japanese Visibility • Common Reasons for Rejection of Proposals

3. JSDF Briefing Overview (cont’d) • Concept Note • JSDF Seed Fund • Case Studies of Approved and Rejected Proposals • Most Common Issues and Bottlenecks in Project Design and Implementation • Example of Well-Designed Projects in Other Regions • Reference and Contact Information

4. Introduction The Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) was established by the Government of Japan and the World Bank. It is an untied grant facility providing grants in support of innovative social programs to help alleviate poverty in eligible client countries of the World Bank Group.

5. JSDF Regular Program – Purposes JSDF projects are expected to: • Encourage the testing of innovative methods that are new or alternative approaches at the project, country, or regional level, or that facilitate new partnerships or assist new target groups. • Support initiatives that lead to developing sustainable outcomes through the adoption or scaling-up of the pilot project. • Directly respond to the needs of marginalized, vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. Marginalization may be a function of location, gender, age, ethnicity, physical fitness. • Build ownership, capacity, empowerment and participation of local communities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society groups

6. JSDF Regular Program – Grant Types • Project Grants: • Small-scale projects, which may be scaled up to benefit the poorest; • Use of innovative and demand-driven methods to encourage participation. • Capacity Building Grants: • Strengthen local communities, local governments, local institutions and/or NGOs; • Promote collaboration between local governments and communities; • Improve decision-making and accountability of local communities.

7. JSDF Regular Program – Country Eligibility • All low-income countries and lower middle-income countries, as defined in the 2008 World Development Report, are now eligible for both Project Grants and Capacity-Building Grants. • Upper middle income countries are not eligible for JSDF grants. • The list of countries eligible for JSDF grants appears on the JSDF website and in the JSDF database. It was also attached to the call for proposals.

8. JSDF Regular Program – Changes in FY09 • Allocation increase of 60% from FY08, to US$80 million • Maximum grant size increase from US$2 million to US$3 million. • Introduction of three special allocations for Africa – including North African countries • Agricultural development • Participatory school management, and • Enhancement of health management and health services • GFR Introduction • Seed Funds • JSDF regular program • Mandatory use of the RE code

9. JSDF Regular Program – GFR Application Form • Grant Funding Request (GFR) proposal replaces the JSDF Lotus Notes database template • GFR content is largely similar to the previous template’s content, with some changes in the structure • GFR can be accessed by typing “GFR” in the URL (GFR website) • GFR windows: • 4907 – Regular Program Recipient-executed grants • 4908 – Regular Program Bank-executed grants (for Incremental Bank Costs) • GFR includes: • Basic data tab; • Description tab (Grant development objectives and grant-financed activities); • Outcomes tab; • Components tab; • JSDF Specific tab; • Processing tab; and • Allowed Expenses • Grant supplementary information includes: • Bank incremental costs; • Rationale and participatory approach; • Sustainability; • Safeguard issues; • Country/sector background.

10. JSDF Regular Program – GFR Application Form (Cont’d) • Linkage to Bank operation/strategy; • Linkage to RE product line should be used; • Grant implementation arrangements; • Consultation with Other Development Partners; • Monitoring and Evaluation; • Risks affecting grant implementation; • Financial arrangements; • Disbursement arrangements; • Additional obligations; • Cost table includes procurement method; • Technical reviewers’ comments.

11. JSDF Regular Program – Selection Criteria • Direct benefits to the poor using innovative mechanisms; • Direct participation of community groups, local governments and/or NGOs in grant preparation and implementation to encourage long-term sustainable development; • Exit strategy and mechanism for long-term sustainability; • Outcome/impact indicators, including mechanisms to monitor progress and measure outcomes; • Programs which complement Bank-financed project(s), either under preparation or implementation; and • Commitment and ownership of the Recipient.

12. JSDF Regular Program – Ineligible Activities/Expenditures • Scaling up of already piloted activities; • Activities which are being or can be funded under Bank Group loans/credits or from other sources; • Activities normally funded under Bank Group budgets or by other donors for preparation of Bank-financed projects, including technical assistance for these activities; • Preparation of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers or other technical assistance for poverty monitoring activities.

