Report No. 39953-ECA From Social Funds to Local Governance and Social Inclusion Programs A Prospective Review From the ECA Region (In Two Volumes) Volume II: Technical Annexes May 2007 Human Development Sector Unit Europe and Central Asia Region Document of the World Bank Table of Contents VOLUME 11:TechnicalAnnexes Arrangements,.......................................................................................... Annex 1:Portfolioof SF/CDD ProjectsFundedby the WB -Financing .3 Annex 2: Project Development Objective of Social FundProjectsfundedby the WB.. .................................................................................................... ..5 Annex 3: CDD and SF ................................................................................. 8 Annex 4: Summary ofAvailable Data on SF Performance, ..................................... -10 Annex 5: Quality ofthe Social FundCDDPortfolio inECA.. .................................. 12 Annex 6: Description of Oversight Bodies of SF., ................................................ 16 Annex 7. BosniaandHerzegovina-Intensityof CDP Capital Funding Republika Serpska............................................................................... ...................19 ; Annex 8: Description ofInstitutional Arrangements of ECA SFs InvolvedinLocal Annex 9:Information on Impact andProcessEvaluations on Social FundsinECA.........44 Infrastructure,......................................................................................... .22 Vice President: Shigeo Katsu Sector Director: Tamar Manuelyan Atinc Sector Manager: Hermann von Gersdorff Task Team Leader: Rodrigo Serrano-Berthet 1 Annexes 2 Annex. 1 'ortfolio of v .; Fundedb th WB -Finandl 'Arran ements * Country ProjectName '~ 1 1 Rural Development 1995 C 1.2 I 6.0 "G"dF? 1 4.8 I 12 Project Italy Community Works Project 1999 C 9.0 1.5 Italy 5.8 17.4 Albania Second 1 1 1 Community 2003 A 15.0 2.1 4.2 I 24.2 Works Project ItalyOf Social Services Delivery 2001 A 10.0 DFID 4.0 15.0 Social 1 1 Investment 1995 C 12 2.5 FundI Social Armenia Investment 2000 A 1.4 20.0 2.0 5.9 29.3 Fund I1 Donors Social Investment 2006 A 6.67 25.0 1.5 1 0.12 1 33.3 Fund 111 - Donors Rural Azerbaijan Investment 2004 A 1.4 15.0 1.5 3.3 21.1 Project JapanOf Emergency PublicWorks & 1I 1I Employment 1996 C 10.0 Donors 35.0 45 I I Project Bosnia and Community Herzegovina Development 2001 A 2.6 1 15.0 17.6 Project CDP- 11 1I Additional 2007 5 Financing - Regional Initiatives Fund 1998 0.6 UNDP 0.4 6.3 0.3 I 5.0 Social Investmentand Bulgaria Employment 2003 66.7 Promotion (SEP) I I SIEP, Additional 2007 3.8 Financing - 24*4 Social Investment 1991 C 20.0 2.5 FundProject Georgia Social USAID Investment 2003 A 5.8 15.0 1.7 Fund Project2 - (4.7) 3 Netherlan ds win. Community of Foreign Development 2001 C 1.3 Affairs & 9.0 10.3 Kosovo FundProject I Min of Dev. COOP) 4.0 I 0.4 I I 1 1 1 1 Village Foreign Investment Sources I I 11 II 15.1 2'9 (unidentifi o,9 19.4 KYrgYz Project :I ed) 1: Republic SecondVillage Investment 12006 I A 1.0 15.0 6.5 DFID 13.2 35.7 Project Community Foreign Macedonia Development 2002 C 1.0 5.0 Multilater 9.6 Project al Inst. Social SIDA; US Investment 1999 C 1.2 #+++ 15.0 Soros 19.8 Fund Institute Moldova Social SIDA, US I Investment 2004 A 1.5 20'o 3'7 Soros 3.9 29.2 FundProject I1 Found.; Fin. Gap Social Development 1999 C 4.9 10.0 CESDF Fund I Romania Social Development 2002 A 6.2 20.0 Fund I1 Social Inclusion I Project(**) 2o06 A 14.5 14.5 Pilot Poverty Alleviation 1997 C 0.7 12.0 I I I I 12.7 Tajikistan Project SecondPoverty +-+-t+ Alleviation 2002 A 4.5 13.8 1 I I 18.3 Project SocialRisk hrkey Mitigation 2002 A 23.9 110.0 133.9 Project (**) Social Ukraine Investment 2002 A 10.0 50.2 Fund Pro ect I I I I - 265 49 103 800 ~ WB total L 'II,U6T i y Source: Nsour and Sum (2006) plus additionalinfo gatheredby authors, (*)As reportedinPAD.Reallocal counterpartsfrom communities andlocalgovernmentsis usually higherthan what