Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 38692 - AFR PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON THREE PROPOSED CREDITS IN THE AMOUNT OF SDRl 0.10 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA OF SDRl 0.10 M I L L I O N (USSl5 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MALI OF SDRl 0.10 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL FOR A WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (WAAPP) SUPPORT PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY (APL) PROGRAM March 2,2007 Rural IV Country Department AFCRI Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance o f their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document o f The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 38692 - AFR
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON THREE PROPOSED CREDITS
IN THE AMOUNT
OF SDRl 0.10 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA
OF SDRl 0.10 MILLION (USSl5 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MALI
OF SDRl 0.10 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
FOR A
WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (WAAPP) SUPPORT PROJECT
IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY (APL) PROGRAM
March 2,2007
Rural IV Country Department AFCRI Africa Region
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance o f their official duties. I t s contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective March 1,2007)
Currency Unit = US$
AAP AAPP AfDB AGRA AgSSIP A K I S APL AU CAADP CAS CERAAS
CGIAR CESS
C W
CNRA
CPP CR&DGF CSIR DAF
DFID ECOWAP ECOWAS EIA EMP ESIA ESMF EU FAAP FA0
US$1.48945 = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
The Africa Action Plan Africa Agricultural Productivity Program African Development Bank Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Agricultural Services Subsector Investment ProjectiProgram Agriculture Knowledge Information System Adaptable Program Loan African Union Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program Country Assistance Strategy Centre d'Etude Re'gional pour 1 'Arne'lioration de 1 'Adaptation h la Se'cheresse (Regional Center for the Study o f Drought-Adaptation Improvement) Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Comite' Inter-Etat pour la Lutte contre la Se'cheresse au Sahel (Permanent Inter-State Committee on Drought Control) Centre de Coope'ration Internationale en Recherche Agronornique pour le De'veloppernent (French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development) Comite' National de la Recherche Agricole (National Committee on Agricultural Research) Crop Protection Products Competitive Research and Development Grant Fund Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Direction Administrative et FinanciBre (Administrative and Financial Directorate) United Kingdom's Department for International Development ECOWAS Agricultural Policy Economic Community o f West African States Environmental Impact Assessment Environment Management Plans Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Environmental and Social Management Framework European Union Framework for Africa Agricultural Productivity Food and Agriculture Organization
11
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Forum for Agricultural Research in Afnca Full Environmental Impact Assessment Financial Monitoring Report Fonds National de Recherches Agricoles et Agro-alimentaires (National Agricultural and Agro-processing Research Fund) Gross Domestic Product Global Environment Facility Geographic Indication General Procurement Notice Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Individual Consultant International Competitive Bidding International Development Association Institutionnel Development Fund International Development Research Center International Federation o f Accountants International Fund for Agricultural Development International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development International Food Policy Research Institute International Institute o f Tropical Agriculture Insitut du Sahel (Sahel Institute) Intellectual Property Rights International Accounting Standards International Standards o f Auditing Interim Financial Reports Key Performance Indicator Least Cost Selection; Limited Environmental Impact Assessment Limited Competitive Bidding Monitoring and Evaluation Multi-Country Agricultural Productivity Program Mil lennium Development Goals Ministry o f Food and Agriculture Multi-purpose Water Resources Development Project National Agricultural Research System National Competitive Bidding National Centers o f Specialization N e w Partnership for Africa's Development Non-Governmental Organizations Programme d 'Appui aux Services Agricoles et aux Organisations de Producteurs (Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Support Program) Project Concept Note Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Project Implementation Manual Pest Management Plan Public Procurement Reform Programme des Services Agricoles et Organisations des Producteurs (Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Program) Quality and Cost-Based Selection Research and Development
FARA FEIA FMR FNRAA
GDP GEF GI G P N HIPC I C I C B IDA IDF I D R C IFAC IFAD IFDC IFPRI IITA I N S A H IPR IPSAS I S A IFR KPI LCS LEIA LIB M&E MAPP MDGs MOFA MWRD N A R S NCB NCOS NEPAD NGO PASAOP
P C N PEFA PIM P P M PPR PSAOP
QCBS R&D
... 111
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance o f their off icial duties. I t s contents may not be otherwise disclosed without Wor ld Bank authorization.
R A I S RAP RCOE REC RIAS SBD S I L SOE SPAAR ss SYSCOHADA
TGD TOR UN UNDB USAID WAAPP WAEMURJEMOA W C A WCATS WECARDLORAF
Regional Agricultural Information System Resettlement Action Plan Regional Center o f Excellence Regional Economic Community Regional Integration Assistance Strategy Standard Bidding Documents Specific Investment Loan Statement o f Expenses Special Program for African Agricultural Research Single source
SystBme Comptable de 1 ’Organisation pour I’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droi t des Affaires (Accounting System o f the Organization for the Harmonization o f Business Laws in Africa) Technology Generation and Dissemination Terms o f Reference United Nations United Nations Development Business United States Agency for International Development West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program West Africa Economic and Monetary Union West and Central Africa West and Central Africa Air Transport Safety and Security Project West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and DevelopmentlConseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Diveloppement Agricoles
Acting Vice President: Hartwig Schafer Country Director: Mark D. Tomlinson
Sector Manager: Mary Barton-Dock Task Team Leader: Ismael Ouedraogo
iv
AFRICA
West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
CONTENTS
Page
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1 I . A . B . C .
I1 . A . B . C . D . E . F .
I11 . A . B . C . D . E . F .
I V . A . B . C . D . E . F .
Country and sector issues .................................................................................................... 1 Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 2
Higher level objectives to which the project contributes .................................................... 3
Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 3 Program objective and Phases ............................................................................................ 4 Project development objective and key indicators .............................................................. 6
Source BorrowerRecipient International Development Association (IDA)
WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (WAAPP) SUPPORT PROJECT
Local Foreign Total 3.259 0.000 3.259
39.982 5.018 45.000
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
Local Communities Total:
AFRICA
1.217 0.000 1.217 44.458 5.018 49.476
AFTS4
Source BorrowerRecipient International Development Association (IDA) Local Communities Total:
Date: March 2,2007 Country Director: Mark D. Tomlinson Sector Manager: Mary A. Barton-Dock
Local Foreign Total 3.259 0.000 3.259 39.982 5.018 45.000 1.217 0.000 1.217 44.458 5.018 49.476
Project ID: PO94084
Team Leader: Ismael S. Ouedraogo Sectors: Agricultural extension and research (60%); General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (40%) Themes: Export development and competitiveness (P);Technology diffusion (P);Trade facilitation and market access (P);Land administration and management (S);Biodiversity (S) Environmental screening category: Partial Assessment
Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan
[ ]Loan [XI Credit [ ] Grant [ ] Guarantee I [ 3 Other: Project Financing Data
For Loandcreditdothers:
Financing Plan (US$m) Phase 2
vii
Borrowers: Government o f the Republic o f Ghana; Government o f the Republic o f Mali ; and Government o f the Reuublic o f Senegal
Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? Re$ PAD A.3 Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies?
[ No
[ ]Yes [XINO Re$ PAD D. 7 Have these been approved by Bank management? I s approval for any pol icy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [ IN0
[X ]Yes [ ] N o
[XIYes [ ] N o
Does the project include any critical risks rated “substantial” or “high”? Re$ PAD C.5 Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Ref: PAD D. 7 Project development objective Re$ PAD B.2, Technical Annex 3 The development objective o f the project (first phase o f the program in support to the WAAPP) i s to generate and disseminate improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas that are aligned with the region’s top priorities, as identified by the West and Central Council for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD/CORAF). These include roots and tubers in Ghana; rice in Mali ; and cereals in Senegal. The region’s consumers, particularly those affected by extreme poverty, are the ultimate beneficiaries o f the project. Agricultural producers and agribusinesses, as users o f the improved technology, are the primary beneficiaries o f the program. These are also the key participants, along with researchers, extension agencies and universities (in adhering to the agricultural knowledge information system ( M I S ) conceptual framework), in the generation and dissemination o f technology that i s directly supported by the program. Project description Re$ PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4 Component 1 : Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in TGD (US$5.3 million, IDA: US$5.0 million). This aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the dissemination o f technology, so to allow countries to benefit fully from the regional cooperation in technology generation that i s being promoted.
... V l l l
Component 2: National Centers o f Specialization (US$22.5 million, IDA: US$20.6 million). This aims at strengthening the alignment o f national priorities with regional priorities within participant countries’ national agricultural research systems (NARS) .
Component 3: Funding o f Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$16.8 million; IDA: US$15.0 million). This aims at strengthening priority-focused, transparent funding mechanisms for demand-driven agricultural R&D within participating countries.
Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$4.9 million; IDA: US$4.3 million). This aims at establishing an effective coordination, management and M&E system at the national and regional levels.
Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Re$ PAD 0.6, Technical Annex 10 Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: Re$ PAD C.7 Board presentation: N o non-standard conditions.
Credit effectiveness: (a) The Project Implementation Manual (PIM), in form and substance satisfactory to the Association, has been adopted by CORAF and the PIU for the purpose o f implementing the regional and national components o f the Project. (b) CORAF and the PIUs have adapted their accounting software to cover the implementation o f the Project. (c) A Subsidiary agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Association has been duly concluded between CORAF and the Recipient. (d) A management service contract, in form and substance satisfactory to IDA, has been entered into between the Recipient and each entity that wil l be responsible for the implementation o f the Project at the national level.
Legal covenants applicable to project implementation: (a) The mid-term review will be undertaken no later than two years and six months fol lowing effectiveness; (b) An independent consultant wil l be recruited to undertake the mid-term review and provide an exhaustive report on the implementation o f the project; (c) Annual work plans wil l be prepared and submitted to the Bank by November 30 o f each year; (d) No t later than six months after the Effectiveness Date, the Recipient and CORAF’s Executive Secretariat shall hire an external auditor with qualifications, experience and terms o f reference satisfactory to the Association. The recruitment should be through a body other than the Executing Agency, in order to avoid conflict o f interest between the Auditor and the Executing Agency.
ix
x
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
A.Country and sector issues
1. The Economic Community o f West African States (ECOWAS) is home to some 254 mi l l ion people in 15 countries’. All member states are low-income countries with low UN Human Development Indices; many count among the world poorest. Agriculture is a dominant force in the region, accounting for 35 percent o f Gross Domestic Product (GDP), over 15 percent o f exports, and 65 percent o f employment. Still, poverty i s highest in rural areas where 60 percent o f the population lives and mostly depends on agriculture for its sustenance. Food insecurity is a major concern overall and a chronic situation in the north or Sahel. Overall, Africa’s intra-regional agricultural trade i s l imited and i t s share o f total world agricultural trade i s miniscule, as it fe l l from 8 percent in 1965 to 3 percent in 1996 (FAO, 2000). Another estimate is that Africa’s share o f wor ld agricultural exports has fallen from 4.5 percent, about two decades earlier, to 2.5 percent in 2003.2
2. For the African Union (AU), Afr ica (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa) wil l meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) only when rural development, agriculture and the livelihood constraints o f the rural poor are brought to the top o f the development agenda. The AU’s N e w Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) has called for three percent annual agricultural total factor productivity growth and six percent growth in agricultural GDP to reach the M D G s by 2015. NEPAD has designed the Comprehensive Afr ica Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) to that effect. In turn, the regional economic communities have developed policies to implement the CAADP: ECOWAS, with i t s Agricultural Policy (ECOWAP) and West Africa Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) with i t s Common Agricultural Policy. CAADP’s Pillar IVY which covers agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption (henceforth, technology generation and dissemination-TGD), plays a central role, as it significantly impacts o n the other three pillars: (1) extending areas under sustainable land and water management; (2) improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for improved access to markets; and (3) increasing food supply and reducing hunger. At the request o f NEPAD, the Forum for African Agricultural Research ( F a ) has developed the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) to provide the guiding principles for implementing CAADP’s Pillar IV.
3. Agricultural productivity has been declining in Sub-Saharan Afr ica in recent past, while significantly increasing in other regions. Average cereal yields in the world (2,676 k o a ) was over twice that in Afr ica (1,069 k o a ) for the period 1994-2003. L o w productivity has seriously eroded the competitiveness o f African agricultural products on world and domestic markets, as food imports keep increasing. Yet, i t is not that potential returns on investment in agricultural TGD are not as high in Africa as elsewhere. Rather, i t is in part that TGD’s funding in Africa has been lower than elsewhere. Spending on agricultural research and extension in Afr ica has declined in proportion to total government spending, with funding o f
U S House o f Representatives (June 2003): Subcommittee on Africa o f the Committee on International Relations.
I
Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. Mauritania withdrew in 1999
1
regional research activities representing less than two percent o f overall total spending-the same as private funding. I t is also that linkages between research systems, extension services, farmers, and agribusinesses are weak in Africa. Even when technologies are generated, dissemination and adoption mechanisms are inefficient or lacking. In many cases, farmers do not learn about the innovations; in other cases, farmers are adopting less than 10 percent o f the proposed technologies because these technologies do not suit their circumstances. I t i s further that the lack o f harmonized regulations on technology use (e.g., common homologation procedures for pesticides, different standards in the approval o f plant and animal genetic materials, and harmonized intellectual property rights) acts as a barrier to the dissemination o f technologies across borders.
B.Rationale for Bank involvement
4. The Africa Action Plan (‘P), designed by the Bank in 2005 as the centerpiece o f i t s strategy to help Afr ica reach the MDGs, emphasizes three focus areas-one o f which i s Strengthening the drivers of growth. The proposed project in support to the West Afr ica Productivity Program (WAAPP), a global program for the ECOWAS region, wil l be an implementing instrument for achieving two principal objectives o f that focus area: (i) Make agriculture more productive and sustainable, and (ii) Support regional integration. As a pi lot regional program o f the newly-established Regional Integration Department within the Africa Region, the project reflects Bank’s commitment to Africa’s regional cooperation in agriculture. I t wil l be one o f Bank’s key contributions to the implementation o f broadly supported agricultural strategies Africa-wide.
5. African countries have committed to a regional approach, coming to the realization that they wil l achieve l i t t le meaningful increase in agricultural productivity and competitiveness if countries, operating on weak national systems and l imited resources, continue to work in isolation from one another. However, countries that operate within regional economic units can expect to reach these objectives across the whole region if they effectively work together to: (i) rationalize the use o f scarce human and financial resources; (ii) avoid wasteful duplication; and (iii) create economies o f scale and positive regional spillovers, while mitigating cross-border negative impacts. The regional economic communities (ECOWAS and WAEMU) have initiated this regional approach through their common agricultural policies and their support to a regional implementing agency, the West and Central Afr ican Council for Agricultural Research and DevelopmentlConseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Dkveloppement Agricoles (WECARDlCORAF), henceforth referred to as c o w . 6. The Bank’s comparative advantage in this operation lies in i t s recognized leadership in the support to agricultural research and development at both the country level (in Africa, Central Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and Lat in America and the Caribbean) and internationally-e.g., in i t s support to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the former Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) that has evolved into the Forum for Agricultural Research in Afr ica (FARA). The Bank i s uniquely qualified to capitalize on the lessons learned from its past interventions and to create synergies and value-added across i t s on-going operations. Other development partners readily look up to the Bank to facilitate high-level pol icy harmonization between
2
countries and to lead donor coordination at the regional level. As a knowledge institution, notably through the design o f the Agriculture Knowledge Information System ( A K I S ) , the Bank i s particularly wel l equipped to share global knowledge and expertise in technology generation and dissemination. The WAAPP follows the A K I S paradigm and the FAAP guiding principles to promote innovative, market-oriented technologies that account for both farmers’ circumstances and environmental concerns.
7. This support operation to the WAAPP meets IDA’S regional project eligibility criteria. I t supports (i) three countries; (ii) social and economic benefits that spill over countries’ boundaries; (iii) agricultural strategies o f regional economic communities (REC); and (iv) a platform for regional pol icy harmonization. The WAAPP will provide a regional framework on the basis o f which ECOWAS countries wil l collaborate to implement national and regional agricultural strategies in the area o f TGD. The social and economic benefits o f well- coordinated, improved TGD schemes can be expected to spill over countries’ boundaries.
C. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
8. Through i t s support to the WAAPP, the Bank wil l contribute to the broad objective o f NEPAD’s CAADP o f achieving significant growth in agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) to reach the MDGs by 2015. NEPAD recognizes that the road to sustainable increase in agricultural GDP goes through the strengthening o f regional and sub-regional systems, along with national ones. The project also contributes to the Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) o f ECOWAS member states, which acknowledge increased agricultural productivity and regional integration as means to foster shared growth and reduce poverty. Specifically, the CAS o f the participants to the f i rst phase (Ghana, M a l i and Senegal) look up to the proposed project to complement their Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations projects and contribute to their strategic objectives in rural development.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Lending instrument
9. The proposed regional project i s the first phase o f a two-phase, 10-year Adaptable Program Loan (APL) concerning three countries: Ghana, M a l i and Senegal. Each phase is o f five years duration. This instrument suits particularly wel l the agricultural research and dissemination’s long-term development perspective, logical sequencing o f events and phasing o f activities with agreed milestones, and flexibility needed in execution.
10. This instrument i s the Bank’s contribution to a global West Afr ica Agricultural Productivity being developed by C O W under ECOWAS’ mandate. The proposed APL will be the first o f a series o f overlapping similar APLs, with each APL involving different groupings o f countries. Taken together, this series o f APLs is expected to span 12 to 15 years, at the end o f which period it wil l have covered al l ECOWAS countries eligible for regional support. The overlapping design addresses four key considerations: (i) encourage regional integration in agricultural research and development; (ii) allow countries to leverage relative small regular IDA allocations to access much larger regional funds to boost their resources; (iii) offer long-term support (10 years) in agricultural R&D to each participating country; and (iv) give flexibility to groups o f countries to participate in the WAAPP as they
3
become eligible, rather than wait for the end o f the first phase o f the initial APL to participate.
B. Program objective and Phases
11. The development objective o f the 10-year APL i s to contribute to agricultural productivity increase in the participating countries’ top priori ty commodity sub-sectors that are aligned with regional priorities. Aligning national and regional priorities ensures the program’s regional spillover. The development objective o f the series o f overlapping APLs, taken together, i s to contribute to sustained productivity increase in the ECOWAS region’s top priority commodity sub-sectors. The region’s top priority sub-sectors, as identified in the IFPRI/CORAF quantitative study (specifically commissioned for this purpose), are as follows: roots and tubers, livestock, rice, cereals, h i t s and vegetables, o i l seeds and bulk export crops (cotton, coffee/cocoa). The study indicates that these commodity sub-sectors make the greatest contribution to the region’s agricultural growth and to producers’ benefits in R&D. The study also indicates that sustained productivity increase in these commodity sub-sectors wil l be needed for the region to substantially increase agricultural growth in order to reduce extreme poverty by 2015.
12. The outcome at the end o f the 10-year program wil l be 25 percent productivity (yield) achieved in the participating countries top priority commodity sub-sectors that are aligned with the region’s top priorities.
13. Phase 1 (the proposed project) i s an initiation phase that sets up the program’s framework in terms o f the mechanisms for sharing technology, establishing national centers o f specialization, and b d i n g o f technology generation and adoption. I t i s the subject o f this appraisal document.
14. Phase 2, while building on the first phase’s structure and achievements, i s a deepening and expansion phase that wil l see further strengthening o f the centers o f specialization, consolidation o f the technology dissemination system and generation o f an increased number o f technologies. Agricultural technology generation takes time. The technologies generated during phase I were improved technologies but not yet released, or technologies already in some advanced stage o f maturity in the pipeline, that needed concerted efforts to be released and disseminated. The second phase provides the resources and the opportunity to nurture to full maturity technologies that were initiated, or in the earlier stages in development, at the start o f phase I. The second phase wil l carry out activities to further strengthen the enabling conditions and M&E, but wil l mostly concentrate resources on strengthening the NCOS initiated in phase I, and eventually establishing another one in the country’s next top priority, and mainstreaming its demand-driven competitive agricultural grant scheme.
15. The total project (phase I) cost i s US$49.5 mi l l ion over 5 years, including IDA financing o f US$45.0 million, the three Governments’ contributions o f US$3.3 mi l l ion (in terms o f value-added taxes (VAT) foregone) and beneficiaries’ contributions o f US$1.2 mi l l ion (mostly in kind). The amount o f IDA credit to each country i s an equal US$15 million, which comprises US$5 mi l l ion o f the country’s regular IDA allocation and US$10 mi l l ion allocation from the Afr ica Regional Integration unit, Le., the usual financing breakdown o f IDA regional projects. From their IDA credit proceeds, each o f the three countries wil l
4
provide a grant o f US$1 mi l l ion (US$3 mi l l ion in total) to CORAF, o f which they are members, to assist in harmonization o f procedures, knowledge sharing and dissemination, and coordination o f monitoring and evaluation activities.
Phases
Phase I
Table 1 : WAAPP phasing and estimated cost (US$ million)
Governments Beneficiaries IDA Total cost (a) (b) (c) (d) 3.3 1.2 45.0 49.5
Phase I1 Total APL
3.3 1.2 45 .O 49.5 6.6 2.4 90.0 99.0
16. For illustrative purposes, the total cost o f the series o f overlapping APLs, covering ECOWAS 15 member countries, would be US$450.0 mi l l ion in IDA financing, assuming similar cost breakdown per country as in the init ial APL. Country may commit more, or less than US$5 mi l l ion in IDA allocation to participate in the regional program. The eligibility criteria for a country’s participation include (i) available IDA allocation to benefit from the regional allocation, and (ii) a hnctioning national agricultural research system ( N A R S ) to take advantage o f the program. Countries coming out o f conflict (Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sierra Leone), wil l need long-term efforts to rebuild their NARS to fully benefit from the program.
17. The triggers from moving from the f i rs t to the second phase wil l be as follows:
(i) All three countries have ratified the common regulations for the registration o f genetic materials and pesticides adopted at ECOWAS level (ii) All three countries have established equivalent functional national registration system for plant materials and pesticides (iii) National Centers o f Specialization (NCOS) have been established and are operating: in Ghana, for roots and tubers; in Mali , for rice; and in Senegal, for drought-tolerant cereals (iv) Each National Center o f Specialization (NCOS) has involved at least one researcher in the region in its research program for at least three (3) months, through i t s program o f visiting scientists.
