Document ofThe World Bank

Report No: 26675

GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED GRANT FROM THEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OFUSD 6.0 MILLION

TO THE

NIGER BASIN AUTHORITY (NBA)

FOR THE

REVERSING LAND AND WATER DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE

NIGER RIVER BASIN

March 22, 2004

Water and Urban 2 SectorAFC7, AFC11, AFC12, AFC13, AFC15Africa Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................iiiA. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE.............................................................................2

1. Country and sector issues...............................................................................................................22. Rationale for Bank involvement....................................................................................................33. Higher-level Objectives to which the Project contributes..............................................................4

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................51. Lending instrument........................................................................................................................52. Project development objective and key indicators.........................................................................53. Project components........................................................................................................................64. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design.......................................................................75. Analysis of alternatives..................................................................................................................8

C. IMPLEMENTATION....................................................................................................................91. Partnership arrangements...............................................................................................................92. Institutional and implementation arrangements.............................................................................93. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results...........................................................................104. Sustainability................................................................................................................................115. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects..........................................................................126. Loan/credit conditions and covenants..........................................................................................12

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY...........................................................................................................121. Economic and financial analyses.................................................................................................122. Technical......................................................................................................................................133. Fiduciary......................................................................................................................................144. Social............................................................................................................................................145. Environment.................................................................................................................................156. Safeguard policies........................................................................................................................167. Readiness......................................................................................................................................178. Compliance..................................................................................................................................17

Technical Annex 1: Country and Sector/Program Background................................................................18Technical Annex 2: Major Related Project Financed by the Bank and/or Other Projects........................24Technical Annex 3: Results and Monitoring Framework.........................................................................25Technical Annex 4: Detailed Project Description.....................................................................................33Technical Annex 5: Summary of Project Costs........................................................................................42Technical Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements..................................................................................43Technical Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements........................................49Technical Annex 8: Procurement..............................................................................................................53Technical Annex 9: Incremental Cost Analysis........................................................................................61Technical Annex 10: Project Preparation and Supervision.......................................................................73Technical Annex 11: Documents in the Project File.................................................................................74Technical Annex 12: Risks and Mitigation Measures...............................................................................76Technical Annex 13: Niger River Basin At A Glance..............................................................................77Technical Annex 14: Statement of Loans and Credits..............................................................................78Technical Annex 15: Letters of Endorsement...........................................................................................79IBRD Map 33021......................................................................................................................................91Technical Annex 16: STAP Technical Roster Review...........................................................................792

ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AfDB African Development Bank(Banque Africaine de Développement, BAD)

AMCOW African Ministerial Conference on WatersANBO African Network of Basin OrganizationsAPR Annual Project ReviewAWRMI Africa Water Resources Management InitiativeBank The World Bank GroupBNWPP Bank and Netherlands Water Partnership ProgramCAS Country Assistance Strategy (WB)ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

(Cadre de Gestion Environnementale et Sociale, CGES)GEF Global Environment Facility

(Fonds pour l’Environnement Mondial-FEM)HydroNiger Inter-State Hydrological Forecasting Center

(Centres Inter-Etats de Prévision, CIP)IA Implementing AgencyINBO International Network of Basin OrganizationsISDS Integrated Safeguards Data SheetIW International WatersIW:Learn International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource NetworkJALDA Japan Agricultural Land Development AgencyLCC Local Coordination Committees

(Comités Locaux de Coordination et de Suivi, CLCS)MDG Millennium Development GoalsMOM Microgrant Operational Manual

(Manuel de Procédures du Programme de Microsubventions, MPMS)NPT National Project Teams

(Equipe Nationale de Projets, ENP)NBA Niger Basin Authority

(Autorité du Bassin du Niger, ABN)NBA/ES Niger Basin Authority Executive Secretariat

(Secrétaire Exécutif de l’Autorité du Bassin du Niger, ANB/SE)NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNSC National Steering Committee

(Comité National de Pilotage CNP)OP Operational Policy (Bank)OP Operational Program (GEF)PDF-A Project Preparation and Development Facility Block A (GEF)PDF-B Project Preparation and Development Facility Block B (GEF)PFO Project Financial OfficerPIC World Bank Public Information Center

iii

PIM Project Implementation ManualPIR Project Implementation ReviewPMCU Program Management and Coordination Unit

(Unité de Gestion et de Coordination des Programmes, UGCP) Project Project for Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River BasinPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPSR Project Status ReportRSC Regional Steering Committee–AfDB–GEF

(Comité Régional de Pilotage-BAD–FEM–CRP))SAP Strategic Action ProgramSDAP Sustainable Development Action Program

(Programme d’action pour le Développement Durable du Bassin du Fleuve Niger PADD)

SGP UNDP Small Grants ProgrammeSOE Statement of ExpensesSTS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the Steering Committee

(Sous-Comité Scientifique et Technique, SCST) TDA Transboundary Diagnostic AnalysisTRIB Transboundary River Basin Initiative project (UNDP)UN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB The World Bank GroupWEHAB Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, BiodiversityWSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

iv

Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River BasinGEF Project DocumentAfrica Regional Office

AFTU2Date: April 1, 2004Country Director: David CraigSector Manager: Inger AndersenProject ID: P070256Focal Area: I – International Wa-ters

Team Leader: Ousmane DioneSector(s): Central government administration (80%), General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (10%), General water, san-itation and flood protection sector (10%)Theme(s): Biodiversity (P), Environmental policies and institu-tions (P), Land management (P), Pollution management and envi-ronmental health (P), Water resource management (P)

Project Financing Data:[ ] Loan [ ] Credit [X ] Grant [] Guarantee [] Other:For Loans/Credits/Others:Total Project Costs (USD m.): 42.64

Financing Plan (USD m)Source Local Foreign Total

Borrower/Recipient (National Governments and NBA in-kind contributions):

2.07 0.00 2.07

Others:Global Environment Facility implemented by UNDP

0.00 7.00 7.00

Global Environment Facility implemented by World Bank

6.00 6.00

African Development Bank 0.00 21.87 21.87Government of France 0.00 4.78 4.78Norway: Norwegian Agency for Dev. Coop. AWRMI - (NORAD)

0.00 0.16 0.16

UN Development Programme–TRIB I and II 0.00 0.17 0.17Dutch Government (BNWPP) 0.00 0.59 0.59

Total 2.07 40.57 42.64Borrower/Recipient: Niger Basin Authority Executive Secretariat (NBA/ES)Responsible agency: Niger Basin Authority (NBA)Address: B.P. 729 Niamey, NigerContact Person: Mohammad Bello TugaTel: (227) 72.29.62; Fax: (227) 72.42.08; Email: NBAsec@intnet.ne

Other Agency(ies):United Nations Development ProgramAddress: UNDP-GEF Dakar, SenegalContact Person: Abdoulaye NdiayeTel: 011.221.849.17.78; Fax: 1.212.906.6362; Email: abdoulaye.ndiaye@undp.org

Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/USD m) To be determined prior to appraisalFY FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Annual 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.50Cumulative 1.50 3.00 4.50 5.50 6.00

Project implementation period: 5-yearsExpected effectiveness date: July 1, 2004Expected closing date: August 1, 2009

1

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

1. Country and sector issues

1. The Niger River Basin. Nine countries—Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria—share the Niger River Basin’s hydrological re-sources. At 4,200 km, it is the third longest river in Africa, with an average annual flow of 180 km3, and a Basin that covers 2.2 million km2. The Niger River is formed by two branches, which constitute its hydrological system. The main branch rises in the Guinean Dorsale and is reinforced by abundant tributaries coming from the Fouta Djallon Highlands in Guinea. Trib-utaries coming from Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Benin join the River before it enters Nigeria. The Benue, second branch of the Niger River, rises from Cameroon and Chad and drains the eastern part of Nigeria before joining the Niger in Lokoja. The Niger River is so-cioeconomically and environmentally important to the more than 100 million people who cur-rently live in its Basin. The River supports navigation, fisheries, irrigation, hydropower, and municipal and environmental uses. The dependency of the riparian countries on the River varies with geographic location. The Basin countries can be divided into three groups: Mali and Niger comprise large portions of the Basin and rely heavily upon the Niger for water. This applies also to Nigeria even though some abundant national tributaries contribute to the Niger River. Benin, Cameroon and Guinea comprise only 14 percent of the land area in the Basin but provide more than 80 percent of the waters; Burkina Faso, Chad and Côte d’Ivoire are the least dependent upon the Niger for water but would benefit from inclusive manage-ment of Basin resources. The Niger River also constitutes an important economic driver for the surrounding non-Basin countries, which are connected to the riparian countries by trade and migration routes, and rely upon products from the Basin.

2. Development and the fragile environment. The water resource crisis faced by most of the Basin countries is a result of water scarcity as well as problems with quality and manage-ment. Growing demand for water is leading to increased competition between sector-level users, and between the countries themselves. The Basin contains different topographies and rainfall patterns that lead to a complex and variable flow pattern. Seasonal variability often re-sults in extremes in flow, either as droughts or floods, placing constraints on economic devel-opment. Over the past 20 years, the combination of environmental degradation (due to ero-sion, siltation, droughts, deforestation, etc.) and increasing water demand has modified and re-duced average flows. The resulting pressure upon the Basin’s resources cannot be addressed in isolation either by country or by sector. The lack of an adequate land and water manage-ment framework has contributed to significant degradation of renewable resources, from the decreases in fish stock, with the near disappearance of certain species due to disturbances in the River’s flow regime and over-fishing; to inappropriate agricultural land management prac-tices such as bush clearing, overgrazing, fertility loss, poor drainage systems and utilization of zones close to the River. Deforestation continues throughout the Basin for domestic, agricul-tural or commercial purposes.

3. Population and increased poverty. The Basin’s population, most of whom live along the River system, is expected to double to 200 million by 2020. Poverty, stressed water re-sources, and environmental degradation threaten rural livelihoods and continue to drive ur-

2

banization. Coupled with a water crisis, a vicious circle has formed that is hindering the Basin’s development.

4. Competitive unilateral development. To date, the countries of the Basin have focused on developing their portion of the available resources. Following the devastating droughts of the 1970s the emphasis has been on controlling the River’s flow and on unilateral planning, which has resulted in uncoordinated development, often in sub-optimal locations, and weak regional institutions.

5. National priorities – PRSP and CAS. Nine Basin countries means nine different as-sistance strategies to address priority issues. Water resources are central to each country’s policies on economic growth, poverty alleviation, and sustainable livelihoods. All nine Basin countries have developed a national water code/policy, with varying degrees of success in ap-plication and relevance to different water uses and water quality. Most have finalized their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which recognize the importance of environment for economic development, and are now working to implement these first-generation strate-gies through multifaceted finance packages. In response to the PRSPs, the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) acknowledge the link between environmental degradation and poverty, in particular the impact of inadequate water supply. Annex 1 provides further discus-sion on the sector issues, the countries’ PRSPs and CASs.

6. Basin-wide challenges at the local national and regional levels. Existing national and regional environmental management frameworks and regional, national, and local capacity are inadequate to meet the challenge of effectively managing the Basin’s land and water re-sources. Although National Environmental Action Plans (NEAP) have been developed in some countries, the national focus has been short-term and sector-specific. Some countries do not have or have not implemented a land and water resources management policy. Public par-ticipation in decision-making is low, and environment-centered public education and aware-ness programs are virtually nonexistent. At the regional level, there is a lack of harmonization of legal and policy frameworks and national and regional institutions lack capacity to effec-tively and equitably manage the shared water resources. Water and environment have not been mainstreamed into economic policies and yet there is no adequate mechanism in place to foster such an approach. The Basin’s potential for development is also being hampered by gaps in regional information exchange. Data collection, management, and dissemination at the regional and national level are uneven, and linkages between national and regional monitoring networks are unclear, limiting effective water quality monitoring and protection programs.

2. Rationale for Bank involvement

7. A Shared Vision. The Niger Basin Authority (Autorité du Bassin du Niger, NBA), es-tablished more than forty years ago by the nine riparian countries, has an institutional mandate to manage the Niger River resources in a joint and cooperative manner. The NBA promotes cooperation between the member countries in developing the Basin’s natural resources and harmonizing national development policies. At the NBA’s 7th Heads of State Summit on Feb-ruary 16, 2002, the riparian countries acknowledged the threats from unilateral planning, and committed themselves to pursuing a regional dialogue and seeking support for cooperative, sustainable development of the Niger River. They agreed upon developing a Shared Vision

3

for the Basin, a “political statement” which defines long-term objectives and a commitment to a program of action.1 A Sustainable Development Action Program for the Niger River Basin (Programme d’Action de Développement Durable, SDAP) will provide strategic guidance and support a dialogue on shared interest, through which specific mechanisms and tools are devel-oped to reach the common goals for sustainable management described in the Shared Vision, and identify optimal means and processes for sustainable multi-sectoral development and in-vestments.

8. Request for assistance – pursuing a Shared Vision and regional cooperation. The Niger River Basin countries have requested the Bank’s assistance to enable them to coopera-tively manage their Basin resources in line with a shared multi-sectoral vision for the Basin’s development, and thus requiring in-depth sectoral and technical analysis, the strength of con-vening power, and access to the international financial markets. In addition, with an extensive portfolio of projects in the region (refer to Annex 2), including the Global Environment Facil-ity (GEF) international waters project, the Bank can facilitate coordination between these var-ious activities. The GEF Project is one of several projects contributing to the SDAP, provid-ing support to strengthen institutional capacities for cooperative land and water management of the Basin’s resources, and thus contributing to the efforts of the Shared Vision. To further support regional cooperation, the NBA has identified possible institutional and project activity synergies between the GEF Project, the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) “Programme Cadre de Protection contre l’Erosion Hydrique et de Lutte Contre l’Ensablement du Bassin du Fleuve Niger,” and the project of the Bank and Netherlands Water Partnership (BNWPP), “Preparing the Niger Basin Authority Water Resource Knowledge Base for Effective River Basin Management.” It is envisioned that these projects will complement one another to opti-mize effort and effectiveness. Outcomes from the Project’s Transboundary Diagnostic Analy-sis (TDA) and the framework for sustainable development in its Strategic Action Program (SAP) will provide further detail on priority environmental and water resource issues, thus contributing to the SDAP. The SAP will pilot mechanisms through which a broad range of stakeholders can participate in the decision-making process as it pertains to these issues. Within the NBA’s institutional restructuring, capacities will be put in place through the GEF Project at the national and regional levels, to manage resources and engage stakeholders in the framework of the Shared Vision and its investment portfolio as they unfold.

3. Higher-level objectives to which the Project contributes

9. Global environmental objectives. The GEF Project falls under GEF Operational Pro-gram 9, “Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area” which has a long term objective to “achieve multiple global environmental benefits through implementation of International Wa-ters (IW) projects which utilize integrated land and water management strategies that help achieve changes in sectoral policies and activities while promoting sustainable development.” The Project’s global environmental objective is to reduce and prevent transboundary water-re-lated environmental degradation; prevent land degradation; and protect globally significant biodiversity, through sustainable, informed, and cooperative integrated management of the Basin, while ensuring greater public involvement in the Basin’s decision-making process.

1 Bank/ABN Aide-Mémoire, September, 2002

4

10. Meeting the MDGs, NEPAD and WSSD objectives. As outlined above, the Niger River Basin countries are willing to jointly access and share the benefits from sustainable de-velopment of the Basin’s resources, in line with the Shared Vision. The Shared Vision will provide a framework to address some of the key United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). MDG No.7 promotes integra-tion of the principles of sustainable development into country polices to reverse the loss of en-vironmental resources. Similarly, the NEPAD framework places importance on including the environment, especially water, in plans for sustainable socioeconomic development. The NEPAD objective is to create a “framework for regional cooperation in integrated sustainable water resources management, harmonization of water polices and regulations.” The WSSD’s goals of Water and Sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity (WEHAB) pro-mote greater efficiency (quality and quantity) in water use, shared water resource manage-ment, protection of freshwater resources and related ecosystems, and development and pro-motion of equitable and sustainable water management strategies at the regional, national and local levels.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Lending instrument

11. GEF grant. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank jointly implement the GEF Project. In line with other GEF projects on international wa-ters such as the Nile River, Senegal and Lake Chad basins, the Project is a grant to the Basin countries. The NBA, as the regional representative of the nine Niger River Basin countries, is designated by its member countries to be the recipient and executing agency of this grant.

2. Project development objectives and key indicators

12. Project development objectives. The Project development objective is to provide the nine riparians an opportunity to define a transboundary framework for the sustainable devel-opment of the Niger River Basin, through strengthened capacity and better understanding of the Basin’s land and water resources. The Bank implemented components aim to strengthen NBA’s regional management capacity and improve data management capacity. With a better understanding of the land and water transboundary issues gained through the preparation of the TDA and SAP, the Bank implemented components will also support formalization of an inclusive decision-making processes for basin-level transboundary environmental planning to reverse land and water degradation in the Basin.

13. Performance indicators. The development objective’s achievement will be monitored through the three outcome indicators, which are further detailed in Technical Annex 3:

Permanent collaboration and dialogue established between NBA and the nine riparians yield harmonized regulatory policies for good integrated resources management prac-tice for sustainable resource utilization.

5

HydroNiger has established a harmonized system for real time data, knowledge and good practice (collection, compilation, analysis, and dissemination) sharing with the nine hydrological inter-state forecasting centers to support appropriate decisions.

The SAP identifies future sustainable development investments in the Basin, as formu-lated and validated by the nine riparians and NBA.

3. Project components

14. Introduction. Within the framework of the Shared Vision, the GEF Project addresses the land and water aspects of managing the Niger River Basin and focuses primarily on insti-tutional capacity building, data management and stakeholder involvement in tackling land and water degradation. This nine-country, five-year, single-phase, USD 13 million GEF-funded Project, implemented jointly by UNDP and the World Bank, will engage stakeholders at the local, national and regional levels to ensure that activities occur at the appropriate levels fol-lowing the principle of subsidiarity. Notably, the Project works extensively with the NBA in order to strengthen its ability to better serve the Basin countries, and fulfill NBA’s mandate “to promote cooperation among the member countries and to ensure integrated development in all fields.” The six Project components, the total costs, and the Implementing Agency (IA) support for the components are summarized below. Technical Annex 4 provides details of the component activities, and Technical Annex 5 summarizes the Project budget:

Component 1: Institution Building (USD 3.52 million, Bank implementation support): The component activities augment existing regional and national institutional capacity to manage and implement concurrent regional projects. Activities will focus on strengthening the regional and national institutional capacity throughout the duration of the five-year GEF Project, to promote good management practices and good gover-nance. At the regional level, a Program Management and Coordination Unit (Unité de gestion et de coordination des programmes, PMCU) will be established jointly with the concurrent AfDB program to optimize human and financial resources.

Component 2: Capacity Building and Public Awareness (USD 1.62 million, UNDP implementation support): The component activities are designed to raise environmen-tal awareness in target communities, facilitate consultations, and build capacity on is-sues relating to environmental management at the local, national and regional levels. The capacity building activities will synergize with the AfDB national- and local-level program activities and the national and local capacity building efforts of Component 5. The component includes a public education and awareness program and focused train-ing.

Component 3: Data and Knowledge Management (USD 1.13 million, Bank implemen-tation support): To complement the ongoing work on water and environment data col-lection that is being done in the Basin’s countries, the component will evaluate the sta-tus of the Basin’s hydrologic, environmental, and socioeconomic data, and identify the institutional modalities needed for data collection, sharing and dissemination for deci-sion-makers. The component includes developing an Environmental Information Sys-tem framework.

Component 4: Regional Forum (USD 0.38 million, UNDP implementation support): This component will facilitate the exchange of lessons and good practices from other

6

regional projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, expand on IW:Learn, and strengthen the rela-tionship with existing pan-African and international networks of Basin organizations, such as the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD/Sub-Regional Action Program), the Southern African Development Com-munity (SADC) Water Sector Coordination Unit, etc. With guidance from the two im-plementing agencies and support from the PMCU, the NBA will organize a forum to promote and strengthen these network relationships.

Component 5: Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Program. (USD 5.0 million, UNDP implementation support): This component aims to support two paralleling ef-forts in all nine Basin countries. The first assists communities in tackling environmen-tal problems, through the implementation of nine priority demonstration pilots. This will demonstrate good practices in managing land and water resources. In parallel to the demonstration pilots, a series of community-based, microgrant-supported interven-tions will be implemented, taking advantage of lessons emerging from the pilots’ demonstrations activities. This component will be managed by the national Project teams with relevant support and supervision from local organizations based in the field experienced in resource management activities, and will lead to immediate action on the ground.

Component 6: TDA and SAP Preparation (USD 1.35 million, Bank implementation support): The component activities will finalize the preliminary TDA conducted dur-ing Project preparation in the main stem countries (Benin, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria) by extending the diagnostic analysis process to the remaining four riparian countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad and Côte d’Ivoire). Through, and on the ba-sis of, this extended priority identification process, countries will prepare a SAP, coor-dinated by NBA. The SAP will focus on the land and water issues and complement the Shared Vision’s multi-sectoral SDAP.

4. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design

15. Lesson learned. The principal lessons learned from other regional GEF IW Projects and other non-GEF projects are taken into consideration in this Project’s design:

Ownership and constituency. Fostering the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, Project activities will engage vertically the regional, national and lo-cal constituency, and horizontally the water and land resource sectors.

Convening power and shared vision. The Basin countries have agreed that cooperation could eventually foster regional integration through the optimization of common in-vestments and joint ownership of shared resources. The Project design places empha-sis on strengthening the institutional capacities for improving convening powers to achieve a shared vision.

Sustainability, inclusivity, and participation. Engaging local communities through ac-cess to micro-finance, whether as grants or credit, will stimulate local ownership, con-tribute to cost-effectiveness and support sustainability by involving beneficiaries in design, implementation, and evaluation of Project activities on the ground.

Partnerships. Building broad partnerships is essential for a coordinated process and to support the long-term sustainability of the shared resource base. A concerted effort

7

was made to identify the institutional and component synergies between the GEF Project and the AfDB program in order to optimize human and financial resources.

Institutional capacity. The challenge is to bring about effective implementation, to en-sure sustainability and to achieve benefits for the most needy. This is particularly diffi-cult but all the more necessary when dealing with regional-scale issues and a regional organization. The Project includes actions to build capacity on the regional, national, and local level.

Project design lessons. Project planning, schedules, and assumptions must be realistic, and take into account beneficiaries’ needs. Local capacity strengthening must form a part of the Project design process. National activities should take into account the po-tential impacts on neighbors. Activities such as establishing wildlife reserves of global significance should be carefully designed to ensure that they are adequately under-stood by the local communities and that there are local as well as global benefits.

Monitoring and evaluation. The GEF International Waters conference in 2002 was at-tended by team members and several important lessons were highlighted, among them the importance of ensuring a stronger and more participatory monitoring and evalua-tion component, including collection of baseline data; and the inclusion of the local scientific, academic and research community in the Project so as to close the “loop” on scientific data underpinning environmental and hydrological decision-making.

Demonstration of good practices for integrated land and water management. Success-ful water resources management depends on good land management practices since a watershed’s elements are inter-related. Actions need to be coordinated basin-wide and in concert with the skills and culture of the different peoples living throughout the Basin. Demonstration of innovative, locally appropriate and cost-effective best prac-tices is an effective way to disseminate best practices for community adoption and replication through micro-finance.

5. Analysis of alternatives

16. Project rationale. Given the size of the Niger River Basin, and the state of its land and water resources, management actions must be coordinated at the regional level. One of the first steps is to improve the capacity of the institutions involved in managing the resources at all levels, and to enlarge the “team” addressing the problem by engaging the local communi-ties who face these issues daily.

17. Project alternatives. The following alternatives to the present Project’s design were considered and rejected:

Multi-phase approach to Project design and implementation. The originally conceived multi-phase project, with five countries in phase one, and the addition of another four in phase two, was determined to be inappropriate given expanded opportunities and greater capacities in the Basin. With the implementation of the GEF Project concur-rently with the SDAP, it was determined that a single project would be an optimal ap-proach in order to address the paralleling activities and outcomes.

Preparation of national programs. To address environmentally sustainable develop-ment of Niger River Basin resources, a transnational approach is needed. National pro-grams alone would not address the Basin’s transboundary issues or the need for coor-

8

dinated management of the Basin’s land and water resources. Moreover, preparation of nine separate national programs would be costly and require significant resources for coordination.

A few large-scale demonstration pilot projects. This option was considered but modi-fied, so that the Project will now assist countries in demonstrating available best prac-tices in the priority themes and sites identified through microgrant funding, for adop-tion and replication by local communities. The reason for such a modified approach is that it will allow greater participation and ownership by local stakeholders in land and water management, while benefiting from lessons learned.

Modality of project administration and management. During earlier phases of Project preparation, the Project considered and rejected both an external execution agency and a traditional project implementation unit. However, in light of NBA’s recent institu-tional audit, and the Project’s objective to strengthen the NBA’s institutional capacity and promote ownership, consultancy/technical assistance will be provided to the NBA-Executive Secretariat (NBA/ES) for the administrative and management modal-ity of Project administration.

C. IMPLEMENTATION

1. Partnership arrangements

18. Partnerships. The Bank is working with several institutions in differing degrees of collaboration for the Project. The Bank is jointly implementing the Project with UNDP in or-der to harness each agency’s comparative advantage for the benefit of the Basin countries. UNDP complements the Bank by bringing its on-the-ground presence, close partnership with governments, capacity building experience and work with community-based organizations. The Project has developed a strong partnership with the AfDB’s program in building syner-gies at various levels. These include: a common institutional setting where relevant between the two projects; and sharing staff in specific activities and harmonizing rules and procedures on issues pertaining to financial management, procurement and reporting. In addition, syner-gies with AfDB will be enhanced through joint team supervision missions as well as exchange of lessons and best practice in the implementation phase of the two projects. Furthermore, the Project will ensure close coordination with other partner program such as the French capacity building project to be implemented by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the Niger River Basin program currently being defined by the Canadian Agency for Interna-tional Development (CIDA).

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements

19. NBA’s institutional restructuring. The newly adopted NBA institutional chart pro-vides an adequate basis for the Project implementation body to fully operate inside NBA. A new technical department within NBA, once fully staffed, will serve as an operational basis for the institution to fully focus on operations and results delivery.

20. Supervision and guidance. At the regional level, final responsibility for the Project rests with the NBA’s governing bodies—the NBA/ES, the Council of Ministers, and subse-quently the Heads of State. However, practical supervision of the Project is the responsibility

9

of two consultative bodies, the Regional Steering Committee (Comité Régional de Pilotage, RSC) and the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee for the GEF Project (Sous-comité Scien-tifique et Technique, STS). As the primary supervisory, decision-making entity, the RSC will be responsible for providing oversight and guidance to the Project; reviewing annual budgets, quarterly expenditure reports, and procurement short-lists as appropriate; and monitoring Project progress in meeting key performance results indicators. The STS will act in a techni-cal advisory capacity to support the environmental management themes, through the capacity building, microgrant, and TDA/SAP components. The Project’s nine National Steering Com-mittees (Comité National de Pilotage, NSC) will supervise the Project at the national and lo-cal level, while ensuring linkages with ministries and NBA Focal Points.

