M AY 2 0 2 3 Impacts of Covid-19 on the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program Portfolio Impacts of Covid-19 on the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program Portfolio © [2023] International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: © Ami Vitale / Panos Pictures. Used with the permission of Ami Vitale / Panos Pictures. Further permission required for reuse. IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Abbreviations . Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Background and purpose of this study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Impacts of COVID-19 on development projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . 8 Impacts of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. FIP and DGM portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overview of FIP and DGM portfolio in the CIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Portfolio Overview of World Bank-implemented FIP and DGM projects.10 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Research questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Research process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 COVID-19 effects on FIP and DGM projects: What do the data show?. 15 The impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions on the FIP and DGM portfolios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 World Bank processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. . . . . . . 18 Capacity and Isolation of Project Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Capacity of Project Implementing Units (PIUs). Remote Forms of Communication, Monitoring and Supervision. . . . . . . 24 Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Broad lessons learned across FIP and DGM projects that can help inform development projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 ANNEX 1. List of projects included in the analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ANNEX 2. List of interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ANNEX 3. List of interview questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2 Impacts of Covid-19 on the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program Portfolio Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank AFDB African Development Bank CCSA Cross-cutting solutions area CLF Climate Investment Funds DGM Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous People and Local Communities ESF Environmental and Social Framework E&SS Environmental & Social Standards FCV Fragility, Conflict, and Violence FIP Forest Investment Program GEMS Geo-Enabling initiative for Monitoring and Supervision GRID Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Association IDB Interamerican Development Bank ICT information and communications technology IP FIP Investment Plan IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities ISR Implementation Status and Results Reports MDBs Multilateral Development Banks M&E Monitoring and Evaluation M&R Monitoring and Reporting NEA National Executing Agencies of the DGM NSC National Steering Committee of the DGM ORR Operational and Results Report from the FIP PAD Project Appraisal Document PIU Project Implementation Unit PSSA FIP Private Sector Set Aside TTL Task Team Leader WB World Bank WWF World Wildlife Fund 3 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Acknowledgments The publication team would like to thank the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Evaluation and Learning Initiative for funding for this publication. This report was commissioned by the World Bank’s Environment, Natural Resources & Blue Economy Global Practice. The study is prepared by Meerim Shakirova, Natural Resources Management Specialist, Ines Angulo, Forestry Specialist, and Deborah Pierce, Natural Resources Management Specialist (Consultant), with extensive support from Dianna Pizarro, Senior Social Development Specialist in Social Sustainability & Inclusion Global Practice, and Samantha Abigail Fien- Helfman, Operations Analyst with the Latin America & Caribbean Region. Special thanks to Christian Albert Peter, Practice Manager of the World Bank’s Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice, for overall guidance in the preparation of this study. The report benefited greatly from World Bank FIP and DGM Task Team Leaders (TTLs) and team members. We would like to thank Alidu Babatu Adam, Daniella Ziller Arruda, Lucienne M. M’Baipor, Hala Ballout, Arturo Bolondi, Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa, German N. Freire, Tini Gumartini, Iwan Gunawan, Bernadete Lange, Celine Lim, Ana Luisa Gomes Lima, David Maleki, Yatziri Zepeda Medina, Nyaneba Nkrumah, Yasmina Oodally, Carmina Isabel Jimenez Quiroga, Ivan Abdul Dula Remane, Katharina Siegmann, and Tobias Albuquerque Wegenast. We would also like to thank Rahul Madhusudanan, Neha Sharma, Dora Nsuwa Cudjoe, Kouassi Emmanuel Kouadio, and Michael Ward from the Climate Investment Funds Administrative Unit, and Siet Meijer, Yuko Okamura, and Sheraz Aziz for their review, feedback, and valuable suggestions. We would like to express our gratitude to the GEMS team from Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) CCSA to Bernhard Metz, Maria Garrido Anllo, Liana Zanarisoa Razafindrazay, and Wesley Ryan De Witt. This publication was produced by the World Bank in collaboration with the Climate Investment Funds (CIF); however, the findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of CIF, its governing bodies, or the governments they represent. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the CIF does not take responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of its contents, and shall not be liable for loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. CIF encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of this text for use in noncommercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgment of CIF as the source and copyright holder is given. 4 Introduction Background and purpose of this study With the COVID-19 pandemic, the development context for the world is fundamentally challenged in many ways. The pandemic has taken a drastic human toll, and its global-scale economic and social impacts affected rural development work focused on the most poor and vulnerable populations. It has also highlighted the increasing need to invest in natural climate solutions that protect and restore critical ecosystems, support climate stability and ecosystem resilience, and help people access livelihood opportunities. The World Bank’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been broad-based and included emergency financing, policy advice, and technical assistance, building on existing instruments to support IDA and IBRD-eligible countries in addressing the health-related and broader development impacts of the pandemic. It is targeted in four key areas: (i) Saving lives threatened by the pandemic, (ii) Protecting the poor and vulnerable, (iii) Helping save jobs and businesses, and (iv) Working to build a more resilient recovery. A better understanding of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the design and implementation of the WB’s Forest Investment Program (FIP) and Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM) portfolio is a starting point for discussing how pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and other types of shock that are likely to happen in the future could be better managed from a risk perspective. The FIP1 is one of four Climate Investment Funds (CIF) programs created in 2008 and implemented by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). It supports developing countries in managing natural resources to achieve the triple win of being good for forests, people, and climate. It provides direct investments to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation by empowering Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), and forest dependent communities, to sustainably manage their natural resources, working to reverse the negative impacts of human actions and climate change. Direct results include increased resilience, reduction in food insecurity, increased capacity of communities, and improved livelihood opportunities. Concessional funding, such as grants and low-interest loans provided through FIP help governments, communities, and stakeholders to collaborate on sustainably supporting people and economies that rely on forests while maintaining the critical environmental services that forests provide. 1 https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/topics/sustainable-forests 5 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Within the FIP, a unique direct financing initiative called the Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM)2 is aimed at facilitating the effective participation of IPLCs who, due to their relative isolation and historical marginalization, are often neglected due to a lack of access to information and weak health systems and livelihood security. The DGM is designed and led by representatives of IPLC groups in FIP countries to enhance their capacity to engage in local climate actions. They participate in the design and implementation of activities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation at the local, national, and global levels. The DGM provides a unique perspective into how community-based projects, and especially projects working closely with IPLCs, can promote their resilience in the face of disasters, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In its June 2021 FIP Operational and Results Report (ORR),3 the CIF Administrative Unit4 reported that the COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact the FIP and DGM projects under implementation and those in the pipeline. Government guidelines, including social distancing, travel restrictions, and limits on large gatherings slowed down many community-based project activities, prompting slower disbursements. Delays occurred in procurement, fieldwork, goods delivery and equipment installation, stakeholder engagement, and civil works. These challenges also resulted in extended project closing dates and target dates of funding approval. This report provides an in-depth portfolio analysis of WB-implemented FIP and DGM projects during the pandemic, gathering information from documents and directly from stakeholders involved in these projects on the impacts of the pandemic during their preparation and implementation, finding trends in delays in project activities, and identifying coping mechanisms used to overcome the challenges resulting from the pandemic. For example, some projects have shifted activities requiring in-person engagement, such as training and workshops, to a virtual format. Other projects use electronic monitoring and data collection tools to follow up on activity implementation. Finally, this report provides a few general lessons for the CIF program, WB-financed operations, donors, and other external international development partners. Although the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a challenge, we now hope— having already experienced it for roughly three years—to learn from the various adaptation measures implemented by the projects, for application to future shocks. 