13. JSDF Regular Program – Ineligible Activities/Expenditures (cont’d) • Academic research; • Land acquisition; • Purchase of motor vehicles; • Government salaries; and • Foreign training or study tours. Note: UN agencies may not be direct recipients of JSDF grants

14. JSDF Regular Program - Pointers • Make sure to discuss the proposal with the Japanese Embassy in the field. • JSDF activities should help the poorest and most fragile groups in the eligible countries. • JSDF activities should promote collaboration with civil society, local governments, NGOs, etc., strengthen partnerships with these groups, and learn/share experiences. • Steering Committee and GoJ pay particular attention to Participation, Innovation, Sustainability and Risks sections of proposal.

15. JSDF Regular Program – Pointers (Cont’d) • JSDF activities should be compatible with the development objectives set out in the CAS, PRSP, and/or poverty reduction elements of Sector Strategies. • JSDF provides grant funds and, thus, should broaden the scope of Bank-financed projects (and not supplement Bank-financed projects or the Recipients’ budgets, including those provided by other donors for the preparation of loans/credits). Grants should pioneer new and innovative mechanisms which cannot be financed through loans or credits. • Write enough, but not too much. Limit background general information. • Always keep in mind the purposes of the JSDF while preparing the proposal: participatory preparation, demand-driven, bottom-up approach, assisting the target population as directly as possible.

16. JSDF Regular Program – Japanese Visibility Bank task teams are asked to help promote the visibility and local awareness of JSDF in recipient countries through the following types of activities: • The logo (usually the Japanese national flag) should be used; • Encourage recipient to invite Japanese embassy to grant signing ceremonies; • Recipients should be encouraged to ensure that JSDF-financed activities are well covered by local print and electronic media; • Press releases issued with respect to JSDF grants should refer to the financial contribution from the Government of Japan.

17. JSDF Regular Program – Reasons for Rejection Some common reasons for rejection of JSDF proposals: • Proposal does not fit the JSDF criteria, e.g., participatory preparation, innovation, direct assistance to marginal and most vulnerable populations; • Grant takes a top-down rather than a bottom-up, demand-driven approach; • Too much technical assistance (especially international) not related to training which assists beneficiaries directly; • Grant funds activities that can be funded from other sources, e.g., the associated Bank project, ongoing social fund or CDD operation in the country, other donors; • Grant-funded project would scale up activities already piloted elsewhere, rather than piloting them itself; • Funding requested for ineligible activities or items.

18. JSDF Concept Note • Before starting the formal application, the TTL should seek preliminary feedback on proposals by submitting a Concept Note by email to the JSDF Unit, briefly describing the activities to be funded. • The deadline for the Concept Note submission is February 6, 2009. • The template for the Concept Note is available on the JSDF Website. • Upon receiving the note, the JSDF Unit will provide guidance to the task team on the consistency of proposed activities with JSDF criteria and make suggestions for improvement before the team commits its time to preparing a full-scale application.

19. JSDF Seed Fund • Objective:To support the preparation costs of proposals – specifically for participatory discussions with civil society groups so JSDF proposals are designed for maximum effectiveness and sustainability. • Output:Well-developed JSDF Grant proposal. • Country Eligibility:Same as JSDF Regular Program grant eligibility. • Maximum Amount: US$50,000. • Implementation Period:Maximum 12 months from approval (status report is expected within six months of approval). • Submission: Effective June 1, 2008, the use of Lotus Notes Database for the submission of seed funds has been discontinued, and requests should be submitted through GFR. GFR window number for Seed Fund is 378.

20. Case Studies Four Case Studies: • Approved Proposals: • Case Study 1: Colombia - Institutional and Community Strengthening for Local Governance and Development • Case Study 2: Egypt - Piloting Community Management and Accountability Systems in Rural Sanitation Service Delivery • Rejected Proposals: • Case Study 3:Senegal - Effectiveness of distribution of micronutrient products to Senegalese young children • Case Study 4:Uzbekistan Social Fund for Health-Related Services

21. Case Study 1 - Overview Case Study 1: Approved Proposal Colombia - Institutional and Community Strengthening for Local Governance and Development Amount: $1.7 million Type: Capacity Building

22. Case Study 1 - Grant Objectives • The grant aimsto increase the management and technical capacities of municipal governments and local communities in the poorest geographic areas in Colombia.