plannedinPAD. (**)includesonly SF component 4 Anne: 2. Project bevelopment Ob ctive of Social Fund Projects funded by the WB - FY Country Proj Title Project DevelopmentObjectives as stated in PAD I.Toalleviatesmallinfrastructurebottlenecksbyrehabilitatingsmall, sustainable,social and economic infrastructureaccording to the 1999 Albania AlbaniaCommunity developmentprioritiesof localgovernments and communities. Works Project 2. To build the capacity of local communities and localgovernmentsto - promote localeconomic development To alleviate local bottleneckshinderingdevelopment (including infrastructureand services)through processesof participatorylocal 2003 Albania Secondcommunity development as a result o f (a) improvingaccess to quality social and works project economic infrastructureand social servicesthrough sustainablemicro- projects, and (b) promotinginstitutionaldevelopment at the local level 1, To improvestandards of living of poor and vulnerable population groups in Albania by: (i) increasingtheir access to well targeted and effective social care services; 2001 Albania Social Services Delivery Project (ii) assistingthe Government o develop, monitor andevaluatemore effectivesocial policy; and (iii) improvingcapacity for planning,managingand deliveringsocial care serviceswith increasedinvolvementof local governments,communities - and civil society. Improvedbasic social andeconomic infrastructurethat canresultin immediateimprovementsof living conditionsofthe poor; build partnershipsandstakeholderparticipationat the local level; enhance 2000 Armenia Social Investment FundI1 projectownershipand sustainability;capacity building at the local level focusingon decentralizedplanningand management systems; promote privatesector development (i) Improvingthe quality and access, and increasingthe coverage o f communityinfrastructureand servicesinpoor communities, and for the most vulnerable groups inresponseto emergingcritical needs; and 2006 Armenia SocialInvestment (ii) Promotingcomplementary institutional capacity building at the Fund111 communityand municipallevelso as to improvethe quality and sustainabilityo f communityinvestmentsand service delivery, increase accountability,andenhance greater stakeholderempowermentat the local level. a) To improvebasic servicesand facilities for low-incomeandpoor communities in under-servedmunicipalities(throughinvestments in non- Bosnia Herzegovina revenuegeneratingsocially oriented projectsandprograms). b) to improve 2001 Bosnia- Herzegovina Community governance andcapacity of localgovernmentsto deliver servicesto the Development Project poor through betterpartnershipsbetweenpoorcommunities and municipalitiesin investmentidentificationanddecisions. - 1. To improvethe quality and availability of communityinfrastructureand Community servicesin poor and conflict-affectedcommunities, and for vulnerable 2001 Kosovo DevelopmentFund groups. Project 2. To support institutionalcapacity-buildingat the communityand municipal levelso as to improvethe quality and sustainabilityof service delivery and increase civic participationin local development. 1. Improvethe quality, access, and availability of community infrastructureand servicesin poor and conflict-affectedcommunities, and Community for the most vulnerable groups, includingreturnees. 2004 Kosovo DevelopmentFund2 2. Promoteinstitutionalcapacitybuilding at the communityand Project municipal levels so as to improvethe quality and sustainabilityof service delivery,andenhancegreater stakeholderparticipationandempowerment - in localdevelopment. 1. Improvelivelihoodsof poor communities in rural areas and of 1999 Romania Social Development disadvantagedgroups. Fund 2. increase localorganizationaland self-helpcapacity. 5 1. improvingthe livelihood ofBeneficiariesfrom poor rural communities and disadvantagedgroups. 