2 https://www.dgmglobal.org/ 3 FIP Operational and Results Report (2021). Climate Investment Funds. Retrieved from https://www. climateinvestmentfunds.org/documents/fip-operational-and-results-report-2021 4 The CIF Administrative Unit supports the work of the Climate Investment Funds and Trust Fund Committees. It provides recommendations and reporting on operational and financial matters to the CIF governing bodies. 6 Introduction Impacts of COVID-19 on development projects Although the impacts of the pandemic on various aspects of our daily lives will likely be examined for years to come, there is already a wealth of information available on how the pandemic has affected development projects throughout the world. However, because much of this relies on information from the first several months of the pandemic, and is limited to specific regions and thematic areas, many impacts are likely yet to be seen. Several studies relied on surveys conducted through online and mobile platforms to collect their data, and most data was qualitative. The pandemic has highlighted how human health and economic health are inextricably linked to the health of our planet, and the fact that development work needs to take this into consideration to be more effective. The ‘One Health’ approach ensures that countries have strong human, animal, and environmental health management systems and coordination between them. The greater involvement of the forest and wildlife sectors in One Health efforts, and responsible land-use planning, are needed to address some of the underlying drivers of disease emergence. The impact of COVID-19 has also increased the focus on Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development (GRID), which is a development approach spearheaded by the World Bank. The GRID approach takes a more holistic and integrated perspective on development challenges, rather than focusing more narrowly on economic growth. GRID helps countries increase their capacity to develop sustainably and be better prepared to respond to external shocks. Beyond the FIP and DGM portfolio, the WB made several commitments in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including expanding financing for health and economic recovery efforts. The WB approved 35 percent more projects between 2019 and 2020, in part to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and IDA5 funding increased by almost 200 percent (Duggan et al. 2020). Furthermore, the WB designated US$ 104 billion for financing to low- and middle-income countries to respond to COVID-19 (Duggan et al. 2020). Support to small states, less-prepared countries, and fragile and conflict-affected situations was emphasized. However, as of April 2021, disbursements in projects approved before the pandemic were 40 percent lower than projected at the start of the pandemic (Morris et al. 2021). This was likely because project activities were stalled, but another reason could be that the WB has not altered its disbursement mechanisms, making it extremely difficult to provide a rapid response. Staff and clients worked long hours to deliver new and repurposed operations, all the while learning to use remote connectivity tools and adapting to home-based work and personal stresses. Although COVID-19 has impacted the speed and scope of development projects around the world, it is not the only external shock that many countries and regions are grappling with, and in many cases, COVID-19 has exacerbated existing problems rather than creating new ones (Lenhardt 2021). For example, many projects have 5 The International Development Association (IDA) is part of the World Bank that supports the world’s poorest countries. IDA has historically been funded largely by contributions from the governments of its member countries.  7 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO been stalled by insecurity and natural disasters—both before and during the pandemic (Lenhardt 2021). Governments played an important role in the impact of the pandemic on communities and the resilience of communities subject to restrictions (or lack thereof). In the early days of the pandemic, it was common for governments to restrict international travel, and many put domestic travel bans in place, or curfews in areas with high transmission rates. However, national governments, and even subnational governments, varied drastically in their handling of the pandemic. Some governments had very few COVID-19 related restrictions, while others almost completely closed their borders. Switching to remote communication methods has been a prominent and widespread effect of the pandemic. Nevertheless, a variety of mechanisms have been deployed for monitoring, supervision, and overall coordination, depending on each community’s cultural context and technological limitations. Remote learning was a common pandemic coping mechanism, but each country implemented this differently. Similar findings apply to communications in development projects, with vastly different systems in place, from increased use of mobile phones to video meetings (Muñoz-Najar et al. 2021). There has been increased focus on understanding how different technologies and communication methods were able to respond to the limitations created by the pandemic. One study found that surveys distributed via mobile phones could be collected and analyzed within days, providing helpful, real-time information to help inform rapid policy decisions (Palinkas et al. 2021). WB systems such as the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS),6 which is a household survey program done both remotely and in person, have also been used to monitor the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic on World Bank project beneficiaries (Gourlay et al. 2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Understanding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on communities in the context of development project implementation will help inform how to strengthen strong and lasting resilience. Improving community resilience in development projects is critical for enabling a rapid and effective response to any future shocks, whether they be other health crises, natural disasters, or conflicts. The resilience of communities is rooted in community cohesion and solidarity and relies on some level of self-governance and community organization.7 6 Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) is the World Bank’s flagship household survey program focused on strengthening household survey systems in client countries and on improving the quality of microdata to better inform development policies. More can be found at https://www.worldbank.org/en/ programs/lsms/overview 7 Fien-Helfman, Feune de Colombi, & Suarez-Idueta (2021). The Impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples in Latin American and the Caribbean: Opportunities to Strengthen Resilience for Future External Shocks 8 Introduction Consistent evidence has been found worldwide that those who were vulnerable before COVID-19, such as many IPLCs, were impacted particularly negatively.8 Some of these impacts include a reduction in food security, declines in health outcomes, and restrictions on livelihoods and cultural activities. In some cases, IPLCs experienced a higher rate of intrusions on to their land during the pandemic.9 Secure land tenure has been vital for vulnerable Indigenous communities during COVID-19 as they were able to rely on their land for food and income.10 Isolation of communities was both a strength and a weakness, depending on the community’s degree of self-reliance before the pandemic. Communities that were previously less reliant on outside sources for food and medicine fared better than those that relied more heavily on markets and tourism for food and income.11 Rural communities, and Indigenous communities in particular, often have limited access to information, and information that is transmitted is often not in the local language or relayed in a culturally sensitive manner.12 Many Indigenous communities also do not have a way to easily communicate with their neighbors, and therefore it is essential to find practical and culturally appropriate methods of communication for Indigenous and rural communities. Many urban dwellers returned or moved to rural areas during the pandemic to escape the higher transmission risk in urban communities. However, this shift can impact both rural communities and the land. In Indonesia, the pandemic placed greater pressure on forests because many rural communities who no longer had a consistent supply of goods and access to income turned to forests (and particularly timber) as a source of income.13 Supply chain issues that have restricted the movement of goods such as food and medicine have been felt acutely by IPLCs. Furthermore, many rural communities, particularly those without a bank account or official government identification, were excluded from COVID-19 relief provided by governments.14 Many of the findings from this report reinforce trends in the literature on COVID-19’s effect on development projects and Indigenous communities, such as access and adaptivity to technology, reliance on national markets, methods of communication, and type of training needed, among others. 8 World Bank. Upstream Social Assessment and Consultations on the Impacts and Priorities of the Indigenous Peoples and Afrodescendants of Latin America in Relation to COVID-19. 9 Ibid. 10 Fien-Helfman, Feune de Colombi, & Suarez-Idueta (2021). The Impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples in Latin American and the Caribbean: Opportunities to Strengthen Resilience for Future External Shocks. 11 Ibid. 12 Tebtebba. (2020). Quick assessment in Indigenous Peoples (IPs) communities on the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic within the framework of ensuring respect and protection of Indigenous peoples/ rights and obtaining recognition and support for Indigenous peoples’ overall health and development priorities. 13 Tebtebba. (2020). Quick assessment in Indigenous Peoples Communities (as previous footnote). https:// www.tebtebba.org/index.php/covid-19/covid-19-documents/monitoring-and-reporting/quick-assessment- in-indigenous-peoples-ips-communities-on-covid-19-impacts 14 Tebtebba. (2020) Quick assessment (as previous footnote). 9 FIP and DGM portfolio Overview of FIP and DGM portfolio in the CIF The FIP Operations and Results Report prepared by the CIF Administrative Unit in December 2019 provides the closest overview of the FIP and DGM portfolio before the COVID-19 pandemic started. At that time, US$ 685.8 million for 53 projects had been endorsed by the FIP Sub Committee15 as indicative allocations to the participating countries, the DGM, and the FIP Private Sector Set Aside (PSSA). Table 2.1 provides a summary of the portfolio status. The portfolio under implementation consisted of 39 projects accounting for US$ 232 million in cumulative disbursements, representing a 44 percent disbursement ratio by all MDBs. Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of FIP-approved projects by region and MDB. Most FIP funding is split evenly between the Latin America and Africa regions. The World Bank implements most of the FIP portfolio and all DGM projects, representing 67 percent of the financing. Figure 2.2 shows that the thematic focus of FIP and DGM-approved projects reflects FIP’s objective to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Thus, the most significant portion of funding focuses on landscape approaches, followed by sustainable forest management and capacity building. Portfolio Overview of World Bank- implemented FIP and DGM projects The FIP and DGM projects implemented by the World Bank receive concessional finance in the form of grants and below-market-rate loans. Grants are used for project preparation and implementation and are tailored to the identifiable additional cost of the investment, or the risk premium required, to make the investment viable. FIP provides the WB with instruments to blend FIP resources with other sources of financing to tailor terms to a target level of concessionality, which will vary depending on project-specific factors. FIP-funded projects are either standalone investments, co-financed WB nonconcessional loans, or provide 15 FIP’s decision-making body. The FIP Subcommittee is responsible for approving programming priorities, operational criteria, and financing modalities for the Program. They also approve Program financing for programs and projects. Decisions are reached by consensus. The Subcommittee is composed of up to six representatives from donor countries and six representatives from eligible countries, selected on a regional basis. 10 FIP and DGM portfolio TABLE 2.1 Overview of FIP portfolio (US$, millions, as of June 30, 2019) Indicative Portfolio Allocation Approved funding Disbursement (cumulative) TOTAL IP DGM PSSA Committee MDB FIP amount 685.8 593 75.5 17.3 537.2 532.7 232 # of projects 53 35 15 3 40 39 36 FIGURE 2.1 FIP portfolio BY REGION BY MDB overview GLOBAL IFC (approved by FIP $5 (1%) $5 (1%) Subcommittee) ADB ASIA $30 (6%) AFRICA WB $72 (13%) AfDB $358 (67%) $237 (44%) $67 (12%) IDB GROUP $75 (14%) LAC $222 (42%) FIGURE 2.2 FOREST Thematic focus MONITORING / MRV of FIP-approved 8% projects INDIGENOUS PEOPLES / LOCAL COMMUNITIES 10% LANDSCAPE APPROACHES 43% CAPACITY BUILDING / INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING AND GOVERNANCE REFORM 18% SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT 21% 11 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO additional financing of new components within ongoing investment lending operations on concessional terms. Depending on the country context, FIP projects can be financed through a combination of grants and loans; however, some projects consist of only grants, and others are financed solely by loans. DGM projects to support IPLCs are financed exclusively through grants. FIP financing of the WB FIP and DGM portfolio consists of 72 percent grants and 28 percent loans. The report focuses on the World Bank FIP and DGM active portfolio before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 2.3). As of January 2020, the WB-FIP portfolio had 25 Board-approved projects at varying stages of implementation and an additional five projects under preparation, yet to be Board- approved. It included projects for a total of US$ 409.6 million in 13 countries and a global DGM project (Phase 1 and Phase 2). Only two projects closed prior to early 2020—the “Sustainable Production in Areas previously converted to Agricultural Use Project” (Brazil) and the “Forests and Climate Change Project” (Mexico)—and were therefore not included in the analysis. During the pandemic, four projects were approved, six projects were completed, and one project was canceled. FIGURE 2.3 FIP and DGM Project Portfolio 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 BK1 BK2 RC1 RC2 CI1 CI2 DRC1 DRC2 GH1 GH2 GH3 GL1 GL2 GT1 GT2 IN1 IN2 L A1 MX1 MZ1 MZ2 NE1 NE2 PE1 PE2 Project Status as of March 2022: Active Closed Pipeline *List of Project codes included in Annex 1 12 Methodology Research questions The study’s research questions were framed and sequenced to follow the World Bank operational cycle. The three primary research questions were: 1. To what extent did the COVID-19 pandemic impact WB-implemented FIP and DGM projects? What were the specific challenges and responses regarding project preparation, implementation, and closure? 2. What measures were used to adapt to the challenges posed by the pandemic? 3. Are there any insights and lessons learned from the FIP and DGM experience with the COVID-19 pandemic that can be relevant to the broader development community? Research process The analysis employed a stepwise approach to gather relevant quantitative and qualitative information, first from a desk review of project documents and literature, and later from interviews with project implementers. The desk review included a careful examination of key project documents and a review of relevant literature, including surveys and overall WB reports (primarily from the Social Sustainability & Inclusion GP), to set the findings into context. Project interviews consisted of a series of semi-structured key expert interviews to gather qualitative contextual data, as well as the perspectives and opinions of project implementers. The team interviewed 21 World Bank Task Team Leaders (TTLs) and team members from FIP and DGM projects (see Annex 2 for a list of interviewees). The interviews were conducted virtually, with three study team members taking written notes. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and was recorded to verify answers. All active and pipeline projects between January 2020 and March 2022 were included in the scope of the project analysis. Consequently, 25 Board-approved projects at different stages of implementation—plus an additional five projects under preparation—were analyzed for this report. An in-depth analysis of all relevant project documentation available in the WB Operations Portal was then conducted, including Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs), Implementation Completion Reports (ICRs), restructuring documents, and Mission Aide Memoires. Relevant information found in these documents includes changes in ratings (implementation and risk), delays in disbursement, project restructuring (including project closing extensions), and any mention of other impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the projects. 13 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Individual interviews were then organized with project teams to gather first-person qualitative information on the impact of COVID-19 on these 30 operations. The notes were analyzed and summarized for clarification after each interview, and recordings were referenced to add any missing information. The team held multiple sessions to synthesize the document review and interview findings to identify primary themes that emerged, discuss how responses supported or challenged the document review, and generate the primary areas of discussion and conclusion identified in this report. In addition, the team interviewed the World Bank Geo-Enabling Initiative for Monitoring and Supervision (GEMS) team. Many project teams mentioned the use of remote systems during the pandemic, and specifically systems developed by GEMS. Therefore, it was essential to understand how GEMS supported Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), as well as supervision of WB-financed operations, and whether the use of GEMS expanded during the pandemic in response to the greater demand for remote M&E and supervision from project teams. Audience This report was designed for development practitioners, and most specifically Task Team Leaders (TTLs) and management at the WB. While the report focuses on the FIP and DGM, programs within the Climate Investment Funds, the lessons learned are likely to be quite relevant for WB lending to forests, land and Indigenous communities more broadly. Many of the lessons relate to participation, communication, and ensuring the resilience of vulnerable communities, insights that can be relevant to the overall work of the WB. Although these insights and takeaways are intended to be of general interest for development practitioners, several of the lessons are aimed at WB internal processes specifically and are therefore most relevant for WB management. Some of the report findings may also be relevant to research institutions, nonprofit organizations, and government organizations working on similar topics. 14 Findings COVID-19 effects on FIP and DGM projects: What do the data show? Countries varied substantially in the severity and impact of COVID-19 on their populations and their response to these differing levels of severity. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted countries at different times throughout the study’s timeline. For example, the pandemic affected Europe and South America relatively early, while African and Asian countries were more heavily impacted in late 2020 or early 2021. These varying levels of COVID-19 restrictions on activities, travel and in- person communication also impacted the FIP and DGM portfolio. Most Task Team Leaders (TTLs) said COVID-19 restrictions were a factor in the delay of project approvals, implementation and closing for many FIP and DGM projects. Eleven out of 25 active projects were behind their scheduled disbursement as of January 2022. According to project TTLs and team members, most of these delays were at least in part due to COVID-19 restrictions. Delays in implementation have also led to a need for restructuring and project closing extensions. Since March 2020, 14 FIP projects have been restructured, and 11 project restructuring documents have mentioned COVID-19 restrictions as a contributing factor (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The most common types of restructuring were a reallocation of funds from one component to another or a project extension. In principle, project restructuring occurs when the circumstances of project implementation change, which may affect project relevance and results achievement. Only closing date extensions of more than 24 months would trigger a restructuring on their own; otherwise, a reallocation of project budget, changes to the Project Development Objective, or changes to project components are some examples of activities that would require a project restructuring. Of these 14 projects, 12 extended their closing date, typically by one year. Eleven of these projects mentioned COVID-19 as a cause for restructuring and/or extending their closing date. The most common types of restructuring were a reallocation of funds from one component to another or a project extension. Of the restructured projects, seven were FIP projects, and seven DGM projects. Only Africa had projects that were restructured for reasons other than COVID-19 (Figure 4.1). There were nine projects in the FIP portfolio that were restructured for the first time during COVID-19 (Figure 4.2). 