18. These triggers are at the core o f the WAAPP, which i s about the harmonization o f procedures, the release o f improved technologies to make them available to domestic and regional markets, and the openness o f the N A R S to build synergy and reduce duplication in R&D. These triggers come in addition to the suspension clause regarding CORAF’s inability to perform any o f its obligations under the Project Agreement; possible suspension by countries o f the transfer o f funds to CORAF in the Subsidiary Agreement; and the countries’ commitment under the Financing Agreement to provide to CORAF the negotiated US$3 mi l l ion in yearly tranches. As i s the essence o f APL, the second phase will adapt to and incorporate lessons learned in the f i rs t phase--including the level o f public support to the NCOS (assessed in public expenditure reviews); f low o f funds; and CORAF’s governance and financial management. Similarly, the design o f the subsequent APLs will reflect lessons and experiences learned in the previous APLs.
5
C. Project development objective and key indicators
19. The development objective o f the project (first phase o f the program in support to the WAAPP) i s to generate and disseminate improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas that are aligned with the region’s top priorities, as identified by CORAF. These include roots and tubers in Ghana; rice in Mali ; and cereals in Senegal. The region’s consumers, particularly those affected by extreme poverty, are the WAAPP’s ultimate beneficiaries. Agricultural producers and agribusinesses, as users o f the improved technology, are the program’s primary beneficiaries. These are also the key participants, along with researchers, extension agencies and universities (in adhering to the agricultural knowledge information system ( A K I S ) conceptual framework), in the generation and dissemination o f technology that is directly supported by the program.
20. The key project outcome indicators are as follows: (i) at least three improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas have been released by these countries at the end o f the phase; (ii) out o f the three improved technologies released by each country, at least one should show improvement in yield by 15 percent over the control technology. K e y intermediate indicators include the following: (i) a web-based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills i s developed and maintained by C O W ; (ii) three national Centers o f Specialization (NCOS) in areas o f both national and regional priorities have been developed by participating countries within their NARS; (iii) at least 85 percent o f completed competitive grant sub-project have been implemented successfully, as assessed by independent review panels o f experts; and (iv) a system for data collection, analysis and reporting on regional agricultural productivity is established and working satisfactorily.
21. Annex 3 (Results Framework and arrangements for results monitoring) identifies the other intermediate outcomes per component and summarizes the tools and techniques for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The project implementation manual wil l provide detailed information for measuring al l key indicators o f proj ect supported activities.
D. Project components
22. Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in Technology Generation and Dissemination (US$5.3 million, IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the dissemination o f technology, so to allow countries to benefit fully from the regional cooperation in technology generation that i s being promoted. These conditions need to be worked out at both national and regional levels, for before technology products can be available at the regional level, they must be available at the national level. Often, unfortunately, the regulations and standards at the national level are either not adequate or not operational, so that improved technologies may have been developed but not officially released. At the regional level, also, ECOWAS has thus far lagged behind i t s timetable.
23. This component targets the following key areas:
0 Common regulations related to genetic materials, pesticides and other crop protection products (CPP) at the ECOWAS level. Work i s under way at ECOWAS to
6
recommend to its member states a common framework based on the WAEMU’s and CILSS’ framework. The WAAPP will contribute to these efforts to speed up this process. The project wil l also assist ECOWAS in i t s efforts to find a common framework for intellectual property r ights (IPR) and other rights, such as farmers’ r ights and Geographic Indication (GI).
National registration committees for genetic materials and pesticides in the participating countries. Specifically, the project wil l support (i) the revision, if needed, o f participating countries’ procedures to align them with the regional guidelines; (ii) identification o f improved technology that has been developed but not yet officially released; (iii) technology release process, ensuring the participation o f producers and agribusinesses in this process; (iv) documentation o f the characteristics o f the technology (e.g., agronomic, chemical composition, potential environmental impact, prospective socio-economic benefits, and consumers’ appreciation); (v) cataloging o f the released and approved technologies; and (vi) promotion o f these technologies, using various media. Information system on agricultural technologies and research skills at the regional level. The project wil l support CORAF’s on-going efforts to strengthen i t s web-based information system. CORAF’s information system will help amplify to the entire region the promotion o f improved technologies released at the national levels. It wil l also provide information related to research skills in the region to facilitate networking. CORAF wil l consolidate the information available in various other databases, such as that o f CILSS and FAO.
0
24. The project will work with the regional economic organizations (ECOWAS, WAEMU) and institutions (INSAH/CILSS) and other partners. These include IITA, IFDC, FAO, and USAID--al l active in seed and PCP networks and alliances.
25. This component wil l support (i) consultant services to study and assess policies, regulations, and procedures in the sharing o f technology; (ii) workshops and seminars, particularly for the participation o f producers and agribusinesses in the drafting o f regulations and assessing the characteristics o f improved technologies; (iii) short-term training to upgrade sk i l ls in information technology and communication; and (iv) operating costs associated with the technology release process.
26. Participating countries will manage the activities associated with their technology release procedures. CORAF wil l assist ECOWAS in the harmonization o f procedures and analysis o f IPR issues. I t wil l assist the participating counties in the implementation o f regional common procedures. Through i t s website and other media, CORAF wil l provide exposure to other countries the technologies developed by the participating countries to promote interregional trade. Out o f the US$4.39 mi l l ion IDA finds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities i s US$0.86 million.
27. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (US$22.5 million, IDA: US$20.5 million). This aims at strengthening the alignment o f national priorities with regional priorities within participant countries’ national agricultural research systems (NARS). Countries need to focus on their top R&D priorities, rather than attempt to tackle al l possible issues with little prospects o f success, in order to make the best use o f scarce resources and achieve meaningful results toward increasing growth and reducing extreme poverty. A
country can more readily rationalize this decision if it is ensured to benefit from research efforts in these other areas where it does no have comparative advantage but in which other countries do-just as its own efforts in its areasof comparative advantage wil l benefit other countries.
28. To help this rationalization, the project supports national centers o f specialization (NCOS) that (i) focus on areas o f national priorities aligned with regional priorities; (ii) demonstrate sustained public support for core programs and staff; (iii) commit to collaboration with regional and international institutions; and (iv) commit to share results with other countries. A recent quantitative study by I F P W C O R A F identifies the region’s top priority areas, i.e., those that contribute the most to the region’s agricultural growth. This serves as the basis for the selected NCOS: in Ghana, R&D program in roots and tubers; in Mali, R&D program in irrigated rice; and in Senegal, R&D program in drought-resistant cereals (CERAAS).
29. This component focuses on the following key areas:
0 Upgrading core facilities and equipment o f the selected NCOS. This wil l help establishhtrengthen the viability o f the center, making i t more operational and attractive to other researchers in the region.
0 Building the capacity of researchers, through on-the-job-training o f young researchers (including university staff and students) and programs o f visiting scientists. The programs o f visiting scientists are for substantial research work (at the NCOS and other regional and international centers) over a few months to one year-- and not mere study tours. Supporting R&D programs of NCOS, concerning commissioned as wel l as adaptive research with effective participation from stakeholders, particularly producers and agribusinesses. Supporting farm surveys and supply chains analysis and benchmarking to identify most important areas o f research, and to monitor and document progress and impact o f transferred technologies over the project l i fe.
0
30. The project wil l work with development partners, CGIAR centers, and private agribusinesses to enhance the sustainability o f the NCOS. To support the above activities, the project wil l fund c iv i l work (if needed), material and equipment, consultant services, workshops and seminars, training, and operating costs related to the implementation o f R&D programs o f the national center o f specialization. The national coordination units (of the national programs) will manage the procurement o f goods and services related to this component.
3 1. C O W will assist the national center o f specialization in the development o f their work programs and networking with regional and international centers o f excellence, particularly in the program o f visiting scientists. Out o f the US$20.53 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities in US$0.50 million.
I 32. Component 3: Funding of Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$16.8 million; IDA: US$15.7 million). This aims at strengthening priority-focused,
8
transparent funding mechanisms for demand-driven agricultural R&D within participating countries. The component focuses on areas that have been identified as high priori ty at both the national and regional levels. The project wi l l thus ensure that work carried out in the participating countries wil l have great relevance to the region. Eligible activities wil l cover al l key constraints along the supply chain o f these commodity sub-sectors. Activities may concern new, as wel l as on-the-shelf agricultural technologies with potential for quick impact . 33. This component wil l support a competitive agricultural grant system (CARGS) and a l imited (non-competitive) core funding with strong buy-in from major stakeholders. I t includes a national window supported by regional activities.
0 National window. The project wil l support provision o f additional resources to complement ongoing and future R&D activities carried out under the country’s agricultural pol icy and to disseminate technology in the country’s top priorities, as identified by CORAF. To ensure regional spillover benefits, the country’s top priorities wil l be aligned with the regional’s top priorities. To further add value to national programs, the national windows wil l support cross-border partnerships- both on the supply side (research, extension, universities) and the demand side (farmer organizations, private sector and c iv i l society)-to work on problems on common interest.
0 Regional support activities. The project wil l support provision o f additional resources to allow CORAF to expand i t s knowledge sharing activities through the ECOWAS member countries. Thus, through CORAF’s work, the IDA’S instrument will be benefiting the entire region in any given phase o f the series o f APLs.
34. Funding o f the CARGS will fol low clear and transparent guidelines adapted from existing procedures, best practices and lessons learned, as described in the manual o f procedures. The manual wil l reflect, among others, the fol lowing guidelines (i) administration by a competent governance body; (ii) openness to producer groups and agribusinesses to lead the implementation o f R&D activities; (iii) openness to R&D activities to promote technology on-the-shelf for effective adoption; (v) capped overhead o f the R&D’s implementing unit in terms o f management fee or supported by operating cost; and (vi) score-card evaluation o f the program’s performance by a panel o f competent and independent experts. To promote the participation o f producer organizations and trade associations in the demand-driven process, a two-step selection process will be explored, including an eventual first step as a concept note to be reviewed for its relevance to the issue o n hand;
35. The national project coordination units wil l manage the national windows (through the relevant national implementation agencies) with CORAF’s assistance. C O W will facilitate the sharing o f information on results and lessons related to the CARGS among the participating countries and throughout the sub-region. This i s to ensure that, through the national window and the regional support activities, the WAAPP wil l implement activities that wil l benefit both the participating countries and the region. Out o f out o f the US$15.72 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities i s US$O. 10 million.
9
36. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$4.9 million; IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at establishing an effective coordination, management and M&E system at the national and regional levels. The IDA-supported WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS’ mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordinating units at the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Projects Coordinating Unit in Ghana; the PASAOP (Programme d ’Appui aux Services Agricoles et a m Organisations de Producteurs) in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 (Programme des Services Agricoles et Organizations des Producteurs) in Senegal. The financial management arrangements o f the project meets IDA’S requirements and are thus adequate to provide, with reasonable assurance, accurate and timely information on the status o f the project required by IDA.
37. The project wil l provide assistance to CORAF and the national implementing units to strengthen their capacities in these areas and further minimize risks. The project will also strengthen CORAF’s and the participating countries’ M&E systems to assess agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the region’s top priori ty areas.
38. All donors and partners want C O W to coordinate, monitor and evaluate effectively the generation and adoption o f technology across West Africa, and also effectively manage the funds it receives. The IDA-supported supported project wil l contribute to this shared objective o f improving CORAF’s performance by strengthening CORAF’s capacities in areas contributing to this objective. The IDA-project’s key performance indicators (KPI) will serve as a building block to the global WAAPP’s monitoring and evaluation system. Specifically, these KPI address CORAF’s performance related to its communication strategy and i t s effectiveness in managing the regional competitive grant system, both o f which are o f keen interest to donors.
39. The project wil l ensure the implementation o f the following key activities: (a) Financial management and procurement systems at C O W ; (b) Reporting on project’s activities; (c) Monitoring and evaluation o f regional agricultural productivity; (d) Communication strategy. C O W will commission, rather than undertake, studies to update IFPRVCORAF analysis and assess the impact o f R&D in the region’s agricultural productivity and competitiveness. CORAF wil l also strive to involve regional experts in these studies so contribute to building analytical capacity within the region.
40. To that effect, this component wil l support consultant services (surveys and impact studies), vehicles and equipment, office supplies, workshops and short-term training, and operating costs o f CORAF and the national coordinating units. The support to CORAF will complement parallel financing from other partners to C O W . Out o f the US$4.38 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities i s US$1.54. This i s in part because CORAF i s required to upgrade i t s capacities in terms o f financial management and procurement to comply with IDA’ procedures. I t will also be tasked to carry out surveys and studies to update the IFPWCORAF’s study. I t i s also because the national coordinating units are already functional, and thus need relatively l i t t le additional support to carrying out the project’s activities. The project has allocated funds for such an additional support based on the proposals o f the national coordinating units themselves.
10
E. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
41. The World Bank has gained valuable experience over four decades o f support to agricultural research and extension operations world-wide--including interventions in the project’s participating countries, such as the Ghana’s Agricultural Services Subsector Investment Program (AgSSIP) and the Mali ’s and Senegal’s Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Programs (PSAOP). O f particular interest are the competitive agricultural grant schemes addressed in the following operations: Peru’s Agricultural Research and Extension Program (APL), whose design inspired that o f the AgSSIP; Romania Agricultural Support Services Project; Georgia’s Agricultural Research, Extension, and Training Project; and India’s National Agricultural Technology Project. There are also useful insights in the Bank’s regional projects in other areas, such as the Senegal River Basin Multi-Purpose Water Resources Development Project (MWRD) and the West and Central Afr ica Air Transport Safety and Security Project (WCATS). K e y lessons from Bank experience and interventions by other development partners include the following:
An integrated Agriculture Knowledge Information System (AKIS) model i s needed in lieu o f the linear technology generation-transfer-adoption scheme, which has clearly failed African agriculture. The WAApP’s design pays particular attention to the following key elements o f an effective AKIS scheme: (i) partnership o f producer organizations, agribusinesses, and c iv i l society to ensure market-oriented, farmer-focused, and environmentally safe technologies; (ii) participation o f empowered producer organizations at an early stage; (iii) involvement o f African agricultural faculties, thus far mostly bypassed; (iv) adoption o f technology by farmers and not just “transfer o f knowledge” to them; and (v) effective monitoring and evaluation system. The competitive Agricultural Research Grant System (CARGS) is an efficient vehicle for financing new research areas, demand-driven adaptive research reflecting user perspectives, and research and development that requires public-private partnerships. Following best practices, the proposed project considers the CARGS as part o f a complement to core funding and incorporates the following elements in its design: (i) independent and competent governance; (ii) clear priorities, with stakeholder involvement in their setting; (iii) rigorous and transparent procedures; (iv) identification o f target farm populations and plans for transfer o f adaptive and applied research results; and (v) effective results-based monitoring and evaluation. Regional centers of excellence are viewed as an important instrument o f the regional approach to agricultural research; their implementation, however, has been disappointing. Most regional centers o f excellence have failed because they were stand alone centers put in place without the countries’ clear commitment, including that o f the host country. Without continued support to at least i t s core function by the host country, these stand alone centers failed after the initial donors’ funding ended. With the host country making little effort to support the core function o f the would-be regional center, and research results few and not readily disseminated, other countries have difficulties committing sustained financial resources to a center outside their borders. A more sensible approach to establishing viable regional center o f excellence would be for a country willing to: firmly commit resources to a center o f specialization (COS) in areas o f interest to other countries; willing to open the center to regional and international researchers; share results with other countries. As the NCOS achieve meaningful results, i t wil l gain a
11
regional reputation, and other country wil l be willing to support i t as a regional center o f excellence. Bank regional projects must (i) address al l national interests and priorities to ensure ownership o f the project and the proposed coordinating mechanisms; (ii) coordinate donors’ participation to minimize wasteful overlap and to provide adequate core support to implementing agencies; (iv) emphasize capacity building o f implementing agencies to enhance the program’s sustainability; and (iv) comply with the principle o f subsidiarity (Le,, regional bodies should not undertake activities when national entities can do so).
42. The design o f the proposed project reflects these lessons and recommendations. The WAAPP will promote national centers o f specialization; support R&D in areas o f national priorities aligned with regional priorities; rely on existing implementation units at both regional and national levels; and stress public-private partnerships initiatives and donors’ collaboration.
F. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
43. The individual country by country approach leads to duplication o f efforts; scarce resources spread too thin on too many areas; l imited regional collaboration; and thus inexistent regional spillovers. The multi-country approach usually provides a common project format to countries, but it s t i l l lacks the integrated regional perspective. Multi- country projects don’t qualify as regional projects; thus, they lose the additional regional resources. Multi-country projects also missed out in cost savings as project preparation and supervision require separate cost centers, further reducing any regional synergy.
44. A regional Specific Investment Loan (SIL) instrument alleviates some o f these pitfalls. This approach calls for a series o f SILs grouping at least three countries, but with each S I L lasting a short period. However, development o f agricultural technology adapted to farmer’s circumstances and market conditions i s a long-term endeavor that a short-lived S I L cannot accommodate.
45. A regional Adaptable Program Loan (APL) instrument fits the long-term approach o f both the Comprehensive Afr ica Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the African Action Plan in the area o f technology generation and dissemination (TGD) within a regional perspective. I ts phasing facilitates the prioritization o f investments in alignment with appropriate funding as it becomes available. To maintain the long-term perspective, retain the regional project characteristics, and accommodate countries to participate in the program, IDA’S instrument i s designed as a series o f overlapping APLs. Each APL i s o f 10 years, o f two phases o f five years each. Each APL involves a different grouping o f countries, so to cover al l ECOWAS countries.
46. The project’s design follows the AKIS conceptual framework with key elements from the innovation systems approach. Fol lowing the A K I S framework, the project promotes the needed collaboration among research, extension and universities, while putting the primary beneficiaries (producers and agribusinesses) at the center o f the agricultural knowledge information system. However, as the innovation system recommends, the project provides these beneficiaries the opportunity to initiate and implement R&D sub-projects and engage in
12
participative plant or animal selection programs--and not just receive technology developed by researchers, extension and universities. The innovative approach recommends actions that l ie beyond the reach o f the proposed project, or are better suited for national projects to implement (principle o f subsidiarity), such as: modernization o f curricula, support staff long- term training, and develop distance learning and other facilities; and investments that foster pluralism in service providers and extension organizations. The project, however, contributes to capacity building o f researchers, particularly young researchers.
111. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Partnership arrangements (if applicable)
47. This IDA-funded operation i s in support to the global West Afr ica Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) being prepared by CORAF--the sub-regional organization (SRO) mandated by ECOWAS to implement Pillar IV o f the CAADP. This operation combines assistance to CORAF with support to countries, to fully integrate national to regional priorities. The project team worked closely with donors and other partners--sharing ideas, concept notes and preliminary drafts o f the project document, and participating in numerous workshops--to highlight the building block nature o f the IDA’S instrument and develop a partnership around the global W W P .
48. During preparation, donors developed a consensus on the following key areas o f the global program: (i) the WAAPP’s R&D activities wil l focus on the region’s top priority commodity sub-sectors, as identified by C O W based o n the IFPRvCORAF’s study (funded by USAID); (ii) the global program’s key performance indicators wil l track CAADP’s objectives related to agricultural productivity and growth; (iii) the M&E system wil l provide independent and objective assessments o f results and impacts; (iv) donors’ contributions to CORAF wil l be in the form o f parallel, rather than join-financing, to accommodate the funding mechanisms available to donors; (v) donors’ contributions, nonetheless, will provide flexibility to CORAF to run an integrated management system.
49. C O W has long-standing relationships with several donors (DFID, USAID, the EU, AfDB, the Canadian IDRC, IFAD, etc.); partners (FARA, FAO, IFPRI, IITA, INSAH/CILSS, CIRAD, AGRYHMET, etc.); and the regional economic communities (ECOWAS and WAEMU). The IDA-project team has also initiated contact with the Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationRockefeller Foundation’s Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and will work for the WAAPP to pursue a close collaboration with this alliance. AGRA focuses on food crops for domestic consumption and value-added transformation, e.g., for animal feed in selected African countries, including the project’s participating countries: Ghana, M a l i and Senegal.
50. Donor coordination around the global WAAPP has been taking place at the initiative o f one or the other o f the major donors; at CORAF’s Board annual meetings; and at CORAF/donors meeting at CORAF’s initiation. During implementation, IDA will organize joint supervision mission with donors, about twice a year, to provide an opportunity for donors’ collaboration.
13
51. A partnership with the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is also envisioned. The global environment objective o f the GEF project, which would attached to the WAAPP, i s to contribute to the strategic objectives o f GEF operational programs on biodiversity, climate change and land degradation. This would be achieved by contributing incrementally to the establishment o f regional centers o f excellence and regional cooperation mechanisms in bio- safety and land and water management, and by strengthening the capacities o f national institutions to j o i n the regional approach.
B. Institutional and implementation arrangements
52. The IDA-fhded project in support to the WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by C O W and at the national levels by the national coordination uni ts o f MOFA in Ghana, the PASAOP in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 in Senegal. In Ghana, the project wil l work closely with the IFAD-funded Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Programme, which is joint ly implemented by IFAD and IDA, to promote the uptake o f roots and tubers released technologies. During negotiations the three participating countries committed to providing each a grant o f US$1 mi l l ion to CORAF. The Bank will enter into financing agreements with each o f the three participating countries and into a project agreement with c o w . 53. Regional level. CORAF, through i t s Dakar-based Executive Secretariat (ES), wil l assume overall coordination o f the WAAPP, with FARA playing an advisory role (as assigned by the AU/NEPAD). CORAF’s Executive Secretariat3 comprises the following staff: Executive Secretary, Scientific Coordinator, Administrative and Financial Manager, Information and Communication Manager, Coordinator o f the Sub-regional Cereal Network, and Impact Assessment Officer on agricultural research. CORAF works region-wide with stakeholders that include national agricultural research systems (NARS), producer organizations, private agribusinesses and c iv i l society (NGOs). The WAAPP will adapt and strengthen CORAF’s existing implementation arrangements in the key areas o f financial management, procurement and monitoring & evaluation, so as to remain in compliance with Bank’s fiduciary and reporting requirements.
54. A Designated account wil l be opened in a local bank and project’s consolidated financial statements wil l be prepared by CORAF’s Administrative and Financial Manager. The accounting standards applicable wil l be the SYSCOA standards, very close to the International Accounting Standards (IPSAS) issued by the International Federation o f Accountants (IFAC). An external auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to IDA will be recruited prior to Credit’s effectiveness. The audit wil l be conducted in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (ISA) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board o f the International Federation o f Accountants.
