Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 52986-AFR PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT FOR PROPOSED GRANTS IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 9.9 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO BURKINA FASO AND IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 19.8 MILLION (US$30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE AND A PROPOSED CREDIT IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 29.7 MILLION (US$45 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND PROPOSED GRANTS UNDER THE FOOD PRICE CRISIS RESPONSE CORE MULTI DONOR TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO US$6 MILLION EACH TO BURKINA FASO, THE REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO US$1 MILLION TO THE CONSEIL OUEST ET CENTRE AFRICAIN POUR LA RECHERCHE ET LE DEVELOPPEMENT AGRICOLES (CORAF) FOR THE 2ND SERIES OF PROJECT UNDER THE FIRST PHASE OF THE WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (WAAPP-1B) September 3, 2010 Agriculture and Rural Development Unit (AFTAR) Sustainable Development Department Africa Regional Integration Department (AFCRI) Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 31, 2010) Currency Unit = United States dollars (US$) FCFA 487 = US$1 US$1 = SDR 0.658657 FISCAL YEAR Burkina Faso: January 1- December 31 Côte d'Ivoire: January 1- December 31 Nigeria: January 1- December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AWP&B Annual Work Program and Budget AAA Analytical and Advisory Activity AAP African Action Plan AFD Agence Française de Développement (French Development Agency) AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AGRYHMET Centre Regional de Formation et d'Application en Hydrologie Opérationnelle (Regional Education and Training Center in Operational Hydrology) AKIS Agriculture Knowledge Information System ANADER Agence Nationale d'Appui au Développement Rural (National Rural Support Agency) APL Adaptable Program Lending (Loan) ARAC African Regional Aquaculture Centre ARCN Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ARMP Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics (Public Procurement Regulatory Authority) AROC Agricultural Research Outreach Center ASPEN Africa Safeguard Policy Enhancement AYP Agricultural Yield Pilot B Billion BMPIU Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit BN/CRA Bureau National des Chambres Régionales d'Agriculture (National Office of the Regional Chambers of Agriculture) BPP Bureau of Public Procurement CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program CAMES Conseil Africain et Malgache pour l'Enseignement Supérieur (African and Malagasy Council for Higher Education) CAN Chambre Nationale d'Agriculture (National Chamber of Agriculture) CARBAP Centre Africain de Recherche sur Bananiers et Plantains (African Center for Banana and Plantain Research) CARGS Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme CAS Country Assistance Strategy CFAA Country Financial Assessment Accountability CFS Competitive Fund Schemes CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIFE Circuit Intégré des Financements Extérieurs (Integrated Circuit for Donor- ii financed Projects) CILSS Comité Permanent Inter-États de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel (Permanent Inter-State Committee for Combating Drought in the Sahel) CIRAD Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development) CNRA Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (National Center for Agricultural Research) CNRST Centre National sur la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (National Center for Scientific and Technological Research) CORAF Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development) COS Centers of Specialization CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CQS Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications CRA Chambres Régionales d'Agriculture (Regional Chambers of Agriculture) CTA Centre Technique de Coopération Agricole et Rurale (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation) DAF Directeur Administratif et Financier (Director of Administration and Finance) DfID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) ECOWAP ECOWAS Agricultural Policy ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environment Management Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan EU European Union FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity FAO Food Agriculture Organization FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FCA Federal College of Agriculture FESIA Full Environmental and Social Impact Assessments FIRCA Fonds Interprofessionel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles (Interprofessional Fund for Agricultural Research and Extension) FM Financial management FMA Federal Ministry of Agriculture FPCR Food Price Crisis Response FRR Financial rate of return GDP Gross domestic product GFRP Global Food Crisis Response Program GPN General Procurement Notice Ha Hectares IC Individual consultant ICB International Competitive Bidding ICT Information and communications technology IDA International Development Association iii IDRC International Development Research Centre IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IFR Interim Financial Report IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture INERA Institut National de l'Environnement et de la Recherche Agricole (National Institute for the Environment and Agricultural Research) INSAH Institut du Sahel (Sahel Institute) IPR Intellectual Property Rights IRR Internal rate of return ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute) LESIA Limited Environmental and Social Impact Assessments M Million M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAHRH Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Hydraulique et des Ressources Halieutiques (Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources, and Fisheries) MAPP Multi Africa Agricultural Productivity Program MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MDG Millennium Development Goals MEF Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances (Ministry of the Economy and Finance) MFP Mobilizing and Federating Program MINAGRI Ministère de l'Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture) MIPARH Ministère de la Production Animale et des Ressources Halieutiques (Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries) MOU Memorandum of Understanding NARI National Agricultural Research Institute NARS National Agricultural Research System NCB National Competitive Bidding NCOS National Centers of Specialization NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NGO Nongovernmental organizations NIFFR National Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research OHADA Organisation pour l'Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (Organization for Harmonization for Business Law in Africa) ONMP Office National des Marchés Publics (Public Procurement Regulatory Framework) PAFASP Projet d'Appui aux Filières Agro Sylvo Pastorales (Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project) PAPSA Projet d'Amélioration de la Productivité Agricole et de la Sécurité Alimentaire (Agriculture Productivity and Food Security Project) PAST Plan d'Action Sectoriel Triennal (Three-Year Sectoral Action Plan) PDO Project Development Objective PEFA Public Expenditure Financial Accountability PFM Public financial management PIM Project Implementation Manual PMP Pest Management Plan PNASA Projet National d'Appui aux Services Agricoles (Agricultural Services Support iv Project) PS Procurement Specialist QAG Quality Assurance Group QCBS Quality and Cost Based Selection R&D Research and development R&E Research and extension RCOE Regional Centers of Excellence RIAS Regional Integration Assistance Strategy ROC Regional Operations Committee SBD Standard Bidding Document SIL Specific Investment Loan SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research TFP Factor Productivity TOR Terms of reference TTL Task Team Leader UEMOA Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest-Africaine (West African Economic and Monetary Union) US United States USAID US Agency for International Development WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program WAAPPAC WAAPP Advisor Committee WAAPPOC WAAPP Oversight Committee (Comité de Pilotage du WAAPP) WCA West and Central Africa WDR World Development Report WECARD West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Directors: Jamal Saghir (Acting)-Regional Integration Ishac Diwan ­ Burkina Faso Madani M. Tall ­ Côte d'Ivoire Onno Ruhl ­ Nigeria Sector Director: Jamal Saghir Sector Manager: Karen McConnell-Brooks Task Team Leader: Abdoulaye Toure v AFRICA West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-1B) CONTENTS Page I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1 A. Country and sector issues.................................................................................................... 1 B. Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 2 C. Higher-level objectives to which the Project contributes ................................................... 4 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 4 A. Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 4 B. Program objective and phases ............................................................................................. 5 C. Project development objective and key indicators.............................................................. 7 D. Project components ............................................................................................................. 7 E. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design ......................................................... 11 F. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 13 III. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................... 13 A. Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 13 B. Institutional and implementation arrangements ................................................................ 14 C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 15 D. Sustainability..................................................................................................................... 16 E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 16 F. Loan/credit conditions and covenants ............................................................................... 20 IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 23 A. Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 23 B. Technical ........................................................................................................................... 25 C. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 25 D. Social................................................................................................................................. 27 E. Environment...................................................................................................................... 27 F. Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 28 G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 29 Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ......................................................... 30 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 44 vi Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 45 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 54 Annex 5: Consolidated Project Costs ........................................................................................ 66 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 71 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 80 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements .................................................................................... 101 Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................... 118 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 132 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ................................................................... 137 Annex 12: Documents in the Project File ............................................................................... 139 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 141 Annex 14: Country at a Glance ............................................................................................... 143 Annex 15: Maps......................................................................................................................... 149 List of Figures Figure 1: Trend in Agricultural TFP in West Africa, 1961-2007 (1992=100) ............................. 31 Figure 2: Yield Gap in Rain-fed Cropping Systems in West and Central Africa (Potential/Current Yield Ratio) ........................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B in Burkina Faso ................................................. 77 Figure 4: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B in Côte d'Ivoire .................................................. 78 Figure 5: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B in Nigeria ........................................................... 79 List of Tables Table 1: Change in Agricultural Productivity in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria ........ 32 Table 2: NCOS host institutions and priority specialization areas in participating countries ...... 59 Table 3: Fish Supply by Sector in Nigeria (000 tons) ................................................................ 123 Table 4: Yield increase results by country .................................................................................. 125 vii AFRICA 2ND SERIES UNDER THE FIRST PHASE OF THE WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM APL (WAAPP-1B) PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT AFRICA Date: September 3, 2010 Team Leader: Abdoulaye Toure Director: Jama Saghir (Acting) Sectors: Agricultural extension and research Sector Director: Jamal Saghir (100%) Sector Manager: Karen Mcconnell Brooks Themes: Technology diffusion (29%); Rural services and infrastructure (29%); Export development and competitiveness (14%);Trade facilitation and market access (14%);Regional integration (14%) Project ID: P117148 Environmental screening category: B (Partial Assessment) Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan (APL) Project Financing Data [ ] Loan [X] Credit [X] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$ million.): 90.00 Proposed terms International Development Association (IDA) terms, with a maturity of 40 years, including 10 years of grace period Financing Plan (US$ million) PHASE 1A (already approved) Source Local Foreign Total BORROWERS/RECIPIENTS/LOCAL 4.50 0.00 4.50 COMMUNITIES IDA 40.00 5.00 45.00 Of which Ghana (US$15 million financed 13.00 2.00 15.00 by IDA) Of which Mali (US$15 million financed 13.00 2.00 15.00 by IDA) Of which Senegal (US$15 million 14.00 1.00 15.00 financed by IDA) PHASE 1B (current project) Source Local Foreign Total BORROWER/RECIPIENT 10.00 0.00 10.00 Beneficiaries 3.19 0.00 3.19 IDA 70.00 20.00 90.00 viii Food Price Crisis Response (FPCR) Core Multi-Donor Trust Fund 19.00 0.00 19.00 Of which Burkina Faso (US$15 million 9.00 6.00 15.00 financed by IDA) (US$6 million financed by the FPCR 6.00 0.00 6.00 Core Trust Fund) Of which Republic of Côte d'Ivoire 26.00 4.00 30.00 (US$30 million financed by IDA) (US$6 million financed by the FPCR 6.00 0.00 6.00 Core Trust Fund) Of which Federal Republic of Nigeria 35.00 10.00 45.00 (US$45 million financed by IDA) (US$6 million financed by the FPCR 6.00 0.00 6.00 Core Trust Fund) Of which CORAF - (US$1 million 1.00 0.00 1.00 financed by the FPCR Core Trust Fund) Total Phase 1B: 102.19 20.00 122.19 PHASE 1- Remaining set of countries Source Local Foreign Total BORROWERS/RECIPIENTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 IDA 74.00 19.00 93.00 Of which Republic of Benin (US$ million 13.00 2.00 15.00 financed by IDA) Of which Republic of Niger (US$ million 25.00 5.00 30.00 financed by IDA) Of which Republic of Sierra Leone (US$ 9.00 3.00 12.00 million financed by IDA) Of which Republic of Togo (US$ million 7.00 2.00 9.00 financed by IDA) Of which Republic of Guinea (US$ 10.00 5.00 15.00 million financed by IDA) Of which Republic of Liberia (US$ 2.50 0.50 3.00 million financed by IDA) Of which The Gambia (US$ million 2.50 0.50 3.00 financed by IDA) Of which Cape Verde (US$ million 2.50 0.50 3.00 financed by IDA) Of which Guinea Bissau (US$ million 2.50 0.50 3.00 financed by IDA) Total Phase 1 (US$ million financed by 184.00 44.00 228.00 IDA) PHASE 2 Source Local Foreign Total BORROWERS/RECIPIENTS: Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 countries (Ghana, Mali and Senegal) (US$ million financed by IDA) International Development Association 70.00 20.00 90.00 ix (IDA) (US$ million financed by IDA) BORROWER/RECIPIENT: Phase 1B 0.00 0.00 0.00 countries (Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria) (US$ million financed by IDA) International Development Association 79.00 20.00 99.00 (IDA) (US$ million financed by IDA) BORROWER/RECIPIENT: Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 following set of countries: Benin, Niger, Sierra Leone, Togo Liberia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde and The Gambia (US$ million financed by IDA). International Development Association 100.00 32.00 132.00 (IDA) (US$ million financed by IDA) Total Phase 2(US$ million financed by 249.00 72.00 321.00 IDA) Total of Phase 1 and Phase 2 (IDA) 433 116.00 549.00 Borrowers/Recipients: Phase 1B: Burkina Faso, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, Federal Republic of Nigeria, CORAF Responsible Agencies: Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF) 7, Avenue Bourguiba BP 48 Senegal Tel: (221-33) 869-9622 Fax: (221-33) 825-5569 paco.sereme@coraf.org Burkina Faso Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries P.O Box 7029, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Programme d'Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales Unité de Coordination du Projet (PAFASP) 01 BP 6285 Ouagadougou 01 Burkina Faso Tel. (226) 50 30 42 79 Fax (226) 50 30 42 80 Côte d'Ivoire Ministry of Agriculture Immeuble de la CAISTAB Abidjan Plateau Tel (225) 20 22 81 35 Fax :(225) 20 21 36 10 x Fonds Interprofessionnels pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles (FIRCA) Codody 2 Plateaux, 7eme Tranche Rue L133 01 BP 3726 Abidjan 01, Côte d'Ivoire Tel : (225) 22 52 81 81/82 Fax : (225) 22 52 81 87 E-mail : packah@firca.ci / firca@firca.ci Nigeria Federal Ministry of Agriculture Area 11, PMB 135 Garki, Abuja Tel 234 9 234 2376 Fax 234 9 234 2370 Email: agricminister@rosecom.net Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) Agricultural Research House, Plot 223D, Cadastral Zone B6, Mabushi District, P. M. B. 5026, Wuse, Abuja, Nigeria. website: www.arcnigeria.org Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$m) FY 11 12 13 14 15 16 Annual 10 20 20 18 14 8 Cumulative 10 30 50 68 82 90 Project implementation period: Start : September 28, 2010 End: June 30, 2016 Expected effectiveness date: January 1, 2011 Expected closing date: June 30, 2016 Estimated disbursements FPCR (Bank FY/US$m) FY 11 12 13 14 15 16 Annual 2 3 3 4 4 3 Cumulative 2 5 8 12 16 19 Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? [ ]Yes [ x] No Ref. PAD I.C. Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Ref. PAD IV.G. [ ]Yes [x] No Have these been approved by Bank management? [ ]Yes [ ] No Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [ x ] No Does the project include any critical risks rated "substantial" or "high"? [x ]Yes [ ] No Ref. PAD III.E. Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? [ x ]Yes [ ] No Ref. PAD IV.G. Project development objective Ref. PAD II.C., Technical Annex 3 The development objective of WAAPP1-B is to generate and accelerate adoption of improved xi technologies in the participating countries' top agricultural commodity priorities areas that are aligned with the sub-region's top agricultural commodity priorities as outlined in the ECOWAP. Project description Ref. PAD II.D., Technical Annex 4 Component 1: Enabling conditions for sub-regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies aims at setting up a sustainable mechanism for funding agricultural technologies generation and adoption, strengthening technical and regulatory capacity, including property rights, mainstreaming climate change and gender into agricultural technology generation and adoption. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (NCOS) by strengthening the operational capacities of national agricultural research systems of participating countries in national priority areas, which are aligned to regional priorities. Component 3: Funding of Demand-driven Technology Generation and Adoption aims at accelerating the adoption of readily available technologies through the generation and dissemination of readily available improved technologies, facilitation of access to improved genetic material and the development of a yield prediction tool. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation aims at ensuring an effective and efficient management and coordination of the project at the national and regional levels. Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Ref. PAD IV.F., Technical Annex 10 Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: Ref. PAD III.F. Conditions of Board presentation: None Board presentation: September 28, 2010 Conditions of effectiveness: For the IDA Grants and Credit: For each of the three countries, that a Subsidiary Grant Agreement has been executed on behalf of the Recipient and CORAF; and In addition for the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, that the Financial Agreement and the Execution Agreement have been executed on behalf of the Recipient and FIRCA. For the FPCR Core Trust Fund Grants: for each of the three countries, cross-effectiveness condition linked to the effectiveness of the corresponding Financing Agreement for the same country and with the effectiveness of the CORAF FPCR Core Trust Fund Grant Agreement; in addition for the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, that the Financial Agreement and the Execution Agreement have been executed on behalf of the Recipient and FIRCA; for CORAF, cross-effectiveness condition linked to the effectiveness of the Financing xii Agreements with each of the three countries and the effectiveness of the FPCR Core Trust Fund Grant Agreement with each of the three countries. Covenants applicable to Project implementation: For the IDA Grants and Credit and, as applicable, for the FPCR Core Trust Fund Grants: for each of the three countries, each Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date, establish and, thereafter maintain throughout project implementation, a national oversight or advisory committee under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association vested with responsibility for providing policy guidance and for overseeing the Project ("Oversight or Advisory Committee"). The Oversight or Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the recipient's minister responsible for the agriculture (or his/her designee) and its composition shall include representatives from the government, stakeholders, farmers and the private sector. The Oversight or Advisory Committee shall meet at least twice each Fiscal Year to undertake, inter alia, the review and approval of the draft Annual Work Program and Budget (AWP&B) and the approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator not later than October 31 each year to follow-up on, and assess the progress in, the carrying out of the precedent AWP&B. for each of the three countries, in order to maximize the benefits to be derived from the Project, each Recipient shall: (a) select: (i) the core facilities of the national center of specialization proposed to be constructed and rehabilitated under Part 2.3 of the Project; and (ii) the public research stations proposed to be upgraded under Part 3.3 (ii) of the Project, applying the following criterion: the facility or the station has been identified by the center's management on the basis of consultations carried out with its researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works; and (b) thereafter, furnish to the Association for approval for financing out of the proceeds of the Grants or Credit the facilities and stations as so selected. for each of the three countries, prior to the award of each contract for works under Parts 2.3 or 3.3 (ii) of the Project, each Recipient shall: (i) furnish to the Association a written attestation for the specific site where the works will be undertaken that the works shall not cause or result in Resettlement; (ii) submit to the Association for its review and approval the related site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), as the case may be, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association; (iii) disclose the site-specific ESIA or ESMP as approved by the Association; and (ii) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately included in the works contract concluded for the site and that they are implemented in the carrying out of Parts 2.3 and 3.3(ii) of the Project. for each of the three countries and CORAF, each Recipient shall follow and apply at all times in the implementation of Parts 2 and 3 of the Project the provisions of the Pest Management Plan (PMP) in a timely manner, ensuring that: (i) mitigation and monitoring xiii measures acceptable to the Association are designed and implemented with due diligence and employing appropriate environmental expertise; and (ii) adequate information on the implementation of the measures contained in the PMP is appropriately included in the Progress Reports to be prepared under the Project. for each of the three countries and CORAF, each Recipient shall take all measures required so that [each Participating Country's entity in charge of the component or CORAF]: (i) screen, under Parts 2.1 and 3.1 (b) of the Project, the activities proposed to be financed under the Research Proposals and Grants proposals submitted for financing out of the proceeds of Grants or the Credit and establish that such activities avoid Resettlement; (ii) ensure that each Beneficiary: (A) carry out an appropriate site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (EMP), as the case may be, for each such activities in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF and in form and substance satisfactory to [Participating Country's entity in charge of component or CORAF]; and (B) disclose the site-specific ESIA or ESMP as approved by [Participating Country Country's entity in charge of component or CORAF]; (iii) verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental/social institutions) before approving the Research Proposal or Grant proposal that the activities meet the environmental and social requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that it is consistent with the Association's applicable environmental and social assessment and safeguard policies and complies with the environmental and social review procedures set forth in the Project Implementation Manual or the manual for the existing competitive agricultural research grants scheme, as the case may be; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately implemented. The following is stated in the Financing Agreements as a financial covenant to be completed four (4) months after effectiveness date: the appointment of the external auditors on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications qualification and experience satisfactory to the Association in the three countries and in CORAF. For the Financing Agreement and Grant Agreement Agreements with Côte d'Ivoire: the Recipient shall cause FIRCA:(i) to recruit, not later than one (1) month after the Effective Date, an accountant, and an internal auditor on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) to upgrade, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date, the computerized financial management system to be used for the Project. For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Burkina Faso: for such purposes, the Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date: (i) recruit for the PCU an accountant, and a financial controller on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) acquire the accounting system to be used for the Project. For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Nigeria: The Recipient shall take all measures required on its behalf to ensure that the Project activities are incorporated into ARCN's computerized financial system not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date. xiv Each Recipient and CORAF shall carry out its respective Parts of the Project pursuant to its obligations under (in the case of Burkina Faso and Nigeria which are a party to the Protocol), and in accordance with environmental safeguards and international good practice and standards consistent with those of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. xv I.STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE A. Country and sector issues 1. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is home to 290 million people in 15 low-income countries. About 65 percent of the population lives in rural areas. Most of these people derive their food and livelihoods from agriculture, which generates 35 percent of the regional gross domestic product (GDP) and over 15 percent of exports. The region is neither self-sufficient in food production nor food secure, particularly in the North (the Sahel). About 20 percent of regional imports are food products. Agricultural productivity is low. As a net importer of cereals and livestock products and an exporter of raw materials, West Africa is severely affected by the current volatility in global food and fuel prices and the recent financial crisis. The changing and increasingly variable climate places additional burdens on rural livelihoods and natural resources that were already vulnerable. The region will continue to face strong challenges in feeding its growing and increasingly urban population, building a strong regional agricultural market, and promoting sustainable development. 2. The World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development (World Bank 2007) concluded that agricultural growth is the key to achieving overall growth, reducing poverty, and increasing food security for the rural poor. It emphasized that growth in agricultural production in Africa has been driven mainly by expanding cultivated area, a strategy that is far from sustainable. An alternative strategy is to create the conditions that enable agricultural productivity to increase--a goal to which the proposed Project contributes. Growth originating in agriculture is four times as effective in reducing poverty as growth originating outside of the agricultural sector. Increases in agricultural growth depend greatly on improvements in agricultural productivity, and investments in agricultural research and technology are among the most important determinants of agricultural productivity. In West Africa, the potential returns to investments in generating and disseminating agricultural technology are high--46 percent on average, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2009)--but funding for this activity remains very low. 3. Schlenker and Lobell (2010)1 used historical crop production and weather data in a robust model of yield response to climate change and concluded that by 2050, the estimated average aggregate production in sub-Saharan Africa would fall by 22 percent for maize, 17 percent for sorghum and millet, 18 percent for groundnut, and 8 percent for cassava. These results emphasize that although it is urgent to speed the adoption of improved crop varieties and of livestock breeds that have already been developed, it is equally urgent for agricultural research (nationally, regionally, and globally) to develop new technologies that will perform well in the future under climate stress in Africa. 4. There is substantial room for regional integration to strengthen food security and promote agriculture-led growth. The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) calls for 3 percent annual growth in agricultural productivity through technology generation and dissemination and 6 percent growth in agricultural GDP to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2020. To this end, NEPAD has initiated and brought before the donor community the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). This program has four pillars, the fourth being agricultural research, technology dissemination, and 1 Environment Research Letters, 5 (2) February 2010 1 technology adoption. The agricultural policy of the West African states (ECOWAP) provides the framework for implementing the CAADP in West Africa. At the regional level, the agricultural investment plan of ECOWAS is structured around three mobilizing programs that constitute the framework for major actions to integrate the agricultural sector over the next five years. The first program focuses on promoting strategic products for food sovereignty; the second program aims at promoting an overall environment favorable to regional agricultural development; and the third program focuses on reducing food vulnerability and promoting sustainable access to food. 5. By supporting the generation and adoption of improved agricultural technologies, the WAAPP will help to further ECOWAP's objectives. The WAAPP is aligned with the three mobilizing programs of ECOWAS to foster regional integration of agriculture, and the first WAAPP countries (under WAAPP- 1A) already work on the high-priority value chains identified in one of the mobilizing programs: roots and tubers in Ghana, dryland cereals in Senegal, and rice in Mali. The countries joining the WAAPP under the proposed Project (WAAPP -1B) will invest in other strategic ECOWAS value chains, expanding the range of commodities to include fruits and vegetables (mangoes and onions) in Burkina Faso, bananas and plantains in Côte d'Ivoire, and aquaculture (catfish and tilapia) in Nigeria. 6. The justifications for regional integration are strong. First, under the leadership of ECOWAS, the CAADP process has matured with the signing of country compacts emphasizing regional coordination and cooperation. Second, regional integration in generating and adopting agricultural technology helps to overcome the small-country problem of marshalling the resources and the critical mass of researchers for sound, efficient research programs. Third, lessons from WAAPP-1A strongly validate the program's emphasis on a regional approach to technology generation to help countries confront those challenges. Fourth, CORAF (the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development, WECARD) has established the capacity to play a coordinating role, facilitate knowledge sharing, and provide relevant advisory services to the national agricultural research systems (NARS) in the region. Finally, and most important, it is essential that the countries within the region join forces to deal successfully with the emerging and continuing challenges posed by the food and fuel crises, the global financial crisis, and climate change. B. Rationale for Bank involvement 7. The WAAPP is a two-phase, ten-year, horizontal APL to support the implementation of ECOWAP through the implementation of CAADP's fourth pillar. The first phase (WAAPP-1A) started in June 2007 and involved Ghana, Mali, and Senegal. Successful results in these countries (in harmonizing regulations, setting up centers of specialization, operating demand-driven research systems, and sharing researchers and released technologies) justify the Bank's support for extending the program to all ECOWAS member states, as envisaged originally. The design of this program demonstrates the Bank's long-term commitment to generating and disseminating technology and knowledge, building capacity, and fostering regional integration. The Bank already supports a number of ECOWAS member states at the national level in technology generation and dissemination and is well suited to create synergies and added value among national projects. 8. The WAAPP will continue to be a key instrument for implementing the Bank's Regional Integration Assistance Strategy (RIAS) for sub-Saharan Africa. The WAAPP will support activities to foster regional integration and would be an essential element for speeding economic 2 growth in Africa and reaching the MDGs. The WAAPP will also support the implementation of Country Assistance Strategies (CAS), all of which recognize the need to generate and disseminate agricultural technology to raise agricultural productivity, increase economic growth, improve food security, and reduce poverty. 9. West Africa can expect significant benefits from regionally integrated efforts to generate and disseminate agricultural technology. Concerted action to address shared agricultural and environmental problems will enable the region to strengthen food security and accelerate agricultural growth. Additional productivity gains can be expected from regionally integrated agricultural input markets, especially for fertilizer and seed. The development of joint research programs for subsets of countries would use human and financial resources more efficiently, prevent wasteful duplication, and create the critical mass that is absent from most national research systems at present. The resulting cost savings, economies of scale, and spillovers would increase the productivity and competitiveness of agriculture in the region and put certain research prospects (which are now remote or nonexistent) within economic reach. This combined capacity would attract more partnerships with international centers of excellence and more private sector investments to supplement public funding, further increasing the efficiency, quality, and financial sustainability of the region's technology generation and dissemination system. In addition, the implementation of the first phase thus far indicates that the WAAPP is a powerful tool to stimulate constructive competition between countries and to scale up best practices to the regional level. 10. The extension of WAAPP to new countries in addition to the first three (Ghana, Mali and Senegal) meets IDA's regional project eligibility criteria. Eventually the WAAPP will: (i) support up to 10 additional West African countries, including Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Togo; (ii) generate social and economic benefits that spill across national boundaries; (iii) support the agricultural strategies of regional economic communities; and (iv) strengthen the platform for regional policy harmonization. The WAAPP will provide a regional framework for ECOWAS countries to collaborate in implementing national and regional agricultural strategies for technology generation and dissemination. It will further this collaboration through the development of specialized centers for technology generation and dissemination, which will also serve as regional knowledge sharing centers. 11. The Bank's comparative advantage in this operation lies in its recognized leadership in supporting agricultural research and development within and between countries and regions. Aside from supporting individual countries, the Bank has provided international support, for example, for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the former Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR), now the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). The Bank is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the lessons of past interventions and to create synergies and value-added across its current operations. Other development partners look to the Bank to facilitate high-level policy harmonization between countries. The Bank is particularly well equipped to share global knowledge and expertise in technology generation and dissemination, notably through its Agriculture Knowledge Information System (AKIS). The WAAPP follows the AKIS paradigm and the guiding principles of the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) to promote innovative, market- oriented technologies that reflect farmers' circumstances and environmental concerns. 3 C. Higher-level objectives to which the Project contributes 12. Through WAAPP, the Bank will contribute to the broad objectives of CAADP and the ECOWAS Agriculture Policy (ECOWAP) of achieving significant growth in agricultural GDP to reach the MDGs by 2015 and to fight against food insecurity and poverty. As expressed in the 2003 African Union Maputo Declaration, CAADP is based on (i) the pursuit of a 6 percent average annual growth rate at the national level in the agricultural sector and (ii) the allocation of 10 percent of national budgets to agriculture. The CAADP process involves the signing of compacts between African governments and the various national, regional, and international agencies that are committed to the CAADP Agenda, as well as the signing of a regional partnership compact with ECOWAS. 13. The Regional Partnership Compact was successfully signed by the ECOWAS Commission and its partners in November 2009 in Abuja for the implementation of ECOWAP. It outlines the three regional Mobilizing and Federating Programs (MFPs) that provide the framework for high-priority integrative actions in the agricultural sector for the coming five years. As noted, the WAAPP is one of the Bank's instruments to support the implementation of this compact, in particular the first MFP: MFP 1 promotes strategic products for food sovereignty by supporting regional initiatives and strategies for the development of agri-food value chains, in order to improve rural population incomes, reduce food dependency, and modernize production systems. This program initially focuses on six strategic products that are regional priorities for the next five years: rice, maize, cassava, livestock, meat, and milk. MFP 2 promotes a global environment conducive to regional agricultural development. The objective is to create a business, physical, informational, and institutional environment that fosters a massive transformation in production systems and agricultural value chains in West Africa. MFP 3 reduces food vulnerability and promotes sustainable access to food, to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and reduce the structural vulnerability of populations in both rural and urban areas. 14. As mentioned, the WAAPP also contributes to the CAS of each ECOWAS member state. The assistance strategies of countries participating in WAAPP-1A (Ghana, Senegal, and Mali) and WAAPP 1-B (Burkina, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria) look specifically to the WAAPP to complement their agricultural services, strengthen their producers' organizations projects, and contribute to their strategic objectives in rural development. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Lending instrument 15. The lending instrument of the Program is a regional IDA of 10-year APL consisting of two phases, each lasting five years. The APL follows a horizontal approach that started in 2007 with IDA credits to three countries (Ghana, Mali, and Senegal) and will expand its geographic coverage to all candidate ECOWAS countries. The GFRP was set up in May 2008 by the World Bank Group in coordination with the United Nations' High-Level Task Force on food security to 4 address the severe food crisis and the need for prompt action. FPCR was subsequently established to support the GFRP. It has already received contributions of Australian Dollars 50 million from the Australian government, 80 million from the government of Spain, 3 billion Korean Won from the Republic of Korea, and Canadian Dollars 30 million from the government of Canada. The Russian Federation has also allocated $15 million for the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. The European Commission has allocated 101 million to support operations in 9 countries. The FPCR will provide US$19 million to cofinance the project. B. Program objective and phases 16. The WAAPP is a program to support the implementation of ECOWAP through the implementation of CAADP's fourth pillar. Thus the development objective of the Program is to contribute to sustained agricultural productivity growth in the ECOWAS region's top priority commodity subsectors. The priority subsectors were identified in a study commissioned by CORAF from IFPRI and adopted under ECOWAP. In addition to aquaculture, which was not covered in the study, the Program will focus on enhancing the development of roots and tubers, livestock, rice, maize, sorghum and millet, fruits and vegetables, and oilseeds. The IFPRI/CORAF study found that these commodity subsectors make the greatest contribution to the region's agricultural growth and food security and can thus contribute substantially to reducing extreme poverty by 2015. 17. The Program will, therefore, support ECOWAS countries in: (i) creating the enabling conditions for technological cooperation by harmonizing regulations; (ii) marshalling the financial and human resources to develop a sound research program for each priority commodity within regional centers of specialization; (iii) sharing technologies that are already available as well as the technologies that will be developed and released by the centers of specialization; (iv) scaling up the regional adoption of these technologies by developing common strategies to promote the use of improved genetic materials, yield-enhancing technologies, postharvest technologies, and best practices to accelerate sustainable, positive change in agricultural productivity. Through these efforts, the Program will be an important instrument for ECOWAS countries to implement the recently adopted ECOWAP. 18. The first phase of the program started under WAAPP -1A in June 2007 and involved three countries: Ghana, Mali and Senegal. Successful results achieved in these countries (in the domains of harmonizing regulations, setting up centers of specialization, operating demand- driven research systems, sharing researchers, knowledge and best practices) justify Bank's support for a horizontal extension of the program to all ECOWAS member states: Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Niger, Benin, Togo, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia The Gambia and Cape Verde. At the same time the first two years of implementation also yielded some lessons with respect to improving the design and implementation of the Program. Furthermore a Quality Assurance Group (QAG) learning review (in November 2009) suggested that we strengthen the Results Framework of the Program and put emphasis on adoption of new technologies. Therefore, in order to reflect these lessons learned the design, the results framework and the instrument of the Program have been revised accordingly. 19. The design of the program will now be a "mixed" (horizontal and vertical) APL: the "horizontal" dimension (for horizontal expansion of the program) will allow participation of the remaining countries as and when they express demand and demonstrate readiness to participate in the program, whereas the "vertical" dimension will allow for continued support for initial 5 participants, and further strengthening of regional links on the part of new entrants to the program. 20. The readiness criteria will be: (i) availability of national IDA allocation to benefit from the regional allocation; (ii) a functioning national agricultural research system (NARS) to take advantage of the Program; and (iii) the achievement of readiness conditions (sound country proposal, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), Project implementation Manual (PIM), Project Administrative and Financial manual and Procurement plan for the first 18 months). The second criteria on well functioning NARS is not applicable to countries coming out of conflict (Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Sierra Leone) as well as small countries (The Gambia, Togo, Cape Verde) which will be considered eligible subject to fulfilling criteria number one and three. They will be supported to rebuild or strengthen their research system and enhance cooperation with the countries hosting centers of specialization. 21. The second phase, while building on the first phase's structure and achievements, is a deepening and expansion phase that will see further strengthening of the enabling conditions for regional cooperation and M&E, consolidating the centers of specialization initiated in phase 1, mainstreaming the demand-driven competitive agricultural grant scheme and scaling up adoption of the released improved technologies with an emphasis on adoption of improved seeds, plants, breed stocks and fingerlings. 22. The triggers for moving from phase 1 to 2 are geared towards ensuring that enabling conditions are in place in support of generating significant spill-over effects. In line with this, the following triggers are proposed: (i) the country has ratified the common regulations for the registration of genetic materials and pesticides adopted at ECOWAS level; (ii) the country has established equivalent functional national registration system for plant materials and pesticides; (iii) a NCOs has been established and operational (this will be required for countries where an NCOS has been established); (iv) a sustainable funding mechanism scheme for the Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme (CARGS) has been adopted by the Government; and (v) achievement of key outcomes of first phase, including release of at least three new technologies by NCOs, minimum of 15 percent farm level productivity increase for released technologies, and achievement of targeted adoption rate of improved varieties by project beneficiaries. 23. The outcome at the end of the 10-year program will be: (i) 30 percent productivity increase (farmers' yield) achieved over the control technology in at least two of the region's top priority commodity sub-sectors in each participating country; and (ii) adoption of improved varieties by at least 70 percent of the beneficiaries of the project, with clear spill-over effects across participating countries. 24. The total initial cost of the 10-year overlapping APLs covering ECOWAS 15 member countries was estimated at US$450 million in IDA financing in 2007. An increase of about US$100 million would be necessary to address the new challenges of: (i) quick response to the food crisis; (ii) accelerated adoption and; (iii) climate change. Therefore the estimated updated total IDA financing of the Program would be US$550 million. Parallel or co-financing are 6 expected from Governments and beneficiaries as well as from Trust Funds managed by the Bank, contribution from other donors (AGRA, European Union, USAID, MCC, AFD, International Fund for Agricultural Development) and from the private sector. C. Project development objective and key indicators 25. The three countries that currently meet the readiness conditions are Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire, and Burkina Faso, and will be covered under the proposed Project, WAAPP-1B (the subject of this Project Appraisal Document). These three countries will receive the following IDA allocation, including one-third from their national IDA and two-thirds from the regional IDA: Burkina Faso (US$15 million), Côte d'Ivoire (US$30 million), and Nigeria (US$45 million),. A co-financing of US$19 million equivalent from the - Food Price Crisis Response (FPCR) Core Multi Donor Trust Fund will support accelerated adoption of technologies, because the value chains supported by WAAPP are central to achieving food security targets in West Africa. The supported increase in food production of targeted value chains will also help mitigate the effects of high food prices across the region. 26. The development objective of WAAPP-1B is to generate and accelerate adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries' top agricultural commodity priorities areas that are aligned with the sub-region's top agricultural commodity priorities as outlined in the ECOWAP. 27. The key Project outcome indicators are: (i) total direct beneficiaries of the Project have reached 2,000,000 ; (ii) at least three improved technologies have been released by each center of specialization; (iii) for all the released technologies there will be an improvement in yield by at least 15 percent over the control technology; (iv) a total area of 800,000 hectares covered by the improved technologies disseminated by the project; and (v) an adoption of improved varieties by at least 1/3rd of the beneficiaries of the project. The regional spillover effects will be measured at intermediate outcome level by the number of technologies released by NCO and demonstrated in at least two ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin. D. Project components Component 1: Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies (US$8.37 million; IDA: US$8.30 million) 28. Inadequate, ineffective, or nonexistent institutional frameworks at the national level may limit the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies and tools. Even where improved technologies and tools may have been generated at the national level, inadequate, ineffective, or nonexistent regulations and standards may hinder their official release. At the regional level, ECOWAS has adopted common procedures for the release of genetic materials and pesticides based on frameworks developed by UEMOA (West African Economic and Monetary Union) and CILSS (Permanent Inter-State Committee for Combating Drought in the Sahel). In addition, work is in progress to develop common policies for the production and marketing of fertilizers as well as the establishment of a common IPR framework. Very few countries have adopted these regulations, which are crucial for creating a regional domain in which technology can be developed and provided to the benefit of African farmers and businesses. 7 29. This component will strengthen the mechanisms and procedures for generating, disseminating, and adopting improved agricultural technologies and tools at the national level to allow ECOWAS member countries to benefit from those technologies within a regional framework for technical and scientific cooperation. 30. This component will support: (i) the development of a sustainable financing mechanism and corresponding institutional arrangements for the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved, climate-resilient agricultural technologies; (ii) strengthening CORAF's competencies in research and development as well as its knowledge management, information, and communication systems to accelerate the sharing of agricultural technology, tools, and best practices; (iii) the establishment of regional regulations on genetic materials and agrochemicals, including support for developing harmonized regulations on fertilizers (under preparation by ECOWAS) and for Project countries to align their national regulations with the ECOWAS regulations; (iv) strengthening National Registration Committees for the effective release of genetic materials, approval of pesticides, and management of IPRs; (v) the development of a strategy to mainstream climate change considerations in research and development (R&D) programs, because climate change presents major challenges to sustaining growth in agricultural productivity in West Africa; and (vi) the development of a strategy to mainstream gender considerations in R&D programs using similar tools as for climate change. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (NCOS) (US$29.45 million; IDA: US$25.69 million) 31. This component will strengthen the operational capacities of NARS in one national priority area for each participating country, in alignment with regional priorities. In this way, countries will focus on their top research and development priorities rather than attempt to address on all possible issues, with little prospect of success. They will make the best use of scarce resources to achieve meaningful progress towards increasing agricultural growth and reducing extreme poverty. 