The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - All...

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 65657-GZ

PROJECT PAPER

ON A

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$2 MILLION

TO THE

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (PLO)

(FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY)

FOR THE

ADDITIONAL FINANCING FOR THE

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE SUPPORT OF PHASE I OF

THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

January 3, 2012

Sustainable Development Department

Middle East and North Africa Region

This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does not

imply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration

and the updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank‟s

Policy on Access to Information.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective October 31, 2011)

Currency Unit = New Israeli Shekel (NIS)

NIS1 = US$ 0.277

US$ = NIS 3.609

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Additional Financing

AFD Agence Française de Développement

BTC Belgian Development Agency (formerly: Belgian Technical Cooperation)

FARV Fixed Asset and Registration Valuation

FP‟s Funding Partners

FPPM Financial Management and Procurement Procedures Manual

GAM Grant Allocation Mechanism

GTZ/GIZ German Technical Cooperation

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

IDA International Development Agency

IFRs Interim Financial Reports

IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System

KFW German Bank for Development

MDLF Municipal Development and Lending Fund

MDP Municipal Development Project for the Support of Phase 1 of the Municipal

Development Program

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoLG Ministry of Local Government

MOPAD Ministry of Planning & Administrative Development

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NIS New Israeli Shekel

OSS One Stop Shops

PA Palestinian Authority

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PDO Project Development Objective

PRDP Palestinian Reform and Development Plan

SDIP Strategic Development and Investment Planning

TFGWB Trust Fund for Gaza and West Bank

WBG West Bank and Gaza

Vice President: Inger Andersen

Country Director:

Acting Sector Director:

Mariam Sherman

Emmanuel Mbi

Sector Manager: Franck Bousquet

Task Team Leader: Soraya Goga

WEST BANK AND GAZA

ADDITIONAL FINANCING FOR THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

FOR THE SUPPORT OF PHASE I OF


Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6

II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing in the amount of USD $ 2.0 Million ......... 7

III. Proposed Changes ........................................................................................................................ 9

IV. Appraisal Summary ................................................................................................................... 11

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring................................................................................. 13

Annex 2: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) ......................................................... 19

Annex 3: Use of Project Funds and revised estimate of project costs ............................................. 21

Annex 4: Procurement and Financial Management Arrangements ................................................ 22

WEST BANK AND GAZA

ADDITIONAL FINANCING FOR THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

FOR THE SUPPORT OF PHASE I OF


ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET

Basic Information - Additional Financing (AF)

Country Director: Mariam Sherman

Sector Manager/Director: Franck Bousquet

Team Leader: Soraya Goga

AF Project ID: P127162

Expected Effectiveness Date: February 19, 2012

Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Grant

Sectors: Sub-national government

administration (35%); Power (23%);

Roads and highways (18%); General

public administration sector (12%);

Other social services (12%)

Themes: Access to urban services and

housing (25%);Other social protection

and risk management (25%);Municipal

finance (24%);Social safety nets

(13%);Pollution management and

environmental health (13%)

Environmental category: Partial

Assessment

Expected Closing Date: April 30,

2013

Basic Information - Original Project

Project ID: P111741 Environmental category: Partial

Assessment

Project Name: Municipal Development Project Expected Closing Date: April 30, 2013

Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Grant

AF Project Financing Data

[ ] Loan [ ] Credit [X] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other:

Proposed terms: N/A

AF Financing Plan (US$m)

Source Total Amount (US $m)

Total Project Cost:

Cofinancing:

Borrower:

Total Bank Financing: Trust Fund for Gaza

and West Bank

Parallel Financing

43.3

14.8

4.0

2.0

22.5

Client Information

Recipient:

Palestine Liberation Organization

Responsible Agency:

Municipal Development and Lending Fund (MDLF)

Al Bireh, Al Rashmawi Building, 3rd floor

West Bank and Gaza

Contact Person: Arch. Abdel Mughni Nofal

Telephone No.: (970-2) 296-6610, 295-0684

Fax No.: (970-2) 295-0685

Email: [email protected]

AF Estimated Disbursements (Bank FY/US$m)

FY 2012 2013

Annual 0.48 1.52

Cumulative 0.48 2

Project Development Objective and Description

Original project development objective is to improve municipal management practices for

better transparency. The PDO of the proposed Additional Financing remains unchanged.

Project description:

Part 1: Provide grant allocations to municipalities for capital investments and service provision

Part 2: Support municipal innovations and efficiency

Part 3: Provide capacity building for municipalities and the MDLF

Part 4: Support project management including monitoring and evaluation, audits and technical

assistance to municipalities in implementing sub-projects.

Safeguard and Exception to Policies

Safeguard policies triggered:

Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)

Forests (OP/BP 4.36)

Pest Management (OP 4.09)

Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)

Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10)

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)

Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)

Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)

[X]Yes [ ] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[X]Yes [ ] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

[ ]Yes [X] No

Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?

Have these been endorsed or approved by Bank management?

[ ]Yes [X] No

N/A

Conditions and Legal Covenants:

Financing Agreement

Reference

Description of

Condition/Covenant

Date Due

Amendment to the Grant

Agreement

Revision of Subsidiary

Agreement

By effectiveness

Amendment to the Grant

Agreement

Revision of On-granting

Agreement

By effectiveness

mailto:[email protected]

-6-

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to provide an additional

grant in an amount of US$ 2.00 Million to the Palestine Liberation Organization (for the benefit

of the Palestinian Authority), West Bank and Gaza, for the Municipal Development Project for

the Support of Phase 1 of the Municipal Development Program, P111741, from the Trust Fund

for Gaza and West Bank. The request for Additional Financing builds on a request from the

Palestinian Authority transmitted on 29 September, 2011.

2. The original project, the MDP (P111741, TF 095351) was approved by the Board of

Directors of the World Bank on August 13, 2009 through Special Financing from the Trust Fund

for Gaza and West Bank (TFGWB) and will close on April 30, 2013.

