Documentof THEWORLDBANK FOR OFFICIALUSEONLY Report No: 34232-NG PROJECTAPPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA PROPOSEDGRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTFACILITY TRUST FUND INTHEAMOUNT OF US$10.03 MILLION TO THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA FOR THE SECOND NATIONALFADAMA DEVELOPMENT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT March 20,2006 Environmental,Ruraland SocialDevelopmentCentralAfrica (AFTS3) Country Department 12 AfricaRegionalOffice This document has arestricted distribution and maybe usedbyrecipients only inthe performance o ftheir off- cia1duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective September 30,2005) Currency Unit = NigerianNaira (NGN) NGNlOO = US$0.76 US$1 = NGN131.30 January 1 -- December 31 FISCAL YEAR ACRONYMSAND ABBREVIATIONS AfDB African Development Bank (Banque Africaine de Dkveloppement, BAD) ADP Agricultural Development Project Bank The World Bank Group BMPIU Budget Monitoringand Price Intelligence Unit CBO Community-Based Organization CBD Convention on BiologicalDiversity CDD Community DrivenDevelopment CFAA Country FinancialAccountability Assessment CFB CarbonFinance Business CPRP Community Poverty Reduction Project CPS Country Partnership Strategy (WB) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMCAP Economic Management and Capacity BuildingProject EMP Environmental Management Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment EO Environmental Officer ERR Economic Rate of Return ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework Fadama I1 SecondNational Fadama Development Project FCA Fadama Community Association FGDO Fadama GEF Desk Office FGN Federal Government of Nigeria FMS Financial Management System FMARD Federal Ministryo fAgriculture and Rural Development Vice President: GobindT. Nankani Country Director: Hafez M.H.Ghanem Sector Manager: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh Task Team Leader: Simeon Ehui FGN Federal Government o fNigeria FMS FinancialManagement System FMARD Federal Ministryo f Agriculture andRuralDevelopment FMEnv Federal Ministryo f Environment FMoF Federal Ministryo f Finance FMR FinancialMonitoring Report FPM FinancialProcedures Manual FPSU Federal Program Support Unit FUA Fadama User Association FUG Fadama User Group GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility (Fonds pour 1'Environnement Mon- dial-FEM) GIS Geographic Information System IA ImplementingAgency IAS International Accounting Standards ICR Implementation CompletionReport IDA InternationalDevelopment Association (World Bank Group) I P M IntegratedPest Management I-PRSP InterimPoverty Reduction Strategy Paper ISDS Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet ISR Implementation Status and Results LFD Local Fadama Desk LDP Local Development Plan LEEMP Local Empowerment and EnvironmentalManagement Program LFDC Local FadamaDevelopment Committee LGA Local Government Authority MDG MillenniumDevelopment Goal MIS Management Information System M O U Memorandum o f Understanding M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NCB National Competitive Bidding NEAP National EnvironmentalAction Plan NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy NEPAD NewPartnership for Africa's Development NFDO National Fadama Development Office NFDP National Fadama Development Project (first Fadama Develop- ment Project) NFTC National Fadama Technical Committee NFOC National Fadama Office Coordinator NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPC National Program Coordinator NRM Natural Resource Management OP Operational Program (GEF) P A Protected Area PCU Project CoordinatingUnit FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed without World Bank authorization. PDF-B Project Preparation and Development Facility Block B (GEF) PIC Public Information Center PIM Project ImplementationManual PIP Project ImplementationPlan P R Project Lmplementation Review PMP PestManagement Plan PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RBDA RiverBasin Development Authorities RPF Resettlement Policy Framework RS Remote Sensing S A P Strategic Action Program SFDO State FadamaDevelopment Office SFEO State Fadama Environmental Officer SFDC State FadamaDevelopment Committee SGP Small Grants Program SIL Specific Investment Loan S L M Sustainable LandManagement SOE Statement o f Expense STAP Scientific andTechnical Advisory Panel sws State Watershed Subcommittee T&V Training and Visit UN UnitedNations UNCCD UnitedNations Conventionto Combat Desertification UNDP UnitedNations Development Program UNFCCC UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelopment WB World Bank Group WRM Water Resource Management WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development SYSTEMOFWEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1meter (m) - - 3.28 feet 1hectare(ha) - 2.47 acres 1kilometer (km) - - 0.625 miles 1liter - - 0.220 imperial gallons 1cubic meter - - 220 imperial gallons - iv - FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SECOND NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS No. A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 5 1. ........................................................................Page 5 2. Country and sector issues ............................................................................................................ 7 3. Higher-level objectives to which the Project contributes ............................................................ Rationale for Bank involvement.................................................................................................. 8 B. ...................................................................................................... 1. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 10 Lending instrument.................................................................................................................... 10 2. 10 3. Project components ................................................................................................................... Project Development and Global Environment Objectives and Key Indicators ....................... 11 4. 14 5. Lessons learned and reflected inthe Project design .................................................................. Analysis o f alternatives ............................................................................................................. 16 C. ............................................................................................................... 1. IMPLEMENTATION 18 18 Institutional and implementation arrangement .......................................................................... Partnership arrangements .......................................................................................................... 2. 18 Monitoring and evaluation o f outcomeshesults ........................................................................ 20 4. 3. 21 5. Sustainability............................................................................................................................. 6. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ....................................................................... 23 Loadcredit conditions and covenants ....................................................................................... 24 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 2. 1. Economic and financial analyses............................................................................................... 24 24 25 3. Technical ................................................................................................................................... Fiduciary.................................................................................................................................... 26 4. 5. Social......................................................................................................................................... 27 28 6. Environment: Environmental Category: B (Partial Assessment) ............................................ 30 7. Readiness................................................................................................................................... Safeguard policies ..................................................................................................................... 30 Annexes Technical Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financedby the Bank and/or Other Projects ..................... Technical Annex 1: Country and SectorProgram Background .............................................................. 31 36 Technical Annex 3: Results and Monitoring Framework........................................................................ 39 49 Technical Annex 5: Table 6: Summary o f Project Costs........................................................................ Technical Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ................................................................................... 56 58 Technical Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ....................................... Technical Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................ 63 Technical Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ..................................................................................... 69 Technical Annex 9: Financial and Economic Analysis ........................................................................... 77 Technical Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues......................................................................................... 80 82 Technical Annex 12: Documents inProject File..................................................................................... Technical Annex 11: Project Preparationand Supervision ..................................................................... 83 - v - Technical Annex 13: IncrementalCost Analysis .................................................................................... 84 Technical Annex 14: STAP Technical Roster Review and Task Team's Response............................... 96 Technical Annex 15: Statement of Loans and Credits .......................................................................... 106 Technical Annex 16: Country at a Glance............................................................................................. 108 Nigeria Map No. IBRD 34225 .Fadama Areas and GEF Intervention Sites .vi. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SECOND NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROJECTAPPRAISAL DOCUMENT AFRICA AFTS3 Date: March 22, 2006 Team Leader: Simeon K.Ehui Country Director: Hafez M.H.Ghanem Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and for- Sector ManagerDirector: Joseph Baah- estry sector (100%) Dwomoh Themes: Environmental policies and institu- Project ID: PO73686 tions (P);Biodiversity (P);Other environment Focal Area: Biodiversity and natural resources management (S) Lending Instrument: Specific InvestmentLoan Environmental screening category: Partial As- sessment ProjectFinancingData [ 3 Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 0.00 Proposed terms: Note: U2338.67 m (of total US100 m under IDA-financed Fadama II) Total Project Cost: USD 63.22 ProposedGEF ProjectFinancingPlan(US$m) Source Local Foreign Total BORROWERRECIPIENT 0.96 0.02 0.98 GLOBALENVIRONMENT FACILITY -~ - 5.53 4.50 10.03 LOCAL COMMUNITIES 0.44 0.00 0.44 Total: 6.93 4.52 11.45 Totalfundsintegratedintothe GEF Program CombinedTotalFinancingPlan: IDA, AfDB and ProposedGEF(US$m) Source Local Foreign Total Recipients: Government 7.15 0.02 7.17 Beneficiaries 0.44 0 0.44 Global Environment Facility 5.53 4.50 10.03 Associated IDA Fund 30.82 7.85 38.67 AfDB 5.74 1.17 6.91 Total 49.68 13.54 63.22 Borrower: Federal Government o fNigeria Plot 223D, Cadestral, Zone 6, Mabushi, Utako District Abuja, Nigeria Tel: 234-09-882-105 1 Fax: 234-09-523-5685 PCUHQ@PCUAGRIC.ORG Responsible Agency: Dr.A.A. Oredipe Mr.I. Nnachi A. National Project Coordinator Fadama Desk Officer, NFDO National Fadama Development Office No. 14A Suez Crescent W D O ) Ibrahim Abacha Estate, Zone 4, Abuja, Nigeria Abuja, Nigeria Tel: 08035-863300 Tel: 234-80-431-93813 aoredipeGdmai1.com ikwuonna@yahoo.com Fiscal Year FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FYlO FYll Annual 3.40 1.54 1.74 1.35 1.16 0.84 Cumulative 3.40 4.94 6.68 8.03 9.19 10.03 Project implementationperiod: Start May 1,2006 End: June 30,201 1 Expected effectiveness date: April 28,2006 Expected closing date: December 31,2011 Does the project depart from the CAS incontent or other significant respects? Re$ PAD A.3 [ ]Yes [XINO Does the project require any exceptions from Bankpolicies? [ ]Yes [XINO Re$ PAD D.7 Have these been approvedby Bank management? [ ]Yes [XINO I s approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [XINO Does the project include any critical risks rated "substantial" or "high"? Re$ PAD C.5 [XIYes [ ] N o Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? I Re$ PAD D.7 [XIYes [ ] N o No I I Project development objective Re$ PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 The Project is financed through an IDA Credit o f US$38.67 million (already approved as part a US$lOO million credit for Fadama I1- Credit 3838), a GEF grant o f US$10.03 million, govern- ment counterpart funds o f about US$7.61 million, and US$6.91 million cofinancing from AfDB, for a total project of US$63.22 million. The US$10.03 million GEF contribution (corresponding to 16 percent o f total project cost) will finance the incremental cost o f regional and global bene- fits through the following components (and summarized inTable 1, and detailed inAnnex 4). - 2 - The development objective o f Fadama I1is to sustainably increase the incomes o f fadama users, those who depend directly or indirectly on fadama resources (fanners, pastoralists, fishers, hunt- ers, gatherers, and service providers), through empowering communities to take charge o f their owndevelopment agenda, and byreducingconflict betweenfadama users. Global Environmentobjective Re$ PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 The global objective o fthe proposedproject is to enhance the productivity o f fadama areas and the livelihood systems they support through sustainable land use and water management inthe six participating states. Projectdescription[one-sentence summary of each component] Re$ PAD B.3.a) Technical Annex 4 The objective will be achieved through: (a) capacity buildingfor sustainable fadama natural re- source management at national, state, local government, and community levels, including strengtheningo f institutional capacity for integratedwatershed management and community ca- pacity for resource development planning; (b) integrated ecosystem management in selected wa- tersheds through sustainable management o f key forest areas, buffer zones, and wetlands, and improved water management; and (c) community sustainable land use management, through support for alternative land and/or water use activities, and adoption o f indigenous sustainable landmanagement practices under the following 4 components: Capacity Building: The aim o f this component is to enhance the capacity o f different stakeholder groups, including relevant federal, state and local government, NGOs, community based organizations, and fadama users in targeted sites for sustainable land and watershed management. Institutional capacity will be strengthened through train- ing,planningand analytical tools. Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level. This component addresses the technical, social and location-specific activities to improve the management o f critical watersheds that ensures fadama productivity and sustainability. Community Sustainable Land Management. This component focuses on providing sup- port to FCA and non-FCA community membersthrough FCAs, community groups and NGOs to develop local initiatives that enhance the structural and functional integrity of ecosystems, especially, sustainable land use practices that improve rural livelihoods. Project Management and M&E. This component focuses on project management mechanisms, including monitoring and evaluation plans to implepent the Project.The Project Management and M&E for the GEF-financed Project will be fully integrated with IDA-fundedFadama 11. - 3 - Which safeguardpoliciesare triggered, if any? Re$ PAD D.6, TechnicalAnnex 10 The following two safeguard policies are triggered: (i)Environmental Assessment (ii)Forestry Under the main Fadama I1Project, an existing ESMF has been prepared. This will be adopted for the proposed GEF Project and complemented with an environmental and social checklist. The proposed project components will not lead to involuntary resettlement. Management plans will be reviewedby the Bank to ensure that they will achieve a standard for forest management, and are developed with the meaningful participation o f locally affected communities, consistent with the principles and criteria o fresponsible forest management. Significant,non-standardconditions,if any, for: Re$ PAD C.7 Boardpresentation/ Grant effectiveness: There are no anticipated non-standard conditions for Boardpresentation or effectiveness. Covenantsapplicableto projectimplementation: Standard Financial Covenants. - 4 - A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. COUNTRY AND SECTORISSUES 1. Poverty. Nigeria has experienced weak institutions and governance as a result o f a long period o f political instability. With 60 percent o f the 75 million rural population living inabject poverty, overall poverty is pervasive and deep. The majority ofthe ruralpopulation i s directly (or indirectly) dependent on the non-oil natural resource base for their livelihoods, while incomes and productivity in the rural areas are low and stagnant. These issues have been particularly severe in the area o f environmental and natural resources management. To address rural poverty, the Government o f Nigeria has developed an ambitious medium-term plan to achieve a growth rate of greater than 5 percent inthe non-oil economy, through a Na- tional Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), expected to be imple- mentedover the period 2004-2009. 2. The Key Role of Natural Resources. Nigeria i s endowed with abundant natural re- sources and ecological diversity. Natural vegetation reflects the topographic and climatic di- versity. Rainfall gradient, the minimum relative humidity, and the length of the dry season are the predominant influences on vegetation types. Principal vegetation types range from dense mangrove forests o f the Niger Delta and rain forests o f the south, to dry grassland o f the north, and montane grasslands on the Jos and Mambila Plateaux. Soils are largely o f the fer- ruginous tropical type, with alluvial deposits along the major rivers - Niger andBenue. 3. The services provided by Nigeria's natural resource base constitute the only safety net for the rural poor, and serve as the foundation o f the country's economy, including agricul- ture, livestock, water supply, forests, fisheries, and non-renewable energy. Ecological re- sources andprocesses support the Nigerian rural life and the local economy through maintain- ing soil productivity and protection, recycling o f nutrients, cleansing of air and water, and maintenance o f climatic cycles. However, unsustainable land-use practices, over-exploitation of natural resources and weak protected area management, including buffer zones, all pose a serious threat to the maintenance o f ecosystem and habitats as well as rural livelihoods. Over time, deforestation, large-scale landclearing and floodplain encroachment, mainly for agricul- tural production, have resulted in severe erosion, leading to the loss o f valuable top soil and significant siltation o f water bodies and flooding, directly impacting the sustainability o f both the Niger and Benue river systems, and the larger ecosystems and other riparian countries they support. Soil loss threatens the agricultural productivity base o f communities, while floods destroy fields and homes, leaving many ruralpoor vulnerable (see Annex 1for details). 4. The Cost of Environmental Neglect. Sector work carried out as part o f the prepara- tion o f the 1990 World Bank report, Towards the Development o f an Environmental Action Plan for Nigeria (IBRD Report No. 9002-UNI, 1990), noted that land degradation is the coun- try's most serious environmental problem. Three aspects to the problem were identified: soil degradation, affecting 50 millionpeople with an annual impact in excess o f US$3 billion; wa- ter contamination, affecting 40 million people and costing more than US$1billion to correct; - 5 - and deforestation, affecting 50 million people with a loss o f sustainable production from for- est resources worth US$750 million annually. In aggregate, the annual costs o f these sources of environmental degradation were estimated to be as high as US$5 billion (at 1990 prices). Since the country has identified the non-oil sector as the primary focus o f its development priorities, the emphasis on integrated rural development through farming and non-farming activities i s now a key pillar o f the government's poverty reduction strategy. With the in- creased emphasis on agriculture and rural livelihoods, fadama resources have become a major focus o f government policy and programs as well as donor support, including two IDA Cred- its (Report No. 26133 UNI;24507; 9655-UNI; 8646-UNI). (See Annex 1 for details.) 5. GZobaZEnvironment Issues. Nigeria is rich inbiological diversity, many o f which are of global significance, including 24 species o fprimates. Inaddition, 274 mammalian species, 831 species o f birds, 19 species of amphibians and 166 species o f fresh water fish are also found in the country. Existing inventories identify 7,895 plant species, 484 o f which are en- dangered. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the government has committed to sustain- able natural resource management and use (land, water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, and wild flora and fauna) to produce ecosystem services that underpin the existence and welfare of human life. The National Action Program to combat Desertification which was produced by the government in 2001 has reported that between 50 percent and 75 percent o f Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara States in Nigeria are being affected by desertification, whereas 10 percent to-15 percent o f the lands inFederal Capital Territory, Plateau, Adamawa, Taraba, Niger, Kwara and Kaduna states are threatened. The situation is particularly severe in the northern parts o f Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Borno, and Yobe States. Besides the natural phenomenon, poor land management practices and population pressure on marginal lands are identified as major factors disrupting the ecological system. More specifically, four primary causes have beenreported, notably over-exploitation, poor irrigation practices, over-grazing and deforestation. Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are also being explored as well as ways to market emission credits to the global carbon market through the World Bank's Carbon Finance Business.' 6. FadarnaEcosystems. Fadama are floodplains and low-lying areas underlinedby shal- low aquifers. They are found along Nigeria's major river systems includingNiger and Benue rivers, and wetland systems, such as, Hadejia-Nguru. They play an important role in the re- charge o f the shallow groundwater system through infiltration. Prior to their conversion to cultivation, fadama lands supported highly productive natural vegetation consisting o f dense acacia scrubland, open grassland and seasonally or permanently flooded open bodies o f water supporting dense emergent vegetation, including rushes, sedges and reeds. Furthermore, in addition to providing a source o f water and forage for pastoral livestock during dry seasons, fadama lands also supported large and diverse resident or transient wildlife, including herbi- vores, carnivores and migratory birds. ' A ProjectIdeaNote (PIN) was submitted on January 14, 2005 for the Nigeria Mayon Turbo Stove (MTS) Pro- ject which was subsequently approved by the World Bank carbon finance business. Advanced documentation i s currently under preparation. This MTS is likely to be implemented in, although not limited to, the following states: Kogi State, Edo State., Ebonyi State, among others. - 6 - 7. Fadama areas are remarkably different from adjacent uplands interms o f their ecology and microclimate. With an increasing pressure from farmers, pastoralists and fishermen, the impact on the ecology o f fadama areas over the years has been dramatic. The main con- straints to sustainable fadama land management include: (i)the policy of conversion and open access to fadama resources without coherent land use and land management plans at the productive landscape level; (ii)the lack o f awareness o f local communities, and the weak ca- pacity o f extension advisors (through Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs)), whose training and mandate do not incorporate sustainability considerations; (iii) lack o f ade- the quate coordination and integration o fNatural Resource Management policy and strategy at all levels o f government, and the gaps in technical planning at the state and local government levels, particularly, in terms o f the wider watershed management issues where fadama lands are situated; (iv) the institutional barriers, driven by limited capacity o f human, technical, and financial resources; and (v) fundamentally, the lack o f overall understanding o f the interde- pendence between land use and water management, both within and outside o f fadama areas, and the impact of land degradation on ecosystem integrity throughout the larger productive landscape--made up o f land, water, vegetative cover-upon which the rural poor depend. Thus, the incremental or catalyticfunding channeled through the proposed GEF Project will assist primarily in removing constraints that will result in a coherent strategy and strength- ened institutional arrangements to arrest degradation patterns in fadama areas and restore or maintain their ecosystem services, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the Niger and Benue river basins, and beyond. 2. RATIONALE FOR BANKINVOLVEMENT 8. Alignment with the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) focus on poverty reduction. The World Bank's strategic focus for assistance to Nigeria identifies three priority areas where the Bank can contribute to good governance, poverty reduction, and community em- powerment and social inclusion. Poverty inNigeria is widespread and pervasive. While the contribution o f the oil and gas sector to the national economy is quite significant, the benefits are not perceived as being equitably shared with the majority o f the population, and, in par- ticular, the rural poor. Agriculture remains a key vehicle with which to achieve the govern- ment's goals o f reducing poverty inrural areas. 9. To address the rural poverty problem, the Government o f Nigeria has adopted a strat- egy for raising rural productivity and incomes. The strategy rests on five pillars: (a) increas- ing yields; (b) producing higher-value crops and livestock; (c) reducing losses o f crops, live- stock, fish and other fadama products and reducing costs o f producer inputs; (d) strengthening the forward and backward linkages in the rural economy that stimulate investment, employ- ment, and incomes in rural non-farm enterprises; and (e) reducing conflict between various fadama user groups. To achieve these goals, the government will focus on several key activi- ties: investing in infrastructure, reforming agricultural and rural research and advisory ser- vices, enhancing access to rural financial services, and improving mechanisms to avoid and resolve conflicts among resource users. The World Bank is supporting the implementation o f this five-pillar strategy through the Second National Fadama Development Project (Fadama II), includessupportfromtheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF)toaddresslanddeg- which radation issues inthe Fadama ecosystems, with implications andpotential benefits both within - 7 - Nigeria, regionally, and beyond. In addition, the World Bank will bring access to cutting- edge market-based tools and new revenue sources through carbon finance which will add to Nigeria's ability to solve complex, cross-cuttingpoverty and development-related issues. 10. This request for support also takes cognizance o f an already existing GEF support for the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Programme (LEEMP). While the GEF Component o f the LEEMP strictly addresses intervention in four protected areas and their support zones in the country (Yankari National Park, Lame Bura Game Reserve, Mala Dumba Lake and Forest Reserve inBauchi State and Kainji Lake National Park mostly inNi- ger and partly in Kwara states), the Fadama I1GEF support is to address the continual provi- sion o f ecological services for improved fadama production inthe six states o f Bauchi, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Imo and Ogun. As a means o f ensuring complimentarity o f World Bank sup- port, the intervention site for the only overlap state (Bauchi) i s far removed from communities inwhich the LEEMP-GEF is providingsupport. 11. Alignment with Bank and GEF global commitments. Program activities supported by the GEF will focus on policy and institutional strengthening, investments and other interven- tions to address land and water management issues, including loss o f biodiversity and critical ecosystems. The proposed GEF Project will support: (i) strengtheninginstitutional capacity at national, local, and community levels for fadama-related sustainable watershedher basin management; (ii) piloting a fadama ecosystem management approach in at least two water- sheds; and (iii)supporting (using a payment for ecological services approach) the adoption o f livelihood activities that restore or maintain ecosystem functions as well as promoting the adoption o f indigenous sustainable land management practices (as part o f fadama users' local development plans) that enhance the sustainability o f fadama productivity. 12. Thus, while Fadama I1is aimed at poverty reduction, GEF assistance will be instru- mental in enabling Nigeria to maintain the productivity and ecological health o f the fadama resource base, with potential significant impact on the regional and global environment, in- cluding enhanced capacity for managing fadama resources within a river basin and watershed planningcontext; monitoring, and evaluation; information exchange; improved skills to iden- tify andmanage ecologically threatened areas; andsupport for community investments ineco- logical services. While the country and fadama users will no doubt benefit from an enhanced resource base, inthe absence o f GEF support the land and water resources and biological di- versity of regional and global signification will not be addressed strategically and coherently, and, therefore, opportunity to have significant global and regional benefits from an incre- mental investment would be lost. \ 3. HIGHER-LEVEL OBJECTIVESTO WHICH THE PROJECT CONTRIBUTES 13. The proposed GEF Project is consistent with the Country Partnership Strategy which supports: (a) improved service delivery for human development (empowering people and building a social contract; (b) improved environment and services for non-oil growths (pro- moting private enterprise to foster growths o f the non-oil sector); and (c) enhanced transpar- ency and accountability, or better governance (changing the way the government works). The Second National Fadama Development Project will help stimulate poverty-reducing growth in - 8 - the non-oil economy by: (i) financing investments in human and physical capital; (ii) build- ing capacity o f community organizations and government at all levels to deliver services; (iii) improving capacity o f the rural poor to raise their incomes through targeted activities; and (iv) promoting socially-harmonious and environmentally-sustainable management o f natural re- sources. Furthermore, Fadama I1will directly contribute to empowering local communities through its community-driven development (CDD) approach. Also consistent with the on- going reforms/harmonization o f the World Bank-assisted CDD projects in the country, the project is fully mainstreamed into the main Fadama 11, which i s being taken as the vanguard for close-ended CDD projects inthe country relating to productive investments, especially, in the agricultural sector. This differentiates it from the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) and Community Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP), which are within the purview o f open-ended restorative and social fund CDD projects inNigeria. 14. The proposed GEF Project i s consistent with the country's commitment to global envi- ronment conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention to Combat Desertification. Nigeria ratified the UNCCD on July 8, 1997, and CBD and UNFCCC on August 29, 1994. As part o f Nigeria's participation inthe UNCCD, a National Action Program to Combat Desertification was prepared by the Govern- ment o fNigeriain2001. 