32. The Project will contribute to this process by strengthening national centers of specialization (NCOS) in participating countries. The priority host institutions and commodities for the centers are: (i) CNRA (the National Center for Agricultural Research) in Côte d'Ivoire, for the banana-plantain value chain; (ii) INERA (National Institute for the Environment and Agricultural Research) in Burkina Faso, for the mango and onion value chains; and (iii) NIFFR (National Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research) in Nigeria, for fisheries--specifically catfish and tilapia. These centers of specialization are existing research stations, made up of several buildings, research fields and sub-research stations located in the main agro-ecological zones of the countries. While a preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the NCOs that will be rehabilitated and to inventory the rehabilitation requirements of the research fields and infrastructure, the centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken under the project. Following further consultation with the researchers, the NCOs managers will select specific infrastructure and/or research fields for rehabilitation during project implementation and prepare environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental management plans (EMPs) as necessary. Thus, the selection criterion for the facility or the public research station is its identification by the center's management on the basis of consultations carried out with its researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works. 8 33. Each participating country identified its priority Research and Development (R&D) programs and assessed the human resource capacity in its center of specialization, which complements a regional capacity assessment of research institutions by CORAF and FARA. These assessments concluded that additional expertise is needed to conduct these research programs, which can be obtained by tapping into national and regional collaborative research opportunities. Because many researchers will retire in the next decade, more young researchers, including women, must be attracted and trained. The assessments also concluded that additional training is required to strengthen the capacity of research teams. 34. This component will support: (i) the implementation of core R&D programs of NCOS, focusing on adaptive research conducted with effective participation from stakeholders, particularly producers and agribusinesses; (ii) capacity-building for researchers, along with the facilitation of regional and international partnerships (including support for research exchange programs, on-the-job-training of young researchers, and implementation of annual capacity- building plans); (iii) construction and/or rehabilitation of core facilities, such as laboratories, buildings, and experimental fields, and the provision of equipment to strengthen or establish viable NCOS; (iv) supply chain analyses, impact studies, benchmarking, and monitoring and impact analysis for commissioned or strategic research; and (v) the financing of small grants to implement research activities to assess available technologies from within or outside the territory of the participating country. 35. The Project will work with development partners, CGIAR Centers, other research organizations, and agribusinesses to enhance the sustainability of the NCOS. It will emphasize public­private partnerships, which offer expertise in emerging areas of science and technology, including climate change, and which are critical to increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector. Component 3: Funding of Demand-driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$67.95 million; IDA: US$46.21 million; FPCR: US$18.0 million for subcomponents 3.2 and 3.3 only) 36. This component will strengthen priority-focused, transparent funding mechanisms for demand-driven agricultural R&D within participating countries and will accelerate the adoption of released technologies. This component focuses on areas identified as high priorities at the national and regional levels. Activities eligible for support under this component will alleviate key constraints along the value chain of the selected commodity subsectors. Constraints will be alleviated by developing new technologies as well as by using technologies that have already been developed and have the potential for making a rapid impact. Subcomponent 3.1: Demand-driven technology generation 37. This subcomponent will support the strengthening of the Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Schemes (CARGS) with strong buy-in from major stakeholders. These schemes include the regional scheme managed by CORAF and a national scheme existing in each participating country. 9 Regional CARGS. The IDA-supported operation will add to resources provided by other donors (mainly the Multidonor Trust Fund for CORAF) to create a larger pool of resources that will allow CORAF to expand its regional competitive grant scheme, which is currently limited by insufficient resources. By helping CORAF fulfill its regional mandate, which is based on a regional program approved by stakeholders, the Project will benefit the entire region--including nonparticipating countries--in any given phase. National CARGS. The Project will provide additional resources to complement current and future R&D activities and disseminate technology in line with the country's top agricultural priorities and policies. To ensure that regional spillover benefits occur, the countries' top priorities will be aligned with regional priorities. To further add value to national programs, the national funding windows will support cross-border partnerships both on the supply side (research, extension, universities) and the demand side (farmers' organizations, private sector, and civil society) to work on problems of common interest. Subcomponent 3.2: Support to accelerated adoption of released technologies 38. To bridge the gap between farmers' yields and yields obtained by researchers, this subcomponent will widen the adoption of technologies that have already been released, particularly for the six strategic value chains identified at the regional level (rice, maize, cassava, livestock, meat, and milk). The Project's strategy is to focus initially on technologies identified during Project preparation, which are already available and are likely to have a rapid impact. The Project will also support the dissemination of technologies generated under WAAPP-1B. 39. This subcomponent will support: (i) stakeholders' workshops to prepare national dissemination action plans for released technologies; (ii) the promotion of released technologies through various communications media to improve awareness of technologies and expand their use; (iii) the introduction of information technology in the technology transfer system; (iv) participatory training on released technologies for extension service providers, including national extension services, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), input providers, farmers' organizations, and other stakeholders; and (iv) field demonstrations of released technologies. Subcomponent 3.3: Facilitating access to improved genetic material 40. This subcomponent will increase the availability of and producers' access to improved genetic materials (seed, planting materials, fingerlings, and animal breeds) for the six strategic value chains including rice, maize, yam and cassava, livestock, meat, milk, and aquaculture. 41. This subcomponent will support all relevant stakeholders along the supply chains (for example, research institutions for producing foundation seed, the private sector and farmers for multiplying and marketing seed) to scale up the production of breeder, foundation, and certified seed and planting materials and quality animal stocks, including the upgrading of the capacity of selected public research stations through investments in irrigation facilities, lab and storage equipments. Specific activities to be financed are detailed in Annex 4. 10 Sub component 3.4. Developing a yield prediction tool to help farmers on crop choices 42. The sub-component will finance technical assistance to CORAF to develop the Earth Audit Agricultural Yield Pilot (AYP) concept. The primary purpose of this tool is to help African farmers who depend heavily on rain­fed agriculture to attain more consistent and predictable crop yields. The AYP will use internet and cell phone technology to make food crop predictions from existing datasets and models available to farmers and the broader agricultural community. The project will finance: (i) research activities to complete the development of AYP infrastructure and set up of the web tool during the operational phase; (ii) organization of a regional launching workshops to disseminate the tool; (iii) training of researchers and other stakeholders on the AYP tool; and (iv) M&E activities. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation (US$12.19 million; IDA: US$9.80 million) 43. This component will establish an effective coordination, management, and M&E system for the Project at the national and regional levels. Like WAAPP-1A, WAAPP-1B will also be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS' mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordinating units. 44. This component will ensure implementation of the following key activities: (i) financial management and procurement systems at CORAF and each participating country; (ii) reporting on Project activities; (iii) M&E of regional and national agricultural productivity; and (iv) a communication strategy. To that end, this component will support consultancy services (for surveys and impact studies), vehicles and equipment, office supplies, workshops and short-term training, and operating costs of CORAF and the national coordinating units. The support to CORAF provided under the project will complement parallel financing from other partners to CORAF. E. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design 45. Generic lessons from previous technology generation and dissemination interventions funded by the Bank in the region can be summarized as follows: (i) technology generation and dissemination processes (research, extension, training) must be integrated to maximize impact; (ii) demand-driven technology generation and dissemination systems are essential to ensure efficiency and sustainability and to empower producers; (iii) accelerated technology adoption requires adequate quality advisory services and physical and financial access to the technologies; (iv) it is most cost effective to address upstream technology generation and dissemination at the regional level and downstream functions (such as adaptive research) at the national level, as seen in the collaboration between CGIAR Centers and NARS in the region; and (v) the development of improved technologies tends to be male-oriented and does not sufficiently address women's concerns. 46. The implementation of WAAPP-1A confirmed all of these lessons and identified additional lessons to improve implementation and disbursement. 47. On the one hand, increased interaction among participating countries, project teams, and researchers has improved cooperation, improved information flows, and made it possible to share best practices. This interaction has helped to bridge the francophone/Anglophone divide, 11 facilitated cross-border flows of technology, and fostered positive competition (through emulation). This network effect will intensify as more countries join the WAAPP. The competitive research grants have captured the interest of stakeholders, particularly the end-users of research, in charting the research agenda, and the grants have put pressure on researchers to produce timely, cutting-edge results. CORAF's capacity and effectiveness have improved, and its role is increasingly recognized by the countries in the region. The private sector is increasingly interested in collaborating in technology development initiatives and facilitating wider technology adoption. 48. On the other hand, because WAAPP is a regional program, it faces higher risks of delays in meeting effectiveness conditions at the country level, especially for countries with cumbersome procedures for approving legal documents. WAAPP-1A suffered from low disbursements in the first two years because the Beneficiary Countries deferred the procurement of major activities until effectiveness, which was delayed because of cross-country conditionality, and because Bank supervision was centralized and weak on the ground. The program did not explicitly define how participating countries would work together during implementation to ensure a truly regional approach or clarify how the network effects would be captured through the indicators. Most of these issues are being addressed by the Bank supervision team. 49. The first two years of implementation also yielded technical lessons with respect to technology generation and dissemination. In particular, more emphasis needed to be given to attaining rapid impacts by speeding the adoption of improved technologies that were already available, especially by strengthening the seed multiplication system. Finally, supervision highlighted the importance of pairing a regional Task Team Leader (TTL) with co-TTLs in each country for effective project implementation and organizing post-supervision wrap-up meetings involving all participating countries. 50. A Quality Assurance Group (QAG) learning review of 48 regional projects approved by the Bank between 2006 and 2007 concluded (in November 2009) that: (i) despite their potentially high returns, regional projects are also highly risky and therefore more likely to move slowly and pose problems during implementation; (ii) compared to single-country projects, regional projects tend to be more complex, and their success depends on the cooperation and implementation of several countries; (iii) regional projects tend to suffer from limited national ownership; and (iv) regional projects belong to a relatively new line of business for the World Bank, and a new business model is needed to deliver development assistance effectively through these projects. 51. The QAG review proposed to: (i) develop a tighter definition of what constitutes a regional project; (ii) issue instructions to regions to improve the integration of the regional approach into the CAS and other strategy documents; (iii) strengthen Analytical and Advisory Activity (AAA) and training on the regional approach; (iv) establish a project preparation facility, not only to aid those inside the Bank who work on regional projects but to build demand for such operations among clients; (v) develop more suitable budgeting arrangements, and revise present reporting and monitoring requirements, for regional operations; and (vi) develop pre-investment support measures, introduce standard disbursement profiles, and improve regional project budgeting and supervision. 12 F. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 52. A country-by-country approach can lead to duplication of effort, spread scarce resources too thinly over too many areas, limit regional collaboration, and scuttle regional benefits from technology generation and dissemination. The proposed regional approach avoids these pitfalls and develops synergies, economies of scale, and benefits that spill over country boundaries. This approach fits NEPAD's views on the implementation of CAADP within regional economic units. 53. The Specific Investment Loan (SIL) instrument, with its short duration, is inappropriate when the context requires a long-term development perspective, the flexibility to adapt based on lessons learned, and the attainment of milestones before moving forward. The development of agricultural technology adapted to farmer's circumstances and market conditions is a long-term endeavor that only an APL can achieve. The APL instrument also fits the long-term approach of CAADP and the African Action Plan (AAP) in technology generation and dissemination. Its phasing facilitates the prioritization of investments in alignment with appropriate funding as it becomes available. III.IMPLEMENTATION A. Partnership arrangements 54. This IDA-supported operation is part of the global West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) implemented by CORAF with multiple donors contributing to its funding. During preparation, key donors came to a consensus that the WAAPP should focus on the following areas: (i) priority areas of technology generation and dissemination, identified according to FAAP's guidelines, including quantitative analysis and validation by key stakeholders (producers' organizations and private agribusinesses); (ii) one common set of key performance indicators pursued by all; (iii) an M&E system with objective and independent assessments of key results and impacts; and (iv) support to CORAF to manage and coordinate regional activities, through funding instruments appropriate to each donor's governance body. Specifically, the IDA-supported instrument combines support to CORAF as well as individual participating countries, which are the statutory recipients of IDA's credit. 55. The WAAPP is supported through parallel rather than joint financing to accommodate the funding mechanisms available to donors. Parallel financing from other donors' supports CORAF- managed activities and core functions, regional public­private partnerships in technology generation and adoption, and development operations. The Department for International Development (DfID) provides about one million Euros each year in core funding to CORAF; United States Agency for International Development (USAID) recently made CORAF a direct grantee; the EU and African Development Bank (AfDB) fund CORAF's growing competitive grant system; and Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) supports various agricultural research activities. IFAD and AfDB support agricultural development activities and WAAPP will support adoption of the resulting technologies. USAID, through its Global Development Alliance, has pioneered public­private partnerships in promising supply chains, which the WAAPP intends to complement or emulate. The AfDB expressed interest in supporting additional centers of specialization for cereals or livestock in Nigeria. 13 56. The WAAPP will collaborate with AGRA, which plans over the next decade to introduce 400 new and improved crop varieties and works in selected African countries to eliminate hunger and move people out of poverty through activities addressing soil fertility and irrigation, farm management practices, and access to markets and financing. AGRA focuses on food crops for domestic consumption and value-added transformation (for example, maize for animal feed). The WAAPP shares AGRA's priorities and interests in West Africa and intends to expand its working relationships with the Alliance. 57. The WAAPP will also establish partnerships with institutions such as IFPRI, which helped to identify priority areas for the CORAF program and conducted the financial and economic analyses for the proposed Project; CIRAD (the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development), with respect to the centers of specialization, and CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation) in the area of information dissemination. Other institutions will be involved as the opportunity arises. B. Institutional and implementation arrangements 58. The WAAPP will continue to be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (which, as noted, is ECOWAS' mandated implementing agency). At the national level it will be implemented by the existing institutions in each participating country. In Burkina Faso, it will be implemented by the Project Coordination Unit established under the Secrétariat général of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries Resources for the Association-financed Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project (PAFASP) and the National Scientific and Technical Research Center (CNRST) for the national CARGS scheme. In Côte d'Ivoire, the implementing agency is FIRCA (Interprofessional Fund for Agricultural Research and Extension), and in Nigeria it is ARCN (Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria). The Association will enter into Financing Agreements with each of the participating countries and into a Project Agreement with CORAF. At least one-fifteenth (1/15th ) of the proceeds of the IDA financing will be made available to CORAF under subsidiary grants agreements to be concluded between each of the participating countries and CORAF for regional coordination activities as well as the implementation of a regional competitive grant scheme. For the grants resources coming from the FPCR Core Trust Fund, the Bank and the Association, acting as administrator of such trust funds, will conclude a grant agreement with each of the participating countries and CORAF. 59. CORAF will monitor the overall implementation of the Project. It will report on progress related to the effectiveness of the dissemination mechanisms and the increase in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the Project's areas of interest. 60. Each country will establish a WAAPP Oversight or Advisory Committee (WAAPPOC) to provide policy guidance and which will meet at least twice each Fiscal Year to undertake, inter alia, the review and approval of the draft Annual Work Program and Budget (AWP&B), the approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator, and review of implementation progress. The countries will send representatives to the Regional level oversight committee already established under WAAPP-1A chaired by ECOWAS and that meets once a year to review the draft regional AWP&B and discuss overall implementation issues. 61. Components 1.3 and 1.4 will be implemented by the national coordination units on the basis of result-based Memorandum of Understanding concluded with each concerned Directorate 14 of the Ministries in charge of Agriculture, Livestock or Fisheries or other government implementing partners, depending on the country's set-up, delegating responsibility for Project implementation to the relevant Directorate or partner and setting forth the implementation details. 62. Component 2 will be implemented by the Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) in Côte d'Ivoire, The Institut National de l'Environnement et de la Recherche Agricole (INERA) in Burkina Faso, and the National Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research (NIFFR) in Nigeria on the basis of the AWP&B approved by the national and regional WAAPPOC. 63. The national window under Component 3.1 will be implemented by FIRCA in Côte d'Ivoire, the CNRST in Burkina Faso, and ARCN in Nigeria. The regional window of component 3.1, will, instead, be implemented by CORAF. 64. Components 3.2 and 3.3 will be managed by the national coordination units on the basis of contractual arrangements to be concluded with suitable advisory service providers in accordance with the provisions of the Project Implementation Manual. 65. Component 4 will be implemented by each country for the national level and by CORAF for the regional level. 66. Components 1.2, 1.5 and 3.4 will be implemented and managed by CORAF. 67. The CARGS will include: (i) a competent governance body with strong representation (at least 50 percent) from civil society, producers, agribusinesses, and NGOs and (ii) a technical review committee, including a team of specialized consultants with the mandate to make the first cut in the selection process and assist grant applicants to refine proposals once they are selected. Research proposals financed through the CARGS will be generated through a research-extension case study in which constraints on producers and agribusinesses are identified. 68. Funding of the CARGS will follow clear and transparent guidelines adapted from existing procedures, best practices, and lessons learned from WAAPP-1A. The CARGS will reflect the following organizing principles: (i) it will be open to having producer groups and agribusinesses lead the implementation of R&D; (ii) it will be open to R&D activities that promote effective adoption of technology that has already been developed; (iii) overhead of the R&D implementing unit will be capped in terms of the management fee or operating cost; and (iv) a score-card evaluation of the program's performance will be done by a panel of competent and independent experts. In each country, there exists a national manual of procedures for the CARGS which will be applied and followed in making grants available. 69. Each country has prepared and adopted a -PIM, providing detailed information on institutional and implementation arrangements, especially in the following key areas: priority setting for research and extension activities and M&E of Project outcomes and outputs. C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results 70. The Project will strengthen CORAF's M&E system and help each participating country to establish or strengthen its own M&E system to verify progress against the objectively verifiable indicators in the results framework (Annex 3). The M&E system will collate and 15 process information collected by CORAF, the participating countries, and additional data deriving from special studies. 71. In addition, the WAAPP will fund special studies to analyze and report on the evolution of regional agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the Project's areas of emphasis. The Project will realize and update baseline studies on priority areas as they are being determined, to allow for later comparison of results. It will also coordinate and use qualitative participatory and gender-sensitive poverty assessments undertaken in participating countries. The PIM - will include a section on M&E, describing key performance indicators (down to the output level) for all Project activities, including safeguard measures. D. Sustainability 72. The WAAPP's sustainability critically depends on: (i) clear mechanisms for disseminating and sharing technologies across countries; (ii) the establishment of recognized Regional Centers of Excellence (RCOE); and (iii) appropriate financing mechanisms (budgetary contributions) to support the core operations of the regional institutions (CORAF and RCOE). To secure the WAAPP's long-term sustainability, the Project will help participating countries set up a sustainable funding mechanism, including contributions from governments and beneficiaries, to finance future technology generation and dissemination. E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects 73. As a pilot regional Project, the WAAPP faces many risks to achieving its development objective and component results. However, the overall risk of the Project is moderate, provided the Project implements the suggested mitigation measures shown in the table. Risk Factors Description of Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Rating of Risk of Residual Risk Sector-level Risks Limited regional Institutional capacity for S Project design focuses on integrating M coordination capacity regional coordination at the implementation through existing national and regional level programs and coordination platforms may limit effective regional run by CORAF. CORAF has collaboration. developed coordination capacity at the subregional level through the implementation of WAAPP-1A. The World Bank recently granted a Multidonor Trust Fund to CORAF for the implementation of its Strategic Plan across the 22 countries it covers. CORAF is processing the required conditions to get the grant effective. 