3. In accordance with OP/BP 13.20, the Additional Financing (US$2.00 Million) would be

used to finance implementation of expanded activities to scale up the project‟s impact and

development effectiveness primarily through support for additional grants for municipal

infrastructure (an estimated 98.3% of the additional financing), and to finance cost overruns to

complete some original project activities (an estimated 1.7% of the additional financing).

4. The project is co-financed by Denmark and Sweden (through a World Bank administered

Multi-Donor Trust Fund), financed in parallel by Germany (through GiZ and KfW), France

(through AfD) and Belgium (through BTC) and benefits from matching financing (10% of donor

contributions) from the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Donors and the World Bank are

collectively referred to as the „Funding Partners (FPs)‟.

5. The MDP is implemented in two cycles. The FPs (including the World Bank) contributed

an estimated Euro 33.00 Million1 to the project in 2009 and 2010. The financing was used

primarily to finance to Cycle 1 which is now in the final stages of completion. This Additional

Financing will be used to finance activities under Cycle 2 of the project. The cost of Cycle 2 is

estimated at approximately Euro 33.00 Million. The other FPs (i.e. other than the World Bank)

have committed to providing the required remaining financing through parallel financing

mechanisms (France, Germany and Belgium) and through co-financing through a World Bank

administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund (Sweden and Denmark) for Cycle 2 of the project.

6. The Project Development Objective (PDO), project design, implementation and fiduciary

arrangements of the proposed additional financing will remain unchanged from the original

project. The PDO is to improve municipal management practices for better transparency. Project

design supports the PDO through the allocation of a performance based municipal grants2 for

capital investments (Part 1), support to municipal innovations and efficiency (Part 2), capacity

building for municipalities and the Municipal Development and Lending Fund (Part 3) and

project implementation support and management costs (Part 4). The Municipal Development and

Lending Fund (MDLF) continues in its role as the project implementing entity. The additional

1 All Euro amounts are estimated as the FPs provided financing in several different currencies.

2 The grant allocation to municipalities is determined through a formula consisting of performance (40%),

population (40%) and need (20%).

-7-

financing will assist in the further institutionalization of the performance based grant allocation

system, and, therefore, the Palestinian Authority‟s goal of municipal fiscal autonomy.

II. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT OF USD $

2.00 MILLION

7. Link with Interim Strategy (IS): The proposed financing aligns with the goals of

improving local governance and supporting fiscal reform and public infrastructure, identified in

the Interim Strategy of the World Bank (2008-2010) as it: (i) supports the PA in providing

transparent grant transfer to municipalities; (ii) assists municipalities in improving their

performance and their financial systems and (iii) provides a grant to finance sub-projects that

could include infrastructure.

8. Link with Sector Strategy: The multiphase Municipal Development Program3

operationalizes the Palestinian Authority‟s goal of strengthening local governments through

enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness and assisting in supporting their fiscal stability

through supporting performance based grants and capacity building packages. Such a goal was

outlined in the Palestinian National Development Plan4 (2011-2013).

9. The Original Grant: On August 13, 2009, the Board of Directors of the World Bank

approved US$10.00 Million in Special Financing for the Municipal Development Project for the

Support of Phase 1 of the Municipal Development Program from the Trust Fund for Gaza and

West Bank (TFGWB)5. Upon fulfillment of all legal covenants, the credit became effective on

January 26, 2010. Between November 12, 2009, and October 28, 2010, agreements were signed

with the Palestinian Authority for the financing of MDP by GTZ, KfW, AFD, and Belgium6, and

for the World Bank administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund (Danish and Swedish Co-financing)

for the equivalent of approximately Euro 33.00 Million. The expectation and the commitment

was that these Funding Partners would contribute additional funds for the second and third years

of MDP7. The Original Grant will close on April 30, 2013.

3 The multiphase national Municipal Development Program has a three stage hierarchy of objectives: a) Sector-

Level Objective: To strengthen municipal governance to enable municipalities to become creditworthy; b) Program

Level Objective: Support municipalities in providing better coverage and improved coverage of services over the

medium term; c) Municipal Development Program Phase 1 Objective: To improve municipal management practices

for better transparency. 4 Palestinian Authority, 2010. The Palestinian National Development Plan has as a strategic objective „to empower

local government and bring services closer to the people‟. „Accelerating fiscal decentralization‟ appears as a priority

policy under that strategic objective. 5 This TF financed the Bank program in West Bank and Gaza.

6 GTZ on November 12, 2009; KfW on December 6, 2009; AFD on April 6, 2010, the co-financed MDTF TF 96770

administered by the World Bank on behalf of Sweden and Denmark on June 10, 2010 and Belgium on October 28,

2010 (only for Cycle 2). 7 Page 5 of the Original Project Appraisal Document states: „In addition to the Bank, six other Donors have

committed to financing the program'. The funding amount reflected below (i.e. referring to the financing table) is

only for commitments made in 2009 but Donors are expected to put additional funds in the second and third years of

MDP (Phase 1), totaling over US$ 100 million by the end of Phase 1.‟

-8-

10. Objective of the Original Project: The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to

improve municipal management practices for better transparency. This is the necessary condition

for improving service delivery in subsequent phases. To support the PDO, a project consisting

of four component parts through which funds are disbursed was designed:

Part 1: Municipal Grants for Capital Investments allocates performance-based grants for

capital investments or operating expenditures through a transfer formula based on population,

need and municipal performance. (US$46.10 Million, US$7.60 Million from TFGWB)

Part 2: Support to Municipal Innovations and Efficiency promotes learning and innovation to

promote municipal development (US$3.70 Million, US$0.70 Million from TFGWB).

Part 3: Capacity-Building for Municipalities and the Municipal Development and Lending

Fund (MDLF) supports municipalities to graduate to a higher performance category, and

supports the implementing entity to build its capacity (US$5.23 Million, US$0.60 Million

from TFGWB)

Part 4: Project Implementation Support and Management Costs finances project management

(US$2.00 Million, US$1.10 Million from TFGWB).