55. CORAF wil l monitor the overall implementation o f the project, reporting on progress related to the effectiveness o f the dissemination mechanisms and the increase in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the program’s areas o f interest. C O W will also play the role o f an advisory body for the national window o f the CARGS implemented in each
CORAF’s governance structure includes a General Assembly (GA), Governing Counci l (GC), Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), and the Executive Secretariat (ES).
14
country under the project. I t wil l also play a similar role for the national centers o f specialization. CORAF’s M&E system wil l collate and synthesize information generated by the M&E systems o f the participating countries.
56. National level. Mali ’s PASAOP and Senegal’s PSAOP 2 have similar institutional arrangement, which include: (i) a steering committee, (ii) a national coordination unit, and (iii) one implementing agency for their research and development component. In these countries, the coordination unit is located at the Ministry o f Agriculture with the following key responsibilities: coordination, management o f IDA credit, procurement, and overall project’s monitoring and evaluation and reporting. In Ghana, the coordination unit wil l be MOFA Projects Coordinating Unit, with the understanding that the Projects Coordination Unit within MOFA will be in charge o f coordinating al l agricultural related projects including AgSSIP and i t s potential successor. All three countries also operate a CARGS scheme: in Ghana by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR); in M a l i by the Comite‘ National de la Recherche Agricole (CNR4); and in Senegal by the Fonds National de Recherches Agricoles et Agro-alimentaires (FNRAA). These countries have separate extension services but also a framework that brings together producer organizations, research institutions, the private sector and c iv i l society to identify and act on priorities related to agricultural research and development.
57. The project wil l not create any new implementing units at the country level. The national coordination unit in each country wil l manage the WAAPP’s national window o f the CARGS (through the implementing agency in this country, according to the Project Implementation Manual adapted from the existing projects’ manuals), the establishment o f the COS, and the monitoring and evaluation o f the project at the national level. The mandates o f the national coordination units wil l be amended to reflect their added duties.
58, The implementing manuals will provide detailed information in the institutional and implementation arrangements, including in the following key areas: priority setting for research and extension activities; procedures for competitive grant system; M&E o f project outcomes and outputs (detailed in Annex 3). The WAAPP will establish a clear framework for priority setting and updating based on quantitative analysis (updated IFPRI’s study) and validation by key stakeholders, including producer organizations at the regional and national levels, and public-private partnerships. The WAAPP also aims at producing an implementation manual for CARGS that would serve as good practice for national competitive systems throughout the region.
C. Monitoring and evaluation o f outcomes/results
59. IDA and its clients are in agreement that a well-designed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system i s critical for ensuring the successful implementation o f projects, the unambiguous assessment o f their impacts, and a systematic analysis o f lessons learned. Accordingly, the project will establish an effective M&E system to verify progress against the objectively verifiable indicators as described in the results framework (Annex 3). The system wil l build upon the M&E systems already established in the participating countries’ project at the national level, and wil l strengthen CORAF’s M&E system at the regional level. The M&E system will collate and process information collected by CORAF, the participating countries, and additional data deriving from special studies.
15
60. In addition, the project wil l contribute to the funding o f special studies to analyze and report o n the evolution o f regional agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the region’s top priori ty areas. The NCOS will carry out baseline studies o n the countries’ top priority commodity sub-sectors, and CORAF will update IFPRVCORAF’s study to allow for later comparison o f results. It wil l also coordinate and use qualitative participatory and gender-sensitive poverty assessments undertaken in participating countries. The Project Implementation Manual will include a monitoring and evaluation section describing key performance indicators, as wel l as process indicators, for al l program activities, including the safeguard measures.
(a) Cooperation between CORAF and national
(b) Core funding of CORAF i s inadequate
(c) CORAF i s unable to maintain a coherent
(d) Donors interventions in TGD lack a
coordination units breaks down.
during implementation.
program across ECOWAS countries.
coordinated approach.
D. Sustainability
IDA and donors monitor collaboration between CORAF and national coordination units. IDA monitors timely and adequate transfer of IDA funds from countries to CORAF during implementation. IDA and other donors monitor CORAF’s overall performance and requests revised program if needed. IDA coordinates donors’ collaboration through joint supervision of project.
N
M
S
M
61. The project’s sustainability critically depends on the following key factors: (i) clear mechanisms for disseminating and sharing technologies across countries; (ii) establishment o f effective national centers o f specialization (NCOS); (iii) regular funding o f the core operations o f the national centers and CORAF. To secure the project long term sustainability, these factors are reflected in the program’s outcome indicators and triggers, and the legal covenants (Annex 3 and Section 6.4).
The Bank and other donors engage ECOWAS to facilitate establishment of sharing mechanisms.
Project collaborates in public expenditure reviews (PER) exercises to report on the evolution o f public expenditure allocated to centers of specialization.
Project monitors and reports on process and results
Project works with national development projects. of CARGS.
and regional public-private partnerships to promote technology adoption
E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
M
M
M
M
62. As a pi lot regional project, the project faces many risks to i t s development objective and component’s results. However, the overall risk o f the project i s moderate, provided the project implements the suggested mitigation measures, as shown in the table below.
Risks I Risk Mitigation Measures Risk Rating 1 with
To component Results 1. Enabling Conditions (e) Regional consensus on mechanisms for sharing technology knowledge and products i s not developed. 2. Centers o f specialization (0 Countries commitment for funding Centers of specialization i s weak
3. Technology Generation (g) Rigorous standards and review mechanism of CARGS are not applied. (h) Linkages between development projects to promote adoption of technologies are weak.
16
I 4. Project Administration (i) Use of funds i s inefficient or inappropriate due to poor governance at CORAF and national coordination units. (j) specifics internal control weakness may not be identified and addressed in a timely manner at the overall project level (k) Linkages between CORAF’s and national projects’ M&E systems are weak. Overall Rating
H = High S = Substantial
IDA closely follows-up financial and Audit Reports.
An internal auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to IDA will be recruited by CORAF Project organizes workshops and training to
M = Moderate N = Lowhegligible
N
N
M
M
F. Loadcredit conditions and covenants
63. Conditions for Board Approval: None
64. Conditions for effectiveness: (a) The Project Implementation Manual (PIM), in form and substance satisfactory to
the Association, has been adopted by CORAF and the PIU for the purpose o f implementing the regional and national components o f the Project. CORAF and the PlUs have adapted their accounting software to cover the implementation o f the Project. A Subsidiary agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Association has been duly concluded between CORAF and the Recipient. A management service contract, in form and substance satisfactory to IDA, has been entered into between the Recipient and each entity that wil l be responsible for the implementation o f the Project at the national level.
(b)
(c)
(d)
65. Legal covenants.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The mid-term review wil l be undertaken no later than two years and six months following effectiveness; An independent consultant will be recruited to undertake the mid-term review and provide an exhaustive report on the implementation o f the project; Annual work plans will be prepared and submitted to the Bank by November 30 o f each year; N o t later than six months after the Effectiveness Date, the Recipient and CORAF’s Executive Secretariat shall hire an external auditor with qualifications, experience and terms o f reference satisfactory to the Association. The recruitment should be through a body other than the Executing Agency, in order to avoid conflict o f interest between the Auditor and the Executing Agency.
IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
A. Economic and financial analyses
66. Bank standard practice recommends an illustrative ex-post, rather than an ex-ante quantification o f benefits and costs o f research and extension investments. Predicting and quantifying ex-ante economic costs and benefits o f research and extension activities is
17
problematic because it is nearly impossible to anticipate with satisfaction the outcome of these activities. The required data for an ex-ante analysis i s either unavailable or unreliable. For example, there are difficulties in estimating farmer adoption rates o f technologies not yet available, and in linking cause (costs) and effect (outcomes) o f research and extension interventions. For these reasons, indicators related to adoption rates may prove unreliable.
67. Ex-post analysis o f agricultural research and extension in most countries, however, reveals high returns to these investments, ranging between 40-75 percent. An IFPRI’s review4 o f 294 benefit-cost studies, reporting 1,858 estimates o f rates o f return to research and extension investments, shows average returns to research investments alone o f 88 percent, extension alone averaging 79 percent, and research and extension combined averaging 45 percent. Similar rates would l ikely apply to the WAApP’s efforts in agricultural research and adoption.
B. Technical
68. Stakeholders’ validation o f the region’s top priori ty areas, based on quantitative analysis, will ensure the technical soundness and relevance o f the project. Proposals for funding in these priority areas wil l follow clear guidelines to ensure responsiveness to the concerns o f producers and private agribusinesses.
C. Fiduciary
69. IDA has carried a fiduciary assessment o f CORAF, the regional implementation agency, in terms o f its capacities in financial management and procurement. The assessment recommended measures for CORAF to implement, as indicated in the conditions o f effectiveness and legal covenants. The financial management arrangements will be strengthened with the implementation o f the action plan in attachment 1 o f Annex 7. U S A I D has also undertaken a formal assessment o f CORAF’s management and financial procedures and is expected to subsequently certify CORAF as a direct grantee. The fiduciary arrangements o f the national implementing agencies, which operate under on-going part o f on-going IDA-financed operations, fully meet IDA’S rules and regulations.
D. Social
70. Small-scale farmers dominate African agriculture--with women playing a critical role--in both local food production and production for regional and international markets. The project wil l work to ensure that the circumstances o f small-scale farmers are accounted for in the priority setting and implementation o f the research proposal. I t wil l require, for example, that bids under the competitive grant system clearly identify the farm population that would benefit from the research. Adaptive research wil l be conducted on farmer field. Also, the competitive grant system wil l be open to producer organizations and agribusiness associations to implement R&D activities. The project wil l work with development operations and public-private partnership to promote the use o f technologies by producers.
A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D” by Alston, Marra, Pardey, and Wyatt (1999) 4
18
E. Environment
71. The proposed support project to the WAAPP expects to contribute to the use o f environmentally safe agricultural technologies. The project wil l support environmentally- friendly and socially sensitive agricultural practices. I t will not approve funding o f research projects with any documented adverse environmental and social impact at the regional and national levels. I t wil l encourage proposals involving Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and soil conservation, which promote cost effectiveness and sustainable use o f chemicals in farming. To that effect, i t will screen al l research proposals before their hnding. The project wil l also work with the regional economic communities to promote the homologation and harmonization o f the use o f pesticides in the region.
F. Safeguard policies
72. The environmental screening category is B. The fol lowing table presents the Safeguard policies triggered by the project.
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes N o Environmental Assessment (OPBP 4.01) [XI [I Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ I [XI Pest Management (OP 4.09) [XI [I Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.1 1) [ I [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ I [XI Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) [ I [XI Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ I [XI Safety o f Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [I [XI Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)* [I [XI Projects o n International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) [I [XI
73. Ghana, M a l i and Senegal have already prepared and disclosed safeguard documents pertaining to the Ghana’s AgSSIP, Mali ’s PASAOP and Senegal’s PSAOP 2. C O W has prepared and disclosed an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Pest Management Plan (PMP) at C O W , in the three participating countries and at Infoshop.
G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness
74. The Project complies with al l the World Bank policies and no specific pol icy exceptions are sought. A procurement plan for the f i rst 18 months o f project activities has been prepared during appraisal and finalized at negotiations. All the national implementing agencies (CSIR, CNRA, and FNR4A) and the regional implementing agency, C O W , are established entities, and just created for the purpose o f this project. The institutional arrangements within countries are the same used under Bank-supported projects. The project implementation manual in preparation wil l be adapted from existing manuals, rather than created from scratch and will be ready by project effectiveness.
* By supporting theproposedproject, the Bank does not intend to prejudice thefinal determination of theparties‘ claims on the disputed areas
19
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
1. The Economic Community o f West African States (ECOWAS) is home to 250 mi l l ion people in 15 countries5. All member states are low-income countries with low UN Human Development Indices; many are among the world poorest. Agriculture i s a dominant force in the region, accounting for 35 percent o f GDP, over 15 percent o f exports, and 65 percent o f employment. Still, poverty i s highest in rural areas hosting 60 percent o f a population, which depends on agriculture for i t s livelihood. Food insecurity i s a major concern overall and a chronic situation in the north or Sahel. Overall, Africa’s intra-regional agricultural trade i s limited and its share o f total wor ld agricultural trade is miniscule, as it fe l l from 8 percent in 1965 to 3 percent in ,1996 (FAO, 2000).
2. Agricultural productivity has been declining in Afr ica over the past four decades, while significantly increasing in other regions. Average cereal yields in the world (2,676 k o a ) was over twice that in Afr ica (1,069 k o a ) in 1994-2003. L o w productivity has seriously eroded the competitiveness o f African agricultural products on world and domestic markets, as food imports keep increasing.
3. Yet, i t i s not that potential returns on investment in agricultural technology generation and dissemination are not as high in Africa (37 percent o n average) as elsewhere; rather, i t i s that i t s funding in Africa has been lower than elsewhere. Spending on agricultural TGD in Africa has declined in proportion to total government spending, with funding o f regional research activities representing less than two percent o f overall total spending-the same as private funding. It i s also that linkages between research systems, extension services, farmers, and agribusinesses are weak in Africa. Even when technologies are generated, dissemination and adoption mechanisms are inefficient or lacking. In many cases, farmers do not learn about the innovations; in others, farmers are adopting less than 10 percent o f the proposed technologies because these do not suit their circumstances. It i s also that the lack o f harmonized regulations on technology use (e.g., homologation o f pesticides) at ECOWAS level acts as a barriers to the dissemination o f technologies across borders.
ECOWAS comprises Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. Mauritania withdrew in 1999
20
Table 1 Agriculture technology and productivity, by developing region
Average Contribution annual
o f crop Average growth in genetic Cereal annual food
improvement yield (kg growth in production Share o f area planted to modem to yield Per cereal yield per capita
Source: FARA (2006); Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP)
Strategic responses
4. For the African Union (AU), Afr ica wi l l meet the Mi l lennium Development Goals (MDGs) only when rural development, agriculture and the l ivel ihood constraints o f the rural poor are brought to the top o f the development agenda. The AU’s New Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) has called for three percent annual agricultural productivity growth and six percent growth in agricultural GDP to reach the M D G s by 2015. NEPAD has designed the Comprehensive Afr ica Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) to that effect. In turn, the regional economic communities have developed policies to implement CAADP: ECOWAS , with its Agricultural Policy (ECOWAP) and WAEMU (West Afr ica Economic and Monetary Union), with i t s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAADP’s Pillar IVY which covers agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption (henceforth, technology generation and dissemination-TGD), plays a central role, as i t significantly impacts on the other three pillars: land and water management; rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for improved access to markets; and increasing food supply and reducing hunger. At the request o f NEPAD, the Forum for African Agricultural Research (FARA) has developed the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) to provide the guiding principles for implementing CAADP Pillar IV.
5. At the late Afr ica Fertilizer Summit (June 2006), African Heads o f State decided to lift a l l cross-border taxes and tariffs on fertilizer, designating mineral and organic fertilizer as a “strategic commodity.” The measure provides incentives to producers to restore soil fertility and realize the potential o f high-yielding varieties. The Heads o f State also agreed to establish an African fertilizer financing mechanism within the African Development Bank (AfDB) to significantly increase the availability and access to fertilizer on the continent.
21
6. Initiatives are also underway to facilitate regional trade in seeds, pesticides and crop protection products. As part o f i t s agricultural strategy and with the support o f the Sahel Institute o f the Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (INSAH/CILSS), WAEMU has initiated a process o f harmonization o f national o f its members’ seed regulations. I t has initiated a regional catalog o f species and varieties and drafted regional laws and supporting regulations to govern seed trade. Similarly, it is laying down common rules for the approval o f sale and use o f pesticides (in crop and livestock production), and procedures for the registration and homologation o f active ingredient and formulations in accordance with FA0 directives for homologation and control o f pesticides. ECOWAS i s working with WAEMU and INSAH/CILLS to come up with similar harmonized ru les and procedures for al l its member states. Several international institutions and projects are assisting the regional organizations in these efforts, including FAO, the West Afr ica Seed and Planting Material network (WASP), F D C , and USDA. U S A I D i s also launching a Seed Alliance. Work is under way for ECOWAS to adapt WAEMU’s common rules and regulations to ECOWAS
Figure 2. Public Agricultural Research (millions of 2000 international dollars)
I 12000 , I
Millions o f 2000 International dollars
10000
8000
0 1 1981 1991 2000
Asia & Pacific Sub-Saharan Africa + High-income Countries
Latin America & Caribbean
Source: FARA (2006)ic
7. The agricultural research and development strategies o f the participating countries in the first phase o f the program (Ghana, Mali , and Senegal) are articulated in the Country Assistance Strategies and h r the r developed in the “anchor” projects in the countries: the Ghana’s Agricultural Services Subsector Investment Project (AgSSIP), Mali’s agricultural services and producer organizations support program (PASAOP - Programme d ’Appui a m Services Agricoles et a m Organisations de Producteurs), and Senegal’s second phase o f the agricultural services and producer organizations program (PSAOP 2 - Programme des Services Agricoles et Organisations des Producteurs, Phase 2 ). The key elements o f these strategies are summarized below.
8. Ghana’s agricultural and research strategy is to: (i) increase the production o f both cash and food crops; and (ii) promote the production o f commodities in which Ghana has a clear comparative advantage. This strategy emphasizes the strengthening o f agricultural support
22
services including research and extension, marketing and storage, fertilizer and seed supply and intersectoral l i n k s in processing, and feeder roads improvement. The strategy for the promotion o f growth o f crops i s based o n increasing productivity, using improved technology through the use o f improved varieties o f crops and pest control measures, while maintaining soil fertility through composting, manure and fertilizer use and soil conserving cultural practices. In the livestock sector, the strategy i s based on increasing productivity through improved animal health, nutrition and water supplies and, in the longer term, breed improvement.
9. The objectives o f the agricultural research component under AgSSIP are to: (i) increase agricultural productivity and reduce poverty at an accelerated pace through the release and uptake o f new technologies; (ii) promote intensification o f farming systems to conserve and enhance the natural resources base; (iii) increase participation o f farmers and other key stakeholders in the governance and financing o f the N A R S to make agricultural research more relevant to farmers’ and the country’s needs as wel l as financially sustainable, and (iv) improving the cost-effectiveness o f research by increasing the efficiency o f research organizations in the NARS via strengthening their technical, administrative, planning, monitoring, and financial management capabilities. Phase I o f AgSSIP initiated a Competitive Agricultural Research Grant System (CARGS), a demand-driven research to complement the priority research programs.
10. The project will collaborate with the FAD-funded “Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Programme,” to promote producers’ adoption o f improved technologies in roots and tubers. I t s objective i s to build up competitive, market-based and inclusive commodity chains for roots and tubers. I t builds o n lessons learned from the “Root and Tuber Improvement Promamme,” a predecessor project that focused primarily o n cassava research and development. The on-going FAD program extends its focus to other roots and tubers. The WAAPP should work wel l with such the FAD-supported program since i t i s implemented jo int ly by IFAD and the World Bank.
11. Mali’s agricultural and research strategy i s to (i) strengthen the efficiency and sustainability o f agricultural services by promoting pluralism and competition among service providers (public and private) and the participation o f beneficiaries in the design, implementation, monitoring and gradually the financing o f research and extension programs; (ii) strengthen the capacity o f producer organizations to be the main partners o f government in the design and management o f rural development policies and programs, in particular at the local and regional level, and to be the key instrument for improving fanner’s access to the inputs and services they need. Benchmarks are to increase cotton grain production, evolution o f producer prices, improvement o f fiber production and livestock production.
12. The f is t phase o f the PASAOP promoted strategic research sub-projects selected and financed on a scientific-merit basis. It also established a Competitive Research and Development Grant Fund (CR&DGF) to finance adaptive research or research and development research (R&D) sub-projects on a producer demand-driven basis. I t supported a revamped CNRA to manage research financing (through the CR&DGF) independently from the implementing institutes. The revamped C N R 4 currently functions as a fully autonomous body with a majority representation o f research users, as intended. Producer organizations are play an active in the identification o f research programs.
23
13. Senegal’s agricultural and research strategy i s to: promote agricultural development; raise livestock production; and ensure sustainable management o f fishery resources. Benchmark set for this strategy i s successful implementation o f agriculture services and Agriculture export programs (increasing research output, diversity output, lower costs o f knowledge transfer to producers, increase knowledge o n soil fertility).
14. The first phase o f the PSAOP supported the establishment o f the National Fund for Agricultural Research (FNRAA), a competitive funding mechanism for agricultural and a g o - processing research programs. The FNRAA has increased the transparency o f resource allocation to research projects. The FNRAA has made funds available to a range o f competencies beyond the traditional and dominant research institutes. It has contributed to forging partnerships between research institutions, institutions and private operators, such as ago-processors. Producers take part in the decision-making process and are involved in the implementation o f research programs at field level. The PSAOP has also helped strengthen the scientific and managerial capacities and competitiveness o f the two major research institutions ( I S M and ITA).
15. The West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and DevelopmentIConseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Dbveloppement Agricoles (WECARDICORAF), created in 1987, was given the hission by ECOWAS member states to improve the efficiency and effectiveness o f agricultural research in West Afr ica by contributing to the construction and the consolidation o f the capacities o f the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) , through co-operation between i t s members, development partners, regional and international organizations, private sector, non-governmental organizations, users o f research results. CORAF has set the following objectives: (i) promote co- operation, consultation and information exchange between member institutions on one hand and the partners on the other; (ii) define joint sub-regional and regional research objectives and priorities; (iii) serve as a consultative body for research carried out by regional and international organizations operating at the sub-regional level; (iv) develop joint research programmes in order to strengthen complementary activities o f CORAF/WECARD and i t s partners; (v) harmonize the activities o f the existing research networks, and facilitate the creation o f new regional networks or other operational research units with a regional character.
16. Specifically, ECOWAS has given mandate to CORAF to implement i t s agricultural pol icy (ECOWAP) in areas related to agricultural policy. To that effect, CORAF i s developing the West Afr ica Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) for the ECOWAS sub-region. As part o f the preparation o f the global WAAPP (supported by grants from donors such as DFID, USAID, and the World Bank), CORAF has reviewed its Strategic Plan for Agricultural Research and Development Co-operation for West and Central Africa. The plan calls for a more focus and clearer framework to guide the development o f a Five Year Program. In essence, this program comprises the WAAPP for the ECOWAS sub-region and the Central Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (CAAPP) for the central African sub-region.