21. Project implementation. Both the GEF and AfDB activities are executed jointly by the PMCU. The PMCU will be housed within the operations unit of the NBA Technical Depart-ment. The NBA/ES will be responsible for financial management, procurement, and adminis-tration, and the PMCU will support the NBA administratively and for technical aspects of Project execution. In order to augment NBA/ES capacity to facilitate regional projects, the PMCU will assume responsibility for knowledge transfer in financial management and pro-curement until the NBA/ES can meet the Procurement Capacity Assessment thresholds de-fined during appraisal. It is expected that at the end of the GEF Project, the NBA/ES will be well placed to coordinate execution of an investment. Aside from core staff recruited by the Project, consultants will be hired as needed. At the national level, Project implementation will be executed by National Project Teams (Equipes Nationales de Projet, NPT). Local-level Project execution will be overseen by the Local Coordination and Follow-up Committees (Comités Locaux de Coordination et de Suivi, LCC). The beneficiaries of Component 5, the Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Program, will be actively involved in the execution of activities.

22. Procurement, financial management, and disbursement. As noted above, the PMCU will provide support to NBA specific to the financial management, procurement, and administrative details of the Project. In addition to NBA’s chief accountant and finance offi-cer, the NBA/PMCU will be staffed with a procurement specialist and a Project Financial Of-ficer (PFO). The NPTs will have an administrative/accounting assistant, to support activities at the national level. The preliminary procurement (March 2002) and financial management capacity (January 2002) assessments of the NBA were updated during appraisal and recom-mended actions will be completed prior to effectiveness. The financial management and dis-bursement arrangements are detailed in Technical Annex 7 and the procurement arrange-ments in Technical Annex 8.

3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results

23. M&E. The NBA, through the PMCU, is responsible for ensuring that the Project’s im-plementation complies with its development objective and the performance and monitoring indicators outlined in the results framework (see Technical Annex 3). A Monitoring and Eval-uation Plan, based on the results and monitoring framework, an annual work plan and annual procurement plan, and reporting requirement details, is included as part of the Project Imple-mentation Manual (PIM). The client-prepared Environmental and Social Management Frame-work, (Cadre de Gestion Environnementale et Sociale, ESMF), as an integral part of the Mi-

10

crogrant Operational Manual (Manuel de Procédures du Programme de Microsubventions, MOM) provides guidance to ensure that the Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Program activities comply with environmental and social safeguards. During implementation, emphasis will be on development of process and environmental status indicators for long-term benefits and impacts, and on monitoring of SAP implementation. At the national level, the NPTs, to-gether with the LCCs, will design M&E indicators and collection methods adapted to local conditions, to be included in the country’s MOM. This will enable local and community stakeholders to efficiently monitor and evaluate the microgrant interventions in their own lo-cality. The M&E format will be revised by local and national teams with inputs from commu-nities, in the course of the Project as appropriate. The components’ implementation and any emerging issues will be reviewed regularly, and evaluated annually, by the RSC. The STS will contribute to ensuring the technical quality of the Project’s implementation and reporting.

4. Sustainability

24. Recipient commitment and ownership. The Niger River Basin countries recognize that they cannot rely upon unilateral approaches to development if they are to meet the chal-lenge of providing for a growing population from a reduced resource base. Funding of the Project and support from bilateral donors will serve a catalytic role to augment cooperation and the range of donor-supported initiatives for the NBA over the years. The Niger River Basin countries’ commitment is evident in their long-term participation in the NBA, support of the Shared Vision and their endorsement of the GEF Project. Part of this new cooperative approach is to revitalize the NBA and to seek support as they move towards cooperative man-agement at the regional, national, and local levels. The SAP will provide an environmental management framework and integrated platform with the SDAP for sustainable economic de-velopment and future investments in the Basin. The five stem countries participated in Project design, which was broadened to the other four riparian countries, thus allowing basin-wide participation, with the organizing of national and regional workshops, workgroups, and steer-ing committees. Technical Annex 15 will provide the individual letters of endorsement from the riparians’ IBRD governors.

25. Financial Sustainability. The Basin countries’ financial commitment is largely re-flected through their NBA contributions; current national commitments are confirmed at USD 2.14 million. More importantly, as national water policy reform work is integrated into a developing regional policy for the Basin’s resources, through the SDAP, it will further consol-idate and ensure the long-term financial sustainability of GEF Project outcomes. In addition, a number of donors are actively supporting work in the Niger River Basin either through the ri-parian countries or in the NBA.

26. Replicability. The demonstration pilot and microgrant-supported interventions are in-tended to be replicated throughout the Basin and therefore include the training of local com-munities in good practices to address priority themes and increase their level of environmental awareness.

11

5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects

27. Minimizing development, political, financial, and safeguard risks. The long-term success of regional scale, multi-country programs depends upon the participating countries’ willingness to jointly continue practicing the Project’s lessons and approaches beyond the life of the GEF Project, and the extent to which the local communities are engaged in decision-making, implementation and M&E of activities. Because the Project is coordinated with other compatible activities in the Basin, and the countries continue to be politically committed to cooperation, it is reasonable to expect successful and sustainable implementation. To mini-mize the business and financial risks, the Project’s institutional arrangements have been kept simple, as has the flow of funds, which passes through the NBA and the PMCU, while taking advantage of the Small Grants Programme (SGP) mechanism as for the microgrant disburse-ments. As identified in Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS), the Bank social and environ-mental safeguards will be addressed through the ESMF and the Microgrant Program’s MOM to mitigate potential safeguard risks. The NBA/ES has ultimate responsibility to ensure ac-countability and effective and efficient Project implementation to reduce risks.

28. Risks and risk mitigation measures. The Basin countries have agreed, and are com-mitted, to achieving the Project’s development objectives. They are also committed to sustain-ing its activities and implementing the lessons learned after Project completion. Technical An-nex 3, the Results and Monitoring Framework, outlines the critical assumptions to be heeded during Project implementation to minimize risks; and Technical Annex 12 details the evalua-tion of the critical risks as they correspond to the outcome indicators. The risk of launching an unsustainable project is rated as moderate (M - moderate).

6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants

29. Grant conditions. Grant conditions for effectiveness, as agreed to during appraisal, are summarized in Section D.7 below.

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

1. Economic and financial analyses

30. The Project builds on UNDP, Bank, and other donor-supported national activities in the Basin countries, by addressing the transboundary increment to these national activities. The Project will only finance component activities, which are co-financed by the countries through in-kind contributions to the NBA. The Project will fund only those increments needed to operationalize Project activities, and not NBA’s operations. Through its SAP, the Project will serve as a catalyst for further investments in the Basin. The Project’s funding, including its co-financing, both national in-kind contributions and donor-supported parallel funds as re-lating to the Project’s components, is summarized below:

12

Project Components Parallel and In-kindFinancing (USD m)

GEF(USD m)

Total(USD m)

Project BudgetComponent 1:

Institution Building 4.80 3.52 8.32

Component 2: Capacity Building and Public Awareness

1.81 1.62 3.43

Component 3: Data and Knowledge Manage-ment

5.05 1.13 6.18

Component 4: Regional Forum 0.00 0.38 0.38Component 5: Demonstration Pilots and Mi-

crogrant Program17.70 5.00 22.70

Component 6: TDA and SAP 0.58 1.35 1.93TOTALS 29.64 13.00 42.64Total Project Financing 29.64 13.00 42.64

31. Incremental costs. The incremental benefits and subsequent incremental costs needed to overcome transboundary barriers to regional and global benefits have specific capacity building implications and associated costs that lie beyond the domestic actions of the Basin countries. Technical Annex 9 provides the incremental assessment and benefits of the GEF Project and the table below provides a summary of the Project’s incremental costs:

Financing Baseline Scenario (USD m)

GEF Alternative(USD m)

Project Increment(USD m)

GEF Contribution imple-mented by UNDP

7.00 7.00

GEF Contribution imple-mented by World Bank

6.00 6.00

Parallel Financing 27.57 27.57Current Estimated In-kind Contribution

2.07 2.07

Total 29.64 42.64 13.00

32. Cost effectiveness. The Project’s design and scope is consistent with GEF guidelines, and its development objective corresponds to OP#9. The economic, social, and environmental integrity of the nine Basin countries depends upon the vitality and productivity of the Niger River. It is within the objective of the Project design to invest in the Basin’s regional and na -tional institutions and local stakeholders in order to strengthen their capacity for cooperative and sound decision-making. The value of such an investment can only be determined at Project completion with successful achievement of the outcome indicators. Regional and na-tional contributions to sustained dialogue, communications, and decision-making constitute the long-term costs and benefits for sustainable investments in the Basin.

2. Technical

33. Technical issues. Technical issues are discussed in Technical Annex 4, Detailed Project Description. Technical implementation details are also contained in the PIM drafted

13

by the NBA before appraisal and finalized before negotiations. Implementation details for Component 5 are found separately in the MOM.

3. Fiduciary

34. Financial management issues. As part of Project preparation, a Financial Manage-ment Assessment of the NBA was prepared in January 2002 by a Bank Financial Manage-ment Specialist. The assessment concluded that there was a need to recruit a procurement spe-cialist and PFO to assist the NBA. The Project’s institutional design and terms of reference explicitly identify the financial management requirements and responsibilities of the NBA/PMCU staff as they pertain to Project financial management during implementation. It was confirmed during appraisal that the PMCU, housed at NBA, would support the NBA financial management team in reporting on the GEF Project (UNDP and Bank components), the AfDB, and other NBA programs. For financial management issues, the Project will support the Project Coordinator, a procurement specialist, and PFO. All Terms of Reference have been confirmed during appraisal, with regionally competitive salaries estimated, and a training schedule established.

35. Procurement issues. A Bank Procurement Analyst conducted a Procurement Ca-pacity Assessment of the NBA in March 2002 (updated in January 2004) and during appraisal confirmed that the following would be undertaken: (i) recruiting a procurement specialist to the PMCU; (ii) training NBA staff and nine (national-level) administrative assistants in pro-curement; (iii) a procurement planning and contract management system integrated in the computerized financial management system to be installed at the PMCU, and (iv) reorganiza-tion of the filing of procurement-related documents.

36. Bank implemented activities are expected to consist of consultant services, includ-ing workshops and training. Procurement of goods will follow the Bank’s “Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated January 1995, and revised January and August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999. Procurement of services will follow the Bank’s “Guidelines for Selection and Employment of Consultants by Bank Borrowers” dated January 1997 and revised September 1997, January 1999, and May 2002. The Bank’s latest editions of standard bidding documents and contracts will be used. Technical Annexes 7 and 8 further detail the fiduciary elements of the Project.

4. Social

37. Community participation. The Project aims to have positive social and economic impacts by engaging local communities to use sustainable land and water management prac-tices in their localities. It is essential that regional development actions endorse the positive aspects of each riparian’s values, cultures and local environments, as well as basin-level soci-etal concerns, while ensuring that the transboundary use of land and water resources does not result in downstream environmental degradation. Building upon the public involvement and consultations during Project preparation, productive stakeholder participation will continue throughout Project implementation by engaging a range of organizations at all appropriate levels, such as community-based organizations, local authorities, the private sector, academic

14

institutions, and NGOs in the Project’s outreach activities and the search for negotiated solu-tions to environmental degradation.

38. Community-based activities. Community-based activities will include capacity building, outreach, and microgrants to support good resource management practices. The Demonstration Pilots and the Microgrant Program specifically target local communities in the Basin countries through demand-driven micro-interventions and a range of capacity and awareness building activities. With support from local specialists, the component will largely be implemented by local stakeholders who will also be actively involved in the evaluation the micro-project outcomes and lessons learned. Frequent workshops at the local, national and re-gional levels will serve as tools for broad participation of various stakeholders in the decision-making process on effective integrated land and water management.

39. The NBA, under the RSC’s supervision, will be responsible for ensuring the Project achieves its social development outcomes. As the Project addresses the need for im-proved management of the Basin’s resources through increased capacity, social development outcomes are mostly indirect and long-term. The short-term impacts of the priority demon-stration pilots and microgrant interventions, however, have specific positive outcome and out-puts on the community level, which will be identified as part of Component 5’s preparation, implementation, and evaluation. Project objectives, outputs and emerging issues will be regu-larly reviewed and evaluated through the monitoring and evaluation process, in the annual re-port, and by the supervision missions. Specifically, the monitoring and evaluation plan for Component 5 will contain precise indicators to measure the microgrants’ results and outcomes in communities and will include an impact evaluation. Likewise, the capacity building and public communication program in Component 2, will act as a gauge of the public’s ownership and perception of the Project’s performance and environmental and social impact.

5. Environment

40. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The ESMF pro-vides a logical, understandable overview of the environmental and social review process in the context of the Microgrant Program. As part of the Project preparation process, the prelimi-nary TDA in the first five stem countries provided the basis for ESMF. Key environmental is-sues were reviewed, symptoms/impacts identified, biodiversity and water resource priorities recognized, and the root causes and extent determined, through the participation of regional, national and local-level stakeholders in consultative workshops. The ESMF was designed and prepared by the NBA and local consultants. It is consistent with the requirements of OP 4.01, “Environmental Assessment.” Demonstration Pilots will be based on improving local commu-nity-based practices that can be replicated in other countries. Based on GEF microgrant proce-dures, the demonstration pilots will not finance land acquisition or activities that restrict ac-cess or assets of beneficiaries. The MOM and ESMF will be the tools for screening and clear-ing community-driven microgrant application in compliance with Bank safeguards policies. The MOM’s public information and education campaign on good management practices is in-cluded in the Microgrant Program. Project details were provided to the NBA and to all ripari-ans.

41. Microgrant Operational Manual (MOM). The MOM will provide selection and

15

screening criteria, notification, procedural rules for implementation, and institutional respon-sibilities for the Microgrant Program. At the same time, the MOM will provide guidance and tools for best practices and social and environmental mitigating measures, and at the regional level, the MOM will be a reference for the national screening process of cumulative impacts. Microgrant-supported interventions that do not meet the microgrant objectives and design cri-teria outlined in the MOM will not be approved. The ESMF and MOM are complementary documents. The MOM will also provide a mechanism to assess both individual and cumula-tive impacts of these interventions at the national level. To safeguard against any negative en-vironmental and social impacts from the microgrant-supported interventions, the ESMF will provide guidance within the parameters of NBA procedures, riparian environmental policies, and Bank safeguard policies.

6. Safeguard policies

42. ISDS. The ESMF was designed and prepared by the NBA and local consultants. It is consistent with the requirements of OP 4.01, “Environmental Assessment” and will ensure appropriate approval conditions and public disclosure. It is understood that the Project will not trigger Dam Safety OP 4.37. The Project will not support or trigger the OP for any activi-ties that include pest management (OP 4.09), nor is it expected that Project activities would disturb/affect cultural property (OPN 11.03), natural habitats (OP 4.04), or forests (OP 4.36). The Project will not trigger involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12), according to GEF SGP crite-ria, nor it will finance activities related: (i) to land acquisition; or (ii) loss of assets and re-sources. The Project will not involve any hydroelectric, irrigation, flood control, navigation, drainage, water and sewerage, industrial, or other similar projects involving the use of an in-ternational waterway. OP/BP 7.50, Projects on International Waterways, is triggered; how-ever, the nine riparian countries of the Niger River (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria) are beneficiaries of the Project, since the Project will be implemented in each of those countries. Institutional arrangements have been made to establish a NPT in each riparian country under NBA’s overall guidance and coordination for Project implementation. The recipient of the GEF grant will be the Niger Basin Authority, which is a common institution of the nine riparian countries of the Niger River Basin. Under these circumstances, the requirement of notification of other riparians does not apply. Social and environmental safeguard compliance is summarized in the table below:

Policy ApplicabilityEnvironmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) ● Yes ○ No ○ TBDNatural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDForestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) ○ Yes ● No ○ BD Pest Management (OP 4.09) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDCultural Property (OPN 11.03) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDIndigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDInvoluntary Resettlement (OD 4.12) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDSafety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBDProjects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP

7.50)● Yes ○ No ○ TBD

16

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60) ○ Yes ● No ○ TBD

7. Readiness:

43. Does the Project comply with all applicable Bank policies? Yes, conditions for ef-fectiveness include:

(a) The NBA/ES has recruited the GEF Project staff for the PMCU to include Re-gional Project Coordinator, a Project Financial Officer, and a Procurement Specialist, and/or the nine National Project Teams, including the National Co-ordinators and national Accountant Assistants;

(b) The NBA/ES has submitted an Manual of Procedures and PIM, in form and substance acceptable to the Bank;

(c) The NBA/ES has recruitment of an independent, external auditor;(d) The Recipient has made effective and available an administrative and financial

management system acceptable to the Bank;(e) The NBA/ES has appointed an internal auditor; and (f) The Council of Ministers has approved the Project.

44. Have any policy exceptions have been approved by management? Not Applicable

8. Compliance:

45. Can the Project’s readiness for implementation by loan/credit effectiveness be con-firmed in terms of:

(a) The availability of a satisfactory Project Implementation Plan or Manual or procedures? Draft prepared for negotiations.

(b) The institutional arrangements and staff with adequate skills for implementa-tion? Arrangements in place for effectiveness.

(c) The completeness and readiness of tender documents for the first year’s activi-ties? Documents complete by effectiveness.

17

Technical Annex 1:Country and Sector/Program Background

Hydrologic and socioeconomic context

1. The River. The Niger River is the third longest river in Africa—4,200 km with an av-erage annual flow of 180 km3. Its Basin covers 2.2 million km2, spread over nine countries—Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria. The hydrologically active part of the Basin is approximately 1.5 million km2. The Niger River is formed by two branches, which constitute its hydrological system. The main branch rises in the Guinea Dorsale and is reinforced by abundant tributaries coming from the Fouta Djallon Highlands in Guinea. Before the River enters the Inner Delta in Mali, its average annual flow is 45 km3. The Benue, second branch of the Niger River, rises from Cameroon and Chad and drains the eastern part of Nigeria before joining the Niger in Lokoja. Though the Benue con-tributes 50 percent of the Niger’s flow, the hydrological significance across the Basin is lower as it only flows through one country before joining the Niger River. The Project Map illus-trates the physical characteristics of the Basin. The Basin encompasses several climatic zones, and can be divided into four distinct hydro-geographic sub-systems:

Upper Niger extends over approximately 140,000 km² and contains three main tribu-taries—the Tinkisso, Milo and Nianadan Rivers.

Inner Delta in Mali comprises a complex and geographically extensive system of in-fluents, lakes, and floodplains that have undergone significant development.

Middle Niger covers 900,000 km². Upstream of the Niger Republic, the River receives inflow from tributaries in Burkina Faso, which include the Garouol, Dargol, and Sirba Rivers.

Lower Niger has a catchment area of 450,000 km² and receives several major tribu-taries including the Sokoto, Kaduna, and Benue Rivers.

2. Rainfall and drought. Since the severe droughts of the 1970s, the riparian countries have sought to protect themselves from the negative impacts of drought. The additional com-plexities of international boundaries transecting the Basin compound the management of the River’s natural variability. Seasonal variability alone results in frequent extremes in flow, ei-ther as droughts or floods. However, for the past three decades the Sahel has been experienc-ing persistent drought, resulting in drastically changed annual mean rainfall patterns and a southward shift of rainfall zones by 100 km. Drought and reduced water availability have forced rural communities, such as farmers and cattle herders, to migrate south to more humid conditions, increasing pressure on the remaining floodplains and wetlands. With this migra-tion, traditional resources management has given way to survival needs that are ecologically unsustainable and lead to declining biodiversity and productivity of natural habitats.

3. Socioeconomic situation. The Basin population is young—44 percent of inhabitants are younger than 15 and growth rates are just less than 3 percent. Low life expectancy (rang-ing from 43 to 49 in the five main stem countries) means that the workforce continually loses members who are at their prime in terms of experience and productivity. The population is concentrated along the Niger River and its tributaries. The Basin’s rural economy depends heavily upon natural resources. However, the environment is under severe stress, threatening

18

livelihoods and increasing the rural population’s social and economic vulnerability. Poverty and environmental degradation are leading to increasing urbanization as rural populations mi-grate in search of employment. In many parts of the Basin, inland navigation provides essen-tial transport for people and goods and is important economically. Navigability is dependent on flow regulation by the dams and is influenced by the level of sedimentation as well as the presence of aquatic weeds. Energy production is primarily derived from two dams, the Kainji and Jebba. Technical Annex 13 provides a socioeconomic summary of the Basin.

4. CAS and PRSPs. Most of the Niger River Basin countries have finalized their PRSPs and are now working to implement these first-generation strategies through multifaceted fi-nance packages. The Project is consistent with the PRSP and CAS general sector goals to in-crease sustainable management practices, strengthen institutional capacity and reduce poverty. The Project’s development objective is to strengthen the capacity for sustainable management of the Basin’s resources, most directly addressing poverty through the capacity building and microgrant components, which involve local communities and environmental priorities identi-fied through the preliminary TDA. The status of the CAS and PSRP for each country is de-tailed below and summarized in Table 1.

Benin. The CAS identifies environmental degradation and inadequate water supply as one focal area to fight poverty in Benin. Under the Public Expenditure Reform Adjust-ment Credit an integrated water resources strategy has commenced, and within the en-vironmental sector, there is an opportunity to consolidate investments in environmen-tal management and align them with priorities of the Minister of Environment. The CAS supports the GEF Project’s objective to improve environmental management ca-pacity.

Burkina Faso. The CAS supports Burkina Faso in implementing its PRSP, with em-phasis on strengthening institutional capacity.

Cameroon. The CAS supports the PRSP, which highlights the need for environmental sustainability, and in the short term completion of the NEAP.

Chad. The CAS highlights strengthening capacity for natural resource management, and is in line with the GEF Project to support community-based integrated ecosystem management, promotion of environmentally sustainable agricultural techniques, and capacity building at the central and decentralized levels for national resource manage-ment and environmental governance. The focus during the CAS period will be on strengthening local capacity for community-based integrated ecosystem management and providing co-financing for micro-projects with positive impact on the global envi-ronment. The CAS supports making optimal use of international surface and ground-water resources through the participation in the NBA. The NEAP has been prepared and is awaiting validation from the Government.

Cote d’Ivoire. The CAS mentions protecting biodiversity of the country. It also in-cludes the following performance benchmarks: (i) enacting water resource manage-ment law; and (ii) implementing priority environmental policies based on the NEAP.

Guinea. The CAS notes that Guinea’s long-term growth will require that major envi-ronmental problems be addressed, as the deterioration of natural resources resulting from soil erosion, and is likely to dampen long-term growth prospects.

Mali. The CAS supports the government’s development strategy to implement natural resource management programs and to exploit the country’s irrigation potential. In

19

1999 the adoption of the NEAP strengthened the policy on environment with emphasis on strengthening national capacity, restoring degraded areas, and supporting a perma-nent system of control and monitoring of the environment.

Niger. The CAS supports strengthening institutional and individual capacity within and outside the government at the regional and local levels. The CAS also earmarks water as one of the three pillars of Niger’s development strategy (the other two are hu-man capital development and exploitation of regional growth opportunities). Three Projects – Water Resource Management Review, Water Supply, and Private Irrigation Promotion – were recently launched and are in line with the objectives of the GEF Project.

Nigeria. The Interim Country Strategy Note identifies, as one of the three pillars of the Country Strategy, the need for empowering local communities to play an active role in their own development, noting that agriculture and the environment are areas in which to rebuild analytical knowledge for future Project lending.

Table 1: Summary of CAS and PRSP Country Documents

Country CAS Doc. No.

Type Date of Lat-est Publica-

tionCAS: Summary of Sector Issues

Document Number/

Type

Date of Latest PRSP

Benin 26054-BEN

CAS July 16, 2003 This Interim CAS identifies environmental degrada-tion and inadequate water supply as focal areas to fight poverty in Benin.

25475 February 2, 2003

Burkina Faso

21285-BUR

CAS March 11, 2003

Supports Burkina Faso in implementing its strategy in the PRSP. Recognizes necessity for sustainable management of natural resources for combating rural poverty. Also promotes increasing productivity of rural assets through water, conservation and re-newal of natural resources, health, and education.

24809 October 8, 2002

Cameroon 2655-CM CAS August 14, 2003

Highlights need for environmental sustainability, through completion of National Environmental Ac-tion Plan (NEAP).

26243 July 8, 2003

Chad 26938-CD

CAS November 12, 2003

Supports continued preparation of the NEAP and in the context of oil exploitation to promote economic development, a comprehensive framework for envi-ronmental management.

26912 October 7, 2003

Côte d’Ivoire

24168 Interim CAS May 9, 2002 Highlights sustainable growth with a focus on re-newable natural resources and environmental pro-tection.

23835 March 13, 2002

Guinea 25925 CAS June 10, 2003

This CAS notes that for long-term growth Guinea must address major environmental problems; dete-rioration of natural resources resulting from soil erosion is likely to dampen long-term growth prospects.

24431 July 1, 2002

Mali 25663-MLI

CAS July 7, 2003 Structured around two major categories, sustain-able human development, and stable economic growth. A first draft of the NEAP develops institu-tional framework for environmental planning and management.

25462 February 13, 2003

Niger 25203-NIR

CAS January 21, 2003

Earmarks water as one of the three pillars of Niger’s’ development strategy and recognizes that efforts are needed to reverse environmental degra-dation.

23483 January 16, 2002

Nigeria 23633-UNI

(Interim Country

Strategy Up-date)

February 13, 2002

2000 Interim Country Strategy Note identifies em-powering local communities to play an active role in their own development, as one of the three pil-lars in the Interim Strategy.

Interim Strategy Progress Report

May 20, 2004

5. Key sector issues. The main sector issues in the Basin include:

20

Inadequate land and water management policy framework and institutional capacity. Currently national institutions have a short-term and sector-specific focus, and in some cases have yet to develop or implement a policy on land and water resources manage-ment. An integrated regionally-based land and water management policy framework is needed, together with the institutional capacity to work in an integrated fashion at the regional, national, and local levels. Public participation in decision-making is low, and environment-centered public education and awareness programs are infrequent. Legal and policy frameworks need to be harmonized at the regional level and information flows established so that the potential for development in the Basin can be realized.

Degradation of renewable resources. The lack of an adequate land and water manage-ment policy framework has contributed to significant degradation of renewable re-sources, from the decreases in fish stock—with the near disappearance of certain species, due to disturbances in the River’s flow regime and over-fishing—to inappro-priate agricultural land management practices such as bush clearing, overgrazing, fer-tility loss, poor drainage systems and utilization of zones close to the River, which have led to extensive land and water degradation. Though there is insufficient data on timber exploitation in the upper Basin, in the Sahelian countries deforestation contin-ues due to the demand for wood for domestic purposes, and in the lower Basin, exten-sive woodlands have been cleared for farming.

Energy issues. Firewood and charcoal meet approximately 80 percent of the Basin’s energy requirements. Together with demands for commercial logging, this has resulted in extensive deforestation and erosion in the Basin, particularly in the more arid zones in Mali and Niger. Though the Niger River Basin has a high hydroelectricity potential, and some infrastructure is already in place to tap this potential, most notably in Nige-ria where hydroelectricity generated by Kainji and Jebba dams comprises 22 percent of the national electricity supply, this potential is not fully realized. In the Lower Niger Delta in Nigeria, oil exploration is threatening mangroves. Alternative sources of energy in general have received insufficient attention in the Basin.

6. Sector issues to be addressed. The key sector issues contribute to escalating and nega-tive consequences on land and water resources. At present, several major barriers need to be removed in the participating countries if the NBA is to make progress in its attempts to secure a sustainable future for the Niger River Basin ecosystem. The NBA member countries recog-nize that future development will require more effective cooperation and coordination. To be-gin to address the key sector issues, the Project design for the Bank implemented components includes a series of integrated activities to establish an operational baseline for improved man-agement of the land and water resources. These include:

Enhancing existing capacity regionally, nationally, and locally. Strengthened regional, na-tional, and local capacity to address the key sector issues and sustainable resource man-agement will reinforce the principle of subsidiarity.