11. Project Performance: MDP is meeting its Key Performance Indicator targets and is, in

some cases, exceeding these. Sixty-eight percent of municipalities have graduated to a higher

performance category, thus exceeding the target of fifteen percent for this performance indicator.

Sixty-nine percent of municipalities disclosed information in at least two of the following three

areas: (a) financial data and municipal budgets; (b) municipal ranking; and (c) projects and

achievements. This exceeds the PDO indicator target for 2011 of thirty percent. In addition, key

outcome indicators for each of the Parts are being met. These include: (i) the project has met its

target of 100 % of investments financed under Part 1 that were identified in the municipal

Strategic Development and Investment Plans (SDIPs) for those municipalities which have a

SDIP; (ii) four new municipalities have been legally recognized following an amalgamation

process (target is six); and (iii) MDLF performance in project management has been consistently

rated as satisfactory.

12. Implementation Progress (IP): The Implementation Status and Results Report (ISR)

ratings for Project Development Objective (PDO) and overall IP have been consistently rated

either "Satisfactory" or “Moderately Satisfactory” since Board approval and both are currently

rated as “Satisfactory”. Disbursement for the project (including all FP financing) was at 90% as

at end October, 2011. Disbursement to the designated account for the World Bank financing

stands at 70% (US$ 7.07 Million) as of September 30, 2011.

13. The PA is in compliance with all legal covenants. There are no unresolved fiduciary,

environmental, social, or other safeguard concerns. OP4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and OP

4.09 (Pest Management) were triggered. However, all sub-projects currently implemented have

complied with category B status. Procurement is rated as „satisfactory‟ and the implementing

entity has hired qualified procurement specialists who have acceptable experience. The

Financial Management rating is „moderately satisfactory‟. FM arrangements during the first

cycle, including staffing, accounting reporting, budgeting and flow of funds and audit

arrangements, are considered to be adequate for providing timely and reliable information.

-9-

However, an MS rating has been retained as the MDLF‟s internal audit function does not follow

a risk based approach.

14. Rationale for Borrower Request: The PA regards the grant allocation system, described

under Part 1, as a nascent inter-governmental fiscal transfer mechanism, initially financed

primarily by Donors with the PA providing a matching 10% grant to the project. The intent of

the transfer mechanism supported by the grant is to (i) provide an incentive for municipalities to

improve performance; (ii) introduce transparency in the flow of transfers to municipalities; (iii)

introduce a measure of stability in the flow of transfers to municipalities so that they are able to

undertake sound long term investment decisions. The PA, supported by the Funding Partners,

therefore perceives of the transfer as being a regular (yearly or biennial) source of financing for

municipalities.

15. Consequently, the implementation of the MDP was divided into two, including Cycle 1

(2009-2011) and Cycle 2 (2011-2013), to reflect the intent of the PA in providing a regular

transfer to municipalities for capital investment. Approximately Euro 31.00 Million (including

the WBGTF Original Project Financing of US$10.00 Million) of the Euro 33 .00 Million, which

was the final amount committed by all the Funding Partners (including the World Bank), was

allocated to Cycle 1 in its entirety. This occurred on the assumption that additional donor

financing would be available for Cycle 2 as per the PA‟s agreements with the Funding Partners

(except for the World Bank).

16. The Implementing Entity (the Municipal Development and Lending Fund) projects that it

requires Euro 32.20 Million primarily to scale up the project for implementation of Cycle 2 so as

to meet the sector objectives. The projected financing was based on: (i) a Cycle 2 allocation to

municipalities that reward them if they graduated up to a performance category; (ii) financing for

additional capacity-building packages to assist municipalities in meeting additional performance

targets; and (iii) completion of all outstanding activities as contained in the original Project

Appraisal Document (see Annex 3). The Funding Partners have responded positively, taking the

opportunity provided by the successful implementation of Cycle 1 to finance Cycle 2 and,

therefore, support the PA in meeting its sectoral goals (see paragraph 9 and footnote 1). The

Funding Partners and the PA will contribute Euro 30.80 Million towards Cycle 2 of the project.

17. The proposed additional grant would be used to finance implementation of expanded

activities to scale up the original project‟s impact and development effectiveness primarily

through support for additional performance based grants for municipal infrastructure (an

estimated 98.3% of the total additional financing). A portion of the funds (1.7% of the total

additional financing) would also be used to finance cost overruns to complete some original

project activities as a result of an increase in costs.

III. PROPOSED CHANGES

18. Proposed Changes: The Project Development Objective (PDO), project design,

implementation and fiduciary arrangements will remain unchanged from the original project.

-10-

19. The Additional Financing (US$2.00 Million) will primarily be used to finance activities

to scale up the project‟s impact and development effectiveness and also to cover cost overruns.

(See Table 1: Proposed Budget for Additional Financing). There will be no extension of the

closing date. The MDLF prepared the Original Project‟ implementation in two cycles (Cycle 1,

2009-2011 and Cycle 2, 2011-2013). This AF finances Cycle 2.

20. More specifically, an estimated 98.3% of the funds (US$ 1.97 Million) would be used to

finance additional municipal grants and the required project management costs for municipalities

in West Bank and Gaza under Part 1 of the project. The remaining Funding Partners will allocate

an estimated additional US$ 34.80 Million (estimated at Euro 26.00 Million) for this activity.

The remaining Funding Partners will also allocate an estimated US$ 2.00 Million to scale up Part

3 of the project. This would include an estimated 56 additional municipalities will receive

strategic development and investment plan packages; an estimated 20 additional municipalities

will receive fixed assets registration and valuation packages; an estimated 13 additional

municipalities will receive financial policies and procedures manual packages.