15 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO FIGURE 4.1 8 Number of Restructured 7 Projects per Region from March 2020 to January 2022 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 AFRICA LATIN AMERICA ASIA GLOBAL AND THE CARIBBEAN Restructured Restructured due No change to COVID-19 FIGURE 4.2 16 Number of Restructured 14 Projects before and after NUMBER OF PROJECTS COVID 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 RESTRUCTURING RESTRUCTURING BEFORE COVID AFTER COVID Due to COVID-19 FIGURE 4.3 16 Lower than-expected Project 14 Disbursements throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2020 2021 2022 NUMBER OF PROJECTS WITH LOW DISBURSEMENT BY YEAR 16 Findings Project activities on the ground were impacted differently, depending on the severity of COVID-19 restrictions, remoteness, and capacity of project beneficiaries. Several projects were delayed only slightly, by six months or less, such as the Ghana DGM, partially because Ghana had fewer restrictions than other countries but also because of the advanced implementation stage of the project and the National Executing Agency’s (NEA) high capacity and familiarity with project management. Project disbursement data indicate that four projects deviated from their original disbursement plans as of March 2020 (all lower than anticipated), while 10 projects had a lower-than-anticipated disbursement as of January 2022. All four projects with a low disbursement in March 2020 continued to have a lower-than-anticipated disbursement in January 2022. Of the six additional projects with lower than anticipated disbursement in January 2022, two had their first disbursements between March 2020 and January 2022. As shown in Figure 4.3, the number of projects experiencing slowdowns in disbursement rates increased after the pandemic started but started to decrease again by 2022. The first year of the pandemic was the hardest to adapt to, most notably because many project teams and beneficiaries were still getting used to remote forms of communication, monitoring, and supervision. However, this slowdown is probably also a result of general COVID-19 impacts on the rate of project implementation, as well as the status of the overall portfolio, with some projects nearing completion at that time. Project overall ratings did not change significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 20 projects that were active pre-COVID (before March 2020), four reported lower project ratings in January 2022 than in March 2020, 12 maintained the same rating, and four reported higher ratings in January 2022 than in March 2020, with zero overall change in the overall portfolio rating. Of the four projects that began implementation after COVID emerged (e.g. after March 2020), three have a project rating of Satisfactory, and one has a rating of Moderately Satisfactory. Project risk did not increase for any project between March 2020 and January 2022. Few teams stated that COVID-19 had negatively impacted risk ratings or overall ratings of projects. If there was an increase in the project risk or overall rating, it was generally due to other external factors, such as political instability or a natural disaster. The impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions on the FIP and DGM portfolios As reported in restructuring documents, many of the COVID-19-related project delays were due to travel restrictions and the disruption of meetings, events, and fieldwork activities following local legal and self-imposed community restrictions to prevent the spread of the pandemic. Countries with fewer restrictions included Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mexico, and Mozambique. Other countries had lockdowns in 2021 but not in 2020, such as Lao PDR. Peru had one of the strictest lockdowns globally, restricting movement to and within the country, and one of the longest. 17 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Restrictions across and within countries varied in how they affected domestic and international travel, meeting attendance, types of activities, and other day-to-day interactions. Therefore, they cannot be compared quantitatively. Some countries with relatively minor domestic restrictions, such as Ghana and Burkina Faso, restricted international travel, which impacted supply chains and the ability of international consultants to support project implementation. Some regions and municipalities imposed their own COVID-19 restrictions. In the case of some FIP and DGM projects, several Indigenous organizations and NGOs initiated their own restrictions and policies to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. These were often stricter or specific to the communities in which they worked rather than nationwide restrictions. These differences were particularly notable in Mexico and Brazil. Travel restrictions often had a more significant initial impact on projects in the pre-approval and early implementation stages than those in later stages of implementation, especially when remote communication was limited, and relationship building was crucial to the project’s development. More nascent projects did not have existing relationships with the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), and, in some cases, had less knowledge about the local context. Restrictions appeared particularly difficult for some of the DGM projects with NEAs that were unfamiliar with WB procedures.16 WB Board approvals of seven FIP and DGM projects were generally delayed by at least six months, primarily due to the communication challenges and travel restrictions posed by the pandemic. Many interviewees noted that the project preparation cycle was not standard, given COVID-19-related restrictions, resulting in delayed stakeholder consultation and participation processes, which also contributed to project delays. In one instance, considering all the restrictions, the team could only prioritize project interventions as presented in the approved concept note and was not able to identify other alternative scenarios, which, as the interviewee noted, “could have improved the quality of the project.” However, some TTLs believed that restrictions on travel increased the efficiency of project preparation overall—after the initial delay and several months of adaptation to remote communication. Activities that would have previously required a mission could proceed more quickly and cost-effectively through virtual communication. The Republic of Congo FIP project reported that COVID-19 accelerated the ability and willingness of stakeholders to hold focused project preparation conversations remotely. World Bank processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic WB teams provided substantial support to their counterparts, especially during the project preparation process or in the early stages of implementation, and to counterparts unfamiliar with WB processes. Restrictions in meetings and travel in most cases caused communication delays and in the words of one TTL, 16 NEAs responsible for implementing the DGM projects are national or international nongovernmental organizations selected by each individual DGM project Steering Committee. 18 Findings “conversations that should have taken two hours in person took two weeks.” To accommodate these delays, many TTLs made themselves available at all hours of the day on a range of platforms, including WhatsApp, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and others. This was especially common in DGM project preparation, which often required additional WB support due to the increased vulnerability of project beneficiaries and the NEA’s unfamiliarity with WB systems. Internal WB processes were often slower for projects in the design or pre- approval phase than for projects under implementation. As stated earlier, the WB approved more projects between 2019 and 2020 than in prior years but some of these projects were targeted to addressing the pandemic. Projects that were not specifically addressing the pandemic were slower to be approved. This was likely due to the need to prioritize and support the numerous challenges that ongoing projects faced in handling the pandemic and the increased workload generated by the new projects prepared in direct response to it. Many project TTLs, especially for projects under implementation, were grateful for the dedication and engagement of WB staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. They stated that WB staff increasingly worked extra hours and outside of regular working hours to accommodate the project teams and project implementation. Some project teams noted that the WB was not as “agile” as it could have been in responding to the pandemic. They mentioned that the structure of the WB is not designed for responding to emergencies, and instead is meant to address recovery once an emergency has ended. One TTL commented: “The World Bank was too risk- averse in how it responded to the pandemic, with many processes taking too long and too much red tape that did not allow project teams to respond to the pandemic in the way they would have liked.” However, there were also cases where the WB was able to respond quickly to project requests. For example, in Lao PDR co-financing IDA funds from the FIP project were reallocated to pay for the country’s vaccine program. Capacity and Isolation of Project Beneficiaries The level of capacity and isolation were two characteristics of project beneficiary communities that were found to be key in determining the degree to which COVID-19 impacted project implementation. Capacity here refers to access to technology and training and on-the-ground support that communities require to carry out project activities. Isolation, on the other hand, is more related to connectivity issues and the likelihood of community familiarity with different types of technology. Of course, isolation also relates to how connected a community is to major cities and supply and tourism routes. Isolation can be directly related to distance from an urban area, but it is also influenced by travel infrastructure, such as road quality. Projects that relied on close, in-person contact with beneficiary communities before the pandemic were especially delayed if the communities were under a strict lockdown and did not have access to or familiarity with technologies such as video call systems. In several cases, communities and project teams were hesitant to use 19 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO remote technologies or did not know how to use them. If communities needed in- person support to carry out project activities, this often caused a pause in project implementation and disbursement. Many project beneficiaries learned after several months of the pandemic to use different types of technologies, but this resulted in implementation delays when activities relied on this close interaction. Even projects that did not require close, in-person contact to monitor project activities needed to engage with communities. This required some technologies that could not always be put in place. For example, projects in Nepal and Lao PDR struggled to use remote monitoring technology due to a lack of access to physical and technological requirements, as well as minimal motivation and discomfort with remote technologies. Although communities were generally willing to use technology when available, many did not have access to phones, laptops, or internet connections. Communities with access to communication devices often lacked dependable internet connectivity, cutting meetings short and reducing the effectiveness of online interaction. Some projects also mentioned that charging cell phones could be problematic. FIP projects were occasionally able to support communities with accessibility issues. For example, the FIP project in Indonesia helped pay for minutes on cell phones to ensure that beneficiaries could communicate with the