15. Global Environmental Objectives to Which the Project Contributes. The proposed Project contributes to the overall operational goal o f the GEF focal area on land degradation (i.e,, desertification and deforestation) and to the Operational Program on sustainable land management. Through the partnership between the Government o f Nigeria, IBRD, AfDB, GEF, other bilateral donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and communities, the Fadama I1Project (both the IDA and GEF co-financed) seeks to sustainably increase the in- come o f fadama users - those who depend directly, or indirectly, on fadama resources (farm- ers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters, gatherers, and service providers) - and to enhance the pro- ductivity o f fadama areas and the livelihood systems they support. The GEF support, inpar- ticular, addresses the fadama productivity through sustainable land management practices that enhance fadama ecosystem integrity by restoring watershed functions, stabilizing soil loss, riverbank protections, reducing resource use conflicts and protecting biological diversity. Re- source use conflicts (e.g., land use conflicts) arise usually from unclear land tenure arrange- ments between resource users, such as, between farmers and pastoralists, or between farmers and fishermen. These land tenure-related problems will be addressed through the local devel- opment plans (LDPs) which will be developed by the Fadama Community Associations. The LDPs will explicitly state the measures to sustainably manage fadama resources and resolve conflict among different users. In addition, the proposed Project can also potentially contrib- ute to reducing global emissions o f greenhouse gases, thereby helping to mitigate global cli- mate change. 16. The objective o f the Operational Program (OP) on Sustainable Land Management (SLM) (OP#15) is to mitigate the causes and negative impacts o f land degradation on the structure and functional integrity o f ecosystems through sustainable land management prac- tices as a contribution to improving people's livelihoods and economic well-being. Further- more, the proposed Project contributes to both GEF Strategic Priorities under OP 15: targeted - 9 - capacity building for sustainable land management at the local, state and national level; and implementation o f innovative and indigenous sustainable land management practices, in par- ticular, sustainable agriculture, and forest and woodland management. The activities being cofinanced by IDA, GEF and the government under this Project will contribute towards the achievement o f the goals o f OP 15 and the GEF Strategic Priorities for Land Degradation, in particular, capacity building activities, such as, institutional strengthening for integrated wa- tershed management and capacity building at community level for watershed management, integrated ecosystem management practices, such as, protection o f critical watersheds and improved water management, and community sustainable land management initiatives. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. LENDING INSTRUMENT 17. Full size GEF grant (US$10.03 million), fully integrated with the IDA-supported Fadama I1(US$lOO million IDA Credit, o f which, US$38.67 million is integrated with the GEF grant), and with US$6.91 million cofinancing from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and US$7.61 million government financed. The IDA-supported credit, the cofinanc- ing from AfDB and government contribution have already been approved and are available for financing activities in support o f the beneficiaries who are the same as inFadama 11. (See para 21, page 7 and Table 1, page 9.) 2. PROJECTDEVELOPMENTGLOBAL AND ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVES AND K E Y INDICATORS 18. Project Beneficiaries. While Fadama 11, as a whole, i s aimed at improving the in- comes o f about 2.3 million rural households, whose livelihood depend directly or indirectly on fadama resources in 18 o f Nigeria's 36 states, the GEF intervention would finance the in- cremental costs o f 6 o f the 18 states participating in the Fadama 11, and would target 15 per- cent to 20 percent o f the IDA project target beneficiaries (or, about four hundred thousand (400,000) beneficiaries). Project states (and sites) include: (i) Imo (Oguta Lake); (ii) Kebbi (Jega and Dimbegu); (iii) Kwara (Ajasse-Ipo); (iv) Kogi (Koton Karfe); (v) Ogun (Eriti); and (vi) Bauchi (Andiwa Lake). Thus, inthe areas o f intervention o f the GEF Project, the benefi- ciaries will be the same as those for the Fadama I1Project. Inaddition, the needs o f the com- munities will be expressed usingthe same local development plans as inFadama 11. The local facilitators will also be the same as those facilitating in the case o f Fadama 11. Finally, it is worth noting that the implementing agency o f the Fadama I1Project (the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO)) will also be the implementing agency o f the Fadama I1GEF Project. Thus, clearly, the GEF Fadama I1and the main IDA Fadama I1projects are inti- mately linked. 19. Project Development and Global Environment Objectives. While the development objective o f Fadama I1is to sustainably increase the incomes o f fadama users, those who de- -10- pend directly or indirectly on fadama resources (farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters, gather- ers, and service providers), through empowering communities to take charge o f their own de- velopment agenda, and by reducing conflict betweenfadama users, the global objective of the proposed project is to enhance the productivity of fadama areas and the livelihood systems they support through sustainable land use and water management. These will be achieved through: (a) capacity building for sustainable fadama natural resource management at na- tional, state, local government, and community levels, including strengthening o f institutional capacity for integrated watershed management and community capacity for resource devel- opment planning; (b) integrated ecosystem management in selected watersheds through sus- tainable management of key forest areas, buffer zones, and wetlands, and improved water management; and (c) community sustainable land use management, through support for alter- native land and/or water use activities, and adoption o f indigenous sustainable land manage- mentpractices. Inaddition, the introduction o fthe Mayon stoves will potentially help reduce dependence on fuel-wood and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 20. Performance Indicators. The performance indicators, which are directly relevant to the GEF cofinanced Project and which will be monitored to assess the achievement o f Global Environment objectives, are listed below. These indicators are hrther detailed in Technical Annex 3: (a) By project end, sustainable watershed management coordination capacity estab- lished in at least 60percent of theparticipating states; (b) By project end, sustainable land and water management practices are main- streamed in local development plans in at least 35percent of the FCAs; and (c) By project end, the areas under sustainable land and water management prac- tices in the threepilot sites have increased by at least 80percent. 3. PROJECTCOMPONENTS '21. The Fadama I1Project (including the GEF component) is expected to provide a frame- work for addressing both poverty reduction objectives and the sustainable management o f fadama ecosystems which are vulnerable to unsustainable land use changes and agricultural practices. The Project i s financed through an IDA Credit o f US$38.67 million (already ap- proved as part a US$lOO million credit for Fadama I1 - Credit 3838), a GEF grant o f US$10.03 million, government counterpart funds of about US$7.61 million, and US$6.91 million cofinancing from AfDB, for a total project o f US$63.22 million. The US$10.03 mil- lion GEF contribution (corresponding to 16 percent o f total project cost) will finance the in- cremental cost o fregional and global benefits through the following components (summarized inthe table below, anddetailed inAnnex 4). - 11 - Table 1: Cofinancingby ComponentandPercentages (US$ million) Govt. & Benefi- Indicative Costs IDA AfDB ciaries GEF Financ Financ Financ Financ Component ing % of %of % of Yo of Total ing Total ing Total ing Total A. Capacity Building 22.95 36 17.0 74 3.09 14 I.44 6 1.42 6 B. IntegratedEcosystem Manage- 8.81 14 0 0 0.00 0 4.73 54 4.08 46 ment at the Watershed Level C. Community Sustainable Land 14.05 22 8.35 60 1.30 9 0.44 3 3.96 28 Management D. Project Management, M&E 17.41 28 13.32 76 2.53 15 1.o 6 0.57 3 Total Project Costs 63.22 100 38.67 68 6.91 12 7.61 2 10.03 18 The cofinancing amounts shown above are already included in the approved Credit for the IDA-financed Fadama I1Project and AfDB Loan, and do not represent additional financing. In addition, there exists the potential for additional, externally-sourced financing from the carbon market to mitigate carbon emission. Component 1: Capacity Building (US$22.95million, of which, US$1.42 million financed by GEF) 22. The aim o f this component is to build the capacity o f fadama users and other key stakeholders. While IDA financing (74 percent of the component cost) supports buildingthe capacity o f Fadama User Associations (FUAs) in order to enable them to access project advi- sory services and to invest inproductivity and income enhancement activities, the aim o f the GEF financing (6 percent o fthe component cost) is to enhance the capacity o f different stake- holder groups--including relevant federal, state and local government, NGOs, community based organizations, and fadama users in the six targeted states (Imo, Kebbi, Kwara, Kogi, Ogun, andBauchi) for sustainable landand watershed management. 23. The GEF support is designed to use a coordinated approach in providing specific awareness raising programs, workshops, and technical training to stakeholders. A set of tech- nical and socio-economic tool kits for integrated sustainable land management at the water- shed and fadama levels will be developed, including planningand analytical tools (e.g., Geo- graphic Information System (GIS) for watershed planning and information sharing for gov- ernment officials inkey Natural Resource Management (NRM) agencies; sustainable agricul- tural practices (e.g., tillage, crop mix/rotations, nutrient management, soil and water conserva- tion techniques, river bank protection, for farmers); and sustainable harvest techniques for forest and non-timber forest products and fishing for community members. Inaddition, given the highly fragmented institutional framework for watershed management at all levels inNi- geria, this component includes a review o f federal and state policies and regulations, and sup- port for the development o f a framework for state level coordination and monitoring and -12- evaluation of watershed management activities among key state agencies (environment, agri- culture, forestry, natural resources). Finally, the component includes support for a review o f policies and legislations related to watershed management at the federal level and also a de- tailed ecological assessment o f the GEF intervention (see Annex 4). Component 2: Integrated Ecosystem Management at WatershedLevel (US$8.81million, of which, US$4.08million financed by GEF) 24. This component addresses the technical, social and location-specific activities to im- prove the management o f critical watersheds that ensure fadama productivity and sustainabil- ity in a few (pilot) areas with highpotential for upscaling and replicability. Major activities include strengthening o f existing watershed planning and coordination mechanisms among the relevant state agencies (to complement activities under Component 1); sustainable man- agement o f forest resources for the protection o f fadama areas (especially, supporting the es- tablishment o f community forest reserves in highly degraded and conflict-ridden rain forest and savannah areas); developing a lake management plan for a proposedRAMSAR site; and a study and monitoring activities to understandthe impact of upstream reservoir management and river flow regime on fadama areas. Furthermore, a monitoring plan will be devised to improve the management o f ground water and shallow aquifers in selected fadama areas. This plan complements the IDA credit support which focuses on on-site water quality moni- toring (related mainly to agro-chemical use). Component 3: Community Sustainable Land Management (US$14.05 million, of which, US$3.96millionfinanced by GEF) 25. This component supports a range o f advisory services, training, information sharing, awareness programs, and adoption o f land use practices that will enable fadama users to adopt productivity-enhancing techniques and more profitable marketing, and at the same time en- sure the sustainability of the fadama resource base. While IDA financing (60 percent o f the component cost) finances traditional advisory services, including environmentally friendly practices (particularly, the promotion o f Integrated Pest Management, and irrigation effi- ciency), the aim of GEF financing (28 percent o f the component cost) is to support fadama users, through Fadama Community Associations (FCAs), to adopt sustainable land use and agricultural practices that enhance the structural and functional integrity o f fadama ecosys- tems, and improve rural livelihoods. 26. GEF support will be inthe form o f grant cofinancing, usinga demand-driven approach for two types o f alternative land use practices: (i)land use changes in critical areas, such as, river banks, flood-prone or ground water recharge areas, and forest or natural habitats o f sig- nificant biodiversity values; and (ii) sustainable agricultural practices in fadama areas added to IDA-supported Local Development Plans (LDPs). Inmost cases, interventions inthese ar- eas require management plans across larger landscapes (that may even cross state boundaries) and, therefore, there is the need to get these plans agreed and adopted at a community level and incorporated into the watershed planning process which the project will help develop at the state level through components 1and 2. - 13 - 27. Specific sets o f criteria would be developed for communities to access grant support for activities that promote sustainable land and watershed management. The grants will be disbursed through FCAs and the size o f the grant ceiling will be determined by the cost o f the sub-project. Potential activities that would be supported under this component include: (i) fadama biodiversity conservation; (ii)alternative livelihoods in highly degraded critical fadama areas; (5)energy efficient use o f solid fuels for watershed protection and carbon se- questration; (iv) community woodlots on riverbanks and other degraded areas; and (v) sus- tainable indigenous farming practices (such as, reduced tillage methods, nutrient management, soil and water conservation techniques, efficient pasture and rangeland management, etc.). Component 4: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (US$l7.41 million, of which, US$O.57millionfinanced by GEF) 28. This component focuses on project management mechanisms, includingM&Eplans to implement Fadama 11. While 76 percent o f financing for this component i s through the IDA Credit, GEF financing (3 percent) will support the full integration o f GEF-funded activities into the two mainFadama I1subcomponentsunder this component, while keeping track of the specific inputs, outputs, and impacts o f the GEF activities: (i)Project Management Subcomponent supports strengthening o f the effectiveness and quality o f project operations: (a) at the federal level, the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO) (attached to the Projects Coordinating Unit (PCU) o f the Federal Ministryo f Agriculture andRural Development (FMARD) and re- sponsible for overall project coordination) will include a GEF Desk mannedby a GEF Project Officer; and (b) the State Fadama Development Office (SFDO) (housed at the Agricultural Development Project) will include Environmental Of- ficers (EOs) tasked with the coordination o f the GEF program at the state, local .government, and community levels. (ii)MonitoringandEvaluation Subcomponentwillmeasureperformanceatvarious project milestones, and include three main elements: (a) Management Informa- tion System (MIS) integrating NFDO and SFDO levels with data generated by FCAs; (b) impact evaluations and beneficiary assessments to enhance project im- plementation performance; (c) monitoring o f the project's environmental man- agement plan (EMP), which includes mitigation measures related to agricultural production, processing, and marketing, to be incorporated in LDPs, and institu- tional capacity strengthening in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and In- tegrated Pest Management (PM); and (d) monitoring the Performance o f the GEF activities. 4. LESSONS LEARNED AND REFLECTED INTHE PROJECTDESIGN 29. The key lessons learned from other GEF cofinanced projects and other relevant non- GEF projects (listed inAnnex 2) and which are taken into consideration in the design o f the proposed Project, include: - 14- (a) Country and Stakeholder Ownership: The commitment o f the country i s exemplified by the readiness with which the two major implementingministries (Agriculture and Rural Development and Environment) reached an agreement on the institutional ar- rangement for the Project as well as the competitive recruitment and deployment o f the Fadama GEF Focal Officer from the Federal Ministryo f Environment to the Fed- eral Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Development, implementing the Fadama I1 Project. In the same vein, the broad country-wide stakeholder consultation process adopted and the emphasis on communities' driving the implementation process o f the Fadama I1through the formulation o f LDPs (with assistance by facilitators, and the participation o f a broad spectrum o f stakeholders - communities, local, state and fed- eral government and the private sector, especially NGOs - at various levels of im- plementation) has resulted in the Fadama I1being a National Movement. The will- ingness to contribute a grant o f 941 million by Beneficiary Local Government Au- thorities attests to this highlevel o f commitment at the lowest tier o f governance. (b) Sustainability and Participation: The credible, transparent and inclusive processes o f assessing project resources which entails grassroots (communities) identifying their needs, prioritizing them, requesting for support through a Local Fadama Desk Office and responsible for the management o f approved interventions contained in a Local Development Plan had stimulated local ownership. This involvement o f com- munities (beneficiaries) in the design, implementation and evaluation o f project ac- tivities as well as the involvement o f the lowest tier o f governance, ensures cost- effectiveness and guarantees sustainability. In addition, the stakeholder ownership through financial contribution o f the beneficiary local government will ensure the Project i s well managed and sustainable. (c) Partnerships: Building broad partnerships is essential for a coordinated process to support the long-term sustainability o f fadama ecosystems. A concerted effort was made to identify the institutional and component synergies between the GEF- and IDA-fundedactivities and optimize human and financial resources. (d) Institutional Capacity: Land and watershed management require both technical ca- pacity for spatial and resource planning, and strong institutional coordination involv- ing several government institutions at federal, state and local levels. To ensure sus- tainability and achievement o f project impact, the project design has specifically ad- dressed institutional fragmentation among Nigeria NRM agencies, through mecha- nisms for coordination and cooperation among the stakeholders, and capacity build- ing activities covering bothtechnical and institutional strengthening aspects. (e) Institutional Arrangement: Based on lessons learned from the institutional arrange- ment for the GEF component o f the LEEMP, this Project adopted an institutional ar- rangement that would eliminate the bottlenecks associated therein. The GEF compo- nent o f the LEEMP is being coordinated by the National Parks Service (NPS) with only quality assurance responsibility undertaken by the Federal Program Support Unit (FPSU) of the LEEMP. Although NPS is within the same ministry, coordina- tion i s not as effective as it would have been had the GEF component been fully blended into operations o f the FPSU. The Fadama I1GEF Project uses the same in- - 15 - stitutional arrangement as the IDA-funded Fadama I1Project, thus facilitating project implementation. Project Design: Project outcomes, planning, schedules, and assumptions must be re- alistic, and take into account beneficiaries' needs. National, state, local and commu- nity capacity strengthening must form a key part o f the project design process for sustainable land and watershed management. Fadama I1has made extensive use o f these lessons. The project has learned lessons from the LEEMP project. One im- plementation problem o f the LEEMP Project was due to the delayed implementation o f activities, especially due to delays in approval processes and slow disbursement. The Fadama I1GEF Project will use the same institutional arrangement as the IDA- fundedFadama 11,which has demonstrated good practice indisbursement. Monitoring and Evaluation: The Project has a very well financed and strong moni- toring and evaluation component, including collection o f baseline data, regular moni- toring o f primary indicators, special evaluation studies, beneficiary assessments, and capacity buildingfor data collection and analysis, and GIS and Remote Sensing. Demonstration of Good Practices for Integrated Land and Water Management and Alternative Livelihoods: Addressing land degradation to achieve long-term global environmental benefits not only requires an integrated approach to land and water management at the watershed level (since a number o f natural resources management processes are inter-related both ecologically and spatially), but also a demonstration o f its social and economic viability. Using an integrated ecosystem-based approach to conservation o f natural resources, the GEF contribution to Fadama I1i s designed to promote sustainable land management in fadama areas through a combination of: (i) capacity building activities aimed at providing technical training and analytical capacity, awareness raising, and community participatory development planning; (ii) institutional strengthening, aimed at introducing a framework for integrated water- shed management at state level where critical fadama ecosystems are located; and (iii) foralternativelivelihoodsforon-the-groundchangesinlanduseactivi- support ties aimed at protecting areas o f critical ecological importance, and adopting sustain- able agricultural practices. 5. ANALYSISOFALTERNATIVES While four alternatives were considered for the IDA Fadama I1Project (details o f which are described in the Fadama I1PAD, Report No. 26133 UNI), the main alternatives considered for GEF support were: (i) having no GEF component in IDA Fadama 11; (ii) a stand-alone GEF traditional conservation project, focused on Protected Areas (PAS) in Fadama states supported by IDA; (iii) conservation project with comprehensive coverage; a and (iv) a stand-alone GEF project, focused on sustainable land management in Fadama states. - 16- 31. No Project Option. This option was rejected because the fadama ecosytem represents an economically important and ecologically fragile resource o f regional and global signifi- cance, which is threatened by land use changes and the negative impacts o f land degradation and poor water management. From the lessons o f the first National Fadama Development Project and other projects related to the sustainable management o f the Niger and Benue river systems, the Bank acknowledged the need, beyond mitigation measures stemming from the requirements o f its safeguard policies, to help Nigeria develop the capacity and specific ac- tions on sustainable land management in fadama areas, to preserve and restore their health as well as stabilize the sedimentationo f the water systems linked to them. 32. Traditional Protected Areas Management Project. An earlier design o f Fadama I1 included a GEF-financed component, focused on Protected Area (PA) management and largely disconnected from the core fadama ecosystem issues related to land and water man- agement. The option o f a simpler Protected Areas management component (or stand-alone project) in Fadama states would contribute to biodiversity conservation, but would be totally delinked fom the fundamental development issue addressed by the Fadama I1Project, and that i s the need to improve sustainable land management as a contribution to fadama users' liveli- hoods and economic well being. 33. A Conservation Project with National Coverage. A number o f proposals were sub- mittedby various stakeholders, and considered by the Bank, for addressing the environmental and natural resources issues in Nigeria. The original proposal submitted by the Hadejia- NguruWetland Management Project targeted biodiversity conservation andpromotion o f sus- tainable livelihoods within the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands o f the larger Komadugu-Yobe Basin. Subsequent proposals were submitted for supporting the management o f the Lake Chad Na- tional Park and the desert oases within them. Separate proposals were under preparation by the Conservator General o f the National Parks Service for the Pandam State Park, the Pai River Game Reserve and other reserves inthe semi-aridand dry sub-humid ecological zones. Proposals were also submitted from different interest groups for support in the Niger Delta and the Cross River National Park. It was clear from an institutional perspective that address- ingthe different issues inall o f these ecosystems and ecological zones would be highly chal- lenging and risky. 34. A Stand-alone Project Focused on Sustainable Land Management in Fadama States. The option o f preparing a stand-alone GEF operation, focused on sustainable land management in fadama areas, would have led to significant inefficiencies (management, M&E, consultations, etc.) and over-burdening fadama communities with separate planning processes as well as missing a major opportunity to integrate the issues o f fadama ecosystem health with the issues o f community livelihoods and well being into a single development program. Therefore, the need to mainstream the GEF cofinanced Project with IDA Fadama I1 Project meant that the stand-alone approach be rejected, and that GEF activities be lined up with the main project design in order to contribute directly to the Fadama I1objectives and achieve incremental regional and global environmental benefits. - 1 7 - C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. PARTNERSHIPARRANGEMENTS 35. The Fadama I1 Project i s a partially blended (IDNAfDB-GEF) project involving a partnership between the Federal Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), the Federal Ministry o f Environment (FMEnv), the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO), State Fadama Development Offices (SFDOs), other government agencies - federal and state -involvedinwatershed management, Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and other community members. Therefore, the GEF-supported activities will be implemented in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders that play a key role in the management o f fadama related watershed resources at the state level, including fadama users and government agencies, and would focus on creating a coordination mechanism for strengtheningthis part- nership. 2. INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT 36. The Project will be implemented over six years and implementation arrangements were guided by the following considerations: (i) the needto mainstreamGEF activities on the ground with the IDNAfDB financed activities, and empower local communities; (ii) the need to fully integrate project management and M&E within Fadama 11; (iii) the need to take into account the role o f the Federal Ministry o f Environment in overall coordination, quality as- surance and oversight; (iv) the need to take into account other environmental projects under implementation; and (v) the need to strengthen project ownership through a workable partner- ship between the two main ministries involved inthe implementation, FMARD and FMEnv. 37. Based on the current institutional framework in the sector, and the lessons learned from implementation o f the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and the Local Empowerment and Environment Management Project (LEEMP), the proposed institutional framework for implementation (summarized in a schematic form in Technical Annex 6) i s as follows: (a) Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv). The responsibility o f FMEnv with re- gard to program implementation is to play a coordinating and supervisory role, while the actual implementation will be done through the Fadama I1implementation ar- rangements already in place, but adequately strengthened to take into account the specific nature o f GEF-funded activities as well as its fiduciary and reporting re- quirements. Therefore, FMEnv will play a role at two levels: (i) provide technical implementation support by seconding a high level, competitively selected, technical officer (Fadama GEF Desk Officer) to the NFDO; and (ii)strengthen the main- streaming and implementation o f the GEF component through the added participa- tion o f the Director, Planning, Research and Statistics o f FMEnv, who i s also the GEF Operational Focal Point for Nigeria inthe National Fadama Technical Commit- tee (NFTC). This will also result in expanding NFTC's role to include approval o f the Annual Work Program and Budget, provide policy guidance for the implementa- - 1 8 - tion of the GEF-financed component (especially, the Capacity BuildingComponent), and ensure effective inter-ministerial coordination through the proposed mechanism for integrated watershed management at the national and state levels. At the state level, the State Fadama Development Committee (SFDC) would provide oversight functions through the State WatershedSubcommittee (SWS). (b) National Fadama Development Office (NFDO). As part o f its overall project coor- dination activities, NFDO will also house and coordinate GEF-supported activities through the Fadama GEF Desk Officer (who will be assisted by an M&E Officer, GIS/Operations Analyst and Accounts Supervisor) and will report to the National Program Coordinator o f Fadama I1Project. Inaddition, the Fadama GEF Desk Offi- cer will manage and coordinate all project activities at the national level as well as provide guidance to, and ensure coordination with Environmental Officers in SFDOs. (c) State Fadama Development Office (SFDO). The mainstreaming of the GEF com- ponent into Fadama I1Project will be most important at the state level, where all community-based and on-the-ground GEF interventions and pilot activities will be implemented, complementing IDNAfDB support programs. Thus, the role of the Environmental Officers (EOs), who are already recruited by SFDOs for implement- ing IDNAfDB-financed activities (including, environmental screening and appraisal o f community LDPs, and implementation o f EMPs) will be augmented and strength- ened in order to carry out the added responsibility for GEF implementation at the state level. The State Fadama EO, in conjunction with the State M&E Officer, will also be responsible for monitoring GEF activity implementation at state level, and coordinating with the state agency responsible for leading the development o f a state fadama watershed coordination mechanism. (d) State Watershed Subcommittee (SWS). The capacity buildingand piloting o f an in- tegrated approach to fadama natural resource management within a watershed eco- system context will be done through an SWS, to be established through a Memoran- dum o f Understanding (MOU) among key state natural resource management agen- cies (agriculture, water, forestry, environment). The SWS o f SFDC will serve as the maintool for implementing GEF activities aimed at facilitating the integration o fpri- orities o f different state agencies in charge o f land, vegetative cover, and water man- agement. (e) Local Fadama Development Committee (LFDC). Similar to Fadama I1Project, de- cision making on subproject proposals emanating from communities will be dele- gated to LFDCs, whose membership includes members o f FCAs, representatives o f civil society, and Local Government Authorities (LGAs). The recommendations o f LFDCs will be reviewed at the state level: (i)by SFDOs, for consistency with Fadama I1 objectives and activities; and (ii) EOs, in coordination with SWS. by Where a GEF intervention site extends into a non-fadama LGA and i s considered imperative to extend GEF-supported activities to communities in such an area, the LGA will be sensitized to carry out GEF activities inthe affected communities. Fa- cilitators will be assigned to facilitate the process o f formation o f FCAs and Fadama -19- User Groups (FUGs) within the communities inthe affected areas. The LGA, as it is not a fadama participating LGA, will only benefit from GEF intervention through the affected communities. Inaddition, a local Fadama Focal Officer, who will be a serv- ingofficer inthe LGA,will be appointed to take charge o f GEFmatters inthe LGA. Fadama Community Associations (FCAs). Through the Capacity Building and the Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level components, the proposed Project will support fadama users to adopt livelihood enhancing sustainable land use and agricultural management practices, which cumulatively would enhance the sus- tainability o f fadama ecosystems at watershed level. Therefore, fadama users will play an important role in project implementation through FCAs, other community groups and NGOs. A facilitated demand-driven process, using a positive list and in- tegrated within that o f Fadama I1Project, will be established to select subprojects for GEF financing and focused on the rehabilitation and protection o f ecologically de- graded sensitive areas. It i s the FCAs that will develop socially inclusive Local De- velopment Plans (LDPs) in a participatory manner. With the help o f facilitators, the LDPs will ensure that the needs o f the women and marginalized groups o f people are taken into account and that gender issues are fully mainstreamed in the Project. In addition, the LDPs will explicitly state the measures to sustainably manage fadama resources andresolve conflict among different users. Procurement, Financial Management, and Disbursement. The already established financial management (FM) capacity at NFDO for financial management, procure- ment, and disbursement, strengthened as needed, will be used to implement the GEF program. The Finance Section (FS) o f NFDO will be responsible for managing the financial affairs o f the Project. It will, amongst other things, be responsible for en- suring compliance with the financial management requirements o f the Bank and the government, including submission o f the quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs) and audited annual financial statements to IDA. Regarding flow o f hnds and banking arrangements, GEF will disburse the grant through a Special Account maintained by NFDO using the traditional disbursement method. Inorder to be eli- gible for GEF financing, FCAs will need to establish separate naira accounts. The Internal Audit Section inNFDO will perform modem internal audit functions for the Project. The external audit o f the GEF will be included in the annual audit o f the Project by NFDO and will be submitted to the Bank within six months after year-end. Relevant qualified external auditors have been appointed based on Terms o f Refer- ence acceptable to the Bank to perform these audits. 