17. CORAF has been at the center o f both the global WAAPP and the proposed project in support to this global WAAPP. C O W has proven to be the right body to bring together countries together, whether at the global sub-regional region or in smaller groupings o f countries in the sub-region, such as the three participating countries in this first o f a series o f APLs.
24
18. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), in its Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP), recommends that Africa’s agricultural productivity efforts reflect the following principles in order to be successful:
Empowerment of end-users to ensure their meaningful participation in setting priorities and work programs for research, extension, and training to ensure their relevance; Planned subsidiarity to give responsibility and control over resources for agricultural research, extension, and training activities at the lowest appropriate level o f aggregation (local, national and regional); Pluralism in the delivery o f agricultural research, extension, and training services so that diverse ski l ls and strengths o f a broad range o f service providers (e.g. universities, NGOs, public and the private sectors); Evidence-based approaches with emphasis o n data analysis, including economic factors and market orientation in pol icy development, priority setting and strategic planning for agricultural research, extension, and training; Integration of agricultural research with extension services, the private sector, training, capacity building, and education programs to respond in a holistic manner to the needs and opportunities for innovation in the sector; Explicit incorporation of sustainability criteria in evaluation o f public investments in agricultural productivity and innovation program (fiscal, economic, social and environmental) ; Systematic utilization of improved management information systems, in particular for planning, financial management, reporting, and monitoring and evaluation; Introduction of cost sharing with end users, according to their capacity to pay, to increase their stake in the efficiency o f service provision and to improve financial sustainability; and Integration of gender considerations at al l levels, including farmers and farmer organizations, the private sector, public institutions, researchers and extension staff,
19. The FAAP principles are captured in the in the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) diagrammed below:
25
2 1. The ~ A A P P wil l also work to facilitafe the o Aen lacking c o ~ ~ a ~ ~ r a ~ ~ ~ n a ~ o n ~ researchers, e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o n sewices and agric
arch grant system an^^^ 4) provides Is0 provides an o ~ p o ~ ~ n j ~ ~ to
ia, Guinea, Guinea-
25
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
Project
West and Central Africa Air Transport Safety & Security Project (approved on April 27,2006)t West Africa Power Pool Program APL Senegal River Basin Multipurpose Water Resources Development Project APL Agricultural Markets and Agribusiness Development (approved on February 28, 2006, not yet efective) Agricultural Export Promotion Project
Local Area Development Program (NORAD, Swiss Cooperation, CIDA Dutch/French/KfW funded projects at Office du Niger- ongoing FrencWAFD funded project: Support to cotton-based farming systems (PASE) 8'h FED funded project: Support to the Rice
27
Senegal AfDB Small Scale Irrigation Support Project
(Tambacounda, Fatick and Kolda regions)(
Ghana I IFAD I Roots and Tuber Improvement and
EU
CIDA
I Marketing Programme .anking IPDO: HS (Highly satisfactory), S (satisfactory), I (unsatisfactory), HI (highly unsatisfactory)
ongoing) Revitalization o f theagroundnut Industry (Programme de relance de la f i l i t r e Arachide, ongoing) Agroprocessing Micro-entreprises Support Project (PAOA-Projet d’appui aux opkrateurs de l’agro-alimentaire, on-going)
28
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WMPP) Support Project
PDO
Generate and disseminate improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas that are aligned with the region’s top priorities, as identified by CORAF
Intermediate Outcomes
Enabling conditions for regional cooperation in TGD Strengthened enabling conditions for disseminating technology within participating countries and at regional level
Centers of Specialization Strengthened alignment o f national priorities with regional priorities within participant countries National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS)
Technology Generation Strengthened priority-focused and transparent agricultural research funding mechanisms within participant countries and at regional level
Results Framework
At least three improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas have been released by these countries at the end o f the phase. Out o f the three improved technologies released by each country, at least one should show improvement in yield by 15 percent over the control technology.
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Common regulations for the registration o f genetic materials and pesticides are adopted at ECOWAS level Three national registration committees for genetic materials and pesticides in the participating are operational A web-based information system on agricultural technologies and research sk i l l s i s developed and maintained by CORAF
Three national Centers o f Specialization (NCOS) in areas o f both national and regional priorities have been developed by participating countries within their NARS A total o f at least 30 scientists with interest in the established NCOS have been supported by programs o f visiting scientists to open NCOS to the region and bevond
A l l project-funded R&D sub- projects have addressed national and regional priorities
At least 85 percent o f completed
Use of Project Outcome Information
Measures productivity gains in priority areas
Measures relevance and effectiveness o f technology generation and transfer
Use o f Intermediate Outcome Monitoring
Gauges prospects for cross-border exchange and trade in technology
Measures improvement in national procedures for disseminating improved technologies
Measures effectiveness of disseminating technology
Gauge how countries are positioning and aligning NARS on regional agricultural research priorities
Gauge openness o f NCOS to other researchers in the region and abroad
Ensures relevance o f project-funded R&D activities
Gauges perfonnance o f project-
29
Management and Coordination Established effective project coordination and management system
competitive grant sub-project have been implemented successfully, as assessed by independent review panels o f experts.
A t least 80% o f Annual Activity Implementation Plan and related budget and procurement plan (PTBA) are executed and in conformity wi th the implementation manual, and IDA procurement and financial management procedures. All project reports are presented within 45days o f the end o f the relevant period. A system for data collection, analysis and reporting on regional agricultural productivity i s established and working satisfactorily. All sub project granted with environmental management plan have implemented adequately the p lan effectively.
funded R&D activities
Gauges conformity wi th fiduciary requirements and efficiency o f implement ation.
Gauges efficiency o f coordination and monitoring system.
Gauges capability o f documenting productivity increase over time
Gauges funded CARGS related sub- project compliance with Bank triggered safeguard policies.
30
I
e .. e i .. + C
i i i P a E :
P I
L
b
C
C C L L
-?
P 0 8 4 m e ri
P 0 8 4 m e
2 W -
B 8 4 m e
m M . * m
0 9 z m e m
0 q z N e e
g s v) z 00
g p VI E! 00
g s In E! 00
2 4 z
-0
3 3 8 8
n s UY
n s v)
N M
Arranpements for results monitoring
1. The M&E system wil l be designed to document the project outcomes and intermediary results. CORAF wil l have the primary responsibility for the project’s M&E. In this capacity, CORAF wil l define standard methodology for data collection and processing techniques as wel l as for the measurement o f impacts and both at the national and regional levels to allow comparability across countries.
Measurement and reporting of project outcomes and impact
2. At the regional, CORAF wil l subcontract with appropriate regional and international agencies to update studies on the region’s agricultural productivity each other year, base o n the study done with IFPRI support in 2006, which also served as a baseline for monitoring progress in agricultural productivity in the region. These studies are not related to participating countries only but will report on agricultural productivity in the entire ECOWAS region., and wil l be carried out twice over the project l i fe : before the project medium term review (Year 3 following effectiveness) and by the closing date for the purpose o f the project Implementation and Results Completion report..
3. At country level, NCOS in participating countries wil l be responsible for the measurement o f impact o f technology released and transferred with the project support. To that aim, NCOS wil l carry farm surveys for the purpose o f measuring the indicators on productivity improvement and technology adoption. Such panel surveys wil l be conducted over the project l i f e cycle and will include both control and adopters o f released technologies. This center will also perform supply chain analysis and benchmarking to identify on a regular basis knowledge gap and key areas o f for future research programs, as wel l as to update on country progress and performance along the chains o f commodities in their particular areas o f specialization. The project wil l support such analyses as wel l as farm surveys as part o f NCOS core hnded program and for which annual report wil l be issued starting on the end o f Year 2 following project effectiveness.
Monitoring of project implementation progress and intermediate achievements
4. CORAF and the national research grant agencies wil l be responsible for maintaining web- based databases on grant administration and results. Such databases will be accessible to the public and wil l disclose information on the following: request for proposals, selection process and procedures, grantees, and results. In addition, C O W will develop and maintain agricultural research resources database in terms o f publications, research sk i l ls available in the region. An independent evaluation o f completed sub-projects funded under the regional and national windows wil l be performed annually starting at the end o f Year 2 fol lowing project effectiveness. This evaluation wil l capture through a score-card approach, al l relevant dimensions o f SP, including alignment with the region top priorities, beneficiary participations and intake, quality o f financial management, compliance with Bank safeguards policies, scientific achievements and efficacy for transfer to end users, quality on documenting results and communication to public, etc.
5. Based on the M&E system, each participating country will produce semi-annual reports along with dashboard on the national priority sector and information o n research grants and results. CORAF wil l produce an annual consolidated report based on the countries’ reports and
33
their specific studies to be shared with al l ECOWAS countries. CORAF wil l also inform participating countries on a yearly basis o n activity implementation progress and the use o f f inds transferred from country proceeds, with al l relevant documents (financial statements, financial audit, implementation progress report etc) as approved by i t s Oversight Committee.
6. The anchor projects in the participating countries have developed M&E systems, which wil l serve CORAF’s regional M&E system. In addition, CORAF i s also developing a web-based information system on agricultural technology. The basic structure o f the project’s M&E is thus in place. This system wil l be further strengthened and improved both at the national and regional levels, as reflected in the cost tables.
34
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
1. This project i s designed as a building block for the global WAAPP for the ECOWAS region, in preparation by CORAF, clients, partners and donors--including IDA. The region’s consumers, particularly those affected by extreme poverty, are the ultimate beneficiaries o f the WAAPP. Agricultural producers and agribusinesses, as users o f the improved technology, are the primary beneficiaries o f the program. These are also the key participants, along with researchers, extension agencies, and universities (in adhering to the agricultural knowledge information system ( A K I S ) conceptual framework), in the generation and dissemination o f technology that i s directly supported by the WAAPP. Annex 6 (institutional arrangements) describes the nature and roles o f the project’s various implementing agencies.
2. The Bank has worked with donors (in closed and participative meetings), CORAF, clients and partners to provide shape to a shared vision o f the WAAPP. The design o f the proposed IDA project supporting the WAAPP incorporates the key elements o f this shared vision thus developed. The consensus includes the need for CORAF to: assist ECOWAS in setting up common regulations and procedures in technology generation and dissemination; develop an effective communication system, including an effective dissemination system; implement effectively the regional competitive grant system supported by donors; and strengthen its financial and procurement management system for the finds i t received. Adding to this, the proposed project has designed activities that integrate the regional and national level to provide benefit to both the participating countries (Le., with proposed IDA credit) and the region as a whole.
3. Through the sharing o f information and discussions with C O W , clients, and donors, the structure o f the proposed project evolved over the course o f the project’s preparation to clarify and further strengthen its complementary nature to the WAAPP. The detailed project descriptipn is reflective o f this design. 4. Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in TGD (US$5.3 million, IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures governing the registration and release o f technology products (genetic materials, pesticides and other crop protection products--CPP) to make them available for domestic and cross-border trade and distribution. These conditions are concerned with allowing countries to benefit fully from the potential o f the regional cooperation in TGD being promoted. Such conditions need to be worked out at both national and regional levels, for before technology products can be available at the regional level, they must be available at the national level. Often, unfortunately, the regulations and standards at the national level are either not adequate or not operational, so that improved technologies may have been developed but not officially released. Also, within the region, the larger ECOWAS has lagged behind the CILSS (Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel) and WAEMU countries in adopting common procedures for the release o f genetic materials and pesticides.
- 35 -
5.
6.
This component wil l focus on the fol lowing key areas: (a) Common regulations related to genetic materials, pesticides and other crop protection products (CPP) at the ECOWAS level. The WAEMU and CILSS countries, with support from various donors, already have in place common ru les and regulations regarding seeds and pesticides. Work i s under way at ECOWAS to recommend to its member states a common regulation adapted from the WAEMU’s and CILSS’ framework. The WAAPP will contribute to these efforts to speed up this process. The project wil l also assist ECOWAS in i t s efforts to find a common framework in intellectual property r ights (IPR) and others, such as farmers’ r ights and Geographic Indication (GI). The ECOWAS region straddles two different African IPR organizations: the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)7 covers mostly Francophone countries, while the African Regional Industrial Property Organization (ARIPO)* covers Anglophone countries. CORAF will coordinate the activities described above. (b) National registration committees for genetic materials and pesticides in the participating countries. Specifically, the WAAPP will support (i) the revision, if needed, o f national procedures to align them with the regional guidelines; (ii) identification o f improved technology that has been developed but not yet officially released; (iii) operations o f the technology release process, ensuring the participation o f producers and agribusinesses in this process; (iv) documentation o f the characteristics o f the technology (e.g., agronomic, chemical composition, potential environmental impact, economic benefits, and consumers’ appreciation); (v) the cataloging o f the released and approved technologies; and (vi) the promotion o f these technologies, using traditional media and information technology and communication (ITC). With registration procedures recognized across borders, countries will not need to repeat unnecessary f ield tests before allowing in materials for use. (c) Information system on agricultural technologies and research skills at the regional level. The project wil l support CORAF’s on-going efforts to strengthen i t s web-based information system. CORAF’s information system will help amplify to the entire region the promotion o f improved technologies released at the national levels. I t wil l also provide information related to research skills in the region to facilitate networking. CORAF wil l consolidate the information available in various other databases, such as that o f CILSS and FAO. To carry out these activities, the project wil l collaborate with the regional economic
organizations (ECOWAS, WAEMU) and - institutions (INSAH/CILSS), and other partners. These include IITA, which i s coordinating the West Afr ica Seed and Planting Material Network (WASNET); IFDC, which is working in the area o f a regulatory framework for the registration o f crop protection products in West Africa; FAO; and USAID, which has initiated a Global Development Alliance and i s working to launch a Seed Alliance. 7. To that effect, this component wil l support (i) consultant services to study and assess policies, regulations, and procedures in the sharing o f technology; (ii) workshops and seminars to
’ OAPI’s member countries comprise: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central Af r ican Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea Equatorial, Guinea, Mali , Mali , Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. * ARIPO’s member countries comprise: Botswana, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Sw.aziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Nigeria and Liberia are observers and potential future members.
- 36 -
promote the participation o f regional producers organizations (e.g., ROPPA’) and agribusinesses associations (e.g. INTERFACE) in the drafting o f regulations and assessing the characteristics o f improved technologies; (iii) short-term training to upgrade sk i l ls in ITC; and (iv) limited operating costs associated with the technology release process (e.g., field trials, culinary tests, promotional materials, etc.). 8. Participating countries will manage the activities associated with their technology release procedures. C O W will assist ECOWAS in the harmonization o f procedures and analysis o f IPR issues. I t will assist the participating counties in the implementation o f regional common procedures. Through its website and other media, CORAF wil l provide exposure to other countries the technologies developed by the participating countries to promote interregional trade. 9. Out o f the US$4.39 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities is US$0.86 million. 10. Component 2: National Centers o f Specialization (US$22.5 million, IDA: US$20.5 million). This aims at strengthening the alignment o f national priorities with regional priorities within participant countries’ national agricultural research systems (NARS) . Countries need to focus on their top R&D priorities-rather than attempt to tackle al l possible issues with l i t t le prospect for success-if they want to make the best use o f scarce resources and achieve meaningful results toward increasing growth and reducing extreme poverty. A country can more readily rationalize this decision if it i s ensured to benefit from research efforts in these other ’ areas where it does no have comparative advantage but in which other countries do-just as i t s own efforts in i t s areas o f comparative advantage wil l benefit the other countries. The Bank’s support to the WAAPP provides for this rationalization by initiating the strengthening or establishment o f national centers o f specialization (NCOS) in the participating countries. The project wil l support NCOS that (i) focus on areas o f national priori ty aligned with a regional priority; (ii) demonstrate sustained public support for core programs and staff; (iii) commit to collaboration with regional and international institutions; and (iv) commit to share results with other countries.
1 1. Well-performing NCOS wil l undoubtedly attract regional recognition and support, and may thus evolve into regional center o f excellence (RC0E)--if they satisfy the criteria for RCOEs being developed by FAR4 under the CAADP. The WAAPP shares the notion that sustainable regional centers o f excellence may develop only when a host country commits itself to strengthening a NCOS, in an area o f national priority aligned with regional priorities, and opens i t up to other collaborating countries. In the past, stand alone regional centers that had been entirely built, staffed and supported at high cost by donors have failed when that support ended. As a coordinating sub-regional organization, CORAF simply does not have the financial means to sponsor or support a regional center. With the host country making little effort to support the core hnc t i on o f the would-be regional center, other countries have difficulties committing sustained financial resources to a center outside their borders. However, countries could contribute to the research program o f a regional center o f interest with high-caliber scientists, when the host country shows commitment to provide good working conditions in such centers. The level o f government’s support to such centers wil l be appreciated in the public expenditures reviews (PER).
Reseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs de 1’Afiique de 1’Ouest.
- 37 -
12. The WAAPP will support NCOS at a physical location serving as the focal point o f a network o f contributing institutions. A recent study by CORAF/IFP€U'o provides a quantitative basis for the alignment o f national and regional priorities (table 1). The study indicates that roots and tubers contribute the most to agricultural growth in West and Central Africa and the most to Ghana's agricultural growth as well. Rice ranks second in the region in terms o f overall agricultural growth, but first in terms o f producer benefits from R&D investment, and i s key to Mali 's agricultural growth. The livestock sector ranks second for the region and first for the Sahelian counties (Mal i and Senegal). Cereals (maize, sorghum and millet) ranks 6th in the region and play an important role in M a l i and Senegal. This provides a strong rationale for Ghana to strengthen a NCOS on roots and tubers; M a l i on rice; and Senegal on drought-resistant cereals (at i t s CERAAS center).
13. Under this project, CERAAS i s considered a NCOS, not a CORAF "base center," purported to be a regional center o f excellence. The WAAPP shares the notion that sustainable regional centers o f excellence (RCOE) may develop only when a host country commits itself to strengthening a NCOS in areas o f national priorities aligned with regional priorities, and opens i t up to other collaborating countries. CORAF lacks the human capacity and sustained financial means to manage so regional centers.
Table 1: Sumn: Commodities I subsectors - Roots and tubers
Livestock
Rice
Fruits and vegetables
Pulses and oilseeds
Contribution to total agricultural growth and ranking Rank 1 St in W C A (1 7% o f contribution) Ranks lst in Coast (20%) and 2nd in Central (1 7%)
Rank 2nd in W C A (1 5.5% o f contribution) Ranks lSt in Sahel(35%) and Central region (19.9%). Rank 3rd in W C A (1 5.2% o f contribution) Rank 2"d in Coastal (1 7%) and Sahel(l6%)
Rank4' in W C A (10.5% o f contribution) Rank 31d in Central (17.3%) and 4' in Coast (10.4%) Rank 5th in W C A (8.7% o f contribution) Rank 4th in Sahel (1 1.6%)
Cassava ranks 2"d in WCA; lst in Central, 2nd in Coast, and 1" in Ghana Yam ranks 7th in W C A
Ranks 1"in WCA Rank lst in Sahel and Coast
Not calculated
Beans rank 1 2' in W C A Groundnuts rank 3Td in WCA, 2nd in Sahel, 3rd in Coast, 4' in Central 1"
lo IFPRI (October 2006) Regional Strategy Alternatives for Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in West Africa.
- 3 8 -
Cereals (maize, millet, sorghum)
Leone (9.6%); Nigeria in Senegal and 2"d in (9.5%) Niger and Nigeria Gambia (19.2%); Burkina Maize ranks 4" in Rank 6'h: (5.8% o f
Bulk traditional export (cocoa, cotton)
Source: IFPRI/C(
contribution) Rank 3'd in Sahel(l2%)
Cocoa contributes 2.8% to WCA's growth (2% to Central and Coastal regions') Cotton contributes 2.1% to WCA's growth (4.8% to Sahel's)
RAF (2006)
Faso (17:8%); Mal i (11.7?40); Senegal (11.7Y0); Niger (1 1.3%); Nigeria (7.1%); Togo (5.4%)
WCA; and sorghum ranks 5" Millet ranks 8' in WCA, 3d in Sahel, 1'' in Gambia, 2"d in Mali, and Senegal Cocoa total producer benefits rank 6"' and cotton benefits rank 10* in WCA. Cocoa ranks 1 st in Cote d ' Ivoir e. Cotton ranks 2"d in Burkina Faso and Guinea, 3rd Mali, Cote d'Ivoire and Benin.
14. The component wil l focus on the following: (a) Upgrading core facilities and equipment o f the selected NCOS. This wil l help establishhtrengthen the viability o f the center, making i t more operational and attractive to other researchers in the region. (b) Building the capacity of researchers, through on-the-job-training o f young researchers (including university staff and students) and programs o f visiting scientists. Through the program o f visiting scientists, the NCOS will offer the opportunity to its researchers to carry out work at other regional and international centers o f excellence. Similarly, the NCOS wil l have the opportunity to invite and accommodate high-caliber researchers f rom other regional and international centers o f excellence to work at the NCOS. The program o f visiting sciefitists i s for substantial work over a few months to one year, and not mere study tours. The program wil l support living expenses (travel, lodging, per-diem, and limited business expenses) o f outgoing and incoming researchers, who wil l retain their salaries from their institutions. The WAAPP should prove key to strengthening researchers' capacities, their motivation and building up a network around the NCOS, while opening up to the region's researchers. This program could be linked with the Third World Academy o f Sciences (TWAS) that provides opportunities for young and mid-career agriculture professionals to undertake programs at centers o f excellence in Brazil, China, and India. (c) Supporting NCOS' R&D programs. These programs will concern core, or commissioned, research and adaptive research. A strong consensus has developed among stakeholders indicating the need for commissioned or strategic research at NCOS focused on the country's main priority, in addition to competitive grants. Both research programs need to be developed with the participation o f key stakeholders (e.g., through participative breeding program) to ensure their relevance. The R&D activities wil l cover the development o f plant materiel, but also the alleviation o f other constraints (e.g., post-harvest losses) along the supply chain to promote technology adoption.
- 3 9 -
(d) Supporting farm surveys and supply chains analysis and benchmarking to identify most important areas o f research, and to monitor and document progress and impact o f transferred technologies along the project life. The NCOS is to become the country’s prime information center o f key scientific and socio-economic information regarding the commodity sector. This wil l include explore l i n k s with appropriate agencies to advice farmers on ‘on-time’ weather forecasts and interpretations as an integral component o f improving productivity.
15. The project wil l work with development partners, CGIAR centers, and private agribusinesses to enhance the sustainability o f the NCOS. I t will put an emphasis o n public-private partnerships, which are shown to offer great prospects in emerging areas o f science and technology that are critical to increasing competitiveness o f the agricultural sector.