16 Risk Factors Description of Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Rating of Risk of Residual Risk (The grant agreement is yet to be signed). Non conformance Disbursements under the M Six sources of financing will be L with linkage financing agreement of a contributing to the financing of conditionality (cross- given country could start regional activities. If a financing effectiveness even if the financing agreement never enters into effect or conditions and cross- agreements for the other if disbursements under a given suspension remedies) two countries have not financing agreement are suspended, for regional been declared effective and this would only reduce the scope but cooperation there is no disbursement of not affect the overall implementation funds. In addition, of regional activities and the national disbursements under a activities can be carried out despite financing agreement of a lack of progress in the overall regional given country could not be dimension of the project. suspended even if disbursements under any of the financing agreements of the other two countries have been suspended, therefore putting at risk the accomplishment of the regional level activities Limited regional Centers of specialization M Project design includes a focus on L spillovers from may pursue national rather regional dissemination activities NCOS investments than regional agenda: through CORAF. Technology regional benefits may not generation and dissemination be gained from the activities must be done in the context technology generation and of regional subprojects with the dissemination activities. participation of other countries. Inadequate private Private and public sector S Provision for adequate capacity and M and public sector ability to scale up technical assistance to implementing supply response for production of improved agencies at the country level. Support livestock breeds and livestock breeds and to public and private sector as well as planting materials certified planting materials NGOs for effective delivery of may be weak in response to extension and training services. Project support for increased production of basic and breeder products in both areas. 17 Risk Factors Description of Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Rating of Risk of Residual Risk Poor policy Policy environment within M Countries will harmonize national L environment for countries in the region not laws with ECOWAS common facilitating regional adequate to allow quick framework and regulations on genetic technology transfer dissemination of materials as well as pesticides and technologies and planting other crop protection products. material across borders. CORAF has a mechanism for sharing technologies and is supporting the policy harmonization activities. The Project design includes further support for this effort. Inappropriateness of Technologies may not H Rigorous technical standards and S technologies correspond to farmers' review mechanisms for research developed or delay in needs or their development proposals, including CARGS, to their generation may be delayed. increase likelihood of success in projects chosen. Early involvement of farmers in the development and generation of technologies. Operation-specific Risks Lack of good Skill mix of researchers in S Promotion of collaborative research at M technical skills to the center of specialization the national and regional levels using address research and may not be adequate to a pool of researchers from extension problems conduct R&D programs. universities, research centers, NGOs, High turnover of and elsewhere. Support for developing researchers in agricultural chart on researchers' status at research centers due to lack ECOWAS level. of incentives may affect achievement of Project objectives. Limited sustainability Long-term sustainability of M Commodity focus of the centers of L of NCOS centers of specialization specialization; regular public investments at may be limited due to lack education on benefits; and national and regional of commitment nationally collaboration in public expenditure level and regionally. review exercises to report on the evolution o f public expenditure allocated to the NCOS and stimulate continuing public support for them. Limited national Weak institutional capacity M Implementation to take place within L implementation and for national coordination existing structures for national coordination capacity and implementation. Weak agricultural research, and ministries of incentives and motivation agriculture have experience in 18 Risk Factors Description of Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Rating of Risk of Residual Risk for government service implementing Bank-financed staff to carry out Project operations. Governments' activities. commitment to keep competent staff in position for the Project period through incentives. The project will also build the capacity of staff involved in implementation, both regionally and nationally. Complexity of Project is inherently S Close supervision by CORAF and M Project design complex, as it is Bank through arrangement for co- implemented by TTLs. Capacity building for autonomous and semi- implementation agencies at the autonomous public national and regional levels. organizations and the private sector and extends across several countries. Poor management of Project activities are spread M Adequate financial management will M Project activities over federal/regional be put in place before implementation involving several research institutes and starts, including fund flow entities and centers as well as higher arrangement, and auditing and institutions learning institutions, which reporting requirement will be made adds to the Project's clear. Training will be given to staff complexity. on bank procedures and Interim Financial Report (IFR) preparation. Inadequate Donor support for selected M Project design considers actual and L coordination with commodities is fragmented. potential donor support for selected other donors commodities. Activities at national level are coordinated with Sector Coordination Committees. Control Risk Systemic corruption Use of funds is inefficient S Project fiduciary staff will receive M or inappropriate due to further capacity strengthening. IDA poor governance at closely follows up adherence to CORAF and national country procurement laws and coordination units. monitors financial and audit reports. Poor financial The quality of the financial S The Financial Management (FM) M reporting reports may not be up to Manual will lay out the detailed dates standard. Because of the for submitting reports for all tiers. The 19 Risk Factors Description of Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Rating of Risk of Residual Risk multiplicity of actors, there IFR format has been agreed with the may be poor coordination respective implementing agencies at among the parties involved. negotiations. Training will be given Because implementation is by the Bank on preparation of IFRs. spread out, financial Reminders to close books on time reporting will be delayed. after fiscal year end will be sent on time to ensure timely submission. Audit delays Delays in submission of M Audit terms of reference (TOR) will L external Audit Reports. be agreed in advance. Auditors will be recruited within four months of effectiveness. The Bank FM team will closely monitor whether Audit Reports are submitted on time. Weak capacity of The internal audit S The Project includes capacity building M internal audit systems departments may not for internal audit departments of all in the implementing review the activities of the implementing entities in the respective countries Project. In some cases, countries. there may be lack of clear follow-up on internal control weaknesses. Weak Project Specific internal control M The FM Manual will lay out the M governance weakness may not be necessary internal controls. An identified and addressed in experienced internal auditor recruited a timely manner at the by CORAF will monitor the internal overall Project level. control mechanisms within the Project entities. Note: Risk ratings are H = high; S = substantial; M = moderate; and L = low. F. Loan/credit conditions and covenants Effectiveness conditions: i. For each of the three countries, that a Subsidiary Grant Agreement has been executed on behalf of the Recipient and CORAF; and ii. In addition for the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, that the Financial Agreement and the Execution Agreement have been executed on behalf of the Recipient and FIRCA. For the FPCR Core Trust Fund Grants: 20 iii. For each of three countries, cross-effectiveness condition linked to the effectiveness of the corresponding Financing Agreement for the same country and with the effectiveness of the CORAF FPCR Core Trust Fund Grant Agreement; iv. In addition for the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, that the Financial Agreement and the Execution Agreement have been executed on behalf of the Recipient and FIRCA; v. For CORAF, cross-effectiveness condition linked to the effectiveness of the Financing Agreements with each of the three countries and the effectiveness of the FPCR Core Trust Fund Grant Agreement with each of the three countries. Legal covenants: (i) For each of the three countries, the Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date, establish and, thereafter maintain throughout Project implementation, a national oversight or advisory committee under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association vested with responsibility for providing policy guidance and for overseeing the Project ("Oversight or Advisory Committee"). The Oversight or Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the recipient's minister responsible for the agriculture (or his/her designee) and its composition shall include representatives from the government, stakeholders, farmers and the private sector. The Oversight or Advisory Committee shall meet at least twice each Fiscal Year to undertake, inter alia, the review and approval of the draft AWP&B and the approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator not later than October 31 each year to follow-up on, and assess the progress in, the carrying out of the precedent AWP&B. (ii) For each of the three countries, in order to maximize the benefits to be derived from the Project, the Recipient shall: (a) select: (i) the core facilities of the national center of specialization proposed to be constructed and rehabilitated under Part 2.3 of the Project; and (ii) the public research stations proposed to be upgraded under Part 3.3 (ii) of the Project, applying the following criterion: the facility or the station has been identified by the center's management on the basis of consultations carried out with its researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works; and (b) thereafter, furnish to the Association for approval for financing out of the proceeds of the Grants or Credit the facilities and stations as so selected. (iii) For each of the three countries, prior to the award of each contract for works under Parts 2.3 or 3.3 (ii) of the Project, each Recipient shall: (i) furnish to the Association a written attestation for the specific site where the works will be undertaken that the works shall not cause or result in Resettlement; (ii) submit to the Association for its review and approval the related site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), as the case may be, in form and substance satisfactory to the 21 Association; (iii) disclose the site-specific ESIA or ESMP as approved by the Association; and (ii) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately included in the works contract concluded for the site and that they are implemented in the carrying out of Parts 2.3 and 3.3(ii) of the Project. (iv) For each of the three countries and CORAF, each Recipient shall take all measures required so that [each Participating Country's entity in charge of the component or CORAF]: (i) screen, under Parts 2.1 and 3.1 (b) of the Project, the activities proposed to be financed under the Research Proposals and Grants proposals submitted for financing out of the proceeds of Grants or the Credit and establish that such activities avoid Resettlement; (ii) ensure that each Beneficiary: (A) carry out an appropriate site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (EMP), as the case may be, for each such activities in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF and in form and substance satisfactory to [Participating Country's entity in charge of component or CORAF]; and (B) disclose the site-specific ESIA or ESMP as approved by [Participating Country Country's entity in charge of component or CORAF]; (iii) verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental/social institutions) before approving the Research Proposal or Grant proposal that the activities meet the environmental and social requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that it is consistent with the Association's applicable environmental and social assessment and safeguard policies and complies with the environmental and social review procedures set forth in the Project Implementation Manual or the manual for the existing competitive agricultural research grants scheme, as the case may be; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately implemented. (v) For each of the three countries and CORAF, each Recipient shall follow and apply at all times in the implementation of Parts 2 and 3 of the Project the provisions of the -PMP- in a timely manner, ensuring that: (i) mitigation and monitoring measures acceptable to the Association are designed and implemented with due diligence and employing appropriate environmental expertise; and (ii) adequate information on the implementation of the measures contained in the PMP is appropriately included in the Progress Reports to be prepared under the Project. (vi) For each of the three countries, each Recipient shall take all measures required: (i) to screen, under Parts 2.1 and 3.1 (b) of the Project, the activities proposed to be financed under the research and grants proposals submitted for financing out of the proceeds of the Grants or Credit and establish that such activities avoid Resettlement; (ii) to ensure that each Beneficiary carry out an appropriate environmental impact assessment in accordance with the provisions of the (ESMF) for each such activities; and (iii) to verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental institutions) before approving the research or grant proposals that the activities meet the environmental requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that it is consistent with the Association's applicable environmental assessment and safeguard policies and 22 complies with the environmental review procedures set forth in the PIM or the manual for the existing competitive agricultural research grants scheme, as the case may be; (vii) Each Recipient and CORAF shall, not later than four (4) months after the Effective Date, recruit an external auditor for the national coordination unit (in the case of the country) and for its structure (in the case of CORAF) on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association. (viii) Each Recipient and CORAF shall carry out its respective Parts of the Project pursuant to its obligations under (in the case of Burkina Faso and Nigeria which are a party to the Protocol), and in accordance with environmental safeguards and international good practice and standards consistent with those of- the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (ix) For the Financing Agreement and Grant Agreement with Côte d'Ivoire: the Recipient shall cause FIRCA:(i) to recruit, not later than one (1) month after the Effective Date, an accountant, and an internal auditor on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) to upgrade, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date, the computerized financial management system to be used for the Project. (x) For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Burkina Faso: the Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date: (i) recruit for the PCU an accountant, and a financial controller on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) acquire the accounting system to be used for the Project. (xi) For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Nigeria: The Recipient shall take all measures required on its behalf to ensure that the Project activities are incorporated into ARCN's computerized financial system not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date. IV.APPRAISAL SUMMARY A. Economic and financial analyses 74. Investments in agricultural R&D are regularly shown to have rates of return in the range of 40­60 percent per year. An IFPRI meta-analysis of 293 studies on agricultural R&D from 1953 to 1997 found that rates of return on average are even as high as 81 percent.2 Spillovers of research benefits across national borders can be important and raise rates of return even higher. Abdulai, Diao, and Johnson (2005) showed that investments yielding regional benefits in African 2 Alston, J.M., T.J. Wyatt, P.G. Pardey, M.C. Marra, and C. Chan-Kang (2000), "A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex pede Herculem?" Research Report 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. 23 agriculture delivered benefits that were as much as three to four times higher than the direct benefits in the country of origin.3 75. Ex ante economic analyses were performed using the "minimum national impact" approach to identify the minimum incremental benefit stream or minimum incremental yield increase needed to reach the breakeven point and justify the proposed investment. An "incremental adoption" approach was used to determine whether the proposed Project can, under a reasonable set of operating assumptions, produce the desired minimum benefit stream. Estimates show that the productivity gains required to break even are modest and that the planned investment is economically viable. Results of analysis for three specific value chains follow. 76. Onions and mangoes. These commodities are the most important vegetable and fruit crops in West Africa, and it is clear that there is enormous potential for improving their productivity. Onion yields in West Africa are about 18.3 tons per hectare, close to the world average of 19.8 tons per hectare (FAOSTAT). Yield potential in the region could be as high as 25­40 tons per hectare, implying that the yield gap is about 10­31 tons per hectare. Mango yields in West Africa average 4 tons per hectare, compared to the world average of 7 tons per hectare (FAOSTAT). Yield potential in the region could range from 23 tons per hectare (the current average yield in Mali) to 40 tons per hectare (Cape Verde), implying that the yield gap is about 19­36 tons per hectare. Average mango yields in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria are currently low (6 tons per hectare). With spillover benefits in the other participating countries-- Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria--the productivity gains required to break even are modest. The incremental yield increase required is 0.24 percent in Burkina Faso (equal to a yield increase of 0.7 percent in Year 5 and a 1.6 percent cumulative productivity gain by Year 5), assuming that only one-quarter of the yield increases spills over to Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria. If spillover benefits extend to all West African producing countries, the required incremental yield increase is 0.2 percent in Burkina Faso (a yield increase of 0.6 percent in Year 5 and a cumulative productivity gain of 1.4 percent by Year 5), assuming that only one-quarter of the yield increases spills over to Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria. Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as Burkina Faso, the required yield increase in Burkina Faso is 2.4 percent for total area planted with new onion, tomato, and mango technologies (starting in Year 3 and sustained until Year 20) and 1.2 percent in Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria. These figures are modest and very likely to be attained. 77. Bananas and plantains. Production of bananas and plantains in West Africa is 6­7 percent of world production. The gaps between farmers' yields and yields from on-farm research are large in West Africa, estimated at around 30­40 tons per hectare. For example, farmers' yields in Côte d'Ivoire average 10 tons per hectare, whereas on-farm testing generates 40­45 tons per hectare. With spillover benefits in Nigeria, the required incremental yield increase is 0.6 percent in Côte d'Ivoire (or a yield increase of 1.8 percent in Year 5 and a cumulative productivity gain of 3.9 percent by Year 5), assuming that Nigeria attains only one-quarter of the yield increase. If benefits extend to the whole of West Africa, the required incremental yield increase is 0.4 percent in Côte d'Ivoire (or a yield increase of 1.2 percent in Year 5 and a cumulative productivity gain of 3 Awadu, A., X. Diao, and M. Johnson (2005), "Achieving Regional Growth Dynamics in African Agriculture." Development Strategy and Governance Decision Discussion Paper No. 17, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, p.V. 24 2.4 percent by Year 5), assuming that Nigeria attains only one-quarter of the yield increase. Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as Côte d'Ivoire, the required yield increase in Côte d'Ivoire is 4 percent for total area planted to new technologies and varieties of banana and plantain (starting in Year 3, and sustained until Year 20) and 2 percent in other countries. These figures are modest and very likely to be attained. 78. Catfish. Aquaculture in general is important for West Africa. Catfish is a major species grown in West Africa and accounts for 70 percent of aquaculture production in Nigeria. Improved breeding and management of catfish would increase the survival rate from the present 60 percent to over 80 percent. These technologies would also reduce the growth rate- per culture period for fingerlings by 33 percent from the present 6 weeks; they would reduce the growth rate/culture period for table fish by 20­33 percent from the 5­6 months level. Even without regional spillovers, the planned R&D investment for catfish in Nigeria will require only modest productivity gains to break even, even for the more conservative estimates. The required incremental productivity increase per year is 0.2 to 0.6 percent (equal to a productivity increase of 0.6 to 1.8 percent in Year 5 or a cumulative productivity gain of 1.2 to 3.6 percent by Year 5), assuming a 25­75 percent increase in production cost. Even when the adoption rate is assumed to be 10 percent in Year 3 and the cumulative adoption rate to be 30 percent in Year 5, the required annual productivity increase is 7 percent for adopters. These figures are modest and very likely to be attained. Catfish production is limited in Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and other West African countries, but there is a huge potential to develop catfish production to satisfy rising demand. B. Technical 79. The technical design of the Project took a number of considerations into account. First, the WAAPP is designed to contribute to all RMPs intended to accelerate the implementation of ECOWAP, which was adopted by West African Heads of States and serves as the basis for the signing of compacts between the governments of ECOWAS countries and the main stakeholders in this Project, including donors, civil society, farmers-based organizations, NGOs, and the private sector. Second, Project preparation was done through a participatory process that led to strong country ownership in participating countries. Third, the Project was designed to incorporate lessons from implementing WAAPP-1A in Ghana, Mali, and Senegal. Finally, new subcomponents (3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) were added. The design of these subcomponents, which are intended to accelerate technology adoption and scale up seed production, reflects lessons from similar programs in Africa. The identification of technologies that are already available during Project preparation, and their dissemination when the Project begins, will speed the achievement of adoption targets. C. Fiduciary 80. Financial management. A financial management assessment of WAAPP-1B was conducted by the Bank's financial management team in January and February 2010 in accordance with the new Financial Assessment Principles. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the implementing entities have acceptable financial management arrangements, which will: (i) ensure that funds are used only for the intended purposes in an efficient and economical way; (ii) ensure the preparation of accurate, reliable, and timely periodic financial reports; and (iii) safeguard the entities' assets. WAAPP-1B, which continues to involve CORAF- at the 25 regional level and brings in a second set of countries (Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria), follows the acceptable implementation of the ongoing WAAPP-1A. Phase 1B will benefit from the capacity-building activities related to financial management at the regional level. During its assessment, the Bank's financial management team consulted the various decrees establishing the national institutions in charge of implementing the Project and reviewed the fiduciary arrangements of proposed implementing entities. A review of the financial management capacity of the entities involved in the WAAPP-1B identified inherent and control risks, for which the team developed corresponding mitigation measures. The residual control risk is modest. The proposed financial management arrangements for this Project are considered adequate to meet the Bank's minimum fiduciary requirements under OP/BP10.02. The implementing entities are compliant with the Bank's financial management requirements; and there are no overdue audit reports and interim financial reports from these entities. The assessment recommended: (i) developing a comprehensive manual of procedures encompassing the operations of the implementing entities, (ii) recruiting additional financial management staff, (iii) selecting the external auditor, and (iv) the due approval of Subsidiary Grant Agreements in form and substance satisfactory to IDA between CORAF and each participating country. The detailed assessment, together with the proposed arrangements for disbursements, accounting, auditing, and monitoring, is provided in Annex 7. 81. WAAPP-1B will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF and at the national level by the national coordination units of (i) PAFASP and CNRST in Burkina Faso, (ii) FIRCA in Côte d'Ivoire, and (iii) ARCN in Nigeria. The fiduciary arrangements of the national implementing agencies, which operate under the on-going part of the on-going IDA-financed operations, fully meet IDA's minimum requirement under OP/BP 10.02 Financial Management. Regional Level Implementing Agency and Overview of Status Implementation Arrangements ECOWAS CORAF is the subregional body for scientific CORAF has been strengthened during cooperation and coordination, with a mandate to implementation of WAAPP-1A. strengthen national research capacities for the economic and social development of countries in the subregion. Country Level Implementing Agency and Overview of Status Implementation Arrangements Burkina Faso The Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources, and PAFASP has an adequate track record Fisheries (MAHRH) is responsible for overall in managing Bank-financed projects, coordination of the Project. MAHRH will ensure the as evidenced by the satisfactory rating coordination of the Project through PAFASP and following the recent Mid-Term CNRST. Review. CNRST will need to be reinforced to meet Bank fiduciary requirements as per OP/BP 10.02. Côte d'Ivoire The Ministry of Agriculture (MinAgri) will have FIRCA will need to be reinforced to institutional responsibility for the Project. MinAgri meet Bank fiduciary requirements as has designated FIRCA, set up by the government in per OP/BP 10.02. the framework of the Bank's PNASA (Agricultural Services Support) Project to coordinate and manage the Project. Nigeria The Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA) through ARCN has designated appropriate, the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria professionally qualified accountants (ARCN) will be responsible for the coordination and internal auditors for WAAPP-1B. and management of the IDA credit. 