2002 Romania SocialDevelopment FundI1(Phase 11) 2. Promotingsocial capitalenhancement and civic engagementamong projectbeneficiaries. - To improvethe living conditionsandthe socialinclusionofthe most disadvantagedvulnerable people in the Romaniansociety by: (i) improvingthe living conditionsand social inclusionof Romaliving in 2006 Romania Social Inclusion Project poor settlements;(ii)increasing the inclusivenessofECEservicesin targetedareas; and (iii) improvingthe quality o f servicesfor PWD, youth at risk and victims ofdomestic violence. 1. Improvethe living conditionsofpoorer andvulnerable groupsofthe populationintargeted communities. 2002 Ukraine Social Investment 2. Empowercommunities andvulnerable groupsto addresslocal social FundProject needs. 3. Assist the reformof socialprotectionby creatingmodels oftargeting and service provision. To improvethe living standards ofpoor andvulnerable peoplethrough 2002 Tajikistan PovertyAlleviation micro-projects,microfinanceservicesand communityempowerment in ProjectI1 areas served by the project. To provideimmediate support to the poorestaffectedby the economic crisis by: (a) buildingupthe capacity of state institutionsprovidingbasic social Social Risk servicesand social assistanceto the poor (socialrisk management); - 2002 Turkey Mitigation (b) implementingasocial assistancesystem (ConditionalCashTransfers ProjectLoan CCT) targetedto the poorest6 percent ofthe populationconditional on improveduse of basichealthand educationservices(socialrisk mitigation andprevention);and (c) increasingthe income generatingandemployment opportunitiesof the poor (socialrisk prevention). 1. To helpparticipatinglocal self-governmentsto use enhanced management skills and aparticipatoryprocess in establishing local development plans andsettinginvestmentpriorities. 2003 Georgia Georgia Social InvestmentFundI1 2.) To helpparticipatingpoor communities to apply for, manage anduse micro-projectsina sustainablemanner. 3. To helpparticipatingpoor communities to benefitfrom improved social and economic infrastructureand related services. To reducepovertyand increasesocial capitalamongthe socially most SocialInvestment& vulnerable groups (long termunemployedand ethnic minorities)and poor 2003 Bulgaria Employment communities, throughtargetedinterventionsthat foster initiative and self- PromotionProject dependence inthese communities. 1. help empower rural communitiesby strengtheningtheir capacitiesto 1999 Moldova SocialInvestment make decisions, organize, and manage; FundProject 2. improvethe quality of basic social and economic servicesfor rural populationsin Moldova, particularlythe poor. The project will contributeto the implementationofMoldova's Economic 2004 Moldova Social Investment GrowthandPoverty ReductionStrategyby empoweringpoor FundI1Project communities and vulnerable populationgroupsto managetheir priority development needs. Improvedliving standards and increaseduse of infrastructureservicesfor 2004 Azerbaijan RuralInvestment Project householdsin rural communities completingmicroprojects. KYrgYz Republic 6 Alleviation of rural povertythrough (i) empoweringcommunities to improveaccessto social and economic infrastructureservicesand employment opportunitiesby supporting incomeand employment generatinginvestments invillage infrastructure and in group-managedsmall enterprisesandby helpingcommunities and 2006 KYrgYz SecondVillage Republic InvestmentProject localauthoritieswork together to achievekey developmentobjectives at the local level; (ii) strengtheninglocal self-governmentadministrations. and grassrootsinstitutions - makingthem ..andcouncils, more inclusive, accountableand effectiveat meetingvillagers' self-identifieddevelopmentneeds. lource: sour and Sum 006) 7 Annex 3. CDD and SF' Many CDD programs adopt a philosophy inspired by Robert Chambers' livelihoods framework or Amartya Sen's work on assets and capabilities. These frameworks emphasize the multiple "capitals" that individuals, households, and communities deploy to improve their well being: physical, financial, social, human, and natural. Access to, and effective