PIU. Certain types of activities, especially technical training, could not be done remotely, and either did not occur—due to restrictions on travel or gatherings—or took place only after restrictions were lifted. This was especially hard for DGM projects, almost all of which had training components, even if they were in the late stages of implementation. Where capacity for using remote technologies was high, participation in project activities increased. For example, the FIP project in Brazil, “Development of systems to prevent forest fires and monitor vegetation cover in the Brazilian Cerrado”, found that participation among project beneficiaries in webinars organized by the project increased 10-fold (see box below). Owing to the size of the country, travel times and costs in Brazil can often be prohibitive. Therefore, remote communication technologies worked especially well here in increasing participation. It should also be noted that many rural areas in Brazil are relatively well connected to remote technologies, and most of the project beneficiaries are familiar with these technologies (unlike the situation in many countries). In the DGM Guatemala project, most Indigenous communities are also well connected to remote communication infrastructure. Therefore, the project was able to progress, even though the planning phase coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in places with relatively low technological capacity, such as Lao PDR, once the team was able to confidently use remote technologies such as Zoom, the interpretation function empowered many participants—who perhaps lacked confidence in their spoken English—to participate far more actively in meetings than they had done previously. Interestingly, this was not an issue that the project team had been aware of before the pandemic. One project team member stated that they were now hearing a diverse range of perspectives in meetings that they had not heard during in-person meetings. 20 Findings Furthermore, once project teams and beneficiaries BRAZIL FIP–ENVIRONMENTAL were more accustomed to using remote technologies, REGULARIZATION OF RURAL certain activities that previously would have required a LANDS IN THE CERRADO (CAR) mission could now be done remotely, which resulted in enormous cost savings for the project. This was noted The Brazil Environmental Regularization of Rural for a range of projects, including the FIP project in the Lands in the Cerrado of Brazil project aims to Republic of Congo, which was in project development enhance the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply through the Brazilian when the pandemic began and the DGM in Guatemala. Forest Service to receive, analyze and approve In terms of resilience, the isolation of communities was rural environmental cadaster entries and link them both a strength and a weakness. Remote communities to SICAR (Brazil’s National Environmental Registry are generally more accustomed to self-sufficiency, and of Rural Properties), and support landholding in this respect able to restrict travel and interaction registration in the project.* Project implementation was in full swing at the onset of the COVID-19 outside their community while still going about their pandemic. The training services were meant to daily activities. Restrictions on travel helped to reduce be very hands-on demonstrations of farming cases of COVID-19 in these remote communities. techniques. They were therefore suspended for up Nevertheless, it should be noted that if there was a to a year, depending on the COVID-19 restrictions COVID-19 outbreak, it could be extremely severe, in the particular state and farmers’ discretion. largely for lack of medical services and outside support, Regardless of the willingness and connectivity of according to TTLs. Meanwhile, remote communities the beneficiaries in this project, the nature of the with a well-established link to national markets activities was not consistent with an online format, and services were often hit very hard by COVID-19 causing delays. This technical support could not be restrictions. For example, some communities in Peru conducted remotely. that relied on national markets and tourism were However, engagement with stakeholders continued, severely impacted by the strict restrictions imposed by and due to the high remote connectivity of the national government. These communities were not producers and other project stakeholders, project provided with hygienic services, medical supplies, or engagement increased dramatically with the use of services—and their source of income was often cut off. remote meetings. One project team member said Both types of communities were served by several of that most meetings before the pandemic had an the FIP and DGM projects. in-person attendance of around 30 stakeholders. When the pandemic forced meetings to go online, The resilience of remote communities depended on engagement increased to 300 participants online. the national and regional policies on COVID-19, travel This resulted in more equitable engagement and infrastructure, and remote connectivity. In Mexico, cost savings for the project. it was found that people in very remote communities * Project Development Objective stated in the project PAD. fared rather well because they could rely on other community members for food production and the provisioning of services even though they were completely cut off from the rest of the country. In Lao PDR, on the other hand, strict lockdowns caused many remote communities to lose their source of livelihood because they could no longer leave their houses to work. Many households were forced to quarantine if they had any family members returning after periods abroad as migrant workers. The central government managed these lockdowns, and therefore there was very little room for participation or autonomy on the part of the communities. 21 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Capacity of Project Implementing Units (PIUs) PIUs in many countries encountered limitations—in terms of capacity and remote connectivity—that were nearly as severe as those affecting the beneficiaries. In some countries, PIUs lacked laptops and internet connection, especially at the start of the pandemic, and therefore could not continue to work for several months until alternate arrangements were made. Lack of familiarity with remote systems was also a limitation for several PIUs. This limited capacity and connectivity impacted project implementation more substantially, especially in the first year of the pandemic. In countries with fewer restrictions on government activities, PIUs continued to travel during the pandemic and were sometimes impacted very heavily by sickness and death of staff. One project TTL indicated that “at one point over half of the PIU was likely ill with COVID-19.” Another determinant of PIU capacity was the degree to which its operations were centralized. Several FIP projects reported that although their on-ground activities were delayed, experienced PIUs had a strong presence in the field and could promptly restart fieldwork as soon as local travel restrictions were lifted. Preparing and finalizing Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) documents, a crucial step in project preparation, was a challenge for most PIUs. For instance, one FIP project was delayed by seven months in finalizing its ESF documents due to the government counterpart’s low capacity and travel restrictions within the country. As a result, the team had to deploy additional expertise to support the counterpart and the WB to complete the required due diligence processes. The majority of FIP and DGM projects were already under implementation when COVID-19 hit, and those projects that had recently initiated on-the-ground activities were affected more. Counterparts new to the WB procedures and requirements required intensive capacity development support, which was provided by virtual settings, and, according to one TTL, “it could have been more efficient via in-person interaction and communication.” Similarly, internal interaction among WB HQ and country office staff also impacted the efficiency of the WB response and proactivity to support their counterparts. For example, one TTL mentioned that “being new to the country, and not having met the colleagues from the country office in person, was an additional challenge, which resulted in delayed responses from colleagues working in the country office.” As part of the Lao PDR FIP project, the team planned to carry out a poverty assessment by examining how well village development grants performed, which were part of a project component. However, due to COVID-19 and a lack of monitoring capability among the PIU and beneficiaries in Lao PDR, there was minimal follow-up on the effectiveness of these grants. In general, it was difficult to maintain monitoring remotely in Lao PDR and this was therefore stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic (see box on next page). For projects midway through implementation, many PIUs took advantage of restrictions limiting their fieldwork activities to advance their financial, 22 Findings procurement, planning, and other reporting LAO PDR FIP SCALING-UP PARTICIPATORY obligations. On the other hand, a few TTLs SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT mentioned that PIUs that had low capacity and faced implementation delays before the As part of the Lao PDR FIP project, the team planned pandemic faced barriers in finding solutions to to carry out a poverty assessment by examining the the new challenges they had to face. performance of village development grants that were part of a project component. However, due to COVID-19 and Another source of strain experienced by PIUs a lack of monitoring capability among both the PIU and during the pandemic was the often slow and beneficiaries in Lao PDR, there was very little follow-up on opaque processes necessary for activities the effectiveness of these grants. In general, monitoring such as budget reallocation and other relief was difficult to maintain remotely and was therefore stalled mechanisms that project beneficiaries needed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. quickly. Consequently, many FIP and DGM projects, including WB teams and counterparts, struggled in the pandemic environment to reallocate project budgets, devise a contingency INDONESIA FIP–PROMOTING plan, and promptly react to support the needs SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY-BASED of vulnerable people and project beneficiaries. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT This was especially true where impact had AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT resulted—or was anticipated to result—from strict lockdowns, breakdowns of supply chains, The Indonesia FIP was able to respond to the pandemic or unavailability of basic goods, such as food, rather quickly, in part due to the flexibility of the soap, and medical supplies. government. Some COVID funds were reallocated to provide vitamins and health care supplies to reduce However, when PIUs were able, reallocated infection risk. Funds were also provided to the PIU for project funds allowed for increased flexibility by COVID tests before travel. Furthermore, the government supporting aspects of the project that needed helped beneficiary communities sell their forest products funds the most during the pandemic. This online due to restrictions on travel and gatherings. The included direct support for COVID mitigation, project team noted the effectiveness of government including the supply of hygienic materials, but cooperation and flexibility in this context. also for food supplies and other basic needs that could not be met because of loss of employment and restrictions on mobility. Most projects close to completion extended their closing dates to achieve expected targets and reach the project development objective. Given that these projects already had established or experienced PIUs, and, in most cases, had finalized or were close to completing on-the-ground activities, they were less affected by the pandemic. This allowed project teams to address the immediate needs of the communities, successfully close out projects activities that required in-person supervision, and allow sufficient time to adapt to using remote communications and monitoring systems. 23 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Remote Forms of Communication, Monitoring and Supervision The most common coping mechanisms listed in both project documents (ISRs and restructuring documents) were project extensions, remote forms of communication and supervision, and occasionally additional financing or reallocated project funds. All TTLs interviewed mentioned that they used some form of remote communication, even if this only entailed mobile phone methods such as WhatsApp or video calls. Some countries and projects deployed remote communications much more readily than others. Those that had used some form of remote communication or supervision technology prior to the pandemic were well-adapted once the pandemic hit. DGM projects often had to adapt to more remote supervision simply because DGM projects generally require a higher level of on-the-ground monitoring, supervision, and technical assistance. Remote Monitoring and Reporting systems (M&R) were some of the most common coping mechanisms projects employed following the COVID-19 pandemic. Except for a few projects still in the design phase, almost all projects relied on a remote M&R system to continue project implementation, track progress, and stay in contact with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders. A broad range of M&R systems was available, with the choice of system dictated by the needs and abilities of those using it in a given situation. The success of the chosen setup depended on numerous factors such as pre-existing MOZAMBIQUE DGM FOR M&R systems, the level of restrictions, capacity, and connectivity INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND of project stakeholders, and the project’s implementation stage. LOCAL COMMUNITIES It is therefore difficult to rank systems in terms of efficacy The Mozambique DGM was able to because each are very context specific. M&R systems ranged from develop a custom-made ICT system messaging applications such as WhatsApp to more complicated with the help of a local tech startup systems designed for a particular project, such as GEMS or the company. This system was set up in only customized ICT system for the Mozambique DGM. four weeks as a result of a collaboration between the startup and local WB staff. Many projects relied on GEMS, an ICT capacity-building The system was developed to facilitate program designed by the World Bank to systematically enhance project communications and supervision monitoring and supervision in situations of Fragility, Conflict, in DGM beneficiary communities and was and Violence (FCV) where on-the-ground project monitoring designed to operate with low bandwidth was not possible. However, demand for training on GEMS grew over a cell phone. It runs through a link exponentially when restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic sent to a mobile phone and allows every limited in-person monitoring. As of June, 2022GEMS had been procurement process at the local level to used in over 850 World Bank-financed projects in 95 countries.17 be monitored, at a level of detail that had One of the greatest benefits of GEMS is the capacity-building not been attained before the pandemic. focus and related flexibility; it relies on open-source and low-cost This unique system also facilitated communications between the National technology, much of which can be used from a cell phone. There Executing Agency (NEA), National Steering are several tools within GEMS, including the KoBo Toolbox, one Committee (NSC), and bank teams, of the most often mentioned tools: it can work offline, is locally allowing text messages and video calls. owned, and can be adapted to any field environment and scaled to One constraint noted by the TTL was a broad range of needs. access to electricity for charging a mobile phone. 17 Personal communication, April 13, 2022. 24 Findings BURKINA FASO DGM MEXICO DGM FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LOCAL FOREST AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES COMMUNITIES Before implementing coping mechanisms, some project teams felt SUPPORT PROJECT that they had to understand more comprehensively how COVID The Burkina Faso DGM works was impacting beneficiary communities. The Mexico DGM is one in selected regions in southern, example of a project carrying out a large-scale, remote survey of central, and eastern Burkina a representative sample of beneficiary communities to gauge how Faso and has been using GEMS COVID had impacted their lives. At the early stages of the pandemic and KoBo Toolbox since before only national-scale data on COVID impacts existed, and the project the COVID-19 pandemic due to team thought that this information may not be representative insecurity in the eastern region of of Indigenous and local communities in Mexico. Throughout the the country. Burkina Faso hosts pandemic, IPLCs in Mexico were subject to the same governmental the GEMS regional office and local provisions as the general population, but Indigenous communities GEMS focal points on Bank and had the autonomy and the power to determine and introduce client side in Ouagadougou; these additional measures to address the pandemic within their territory, helped in providing technical if considered appropriate. While some continued to function with support and training on GEMS. a certain degree of normalcy, others decided to establish strict lockdowns in their communities to avoid infections. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Burkina Faso DGM The project team used the GEMS KoBo Toolbox to carry out their continued to rely on GEMS to survey, which consisted of three simple questions and could be monitor project implementation, implemented offline. The questions were: specifically microprojects, and 1 Was the ejido [communal land], company, workgroup, or subproject implementation. the execution of the productive activity of your subproject The Burkina Faso DGM used affected by the COVID 19 health emergency? GEMS for collecting photos and 2 In what way was the ejido, company, workgroup, or the videos of projects, conducting execution of the productive activity of your subproject trainings, project monitoring, affected? and communicating with project implementers and beneficiaries. 3 Do you think that your company has recovered or will be able The project was in the later to recover in the coming months? stages of implementation when The survey was sent via WhatsApp to 75 subproject leaders and the pandemic hit, but the greatest carried out between April and May 2021. Results from the survey challenges they faced were showed that only a few remote communities were not impacted at related to supply chain issues all by the restrictions (17 percent), while 38 percent of communities (rather than monitoring), which were moderately affected, and 39 percent were severely affected. slowed down implementation Six percent of those surveyed did not respond. Communities that of the microprojects. The TTL were very remote had well-established local trading practices and noted that, “Thanks to the project stronger market links with neighboring communities, and therefore team’s familiarity with GEMS, despite the cessation of most transport were able to continue monitoring, and reporting during making an income selling products through these existing channels. the pandemic was relatively They also had fewer cases of COVID, so daily activities were able seamless.” to continue. Other communities lost their source of employment, had reduced sales, and suffered illness and death. Communities that relied on international ecotourism or supplies from Europe were impacted most severely. These communities reported that productive activities in subprojects were put on hold for up to eight months. However, the survey results showed that communities with subprojects were more resilient to the impacts of pandemic restrictions than the rural average in Mexico, with 84 percent of respondents saying that they expected to fully recover. 25 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO Adaptability Several crucial factors are common to projects that were able to adapt to COVID-19 restrictions more smoothly. Among these are the willingness and ability of project implementers and beneficiaries alike to utilize remote forms of communication, monitoring, and supervision when needed, as shown in sections 4.4–4.6. However, project characteristics and location were also noted to be important factors in project adaptability. Several TTLs stated that DGM projects, though sometimes subject to more challenges, were also able to adapt to COVID-19 due to their decentralized structure, small size, and autonomy. DGM structure and governance are based on an NSC made up of elected Indigenous leaders who represent IPLCs and decide upon the criteria used to guide subproject selection. The NSC engages with the NEA, which oversees project implementation and provides technical support to the NSC. Due to this unique structure, which provides project ownership to IPLCs, both the NSC and NEA had continuous interaction and consultation with Indigenous communities, enabling a quick COVID response in several DGM countries, most notably in Peru, Mexico, Ghana, and Brazil. Several DGM projects were able to adapt to the impacts of COVID-19 efficiently and promptly. For example, some projects GUATEMALA DGM that were midway through implementation, such as DGM projects FOR INDIGENOUS in Ghana and Mexico, quickly mobilized teams and came up with PEOPLES AND LOCAL contingency plans and response mechanisms. DGM projects COMMUNITIES PROJECT in the last stages of implementation, such as those in Peru and The objective of the Guatemala DGM Brazil, conducted project restructuring quickly to address and project is to strengthen the capacity of support the needs of IPLCs to address the impact of the pandemic. IPLCs—and the benefits that accrue to Generally, DGM projects could make these changes more easily them—in their role in sustainable forest than FIP projects, possibly due to the smaller project size overall. and natural resource management. As the pandemic hit, the project was at its design For example, two of the projects under preparation during the stage and allowed for the inclusion of pandemic were able to adapt to the project design to enhance measures to address additional risks that responsiveness in the event of a potential future shock. The project beneficiaries might face because Republic of Congo DGM project included a Contingency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency Response Component (CERC), to make funding These included a small contingency available in the case of emergencies. The Guatemala DGM was also fund to allow the project to make able to include a contingency fund in its project design, to make quick investments in 20 initiatives led funds available for grantees quickly and on a need basis. In the by women focusing on food security. future, this could be a relatively simple method to address external Although Guatemala is typically fairly shocks in FIP projects. These funds would ideally be flexible in well connected to urban networks and terms of what the funds could be used for, and how quickly funds markets, during the pandemic it was could be deployed to ensure quick adaptability during shocks. The found that bolstering food security was Brazil DGM was able to quickly reallocate funds and give project a useful mechanism to improve health beneficiaries a choice in which type of reallocated support they and resiliency in the face of supply chain issues and lost income. preferred. The Peru Saweto DGM was also able to quickly confer with project beneficiaries about reallocating project funds. 