21. An estimated 1.7% of the funds (US$ 0.03 Million) would be used to finance a cost

overrun associated with the implementation of the Integrated Financial Management Information

System (IFMIS) system as part of improving the financial management of municipalities. The

financing of the IFMIS is key in supporting municipalities in moving to a ranking of „A‟, which

denotes a creditworthy municipality. In addition, the remaining Funding Partners would provide

an estimated US$ 0.10 Million for completion of activities to support One Stop Shops under Part

2 of the project and US$ 2.00 Million to provide support to an estimated 12 municipalities for

Operations and Maintenance capacity building packages (see Annex 3).

22. The proposed activities are similar in type and scope to the original investment project,

do not comprise any changes to the initial project design, and only expand, replicate, and

strengthen the ongoing activities.

23. The prior review procurement thresholds were raised to reflect changes in the

procurement thresholds for the West Bank and Gaza (See Annex 4).

24. The Results Framework Outcome Indicators and Use of Intermediate Outcome

Monitoring will also remain unchanged. However, the targets have been revised to reflect this

financing request. The target for PDO Indicator 1 has been increased from 25% to 30% and the

target for PDO Indicator 2 has been increased from 50% to 60%. Yearly targets for the Results

Framework Monitoring will be changed to reflect that the project was implemented in two cycles

rather than on a yearly basis. The projects outcomes and intermediate outcome indicators will be

monitored to ensure that they continue to meet or exceed their targets, although the Results

Framework remains unchanged.

25. The number of targeted municipalities will increase from 132 to 134 to reflect the change

in the number of municipalities in West Bank and Gaza. The proposed changes in allocations for

each Part are listed in Table 1 below.

-11-

Table 1: Proposed MDP Cycle 2 Budget and Allocation of TFWBG in Euro Millions

Component

Original

Cost

(Cycle 1)

Original

Cost

TFGWB

Propos

ed Cost

Cycle 2

TFGWB

AF

Revised

Cost

Revised

Cost

TFGWB

Part 1: Municipal Grants 25.00 5.50 26.50 1.28 51.50 6.78

Part 2: Support to Municipal

Innovations and Efficiency

1.20 0.50 0.70 0 1.90 0.50

Part 3: Capacity-Building 1.90 0.65 2.20 0.02 4.10 0.67

Part 4: Project Implementation

Support and Management Costs

3.00 0.76 2.80 0.19 5.80 0.95

Total 31.10 7.41 32.20 1.49 63.30 8.90

Total in US$ Equivalent8 41.00 10.00 43.00 2.00 84.00 12.00

IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

26. Economic and Financial: An economic and financial analysis was not undertaken as part

of the original project preparation as the sub-projects are demand driven and remained unknown

until after the projects effectiveness. Instead, a methodology was elaborated and agreed to be

used for the economic and financial cost-benefit of sub-project investments. This methodology

will also apply to the sub-projects financed under this Additional Financing request.

27. Technical: The Transfer Mechanism formula, which forms the basis for allocation of

grants to municipalities, was effectively piloted in Cycle 1. Municipal allocations, using the

formulae, have been finalized taking into account performance improvements and updated

population figures.

28. The sub-projects would continue to be selected on the basis of a municipality‟s Strategic

Development and Investment Plan (which are prepared through community participation), when

such a plan is available and community consultations, when such a plan is not available, as was

required in the original project. All sub-projects will continue to meet the eligibility criteria as

outlined in the Operations Manual and legal agreements. Most required capacity building

packages that will be supported in Cycle 2 have been already implemented in some

municipalities through Cycle 1 (SDIP, FARV, FPPM and budget guidelines), or through other

Donor financed projects (IFMIS, OSS). For most municipalities, sub-projects have already been

prioritized either as part of an SDIP process or through the prioritization process that occurred at

the start of the Original Project.

29. Institutional: The MDLF, through Cycle 1, has proved an effective agency for

implementing the Municipal Development Project. All required staff for project implementation

has been hired, and capacity of most staff is sound and has been proven through the

implementation of Cycle 1 (the original project).

8 Note that these are estimated based on an exchange rate of 1.3 on 21 November, 2011.

-12-

30. Procurement: Procurement under this AF will be carried out in accordance with the

World Bank “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under

IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” published by the World

Bank in January 2011. The selection of consultants will be carried out in accordance with the

World Bank “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA

Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” published by the World Bank in January 2011.

The procurement arrangements of the original project will apply to this Additional Financing. A

procurement plan (PP) for contracts under Part 2, 3, and 4 was prepared by MDLF and agreed

with the Bank. The procurement risk rating for the project is Moderate; and the same risk rating

would hold for this AF. In accordance with the Bank policies, prior review thresholds for West

Bank and Gaza have recently been increased and will apply to this AF. (See Annex 4 for details)

31. Financial Management: Activities proposed under the AF will be under the same

categories of the original project, and will be implemented by the same implementing entity, the

Municipal Development and Lending fund (MDLF). The same FM and disbursement

arrangements of the original project will apply to this AF. The current reporting arrangements

are satisfactory and will be extended to this AF. The current audit arrangements are satisfactory

and there will remain unchanged for this AF. The overall financial management risk of the

ongoing project is considered Substantial and the same risk rating would hold for this AF.

Mitigating measures have been introduced and include centralizing the FM and disbursements at

the MDLF through direct payment on behalf of municipalities to contractor/suppliers/consultants

both in West Bank and Gaza. FM risk after mitigating measures is Moderate.

32. Parallel financing: Other Funding Partners (Germany, France, and Belgium) will

continue to provide their contribution to the MDP on parallel financing basis to be disbursed

through separate bank account. Parallel financing activities will be included in the project

procurement plan for Parts 2, 3 and 4. For Part 1, the MDLF will allocate available funds from

all donors including Bank to targeted municipalities based on the Grant allocation mechanism.

33. Environmental Safeguards: Since the types of sub-projects funded remain unaltered from

the original project design, the Environment Category for this project remains “B” Partial

Assessment. Operational Policy 4.01 remains triggered with the requirement that an

environmental assessment will be prepared for activities that involve infrastructure construction.