16. The project wil l fund c iv i l work (if needed to upgrade facilities), material and equipment, consultant services, workshops and seminars, training, and operating costs related to the implementation o f R&D programs o f the national center o f specialization. The national coordination units (of the national programs) wil l manage the procurement o f goods and services related to this component. CORAF will assist the NCOS in the development o f their work programs and networking with regional and international centers o f excellence.
17. Out o f the US$20.53 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities in US$0.50 million.
18. Component 3: Funding of Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$16.8 million; IDA: US$15.7 million). This aims at strengthening priority-focused, transparent finding mechanisms for demand-driven agricultural R&D within participating countries and at regional level. The component focuses on areas that have been identified as high priority at both the national and regional levels. By this focus on the region’s top priorities, as identified by C O W (table ‘1 above), the project wil l ensure that work carried out in the participating countries will have great relevance to the region. Cross-sectoral research (e.g., sustainable land management) i s clearly important, but such research must ultimately focus on the region’s top priori ty commodity subsectors, which contribute directly to the region’s agricultural growth. Within these parameters, eligible activities wil l cover al l key constraints along the supply chain o f these commodity sub-sectors. Activities may concern new, as we l l as on-the-shelf agricultural technologies with potential for quick impact.
19. This component will support a competitive agricultural grant system (CARGS) and a limited (non-competitive) core funding with strong buy-in from major stakeholders. The CARGS provides an effective mechanism to involve key stakeholders (particularly producers and agribusinesses) in targeted adaptive research. As indicated earlier, non-competitive research funding i s also needed to ensure that no key constraint i s overlook in the competitive process. In such cases, however, i t behooves researchers to clearly identify the need o f such research to major stakeholders to get their buy-in. I t includes a national window supported by regional support activities.
(a) National window. The project wil l support provision o f additional resources to complement ongoing and future R&D activities carried out under the country’s agricultural pol icy and to disseminate technology in the country’s top priorities, as identified by C O W .
- 40 -
To ensure regional spillover benefits, the country’s top priorities wil l be aligned with the regional’s top priorities. To further add value to national programs, the national windows wil l support cross-border partnerships-both o n the supply side (research, extension, universities) and the demand side (farmer organizations, private sector and c iv i l society)-to work on problems on common interest. When a compelling business case can be made to this effect, the national window wil l fund the participation o f members o f producers groups or agribusiness associations in R&D activity carried out in another country. Similarly, i t wil l also fund the participation o f another country’s producers and entrepreneurs in a R&D carried out in the country. In the animal feed mix, for example, this may be a way to establish early contacts between potential manufacturers, suppliers and end users to broaden the market size.
(b) Regional support activities. The project will support provision o f additional resources to allow CORAF to expand its knowledge sharing activities through the ECOWAS member countries. Thus, through CORAF’s work, the IDA’S instrument wi l l be benefiting the entire region in any given phase o f the series o f APLs.
20. The national project coordination units wil l manage the national windows (through the relevant national implementation agencies) with COR4F’s assistance. CORAF will facilitate the sharing o f information on results and lessons related to the CARGS among the participating countries and through the sub-region.. This ensures that, through the national window and the regional support activities, the WAAPP will implement activities that wil l benefit both the participating countries and the region.
21. Out o f out o f the US$15.72 mi l l ion IDA f inds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities i s US$O.lO million.
22. Funding o f the CARGS wil l follow clear and transparent guidelines adapted from existing procedures, best practices and lessons learned, as described in the manual o f procedures. The manual will reflect the following guidelines:
Administration by a competent and independent governance body; Openness to producer groups and agribusinesses to lead the implementation o f R&D activities, and not always researchers; Openness to R&D activities to promote o f technology on-the-shelf for effective adoption; Assistance to proposal writing to help non-researchers finalize the concept into a complete R&D proposal; Grant to cover field trials, monitoring, write-up o f results, seminars, and stakeholders’ participation; Account for contributions o f R&D’s implementing unit as wel l as contribution o f participating producers; Capped overhead o f the R&D’s implementing unit in terms o f management fee or supported by operating cost, as the practice may be in the participating countries; Evaluation o f R&D’s performance by a panel o f competent and independent experts removed for the initial selection.
23. The review o f existing CARGS at the level o f CORAF and the participating countries has indicated that these systems can be strengthened by following these guidelines. For example, to
- 4 1 -
promote the participation o f producer organizations and trade associations in the demand-driven process, a two-step selection process wil l be explored, including an eventual f i rst step as a concept note to be reviewed for i t s relevance to the issue o n hand; In fol lowing with the A K I S model, the project wil l encourage researchers to team with extension services and universities (faculty members and students) to respond to demand from farmers and agribusinesses. 24. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$4.9 million; IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at establishing an effective coordination, management and M&E system at the national and regional levels. At the regional level, al l donors are concerned about helping CORAF better coordinate, monitor and evaluate the generation and adoption o f technology across West Africa. They are also concerned about helping CORAF effectively manage the funds it receives. The Bank supported project wil l thus help CORAF improve i t s performance to the satisfaction o f all. In addition, the WAAPP will work to establish an effective coordination between the regional level and the participating countries (Ghana, M a l i and Senegal).
25. The IDA-supported project will help C O W improve i t s performance to the satisfaction o f all. In addition, the WAAPP will work to establish an effective coordination between the regional level and the participating countries (Ghana, M a l i and Senegal). The project’s key performance indicators (KPI) will serve as a building block to the global WAAPP’s monitoring and evaluation system. Specifically, the KPI addresses COR4F’s performance in terms o f i t s communication strategy and i t s effectiveness in managing the regional competitive grant system, both o f which are o f keen interest to al l donors.
26. The WAAPP support project wil l be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS’ mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordinating units at the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Projects Coordinating Unit in Ghana; the PASAOP (Programme d’Appui aux Services Agricoles et aux Organisations de Producteurs) in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 (Programme des Services et Organisations des Producteurs) in Senegal. As part o f the preparation phase o f the IDA’S support to the WAAPP, Bank staff carried out a financial management assessment in accordance with IDA’S Financial Management Practices Manual issued by the Financial Management Board on November 3, 2005. The fiduciary arrangements o f the national implementing agencies, which operate under on-going part o f on-going IDA-financed operations, fully meet IDA’S minimum requirement under O P B P 10.02 Financial Management. The assessment also identified key actions to further strengthen the financial management system o f C O W as wel l as the countries implementing agencies, as detailed in Annex 7.
27. The proposed operation wil l also contribute to strengthen C O W ’ S capacities in i t s coordination role with national and regional institutions (e.g., ECOWAS, WAEMU, INSAH/CILSS and CGIAR centers), and in monitoring and evaluation. I t wil l also support the implementing agencies at the national levels to establish and strengthen their collaboration with CORAF.
28. The project wil l ensure the implementation o f the following key activities:
(a) Financial management and procurement systems at CORAF. This i s to help CORAF implement activities in conformity with the procurement plan, the implementation manual,
- 42 -
and IDA procedures. These procedures include annual audits. As IDA’S procedures meet or exceed those o f other donors, i t is expected that CORAF’s improved management system wil l l ikely satisfy other donors as well.
(b) Reporting on project’s activities. C O W ’ S reporting system must provide al l periodic project reports on time.
(c) Monitoring and evaluation of regional agricultural productivity. CORAF will establish a system for data collection, analysis and reporting on regional agricultural productivity. In particular, the project wil l strengthen CORAF’s and the national coordination units’ M&E systems to assess increases in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the region’s priority areas. C O W will not undertake, but rather commission studies to update and deepen the analysis related to the contribution o f various commodity sub-sectors to agricultural growth and producers’ benefits. CORAF will implement theses activities in such a way that they contribute to build an effective analytical capacity within the region.
(d) Communication strategy. This component wil l also support CORAF’s implementation o f an effective communication strategy, covering the global WAAPP, as well as this project.
29. This component will support consultant services (surveys and impact studies), vehicles and equipment, office supplies, workshops and short-term training, and operating costs. The support to CORAF will complement parallel financing from other partners (USAID, DFID, etc.) in order to help CORAF provide a comprehensive view o f the region’s progress in improving agricultural productivity.
30. Out o f the US$4.36 mi l l ion IDA funds allocated for the implementation o f this component, the cost o f CORAF’s activities is US$1.54. This i s in part because C O W i s required to upgrade its capacities in terms o f financial management and procurement to comply with IDA’ procedures. I t i s also that CORAF i s tasked for carrying surveys and studies to update the IFPWCORAF’s study. I t is fbther because the national coordinating units are already functional and thus need relatively little additional support to carrying out the project’s activities. The project has allocated funds for this additional support based on the proposals o f the national coordinating units themselves.
- 43 -
Annex 5: Project Costs
6,489.00
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
20,032.00 500.00 20,532.00
Project Cost By Component and/or Activity Local Foreign Total US$ 000 US$ 000 US$ 000 ~~
Total Project Costs' 44,458.1 5,018.0 49,476.1 Interest during construction
Front-end Fee Total Financing Required 44,458.1 5,018.0 49,476.1
'Identifiable taxes and duties are US$m 3,259 and the total project cost, net o f taxes, i s US$m 46,216. Therefore, the share o f project cost net o f taxes i s 93.4%.
IDA Financing By Component and by Country/CORAF Components Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation Centers o f Specialization Technology Generation Coordination, Management and M&E CORAF - Subsidiary Financing Agreement TOTAL
6,461.00 I 7,082.00 I
1,000.00 1,000.00 7
- 44 -
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
1. This IDA-funded operation i s in support to the global West Afr ica Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) being prepared by CORAF--the sub-regional organization (SRO) mandated by ECOWAS to implement Pillar IV o f the CAADP. This operation combines assistance to CORAF (as other donors) with support to countries, to fully integrate national to regional priorities. The project team worked closely with donors and other partners--sharing ideas, concept notes and preliminary drafts o f the project document, and participating in numerous workshops--to highlight the building block nature o f the IDA’S instrument and develop a partnership around the global WAAPP.
2. CORAF has a long-standing relationship with several donors (DFID, USAID, the EU, AfDB, the Canadian IDRC, IFAD, etc.), partners (FARA, FAO, IFPRI, IITA, INSAWCILSS, CIRAD, AGRYHMET, etc.), and the regional economic communities (ECOWAS and WAEMU). DFID and USAID have indicated their intention to provide funding to C O W for the implementation o f the program. DFID has provided funding for the series o f workshops to support the process o f drafting CORAF’s strategic plan. USAID supported the IFPRI’s study, on the basis o f which C O W identified the region’s top priority commodity sub-sectors for R&D. U S A I D also supports public-private partnerships in the development o f promising supply chains, which can be expected to play major roles in the adoption o f improved technologies.
3. The IDA-project team has also initiated contact with the Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationRockefeller Foundation’s Alliance for a Green Revolution in Afr ica (AGRA). AGRA’s goals over the next decade are to introduce 400 new and improved crop varieties, focus on selected countries (including Ghana, M a l i and Senegal) to eliminate hunger among 30 mi l l ion people and move 15 mi l l ion more out o f poverty, through activities addressing soil fertility and irrigation, farm-management practices and access to markets and financing. AGRA focuses on food crops for domestic consumption and value-added transformation, for animal feed for example. IDA will work with the global WAAPP to pursue a close collaboration with AGRA in the generation and adoption o f technologies to improve the region’s agricultural productivity and growth.
4. Donor coordination around the global WAAPP has been taking place at the initiative o f one or the other major donor--in Africa, Europe and the US--to accommodate donors’ timetables. Representatives o f donors and major stakeholders also meet at CORAF’s Board annual meeting. In addition to this annual meeting, CORAF has initiated several donors’ meetings to discuss its program. Resources provided by the IDA-funded operation added to the assistance o f other donors wil l help CORAF to continue carrying on such meetings during implementation. IDA will provide an opportunity for donors’ collaboration by inviting donors to participate in project’s supervision about twice a year.
5. The IDA-funded project in support to the WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS’ mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordination units o f MOFA in Ghana, the PASAOP in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 in Senegal. In Ghana, the project wil l rely on the IFAD-funded roots and tubers, which is
- 45 -
implemented with IDA’S assistance, to promote the uptake o f released technologies in roots and tubers.
6. During negotiations the three participating countries committed to providing each a grant o f US$1 mi l l ion to C O W . The Bank will enter into financing agreements with each o f the three participating countries and into a project agreement with CORAF. The proceeds o f the IDA financing (Le., US$1 mi l l ion per country for a total o f US$3 million) wil l be made available to C O W under subsidiary project agreements between each o f the countries and CORAF. The balance o f IDA financing will support the establishment o f Centers o f specialization (COS) with regional focus, a national window o f CARGS, and other activities in support o f research- extension-farmer linkages to encourage technology adoption.
7. Regional level. CORAF, through i t s Dakar-based Executive Secretariat (ES), will assume overall coordination o f the WAAPP, with FARA laying an advisory role (as assigned by the AU/NEPAD). CORAF’s Executive Secretariat” comprises the following staff: Executive Secretary, Scientific Coordinator, Administrative and Financial Manager, Information and Communication Manager, Coordinator o f the Sub-regional Cereal Network, and Impact Assessment Officer on agricultural research. The WAAPP will adapt and strengthen CORAF’s existing implementation arrangements in the key areas o f financial management, procurement and monitoring & evaluation (so as to remain in compliance with Bank’s fiduciary and reporting requirements) and governance o f the competitive grant system.
8. A Designated account wil l be opened in a local Bank and project’s consolidated financial statements wil l be prepared by C O W ’ S Administrative and Financial Manager. The accounting standards applicable wil l be the SYSCOA standards, which i s very close to the International Accounting Standards (IPSAS) issued by the International Federation o f Accountants (IFAC). An external auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be recruited prior to Credit’s effectiveness. The audit will be conducted in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (ISA) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board o f the International Federation o f Accountants.
9. The subsidiary agreements between the participating countries and CORAF will spell out the conditions under which CORAF receives the transfer o f fbnds, including a suspension clause. These wil l include, among others, obligations for CORAF to make available M&E reviews, annual reports, audit reports; to hold regular Board’s meetings; and to submit to Board’s inquiry related to a country’s complaint related to CORAF’s management, which could result in the suspension o f the transfer o f fbnds until CORAF puts in place the remedial measures.
10. C O W will monitor the overall implementation o f the project, reporting on progress related to the effectiveness o f the dissemination mechanisms and the increase in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the program’s areas o f interest. CORAF will also play the role o f an advisory body for the national window o f the CARGS implemented in each country under the project. I t wil l also play a similar role for the national centers o f specialization.
l1 CORAF’s governance structure includes a General Assembly (GA), Governing Council (GC), Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), and the Executive Secretariat (ES).
- 46 -
CORAF’s M&E system wil l collate and synthesize information generated by the M&E systems o f the participating countries.
11. National level. Mali’s PASAOP and Senegal’s PSAOP 2 have similar institutional arrangement, which include: (i) a steering committee, (ii) a national coordination unit, and (iii) one implementing agency for their research and development component. In these countries, the coordination unit is located at the Ministry o f Agriculture with the following key responsibilities: coordination, management o f IDA credit, procurement, and overall project’s monitoring and evaluation and reporting. In Ghana, the coordination unit, also located in the Ministry o f Agriculture, will be M O F A Projects Coordinating Unit, with the understanding that the Projects Coordination Unit within MOFA will be in charge o f coordinating al l agricultural related projects including AgSSP and i t s potential successor. All three countries also operate a CARGS scheme: in Ghana by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR); in M a l i by the Comite‘ National de la Recherche Agricole (CNRA); and in Senegal by the Institut Se’ne’galais de Recherches Agricoles ( I S M ) . These countries have separate extension services but also a framework that brings together producer organizations, research institutions, the private sector and c iv i l society to identify and act on priorities related to agricultural research and development.
12. The proposed project wil l not create new implementing units at the country level. The national coordination unit in each country wil l manage the WAAPP’s national window o f the CARGS (through the implementing agency in this country, according to guidelines adapted from the projects’ manuals), the establishment o f the COS, and the monitoring and evaluation o f the project at the national level. The mandates o f the national coordination un i t s wil l be amended to reflect their added duties. The project wil l make provisions to support their coordinating agencies for the time i t will take for anticipated successor operations to the Ghana’s AgSSIP and Mali ’s PASAOP to be in place.
13. The implementing manuals will provide detailed information in the institutional and implementation arrangements, including in the following key areas: priori ty setting for research and extension activities; procedures for competitive grant system; M&E o f project outcomes and outputs (detailed in Annex 3). The WAAPP wil l establish a clear framework for priority setting and updating .based on quantitative analysis (as being developed by IFPRI) and validation by key stakeholders, including producer organizations at the regional and national levels, and public-private partnerships. The WAAPP also aims to produce an implementation manual for CARGS that would serve as good practice for national competitive systems throughout the region.
14. The manual for CARGS, in particular, will fol low the guidelines discussed in the detail project description (Component 3: Funding o f Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption).
- 47 -
1. As part o f the ~ ~ , ~ ~ a ~ ~ t i o hase o f the WAAPP, In as \vas out in accordance cti l i thc
ial Management Board on November 3, 2005. The objective o f the assessment was to ine tvhether the i ~ p l e ~ e n ~ ~ ~ ~ entities have acceptable fina
2, ary
.~ Regional Level
2. The tDA-su na1 level by C 0 M F t the national levels by the natio
itz Chatia, the PASAOP in Mali and the PSAOP 2 in Sene
Implementing agency and overview of implementation arrangements
Status
COWF 1s the s u ~ ~ r e ~ i ~ n a l body for scienttfic c o - o p e ~ ~ t i o ~ ~ and coordinat~on, with a vocation to stren~then national research capacittes for the ~ c o n o ~ ~ i c and social d e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ e n ~ of c ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ i e s in the sub-region,
Already in place. However C O M F has not experience m the ~ a n a g e n ~ e n t of d i s b ~ r s e ~ e n ~ s from the World Bank, 'The Staff need to be trained accordmrlv. ., c .
L
Country Level i Implementing agency and overview of I implementation arrangements
Ghana
The Project will bc i ~ ~ i ~ ~ e m e n ~ e d by F N R M (Research ~undin~) and ISR4 (Research institute d e ~ ~ c ~ o p ~ ~ n t ~ , under the c o ~ ~ ~ d ~ n ~ t ~ o ~ unit o f the PSs"lOP2.
Already tn place and meet ehc Bank n ~ i n ~ ~ u m r e q ~ ~ r e ~ e n t under OPJBP 10.02,
Already in place.
Already in piace
- 48 -
3. A financial management assessment o f COR4.F and the implementing agencies was carried out in accordance with the Financial Management Practices Manual. The assessment found that the financial management arrangements o f the project meets the Bank’s minimum requirements under OPh3P10.02 and i s then adequate to provide, with reasonable assurance, accurate and timely information on the status o f the project required by IDA. However, some key actions to strengthen the financial management system o f C O W as well as the countries implementing agencies were identified. These actions include the following: (i) recruitment by each entity, o f an external auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Association; (ii) adoption o f the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) in form and substance satisfactory to the Association, for the purpose o f implementing the regional and national windows o f the scheme; (iii) opening a Designated Account by C O M F and each country in a local Bank satisfactory to the Association and under terms and conditions satisfactory to IDA; (iv) duly approval of subsidiary agreements in form and substance satisfactory to IDA between COR4.F and each participating country to provide 20 percent o f IDA credit to C O W .
3. Summary Project Description
4. The development objective o f the project (first phase o f the support program to the WA4PP) i s to generate and disseminate improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priori ty areas, as identified by C O W . The project wil l be implemented through four operational components:
(i) Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in TGD (US$5.3 million, IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures governing the registration and release o f technology products (genetic materials, pesticides and other crop protection products--CPP) to make them available for domestic and cross-border trade and distribution. (ii) Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (US$22.5 million, IDA: US$20.5 million). This aims at strengthening the alignment o f national priorities with regional priorities within participant countries’ national agricultural research systems
(iii) Component 3: Funding of Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$16.8 million; IDA: US$15.7 million). This aims at strengthening priority-focused, transparent hnding mechanisms for demand-driven agricultural R&D within participating countries and at regional level. (iv) Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$4.9 million; IDA: US$4.4 million). This aims at establishing an effective coordination, management and M&E system at the national and regional levels.
(NARS).
4. Country issues, Risk Assessment and Mitigation
4.1 Ghana
5. A Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) for Ghana was carried out in 2001 and updated in 2004. In response to the findings and recommendations o f the CFAA, the Government o f Ghana has initiated, and in some cases already implemented, several reforms. These include the promulgation o f the following pieces o f legislation:
- 49 -
0
0
0
Financial Administration Act 2003, to bring together al l aspects o f public financial management; The Internal Audit Agency Act 2003 to set up modem internal audit in al l government departments ; The Public Procurement Act, to improve the efficiency o f public procurement systems and practices.
6. The passing o f the legislation i s but the f i rst step; successful implementation thereof typically takes more time, and requires strong and committed leadership. T o date, Ghana has been blessed with the necessary commitment, and implementation progress is impressive to date.
Risk Rating
7. The summary risk analysis i s based on the existing AgSSIP and CSIR structures.
Risk Mitigating Conditions o f Measures incorporated Negotiations, into the Project Design Board or
Effectiveness (Yes or No)
Risk
M M M
Inherent Risk Country Level
N N N
Entity Level
Program Level
Control Risk Budgeting
Accounting Internal Control Funds Flow Financial ReDorting Auditing
I N M I I N
M I I N M I I N
Remarks
No significant risk identified. N o significant risk identified. While AgSSIP may be closing in i t s present format, a follow on project i s under preparation, and the managing structure i s already mainstreamed.
Managing unit already successfully concluding an existing bank project. Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto
8. In view o f the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the WAAPP, the overall financial management risk rating for the Ghana window o f this project is Modest.
- 50 -
4.1 Senegal
9. The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) o f Senegal was conducted in 2003. The overall risk rating o f the public financial management system was high. Since that exercise, the Government has created an Executive Secretariat under the Ministry o f Economy and Finance to monitor the implementation o f the C F A A action plan. The recent HIPC Country Assessment and Action Plan by the Bank and the IMF in November 2004 showed significant improvements in the areas o f public expenditure tracking notably in the priori ty area defined in the PRSP, internal control and budget preparation. However, significant progress i s s t i l l needed in internal and external controls o f budget execution and state-owned enterprises.