utilization o f these assets are mediated by a set o f social, market, and governmental institutions that enhance or limit the extent to which households can access or deploy assets (capabilities). For example, investments in human capital through schooling may not be accessible to girls or ethnic minorities; or, even if the institutional framework allows poor people to have access to assets, the institutions may limit the return to those assets, e.g., the labor market may be discriminating, limiting certain professions to different social or ethnic groups. The specific components of well-being that are emphasized as program outcomes differ widely across CDD programs. However, all share a common desired final outcome: improvement and well-being of the target population2. What differs i s the component o f well- beingtargeted bythe program. The different objectives can be grouped into three categories Income (sustained, higher and/or less volatile). 0 Access to services (improved services that directly affect well-being (e.g. water supply, health care). 0 Empowerment (increase agency and ability to influence). Frameworkto Organize CDDADDroaches Final Outcome Program 0bjectives More and Better BetterInstitutions DistributedAssets (Inclusive, Cohesive, outputs Accountable) Activities Program Asset Investment Source: Jorgensen (2006) * At least 'Based on Jorgensen (2006). those funded by development agencies. 8 A social fund is different from other instruments that follow a CDD approach. Operations based on the CDD approach can vary substantially in their design, depending on whether their main objective is to improve the well being o f the poor by influencing (i) their incomes, (ii) the public services they consume, or (iii) level o f empowerment. Social Funds are a CDD their instrument for increasing empowerment through collective action, and publicly provided services through a multisectoral approach (see graph below). While SF programs can sometimes include income, personal empowerment, and single sector service provision objectives, each o f these objectives i s part o f a different strategic framework, and thus are not included inthis study. Hierarchy of possible objectives of CDD type projects 5-2 Income / \ "Publicly `&Privategoods" Empowerment provided Increase Improve Personal- assets return i.e., action- e.&, seetoral on assets increased mobilization agency ource: adapted from Jorgensen(2006). 9 Annex 4 -Summary of AvailableDataon SF Performance Impact Evaluation. Table below summarizes the type of impact and process assessments conducted by SF (which are more detailedin Annex 8). Even though it is not a complete list, it is clear that almost all SFs have made efforts to assess the results of their activities. Even though many o f the study reports are titled as Impact Assessments, they are actually beneficiary assessments.Very few o f the actual impact assessments are properly designed - with both control groups and collection o f baseline information. I Nameof SF I Type of study Beneficiary I Impact I Cost Effectiveness I Other I AlbanianADF 2006 2006 ArmenianSIF 1997,2000, 2002,2003 2006 2002,2006 Bosnia andHerzegovinaCDF 2006 BulgariaSIF 2004 baseline study Georgia SIF 2000,2003 KosovoCDF 2005 2003 MacedoniaSIF 2005 Moldova SIF 2001 2004 RomaniaSDF 1999,2000,2002 2004,2006 2006 TajikistanNSIF 2007 (not 2005, completedyet) ~. Technical audit Turkey SRMP 4 in2006 3Severalfactors make it difficult to draw reliableconclusions regardingcost effectivenessofthe SF investments in ECA:(i) the constructionmarketswere/are not stable and developedenough, which doesn't allow to comparesub- projects implementedindifferent periods oftime and indifferentareas; (ii)the construction and service quality standards are underdeveloped,which doesn't allow to find equivalent comparators; (iii)any projects, both governmental/NGO and localhnternational, are nottransparent enough, which does not allow to receiverelevant informationon other projects' costs. 