26 82. Procurement. A procurement assessment of CORAF and the implementing agencies for Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire, and Burkina Faso was conducted in January­February 2010. In accordance with "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004, revised October 2006 and May 2010; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, revised October 2006 and May 2010. The assessment reviewed the procurement procedures, organizational capacity, staffing, and skills at the country and project management levels. The overall risk for procurement (prior to mitigation measures) is considered substantial. The assessment recommended a number of actions to mitigate the procurement risk to moderate. Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants", dated October 15, 2006 shall apply to the project. D. Social 83. Small-scale farmers dominate African agriculture (with women playing a critical role), both in local food production and production for regional and international markets. The Project will work to ensure that the circumstances of small-scale farmers and particularly women are accounted for in setting priorities for the CARGS and implementing the research proposals it finances. The grant scheme will require, for example, that bids for competitive grants clearly identify the farm population that will benefit from the research. Adaptive research will be conducted on farmers' fields. Competitive grants to implement R&D will be open to producers' organizations and agribusiness associations and not only to research organizations. The Project will work with development operations and public­private partnerships to promote the use of technologies by producers. 84. The WAAPP is not expected to have any significant negative social impacts. It will not involve any land acquisition or resettlement; the activities will take place on existing research stations or within the other implementing institutions. Gender issues were considered in selecting the focus commodities, and they will be considered explicitly in the design of training and dissemination programs. E. Environment 85. The WAAPP-1B is expected to have a positive environmental impact through its support for agricultural technologies that promote the better use of land and water resources. Potential environmental risks could include point and nonpoint pollution of water sources, other issues associated with the use of agricultural chemicals, and negative environmental impacts associated with the rehabilitation of irrigation or small-scale civil works on research stations. Research on transgenic crops is neither explicitly planned nor excluded. If it becomes part of the research agenda supported under the Project, it will proceed with environmental safeguards consistent with international good practice and the regulatory framework of the host country. In particular, such research needs to be carried out in accordance with the obligation of each country under international treaties to which it is a party, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for Burkina Faso and Nigeria. Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the NCOS activities will be low intensity, minor, site specific, and handled under safeguard measures already in place for ongoing activities. 27 86. Mitigation measures under the Project will include the application of integrated pest management (IPM) practices and the application and promotion of pesticide management practices outlined in the guidelines of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides; risk management for transgenic crops through the national biosafety framework and international best practice; and the use of environmental impact assessments as appropriate for minor civil works. F. Safeguard policies 87. The social and environmental screening category is B. The Safeguard policies triggered by the Project (see the table) are OP/BP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, and OP 4.09, Pest Management. A regional Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMFs) and a regional Pest Management Plan (PMP) have been prepared with inputs from each participating country. Both the ESMF and PMP have been disclosed regionally by CORAF and at the World Bank InfoShop on March 09, 2010, in compliance with Bank regulations. 88. The ESMF formulated standard methods and procedures specifying how technological research proposals whose location, number, and scale are currently unknown will systematically address environmental and social issues in the screening, categorization, sitting, design, implementation, and monitoring phases. The ESMF includes: (i) systematization of environmental and social impact assessment for all identified subprojects before investment; and (ii) procedures for conducting subproject-specific environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs), be they Limited Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (LESIAs) or Full Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (FESIAs). 89. The proposed PMP addresses concerns relating to the risks associated with potential increases in the use of pesticides for agricultural production, intensification, and diversification and potential increases in disease vector populations owing to irrigation schemes. The framework makes proposals to not only harmonize national and sub-regional policies (ECOWAS), but also to strengthen national capacities to effectively implement mitigation measures designed to minimize such risks. The PMP, as part of the implementation arrangements, also identifies national agencies and other partners that could play a vital role in the success of the Project's social and environmental safeguards. 90. Both the ESMF and PMP include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved in each participating country, at the national and regional levels, for screening, reviewing, and approving research activities, as well as implementing and monitoring mitigation measures for such activities. In view of the somewhat limited institutional capacity to address Project safeguards adequately, the two safeguard instruments include provisions to strengthen the capacity of the various institutions and actors involved and to promote coordination and synergies among the various sectors in attending to potential environmental and social impacts. Together these safeguard instruments are considered as planning tools and means for harmoniously integrating the Project with its biophysical and social environment to maximize the project's positive effects in the subregion. 91. In addition, the project is set out to support the strengthening of national agricultural research centers and to upgrade the capacity of selected public research stations to produce and store breeder seeds through investments in irrigation facilities, lab and storage equipments. These 28 centers are existing research stations located on government owned lands, comprising several buildings, large research fields and sub-research stations located in the main agro-ecological zones of the countries. As part of the social and environmental screening process, each participating country will prepare and avail a completed one-page "Land Acquisition Screening Form" that clearly shows selected lands are indeed free of any kinds of claims. Project activities where there are claims on any of the land used in the research will not be financed. While a preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the NCOs that will be rehabilitated and to inventory the rehabilitation requirements of the research fields and infrastructure, the centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken in the project. Following further consultation with the researchers, the NCOs will select specific infrastructure and/or research fields for rehabilitation during project implementation. Thus, the selection criterion for the facility or the public research station is its identification by the center's management on the basis of consultations carried out with its researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works. 92. Investment in such of the works will be contingent upon detailed technical studies and preparation of an ESIA or ESMP which will be reviewed and disclosed in the countries, as approved by the Association. Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) [x ] [] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [] [x ] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ x] [] Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) [] [x ] Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) [] [x ] Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [] [x] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [] [x] Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [] [x] Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) [] [x] * Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) [] [x ] G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 93. The Project in each country complies with all World Bank policies and no policy exceptions are expected. All the countries meet the required readiness conditions for implementation: (i) a Procurement Plan for the first 18 months of activities for each Project was prepared during pre-appraisal and was finalized during negotiations; and (ii) a Project Implementation Manual, a manual for the CARGS and a manual on administrative and financial procedures have already been issued by each country and by CORAF. * By supporting the proposed Project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas. 29 Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-1B) The Regional Economic and Sector Context 1. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is home to 290 million people in 15 low-income countries. About 65 percent of the population lives in rural area and most depend on agriculture, which contributes 35 percent of the regional GDP and over 15 percent of exports. Agricultural exports are important in West Africa's external trade, and agriculture is one of the major vehicles for regional market integration. The region is not self- sufficient in food production and not food secure, particularly in the North (the Sahel). Regional production covers 80 percent of the population's food needs in ECOWAS countries, and 20 percent of imports are food products. Agricultural productivity is low and vulnerable to weather and world market shocks. As a net importer of cereals and livestock products, and as an exporter of raw materials, West Africa is severely affected by the current rise in global food and fuel prices and the recent financial crisis. As an economy that is dependent on natural resources, West Africa will face additional challenges to rural livelihoods from climate change. West Africa countries urgently need to transform land and water management practices to improve agricultural productivity. The region will be challenged to satisfy the food needs of its growing and increasingly urbanized population, build a strong regional agricultural market, and promote sustainable development. 2. Agricultural potential in West African countries varies greatly owing to wide variation in the distribution of human population, access to cultivable land, agro-ecological conditions, and access to markets. An analysis by IFPRI identified 27 agricultural development domains representing particular configurations of population density, agricultural potential, and access to markets. 4 The analysis shows that the largest individual domain in the region (accounting for 37 percent of West Africa's land area--78 percent of the land in the Sahel, most of which is desert) has low population density, low agricultural potential, and low market access. The domain with high population density but low agricultural potential and low market access is also large, accounting for 22 percent of land area. Areas with high agricultural potential and high market access account for only 2 percent of the land area but include more than 8 percent of cropland and almost 20 percent of the rural population. Most countries contain at least 6 of the domain types. Appendix 1 shows the detailed distribution of agricultural development domains in the Coastal and Sahelian subregions of West Africa. 3. The variation in agricultural potential across West Africa serves as the basis of diversified agricultural systems in the ECOWAS member states. Despite the importance of low- potential domains in the region's land endowment, ECOWAS member states still have considerable potential in arable land, pastures, water, and human resources. This potential enables West Africa to satisfy the demands of a population that is expected to be about 500 million by 2030. The local food crisis resulting from soaring global food prices in 2007­08 demonstrated the need to anchor West Africa's food security firmly in the use of its agricultural potential. Pursuing 4 Johnson, M., R. Birner, J. Chamberlin, X. Diao, S. Fan, A. Nin-Pratt, D. Resnick, L. You, and B. Yu (2008), "Regional Strategic Alternatives for Agriculture-led Growth and Poverty Reduction in West Africa." ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 22, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. 30 this option would simultaneously contribute to economic growth and reduce poverty--which remains the principal cause of hunger--while reducing the reliance of ECOWAS countries on external food supplies. 5 4. Rapid growth in agricultural productivity, supported by effective adoption of improved agricultural technologies, is required to increase agricultural production at the regional level. The need is particularly urgent, given the feeble growth in agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa and particularly West Africa over the past two decades. Fuglie (2009)6 demonstrated that agricultural growth in sub-Sahara Africa continues to be resource-led (that is, based on the expansion of cropland and exhaustion of pasture resources) rather than productivity-led (that is, getting more out of existing resources). Fuglie found that output growth in agriculture has been positive in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria since the 1990s, ranging from 3.3 percent in Côte d'Ivoire to 4.7 percent in Nigeria in the 1990s and from 1.3 percent in Côte d'Ivoire and 4.4 percent in Burkina Faso in the 2000s. Even so, this growth was mostly driven by area and total factor productivity (TFP) growth and less so by input intensification (Figure 1, Table 1). In fact, the trend in input intensification has been negative in Burkina Faso and Nigeria and modestly positive in Côte d'Ivoire since the 1990s. Figure 1: Trend in Agricultural TFP in West Africa, 1961-2007 (1992=100) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Nigeria Sahel W. Africa Coastal Source: Fuglie (2009). 5 Regional Partnership Compact for the Implementation of ECOWAP/CAADP 6 Fuglie, K. (2009) Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 31 Table 1: Change in Agricultural Productivity in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Nigeria 1991­2000 change Output 4.0% 3.3% 4.7% Area 0.3% ­0.2% 3.7% Yield 3.7% 3.5% 1.0% Input intensity ­0.3% 0.2% ­3.7% TFP 4.0% 3.3% 4.7% 2001­2006 change Output 4.4% 1.3% 3.6% Area 5.2% ­0.6% 1.6% Yield ­0.8% 1.9% 2.0% Input intensity ­1.3% 1.0% -0.3% TFP 0.5% 0.8% 2.3% Source: Fuglie (2009) 5. The role of agricultural productivity in agricultural growth, overall economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security for the rural poor is well understood, and the 2008 World Development Report (WDR) emphasized these linkages. Some of the key conclusions of the WDR include: (i) growth originating in agriculture is four times as effective in reducing poverty as growth originating outside of the agricultural sector; (ii) increases in agricultural growth are highly dependent upon improvements in agricultural productivity; and (iii) investments in agricultural research are among the most important determinants of agricultural productivity. In West Africa, potential returns to investment in agricultural technology generation and dissemination are high (46 percent on average), but funding for this activity remains very low. 6. The Agricultural Policy of the West African States, ECOWAP, was adopted in January 2005 as an instrument for implementing CAADP. This policy envisions developing a modern, productive, remunerative, and sustainable agriculture, driven by family farms and agribusinesses and geared toward ensuring regional and international competiveness and food security. ECOWAP's regional agriculture investment plan is structured around three programs (MFPs): (i) promotion of strategic food value chains for food sovereignty; (ii) promotion of an overall environment favorable to regional agricultural development; (iii) reduction of vulnerability to food crises and promotion of stable and sustainable access to food. The WAAPP would contribute to all three programs. More specifically, WAAPP's component 1, supporting the enabling environment for regional cooperation in technology generation and adoption, would contribute to the second ECOWAP program. Component 2, supporting the establishment of centers of specialization for rice, roots and tubers, dryland cereals, onions, mangoes, plantains, fisheries, and livestock, would contribute to ECOWAP programs 1 and 3. WAAPP's component 3, which funds demand-driven technology generation and adoption, would also contribute to ECOWAP programs 1 and 3. 32 7. The large yield gaps in cropping systems across West Africa indicate strong potential for productivity gains, according to Nin-Pratt et al. (2009).7 The ratio between potential and current yields could be as high as 4.7 for potato and 4.5 for cassava (Figure 2). Nin-Pratt et al. report that yield losses from biotic stresses (such as weeds, pests, viruses, and other pathogens) exceed 30 percent for wheat, 50 percent for rice, and 60 percent for groundnut, maize, potatoes, and tomatoes. These losses contributed to an estimated US$2.5 annual loss in the value of output between 2000 and 2004. Therefore, simply eliminating yield losses could have a huge impact on agricultural performance and growth in the region. For one WAAPP-1B country (Burkina Faso), the ratio of potential to current yields is approximately 2 for onions, 2.2 for tomatoes, and 2.5 for mangoes. Additional gains in productivity could be obtained for onions with adequate storage facilities. In Côte d'Ivoire, another WAAPP-1B country, the gap between current and potential yields varies from 1.3 for dessert bananas to 4.3 for plantains, including 2.3 for cocoa, 2.5 for yams, 3 for cereals (maize/rice), and 2.8 for coffee and cashews. In Nigeria, the third WAAPP-1B country, improved breeding and management of catfish would increase the survival rate from the present 60 percent to over 80 percent. These technologies would also reduce the growth rate per culture period for fingerlings by 33 percent from the present 6 weeks; they would reduce the growth rate per culture period for table fish by 20­33 percent from the 5­6 months level. Figure 2: Yield Gap in Rain-fed Cropping Systems in West and Central Africa (Potential/Current Yield Ratio) 6 5.0 4 4.7 4.5 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.0 2 2.7 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 0 Sorghum Banana Groundnut Soybean Rice Beans Maize Wheat Potato Cotton Lint Barley Cassava Millet Sweet potato Cereals Coarse grains Root crops Pulses Oil crops Highvalue products Source: Nin-Pratt et al. (2009). 8. Achieving productivity growth to cover these gaps will become increasingly difficult under changing climate conditions. Schlenker and Lobell (2010)8 combined historical crop production and weather data in a robust model of yield response to climate change to show that by 7 Nin-Pratt, A., M. Johnson, E. Magalhaes, X. Diao, L. You, and J. Chamberlin (2009), "Priorities for Realizing the Potential to Increase Agricultural Productivity and Growth in Western and Central Africa." Discussion Paper 00876, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. 8 Environmental Research Letters, 5 (2) February 2010 33 2050 the mean estimates of aggregate production in sub-Saharan Africa would fall by 22 percent for maize, 17 percent for sorghum and millet, 18 percent for groundnuts, and 8 percent for cassava. These authors also showed that all crops except cassava have a 95 percent probability of damages exceeding 7 percent. Their findings imply that while it is important to speed the adoption of the available improved crop varieties and livestock breeds, at the same time agricultural research programs at the national, regional, and global levels must continue developing new varieties that will perform well under predicted climate conditions in Africa. The WAAPP will combine a demand-driven approach to technology generation and dissemination (through competitive grants) with more strategic agricultural research, including components on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa 9. Transforming yield gaps into increased agricultural productivity and output requires, on the one hand, smart investments in agricultural research to generate and adapt improved technologies and, on the other hand, strengthened advisory and input delivery systems that support wider adoption of these technologies. It is estimated that roughly US$ 1.5 billion is spent annually on agricultural research in Africa. This amount is widely regarded as too little. The FAAP calls for doubling this figure over 10 years, but it has been slowly declining in recent years, in contrast to the steady and sometimes strong growth experienced in every other region of the world. In addition, the effectiveness of the investment in agricultural research in Africa is reduced by Africa's generally poor facilities, low salaries, relatively weak levels of human capital, and low levels of overall budget support. These factors are, in turn, linked to the high degree of fragmentation in the deployment of resources. Given the small size of many African countries and economies, few can afford technology development systems that address the many crops and livestock breeds in Africa's diverse production systems. As governments reinvest in agricultural technology, they must do so in ways that achieve economies of scale within systems and across technology domains that are larger than national boundaries. The effort to generate technology must be specialized and concentrated, and the resulting products must flow relatively freely throughout the wide technology domain.9 This approach is pursued under WAAPP, launched in 2007 with three pilot countries (Ghana, Mali, and Senegal). 10. African researchers are spread throughout many relatively small national agricultural research programs. Although Africa, India, and the United States have roughly the same cropped area as Africa, Africa has 390 public research institutes compared to 120 in India and 51 in the United States. Africa employs about the same number of agricultural scientists as the United States, but the average number of scientists working in a given institute is 30 in Africa, compared to 180 in the United States. The dispersion of agricultural scientists in Africa across so many small institutes makes it difficult to assemble a critical mass of researchers to address the generally more complex problems of African agriculture. The remedy for fragmentation and the problems associated with small countries is regional integration to create a larger shared technology domain. A regional approach is especially important for research programs that are of strategic importance to the region and would have large potential for spillovers across national borders. Regional efforts would not replace national programs. Instead, they would make it possible for some countries to take advantage of the regional programs while concentrating on applied and adaptive research at the local level, as well as on the dissemination of technology to farmers. The proposed Project will finance centers of specialization at the national level (NCOS) 9 See Project Appraisal Document, East Africa Agricultural Productivity Project, The World Bank. 34 to create a shared domain for developing technology for livestock, fisheries/aquaculture, fruit, vegetable, and banana production.10 Regional Integration and Cooperation in Technology Generation and Adoption 11. There is a substantial room for regional integration to strengthen food security and promote agriculture-led growth. NEPAD calls for 3 percent annual agricultural productivity growth through technology generation and dissemination and 6 percent growth in agricultural GDP to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2020. Pillar 4 of CAADP (initiated by NEPAD) focuses on technology generation and dissemination. The West African agricultural policy (ECOWAP) provides the framework for implementing CAADP and the Multi Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (MAPP) in West Africa. As mentioned, ECOWAP's regional agriculture investment plan is structured around three mobilizing programs (MFPs); the first promotes strategic products for food sovereignty; the second promotes an environment favorable to regional agricultural development; the third focuses on reducing food vulnerability and promoting sustainable access to food. 12. Through its support to the generation and adoption of improved technologies in agriculture, the WAAPP will continue to serve as an instrument for realizing ECOWAP objectives. The first WAAPP countries work on the priority value chains identified in ECOWAP: roots and tubers in Ghana, dryland cereals in Senegal, and rice in Mali. The countries scheduled to join the Project under WAAPP-1B will expand the commodities covered to include onions and mangoes in Burkina Faso, plantains and bananas in Côte d'Ivoire, and aquaculture (catfish and tilapia) in Nigeria. 13. Several new dynamics strengthen the prospects that a regional approach to technology generation and adoption can be successfully implemented in West Africa: (i) the CAADP process has matured with the signing of country compacts under the leadership of ECOWAS, emphasizing the role of regional coordination and cooperation; (ii) lessons from the implementation of WAAPP-1A strongly validate its regional focus, including the need for transnational technology generation to enable countries to confront similar challenges; (iii) CORAF has acquired greater capacity to play a coordination role, facilitate knowledge sharing, and provide relevant advisory services to NARS; and (iv) most importantly, new challenges and urgencies require joint efforts by countries within the region (the food and fuel crises, financial crisis, and climate change). 