3. MONITORINGEVALUATIONOFOUTCOMES/RESULTS AND Monitoring and evaluation o f the proposed GEF Project will be fully integrated with monitoring and evaluation o f IDA Fadama I1Project. In addition to monitoring progress against agreed performance indicators by the IDA Fadama 11, the GEF component will in- clude monitoring progress inrelation to the Project's contribution to global benefits. - 20 - 39. The community-driven development approach, which is fundamental to the success o f the overall Project, warrants that an adaptive management framework (informed by regular monitoring and evaluation, mid-term review and final assessment) will be employed. Be- cause o f inadequate detailed data in the project sites, in-depth baseline studies will be con- ducted (immediately after project effectiveness) to provide a socio-ecological characterization of key watersheds, and a baseline for the M&E system, which will use a Geographic Informa- tion System/Remote Sensing (GISRS) tool to collect and analyze data as well as monitor and assess project impact at site level (including watershed/fadama and administrative boundary level). Base maps including land use and surface hydrology for each o fthe project states have already been acquired duringproject preparation, and have been used to delineate GEF inter- vention areas. 40. Progress for each component will be measured by selected agreed indicators. Data for these indicators will be collected from a variety o f sources, including consultancy studies, field visits, FCAs, communities, facilitators, quarterly and annual progress reports, and re- mote sensing information. Data collection will be the responsibility o f the SFDO and the state agencies responsible for watershed management under the leadership o f the agency co- ordinating watershed management at the state level. Regular monitoring would be the re- sponsibility o f the SFDO through the Environmental Officer and the M&E Officer, who will prepare quarterly reports on implementation progress. 41. A Mid-TermReview (MTR) of the Project andits execution will be carried out at the third year of project implementation, and a final evaluationheview at the end o f Project and an Implementation Completion Report (ICR) will be prepared. The project will support a stakeholder ICR review process, wherein, all the major relevant stakeholders will participate to provide input into the Project's findings and develop a sustainability plan for the post- project period. 4. SUSTAINABILITY 42. The sustainability o f project benefits will depend on several factors. The watershed coordination mechanism that will be established at the state level will provide the institutional basis for sustaining project outcomes. Similarly, the establishment o f Local Development Plans (LDPs) under Fadama I1 (using facilitators and NGOs to mobilize communities as FCAs or other user groups) will ensure that community needs, perspectives, and ownership are internalized in LDPs. Moreover, the provision o f resources to strengthen LDPs and adopt sustainable agriculture and land use practices would ensure the availability o f livelihood op- tions that are conducive to the conservation of critical fadama ecosystems. Therefore, it i s anticipated that with the firm commitment by the government to establish a watershed coordi- nating mechanism; provide adequate support for the GISRS facilities, and support alternative livelihood activities by community members, will project benefits be sustained. 43. Recipient Commitment and Ownership. Alternative livelihood activities under the Project are designed to be demand-driven and included in a community development plan. In addition to IDA community financing (inthe form o f capacity building, advisory services, and investment in productive assets), access to GEF grant financing will be based on eligibility -21 - criteria to ensure contribution to the global objective o f the Project as well as evidence o f in- terest inthe activity and ability to sustain the project outcomes after the close o f Project. 44. Financial Sustainability. The project design addresses the issues of financial sustain- ability through support o f demand-driven activities, systematic capacity-building activities, awareness-raising programs and mainstreaming activities with Fadama 11, which includes cost sharing by both government and communities. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the success achieved, as project implementation gets underway, will catalyze communities' adherence to project objectives and adoption o f activities that sustain project outcomes. 45. Replicability. Considering that this approach is new in addressing watershed ecosys- tem management inthe country, a replication plan will beprepared at mid-tem and reviewed by both the project oversight and technical committees. This plan will identify the main les- sons learned and requirements to ensure that the outputs and outcomes o f the Project will be taken up at national, state and community levels. Inaddition, valuable lessons on institutional arrangements for SLM at watershed level as well as successful agriculture and land use prac- tices at community level, that emerge from the Project, will be disseminated nationally, re- gionally, and worldwide through Fadama I1communication and outreach activities. - 22 - 5. CRITICAL RISKSAND POSSIBLECONTROVERSIALASPECTS Table 2: Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures RiskA iessment Risk Rating Mitigation Project financial management risk. Moderate Preparation and follow-up on FMRs and external au- dits. Resource-use conflicts between vari- High A mechanism to sustainably addressresource use con- ous resource users continues. flicts will be explicitly designed and be part o f LDPs. Government does not provide coun- Moderate Clear communication o f benefits and its impacts on terpart funds ina timely manner. National Development Priorities, including capacity building inthe different sectors and project implemen- tation. Inaddition, Fadama I1is a top priority o f deci- sion makers at all levels. Lack o f commitment by government Moderate Substantial training, technical assistance and awareness to establish the coordinating mecha- building will be provided to state and local government nismfor integratedwatershed eco- entities, and will focus on demonstrating the contribu- system management. tion o f integrated watershed ecosystem management to enhancing resource sustainability and economic well- being. The project does not generate Moderate Substantial training, technical assistance, and aware- enough demand from fadama users ness building will be provided to community members to adopt sustainable land use and on livelihood and environmental benefits o f sustainable agriculturalilivelihood activities. land use, biodiversity and natural resource manage- Users may be unwilling to experi- ment. ment with new and unfamiliar ap- proaches to improving fadama land A menuo fproven and environmentally sound agricul- use and sustainable agricultural prac- tural technologies and alternative economic activities, tices. including sustainable land use management andbiodi- versity conservation, will be introduced. Furthermore, provision o f incremental financing will be a major factor inmitigating risks associated with adoption o f new land use activities. Natural disasters that contribute to Low This is outside project intervention. loss o f fadama areas, e.g., flooding, fire. ~_____ Inadequate capacities are available at Moderate Intensivetraining and capacity building with national state level for project implementa- and international consultants, strong commitment o f tion. capable professionals from all sectors. The needed economic and fiscal Moderate Mitigated through Fadama I1and wider sector policy policy environment is inadequate. dialogue. - 23 - 6. LOAN~REDIT CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS 46. An action planhas beenagreedwith FMARD and FMEnv,including: (a) By Board Presentation and Effectiveness There are no anticipated non-standard conditions for Board presentation or effec- tiveness. (b) Legal Covenants Standard Financial Covenants. D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 1. ECONOMIC FINANCIALANALYSES AND 47, The Project's funding, including its cofinancing (national in-kind contributions) and donor-supported parallel funds related to the Project's components, i s summarized below: Table 3: Cofinancingby Component (US$ million) ProjectComponents Cofinancing (including in-kind contribution) GEF Total Project Financing Component 1: CapacityBuilding 21.53 1.42 22.95 Component 2: IntegratedEcosystemManage- mentat the Watershedlevel 4.73 4.08 8.81 Component 3: Community Sustainable Land Management Support 10.09 3.96 14.05 Component 4: ProjectManagementand M& E 16.84 0.57 17.41 Total Project Financing 53.19 10.03 63.22 48. Incremental Costs. The total project cost under the Baseline Scenario, where only the IDA credit and AfDB cofinancing will be implemented, is US$53.19 million, while the total cost under the GEF alternative i s US$63.22 million. The incremental cost under the GEF al- ternative is, therefore, US$10.03 million, corresponding to GEF contribution of 16 percent of - 24 - total project cost. This incremental cost i s offset by an incremental global benefit (roughly estimated) o f US$12.4 million, which would not have been realized inthe Baseline Scenario, and is primarily associated with local sustainable land use by fadama communities, and a strengthened country capacity for addressing integrated land degradation in a watershed con- text. Overall, the GEF alternative will result ina net incremental benefit o f about US$2.4 mil- lion. 49. Cost Effectiveness. The Project's design and scope i s consistent with GEF guidelines, and its development objective corresponds to OP15. The economic, social, and environ- mental benefits of the Project cannot all be estimated. However, usingthe Economic Rate o f Return (ERR) analysis, undertaken for the main IDA-funded Fadama I1Project, and the re- sults o f the incremental cost analysis above, the cost effectiveness o f the Project can be con- servatively estimated. 50. The investments made under the GEF alternative will be determined through a de- mand-driven approach, and, therefore, a priori determination of how resources will be allo- cated is not possible. Therefore, in lieu o f ex ante estimation o f the cost effectiveness o f the specific investment, which is not possible, prototype farm models, based on information from previous and ongoing community-based rural livelihood projects, were used to determine the ERR from productive investments incrop andlivestock enterprises as well as aquaculture and agro-processing. Using a 15-year horizon, and 12 percent opportunity cost o f capital, it was estimated that IDNAfDB investment in Fadama I1(which includes two additional compo- nents for infrastructure investment and pilot asset acquisition support, relative to the GEF al- ternative) would result inan ERR o f 40 percent. Furthermore, assuming that the rate o f return i s roughly proportional to investment amount, the ERR for the GEF alternative would be at least 18 percent. Additional returns from the net benefits associated with the GEF incre- mental costs would lead to an additional return in the order o f 4 percent, resulting in a total ERR for the GEF alternative o f at least 22 percent. Finally, the financial analysis carried out for the main Fadama I1Project indicates an IRR o f 45 percent, resulting from highreturns on prototype productive investments, and, therefore, it i s expected that the financial viability o f investments under the GEF alternative would result ina financial rate o f return also exceeding 25 percent. 2. TECHNICAL 51. The Project includes a number o f capacity building activities, for both government agencies and fadama community members, which include review of policies and regulations, strategic and baseline studies, GISRemote Sensing, awareness programs, training in sustain- able landuse planning, watershed management, sustainable agricultural practices, surface and groundwater management infadama catchments, the role o f wetlands andbuffer zones as well as sustainable forest management. All these activities will be designed and undertaken by highly qualified professionals (both national and international), thus ensuring a highlevel o f technical soundness and quality assurance. Inaddition, the sustainable land management and agricultural practices, which will be adopted by fadama communities, will be designed by technical professionals and will be based on "best practice" both inNigeria and elsewhere. - 25 - 52. Furthermore, the STAP Review process, which focuses on the scientific and technical soundness o f the Project, was undertaken and through the incorporation of the STAP Review- ers' comments it contributed to strengthening the overall technical quality o f the project de- sign. 3. FIDUCIARY Financia1Management Arrangements 53. Since the GEF activities are fully integrated within Fadama 11, the financial manage- ment arrangements for Fadama I1 at NFDO will be used. A recent FM supervision o f the NFDO identified internal control weaknesses and inadequate staffing o f the internal audit sec- tion. Therefore, current arrangements at NFDO will be strengthened in order to enable it to handle the additional GEF-financed activities. This will involve training o f accountants and internal auditors in Bank procedures and developing an addendum to the NFDO Financial Procedures Manual (FPM). (Details of the arrangement and actions to strengthen the FM ar- rangement are provided inAnnex 7.) 54. Procurement. The procurement capacity o f the implementingagency, which will im- plement the GEF-cofinanced project component, is considered satisfactory. NFDO has gained experience duringthe implementation o f the IDA Fadama I1Project, and the last Post- Procurement Review o f June 2004 showed that there are adequate procurement capacities at both the federal and the state units. The Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU), established at the Presidency, has submitted approval and payment o f contracts at the federal level to a strict due process review, which is in accordance with Bank financed procurement procedures. This has strengthened procurement discipline. Moreover, the pro- curement environment o f the Federal Government o fNigeria (FGN) has improved when FGN was accorded an IDF Grant to help launch the procurement reform at the federal level. BMPIUhas prepared and submitted to Parliament aprocurement law, andthe government has issued circulars to establish procurement units in government agencies and create a procure- ment cadre. 55. The risk arising from the outside environment is assessed as high, based on the 2000 Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA). A review o f the implementation of CFAA recommendations in January 2005 revealed that substantial reforms have been imple- mentedover the last two years andthat although muchstill needs to be done, the impact o fthe reforms has been positive. The review noted that the fiduciary assurance environment inFGN remains weak. Given such an environment, strong internal control i s required and this can be achieved by strengthening the project financial management. The control risks arising from the Project are assessed as moderate. Provided the capacity strengthening actions specified in Annex 7 are implemented, the overall project financial management risk is assessed as mod- erate. - 26 - 4. SOCIAL 56. Several social issues, which have been identified as key implementation challenges in the on-going Fadama 11, were integrated into the project design. The main issues include: better understanding o f the implementation functions; roles and responsibilities o f various stakeholders, especially, LGAs and NGOs; community needs and priorities; community par- ticipation and willingness to contribute counterpart funds; the nature o f socially-inclusive par- ticipatory process o f preparing LDPs, which would be the basis for disbursement at the com- munity-level; the gender balance imperative; conflict management principles; mainstreaming public health issues, e.g., infectious disease, such as, HIV/AIDS prevention and control; and communication strategy and information sharing about the technical aspects o f the Project, notably the CDD-approach and demand-responsiveness in service delivery. The Project will provide positive social and economic impacts (which are currently lacking) by building the capacity o f key government agencies and communities in watershed management and land use planning, and involving fadama users in the adoption o f sustainable land use and agricul- tural practices intheir localities. Buildingupon the public involvement and consultations dur- ing project preparation, stakeholder participation will continue throughout project implemen- tation by engaging a range o f stakeholders, such as, community-based organizations, local authorities, private sector, academic institutions, and NGOs inthe execution o f project activi- ties. 57. Community-based activities will include capacity and awareness building initiatives, outreach and micro-grants to support sound natural resource management practices. The al- ternative livelihood activities in the Community Sustainable Land Management Component specifically target local communities in the selected critical fadama areas through demand- driven interventions. This component will follow the model already established throughout Fadama 11, and which requires a highly consultative and inclusive process o f sensitization and social mobilization, leading to the formation o f FCAs, whereby, FCAs formulate their own demands, decide on who provides these services and actually purchase the delivered services through the preparation o f LDPs inorder to access project resources. 58. In cases where critical areas (e.g., river banks, wetlands, highly degraded or erosive lands) that need improved management are not already covered by an LDP, a similar process of social mobilization will be used to get fadama users in these areas to develop a demand- driven planning process to access project resources in order to adopt more sustainable land use practices. It is important to note that with support from local specialists and NGOs, pro- ject activities at the community level will largely be implemented by local stakeholders, who will also be actively involved in the evaluation o f their outcomes and lessons learned. Fre- quent workshops at the local, national and regional levels will serve as tools for broad partici- pation o f various stakeholders inthe decision-making process on effective integrated land and water management. 59. Lessons learned so far in the implementation o f Fadama I1Project have also been re- flected in this Project, for instance, a series o f consultative workshops involving affected stakeholders in the Fadama areas were organized to define the roles and functional mecha- nisms for effective implementation participation. The network o f trained facilitators that - 27 - would be deployed inthe communities would result ineffective impact on the ground through meetings with communities and LGAs. The facilitators would build on local methods of par- ticipatory development by reaching Fadama communities about new methods of participatory approaches to common development. Furthermore, the Project will provide support for an HIViAIDS education and outreach program to address the needs o fthe local population inthe project area. Finally, access to training and other project capacity building activities will be done through a transparent process of candidate selection, based on criteria agreed upon be- tween government agencies and communities involved. 5. ENVIRONMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORY:B(PARTIALASSESSMENT) 60. This section summarizes the steps undertaken for environmental assessment and envi- ronment management plan preparation (including consultation with a broad stakeholder groups and disclosure o f EMP), and the significant issues and their treatment emerging from the analysis. 61. The environmental benefits o f the proposed GEF-cofinanced Second National Fadama Development Critical Ecosystem Management Project are expected to be largelypositive and significant. For the Fadama I1Project, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared, based on a regional assessment o f key fadama-related social and envi- ronmental issues. The ESMF outlined the institutional and technical arrangements for envi- ronmental and social impact management o f all potential project activities. Inparticular, the ESMF i s linked to a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and a Pest Management Plan (PMP). 62. Unlike the Fadama I1Project, which was classified as Category A (under OP/BP/GP 4.01) mainly because o f potential conflicts among fadama users (especially between farmers andpastoralists) and based on lessons learned through the first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), the proposed GEF-cofinanced Project i s classified as Category B. The Pro- ject does not involve infrastructure or any form o f land acquisition or restriction o f liveli- hoods. Furthermore, the potential negative impacts o f on-the-ground project activities (e.g., reduced tillage, rotations, field-level soils and water conservation practices, buffer zone woodlots) will be minor, and significantly outweighed by expected positive environmental benefits, which i s typical o f a category Bproject. 63. On the basis o f the above, and given the integratednature o f the GEF-financed activi- ties in the Fadama 11, the Project will adopt the existing activity screening and environmental mitigation process of the ESMF, to which will be added an environmental and social screen- ing checklist to cover the incremental GEF activities. Furthermore, and although it is antici- pated that project activities will not lead to land acquisition or restriction o f access to land or natural resource based livelihoods, as a precautionary measure the existing RPF (designed for Fadama 11) will also be adopted by the Project. Finally, the existing ESMF and RPF were both disclosed in-country and at Bank's Infoshop. The additional environmental and social screening checklist will be incorporated inthe PIM. - 28 - 64. What are the mainfeatures of the EMP and are they adequate? The mainfeatures o fthe ESMFis an outline o fthe potential environmental and social impacts o f the Project, the mitigation measures required, the management responsibilities, and the cost associated with its implementation. These measures have been integrated into the existing ESMF to ensure that they are reflected in the LDPs. Institutional strengtheningwill be pro- vided to participating government agencies and NGOs/Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to build capacity for identification, monitoring, and managing social and environ- mental impacts associated with Fadama development. 65. For Category A and B projects, timeline and status o f EA: Date o f receipt of final draft: October 2002 How have stakeholders been consulted at the stage of (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EA report on the environmental impacts and proposed environmental management plan? Describe mechanisms of consultation that were used and which groups were consulted? 66. The ESMF was prepared by local consultants, based on reports from the field and findings from different preparation and pre-appraisal missions and consultation with a range of stakeholders. Bank procedures and guidelines for environmental and social impact assess- ment have been shared during consultations with key stakeholders (fanners, pastoralists, fish- ers, other fadama users, universities, NGOs and government officials) at the stakeholders' workshop held in August 2000 in Abuja. A training program was implementedin June 2001 for ADP, PCU and staff o f the FMEnv to raise awareness o f public consultations inthe envi- ronmental assessment process. 67. Inaddition, a set of stakeholder workshops (one national, andthree regional covering all fadama states) focused on ecological issues in fadama areas were held from October- December 2004. These workshops provided the basis upon which terms o f reference for the study "Socio-Ecological Assessment o f Critical Fadama Ecosystems" were prepared. More- over, an additional stakeholder workshop was held in M a y 2004 to finalize the design o f the GEFProject. 68. Finally, the ESMF, WF and the PMP were disclosed both at the national level and in the Fadama participating states for the IDA-Fadama 11. The safeguard documentation was disclosed in-country for the main Fadama I1Project in 2003. For Fadama I1GEF, P C U re- leased a "Public Notice: Addendum" on EIA, which was issued on May 27,2005, inthe daily PUNCH o f Nigeria notifying the public on the availability o f the safeguard documentation from the same locations when first announced on M a y 5, 2003, for the IDA Fadama I1Pro- ject. What mechanisms have been established to monitor and evaluate the impact of the project on the environment? D o the indicators reflect the objectives and results of the EMP? 69. Project impact on the environment will be monitored during implementation using in- dicators that reflect the objectives and results o f the Project. Responsibility for the implemen- - 29 - tation o f the EMP resides with the NFDO. Monitoring compliance i s part o f the EMP and i s an integral element of the responsibilities of each o f the entities involved. Simplified guide- lines, including a checklist integrated into the existing ESMF, will form the basis for the EA instrument. Capacity will be built at the state and local levels to monitor and measure the en- vironmental impacts o f project activities. Monitoring arrangement was finalized during ap- praisal and is reflected inthe PIM. 6. SAFEGUARD POLICIES Are any of thefollowing safeguard policies triggered by theproject? Policy Applicability Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) 0 Yes o N o oTBD Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) o Yes 0 N o oTBD I PestManagement Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) 0 Yes oNo oBD (OP 4.09) o ~ e s 0 N o oTBD Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) o ~ e s 0 N o oTBD G o u s Peoples(OD 4.20) IIIo ~ e s 0 N o oTBD 11I I - I I Involuntary Resettlement (OD 4.12) o Yes 0 N o oTBD Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) o Yes 0 N o oTBD - ProjectsinInternational Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) @ N o oTBD I Projects in o Yes Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60) 1 o ~ e s 0 N o oTBD I Describeprovisions made by theproject to ensure compliance with applicable safe- guard policies. 70. Under the main Fadama I1Project, an existing ESMF has been prepared. This will be adopted for the proposed GEF Project and complemented with an environmental and social checklist. The proposed project components will not lead to involuntary resettlement. Man- agement plans will be reviewed by the Bank to ensure that they will achieve a standard for forest management, and are developed with the meaningful participation of locally affected communities, consistent with the principles and criteria o f responsible forest management. 7. READINESS 71. Does the Project comply with all applicable Bank policies? Yes. 72. Have any policy exceptions been approvedby management? Not Applicable. - 30 - TechnicalAnnex 1: Country and Sector/ProgramBackground Introduction Country and Sector Issues Country Issues 1. Because o f a long political instability in the country, Nigeria has experienced weak institutions and governance issues. These issues are particularly severe in environmental and natural resources management areas. Poverty i s pervasive: 75 million people live inthe rural areas, o f which, 60 percent are considered to be living in absolute poverty. The majority o f the rural population is directly (or indirectly) dependent on the non-oil natural resource base for their livelihoods. To address rural poverty, the Government o f Nigeria has established an ambitious plan to achieve a growth rate o f greater than 5 percent inthe non-oil economy. 2. The majority o f the poorest people inNigeria dependdirectly on natural resources for their livelihood. In addition, the society and the national economy also depend on services provided by natural resources. These services are the foundation o f Nigeria's economy - agri- culture, livestock, water supply, forests, fisheries, and non-renewable energy. Ecological processes support Nigerian rural life and the local economy through maintaining soil produc- tivity and protection, the recycling o f nutrients, the cleansing o f air and water, and mainte- nance o f climatic cycles. At the genetic level, diversity found innatural life forms support the breeding programs necessary for the improvement o f cultivated plants and domesticated ani- mals to enhance food supply and security. Wild flora forms the basis o f a very significant pharmacological industry and the traditional use o f medicine for human and livestock needs as well as other non-timber forest products critical to local communities. 3. However, unsustainable land-use practices, over-exploitation o f natural resources and weak protected area management, including buffer zones, all pose a serious threat to the maintenance o f ecosystem and habitats. InNigeria, the links between poverty and natural re- source management are very clear. Large-scale land clearing results in serious erosion and soil loss into rivers, which in turn causes mass-scale river siltation and flooding. Soil loss threatens the agricultural productivity base o f communities, while floods destroy fields and homes, leaving manyrural poor vulnerable. Sector Issues 4. Nigeria occupies 923,773 Km2o f land with a coastline that extends about 960 Km along the Atlantic Ocean. It is endowed with abundance natural resources and ecological di- versity. Natural vegetation reflects the topographic and climatic diversity. Rainfall gradient, the minimum relative humidity, and the length o f the dry season are the predominant influ- ences on vegetation types. Principal vegetation types range from dense mangrove forests of the Niger Delta and rain forests o f the south, to dry grassland o f the north, and montane grass- lands on the Jos and Mambila Plateau. Soils are largely o f the ferruginous tropical type, with alluvial deposits along the two major rivers - Niger and Benue. -31 - 5. The nation is rich in biological diversity, many o f which are of global significance, including 24 species o f primates. In addition, 274 mammalian species, 831 species of birds, 19 species o f amphibians and 166 species o f fresh water fish are also found in the country. Existing inventories identify 7,895 plant species, 484 o f which are endangered. Many o f these plant species include wild relatives o f important domestic species, medicinal plants, and other plants o f economic value. The use o f medicinal plants has also been endorsed by gov- ernment inits Health Strategy and National Action Plan. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the gov- ernment has committed to sustainable natural resource management and use (land, water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, and wild flora and fauna) to produce ecosystem services that un- derpin the existence and welfare o f human life. The National Action Program to combat de- sertification, which was produced by the government in 2001, has reported that between 50 percent to 75 percent o f Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara states inNigeria are being affected by desertification, whereas, 10 percent to 15 percent o f the lands in Federal Capital Territory, Plateau, Adamawa, Taraba, Niger, Kwara and Kaduna states are threatened by desertification. In these areas, population pres- sure resulting in over-grazing and over-exploitation o f marginal lands has aggravated deserti- fication and drought. Entire villages and major access roads have been buried under sand dunes in the extreme northern parts o f Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Borno, and Yobe states. Be- sides the natural phenomenon, poor land management practices and population pressure on marginal lands are identified as major factors disrupting the ecological system. More specifi- cally, four primary causes have beenreported, notably over-exploitation, poor irrigation prac- tices, over-grazing and deforestation. 6. Sector work carried out as part o f the preparation o f the World Bank report, Towards the Development o f an Environmental Action Plan for Nigeria (IBRD Report No. 9002-UNI, 1990), noted that land degradation i s the country's most serious environmental problem. Three aspects to the problem were identified: soil degradation, affecting 50 million people with an annual impact in excess o f US$3 billion; water contamination, affecting 40 million people and costing more than US$1billion to correct; and deforestation, affecting 50 million people with a loss o f sustainable production from forest resources worth US$750 million an- nually. Inaggregate, the annual costs o f these sources o f environmental degradationwere es- timated to be as high as US$5 billion (at 1990 prices). Therefore, natural resource base, in particular, land and water resources, is the major buildingblock for integrated rural sector de- velopment inNigeria. Since the country has identified non-oil sector as the primary focus o f its development priorities, emphasis on farming and non-farming activities have emerged no- tably in the government's agenda. With the increase emphasis on agriculture, fadama lands have become major focus o f the government. Fadama Lands 7. Fadamas are low-lying floodplain areas underlined by shallow aquifers. They are found along Nigeria's major river systems, including Niger and Benue rivers, and wetland systems, such as, Hadejia-Nguru. They play an important role in the recharge o f the shallow groundwater system through infiltration. Prior to their conversion to cultivation, the fadama lands supported highly productive natural vegetation consisting o f dense acacia scrubland, open grassland and seasonally or permanently flooded open bodies o f water supporting dense - 32 - emergent vegetation, includingrushes, sedges and reeds. It provided source o f water and for- age for pastoral livestock during dry season. It also supported large and diverse resident or transient wildlife, including herbivores, carnivores and migratory birds. 8. Fadamas are remarkably different from adjacent uplands interms o f their ecology and microclimate. Since they are low-lying flood prone, slow-draining areas, they generally pos- sess finer texture and less acid soils. With an increasing pressure from farmers, pastoralists and fishers, effect on ecology has been dramatic. Furthermore, lack o f vegetation cover, ex- tensive agriculture practices, construction o f dams, management o f reservoir, and competing land uses, includinghaphazard use of landfor brick making cottage industry, land degradation has emerged as one of the major natural resource management issues infadama lands. 9. Therefore, to preserve the productive capacity o f fadama lands and to make the fadama resources equitably accessible to different user groups, a long-term sustainable land and water resource management regime i s critical. The Second National Fadama Develop- ment Project, financed by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility contributes to the sustainable management o f productive capacity o f fadama lands through the community- driven development (CDD) approach (for further information, check Bank approved PAD for Fadama I1Project, Report No. 26133 UNI). Hydrologic and Socioeconomic Context Rainfall and Drought 10. Based on the climatic and ecological characteristics, Nigeria consists o f three broad eco-regions: Southern Belt o f coastal/forest zone; Middle Belt o f savanna zone; andNorthern Belt o f SuddSahel zone. The Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (as part o f Fadama I1 preparation (IDA-funded)) and the Identification o f Critical Ecosystems (GEF PDFB-funded) indicate that these eco-regions can be further subdivided according to the cli- matic and vegetation types. The vegetation types correspond to different ecological zones: (a) the semi-arid zone, where rainfall is erratic and less than 250 mmper year; (b) the dry sub- humidzones, which lie south o f the semi-arid zone with an average annual rainfall from 250 mmto 500 mm; (c) the humidzone, where average rainfall is between 500 mmto 1500mm; (d) the very humidand plateau zones, where the wet season lasts about 6 months and average annual rainfall i s about 1000mm; and (e) the coastal zones, which have a wet season that lasts 10 or 11months with two peak rainfall climatic regime. Each o f these is further sub-divided into sub-zones based on differences in floral species composition. For example, the coastal zone (also sometimes referred to as the tropical rainforest zone) is divided into three sub- zones: (i) mangrove forest (salt water swamp) occurring inthe Niger Delta and along the At- lantic coast o f Nigeria; (ii) fresh-water swamp forests in river valleys; and (iii)lowland rain- forest found further inland. 11. Soil texture in the different ecological zones range from sandy and sandy-clay, loamy and sandy-loams and riverine alluvium. Over 5,103 species o f higher plants have been identi- fied throughout these regions as well as a wide array o f animal species that includes over 247 species o f mammals alone. These include some o f the world's more unique species, such as, - 33 - the West African Manatee, Pygmy Hippopotamus, Western Hartebeest, West African Bush Elephant, Wild Dog, Giant Eland, and 24 species ofprimate. Inaddition to these rare and dis- tinct mammals, Nigeria has recorded over 885 species o f birds, 900 species o f fish, more than 109 species o f amphibians, and over 135 species of reptiles. Socioeconomic Situation 12. Incomes and productivity in rural areas are low and stagnant. The rural sector em- ploys about 70 percent o f the country's labor force, generates one-third o f its gross domestic product (GDP) and accounts for about 5 percent o f its total exports. However, about 70 per- cent o f the rural population remains poor. Malnutrition and infant mortality rates are still high and rural incomes are lower today than they were twenty years ago. Underlying this trend i s the basic problem that the value added per capita in agriculture and animal husbandry has grown at less than one percent per year for at least fifteen years. 13. The farming systems are predominantly upland subsistence agriculture that are highly dependent on the vagaries o f the weather, while the potential for irrigation, usingunderground and surface waters, remain underdeveloped. The average irrigated area per rural household o f six is less than one hectare and 90 percent o fthe farms have less than two hectares o f irrigated land. Farmers use the remainder o f their holding to diversify their production, by cultivating rainfed crops, raising livestock, and producing fish. Agricultural production techniques have remained rudimentary despite many years o f work on technology generation and transfer. Major crops produced by fadama farmers are okra, yam, sweet potato, cassava, tomatoes, on- ions, garden eggs (eggplants), rice and beans. The farmers also produce fruits, such as, man- gos, guavas, bananas, sugarcane andplantain, to supplement their income from farming. 14. Inaddition to the farming communities, fadama lands are also usedbypastoralists and fishers. In some areas, urbanization has encroached fadama lands and demand for land use has seen stiff competition between farmers, pastoralists, fishers and cottage industrialists, in particular, brick makers. The increased competition has had severe impact on land and water resources management, resulting in degradation o f land, siltation inrivers and lakes, and de- pletion o f groundwater. Furthermore, the competing use has resulted in a steady growth in conflict between different user groups, some o fwhich were violent, resultingindeath and loss of farm products and infrastructure. Key Sector Issues 15. The main sector issues include: (a) Inadequate land and water managementpolicyframework; (b) Inadequate institutional capacity; (c) Lack of coordination mechanism among key government agencies; and (d) Degradation of renewable resources, includingforest, surface water and ground water. - 34 - Sector Issues to be Addressed by the Project 16. The main issues to be addressedinclude: (a) Enhancing existing capacity at national, state and local level: Strengthened na- tional, state and local capacity to address the key sector issues and sustainable re- source management. Furthermore, the proposed Project aims to raise awareness at the community level about watershed management and impacts on fadama productivity. The Project will provide trainings, workshops and toolkits to all the major stakeholder groups at the targeted sites about land and water resource man- agement, better farmingpractices and sustainable use o f renewable resources. (b) Improving institutional mechanisms and coordination among key line ministries and departments: Consorted and coordinated approach to watershed manage- ment is crucial for alleviating land degradation and, therefore, improving fadama productivity. Since a watershed comprises o f different natural resources, includ- ing forest, land and water, the managemento f it rests on cooperation by different government agencies and ministries at the federal and state level. The proposed Project aims at establishing a coordination framework for responsible state agen- cies to jointly address the watershed management issues. (c) Providing alternative livelihood opportunities that enhance sustainable manage- ment of watershed to ensure fadama productivity: Sustainable management o f resource base at the watershed level inthe fadamas depends on farming and non- farming practices by the communities. With the technical information and grant opportunities, farmers and other resource users will be encouraged to adopt ac- tivities that enhance integrity o f the ecosystem and maintain ecosystem services. Since the Project applies a CDD approach, it aims to encourage indigenous sus- tainable land and water resource management practices for the protection o f criti- cal watersheds and promotion o f sustainable land use management in the targeted fadama areas to alleviate pressures from marginal lands and critical ecosystems. - 35 - TechnicalAnnex 2: Major RelatedProjectsFinancedby the Bank and/or Other Projects 1. The GEF, World Bank, UNDP and bilateral donors have provided support to the Government ofNigeria to address key issues o f global and national importance, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, international waters and desertification, which Nigeria has identified as priorities for the country. Lessons learned from these activities and from projects in other countries in Africa have been considered in the design and preparation o f the GEF component o fFadama 11. Some o f these include: Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Program (LEEMP), which aims to: (a) strengthen the policy and regulatory framework for envi- ronmental management at the Federal level; (b) strengthen the institutional framework for environmental management and, inparticular, the capacity for environmental impact assessment at the state, local and community level in9 participating states; (c) strengthen protected area and biodiversity manage- ment in two o f these 9 states (Bauchi and Niger). The protected areas are Yankari, Kainji Lake National Parks, Lame Burra Game Reserve, and Ma- landumba Forest Reserve; and (d) support community investments to pro- mote sound natural resources management inthe six target states. National Environmental Action Plan for Nigeria (NEAP), which was fi- nanced by the World Bank. This report publishedin 1990 formed the basis for the country National Environmental Policy, Nigerian Agenda 21 and the design o f the World Bank-funded Nigeria Environmental Management Pro- ject. Nigeria Environmental Management Project (NEMP), which was funded by the World Bank, essentially supported buildingo f capacity at the federal and state levels for environmental management. Towards an Environmental Development Strategyfor the Niger Delta. The World Bank also supported the government incarrying out an environmental assessment o f the Niger Delta. The positive results o f these initiatives were largely lost due to the difficult political situation in the country during the late 1990s. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The Government o fNigeria has made the conservation o f biodiversity a national priority, thus the formu- lation o f this strategy and action plan, which would soon be adopted. The Strategy aims to: (a) improve conservation through the national system o f protected areas; (b) promote sustainable use o f biological diversity through improved management; and (c) mainstream both conservation and sustain- able use into decentralized development by means o f an integrated approach to land use planning at the local level. The following actions are prioritized inthe strategy: (i) protection of ecosystems, especially watersheds, fresh the -36 - water systems and tropical high forests; (ii) improving yields o f both indige- nous and exotic species facing higheconomic demandto sustain their supply as well as protect their substitutes; (iii) managing the fragile soils to provide conditions conducive to the perpetuation o f species of economic, medicinal and genetic conservation value; (iv) regulating and purifyingwater flow and protecting valley forests and wetlands; (v) maintainingconditions vital to the sustenance of protected areas and fragile habitats that threaten species used for breeding and feeding; and (vi) enhancing the efficiency o f biodiversity resource use to reduce their exploitation rate. (f) National Health Strategy and Traditional Medicinal Plants. Nigeria's Na- tional Health Strategy highlights the importance o f medicinal plants and tra- ditional health systems. One o f the key objectives i s to integrate safe and regulated traditional medical practices into the national health system. The strategy aims to promote research into the propagation o f traditional medici- nal plants, in-situ and ex-situ conservation and promotion o f medicinal plants, promote safe practices and greater collaboration between public and private healthproviders. (8) National Fadama Development Project. Inorder to address the rural poverty inNigeria that is a direct cause ofincreasing deforestation andunsustainable agricultural practices, the World Bank assisted the Government o f Nigeria to implementthe first IDA-fundedNationalFadama Development Project from 1993 - 1999, focusing on the development o f low-lying alluvial flood plains or "fadama" inHausa language, for irrigation. The National Fadama Devel- opment Project aimed to: (a) privatize drilling; (b) construct fadama and ac- cess roads and marketing infrastructure; (c) simplify drilling technology for shallow tube wells, conduct aquifer studies and upgrade irrigation technolo- gies; (d) organize fadama farmers for irrigation management, cost recovery and better access to credit, marketing and other services; and (e) complete a full environmental assessmento ffuture fadamadevelopment. (h) Lake ChadBasin Management Initiative. This proposed GEF/UNDP/World Bank initiative will complement the Fadama GEF activities. For example program initiatives in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands to promote restoration o f degraded or threatened areas; agro-forestry, in-situand ex-situ conservation o f biodiversity, wild species, and medicinal plants; and ecologically sustain- able livelihoods, will complement the hydrology and integrated water man- agement programs to be implemented under the Lake Chad Basin initiative. (i)Management The proposed Second National Fadama Development Critical Ecosystem Project (Fadama 11CEMP) aims at enhancing conservation o f the critical network o f wetlands required by migratory waterbirds on the Af- ricadEurasian Flyways. This initiative seeks to improve the conservation status o f AfricadEurasian migratory birds by enhancing and coordinating measures taken by GEF eligible countries to conserve the critical network o f wetland areas that these birds require to complete their annual cycle. -37 - 2. The program will also draw lessons from the GEF-supported Ghana Northern Sa- vannah Biodiversity Conservation Project, which aims to improve the livelihood and health o f communities inthe northern savanna zone o f Ghana through promoting sustain- able use and conservation o f natural resources using ecosystem-based approaches. The program will also build on the knowledge, lessons learned and implementation experi- ence o f biodiversity management programs in Cote d'Ivoire (from National Protected Area Management Program (PCGAP - Projet Communautaire de Gestion des Aires Pro- tegees)) and Burkina Faso (from West Africa Pilot Community-based Natural Resources and Wildlife Management Project (GEPRENAF - Gestion Participative des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune)) as well as innovative programs, such as, the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project, Maluti DrakensburgTransfrontier Conservation Man- agement Program of South Africa and the Mulanji Mountain Conservation Program o f Malawi. - 38 - TechnicalAnnex 3: Resultsand MonitoringFramework A. ResultsandMonitoringFramework Project Development/ Global Environment Outcome Indicators Objectives Project Development objec- (a) B y end of project, 50 percent of YR1-YR6: Government maintains its tive of Fadama I1i s to sus- fadama resource users benefiting commitment to a policy o f decentraliza- tainably increase the incomes from the project have increased tion. 3 f fadama users -- those who their average real incomes by 20 iepend directly or indirectly percent compared to baseline.. (See YR1-YR6: Sectoral and economic 3nfadama resources (farmers, Note (I)on page 38.) framework enables profitable Fadama pastoralists, fishers, hunters, enterprises. gatherers, and service provid- (b) B y end of project, 60 percent of ers) through empowering the FCAs have successfully imple- YR1-YR5: Needed investments are communities to take charge o f mented their LDPs and other pro- made inroads and other marketing in- their own development ject-funded activities using envi- frastructure. agenda and by reducing con- ronmentally sustainable and so- flicts between them. cially inclusive practices. (See Note YR1-YR4: FCAshave the capacity to (2) on page 38.) screen the projects and enforce the envi- ronment guidelines that are part o f (c) By year 6, conflict between fadama EMP. users has beenreduced by 50 per- cent. YR1-YR4: Members o f various user (Detail of PDO and relatedproject de- groups/ FCAs and government Fadama development groups have the capacity sign in Fadama 11Project PAD ap- and the commitment to ensure that all proved by theBank Board in 2003 - groups are included indecision-making Report No. 26133 UNI) and participate inproject planningproc- esses. Global Environment objec- (i)Byprojectend,sustainablewater- YR1-YR6: Government remains com- tive: Productivity o f fadama shed management coordination ca- mitted to sustainable land and water areas and the livelihood sys- pacity established in at least 60% o f management. tems they support are en- the participating states. hanced through sustainable YR1-YR4: Critical ecosystems man- land and water management (ii)Byprojectend,sustainablelandand agement is fully integrated and main- (SLWM) for fadama users in water management practices are streamed into the project. the six targeted states. adopted by the key beneficiary groups through the local develop- ment plans inat least 35% o f FCAs. (iii) projectend,areaundersustain- By able land and water management practices has increased by 80% at the three pilot sites. - 39 - Intermediate Results ResultsIndicatorsfor Each One per Component Component Use of OutcomeMonitoring Component 1 l(a) By end o f 1year, a framework for YRl-YR6: Continuous update o fthe Capacity o f National, State, watershed management is prepared. framework i s ensured. Local and Communities in sustainable land use planning l(b) By end o fproject, sustainable land YR1-YR3: FacilitatorsiFCAsinternal- at watershed level strength- and water use planning practices ized insustainable land management ened. are adoptedby at least 50 percent practices inLDPs. o fFCA members implementing LDPs. YR1-YR3: Rightincentives are pro- vided for participants to take training and adopt Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices. YR1-YR4: FCAs willing to adopt S L W M practices. YR1-YR6: Stakeholder ownership at national, state and local levels guaran- teed. Component 2 2(a) By end o fproject, a management YR1-YR3: Identify gaps inthe frame- ~ To improve Integrated Water- plan for Oguta Lake is prepared and work for integrated watershed manage- shed Management practices. implemented. ment that would prevent communities' adoption. 2(b) By end o fproject, 50 percent o f LDPs implementeduse improved YR1-YR3: Proper incentives for com- groundwater management strategy. munities to adopt the framework are made knownto them. 2(c) By end o fproject, 3 community forest reserves have been estab- YR1-YR6: States remain committed to lished inthe participating states. support unhindered execution o f the wa- tershed management and coordination fbnction. Component 3 3(a) Byend o fproject, 50 percent o f YR1-YR4: Proper incentives for com- Alternative livelihood activi- FCAShave implementedalternative munities to seek alternative livelihood ties that promote sustainable livelihood activities inat least 50 activities are inplace and attractive land management practices percent o f the participating states. enough to encourage communities to have been adopted by com- implement sustainable watershed man- munities. By endo fproject, 60% o fman- agement. agement plans are prepared for highly degraded areas and are being Y2-Y6: Appropriate training and implemented. knowledge sharing mechanisms imple- mented to increase awareness o f com- munities. -40 - IntermediateResults Results ors for Each One per Component nent Use of Outcome M o Component 4 4(a) By end o f year one, project imple- YR1-YR6: Government regularly pays (a) Project Management and mentation, coordination, and man- counterpart contributions andremains Implementation. agement systems are established in committed to the Proiect. coordinatibn with Fadama I1Pro- ject. * YR1-YR6: The federal, state and local governments' support /coordination are inplace. YR1-YR3: The signed memorandum o f understanding (MOU) on the readiness to implement integrated watershed management coordination framework adhered to by MOA. 4(b) Monitoring and Evalua- 4(b) (i)By end of year one, M&EMan- Y1: NFDO through consultancy has tion (M&E) I ual and an M&EPlan for Y1 preparedthe M&E Manual. have beenestablished. Costing for the preparation o f an M&E 4(b) (ii) M&Edata systembeingusedfor Manual included under the Project. effective project management. Y2-Y6: NFDO coordinating the im- 4(b) (iii)BYendof Project, the M&EPlan plementation o f the M&E ineffective i s fully implemented and sus- project management. tainable. Note: (1) The development objective o f Fadama I1 is to sustainably increase the incomes of fadama users through empowering communities to take charge o f their own development agenda, whereas, the global objective o f the proposed Project is to enhance the productivity o f fadama areas and the livelihood systems they support through sustainable land use and water management. The project development objective (PDO) and the global environmental objective (GEO) will be achieved through the establishment o f integrated Local Development Plans (LDPs). Thus, here we find the strong integration of the two objectives, where the realization o f one is interdependent on the success o f the other through: (a) capacity development for sustainable fadama natural resource management at national, state, local government, and community levels, including strengthening o f institutional capacity for integrated watershed management and community capacity for resource development planning; (b) integrated ecosystem management in selected watersheds through sustainable management o f key forest areas, buffer zones, and wetlands, and improved water management; and (c) community sustainable land use management, through support for alternative land andor water use activities, and adoption o f indigenous sustainable land management practices. (2) The achievement of this indicator is strongly integrated with the main IDA Fadama I1Project. Inthe areas of intervention o f the GEF Project, the beneficiaries will be the same as those for the Fadama I1Project. Inaddition, the needs of the communities will be expressed using the same LDPs as in Fadama 11. The local facilitators will also be the same as those facilitating in the case of Fadama 11. The implementing agency o f Fadama I1 Project (the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO)) will also be the implementing agency o f Fadama I1 GEF Project. Thus, clearly, the GEF Fadama I1 and the main IDA Fadama I1 projects are intimately linked. The Fadama 11 Project (including the GEF component) i s expected to provide a framework for addressing both poverty reduction objectives and the sustainable management of fadama ecosystems which are vulnerable to unsustainable landuse changes and agricultural practices, The fact that Fadama I1is expected to close before Fadama I1GEF will not be cause for concern for the following reasons: Fadama 11-GEFwill be fast tracked so that Fadama I1GEF and Fadama I1projects are completed at the same time, This will be addressedduring the MidtermReview o f Fadama I1in2007. Also, Fadama 111is under preparation and will be delivered in FY 07 or FY08 depending on IDA allocation o f resources for Nigeria. Therefore, even after Fadama 11closes, the completion o f Fadama I1GEF objectives will be achieved as NFDO will continue operating with full GEF trained staff and the preparation team o f Fadama I11Project. -41 - I 7 I ~ I Technical Annex 4: Detailed Project Description 1. The Federal Government o f Nigeria has secured an International Development Asso- ciation (IDA) credit to implement a Second National Fadama Development Project, which i s aimed at improvingthe incomes o f 2.3 million rural households, whose livelihood depend di- rectly or indirectly on fadama activities. The proposed Global Environment Facility co- financed component of the Fadama I1Project will assist government in its effort to improve fadama productivity by ensuring the continual provision o f ecological services. This Project will provide the incremental costs for six o f the eighteen states in the Second National Fadama Development Project. The target beneficiaries o f the Project will include both mem- bers of the Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and other communities located within the areas of intervention sites (the watersheds). 2. The objective o f Fadama I1Project is to sustainably increase the incomes o f fadama users, those who depend directly or indirectlyon fadama resources (farmers, pastoralists, fish- ers, hunters, gatherers, and service providers), through empowering communities to take charge o f their own development agenda, and by reducing conflict between fadama users. The proposed Project will take a demand-driven approach whereby all users o f fadama re- sources will be encouraged to develop participatory and socially inclusive Local Development Plans (LDPs). The LDPs will provide the basis for support underthe Project. 3. To complement Fadama I1 and to ensure the long-term sustainable management o f fadama lands, the Federal Government o f Nigeria requested the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for a grant support. The GEF intervention would target four hundred and sixty thou- sand (460,000) beneficiaries. 4. Thus, the GEF co-financed project is aimed at ensuring the productivity o f fadama lands and the livelihood systems they support through sustainable land use management. The objective o f the Project will be achieved through sustainable watershed management, river basin and forest/woodland management, capacity enhancement at the national, state and local levels, and grant support to fadama communities for sustainable land management. By the end o f the project it i s expected that sustainable land use management practices would have been adopted by beneficiaries inthe target areas. 