10 Type of road Traffic Average cost Life time Average cosdlife time span (years) span ($/sqm/year) RSDF Roads from poor Low 3,13 -4,61 2 1,93 villages RDP Communalroads Medium 7,39 - 8,91 4 2,03 SAPARD Main roads of the High 13,67- 15,07 6-8 2,05 commune I construction Source: annex 8 (*)Most commontypes ofimplementedprojectsare studied (**) International NGOs implementing similar projects for Armenia and Kosovo; WE3 financed projects PIU for Tajikistan Another aspect of the SF cost effectiveness is the operational costs/overheads. Usually for SFs it i s about 7-8 per cents of total project cost, and as a rule i s between5 and 10 % ( e.g. about 8% for B&H CDP, 9.5% for Tajikistan NSIFT, 8% for Armenian SIF or 5% for Moldova SIF). In all ECA region countries it is significantly lower than overheads in the similar projects implemented by other agencies, includinginternational organizations. 11 Annex 5: Quality of the Social Fund/CDDPortfolio in ECA4 The number of social fund projects rated satisfactory or highly satisfactory for Implementation Progress in ECA is 88%, (80% is rated satisfactory and 8% highly satisfactory), with only 4% of the portfolio being rated unsatisfactory (Chart 1). In ECA, both the Kyrgyz Republic Village Investment Project Iand the Romania Social Development Fund I1were rated highly satisfactory. Only the Albania Social Services Delivery Project was received anunsatisfactory rating. Quality. Implementa Chart I:Overall Implementation Progress 20 18 16 14 12 Number of projects 10 0 6 4 2 0 HS S Ms U Rating Seventy-six percent of ECA's social fund projects have a satisfactory Development Objective rating, with 12% of the portfolio being rated as highly satisfactory and 4% unsatisfactory (Chart 2). Again, the Kyrgyz Republic Village Investment Project Iwas rated highly satisfactory and both of the Romania Social Development Fund Projects (I 11) were rated highly satisfactory. and The Albania Social Services Delivery Project received an unsatisfactory rating, mainly due to delays in implementation of the activities under community-based services component, where most ofproject's funds are allocated. 4The portfolio quality review reflects the ratingsof25 social fimd projects inthe ECA region: Albania: Community Works Project (PO51309); Second Community Works Project (P077297); Social Services Delivery (PO55383); Rural DevelopmentProject (P008273). Armenia: Social InvestmentFundI(P035768); Social InvestmentFund I1(P057952). Azerbaijan:Rural InvestmentProject (P076234). Bosnia and Herzegovina: Community Development Project (P070995); EmergencyPublic Works and Employment Project (P020577). Bulgaria: SocialInvestmentand Employment Promotion (P069532). Georgia:Social InvestmentFund Project (P039929); Social InvestmentFund Project 2 (PO74361). Kosovo: Community DevelopmentFund Project I (PO72814); Community DevelopmentFund I1Project (P079259). KyrgyzRepublic:Village InvestmentProject I (P073973); Village InvestmentProject I1(PO36611). Macedonia: Community DevelopmentProject (PO76712). Moldova: SocialInvestmentFundProject (P044840); Social InvestmentFundProject I1(PO079314). Romania: Social DevelopmentFund I(P049200); Social DevelopmentFundI1(P068808); Social Inclusion Project (P093096). Tajikistan:Pilot Poverty Alleviation Project (P044202); SecondPoverty Alleviation Project (P008860). Turkey:Social RiskMitigationProject (P074408). Ukraine: Social InvestmentFund Project (P069858). 