10. The government has given priority to improvements in these areas as well as local governance finance reforms. A Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) was set up to follow up on implementation o f the reforms. An IDF Grant to strengthen the capacity o f the Cow des Comptes (State Audit Office) i s also under implementation. A new Procurement Code has been finalized and is expected to be adopted by June 2007. In dialogue with external partners, the Government wil l conduct an assessment o f country fiduciary systems based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework to track progress in strengthening public financial management and identify areas where country fiduciary systems are not yet in line with international standards. 11. The use o f the country system, notably the Treasury Department and the Cow des Comptes, will be implemented progressively. In the meantime, implementation o f project will be coordinated by a Project Coordination Unit. In the WAAPP Framework the project will be coordinated by the coordination unit o f the PSAOP 2. Risk
Inherent Risk Country Level
Entity Level
Program Level
Control Risk Budgeting
Risk Rating
M
M
S
M
Risk Mitigating Measures incorporated into the Project Design
The CFAA action plan i s under implementation and the government has created an Executive Secretariat to follow
A P I M will be adopted for the purpose o f implementing the regional and national windows o f the scheme.
Annual work plans will be
Conditions o f Negotiations, Board or Effectiveness (Yes or No)
N o
No
Yes
N o
Remarks
A MDTF has been set out for the reforms implementation purpose. The organizational structure i s appropriate. This Manual will be tailored to the circumstances in each country without lowering the overall standard.
- 51 -
Accounting
Internal Control
Funds Flow
Financial Reporting
Auditing
M
M
S
L
M
prepared and submitted to the Bank by November 30 o f each year.
The existing accounting software will be customized to handle the implementation o f the WAAPP.
An Internal Auditor wil l be recruited at CORAF’s level.
- Subsidiary agreements in form and substance satisfactory to IDA will be duly conclude between CORAF and each participating country to provide a percentage o f their credit to CORAF. - A Designated Account will be opened by CORAF and each country in a local Bank satisfactory to the Association and under terms and conditions satisfactory to IDA.
The Bank will assist the PCU and C O W in defining the format o f the quarterly reports Financial Monitor ing Report (FMR) , An external Auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be recruited.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N o
Yes
The WAAPP will re ly o n existing accounting system and manual The Bank will pay attention to the internal control system during supervision mission. Training o f staff o n Bank’s FM, procurement and disbursement procedures, will be provided.
12. In view o f the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the WAAPP, the overall financial management r isk rating for C O W and the Senegal window o f this project i s Modest. 4.2 Mali 13. The overall conclusion o f the M a l i Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) carried out in 2002 and completed in 2003 is that public finance management i s fairly coherent with relatively strong budget procedures implemented within a clear institutional setting with improved and strengthened control measures. I t stresses that this reality should not hide malfunctions for which appropriate action should be taken. In essence, the C F A A shows that
- 52 -
significant progress has been made in the areas o f financial management. The country’s own control systems are operating more efficiently despite a few weaknesses in project supervision. 14. Various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed upon thus, the project risk from a financial management perspective is considered moderate provided risk mitigating measures are properly addressed. Option has been made for financial management by the CNRA to ensure that timely information i s produced for the project management and government oversight, and facilitate compliance with IDA fiduciary requirement.
Accounting Internal Control
Rating
M
Countrv Level I M
Auditing The quality o f the audit performed by the S A I may be weak and reports may not be received on time.
Entity Level I M Prom-am Level
H
Control Risk I Budgeting I M
Lack o f resources for financing the internal auditor function after the closing o f PASAOP. Funds Flow Delays in the mobilization o f counterpart funds
M
H
Financial Reporting P L
Risk Mit igat ing Measures incorporated into the Project Design
N o counterpart fund i s required.
Audit will be carried out by an external private audit firm
Negotiations, Board or Effectiveness
Provision has been made under WAAPP to finance the internal auditor after PASAOP closing date.
No cash contribution i s required but the Government contribution will consist
Yes
in taxes exemption. CNRA i s familiar with FMR. Under PASAOP CNRA has submitted and acceptable FMR and in June 2006, disbursement was based o n this FMR. Therefore Report based disbursement will be used at the beginning o f the woiect.
- 53 -
15. In view o f the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the In view o f the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the project, the overall financial management risk rating for the M a l i window o f the WAAPP i s Modest.
16. Overall, due to the measures taken and based on the experiences of the implementing agency, the fiduciary risk for the project i s Modest
5. Strengths
17. As part o f the project implementation manual, the financial procedures wil l ensure a robust internal control arrangement for the Project, and to facilitate the harmonization o f financial reporting by each implementing agency. I f necessary, this manual wil l be tailored to the circumstances in each country without lowering the overall standard. Also, a provision has been made under the WAAPP to finance the PIUs additional cost related to WAAPP implementation workload.
6. Weakness and Action Plan
CORAF
Significant Weaknesses
Strengthen the FM staff capacity
Action
Recruitment o f a chief accountant,
an Internal Auditor, Recruitment o f a temporary procurement consultant
Recruitment o f
(A detailed action plan for C O W i s set out in Appendix 1 7. Implementing Entity
Responsible Body
. C O W
Completion Date
March 2007
February 2008
July 2007
18. The IDA-supported WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS’ mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordination units o f MOFA in Ghana, the PASAOP in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 in Senegal. The fiduciary arrangements o f the national implementing agencies, which operate under on-going part o f on-going IDA-financed operations, h l l y meet IDA’S minimum requirement under O P B P 10.02 Financial Management. 8. Budgeting
19. The Project Implementation Manual will describe the budgeting process for the overall project. However this process wil l be adapted so as to rely on the existing budget procedure in each participating country.
- 54 -
f Country Senegal
20. The current ~ c c o u n t ~ n ~ standards in use in each p a ~ ~ c i p a t i n ~ count r~ for o n - ~ o j n ~ Bank- ~ n a ~ ~ c e d project wi l l be a p ~ ~ ~ c a ~ l e . S ~ ~ ~ U ~ A ~ A i s the assigned a c c o ~ i t i ~ i g system in GVest Arrican F r a ~ ~ ~ u ~ h o n c ~uun~r~es. It i s already applica~Ie in Senegal and Mali. The accepted national acco~nting s t ~ d a ~ d s in Ghana wil l also b y a ~ ~ ~ i c a b ~ e . IDA Credit w i l l be accounted for by the project. on a cash or accrual basis. This wi l l be doc~men~ed with a~propr ia t~ records and pro~e~ure5 to track c o n i m ~ ~ ~ i e n ~ s and to safe~uard assets. account in^ records wil l be ~ ~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e d in local c ~ r r e n c ~ . The Chart o f a c c o ~ ~ i ~ s wilt facil~tate the p r e ~ ~ a t ~ o ~ o f r e ~ ~ ~ a n t ~ ~ a ~ e ~ l ~ and ~ n a n ~ i a ~ ~ t a ~ ~ n ~ e ~ t incIuding i n ~ o ~ i a t i o ~ on the total projcct exp~nd~t~ire5, the ~ n a n c i a ~ cont~ibution from IDA and ~ ~ ~ e n d i t u r e by c o ~ p o n e ~ ~ c a t e g o ~ . Annual Fi~ancial statements wil l Be prepared in accordance with I ~ ~ e ~ a t ~ o n a l A c c ~ ~ ~ t ~ n ~ Sta~dards issued by the I n t ~ ~ ~ a t ~ o n a ~ ~ e d e ~ a ~ ~ o n o f Accoun~a~i~s (IFAC). 21. The existing a c c o ~ n t ~ n ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a r e wi l l be a ~ a ~ t c d in order to allow prod~ction o f a l l a c c u u n ~ ~ n ~ and ~nancia1 data ~ e ~ u i ~ e d : Financial ~ t~~ement , Bank reconcilia~~on s t a ~ e ~ e n t s , a l l the books o f accounts and aft ~ n a ~ i c ~ a l reports ~ ~ i c l ~ d ~ n ~ the ~ n t ~ r i m ~ n - a ~ d ~ t e d ~ i n a ~ c ~ a l Repotts ~ I ~ ~ ~ . A c c o u n t ~ ~ ~ procedures will be d o c ~ m ~ ~ ~ t e d in the ina an cia^ and Acco~nting manual o f each PIU. I O , Internal Cantrol and ~ ~ t e ~ n a ~ A~djting
-- Budgeting Arrangements Thc TC’FU ot’thc I’SXOf’2 w i l l consolidate the project budget at icr thc submission
22. As pari o f tho: projcct ~ ~ p ~ e m e n t a ~ i o n manual, the ~ n a n c ~ a l n i a n a g c ~ e ~ ~ p roc~d~~res ~ e ~ t i ~ ~ up a h a ~ o n ~ ~ e d f r a ~ e ~ ~ o r k wil l be used a5 a robust internal control tool for the Project. The PIUS are staffed with ~duc ja ry teams who are fani~liar with Bank proced~re~. A p r o ~ ~ i 5 ~ ~ n has been made under tho: WA4APP to ~nance the PTUs a d d ~ ~ ~ o n a ~ cost related to GVAAP ~ ~ ~ p ~ e ~ ~ c ~ i t a t ~ u n workload. 23. ~ p c c i ~ c a l ~ y , CORAF’s FM staff wil l be trained on Bank FM, d j s b u r ~ e ~ e ~ ~ and procedures. Also, the r e c ~ j ~ ~ e ~ t o f an Internal Auditor at the r e ~ j o ~ a l entity level meet the overall project ~ n l ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ control o b j ~ c ~ i ~ e s . 11. Funds Flaw and ~ j s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ r a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s
24. The Bank \vi11 enter into ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ j n ~ a ~ r ~ e m e ~ ~ ~ with each o f the three ~ a ~ ~ c j p a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ t ~ ~ e s ~ ~ c e ~ d 5 of the IDA ~ n a n c ~ ~ ~ ~ (Le., t lS$f .O will bo: made available to CURAF under
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ a r y project a ~ r e e m e n ~ ~ between each o f the c o u n t ~ ~ e ~ and COMF. The balance o f IDA
ent with CURAF. r a total of ZrS53.Q m
- 55 .“
financing wil l support the establishment o f Centers o f specialization (COS) with regional focus, a national window o f CARGS (Competitive Agricultural Research Grant System), and other activities in support o f research-extension-farmer linkages to encourage technology take up. 25. The transfer o f funds to CORAF wil l be made annually by the three countries using report based disbursements and annual work programs. After the init ial advance to the designated account, CORAF wil l submit to IDA a consolidated IFR for the entire year for the deposit o f subsequent advances. Meanwhile, CORAF will submit IFRs for FM review on a quarterly basis for monitoring purposes. FMS would thus help ensure that : (i) CORAF’s financial situation i s on track and (ii) the consolidated report i s acceptable to the Bank at year end, for disbursement purposes. CORAF wil l provide the participating countries with a reporting package including annual activity report, financial statement and audit report, a l l approved by the General Assembly o f CORAF (Appendix 2). A provision will be included in the subsidiary project agreement, so that each participating country could suspend its contribution in case CORAF doesn’t fulfill i t s duties. 26. The implementing agency with satisfactory capacity wil l manage their funds directly through a Management Services Contract. This contract will be signed between the Coordination Unit and each implementing agency. Funds will be withdrawn from the Designated Account following the disbursement and financial management provisions o f the management service’s contract. The submission o f satisfactory IFRs may be used as payment triggers under the contract.
11.2. Designated Accounts
27. To facilitate project implementation and reduce the volume o f withdrawal applications, i t was agreed during negotiations that two designated accounts will be authorized under each financing agreement, one in the country and the second at CORAF. Senegal’s Designated Account wil l be opened at PSAOP 2, which wil l sign a “Convention Cadre” with the implementing agency, FNRAA, under the arrangements reached under the PSAOP 2, which is that FNRAA receives quarterly allocations. In following with the current arrangements under the current PASAOP, M a l i will open i t s Designated Account at CNRA, which wil l s ign contract services’ contracts with research institutes. Ghana selected to open i t s Designated Account at MOFA, which wil l sign a Memorandum o f Understanding with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the implementing agency. 28. The CORAF designated account wil l be established in a Commercial Bank acceptable to IDA. CORAF will manage a Pooled Account in which the countries’ ini t ial advance wil l be transferred, based on CORAF’s work plan. For subsequent yearly advances, a consolidated Financial Report in a format agreed with the Bank wil l be submitted, together with the withdrawal applications, to the Bank and to each participating country’s coordination unit. This will allow CORAF to have sufficient funds to carry out activities. CORAF wil l produce quarterly progress reports to the participating countries’ coordination un i t s and the Association. 29. The l i s t o f categories o f expenditures in each country will indicate “support to CORAF” against which disbursement wil l be made. All others categories o f expenditures wil l finance goods, works and services under designated accounts managed by PASAOP in M a l i and Senegal and MOFA in Ghana. A list o f the category o f expenditure for CORAF’s activities wil l be included in each financing agreement for CORAF expenditures for the three countries combine, and not by country.
- 56 -
Senegat
- Mali
Accounts A Dcsigr~ated Account in FCFA
A ~ e s ~ ~ ~ a ~ e d A c c ~ u n ~ in USD will be opened in an accept~bl~ ~ o ~ m e r c j ~ l Bank in Accra and m a n a ~ ~ d by MOFA.
Advance CeiIing
FCFA 700 miliions
FCFA 700 rnillioris
____ Flow of funds
nts under the three separate
disbur~em~n~ will be used p ~ ~ ~ a ~ j ~ y because of the ~ a n ~ a ~ nar~re o f the acc*untin~ system. F ~ ~ ~ r i s i o n for c o n ~ f ~ r ~ i o ~ to repon based can be a t l ~ ~ e d , based on c~n~pu~er~zat~on progress and ability to ~ c n e r ~ ~ c seliabie forecasts and i ~ ~ e ~ m
In retally, ~ a n s a c ~ ~ ~ n - ~ ~ ~ c d d i ~ b u r ~ e ~ e n ~ s will be made. Once the rcyuzred c a ~ a c t ~ } r has bccn certified, the ~oordina~~on unit wilt submit intcnrn ~nanc i~ l reports to IDA.
Report based disburs
Fund wtl l flow from t d.
account on the project
32. ~ ~ s b ~ ~ s e ~ ~ i e n t $ under the threc Financing A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e n t s wifl be made on thc basis o f sta~dard ~ ~ ~ h d ~ a ~ ~ ~ a l categories (goods, works and services). For ~ ~ o n ~ z a ~ ~ o n purposes the ~ i s b ~ i r $ ~ n i ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ c e n t a ~ e s wil l be set at 100% ~ e x c ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ g v ~ ~ ~ e - a ~ d e d tax). For o ~ e r a t ~ n ~ costs, 100% o f e~pendi~ures inclusive o f taxes will be ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e d , ~ ~ ~ ~ o n i ~ e ~ a ~ ~ e e ~ e n ~ s for the three countries (Le. same ~ ~ ~ ~ n c ~ ~ g pcrccntages and category d e ~ c ~ p t ~ o ~ ~ wilt €aciIitate the overall process. 33. The € o l ~ o ~ v ~ ~ g tables sets out, for each p ~ ~ ~ c i p a ~ i ~ g country, the c ~ ~ e ~ o r ~ e s o f items to be financed out o f the proceeds o f the credit, the a ~ ~ o ~ a ~ i ~ ~ i o f the a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ t s o f credit to each ~ a ~ e ~ o ~ y , and the p e r c ~ n ~ a g e o f c ~ p e n ~ ~ ~ u r ~ s for items to bc ~ n a n c c d in each category. A11
.- Categories I IDA Credit Allocated in 000 L S is % o f expenditure to be financed
i Ghana I .Mali I Senegal
1L4, Use of SOEs
- 58 -
36. All s ~ p ~ o ~ i n ~ doc rn will bc made available for ~ e ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Bank reviews, supe
n ~ a ~ i o ~ i far e ~ ~ e n d ~ t ~ r e s c l a i ~ e ~ under corttrstets below the above
s and project external \vi11 bc retained at the project c o o r ~ i n a ~ ~ o ~
37. The ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ m e n ~ c o n t ~ i ~ u ~ i o n o f each ~ ~ r t i c ~ p ~ ~ ~ n ~ country wilt be mobil in form of fiscal r e ~ ’ e ~ i u e ~ , This consists o f tax e x ~ ~ p ~ i o n on the overall cred 12, F ~ ~ a ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~~~~~t~~~
F as viFefl as each c ~ ~ n ~ r ~ ~ s & ~ o r ~ i n project ~ ~ ~ i a n c ~ a ~ ~ o n ~ t o r i n ~ Report (F 1 in the acix of finance, procurc~~ent i n c l ~ ~ d ~ n ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ i a i n t s from b~dders, and project physical progress. These FMR should be s ~ b ~ i t t ~ ~ to the Bank within 45 days ~ o l ~ o w ~ n ~ s the end o f the quarter. 13. A ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ g
39. d dependent ~ x ~ e ~ a ~ Auditors with ~ u a l i f i c a t i o ~ and exper~ence s a ~ i s f a e t o ~ to the Bank will conduct an annual audit o f the project’s financial state~ents prepared by 6 0 M F and each c o ~ n t ~ coord i~~a~ion unit. This audit s~iould be carried out in accordance with ~ n t ~ ~ a t j o n a ~ S ~ a n ~ ~ ~ ~ on A ~ d ~ t i ~ i ~ (ISA) issued by the In te~at ional ~ e d ~ r a t ~ v ~ t o f A c c a ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ t s (IFAC), and wi l l include such tests and controls as the auditor eonsidcrs necessary under the c ~ r c u m s ~ ~ c e s . 40. In addition to the audit report, the auditors wil l be expected to prepare reports on internal controls ~ ~ i a n ~ ~ e ~ n e ~ t letters) giving o b ~ e ~ a ~ i o n s arid e o n t ~ e ~ t ~ s ” as welt as providing r c c ~ r n ~ ~ ~ ~ d i x ~ i ~ ~ ~ for i ~ i p r o ~ r ~ ~ c n t in a~coun~ing records, systems, controls and cornplianc~ with Enancial c o ~ ~ n a n t s in the ~ ~ n a n c ~ a l A ~ e ~ ~ i e n t o f the Bank. The auditor reports should be ~ u ~ ~ s h e d to the Bank within six ~ ~ n t h s after the closing o f each fiscal year.
41, Terns o f Reference (TOR) wilt be pre~ared for the a p p o ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ n t o f the external auditor tvho meets the Bank’s criteria for selection o f cons~ l t~ng fimi. The selection process o f the auditor
ducted by a ~ e ~ e ~ t j o n ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ acceptable to the
- 59 ..
14. Conditionality
Effectiveness conditions
e
e
e
e
15.
The Project Implementation Manual (PIM), in form and substance satisfactory to the Association, has been adopted by CORAF and the PIU for the purpose o f implementing the regional and national components o f the Project. CORAF and the PIUs have adapted their accounting software to cover the implementation o f the Project. A Subsidiary agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Association has been duly concluded between CORAF and each participating country to provide U S $ l mi l l ion o f IDA credit to CORAF. A management service contract, in form and substance satisfactory to IDA, has been entered into between the Recipient and each entity that wil l be responsible for the implementation o f the Project at the national level.. Supervision Plan
42. CORAF and the national coordination units will be subject to periodic supervision missions (at least once per year). Supervision activities wil l include review o f quarterly FMRs; review o f annual audited financial statements as well as t imely follow-up o f issues arising; transaction review; participation in project supervision missions as appropriate; and updating the FM rating in the Implementation Status Report (ISR).
- 60 -
Appendix 1: Action Plan for CORAF
Entity
CORAF
CORAF (WithBank Review and No objection)
Action 1. Recruitment o f
an external
Target Completion Date
March, 2008
March 2007 February 2008
auditor 2. Staffing
CORAF
CORAF
CORAF (With Bank Review and No objection)
3. Accounting software
July 2007
March 2007
July 2007
4. Updating o f the existing administrative, accounting and financial manual
5. Procurement
Tasks . Recruitment o f an external auditor
0
Recruitment o f a chief accountant Recruitment o f an internal auditor
Training o f the FM Team for an optimal use o f the existing accounting software (TOMPRO)
Updating o f procedures manual
0 Recruitment o f a consultant satisfactory to IDA
- 61 -
......................... ........ . . . . . . : M i : e . I 'E i i @ f i g : . C .
. . . . ........ a 2 . 5 : M i L i ; ......: ..... .. '%. .......... i : I i *.*. I '".; . .
i Y ;
i g i i i d ;
f p : s : : .Y :
. . s.....: .... a*..
.... I... ......... :;s* ......
;. ........ :
......................................
1
.......
z E
2 4 3
P E .- v
b
.......
........ i Y
i 8 ; g : w : M : e . .- i s ; g : V I
........
...........
\
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
A. General
Background - National procurement system and ongoing reforms
1. The last version o f Senegal's Procurement Code refers to the decree No 2002-550 and i s dated 2002. A new public procurement code was prepared a on the basis a national action plan prepared in the context o f the Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) carried out from September 2002 to March 2003. This new code has been prepared with the assistance of the Bank and was adopted by the Government in March 16, 2006. The Bank reviewed the code and found that the existing procurement rules include appropriate provisions. But no standard bidding documents are available. The action plan put in place i s under implementation and includes the following: (i) decentralization o f procurement responsibilities to l ine ministries, local government and public entities; and (ii) setting up a legal framework for delegation of project management to private f i rms. So far, no special exceptions, permits, or licenses need to be specified in the Financial Agreement for International Competitive Bidding (ICB), since Senegal's procurement practices allow the Bank procedures to take precedence over any contrary provisions in local regulations.
2. In general, Senegal's procurement laws and regulations do not importantly conflict with IDA guidelines because i t contains only a few special exceptions and Senegal's procurement practices allow IDA procedures to take precedent over any contrary provisions in local regulations. The said exceptions (clauses not partially or entirely applicable for a contract in a Bank financed project) which are annexed to this document wil l be specified in the credit documents.
3. The Malian Procurement Code i s regulated by the Decree no 95-401P-RM o f November loth, 1995. This code was reviewed in 1999 with IDA assistance, and an amendment was made under the Decree no 99-292P-RM o f September 21, 1999. In general, the country's procurement procedures do not conflict with the Bank guidelines. N o special permits or licenses need to be specified in the credit documents, since M a l i procurement practices allow IDA procedures to take precedence over any contrary local regulation or practice.