Improving data management and understanding of the Basin’s resources. It is essential for the data from all these basin-wide activities to be harmonized and consolidated, so that data collected nationally and regionally has a common “language.” A coordinated, harmonized effort is necessary in terms of collection at the national level and dissemi-nation to end-users to ensure informed decision-making.

21

Finalizing the TDA and preparing the SAP. The preliminary TDA identified the priority transboundary environmental issues. The TDA will be finalized to include the remain-ing four countries not originally provided for within the PDF-B analyses and regional workshop: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, and Côte d’Ivoire. A plan of strategic ac-tions, the SAP, pertaining to legal, policy and institutional reforms and investments for sustainable land and water management will be developed; in coordination with the SDAP, it will provide a framework for integrated sustainable development of the entire Basin.

7. Project origins. The origin of the GEF Project was a request to UNDP and the Bank from the Niger River Basin countries, through the NBA, to provide assistance in preparing, with GEF support, an integrated framework for the Basin’s land and water resources. The NBA’s request for this Project builds on a number of donor-supported projects and initiatives, which have often occurred in isolation of each other, and without recognition of the value of cumulative benefits. Project preparation provided an opportunity to begin identifying the root causes of resource degradation as well as coordination mechanisms for future development in the Basin. Initial consultations began at the regional, national, and local level in the five stem countries (Benin, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Nigeria). Initially, these five countries were se-lected with a two-phased Full Sized Project in mind—to include the five main stem countries in the first FSP of four years, and then add the remaining four off-stem countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, and Côte d’Ivoire) in a second Full Sized Project. As the Strategic Vi-sion/SDAP has included all nine countries in a parallel process of preparing the Basin for fu-ture economic development planning at the Basin level, the PDF-B process decided to enlarge the scale and funding envelope of the first FSP to include all nine countries, and to eliminate the second proposed Full Sized Project.

8. Project preparation. Project preparation and design has been based on a series of se-quential activities, a series of diagnostic studies, and the PDF-A and PDF-B-supported activi-ties. Initially, outcomes from a set of diagnostic studies that have been undertaken in the last 5 years by the NBA include:

Five country diagnostic assessments compiled by ten independent national consultants during 2001 in line with common terms of reference to ensure systematic identification of key transboundary environmental issues.

Five national workshops held in 2001 to discuss findings of national consultants and is-sues raised by stakeholders dependent on resources of the Niger River Basin. These workshops also tabled ideas for demonstration pilot activities.

Two regional meetings to discuss transboundary issues and the TDA and proposed Project Brief.

Numerous studies compiled over the last two decades (e.g., studies by JALDA, USAID, ORSTOM, and SOGREAH, etc).

9. The GEF Project has been designed to collaborate with other initiatives within and outside the Niger River Basin, and will focus on the environmental aspects of transboundary management of the Basin’s resources, through strengthened capacity building on land and wa-ter issues. The Project will complement the broader international waters work the nine Basin countries are undertaking assisted by the Bank, with special attention to the Africa Integrated

22

Land and Water Initiative (ALWMI) and other GEF international waters projects in the region in the Lake Chad, and Volta, Senegal and Nile River Basins.

10. Public involvement. The current Project proposal will build on the public involvement that began during the preparatory process under the PDF-A and PDF-B. Through the PDF-B, Basin stakeholders—including the NBA, national governments, local communities, NGOs, and international agencies—contributed towards finalizing the Project Brief. During prepara-tion, provision of facilities for e-mail exchange, national and regional workshops, meetings, and interviews during visits to all the Basin states by the NBA’s Chief Technical Advisor, the GEF Focal Point, and NBA representation were all part of stakeholder participation. This in-cluded a broad array of stakeholders from local communities, local and sub-national govern-ments and institutions, and the NGO community. The participation effort was met with vary-ing degrees of success in the five main stem countries. In some, it was difficult to involve lo-cal communities at workshops; however, many of the communities were visited during the in-terviews carried out by the national consultants.

23

Technical Annex 2:Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or Other Projects

Sector Issue Project Latest Supervision

(PSR) Ratings2

(Bank-financed projects only)

Bank-financed Implementation Progress (IP)

DevelopmentObjective (DO)

1: Regional: Africa Region Lake Chad Basin GEF Project S SAfrica Region Senegal River Basin GEF Project TBD TBDAfrica Region Regional Environmental and Informa-

tion Management Program (2)TBD TBD

2: Rural Water SupplyBenin Rural Water Supply and Sanitation S SBurkina Faso Community-Based Rural Project S SMali PNIR S SGuinea Third Water Supply and Supplemental S S3: Water Resources StrategyNíger Water Resource Management Sector

StrategyS S

Nigeria Water Resource Management Strategy S SMali National Water Resource Strategy

PreparationTBD TBD

4: Water SuplíNigeria Urban Water Sector Reform Project I TBD TBDNíger Water Sector Project S SBurkina Faso Ouagadougou Water Supply Project S S5: Agriculture and Rural Deve-lopment

Chad Agricultural Services and Producer Or-ganizations Project

TBD TBD

Níger Community Action Program S SNigeria Fadama

Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentS S

6: Other development agenciesUNEP/UNDP Niger-Nigeria Shared Watersheds TBD TBDUNDP/UNEP Lake Volta GEF NA NA

2 “S” Satisfactory PSR Rating

24

Technical Annex 3:Results and Monitoring Framework

A. Results FrameworkProject Development

Objective Results Indicators Use of ResultsInformation

GEF Global Environmental Objective: Reduce and prevent transboundary water-related and environmental degradation, prevent land degradation, protect globally significant biodiversity, through sustainable, informed and cooperative integrated manage-ment of the Basin, while ensuring the public’s greater involvement in the Basin’s decision-making process

Project DevelopmentObjectiveProvide the nine riparians an opportunity to define a transboundary framework for the sustainable devel-opment of the Niger River Basin, through strength-ened capacity and better understanding of the Basin’s land and water re-sources.

(a) Permanent collaboration and dialogue established between NBA and the 9 riparians yield harmonized regulatory policies for good integrated resources management practice for sustainable resource uti-lization.

(b) HydroNiger has an established harmonized system for real time data, knowledge and good practice (collection, compilation, analysis, and dissemina-tion) sharing with the 9 national HydroNiger cen-ters to support appropriate decisions.

(c) The SAP identifies future sustainable development investments in the Basin, is formulated and vali-dated by the 9 riparians and NBA.

- To what extent do riparians partici-pate? (level, quality) in dialogue and co-ordination?

- Are decisions ac-tion-oriented?

- Are data shared in real time and is co-ordination system viable and appropri-ate? What else is needed to make it effective?

- How to structure the SAP to serve as the most effective tool for investment mo-bilization in the Basin?

Intermediate ResultsOne per Component Results Indicators for Each Component Use of Outcome Mon-

itoringComponent 1(WB managed)1. An institutional and management system estab-lished and operational for the Project.

1a) Implementation institutions operating, in line with the Administrative and Financial Manual of Proce-dures, by PY1: 1 regional (PMCU), 9 national (NPTs), and consultation structures: 1 Regional Steering Committee (RSC and STS), 9 National Steering Committees (NSCs) and at least 9 Local Coordination Committees (LCCs) (corresponds to Activities 1.1-1.2).

1b) A launch workshop successfully completed by PY1; and NBA’s regional and national staff in-creased capacities through Project management and financial training (1.3).

- Is more staff train-ing needed?

- Are the correct in-centives in place for riparians/NBA to work through PMCU and NPTs?

Component 2(UNDP managed)2. Enhanced local, national capacity and increased awareness of the chal-lenges and issues in the Basin.

2a) Diversified information sources available (radio, print material, school programs, workshops, etc.); stakeholders (notably youth) aware of Basin soil and water resources and how to engage in local and national decision-making (2.1).

2b) Increased number of national and local stakeholders promote community participation in Microgrant Pro-gram; and actively participate in the SAP develop-ment process through workshops to share data and lessons learned (2.2).

- Are training and messages effective and internalized by target groups?

- Are delivery mecha-nisms and communi-cation channels to be realigned?

- What type of incen-tives can be used to encourage national

25

and local cadres to actively engage lo-cal-level outreach?

Component 3(WB managed)3. Improved regional, na-tional, local data and infor-mation management; in-creased dialogue and ex-change within and between riparians.

3a) A national-level framework for land and water data and Basin degradation indicators assessed by NBA and riparians; a network for a communication and information protocol established (3.1-3.2).

3b) Increased number of local, national, and regional specialists participating in Environmental Informa-tion System through data exchange and coordinated basin-wide decision-making (3.3-3.5).

3c) Basin-wide land and water data generated for the proposed SDAP economic model (3.6).

- Is there will to stan-dardize data proto-col?

- What are the possi-ble obstacles to sharing across barri-ers? Is adjustment possible now?

Component 4(UNDP managed)4. Regional linkages and networks established and operational.

4a) Assessment of lessons learned and good practice completed with a report disseminated to all stake-holders and riparian representatives; and select NBA staff members’ have completed a study tour to strengthen linkages and have identified potential coordinated action strategies to benefit the Niger River Basin (4.1-4.2).

4b) Exchanges promoted between Basin SGP and the Project’s Microgrant Program (4.1).

4c) Effective regional linkages between existing inter-national waters programs and the Project estab-lished at a 1-week regional forum; findings shared, lessons learned and action strategies regarding land and water degradation across regional Basin com-munities determined among participants (4.3).

- To what extent does the forum create any sustainable lessons learned for land and water management practices?

- What type of fol-low-up and support should be consid-ered?

Component 5(UNDP managed)5. Demonstration pilot projects applied, validated and packaged for scaling-up and microgrant program executed and documented.

5a) Experiences, models, and lessons learned on good practice for land and water degradation reversal from the 9 demonstration pilots documented and shared (5.1-5.4).

5b) Appropriate administrative and financial mecha-nism as of PY2 for microgrants disbursement in place (SGP/UNOPS and UNDP/UNOPS) (5.3).

5c) Community groups have received microgrants, exe-cuted priority actions and adopted new practice on the basis of lessons learned from implementing mi-crogrants (and other local projects) (5.3, 5.4).

5d) Increased awareness of Basin environmental challenges in local community groups and stakeholders (5.5).

- Do the demonstra-tions provide out-comes, modalities for scaling up?

- Do community groups have the proper incentive to adopt new resource management prac-tice?

Component 6(WB managed)6. Transboundary Diagnos-tic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP) completed and dis-seminated.

6a) 9 country TDA are completed, validated and find-ing are disseminated (6.1).

6b) SAP, based on TDA, is developed, disseminated, and discussed by stakeholders and validated (6.2-6.3).

6c) Donors make commitments to support (fund) SAP (6.4).

- How should the out-comes from Demon-stration Pilots and TDA be incorpo-rated in the SAP process?

- Do stakeholders have the proper in-centive to adopt and support SAP and as-sociated investments in the long run?

26

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)Outcomeindicators

(a) Permanent collabo-ration and dialogue es-tablished between NBA and the 9 ripari-ans yield harmonized regulatory policy, good integrated re-sources management practice for sustainable resource utilization.

NBA mandate, preparation of a Shared Vision, and current NBA operations

Actions needed to achieve intent of outcome indicator identified by 9 ri-parians, based on the strategic process and as de-fined by the Project Annual Work Plan and the PIM

Component activi-ties executed by 9 riparians as defined in Project Annual Work Plan for PY2 and the PIM Gaps in current regulatory policy addressed to achieve outcome indicator

Component activ-ities executed by 9 riparians as de-fined in Project Annual Work Plan for PY3 and the PIM to achieve outcome indicator

Component activ-ities executed by 9 riparians as de-fined in Project Annual Work Plan for PY4 and the PIM to achieve outcome indicator

9 riparians fully en-gaged in ongoing and collaborative process in achiev-ing outcome indica-tor

- PIM and Annual Work Plan- Project monitoring and evaluation re-ports- National policy and regulations- Final report on good management practices

- Workshop- Training- Evaluations

DC: NBA

S: RSC

(b) HydroNiger has es-tablished harmonized system for real time data, knowledge and good practice (collec-tion, analysis, etc.) sharing with the 9 na-tional HydroNiger centers to support ap-propriate decisions.

Existing national and basin-wide land and water data, networks and current basin-level indi-cators, current basin-level pro-tocols

Key regional, na-tional, and local environmental and water profession-als and data shar-ing national re-sources identified in the 9 riparians and training pro-grams and work-shops prepared and commenced

Stakeholders from the 9 riparians par-ticipate in training programs and workshops; bene-fits from a coordi-nated process and data and informa-tion sharing frame-work identified

Information and data sharing net-works begin to in-corporate good practices from Project compo-nent activity out-comes

Professional in-formation and data sharing net-work established and operating, with an interac-tive dialogue be-tween the 9 ripari-ans

The basin-wide net-work has a greater appreciation of river hydrology, good practices, and informed decision-making on Basin development paths through dialogue and consultation among riparians

- Project monitoring and evaluation re-ports

- Information and Data network- Workshop- Training- Evaluations

DC: NBA

S: RSC

(c) SAP complement-ing the SDAP to iden-tify future sustainable development invest-ments in the Basin is formulated and vali-dated by the 9 ripari-ans and NBA.

Preliminary TDA

Preliminary TDA updated and vali-dated; TDA for 4 remaining coun-tries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad and Côte d’Ivoire) com-menced

TDA extension in 4 remaining countries and national and lo-cal consultations conducted

Preliminary TDA and in 4 remain-ing countries con-solidated; regional work-shop validates full TDA results

SAP elaborated on the basis of TDA and large consultations, in-cluding (1) a syn-thesis of threats on the environ-ment, root causes and perception; (2) the identifica-tion of good man-agement practice; and (3) definition of national and transboundary priorities; and (4) the identifica-tion of stake-holder responsi-bilities and neces-sary capacity building

9 riparians validate SAP and priority actions for future investments at lo-cal, national and re-gional level, and so-licit donors to sup-port SAP. Decision-makers use SAP to orient actions and investments

- Completed TDA- Validated SAP

- Workshops- Regional, national and local consulta-tions - TDA and SAP Progress reports

DC: NBA

S: RSC

1a) Implementation in-stitutions operating in line with the Adminis-trative and Financial

Pool of qualified people and insti-tutions in the Basin

- 1/1 regional,- 7/9 national, and - 5/9 local LCC operating with all

- 100% regional and national- 7/9 local LCCs operating with all

All regional, na-tional and local Project institu-tions operational

All regional, na-tional and local Project institu-tions operational

All regional, na-tional and local Project institutions operational

- TORs and contracts- NPT reports- FMRs- Training materials

- Archives - M&E and supervi-sion missions

DC: NBA

S: RSC

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)Manual of Procedures by PY1: 1 regional (PMCU), 9 national (NPTs), and consulta-tion structures: 1 re-gional (RSC and STS), 9 national (NSCs) and at least 9 local (LCC) (corresponds to Activi-ties 1.1-1.2).

office equipment procured

office equipment and transport pro-cured

1b) A launch work-shop successfully completed by PY1; and NBA’s regional and national staff in-creased capacities through Project man-agement and financial training (1.3).

Identified (dur-ing preparation stage) regional, national institu-tions to be en-gaged in Project implementation

- Launch work-shop- Regional, na-tional workshops planned- 50% regional and national Project management train-ing

100% regional and national Project management train-ing completed

Management, monitoring and evaluation skills improved

Management, monitoring and evaluation skills improved

Management, moni-toring and evalua-tion skills improved

- Launch workshop report- Quarterly and an-nual regional and na-tional training re-ports- Regional and na-tional training mate-rial

M&E and supervi-sion missions

DC: PMCU

S: NBA

2a) Diversified infor-mation sources avail-able (radio, print mate-rial, school programs, workshops, etc.); stakeholders (notably youth) aware of Basin soil and water re-sources and how to en-gage in local and na-tional decision-making (2.1).

Baseline/sample on knowledge and information available at local target group level (to be ob-tained by Com-munication and Education Spe-cialist in PY1)

- TORs for train-ing programs fi-nalized- 100% training program prepared- Baseline knowl-edge of awareness on Basin environ-mental issues pub-lished

National awareness programs designed

- 30% radio, school, commu-nity program, and print rollout im-plemented- M&E participa-tory mechanism developed to measure message internalization

- 60% radio, school, commu-nity program, and print rollout im-plemented- Program M&E applied

- 100% radio, school, community program, and print rollout implemented- Evaluation allows Program’s effec-tiveness and effi-ciency measure-ment - Level of aware-ness of Basin envi-ronment trans-boundary issues in-creased against baseline

- Baseline - M&E reports and participatory evalua-tion - Communication agency archives (ra-dio programs and printed materials)- School program re-port- Local and national workshop reports

- Campaign supervi-sion- Evaluation Survey- Radio transmission recordings - Baseline survey- Consultation of ra-dio recordings, school programs and printed materials used

CD: Regional Communications Specialist andCapacity Building Specialist

S: Regional Coor-dinator

2b) Increased number of national and local stakeholders to pro-mote community par-ticipation in Micro-grant Program, and ac-tively participating in SAP development process through local data sharing and work-shops to share lessons learned (2.2).

- SGP infra-structure - Preliminary TDA

- Regional training materials prepared and tested - PY1 work plan and training exe-cuted- Regional stake-holders have in-creased under-standing of their role in commu-nity-driven devel-opment, micro-grant program pro-motion and SAP elaboration

- 5/9 materials for national training on community devel-opment, microgrant program, and par-ticipation in SAP elaboration pre-pared and tested- Stakeholders ap-ply community-driven development techniques and in-formation in the field

- 9/9 national training imple-mented - 5/9 materials for local training on community devel-opment, micro-grant program, and participation in SAP elabora-tion prepared and tested- Relevant data on community condi-tions and percep-tions, and demon-stration pilot

- 9/9 national training work-shops executed - 9/9 local train-ing materials on community devel-opment, micro-grant program, and participation in SAP elabora-tion prepared and tested- 12x5 local train-ing workshops for informing stake-holders on com-munity driven de-

- 12x9 local training workshops on com-munity develop-ment, microgrant program, and par-ticipation in SAP elaboration exe-cutedCommunity infor-mation integrated in SAP

- Regional, national, and local training program reports - Draft TDA- Draft SAP

- Training and workshops partici-pants list- Survey - M&E - Participant in-volvement in Com-ponents 5 and 6

DC: Capacity Building Specialist

S: Regional Coor-dinator

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)projects and mi-crogrants col-lected

velopment and participation in development of SAP - Relevant data on community condi-tions and percep-tions, and demon-stration pilot projects and mi-crogrants inte-grated in 9-coun-try TDA

3a) National-level framework for land and water data and in-dicators assessed by NBA and riparians; and an information and communications proto-col established (3.1-3.2).

Existing na-tional and basin-wide land and water data, net-works (Hy-droNiger), the 9 national Hy-droNiger cen-ters, and current basin-level indi-cators, if any; current basin-level protocols

- 9 national assess-ments of Basin water, environ-mental and socioe-conomic data com-pleted - Consolidated as-sessment report on national informa-tion and data and management and format (diagnostic) available in Eng-lish and French

- Key indicators on environmental and water degradation established - Basin-wide net-work and strategic Environmental In-formation with sus-tainable modalities for local, national and regional data collection, integra-tion and basin-wide dissemination, es-tablished at valida-tion workshop

Analytical work on Basin indica-tors

- - - Diagnostic strategy- Sectoral Reports- Strategic assess-ment of data man-agement- National sectoral reports (PY1)- Consolidated re-gional report - Analytical report on indicators - Communication and information pro-tocol

- Research- Working Group meetings

DC: Water Re-sources Specialist andEnvironmental Specialist

S: RSC

3b) Increased number of local, national, and regional specialists participating in Envi-ronmental Information System through data exchange; coordinated basin-wide decision-making (3.3 -3.5).

Existing local, national, and re-gional data shar-ing system in Basin

- Stakeholders from the 9 ripari-ans identified for training- National training programs and workshop on pro-cedures, analysis and data sharing prepared and com-menced

Identified stake-holders from the 9 riparians participate in regional training program and work-shops on synthesis for data sharing dissemination and decision-making

- Local, national and regional level information shar-ing networks op-erate upon proto-col - Inter-state dia-logue and deci-sion-making coor-dinated based upon collected, analyzed and shared data

Information and data sharing net-work fully operat-ing and inter-state dialogue ongoing

Information and data sharing net-work fully operat-ing and inter-state long-term planning

- Training reports- Meeting reports from 9 riparians

- Quality review of EIS data

DC: Water Re-sources Specialist andData Management Specialist

S: NBA

3c) Basin-wide land and water data gener-ated for the proposed SDAP economic model (3.6).

Relevant current economic, land and water pa-rameter mea-sures on basin-wide scale

Economic, land and water parame-ters evaluated for the proposed econometric model to integrate envi-ronmental dimen-sion

Economic, land and water parameters available for the proposed econo-metric model to in-tegrate environ-mental dimension

- Based on the SDAP, economet-ric model estab-lished at basin level - Model program-ming staff recruit-ment and training

If functioning, the econometric model results es-tablished and pri-ority water and Basin land issues identified

If completed, the model effectiveness to support planning and basin-wide de-cision-making eval-uated

Model outputs Land and water data in the Basin

DC: Water Re-sources Specialist andData Management Specialist

S: NBA

4a) Assessment of Available Other regional Synthesis report on - 9 riparians’ rep- - Linkages estab- Relevant basin man- - Study tour report - Notes and informa- CD: Data Man-

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)lessons learned and good practice com-pleted with a report disseminated to all stakeholders and ripar-ian representatives; se-lect NBA staff mem-bers’ have completed study tour to strengthen linkages and identified potential coordinated action strategies to benefit the Niger River Basin (4.1-4.2).

lessons learned on ongoing ini-tiatives

transboundary projects’ field im-pacts and lessons identified, notably GEF and other in-ternational basin networks

parallel experiences disseminated to 9 riparians and study tour prepared

resentatives study tour completed- Participants have greater awareness of common Basin is-sues and possible means to address them - Trip report dis-seminated

lished at study tour consolidated by participants- Lessons learned shared and dis-seminated to stakeholders in the Basin- Lessons learned and exchanged with NBA na-tional counter-parts

agement strategies applied to the Project

- Annual work plan for Basin national portion

tion collection dur-ing study tour

agement Specialist and Communica-tion Specialist

S: NBA

4b) Exchanges pro-moted between Basin SGP and the Project’s Microgrant Program (4.1).

SGP’s interna-tional bi-annual meeting

- Synthesis of cur-rent UNDP-SGP experiences - Strategy building linkages between GEF national co-ordinators/micro-grant specialists and SGP national coordinators estab-lished

- Data and informa-tion shared and ac-tive mutual support between national coordinators/micro-grant specialists and SGP national coordinators- Microgrant Pro-gram strategy in place and first pro-posals selected based on SGP shared experiences

- Active mutual support between national coordina-tors/microgrant specialists and SGP national co-ordinators- Microgrant Pro-gram strategy im-plemented based on SGP shared experiences

- Exchanges and basin-wide active mutual support between Project and SGP - SGP lessons learned applied to Microgrant Pro-gram- Microgrant Pro-gram evaluated at mid-term against SGP shared expe-riences

Impacts on grass-root evaluated and lessons learned from the Microgrant Pro-gram and SGP con-solidated

- Microgrant Pro-gram national and regional reports - GEF’s SGP reports

Visits and ex-changes

DC: GEF National Microgrant Pro-gram Specialists

S: GEF regional Microgrant Pro-gram Specialists

Support: GEF/UNDP National Small Grants Co-ordinators

4c) Effective regional linkages between ex-isting international wa-ters programs and the Project established at a 1-week regional fo-rum; findings shared, lessons learned and ac-tion strategies regard-ing land and water degradation across re-gional Basin commu-nities are determined among participants (4.3).

Available infor-mation on IW Programs and Africa-based re-gional networks

- Regional net-works demonstrat-ing good land and water practices - Inclusive deci-sion-making man-agement practices established- Contacts estab-lished for regional forum preparation

Regional forum at-tended by relevant networks prepared

Regional forum held

- Regional forum results dissemi-nated to actors- Exchanges ex-tended through increased com-munication be-tween regional and Pan-African networks and programs

Regional and Pan-African networks and programs for natural resources management and in-ternational waters reinforced

- Regional forum re-port- Informal and for-mal communications between actors- Other conferences organized in the same spirit- Publications by the networks

- Interviews and ex-changes- Documentation on the networks

DC: Communica-tion Specialist

S: NBA

5 a) Experiences, mod-els, and lessons learned on good prac-tice for land and water degradation reversal from the 9 demonstra-tion pilot projects doc-

- List of “host” countries and “participant” countries- Existing meth-ods/techniques for community

- National Stake-holder Training - Demonstration Pilot projects co-elaborated by “host” countries and “participant”

- 9 demonstration pilots financed in “host” countries- Country “partici-pants” and benefi-ciaries share lessons learned

- 9 demonstration pilots continue in “host” countries with contributions from “participant” countries- LCC operational

- 9 pilots imple-mented and eval-uated, and lessons learned and good practices dissemi-nated 9 pilot projects

Lessons learned and good practice dis-seminated to actors at all levels in 9 countries

- Demonstration pi-lot projects progress report and evaluation - Next phase strategy- Reports from work-shops to share expe-rience and lessons

- Demonstration pi-lots action plans and visits- Exchanges be-tween actors

DC: National Mi-crogrant Special-ists

S: Regional Mi-crogrant Specialist

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)umented and shared (5.1-5.4).

driven develop-ment and good land and water practice

countries - Public informa-tion program de-signed

- Public informa-tion program im-plemented- LCCs selected

evaluated at mid-term with benefi-ciary participa-tion and LCC op-erational

learned

5b) Appropriate ad-ministrative and finan-cial mechanism as of PY2 for microgrants disbursement in place (SGP/UNOPS and PNUD/UNOPS) (5.3).

Current SGP mechanism op-erational and ap-plicable

- Microgrant dis-bursement mecha-nism established for GEF Project- Formulation of SGP program in countries where they currently do not exist

Microgrant trans-ferred to communi-ties

Microgrant trans-ferred to commu-nities

Microgrant trans-ferred to commu-nities

Microgrant trans-ferred to communi-ties

- LCC meeting min-utes - Progress reports- Community ac-counts

- Financial control - Audit 

DC: Financial Controller and Project Auditor

S: Regional Mi-crogrant Specialist

5c) Community groups have received micro-grants, executed prior-ity actions and adopted new practice on the basis of lessons learned from imple-menting microgrants (and other local projects) (5.3, 5.4).

- Priority themes and possible in-terventions - Existing method for com-munity driven development and good land and water prac-tice - Existing SGP procedures ap-plicable

- Microgrant Manuel of proce-dures (MOM) and ESMF established - Communication campaign designed and tested

- Communication campaign launched - MOM and ESMF training - NPTs receive pro-posals- 10% of micro-grant financed ac-tions realized

- 25% of micro-grant financed ac-tions realized in line with MOM and ESMF

- 40% of micro-grant financed ac-tions realized - Workshops or-ganized to share local experience and lessons learned (one per LCC)

- 70% of microgrant financed actions re-alized- M&E including social and environ-mental effect- Lessons shared (local workshops)

- MOM and ESMF - Microgrants progress and evalua-tion reports -- Community train-ing reports- Evaluation report s - Local workshops reports

- Microgrant appli-cation- Survey on benefi-ciaries satisfaction

DC: LCC with support from Na-tional Microgrant Specialist

S: Regional Mi-crogrant Specialist National SGP/UNDP Coordina-tor

5d) Increased aware-ness of Basin environ-mental challenges in local groups (5.5).