12 Chart 2: Project Development Objective 20 18 16 14 12 Numbor of projoots 10 8 6 4 2 n Overall, all project implementationprogress indicatorswere rated satisfactory, (88% for project management, 80% for financial management, 84% for counterpart funding and procurement,and 76% for M&E). The M&E indicator was the most poorly rated inthe ECA portfolio - 16%were rated as moderately satisfactory and 4% as unsatisfactory. Twelve percent of the ECA portfolio was rated highly satisfactory inproject management, the most highly rated indicator inproject implementation. Chart 3: Ratings of ImplementationIndicators The dominant risk flags for the ECA social fund projectswere exogenous - of which 50% of the critical risk projects were attributed to risky country conditions. Only 4% of the projects experienced effectiveness delays and environmental problems5 respectively (Chart 4). None of the projects received red flags for counterpart funding and slow disbursement. Effectiveness delay is flaggedwhen the elapsedtime betweenBoardpresentationand effectivenessi s morethan ninemonthsfor investmentandmorethanthree monthsfor adjustmentand emergency operations. Environmental flag refers to a projectbeingrated3 or 4 inthe last ProjectReview. 1 1 isk Flagsfor SocialF w Projects(# Flags) ~ ~ Effectiwness Countepalt Environment Slow Country Record Delay Funds Flag Disbursement lity at E n t an ~ lity of $ u ~ ~ ~ i sfor ECA social fun i o n s ~ t i s f a c t oor ~ ~ f a c ~During ~QAG's Quali o ~ (QEA) and Quality of Supervision (QSA) exercises between 2000-2006, six social fund projects in the ECA portfolio were reviewed. One of the social funds projects received highly satisfactory ratings and 5 received satisfactory ratings. The former was the Albania Second Community Works project. Fund, Tajikistan Poverty Alleviation Fund I,Bosnia-Herzegovina Emergency Public Works & Employment Project, andRomania Social Development FundI) received satisfactory rating with respect to quality of the ICR. Out of these, two received moderately satisfactory ratings on project outcomes, and two received satisfactory ratings by IEG. In 75% of the cases, IEG downgraded the ICR ratings, (if ICR indicated satisfactory, ratings were downgraded to a modestly satisfactory, if ICR indicated highly satisfactory, the project was downgraded to satisfactory). In the case of Armenia, IEG indicated that although the project had yielded significant benefits invery difficult country circumstances, outcomes were less than satisfactory inrelation to the statedproject objectives. Inthe case of Romania, IECdowngraded the project to satisfactory becauseconvincing evidenceo f impact was lackinginthe ICR. InvestmentFund DevelopmentFundI 14 Sustainability ICR Likely Likely Likely Likely IEG Non-evaluable Unlikely Likely Likely Bank Assessments on institutional development were viewed as a mix of both substantial and modest. In the case of Tajikistan and Romania, the ICR and IEG ratings coincided. For Armenia, IEG downgraded the ICR rating of substantial to modest. The only exception was the Bosnia-Herzegovina project in which IEG upgraded the project from modest to substantial. According to IEG, this was attributed to the view that the strengthening of municipal governments promoted by the project in these difficult circumstances warranted a rating of "substantial". Sustainabilityratingswere all identified as likely in the ICRs but were only marked likely in 50% of the cases. The other 50% was downgraded by IEG to unlikely, in the case of Tajikistan, or "non-evaluable" in the case of Armenia, In the case of Tajikistan, "likely sustainability o f social fund operation through continued IDA and/or other donor fbnding", as indicated inthe ICR are not sufficient for an IEGrating o f sustainability. In 100% of the cases, boththe Bank performanceand Borrower performanceratingswere attributed the same ratings and matched both ICR and IEG ratings. Bank performance ratings varied substantially, ranging from unsatisfactory to highly satisfactory. Similarly, borrower performance reflectedthe same ratings as those indicated under Bank performance. 