4. A Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) carried out in M a l i in December 1998 has been updated in 2004, and the final report have been delivered to the government o f M a l i in January 2006: the recommendations and action plan o f this exercise (capacity building, institutional reinforcement through a regulatory body, an appeal body, strengthening o f the private sector, judiciary reinforcement, etc.) wil l be taken into consideration during project implementation, and the project execution will benefit from these recommendations.
5. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated M a y 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated M a y 2004, (additionally, in Ghana, the provisions o f the Ghana Public Procurement Act 663 O f 2003) and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. All contracts wil l be procured in accordance with the legal agreement, the Bank's procurement guidelines and the procurement
- 63 -
plans. The local procurement acts apply to the extent provided in and subject to the above documents.
6. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan wil l be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
Advertising
7. A General Procurement Notice (GPN) wil l be prepared and published in United Nations Development Business (UNDB), in Development Gateway (dgMarket) and in at least one national newspaper after the project i s approved by the Bank Board, and/or before effectiveness. The GPN would show al l International Competitive Bidding for works and goods contracts and al l consulting services involving international firms. Specific Procurement Notices for a l l goods and works to be procured under I C B and Expressions o f Interest for al l consulting services to cost the equivalent o f US$200,000 and above would also be published in the UNDB, dgMarket as wel l as in the national press.
(a) Procurement of Works
8. Works procured under this project would include:
9. Procurement wil l be conducted using the Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for al l I C B and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank for National Competitive Bidding (NCB) and contracts advertised locally. C iv i l works contracts costing:
US$500,000 equivalent or more per contract wil l be procured through International Competitive Bidding (ICB). C iv i l works contracts costing less than US$500,000 equivalent per contract wil l be procured through N C B procedures acceptable to IDA and ensuring the following: (i) the bidding documents shall provide clear instructions on how bids should be submitted, how prices should be offered, and the place and time for submission o f bids (ii) bids are advertised in national news paper with wide circulation; (iii) The procedures shall provide for adequate competition in order to ensure reasonable prices, and methods used in the evaluation o f bids and the award o f contracts shall be objective and made known to al l bidders in the bidding documents and not be applied arbitrarily: the contract i s awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder provided this one is qualified (iv) bidders are given adequate response time (minimum four weeks) to prepare and submit bids; (v) if foreign bidders wish to participate, they are not precluded from participating; (vi) no preference margin i s granted to domestic contractors; and (vii) the procedures shall also include public opening o f bids, publication o f results o f evaluation and o f the award o f contract and provisions for bidders to protest; US$50,000 may be awarded based o n Shopping procedures, obtained from at least three qualified local contractors in response to a written invitation stating description o f works, including basic specifications and the required completion time.
- 64 -
(b) Procurement of Goods:
10. Procurement wil l be conducted using the Bank’s SBD for al l ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. Goods contracts costing
US$250,000 equivalent or more per contract will be procured under ICB. Contracts which meet the requirement o f paragraph 3.2 o f the Procurement Guidelines, may be procured through Limited Competitive Bidding. Contracts costing less than US$250,000 equivalent wil l be procured through N C B procedures acceptable to IDA and ensuring the following: (i) the bidding documents shall provide clear instructions on how bids should be submitted, how prices should be offered, and the place and time for submission o f bids (ii) bids are advertised in national news paper with wide circulation; (iii) The procedures shall provide for adequate competition in order to ensure reasonable prices, and methods used in the evaluation o f bids and the award o f contracts shall be objective and made known to al l bidders in the bidding documents and not be applied arbitrarily: the contract i s awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder provided this one i s qualified (iv) bidders are given adequate response time (minimum four weeks) to prepare and submit bids; (v) if foreign bidders wish to participate, they are not precluded from participating; (vi) no preference margin i s granted to domestic contractors; and (vii) the procedures shall also include public opening o f bids, publication o f results o f evaluation and o f the award o f contract and provisions for bidders to protest; Procurement for readily available off-the-shelf goods that cannot be grouped, or standard specification commodities may be procured under Shopping procedures as detailed in paragraph 3.5 and 3.6 o f the “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits,” dated M a y 2004, and the June 9, 2000 Memorandum “Guidance on Shopping” issued by the Bank.
0
0
(c) Procurement of non-consulting services under this project will include services such as transport, insurance, operation and maintenance, etc.
11, Given the small amount o f such contracts, procurement wil l fol low Shopping procedures when they are estimated at less than the equivalent value o f US$50,000; al l contracts above this amount will fol low N C B procedures, when applicable, using acceptable SBDs.
(d) Selection and employment of Consultants
12. Consultancy services and training wil l include various advisory services, studies including engineering and design studies, construction supervision, training and technical assistance in financial management, procurement,
13. The procurement plan wil l indicate for each contract the most adequate selection method to be used.
In each o f the three countries, short l is ts o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines.
- 65 -
0 Consultant services estimated to cost less than the equivalent o f US$50,000 may be contracted through Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS) provided the assignment meets the requirements o f paragraph 3 -7 of the Consultants’ Guidelines. Consulting services o f individual consultants (IC) wil l be procured under individual contracts in accordance with the provisions o f paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 o f the Guidelines.
0
(e) Operating Costs
14. The type o f operating cost that shall be financed by the project have been defined and agreed during appraisal and reflected in the final version o f the Cost tables. The procurement methods to be followed are similar to those described in the section on procurement o f goods.
B. Assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement procurement
15. The IDA-funded project in support to the WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS’ mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordination units o f the AgSSIP in Ghana, the PASAOP in M a l i and the PSAOP 2 in Senegal.
16. In each country, the coordination unit is located at the Ministry o f Agriculture with the following key responsibilities: coordination, management o f IDA credit, procurement, and overall project’s monitoring and evaluation and reporting. All three countries also operate a CARGS scheme: by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in Ghana; the Conseil National de la Recherche Agricole (CNRA) in Mali ; and the Fonds National de Recherches Agricoles et Agro-alimentaires (FNRAA) in Senegal. These countries have separate extension services but also a framework that brings together producer organizations, research institutions, the private sector and c iv i l society to identify and act o n priorities related to agricultural research and development.
17. Procurement activities wil l be carried out: 0 At the Regional level by CORAF, through its Dakar-based Executive Secretariat (ES)
which will assume overall coordination o f the WAAPP, with FARA playing an advisory role (as assigned by the AUNEPAD). CORAF’s Executive Secretariat’* comprises the following staff Executive Secretary, Scientific Coordinator, Administrative and Financial Manager, Information and Communication Manager, Coordinator o f the Sub- regional Cereal Network, and Impact Assessment Officer on agricultural research. CORAF’s procurement function i s not staffed. The recommends the selection o f a qualified and experienced consultant to assist C O W in the handling o f procurement activities and advise on al l procurement matters.
0 At the National level for each of the three countries by Ghana’s AgSSIP, Mali’s and Senegal’s PSAOP, which have similar institutional arrangements that include: (i) a steering committee, (ii) a national coordination unit, and (iii) one implementing agency for their research and development component. Under Senegal’s PSAOP, procurement i s handled by one procurement specialist in PSAOP’s coordination unit and one assistant at each o f the implementing agencies o f the research and development component: FNRAA
’’ CORAF’s governance includes a General Assembly (GA), Governing Council (EC), Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), and the Executive Secretariat (ES).
- 66 -
and the Senegalese Institute o f Agronomic Research ( I S M ) . In Ghana, procurement under the AgSSlP is managed by a team o f three qualified procurement specialists and supporting staff with experience in IDA financed procurement. This same staff i s in place to process procurement under this program.
Capacity assess men t
18. An assessment o f the capacity o f the Implementing Agency to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out by Bourama Diaite, Sr Procurement Specialist in Dakar Country Office on February 2nd, 2007; in Accra, Ghana, by Tsri Apronti, Procurement Specialist on February 07, 2007; and in M a l i by Cheick TraorC, Sr. Procurement Specialist on February 7, 2007. The assessment indicates that there should be no major procurement problems, since there i s no standard bidding document or request for proposals. CORAF and the national teams wil l always use the World Bank procurement procedures regardless o f the type o f contract or i t s amount. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the project; the finding and recommendations are summarized below.
(a) At Regional level (CORAF)
19. The recruitment o f a qualified and experienced consultant for procurement activities wil l be needed before the project becomes effective; a competitive recruitment process wil l be finalized and a simplified capacity evaluation wil l be conducted to determine whether al l conditions are in place for procurement in compliance with World Bank procedures. These conditions wil l be an important part o f the TOR before beginning the selection process and the contracts signature.
20. The Procurement Specialist role wil l include al l procurement matters and particularly: (a) the preparation and updating o f the procurement plan for the project; (b) the monitoring o f the progress in the implementation o f the procurement plan; (c) the assistance to the team in the bid opening and evaluation process, to avoid delays and ensure compliance with the guidelines; and (d) providing advisory services in al l procurement matters.
(b) At the national level
21. The core staff in each country wil l include a Procurement Specialist familiar with World Bank procurement procedures. This specialist should not report to the person in charge o f payments or implementing the contracts.
22. In Ghana, procurement under the Agricultural Sub-sector Investment Program (AgSSIP) i s managed by a team o f three qualified procurement specialists and supporting staff with experience in IDA financed procurement. This same staff i s in place to process procurement under this program.
23. Regarding Senegal, past experience from Public Procurement Reforms (PPRs) and supervision missions have shown that the Procurement Specialist in place in PSAOP2 and the procurement assistants in I S M and FNR4A have had significant experience with World Bank procedures and i s comfortable applying them. The primary recommendations to reinforce and improve the situation are the following:
- 67 -
0 The procurement specialist should be timely informed on al l procurement matters so as to react quickly whenever needed; he wil l be associated in drafting o f a l l procurement documents which are to be sent to the Bank; The procurement specialist wil l provide quality control on al l procurement issues, including those who are not subject to prior approval by the Bank.
0
24. This means, therefore, that the TOR and technical specifications are prepared by the component responsible for its implementation. This should be done in a timely manner and, in fact, needs to be part o f the annual procurement plan.
25. In Mali, the implementing agency o f the project i s an existing one which i s implementing the PASAOP (Agricultural Services and Producers’ Organizations Project) under an IDA Credit o f US$43.5 million. The Credit for the PASAOP may be closed at the end o f 2007, but a supplemental i s intended to be negotiated before the closing date, so that the credit would be extended. The execution agency o f the PASAOP includes a procurement unit staffed with a Procurement Specialist which i s familiar with the Wor ld Bank Procedures and he has followed procurement workshops in M a l i and in Senegal (CESAG and ISADE Institutes). The procurement unit i s under the authority o f the Agency Coordinator, but it works closely with the Administrative and Financial Directorate (DAF) o f the Ministry o f Agriculture at the central level. The DAF is on an administrative point o f view, the responsible o f the procurement function on behalf o f the Ministry, according to the Malian Procurement Code. In general, the country’s procurement procedures do not conflict with the Bank guidelines. N o special permits or licenses need to be specified in the credit documents, since M a l i procurement practices allow IDA procedures to take precedence over any contrary local regulation or practice
Risk assessment
26. Most o f the issueshsks concerning the procurement activities for the project have been identified and include:
0
0
Insufficient procurement planning;
Insufficient responsibility o f the procurement specialist on procurement matters; Delays in preparinghpdating procurement plans Delays in the submission o f technical specifications and terms o f reference from the beneficiaries;
Lack o f confidence o f the private sector in the procurement system; Insufficient coordination o f activities between the C O W and the national teams;
27. The corrective measures that have been agreed upon are the following. Agree on clear terms o f reference for the procurement specialist (contract signature); grant h i d e r full responsibility for the quality o f procurement documents and the delays o f the process; and provide h ide r with office equipments and information technology tools in order to modernize the filing system; Define and update regularly the procurement plan and follow i t adequately so as to identify bottlenecks quickly and solve problems; Better coordination o f the project on the procurement side to avoid delaying procurement decisions and submission o f technical specifications and terms o f reference;
- 68 -
Strengthen capacity o f procurement unit through training, specifically on the Bank’s procedures, within country and abroad;
0 Put focus on the capacity o f implementing agency not to be influenced at central level, in order to handle efficiently the procurement b c t i o n and ensuring full transparency and reliance;
0 Make CORAF’s and country’s procurement units share plan and provide them opportunity to interact, particularly in Senegal;
28. In addition, some recommendations to reinforce and improve this situation are l isted below: The capacity o f the procurement specialist in procurement planning will be reinforced so as to better survey the progress o f procurement activities and speed up the contract signature; Sub-project’s beneficiaries wil l do their best to finalize on time the technical specifications for procurement o f goods and works and the terms o f reference for selection o f consultants so as to avoid delaying procurement; In addition to the prior review carried out according to threshold levels, focus during supervision missions on potential issues related to the procurement capacity o f the Implementing Agency.
29. The overall project risk for procurement is medium.
C. Procurement Plan
30. At appraisal, the Borrowers (Ghana, M a l i and Senegal) and the regional organization (CORAF) developed procurement plans for project implementation, which provide the basis for the procurement methods. The final plans have been agreed between the Borrowers and CORAF and the Project Team o n February 22 and were made available at MOFNAgSSIP coordination unit in Accra, Ghana, the PASAOP’s coordination unit in Bamako, Mali ; the PSAOP 2’s coordination unit in Dakar, Senegal; and CORAF’s Executive Secretariat, in Dakar, Senegal. They wil l also be available in the project’s databases and in the Bank’s external website. D. Frequency o f Procurement Supervision
31. In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment o f the Implementing Agency has recommended two supervision missions annually to visit the field to carry out post review o f procurement actions.
32. The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team o n February 22, 2007 and i s available at Wor ld Bank Ghana Office, Accra. I t wil l also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plan wil l be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
- 69 -
E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
For Ghana
1 2 3
Ref. Contract Estimated No. (Description) cost
1 Vehicles 204,000
2 Computers and 786,500 (Various TDB)
other IT equipment
Equipment
Furniture
contracts)
(Various contracts)
3 Laboratory 900,000
4 Office 70,000
(Various
5 Constr./Rehab. 606,000
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services (a) List o f contract packages to be procured following ICB, N C B and direct contracting:
4 5 6 7 8 9
Procureme P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments nt Preference by Bank Bid-
Method (yedno) (Prior / Opening Post) Date
ICB No N o Prior 05/08/08
ICB N o N o Prior 05/18/08
ICB No No Prior 06/01/08
Shopping No No Post To Be Determined P D )
NCB N o No Post 02/08/08
1
Ref. No.
(b) I C B contracts estimated to cost above US$250,000 per contract and al l direct contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank. 2. Consulting Services (a) L i s t o f consulting assignments.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Description o f Estimated Selection Review Expected Comments Assignment cost Method by Bank Proposals
(Prior / Submission
1 2
Post) Date External Auditor 40,000 LCS Post 08/30/07 Civil Works 60,000 QCBS Post 0513 1/08 Supervision (Pre- and
3 4
(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO per contract and single source selection o f consultants (firms) for assignments estimated to cost above US$50,000 will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
Post-Contract) Studies 30,000 I C Post 0513 1/08 M&E 10,000 I C Post 11/01/07
- 70 -
(c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines.
- 71 -
For M a l i
1 Ref. N o
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services Works
Description cost ment C by Bank submission (‘000 US$) Method Preferen (prior/p date
ce ost)
1 (yedno)
Rehabilitation 820 ICB No Yes Prior 12/19/2007 of Research Centers
1 Ref. N o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ICB: International Competitive Bidding - LIB: Limited Competitive Bidding - NCB: National Competitive Bidding - N/A: not applicable. Note: ICB contracts estimated to cost the equivalent value of US$500,000 and US$250,000 and above for works and goods contract respective and a l l direct contracting wi l l be subject to prior review by the Bank..
laptops Other ITC 30 Shopping No No Post 08/01/07 equipment Office 40 Shopping No No Post 07/10/07 furniture first step Office 120 NCB No No Post 09/05/07 furniture second step Office 20 Shopping No No Post 0711 7/07 equipments
Description cost ment uali- Preferenc by subm. date (‘000 US$) Method ficati e Bank
on (yedno) (prior/p
no) (Yes/ ost)
Repairs, 515 Shopping No No No 0810 1/07 maintenance,
supplies, others * comm.
2. Consulting Services
(a) L i s t o f consulting assignments with short-list o f international f i r m s
National Registration
4 Evaluation System Others studies 50 IC Prior (Date*)
5
6
LCS: Least Cost Selection; SS: Single source; IC: Selection of Individual Consultants (Date*): Annual program for the coming year to be submitted on November of the current year
(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost equal or above US$lOO,OOO and US$50,000 equivalent per contract for f i r m s and individuals, and al l Single Source selection o f consultants wil l be subject to prior review by the Bank. (c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. (d) Training abroad and in-country, workshops and study tours wil l be carried out on the basis o f approved annual programs that would identify the nature o f trainingstudy tours/workshops, institutions where trainingstudy tours/workshops would be conducted (selection o f institutions and justification thereof), duration o f the trainingstudy toudworkshops, cost estimates and contents o f the trainingstudy tours/workshops.
External Audit 40 LCS Prior 12/12/07
Internal Auditor 10 I C Prior (Date*)
- 74 -
For Senegal 1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services (a) L i s t o f contract packages to be procured following I C B and direct contracting:
1
Ref. No.
1
2 3 4
Contract Estimated Procure
(US$) Method (Description) cost ment
Laboratory 7 1.200 NCB equipment
5 6 7 8 9
Prequali fication (yeslno)
No
I (yes/no) 1 I Rehab. o f I 113.600 I NCB I No I No
Domestic Review Expected Comment Preferenc by Bank Bid- S
(yes/no) Post) Date No Post 01/20/08
review
e (Prior / Opening
1
Ref. No.
house) and construction I (test areas) I
2 3 4 5 6
Contract Estimated Procure Prequali Domestic (Description) cost ment fication Preferenc
(US%) Method (yedno) e by Bank Bid-
2
Post) I Date Post I 03/20/08
laboratory Rehab (guest 126.200 NCB No No
1
Ref. No.
1
- 75 -
2 3 4 5 6 7
Description of Estimated Selection Review Expected Comments Assignment Method by Bank Proposals
(Prior / Submission Post) Date
cost
External Audit 20.000 LCS Post 07/30/08
For CORAF
(Thresholds for Bank review are similar to those for Senegal)
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
Goods
2. Consulting Services
- 76 -
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
1. The agricultural research and development project is expected to generate many benefits, economic, social and environmental by providing market-driven improved technologies and knowledge that meets producers' needs, particularly smallholders who make up the bulk o f food producers in the region. The increased productivity increase in the region's top priority commodity sub-sectors wil l lead to agricultural and economic growth and in producers' benefits in particular, and wil l contribute to poverty reduction.
2. A Bank Good Practice Note indicated that given the large share o f research and extension project resources allocated to institutional development, economic analysis o f the whole project is not be warranted and therefore economic analysis o f individual investments and their possible combinations within the project may be more appropriate. Bank standard practice also recommends an illustrative ex-post, rather than ex-ante quantification o f benefits and costs o f research and extension investments. Predicting and quantifying ex-ante economic costs and benefits o f research and extension activities i s problematic because i t i s nearly impossible to anticipate with satisfaction the outcome o f these activities. The required data for an ex-ante analysis is either unavailable or unreliable. For example, there are difficulties in estimating farmer adoption rates o f technologies not yet available, and in linking cause (costs) and effect (outcomes) o f research and extension interventions.
3. The Good Practice Note recommended that during project preparation, economic analysis should focus on (a) retrospective technology adoption and impact studies to demonstrate that the current technology system has been productive in some areas, and (b) prospective technology case studies to demonstrate the potential for research and extension investments to produce good economic returns. During project implementation, emphasis should be placed on establishing a system to incorporate economic analysis methods as a tool in research and extension evaluation, planning, and priority setting on an ongoing basis. This requires the development o f capacity for improved research and extension management and more attention to the collection o f baseline information and performance indicators.
4. Ex-post analysis o f agricultural research and extension in most countries reveals high returns to these investments, ranging between 40-75 percent. An IFPRI's review13 o f 294 benefit-cost studies, reporting 1,858 estimates o f rates o f return to research and extension investments, shows average returns to research investments alone o f 88 percent, extension alone averaging 79 percent, and research and extension combined averaging 45 percent. In Sub-Saharan Africa, high rates o f returns o n R&E are reported in M a l i (maize), Zambia (maize); Kenya (maize); Uganda (maize, groundnuts, sesame, maize, beans, cassava, cooking bananas), and in Senegal (cotton).
5. Researchers in Ghana, M a l i and Senegal have used the economic surplus method, a Best- Practice approach, to analyze the economic rate o f returns on R&E investment. The project will contribute to the building o f capacity, particularly among young researchers at universities and research institutes, to conduct ex-post analysis o f R&D investments under the project.
l3 A Meta-Analysis o f Rates o f Return to Agricultural R&D" by Alston, Marra, Pardey, and Wyatt (1999)
- 77 -
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
Environmental and Social Considerations 1. From an environmental and social safeguard point o f view, the West Afr ica Agricultural Productivity Project (WAAPP) is a Category B project. That is, the environmental and social impacts o f the project, for the most part, are expected to be minimal, site specific and manageable to an accepted level. There are two Bank Safeguard policies applicable to the project. These include: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) and Pest Management (OP 4.09). At the P C N review meeting, i t was agreed that this project would not trigger the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12), as no potential land acquisition or loss o f economic activity issues on the part o f individuals or group o f individuals in project intervention zones were foreseen.
2. At the time o f the environmental and social assessment o f the project, the range, scale, locations and number o f technology generation and transfer sub-projects, as part o f the WAAPP initiatives were unknown. The difficulty inherent in defining what the real environmental and social impacts o f envisioned sub-projects are and determining what mitigation measures to put in place, requires the development o f an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). In addition, i t was determined, based on project envisioned activities leading, in particular, to diversification and intensification o f agriculture, that the Pest Management Policy (OP 4.09) i s triggered. This required the development o f Pest Management Plan (PMP).