10 See Project Appraisal Document, East Africa Agricultural Productivity Project, The World Bank. 35 Appendix 1: Distribution of Agricultural Development Domain in West Africa West Africa Coastal Countries (Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo) med potential, low access, med dens 12% 12% high potential, low access, med dens 11% 7% high potential, low access, low dens 7% 6% low potential, med access, med dens 5% 5% high potential, low access, high dens 4% 4% high potential, high access, high dens 4% 3% med potential, low access, high dens 3% 3% high potential, high access, med dens 3% 2% low potential, high access, high dens 2% 1% low potential, low access, high dens 1% 1% low potential, med access, high dens 1% 1% med potential, high access, med dens 1% 1% high potential, high access, low dens 1% 0% med potential, high access, low dens 0% Sahelian Countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal) low potential, low access, low dens 78% 9% low potential, med access, med dens 4% 3% low potential, low access, high dens 2% 1% low potential, med access, high dens 1% 1% med potential, med access, med dens 1% 0% low potential, high access, med dens 0% 0% med potential, low access, high dens 0% 0% med potential, med access, high dens 0% 0% med potential, high access, med dens 0% 0% high potential, low access, low dens 0% 0% high potential, low access, high dens 0% 0% high potential, med access, med dens 0% 0% high potential, high access, low dens 0% 0% high potential, high access, high dens 0% Note: Potential is defined with respect to agro-ecological conditions; access is defined based on marketing infrastructure; density is with respect to population. Source: Johnson et al. (2008) 36 Appendix 2: Priority Commodities and Proposed Approach for the National Centers of Specialization 14. Priority Commodities within the West African Region. A characteristic shared by most West African countries is that their agricultural sectors have not performed at the levels required to make meaningful contributions to growth, poverty reduction, and food security. In 2006, therefore, CORAF member countries started an extensive regional priority setting exercise to review research domains, evaluate existing research results, analyze constraints, and define new research projects. An in-depth cross-sectoral assessment was undertaken to identify commodity areas where investments would lead to the greatest income gains within the region (IFPRI 2006). The analysis indicated that the largest reduction in poverty would come from growth in subsectors for which demand is greatest within the region. In particular, growth in the fruit and vegetable, banana and plantain, livestock, and fisheries subsectors would generate the largest aggregate gains. Appendix Table 2.1 shows the contribution of these subsectors to total agricultural growth, estimates their research benefits, and draws the implications for R&D. For example, rice is expected to contribute more than 15 percent of the region's agricultural growth and generate over US$ 6.8 billion in research benefits over 10 years. Rice benefits from favorable production and marketing conditions, although production input costs remain high. There is a need to adapt R&D at regional level to strengthen partnership to provide complementary inputs. Estimates for roots and tubers show that they will contribute 17 percent of projected agricultural growth and generate US$ 4.7 billion in research benefits. There are tremendous domestic and export opportunities in the roots and tubers subsector, which could also benefit from improved processing technologies. Six commodities were considered regional priorities during preparation of the ECOWAS regional agriculture investment plan, given their potential for development, import substitution possibilities, and regional trade perspectives: rice, maize, cassava, livestock, meat, and milk. 15. Rationale for Commodity Focus and Proposed Location of NCOS. Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria have proposed establishing National Centers of Specialization in fruits and vegetables, bananas and plantains, and fisheries, respectively. The research focus selected for each National Center of Specialization was based on areas that ranked highly as national and regional priorities. 16. Fruits and vegetables (Burkina Faso host). The fruit and vegetable subsector generates about FCFA 36 billion as value added to the West African economy. For example, Côte d'Ivoire is the first mango exporter in the subregion (14,395 tons in 2006) and the third country worldwide after Brazil and Peru. For more than 10 years, fruit and vegetable production in Burkina Faso has seen continuous development. Burkina Faso doubled its production of fruits and vegetables between 1996 and 2004, from 79,772 tons in 1996 to 166,147 tons in 2004/2005 (DGPSA 2005). More than 94 percent of the production is sold, according to national statistics. The number of actors involved in the sector increased over time from 50,000 in 1996 to 180,000 in 2006. The income generated by the sector has also increased over time. Sales of fruits and vegetables in Burkina Faso increased from CFAF 8 million in 2001 to CFAF 15 million in 2004/05. Mangoes dominate fruit production in Burkina Faso at an estimated 150,000­200,000 tons. Citrus follows at 75,000 tons; banana and papaya production are lower or equal to 10,000 tons. Production zones for mangoes and citrus fruits are in western Burkina Faso. 17. The interest of Burkina Faso in developing an NCOS for fruits and vegetables demonstrates its willingness to generate and disseminate improved technologies for sustainable 37 intensification of farming systems in this subsector, which is an important source of agricultural GDP. Fruits and vegetables constitute, with livestock, the main sources of income for rural households. Fruits and vegetables are therefore essential to household welfare, especially women's welfare, and to development prospects in rural areas. The government has started restructuring the subsector, with the support of the private sector, which is playing a major role. Burkina Faso has great potential to scale up its production of fruits and vegetables. Only 10 percent of land suited to fruit and vegetable production is currently used. Prospects are especially good in the plains of Bagré in the Southeast and Sourou in the Northwest, where large-scale producers can operate. 18. Despite the potential, fruit and vegetable production face such major constraints as poor access to good seed (limited availability, high cost), transportation costs, inadequate processing technologies, and inadequate storage infrastructure. At the national level, fruit and vegetable production in Burkina Faso suffer from the lack of irrigation infrastructure, inadequate technology dissemination systems, the lack of varieties that meet regional norms and standards, pest and disease problems, and weak agricultural advisory services. 19. Bananas and plantains (Côte d'Ivoire host). Bananas and plantains are grown and consumed across Africa, Asia and the Americas. They are especially common in the coastal countries of ECOWAS, including Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, and Togo, and even in Sahelian countries such as Burkina Faso. Worldwide, an estimated 25­30 million tons of bananas and plantains are traded every year. In Côte d'Ivoire, bananas/plantains are the third most consumed food after cassava and yams. Quantities traded in West Africa range from 1.4 million tons to 1.8 million tons per year. The lowest national production is about 1.6 million tons, and observed average yields are 15 tons per hectare but can reach 60 tons per hectare in intensive systems. In most African countries, including Côte d'Ivoire, smallholders grow bananas and plantains in traditional systems. Crops are rainfed (which explains the seasonality of production), and farmers do not use improved planting materials, fertilizers, or pesticides. Rainfed systems expose traditional banana cultivars to leaf diseases, parasites, and pests. Aside from contributing to food security, bananas and plantains help diversify sources of income in rural and urban areas and thus help alleviate poverty as well (N'Kendah, 2002). Traditionally seen as a food crop, bananas and plantains have progressively become a cash crop. Important quantities are exported from Côte d'Ivoire to Ghana, Burkina Faso, and Mali. 20. Fisheries (Nigeria host). The Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Project conducted a national inventory of inland water resources in Nigeria and registered 2,642 fish farms and 215 feed producers. Less than 100 of the fish farms are state-owned. The private sector clearly drives the industry with investments in fish production, hatcheries, and feed production facilities. The industry was initiated in the 1950s with government research and attempts to extend aquaculture technology through demonstration fish farms. Government-led strategies continued to dominate for up to 40 years. The number of fish farms built by federal and state agencies and private entrepreneurs increased. The Federal Department of Fisheries established four fish seed production centers at Oyo, Panyam, Umuna Okigwe, and Kaduna in collaboration with FAO, and more were built by the federal and state governments in other parts of the country. The federal government, assisted by FAO, set up the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) at Aluu, Port Harcourt, to provide research support and training for aquaculture development in sub- Saharan Africa. Commercial fish farms established by the River Basin Development Authorities increased private participation in the operation of fish farms. A government fish farm in Oluponna, Oyo State, was upgraded with a grant from the Government of Italy specifically to 38 demonstrate integrated poultry- and fish-farming techniques. These attempts, although raising awareness of the potential for aquaculture, delivered few outputs. 21. Federal, state, and local government investments in over 50 fish farms, together with the private farms that came along, were responsible for only about 20,000­25 000 tons per year of fish supplies in the 1990s--about 5­6 percent of domestic production. Constraints persisted over the years, including inadequate supplies of good quality fish seed, the high cost of good quality fish feed, inadequate water supplies (in quality and quantity) in some agro-ecological zones, unavailability of power for hatcheries, inadequate information on best practices in fish farming, low pricing, and poor management. As the supply­demand gap continues to widen and the output of capture fisheries approaches its limit, aquaculture is gaining prominence. Government at all levels is divesting its aquaculture holdings and attention is turning to the private sector. The WAAPP will enable stakeholders in the public and private sector to develop and adopt sound aquaculture technologies to increase the productivity of aquaculture in Nigeria and other ECOWAS countries. 39 Appendix Table 2.1: Summary and Implications for Agricultural R&D Strategies in West and Central Africa (WCA) Enterprise Contribution to Total Research Benefits and Other Considerations Implications for Agricultural Growth Ranking Policy and R&D and Ranking Rice Contribute to 15.2% of Highest total research Markets for rice is Need adaptation projected WCA total ag. benefits in WCA (US$ 6.8 not a constraint R&D at regional growth (ranks 3rd) b in 10 yr) Areas of low- level Contribute to 16.3% and Total producer benefits access/low density Complementary 17.0% of projected rank 1st in Sahel (US$ 1.2 show greatest investments Sahel and Coast total b) and Coast (US$ 5.3 b) potential for needed ag. growth (ranks 2nd) Rank 1st in 7 countries: production growth Improving Large contribution to - Nigeria: US$ 4.1 b Main constraint is productivity total ag. growth in 8 - Mali: US$ 590 m high cost of through lowered countries (share in - Guinea: US$ 390 m production inputs production costs country's AgGDP - Burkina Faso: US$ 210 m growth): - Sierra Leone: US $160 m - Sierra Leone: 35.5% - Guinea Bissau: US$ 60 m - Guinea: 32.9% - Mauritania: US$ 24 m - Mali: 21.8% Consumers in all WCA - Guinea Bissau: 19.5% countries would benefits - Mauritania: 18.6% from lowered price and - Nigeria: 12.8% fewer imports - Senegal : 12.0% - Côte d'Ivoire: 9.9% Traditional Contribute to 5.8% of Total research benefits of Higher growth In low market grains projected WCA total maize rank 4th (US$ 2.5 potential will come access/low ag. growth (ranks 6th) b), sorghum ranks 5th from areas with low production areas, Contribute to 1.1% of (US$ 2.4 b), and millet market access and processing projected Sahel total ranks 8th (US$ 1.6 b) in low population technologies ag. growth (ranks 3rd) WCA density Improved Large contribution to Maize ranks 2nd in With high urban varieties that are total ag. growth in 8 Central (US$ 730 m), demand, linkages more suitable for countries (share in millet 3rd in Sahel (US$ with processing are feed country's AgGDP 770 m), and sorghum 4th important In high market growth): in Sahel (US$440 m) Linkages with access areas, - Gambia: 19.2% Maize ranks 2st in 4 livestock high-input - Burkina Faso: countries: technologies are a 17.8% - Guinea: US$390 m better option - Mali: 11.7% - Benin: US$ 360 m - Senegal: 11.7% - Cameron: US$ 360 m - Niger: 11.3% - DRC: US$ 320 m - Chad: 7.3% - Togo: US$ 50 m - Nigeria: 7.1% Millet ranks 1st in - Togo: 5.4% Gambia (US$ 60 m), ranks 2nd in 3 countries (Guinea Bissau, Mali, Senegal) Sorghum ranks 1st in 3 countries (Chad, Niger and Togo), ranks 2nd in Mauritania 40 Livestock Contribute to 15.5% of Not covered by the study In WCA, supply of Need region-wide projected WCA total certain livestock strategy that ag, growth (ranks 2nd) (e.g., beef, sheep, and considers R&D Contribute to 19.9% goats) is concentrated and reduction in and 35.5% of far from major urban market projected Central and markets transaction costs Sahel total (ranks 1st) Major growth of and barriers for livestock in WCA intraregional trade (such as poultry) is Huge implications likely to occur near in choosing the major urban whether investing markets in intensive Urban demand for systems within livestock will coastal areas is continue to grow more important rapidly. Can the than investing in region take the Sahel advantage of this opportunity? Roots and Contribute to 17% of Cassava total producer Demand Target emerging tubers projected WCA total benefits rank 2nd in opportunities exist in market demand ag. growth (ranks 1st) WCA (US$ 4.7 b) both regional and (e.g., China) Contribute to 17% and Cassava ranks 1st in export markets, Improvements in 20% of projected Central (US$ 2.1 b) and especially for processing Coast and Sahel total 2nd in Coast (US$ 2.6 b) processed cassava technologies will growth (ranks 2nd in Cassava ranks 1st in 4 products and agro- be critical to Central and 1st in countries (Ghana, Benin, industry improve overall Coast) CongoR, DRC), ranks Due to the short shelf productivity and More than 15% of 2nd in Sierra Leone life of cassava, compete in contribution to total Yam total benefits rank complementary regional and ag. growth in 9 7th in WCA (US$ 1.8 b), linkages between international countries (share in rank 5th in Nigeria (US$ improved production markets country's AgGDP 1.0 b) and processing Improve varieties growth): technologies are for agro-industry - Togo: 34.1% important in both low and bio-fuel - DRC: 30.4% and high markets - Benin: 28.1% access areas - CongoR: 27.0% - Ghana: 22.1% - Nigeria: 21.1% - Gabon: 17.9% - CAR: 16.7% - Cameroon: 9.7% 41 Pulse & Contribute to 8.7% of Beans rank 12th in WCA Large opportunities Improve import oilseeds projected WCA total (US$380 m) in regional and and export ag. growth (ranks 5th) Groundnuts rank 3rd in export markets competitiveness Contribute to 11.6% of WCA (US$ 3.4 b) Multiuse crop (e.g., groundnut projected Sahel total Groundnuts rank 2nd in (human consumption oil, groundnuts, growth (ranks 4th) Sahel (US$ 810 m), 3rd and feed) beans) Larger than 9% of in Coast (US$ 2.3 b), 4th Loss of market share Processing contribution to total in Central (US$ 340 m) to imports for certain technologies ag. growth in 11 Groundnuts rank 1st in 2 products (e.g., Targeted varieties countries (share in countries (Senegal and groundnut oil) country's AgGDP CAR), rank 2nd in 2 Changing consumer growth): countries (Niger and preferences - Gambia: 37.3% Nigeria) (groundnut v. - Niger: 16.4% soybean oils) - Senegal : 14.7% - Chad: 14.0% - Burkina Faso: 13.6% - Guinea: 13.0% - Sierra Leone: 9.6% - CAR: 9.6% - Nigeria: 9.5% - CongoR: 9.4% - DRC: 9.3% Cocoa/cotton Contribute to 2.1% Cocoa total producer Difficult global Diversify into (cotton) and 2.8% benefits rank 6th (US$ markets for bulk emerging markets (cocoa) of projected 2.0 b) and 10th for cotton commodities--often (e.g., East Asia WCA total ag. growth (US$ 1.5 b) in WCA saturated, volatile, and East Europe) Contribute to 4.8% Cocoa ranks 1st in Côte and distorted (tariffs) Issues more (cotton) of projected d'Ivoire (US$ 1.3 b) Key question is the related to access Sahel total ag. growth Cotton ranks 2nd in extent to which there to markets. and more than 2% Burkina Faso and is large potential for Increased (cocoa) of project Guinea, 3rd in 3 farm-level competitiveness, Coast and Central total countries (Mali, Côte productivity gains? product ag. growth d'Ivoire, Benin) Or alternatively, differentiation, focusing on product varieties, niche differentiation markets? (cocoa)? Vegetables Contribute to 10.5% of Very diverse in both Strong regulatory and fruits projected WCA total commodities and and well- ag. growth (ranks 4th) countries functioning Contribute to 10.4% Driven by private institutions are and 17.3% of sector important at the projected Coast and Highly affected by country level Central total ag. policies outside of Higher incentives growth (ranks 4th and agricultural sector for private sector 3rd) investments. 42 Other high Contribute to 3.6% of Generally no demand Issues more value projected WCA total constraints related to access ag. growth Poses challenges at to markets Contribute to 3.7% the country level and 4.4% of projected since it requires well- Coast and Central total developed ag. growth institutions (e.g., for certification, grading, and standards, sanitation) Smallholder entry is limited due to the demand for quality standards and certification Increased competitiveness, product differentiation, varieties in niche markets Cross- Very important Extremely important Close collaboration, In addition to cutting: consultation, and commodity research, Institutional coordination with analysis on how to -izing the NEPAD/CAADP, institutionalize the regional ECOWAS, UEMOA, research priorities is strategic CILSS, NARS, farmer also key priority organizations, and options donors Cross Important Very Important Strong support from Capacity in socio- cutting: universities, donors, and economic research Building IFPRI needs to be regional strengthened to analytical assess strategic capacity in options on a constant research basis. priority setting Source: Based on Johnson, M., R. Birner, J. Chamberlin, X. Diao, S. Fan, A. Nin-Pratt, D. Resnick, L. You, and B. Yu (2008). "Regional Strategic Alternatives for Agriculture-led Growth and Poverty Reduction in West Africa," ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 22, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. 43 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Sector Project Latest Supervision (ISR) Ratings (Bank-financed Projects Only) IDA-Financed Implementation Objective (DO) Progress (IP) Regional Projects WAAPP for Senegal Mali and Ghana S S East Africa Agricultural Productivity Program West Africa Power Pool Program APL Under preparation Senegal River Basin Multipurpose Water MS MS Resources Development Project APL Niger River Basin Multipurpose Water MU MU Resources Development Project APL Regional Trust Funds Multidonor Comprehensive African Under preparation Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) Multidonor Trust Fund / FARA S S Multidonor Trust Fund / CORAF Under preparation Under preparation Multidonor Trust Fund / ASARECA S S Burkina Faso Community Based Rural Development Project S S Ag. Diversification and Market Development S S Project Ag. Productivity and Food Security Project Not yet rated- Côte d'Ivoire Rural Land and Community Infrastructure S S Development Project Agriculture Sector Support Project Under preparation Nigeria Second National FADAMA Development S S Project Third National FADAMA Development Just starting Project Commercial Agriculture Development Just starting Project Community Driven Development l S S Development Project 44 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring Africa: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP- 1B) Results Framework Program Goal (Phase 1 and 2) The program goal is to contribute - Productivity of selected Measures productivity gains in to sustained agricultural commodities (crop, livestock) priority areas productivity growth in the (increase in %, based on yields/ ECOWAS region's top priority ha or unit etc., break down into commodity subsectors. commodities) - Number of countries with productivity increase of 30% for at least two selected commodities per country (number) - Rate of adoption of improved varieties by the beneficiaries of the project PDO (Phase 1B) Project Outcome Indicators Use of Project Outcome Information The PDO is to generate and - Number of project beneficiaries Gauges effectiveness of accelerate adoption of improved (of whom 40% are female ) technology generation and technologies in the participating transfer and disseminations and countries' top agricultural efficiency of released - Number of released commodity priorities areas that technologies to increase yields technologies by NCOS (at least are aligned with the sub-region's three per NCOS over five years, top agricultural commodity cumulative) priorities as outlined in the ECOWAP. - Percentage of released technologies that show an improvement in yield of at least 15% compared to the control technology - Area under improved technologies disseminated under the project (hectares) - Number of producers who adopted improved varieties made available under the project Component 1: Enabling - Number of regulations per Gauges prospects for cross- conditions for sub-regional country aligned with sub-regional border exchange and trade in cooperation in the generation, regulations (number) technology dissemination, and adoption of 45 agricultural technologies - Common framework for e.g. Measures improvement in Activity: Strengthen policy IPR, farmers' rights and/ or national procedures for environment to support and Geographic Indication (GI) disseminating improved protect the generated improved developed and agreed on (yes/no) technologies technologies - Regulations for fertilizer at Carry out the quality control and regional level developed and aggregation of the data for all adopted (yes/no) Phases (1a-1b, etc.) continuously and ensure an information and data link to Phase 2. - A system for data collection, The main task of this system analysis and reporting on would be to carry out the quality agricultural technologies, control and aggregation of the research skills and regional data for all Phases (1a-1b, etc.) agricultural productivity is continuously. This will ensure an established and managed by information and data link to CORAF. Phase 2. Intermediate Outcomes Intermediate Outcome Use of Intermediate Outcome Indicators Monitoring Component 2: Centers of - Number of technologies Gauge how countries are Specliazations (NCOs) generated by the NCOS and positioning and aligning NARS demonstrated by the project in on regional agricultural research Activity 1: Strengthen capacity to the project areas (CORE R&D) priorities plan for and manage centers of - Number of technologies specialization within National released by NCOS and Agricultural Research systems demonstrated in at least 2 Gauge effectiveness of NCOs ECOWAS countries outside and openness of NCOS to other Activity2: Establish capacity country of origin researchers in the region and building programs for abroad - Number of client days of researchers training provided (break down by countries) (CORE R&D) - Number of exchange visits/ study tours Component 3: Funding of - Number of multi-country Ensures implementation of demand-driven technology research proposals financed by project-funded regional R&D generation and adoption the regional CARGS maintained by CORAF Activity1: Establish competitive - Number of Research proposals funding mechanisms for adaptive financed Ensures relevance of project- agricultural R&D - Number of technologies funded R&D activities generated under the CARGS and Activity 2: Develop demonstrated by the project in 46 communication and the project areas (CORE R&D) Assess the efficiency of dissemination methods and - Number of publications technology transfer approaches released in regional/ national magazines. Activity 3: Establish network to - Foundation seeds and breed Assess participation of private produce improved planting/ stock produced with the project sector and increase access to breeding material support (tons, units etc.) improved seeds Component 4: Project - Percentage of procurement and Gauges conformity with coordination, Management, FM activities executed in fiduciary requirements and Monitoring and Evaluation conformity with the efficiency of implementation. procurement plan, Activity: Established effective implementation manual, and project coordination and IDA procedures Gauges efficiency of management system - Percent of project reports coordination and monitoring presented within 45 days of the system. end of the relevant period. - A harmonized M&E system is Gauges capability of established and operational in documenting productivity each country for data increase over time collection, analysis and reporting (yes/no) - Percent of sub-project granted Ensure compliance of safeguard with environmental requirements management plan have implemented the plan effectively 47 Arrangements for results monitoring Target Values Data Collection and Reporting Project Outcome Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Data Collection Responsibility Indicators (Phase 1B) Reports Instruments for Data Collection Project beneficiaries CI= 0 1000 50,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 Annual Supervision missions Participating (number) direct/ indirect, BF= 0 1000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 and annual countries and breakdown 40 % of whom N=0 10,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 assessments CORAF are female (CORE) Number of released CI= 0 0 3 4 6 8 Annual Supervision missions Participating technologies by NCOS (at BF= 0 0 3 4 6 8 and annual countries and least three per NCOS over N= 0 0 3 6 9 12 assessments CORAF five years, cumulative) Percentage of released CI= 0 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% Annual Supervision missions Participating technologies that show an BF= 0 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% and annual countries and improvement in yield of at N-= 0 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% assessments CORAF least 15% compared to the control technology Area under improved CI= 0 (ha) 500 10000 50000 100000 150000 Annual Supervision missions Participating technologies disseminated BF= 0 (ha) 1000 50000 150000 200000 250000 and annual countries and under the project (ha, N= 0 (ha) 10000 100000 200000 300000 400000 assessments CORAF breakdown per country and/ or per technology) (KPI) Number of producers who CI=0 200 15000 50000 120000 180000 Annual Supervision missions Participating have adopted improved BF=0 500 30000 60000 100000 150000 and annual countries and technologies made available N=0 600 60000 60000 240000 300000 assessments CORAF under the project (number per country (KPI) Project Intermediate Baseline Target Values Data Collection and Reporting Outcome Indicators YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 Frequency and Data Collection Responsibility (Phase 1) Reports Instruments for Data Collection Component 1: Enabling conditions for sub-regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination, and adoption of agricultural technologies Number of regulations per CI=0 1 2 3 3 3 Annual Supervision missions Participating countries adopted and BF=0 1 2 3 3 3 and annual countries and aligned to regional N=0 1 2 3 3 3 assessments CORAF regulations (number)(KPI), cumulative Common framework for CI=N N Y Y Y Y Annual Supervision missions Participating e.g. IPR, farmers' rights BF=N N Y Y Y Y and annual countries and and/ or Geographic N=N N Y Y Y Y assessments CORAF Indication (GI) developed 48 and agreed on (yes/no) Regulations for fertilizer at N N N Y Y Y Annual Supervision missions Participating ECOWAS level developed and annual countries and and adopted (yes/no) assessments CORAF A system for data N Y Y Y Y Y Annual Supervision missions Participating collection, analysis and and annual countries and reporting on agricultural