Community knowledge of Basin resources degradation

Baseline/sample on community knowledge of re-sources manage-ment and Basin is-sues

Local sensitization and training on ESMF application to address gaps identified in base-line

- Good resources management (based in local workshops to share experience and lesson learned and on the outreach cam-paign) incorpo-rated in 30% of microgrant pro-posals submitted by communities - Environmental and social impact evaluated on each microgrant site

- Good resources management in-corporated in 60% of micro-grant proposals submitted by communities- Communication campaign’s sec-ond part and LCC members’ re-fresher training

- Good resources management incor-porated in 100% of microgrant propos-als submitted by communities- Communication campaign evaluated - Resource LCC and CCE members’ re-fresher

- Microgrants progress reports and microgrants evalua-tions- Microgrants pro-posals - MOM - ESMF- LCC and CCE training

- Updated MOM and ESMF- NPT archiving mi-crogrant proposals - NSCs microgrant selection reports - Communication campaign M&E - Microgrant Pro-gram M&E- Site visits

DC: Research firm

S: National Micro-grant Specialist and Regional Communication Specialist

6a) 9-countryTDA are completed, validated and finding are dis-seminated (6.1).

TDA includes 5 of the 9 Basin countries

- 1 regional work-shop- 4 national con-sultations- 4 national studies

- 4 national work-shops to validate studies- 1 regional work-shop to review findings- TDA French and

- - - - TDA local and na-tional consultation workshops and re-gional workshop re-ports - Final version of 4 remaining countries

- National consulta-tion workshops- Regional valida-tion workshops

DC: PMCU

S: RSC

32

B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Indicator Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Re-ports

Data Collection In-struments

Responsibility for Data Collec-tion (DC) and

Supervision (S)English versions available and dis-seminated

6b) SAP, based on TDA is developed, disseminated, and dis-cussed by stakeholders (6.2-6.3).

9 countries’ TDA validated

- - - From TDA find-ings, options re-port completed and approved by stakeholders- Draft SAP sub-mitted to NBA and RSC

- Regional work-shop, national and local to vali-date preliminary SAP - English and French versions available

SAP finalized and disseminated

- Final TDA - GEF-SAP docu-ment- Preliminary report- Intermediary report- Final report and validated SAP

- Workshops- Participation in consultations and validated sites vis-ited

DC: PMCU

S: RSC

6c) Donors make com-mitments to support (fund) SAP (6.4).

TDA and SAP validated by 9 riparian actors

- - - Commitments planned at the Donors Confer-ence

- Donors engaged in 20% of SAP priority actions - NBA commitment to implement SAP priorities

- Donor Conference Workshop report- Donors commit-ment letters

- Donor Matrix w/ commitments for GEF-SAP priorities- Discussions with donors

DC: RSC

S: NBA

Technical Annex 4:Detailed Project Description

1. Introduction. The GEF Project is designed to address transboundary issues, improve land and water resources management, and strengthen capacity. The GEF Project will collabo-rate with other initiatives internal and external to the Niger River Basin, complementing the broader international waters work currently being undertaken by the nine Basin countries with the assistance from the Bank. To this end, the GEF Project focuses on improving environmen-tal resource management in the Basin. The Project is anticipated to be a five-year, single phase Project of USD 13 million (GEF funding) spread over six components. The World Bank will provide implementation support for Components 1, 3, and 6 (USD 6 million), and UNDP will provide implementation support for Components 2, 4 and 5 (USD 7.0 million)

2. Component 1: Institution Building (USD 3.52 million, WB implementation support). Through the course of the five-year implementation process, the component’s activities are to augment and strengthen the regional and national institutional capacity in all nine Basin coun-tries to enable sustainable management and implementation of regional Basin projects. Spe-cific to the GEF Project, core personnel in existing institutions at the regional and national levels will receive further training on Project management, including but not limited to pro-curement, disbursement, project cycles, implementation process, and monitoring and evalua-tion. It is anticipated that a core group of specialists will be built within regional and national institutions that already have some experience in managing regional environmental projects.

3. Institutional structure. The PMCU will be established within the NBA to strengthen the NBA’s Project management capacity. The PMCU will hire a select staff with key environ-mental and water resource management, financial management and procurement skills, with specific inputs from specialists as needed. Technical Annex 6 details the institutional structure and implementation arrangements. Component activities and tasks include:

Activity 1.1: Establish and Operate the Project Implementation Structure at Regional Level- Task 1 – Establish and operate the PMCU - Task 2 – Develop and approve the regional Annual Work Plans

Activity 1.2: Establish and Operate the Project Implementation Structure at the Na-tional Level- Task 1 – Organize the NSC- Task 2 – Establish and operate the NPT in all nine countries - Task 3 – National-level meetings in all nine countries to approve work plans

Activity 1.3: Project Management Training- Task 1 – Implement launch workshop- Task 2 – Project regional and national management training program

4. Component 2: Capacity Building and Public Awareness (USD 1.62 million, UNDP implementation support). The component’s objective is to increase stakeholders’ capacity to address the Basin’s environmental problems and their ownership of Project interventions, thus achieving the desired long-term change in resource management practice and sector decision-making. Consultation, exchange, inclusive decision-making, and coordination at the local, na-

33

tional and regional levels will be enabled through the strengthening of capacity and informa-tion channels, providing communication tools for dialogue and exchange of good practices. The component will notably be essential for the successful formulation and implementation of the Strategic Development Plan (SDAP) for the Basin. The GEF Project will augment current capacity building in two ways: by focusing primarily on the environmental aspects of Basin management; and by including local organizations in the capacity building program. The pub-lic education and awareness campaign will focus on the need for shared natural resource man-agement. It will be delivered in target communities eligible for the Microgrant Program through appropriate local-level channels of communication. The campaign will include mes-sages and information on integrated Basin water and land management principles, policy and governance; assessment of ongoing natural resources management activities; dialogue build-ing among the different actors through platforms and local networks; and the conditions of ac-cess to, and opportunities offered by, the Microgrant Program for community development. Youth, who comprise over 40 percent of the Basin’s inhabitants, will be specifically targeted by the Component. Component activities and tasks include:

Activity 2.1: Public Education and Awareness Programs for All Relevant Stakeholders- Task 1 – Prepare and implement a regional-level public awareness program - Task 2 – Prepare and implement a National-level public education and awareness

program - Task 3 – Prepare a local-level public education and awareness program

Activity 2.2: Develop and Implement Regional, National and Local Training Program- Task 1 – Prepare and implement a regional training program - Task 2 – Prepare and implement a national training program - Task 3 – Prepare and implement local training program.

5. Component 3: Data and Knowledge Management (USD 1.13 million, Bank imple-mentation support). This component’s objective is to enable the riparians to build a robust partnership to manage land and water data at the Basin level. The component activities will draw on the work being done by the GEF Project in the Senegal Basin, to establish an infor-mation system framework for improved data collection, exchange, and monitoring and evalu-ation mechanisms in all nine countries. Though good management practices require knowl-edge of existing water and environmental conditions, collecting raw data by itself is insuffi-cient to solve the Basin’s problems. It is essential to use the data for evaluation and informa-tion purposes for decision-making. Therefore, it is important to define and establish proce-dures and protocols that ensure data compatibility, processing, and dissemination and promote a mutual understanding between the riparian countries, and among decision-makers. To im-prove dissemination across the Basin, the NBA will work together with the riparian countries to augment existing data-sharing mechanisms. Training and workshops will be conducted to strengthen existing communication between the technical and political communities at the na-tional and regional levels. Component activities and tasks include:

Activity 3.1: Strategic Assessment for Data and Information Management- Task 1 – Evaluate findings of Strategic Assessment of hydrologic, environmental,

and socioeconomic data- Task 2 – Validate findings, identify core problems and priorities

Activity 3.2: Assess Existing National Data and Data Quality

34

- Task 1 – Identify the range of available data and information, and the human re-sources at the national level to supplement the Strategic Assessment

- Task 2 – Prepare a report on status and format of national data and information, in order to identify gaps, determine priority basin-wide indicators for land and water degradation

- Task 3 – Identify means and support to meet harmonized national data and infor-mation needs

Activity 3.3: Identify a Framework for a Basin-wide Environmental Information Sys-tem - Task 1 – From the outcomes of Activities 3.1 and 3.2, define environmental and

socioeconomic information and data needs to reverse land and water degradation and for regional decision-making

- Task 2 – Analyze the existing and possible modalities for environmental and so-cioeconomic data and information collection, management, sharing, and dissemi-nation

- Task 3 – Define a framework for a basin-wide Environmental Information System Activity 3.4: Conduct Local, National and Regional Information Exchange and Train-

ing - Task 1 – Using partners and ongoing Basin initiatives, collect environmental and

social information through an agreed upon participatory method- Task 2 – At the national level, provide training on standardized procedures, data

analysis, and data sharing- Task 3 – At the regional level, provide training on data synthesis for data sharing

and dissemination, and decision-making- Task 4 – Identify sustainable modalities for local, national, and regional integra-

tion of data collection, data dissemination, and data sharing Activity 3.5: Facilitate Dialogue for Basin-wide Environmental Management

- Task 1 – Within the basin-wide Environmental Information System framework, fa-cilitate a dialogue between member states on sharing technical information, data collection, and data management

Activity 3.6: Supplement a Basin-Wide Economic Model with an Environmental Di-mension- Task 1 – Review the proposed SDAP economic model and define the appropriate

parameters to integrate an environmental dimension- Task 2 – Train/hire staff to program the environmental dimension and integrate ac-

companying data within the economic model- Task 3 – Run model- Task 4 – Evaluate model outcomes to optimize benefits for basin-level planning

and informed decision-making (cross reference with Component 2).

6. Component 4: Regional Forum (USD 0.38 million, UNDP implementation support). The component objective is to facilitate the exchange of lessons and good practices from other regional projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. Component activities will expand on IW:Learn, and strengthen the relationship with the pan-African and international network of Basin orga-nizations (ANBO, INBO, AMCOW). To facilitate the exchange of lessons and expand on these networks, a study tour in the region will take place. A Working Group will draw lessons from the GEF Projects in the Senegal, Nile and Volta River basins, Okavango Delta and Lake

35

Chad, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Victoria, and Lake Malawi. With guidance from the two imple-menting agencies and support from the PMCU, the NBA will organize a forum to promote and strengthen these network relationships and interactions so that they become viable effec-tive and substantial organizations that benefit and support their members and clients.

Activity 4.1: Lessons Learned and Linkages- Task 1 Compile experiences and lessons learned regarding impact on the ground

of other regional GEF IW projects; stimulate coordination among Basin national SGP and GEF Coordinators

- Task 2 Identify lessons learned, comparable networks such as IW: Learn and the International Network of Basin Organizations, which tackle land and water degra-dation in the Basin community

- Task 3 Identify NBA’s lessons learned from Project management- Task 4 Prepare an assessment of lessons learned and the tools and mechanisms to

strengthen the relevant Basin networks; coordinate and support SGP/GEF imple-mentation when no SGP/FEM exists at national level

Activity 4.2: Expand Networks and Study Tour- Task 1 Strengthen communications and relationship with the pan-African and in-

ternational networks- Task 2 Conduct study tour and compile lessons learned

Activity 4.3: Regional Forum- Task 1 Prepare Regional Forum- Task 2 Conduct and evaluate Regional Forum.

7. Component 5: Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Program. (USD 5.0 million, UNDP implementation support): The component’s objective is to provide a mechanism to support community-driven interventions and improve livelihoods at the local level, while also providing opportunities to exchange, through training, the lessons learned from good manage-ment practices at the national and local levels. Component activities draw on the issues and actions identified through the Project preparation and TDA/SAP process, and will respond to communities’ priorities identified through participatory diagnostic exercises, while linking with potential existing activities, thus providing communities with opportunities to assume control and authority over decisions and resources while promoting the ownership and care of local assets and resources. Most importantly, component activities will provide a local-level platform for lessons learned on good management practices in the Basin.

8. Sector themes and demonstration pilots. The initial TDA identified a range of trans-boundary sector issues through a collaborative process with the five main stem countries. The sector themes identified in Table 1, for Demonstration Pilots, were developed by member countries and NBA during the April 2002 Regional Workshop in Niamey. The workshop out-comes, proposed by the countries, included seven thematic priorities for the demonstration ac-tivities. The host/lead country and the participating countries have already stated an interest in replicating similar interventions, which will subsequently extend throughout all nine Basin countries. Interventions that are transboundary in nature are eligible for GEF funding. Those interventions that are ineligible for GEF funding will be addressed in other ways, including the broader international waters work being facilitated by the Bank or other appropriate donors. In addition to the seven thematic priorities that can be supported by the GEF, coun-

36

tries have identified three other themes. The Demonstration Pilots will complement the train-ing and capacity building conducted under Component 2. Capacity building efforts will in-clude development of models and approaches for each of the priority themes, and engage the relevant public authorities at the national and local levels, along with relevant NGOs and other civil organizations. With assistance from the PMCU, the national NSC and NPT, and the LCC, a demonstration pilot for each selected theme will be executed at a target site, and will complement the AfDB program. The lessons learned from these Demonstration Pilots on good management practices will be shared with the broader Basin and national community, providing the basis for the Microgrant Program.

Table 1:List of Microgrant-Supported Themes with Host and Participating Countries

Priority Themes Lead/host country

Participating country

Ben

in

Bur

kina

Cam

e-

Cha

d

Cot

e

d’Iv

oire

Gui

nea

Mal

i

Níg

er

Nig

eria

NB

A

1) Reduce dependence on wood (and charcoal) for domestic energy

2) Improve farming techniques and practices in rain-fed agriculture

3) Improve farming techniques and practices in irrigated lands

4) Reverse degradation of soils, pastures and animal health in livestock sector

5) Promote sustainable fishing practices

6) Support eco-tourism and environmental protection

7) Improve water quality by combating industrial, urban and mining pollution

9. Microgrant-supported interventions. In an effort to engage the basin-wide commu-nity, the Microgrant Program will build on lessons learned from the demonstration pilots, and extend to the local communities, the beneficiaries. Table 2 below identifies the seven priority themes and indicative community-based interventions and sites in the various countries. Sup-port will not be limited to these; it will also be considered for gender-based efforts to broaden women’s capacity in managing resources. Drawing on the success and lessons learned from a number of regional, national and local NGOs, community-driven development programs; and the SGP in the Basin, this component will optimize the use of existing community institutions to lead to immediate action on the ground to assist in replicating good management practices. In coordination with Component 2, the Microgrant Program provides for a broad range of public education and awareness on the issues in the Basin, including lessons learned from the Demonstration Pilots, and information on participation in the Program. The MOM details the process, and the ESMF ensures compliance with environmental and social safeguards. The monitoring and evaluation of the progress and success of the microgrant-supported interven-tions will be the responsibility of the Project’s local, national and regional institutions, with the engagement of the local communities implementing these activities.

10. Outcomes. The anticipated outcomes and benefits of the Demonstration Pilots and Mi-crogrant Program will be: (i) the accumulated benefits of the nine Demonstration Pilots to-gether with the microgrant-supported interventions in addressing the Basin countries’ priority themes; (ii) community involvement and participation in decision-making for managing change in the Basin by improving local stakeholders’ practice; improving local socioeco-nomic conditions; improving local skills; and promoting ownership and care of local re-sources; (iii) closer linkages and collaborative work between government entities and civil so-

37

ciety and networks; and (iv) immediate action and social and environmental benefits on the ground. Component activities and tasks include:

Activity 5.1: Establish National and Local Institutional Structures (institutional link with Component 1) - Task 1 – Evaluate national/local institutional structure - Task 2 – Identify the LCC structure at the local level- - Task 3 – Operationalize LCC

Activity 5.2: Establish Demonstration Pilots- Task 1 – Identify activities and responsibilities in compliance with environmental

and social safeguards- Task 2 – Establish a baseline for Demonstration Pilots- Task 3 – Prepare monitoring/evaluation plan and criteria for drawing lessons (link

with Component 6). Activity 5.3: Implement Demonstration Pilots

- Task 1 – PMCU prepares and delivers public information and education plan re-lated to demonstration pilot

- Task 2 – LCC and NPT conduct necessary training for demonstration pilot imple-mentation

- Task 3 – NPT management training on demonstration pilot and Microgrant Pro-gram

- Task 4 – LCC – local-level program implementation training- Task 5 – Implement demonstration pilot activities

Activity 5.4: Assess and share lessons- Task 1 – Evaluate Demonstration Pilots through national workshops in 9 countries- Task 2 – Regional workshop to draw on lessons learned for all Demonstration Pi-

lots- Task 3 – Disseminate lessons through a public information and education cam-

paign (link with Component 2) in local languages- Task 4 – Update MOM as needed and adapt MOM to local conditions

Activity 5.5: Formulate, Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate- Task 1 – Public information campaign- Task 2 – Review and select microgrant community applications- Task 3 – Advertise results of application process- Task 4 – Implement microgrant-supported interventions- Task 5 – Report on program outcomes and successes to national and regional insti-

tutions (link with Component 6).

38

Table 2 Priority Themes and Indicative InterventionsPreliminary Priority Themes Indicative Interventions List of Sites

1. Reducing Dependence on Wood (and Charcoal) for Do-mestic Energy

- Afforestation of degraded dryland forests- Promotion of alternative and/or renewable energies

such as solar, wind, biogas, gas- Awareness raising and education- Participatory, community approach

- Peri-urban areas around Niamey and Ndjaména

2: Improving Farming Tech-niques and Practices in Rain-fed Agriculture

- Awareness raising, education and enforcement of laws concerning bush fires

- Promotion of environmentally appropriate tech-niques for intensive agriculture

- Rehabilitation of degraded fallow land and soil and water conservation

- Protection and rehabilitation of riverbanks.

- Site in Côte d’Ivoire

3: Improving Farming Tech-niques and Practices in Irri-gated Agriculture

- Baseline surveys and analysis- Improved irrigation techniques- Association of fish culture to irrigation- Rehabilitation of infrastructure and control of pollu-

tion and salination

- Site in Cameroon

4: Reversing Degradation of Soils, Pastures and Animal Health in the Livestock Sector

- Development of modern abattoirs- Identification and improvement of transport to mar-

kets- Community savings and loans to assist in marketing

and insurance- Improvement of animal health- Development of pasture corridors and access for

pastoralists- Provisions of options for pastoralists- Awareness raising

- Transboundary site for corridor establishment between Niger, Burkina Faso and Benin, near Park W, for example

5: Promoting Sustainable Fish-ing Practices

- Cost and benefit analysis of system- Cooperative commercial production of fish- Awareness raising on appropriate fishing practices- Cooperatives for marketing, purchase of inputs, etc.- Community participation in control of aquatic inva-

sive species

- Several villages in Inner Delta, in Mali

6: Supporting Eco-tourism and Environmental Protection

- Infrastructure investments for tourism- Promotion of ecotourism and private sector involve-

ment- Promotional materials on Wonders of the Niger

River

- Sites near existing national parks: Niger

7: Improving Water Quality by Combating Industrial, Urban and Mining Pollution

- Baseline analysis- Recycling of industrial waste- Water purification stations- Abattoir waste recycling- Education and awareness raising

- Guinean highlands (Mines)- Nigerian Delta (oil/industries pol-

lution)

11. Component 6: TDA and SAP Preparation (USD 1.35 million, Bank implementation support). This component will work in complement to the broader international waters effort currently being developed as a basin-wide SDAP for the Niger River Basin through in-depth consultations that will lead to large multi-sector investments. To complement the SDAP, the SAP, being developed under the GEF Project, will focus primarily on the environmental as-pects of land and water issues. In finalizing the TDA, component activities will complete an in-depth identification and analysis of environmental problems and issues throughout the Basin and their linkages with transboundary dynamics. The sources of the problems, their im-pacts on the natural and human environments as well as their root causes will be assessed and prioritized in order to highlight the most affected areas in the Basin and the transboundary pri-orities which need to be addressed as a result. As noted earlier, a preliminary TDA was done in the five main stem riparian countries of the Niger River Basin (Benin, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Nigeria), included as part of the Project Concept document. Through the GEF Project this effort will extend to the remaining four riparian countries – Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad and Côte d’Ivoire, to complete and update the preliminary TDA with current existing condi-

39

tions and develop a comprehensive understanding of the priority transboundary issues, threats to the Basin, and root causes, which then will be the basis for preparing the SAP.

12. TDA. Both the TDA and SAP serve as critical documents to improve environmental management in the Basin; introduce relevant environmental protection policies; provide op-portunities for innovative community-based microgrant funded investments; and inform the public on the issues in the Basin.

13. SAP. The SAP is a strategic document for decision-makers for future actions and in-vestments in the Basin. Local counterparts preparing the SAP will be required to identify, for the proposed priority activities, the possible environmental and social impacts, and any future investments and actions that may be required to comply with the riparian’s environmental policies and any future regional policies established in the Basin. The SAP will conform to GEF expectations and include: (i) a clear definition of national and transboundary priorities based on the TDA outcomes; (ii) a concise summary of the identified threats and their root causes; (iii) a description of public perceptions of environmental threats and development ac-tions at the basin-wide level, and the related transboundary management issues; (iv) identifi-cation, definition and ranking of priority national and transboundary actions according to the findings of the SAP process; (v) identification of responsible parties; (vi) identification of the tools and mechanisms for good management practices t o reverse land and water degradation in the Niger River; and (vii) identification of additional capacity building necessary to facili-tate SAP implementation. Linkages of the SAP process to other components and aspects of the Project as it unfolds will be identified. Also, the sector studies on institutional scope and reforms in the Basin would provide further opportunities for identifying institutional linkages at different levels—local, national and regional—and suggest modalities for institutional en-hancement.

14. Component activities and tasks include:

Activity 6.1: Finalize and Update the TDA to Include the Remaining Riparian Coun-tries- Task 1 – Confirm results from preliminary TDA- Task 2 – Extend TDA process in remaining four countries- Task 3 – Conduct, national- and local-level consultations- Task 4 – Hold regional workshop to confirm TDA findings- Task 5 – Hold regional workshop to validate completed TDA

Activity 6.2: Develop the SAP based upon the TDA- Task 1 – Take inventory of range of options for priority issues- Task 2 – Evaluate the options for site-specific issues- Task 3 – Undertake field visits and consultations confirming that options are ap-

propriate- Task 4 – Prepare results and recommendations from field consultations

Activity 6.3: Draft and Validate SAP at National and Regional Level - Task 1 – Draft final SAP- Task 2 – Conduct workshop to confirm SAP findings at national level- Task 3 – Conduct workshop to confirm SAP findings at local level- Task 4 – Hold regional consultations to confirm SAP findings

40

- Task 5 – Conduct regional workshop to validate SAP Activity 6.4: Engage Donors to Implement the SA

- Task 1 – Hold donor meeting to present findings from the SAP and identify poten-tial donor investments

- Task 2 – Follow up on donor meeting outcomes and define appropriate milestones.

41

Technical Annex 5:Summary of Project Costs

World Bank Components

Summary of Project Budget (USD m) by World Bank Categories

Consult-ing

Services

Operating Costs

Training/Workshops Goods Contingency Total

Component 1 - Institution Building 0.20 1.86 0.90 0.36 0.20 3.52

Component 3 - Data and Knowledge Management 0.47 0.00 0.56 0.01 0.09 1.13

Component 6 – TDA and SAP 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.10 1.35

Total (USD m) 1.32 1.86 2.06 0.37 0.39 6.00

Percent Distribution 22.0 31.0 34.3 6.2 6.5 100.00

.

42

Technical Annex 6:Implementation Arrangements

1. History and structure of the NBA. The NBA is one of the oldest intergovernmental orga-nizations in West Africa. Its creation dates back to 1964 when it was called the River Niger Commission. After seventeen years in existence, the results achieved by the Commission were deemed insufficient and its member states decided to replace it with a new organization, the NBA, which became heir to all the assets, liabilities, and programs of the River Niger Commis-sion. The long term goal of the NBA is to “promote cooperation among the member countries and to ensure integrated development in all fields through development of its resources, notably in the fields of energy, water resources, agriculture, forestry, transport and communication and industry.” Specifically the aim and objectives of the NBA are to:

Harmonize and coordinate national policies for development of the resources in the Basin;

Plan the development of the Basin by preparing and executing an “Integrated Develop-ment Plan of the Basin;” and

Design, realize, exploit, and maintain common works and projects.

2. The present structure of the NBA is based on three institutions:

The Summit of Heads of State and Government; The Council of Ministers including the Technical Committee of Experts; and The NBA/ES.

3. Based on the newly adopted institutional chart the NBA/ES has two departments:

The Technical Directorate; The Administrative and Financial Directorate.

4. The NBA is supported by its member states. Each year a balanced income and expendi-ture budget is prepared based on a sharing formula determined by the member states. Foreign as-sistance to the NBA is received from external donors. In 1998, the NBA launched a new effort at the 17th Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers. The real dangers threatening the Niger River were acknowledged, together with the importance of member states paying their contribu-tions to the NBA. Total annual contributions of all nine member states for the year 2003 have been set at CFA 400,000 000 (USD 717,231) with the following shares: Benin (5%), Burkina (4%), Cameroon (7%), Chad (1%), Côte d’Ivoire (5%), Guinea (10%), Mali (20%), Niger (18%) and Nigeria (30%). Arrears are still high relative to the annual total but decisions were taken at the Yaoundé Council of Ministers to resolve this issue. Furthermore, countries are committed, through their participation in the NBA, to involve the appropriate ministries, government agen-cies and NGOs to fulfill the mandate of the NBA and successfully implement the proposed GEF Project.

Project facilitator

5. Niger Basin Authority. Given the NBA’s mandate “to promote cooperation among the member countries and to ensure integrated development in all fields,” it will undertake a facilita-

43

tive role as a coordination and executing agency during the full Project. The NBA/ES will be the lead counterpart agency on behalf of the member states that will host the implementation of this Project. The respective UNDP, Bank, and Executing Agency task team leaders will be in direct and ongoing contact to facilitate the work of the Project and to ensure maximum levels of coop-eration to bring about Project success.

6. The NBA identified possible institutional and Project activity synergies between the GEF and AfDB projects to optimize effort and effectiveness. This has been an important part of the collaboration and cooperation process for both the NBA and the implementing agencies.

Regional and national guidance and supervision

7. NBA Council of Ministers. The NBA Council of Ministers will provide guidance for is-sues related to the Basin, approve strategic actions by supporting the RSC, and discuss when needed specific issues pertaining to Basin management. The NBA Council of Ministers’ mem-bers are representatives from the water resources and related ministries. The NBA Council of Ministers reports to the Head of State in each country.

8. Regional Steering Committee (RSC). In assisting in facilitation of Project implementa-tion, the RSC will be the primary decision-making body and serve in a technical and institutional advisory capacity during implementation and review of Project activities. Key members will meet at minimum three times a year to review Project implementation progress, for activity-spe-cific guidance and review, and will: (i) coordinate with the AfDB project steering committee and align the Project with other basin-wide initiatives; (ii) monitor Project progress and take timely actions to resolve implementation constraints; (iii) liaise with different National Focal Points and National Project Teams within the riparian countries to ensure that the national units and the PMCU act in harmony; (iv) receive and review annual substantive and financial reports on Project activities; (v) review and approve Annual Work Plans; and (vi) ensure monitoring and evaluation of Project activities. Proposed RSC members would include the NBA/ES as the Chair, and high-level NBA member state representatives. The Bank will participate in an observer sta-tus. Upper-level PMCU staff would report to RSC meetings as needed, but would otherwise not serve.

9. Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STS). Within the RSC, a technical subcommit-tee, STS, will act in a technical advisory capacity to support each environmental management theme. Composed of technical specialists, institutional specialists, and other relevant experts re-lated to environmental management, it will contribute to the scientific quality of Project imple-mentation. The STS will advise on technical matters during Project implementation, i.e., capacity building as it pertains to Components 2, 3, 5, and 6, microgrant-supported activity design and implementation, and the TDA/SAP development process. The STS will review and critique progress reports and interview relevant Project participants, distilling and conveying lessons learned on good management practices in the Basin, which will then be disseminated back at the national and local levels.

10. National Steering Committee (NSC). National- and local-level Project implementation will be advised by the NSC. The NSC, chaired by the national NBA Focal Point and participants from the relevant Ministries and civil society, will provide quality assurance for the national-

44

level activities, working directly with the PMCU and the NPT. The NSC will have a special role in selecting the microgrant proposals from communities. It will support the NPT in developing a format of the MOM, which would be accessible to communities and grassroots organizations seeking grant funding. In this task, the NSC will work closely with the UNDP SGP’s program coordinator and the SGP national steering committee in the countries where the SGP exists (Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Niger) and elsewhere, with the new national steering committees to be created by SGP/UNDP under the Project in the five non-SGP countries.

Regional, national and local implementation

11. Program Management and Coordination Unit (PMCU). The PMCU will support the NBA in Project management; financial, procurement, and administrative responsibilities; and su-pervision and management of the technical components of Project implementation. The PMCU will work together with the NBA/ES in implementing the Project. Co-located at the NBA, the PMCU will work closely with the regional institutions, the RSC, the STS, and the NPTs to en-sure timely Project implementation and effective capacity building. The PMCU will be primarily responsible for reporting to the RSC, the NBA and the implementing agencies—through harmo-nized reporting procedures—on Project progress, financial management, procurement and dis-bursement, identification of implementation gaps and bottlenecks, and Project accounts and bud-get. Administrative, accounting, financial and auditing arrangements were finalized during ap-praisal and included: (i) assessment of the financial management system with timetable for any improvements required; (ii) agreement on Project financial and accounting standards; (iii) audit arrangements, to ensure independent audits will be undertaken on an annual basis according to standard IA requirements; (iv) procurement plan based on IA requirements; (v) all administrative reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements and procedures as required by the IAs; and (vi) supervision and management of Project implementation. The PMCU will also serve as the program management unit of the AfDB project.

12. National Project Teams (NPT). Building on appropriate existing institutions or establish-ing new ones, as needed, NPTs will be based in each NBA Focal Point office. The NPTs will be responsible for managing, coordinating, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the Project at the national level, primarily as it pertains to the Demonstration Pilots, the Microgrant Program and capacity building. They will work at the national and local levels, notably with decentralized services and locally-based organizations, but also closely with the NSC and PMCU. One of the NPTs’ key roles will be the pre-selection and transmission of community microgrant proposals to the NSC for approval and the establishment of a national microgrant strategy together with the SGP, the SGP Steering Committee and/or UNDP partners depending on the country. The NPTs’ other key responsibilities include: (i) implementation of the communication campaign at the lo-cal level; (ii) organization and supervision of all training and workshops to promote the Micro-grant Program at the local level, and its execution in compliance with the MOM and the ESMF; (iii) development of tools and materials to enable grassroots organizations to access microgrants; and (iv) supervision of consultants and firms for the implementation of activities.

Local-level implementation

13. Local Coordination Committees (LCC). The collaborative effort of local institutions (both public and civil) is vital for program success. It will provide opportunities for communities

45

to communicate amongst themselves and with local government, and be responsible for assisting in the implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the demonstration programs. At the local level, working closely with the NPT for administrative support, the LCCs, as community-based implementation units, will be key in educating the local community on the specifics of local-level component activities, the demonstration pilots and the Microgrant Program (e.g., through local language materials; updating of the MOM). They will work with local authorities and com-munities in developing, regularly monitoring, and evaluating the site-specific demonstration ac-tivities. Other key responsibilities will be to: (i) assist communities in the formulation of the mi-crogrant proposals, including the application of the environmental and social assessment; and transmit communities’ proposals to the NPT according to an agreed timetable; (ii) develop sim-ple M&E systems for community projects; (iii) identify and respond to community training and technical assistance needs in collaboration with the AfDB program teams based locally; (iv) or-ganize and implement beneficiaries’ workshops on lessons learned from microgrant activities; (v) identify local partners (e.g., private sector), facilitate contracting and equipment purchase, and supervise works in community sites; (vi) encourage linkages and synergy with local and na-tional networks and other related local programs, especially with AfDB activities and resources; (vii) provide information on field activities through reports, and contribute to preparation of the SAP through data collection; and (viii) manage a small petty cash for day-to-day related ex-penses.

14. Beneficiaries. Community groups (women’s groups, agricultural groups, resource man-agement groups, etc.) will work closely with the local authorities, the LCCs and the NPTs. They will: (i) identify site-specific micro-projects; (ii) assess environmental and social impacts; (iii) submit proposals to the LCC for micro-projects to be funded; (iv) sensitize and involve their lo-cal communities on the specifics of the Microgrant Program and capacity building activities; (v) monitor and evaluate pilot and micro-projects using locally adapted M&E systems; (vii) establish or train existing management committees directly responsible for Project monitoring and evalua-tion; and (viii) identify and articulate priority issues and solutions in their locality as they affect the Basin’s sustainable management.

Implementing Agencies

15. Implementing Agencies. UNDP and the Bank are the co-implementing agencies for this Project. The UNDP role will be to contribute its on-the-ground strength and the resulting trust it has built with national governments; directly facilitate workshops and the convening of key stakeholders consistent with its comparative advantage in capacity building; work to secure na-tional country-based financial resources to complement Project activities; and provide important links to other UN Agencies. Bank participation will have a leveraging effect, and the Bank will continue to play a key role for realization of the MDGs.

Monitoring and evaluation

16. The NBA is responsible for ensuring that all GEF funded activities are carried out in compliance with the Project’s design, and the performance and monitoring indicators outlined in the results and monitoring framework (see Technical Annex 3). The Project will comply with M&E procedures based upon the IAs’ institutional guidelines and will ensure compliance with social and environmental safeguards. UNDP and the Bank will evaluate and review Project

46

progress according to their institutional requirements. As part of the PIM, which will detail all the reporting requirements, an M&E Plan will be prepared to evaluate Project progress; this will be supplemented with the ESMF, which will provide a framework for ensuring compliance with environmental and social safeguards.

17. In conducting Project reviews, emphasis will be given to emerging GEF policies regard-ing monitoring and evaluation of GEF international waters projects, particularly the development of process, stress reduction, and environmental status indicators for long-term impact monitoring of SAP implementation. The PMCU will be responsible for Project reporting according to insti-tutional procedures. The components and emerging issues will be reviewed regularly, and evalu-ated annually by the RSC, as noted above. Reporting requirements that are part of the monitoring and evaluation and supervision process are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Reporting Requirements for the ProjectReport Requirements NBA Responsibility

Period World Bank Reports

AfDB Reports UNDP Report

Monthly Informal monthly sum-mary

Monthly sum-mary

Informal monthly summary

1-page Monthly Status Re-ports

Quarterly Financial Moni-toring Manage-ment Reports (FMR)

Financial Moni-toring Manage-ment reports (FMR)

FMRs to be issued by the PMCU (PFO/Procurement Specialist/Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist)

Semi-Annual (Supervision)

Supervision Mission and Project Status Report (PSR)

Supervision Mis-sion

PSR

Annual Annual Finan-cial Statements on sources and uses of funds

Annual Financial Statement on sources and uses of funds

Annual Program Re-view (APR)Annual Project Im-plementation Review (GEF-PIR)

To be issued on time by the PFO and to be audited on time Annual Work and Procure-ment PlanAPRGEF PIR

Mid-TermReview

Mid-Term Re-view (MTR)

Mid term Review (MTR)

Mid-Term Review MTR

Final Implementation Completion Re-ports (ICR)

Implementation Completion Re-port

Final Evaluation Re-port

Final Evaluation ReportICR

47

48

Figure 1. Institutional Arrangements

National

LOC

AL

African Development Bank ProjectHeads of State

Council of Ministers

Niger Basin Authority Executive Secretariat(NBA/ES)

Technical Department

National Coordination Units(NCU-AfDB)

(9) National Project Teams(NPT)

Beneficiaries

GEF Project

Project Management Coor-dination Unit (PMCU)

Sub Scientific and Technical Committee (STS)

Regional Steering Committee for GEF and

AfDB (RSC)

(9) National Steering Committees (NSC)

Local Coordination Committees (LCC)

Local Technical Committees

Regional

NB

A O

rganization

Technical Annex 7:Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements

Disbursement

1. Allocations of grant proceeds. The proposed allocation of grant proceeds is shown in Table 1. Disbursements of GEF funds will finance 100 percent of all expenditures in foreign and local currency: (i) 100 percent of local and international consultant services including per-sonnel; (ii) 100 percent of training/workshop; (iii) 100 percent of equipment and; (iv) 100 per-cent of operating costs. The NBA has International Organization status in Niger and therefore is exempt from the Standard Disbursement Percentage (SDP) requirement. NBA has provided documentation on tax-exemption. This exemption will be documented in Section I of the Grant Agreement: “Compliance with Bank Policies.” All withdrawal applications must be fully documented, except for expenses claimed against contracts not subject to prior review by the Bank. For the rest of the contracts, disbursements will be made against Statements of Expenses (SOEs) certified by the PFO at the PMCU.

Table 1. Allocation of Grant Proceeds

CategoriesAmount of the GEF Trust Fund

Grant Allocated (USD million)

% of Expenditures to beFinanced

1. Goods (including vehicles) 0.37 100%2. Consulting services 1.32 100%3. Training 2.06 100%4. Operating Costs 1.86 100%5. Unallocated/Contingencies 0.39 -TOTAL 6.00

2. Use of statements of expenditures (SOEs). Requests for funds withdrawals will be properly documented for all expenditures to be paid out of the GEF Grant, except for the fol-lowing contracts for which disbursements will be made against SOEs certified by both the PMCU Regional Project Coordinator and the National Project Coordinator: (i) contracts for goods with a unitary value below USD 250,000 equivalent; (ii) contracts with consulting firms with a unitary value below USD 100,000 equivalent and with individual consultants for an amount below USD 50,000 equivalent; (iii) additional operating expenses; and (iv) train-ing. Documentation of such SOEs will be retained by the PMCU and made available for re-view, on request, to procurement and financial auditors and to WB/GEF supervision missions.

3. Special Account. In order to facilitate Project implementation and reduce the volume of withdrawal applications, the NBA will open a Special Account in USD Dollars in a com-mercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to WB/GEF. The authorized allocation will be currency US Dollars and will cover about four months of eligible expenditures. Upon Project effectiveness, WB/GEF will deposit the amount in US Dollars representing 50 percent of the authorized allocation into the Special Account. The remaining balance will be made available when the aggregate amount of withdrawals from the GEF Grant account, plus the to-tal amount of all outstanding special commitments entered into by the WB/GEF, shall be ap-proximately or exceed the equivalent of USD 1,000,000. The Special Account should be re-

49

plenished each month. To facilitate the management of the Project at a national level a 90-day Advance Account procedure will be used. The 90-day Advance Account procedure, designed for decentralized accounts, would be used to facilitate the operation of PMCU and to ensure prompt payment of consultants and suppliers. Following the procedures of IBRD, the Project would advance funds covering no more than 90 days estimated expenditures (in local cur-rency) to NPTs. Each national NPT will submit quarterly expenditure reports indicating sources and uses of funds, and accompanied by reconciled bank statements. The PMCU would then aggregate this data, prepare a reconciliation statement for the NBA Special Ac-count, and prepare replenishment applications accompanied by the bank statement for the Special Account. All expenditures under the 90-day Advance Accounts will need to be sup-ported by an SOE or regular summary sheets, depending on the prior review contract thresh-olds.

4. Flow of funds. Project flow of funds and flow of information is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Funds and Information Flow Mechanism

Flow of informationFlow of funds

50

Council of Ministers

World Bank /IDA

90-Day Advance Account

BeneficiariesSuppliers, Consultants, all other contractors of the beneficiaries

Steering Committee

NPT

Nationalsub-account

NBA/PMCU

Special Account

Financial management - staffing and implementation arrange-ments

5. A financial management assessment of NBA was carried out by the World Bank. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the Project has in place an adequate fi-nancial management system as required under Bank guidelines and to recommend financial management arrangements for the mitigation of the fiduciary risk components identified. The assessment resulted in an action plan and a schedule of the financial management arrange-ments and confirmed the need to establish the PMCU at the NBA.

6. Implementation arrangements. The financial management of this Project is the re-sponsibility of the PMCU. The related duties of the PMCU cover budget and cash manage-ments, accounting, internal control, financial reporting and external audit preparation. The system, acceptable to the Bank, to carry out these duties will be fully in place prior to Project effectiveness based on the action plan drawn below. The PMCU will be housed at NBA of-fices and will be, under the supervision of NBA, in charge of all aspects of financial manage-ment of the Project. The PMCU will thus benefit from NBA experience in term of managing funds. The main recommendations below related to the staff, to the information system and to the organization should be implemented before: (i) negotiations and (ii) the effectiveness of the Project.

Negotiation condition: upon NBA’s financial management assessment, NBA will sec-ond to the Project an accountant, a financial controller and internal auditor.

Effectiveness conditions: (i) at a regional level, PMCU will have, among other staff, a Regional Project Coordinator, a PFO, and a procurement specialist: (ii) at a national level, the Project will be managed by an NPT. The NPT will recruit a National Project Coordinator, a microgrant specialist and an accountant/support staff.

7. Accounting policies and procedures. NBA has been applying satisfactory procedures since it was set up. However, these procedures have not been formalized in a reference docu-ment such as a manual and they will probably differ from the procedures of the current Project. A draft a Manual of Procedures must be developed and finalized by the Project before effectiveness. This Manual must include accounting policies and procedures; clear definition of respective duties; budgeting system; all relevant administrative, accounting and financial procedures; relation between the components of the Project, and reporting mechanisms at each level (regional, national and local). The terms of reference for preparation of the Manual should be submitted for the Bank’s approval. Relevant staff involved in the Project must be trained in accounting and procurement procedures.

8. Reporting and monitoring. The PMCU will prepare quarterly Financial Management Reports (FMR) based on an Annual Work Plan. The format of the FMR will be discussed and agreed before effectiveness. The quarterly reports will cover financial management, procure-ment, and physical progress monitoring, and will take into consideration all activities financed under the Project regardless of the source of funding. No major problem is expected with the financial and procurement reports. An area of concern is with the physical progress monitor-

51

ing report, where PMCU lacks experience; this would require additional effort. The physical progress reports will be based on the outcome indicators.

9. Financial management information system. A computerized financial management system must be installed for the PMCU. The chart of accounts (expenses categories and activ-ities) of the Project and the report formats must be customized prior to effectiveness in order to ease the production of the FMR and the annual financial statements.

10. Audit arrangements. The Project’s accounts will be subject to annual external audit by a reputable auditing firm based on terms of reference appropriate for the Project’s scope, to be approved by the Bank. These terms of reference will cover the Project’s accounts and in-ternal control framework. The selection of the auditor for the Project will be a condition of ef-fectiveness. The annual audit reports will be submitted to the Bank within six months of the end of each fiscal year (i.e., June 30th).

11. Conditions for effectiveness and negotiations. The conditions for effectiveness are detailed in the GEF Project Document, Section D.7. As part of the financial management as-sessment, Table 2 reflects the action plan that was agreed on with NBA and that was part of the negotiation package, and financial management assessment.

Table 2. Financial Management Action PlanTasks Target Comple-

tion DateResponsibility

1 PMCU’s accountant officially appointment by NBA February 15, 2004 NBA2 NBA agrees to second a financial controller and an internal auditor to the

ProjectFebruary 15, 2004 NBA

3 Recruitment of: (i) the Regional Project Coordinator; (ii) PFO; (iii) pro-curement specialist; (iv) National Project Coordinator and accounting as-sistant for each NPT

June, 15, 2004 NBA

4 NPT established and (i) national coordinator; (ii) microgrant specialist and (iii) financial assistant recruited

June 15, 2004 NBA/Countries

5 Development of the administrative, financial and accounting system by the selected consulting firm

June 15, 2004 NBA

6 Draft manual submitted for Bank comments June 15, 2004 NBA7 Final manual including Bank comments and acquisition of the required

softwareJune 15, 2004 NBA/Bank

8 Recruitment of the external auditor June 15, 2004 NBA9 Installation of the computerized financial management system (prepara-

tion of the yearly budget 2004, special account opened, adequate parame-ters set up for the computerized system training of the Project staff)

June 20, 2004 NBA

10 Final check up for compliance and clearance of the financial management system

June 25, 2004 FMS/Bank.

52

Technical Annex 8:Procurement

Guidelines

1. The Bank will finance goods, consultancies, training, and other local activities neces-sary to implement the Project. The procurement of goods, works, and services will be done in accordance with the Bank’s Guidelines on Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits (January 1995, Revised January and August 1996, September 1997, and January 1999) and the Guidelines on Selection and Employment of Consultants by Bank Borrowers (January 1997, revised September 1997, January 1999 and May 2002). The Bank’s standard bidding documents for goods and the standard forms of contract and request for proposals for consult-ing services will be used under the Project. Any goods or services not financed by the Bank will be procured in accordance with the public procurement regulations of the riparian coun-tries or the co-financing institution’s procurement regulations.

Advertising of procurement opportunities

2. GPN. A General Procurement Notice (GPN) will be prepared and issued in the UN Development Business (UNDB), immediately after negotiations to advertise for any ICB for goods and for major consulting assignments. Sufficient time will be allowed (minimum of 30 days) before preparing the short list.

3. SPN. Specific Procurement Notices (SPN) for goods to be procured under ICB and Expressions of Interest for Consultants’ Services estimated to cost the equivalent of USD 200,000 and above will also be published in Development Business (UNDB on-line) as well as in the national press of the Niger River Basin riparian countries. Assignments esti-mated to cost less than USD 200,000 may be advertised regionally in riparian countries; the shortlist for assignments estimated to cost the equivalent amount of USD 100,000 or less may be made up entirely of consultants from the Niger River Basin riparian countries, provided that no more than two qualified firms from any one of the Niger River Basin riparian coun-tries are on the shortlist, and foreign consultants who wish to participate are not excluded from consideration.

Procurement capacity assessment

4. A procurement capacity assessment of the NBA was carried out as part of the institu-tional analysis in March 2002. During appraisal, an action plan was agreed to address areas where the existing structures still need to be strengthened to meet performance criteria. The action plan includes:

(i) The recruiting of a procurement specialist for the PMCU at the regional level;(ii) The training of counterpart staff of NBA; (iii) The installation of a procurement planning and contract management system

integrated in the computerized financial management system at the PMCU;(iv) The reorganization of the filing of procurement-related documents;(v) The supplying of NBA with filing material (filing cabinets and folders); and (vi) The preparation of a procurement plan.

53

The PMCU will be installed within the NBA and the procurement capacity of the PMCU will be assessed later when all its members have been recruited.

Required Action Schedule Responsible AgencyManual of procedures Before effectiveness NBARecruitment of a procurement specialist Before effectiveness NBAFirst year procurement plans During appraisal NBATraining of the NBA procurement staff 12-30 April 2004 CESAG (Dakar)Procurement performance assessment At mid time WBSupervision missions Every six months WB and other donors

Procurement planning

5. Procurement Plans. Draft procurement plans for the Project’s first year of implemen-tation were prepared during appraisal. These plans will be finalized by effectiveness and will be included in the PIM. The plans are based on the initial needs of the Project and the work plans submitted by the NBA. The proposed procurement plans will be updated every 6 months and furnished to the Bank for review and approval. The exact mix of procurement will be determined on an annual basis during the annual joint reviews between NBA, the Bank and other partners, when procurement plans for the following financial year will be presented and agreed upon. The plans will include relevant information on goods and consulting services under the Project, indicating the procurement method as well as the timing of each milestone in the procurement process.

6. Procurement Arrangements. The Niger River Basin Project is a stand-alone GEF Project. The Bank financed portion will be executed on behalf of the Niger River Basin ripar-ian countries by the NBA and is funded from one single source: the GEF Trust Fund in the amount of USD 6.0 million equivalent. This Annex outlines procurement arrangements for GEF funded activities.

7. The NBA/SE will be responsible for Project management, including financial manage-ment and procurement. The PMCU will work closely with the NBA/SE and with the regional institutions and NPTs to ensure timely Project implementation. The PMCU will also be pri-marily responsible for reporting on Project progress, financial management and procurement and disbursement, identifying implementation gaps and bottlenecks, and managing Project ac-counts and budget.

8. The PMCU will recruit a procurement specialist (regional-level) who will be responsi-ble for handling procurement activities. The procurement specialist will be expected to: (i) prepare bidding documents; (ii) help ensure quality; (iii) focus on specific procurement prob-lems and issues; (iv) make a significant contribution to ensuring that procurement takes place as rapidly and effectively as possible; and (v) coordinate with the PFO to ensure overall inte-gration of procurement plans and financial reports; work closely and coach the NBA counter-part.

9. Manual of Procedures. The Manual of Procedures, a financial and administrative manual, will be prepared. It will serve as a practical guide describing procedures agreed upon in negotiations. It will include: (i) procedures for calling for bids, selecting consultants, and

54

awarding contracts; (ii) internal organization for supervision and control, including opera-tional guidelines defining the role of the executing agency and reporting requirements; and (iii) disbursement procedures. A draft Manual of Procedures will be sent to the Bank for re-view and clearance before effectiveness.

10. Procurement package preparation. All procurement packages will be prepared either by NBA directly or by the procurement specialist at the PMCU. All procurement will be car-ried out in accordance with the procurement plan and as agreed with the Bank. The PMCU/NBA will forward the procurement packages to the Bank for prior review and no objection, as required.

Procurement methods

11. Procurement methods. The Project elements by disbursement category, their esti-mated costs, and procurement methods are summarized in Table A below. Thresholds for pro-curement methods and prior review are summarized in Table B.

(a) Goods and equipment (USD 0.37 million)

Goods financed under the Project would include light vehicles, computers, and miscellaneous equipment. The total value of goods is estimated at about USD 0.400 million equivalent for the Project.

Technical equipment and other goods costing USD 250,000 and more per contract will be subject to International Competitive Bidding (ICB) requirements. Goods estimated to cost less than USD 250,000 or equivalent may be awarded on the ba-sis of National Competitive Bidding (NCB). it should be noted that for this Project, NCB includes all of the participating riparian countries and bidding opportunities will therefore be published in all riparian countries for NCB.

For goods, contracts below USD 50,000 will be procured through prudent Shop-ping in accordance with provisions of paragraph 3.5 of the Guidelines and the Bank’s guidance procurement note on handling procurement under shopping method (June 8, 2000). Solicitations will be issued in writing to at least three rep-utable suppliers (preferably more) in order to receive at least three competitive quotations. Solicitations will give specifications, and if not immediately available, the delivery time. Written quotations will be opened at the same time for evalua-tion and records of award decisions will be kept for Bank supervision missions and audits.

Direct contracting may be exceptionally used with the prior no-objection of the Bank for the procurement of spare parts, operating expenditures, minor off-the-shelf items, and other specialized equipment and proprietary items costing less than USD 20,000 equivalent per contract up to an aggregate of the equivalent value of USD 200,000.

55

(b) Consultants’ services (USD 1.32 million)

As the majority of work undertaken in this Project is capacity building and techni-cal assistance to the Niger River Basin riparian countries, a large percentage of the expenditures will be for Consultants’ Services, much of which will be based in the Niger River Basin. Following agreed upon criteria, the PMCU will maintain and update a list of consultants that will be used to establish shortlists. The shortlists will be established based on expressions of interests received through GPNs and Specific Advertisements placed in the UNDB and/or regional newspapers, depend-ing upon the estimated value of such assignments. Consultant firms financed under the Project will be selected in accordance with Bank Consultant Guidelines. The following selection procedures will be used for Consultants’ Services:

(i) Quality-and-Cost-based (QCBS): All consulting service contracts for firms valued at more than USD 100,000 equivalent would be awarded through the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method. To ensure that priority is given to the identification of suitable and qualified national consulting firms, shortlists for QCBS contracts estimated at or less than USD 100,000 equiva-lent may be comprised entirely of national consultants from the Niger River Basin riparian countries, with no more than two firms on the shortlist from any one riparian country, (in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines), provided that a sufficient number of qualified firms (at least three) are available. However, if foreign firms have expressed interest, they would not be excluded from consideration.

(ii) Selection based on Consultant’s Qualification (CQ) may be used for consult-ing service contracts below an estimated contract amount of USD 100,000 equivalent, for research and targeted interventions for which organizations with specialized expertise, strong capacities to work with multinational groups and proven track records would be recruited. CQ may also be used for the selection of training institutions for contracts to provide training services that are estimated to cost up to USD 100,000 equivalent per contract.

(iii) For financial audits, the Least Cost Selection (LCS) method will be the most appropriate method.

(iv) Single Source Selection (SSS) may be used exceptionally for training, for specific tasks in a case where only one firm has specific qualified experience, and for consulting assignments costing less than USD 50,000 per contract up to an aggregate amount of the equivalent value of USD 300,000.

(v) S election of Individual Consultants Services (IC): Consultants for services meeting the requirements of Section V of the Consultant Guidelines will be selected under the provisions for the Selection of Individual Consultants method. Individual Consultants (IC) will be selected through comparison of curriculum vitae of those expressing interest in the assignment against job description requirements, or of those having been identified directly by the

56

PMCU. Civil servants from the riparian countries cannot be hired as consul-tants under the Project.

(vi) Indefinite delivery contracts may be used for contracts on a retainer basis. Services under this type of contract are likely to be those which will be re-quired on a recurrent basis and could include, but are not limited to, services such as translation, interpretation, workshop facilitation and community training etc., which are estimated to cost USD 2,000 equivalent or less per contract.

(c) Training, workshop and conferences (USD 2.06 million)

Training, workshops, conference attendance and study tours will be carried out on the basis of approved annual programs that will identify the general framework of training and similar activities for the year, including the nature of training/study tours/workshops, the number of participants, and cost estimates. For national train-ing and workshops, preference will be given to consultants from the country in which the training is being organized, provided that a sufficient number of quali-fied individuals or firms (at least three) are available. For regional training, prefer-ence will be given to consultants from the Niger River Basin riparian countries, provided that no more than two consultants from any one riparian are shortlisted and a sufficient number of qualified individuals or firms (at least three) is avail-able.

(d) Operational expenses (USD 1.86 million)

The NBA will establish and staff the PMCU office at the NBA/ES in Niamey, Niger. The PMCU will assist the NBA in Project management and implementa-tion. Project staff employed under the Bank funded portion of the Project will be hired in accordance with Section V of the Bank’s Consultant Guidelines. Other op-erational costs, such as utilities, printing, translation, office supplies, will be pro-cured through Shopping. All the above positions will be advertised.

12. Prior Review Thresholds (Table B). The Bank will conduct a prior review of the fol-lowing procurement documentation:

(i) Goods: All contracts estimated to cost the equivalent value of USD 250,000 or more will be submitted for prior review.

(ii) Consultants’ services: All contracts with firms estimated to cost the equivalent value of USD 100,000 or more, will be submitted for prior review as per para-graph 2, Appendix I of the Guidelines. Individual consultant contracts above USD 50,000 will all be subject to prior review. Other procurement subject to Bank review would include: annual training plans for local and overseas train-ing and workshops, including terms of reference and estimated budgets. All out of country training will be subject to Bank approval.

(iii) Operational expenses: All individual long-term contracts (greater than six

57

months) for Project staff will be subject to prior review.