5. Based on a study ("Socio-Ecological Survey o f Fadama Critical Ecosystems") sup- ported by the GEFpreparationgrant and the recommendations o f a "stakeholder design work- shop" held in Jos during M a y 5-7, 2004, and reconfirmed at a "stakeholder project pre- appraisal workshop" held in Lokoja in February 2005, the proposed Project will be imple- mentedinthe following critical ecosystem sites: (a) Imo State: Oguta Lake Watershed Catchment Area; (b) KebbiState: Jega-Dimbegu Watershed Catchment Area; (c) Kwara State: Ajasse-Ipo Watershed Catchment Area; (d) Kogi State : Koton KarfeWatershed Catchment Area; (e) OgunState: Eriti Watershed Catchment Area; and - 49 - (0 Bauchi State: Andiwa Lake Watershed Catchment Area. 6. The beneficiary o f GEF co-financed activities include community members o f FCAs as well as community members who are not part o f FCAs but directly impact watersheds in the targeted sites. The mechanisms for targeting FCA members are defined inthe Fadama I1 implementation manual. However, for community members who do not belong to FCAs, a mechanism to ensure a socially inclusive strategy will be devised. This may involve provid- ingmore training for the FCA facilitators and contracting NGOs as an umbrella entity. ProjectComponents Component 1: Capacity Building (US$22.95 million, of which, US$1.42 million financed by GEF) 7. The aim o f this component is to enhance the capacity o f different stakeholder groups, including relevant federal, state and local government, NGOs, community based organiza- tions, and fadama users intargeted sites for sustainable land and watershed management. The component i s devised to use a coordinated approach in providing specific awareness raising programs, workshops, and short trainings to stakeholders. A set o f technical and socio- economic tool kits for sustainable land management at the watershed level will be developed, including planning and analytical tools (e.g., GIs) for government officials, tillage and crop mixhotation techniques for farmers, and sustainable harvest techniques for forest and non- timber forest products and fishing for community members. Institutional capacity will be strengthened through the training, planningand analytical tools. It will be complementedby a joint supervision visit at the watershed twice a year by the three relevant state environmental agencies, including state ministry o f environment, department o f forest and land, and ministry o f water. (a) Sub-component 1.1. Institutional Strengthening for Integrated Watershed Man- agement (GEF contribution US$l.0 million): The current institutional responsibil- ity for watershed management is spread amongst four federal entities: (i) Federal the Ministry o f Environment; (ii) the Federal Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Devel- opment; (iii) the Water Resources Authority; and (iv) the River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs). A similar situation exists at the state level. However, these agencies often carry out functions at the inter-agency level within their ministries or department, thereby leaving a gap in coordination and fragmentation intheir efforts, and resulting inefficiency. The need for creating a coordinating mechanism that would ensure complementarities in each agency's approach is therefore paramount. This sub-component will address this gap. (i) Activity 1: Review o f Policies and Regulations at the Federal Level (GEF contribution US$0.2million): There are several policies related to wa- tershed management inNigeria, including the National Policy on Environment, theNational Forest Policy, the National Policy on Drought andDesertification, the National Policy on Agriculture and the National Policy on Water Re- sources. All these contain elements of watershed management and would need to be reviewed in order to ensure that gaps and overlaps are identified, and a - 50 - mechanism for effective coordination devised and adopted. The findings o f this policy review will be subject to a review by national, state, local and community stakeholders, including government and non-governmental organi- zations (NGOs) and facilitators for the Fadama 11. (ii) Activity 2: Enhanced Capacity for Sustainable Land Use Planning at Watershed Level (GEF contribution US$0.4 million): This activity i s de- signed to enhance the capacity o f state and local level agencies, including NGOs, community representatives and Facilitators for the Fadama 11. A num- ber o f training modules will be developed along with specific toolkits for sus- tainable management o f resource base at the watershed level, including techni- cal planning and analytical tools for government officials, tillage and crop mixhotation techniques for farmers, and sustainable harvest techniques for for- est and non-timber forest products and fishing for community members. This will include environmental evaluation techniques for payment o f ecological services. (iii) Activity 3: Strategic and Baseline Studies (GEF contribution US$0.3 million): In order to monitor project impacts, a baseline study will be con- ducted for each o f the selected sites in the six states. This will enable an in- formed assessment o f project outputs and outcomes and will include detailed ecological assessment o f the GEF intervention. (iv) Activity 4: Geographic Information Systems (GISYRemote Sensing Facilities (GEF contribution US$O.I million): The use o f GISRS technology inproviding accurate real-time data on the sites will ensure effective and effi- cient monitoring, and thereby management o f land use, water and forest re- sources. (b) Sub-component 1.2. Capacity Building at Community Level for Watershed Man- agement (GEF contribution US$0.4million): An underlying objective o f the GEF intervention i s to empower communities to be able to address watershed management issues. Therefore, training will be provided to community members to enable them to appreciate the significance of effective land use and water resources management, and biodiversity conservation. The training for the F C A members will ensure that the formulation o f LDPs internalizes sustainable water, land and forest resources management practices at the watershed level. The sub-component will also support a bi-annual study o f the watersheds, complemented by regular monitoring and evalua- tion visits by the SFDO environmental officers. (9 Activity 1: Awareness Program (GEF contribution US$0.2 million): Fundamentalto all the capacity building efforts i s a need to increase the aware- ness levels o f communities on the underlying principles o f the GEF interven- tion. The program will involve a number o f public awareness tools designed to impact the intent o f the intervention, including folk dramas, focus groups, talks - 51 - at community meetings, schools, women's groups and radio programs, and promotional materials. (ii) Activity 2: Strengthening the Sustainability o f Development Planning at Community (LDP) Level (GEF contribution US$0.2 million): This activity will provide support to the state level fadama environment officer at SFDO and state level officers responsible for environment and natural resource manage- ment to be aware and equippedto ensure LDPs address global issues at the wa- tershed level and monitor implementationprogress. Component 2: Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level (US$8.81 million, of which, US$4.08millionfinanced by GEF) 8. This component addresses the technical, social and location-specific activities to im- prove the management o f critical watersheds that ensures fadama productivity and sustainabil- ity. Major activities include strengthening existing watershed planning and coordination mechanism among the relevant state agencies (see Component 1 as well), sustainable man- agement o f forest resources for the protection o f fadama areas (especially supporting the es- tablishment o f community forest reserves), developing a lake management plan for a pro- posed RAMSAR site and a study and monitoring activities to understand the water flow re- gimes in fadama areas. A reservoir study, will be commissioned to have a better understand- ing o f the surface water flow and management. Furthermore, a monitoring plan will be de- vised to improve the management o f groundwater and shallow aquifers. (a) Sub-component 2.1 Protection of Critical Watersheds (GEF contribution US$2.5 million): Activity 1: Sustainable Management o f Forest Resources for the Pro- tection o f Fadama Areas (GEF contribution US$1.9 million): This activity supports provisions o f the Forest Policy, especially, as it relates to community forestry in the intervention sites. It will provide support for the management Of: a. EritiCommunity Forest (which is arainforest); b. Dumbegu Communal ForestArea; c. BuzuzuForest Reserve inAndiwa Lake InterventionArea; d. Ohaji Forest Reserve; and e. Ajasse-Ipo Communal Forest. These sites will be surveyed and delineated. Management plans for both sites will be developed for sustainable management., The communities will be em- powered to take control o f the management o f these sites. Similarly, the crea- tion o f buffer zones around these sites would also be a major activity to hrther reduce pressure on sites. This would mostly be in the form o f community wood lots. - 52 - Management plans will be reviewedby the Bank to ensure that they will achieve a standard o f forest management and are developed with the meaningful partici- pation of locally affected communities, consistent with the principles and crite- ria o f responsible forest management. Activity 2: Establishment o f Watershed Planning and Coordination Capacity (GEF contribution US$O.5 millilon): The current responsibility for the management o f watershed spreads among various agencies without a mechanism to ensure harmony and coordination. Inorder to ensure efficiency, a coordinating mechanism will be established so that all the relevant agencies work together to complement their efforts. Equally important is the provision o f requisite training to improve their skills in effective planning and monitor- ing, including equippingthem with appropriate tools, such as, maps to enable them to make informed decision on the use and sustainable management o f these watersheds. Capacity for data collection, collation and analysis would also be provided. Memorandum o f Understandings (MOUs) will be signed be- tween the various agencies to reflect agreed roles and responsibilities by each ofthem. (b) Sub-component 2.2 Improved Water Management (GEF contribution US$1.6mil- lion): This sub-component will address the fundamental issue o f ensuring the avail- ability o f water for fadama sustainability. It would provide for the development o f a management plan for the Oguta Lake in Imo state, provide for effective monitoring o f ground water levels and assess the impact o f reservoir management along the River Niger floodplains. (0 Activity 1: Study o f the Impact o f Reservoir ManaPement on Water Regime inFadama Areas (GEF contribution US$O.5million): Empiricalevi- dence suggests that dam construction at the upstream in some fadama areas re- sulted inreduced water flows to down stream areas. This study would be con- ducted inAjasse-Ipo and Koton Karfe that fall on the plains o f the RiverNiger. This study will also be conducted in Eriti and Dumbegu which occupy the flood plains o f rivers Oyan and Zanfara, respectively. There are three dams constructed along the river that could affect water availability for fadama prac- tices along these plains, including: (a) Kainji Hydro-Dam; (b) Jebba Hydro- Dam; and (c) Shiroro Hydro-Dam. Inaddition, a dam has been constructed on each of rivers Zamfora (Shegari Dam), Oyan (Oyan Dam) and Osin (Kuduu- Oro Dam). The study will make recommendations for the management of these dams to ensure dam safety and optimal base water flows for maintaining fadama productivity. (ii) Activity 2: Development o f Management Plan for Lake Oguta (GEF contribution US$O.I million): Lake Oguta is being proposed as one o f the RAMSAR sites inNigeria. The integrity o f the lake is seriously threatened by oil pollution resulting from oil exploration activities inthe area. The lake does not have a management plan. This activity will support in developing a man- - 53 - agement plan for the lake, which will improve the chances for it to be desig- nated as a RAMSAR site inthe country. (iii) Activity 3: Improved Groundwater Management (GEF contribution US$l.O million): The availability o f water is the most critical element o f fadama activities. Provision was made for water monitoring in the Fadama 11, however, the provision mostly relates to surface water. This activity supports ground water monitoring inthe selected sites. The monitoring will help assess the ground water situation and recommend remedial activities for the recharge o f underground aquifers. This component will use ground water monitoring, water assessment and water balance to determine overall management o f water in the fadama area within the watershed. It will also require the development o f water management plans in all the six states but limited to the catchment o f intervention. It will produce specific action plans for the management o f ground water in the fadama areas. It will involve, potentially, the regulatory mechanisms -poor incentives for promoting sound water management. Component 3: Community Sustainable Land Management (US$14.05 million, of which, US$3.96millionfinanced by GEF) 9. This component focuses on providing support to FCA and non-FCA community members through FCAs, community groups and NGOs to develop local initiatives that en- hance the structural and functional integrity o f ecosystems, especially, sustainable land use practices that improve rural livelihoods. The component supports indigenous initiatives for the protection o f critical watersheds andpromotion o f sustainable landuse management inthe targeted fadama areas to alleviate pressures from marginal lands and critical ecosystems. Specific sets o f criteria are being developed for communities to access grant support for ac- tivities that promote sustainable land and watershed management. The grants will be dis- bursed through FCAs. The size o f the grant ceiling will be determined by the cost o f the sub- project. Some o f the envisaged activities that could be supported under this component in- clude those which: (a) promote biodiversity conservation; (b) alternative livelihoods inhighly degraded critical fadama areas; (c) support energy efficient use o f solid fuels for watershed protection and carbon dioxide sequestration; and (d) establish community woodlots on river- banks and other degraded areas. Support will also be provided for the adoption o f indigenous and better farming practices that promotes sustainable land management, especially, improved tillage methods, soil and water conservation techniques, efficient pasture and rangeland man- agement. Component 4:Project Management and M&E (US$l7.41 million, of which, US$0.57 mil- lionfinanced by GEF) 10. This component focuses on project management mechanisms, including monitoring and evaluation plans to implement the Project. The project management and M&E for the GEF-financed Project will be fully integrated with IDA-funded Fadama 11. The Fadama I1 Project Management Subcomponent supports new or existing institutional entities and mecha- - 54 - nisms at the federal, state and local levels o f government for overall project coordination and supervision and would help to strengthen the effectiveness and quality o f project operations. It will support at the federal level the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO) (at- tached to the Project Coordinating Unit o f FMARD) which will be responsible for overall Project coordination. The Subcomponent will also support the SFDOs housed at the ADP. At the local government level, the Project will support a Local Fadama Desk (LFD) and a multi-stakeholder committee which will be responsible, respectively, for screening and ap- proving LDPs and subproject proposals submitted by the FCAs. Specific items and activities to be funded include equipment, vehicles, operations and maintenance costs, refurbishing of the office at NFDO as well as the SFDOs and LFDs o f participating states. It will finance specialized technical assistance and training at the federal, state, and local levels aimed at de- veloping capacity for coordination o f implementation. Table 5: PriorityThemesandIndicativeInterventions PreliminaryPrior- ity Themes 1.Reducing De- -Afforestation o f degraded dryland forests -Site in pendence on Wood -Promotion o f alternative and/or renewable energies such as (and Charcoal) for solar, wind, biogas, gas Domestic Energy -Awareness raising and education -Participatory, community approach 2. Improving Farm- -Awareness raising, education and......enforcement o f laws ......................... ........................ ......................................... .................................................... -Site in ing Techniques and concerning bushfires Practices inRain- -Promotion o f environmentally appropriate techniques for fed Agriculture intensive agriculture -Rehabilitation o f degraded fallow land and soil and water conservation -Protection and rehabilitation o f riverbanks ..................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... .................................... ......................................................... 3. Improving Farm- -Baseline surveys and analysis -Site in ing Techniques and -Improved irrigation techniques Practices inIrri- -Association o f fish culture to irrigation gated Agriculture -Rehabilitation o f infrastructure and control o fpollution and salination ................................................................... ........... ........................................ ........................ ......................................... ....................................................................... ~ 4. Reversing Deg- -Development o f modem abattoirs -Site in radation o f Soils, -Identification and improvement o f transport to markets Pastures and Ani- -Community savings and loans to assist inmarketing and mal Health inthe insurance Livestock Sector -Improvement o f animal health -Development o fpasture corridors and access for pastoralists -Provisions o f options for pastoralists -Awareness raising - 55 - TechnicalAnnex 5: Table 6: Summary of ProjectCosts Nigeria Second National Fadama Development - CriticalEcosystems Management Project Components Project Cost Summary Components (US$ '000) % Foreign % Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Base Costs A CAPACITY BUILDING 1.Institutional Strengthening at FederallStatelLGALevelfor IWM (i) Review of Federal Policiesand Regulations 180.00 20.00 200.00 10 (ii) Capacity Building in SustainableLand Use Planningat Watershed Level 360.20 360.20 - 1 ~ (iii) Strategic and BaselineStudies 270.00 30.00 300.00 10 (iv) GWRemote Sensing Capacity 40.80 21.20 62.00 34 Subtotal InstitutionalStrengthening at FederallStatelLGA Level for IWM 851.OO 71.20 922.20 8 2 2. Capacity Building at Community Level (i) Awareness Program 162.00 18.00 180.00 10 (ii) Strengthening the Sustainabilityof Dev. Planningat Community (LDP) Lev' 155.80 - 155.80 - Subtotal Capacity Building at Community Level 317.80 18.00 335.80 5 1 Subtotal CAPACITY BUILDING 1.168.80 89.20 1.258.00 7 2 B. WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 1. Protection of Critical Watersheds (i) Sustainable Managementof Forest Resourcesfor Protectionof FadamaA 1.764.00 196.00 1,960.00 10 3 (ii) Establishment of Watershed Planning 360.00 25.00 385.00 6 1 Subtotal Protection of Critical Watersheds 2.124.00 221.00 2,345.00 9 4 2. Water Management Improvement (i) Study of impact of ReservoirMgt.on Water Regime in Fadama Areas /a 500.00 - 500.00 - 1 (ii) Management Pian for Lake Oguta /b - 100.00 100.00 100 (iii) Improved GroundwaterManagement 720.00 80.00 800.00 10 1 Subtotal Water Management Improvement 1,220.00 180.00 1,400.00 13 2 Subtotal WATERSHED ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT 3.344.00 401.OO 3.745.00 11 6 C. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENTSUPPORT Livelihood Activities Support 3.000.00 3.000.00 100 5 Support the Adoption of IndigenousSustainable Land ManagementPractices 1,000.00 1,000.00 100 2 Subtotal COMMUNITY SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT --- 4.000.00 4.000.00 100 7 D. PROJECT MANAGEMENT, MONITORINGAND EVALUATION Project Management 263.77 37.66 301.43 12 Monitoring and Evaluation 78.50 6.50 85.00 8 Subtotal PROJECT MANAGEMENT,MONITORINGAND EVALUATION 342.27 44.16 386.43 11 1 E. Project Cofinancing IDA 30,819.99 7.850.01 38,670.00 20 63 GOVT 6.190.00 - 6,190.00 - 10 African DevelopmentBank 5.736.09 1,174.86 6,910.95 17 11 Subtotal Project Cofinancing 42,746.08 9,024.87 51,770.95 17 85 Total BASELINE COSTS 47,601.15 13,559.23 61.160.38 22 100 Physical Contingencies 9.50 3.48 12.98 27 Price Contingencies 1.632.40 414.76 2,047.16 20 3 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 49,243.05 13,977.47 63,220.52 22 103 \a In Lokoja-Koto Karfeand Ajasse-lpo \b To be listed as RamsarSite. - 5 6 - Table 7: Summary of Project Cost by Component and Cofinancing Sources (US$million) Components Government/ GEF Beneficiaries IDA AfDB Total 1. Capacity Building 1.44 1.42 17.0 3.09 22.95 2. Watershed EcosystemManagement 4.73 4.08 0 0 8.81 3. Community SustainableLandManagement Support 0.44 3.96 8.35 1.30 14.05 4. Project Management and M&E 1.o 0.57 13.32 2.52 17.41 TOTAL 7.61 10.03 38.67 6.91 63.22 - 57 - TechnicalAnnex 6: ImplementationArrangements 1. The proposed Project will be implemented as part o f Fadama I1Project under the overall guidance o f the National Fadama Development Office (attached to the Projects Coordinating Unit (PCU) o f the Federal Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD)) to ensure consistency o f the GEF component with the main IDA-AfDB Pro- ject. The participating stakeholders include: National Fadama Development Office (NFDO) Federal Ministryo f Environment (FMEnv) including the GEF Operational Desk Officer)) Federalministries with responsibility for watershed management State FadamaDevelopment Offices (SFDOs) Local FadamaDesks (LFD) at local government level State agencies responsible for watershed management (includingRiver Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs)) Facilitators Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) Non-FCA community members Non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 2. The Project will be implemented over six years and implementation arrangements have been guided by three considerations: (i) the need to mainstream GEF activities on the ground with the IDA-financed activities, and empower local communities; (ii) the need to fully integrate project management and M&E within Fadama 11; (iii) the need to take into account the role o f the Federal Ministry o f Environment inoverall coordination and quality assurance as well as other environmental projects under implementation; and (iv) the need to ensure ownership and create a workable partnership between the two mainministries involved inthe implementation (FMARD and FMEnv). 3. Based on the current institutional framework inthe sector, and the lessons learned from implementation o f the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and the Lo- cal Empowerment and Environment Management Project (LEEMP), the proposed institu- tional framework for implementation is as follows: - 58 - (a) Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv). The responsibility o f federal agen- cies, with regard to program implementation, i s to play a coordinating and su- pervisory role, while the actual implementation i s done at the state and lower levels, with the state driving the process. However, it i s important that the physical location at the Federal level takes cognizance o f the fact that this com- ponent is fully integrated with the day to day operations o f the main Fadama 11. Therefore, FMEnv, which i s responsible for environmental policies in the coun- try, will provide the technical implementation support by seconding an officer, to be recruited competitively within the Ministry,to NFDO. This creates room for proper linkages between Fadama I1and the GEF component. To strengthen the implementation o f the proposed GEF Project, the membership o f the Na- tional Fadama Technical Committee (NFTC) should be expanded to include the Director, Planning, Research and Statistics o f FMEnv, who i s also the GEF Op- erational Focal Point for Nigeria. The responsibilities o f the NFTC will, there- fore, be expanded to include approval o f the Annual Work Program and Budget, provide policy guidance for the implementation o f the GEF component (espe- cially, the Capacity Building Component), and ensure effective inter-ministerial coordination in the proposed mechanism for integrated watershed management at the national level. (b) National Fadama Development Office (NFDO). NFDO oversees the imple- mentation o f Fadama I1 at program level. The Fadama GEF Desk Office (FGDO) (which will be staffed by four people: Fadama GEF Desk Officer, M&E Officer, GIS/OperationsAnalyst andAccounts Supervisor) will berespon- sible for coordinating and supporting project activities at the macro level. The Fadama GEF Desk Officer will manage and coordinate all consultancies, train- ings, workshops and project activities at the national level, under the supervision o f the NFDO. She/he would also provide guidance for the implementation at the state level, undertake a skill gap analysis o f the Environmental Officers at the State Fadama Development Offices (SFDOs), and undertake monitoring and evaluation o f field level activities in collaboration with the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer o fthe NFDO. More specifically: (i)The National Project Coordinator (NPC) o f Fadama I1will be respon- sible for coordinating and supporting project activities at the national level. These responsibilities include: a) Ensuringadherence to approvedworks programs, procure- ment and financial management based on on-going monitor- ingand evaluation activities, and ultimately ensuring achievement o fprogram objectives; b) Ensuringthat selection o f sites is consistent with areas o fop- eration for Fadama 11; c) Coordinating cross-cutting and strategic development communica- tion activities (i.e., awareness campaigns, etc.); - 59 - d) Monitoringofproject implementation; and e) Ensuringeffective linkage betweenIDA and GEF-financedactivi- ties. (ii)FadamaGEFDeskOffice(FGDO). Thisoffice,whichwillbeanin- tegral part o f NFDO, will serve as the implementing unit for the GEF program at the national level. It would be responsible for relevant capacity building and the review and coordination of policy and regu- latory framework. It will implement its mandate under the supervi- sion o f the NFDO and regularly exchange project information with the Director, Planning, Research and Statistics, FMEnv. (c) State Fadama Development Office (SFDO). The mainstreaming o f the GEF component into Fadama I1will be most pronounced at the state level, which i s responsible for implementation o f the Project. Thus, the role o f the State Fadama Environmental Officer (SFEO), already recruited by SFDO for imple- mentingIDA-financed activities, will be augmented and strengthened inorder to carry out the added responsibility for GEF implementation at the state level. The SEE0 would also be responsible for monitoring activities at this level, while the relevant state agency, responsible for watershed management or the other activi- ties to be camed out, will provide leadership role for establishing a coordinating mechanism. The SFEO would be expected to provide secretariat support, as re- quired, to the state level watershed management coordination mechanism. (d) State WatershedSubcommittee (SWS) Coordination Mechanism. The relevant ministries in a state with responsibilities for watershed management would con- stitute an SWS to establish a state level mechanism to ensure complementarity in field level activities. They will be responsible for monitoring field level activi- ties o f the Project. A formal MOU approvedby the state government will be the basis under which the SWS will be established. (e) Local Fadama Development Committee (LFDC). Similar to Fadama 11, deci- sion making on subproject proposals emanating from communities will be dele- gated to the LFDCs, whose membership includes members of FCAs, representa- tives o f civil society, and local government authorities. The recommendations o f LFDCs will be reviewed at the state level: (i) by the SFDOs for consistency with Fadama I1objectives and activities; and (ii) the SFDO Environmental by Officer, incoordination with SWS, for consistency with the GEF component ac- tivities and objectives. (0 Fadama Community Associations (FCAs). Through the Capacity Buildingand the Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level components, the pro- posed Project will support fadama users to adopt livelihood enhancing sustain- able land use and agricultural management practices, which cumulatively would enhance the sustainability o f fadama ecosystems at watershed level. Therefore, fadama users will play an important role in project implementation through - 60 - FCAs and other community groups, and NGOs. A demand-driven process, us- ing a positive list, and integrated within that o f Fadama 11, will be established to select subprojects for GEF financing, and will be part of the PIM. FCAs will develop socially inclusive Local Development Plans (LDPs) in a participatory manner, and with the help o f facilitators, the LDPs will ensure that the needs o f the women and marginalized groups o f people are taken into account and that gender issues are fully mainstreamed in the Project. In addition, the LDPs will explicitly state the measures to sustainably manage fadama resources andresolve conflict among different users. 4. Procurement, Financial Management, and Disbursement. The already estab- lished FM capacity at NFDO for financial management, procurement, and disbursement, strengthened as needed, will be used to implement the GEF program. The Finance Sec- tion (FS) of N F D O will be responsible for managing the financial affairs o f the Project. It will, amongst other things, be responsible for ensuring compliance with the financial management requirements o f the Bank and the government, including forwarding the quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports and audited annual Financial Statements to IDA. Regarding flow of funds and banking arrangements, IDA will disburse the grant through a Special Account maintained by NFDO using the traditional disbursement method. In order to be eligible for GEF financing, FCAs will need to establish separate accounts for IDA and GEF funding. The Internal Audit Section inNFDO will perform modem inter- nal audit functions for the Project. The external audit o f the GEF will be included inthe annual audit of the Project by NFDO and will be submittedto the Bank within six months after year-end. Relevantly qualified external auditors have been appointed based on Terms of Reference acceptable to the Bank to perform these audits. - 61 - r- I I 2 I I III III II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -II TechnicalAnnex 7: FinancialManagementandDisbursementArrangements A. General 1. Objective of the FM System. The Financial Management Systems (FMS) will support the implementing agencies in deploying project resources to produce the re- quired outputs with attention to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Specifically, the government FM systems, which will be used, will be capable of producing timely, under- standable, relevant and reliable financial information that will enable the implementing agencies to plan, coordinate, monitor and appraise the proposed Project's overall progress towards the achievement o f its objectives as well as ensuring that costs are under control andthat project funds are usedfor the purposes intended. 2. Implementation Arrangement. The proposed Project will be implemented to coincide with the implementation period o f the Second National Fadama Development Project. The Fadama I1Project is a partiallyblended (IDNAfDB-GEF)project involving a partnership between the Project Coordinating Unit (PW) o f the Federal Ministry o f Ag- riculture and Rural Development (FMARD), the Federal Ministry o f Environment (FMEnv), the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO), the State Fadama Devel- opment Offices (SFDOs), other government agencies - federal and state - involved in watershed management, the Fadama Communities Associations (FCAs) and other com- munity members. The GEF-supported activities would be implemented inclose collabo- ration with relevant stakeholders that play a key role in the management o f fadama re- lated watershed resources at the state level, including fadama users and government agencies. 3. The FinancialManagement Unit o f the NFDO is expected to manage the financial arrangement o f the proposed GEF Project. The already established capacity at NFDO for financial management and disbursement, though weak, will be strengthened as needed andwill beusedto implement the GEFprogram. B. RiskAnalysis 4. Inherent Risks. The Country Financial Accountability Assessment, which was conducted inC Y 2000, assessedthe risk of waste, diversion and misuse o f funds as high, until such a time that the CFAA recommendationshave beenimplemented. Some of the identified weaknesses have been addressed under Economic Management and Capacity BuildingProject (EMCAP) andthrough other government initiatives aimed at improving financial management and accountability. An update o f the CFAA is required to confirm the current level o frisk. - 63 - 5. To minimize the aforementioned risks and ensure that the appropriate financial management capacity is in place prior to project effectiveness, an assessment o f the fi- nancial management capacity o f the implementation agency has been undertaken. 6. ControlRisks. The overall project risk from a financial managementperspective is considered moderate, provided: (a) the weaknesses described inparagraph 7 below are satisfactorily addressed; and (b) the financial management action plan described inpara- graph 30, page 64 under Next Steps i s fully implemented. 7. Strength and Weaknesses. (i) Strength: the implementing agency i s familiar with the implementation o f World Bank projects; they are currently implementing the Fadama 11. (ii) Weaknesses: various internal control weaknesses (identified during a re- cent FMsupervision o fNFDO), including a weak internal audit unit andpoor record keep- ing. C. FinancialManagementSystems 8. FinancialProceduresManual. The NFDO has a Financial Procedures Manual for the Fadama I1project. An addendum will be prepared to reflect issues that are spe- cific to the GEF project. The FPM include institutional arrangements; chart of accounts; basis o f accounting adopted; planning and budgeting, including cash-flow management; disbursements; banking activities; fixed assets register; financial reporting and auditing; legal covenants and records management. 9. Funds Flow and Banking Arrangement. GEF financing will flow through a separate special account in the NFDO (similar to the one for IDA financing) to be man- aged by the NFDO Project Accountant under the same supervisory rules as the main IDA Fadama I1Project. In addition, a naira account will be established at the NFDO for ac- tivities at the federal level. Inorder to be eligible for GEF financing, FCAs will need to establish separate naira accounts. 10. The following accounts will be opened and maintained by the NFDO: (a) A Special Account inU S Dollars to which the initial deposit and replenish- ments from the GEF fund will be lodged. (b) A Current Account inNaira at NFDO in a bank to which draw-downs from the Special Account will be credited in respect o f incurred eligible expendi- tures. Following the immediate payments inrespect o f those eligible expen- ditures, the balances on this account should be zero. 11. A Current Account inNairawill be opened andmaintainedbythe eligible FCAs. 12. The Project Accountant (PA) o f NFDO, who doubles as the PA for the GEF Pro- ject, will maintain a GEF Ledger Grant Account inU S dollars and in naira to keep track of draw-downs from the GEF fund. The account will show: (a) deposits made into the - 64 - bank by GEF, (b) drawn-downs by NFDO and eligible FCAs; and (c) opening and clos- ingbalances. 13. All bank accounts will be reconciledwith bank statements on a monthly basis by the PA. The bank reconciliation statements will be reviewedby designated officials, and identified differences will be expeditiously investigated. Also, the PA will reconcile monthly the GEF Grant Account with the Disbursement Summary. 14. The PA will be responsible for preparing and submittingto the World Bank appli- cations for withdrawal as appropriate. Appropriate procedures and controls will be insti- tuted to ensure that disbursements and flow o f funds are carried out in an efficient and effective manner. The P A will maintain a cumulative record o f draw-downs from the Grant that will be reconciled monthly with the Disbursement Summary provided by the Bank. Detailed banking arrangements, including control procedures over all bank trans- actions (e.g., check signatories, transfers, etc.), will be documented in the addendum to the FPM. 15. Disbursement Arrangements. Transaction-based disbursement procedures (as described inthe World Bank Disbursement Handbook) will be followed, i.e., direct pay- ment, reimbursement, and special commitments. Disbursementwill bemade on contracts inthe communities intwo tranches: first tranch after signing of contract and the second after completion. Detailed arrangements will be documented in the addendum to the FPM. 16. Planningand Budgeting. Cash Budget preparation will reflect financial projec- tions or forecasts for the life o f the grant (analyzed by year) and will be prepared on an annual basis. In addition, the PA will prepare the cash budget for the coming period based on the work program. The cash budget should include the figures for the year, ana- lyzed by quarter. The cash budget for each quarter will reflect the detailed specifications for grant activities, schedules (including procurement plan), and expenditure on grant ac- tivities scheduled respectively for the quarter. (Guidance on the preparation o f budgets i s available inthe Bank publication entitled, "Financial Monitoring Reports: Guidelines to Borrowers"). The annual cash budget will be sent to the Task Team Leader at least two months before the beginning o f the project fiscal year. 17. Detailed procedures for planningand budgetingare documented inthe NFDO Fi- nancial Procedures Manual (FPM). 