Potential Impacts
3. At the time o f the environmental and social assessment o f the project, the range, scale, locations and number o f technology generation and transfer sub-projects, as part o f the WAAPP initiatives were unknown. The difficulty inherent in defining what the real environmental and social impacts o f envisioned sub-projects are and determining what mitigation measures to put in place, requires the development o f an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). In addition, i t was determined, based o n project envisioned activities leading, in particular, to diversification and intensification o f agriculture, that the Pest Management Pol icy (OP 4.09) is triggered. This required the development o f Pest Management Plan (PMP). 4. The project’s potential impacts include, but are not l imited to the following:
Potential Environment & Health Impacts
Improper waste management;
Soil erosion, loss o f biodiversity both fauna and flora, due in part to project activities and in part to poaching and land conversion in resources areas, as a result o f access. Extensive agriculture leading to deforestation o f ecosystems; Pesticidehorganic fertilizer residues resulting from agricultural intensification and diversification; Sedimentation o f water bodies due to land clearing and poor rehabilitation o f borrow pits;
Elimination o f the natural enemies o f crop pests and consequent alteration o f biological pest control methods;
- 78 -
e
e e e e e e e e e e e
e
e e e
Development o f pest resistance to pesticides, encouraging further increases in and reliance on chemical pesticides use; Contamination o f the soil and water bodies; Uncontrolled import, sale and distribution o f pesticides; and Weak institutional capacity for pesticides management; Lack o f integrated fight against crops enemies Significant destruction o f natural habitat Soils salinisation, alkalisation and acidification Underground water pollution (fertilizers; pesticides, etc.) Cattle contamination (by drenching) Unsafe management o f pesticides containers N o n targeted species destruction (by pesticides) Increase o f water borne diseases increase Soil trampling and compaction by cattle Plants selective browsing (by cattle) Wells and water points pollution (by the cattle) Risks related to capacity deficiencies in biotechnology and bio security
5. The ESMF formulated standards methods and procedures specifying how technological subprojects, whose location, number and scale are currently unknown, will systematically address environmental and social issues in the screening and categorization, sitting, design, implementation and monitoring phases. I t includes: (i) systematization o f environmental and social impact assessment for al l identified sub-projects before investment; and (ii) procedures for conducting sub-project-specific Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), be they Limited Environmental Impact Assessment (LEIA) or Full Environmental Impact Assessment (FEIA) as applicable.
6. The proposed PMP, on the other hand, addressed the concerns relating to the risks associated with potential increases in the use o f pesticides for agricultural production, intensification and diversification, increases in disease vector populations which would arise from irrigation schemes and made propositions to strengthen national capacities to implement mitigation measures designed to minimize the risks. The PMP, as part o f the implementation arrangements, also identifies national agencies and other partners that could play a vital role in the success o f the project.
7. Both the ESMF and FWF include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved in each o f the participating countries and at the national and regional levels, for screening, review and approval o f sub-projects, as wel l as implementation and monitoring o f their mitigation measures. In view o f the somewhat limited institutional capacity to addressing project safeguard aspects adequately, the two safeguard instruments, together, include provisions to strengthening the capacity o f the various institutions and actors involved, as wel l as promoting coordination and synergy among the various sectors in attending to the potential environmental impacts. Together, these safeguard instruments, are considered both as a planning tool and a means for a harmonious integration o f the project in i t s bio-physical and social environment and as a way to maximize positive effects on the same environment in the sub-region.
- 79 -
8. Both the ESMF and the PMP were submitted to ASPEN, the regional Safeguard Unit, and cleared for disclosure in the three countries involved and at Bank InfoShop, prior to appraisal.
Public consultation and disclosure
9. The ESMF and PMP were prepared by Mbaye Mbengue Faye and Djibril Doucourk respectively, in fbll compliance with Bank and national safeguard policies, following a broad consultation framework, involving al l relevant stakeholder groups, consistent with the approach adopted at project inception. This participatory approach wil l be carried on throughout implementation, supervision and evaluation o f the project.
10. Prior to disclosure in-country and at Bank InfoShop, a stakeholder workshop was organized by CORAF, the project implementation unit (PIU), involving relevant project stakeholder groups in public agencies in three countries involved, such as representatives from: Mali-PASAOP, Senegal-PSAOP and Ghana -AgSSIP and representatives o f national research institutes and extension services, professional organizations, farming organizations; c iv i l society; and NGOs. This approach was utilized with the intention o f presenting the results o f the studies, fostering ownership and garnering input from these stakeholders in order to improve quality and soundness o f the o f the instruments. Recommendations from both ASPEN and stakeholders' workshop have been reflected in the final safeguard reports, prior to disclosure. These recommendations and relevant provisions from the two set o f safeguard instruments wil l be reflected in Project Implementation Manual (PIM).
Monitoring and Supervision of Safeguard Performance
1 1. Successfbl implementation o f the project safeguard requirements and performance measurement requires regular monitoring and evaluation o f activities undertaken by the project to comply with national and Bank safeguard policies. This wil l also help ensure that implementation o f project safeguard measures are systematically carried out al l through project lifespan.
12. To do so, the following indicators need to be measured, as part o f the project global monitoring plan: 0 Number o f sub-projects screened on environmental and social safeguard grounds; 0 Number o f subproject needing specific ESIAS; 0 Number o f Environment and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) conducted; 0 Number o f sub-projects with costed Environment Management Plans (EMPs);
Number o f EMPs and/or Resettlement Action Plans (RAPS) implemented according to schedule;
0 Number/ Frequency o f Safeguard supervision and annual project reviews undertaken; 0 Number training programs carried out for safeguard capacity strengthening; and
Number o f institutions/organizations trained in according to specified measures identified in the instruments.
13. In addition, bio-physical and social changes (both negative and positive) from the baseline - such as changes in quality ground and surface water; changes in biodiversity both flora and fauna; land resource management, improvements in agricultural activities - in the natural
- 80 -
environment in project intervention area should be measured, as part o f the project global monitoring system.
Safeguard Policies Triggered
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [XI [I Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [I [XI
Pest Management (OP 4.09) [X I [I Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.1 1) [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [I [XI Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [I [XI Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [I [XI Safety o f Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [I [XI Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [I [XI Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [I [XI
[I
- 81 -
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
PCN review Initial PID to PIC Initial ISDS to PIC Appraisal Negotiations BoardiRVP approval Planned date o f effectiveness Planned date o f mid-term review Planned closing: date
Key institutions responsible for preparation o f the project: C O W (Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Dbveloppement Agricoles), Dakar, Senegal Ministr ies o f Agriculture in Ghana, Ma l i and Senegal Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
Desire Coquillat Consultant AFTS4 Rosemary Cubbage Consultant AFTS4 Sossena Tassew Language Program Assistant AFTS4 Virginie Vaselopulos Language Program Assistant AFTS4 Marie-Jeanne Ndiaye Language Program Assistant AFTS4 Fily Sissoko Sr. Financial Mgt. Sp. LCSFM Diop Saidou Consultant AFTFM Bourama Diaite Sr. Procurement Sp. AFTPC Eric Jean Yoboue Sr. Procurement Sp. AFTPC Tsri Apronti Procurement Sp. AFTPC Cheick Traore Sr. Procurement Sp. AFTPC Marie-Louise Ah-Keh Procurement Analyst AFTS3 Irene Xenakis Operations Adviser AFRVP Brighton Musungwa Sr. Financial Mgt. Sp. AFTFM
Sidi Mohamed Boubacar Lead Counsel LEGAF
Per Ryden Consultant ENV
Chiyo Kanda Sr. Operations Officer OPCIL
- 82 -
Patrice Talla Takoukam Counsel LEGEN RenCe Desclaux Finance Officer LOAG2 Peer reviewers and advisers Marie-Helene Collion Lead Ag. Services Specialist M N S S D Moctar Toure Consultant GEF
Subramaniam Janakiram Consultant SASAR Erik E. Fernandes Adviser ARD Jean-Paul Chausse Lead Specialist AFTS 1 David Nielson Senior Economist AFTS2 Renato Nardello Sr. Operations Officer AFTS4 Patrick Labaste Lead Agric. Economist AFTS4 Peter Kristensen Sr. Environmental Sp. AFTS4 Christophe Crepin Lead Environmental Sp. AFTS4
Eij a Pehu Adviser ARD
Bank funds expended to date on project preparation: 1. Bank resources: US$286,000 2. Trust funds: US$750,000 (PHRD Grant) 3. Total: US$1,036,000
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 75. Remaining costs to approval: 76. Estimated annual supervision cost:
US$16,000 US$150,000
- 83 -
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
Bonkoungou, Robert (January 2007), Rapport Prkliminaire de Mission (vulgarisation agricole et communication pour l e dkveloppement), Programme de productivitk agricole en Afrique de l’Ouest, Rome : FAO/CP
Eklu, Daniel et Yamar Mbodj (June 2006), Etat de mise en euvre de 1’ECOWAP et perspectives pour l’annee 2007.
IFPRI (November 2006). Regional Strategic Alternatives for Agricultural Led Growth and Poverty Reduction (Main text and Statistical Tables, Preliminary Report), Washington D.C.: IFPRI
Simpson, Brent M. and Amadou Moustapha Beye, (October 2006), Project Preparation Support Mission: Report, Rome, FAO/CP.
Xinshen Diao et al. (September 2006), Agricultural Growth Options in West Africa - A West Africa Multi-market Model Analysis, Washington, D.C: F P R I
- 84 -
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits
Project ID
PO93610 PO92986
AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Support Project
APPENDIX I : GHANA
FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d
2007 YGH-eGhana S I L (FY07) 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.57 0.00 0.00 2006 GH-Economic Management CB 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.24 1.48 0.00
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 199945) PoveW (% of population below national poverty line) Urban population (% of total population) Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (par 1,000 live bi!ths) Child malnutriiion (% of children under 5) Access to an improved water source (% ofpopulation) Lneracy (% ofpopulation age 75+) Gross primary enrollment (% of SChWl-aQe population)
Male Female
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
GDP (US$ billions) Gross capital fonationiGDP Exports of goods and servicedGDP Gross domestic savings/GDP Gross national savings/GDP
Current account balanceiGDP Interest paymentdGDP Total debffGDP Total debt sewlcdexports Present value of debffGDP Present value of debffexports
(average annual growth) GDP GDP per capha Exports of goods and services
1985
4.5 9.6
10.7 6.6 5.4
-5.8 0.7
49.8 23.6
1985-95 199545
4.5 4.6 1.7 2.3 8.2 4.8
Ghana
22.1 450 10.0
2.2 2.5
40 48 57 68 22 75 58 08 90 87
1995
6.5 20.0 24.5 11.6 17.6
-2.4 0.9
85.1 23.9
2004
5.8 3.6 3.5
Sub- Saharan
Africa
74 1 745 552
2.3 2.3
35 46
100 29 56
93 99 87
2004
8.9 27.9 34.5 8.0
26.4
-2.7 0.7
79.3 6.7
27.0 67.4
2005
5.0 3.7 4.0
Low. Income
2,353 580
1,364
1.9 2.3
30 59 80 39 75 62
104 110 99
2005
10.7 29.6 30.4 10.5 27.1
-7.1
200549
5.8 4.2 3.7
Development diamond'
Life expectancy
Gross per primar)
enrollmen1
GNI ,$ capita
1 Access to improved water source
- Ghana Lowincome group
I 1 -Ghana Low-income group
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
(% of GDP) Agriculture Industry
Services
Household final consumption expenditure General gov't final consumption expenditure Imports of goods and services
Manufacturing
1985 1995
44.9 38.8 16.7 24.3 11.5 9.3 38.4 38.9
84.0 76.3 9.4 12.1
13.6 32.9
8.5 8.6 37.4 36.6
76.0 74.1 16.0 15.4 54.4 49.5 -GCF -GDP
(average annual growth) Agriculture Industry
Services
Household final consumption expenditure General gov't final consumption expenditure Gross capital formation imports of goods and services
Manufacturing
1985.95 199545
2.0 4.4 3.6 4.6
-3.0 4.0 7.8 4.7
4.1 4.3 5.4 5.6 3.9 3.7 6.8 4.7
2004 2005 Growth of exports and Imports (K)
7.5 6.1 ''T 6.7 i o 5.1
6.5 7.0 5.4
2.7 8.2
4.5 O
15.9 -2.1 .20 12.5 13.1 -Exports +Imports 4.5 7.3 I
Note: 2005 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. *The diamonds show four key Indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its incomegroup average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 90 -
MENT FfNANCE
Total debt sewice l5RD IDA
1885
10 3 20 5
11 3 0 1
4 1
$885
633 412 28 58
738 t i l 230 207
65 94 69
1885
672 857
-185
- 2 1 7 33
-263
248 115
76 2
f 685
2,243 I 18 258
159 18 3
75 86 35 6 a
191 70 10 60 11 49
$8%5
59 5 43 O
22 7 5 3
4 8
1495
1.431 390 191 128
1,853 278 207 891
75 110 68
1995
1.598 2.140 -544
-133 523
-1 54
366 -21 i
0 1,200 4
1895
5.495 59
2.375
386 21 25
238 306 38
1 OT 0
299 242 23
219 23
197
2004
I 2 6 I 4 I
30 I 9 2
-3 1
2604
2,639 838 290 24s
4.378 582 852
1,211
98 123 80
2004
3 487 5,356
-1,888
-198 2,831
-236
416 -18Q
1,825 9,004 6
2004
7.035 3
4$309
240 2
39
1827 255 32
139 0
35 2 230
13 21 7 28
288
2005
15 1 I 4 8
29 3 $0 7 -1 8
2505
2,774 875 298 26 1
4.737 623 862
1,399
99 124 80
2505
3 663 5,2w
-2,538
-158 2,938
-356
8% 1 -105
2,992 9,072 5
2005
a 4,234
2 89
305 57
239 35
204
f
Note Thts table was produced f r jm the D e ~ a ~ o p ~ n t Economics LDB database 8/1306
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 199945) Povelty (% of population below national poverty /he) Urban population (% of total population) Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (per j,OOO live births) Child malnutrition (% of chiidmn under5) Access to an improved water source (% of population) Literacy (% of population age 15+) Gross primary enrollment (% O f SChOOhge population)
Male Female
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
Growth of capltal and GDP (%)
l o o T I
GDP (US$ billions) Gross capital forrnatiorVGDP Exports of goods and services/GDP Gross domestic savingslGDP Gross national SavingslGDP
Current account balancelGDP Interest payments/GDP Total debffGDP Total debt service/exports Present value of debffGDP Present value of debffexports
General govr final consumption expenditure 11.4 9,7 10.0 10.4
(average annual growth) GDP GDP per capita Exports of goods and services
-GCF -GDP
1985
1.3 15.8 16.8
-1 1.4 -1 .o
-16.8 1 .o
110.8 19.9
1985-g5 1ss505 2004 2005
Agriculture 4.5 3.0 -4.7 3.0 Industry 3.3 7.7 -0.3 8.6
Household final consumption expenditure 2.2 2.8 8.9 -0.4
Gross capital formation 1.5 10.3 -26.1 27.4 imports of goods and services 1.6 6.6 -2.8 3.7
(average annual growth)
General gov't final consumption expenditure 2.1 8.9 18.6 -5.6
1985-95 199545
3.0 6.0 0.5 3.0 8.1 10.7
Growth of exports and Imports (%) 40
2o
-20
-Exports -0-Imports 7 L
Mali
13.5 380 5.1
3.0 2.5
31 48
121 33 50 I 9 64 71 56
1995
2.5 22.9 21.1
7.8 13.7
-9.2 0.9
119.9 13.9
2004
2.2 -0.8 0 . 2
Sub- Saharan
Africa
74 1 745 552
2.3 2.3
35 46
100 29 56
93 99 87
2004
4.9 19.0 27.5 10.7 10.9
-4.9 0.5
87.9 7.2
26.5 91.2
2005
5.4 2.3 8.7
Low- Income
2,353 580
1,364
1.9 2.3
30 59 80 39 75 62
104 110 99
2005
5.1 23.8 25.7 10.4 11.1
-9.9
200509
5.5 4.0 5.1
>evelopment dlamond'
Life expectancy
7-
GNI I , ,+ Gross per primary capita enrollment
1
Access to improved water source
-Mali Low-income group
Economlc ratlos.
Trade
T
Capital fonation
Domestic savings
Indebtedness
Mali Low-income group -
Industry Manufacturing
Services
15.5 18.7 23.9 24.2 7.3 8.0 3.4 3.3
44.2 31.8 39.8 39.8
Household final consumotion exoenditure 100.1 82.6 79.3 79.1
A I
v 03 05 I -50
Note: 2005 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database.
The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its incomegroup average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.
- 92 -
Total debt aelliice IBRD IDA
1985
16 2
124 2 7
- I 1 3
lgs5
176 78 35
469 141 80
105
BO 67
f 35
1985
220 578
-358
-26 163
"22 1
I97 24
6 449 3
f 885
1 ,456 #
224
53 (i 3
I57
-2 3 0
87
2 1 29
i 28 2
27
$895
134 18 4
16 5 5 6
-7 0
1895
442 259
71
751 111 85
246
i 22 99
124
1885
521 894
-373
-47 193
-228
295 8 8
332 499 1
fSQ5
2,958 a
883
8 1 0
12
208 138
0 111
0
5.6 86 6
8# 6
73
2004
-3 1 - 3 5
27 3 3 7
5 3
2004
1,146 399 583
113 98
114
2004
i ,421 Z ,674 .253
-118 189
-241
456 -215
989 528 3
2004
3 316 0
t ,44 1
103 0
i s
48 I 1 09
i 2 80
1
6s 77 8
69 10 59
2005
6 4 -1 i
18 5 4 4
-7 Q
2005
1,204 30 1 660
114 99
114
2005
1,388 7,924 -536
-f87 219
-504
869 -365
929 527 5
2005
a 1,424
0 33
111 22 89 11 77
0 I *m*
wo
Current account balance to OOP 4%)
- 93 -
APPENDIX 111: SENEGAL
POVERTY and SOCIAL Senegal
2005 Population, m id-year (millions) GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) GNI (Atlas method, US$ billionsj
Average annual growth, 199945
Population (%) Labor force (%j
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 199945) Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) Urban population (% of total populetionj Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) Access to an improved water source (% of population) Literacy (% ofpopulation age 15+) Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
Male Female
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1985
GDP (US$ billions) Gross capital formation/GDP Exports of goods and services/GDP Gross domestic savingdGDP Gross national savingdGDP
Current account balance/GDP Interest paymentdGDP Total debffGDP Total debt service/exports Present value of debffGDP Present value of debffexports
2.6 10.5 28.6 -2.9 -8.1
-17.3 2.0
99.5 20.7
1985-95 199545 (average annual growth) GDP 1.9 4.5 GDP per capita -1.0 1.9 Exports of goods and services 3.0 6.4
11.7 710 8.3
2.4 2.4
42 56 78 23 76 39 76 78 74
1995
4.5 16.7 34.5 11.1 11.5
-5.2 1.6
87.0 16.7
2004
6.2 3.7 3.6
Sub- Saharan
Africa
74 1 745 552
2.3 2.3
35 46
100 29 56
93 99 87
2004
7.6 23.4 27.8
9.8 16.7
-6.7 0.9
51.6 11.4 19.0 49.0
2005
6.2 3.7
Low. Income
2,353 580
1,364
1.9 2.3
30 59 80 39 75 62
104 110 99
2005
8.3
-7.5
200549
4.8 3.6 3.3
>evelopmant dlamond' 1 Life expectancy -
''1 capita -@- enro;:: primary
1 Access to improved water source
Senegal Low-income group
-
Economic ratios'
Trade
T
I
Indebtedness
Senegal - ~ Low-income arow
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
(% of GDPj Agriculture Industry
Services
Household final consumption expenditure General gov't final consumption expenditure Imports of goods and services
Manufacturing
(average annual growthj Agriculture Industry
Services
Household final consumption expenditure General gov't final consumption expenditure Gross capital formation imports of goods and services
Manufacturing
1985 1995
18.7 20.2 17.7 19.8 12.8 13.4 63.6 60.0
86.2 76.6 16.8 12.4 42.0 40.1
1985-95 199545
1.1 2.9 2.9 5.5 2.6 4.1 1.8 4.4
0.8 2.6 0.2 7.7 4.8 9.7 0.3 6.9
2004
17.0 19.7 11.5 63.3
76.4 13.9 41.5
2004
4.3 7.5 6.5 6.3
0.8 11.2 22.2
5.9
2005
17.7
13.4 41.3
2005
7.5
3.7
1.9
Growth of capital and GDP (%) 40
GCF *GDP - /Growth of exports and imports (%) I
01 02 03 M 05
I - &ports *Imports I
Note: 2005 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database.
The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.
- 94 -
1M5
13 0 9 3
16 2 -07 -3 7
lWS
515 63 58
id4 €434 197 133 83
Eis 54
128
18115
85 1 1,165 -314
-227 -5
-447
345 f 03
15 449 3
l f#S
2 566 89
232
190 10 4
96 132
-5 vi6
0
25 33 6
27 8
29
1986
7 9 5 0
1% 3 4 2
- f 3
4895
568 102 i 52 254 i ,369
364 138 160
i14 i 14 i 00
1895
1,544 1796 -252
-155 172
-235
172 63
283 499 I
IS95
3,895 35
i,m 283
i 5 i d
373 39
-25 32 4
218 107 $8 89 12 78
2004
a5 i 9
29 B 5 %
-5 0
20114
i ,467 33
203 335
2 7B2 4&t 413 371
99 io5 68
2Q114
2,124 3,163
-1 ,036
-i 55 685
-506
455 53
912 528 3
2004
3.930 0
2,040
335 0
31
757 197 92 70 4
95
I 5 P 58
15 143
$73
200s
1 7 2 5
20 3 5 3
-8 0
25115
i ,693 60
i 93 333
2,946 452 405 382
88 i o3 56
2005
2 24% 3 429
-1,181
-1 29 655
-525
440 188
i ,070 527 5
2009
0 2,060
0 46
f 82 28
153 i 6 i 33
..................... ~ .......................................................................................... j Current account haifsnca to GDP (%.I
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shownon this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, anyjudgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement oracceptance of such boundaries.
0 250 500 750 KILOMETERS
MAJOR RAILROADS
NATIONAL CAPITALS
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
MALI
IBRD 3
53
43
MA
RCH
20
07
WEST AFRICAWEST AFRICAN AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM PHASE I
![Index [2idkwn1ht0xt3tltqkaih9tz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com] · Participant and Lecturer in the 9ths National Student Biennial Award Carlos Raul Villanueva (National Student Award) Participant](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60a316b4cabe5f3e7665f8b6/index-2idkwn1ht0xt3tltqkaih9tz-participant-and-lecturer-in-the-9ths-national.jpg)