15 t BOXx: The Kyrgyz's ARIS Supervisory Board: Equal Representation for Central Government, Local Government, and Civil Society The CommunityDevelopmentand InvestmentAgency of the Kyrgyz Republic (ARIS) was establishedby an edict from the President of the Republic on October 15, 2003. Its central objective is to support sustainable poverty alleviation in the Kyrgyz Republic, by providing assistance to communities and local self-governmentsto address local social and economic problems by strengtheningtheir capacity to identify and prioritize local problems, to develop appropriate action and investment plans, to mobilize resources, andto design, implement and manage investmentsaimed at addressing localpriority issues. One of the most salient features ofthis Agency is the way it has organizedits governing body, establishing clear rules that ensure continuity andrepresentationalongtime. Different i?om most other SF, where the board is dominated by central government officials, the ARIS' boardgives equalweight to the voice of local governmentrepresentativesand civil society representatives . Eachofthese three groups have sevenmembersinthe board.They are selectedas follows: 0 Central government: one representative i?om each of the following: the President, the Primer Minister, andthe Ministriesof Finance, Local Self-Government, Justice, Education, and Health. 0 Local self-government bodies, four from LSG of rural communities, elected in a meeting of the Associationof Local Self-Governmentof Villages and Settlements- the body which groups the rural communities. Following the same rationale, the representative from urban communities must be elected ina meetingofthe Association of Towns -the body that groups urban communities. Civil society organizations: candidates are nominated by the Executive Director and approved by a simple majority ofthe other members ofthe SupervisoryBoard. Another salient feature is the rotationand permanency of Supervisory Boardmembers.ARIS's Charter not only establishesthe terms that each memberwill serve, but also the form of election for replacingthem. For instance, article 18, in its part (a) explains: "TOfacilitate and ensure broadrepresentationover time of local governments and civil society, the four heads of Aiyl Okmotus on the Supervisory Board serve staggered terms of four years, the six representativesof non-governmental organizations on the Supervisory Board serve staggeredterms of three years, and the mayor or town council chairperson serves a two-year term. A member of the Supervisory Board whose term is ending is replaced by a representative of the same constituentgroup." The principle of proportional representation also stands out when deciding on the authorities of the SupervisoryBoard.ARIS counts with a Chairpersonandtwo DeputyChairpersonsthat are annually elected from among the members of the Supervisory Board, by a simple majority of votes of the memberspresent and voting. This meansthat any of the members- governmental and non-governmental could be holding - this position, as long as it is voted by its peers. Furthermore, the Chairperson and the two Deputy Chairpersons are elected from the three different constituent groups composing the Supervisory Board, to ensure that each group is represented. Source: [web linkhere] 18 Annex 7. Bosniaand Herzegovina-Intensityof CDP CapitalFundingRepublika Serpska(sortedin descendingorder by average annualSF capitalinvestementper 19 Average annual CDP capital investment per capita covered) (Yeam*** 20 5.2I 2.9 21 6 3dt$ . . . v) e.-8 - 311 e4J3 B*Ee m 51 r% e,I.-3 I s - P'C0ee Lc)f eI6a CI2*2P 3 rn a3. 4.rn 4.rn (um . . . . . z . . I- e M.-E L k. .ma .- -: v1 e'c)'6 M (111f e.-e,*43 z* ?: M 8 u . . . . . . . . v) .f e.- -P 0* 3Ig BB e a 51s1 .-e . . vi - 3.2 e.- P4ae L m e.-. - 0*4ae L . rn2.. e.vWB i;a a3 a .-3 .-e, 3 c) 0 0 0 . F L-. m m 0 00 0 ! 3 Ti . E - . e Y .- a E - Y ; 6 u E e e.- a E - esPi: aE. ¶gIi: .. m m . . . . . . . m - 3. 2 e .- P* 9E58'Ce mU2 Y . m d . . . vi a ziu E 3. 2 n B VIPg'7e,4 . . m IA c 0 a 0 0 0 0000 0 0 . I 4 .- 2. m 518 'E U v1 000 . . . J8. r . Y . . . . . $ 3. . . d m + s 21N W-N8N CON00 -N 0 ti PO m"dPP I-c 49 I f u Elnu,%IE mI d 00 0N 0 (D -2 E N 3 0 rB d% Elvu)Gin.I I 'CMe 7 E N 0 W E m IA 0 - f hn z m a w3N 3 0 I Y f 8 % a a 7E N a a m c ._ v c f * v) b