(iv) Single source selection: All single source selection, regardless of value, for as-signments of a critical nature (as determined by the Bank) will be subject to Bank prior review.

13. Frequency of procurement support missions proposed. It is suggested that procure-ment implementation support be provided to this Project once every four months in the first year and twice a year for the remaining period, including focus on post-review/audits as speci-fied above. It is also suggested that this procurement implementation support be given to PMCU/NBA headquarters in Niamey.

14. NBA will also give assurance at negotiations that it will take the necessary measures to ensure that procurement phases do not exceed the following target time periods:

Procurement Phases Maximum number of weeksPreparation of bidding documents 4 (6 for large contracts)Preparation of bids by bidders 4 (6-10 for ICB)Bid evaluation 2 (4 for large contracts)Signature of Contracts 2Payments 3

15. Overall procurement risk assessment. The risk identified in procurement is medium; particular attention should be paid during recruitment of the consultant to be in charge of these aspects of Project execution.

58

Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements(USD million equivalent)

Expenditure Category ICBProcurement

NCBMethod1

Other2 N.B.F. Total Cost3

1. Goods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.24) (0.08) (0.09) (0.00) (0.41)

2. Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (1.36) (0.00) (1.36)

3. Training and seminars 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (2.21) (0.00) (2.21)

4. Operating Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (2.00) (0.00) (2.00)

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)5. Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0.24) (0.08) (5.66) (0.00) 6.00*Figures may slightly differ due to rounding1/ Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the GEF Grant. All costs include contin-

gencies.2/ Includes goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contracted

staff of the Project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related to (i) managing the Project, and (ii) re-lending Project funds to local government units.

3/ Total costs incorporate unallocated/contingencies

59

Table A1: Consultant Selection Arrangements (optional)(USD million equivalent)

Selection MethodConsultant Services

Expenditure CategoryQCBS QBS SFB LCS CQ Other N.B.F. Total

Cost1

A. Firms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06) (0.40) (2.11) (0.00) (2.21)

B. Individuals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.36) (0.00) (1.36)

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06) (0.40) (3.47) (0.00) (3.57)

1\ Including contingenciesNote: QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based Selection

QBS = Quality-based SelectionSFB = Selection under a Fixed BudgetLCS = Least-Cost SelectionCQ = Selection Based on Consultants’ QualificationsOther = Selection of individual consultants (per Section V of Consultants Guidelines), Com-mercial Practices, etc.N.B.F. = Not Bank-financedFigures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the GEF grant

Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review1

Expenditure CategoryContract Value

Threshold(USD thousands)

Procurement Method

Contracts Subject to Review

(USD millions)1. Goods Above 200,000

Below 200,000Less than 50,000Less than 20,000

ICBNCB

ShoppingDirect Contracting

Prior reviewPost review Post reviewPrior review

2. ServicesFirms

Individual

Above 100,000Less than 100,000

Less than 20,000

Above USD 50,000

Equal to USD 50,000or < USD 50,000

QCBSCQ/LC

SSS

Section V of Consultants Guidelines

Section V of Consultants Guidelines

Prior reviewPost review

Prior review

Prior review

Post review

Total value of contracts subject to prior review: 30 percent of total costs

60

Technical Annex 9:Incremental Cost Analysis

Introduction

1. The riparian countries share a common concern to address the Basin issues beyond the boundaries of specific national interests and recognize that to address these transboundary issues would include additional cost, the incremental cost. This cost is the measure of the economic burden that would be placed on the Niger River Basin countries for undertaking the sustainable development of the Basin, beyond their current national baseline and capacity.

2. Under the broader international waters work being carried out in the Niger River Basin, there is significant emphasis on enhancing existing capacity at the national and regional level. The Niger River Basin countries are developing a SDAP for the Niger River Basin with the support of the Bank. Whereas the GEF Project’s SAP will focus on managing the Basin’s environment, the SDAP will deal with the broader issues of multi-sector sustainable development in the Basin. The SAP and the SDAP can be managed as complementary processes, with the SAP as a natural precursor. The GEF TDA/SAP is identifying, characterizing, and prioritizing water-related, envi-ronmental issues and sectors across the Niger River Basin member states, as well developing a framework for environmental management and development in the Basin. The SDAP will enve-lope all possible sectors, both those with environmental externalities, as well as those not before captured by the SAP process, and will build on the environmental management framework de-veloped for the SAP. The GEF Project will support strengthened regional, national, and local de-cision-making capacity, providing a better understanding of the sector issues, which contribute to land and water degradation, and mechanisms to manage these transboundary issues in a more in-clusive participatory decision-making process.

Global environmental objective

3. The Project’s global environmental objectives are to reduce and prevent transboundary wa-ter-related environmental degradation, prevent land degradation, and protect globally significant biodiversity, through sustainable and cooperative integrated management of the Basin.

4. The significance of the Basin has been highlighted by the international interest in its ecologi-cal elements. If the transboundary issues are not addressed, the direct and indirect threats to this international waterbody will result in the progressive breakdown of the hydrological and ecologi-cal integrity of the Niger River Basin system. This will cause the global community to forfeit sizeable global conservation benefits; this includes direct and indirect use values, and existence and option values from the Basin.

Development objective

5. To achieve the global environmental objectives, the Project’s development objective is to provide the nine riparians an opportunity to define a transboundary framework for the sustain-able development of the Niger River Basin, through strengthened capacity and better understand-ing of the Basin’s land and water resources.

61

6. The development objective supports the nine riparian countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria) of the Niger River Basin in their efforts to work together to assure the sustainable development and management of the Basin’s land and water resources, including protection of its unique drylands environment and associated biodiversity. These requirements are transboundary in nature, clearly transcending na-tional capacities and priorities, and requiring financial and technical resources significantly be-yond those that can be mobilized by each riparian state singly or in combination.

7. The long-term goal of the GEF Project is to achieve global benefits, as identified above, through broad, basin-wide participation in the development and implementation of measures that ensure that the integrity of the Niger River system is protected by integrated management of the Basin’s resources. This requires orchestration of both national and regional activities through ef-ficient Basin governance. Measures are targeted to mitigate the causes and effects of desertifica-tion in the region and building of capacity at regional, national, and local levels to create en-hanced adaptive capacities.

Barriers to better land and water management

8. The NBA has been involved in a number of diagnostic studies, which formed the basis for the Project’s preparation. During Project preparation it became evident that there are a number of issues which impact the Basin. These issues are part of a greater concern about the multi-sectoral contribution to escalating negative impacts on land and water resources. The main issues in the Basin include:

Inadequately coordinated land and water management frameworks; Continued degradation of land, water, and renewable resources; Insufficient and inadequate information and data for good management practices and to

support the decision-making process; and Cumulative degradation from the hydropower sector.

Removing the barriers

9. There are a number of initiatives in the Basin to develop appropriate linkages and coordinate efforts to benefit from lessons learned, so that scarce financial resources can be used more effi-ciently to improve national and basin-wide water resources management. In a shared river basin, interests may conflict with each other, especially as national interests are often based upon im-mediate needs rather than their long-term impact. Given the environmental degradation in the Basin, resulting from cumulative impacts from the issues discussed above, it is becoming in-creasingly apparent that to tackle the causes will require a coordinated multi-country effort across the Basin, with action taking place at the appropriate level (i.e., subsidiarity). At present, several major barriers need to be removed if NBA is to make progress in its attempts to secure a sustainable future for the Niger River Basin ecosystem. Efforts to remove these barriers would include:

Introducing effective land and water management, to mitigate desertification and sedi-mentation problems;

Establishing reliable water resources monitoring and data exchange;

62

Coordinating management of the Basin’s infrastructure; and Promoting good management practices for biodiversity protection and conservation.

10. In the longer term, through this Project and integration with the SDAP, the removal of barri-ers to sustainable use of the Basin’s resources will widen the menu of development options avail-able at the regional, national, and local level. However, in the short term, the program to address transboundary issues will result in mainly non-pecuniary benefits. For the riparian countries, tan-gible costs exceed tangible benefits in the intermediate term, providing little incentive to under-take this initiative without external assistance.

Baseline scenario

11. The Niger River Basin resources have an intrinsic value to the riparian countries’ future de-velopment potential, and therefore almost all investments in the national development arena have direct implications for the Basin’s land and water resources. Currently, there is an extensive list of projects and programs taking place and proposed in the nine Basin countries, with each con-tributing to improvement in national concerns. As part of the initial phase of Project preparation, a range of current,3 past and proposed4 Bank projects in the Basin were inventoried and evalu-ated, as they pertained to agriculture, forestry, environment or water sectors. Similar effort was conducted for the current and future UNDP5 country projects, as well as donor projects. With the knowledge that each relevant project in the Basin contributes to the fundamental baseline of Basin development, it is necessary to make note of the range of activities in the Basin.

12. However, for the sake of clarity, to define the true value of the incremental benefit from this Project, in its transboundary context, the baseline was defined by a specific parameter to include just those activities which directly contribute to and support the Project’s development objective. Therefore, the baseline assessment considered the relevant donor-supported co-financing/parallel efforts proposed in the Basin, which directly contribute to and complement the Project compo-nent activities. These funds, together with the in-kind national contributions, defined the baseline amount as USD 29.64 million. The NBA and national governments in-kind contributions total USD 2.07 million, this includes a contribution of USD 0.38 from NBA for regional-level activi-

3 Bank projects: Africa Regional Environmental and Information Management Program (2); Benin Rural Water Supply and Sani -tation; Burkina Faso Community-Based Rural Project; Mali PNIR; Guinea Third Water Supply and Supplemental; Niger Water Resource Management Sector Strategy; Nigeria Water Resource Management Strategy; Mali National Water Resource Strategy Preparation; Nigeria Urban Water Sector Reform Project I; Niger Water Sector Project; Burkina Faso Ouagadougou Water Sup -ply Project; Chad Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project; Niger Community Action Program; and Nigeria Fadama Agricultural and Rural Development4 Benin: PCD Management of Forests and Adjacent Lands; PCD National CDD Project; PAD Forests and Adjacent Lands Man -agement; Burkina Faso: PAD Partnership for Natural Ecosystem Mgt.; PAD Community-Based Rural Development; PCD Sahel Integrated Lowland Ecosystem Mgt.; PCD Urban Environment Supplemental; PAD Ouagadougou Water Supply Project; Cameroon: PCD Forestry/Environ; Chad: PAD Agric. Services and Producer Org. Project; PAD Local Development Project; Chad Urban Development Project; Côte d’Ivoire: PAD National Protected Area Management Program; PCD Cap/Basic Infr/Ur-ban and Env); Guinea: Village Comm. Sup. II; Third Water Supply (Supplemental); Mali: PCD Community-based Rural Devel-opment Project Rural; PAD Arid Land Biodiversity; PAD Rural Infrastructure (WRM); Niger: PAD Private Irrigation Promo-tion; PAD Community Action Program; Water Sector Project; Nigeria: PCD Nigeria Fadama II; PAD Local Empowerment and Environmental Management; PAD Small Towns Water; PCD Lagos Water Sector Restructuring Project; PAD Urban Water Sec -tor Reform Project.5 The three regional international waters projects include: (i) Industrial water pollution control in the Gulf of Guinea Large Ma -rine Ecosystem, within Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria; (ii) Integrated Management of the Lake Chad Basin, Chad, Cameroon, Mali, and Nigeria; and (iii) Control of exotic aquatic weeds in rivers and coastal lagoons to enhance/restore biodiversity in Côte d’Ivoire.

63

ties related to Component 1; and USD 1.69 million from the national NBA counterparts as it re-lates to national-level efforts for Component 2. The additional co-financing figure (USD 27.57 million) is indicative of the anticipated participation of ongoing projects related to activities in the GEF Project and is reflected as parallel funding, or the baseline. Summarized in Table 1, this includes financing from: (i) AfDB (USD 21.87 million) which complements GEF Component 1, regional institution building and the Component 5 theme targeting sedimentation problems and river degradation; (ii) Government of France support (USD 4.78 million) for Bank components for institution building (Component 1), data and knowledge management (Component 3) and technical studies (Component 6); (iii) Government of the Netherlands (USD 0.59 million) sup-port, as part of the Bank Netherlands Water Partnership, parallels activities to Component 3; (iv) Government of Norway (USD 0.160 million) support to fund sector reports in the Basin for Component 6; and (v) the UNDP-TRIB (USD 0.17 million), which supports technical capacity in Component 3 and institutional capacity for Component 2.

Table 1: Summary of Project Financing for Each Component

ComponentBaseline /

Parallel Funding & Increment

Donor / In-stitution Donor/Institution Activities

Component 1 Institution Building

0.380 NBA In-kind (NBA Contribution)

4.170 AfDB“Programme for the Framework for Erosion Control and Protection in the Niger River Basin” supports NBA regional institution building

0.250 French Govt. Supports NBA regional institution building

3.520 GEF GEF IncrementSubtotal 8.32    

Component 2 Capacity Building and Public Awareness

1.687 NBA In-kind (National Contribution)

0.124 UNDP-TRIB-I

Promotes dialogue for capacity building (Bank-man-aged)

1.620 GEF GEF IncrementSubtotal 3.43    

Component 3 Data and Knowledge Management

0.587 Govt. of Netherlands

Trust Fund “Preparing the Niger Basin Authority Tech-nologically for Effective River Basin Management” (Bank-managed) supports HydroNiger

0.050 UNDP-TRIB-I Promotes dialogue for data sharing (Bank-managed)

4.417 French Govt.

Supports technical capacity building and supports the environmental observatory

1.130 GEF GEF IncrementSubtotal 6.18    

Component 4 Regional Forum

0.00    0.380 GEF GEF Increment

Subtotal 0.38        Component 5 Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Pro-gram

17.695 BAD“Programme for the Framework for Erosion Control and Protection in the Niger River Basin” national-level activities supporting good management practices

5.000 GEF GEF IncrementSubtotal 22.70        

Component 6TDA/SAP 0.160 AWRMI Trust Fund to promote dialogue to support

environment/water sector reports (Bank-managed)0.117 French

Govt.Support preparation of environment/water sector reports

64

ComponentBaseline /

Parallel Funding & Increment

Donor / In-stitution Donor/Institution Activities

1.350 GEF IncrementSubtotal 1.63  

  42.64 GEF Alternative  13.00 GEF Increment  29.64  Baseline

GEF Alternative

13. GEF Alternative. The GEF Alternative regional program, together with the SDAP and other initiatives in the Basin, will support actions that are compatible with the economic and social in-terests of each country, while generating benefits to the Basin for the overall environment. It would create new opportunities for regional development by enabling all players within the Basin to be responsible for identifying priorities in the Basin and to engage in the decision-mak-ing process.

14. The GEF Project will provide support for improving management and protection of the Basin resources. It will also be a vital instrument, through the development of the SAP, for mobilizing, catalyzing, and generating sustainable national development projects which consider the environ-ment as an essential element for future development. Reciprocally, these national development programs concerned with water and environment, and coordinated within a comprehensive strategic approach basin-wide (i.e. within the context of the SAP) will be decisive in upgrading the capabilities that need to be mobilized collectively, throughout the region, to improve the Niger River Basin ecosystem. Given the size and scope of the work that has to be organized and carried out, no other project or initiative in the short or medium term can provide the assistance needed to address the environmental problems of the Niger River Basin.

15. To avoid the overall environmental risks identified above, in-kind support being provided by the member states for regular NBA operations needs to be further extended and complemented. Existing support is insufficient to cope with the magnitude of the problems at hand. The gap in support will be financed under the proposed Project. In this regard, other priority regional pro-grams would benefit from being co-financed with other donors in order to generate more wide-ranging actions and thus have a more rapid impact on the human and physical environments. At the national level, the components financed by the GEF would also help to support existing and future programs to become integrated into national sustainable development programs and into the SAP for the entire Basin.

Table 2: Summary of Project Baseline, GEF Alternative, and Project IncrementFINANCING Baseline Sce-

nario(USD million)

GEF Alterna-tive

(USD million)

Project In-crement

GEF Contribution 13.00 13.00Co-financing: 27.57 27.57

Current Estimated NBA/Countries In-kind

2.07 2.07

29.64 42.64 13.00

65

Project financing and incremental cost matrix

16. The GEF Alternative increment. Total Project costs are estimated to be USD 42.64million, with a total GEF contribution and costs of USD 13 million. The remaining amount of USD 29.64 million will come from various co-financing sources such as: national government in-kind con-tributions, and active donors in the Basin (USD 2.07 million from current in-kind, USD 27.57 million from donors), summarized in Table 2.

17. The incremental cost matrix (Table 3) shows the costs to achieve the stated domestic and global benefits, the global environmental objectives, and the benefits associated with the GEF Alternative. The increment is differentiated from the baseline for the component activities.

Domestic and global benefits from Project increment

18. Overall domestic benefits From incremental costs:

Countries are able to strengthen water and environment management without losing de-velopment funds for other critical short-term priorities and without losing competitive po-sition.

Interventions are more targeted at removing the root causes of threats, thus improving the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of management endeavors.

National capacities to implement a holistic resources management method at all levels are strengthened.

Civil society is more responsive to environmental protection measures. Ecological sustainability of activities in the Basin will be better assured, for each country.

19. The global environmental objectives will be achieved through broad basin-wide participation in and implementation of cooperative decision-making and best practices, and sustainable man-agement of the Basin’s land and water resources. The long-term global environmental benefits that would accrue from the successful completion of the Project activities and future implemen-tation of the SAP include:

Strengthened regional, national, and local institutional capacity in all nine-Basin coun-tries will support effective execution capacity for future regional project implementation.

Strengthened regional, national, and local institutional capacity for sustainable land and water resource management in the Niger River Basin with an inclusive framework for re-gional cooperation will be supported through agreements on policy/institutional and legal adjustments at regional and national levels.

Harmonized and coherent basin-wide national data collection, and effective data dissemi-nated will be a valuable capacity for national and regional decision-makers.

Forums with other regional initiatives provide a mechanism to better collaborate and communicate the exchange of good practices and better management of Basin resources.

Public participation in management of local resources increases ownership of civil soci-ety through microgrant-supported community-based activities that will enable communi-ties to understand the cause and effect of environmental and land degradation, and tackle priority issues in the Basin directly.

66

A completed transboundary diagnostic analysis of the transboundary water-related envi-ronmental issues and root causes across the Basin will be better understood and an action program of legal, policy and institutional reforms and investments can help address the transboundary land and water issues.

A SAP provides a regional framework for sustainable management of the Basin’s land and water resources.

67

Table 3: Incremental Cost MatrixDevelopment

ObjectiveCost

CategoryTotal USD 

Million

Overall Domestic and Global Benefits

The nine riparians establish a trans-boundary land and water framework for the sustainable development of the Niger River Basin.

The Bank imple-mented compo-nents aim to strengthen NBA’s Project execution and data manage-ment capacity as well as formalize consultative pro-cesses for Basin-level environmen-tal planning to contribute to the reversal of land and water degra-dation in the Basin.

Baseline 29.64 Overall Domestic Baseline Benefits: Countries only taking unilateral action to reverse

degradation trends, and bilateral assistance reluc-tant to fund water projects without any clear knowledge, or agreement, on sustainability of ri-parian land and water uses, upstream and down-stream.

National efforts are continued but are insufficient to mitigate threats to river systems; though effort is made under the SDAP, it lacks a comprehen-sive approach to integrate the environmental is-sues for which there continues to be minimal co-ordination between countries on environmental management policies, strategies, and laws, or be-tween programs within countries.

National capacities in pursuing effective and inte-grated land/ water resources management com-mence but there is insufficient regional support for an integrated management framework.

National and local players sensitized to environ-mental concerns but mechanisms do not exist for exchanging lessons learned and cooperative deci-sion-making on Basin and resources management.

Opportunities for the exchange of lessons learnt are made available to a range of stakeholders in West African basins.

Countries face growing environmental, social, and economic costs and a decrease in available natural resources from degradation of the Niger River Basin system, and are unable to formulate a strategic program for sustainable Basin manage-ment.

Overall Global Baseline Benefits: Under the baseline scenario, there are insuffi-

cient financial resources to address the regional transboundary issues that contribute to global benefits. If the Project is not implemented it is not contributing to any significant global base-line benefits.

National efforts continue under the baseline sce-nario.

With GEF Alternative

42.64 Overall Domestic GEF Alternative Benefits: National policies and standards for water and en-

vironmental management will be harmonized in line with a common strategy (SDAP) at the Basin level, with information and support of donors.

Institutional capacity is strengthened and manage-ment efforts among the riparian countries are bet-ter coordinated using international cooperation mechanisms.

National institutional and technical capacities in river basin planning and integrated land and water resources management are strengthened.

A wide range of intervention measures are imple-mented to address the root causes of water re-sources and environmental degradation.

Resource conservation and protection practices and interventions are successful, and well-targeted public advocacy and awareness campaigns con-tribute to improvements in the Niger River Basin.

Overall Global GEF Alternative Benefits: Strengthening of policy, institutions and incen-

tives for regional cooperation, involving all players, in which institutional barriers are re-moved, make the international waters effort a catalyst for regional cooperation.

Institutional mechanisms guide and coordinate national plans and actions within a common re-gional vision and framework for action.

Mechanisms for engendering public participa-tion in sound development planning and man-agement at Basin-ecosystem level are developed and funded.

Forums for lessons learned, training on regional transboundary issues are made available.

Strengthened environment leads to a dynamic regional instrument able to aid decisions for maximization of economic and social impacts, and minimization of environmental impacts.

A set of horizontal activities is launched across sectors and borders in order to stimulate co-op-eration and capacity building in land and water resources management.

A strategic framework for sustainable land and water management is prepared for the Basin.

68

DevelopmentObjective

CostCategory

Total USD 

Million

Overall Domestic and Global Benefits

Incremen-tal Cost

13.00 Overall Domestic Incremental Cost Benefits: Countries will be able to strengthen water and en-

vironment management without losing develop-ment funds for other critical short-term priorities and without losing competitive position.

Interventions will be more targeted at removing the root causes of threats, thus improving the effi-cacy and cost-effectiveness of management en-deavors.

National capacities to implement a holistic re-sources management method at all levels will be strengthened for improved sustainable manage-ment of the Basin’s resources.

Civil society more responsive to environmental protection measures.

Ecological sustainability of activities in the Basin will be better assured, for each country.

Overall Global Incremental Cost Benefits: Strengthened regional, national, and local insti-

tutional capacity in all nine-Basin countries will support effective execution capacity for future regional project implementation.

Strengthened regional, national, and local insti-tutional capacity for sustainable land and water resource management in the Niger River Basin with an inclusive framework for regional coop-eration will be supported through agreements on policy /institutional and legal adjustments at re-gional and national levels.

Harmonized and coherent basin-wide national data collection, and effective data disseminated will be valuable capacity for the national and re-gional decision-makers.

Forums with other regional initiatives provide a mechanism to better collaborate and communi-cate the exchange of good practices and better management of Basin resources.

Public participation in management of local re-sources increases ownership by civil society; microgrant-supported community-based activi-ties will enable communities to understand the cause and effect of environmental and land degradation, and tackle priority issues in the Basin directly.

A completed transboundary diagnostic analysis of the transboundary water-related environmen-tal issues and root causes across the Basin will be better understood and an action program of legal, policy and institutional reforms and in-vestments will help to address the transboundary land and water issues.

A SAP provides a regional framework for sus-tainable management of the Basin’s land and water resources.

Component Activities Costs Cat-egory

USDMil-lion

Domestic and Global Benefits

Component 1 Institution Building Activity 1.1: Operational-

ize the Project Implemen-tation Structure at Re-gional Level

Activity 1.2: Operational-ize the Project Implemen-tation Structure at the Na-tional Level

Activity 1.3: Project Man-agement Training

Baseline 4.80 National-level contributions to the NBA are maintained. Regional capability within NBA and countries in executing and coordinating regional projects

within a transboundary context is not put in place. Human resources, operational and technical capacity exist mostly within the NBA for leading, im-

plementing and monitoring transboundary water and environmental projects. Guidelines, expertise and training capacities for transboundary environmental management and fa-

cilities exist within NBA.Incremen-

tal Cost3.52 Recruitment of highly qualified consultants and experts to support the full program implementa-

tion during 4 years by providing guidance and technical assistance. Creation of operational national and local teams in all 9 NBA countries. Guidelines for appropriate training are prepared and training executed for NBA, regional and na-

tional experts.GEF Alter-

native8.32 Appropriate human capacities developed to promote and support participatory practices, at all lev-

els, and to ensure a permanent evaluation and follow-up of transboundary activities. Appropriate national and local units will be established, equipped and organized in order to effi-

ciently deliver Project components, give technical assistance and manage program activities. Application of standardized guidelines for design, coordinated implementation and monitoring of

GEF Project activities and strengthened capabilities harmonized and coordinated. Regional, sub-regional, national and local institutions will be able to coordinate strategic actions

to adequately address degradation of land and water resources of the Basin. Training of staff, and national- and local-level institutions made available and consistent with the

overall objective of the Project.

69

Component Activities Costs Cat-egory

USDMil-lion

Domestic and Global Benefits

Component 2: Capacity Building Activity 2.1: Public Educa-

tion and Awareness Pro-grams for All Relevant Stakeholders

Activity 2.2: Develop and Implement Regional, Na-tional and Local Training Program

Baseline 1.81 Necessary regional, national, and local human resources and skill-base for implementing a re-gional project on land and water degradation is not completely known.

National and local capacity and institutions lack necessary expertise and ability to appropriately and sustainably manage the Niger River Basin.

Elements put in place for a strategic development plan in the Basin. However, decision on interna-tional and national water and land resources remain unsustainable, inducing continued resource degradation.

Knowledge of the issues will be not accessible to all stakeholders.Incremen-

tal Cost1.62 Existing capacities will be assessed and necessary scaling done for full operation of the Project.

Appropriate and necessary training of all NBA and member country personnel involved in water resources management and other sectors and issues.

Better knowledge of and cooperation on transboundary management and reversal of land and wa-ter degradation will be obtained and necessary information network developed.

All stakeholders, including communities and water users in general will be informed of and con-sulted on major decisions that can affect their livelihoods, and their opinion and knowledge will be taken into account.

GEF Alter-native

3.43 Efficient and integrated management of Niger River Basin water resources including inter-sectoral approach, social issues and environmental impacts.

Information measures to inform stakeholders regarding land and water degradation will be better designed, implemented, and get full support from various stakeholders, thus improving global benefits as well as community livelihoods and environment.

Component 3: Data Management Activity 3.1: Strategic As-

sessment for Data and In-formation Management

Activity 3.2: Assess Exist-ing National Data and Data Quality

Activity 3.3: Identify a Framework for a Basin-wide Environmental Infor-mation System

Activity 3.4: Conduct Lo-cal, National and Regional Information Exchange and Training

Activity 3.5: Facilitate Di-alogue for Basin-wide En-vironmental Management

Activity 3.6: Supplement a Basin-Wide Economic Model with an Environ-mental Dimension

Baseline 5.05 Information sharing and benefit from other experiences of river basin management. NBA has lim-ited knowledge of best practices and issues of global significance.

Regional and national water institutions lack the tools for comprehensive planning and decision-making, and management remains fragmented and unsustainable.

Wide portions of the Basin remain uncovered and transboundary issues will be neglected. Information on best practices for natural resource conservation and management under participa-

tory and decentralized management structures is maintained. Though some effort is made to expand data collection and exchange, it remains intermittent and

inconsistent.Incremen-

tal Cost1.13 Study will be made of all current projects and capitalization of their results on which the new

Project can build or use acquired data. National and regional training course for data managers (collectors, processors, interpreters) and

data users (policy and decision-makers) will improve quality of data management and dissemina-tion.