In addition, Operational Policy 4.09 on Pest Management remains triggered in the event that

municipalities, particularly in Gaza where the project supports operations and maintenance, may

require financing for pesticides for mosquitoes for instance. A Pest Management Plan has been

included as part of the Environment Management Plan. The EMP was re-disclosed on 17

November, 2011, as required.

34. Social Safeguards: Since the project will maintain its original design, there are no

changes in the applicability of social safeguards. The Bank‟s Operational Policy 4.12 will not

apply because the project will not finance any investments or sub-projects that involves the

involuntary taking of lands resulting in their relocation or loss of shelter, loss of assets or access

to assets, or loss of income sources or other means livelihood for individuals and community

members. The project‟s Operational Manual (OM) includes a negative list which clearly

prohibits activities which would result in the triggering of the Bank‟s OP 4.12.

-13-

ANNEX 1: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING

Additional Financing for the Municipal Development Project for the Support of Phase 1

of the Municipal Development Program

Results Framework

Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/

Rationale for Change

PDO

Current (PAD) Proposed To improve municipal

management practices for better

transparency

No Change

PDO indicators

Current (PAD) Proposed change The percentage of municipalities

that graduate up the performance

category in which they are

classified by the end of phase 1

No change to indicator. Change in target from

25% to 30%.

The target has been changed to reflect

the impact of the AF

The percentage of municipalities

that apply at least two public

disclosure methods (publically

available SDIPs, Annual External

Audits, project related data,

municipal budgets and

performance rankings by the end

of Phase 1.

No change to indicator. Change in target from

50% to 60%.

The target has been changed to reflect

the impact of the AF

Intermediate Results indicators

Current (PAD) Proposed change*

Percentage of investments

financed that were identified in

the Municipal Strategic

Development and Investment

Plans

No change

Percentage of investment financed

under MDP Phase 1 that are

operational and in an adequate

state of usability according to

Technical Audits

No Change

The number of municipal

amalgamation initiatives

supported by the end of Phase 1

No Change

The number of Energy Efficient

projects for enhancing municipal

revenues that are implemented

Changed from 2 to 4 The target has been changed to reflect

the number of projects that have been

implemented.

Pilots of one-stop-shops

implemented in at least 3

municipalities in Gaza

No Change

The percentage of municipalities

that graduate up the performance

category in which they are

No Change

-14-

Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/

Rationale for Change currently classified by the end of

phase 1

Procedures for Operations and

Maintenance are established an

piloted in at least 5 municipalities

No Change

MDLF satisfactory performance

as measured by meeting targets it

defined in the Annual Work Plan

No Change

-15-

REVISED PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project Development Objective (PDO): To improve municipal management practices for better transparency

PDO Level Results Indicators

Co

re UOM9

Baseline

Original

Project

Start

(2008)

Progress

To Date

(2011)

Cumulative Target Values

Frequency Data Source/

Methodology

Responsibilit

y for Data

Collection

Comments 2010 2011

end of

Cycle 1

2012 2013

end of

Cycle 2

1. PDO Level Indicator: The

percentage of municipalities that

graduate up the performance category in which they are

currently classified by the end of

phase 1

Percent-

age 0 68

15

30

Consolidated

Semiannual

and annual Progress

Reports

Published

annual

municipal

rankings

Annual Review of

GAM

Rankings

Manual for the

Grant Allocation Mechanism

Questionnaires collected

periodically from

municipalities

Submitted annual

municipal budgets

MDLF

External

consultancies/

audits

The end

graduation rate may be lower

than the current

progress. What has been

measured currently at the

end of Cycle 1,

is if a performance

indicator has

been met by the municipality.

At the end of

Cycle 2, what will be

measured is if

additional indicators have

been met and if

previously met indicators have

been sustained.

Hence, this should be

viewed as a two

part indicator with a target for

cycle 1 and a

target for cycle 2.

9 UOM = Unit of Measurement.

-16-

2. PDO Level Indicator : The percentage of municipalities that

apply at least two public

disclosure methods (publically available SDIPs, Annual External

Audits, project related data,

municipal budgets and performance rankings by the end

of Phase 1.

Percent-

age 0 69 30 60

Consolidated

Semiannual and annual

Progress

Reports

LTC quarterly

reports

MDLF supervision

Verification by LTCs

MDLF

LTCs

The end

disclosure rate may be less

than the current

rate as it will measure if the

disclosure

methods have been sustained

over the course

of the project.

Intermediate Results and Indicators

Intermediate Results Indicators

Co

re

Unit of

Measure-

ment

Baseline

Original

Project

Start

(2009)

Progress

To Date

(2011)

Target Values


Methodology

Responsibility for

Data Collection Comments

2010 2011 2012 2013

(proje

ct end

target)

Intermediate Result 1: Implementation of Municipal Grants for Capital Investments

1. Intermediate result indicator: Percentage of investments

financed that were identified in

the Municipal Strategic Development and Investment

Plans

% 0 100 100 100

Consolidated Semi-annual and annual

Reports

LTC Quarterly

Reports

Municipal

Application forms

Municipal

Strategic

Development and Investment Plans

MDLF reporting

MDLF

LTCs

2. Intermediate result indicator:

Percentage of investment financed

under MDP that are operational and in an adequate state of

usability according to Technical

Audits

% 0 Not yet

due 80 80

Technical Audits

MDP Implementation Completion Report

LTC Quarterly Reports

Selection of sample of

completed

infrastructure investments

annually

Verification of

MDLF

MDLF -

outsourcing of external

assessment

-17-



Co

re

Unit of

Measure-

ment

Baseline

Original

Project

Start

(2009)

Progress

To Date

(2011)

Target Values


Methodology

Responsibility for


2010 2011 2012 2013

(proje

ct end

target) LTCs

Qualitative and

quantitative

surveys in municipalities

LTCs

Intermediate Result 2: Support to Municipal Innovations and Efficiency


The number of municipal

amalgamation initiatives supported by the end of Phase 1

Number 4 4 6

MDLF Consolidated semiannual and

annual progress

reports

World Bank and

Donor Joint Supervision mission

reports

Site Visits

Verification from MDLF

Joint annual reviews

MDLF

World

Bank/Funding Partners


The number of Energy Efficient projects for enhancing municipal

revenues that are implemented

Number 0 4 4

MDLF Consolidated

semiannual and annual progress

reports

World Bank and

Donor Joint

Supervision mission

reports

Site visits to pilot municipalities

MDLF verification

World Bank and Donor Joint

Supervision

missions

MDLF

World Bank/Funding

Partners

5. Intermediate results indicator: Pilots of one-stop-shops

implemented in at least 3

municipalities in Gaza

Number 0

Guide-

lines prepared

in draft.