18. Fixed Assets and Contracts Registers. A Fixed Assets Register will be pre- pared, regularly updated and checked. A Contracts Register will also be maintained in respect o f all contracts with consultants and suppliers. Also, a quarterly Contract Status Report will be prepared. Control procedures over fixed assets and contracts with consult- ants and suppliershendors for the states, communities and federal levels will be docu- mented inthe FPM. - 65 - 19. Financial Reporting and Monitoring. Monthly, quarterly and annual reports will be prepared to allow monitoring o f the grant. The reports will be submitted to the NFDO, Federal Ministry o f Finance (FMOF), and the World Bank. On a monthly basis, the P A will prepare and submit the following reports to the aforementioned: (a) A Bank Reconciliation Statement for eachbank account; (b) Monthly Statement o f Cash Position for grant funds, taking into considera- tion significant reconcilingitems; (c) A monthly Statement o fExpenditure classifiedby components, disbursement categories, and comparisonwith budgets, or a variance analysis; and (d) Statement of Sources and Uses o fFunds. 20. Accounting Policies and Procedures. The GEF funds will be accounted by the Project on a cash basis. This will be augmented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Also, accounting records will be main- tained indual currencies (Le., Naira and U S dollars). 21. The Chart o f Accounts will facilitate the preparation of relevant monthly, quar- terly and annual financial statements, including information on the following: (a) Total grants expenditure; (b) Total financial contribution from financiers; (c) Total expenditure on each component/activity; and (d) Analysis o f that total expenditure into civil works, various categories of goods, training, consultants and other procurement and disbursement catego- ries. 22. Annual financial statements will be preparedin accordance with International Ac- counting Standards (IAS). 23. All accounting and control procedures will be documented in the FPM, a living document that will be regularly updatedby the Project Accountant. Audit Arrangements Internal Audit 24. The Internal Audit Unit o f the existing Fadama I1Project will perform internal audit activities for the GEF grant. The NFDO will strengthen the Unit by appointing a professionally qualified internal auditor to head the Unit. Regular internal audit reports will be submitted to the Bank. - 66 - External Audit 25. The external audit o f the GEF will be included in the annual audit o f the Project by NFDO and will be submitted to the Bank within six months after year-end. Rele- vantly qualified external auditors have been appointed based on Terms o f Reference ac- ceptable to the Bank to perform these audits. 26. Besides expressing an opinion on the Project Financial Statements in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), the auditors will be requiredto comment on whether the funds have been provided regularly and used in accordance with the fi- nancing agreement. 27. In addition to the audit report, the external auditors will be expected to prepare Management Letters giving observations and comments, and providing recommendations for improvements in accounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants inthe GEF agreement. Special Accounts (SAs) 28. To facilitate disbursements for eligible expenditures, NFDO will open a special account (SA) in a commercial bank to cover part o f GEF's share o f eligible expenditures. The Authorized Allocation shall be limited to an amount equivalent to eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($850,000), covering an estimated six months o f eligible expendi- tures. 29. The Special Account will be replenished through the submission o f Withdrawal Applications on a monthly basis and will include reconciled bank statements and other documents as may be required. Next Steps 30. The following activities will be executed as follows: Action Completedby Responsibility 1. Open aDollar SpecialAccount and October 11,2005 NFDO aNaira (draw-down) CurrentBank Account 2. OpenNaira Current BankAccount After Effectiveness EligibleFCAs 3. Addendum to NFDO FPM December 15,2005 NFDO - 67 - Supervision Plan 31. Supervision activities of GEF will form part o f that o f the NFDO under Fadama I1 and will include a review o f quarterly FMRs; review o f annual audited financial state- ments and management letters as well as timely follow-up o f issues arising during im- plementation; participation in project supervision missions as appropriate; and updating the FMratinginthe Implementation Status Report (ISR). FinancialCovenants 32. The Project shall maintain financial management systems, including records and accounts, and prepare financial statements in a format acceptable to the Bank. This, in addition to the SAs, should be audited each fiscal year and sent to the Bank not later than six months after period end. Quarterly financial monitoring reports will be prepared to include the financial reports, procurement reports and progress reports and forwarded to the Bank not later than 45 days after quarter end. Table 8: Allocation of Grant Proceeds xpen Cate A. Goods 0.10 100%FE, 90%LC C. Consultant Services 4.30 85% C. Training, Workshops, Study Tours 0.63 100% D. Grants 3.50 100%of amounts disbursed E. IncrementalOperating Costs 0.43 80% F. Unallocated 1.07 Total Project Costs with GEFFinancing 10.03 - 68 - TechnicalAnnex 8: ProcurementArrangements A. General 1. ProcurementEnvironment. As a result o f the CPAR o f 2000 and a subsequent IDF Grant to help execute the agreed Action Plan, the Federal Government has made substantial progress with Procurement Reform. A draft Procurement Law was submitted to Parliament inearly 2005, and circulars were issued to government services to establish procurement units and recruit procurement staff, that would constitute over time the Fed- eral Government's Procurement Cadre. The Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU), established within the Presidency and responsible for the procurement reform agenda, instituted a due process mechanism for all contracts to ensure that public procurement is carried out in accordance with the required principles and procedures. BMPIUis also a member o f a high level Cash Management Committee, chaired by the Minister o f Finance, who will certify that contracts for which budgetary payments are requested have met the due process requirements. Guidelines. Procurement for the proposed GEF Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004, and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers " dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulatedinthe GEFAgreement. Procurement Plan. DuringProject Negotiations, the Procurement Plan for the first 18 months has been agreed between the Borrower and the GEF/World Bank project team, including the different procurement or consultant selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and the time frame. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least semi-annually or as required to re- flect the actual project implementation needs and improvements ininstitutional capacity. There are no ICB goods and works contracts foreseen Bidding/Proposal Documents. The Borrower will use the Bank's Standard Biddingand Standard Request for Proposals for Consulting Services. For Na- tional Competitive Bidding, national documents may be used if satisfactory to the Bank. For bid and proposal evaluation, the Bank's standard evaluation forms will be used. 2. Notification and Advertising. A General Procurement Notice (GPN) will be published after Board presentation in "Development Gateway's dg Market on-line", and "UN Development Business on-line". Extracts o f this GPN would be published in the national press. Special Procurement Notices for Goods and Requests for Expressions o f Interests for consulting contracts will also be published inDevelopment Gateway Market (DG Market) and United Nations Development Business (UNDB) for contracts larger than US$200,000. National Competitive Bidding (NCB) for procurement o f goods and - 69 - requests for expressions o f interest for contracts below this amount would be advertised inthe nationalpress. 3. ImplementationArrangements. The GEF financed portion o fFadama I1will be implementedby the same Project Implementation Unit established for the IDA Credit, which includes a Procurement Specialist. 4. Procurementof Goods (USSO. 1 million). One four-wheel-drive vehicle, fumi- ture and office equipment will be purchased, using the "shopping" procedure. Written requests for quotations, based on agreed specifications, will be sent to at least three quali- fied suppliers and quotations will be submitted inwriting at the same date and time, and opened and evaluated simultaneously. 5. Selectionof Consultants(US$4.3 million). Consulting Services by firms (about US$3.3 million) would include: (i) Strategic and baseline studies (establishment o fwater management plans, reservoir impact studies), (ii) Awareness Programs; (iii) Assistance in Sustainable Management o f Forest Resources; (iv) a Management Plan for Lake Oguta and (v) Monitoring & Evaluation. Individual Consultants (about US$1 million) are planned for: (i) Capacity buildingin sustainable land use; (ii) Strengtheningthe sustain- ability o f Development Planning at Community Level; (iii) Establishment o f Watershed Planning; (iv) an Impact Study o f Water Reservoir Management in Fadama Areas; and (v) Monitoring & Evaluation. Training and workshops (about US$0.63 million) will be for remote censing, community development planning. Consulting firms would be se- lected using the Quality and Cost Based (QCBS) method. Contracts estimated at less than US$100,000 equivalent may be acquired on the basis o f Consultants Qualifications (CQS) or Least Cost Selection (LCS) for standard and routine assignments. Short lists o f consultants for services estimated at less than US$200,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f para- graph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. Individual consultants would be hired in accor- dance with Section V o f the Consultant Guidelines. 6. Subprojects (US$3.5 million). Grants for livelihood activities and sustainable landmanagement practices will beprovided to participants based on subproject proposals approvedby the FCAs and NGOs. Procurement under this category will be implemented usingthe Bank's Simplified ProcurementProcedures for CDD projects. 7. Operational Costs (US$0.43 million). Items, such as, office space rental and utilities, office supplies, bank charges, communications, vehicle operation, maintenance, insurance, building and equipment maintenance, travel and supervision, and advertising (excluding salaries, bonuses, honoraria and fees o f members o f the Recipient's and the Participating States' civil service), financed by the Project will be procured using the ad- ministrative procedures o f the IDA Credit Project ImplementationManual, which include a chapter on Procurement Manual, which were reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank. - 70 - B. Assessment of the Capacityof the ProcuringEntityto ImplementProcurement 8. An updatedprocurement capacity assessmento fthe Fadama I1NFDO and SFDOs was carried out by the Bank's procurement accredited staff during the January/February 2005 supervision mission o f the Fadama I1Project. The assessment also includes post- procurement review which rated the agencies procurement capacity as satisfactory. Also, it is pertinent to note that the first two procurement packages o f these agencies, irrespec- tive o f the size o fpackage and method used, were prior reviewedby the Bank to contrib- ute towards building o f procurement capacity at the agencies. Procurement activities un- der the proposed Project will be carried out by the Fadama I1NFDO and SFDOs, using the capacity created andthe good track record underthe ongoing Fadama I1Project. 9. OverallProcurementRisk. The overall project risk for procurement is average. 10. Review by the Bank. Sole-source contracts for individual consultants will be subject to prior approval by the Bank. C. ProcurementPlan 11. The Borrower has prepared a procurement plan for the first 18 months o f project implementation, which provides the basis for the procurement methods. These plans were finalized and approved at Negotiations and are available at each procuring entity and on their websites. They will also be placed in the Project's database and posted on the Bank's external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated semi-annually in agreement with the Project Teams, or as required, to reflect the actual project implemen- tation needs and improvements ininstitutional capacity. D. Frequencyof ProcurementSupervision 12. Inaddition to the prior-review supervision to be carried out from the World Bank office inAbuja, post-review missions will be carried out every six months. - 71 - n 9wu H H I 0 w 0 w 0 2 u33 0 r r 0 m m Fo N m B O Y I I - I- l- -r- -- . . W r- 0 9 0 0 0cu 0 2 0N -. 4-l m 0 8 4-l s 3 3 3 m .. 19 19 0 0 . 0 N 0N -. B B m 3 2 M M M M 2 I m b 0 I 0 3 19 e: e: 3 e s s 2 2 2 I I o $ -? N ;; L Y i 2 z VY m 8 N - P D -x -x -x z XI x x 3 3 3 P P -N 4 ? 3 m 9b m ci d v; * n 2 N N 0 m 0 m I W F I 3 TechnicalAnnex 9: FinancialandEconomicAnalysis Summary of Benefitsand Costs 1. Fadama I1Project i s aimed at improving the incomes o f about 2.3 million rural households, whose livelihood depend directly or indirectly on fadama resources, in 18 o f Nigeria's 36 states. The proposed Global Environment Facility cofinanced Project i s a component o f the Fadama I1Project, and would assist the government of Nigeria in its effort to improve its capacity to manage fadama resources and improve their productivity, by ensuringthat the integrityo f fadama ecosystems and the ecological services they pro- vide, are maintained and protected from threats stemming from both intensification o f land use within fadama areas, and land use and water management practices within the watersheds or basins inwhich fadama areas are located. 2. The GEF Project would finance the incremental costs o f six o f the 18 states par- ticipating in the Fadama 11, based on a prioritization o f the issues using a set criteria, in- cluding: extent and severity o f land degradation; presence o f significant natural habitats, wetlands and/or biodiversity; importance o f watershed protection (from deforestation and/or water management); and severity o f resource conflict among users. The target beneficiaries for the Project include: (i) members o f the Fadama Communities Associa- tion-to be established as a condition for accessing Fadama I1IDA resources; (ii) other fadama users who do not necessarily belong to the FCAs; (iii) communities living in critical areas o f the fadama-related watersheds (e.g., in upstream degraded forest/pasture areas); (iv) federal, state, and local government officials involved in the management o f key (non-oil) natural resources; and (v) NGOs and private sector service providers in- volved in fadama related natural resource management and community development. In all, the GEF intervention would target 15 percent to 20 percent o f the IDA project target beneficiaries, or about four hundred thousand (400,000) inthe following states and sites: (i) (OgutaLakeandOhajiEgbema); (ii) (Jega-Dimbegu); (iii) (Ajasse- Imo Kebbi Kwara Ipo); (iv) Kogi (Koton Karfe); (v) Ogun(Eriti); and (vi) Bauchi: Andiwa Lake. 3. Inaddition to advisory services and infrastructure investments financed by IDA, the Project would provide resources for capacity buildingo f fadama stakeholders, includ- ing: formulation o f Local Development Plans; buildingcapacity o f ADPs (state agricul- ture agencies) and facilitators (to support social mobilization and fadama development planning); institutional strengthening for watershed management (policy and regulatory framework, training o f key agencies, communities, and NGOs in land use planning and strategic environmental assessment, baseline studies, enhanced GISRS capacity); and capacity building at community level (education, awareness raising, sustainable local de- velopment planning). In addition, the Project would support watershed ecosystem man- agement incritical pilot areas, including sustainable management o f upstream community forests, reservoir management, and improved groundwater management as well as sup- port to communities for the adoption o f sustainable agriculture and land use practices. - 77 - 4. Economic benefits o f the Project would be the result o f increased agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture production as well as sustainable use o f fadama land and water resources. Based on the analysis o f farm budgets specific to fadama areas, it i s expected that Fadama I1would result in significant increases in fadama users' income, with addi- tional positive impact on rural economies through upstream and downstream linkages. 5. It is expected that the Project would also promote private sector and NGO partici- pation, which are expected to increase through the provision o f advisory services, special- ized training in sustainable land management as well as social mobilization and conflict resolution. 6. The overall sustainability o f the Project i s expected to be high, although highly dependent on the durability o f the FCAs as organizations that represent the interests o f all Fadama User Groups (FUGs) (including marginalized and vulnerable groups). In addi- tion, the sustainability o f project benefits will depend on several factors. The watershed coordination mechanism that will be established at the state level will provide the institu- tional basis for sustaining project outcomes. Similarly, the establishment o f Local De- velopment Plans (LDPs) under Fadama I1(using facilitators and NGOs to mobilize com- munities as FCAs or other user groupings) would ensure that community needs, perspec- tives, and ownership are internalized in LDPs. Moreover, the provision o f resources to strengthen LDPs and adopt sustainable agriculture and land use practices would ensure the availability o f livelihood options that are conducive to the conservation o f critical fadama ecosystems. Therefore, it is anticipated that with the firm commitment by the government to establish a watershed coordinating mechanism, to provide adequate sup- port for the GISRS facilities, and to support alternative livelihood activities by commu- nitymembers,project benefits wouldbe sustained. 7. Total project cost, excluding farmer's contributions, has been estimated at US$63.22 million. IDA has already contributed a credit inthe amount o f US$38.67 mil- lion to the Second National Fadama Development Project, and the GEF contribution is estimated at about US$lO million. Economic Analysis 8. Giventhe demand-driven (CDD) nature o f the key activities to be executed under the Project, the economic, social, and environmental benefits o f the Project cannot all be estimated. However, using the Economic Rate o f Return analysis undertaken for the main IDA-funded Fadama I1 Project, and the results o f the incremental cost analysis above, the cost effectiveness o f the Project can be conservatively estimated. 9. The investments made under the GEF Alternative will be determined through a demand-driven approach, and, therefore, apriori determination o f how resources will be allocated is not possible. Therefore, inlieu o f ex ante estimation o f the cost effectiveness o f the specific investment is not possible, prototype farm models, based on information from previous and ongoing community-based rural livelihood projects, were used to de- termine the ERR from productive investments in crop and livestock enterprises as well as - 78 - aquaculture and agro processing. Using a 15 year horizon and 12 percent opportunity cost o f capital, it was estimated that IDA investment in Fadama I1(which includes two additional components for infrastructure investment and pilot asset acquisition support relative to the GEF alternative) would result in an ERR o f 40 percent. Furthermore, as- suming that rate o f returni s roughly proportional to investment amount, the ERR for the GEF alternative would be at least 18 percent. Additional returns from the net benefits associated with the GEF incremental costs would lead additional return in the order o f 4 percent, resulting ina total ERR for the GEF alternative o f at least 22 percent. Financial Analysis 10. Finally, a traditional financial analysis +as carried out for the main Fadama I1 Project along the same lines as the economic analysis and usingrelevant assumptions on enterprises and cropping patterns (based on the experience from smallholder irrigation, and data available from dry season surveys conducted by local ADPs), financial input and output prices, and investmentmodels over a period o f 15 years for the analysis. 11. The financial analysis indicates an IRR o f 45 percent, resulting from highreturns on prototype productive investments and, therefore, it i s expected that the financial vi- ability o f investments under the GEF alternative would result in a financial rate of return exceeding 25 percent (under similar assumption as inthe economic analysis: 12 percent discount rate, and 15 year investmenthorizon). - 79 - TechnicalAnnex 10: SafeguardPolicyIssues PotentialLong-TermImpacts 1. Unlikethe mainFadama I1Project, which was categorized as `A', mainlybecause o f potential conflicts among fadama users (especially, between farmers and pastoralists due to unclear land tenure arrangements) and lessons learned through the first National FadamaDevelopment Project (NFDP), the proposed GEF-cofinanced Project i s classified as category "B". N o adverse long-term impacts are anticipated, and the Project will not involve infrastructure or any form o f land acquisition or restriction o f livelihoods. Fur- thermore, the potential negative impacts o f on-the-ground project activities (e.g., reduced tillage, rotations, field-level soils and water conservation practices, buffer zone woodlots) will be minor and site-specific, and significantly outweighed by expected positive envi- ronmental benefits, typical o f a category "B" project. Project Location and Salient Physical Characteristics Relevant to the Safeguard Analysis 2. The proposed Project is expected to take place in six o f the eighteen Fadama I1 states. The states and the respective intervention sites are: (i) Bauchi(AndiwaLake) (ii)Imo(OgutaLake) (iii)Kebbi(Jega-Dimbegu) (iv) Kwara (Ajasse-Ipo) (v) Kogi (Koton Karfe) (vi) Ogun (Eriti) 3. The EA report adopted for this Project contains an " Analysis o f Alternatives" section, and concludes that the Project, as presently designed, adequately addresses its development objectives, while not placing irreversible adverse impacts on the bio- physical and social environment. The report further maintains that the `do nothing' sce- nario would worsen the present situation in the proposed intervention sites and worsen poverty. MeasuresTaken by the Borrowerto Address SafeguardIssues 4. The safeguards documentation prepared under the main IDA Fadama I1Project includes an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), an Environ- mental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and a Pest Management Plan (PMP). The ESMF outlined the institutional and technical - 80 - arrangements for environmental and social impact management o f all potential project activities. Inparticular, the ESMF i s linked to the RPF and the Pest Management Plan. 5. The proposed GEF project safeguard issues are fully covered under the safeguards package o f the main IDA Fadama I1Project, which was disclosed in-country and at the Infoshop in 2003; and recently redisclosed for this Project. 6. The design and proposed implementation arrangements o f the Project are fully integratedwith the main IDA Fadama I1Project. Thus, given the integratednature o f the GEF-financed activities in the Fadama 11, the Project will adopt the existing activity screening and environmental mitigation process o f the ESMF, to which will be added an environmental and social screening checklist to cover the incremental GEF activities. 7. The mainfeatures o fthe ESMF are: an outline o fthe potential environmental and social impacts o f the Project, the mitigation measures required, the management respon- sibilities, and the cost associated with its implementation. These measures have been in- tegrated into the existing ESMF/ESIA as the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to ensure that they are reflected inthe LDPs. Institutional strengthening will be provided to participating government agencies and NGOs/CBOs to build capacity for identification, monitoring, and managing social and environmental impacts associated with fadama de- velopment. 8. In addition, the Project responds to the objectives of the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) and the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) on the integration o f environmental and social concerns by empowering com- munitieshousehold to participate inproject design and implementation via social mobili- zation and intermediation process, and provision o f participatory monitoring and evalua- tion. 9. The NFDO, the SFDOs, and FMEnv have adequate capacity to implement the measures described inthe safeguards documents. Project impact on the environment will be monitored during implementation using indicators that reflect the objectives and re- sults o f the Project. Responsibility for the implementation o f the EMP and monitoring compliance resides with the NFDO. 10. The SFDOs are staffed with one environment officer, who will be given adequate and specialized training under the Project and will be complemented with short-term na- tional safeguards consultants as and when the need arises. - 81 - TechnicalAnnex 11: Project Preparationand Supervision Milestone Planned Actual PCN Review 05/30/2002 07/09/2002 InitialPID to Infoshop 0611612002 06/27/2003 InitialISDS to Infoshop 12121I2001 Appraisal 06/02/2005 06/02/2005 Negotiations 09/29/2005 09/29/2005 BoardJRVP Approval 03/30/2006 Effectiveness Date 04/28/2006 Supervision Semi-annual Mid-Term Review 03/2007 ClosingDate 12/31/2011 Bank Staff and ConsultantsWho Worked on the Preparationof the Project Name Title Unit Aziz Bouzaher Lead Environmental Specialist AFTS1 Simeon Ehui Sr. Sector Economist AFTS3 Africa Olojoba Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTS3 Chukwudi Okafor Sr. Social Development Specialist AFTS3 Bay0 Awosemusi Sr. Procurement Specialist AFTPC Mary Asanato Procurement Analyst AFTPC Edward Olowo-Okere Lead Fin.Mgmt.Specialist AFTFM Adenike Mustafa Sr. Financial Mgmt.Specialist AFTFM Christophe Crepin GEF ProgramManager AFTS4 Lucie Tran Operations Analyst AFTS4 DineshAryal Operations Analyst LCSEN Azra Lodi Sr. Program Assistant AFTS3 Abigael BunmiIpinlaiye Team Assistant AFc12 Wendy Wiltshire Operations Analyst AFTS2 Song Li Consultant AFTS4 Sameena Dost Counsel LEGAF HishamAbdo Kahin Counsel LEGAF - 82 - TechnicalAnnex 12: Documentsin ProjectFile ProjectImplementationPlan 1. Project ImplementationManual 2. Project Implementation Plan BankDocuments 1. Project Concept Document 2. Project InformationDocument (PCD Stage) 3. Integrated SafeguardsData Sheet (PCD Stage) 4. MinutesofPCD Review Meeting 5. MinutesofDecisionMeeting 6. Project Appraisal Document 7. Project InformationDocument (PAD Stage) 8. Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (PAD Stage) 9. MinutesofNegotiations 10. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) 11. RiparianNotificationDocument ProjectStudiesandReports 1. IdentificationandPrioritizationofCriticalFadamaEcosystem-Geomatics Nigeria, March2005. Other 1. FadamaI1Preparatory Studies (filed inIRIS-IDAFadamaI1Project, P063622) - 83 - TechnicalAnnex 13: IncrementalCost Analysis IntroductionandBackground OverallContext 1. With over 900,000 Km2of landanda coastline extendingabout 960 Kmalongthe Atlantic Ocean, Nigeria i s endowed with abundant social and natural resource wealth. Principal vegetation types range from dense mangrove forests o f the Niger Delta and rainforests o f the south to dry grassland o f the north and mountain grasslands o f the Jos and Mambila Plateau. Soils are largely o f the ferruginous tropical type, with alluvial de- posits along the two major rivers, Niger and Benue. 2. The country is also rich in biological diversity, many o f which are o f global sig- nificance, including 24 species o f primates, 274 mammalian species, 831species of birds, 19 species o f amphibians and 166 species o f fresh water fish. Existing inventories iden- tify 7,895 plant species, 484 o f which are endangered. Many of these plant species in- clude wild relatives o f important domestic species, medicinal plants, and other plants o f economic value. 3. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Government o f Nigeria has committed to sus- tainable natural resource management (land, water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, and wild flora and fauna) to produce ecosystem services that underpin much o f the country's economy. The National Action Program to combat Desertification, which was produced by the government in2001, has reportedthat between 50 percent to 75 percent o f Bauchi, Bomo, Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara States are be- ing affected by desertification, whereas, 10percent to 15 percent o f the lands inFederal Capital Territory, Plateau, Adamawa, Taraba, Niger, Kwara and Kaduna states are threat- ened by desertification. 4. In these areas, the population pressure resulting in over-grazing and over- exploitation o f marginal lands have aggravated desertification and drought. Entire vil- lages and major access roads have been buried under sand dunes inthe extreme northem parts o f Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Borno, and Yobe States. Besides the natural phenome- non, poor land management practices and population pressure on marginal lands are iden- tified as major factors disrupting the ecological system. More specifically, four primary causes have been reported, notably over-exploitation, poor irrigation practices, over- grazing and deforestation. 5. Incomes and productivity in rural Nigeria are low and stagnant. The rural sector employs about 70 percent o f the country's labor force, generates one-third o f its gross domestic product and accounts for about 5 percent o f its total exports. However, about 70 percent o f the rural population remains poor. Malnutrition and infant mortality rates - 84 - are still high and rural incomes are lower today than they were twenty years ago. Under- lying this trend is the basic problem that the value added per capita in agriculture and animal husbandry has grown at less than one percent per year for at least 15 years. Ecological Importance of Fadama Areas 6. Some of the country's most productive but ecologically sensitive areas, and which have been under increasing development pressure, are fadama lands (mostly floodplains and low-lying areas underlined by shallow aquifers, found along Nigeria's major river systems--Niger and Benue rivers--and wetland systems, such as, Hadejia-Nguru). Fadama areas play an important role in the recharge o f the shallow groundwater system through infiltration. Prior to their conversion to cultivation, fadama lands supported highlyproductive natural vegetation consisting o f dense acacia scrubland, open grassland and seasonally or permanently flooded open bodies o f water supporting dense emergent vegetation, including rushes, sedges and reeds. Furthermore, in addition to providing a source o f water and forage for pastoral livestock during dry seasons, fadama lands also support large and diverse resident or transient wildlife, including herbivores, carnivores and migratory birds. 