assessments CORAF technologies, research skills, and regional agricultural productivity is established and managed by CORAF (yes/no) Component 2:Centers of Specialization Number of technologies CI=7 2 3 4 6 8 Annual Supervision missions Participating generated by NCOS and BF=5 2 3 4 6 8 and annual countries and demonstrated by the project N=9 2 3 4 6 8 assessments CORAF in the project areas (breakdown by: technology) (CORE R&D) Number of technologies CI=0 0 1 2 3 4 Annual Supervision missions Participating released by NCOS and BF=0 0 1 2 3 4 and annual countries and demonstrated in at least 2 N=0 0 1 2 3 4 assessments CORAF ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin (breakdown by: technology and country) (CORE R&D) Number of client days of CI 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 Annual Supervision missions Participating training provided (includes BF 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 and annual countries and scientists, extension agents, N=0 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 5,500 assessments CORAF agro-dealers, farmers, community members, etc) (CORE R&D) Number of exchange visits/ CI=0 1 4 6 8 10 Annual Supervision missions Participating study tours BF=0 1 4 6 8 10 and annual countries and N=0 1 4 6 8 10 assessments CORAF Component 3: Funding of Demand-driven Technologies' Generation and Dissemination Number of Multi-country 0 2 6 10 14 18 Annual Supervision missions Participating research proposals financed and annual countries and by the regional Competitive assessments CORAF Agricultural Research Grant System (CARGS) maintained by CORAF 49 National Research CI=0 8 14 20 22 22 Annual Supervision missions CORAF and proposals financed BF=0 8 14 20 22 22 and annual participating (number, % of proposals N=0 10 20 30 50 60 assessments countries received) Number of technologies CI=0 0 2 4 6 8 Annual Supervision missions CORAF and generated under the BF=0 0 4 4 6 8 and annual participating CARGS and demonstrated N=0 0 3 6 9 12 assessments countries by the project in the project areas (CORE R&D) (breakdown by technology and country) Number of publications CI=0 0 1 3 6 8 Annual Supervision missions CORAF and released in regional / BF=0 0 1 3 6 8 and annual participating national magazines N=0 0 3 8 12 20 assessments countries Foundation seeds and breed CI Supervision missions CORAF and stock produced with the - Plantain* 1000 6000 20000 40000 50000 Annual and annual participating project support (tons, units (ha) 20 50 100 150 200 assessments countries etc.) - Cereals (t) 100 500 1000 2000 3000 - Cassava (x 1000 plants) 40 80 100 150 Annual BF 20 50 100 200 200 - Vegetable (t) 20 - Cereals (t) Annual NG 50 100 200 300 400 - Fingerlings 30 200 500 1000 1500 - Cereals (t) 500 5000 10000 15000 20000 - Cassava (x 1000 plants) Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Percentage of procurement CI=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Annual Supervision missions CORAF and and FM activities executed BF=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% and annual participating in conformity with the N=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% assessments countries procurement plan, the implementation manual, and IDA procedures Percent of project reports CI=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Annual Supervision missions CORAF and presented within 45 days of BF=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% and annual participating the end of the relevant N=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% assessments countries period. A harmonized M&E system NA Y Y Y Y Y Annual Supervision missions CORAF and 50 is established and and annual participating operational in each country assessments countries for data collection, analysis and reporting. (Yes/No) Percent of sub-project CI=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Annual Supervision missions CORAF and granted with BF=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% and annual participating N=NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% assessments countries environmental management plan have implemented the plan effectively Note: BF = Burkina Faso; CI = Côte d'Ivoire; N = Nigeria; C = cereals; P = plantains; F = fingerlings; R&T = roots and tubers. 51 Arrangements for Results Monitoring The M&E system will be designed to document Project outcomes and intermediate results. CORAF will have the primary responsibility for the Project's M&E. In this capacity, CORAF has already defined under WAAP-1A a standard methodology for data collection and processing techniques as well as for the measurement of impacts at both the national and regional levels to allow comparability across countries. It issued a regional M&E manual that is being used by the WAAPP-1A countries. The manual and the standard methodology will be extended to WAAPP- 1B countries Measurement and reporting of Project outcomes and impact. At the regional level, CORAF will subcontract with appropriate regional and international agencies to update studies on the region's agricultural productivity each other year, base on the study done with IFPRI support in 2006, which has also served as a baseline for monitoring progress in agricultural productivity in the region. These studies are not related to participating countries only but will report on agricultural productivity in the entire ECOWAS region, and they will be carried out twice over the life of the Project: before the Mid-Term Review (Year 3 following effectiveness) and by the closing date (for the Implementation and Results Completion report). At the country level, the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be responsible for the overall M&E of Project indicators and outcome. The NCOS in participating countries will be responsible for measuring the impact of technology released and transferred under component 2. To that end, the PCU and NCOS will carry out farm surveys to measure the indicators on productivity improvement and technology adoption. Such panel surveys will be conducted over the Project's life cycle and will include both a control group and adopters of released technologies. They will also perform supply chain analysis and benchmarking to identify on a regular basis any knowledge gap and key areas for future research programs, as well as to provide an update on country progress and performance along the chains of commodities in their particular areas of specialization. Monitoring of Project implementation progress and intermediate achievements. CORAF and the national research grant agencies will be responsible for maintaining web-based databases on grant administration and results. Such databases will be accessible to the public and will disclose information on the following: requests for proposals, the selection process and procedures, grantees, and results. In addition, CORAF will develop and maintain an agricultural research resource database in terms of publications and research skills available in the region. An independent evaluation of completed subprojects funded under the regional and national windows will be performed annually starting at the end of Year 2 following Project effectiveness. This evaluation will capture, through a score-card approach, all relevant dimensions of subprojects, including alignment with the region's top priorities, participation and intake of beneficiaries, quality of financial management, compliance with Bank safeguard policies, scientific achievements and efficacy for transfer to end-users, quality of documenting results and communicating to the public, and so forth. Based on the M&E system, each participating country will produce semi-annual reports along with synthetic notes on the national priority sector and information on research grants and 52 results. CORAF will produce an annual consolidated report based on the countries' reports and their specific studies, to be shared with all ECOWAS countries. CORAF will also inform participating countries on a yearly basis on activity implementation progress and the use of funds transferred from country proceeds, with all relevant documents (including financial statements, financial audit, and implementation progress reports) as approved by its Oversight Committee. The anchor projects in the participating countries have developed M&E systems, which will serve CORAF's regional M&E system. In addition, CORAF is also developing a web-based information system on agricultural technology. The basic structure of the Project's M&E is thus in place. This system will be further strengthened and improved both at the national and regional levels, as reflected in the cost tables. 53 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) 1. The West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) supports the implementation of Pillar 4 of CAADP, related to agricultural technology generation and dissemination in ECOWAS member countries. The proposed Project is part of a 10-year horizontal Adaptable Program Loan (APL) of the WAAPP. The first WAAPP project (WAAP- 1A), approved by the Board of the World Bank in March 2006, involved Ghana, Mali, and Senegal. The proposed Project (WAAPP-1B) will involve Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria. It was prepared by CORAF, the three participating countries, and their technical and development partners, including IDA. 2. The proposed Project provides direct support to close productivity gaps for a small set of agricultural commodities that are a high priority for participating countries and the region as a whole. The Project's immediate impacts will be felt within Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria, but the alignment of national and regional priorities enables the Project to generate spillovers that will ultimately benefit poor consumers throughout West Africa. 3. The primary beneficiaries will be users of agricultural technologies generated and disseminated through the Project,11 including producers and agribusinesses. They are the key partners in the Project, in addition to agricultural institutions, including research institutions, universities, and extension services. The development objective of the WAAPP, that is the entire series of overlapping APLs, is to contribute to sustained productivity increases in the ECOWAS region's top priority commodity subsectors. The priority commodities, identified in an IFPRI/CORAF quantitative study commissioned for this purpose, are roots and tubers, livestock, rice, cereals, fruits and vegetables, oilseeds, and bulk export crops (cotton, coffee, cocoa). The study found that these commodity subsectors make the greatest contribution to the region's agricultural growth and to the benefits that producers receive from R&D. CORAF and its constituents also identified the fisheries subsector (not covered by the study) as a top priority for food security and poverty reduction in ECOWAS countries. Fisheries were one of the five Technical Research Programs in the CORAF Operational Plan for 2008­09. 4. Direct support for additional CORAF constituent countries in the ECOWAS region will be considered in subsequent phases of the horizontal APL. The participation of additional countries in the WAAPP is expected and will be triggered by the interest of the countries themselves and the achievement of milestones agreed for Project preparation. A group of countries that have made important progress in Project preparation (Niger, Sierra Leone, Benin, and Togo) are expected to join by the end of calendar year 2010. 5. In the proposed Project, activities continue to focus on four components: (i) the enabling conditions for sub- regional cooperation in agricultural technology generation, dissemination and adoption; (ii) establishing and strengthening national centers of specialization; (iii) demand- driven agricultural technology generation, dissemination, and adoption; and (iv) Project coordination, management, monitoring, and evaluation at national and regional levels. These components are described in detail below. 11 Including tools, methods and practices developed by research institutions or emanating from local knowledge. 54 6. Component 1: Enabling conditions for sub-regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination, and adoption of agricultural technologies (US$8.37 million; IDA: US$8.30 million). This component aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved agricultural technologies and tools at the national level to allow ECOWAS member countries to benefit from these technologies within a framework for regional technical and scientific cooperation. Inadequate, ineffective, or nonexistent institutional frameworks at the national level limit the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved agricultural technologies (including tools, methods, and practices developed by research institutions or emanating from local knowledge). Even if such technologies are generated at the national level, they may not be released or used more widely because regulations and standards are lacking or ineffective. At the regional level, ECOWAS has adopted common procedures for the release of genetic materials and approval of pesticides, based on frameworks developed by UEMOA and CILSS. Work is in progress to develop common policies for the production and use of fertilizers as well as the establishment of a common IPR framework. These enabling conditions must be supported at the national and regional levels to ensure that countries benefit fully from regional cooperation and that technologies generated nationally are available regionally. 7. To develop these enabling conditions, mechanisms and procedures for establishing institutional frameworks must be strengthened, such as competitive fund mechanisms for generating appropriate agricultural technologies that could be beneficial both nationally and regionally, and knowledge management and communication systems that can speed the regional transfer of technology. Mechanisms and procedures governing the registration and release of agricultural technologies and inputs must also be strengthened so that they can become available for domestic as well as cross-border trade. Such technologies include genetic materials (seed, planting materials, and animal breeding stocks), fertilizers, pesticides, and other crop protection products. 8. This component will focus on five key areas: (a) establishment of efficient and sustainable competitive funding mechanisms; (b) knowledge management, information, and communication systems; (c) establishment of regional regulations on genetic materials and agrochemicals; (d) strengthening National Registration Committees; and (e) development of a strategy to mainstream climate change considerations in research and development programs. (a) Efficient, and sustainable competitive funding mechanisms and accompanying institutional arrangements will be established for the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved and resilient agricultural technologies with the potential to be beneficial at the regional level. CORAF has an established competitive grant scheme for funding subregional agricultural research projects that involve not less than three countries and three stakeholders in the agricultural sector per project. This grant scheme has operated for more than 10 years and is still undergoing improvement to ensure efficiency and sustainability. The countries participating in this Project, through different components of their agricultural research and development systems, have demonstrated strong and varied degrees of experience with competitive grant schemes. None, however, has a sound demand-driven competitive scheme to fund the generation, dissemination, and adoption of agricultural technologies and tools. This Project will support the development in the participating countries of: 55 (i) National legislation for the existing competitive fund schemes (CFS) that will involve stakeholders in the agricultural sector in the generation, dissemination, and adoption of agricultural technologies and tools that will be beneficial at the regional level. (ii) Harmonized technical and financial procedure manuals for the effective, transparent, and participatory management of the CFS. (iii)Monitoring and evaluation systems and accompanying institutional arrangements to ensure that the CFS performs well. The Project will also support activities to align the procedures of the CFS with those of the CORAF competitive grant scheme, to ensure that the CFS at the national level contributes to the sustainable generation and accelerated dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies at the regional level. (b) Knowledge management, information, and communication systems will be developed to speed the generation and use of agricultural technology and tools and develop the presence of adequate competencies in the area of research: CORAF is strengthening its knowledge management and web-based information and communication systems in the subregion. This effort is expected to amplify the dissemination and adoption of improved technologies and tools in the region. The Project will support efforts by CORAF at the regional level in this area, through the establishment of efficient communication and information networks linking member countries involved in the Project. These linked communication and information systems will serve as a means for promoting improved technologies generated and disseminated at the national level as well as for promoting corresponding priority agricultural research programs at the regional level. As such, the scientific and technical knowledge generated in one country in ECOWAS will rapidly and easily benefit other countries in the region. The Project will also support short-term training to upgrade skills in information and communication technology (ICT) and knowledge management and facilitate the consolidation of information available in various other databases, both at the national and regional levels. This training will also provide end users with easy access to appropriate responses in real time. The Project will also support the development of a database on agricultural research skills to facilitate the establishment of professional contacts. (c) Regional regulations on genetic materials and agrochemicals will be established. ECOWAS has adopted harmonized regulations on seed and pesticides, based on frameworks developed by WAEMU and CILSS, and seek to establish harmonized regulations in other areas as well. It has mandated the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), within the context of a project involving CORAF, to define options for creating a favorable policy and regulatory environment for the development of agricultural input markets, especially markets for seed and fertilizer, to farmers' access to inputs. The WAAPP will support CORAF to ensure adequate and coordinated participation of their constituents in all of these initiatives. It will accelerate progress in developing harmonized regional regulations on genetic materials and agrochemicals by collaborating with national and regional policy 56 makers, especially ECOWAS and WAEMU, as well as regional technical institutions such as CILSS, the Institute of the Sahel (INSAH), USAID, the USAID-sponsored West African Seed Alliance, IFDC, FAO, and CGIAR centers (including IITA, ICRISAT, and WARDA).12 To facilitate the application of these regulations, each member of ECOWAS must align its regulations with the common regulation. The WAAPP will support (i) the services of consultants to evaluate current policies, rules, and procedures related to the exchange of technologies; (ii) workshops and seminars to ensure the participation of producers and agro-industry in formulating regulations, (iii) evaluations of the characteristics of improved technologies; (iv) short-term training to improve expertise in ICT; and (v) operating costs associated with the implementation of and communication on the process. (d) National Registration Committees will be strengthened for the effective release of genetic materials, approval of pesticides, and management of IPR. The Project will assist participating countries to: revise national procedures (if necessary) and align them with regional directives; implement procedures for releasing, disseminating, and adopting new technologies; document the characteristics of technologies; develop catalogues of proven, released technologies; and promote those technologies through various media. Africa has two organizations dedicated to work on IPRs, the African Intellectual Property Rights Organization (OAPI) for francophone countries and the African Regional Industrial Property Rights Organization for Anglophone countries. The lack of a unified system for registering IPR in ECOWAS and UEMOA countries can prevent technologies from moving across national borders. CORAF will assist ECOWAS in studying IPR issues, harmonizing and implementing common IPR procedures, and addressing its agenda for farmers' rights, among other issues. CORAF will also help countries that do not participate in WAAPP to learn about and obtain technologies developed in participating countries. (e) Mainstreaming climate change and gender considerations in research and development programs. Climate change is increasingly becoming a major challenge to achieving sustain agricultural productivity growth in West Africa. There is an urgent need for researchers and research programs to take into account this new paradigm. In addition, most of released technologies did not address specific gender needs, while women account for more than 50 percent of stakeholders for the targeted value chains. The project will therefore support: (i) the organization of a training program for researchers on climate change; (ii) the adoption of a screening tool for the CARG schemes to ensure research proposals take into account climate change issues; (iii) the assessment of the vulnerability of the priority commodities to climate change; (iv) the promotion of relevant technologies mitigating climate change impact; and 12 IITA is the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; ICRISAT is the International Center for Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics; WARDA is the Africa Rice Center. 57 (v) the development of a strategy to mainstream gender considerations in research and development programs using similar tools to climate change. 9. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (NCOS) (US$29.45 million; IDA: US$25.69 million). This component will strengthen the capacity of the national research system in each participating country to work on one national, regionally aligned priority. Countries will achieve meaningful progress in increasing agricultural growth and reducing extreme poverty by focusing on their top research and development priorities rather than allocating scarce resources among widely scattered research projects with little hope of efficiency or success. Individual countries are also better able to justify this use of research resources if they can expect to benefit from other countries' research efforts. 10. The Project will strengthen in Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Burkina Faso National Centers of Specialization (NCOS). The NCOS will: (i) focus on their national, regionally aligned priorities; (ii) offer sustained public support for core programs and staff; (iii) collaborate with regional and international institutions; and (iv) commit to sharing results with other countries. 11. These centers of specialization are existing research stations, comprising several buildings, large research fields and sub-research stations located in the main agro-ecological zones of the countries. While a preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the NCOs that will be rehabilitated and to inventory the rehabilitation requirements of the research fields and infrastructure, the centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken in the project. Following further consultation with the researchers, the NCOs managers will identify specific infrastructure and/or research fields for rehabilitation during project implementation and prepare environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental management plans (EMPs) as necessary. Selection of the works will be contingent to the consultation of researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works. 12. NCOS that perform well will attract regional recognition and support. They may evolve into Regional Centers of Excellence (RCOE) if they satisfy the criteria for RCOEs being developed by FARA under the CAADP. The WAAPP shares the notion that sustainable regional research centers will develop only when a host country initiates the process by developing a national center of excellence that is open to other countries. Countries are hard-pressed to commit resources to regional centers located outside their borders. In the past, such centers have been built, staffed, and supported at high cost to donors but have failed when that support ended. Another approach exists, however: Countries can contribute high-caliber scientists to work for limited periods outside their home countries on issues of interest to the home and host country. Visiting scientist programs of this type also provide much-appreciated mobility and motivation to researchers. The Association of African Universities runs visiting scholar programs, and CORAF hopes to benefit from its experience. 13. The WAAPP will support NCOS at a physical location serving as the focal point of a network of contributing institutions. The participating countries have proposed various venues for the NCOS based on their comparative advantage in conducting research on the priority commodities described earlier. The host institutions, priority areas, and main partners for NCOS in the participating countries are presented below in Table 2. CORAF and each of the institutions already maintain partnerships with CGIAR Centers and other institutions; the CGIAR Centers provide access to basic research results, training, joint research programs, and capacity building. 58 WAAPP will further strengthen these partnerships through MOUs between CORAF, NCOS, and partner centers. Table 2: NCOS host institutions and priority specialization areas in participating countries Country Host for NCOS Area of Main Partners Specialization Burkina Faso INERA Mangoes and onions CIRAD/AVRDC (World Vegetable Center) Côte d'Ivoire Azagué Research Center of Bananas and plantains CIRAD/CARBAP (Centre Africain de CNRA Recherche sur Bananiers et Plantains) Nigeria NIFFR of ARCN Aquaculture World Fish Center 14. Under the NCOS component, the Project will support: (a) Development and implementation of NCOS' core research and dissemination programs: The research programs of NCOS will involve core (commissioned) research and adaptive research. A strong consensus has developed among stakeholders that NCOS need to undertake commissioned or strategic research on the country's main priority in addition to conducting research under short-term competitive grants. Programs for strategic and adaptive research need to be developed with key stakeholders to ensure their relevance, and they should also receive input from scientists in at least two other ECOWAS countries facing similar development issues. NCOS will follow CORAF procedures for evaluating and approving Special or Subsidiary Projects.13 The NCOS will assess technologies available from within or outside the host country through the provision of small grants approved on the basis of research proposals, develop and implement dissemination and communication plans for suitable technologies, and develop programs to adapt or generate new technologies, including plant materials, animal breeding stocks, and technology that responds to other constraints along the supply chain, such as postharvest losses or proper storage and packaging. (b) Building capacity of scientists and facilitating regional and international research partnerships. Exchange programs for visiting scientists will be supported, along with on-the-job-training for scientists in NCOS and other institutions in the region working in the area of specialization, including especially CGIAR Centers (IITA, ILRI,14 IPGRI,15 World Fish), AVRDC, CIRAD, IRD,16 and regional centers such as CIRDES,17 ITC,18 and CARBAP. Visiting scientists will be considered to be on sabbatical leave. They will be paid by their home institutions whilst the host center 13 See the CORAF/WECARD Manual of Procedures for the Management of Competitive Funds (provisional version, December 2008). 