23. Case Study 1 – Participatory Approach • Seed funds used to develop proposal and fund workshops with participation of governors, mayors, municipal staff, and local community leaders from municipalities included in project. • Questionnaire given to community leaders and local government representatives asking these to identify specific local development needs in their area. • In workshops and subsequent meetings with various agencies, concept and specific implementation agreements were agreed upon.

24. Case Study 1 - Innovation • Looks to simultaneously build capacities among municipal authorities and local communities combined with providing support to the identification and implementation of local sustainable development; • Brings together two key government agencies responsible for municipal development and community development, a much needed yet not a very common practice.

25. Case Study 1 - Sustainability • Project activities support improvements in technical, administrative, and financial capacities of local governments and will lead to improvement in supply of public services and in ranking of several of the municipalities in project area. • Other organizations have been approached by project team and have expressed interest in providing resources for an expansion of project activities. • Grant can contribute to creation of a larger local development program in Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in the Andes region.

26. Case Study 2 - Overview Case Study 2: Approved Proposal Egypt - Piloting Community Management and Accountability Systems in Rural Sanitation Service Delivery Amount: $2.99 million Type: Capacity Building

27. Case Study 2 - Grant Objectives • This project aims to enhance the institutional capacity and accountability mechanisms between local authorities and beneficiary communities for better service delivery in the rural sanitation sector. This will be achieved through piloting innovative mechanisms for community participation in planning, implementation, management and monitoring of small scale sanitation systems in rural Egypt. This grant aims to put a much stronger emphasis on community empowerment and voice, particularly of the small and hamlet villages in the Delta, characterized with high poverty incidence and poor environmental conditions. • The proposal was approved by the SC with no comments.

28. Case Study 2 - Participatory Approach • The development of this proposal has followed a long period of over two years of extensive social consultation in the project area, including target beneficiaries and local institutions, which allowed for the clear articulation of priority needs, geographic hot-spots and demonstrated tools for social mobilization and communication. • Participatory strategic planning exercise to determine the key priority areas for infrastructure intervention at the village cluster (group of villages) level was held.

29. Case Study 2 - Innovation • Innovative technical and institutional design features include: • (i) decentralizing the majority of implementation to the local water and sanitation companies, which was historically been undertaken centrally, • (ii) working within an integrated water resources management framework that organizes village clusters along hydraulic basins and brings multi-sectoral stakeholders into the planning process, • (iii) piloting performance based contracts for the operation of larger wastewater treatment plants with the local private sector, and • (iv) incorporating the social and participatory dimension into the planning and implementation of the sanitation infrastructure by incorporating social staff within the water and sanitation companies.

30. Case Study 2 - Sustainability • The emphasis of the proposal is in fact on building a scalable model, skills and capacities for long term financial and operational sustainability of the constructed sanitation systems. • The grant will be implemented at the timely start up of sanitation system construction, to enable communities to maximize their benefit, enhance their capacity to assume ownership and monitor results on the ground. • The delegated management contracts with CDAs will be based on full cost recovery principles to ensure long term financial viability of the O&M costs. Upon completion of the grant implementation, it is envisaged that the model would have been implemented in a sufficient number of villages with different typographies and conditions to allow for lessons learned to be drawn and replication.

31. Case Study 3 - Overview Case Study 3: Rejected Proposal Senegal - Effectiveness of distribution of micronutrient products to Senegalese young children Amount: $1.88 million Grant Type: Project

32. Case Study 3 – Grant Objectives • To find more effective ways to respond directly to the health needs of the poorest and most vulnerable members in disadvantaged communities in Senegal in settings all too common throughout Africa. Specifically, it aims to test the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of home fortification (adding micronutrient (MN) powders to infants’ food) with different doses of MN through two distribution systems: a) six-monthly Child Health Days (CHD) and b) community-based monthly growth monitoring and promotion program (CGP).