Assessment of other

Guide-

lines prepared

3 3

MDLF Consolidated

semiannual and annual progress

reports

World Bank and

Site visits to pilot

municipalities


MDLF

External

consultancies

-18-



Co

re

Unit of

Measure-

ment

Baseline

Original

Project

Start

(2009)

Progress

To Date

(2011)

Target Values


Methodology

Responsibility for


2010 2011 2012 2013

(proje

ct end

target) OSS

under prep.

Donor Joint

Supervision mission reports

Supervision

missions

World

Bank/Funding Partners

Intermediate Result 3: Capacity Building for Municipalities


Procedures for Operations and

Maintenance are established and piloted in at least 5 municipalities

O & M

adhoc

Not yet

due

O & M

proce-dures

esta-

blished

O & M

proce-

dures piloted

in 5

munici-palities

5 municip

alities

are implem

enting

O & M procedu

res

MDLF Consolidated

Semiannual and

annual reports

World Bank and

Joint Donor Supervision mission

reports

MDLF

verification


Supervision

missions

MDLF

External

consultancies

World Bank/Funding

Partners

Intermediate Result 4: MDP Management

7. Intermediate result indicator :

MDLF satisfactory performance

as measured by meeting targets it defined in the Annual Work Plan

Satisfac-

tory

Satisfac-

tory

Satisfac-

tory

Satisfac-

tory Satisfac-

tory

Satisfac-

tory

Satisfac

-tory

Annual Joint Donor

supervision mission

Reports

Financial and

Institutional Compliance Audit

Joint Donor Supervision

Missions

MDLF - external

consultancy

Donors

-19-

ANNEX 2: OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK (ORAF) Project Stakeholder Risks Rating Moderate

The importance of the MDLF and the MDP has been

highlighted in both the PA 2009-2011 Plan (the PRDP) and the

2011-2013 Plan (the PNDP). However, changes in Government

may lead to changes in priorities and affect strategic choices.

Continuous dialogue with the PA, the MoF and the MoLG on the role of the MDLF.

Resp. Bank Stage: Prep/Impl Due Date: Continuous Status: Ongoing

Continuous push for the Draft MDLF Law to be signed

Resp. Bank Stage: Impl Due Date :Continous Status: Ongoing

The incentive system of the MDP would be jeopardized if

municipalities receive financing from other Donors without

having to achieve performance targets. Thus far other Donors

financing municipalities have joined the project, or focused on

alternate issues that do not affect the performance incentives

(e.g., amalgamation). However, there is a likelihood that other

Donor agencies, who currently do not support the MDP, may

not subscribe to the performance targets set out by the PA and

followed in the MDP.

Continued engagement with Donors through Sector Working Groups meetings. Continued

interaction with MOPAD, MoF, and MoLG.

Resp. Bank/Donors Stage: Prep/Impl Due Date: Continuous Status: Ongoing

Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary)

Capacity Rating: Moderate

After initial recruitment problems, the MDLF, by the October

2010 mission reached its full staff complement. However, there

is still a risk that the performance of the MDLF may suffer due

to the lack of availability of necessary skills and experienced

staff to manage the project. Furthermore, capacity in some

municipalities is still low.

Risk Management: Continuous on-the-job training and capacity building is part of project design

and costs. Thus far training has included project management, human resource development, and

management for development results, conflict resolution as well as various computer skills

training. The MDLF has completed a training needs assessment to ensure that skills match

institutional requirements.

Resp: Client Stage: Implementation Due Date :15 Dec,

2011

Status:

Completed

Project Risks

Design Rating: Moderate

Sub-project design and implementation was delayed, especially

in the Gaza strip.

Risk Management: The MDLF have hired additional staff for the Gaza strip, and local technical

consultants are also closely supervising works in Gaza to avoid delays.

Resp: Client Stage: Implementation Due Date :Continous Status: Ongoing

Social & Environmental Rating: Low

There is a risk that the effective management of social and environmental safeguards is overlooked due to lack of staffing or necessary technical skills or the MDLF does not select subprojects based on public participation

Risk Management: The MDLF has hired two social specialists (one in West Bank and one in Gaza Strip) and an environmental specialist to help ensure that safeguards related risks are managed properly. EMPs are prepared for sub-projects and municipalities chose sub-projects with community involvement in the absence of a strategic development and

-20-

investment plan (SDIP). SDIPs (through which municipalities also chose sub-projects) focus on the quality of community involvement. Community participation is a condition for MDLF’s subproject selection.

Resp: Client Stage: Implementation Due Date :Ongoing Status: Started

Program & Donor Rating: Moderate

Since the MDP is financed by a total of seven donors, a risk

exists that donors decide to make significant changes on design

and disbursement issues

The PA have not provided its full committed funds to the

project, due to its poor financial situation.

Risk Management: The Funding Partners have conducted joint supervision missions and a joint

Mid-Term Review mission, upon which this AF request is based. Continued joint supervision

missions and monthly co-ordination meetings also together with the MDLF and the Donors occurs

and will continue to occur under the AF.

The Board of the MDLF continues to pressure the PA to ensure that all committed funds are

provided to the project.