26 Findings BRAZIL DGM FOR INDIGENOUS PERU DGM SAWETO PEOPLE AND TRADITIONAL The Peru DGM was able to react swiftly and effectively to COMMUNITIES the risk COVID posed to remote Indigenous communities Although the Brazil DGM faced similar as well as to the strict shutdown imposed by the Peruvian challenges to those of other DGMs, government, which restricted travel and put in place a many of its subprojects were located curfew throughout the country. The Peru DGM was in in very remote areas and therefore had the final months of implementation when the pandemic unique challenges in coping with COVID hit, but one of the project components on registering and restrictions. In response to this, the Brazil formalizing Indigenous land tenure was not yet completed. DGM restructured the project to address This component required fieldwork, substantial travel, the increased vulnerability of IPLCs and meetings with communities and regional government with an emergency component. This agencies, none of which appeared amenable to completion component allowed each community to within the project timeframe, in view of the pandemic choose whether they would prefer a cash restrictions, as well as the recent change of government in transfer of R$ 15,000 (roughly US$ 3,000) Peru. or the distribution of nonfood goods The National Steering Committee (NSC) quickly met on such as hygienic materials (masks, soap, a virtual platform and agreed that the funds allocated gloves, and so forth). This was a change for this component should be reallocated to a COVID requested by the NSC and took about six emergency fund for Indigenous communities. Indigenous months to fully process. communities were provided with hygienic materials such as The project team stated that this soap and masks. These funds were also used to produce restructuring was possible because of written materials and radio ads in local languages to the flexible structure of the DGM. It was raise awareness of COVID and share how transmission of able to adapt more than FIP projects the virus could be slowed. There were trainings on how because it was easier to raise awareness to reduce exposure and transmission. The reallocated and consult with beneficiary communities. funds also financed acquisition of radio communication The DGM Grievance Redress Mechanism equipment to reach communities in remote areas that had also provided a useful platform for raising been isolated for several months during the pandemic. awareness of developments in the DGM The decision to reallocate these funds was made by and and hearing directly from communities. in conjunction with the Indigenous communities of the Peru DGM and was supported by the WWF Peru, the NEA, as well as the World Bank team. The DGM structure allowed this process to occur in only a few weeks due to the existing consultation structure through the NSC as well as the relatively modest funds involved (by comparison to other World Bank projects). 27 Broad lessons learned across FIP and DGM projects that can help inform development projects Understanding more about how FIP and DGM project teams, activities and beneficiaries were able to react and adapt over the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic may provide insight into how projects can be better supported during future unexpected events. It will be crucial to continue monitoring how the pandemic—and subsequent changes it caused in project preparation, implementation and closing—shaped project outcomes, project management efficiency, and inclusion of beneficiaries. Notably, understanding how remote forms of communication and monitoring are impacting project outcomes and beneficiaries in the medium- to long-term will be enlightening, and will require further follow-up. Lessons learned, and good practices from FIP and DGM projects are a starting point for discussing how future pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and other external shocks could be better managed from a risk perspective. Among the steps that projects were able to take within their control, based on an analysis of the data collected through a review of project documents and project implementer interviews, we have identified the following lessons. 1. PIUs and project beneficiaries need both flexibility and support in order to adapt to a shock like the COVID-19 pandemic. In many cases, both PIUs and project beneficiaries lacked the necessary capacity to respond to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic effectively and quickly. PIUs should be provided with the technology they need to continue project development or implementation, as well as the necessary training to use that technology. Project beneficiaries should also be provided with support in this regard, whether through training or reallocated project funds that can be made available to prioritize the implementation of other essential project components. World Bank processes should aim to enable this support, improving the agility of project adaptation mechanisms, including reallocating project budgets and extending closing dates. Both of those mechanisms were used by the majority of FIP and DGM projects to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ease with which they were used often depended on the capacity and empowerment of PIUs and project beneficiaries. A notable finding was that DGM projects were generally able to adapt to the pandemic more quickly than could FIP projects owing to more flexible World Bank processes, given their small size and direct lines of communication between PIUs and project beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the structure of the DGM—whereby Indigenous People and Local Communities form, the governance structure overseeing project activities—also enabled a quick response to the pandemic that was aligned with what was needed in communities. 28 Broad lessons learned across FIP and DGM projects that can help inform development projects 2. Remote forms of communication can help improve project participation and engagement but should be complemented with capacity-building support to ensure inclusion. Remote communication was a necessity during the pandemic, and project teams were able to use it, with varying success, depending on the capacity, willingness, and remoteness of project beneficiaries and the PIU. In cases characterized by physical remoteness, sufficient capacity, and abundant willingness, as in Brazil, beneficiary participation in webinars increased tenfold. Many project beneficiaries who were previously unable to travel due to the long distances in a large country such as Brazil, were now able to join without leaving their communities. Lao PDR presented a different situation, where remote communication was able to facilitate better understanding through the translate function of Zoom, and project implementers who were not completely comfortable in English could now more easily participate and express their opinions. However, some TTLs stressed the importance of face-to-face meetings, especially in certain cultural contexts and for certain activities. Many countries and project teams never completely adapted to remote communication, either due to a preference for in-person communication, or lack of equipment, or a weak internet signal. For relationship building between PIUs (or NEAs in the case of the DGM) and World Bank project teams, in-person meetings are still preferred. If certain meetings must be held remotely, support should be continually provided to ensure that certain communities or countries are not excluded. 3. Remote project monitoring was shown to have cost-saving benefits and can result in more effective project monitoring under a range of circumstances. The World Bank had been developing remote monitoring systems for several years before the pandemic, mostly for conflict situations where in-person project monitoring could be dangerous. However, the pandemic elucidated many benefits and uses of remote project monitoring that are worth exploring. Project teams should receive support in identifying and implementing the proper remote Monitoring and Reporting system that is simultaneously appropriate for the needs of the project activities and the capacity of project stakeholders. GEMS is an excellent example of a remote Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) system that provides support and training to project teams and is quite flexible and adaptable to different project contexts. Kobo toolbox, a data collection mechanism that is part of GEMS, was used in Burkina Faso to keep monitoring project activities throughout the pandemic. The Burkina Faso DGM had been using Kobo toolbox before the pandemic due to an internal conflict and therefore was able to continue at the same rate as before the pandemic. The Mexico DGM was also able to use Kobo toolbox to initiate a national-scale survey to understand the impact of the COVID pandemic on project beneficiaries: this enabled the DGM project team to respond accordingly. Other useful third-party monitoring systems include Project360, a project management platform with geospatial map and data connection, and systems for external collaborations. The long-term benefits of implementing a system like this and building capacity in its local use should not be underestimated, as remote M&R systems can provide continuity in reporting and monitoring despite a range of external shocks that may prevent in-person monitoring, such 29 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO as natural disasters or political instability. Any project with a moderate risk of any type of external shock that may impact in-person project oversight should consider having a remote M&R system in place; meanwhile, all projects could consider ways that remote M&R systems may improve engagement, equity, and project outcomes in the future. 4. Resilience is a long-term, context-specific process. Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover from shock and trauma, and there have been numerous studies seeking to understand the factors that strengthen it. The pandemic was able to highlight both the overall importance of resilience, and how it may look different to each community. The DGM projects were especially eye-opening in showing the range of community responses to the pandemic and the types of support they requested from project teams. Some communities wanted to improve their remote communication capacity, some wanted funds to buy basic goods, and some wanted to keep their community safe by closing their borders to the rest of the world. The structure of the DGM allowed for quick yet equitable consultation with all project beneficiaries through the NSC and the grievance mechanism, which allowed each project team to tailor their response based on the beneficiaries’ preferences. For example, in Peru the project team reached out to beneficiaries about the use of remaining project funds. Project beneficiaries overwhelmingly expressed that they needed these funds for health-related expenditures, and in response the remaining funds were reallocated for these. 5. Resilience may, in some cases, also imply flexibility and adaptability, and a level of autonomy. For the World Bank, this entails responding to specific needs with targeted solutions, most notably, the needs that are communicated directly by those experiencing them. To improve resilience in the future, it is crucial to ensure that basic needs are met, and that capacity building and targeted trainings are developed in conjunction with project beneficiaries. Improving capacity over time ultimately gives communities the resources they need to respond to external shocks. An example of adaptability is emergency contingency funds. Contingency funds were used in the Republic of Congo and Guatemala DGM projects, partially in response to COVID and the experience of other DGM projects in reallocating project funds for basic needs. 30 References Climate Investment Funds (2009). Forest Investment McVeigh, K. (2021). How Covid could be the Program Design Document, CIF/DMFIP.2/2 https:// ‘long overdue’ shake-up needed by the aid sector. www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ meeting-documents/fip_design_document_rev_0.pdf globaldevelopment/2021/feb/05/were-all-connected- how-aid-can-be-made-to-work-betterafter-covid Climate Investment Funds (2013). Framework Operational Guidelines for the Dedicated Grant Morris, S., Sandefur, J. & Yang, G. (2021). Tracking the Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Scale and Speed of the World Bank’s COVID Response: Communities (DGM) https://static1.squarespace. April 2021 Update. Center for Global Development com/static/550abd2ce4b0c5557aa4f772/t/550ad Note. https://cgdev.org/publication/tracking-scale- cbae4b0178d56b4c7d3/1426775226201/13-09- and-speed-world-banks-covidresponse-april-2021- 12DGMGuidelines-website.pdf update Climate Investment Funds (2020). FIP Operational Muñoz-Najar, Alberto; Gilberto, Alison; Hasan, Amer; and Results Report (ORR) FIP/SC.23/3 https://www. Cobo, Cristóbal; Azevedo, João Pedro; Akmal, Maryam. climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/ (2021). Remote Learning during COVID-19: Lessons meeting-documents/fip_23_3_orr.pdf from Today, Principles for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Dodd, A., Knox, D. & Breed, D. (2021). Aid data 2019– 2020: Analysis of trends before and during Covid. Palinkas, L.A.; Springgate, B.F et al. (2021). A Rapid Development Initiatives Briefing. Assessment of Disaster Preparedness Needs and Resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Duggan, J., Morris, S., Sandefur, J. & Yang, G. (2020). Environ. Res. Public Health, 18, 425. https://doi. Is the World Bank’s COVID Crisis Lending Big Enough? org/10.3390/ijerph18020425 New Evidence on Loan Disbursements. Center for Global Development Working Paper 554. https:// Prizzon, A. (2021). Prospects for aid one year on www.cgdev.org/publication/world-bankscovid-crisis- from the pandemic. ODI https://odi.org/en/insights/ lending-big-enough-fast-enough-new-evidence-loan- prospects-for-aid-one-year-on-from-the-pandemic/ disbursements Worley, W. (2020). NGOs say most COVID-19 funding Gourlay, S., Kilic, T., Martuscelli, A., Wollburg, P., and is stuck in multilateral system. Devex. https://www. Zezza A. (2021). High-Frequency Phone Surveys on devex.com/news/ngos-say-most-covid-19-funding-is- COVID-19: Good Practices, Open Questions. Food stuck-inmultilateral-system-97255 Policy. Pre-proof: 102153. pmid:34483442 World Bank (2018) One Health: Operational Leal, F. W., Azul, A. M., Wall, T., Vasconcelos Claudio, Framework for Strengthening Human, Animal, R. P., Salvia, A. L., do Paço Arminda, Fernanda, F. and Environmental Public Health Systems at (2021). COVID-19: The impact of a global crisis on their Interface https://documents.worldbank. sustainable development research. Sustainability org/en/publication/documents-reports/ Science, 16(1), 85-99. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ documentdetail/703711517234402168/operational- s11625-020-00866-y framework-for-strengthening-human-animal-and- environmental-public-health-systems-at-their- Lenhardt, A. (2021). Development finance interface for socioeconomic programming response to Covid-19. Research Insights International. World Bank (2020) Saving Lives, Scaling-up Impact and https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/ Getting Back on Track. World Bank Group COVID-19 handle/20.500.12413/17057/Covid%20Collective%20 Crisis Response Approach Paper. https://documents1. Development%20Finance%20(Updated). worldbank.org/curated/en/136631594937150795/ pdf?sequence=5 pdf/World-Bank-Group-COVID-19-Crisis-Response- Approach-Paper-Saving-Lives-Scaling-up-Impact-and- Getting-Back-on-Track.pdf Annexes ANNEX 1.List of projects included in the analysis ANNEX 1. List of projects included in the analysis PROJECT STATUS NUMBER PROJECT COUNTRY (March 2022) DRC1 Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (IFLMP) DRC Active LA1 Scaling-up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management Lao PDR Active BR1 Environmental Regularization of Rural Lands in the Cerrado of Brazil – CAR Brazil Active BR2 Development of systems to prevent forest fires and monitor vegetation cover in the Brazil Closed Brazilian Cerrado BR3 Investment Plan Coordination Project Brazil Active iBR4 Integrated Landscape Management in the Cerrado Biome Brazil Active BK1 Decentralized Forest and Woodland Management Burkina Faso Closed GH1 Enhancing Natural Forest and Agroforest Landscapes Project Ghana Active GH2 Additional Financing for Ghana IP – Enhancing Natural Forest and Agroforest Ghana Active Landscapes Projects IN1 Promoting Sustainable Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Indonesia Active Institutional Development PE1 Integrated Land Management in Atalaya, Ucayali Region Peru Active CI1 Forest Investment Project Cote d’Ivoire Active MZ1 Mozambique Forest Investment Project (MozFIP) Mozambique Active BR5 BR DGM for Indigenous People and Traditional Communities Brazil Active BK2 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Local Communities – Local Forest Communities Burkina Faso Closed Support Project DRC2 Forest-Dependent Community Support Project DRC Active GH3 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Ghana Closed IN2 DGM – Strengthening Rights and Economies of Adat and Local Communities Indonesia Active MX1 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Mexico Active PE2 Dedicated Grant Mechanism in Peru (SAWETO) Peru Active GL1 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Phase 1 Global Closed MZ2 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Mozambique Active CI2 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Cote d’Ivoire Active GL2 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Phase 2 Global Active GT1 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Guatemala Active NE1 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Nepal Pipeline RC1 DGM for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Congo Active RC2 Northern Congo Agroforestry Project Congo Pipeline NE2 Forests for Prosperity Nepal Active GT2 Forest Governance and Livelihoods Diversification in Guatemala Guatemala Pipeline 33 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE WORLD BANK’S FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM PORTFOLIO ANNEX 2. List of interviews NAME TITLE AFFILIATION Alidu Babatu Adam Senior Social Development Specialist, SSAS1 DGM Nepal Daniella Ziller Arruda Operations Analyst, SLCEN FIP and DGM Brazil Lucienne M. M’Baipor Senior Social Development Specialist, SSAS1 DGM Burkina Faso Hala Ballout Social Development Specialist, SAWS1 DGM Congo Republic Arturo Bolondi NRM Specialist (Consultant), SEAE2 FIP Lao PDR Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa Senior Social Development Specialist, SLCSO DGM Brazil German N. Freire Senior Social Development Specialist, SLCSO DGM Guatemala Tini Gumartini NRM Specialist, SEAE1 FIP and DGM Indonesia Iwan Gunawan Senior NRM Specialist, SEAE1 FIP and DGM Indonesia Bernadete Lange Senior Environmental Specialist, SLCEN FIP and DGM Brazil Celine Lim NRM Specialist, SAWE1 FIP and DGM Mozambique Ana Luisa Gomes Lima Senior Environmental Specialist, SSAEN DGM Peru David Maleki Environmental Specialist, SAWE4 FIP Congo Republic Yatziri Zepeda Medina Consultant, SLCEN DGM Mexico Nyaneba Nkrumah Senior NRM Specialist, SAWE4 DGM Ghana Yasmina Oodally Environmental Specialist, SAWE1 FIP Ghana Carmina Isabel Jimenez JPA, SLCEN DGM Mexico Quiroga Ivan Abdul Dula Remane ETC, SAEE3 DGM Mozambique Katharina Siegmann Senior Environmental Specialist, SLCEN DGM Mexico Tobias Albuquerque Consultant, SAEE3 DGM Mozambique Wegenast 34 ANNEX 3.List of interview questions ANNEX 3. List of interview questions SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE: Pre-Questions (never omit): 1. Is it ok if we record you?  2. We are hoping to learn about specific challenges and adaptations with regard to project implementation, closing, and preparation in the context of the COVID pandemic, and with this in mind we would like to be able to name particular projects in our case study. Is that ok with you? Questions: 1. Can you confirm which FIP projects you have worked on? 2. At what stage was the project(s) in March 2020? At what stage is the project now? 3. What were the major challenges/difficulties you have faced with the project since the COVID pandemic began? 4. Was the project restructured? 5. What role did COVID play in the restructuring of the project? Was it a major factor or a minor factor in the restructuring? 6. Has COVID impacted the disbursement of the project? If so, how? 7. Has COVID impacted the risk rating or overall rating of the project? If so, how? 8. Has the project adapted to the impacts of COVID? What coping mechanisms have been implemented? 9. Was project communication impacted by COVID? If so, how? 10. What were some of the factors that in your opinion impacted the adaptability of the project to COVID impacts? 11. How does the project plan to adapt to COVID in the future? 12. Have there been any lessons learned from your experience with project implementation/preparation/closing during the COVID pandemic?   35