7. Fadama areas are remarkably different from adjacent uplands in terms o f their ecology and microclimate. Since they are low-lying flood prone, slow-draining areas, they generally posses finer texture and less acid soils. With an increasing pressure from farmers, pastoralists and fishermen, the impact on the ecology o f fadama areas has been dramatic. Furthermore, compounded by a the lack o f a coherent policy and institutional framework for integrated natural resource management at the watershed level, the loss o f vegetative cover, intensification o f agriculture practices, construction o f dams, manage- ment o f reservoirs, and competing land uses including haphazard use of land for brick making cottage industry, all contribute to making land degradation emerge as the most significant threat to the long-term sustainability o f fadama resources and the benefits that flow from them. 8. An indication o f the rapidly expanding land conversion in fadama areas is given by a recent remote sensing based analysis o f land use changes in Nigeria (ref.: FORMECU 1998, "The Assessment o f Vegetation and Land Use Changes inNigeria be- tween 1976/78 and 1995/97," report preparedby Geometrics International Inc., Ontario, Canada under Forestry Management, Evaluation and Coordinating Unit (FORMECU), Federal Department of Forestry)). The study shows that inthe span o f 20 years (from the mid-70s to the mid-90s), wetland areas (including freshwater swamps, mangrove forest, various types of marshes, and shrub-sedge areas) s h n k , while floodplain agriculture (predominantly along the Niger and Benue river systems) more than doubled (an increase o f over one million hectares). - 85 - Socioeconomic Importance of Fadama Areas 9. The farming systems in fadama areas are predominantly upland subsistence agri- culture that are highly dependent on the vagaries o f the weather, while the potential for irrigation, using underground and surface waters, remains underdeveloped. The average irrigated area per rural household o f six i s less than one hectare and 90 percent o f the farms have less than two hectares o f irrigated land. Farmers use the remainder o f their holding to diversify their production, by cultivating rain-fed crops, raising livestock, and producing fish. Agricultural production techniques have remained rudimentary despite many years of work on technology generation and transfer. Major crops produced by fadama farmers are okra, yam, sweet potato, cassava, tomatoes, onions, garden eggs (eggplants), rice, and beans. Farmers also produce fruits, such as, mangos, guavas, ba- nanas, sugarcane andplantain to supplement their income from farming. 10. Inaddition to the farmingcommunities, fadama lands are also usedbypastoralists and fishers. In some areas, urbanization has encroached fadama lands and demand for land use has seen stiff competition between farmers, pastoralists, fishers and cottage in- dustrialists, inparticular brick makers. The increased competition has had severe impact on land and water resources management, resulting in degradation o f land, siltation in rivers and lakes, and depletion o f groundwater. Furthermore, the competing use have re- sulted in a steady growth in conflict between different user groups, some of which were violent resulting indeath 'and loss o f farm products and infrastructure. Development Goals 11. Clearly, fadama resources are both economically and ecologically significant, and constitute an important safety net for the rural poor. However, their sustainability has been steadily eroding due to a number o f factors which the proposed GEF Project seeks to address. Chief factors among these are: (i) the policy o f conversion and open access to fadama resources without coherent land use and land management plans at the produc- tive landscape level; (ii)the lack o f awareness of local communities, and the weak capac- ityo f extension advisors (through Agricultural Development Projects) whose training and mandate do not incorporate sustainability considerations; (iii) the lack o f adequate coor- dination and integration of Natural Resource Management Policy and Strategy at all lev- els o f government, and the gaps in technical planning at the state and local government levels, particularly, in terms of the wider watershed management issues where fadama lands are situated; (iv) the institutional barriers, driven by limited capacity o f human and technical resources, but also limited access to financial resources; and (v) fundamentally, the lack o f overall understanding o f the interdependence between land use and water management, both within and outside o f fadama areas, and the impact o f land degrada- tion on ecosystem integrity throughout the larger productive landscape--made up o f land, water, vegetative cover-upon which the ruralpoor depend. 12. Therefore, to preserve the productive capacity o f fadama lands and to make fadama resources equitably accessible to different user groups, a long-term sustainable - 86 - land and water resources management regime, within a watershed context, and involving fadama users, i s critical. The Second National Fadama Development Project financed by IDA and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) contribute to: (i) improving the liveli- hoods o f fadama users through a community-driven development approach; and (ii) im- proving the sustainable management o f the productive capacity o f fadama lands and as- sociated ecosystems. GEFOperational Program and FocalArea 13. The proposed Project falls under the GEF Operational Program 15 (Land Degra- dation) and meets the GEF strategic priorities o f (i)"Targeted Capacity Building," through country-driven activities aimed at supporting the promotion o f sustainable land management (SLM) at watershed level, and focused on integration o f "land use planning systems" and "coordination support" aimed at enhancing the productivity o f fadama eco- systems, and thereby maintaining the flow o f services they provide both inNigeria and regionally throughout the Niger and Benue river basins; and (ii) "Implementation o f In- novative and Indigenous Sustainable Land Use Practices," through a demand-driven ap- proach to piloting the adoption o f sustainable agricultural activities (including improved soil and water conservation, pasture/grazing management), and sustainable forest and woodland management. Baseline Scenario 14. Scope. The baseline condition is essentially defined by the fadama program, which started with the first National Fadama Development Project (1993-1999) and is continued through Fadama I1Project, which was designed in such a way as to incorporate the proposedGEF Project as a component (despite separate processingandtimetables). 15. The World Bank supported first National Fadama Development Project was im- plemented between 1993-1999 and helped seven states (Bauchi, Gombe, Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara, Kano, and Jigawa) in the northern part o f the country to develop small-scale irrigation through low cost pumping technology and the installation o f 50,000 shallow tubewells for irrigating 100,000 ha o f fadama lands, which resulted in significant in- creases in productivity and incomes o f about 49,000 farm families - mostly small-scale farmers. The apparent success o f the first National Fadama Development Project led the Federal Government of Nigeria to seek World Bank assistance for the development and implementation o fFadama 11. 16. Despiteits success, the Project's approach clearly lacked grounding insound prin- ciples o f social and environmental sustainability. Inthe end, the first National Fadama Development Project helped improve productivity and incomes o f farmers, but contrib- uted to exacerbating social conflicts among resource users (e.g., farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunterdgatherers), and exacerbated the degradation o f natural resources, includ- ing depletion o f floodplains and loss o f biological diversity as a result o f extension o f farming areas, encroachment o f fadama farming into river beds, resulting in increased - 87 - sedimentation, turbidity, and incidence o f flooding, and changes in the hydrology o f the ecosystem, resulting in depletion o f ground water levels (the first National Fadama De- velopment Project Staff Appraisal Report and Implementation Completion Report). 17. The main development objective o f Fadama I1is to sustainably increase the in- comes o f fadama users - those who depend directly or indirectly on fadama resources (farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters, gatherers, and service providers) - through em- powering communities to take charge o f their own development agenda. The Project will adopt a community-driven development approach, through which all fadama users will be encouraged to form apex Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) that would develop socially inclusive local development plans (LDPs) in a participatory manner. The LDPs will explicitly state the measures to sustainably manage fadama resources and resolve conflict among different users. It will also contain micro-project(s) proposals which will provide the basis for support under the Project. The implementation o f the Fadama I1in- cludes an Environmental Management Plan, designedto mitigate potential negative envi- ronmental and social impacts o f IDNADB financed activities (and enhance positive ones), at the level o f LDPs and fadama areas. 18. Costs. Inthe absence o f GEF finding, over a six year period, the total expendi- tures associated with the Baseline Scenario are estimated to be US$53.19 million, as summarized below: (a) Capacity Building (US$21.53 million). The aim o f this substantial baseline component i s to build the capacity o f fadama users and other key stakeholders. IDA and counterpart financing will support buildingthe capacity o f fadama user associations in order to enable them to access project advisory services and fi- nancing to invest in productivity and income enhancement activities. The main outputs o f this component include: (i) the establishment o f FCAs through facili- tation and social mobilization, and the preparation o f LDPs, which will be the main vehicle for accessing IDA financial resources; (ii) technical assistance and training o f government agency staff and facilitators to strengthen project imple- mentation capacity; (iii) promotion o f information sharing and good practices, focused on productivity enhancement and marketing, and transparency and ac- countability in project implementation. Without GEF, it is anticipated that the process o f improving the productivity o f fadama resources and the incomes o f fadama users would proceed in a socially inclusive manner, but would lead to landuse intensification without taking into account the cumulative impacts at the watershed level and the long-term sustainability o f natural resources, leading in time to further land degradation and depletion o f water resources. Furthermore, inthe absence o f GEF support, Nigeriawould continue lacking the capacity for sustainable land and watershed management. (b) Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level (US$4.73 million). In the baseline, this component provides only counterpart funding required by pro- curement rules. Therefore, without GEF, the key activities (on the ground and site-specific) needed for the protection of critical watersheds and improvement inwater management will not beundertaken. - 88 - (c) Community Sustainable Land Management (US$10.09 million). The aim o f this substantial baseline component i s to support a range o f advisory services, training, information sharing, awareness programs, and adoption o f land-use practices that will enable fadama users to adopt productivity enhancing tech- niques and more profitable marketing, and at the same time ensure the sustain- ability o f the fadama resource base. While IDA Fadama I1financing will focus on traditional advisory services, including environmentally friendly practices (particularly, the promotion o f Integrated Pest Management and irrigation effi- ciency to improve productivity), in the absence o f GEF intervention, technical and financial support to fadama users in order to adopt livelihood enhancing, sustainable land-use and agricultural practices that enhance the structural and functional integrity o f fadama ecosystems will not be undertaken. (d) Project Management and M&E (US$16.84 million). This substantial baseline component focuses on project management mechanisms, including monitoring and evaluation plans to implement Fadama I1Project and put inplace an effec- tive implementation and monitoring and evaluation system, and whereas with GEF support, this component would include M&E o f"fadama ecosystem issues" which will be absent without it. Under the baseline, this component i s com- prised o f two subcomponents: (i)Project Management Subcomponent supports new or existing institutional entities and mechanisms at the federal, state and local levels o f government for overall project coordination and supervision and would help to strengthen the effectiveness and quality o f project operations. It will sup- port, at the federal level, the National Fadama Development Office (NFDO) (attached to the Projects Coordinating Unit o f the Federal Ministry o f Agri- culture and Rural Development), which will be responsible for overall pro- ject coordination. The subcomponent will also support the State Fadama Development Offices (SFDOs) housed at the Agricultural Development Project. At the local government level, the project will support a Local Fadama Desk and a multi-stakeholder committee which would be responsi- ble, respectively, for screening and approving LDPs and subproject propos- als submitted by the FCAs. Finally, the subcomponent will finance special- ized technical assistance and training at the federal, state, and local levels aimed at developing capacity for coordination o f implementation. (ii)Monitoring and Evaluation Subcomponent will measure performance at various project milestones, and include three main elements: (a) Manage- ment Information System integrating NFDO and SFDO levels with data generated by FCAs; (b) impact evaluations and beneficiary assessments to enhance project implementation performance; and (c) monitoring o f the Project's Environmental Management Plan, which includes mitigation measures related to agricultural production, processing, and marketing, to - 89 - be incorporated in LDPs, and institutional capacity strengthening in Envi- ronmentalImpact Assessment and Integrated Pest Management. 19. Benefits. Inthe scenario without GEF support, the fadama development activities will be implementedunder the IDNAfDB-funded Fadama I1baseline components, with contribution to the project objectives through empowerment o f local FCAs to develop and implement LDPs, and improve livelihoods. It was estimated that a 40 percent eco- nomic rate o f return would arise from quantifiable benefits related to increases in crop and livestock production, aquaculture, and agro-processing. However, this estimate does not include the cost o f environmental externalities and is, therefore, considered a gross overestimate o fthe net benefits from the Project under the baseline scenario. Underthese conditions, the sustainability o f the productivity o f the fadama ecosystems will continue to gradually erode, leading over time to undermining the foundation o f the benefit flows to fadama users in Nigeria and have negative regional and global impact because o f the strong links betweenfadama-related watershed management inNigeria and the rest o f the Niger and Benue basins riparians. Although a fully funded Environmental Management Plan will deal with on- and off-site project impacts, wider fadama ecosystem health and related institutional issues will not be addressedwithout the GEF intervention. GEFAlternative 20. Scope. With GEF assistance for addressing land degradation and related inte- grated ecosystem management objectives o f the Project, the Government o f Nigeria will be able to lay the foundation for a more effective program o f fadama development. GEF assistance would provide a distinct and significant enhancement--over existing initiatives and program-- in the conservation o f critical fadama ecosystems, and in the capacity o f Nigeria to sustainably manage its "fragile" fadama land resources ina watershed context, and to contribute to regional and global benefits in the form o f biodiversity conservation, improved land quality management, carbon sequestration, enhanced groundwater man- agement, and conservationo f the Niger and Benue river systems. 21. The implementation o f Fadama I1with GEF assistance will include a component aimed at identifying and contributing to the sustainable management of critical ecosys- tems (e.g., entire watersheds or wetlands, river systems, groundwater resources, forest areas or areas of high biodiversity) which are directly or indirectly impacted by both fadama expansion (new fadama areas) and intensification (groundwater extraction, use o f agro-chemicals, multiple cropping, river bank encroachment, etc.). In addition, the GEF component would further strengthen the CDD approach through capacity building o f FCAs and promoting sustainable livelihood activities which are essential to the conserva- tion o f critical ecosystems. 22. Therefore, the major thrust o f the proposed incremental activities would be to complement the production development and livelihood enhancement focus o f Fadama I1 with: (i) targeted capacity building aimed at supporting the promotion o f S L M at water- shed level through integration o f landuse planningsystems and coordination support; and (ii)implementation o f innovative and indigenous sustainable land use practices, through a - 90 - demand-driven approach to piloting the adoption o f sustainable agricultural activities (in- cluding improved soil and water conservation, pasture/grazing management), and sus- tainable forest and woodland management. 23. Costs. The total expenditures associated with the GEF alternative are estimated to be US$63.22 million. These are summarized in Table 10. Under the GEF alternative, Fadama I1will still comprise the followingbaseline components, expandedas follows: (a) Capacity Building (US$22.95 million). With GEF support, this increased component would enhance the capacity o f different stakeholder groups-- includingrelevant federal, state and local government, NGOs, community-based organizations, and fadama users in the six targeted states (Imo, Kebbi, Kwara, Kogi, Ogun, and Bauchi)-- for sustainable land andwatershed management. The GEF support is designed to use a coordinated approach to provide specific awareness raising programs, workshops, and technical training to stakeholders. A set o f technical and socio-economic tool kits for integrated sustainable land management at the watershed and fadama level will be developed, including: planning and analytical tools (e.g., GIS for watershed planning and information sharing for government officials inkey NRM agencies); sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., tillage, crop mix/rotations, nutrient management, soil and water conservation techniques, river bank protection for farmers); and sustainable har- vest techniques for forest and non-timber forest products and fishing for com- munity members. In addition, given the highly fragmented institutional frame- work for watershed management at all levels inNigeria, this component includes a review o f federal and state policies and regulations, and support for the devel- opment o f a framework for state level coordination and monitoring and evalua- tion o fwatershed management activities among key state agencies (environment, agriculture, forestry, natural resources). Finally, the component includes support for a few baseline and strategic studies related to fadama critical ecosystem is- sues. (b) Component 2: Integrated Ecosystem Management at Watershed Level (US$8.81 million). With GEF support, this expanded component would ad- dress the technical, social and location-specific activities to improve the man- agement o f critical watersheds that ensure fadama productivity and sustainability ina few (pilot) areas with highpotential for upscaling and replicability. Major activities include strengthening existing watershed planning and coordination mechanism among the relevant state agencies (to complement activities under Component l), sustainable management o f forest resources for the protection o f fadama areas (especially, supporting the establishment o f community forest re- serves inhighly degraded and conflict-ridden rainforest and savannah areas), de- veloping a lake management plan for a proposed R A M S A R site and study and monitoring activities to understand the impact o f upstream reservoir manage- ment and river flow regime on fadama areas. Furthermore, a monitoring plan will be devised to improve the management o f groundwater and shallow aquifers in selected fadama areas. This plan complements baseline activities of on-site water quality monitoring (related mainly to pesticide use). -91 - (c) Component 3: Community Sustainable Land Management (US$l4.05 mil- lion). With GEF support, this expanded component would support a range o f advisory services, training, information sharing, awareness programs, and adop- tion o f land use practices that will enable fadama users to adopt productivity en- hancing techniques and more profitable marketing, and at the same time ensure the sustainability o f the fadama resource base. While under the baseline sce- nario, the focus i s on traditional advisory services, including environmentally friendly practices (particularly, the promotion o f Integrated Pest Management, and irrigation efficiency), under the GEF alternative, support would be provided to fadama users through FCAs, community groups, and NGOs to adopt sustain- able land use and agricultural practices that enhance the structural and functional integrity o f fadama ecosystems and improve rural livelihoods. The support to communities would involve grant co-financing, usinga demand-driven approach for two types o f alternative land use practices: (i)land use changes incritical ar- eas, such as, river banks, flood-prone or groundwater recharge areas, and forest or natural habitats o f significant biodiversity values; and (ii) sustainable agricul- tural practices in famada areas addedto IDA-supported LDPs. Inmost case, in- terventions in these areas require management plans across larger landscapes (that may even cross state boundaries) and, therefore, the need to get these plans agreed and adopted at a community level and incorporated into the watershed planning process, which the Project will help develop at the sate level through components 1and 2. (d) Component 4: Project Management and M&E (US$l7.41 million). With GEF support, this expanded component will put in place project management mechanisms (described in details under the baseline scenario), including ex- panded monitoring and evaluation plans to implement Fadama I1that fully inte- grate monitoring and evaluation o f fadama ecosystem issues as well as project management, procurement, andfinancial operational support. 24. Benefits. The GEF alternative incorporates the benefits o f the baseline scenario, and will enable further beneficial outcomes beyond those already specified. In addition to the baseline production and livelihood benefits, incremental benefits to the global community include the ability to protect and manage critical watersheds, sustain and con- serve fadama land resources, improve the management o f surface and groundwater re- sources, and protect biodiversity in the Niger and Benue river basins. Furthermore, global benefits will be accrued from the enhanced capacity o f key (federal and state) natural resource management agencies inNigeria to adopt integrated approaches to natu- ral resource management in a watershed context as well as enhanced capacity for moni- toring and fulfillment o f international obligations. Finally, the enhanced capacity o f communities to adopt sustainable land management (SLM) and agricultural practices will improve the chances o f replicability and up-scaling both within Nigeria and in riparian states. 25. The above incrementalbenefits under the GEF alternative (not all o f which can be quantified) are indicatively estimated at US$12.4 million, as summarized in Table 9 be- - 92 - low. These benefits are associated with sustainable uses through project activities, and are based on the assumption that GEF support will help: (i) reduce (by one percent to ten percent) the cost o f natural resource degradation (currently estimated at US$5 billion an- nually, and affecting 50 million people) inthe fadama ecosystem inthe six project states; and (ii)improve the net present value o f production benefits (above the baseline scenario by one percent) for the fadama user inthe six project states through SLMpractices. Table 9: Incremental DomesticBenefit a1Benefitsof GEF Under ative ReducedEnvironmentalDegradation illion) Assumption 10% 5Yo 1Yo Reduced cost of land, water, and forest degradation 27.2 13.6 2.7 Enhanced benefits o f SLM activities 7.9 7.9 7.9 Opportunity cost of change inland use practices (9.1) (9.1) (9.1) (assumed 1% set aside for conservation) TOTAL 26.0 12.4 1.5 IncrementalCosts 26. The total project cost under the baseline scenario, where only the IDA/AfDB credit will be implemented, is US$47 million, while the total cost under the GEF alterna- tive is US$63.22 million. The incremental cost under the GEF alternative is, therefore, US$10.03 million, corresponding to a GEF contribution o f 18 percent o f total cost. This incremental cost is offset by an incremental global benefit ranging from US$1.5 million to US$26 million (withUS$12.4 million as the median), which would not have been real- ized in the baseline scenario, and is primarily associated with local sustainable land use by fadama communities, and a strengthened country capacity for addressing integrated land degradation in a watershed context. Overall, the GEF alternative will result in a net incremental benefit of about US$2.4 million. -93 - Table 10: IncrementalCost Analysis Summary (2004) ~~ ~ Component Category Estimated Local Benefit Global Benefit Expenditures (US% million) 1. Capacity Build- Baseline 21.53 Improved social capital Reduced conflict among fadama users, and ing [through formation of FCAs, access to advisory services leads to re- kaining, and awareness), and duced pressure on globally significant capacity of fadama users to resources. prepare and implement local development plans leads to improving the productivity of fadama areas and reduction of poverty. With GEF 22.95 Same as above. Policy and institutional strengthening in Alternative sustainable land use planning at federal, state, local government, and community levels, and promotion of a framework for an integrated watershed management to fadama ecosystems, leading to improved protectionof key forest areas, buffer zones, and wetlands and improved water man- agement, implication of which is signifi- cantboth regionally and globally. Incremental 1.42 2. Integrated Eco- Baseline 4.73 _-- systemManagement at Watershed Level With GEF 8.81 Improved water quality moni- Improved watershed planning and coordi- Alternative toring (related mainly to pesti- nation mechanisms, sustainable manage- cide use resulting from intensi- ment of forest resources inhighly degraded fication of agricultural produc- and conflict-ridden rainforestand savannah tion). areas, improved surface water management and monitoring activities to understand the impact of upstream reservoir management and river flow regimeon fadama areas, and monitoring for improved management of groundwater and shallow aquifers in se- lected fadama areas, for increased conser- vation and regional and global benefits (Niger and Benue river basin conservation, reduced siltation, improved water quality, carbon sequestration, andbiodiversity). Incremental 4.08 3. Community Sus- Baseline 10.09 Access to advisoryservices by Environmentally friendly practices (par- tainable Land Man- fadamausers leadto improved ticularly, the promotion of Integrated Pest agement productiontechnology, in- Management, and irrigation efficiency to creasedyields, and incomes. improve productivity), indirectly lead to enhancingwater quality and land use man- agement. - 94 - Component Category Estimated LocalBenefit GlobalBenefit Expenditures (US$million) With GEF 14.05 Same as above 3emand-driven grant financing (payment Alternative "or ecological services) for the adoption by hdama users o f sustainable land use and igricultural practices, lead to: (1)land use :hanges in critical areas, such as, river Janks, flood-prone or groundwater re- :harge areas, and forest or natural habitats 3 f significant biodiversity values; and (ii) adoption o f sustainable agricultural prac- tices in famada areas. These changes lead to enhancing the structural and functional integrity o f fadama ecosystems, and im- prove rural livelihoods Incremental 3.96 1. Project Man- Baseline 16.84 Substantial improvement in Global benefits limited to indirect impact agement and Moni- project management mecha- o f enhanced data collection and capacity toring & Evaluation nisms and M&E plans, for building for M&E. smooth project implementation, including efficient administra- tion o f project funds, coordina- tion o f implementing institu- tions, and evaluation o f pro- gress inbaseline activities. With GEF 17.41 Same as above. In addition to the above, M&E of fadama Alternative resources at watershed level would be inte- grated into overall Fadama I1 M&E sys- tem, leading to improved monitoring of global resources and fulfillment o f Nige- ria's international obligation (desertifica- tion, biodiversity, international waters). ~ Incremental 0.57 TOTAL Baseline 53.19 With GEF 63.22 Alternative Incremental 10.03 Summary of calcu- Incremental 10.03 lationfor GEF eli- Cost (ex- gibility penditure) Incremental 12.4 Global Benefit &t Incre- 2.4 mental Benefit - 95 - TechnicalAnnex 14: STAP TechnicalRoster Review and Task Team's Response A. STAP Review INSTITUTE FORDEVELOPMENT ANTHROPOLOGY 99 Collier Street Binghamton, New York 13902-2207 Tel. 607-772-6244 DATE: 7 June 2004 TO: Dr.DineshAryal Daryal@worldbailk.org FROM: Michael Horowitz devanth~i:,biii~haniton.edu SUBJECT: STAP Review o f GEF Project Brieffor the Second National FadamaDe- velopment Project: Critical EcosystemManagement, dated 20 M a y 2004 Dear Dr. Aryal, Thank you for sharing the subject Project Brief and for seeking my review o f it. Follow- ingyour instructions Ihave tried to identify some o fthe weaknesses o f the proposedpro- ject. The focus on management o f riparian floodplains (fdarna) is a critical and too of- ten neglected component o f river basin development and Iam very pleased to see the at- tention the World Bank i s directing to it in the Project Brief. The TOR for my review begins with the claim that the First National Fadama Development Project experienced "inordinate levels o f degradation" o f the floodplains and a consequential loss o fbiodiver- ' sity. This is, o f course, a not uncommon consequence o fconventional approaches to dam construction and dam management on the sustainable productivity o f floodplains insemi- arid environments. Periodic flooding, capturing upstream rainfall, not only allowed for recession farming on the floodplains, but also for fishing and herding. The latter was critical for the farmers, because o f the soil enrichment provided by the manure from cat- tle, sheep, and goats. Similarly, millet and sorghum post-harvest crop residues provided important additions to livestock feed. Thus, a major question that must be answered is what will be the ecological and economic consequences o f the proposed project on the economically and culturally diverse groups that currently depend sequentially on the natural flows o fthe river, including its periodic floods. The document notes that allfadarna communities-"famers, pastoralists, fishers, hunt- ers, gatherers, and service providers"-- should be empowered to take charge o f their own development agendas. It does not however note that these "communities" are themselves internally differentiated socially and economically. The document needs to explain how project benefits will be equitably distributed, rather than being captured by the already - 96 - advantaged minorities. For example, the statement "communities will be empowered to take control o f the management o f these sites" needs to be modified to ask who in the community will take control and for whose benefit. Note that Ivery much endorse the emphasis on identifyingthe impacts of dams on the riparian ecology and the search for alternative ways o f managing these dams to reduce their negative effects. The document importantly notes the significance o f "indigenous initiatives" for watershed management, although there i s perhaps too much focus on the liabilities o f traditional practice and too little on commercial farming, dam construction, and the like (although this is acknowl- edged inthe section on "Ecological Importance o f FadamaAreas"). Perhaps the statement in section 2.2 lo., that the project seeks to "improve land and water resources management practices and to relieve pressure on critical ecosystems" might be elaborated to explain how it will do that in ways that benefit all the people. Again, the subcomponent on "Capacity Building" admirably seeks to "provide for capacity building for the communities to manage land sustainably and develop community basedconserva- tion enterprises," but it doesn't explain persuasively what the structure o f these "commu- nities" is, and how the project will assure that all (including women and the very poor) will benefit. In other words, while it properly notes that "Stakeholder involvement is considered o f central importance" and that "local participation in resource management should be assured," it needs more persuasively to show how that involvement and par- ticipation will be achieved, and it needs to show an awareness that "local" does not mean social and economically "undifferentiated". Thus, the document seeks "the preservation and maintenance o f indigenous and local communities" and the incorporation o f "knowl- edge, innovation, and practices relevant to land degradation and critical ecosystem man- agement," all o f which is excellent, but it doesn't persuasively explain how that will be achieved. Thus, it will be necessary to disaggregate the term "local community" by many variables including age, gender, economic status, educational level, et alia. This is neces- sary to assure the project's benefits will be equitably