Resp: Client and

Donors Stage: Implementation Due Date :Ongoing Status: Started

Delivery Monitoring & Sustainability Rating: Moderate

The implementation of Cycle 1 was somewhat delayed. Risk Management : MDLF has already undertaken Cycle 1 of the MDP and are applying lessons

learnt to the planning and implementation of Cycle 2

Resp: MDLF Stage: Preparation Due Date :October, 30,

2011

Status:

Completed

Risk Management: Funding Partners will meet MDLF monthly to track progress and will also conduct scheduled supervision missions 2 times a year.

-21-

ANNEX 3: USE OF PROJECT FUNDS AND REVISED ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS

Table 1: Use of Funds

Part Use of Financing

Part 1: Municipal Grants Scaling Up to provide a second cycle of grant financing

Part 2: Support to Municipal Innovations

and Efficiency

Strengthening Newly Amalgamated

Municipalities

No additional financing is required.

Energy Efficiency Activities are complete. No additional activities anticipated.

One Stop Shops Not yet started. Financing would be provided by other FPs.

Part 3: Capacity Building Scaling up and Cost Overuns

Scaling up: Additional packages will be provided: an additional

56 municipalities will receive strategic development and

investment plan packages; 20 additional municipalities will

receive fixed assets registration and valuation packages; 13

additional municipalities will receive financial policies and

procedures manual packages.

Cost overrun: This AF will finance cost overrun of the Integrated

Financial and Information Management Systems. Other Funding

Partners would finance Operations & Maintenance packages.

Part 4: Project Implementation Support

and Management Costs

N/A

Table 2: Donor Commitments to MDP in estimated Million Euros10

Financing Partner Original: 2009 Cycle 1 Actual AF: 2011 Cycle 2 Pledge

World Bank 7.60 (approx) 1.40 (approx.)

AFD 3.20 6.00

KfW 7.50 9.5

Denmark/Sweden MDTF 10.50 (approx.) 11.00 (approx)

PA 2.40 3.00

GIZ 0.45 0.30

Belgium 1.00

Total 31.65 32.20

Total in Million US$ Equivalent 41.0 43.30

10

Note that the World Bank, Danish and Swedish amounts are estimated due to currency fluctuations. World Bank

financing is committed in US$ while Danish and Swedish funds are committed in Danish and Swedish Kroner

respectively.

-22-

ANNEX 4: PROCUREMENT AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

1. Procurement under this AF will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank

“Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans

and IDA Credits and Grants” by World Bank Borrowers published by the World Bank in January

2011. Consultant selection will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank “Guidelines:

Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by

World Bank Borrowers” published by the World Bank in January 2011.

2. The same procurement arrangements of the original project apply to the Additional

Financing. The MDLF has responsibility for the oversight of project procurement. The MDLF

will serve as the Bank‟s main counterpart for all project procurement aspects and would ensure

that project procurement is carried out in accordance with the grant agreement and the

procurement plan. A procurement plan (PP) for contracts under Windows 2, 3, and 4 was

prepared by MDLF and agreed with the Bank. Procurement for municipal sub-projects under

Window 1 will be carried out by Recipient municipalities in accordance with the signed Grant

Implementation Agreement (GIA), sub-project procurement plan and MDP Procurement

Manual, updated in October 2011, and under direct supervision by the MDLF. Procurement

performance for the original project and has been rated satisfactory. MDLF has qualified

procurement staff with adequate experience implementing procurement following the Bank

Guidelines. Its performance has constantly improved throughout project implementation. The

procurement capacity for the municipalities has as well improved; additional procurement

training and coaching will be provided by the Local Technical Consultants.

3. The project‟s procurement risk rating is moderate; the same risk rating would hold for

this AF. In accordance with the Bank policies, prior review thresholds for West Bank and Gaza

have recently been increased. The revised prior review thresholds for moderate risk rating

implementing agencies will apply to this AF.

4. Financial management arrangements: All activities proposed under the additional

financing will be under the same categories as with the original project, and will be implemented

again by the MDLF. The same FM and disbursement arrangements of the original project and

will apply to this Additional Financing, which will be implemented according to the existing

Financial Manual of Procedures and the respective Grant Agreement.

5. Current FM Performance: The project‟s financial management arrangements which

include staffing, accounting reporting, budgeting and flow of funds and audit arrangements, are

adequate. In addition, a computerized accounting system along with a Comprehensive Financial

manual of policies and procedures are in place. The Annual Audits and Quarterly IFRs were

received on time, and the Internal Audit function has been activated since mid December 2009.

The findings of these audits are reported directly to the MDLF board of Directors. However, the

MDLF should apply a risk based approach to their internal audit. Consequently, FM performance

is rated as moderately satisfactory.

6. Parallel financing: Other funding partners will continue to provide their contribution to

the MDP on parallel financing basis. Each will disburse its funds through separate bank account

and which will be spent on the agreed on activities and included in the project procurement plan

-23-

for window 2, 3 and 4. For window 1 – sub-grants to municipalities, MDLF will allocate

available funds from all donors including Bank to the targeted municipalities based on the Grant

allocation mechanism, there will be no cost sharing between the Bank and any other donor fund.

Disbursement will continue to be centralized at the MDLF, through direct payment on behalf of

municipality to all suppliers/contractors/consultants on behalf of municipalities following the

payment and internal controls procedures detailed in the financial manual of policies and

procedures, related original supporting documents will be maintained at the MDLF project files.

Separate accounting records will be maintained for each donor, quarterly IFR and annual audit

FS will be comprehensive covering the whole project activities and funding sources and will

provide separate reporting for each donor. The existing manual of policies and procedures

includes procedures for managing different donors‟ funding. Procedures include having separate

bank account for each financier, keeping separate accounting records, and regularly reconcile

accounts with project records.