Necessary transboundary infrastructure including data collection instruments will be agreed upon by national governments and further developed to reverse land and water degradation.

GEF Alter-native

6.18 Capitalization of skills, lessons and experiences on climatological and hydrological data necessary for better knowledge of trends and for monitoring progress.

Water resources management is supported by improved data and the resource is better understood, allowing for improved management decisions, thus preventing further degradation of water re-sources that may affect global environment.

Global benefits will be achieved through basin-wide management of land and water resources and a regional frame for cooperation.

Decentralized and efficient management of natural resources is secured with cross-sectoral impli-cations and benefits.

An informational framework for water resources management is set up, and incorporated into the economic model at regional level and used for planning new initiatives in an adequate manner. Decisions will be made to secure long-term sustainability of investments.

Four new countries will be covered by the Project, which provides a basis for their full integration into the NBA.

New opportunities and knowledge will emerge as a result of the implementation of pilot projects about best environmental management practices.

Component 4: Regional Forum Activity 4.1: Lessons

Learned and Linkages Activity 4.2: Expand Net-

works and Study Tour Activity 4.3: Regional Fo-

rum

Baseline 0.00 Basin managers do not have a comprehensive understanding of best practices and lessons learned from other international waters projects.

Incremen-tal Cost

0.38 A forum is held for sharing lessons learned to develop knowledge of and experience for sustain-able river basin management for NBA and its national counterparts.

GEF Alter-native

0.38 A broader, international network strengthens the collaborative process and information and knowledge exchange.

NBA and stakeholders implement lessons and experiences that will be applicable to the Niger River Basin in managing international waters and in reversal of land and degradation trends.

Component 5 Demonstration Pilots and Microgrant Program Activity 5.1: Establish Na- Baseline 17.70 Current baseline projects have national scope and are sector-specific, lacking a transboundary ele-

70

Component Activities Costs Cat-egory

USDMil-lion

Domestic and Global Benefits

tional and Local Institu-tional Structures

Activity 5.2: Establish Demonstration Pilots

Activity 5.3: Implement Demonstration Pilots

Activity 5.4: Assess and Share Lessons

Activity 5.5: Formulate, Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate

ment. Effort to improve land management, to reduce sedimentation and river degradation is commenced

but no mechanisms available for exchange of information and replication. No framework for on the ground implementation of activities of regional character exists. Locally-based efforts difficult to commence due to lack of public information and knowledge of

best management practices. Incremen-

tal Cost5.00 Microgrant demonstration projects will be run as stand-alone projects and no integration into SAP

or replication is possible. Implementation of on the ground activities to consolidate experience in land and water resources

management and to establish joint country teams for cooperative work. Development of Project manuals and determination of sites, tasks and components on the basis of

technical standards. Preparation of appropriate Project procurement and disbursement plans on the basis of existing ex-

perience prior to implementation. Participatory approaches will be adopted to enhance participation in implementation and use of lo-

cal knowledge. Full coordination and exchange of experience to apply best practices and solutions for reversal of

degradation trends.GEF Alter-

native22.70 Most land and water degradation issues are transboundary and need full cooperation on an agreed

time frame, agenda and sharing of experience to enhance global benefits. Communities have the means to implement and improve sustainable resources management prac-

tice. Availability of standards that will be used as input for mid-term and final stage assessment of

Project results. Enhanced participation and possibility to replicate microgrant-supported interventions basin-wide

on the basis of lessons learned. Solutions and practices adopted to address trends in degradation of land and international waters.

Component 6. TDA and SAP Activity 6.1: Finalize the

TDA to Include Remaining Riparian Countries

Activity 6.2: Develop the SAP based upon the TDA

Activity 6.3: Draft and Validate SAP at National and Regional level

Activity 6.4: Engage Donors to Implement the SAP

Baseline 0.28 The current preliminary TDA remains limited to the 5 main NBA member countries and full Basin TDA is not developed.

Current methodologies, problems and potential for improving land resources management will not be taken into account when designing the Project.

Use of data and knowledge captured by the TDA and subsequent action will be limited to Project lifespan because of the lack of a long-term frame for continuous technical and financial support with regards to transboundary management of land and water resources.

SAP implementation capacity at national level does not exist and SAP recommendations will re-main unimplemented to a great extent.

Only conventional funding channels will be explored. No regional coordination of fund raising campaigns is provided.

The existing conditions will be not conducive to the implementation of the SAP. National policies, laws, and institutions focus on domestic water issues and not transboundary

ones.Incremen-

tal Cost1.35 Extension of the TDA to all 9 Niger River Basin countries and full study and coverage of trans-

boundary issues identified in all sectors of land and water management. A full SAP for reversal of land and water degradation trends is designed using existing and future

data from TDA studies to serve as a platform for negotiating further and longer-term support for implementation of efficient activities to improve land and water resources management in a sus-tainable manner.

Measures that will be necessary for full implementation of SAP will be designed and integrated into Project activities.

Financial provision for a fund raising campaign for full donor support will yield needed additional funding of SAP activities.

Different components of SAP will be validated with the relevant stakeholders, and conditions will be created for its successful implementation.

GEF Alter-native

1.63 Creation of an enabling environment for basin-wide approach for reversing land and water degra-dation trends and comprehensive understanding of transboundary issues and root causes for the SAP design.

Support for the design of the SAP as part of the Project will sustain the benefit for global environ-ment and management of land and water rehabilitation activities that take time to provide benefits and results at regional and global level.

Global benefit can be sustained in the longer term as the SAP implementation procedures are agreed upon and integrated into the GEF Project.

Drafting and implementation of a fund raising plan and its coordination through the GEF Project will yield additional funds for the SAP and concurrent SDAP.

The GEF Project will fund enabling activities related to environmental management and develop-ment of a shared vision as the base for sustainable management.

71

Component Activities Costs Cat-egory

USDMil-lion

Domestic and Global Benefits

TOTALS Baseline 29.64Incremen-

tal Cost13.00

GEF Al-ternative

42.64

72

Technical Annex 10: Project Preparation and Supervision

1. Project Schedule Planned- Project Concept Review April 28, 2003- Initial Project Identification Document (PID) to PIC April 28, 2001- Initial ISDS to PIC September 19, 2003- Appraisal mission departure January 19, 2004- Negotiations March 3, 2004- Board/RVP approval May 20, 2004- Planned Date of Effectiveness July 1, 2004- Planned Date of Mid-term review February 2, 2007- Planned closing date August 1, 2009

2. Project Preparation Team

Role/Responsibility Organization

Ousmane Dione Senior Water Resource Management Specialist,Co-Task Team Leader

Bank, AFTU2

Abdoulaye Ndiaye Regional Coordinator, Co-Task Team Leader UNDP, GEF Africa RegionAndrew Hudson Principal Technical Advisor UNDPMartha Jarosewich-Holder International Water Resource Management Specialist Bank, AFTU2Marie-Adele Tchakounte-Sitchet

Program Assistant and Project Focal Point Bank, AFTU2

Esther Monier-Illouz Community and Institutional Development Consultant Bank, AFTU2Rohan Selvaratnam Program Assistant Bank, ECSSDKaren Hudes Senior Counsel Bank, LEGAFYao Wottor Procurement Analyst Bank, AFTPCHenri Aka Procurement Specialist Bank, AFTPCMamadou Yaro Financial Management Specialist Bank, AFTFMBertrand de Chazal Senior Financial Management Specialist Bank, AFTFMAfrica Olojoba Environmental Specialist Bank, AFTS3John Boyle Senior Environmental Specialist Bank, AFTS1Abdoul Wahab-Seyni Social Development Specialist Bank, AFTS3Gordon Appleby Social Development Specialist Bank, AFTS4Jeffrey Lecksell Cartographer Bank, GSDGPTracy Hart Senior Economist Bank, AFTU2Willem Zijp Quality Assurance Reviewer Bank, AFTOSJames Richard Davis Senior Environmental Specialist (Peer Reviewer) Bank, ENVInesis Kiskis Senior Environmental Specialist (Peer Reviewer) Bank, ECSSD Mohammed Bella Tuga Executive Secretary Niger Basin AuthorityGustav Tchoue Director of Planning and Project Execution Niger Basin AuthorityOusmane Diallo Environmental Specialist Niger Basin Authority3. Preparation assistance: USD millionGEF PDF Block A Grant 0.025GEF PDF Block B Grant 0.350UNDP-SPPD 0.080UNDP-TRIB 0.100

Total 0.555

73

Technical Annex 11:Documents in the Project File

Project Documents

PDF-B Project Brief, GEF/RAF/99/G41/A/1G/50, December 1999.

“Niger River Basin Annotated Bibliography,” S.R. Shanthikumar, July 2000.

Procurement Capacity Assessment Baseline of Niger Basin Authority, March 2002.

Financial Management Capacity Assessment Baseline of Niger Basin Authority, January 2002.

Preliminary Country Reports for Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA): Benin, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria (e.g., “Assessment and Analysis of Hydro-Environmental, Eco-logical, and Socioeconomic Aspects of the Niger Basin in Niger”)

Preliminary Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (in English and French) completed for PDF-B phase, March 2001.

PDF-B Regional Workshop Final Report, (in English and French), April 2002.

Project Brief submission of Full-Sized Project to GEF Council (PIMS 260), UNDP, May 2003.

Preparation Reports (four volumes) for NBA Program-Framework for Protection Against Hy-drous Erosion and Sand Encroachment in the Niger River Basin, supported by the African Development Bank, February 2003.

GEF Project, Environmental and Social Management Framework, GEF Project, Project Im-plementation Manual.

GEF Project, Microgrant Operational Manual,.

Other Documents

A-V-B Operation Kossou: Development of the Bandama Valley.- Abidjan: The Bandama Valley Development Authority, 1971. – 32p.,

General Plan for Water Management of the Middle Guinea. Final Document, Volume 5 B: Water Management “Near Future”. – Prague: Polytechna, Oct. 1981. – 109p., Tab, Maps; LG.: Fre; PROJECT: OMM-PNUD-GUI-74-014

General Plan for Water Management of the Middle Guinea. Final Document, Volume 5 C: Water Management “Inventory”. – Prague: Polytechna, Oct. 1981. – 182p., Tab, Maps; LG.: Fre; PROJECT: OMM-PNUD-GUI-74-014

74

General Plan for Water Management of the Middle Guinea. Final Document, Volume VI: Water Supply To Some Major Towns. – Prague: Polytechna, Oct. 1981. – 112p., Tab, Maps; LG.: Fre; PROJECT: OMM-PNUD-GUI-74-014

General Plan for Water Management of the Middle Guinea. Final Document, Volume 7: Hy-dro Agricultural Schemes. – Prague: Polytechna, Oct. 1981. – 226p., Tab, Maps; LG.: Fre; PROJECT: OMM-PNUD-GUI-74-014

General Plan for Water Management of the Middle Guinea. Final Document, Volume 8: Eco-nomic And Financial Evaluation. – Prague: Polytechna, Oct. 1981. – 225p.+ Annexes, Tab, Maps; LG.: Fre; PROJECT: OMM-PNUD-GUI-74-014

France. Société Grenobloise d’études et d’application Hydraulique, Grenoble, 00036 Access No.01291

France. Société Grenobloise d’études et d’application Hydraulique, Sogreah, Grenoble, 0003,Access No.01292

France. Société Grenobloise d’études et d’application Hydraulique, Sogreah, Grenoble 00038, Access No.01293

Mathematical Model of River Niger: Topographic and Cartographic Works. Niger Autorité du Bassin du Niger, ABN, Niamey,France. Institut Géographique National, IGN, Paris

Multilateral Assistance to NBA: Reports of the Works, Services and Specifications, Contract No.DP/AF/83/027/VAGOW. – Niamey: ABN, [S.D.]. – 38 P., Tab.; LG.; Fre

Prospecting Study of Niger River Basins: Maloum Basin. Annex 2. Grenoble: SOGREAH, May 1976.- 23p., Tab., Maps

Prospecting Study of Niger River Basins: Ouma Kouanza Basin. Annex 5. Grenoble: SO-GREAH, May 1976.- 19p., Tab., Maps

Prospecting Study of Niger River Basins: Kirtachi Basin. Annex 4. Grenoble: SOGREAH, May 1976.- 18p., Tab., Maps

Session of the Niger River Commission, 6th, 1971, Cotonou, Benin, RNC, February, 1971

Special Summit of The Niger River Commission: Meeting of Heads of State and Government, 26th January 1979. – Niamey

Study on Formulation of Management Models; Pricing and Sharing of the Costs of Water Re-sources Projects. – Niamey: MULPOC, 1995.-94p., Tab.

Telli, Diallo Niger. Centre Multinational de Programmation et d’Exécution de Projet de la CEA pour l’Afrique de l’ouest, Mulpoc, Niger Autorité de Bassin du Niger, ABN, Nia-mey

75

Technical Annex 12:Risks and Mitigation Measures

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure

To project development objective:Riparians do not successfully or completely es-tablish a transboundary land and water frame-work for the sustainable development of the Niger River Basin.

M

Riparian governments have agreed to GEF Project goals through Project preparation workshops. Risk mitigation lies in realistic scheduling of process, timetable and budget.

To component resultsComponent 1 (WB implementation support)Project management system, though estab-lished, is not fully operational.

S

The focus will be on meeting Basin’s hu-man capacities through a variety of training and capacity building options.

Component 2 (UNDP implementation support)Despite a public information campaign, local and national riparian capacity and awareness of land and water issues remain negligible.

S

Target groups, communities, and local mes-sages may be selected by each individual member state in order to balance riparian ownership and a Basin agenda. The Basin campaign may be linked to a larger environ-mental agenda and budget.

Component 3(WB implementation support)The regional, national and local data and infor-mation management dialogue and exchange are not improved and coordinated, requiring addi-tional harmonization and coordination.

M

The component has been designed so as to support the riparians in developing data sharing mechanism(s) per stated needs, without forced movement to single-format protocols. A basin-wide economic model should be one of open access.

Component 4 (UNDP implementation support)Regional linkages and networks are not estab-lished, with growing disparity between riparian stakeholders, the NBA and other regional Basin organizations.

N

Targeted component activities will work with policymakers and technical specialists, with closest linkages to Basin stakeholders, through engaging them in a study tour and a regional forum to exchange lessons with other regional basin organizations, and to strengthen the communication capacity of the regional networks.

Component 5(UNDP implementation support)Though the demonstration and Microgrant Pro-gram was piloted, its findings are neither suc-cessful nor validated, with further scaling up of the Microgrant Program of questionable value.

M

Microgrant Program to be based on similar interventions for community productivity on land and in water, such as successful com-munity-driven development projects in sev-eral of the Basin member states.

Component 6 (WB implementation support)TDA is completed; however the SAP is incom-plete, thus not capturing the critical sustainable path, and resources needed, for transboundary development of the Basin’s land and water re-sources.

N

Member state and donor support expressed through the Strategic Vision process as a baseline for cooperation. TDA and SAP draft circulations and stakeholder work-shops as an opportunity for voicing input to, and signaling to Basin support of SAP process.

76

Technical Annex 13: Niger River Basin At A Glance

77

Technical Annex 14: Statement of Loans and Credits

Original Amount in USD Millions

Difference between ex-pected and actual dis-

bursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P072881 2003 [3T] BEAC Regional Payment System 0.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 1.12 0.00

P070073 2003 2Nile Transboundary Environmental Action 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 0.02 0.00

P063683 2001 [3E] REGIONAL TRADE FACILITA-TION PROJECT

0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.08 0.00

P054884 2001 [3W] BCEAO REGIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS

0.00 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.03 0.00

P036037 1999 OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.00 0.28 3.55 0.00

P000001 1996 COMM CONSERV & WILDL 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.03 0.86 1.86 0.00

Total: 0.00 28.90 0.00 15.55 0.03 27.30 6.66 0.00

STATEMENT OF IFC’sHeld and Disbursed Portfolio

In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

1999 AIF 0.00 70.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.89 0.00 0.00

1999 AIF (Mgmt) 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

2003 AIFH 0.00 6.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00

1993 Africa Fund 0.00 7.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.25 0.00 0.00

2002 Africap 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00

0 Energy Afr Ltd 0.00 38.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.02 0.00 0.00

2001 MACS 30.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000/01 MSICIH 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00

2002 Osprey 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00

2002 SABCO 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00

2001/04 TV Africa 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Total portfilio: 40.00 139.52 20.00 0.00 0.00 82.28 20.00 0.00

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

1999 AIF 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

2003 African Lakes 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

2001 MACS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

2001 PAIP 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00

Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.04

78

Technical Annex 15: Letters of Endorsement

Letter of Endorsement – Benin

79

80

Letter of Endorsement – Burkina Faso

81

82

Letter of Endorsement – Chad

83

84

Letter of Endorsement – Guinea

85

86

Letter of Endorsement – Mali

87

88

Letter of Endorsement – Niger

89

90

91

IBRD Map 33021

92

Additional Annex 16: STAP Technical Roster Review

Final and Preliminary ReviewsReversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin

FINAL, DOWNSTREAM REVIEW NO. 1:

1. Overall impression - The Project Brief and Annexes (PB&A) have been revised to concur with comments made in the two earlier re -

views. Apart from a modified version of the PB&A, responses to particular questions in the “upstream STAP Roster Technical Reviews” have been given in Annex E. Some important issues have been clarified in Annex E, viz. the relations and complementarities of SAP and SDAP; the conditions under which the microgrant program is organ-ised; the role of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC); and, that it is a four year project. I am also pleased to note, “…Letters of endorsement are in preparation”. In terms of substance, it is also appreciated that “… land and water tenure, urbanisation and other sector issues [are] to be addressed in the SAP SDAP process”. The same ap-plies to Rain Water Harvesting and other specific interventions.

- There are still some issues that need to be clarified, which will be presented in the sections below.- An overall impression is that the Project addresses serious problems in the Niger River Basin, with grave implica -

tions for present and future generations, in the basin as well as beyond. A second reading of the (revised) documents reinforces the impression that the Project enjoys wide support from the riparian countries.

2. Relevance and priority- A strengthening of the mechanisms that could forge a better co-ordination between national and community institu-

tional arrangements, on the on hand, and regional structures on the other, is most important. Concurrence with NEPAD, ALWMI, LCBC, etc. adds relevance to the project.

- A most pertinent issue in the Niger Basin is the ongoing land and water degradation and the significant reduction, and regional shift, in the water resources in recent decades in combination with land degradation and increasing pol-lution. A dwindling resource base and a continuous rapid increase of the population is most problematic combina-tion. If allowed to continue unabated, these alarming trends will have accelerating devastating effects on the envi-ronment as well as on society. They have already resulted in tensions in the basin. So far, it seems that tensions at the international level have not been severe, but they could very well mount. In addition, the link between poverty and environmental degradation could be cemented. The Project Components are of direct relevance in this regard: Efforts to strengthen institutional arrangements (Capacity building – Component 2), data and information collection and analyses (Data Management – Component 3), Regional Forum (Component 4) and the Microgrants (Compo-nent 5).

- Many of the efforts to reverse the trends should be designed at a regional scale and then be translated into actions, dialogues and evaluations at the lower levels. At the same time, the importance of community-based approaches is underlined in the PB&A.

3. Approach- Management of the Project is still not quite clear. In the Project Executive Summary (PES), it is mentioned that

“The Project will be executed by an executing agency on behalf of the NBA Executive Secretariat who will be responsible for supporting NBA Executive Secretariat….”(Under: 5. Institutional Coordination & Support). Apart from peculiarities of formulation, it is not shown how the responsibilities of the executing agency will be coordinated with the PMU, which will be “ …primarily responsible for project implementation”. The difference between “execution” and “implementation” needs to be made explicit. In Table 1, Annex J, the executing agency is missing. According to the same Table and in the text, it seems that the PMU will have both implementing/exe -cuting obligations and be the key agent responsible for monitoring. Monitoring, in turn, is the basis for Project evaluation and, thus, for correction of policy. This implies a double role for PMU, which could be problematic.

- In Annex E (Response to STAP Technical Review) it is noted, “… The staffing of the PMU will be of the high-est caliber, competitively selected staff to assist in Project implementation”. That is well and good. What will happen at the end of the four-year period?

93

- The Niger River Basin Task Force is another unit proposed to be part of the management structure. It is sup -posed to serve as “. A steering committee in an advisor capacity …”. The members are supposed to come from, among others, the executing agency. The member representing the executive agency would therefore be both an advisor and an executor.

- When reading the documents, it appears that there is a certain amount of overlap of functions between the units and that the roles given to the various units in the management structure should be more clearly identified and separated.

- In the previous Project Brief and Annexes, the role of legislation was highlighted and the importance of enforce -ment. In the revised version, I have not been able to find a similar concern. Maybe this is due to the fact that le-gal issues are part of the institutional arrangements. It is, however, relevant to make a special note about the sig-nificance of the legal system or the legal principles. To the extent that the different riparian countries have legal systems, which do not match, it should be a matter of priority to address those differences that are contradictory. This is important in order to reduce possible conflicts between the riparians in the future and to have a system and an arena where potential conflicting demands may be dealt with. If, for example, country X intends to go ahead with a particular project, e.g. a dam or an irrigation project, which country (-ies) Y, Z. oppose, a common legal framework or some agreed upon principles, would be important. In the documents, it is mentioned that Nigeria is facing a critical situation in the energy sector and may want to increase its hydroelectric production. Hence, they do not want to have reductions in the flow in the river, which has implications for what Nigeria will support or accept in terms of water utilization in upstream countries.

- The creation of a Regional Forum (Component 4) is interesting. I am sure it will be of great help. It might be useful to also create a “Regional NGO Forum”, i.e. a meeting place for the NGOs involved in the Project. In the light of the difficulties that have been faced to involve local communities (Project Brief, p. 25), it is vital that the NGOs are supported, since they are the direct links to communities. The selection of NGOs is also a crucial step.

- From the documents, it seems that there is, yet, no clear focus in water policy with regard to the sectors of soci -ety, which have a significant impact on water resources. On pages 7 - 8 in the Project Brief, it is mentioned that “Water resources initiatives are mostly tied to new water supply and sanitation projects…” i.e. to the sector which has a low consumptive use of water. If this is so, there is a need for initiatives, which refer to the sectors of society with a heavy consumptive use and/or activities, which have effects on flow (regulation). The Global Water Partnership will be an important partner in this regard (see page 31, Project Brief).

4. Objectives- The objectives are formulated in qualitative terms, which give a general picture of what might be accomplished.

Considering the character of the project, this is reasonable. The relation to other regional, national and local de-velopment efforts have become more clearly in the revised proposal. A valid motivation for the arrangement of data management has been added in the revised version.

5. Background and justification- As mentioned in my previous evaluation, the documents provide a good picture of the situation and important

trends. Justification for this project is a strong need for increased capacity at various levels in the Basin to reverse the trends. So far, capacity at regional level is weak. The presentation is clear and valid in these regards.

- I also note that there is still a lack of information about the recent or contemporary situation, for instance, in the case of urbanisation. The same comment can be made about the NGO sector.

- Perhaps most important is the need for an elaborate discussion about poverty; how to reach the poor; how to facili -tate that programs will not only mean a certain relief in the daily struggle to survive, but that the poor would be given opportunities to play a bigger role in development of society, in production in service sectors etc. Again, it is important that legal provisions are used in a pro-active manner.

6. Government commitment and sustainability- The documents give clear indications of Government commitment and I believe that letters of endorsement are be -

ing produced. Collectively, Governments will contribute with USD 2.14 million to the Incremental Cost budget, mainly in kind. World Bank and UNDP contributions in the baseline and GEF Alternative scenarios are substan-tially much higher. I suppose that a large proportion of these have to be repaid and, thus, could be seen as govern -ment commitments.

- The intention of the Project to strengthen regional collaboration. Regional collaboration is essential for reduction of tensions, to foster exchange and it facilitates donor support.

- There are, of course, risks associated with the project. But the risks associated with a policy where no actions are taken to support declared ambitions to build regional capacity would be greater.

7. Activities

94

- Activities will be organized in relation to the six Project components. Sequence is logical. 8. Project funding

- Please, see my previous review. 9. Replicability

- Please, see my previous review.10. Time frame

- A strategy for follow-ups after the project is essential.11. Global environmental benefits and goals of the GEF

- Please, see my previous review. 12. Rationale for GEF support

- Please, see my previous review.13. Secondary issues to be addressed

- Please, see my previous review14. Additional comments

- I am pleased with comments in Annex E.

Windhoek, February 23, 2003Jan Lundqvist, Professor (janlu@tema.liu.se)

FINAL, DOWNSTREAM REVIEW NO. 2: Upstream STAP reviews were undertaken by me and another STAP International Waters Expert in early January.

The project team based on comments received, including through these reviews, clarified and detailed elements of the project design. Some modification of the Project has also been done, mainly concerning the significance and content of the different components. I was invited to provide a final review based on the revised document.

As the main project framework including the project objectives etc. has not changed to any considerably extent, many of my comments in my upstream review are still valid. I will therefore only provide comments related what is re-sulting from the clarification and modification.

1. Overall Impression- My overall impression of the project remains positive. The stronger emphasis on capacity building, in -

cluding at local level, by a more developed Component 5, which would help local communities understanding and combating land and water degradation is an improvement that would hopefully result in a more sustainable situation even after the four year project. Comparing the text describing the different activities under the differ -ent components in the project brief with that in the Annexes, however, sometimes is a bit confusing. It seems as the revised structure of activities is not fully reflected in the different annexes, such as Table 5 on Incremental costs in Annex A or in the Project design summary in Annex B. This might be a technicality but to achieve ef-fective implementation the project documentation needs to show conformity.

- My current concerns regard the fairly complex administrative structure for the project, which seems to have developed into something that is even more complex than in the previous version of the project. It is, if such a complex structure shall really serve the purpose to achieve effective project implementation, extremely important to have in place efficient reporting systems to ensure the issue of accountability. To achieve trans-boundary results the links between local – national – regional levels must be strong, efficient and well function -ing.

- My second concern is a technical issue. Technical terminology appearing in the text is sometimes con-fusing. It might be a result of misunderstanding but terms used in the text may call for activities that are not fully efficient to combat land and water degradation in the area. The text is, for instance consequently using the term “siltation” instead of “sedimentation”. The latter would include deposition of all type of material, the first one only very fine-grain material and to prevent adverse impacts would require very different activities. The term “sand salutation” is an unknown term, which I assume should be substituted by either “sand transport” or “sedi -mentation of sand”, which of course have different implications. “Hydro-erosion” is another unknown term, which, would it exist, should imply erosion by any kind of water, ground- or surface water, moving or still wa-ter. This is technically impossible and I assume that the term to be used should be “fluvial erosion”, which is erosion by running water. Annex A is in describing the Global Environmental Objective using the term “hydro-ecological”, which again is a confusing unknown term implying ecology in pure water. It is used to describe

95

ecological elements (systems?) of the Basin and would rather refer to both freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. The mis-use of geomorphological terminology might just be a result of misunderstanding or ignorance but should not be allowed to influence the real activities of the project.

2. Relevance and priority- I continue to see the project as timely and urgent.

3. Approach- As I stated in the upstream review, the real strength of the project is the strong local component, demonstrated in

particularly by the strong Component 5, based on the principle of the very successful UNDP Small Grants Pro-gramme. Another strength is the linkage to other ongoing processes in the area such as the SDAP, which also needs to be linked to the NEPAD-process. This is a strength but could, if the complex administrative and imple-menting structure does not comply with its different roles, be a weakness.