distributed. For example, the document refers to the necessity o f challenging "unsustainable land-use practices, over-exploitation o f natural resources and weak protected area management" and associates these with poverty. Yet it does not identify which o f the land-use practices is unsustainable and over-exploitative o f natural resources. All too often, the claim o f "unsustainability" i s leveled at "traditional" practices o f farmers and herders, particularly the traditional non-privatization o f productive resources. Yet many o f us who have done intensive field-research in the sahelian and sudanic regions o f West Africa have con- cluded that "open-access" to productive resources is both socially and environmentally sound. Admittedly, there are adjustments that have to be made relating to such factors as population growth and international border crossings, but shifting cultivation ("swidden" farming) andpastoral herding, botho fwhich require mobility, have proven to be socially, economically and environmentally more sustainable when practices under privatized land andwater resources. Thus, the assertion of "unsustainable land-use practices" (p. 2) and its claimed link to poverty need to be qualified. Whose land-use practices are unsustainable? What i s the evidence for the claim? Clearly, desertification is a major problem, but is it a function - 97 - primarily o f pastoral use ("over-grazing") as claimed in the document, or has it to do more with recent constraints posed on pastoral herders? With increasing amounts o f land being devoted to irrigated crop production, lands that previously rotated among produc- tive users when their productivity was rainfall-dependenthavebecome scarce. The document asserts that there are ecological costs to "over-exploitation, poor irrigation practices, over-grazing and deforestation." It would help if it differentiated among these, for clearly they have different causes and different (short-term) beneficiaries, as well as varying environmental consequences. For example, the document notes that "with an increasing pressure from farmers, pastor- alists and fishermen, the impact on the ecology o f fadama areas has been dramatic." This i s too general a claim, for it doesn't differentiate commercial from subsistence and near subsistence producers. What are the different social, environmental, and economic im- plications, for example, of floodplain production o f sorghum for local consumption and floodplain production o f cotton for export? The project's goal o f arresting degradation patterns in fadama areas i s salutary. Its achievement will need to be based on more per- suasive ecological understandings than appear to inform the current text. On the other hand, Ivery much concur with the goal o f making "fadama resources equitably accessible to different user groups", which would seem to preclude turning them over to large-scale irrigated production of commercial crops. Among the "higher-level objectives to which the Project contributes" is the empower- ment o f "local communities to play an active role in their own development." This i s a most worthy goal. However, the document does not clearly explain how these local communities are internally differentiated, and how the Project will assure that its benefits are not disproportionately captured by the already affluent and powerful. Communities that are identified will need careful study and analysis o f their internal socioeconomic differentiations, to assure that the Project would not further benefit the already affluent and powerful at the expense o f the poor majorities. This is not easy, because economic development organizations have been hesitant to deal with these issues, and rarely have the staff that i s culturally and linguistically competent to do so. The principal project objective is clearly stated in the section on "Project Beneficiaries": to "assist the government o f Nigeria in its effort to improve its capacity to manage fadama resources and improve their productivity.. . [and to protect them] from threats stemming from both intensification o f land use within fadama areas, and land use and water management practices within the watersheds or basins in which fadama areas are located." It aims simultaneously at increasing the income o f fadama users and at reduc- ing conflict among them. The document doesn't elaborate what these conflicts are or what causes them. While Ivery much support that stated objective o f "community sus- tainable land use management, through support for alternative land and/or water use ac- tivities, and adoption o f indigenous sustainable land management practices", we need to know which o f the practices are considered "sustainable" and which are not. The impli- cation is, for example, that open-access to rangelands is considered not sustainable. If this is associated with privatization, what will happen (a) to those small producers (herd- - 98 - ers and cultivators) who do not receive adequate lands, and (b) to those whose lands cease to be productive because of drought? The document makes appropriate reference to "both socio-economic and ecological criteria," but it doesn't persuasively explain how these criteria will inform on action. Hence, it i s critically important to assure that the "few baseline and strategic studiesrelatedto fadama critical ecosystem issues" (Para. 30), are appropriately understood and inform on project action. It is critical that the notion o f "community" be clearly understood. Section 34 notes that "criteria are being developed for communities to access grant support for activities that promote sustainable land and watershed management," but it doesn't reference the objec- tive of equity, to assure that the benefits o f the project are not disproportionately directed to the already affluent and powerful. Perhaps some more elaboration o f this issue would be helpful here. Repeatedlythe terms "beneficiary" and "local community" are used, but it must not be assumed that these are homogeneous, and that project benefits will be equi- tably distributed, rather than beingcaptured by the already privileged. What kinds o f so- cioeconomic studies are envisaged to make apparent the true structures o f the targeted communities, and what kinds o f actions will be taken to assure a reasonable degree o f equity? For example, "the proposed GEF grant financing and a matching grant op- tion,. .will stimulate local ownership" i s a worthy objective, if "local ownership" genu- inely benefits the poorer and more vulnerable members o f the community. Section 40 (a) refers to empowering communities, but not how that empowerment might be shared among their members. Indeed 40 (d) acknowledges that "politically-influential borrow- ers" might be the principal beneficiaries "rather than the groups targeted". This acknowl- edgement implies that the project team will include persons who have the skills requisite to making the necessary socioeconomic analyses, and who have the authority to assure that these analyses inform centrally on project implementation. The section on monitoring and evaluation commendably calls for a "socio-ecological characterization o f key watersheds" and for the use o f a GISRS approach to data collec- tion. This will not only enhance the likelihood o f project success but it will also provide important data and analysis for such actions in other parts o f arid and semi-arid Afkica (and perhaps inother parts o f the world). The section on "financial sustainability," however, by referring to the catalyzation of "communities adherence to project objectives.. .", could be read as implying that "com- munity" is socially and economically undifferentiated. It is important that the segmenta- tions within the community be understood in order that the project implementers can as- sure that the benefits are properly directed and not captured by the already powerful and affluent. The risk that "the project does not generate enough demand from fadama users to adopt sustainable landuse and agricultural/livelihood activities" may be a consequence of such a capture. Does the project anticipate having such expertise on the implementa- tion and the monitoring-and-evaluation teams? As the document notes (Para. 56), the Project's "economic, social, and environmental [costs and] benefits.. .cannot all be esti- mated.,' It i s critical, however, that the implementation team be made aware o f these di- mensions and be able to call on the appropriate expertise to assure that the project's bene- fits consistently far outweigh its costs. - 99 - Section 68 refers to "potential conflicts among fadama users (especially betweenfarmers and pastoralists). But as noted above, there i s also a mutual dependence: animals fertilize the land sustainably and organically; post harvest crop residues provide important feed for livestock. Note: Paragraph 72 refers to stakeholder workshops held in December 2004. I s the date wrong or are the workshops yet to be held? Technical Annex I,section 3, uses the term"unsustainab1e land use-practices". Some elaboration would seem to be called for. I s the unsustainability associated with "tradi- tional" practice or with more recent market-oriented production? The term "large scale land clearing" is used without explaining who i s doing the clearing, whose land i s in- volved, and for what purposes i s the land being cleared. I s the document here referring to "traditional" practice or to the rapid expansion o f commercial, and especially export- oriented production? Similarly, in section 5, it is claimed that "population pressure re- sulting in over grazing and over exploitation o f marginal lands have aggravated desertifi- cation and drought", but there i s no evidence presented affirming the claimed relation- ships. Are the principal negative impacts on the fadama due to "traditional" subsistence- oriented production by farmers and herders, or, as indicated in section 8, is it due to dam construction, reservoir management, and "haphazard use of land for brick making"? Some clarification would seem to be necessary ifthe document is to inform on policy. Section 14 has an interesting error in wording: "the increased completion [sic] has had severe impact.. ." I s "competition" the desiredword? Section 16 takes about ``major stakeholder groups." Who are the "minor" stakeholders? The first section o f Technical Annex 2 (p. 32) refers to Towards an Environmental De- velopment Strategy for the Niger Delta, noting that the "positive results of these initia- tives were largely lost due to the difficult political situation in the country in the late 1990s." Perhaps you might expand on this point. NFDP 1notes that "rural poverty inNigeria.. .is a direct cause o f increasingdeforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices." I s there no commercial logging or unsustain- ability incommercial agriculture? Technical Annex 4 calls for some comment. The objectives o f increasing the income of fadama users and reducing conflict among them are clearly worthy. What i s less clear is what is the nature o f the conflict andwhat are its causes. Specifically, it would behelpful for the document to elaborate on what is unsustainable about the current practices o f farmers and herders. Sub-component 1.2 calls for empowering "communities to be able to address watershed management issues" but it doesn't adequately explain how this is to be done. Nigerian rural communities are not homogeneous. Who in the community would be empowered by the anticipated GEF interventions, and who would not? And what is the basis for the assumption that "community members do not appreciate the sig- - 100- nificance o f effective land use and water resources management.. ."? My own field work among sudano-sahelian farmers and herders demonstrates on the contrary the constant adjustments they made to current ecological conditions. Paragraph 4 on p. 57 seems to attribute "aggravated desertification and drought" to "population pressure resulting in over grazing and over exploitation o f marginal lands. There are certainly locales in which this i s clearly the case. But there are also areas in which the expansion o f commercial, export-oriented agriculture constitutes the principal environmental assault. Paragraph 7 similarly notes the ecological impacts o f "increasing pressure from farmers, pastoralists and fishermen.. .on the ecology o f the fadama areas. What about the effects of large dams and dam management on fadama ecology? And what have been the ecological effects of the increasingmovement to commercial, export- oriented agriculture? IamverymuchencouragedbyyouracknowledgementinSection16,p.60,thatprojects must be grounded in "principles o f social and environmental sustainability" and, in Sec- tion 17, o f the need "to sustainably increase incomes o f fadama users." It would be use- fulhereto note that the various groups mentioned-farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters, gatherers, and service providers-are not homogeneous, but are internally differentiated socially and economically. Thus, the actions proposed ought to be based on the assur- ance that the socially and economically least privileged will not be disadvantaged by them. It i s not clear from the document how this will be achieved. And finally, the bene- fits specified in Section 24 "to protect and manage critical watersheds, sustain and con- serve fadama land resources, improve the management o f surface and ground water re- sources, and protect biodiversity inthe Niger and Benue river basins" are absolutely wor- thy, but the paper should persuasively show how the poor will be among their principal recipients. Ihopeyouandyourcolleaguesfindthesecommentshelpful. Thankyouforsharingthe brief. Sincerely, Michael MHorowitz, PhD Director (Distinguished Professor o f Anthropology State Universityo f New York at Binghamton) - 101- B. Task Team's Response to STAP Technical Roster Review The main points raised by the STAP Reviewer mostly deal with social and equity issues as well as the linkages between the poverty and ecosystem degradation. These issues are broadly summarized and addressedbellow: Issue 1. As already learned from the experience o f the first National Fadama Develop- ment Project (NFDP - funded by IDA), the potential degradation o f the floodplains and in particular the loss of biodiversity i s attributed in a large measure to the impact of dam construction and dam management on the sustainability productivity o f floodplains in semiarid environments. Response. First, it i s important to note that neither the first National Fadama Development Project nor Fadama I1involve dam construction or management. Moreover, the project addresses for the first time the fundamental issues o f in- tegrated management o f riparian floodplains, which were never part o f the various programs for the economic development o f fadama areas. While the first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) focused mainly on pro- viding basic irrigation technology to improve yields and incomes o f fadama farmers, the GEF contribution within Fadama I1will in fact undertake a study to understand the impact o f upstream reservoir management on river flow re- gime and on fadama areas (both in terms o f ecological impact and land pro- ductivity. The study will be conducted in the Koto Karfe & Ajasse-Ipo area, at the confluence o f the Niger and Benue rivers. The study results will serve non only to provide some basic systembehavior information, but also will in- form the process o f developing a coordination mechanism at watershed level. Issue 2. H o w project benefits will be equitably distributed (who will benefit and how)? "The document needs to explain how project benefits will be equitably distributed, rather than being captured by the already advantaged minorities.. .'communities will be em- powered to take control o f the management o f these sites' needs to be modified to ask who inthe community will take control and for whose benefit" Response. The project has adopted a hndamentally different approach from the first National FadamaDevelopment Project (NFDP) and other government programs, whereby a transparent and inclusive Community Driven Develop- ment (CDD) process will enable project benefits to flow to the various fadama users, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable among them. This proc- ess is supported through a significant capacity building and awareness raising component (close to US$20 million) through which communities will have access to resources to enable them to come together through a genuine partici- patory process as Fadama Users Associations (FUAs), to develop Local De- velopment Plans (LDP) that needs to be agreed by all major stakeholder groups. Collectively, the community will make a decision about activities, in- clusiveness and benefits. In addition, communities will have access to "con- - 102 - flict resolution" resources and will need to be demonstrated that the FUAs and LDPs are both transparent, and inclusive. Furthermore, in addition to mitigat- ing project activity impacts (in the project sites) through an Environment Management Plan (EMP)-consistent with Bank safeguardpolicies-the GEF contribution will provide an overlay o f support to ensure that individual LDPs address land and ecosystem degradation issues, and that cumulatively, at the watershed level, an integrated approach to land water management is pro- moted through pilot activities, institutional strengthening, and capacity build- ing at the community, state, and federal levels. Issue 3. How will indigenous and local knowledge be utilized for Sustainable Land Management? Response: The capacity building and LDP development components o f the project are designed insuch a way as to ensure that the preservation and main- tenance of indigenous and local communities' knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to land degradation and critical ecosystem management are fully integrated into fadama development activities. Inthis regard, the GEF contribution will be significant, and will enable locally proven sustainable land use and agricultural practices to be eligible for financing and implemen- tation. Issue 4. The Project brief does identify which o f the land-use practices i s unsustainable and over-exploitative o f natural resources. "All too often, the claim o f `unsustainability' is leveled at `traditional' practices o f farmers and herders, particularly the traditional non- privatization o f productive resources. Yet many o f us who have done intensive field- research in the sahelian and sudanic regions o f West Africa have concluded that `open- access' to productive resources is both socially and environmentally sound." Response. The GEF funded strategic baseline studies and the various training toolkits to be developed under the project will take this very important point into account, and will ensure that all relevant available knowledge about the issue is taken on board. Inaddition, the project will tap into global experience inthe area ofsustainable landpractices. Issue 5. There is a need to differentiate between the causes and costs o f the different eco- logical problems stemming from over-exploitation of resources, poor imgation practices, over-grazing and deforestation. "For example, the document notes that "with an increas- ing pressure from farmers, pastoralists and fishermen, the impact on the ecology o f fadama areas has been dramatic." This is too general a claim, for it doesn't differentiate commercial from subsistence and near subsistence producers. What are the different so- cial, environmental, and economic implications, for example, o f floodplain production o f sorghum for local consumption and floodplain production o f cotton for export?" Response. Indeed this is an important issue, and the project brief will fwther clarify the fact that the project combines three main elements inorder to con- - 103 - tribute to a better understanding the differentiated cause and impacts o f degra- dations: (i) use of baseline studies and remote sensingdata to generate ba- the sic knowledge not previously available on the patterns o f land use and degra- dation at a watershed scale; (ii) the development of a framework that would allow LDPs, and ecologically fragile fadama areas to adopt improved prac- tices targeted to site specific problems (riverine protection, cropping systems, water management, soil conservation, etc.); and (iii) the strengtheningo f natu- ral resource management institutions to enable them to incorporate principles of strategic environmental assessment into a framework for watershed plan- ning and management, as well as monitoring and evaluation, thus laying the foundation for an improved knowledge base. Issue 6. Nature and causes o f conflicts over fadama resources, and how they are linked to ecosystem degradation. The implication is, for example, that open-access to range- lands i s considered not sustainable. Ifthis is associated with privatization, what will hap- pen (a) to those small producers (herders and cultivators) who do not receive adequate lands, and (b) to those whose lands cease to be productive because o f drought?" Response. The community-driven approach adopted in the project should help mitigate this issue, because at the heart o f the process o f Fadama User Association and Local Development Planning are totally new mechanisms not available during the first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), dealing with conflict resolution among different resource users, livelihood res- titution (in case o f potential restriction o f access to resources for public good reasons), and the interaction between communities and state level planners, to ensure that socially optimum solutions are agreed upon. Clearly, many risks related to such issues as elite capture, equity, and long-term sustainability would still remain a challenge to completely mitigate. Furthermore, and unlike previous projects, the contribution o f GEF in Fadama I1i s key in that for the first time an integrated watershed ecosystem approach is introduced in fadama areas, both at the community level when conflicts and vetted and re- solved and grants for ecological services are decided upon, and at the state level, where the main NFW agencies (water, forestry, and agriculture) will be adopting a watershed planning framework through a governance structure that includes local governments and community representation. Issue 7. An important and recurrent theme in the STAP Review relates to the need for the project to: (i) into account the fact that the various fadama user groups are inter- take nally differentiated socially and economically, and (ii)to demonstrate that credible mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the poor and the less privileged among these groups are not made worse off. Response. This issue is clearly at the heart o f the design o f Fadama I1which moved from an initial "top-down" design where Agriculture Development Projects (ADPs) were going to play a central role on deciding what communi- ties need and what resource they would get, to a "bottom-up" design, with - 104 - communities in the "driver's seat" and having access to a significant amount o f resources ($20 million capacity building component) to enable a genuine process of social mobilization to drive the allocation of project benefits. This i s considered a key development outcome of the project, and its achievement i s an absolute necessity. - 105 - TechnicalAnnex 15: Statement of Loans and Credits NIGERIA Differencebetween expected andactual Original Amount in US$Millions disbursements Project FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. ID Rev'd PO90104 2006 NG-Natl EnergyDev SIL (FY06) 0.00 172.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 161.87 1.33 0.00 PO71391 2006 NG-NatlUrbWater Sec Ref SIM 2 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 189.22 -0.79 0.00 (FY06) PO86716 2005 NG-Min Res SustainMgmt 0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.59 14.16 0.00 (FY05) PO74447 2005 NG-StateGovernance & Cp Bldg 0.00 18.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.15 -0.05 0.00 TAL (FY05) PO88150 2005 NG-Econ Reform& Govem SIL 0.00 140.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121.92 20.34 0.00 (FY05) PO71817 2004 NG-GEFLOC Empowerment& 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 I 6.30 2.07 -0.45 Env Mgmt (FY04) PO69892 2004 NG-LocalEmpowerment& Envi- 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.28 7.04 1.61 ronmentalMgm PO83082 2004 NG-MSME(FY04) 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.29 6.51 0.00 PO63622 2004 NG-FadamaSIL2 (FY04) 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.24 13.76 0.00 PO71075 2004 NG-UrbWater Sec Reform 1 SIL 0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 109.78 33.23 0.00 (FY04) PO71494 2003 NG-Univ Basic Edu(FY03) 0.00 101.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.22 60.76 2.48 PO74963 2003 NG-LagosUrbTrans SIL (FY03) 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.63 23.95 -7.76 PO80295 2003 NG-Polio Eradication(FY03) 0.00 80.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.47 .22.76 -24.06 PO70291 2002 NG-HIV/AIDS Prog Dev (FY02) 0.00 90.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.93 37.42 16.85 PO72018 2002 NG-TransmissionDev SIL (FY02) 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.22 45.18 43.35 PO69901 2002 NG-ComBasedUrb Dev (FY02) 0.00 110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106.07 66.62 2.72 PO70290 2002 NG-HealthSys Dev 2 (FY02) 0.00 127.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.81 49.05 23.31 PO69086 2001 NG-ComBasedPov Reduc SIL 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93 -5.01 -5.51 (FYO1) PO70293 2001 NG-PrivatizationSupt SIL (FYO1) 0.00 114.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.26 59.17 59.39 PO65301 2000 NG-EconMgmt CB (FYOO) 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 2.18 0.00 Total: 0.00 1875.09 0.00 8.00 0.00 1445.27 414.15 111.94 - 106- NIGERIA STATEMENT OF IFC's Heldand DisbursedPortfolio In Millionsof US Dollars Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1998 AEF Ansbby 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1999 AEF Global Fabri 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 1999 AEF Hercules 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 AEF Oha Motors 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 AEF SafetyCenter 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 AEF Telipoint 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 AEF Vinfesen 0.00 0.00 1.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.oo 0.00 1994 Abuja Intl 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005 Accion Nigeria 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 2003 Adamac 25.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 11.56 0.00 0.00 6.94 2000 CAPE FUND 0.00 6.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.76 0.00 0.00 2001 Delta Contractor 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 2000 Diamond Bank 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 2005 DiamondBank 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 2006 DiamondBank 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 FSB 6.30 0.00 9.00 0.00 6.30 0.00 4.50 0.00 1992 FSDH 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 2000 GTB 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 GTB 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005 GTB 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GTFP Access Bank 20.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 GTFP DiamondBnk 20.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 GTFP GTB Nigeria 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 GTFP IBTC PIC. 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 IBTC 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1981 Ikeja Hotel 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1988 Ikeja Hotel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2002 MTNN 120.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 14.56 0.00 0.00 2002 NTEF 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005 occ 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 UPDC Hotels Ltd 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 375.34 23.99 79.00 15.00 181.06 21.66 39.70 6.94 Approvals Pending Commitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 2005 Zenith Bank 30.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 2006 IBTC Credit Line 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 Total pendingcommitment: 30.00 6.00 34.00 0.00 - 107 - Technical Annex 16: Country at a Glance NIGERIA Sub- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan Low- Nigeria Africa income Development diamond* 2004 Population,mid-year(millions) 139.8 7 8 2,338 GNIper capita (Atlas method, US$) 400 600 5 0 Lifeexpectancy T GNI(Atlas method, US$ billions) 55.9 432 1184 Average annual growth, 1998-04 Population (%) 2.4 2.2 18 Labor force (%) 2.6 10 2.1 GNI Gross M o s t recent estimate (latest year available, 1998-04) capita Poverty(%of populationbefownationalpovertyline) Urbanpopulation (%of totalpopulation) 47 37 31 Life expectancyat birth (yearsj 45 46 58 Infant mortality(per lOOOlivebirfhs) 98 0 1 79 Child malnutrition (%of childrenunder5) 29 44 Access to improvedwter source Access to an improved water source (%ofpopulation) 60 58 75 Literacy(%oFpopufationage a+) 67 65 61 Gross primaryenroilment (%of school-agepopulation) 18 95 94 --.,*,~- Nigeria Male 0 2 a 2 0 1 Low-income group Female 0 7 88 88 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1984 1994 2003 2004 Tco nomic ratios' GDP (US$ billions) 28.2 23.7 58.3 72.1 Gross capitalformationlGDP 9.5 8.6 23.8 22.3 Exports of goods and ServiceslGDP 14.9 418 49.7 54.6 Trade Gross domestic savings/GDP 114 20.6 32.4 39.7 Gross national savingslGDP .. 11.6 215 27.3 Current account balancelGDP -3.8 -6.8 -2.4 4.8 Interest payments/GDP 4.4 4.5 0.7 Total debtiGDP 63.1 139.8 60.0 Total debt servicelexports 32.7 8.5 5.7 Present value of debtlGDP 58.1 1 , Present value of debtlexports m.1 Indebtedness 1984-94 1994-04 2003 2004 2004-08 (average annualgrowth) GDP 5.0 3.4 0.7 8.0 6.5 --Nigeria GDP percapita 2.0 0.8 8.0 3.5 4.2 Lortincome group Exports of goods and services 3.9 16 319 3.1 8.1 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1984 1994 2003 2004 I (%ofGDP) Growth of capital and GDP (%) I Agriculture 37.8 28.6 26.4 6.6 6o T Industry 27.8 50.2 49.4 56.9 Manufacturing 7.8 4.9 4.0 Services 34.4 212 24.2 26.5 :: Householdfinal consumption expenditure 70.9 65.1 43.9 38.1 -20 1 99 00 01 02 03 04 General gov't final consumption expenditure 17.6 14.3 23.7 22.2 Imports of goods and services a.0 40.8 412 37.2 ----GCF -GDP 1984.94 1994-04 2003 2004 (average annualgrowth) Agriculture 4.5 4.3 6.5 6.5 Industry 3.6 2.2 22.4 4.6 Manufacturing 4.7 2.9 6.2 Services 7.4 3.8 6.9 6.9 Householdfinal consumption expenditure -17 -6.9 37.5 -3.2 Generalgov't finalconsumption expenditure 4.0 25.9 14.9 3.3 Gross capital formation 13.4 Q.6 -7.0 0.6 Imports of goods and services -3.2 8.8 n 6 2.3 Note: 2004 data are preliminaryestimates. This tablewas producedfrom the Development Economics LDB database. 'The diamonds shOWfOUrkeyindicators inthe country(in bo1d)comparedwith its income-groupaverage.If data are missing,thediamondwill - 108 - 1884 t 37 I 5 2 -1 3 1984 2003 \i 838 1,'W 153 1U6 $5 163 1984 2003 1232.5 iiir4i3 1,575 -2 309 4,388 ?,O% -t 1 2 3 1 1984 2003 17.771 h)0n 36 4 064 111 1 7 111 :05 -i8l -403 I39 D 163 261 39 223 74 140 -234 14 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 14 NIGER CHAD This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, SOKOTO SOKOTO colors, denominations and any other information shown Sokoto Sokoto Lake Katsina Katsina on this map do not imply, on RR.. the part of The World Bank Yobe beR. R. Chad SSokoto Group, any judgment on the KATSINA KATSINA legal status of any territory, RRima ima okoto or any endorsement or Birnin Birnin a c c e p t a n c e o f s u c h Kebbi Kebbi RR.. JIGA JIGAWA boundaries. Gusau Gusau Kano Kano YOBE YOBE BORNOBORNO KEBBI KEBBI ZAMFARA ZAMFARA 12 Dutse Dutse Maiduguri Maiduguri KANO KANO Damaturu Damaturu BAUCHI BAUCHI Kaduna Kaduna GOMBEGOMBE NIGERIA BENIN Kainji Kainji Bauchi Bauchi Reservoir Reservoir KADUNA KADUNA SECOND NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT Gombe Gombe 10 GEF CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT NIGER NIGER Jos Jos PROJECT Minna Minna ADAMA ADAMAWA IDA FUNDED Niger Niger PLATEAUPLATEAU AfDB FUNDED R. R. ABUJA ABUJA Yola ola FEDERALFEDERAL Jalingo Jalingo KWARAKWARA GEF FUNDED CAPITALCAPITAL TERR.TERR. NASARAWANASARA FADAMA I PROJECT (CLOSED) Ilorin Ilorin OYO OYO Lafia Lafia STATE CAPITALS Benue TARABA ARABA 8 Benue R.. R 8 Osogbo Osogbo EKITI EKITI NATIONAL CAPITAL Ado- Ado- Lokoja Lokoja RIVERS Ibadan Ibadan OSUNOSUN Makurdi Makurdi Ekiti Ekiti KOGIKOGI BENUEBENUE STATE BOUNDARIES Akure Akure INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES Abeokuta Abeokuta ONDOONDO OGUN OGUN Ikeja Ikeja ENUGUENUGU EDO EDO Enugu Enugu 14 16 LAGOSLAGOS Benin Benin Awka Aw EBONYIEBONYI 0 10 City City Asaba Asaba RR.. Abakaliki Abakaliki MALI 6 ANAMBRAANAMBRA 6 NIGER iger ABIAABIA CROSSCROSS IMOIMO RIVER RIVER CHAD DELT DEL A NNiger Umuahia Umuahia BURKINA Owerri Owerri FASO Uyo Uyo CAMEROON Yenagoa enagoa RIVERS RIVERS NIGERIA AKWA-AKWA- 10 BENIN 10 BAYELSABAYELSA Calabar Calabar Niger Port Por IBOM IBOM Abuja Harcourt Harcour TOGO Benue GHANA 4 4 CENTRAL AFRICAN FEBRUAR Gulf of Guinea CAMEROON REPUBLICIBRD 0 50 100 150 200 250 EQUATORIAL 34225 Y KILOMETERS GUINEA 2006 Gulf of Guinea SÃO TOMÉ 4 6 8 10 12 0 & PRÍNCIPE 10 GABON CONGO