7. Interim Financial Reports (IFRs): The current reporting arrangements are satisfactory

and will be extended to the additional financing. Hence, IFRs for the proposed additional

financing will be part of the existing project IFRs, with additional separate reporting related to

each trust fund. IFRs will be prepared and submitted to the Bank on a quarterly basis by no later

than 45 days after the end of the previous quarter.

8. Audit Arrangements: The proposed additional financing financial records will be audited

annually as part of overall MDP project by an independent external auditor acceptable to the

Bank, in accordance with internationally accepted auditing standards and terms of reference

acceptable to the Bank. Audit arrangement will be extended to cover the proposed AF as well as

the other sources of funds. Consolidated Financial statement for the MDP project and additional

separate for the Bank funding will be audited and submitted to the Bank and other funding

partners not later than six months after the end of fiscal year.

9. Disbursement Arrangements: Separate Designated Account (DA) in Euro will be opened

by the MoF under the CTA at the Bank of Palestine. The same disbursement arrangements as

under the original financing will be used for the proposed additional financings; quarterly

Interim Financial Reports (IFR) based applications, accompanied with withdrawal applications,

reconciled bank statement and copies of bank statements. At grant effectiveness, an initial

advance equivalent to a six-month cash forecast, which will be the ceiling of the DA, will be

disbursed to the new Designated Account. The quarterly audited IFR will document the

disbursed amounts for the quarter, the commitment for the coming quarter and the next six

months cash forecast, according to which the replenishment and payment from the World Bank

will be done. The IFR will continue to be subject to review by an independent auditor to certify

the physical achievements and the corresponding resources used. Separate accounting records

will be maintained for this AF, by configuring the existing accounting system and opening a

separate cost center.

10. Current FM Risk Rating of the Project. The overall financial management risk of the

ongoing project is considered substantial due the project structure, providing support to

Municipalities in both West Bank and Gaza; the same risk rating would hold for this AF.

Mitigating measures have been introduced and in place, which include centralizing the FM and

disbursements at the MDLF level through direct payment on behalf of municipalities to

-24-

contractor/suppliers/consultants both in West Bank and Gaza. FM risk after mitigating measures

is expected to be Moderate.

Prior Review Thresholds (US$)

Procurement Type Moderate Risk IA Additional requirements for MDP

Works, Turnkey and S&I of

Plant and Equipment

$15 million First ICB

Goods $3 million First ICB

IT Systems and Non-

consulting Services

$3 million First ICB

Consulting Firms $1 million -

Individual Consultants $0.3 million -

Max. Contract Values for Procurement Methods (US$)

Procurement Method Goods Works

ICB No threshold No threshold

NCB $0.5 million $2 million

Shopping $0.1 million $0.2 million

Tall AsurTall Asur(1,022 m) (1,022 m)

(1,020 m) (1,020 m)

Mt. 'EvalMt. 'Eval(940 m) (940 m)

Abu 'AwdahAbu 'Awdah(105 m) (105 m)

W e s tW e s t

B a n kB a n k

JENINJENIN

NABLUSNABLUS

BETHLEHEMBETHLEHEM

HEBRONHEBRON

TUBASTUBASTULKARMTULKARM

SALFITSALFIT

RAMALLAHRAMALLAH JERICHOJERICHO

JERUSALEMJERUSALEM

QALQILYAHQALQILYAH

El BureijEl Bureij

AnaptaAnapta

Ya'badYa'bad

QabatiaQabatia

TammunTammun

ZoharZohar

YattahYattah

KaffeenKaffeen

YamounYamoun

JeninJenin

NablusNablus

BethlehemBethlehem

HebronHebron

TubasTubasTulkarmTulkarm

SalfitSalfit

RamallahRamallah

JabalyaJabalya

RafahRafah

KhanKhanYunisYunis

JerichoJericho

QalqilyahQalqilyah

JERUSALEMJERUSALEM

Beit Lahia

El Bureij

Nusejrat

Anapta

Ya'bad

Qabatia

Tammun

Zohar

Yattah

Kaffeen

Yamoun

Gaza City

Jenin

Nablus

Bethlehem

Hebron

TubasTulkarm

Salfit

Ramallah

Deir el Balah

Jabalya

Rafah

KhanYunis

Jericho

Qalqilyah

JERUSALEM

GAZA CITY

JENIN

NABLUS

BETHLEHEM

HEBRON

TUBASTULKARM

SALFIT

RAMALLAH

DEIR EL BALAH

JABALYA

RAFAH

KHANYUNIS

JERICHO

JERUSALEM

QALQILYAH

ISRAEL

ARABREP. OFEGYPT

JORDAN

JORDAN

Jord

an R

iver

DeadSea

M e d i t e r r a n e a n

S e a

To Tel Aviv

To Tel Aviv

To Tel Aviv

To Beersheba

To Beersheba

To Elat

To El Arish

To Zofar

To Amman

To Amman

To Amman

To Um Qais

To Nazareth

To Haifa

To Netanya

To Ramla

To Ashqelon

To Ashdod

W e s t

B a n k

Gaza

Tall Asur(1,022 m)

(1,020 m)

Mt. 'Eval(940 m)

Abu 'Awdah(105 m)

32°00'N

32°30'N 32°30'N

31°00'N

32°00'N

31°30'N

31°00'N

35°00'E34°30'E

34°30'E

35°30'E

35°00'E 35°30'E

WEST BANKAND GAZA

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

0 5 10

0 5 10 15 Miles

15 Kilometers

IBRD 33512R1

JUNE 2007

WEST BANKAND GAZASELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS

RIVERS

MAIN ROADS

RAILROAD

ARMISTICE DEMARCATION LINES, 1949

NO-MAN’S LAND AREAS,ARMISTICE DEMARCATION LINE, 1949

JERUSALEM CITY LIMIT, UNILATERALLYEXPANDED BY ISRAEL JUNE 1967;THEN ANNEXED JULY 30, 1980

GOVERNORATE BOUNDARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - All...

Documents

Transcript of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - All...