33. Case Study 3 – Components Description • Component A: Situation Assessment and Monitoring & Evaluation - A participatory rapid appraisal will inform project activities around feeding practices, caregiver profiles, knowledge and perceptions on micronutrients, and potential barriers for use of the MN product. • Component B:Phase I - Testing the Intervention and the Delivery Mechanism - Phase 1 will assess the feasibility, impact and cost-effectiveness of the intervention via two delivery mechanisms. The project will build on existing CHD training provision for community volunteers, supervisors and health workers in the CGP communities. The outcomes from Phase I will be used to inform adoption of the intervention through the CGP and CHD programs. • Component C:Phase 2- Implementing the most cost-effective delivery mechanism and promoting stakeholder ownership and adoption - Phase 2 will focus on implementing the most effective intervention identified from Phase 1 and promoting stakeholder ownership and adoption for future scale up.

34. Case Study 3 – Reasons for Rejection • SC has serious concerns about project. • As TR2 notes, the risks associated (Section 4.4.1) with the pilot in providing micronutrient (MN) supplements to non-iron deficient children seem higher than the "N" recorded. • If the project led to "increased morbidity and mortality" (see component A), this could prove highly embarrassing, especially since a Bank director is on the Board of the implementing agency. • JSDF is not the right vehicle for testing dosage of a product, thus carrying out health research. Further, there appears to be only one monopoly supplier (Section 4.4.2) of the MN. • There is a risk that JSDF could be accused of directly benefiting a single company in the absence of a competitive market. • It is suggested that task team work with UNICEF or a similarly qualified organization to test product dosage and children reaction, as Bank does not have the right competence. After completion of the test, JSDF could be used to pilot the delivery mechanisms.

35. Case Study 4 - Overview Case Study 4: Rejected Proposal Uzbekistan - Social Fund for Health- Related Services Amount: $1.99 million Type: Project

36. Case Study 4 -Grant Objectives • To improve the quality and effectiveness of health and health related services for the poor and vulnerable in selected regions of Uzbekistan through: (i) support to poor communities in the assessment of priority needs and the provision of small grants to improve services related to health; (ii) capacity building to the communities and local NGOs and local government; and (iii) project management, and monitoring and evaluation to ensure satisfactory implementation and measurement of overall impact.

37. Case Study 4 - Components Description • Component A: The Grant would provide support to the Ministry Economy, which through UNDP would implement a "social fund" type mechanism to work with communities using community driven development (CDD) methodologies. • Component B: The Grant would provide training for the staff of the implementing agency in procedures and guidelines developed and set forth in the Project Operations Manual.

38. Case Study 4 - Reasons for Rejection • Request from the central Government • Top down approach by the Ministry • Concern that the communities would not take ownership of the program. Such statement as "communities would be required to participate in the implementation of the small grant...".

39. Most Common Issues & Bottlenecks in Projects Design & Implementation • Insufficient buy-ins at time of project design resulting in lack of consensus among stakeholders • Important for objectives to focus on outcomes • Miscalculations of project costs • Avoiding elite capture • Adequate formulation of KPIs measurement • Designing an effective M&E system

40. Most Common Issues & Bottlenecks in Projects Design & Implementation • Need to change legal base of organization or legislation (e.g. Tsunami project which never became effective). • Highly complex institutional arrangements when projects are cross-sectoral. • Coordination among ministries and agencies.

41. Example of Well Designed Projects in various Regions • Turkey – Youth Development and Social Inclusion • Indonesia Creative Communities Fund • Indonesia - Poverty Reduction and Women's Leadership: The "PRIME" Project • Tanzania - Community-Based Conditional Cash Transfer Pilot

42. Bank Intranet Website Address: www.worldbank.org/jsdf Annual Policy Document and Visibility Guidance Note JSDF Processing Procedures Eligible countries list Case Law Seed Fund Guidelines Seed Fund processing procedures JSDF Concept Note Technical review Frequently asked questions Processing and Implementation of Japanese Trust Fund Grants GFR Preparation Instructions Lotus Notes Database: Same documents as above, except for the JSDF Concept Note, and Processing and Implementation of Japanese Trust Fund Grants CFP Contacts: Yolaine Joseph (x32389) Bermet Sydygalieva (x89357) Augustina Nikolova (x30861) David Potten (x87873) CFP Website and Contacts