4. Objectives- The objectives, in particularly in the light of the responses by the team given to the upstream STAP reviews, are

clear and focused and should be able to achieve given the activities outlined.5. Background and Justification

- As I voiced in the upstream STAP review, the project background documentation, in particularly for those coun-tries where no TDA exists is weak, in particularly regarding on existing institutions that will be accountable for the implementation at national level concerning all aspects. This will, however, according to the response be de -tailed through the appraisal process.

- What I raised under item 1 on terminology is hopefully just misuse of terminology and not a result of weak background documentation!

6. Government commitment and sustainability- Given the revised background documentation and the responses by the Project Team, the governments commit-

ments to sustainability of the project seems fully secured. My only concern regarding sustainability is that it is important that the complex project administration and implementation structure secures a strong base for the in-stitutional structure that will continue implementing activities in accordance with the project in post-project time.

7. Activities- The revised system of activities under the different components in particularly under component 5 as well as the

continuous processes under SAP and SDAP would, according to the documentation, ensure that the activities are in compliance with the objectives.

8. Project Funding- The project funding structure has been modified to further emphasis the component 5, which is acknowledged

with satisfaction but which makes it even more important to ensure effective results from that important compo-nent, including by the preparation of a manual for these processes and by the monitoring and evaluation process.

9. Replicability- The lessons-learned from other regional initiatives is demonstrated as being important in the modified project

documentation.10. Time frame

- Even though the time-frame of the project is four years, it is important that it will generate sustainable activities that will continue in post-project time.

11. Global Environmental Benefits and goals of the GEF- The Global Environment Benefits and the goals of the GEF are sufficiently addressed in the revised project doc -

ument, where it is emphasised that the project will also be able to address issues linked to the Desertification Convention under the new Focal Area of Land Degradation.

12. Rational for GEF support- This is sufficiently covered in the revised project documentation.

13. Secondary issues to be addressed- The modified project document is allowing for the addressing of issues such as mitigating desertification, the

MDGs to the extent possible, and also compliance with objectives under NEPAD. The Team response to the up -stream STAP reviews also ensured the identification of compliance with social and environmental safeguards. It is important to ensure that the project in this also include provisions that will include the poor people of the re -gion.

96

Gunilla Björklund

February 27, 2003

97

Preliminary STAP ReviewsReversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin

PRELIMINARY UPSTREAM REVIEW NO. 1:

1. Overall impression- The Niger River Basin is a river system and basin that is shared by 9 countries, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,

Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Nigeria. A River Basin Organisation, Niger Basin Authority, ex-ists and is creating a framework for cooperation in actions of mutual interest concerning the Niger River and its basin. All nine riparian countries are signatories to the convention that established the NBA out of the former Niger River Commission in 1980. The NBA is financially supported by its member states, who are all commit -ted to involve the appropriate ministers and governmental and non-governmental organisations to fulfil the man-date of the NBA and also work towards implementation of the proposed GEF project.

- Several manageable threats hindering reversal of degradation trends of land and water resources of the Niger River Basin have been identified. Even though the NBA is to “harmonize and coordinate national policies for development, plan the development of the Basin; and, realize, exploit and maintain common works and projects”, still there is no coordination between countries on environmental management policies, strategies, laws and programs. There are also limited avenues for public involvement and capturing of local knowledge and practices in land and water management. There is a lack of instruments and guidelines for determining environ-mental and social impacts of current decisions on regional land and water resources. And there is a lack of cross-border activities to provide for exchange of data and information for averting possible pollution and degradation threats to land and water.

- The Niger Basin Authority has developed a Strategic Vision for the Basin and is developing a Sustainable De-velopment Action Plan, SDAP, which is to ensure socio-economic development through agricultural production, energy, industry, transportation, trade, and other related socio-economic activities. Activities as proposed in the outlined framework of activities are foreseen as being launched by the NBA and the World Bank.

- The proposed GEF project based in the GEF Strategic Action Plan, should be managed in a complementary process where the GEF SAP is prioritising environmentally-focussed issues and sectors across the Niger River Basin member states, as well as developing a framework for environmental management for all development in the Niger River Basin. The project is concentrated around six components; Project management to augment re -gional, national, and local institutional capacity in all nine Basin countries; Capacity building primarily by fo-cusing on environmental aspects and by including local organisations; Data management, mainly by filling exist-ing gaps by providing for the ability to undertake integrated analysis of national and transboundary natural re -courses, including ground and surface water and socio-economic concern; Regional Forum to facilitate the ex-change of lessons learned and Basin management best practices in regional Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa; Demonstrate change in the Niger Basin Microgrant Programme to promote community involvement, ownership and care of local resources based on experience from the UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme; and comple-ment the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Strategic Action Programme for those riparian countries where that is lacking.

- The overall impression idea of the GEF project is good. It will be a necessary complement in the area of achiev-ing inter-basin and regional/global environmental objectives, in working in a complementary process to the im-plementation process for the Niger Basin Sustainable Development Action Plan. The project will serve as an im-portant framework to provide increased regional, national and local capacity to reduce and prevent transbound-ary land- and water-related degradation. A clear benefit is the strong emphasis on involving local communities within a river-basin framework. Further the strong coordination component would make the project result in sus-tainable environmental management and help reversing land and water degradation trends in the Niger River Basin.

2. Relevance and priority- The project will be a necessary complement to other projects both in the Niger River Basin and in Sahelian re-

gion as such. In concentrating on reversing land- and water degradation trends in the Niger Basin it will address root causes as defined in the TDAs that already exist and ensure the speedy preparation of TDAs for the remain-ing countries. The issues thus to be addressed are not focussed in complementary projects which makes the project an important building block in the larger Strategic Vision for the Niger River Basin.

3. Approach

98

- The success of the project to achieve its objectives is very much depending on to what extent the riparian coun -tries at national and local level can build the capacity at all levels and coordinate their efforts based on such ca-pacity towards reversing the land and water degradation trends. The approach presented in detail in the table to Annex A clearly demonstrates how the suggested interventions would contribute towards strengthening institu-tional capacity which would result in provisions for increased technical as well as human capacity.

- The project approach includes addressing the problems emanating from the root causes to land and water degra -dation at river basin as well as national and local level, and thereby also address the root causes. The linkage to the root causes is, however, not always clearly expressed in the main text but is implicit from studying the table in the Annex. The strong local component is the real strength of the project, and it is particularly important in those sections to demonstrate its contribution towards reversing the degradation trends.

4. Objectives- The GEF Operational Programme “Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area” objectives for this project

are to reduce and prevent transboundary water-related environmental degradation, prevent land degradation, and to protect globally significant biodiversity. This would be achieved through sustainable and cooperative inte -grated management of the Basin, enhance existing capacity, informed decision-making and ensure the public’s greater involvement in the Basin’s decision-making process. The Project’s specific development objective is to develop and implement sustainable measures for reversing trends in land and water degradation through collabo-rative decision-making in the Basin. The objectives are clear and focused and should be able to achieve given the activities outlined.

5. Background and justification- The background material provided in the project documentation include documentation on the Niger Basin Au-

thority, brief documentation on national policies including very briefly on national Country Assistance Strate-gies, CAS, based on the World Bank CAS, and Strategic Context and Sector issues, mainly at basin level. Docu -mentation on Key Sector Issues is mainly based on what exists out of the ongoing process on Transboundary Di -agnostic Analysis, TDA, where some TDAs still remain to be done under the project. The material provided gives sufficient information at River Basin level. However, information on the different riparian countries is meagre. It is understandable that information sometimes has been difficult to obtain, in particularly for those countries where no TDA exists but to be able see national conditions including existing institutions, that will be accountable for the implementation at national level more decomposed information at riparian state level would have been desirable.

6. Government commitment and sustainability- The origin of the project was a request to UNDP and the World Bank from the Niger Basin Authority, supported

by all nine riparian countries, to provide assistance in preparing an SAP for sustainable management of the Niger Basin’s land and water resources. The countries have thus expressed their commitment to regional actions and to support the regional mechanism. The project clearly address issues such as strengthening the regional mechanism, grassroot actions and local/national institutions to achieve sustainable land and water use and man-agement.

7. Activities- The different components as defined in the project brief are not to be seen as a step-by-step process, but should

be undertaken simultaneously. The activities under each component are often to be seen as steps in a sequence. So should the steps under component Project Management logically result in a strengthen capacity to fulfil the management, even though the use of consultants should be cautioned for project sustainability reasons. The ca-pacity building and data management components are both necessary to provide a sound basis of fitting land and water degradation projects into a better context and securing good results but also to get full support from vari-ous stakeholders. The data management component will secure a bases and instrument for land and water re-sources management. The Regional Forum component will ensure comparative analysis of and cooperation with other international basins. The Microgrants component will, building on outcomes of the final TDA and SAP, ensure implementation of on-the-ground activities to consolidate experience in land and water management.

8. Project funding- The financing plan for the project, including the different components, GEF project component, other prepara-

tion costs, and co-financing is clearly defined as are associated activities. In the Incremental Cost Matrix the different components are defined and costed showing proposed levels of funding for the different components that seems very reasonable and adequate.

9. Replicability

99

- The project would, on top of increasing coordinated efforts to reverse land and water degradation for the Niger River Basin, also result in exchange of lessons learned on root causes and demonstrating solutions and best prac-tices to address problems of reversing trends in land and water degradation that are applicable inside and outside of the Sahelian region. The project component Regional Forum intends to ensure provisions for such added value.

10. Time frame- The clear commitments by the riparian governments and the Niger Basin Authority as well as the ensured partic -

ipation at grassroot level should guarantee an impetus towards a swift implementation of the project. With the institutional framework in place the objectives should be possible to reach within the given time frame.

11. Global environmental benefits and goals of the GEF- The project is clearly addressing issues resulting in global environmental benefits in terms of International Wa-

ters, that is integrated transboundary water resources management and activities. Even though the text refers to protection of globally significant biodiversity through sustainable and cooperative management of the Basin, this is not specifically indicated in any definition of the activities, but may be a result of actions taken as a result of the increased capacity built within the project. The approach proposed for the project would, if carefully applied ensure avoidance of negative environmental effects.

12. Rationale for GEF support- The project will serve to support “better use of land and water resource management practices on an area-wide

basin”, which is the objective of the GEF OP9. It will further assist the countries to better understand the envi -ronmental concerns of shared international water and land resources and assist the countries to work collabora-tively to address these concerns. It will contribute to the building of capacity in existing institutions and imple-ment measures that address the priority transboundary environmental concerns.

13. Secondary issues to be addressed- The project would by addressing the TDA also address other focal areas such as mitigate desertification. The

objectives to be achieved as a result of the project implementation will fit under the Africa Integrated Land and Water Initiative of the GEF implementing agencies. It will further contribute toward the fulfilment of the UN Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, and the objectives for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD.

- Important aspects under the project are the strong degree of stakeholder participation at national, local and NGO-level under all components, in particularly under the Microgrant component where the main aspect is to secure the involvement of local stakeholders in the project. Implementation of the SAP would through increased capacity lead to mobilizing and generating of sustainable national development projects. Capacity building as-pects at all levels of decision making as well as implementation are important to the sustainable outcome of the project.

- The innovativeness of the project is that it addresses all levels regional, national and local and that it, through its GEF-Small Grants Programme designed Microgrant component provide for a strong involvement at the grasroot level.

15. Conclusions- The project complements and builds on other initiatives and projects both at River Basin level, such as the

broader Strategic Shared Vision and Sustainable Development Action Plan, and at national level, such as World Bank, UNDP TRAC Fund or supported by bilateral donors. Its global environmental objective makes it comple-mentary to these other initiatives. Its approach, to work at both river basin, national as well as local level, in -cluding by involving the grassroot level makes it contribute to coordination and cooperation that would result in increased sustainable development at all levels not only from an International Waters perspective but from an environmental, economic and social perspective. It is therefore recommended that the project be approved.

16 January, 2003 – Gunilla Bjorklund

PRELIMINARY, UPSTREAM REVIEW NO.2 : 1. Overall impression

- The documents reveal grave imbalances between (i) aggregate human needs, (ii) technology and institutional capac-ity to meet these needs, and (iii) biophysical resource base. A low level of understanding of the environmental con-sequences of resource use practices compounds the problem. A more inspiring impression is a growing realisation about the need for co-ordination of national efforts. The capacity and commitment in this regard are difficult to as-

100

sess. Letters of endorsement are, for instance, missing. Institutional issues, including sensitising efforts, legal and enforcement issues and generation & management of data/information are highlighted. The documents are less clear on connections to concrete efforts in the various sectors, which could “yield more from less". It seems vital to en-hance the productivity of land and water resources.

2.Relevance and priority- The project forms one important component in the Strategic Vision for the NRB. However, “..a shared vision and

the SDAP is still being designed…” (Project Brief, p. 25). Projects with a similar orientation have been started: NEPAD, ALWMI, LCBC, etc. The GEF project is timely.

3.Approach- The approach fits with the current drives of regional collaboration and recognition of the need to include NEPAD,

Millenium Development Goals, etc. in development efforts. The six components are all relevant.- The focus on institutional issues is valid. But the mix of integrated strategies and changes in sectoral policies could

be elaborated. The GEF Operational Programme 9 refers to “..integrated land and water management strategies that help achieve changes in sectoral policies and activities while promoting sustainable development”. In the agri -cultural sector, for instance, it seems relevant to assess the potential of rainwater harvesting (rain-fed agriculture is mentioned in TDA, but not RWH). Similarly, the TDA stresses the low level of water use efficiency and high usage of fertilisers and pesticides in irrigation systems. The recommendations refer to education, sensitisation and invest-ments. In addition, it is relevant to review subsidies, which I suppose are liberal (for some), irrigation technology options and, generally, combinations of technical options and institutional arrangements. Land and water tenure is not discussed.

- With regard to biodiversity, it is mentioned that problems could be tackled through “.. sustainable and coopera -tive integrated management of the Basin, enhance existing capacity, informed decision making and ensure the public’s greater involvement in the Basin’s decision-making process (Project Brief, p. 4). Measures at basin level are important, but prime challenges, and “root causes” lie at another level. As far as I know, there are many “pockets” of relatively small areas where biodiversity is high, but where species are threatened through poach-ers, dire poverty, etc. Many of the “root causes” will not be effectively tackled only through a greater involve-ment in the Basin’s decision-making process.

- Urbanization results in environmental stress and pollution. In Annex G, the section on urbanization is quite brief. Reference is made to a document from 1975, which deals with erosion. The conclusions and recommendations are not very elaborate. Is, for instance, clean production technology a realistic alternative? Treatment plants are impor -tant, but they are associated with many shortcomings. How is urban and basin management coordinated?

- The division of responsibilities and the difference between execution and implementation of project management (Project Brief, 20 ff) are not clear. Will the private sector executing agency continue after the project is over? It seems as if the Scientific Advisory Committee is only expected to be involved in “..project implementation and re -porting” (Project Brief, #76), i.e. not in project identification and design.

- Are microgrants offered to communities but not to individuals (Project Brief, pp. 5, 16, 17, 19)? This might be an appropriate approach in the energy and transportation sectors, but would it work in the agricultural sector? And in the industrial sector?

4. Objectives- -The objective is valid, but formulated in general terms (Project Brief, p. 5). The last sentence in # 10 indicates that

national and basin priorities have to be harmonized “… These elements are transboundary in nature and clearly transcend national capacities and priorities..”(ibid.). Have reasonable assurances have been obtained so that national and transboundary priorities match?

- -The fourth bullet (#35), stresses that “.. national programmes would by their nature not address the Basin’s transboundary issues… preparation of nine separate national programmes would be costly and expend significant resources in coordinating activities”. A Basin project will, however, not be a substitute for national programmes. An important question is rather: which tasks should be taken care of at the regional level and what tasks are suitable for national level? In the case of data management, it is proposed that “ …riparian countries collect and process data within their national jurisdictions” (p. 15). If possible, the data management should be organised at the regional level.

5. Background and justification- The documents give a good picture of the situation and important trends. Justification for this project is a strong

need for increased capacity at various levels in the Basin to reverse the trends. So far, capacity at regional level is weak. The presentation is clear and valid in these regards.

101

- Some information is old, e.g. in the case of urbanisation as noted. There is no information about the strength of NGO, who they are, their track record, etc. Another missing topic is land and water tenure. It is mentioned that growth rate is now 5%, but there is no discussion about allocation of national budgets, how subsidies are decided and similar.

- A discussion on how to involve the poor and improve their lot is missing. Community involvement in decision-making does not automatically empower the poor. It is rather the vocal and better-off segments who make use of such opportunities. Specific actions are required.

6. Government commitment and sustainability- -Collectively, Government will contribute with USD 2.14 million to the Incremental Cost budget, mainly in kind.

World Bank and UNDP contributions in the baseline and GEF Alternative scenarios, are substantially much higher. I suppose that a large proportion of these have to be repaid and, thus, could be seen as government commitments.

- -The project could play an important role in facilitating sustainability. The intention to strengthen regional collabo-ration is very important. Like in all parts of the world, regional collaboration is essential for reduction of tensions, to foster exchange and it facilitates donor support.

- Risks must be interpreted in relation to political circumstances and how successful the project will be in engaging end-users (Project brief, p.18). There are serious political problems in West Africa, but most of them are currently outside the Niger basin countries.

7.Activities - -Activities will be organized in relation to the six Project components. Sequence is logical. A few additional activi -

ties have been suggested above: testing the potential for Rain Water Harvesting; the potential of clean production technologies; urban planning in a basin context.

8. Project funding- -The task is huge, but the funding is also substantial. It may be relevant to discuss if the budget for some activity

should be increased, possibly at the expense of some other component? 9.Replicability

- -At this stage, it is rather this project that might replicate from experiences in other similar projects, e.g. the Nile River Basin Initiative and projects in West Africa. Worldwide, there is a growing experience of microgrants. The ambition to learn from other projects is mentioned.

10. Time frame- In Project Brief, a 3-year Action Plan of the NBA (p.26) is mentioned. In table 2 (Annex A), it is stated “..full programme

implementation during four years”. It is important to have a timetable, with dates, duration of the various activities and when results are expected. A strategy for follow-ups after the project is essential.

11.Global environmental benefits and goals of the GEF- -Yes, the project addresses global environmental benefits but these could be much more clearly described. In Table

2 (Annex A), the column “Overall Global GEF Alternative Benefits” provides no insights about benefits. It is a list of activities and mechanisms.

12. Rationale for GEF support: - On all four accounts, the answer is “yes”. Some comments above could be iterated here.

13. Secondary issues to be addressed- Reference to related conventions is implicit rather than explicit. According to TDA “.. the energy situation is char -

acterised by an abundance of resources”. If new dams are given priority in the NRB, the likelihood of damaging en-vironmental effects increases. It is also possible that the microgrants could be used for projects that are not con -ducive to environmental objectives. Generally, it is conceivable that choices between poverty reduction and safe-guarding the environment could favour the former. It is a tricky issue!

14. Additional comments- It is crucial that the institutional arrangements are designed with due regard to incentives and sanctions for the em -

ployees. The motivation of project staff to contribute to project performance and their compliance with the idea of the project are of significant importance.

January 15, 2003 Jan Lundqvist

102

RESPONSE TO FINAL AND PRELIMINARY STAP REVIEWSReversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin

RESPONSE TO THE FINAL STAP REVIEWS:

1. Overall Impression:- The Team is pleased with the both of the final, STAP reviews, and that the comments from the preliminary, so-

called upstream reviews have been satisfactorily addressed in the revised Brief. The Team hopes to further clar-ify the few additional comments from both reviews.

- There has been an attempt to clarify the component activities and institutional arrangements for consistency. Further efforts during the Appraisal phase will finalize both the details of the activities and their detailed efforts, and similarly efforts to simplify the institutional arrangements for efficient implementation.

- Appropriate hydrologic and geomorphic terminology and the Basin processes are recognized and have been re-flected in the final draft.

2. Relevance.- Current assessment acknowledged.

3. Approach- Acknowledging that the UNDP and World Bank interchange the use of executing and implementation agency

relative to their institution. Clarification has been made in this terminology and during the Appraisal phase, clar -ifications will be made to all aspects of the institutional arrangements and process. The institutional structure and responsibilities will be further detailed, to streamline for most effective and efficient implementation arrange-ments, for the regional, national and local levels. Though it’s not the intention to promote changes in existing legislation, or propose new legislation, it is however envisioned that through both Component 2 and Component 3 policy frameworks could be drafted and developed in the future for a more comprehensive basin-wide man-agement policies and legislation. The Global Water Partnership could be engaged through project implementa-tion.

4. Objective. - Review acknowledged.

5. Background and justification - Recognizing that this Project’s objective will be achieved through strengthened regional, national and local

capacity. It’s the intent that through the Component 5 activities (where thirty-eight percent of the GEF funds are targeted for community-based microgrant supported interventions) hope to improve the livelihood of the basin communities, thus making some effort to reduce poverty while promoting sustainable good management practices. The Beneficiaries section of the Brief addresses poverty alleviation. Terminology changed to reflect geomorphic processes.

6. Government Commitment and sustainability- For the sake of clarity, to define the true value of the incremental benefit from this Project, the baseline was

defined by a specific parameter to include just those baseline activities, which contribute directly to the Project; this would then include the national-level in-kind contribution. Through the SAP and SDAP process, the framework for sustainable economic development would provide the mechanism to minimize future risks.

7. Activities- Comment acknowledged.

8. Project funding- With further definition of the specific project subcomponent/activities, which will be completed during the

Appraisal phase the Project financing and detailed budget, and allocations for each component will be de-fined.

9. Replicability- Comment acknowledged, Component 4 activities would provide a forum for the exchange of regional

lessons.10. Timeframe

- It is envisaged that through the SAP and SDAP, which will establish a strategic development framework for the Basin, there will be opportunities for continued investments in the Basin.

11. Global environmental benefits and goals of the GEF- Comment acknowledged and the integration of sectoral activities and future policies would develop as part

of the SAP and SDAP. The incremental cost matrix has been modified to reflect the incremental cost assess-ment.

103

12. Rationale for GEF support- Comment acknowledged.

13. Secondary issues to be addressed- Comment acknowledged. The document has been developed to explain in greater detail the benefits of the

Project activities, especially Component 5 activities, to improve rural livelihood.14. Additional Comments.

- The Team acknowledges that the responses to the comments from the upstream review were satisfactorily addressed.

RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY UPSTREAM REVIEWS NO 1 & NO2: The Project preparation Team is pleased with the two stage STAP review process and the critique of the Project objective and design. The two upstream STAP reviews provided a fair critique during Project preparation providing the Team an opportunity to clarify and detail elements of the project design; while the subsequent STAP review provided a final over-view. The Team appreciates the Reviewers comments and the documents were modified to best address the comments. The following provides a summary of Team’s effort to respond and modify the Project document:

1. Overall Impression:- The letters of endorsement are in preparation during the upstream review, and will be included in Annex C.

The project focuses on institutional capacity building confirming that the primary focus of the Project is to strengthen institutional capacity, not only to reinforce the NBA but also to strengthen the national and local level decision-making capacity. This strengthened capacity hopes to address concrete efforts in the range of sectors impacting the Basin and to inevitably achieve local level sustainable livelihood.

2. Relevance and priority: - The Team concurs the GEF Project is timely and urgent.

3. Approach- In concert with the SDAP, the project focuses on strengthening the regional, national and local capacity; the

scrutiny of the array of opportunities is developed during the GEF SAP process. It is envisioned that the Project’s outcome, the SAP, and subsequent funding to implement the SAP and SDAP will be the mecha-nism to address the primary sector issues to include but not limited to biodiversity, the agricultural sector, or urbanization impacts. Options for addressing the range of sectors, land and water tenure agricultural credit and/or cultivation loans, have a significant role in resource management and are anticipated to be addressed in the SAP process. Though it is not the intent of the Project, to tackle all the root causes but through the TDA and SAP process identify the priorities and the mechanism to better address the root causes and sector issues.

- The Team has attempted to clarify the World Bank’s and UNDPs “executing arrangements” and implement-ing arrangements, and concurs with the Reviewers that the staffing of the PMU will be of the highest cal -iber, competitively selected staff to assist in Project implementation.

- The Scientific Advisory Committee has a significant role in addition to advising on technical matters during Project implementation and reporting, but also supporting, at the national level project design as it pertains to Component 5, the microgrant supported activities, and all aspect of the further project design and prepara-tion elements within the context of project implementation.

- Component 5 the microgrant supported Demonstration Program activities and community-based interven-tions are based on the principles of the UNDP Small Grants Programme which has local community based experience to a range of applicants, and through the public information and outreach program hopes to tar-get those communities and stakeholders within the immediate context of the project design and project ob -jectives. The UNDP-SGP has been successful in successfully implementing projects and disbursing funds, which this Project hopes to build-on and replicate.

- Though the Project activities are, for all practical means, generally implemented at the national level, though some regional efforts in strengthening the regional institutional capacity is targeted, so in terms of project activities and disbursement of funds, the intent of the Project is to systematically address the transboundary issues and concerns in the Basin.

4. Objectives- The concurrent development of the SDAP with the SAP will help identify the linkages with the national and

transboundary priorities, and not at the expense of national programs, but it is important to note national pro -grams would by their nature not address the Basin’s transboundary issues, and the need for coordinated manage-ment of the Basin’s land and water resources. The intent of the project is to strengthen the subsidiarity of basin management, decentralizing from the regional level, and strengthen at the national and local efforts, in data col -

104

lection, analysis to help contribute to the regional decision making process. The Project promotes subsidiarity, informed and strengthened local and national capacity is vital to the regional success.

5. Background and Justification- The Project provides an overview, through Component 2, the implementation of a public participation program

as a means to engage and involve the local stakeholders and the NGO. Details of the public information, media, and outreach program will be detailed through the appraisal process. As noted above other sector elements, land and water tenure, urbanization, and other sector issues to be addressed in the SAP SDAP process.

6. Government Commitment and Sustainability- Reviewer’s comments acknowledged and the language in this section was modified to stress the importance of

the government’s commitment to sustainability and the political and social risks. The Brief provides a summary of the Basin’s commitment to the Project, SAP and SDAP, and letter of endorsement is further commitment.

7. Activities:- Through the SAP and SDAP process, the Rain Water Harvesting and other specific interventions could be taken

into consideration.8.Project Funding:

- The Project Brief provides an overview of the Project financing as determined during the preparation process, during the Appraisal phase the component activities and project budget will be detailed and adjusted accord-ingly.

9. Replicability- The Team concurs and the Brief modified to noting the Project would benefit from the lessons-learned from

other regional initiatives.10. Time Frame

- The Project is a four-year project.11. Global Environmental Benefits and goals of the GEF:

- The Project benefits are addressed in terms of how they support and achieve the Project objective, though it is the intent through the strengthening of regional, national, and local institutional capacity anticipating through Component 2 activities those sectoral policies and activities will promote global environmental benefits. Annex A, the incremental cost matrix was modified to clarify the global benefits, rather than just identifying the mecha -nisms to achieve the benefits.

12. Rationale for GEF support: - Within the Project Brief, comments acknowledged

13. Secondary issues to be addressed:- The Team acknowledges the Reviewers comments. - As part of the Component 5 microgrant-supported interventions, Activity 5.6 includes the preparation of the Mi-

crogrant Program Operational Manual, which will include the specifics of the selection criteria and compliance with environmental and social safeguards. As part of the Project Implementation Plan, the Environmental Man-agement Framework will identify the framework for compliance with social and environmental safeguards.

14. Additional Comments:- The Team acknowledges that it is crucial that the institutional arrangements are designed with due regard to incen -

tives and sanctions for the employee. During the Appraisal phase details of the institutional arrangements will be detailed to support technical integrity and ownership.

WB189417/tt/file_convert/5b01062f7f8b9a6a2e8da361/document.doc