14 ILRI is the International Livestock Research Institute. 15 IPGRI, the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, is now known as Bioversity. 16 ITC, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (Development Research Institute) (France). 17 CIRDES, Centre International de Recherche-Developpement Sur l'Elevage en Zone Subhumide (International Center for Livestock Research and Development in the Subhumid Zone. 18 ITC, the International Trypanotolerance Center. 59 will bear local costs, including lodging, board, and miscellaneous business expenses. These visiting programs will extend for periods up to 12 months. Special consideration will be given to scientists who are young and/or female. (c) Upgrading NCOS core facilities and equipment. The centers of specialization are existing research stations on government owned lands, comprising several buildings, large research fields and sub-research stations located in the main agro-ecological zones of the countries. Bank and country teams identified the need to upgrade the NCOs facilities (including laboratory equipment), that will make these centers more operational and attractive to other researchers in the region. A preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the core infrastructures to be upgraded, but the details on what needs to be done in terms of rehabilitation/construction works will be provided during implementation. The first year Procurement Plan includes consultancy services related to the design and technical studies for works, rehabilitation, or equipment for NCOS. Investment in each of the works will be contingent upon detailed technical studies and preparation of an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) or environmental and social management plan (ESMP), as the case may be, which will be reviewed and disclosed as per the Association's policy safeguard and social safeguards. (d) Supply chain analysis, impact studies, and benchmarking. These analyses and date collection will be built around commissioned or strategic research at NCOS on their priority commodities. Support will be provided to identify the main areas of research in each NCOS, using a participatory process for supply chain analysis involving key stakeholders, including producers and agro-industries. The analyses should make it possible to develop research initiatives that deliver improved, sustainable technologies to overcome supply chain constraints. Monitoring and impact analysis of the transfer of these technologies will be carried out throughout implementation of the program. 15. The Project will work with development partners, CGIAR and other research centers, and private agribusinesses to enhance the sustainability of NCOS. It will emphasize public­private partnerships, which offer great prospects in emerging areas of science and technology, including climate change, which will be critical for increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector. 16. The Project will fund works, material and equipment, consultancy services, workshops and seminars, training, and operating costs related to the implementation of R&D programs at NCOS. The national coordination units (of the national programs) will manage the procurement of goods and services related to this component. CORAF will assist the NCOS in developing work programs as well as in evaluating scientists (and implementing evaluation systems) if needed, which will be aligned to the requirements of regional evaluation systems such as the African and Malagasy Council for Higher Education (CAMES). 17. Component 3: Funding of Demand-Driven Technology Generation and Adoption (US$ 67.95 million, IDA: US$46.21 million, FPCR; US$18.0 million for subcomponent 3.2 and 3.3 only). The objective of the component is to accelerate the adoption of readily available technologies and the generation and dissemination of adapted technologies in top national and 60 regional priority commodities in participating countries and at the regional level. The ultimate beneficiaries are producers and their associations, micro, small and medium enterprises well as agribusiness firms involved in developing supply chains of priority commodities in participating countries. This component complements component 2 by supporting intervention that favors the adoption of adapted technologies other than those for the NCOS focus commodities. In-country and cross-border dissemination of available technologies will be supported through existing competitive grant schemes for agricultural technology R&D and adoption at CORAF and in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria. Three set of activities will be supported: (i) strengthening competitive research schemes to foster demand-driven technology generation at the regional level in each participating country; (ii) speeding the adoption of released technologies; (iii) increasing seed and animal breeding stocks for a limited number of species to increase their availability for users; and (iv) development of a yield prediction tool 18. Subcomponent 3.1: Support to competitive agricultural research schemes for technology generation and dissemination. The Project will support the regional CARG (managed by CORAF) and national competitive research grant schemes developed by each participating country. To add value to national programs, these national windows will support cross-border partnerships on the supply side (research, extension, universities) and the demand side (farmer organizations, private sector, and civil society) to address problems of common interest. (a) Regional window. The Project will complement the proposed Multidonor Trust Fund for CORAF and resources provided by other donors to create a larger pool of resources for CORAF to expand its competitive grant program. Contributions of participating countries to the regional CARG through the proposed Project will help CORAF implement the eight programs in its Strategic and Operational Plans. These programs entail regional research on livestock, fisheries, aquaculture, staple crops, nonstaple crops, natural resource management, biotechnology, bio-safety, policy, markets, trade institutions, and socioeconomics. The research projects to be funded under the Project will benefit the entire region--participating and nonparticipating countries--in any given phase of the program. The Fund will be managed along with other funds provided for the Regional CARG according to CORAF's Manual of Procedures for Management of Competitive Funds. (b) National windows. The Project will provide additional resources in accordance with the procedures for and terms and conditions of the existing national CRAGS manual, to complement ongoing and future R&D activities in participating countries to disseminate technologies for their priority commodities, which are aligned to CORAF's regional priorities to ensure that the work benefits the entire region. National CARGs will fund proposals from research teams, involving public and private research institutions, training and extension institutions, agribusiness firms, and NGOS partnering with end users. Eligible activities include adapting proven technologies developed within or outside the region and assessing local knowledge/practices for scaling up. As noted, the grant scheme is open to the long list of regional commodities identified by CORAF and ECOWAS, excluding activities already funded under NCOS in component 1. In Burkina Faso, the Project will provide additional resources to the CNRST competitive fund and will promote increased synergy between National Agricultural Research System (NARS) by 61 requiring that research proposals reflect the pooled skills and capacity of diverse teams. In Côte d'Ivoire, competitive grants will expand FIRCA's resources and scope of work, while strengthening its management and procedures. In Nigeria, the Project will enable ARCN's recently established competitive grant scheme to meet regional standards and increase its funding to cover dissemination and adoption activities. 19. Subcomponent 3.2: Support to accelerate adoption of released technologies. This subcomponent will speed the adoption of released technologies to start bridging the gap between farmers' and researchers' yields for the six strategic commodities that are nationally and regionally important (rice, maize, cassava, livestock, meat, and milk). In this way, the proposed Project can immediately begin disseminating technologies identified during Project preparation to make a rapid impact. The Project will also support dissemination and adoption of technologies generated under the Project through partnerships with public and private institutions. It will support: (i) stakeholder workshops for the preparation of national dissemination action plans for released technologies; (ii) promotion of released technologies through various media to improve awareness of technologies and scale up their use; (iii) introduction of information technology in the technology transfer system; (iv) participatory training on released technologies for extension service providers, including national extension services, NGOs, input providers, farmer organizations, and other stakeholders; and (v) field demonstrations of released technologies. Funding for contracting extension service providers for dissemination of improved technologies under this subcomponent will channeled through the national CARGs on a demand-driven basis. 20. Subcomponent 3.3: Facilitating access to improved genetic material (seed, planting materials, and animal breeding stock). This subcomponent aims to increase the availability of improved genetic materials and improve producers' access to them. The genetic materials include seed, planting materials, fingerlings, and other breeding stock for the six strategic commodities (rice, maize, cassava, livestock, meat, and milk). Through the following activities, this subcomponent will support all stakeholders along the value chains in scaling up the production of breeder seed, foundation seed, certified planting material, and quality breeding stock: (a) Help participating countries to manage biodiversity and prepare for climate change through better conservation of their genetic assets by developing or improving their gene banks. (b) Upgrade the capacity of public research stations to produce and store breeder seed through investment in irrigation facilities as well as laboratory, and storage equipment. (c) Scaling up the production of certified seeds by small and medium-scale enterprises and farmer organizations. (d) Provide mini kits of improved seed to producers to jump-start dissemination, along with training and technical assistance for seed companies and seed producers. (e) The strengthening of the production and quality capacity of seed companies and seed producers. (f) Link seed producers to plant breeding programs to facilitate access to improved varieties. (g) Promote ITC to develop networks of seed producers and users and deliver current information on improved varieties that might benefit small-scale farmers. 62 (h) The strengthening of the capacity for seed quality assurance of the countries' concerned agencies. 21. Sub component 3-4. Developing a yield prediction tool to help farmers on crop choices West African countries face an urgent need to transform land and water management for improved agricultural productivity. Attaining consistent and predictable information about crop yields in the region's predominantly rain-fed agriculture would strengthen the farmers' abilities to plan for and reduce vulnerability to weather shocks. The frequency of these shocks is projected to increase in the developing world due to climate change. 22. The sub-component will provide technical assistance to CORAF to develop the Earth Audit Agricultural Yield Pilot concept. The primary purpose of this tool is to help African farmers who depend heavily on rain­fed agriculture to attain more consistent and predictable crop yields. 23. The AYP is a probabilistic modeling framework that provides projections of agricultural yields for 175 crops at any point on the Earth's surface (~10x10 km grid) across a variety of future climate scenarios through 2050. The AYP process model relies on simpler statistical relationships. Instead, the AYP focuses on: (i) linking yield estimates with empirical data in a probabilistic framework to accommodate uncertainties in climate and crop responses; (ii) distributing projections in an easy to use web-based interface; and (iii) accommodating and facilitating new data and process models in a modular and updatable framework. 24. The AYP will use internet and cell phone technology to make food crop predictions from existing datasets and models available to farmers and the broader agricultural community. 25. The project will therefore finance: (i) research activities to complete the development of AYP infrastructure and set up of the web tool during the operational phase; (ii) organization of a regional launching workshops to disseminate the tool; (iii) training of researchers and other stakeholders on the AYP tool; (iv) deployment of the tool on pilot zones. 26. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation (US$12.19 million; IDA: US$9.80 million). This component aims to establish an effective coordination, management, and M&E system at the national and regional levels. The IDA- supported WAAPP will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS' mandated implementing agency) and at the national levels by the national coordinating units. 27. This component will ensure the implementation of the following key activities: (i) financial management and procurement systems at CORAF and at the national coordination units; (ii) reporting on Project activities; (iii) monitoring and evaluation of regional and national agricultural productivity; and (iv) a communication strategy. This component will support consultancy services (surveys and impact studies), vehicles and equipment, office supplies, workshops and short-term training, and operating costs of CORAF and the national coordinating units. The support to CORAF will complement parallel financing from other partners to CORAF. 63 Appendix 4. 1: List of Existing Improved Technologies to be Promoted for Quick Adoption Value Chain On the Shelf Description/Outstanding Potential Impact (Commodity/ Improved Characteristics" Product) Technology Burkina Faso Maize, Nerica Varietal Adapted and high yielding 5 out of the country's 13 regions rice improvement varieties are potential beneficiaries (30% increase in farmer's yield) Cereals Fertilization micro- Fertilizer cost-saving and yield 5 out of the country's 13 regions dosage improving technology are potential beneficiaries (30% increase in farmer's yield) Onion, cowpea Improved storage Reduction of post-harvest losses All 13 regions are potential technologies beneficiaries (30% farmer's post- harvest loss reduction) Mango Fruit fly control Pest-related loss reduction 3 out of the country's 13 regions are potential beneficiaries (30% reduction in losses) Livestock Animal feed/fodder Increase in the live weight of 7 out of the country's 13 regions crop production animals are potential beneficiaries (30% weight gains) Côte d'Ivoire Plantain (a) Vitro plants Production of homogenous and Yield improvement per hectare healthy plants (b) FH1A21 and Tolerant to cercosporiosis Yield improvement per hectare PITA3 varieties (c) "Parage" and Reduction of the spread of pests Yield improvement per hectare "Pralinage" (beetles, nematodes) techniques (d) Removal of Reduction of leaf disease pressure Yield improvement per plant dead parts of leaves Cassava Improved varieties Yam Improved varieties Pork Artificial Production of improved race of Increase carcass weight per insemination males through improvement in animal; increase in the local pork race purity production Nigeria Fish (a) Induced Use of gonadotropic hormones Guaranteed source of quality breeding of for hypophysation/induced fingerlings for higher catfishes and their spawning of eggs. productivity. hybrids. Manual stripping of eggs and artificial fertilization with milt (sperm) from male. Egg incubation and hatching. Nursery management and hatchlings up to fingerling stage. 64 Value Chain On the Shelf Description/Outstanding Potential Impact (Commodity/ Improved Characteristics" Product) Technology (b) All male Sex reversal using male Control of indiscriminate Tilapia production. hormone (methyl-testerone) breeding and over population. Genetic/ Biotechnology method Production of bigger male using transgensis/ gene transfer population. and triploidization techniques Increased fish productivity and profitability (c) Feed Formulation of tilapia diets for Increased productivity and formulation and fry, fingerlings and brood stock. income to the fish farmers, production of Formulation of diets for clarias leading to poverty alleviation. prototypes. fry, fingerlings and brood stock. Formulation of diets for Heterobronchus fry, fingerlings and brood stock. Prototype of all the formulated diets produced. Rice Improved High yielding (4 tons/ha) " Varieties: Extra Early (a) 95 TZEEW White endosperm. (b) 95 TZEEY High yielding (4 tons/ha) " Extra Early Yellow endosperm (c) Nerica 1 Upland Rice " High yielding (3tons/ha) Aromatic Early maturation Moderately resistant to blast (d) FARO 44 Low land rice " High yielding (6-7 tons/ha) Aromatic Early maturation Long grain Moderately resistant to blast Yam (a) TDr89/02565 White yam " High yielding Tolerant to major pests and diseases of yam Excellent for pounding, frying and boiling Poultry Shika Brown 270 Hen-day egg productions " Breed Average egg weight (56 gms) Brown egg colour 65 Annex 5: Consolidated Project Costs AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-1B) Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component and/or Activity US $million US $million US $million 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional 6.09 1.57 7.66 Cooperation in Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies 1.1. Establishment of Common Regulation of Genetic Materials and Agro-chemicals at the Regional Level 1.60 0.59 2.19 1.2. Support National Registration Committees for Genetic Materials and Agro-chemicals in participating 3.81 0.68 4.49 countries 1.3. Information System on Agriculture Technologies 0.68 0.30 0.98 and Research Skills at the Regional Level 2. National Centers of Specialization 22.17 4.18 26.35 2.1. Upgrading Core Facilities and Equipment 9.18 4.18 13.36 2.2. Building the Capacity of Researchers 3.09 3.09 2.3. Supporting R&D Programs of NCOs 9.90 9.90 3. Funding of Demand Driven Technology 52.76 11.47 64.23 Generation and Adoption 3.1. Demand Driven Technology Generation 24.22 0.07 24.29 3.2. Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released 19.27 4.11 23.38 Technologies 3.3. Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material 8.27 7.29 15.56 3.4. Developing a Yield Prediction Tool to Help 1.00 1.00 Farmers on Crop Choices 4. Project Coordination, Management, 14.11 1.15 15.26 Monitoring and Evaluation Coordination and Management 13.18 1.15 14.33 Monitoring and Evaluation 0.93 0.93 Total Baseline Cost 95.13 18.37 113.50 Physical Contingencies 0.63 0.42 1.05 Price Contingencies 6.89 0.75 7.64 Total Project Costs 102.65 19.51 122.19 66 Components by Financier Components by Financiers Gvt IDA FPCR ARCN Beneficiaries Total 1. Enabling Conditions for sub- 0.36 8.06 8.42 Regional Cooperation in Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies 2. National Centers of 0.22 27.36 1.00 0.35 28.93 Specialization 3. Funding of Demand-driven 2.59 41.65 19.00 2.00 2.84 68.08 Technology Generation and Adoption 4. Project Coordination, 1.83 12.93 2.00 16.76 Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Total 5.00 90.00 19.00 5.00 3.19 122.19 67 Annex 5: Project Costs ­ Burkina Faso Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component and/or Activity US $million US $million US $million 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional Cooperation in Technology Generation, 0.95 0.48 1.43 Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies 1.1. Common Regulation for the Registration of Genetic 0.22 0.14 0.36 Materials and Pesticides at the ECOWAS level 1.2. National Registration Committees for Genetic 0.53 0.15 0.68 Materials and Pesticides in the participating countries 1.3. Information System on Agricultural Technologies 0.20 0.19 0.39 and Research Skills at Regional Level 2. National Centre of Specialization 2.89 0.81 3.70 2.1. Upgrading Core Facilities and Equipment 0.79 0.81 1.60 2.2. Building the Capacity of Researchers 0.27 0.27 2.3. Supporting R&D Programs of NCOs 1.83 1.83 3. Funding of Demand-driven Technology 9.79 4.49 14.28 Generation and Adoption 3.1. Competitive Grant - CNRST 4.70 0.07 4.77 3.2. Transfer and Adoption - CRA 3.35 1.70 5.05 3.3. Support to Seed Multiplication 1.74 2.72 4.46 4. Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation 2.83 0.27 3.10 Coordination and Management 2.63 0.27 2.90 Monitoring and Evaluation 0.20 0.20 Total Baseline Cost 16.46 6.06 22.52 Physical Contingencies 0.06 0.07 0.13 Price Contingencies 1.11 0.23 1.34 Total Project Costs 17.63 6.36 23.99 Components by Financier: Burkina Faso Govt IDA FPCR Beneficiaries Total 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional 1.55 1,55 Cooperation in Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies 2. National Centre of Specialization in 4.05 0.05 4.10 Aquaculture 3. Funding of Demand-Driven Technology 1.00 6.89 6.00 0.94 14.83 Generation and Dissemination 4. Project Coordination, Management, 1.00 2.51 3.51 Monitoring and Evaluation Total Project Costs 2.00 15.00 6.00 0.99 23.99 68 Annex 5: Project Costs ­ Côte d'Ivoire Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component and/or Activity US $million US $million US $million 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional Cooperation in Technology Generation, 1.94 0.33 2.27 Dissemination and Adoption 1.1.National Registration Committees for Genetic 1.78 0.33 2.11 Materials and Pesticides in the participating countries 1.2. Monitoring and Evaluation 0.16 0.16 2. National Centre of Specialization 10.17 1.81 11.98 2.1. Upgrading Core Facilities and Equipment 2.23 1.81 4.04 2.2. Building the Capacity of Researchers 1.47 1.47 2.3. Supporting R&D Programs of NCOs 5.83 5.83 2.4. Monitoring and Evaluation 0.64 0.64 3. Funding of Demand-Driven Technology 17.29 1.30 18.59 Generation and Dissemination 3.1. Competitive Grant for TGDA 7.15 7.15 3.2. Technology Transfer and Adoption 5.34 5.34 3.3. Support to Seed Multiplication 4.13 1.30 5.43 3.4. Monitoring and Evaluation 0.67 0.67 4. Project Coordination, Management and 4.56 0.33 4.89 Monitoring and Evaluation Coordination and Management 4.28 0.33 4.61 Monitoring and Evaluation 0.28 0.28 Total Baseline Cost 33.97 3.77 37.74 Physical Contingencies 0.18 0.06 0.24 Price Contingencies 2.12 0.10 2.22 Total Project Costs 36.27 3.93 40.20 Components by Financiers: Côte d'Ivoire Govt IDA FPCR Beneficiaries Total 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional 0.36 2.11 2.47 Cooperation in Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption 2. National Centre of Specialization in 0.22 12.04 0.30 12.56 Aquaculture 3. Funding of Demand-Driven Technology 1.59 11.29 6.00 0.90 19.78 Generation and Dissemination 4. Project Coordination, Management, 0.83 4.56 5.39 Monitoring and Evaluation Total Project Costs 3.00 30.00 6.00 1.20 40.20 69 Annex 5: Project Costs ­ NIGERIA Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component and/or Activity US $million US $million US $million 1. Enabling Conditions for Sub-regional 3,20 0.76 3.96 Cooperation in Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption 1.1. Establishment of Common Regulation for 1.38 0.45 1.83 Registration of Genetic Materials and Agro-chemicals 1.2. Support National Registration Committees for 0.50 0.20 0.70 Genetic Materials 1.3. Establishment of a National Committee on Agro- 1.00 1.00 Chemicals Regulation and Usage 1.4. Knowledge Management and Information System 0.32 0.11 0.43 2. National Centre of Specialization 9.11 1.56 10.67 2.1. Upgrading Core Facilities and Equipment 6.16 1.56 7.72 2.2. Building the Capacity of Researchers 1.35 1.35 2.3. Supporting R&D Programs of NCOs 1.60 1.60 3. Funding of Demand-Driven Technology 24.68 5.68 30.36 Generation and Dissemination 3.1. Agricultural Research Grant Scheme 12.37 12.37 3.2. Accelerated Technology Transfer and Adoption 7.68 2.41 10.09 3.3. Support to Seed Multiplication 2.40 3.27 5.67 3.4. AGROCURI 2.23 2.23 4. Project Coordination, Management and 6.72 0.55 7.27 Monitoring and Evaluation Coordination and Management 6.27 0.55 6.82 Monitoring and Evaluation 0.45 0.45 Total Baseline Cost 43.71 8.56 52.27 Physical Contingencies 0.39 0.29 0.68 Price Contingencies 3.66 0.39 4.05 Total Project Costs 47.76 9.24 57.00 Components by Financier: Nigeria IDA FPCR ARCN Beneficiaries Total 1. Enabling Conditions for sub-Regional 4.40 4.40 Cooperation in TDGA 2. National Centre of Specialization in 11.26 1,00 12.26 Aquaculture 3. Funding of Demand-Driven Technology 23,47 6,00 2,00 1.00 32.47 Generation and Dissemination 4. Project Coordination, Management, 5.86 2,00 7.86 Monitoring and Evaluation Total Project Costs 45,00 6,00 5,00 1.00 57.00 70 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) 1. This IDA-funded operation is in support of the global West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) prepared by CORAF, which is the subregional organization mandated by ECOWAS to implement CAADP Pillar 4. This operation combines regional assistance to CORAF with national support to countries to fully integrate national and regional priorities. The Project team worked closely with existing Bank projects in the participating countries, donors and other partners (sharing ideas, concept notes, and preliminary drafts of the Project) and participated in numerous workshops to develop a broad consensus around the WAAPP. 2. The project will develop synergies with the existing World Bank agricultural projects in Nigeria and Burkina Faso, and the one projected for Cote d'Ivoire (See annex two) for mass adoption of on the shelve and newly released technologies. This partnership will involve joint planning and joint supervision, co-financing/parallel financing of activities specifically including capacity building of producers and other stakeholders, on-farm trials, demonstration plots. The partner projects will not only be used as vehicles for technology dissemination and adoption but will also help to link producers to markets and help them to access credit. 3. CORAF has numerous and longstanding relationships partners such as AfDB, Centre Régional de Formation et d'Application en Hydrologie Opérationelle (AGRYHMET), CILSS, CIRAD, DfID, ECOWAS, EU, FARA, FAO, IDRC, IFAD, IFPRI, IITA, Institut du Sahel (INSAH), USAID, and WAEMU. Both DfID and USAID provided funding for CORAF to implement WAAPP for a pilot group of countries. DfID funded a series of workshops to help CORAF draft its strategic plan. USAID supported IFPRI's work on behalf of CORAF to identify the most important commodity subsectors for R&D. USAID supports public­private partnerships to develop promising supply chains, which play a major role in the adoption of improved technologies such as those generated and disseminated under the proposed Project. 4. The IDA Project team also initiated contact with AGRA, which is funded through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. CORAF will work with the global WAAPP to pursue close collaboration with AGRA in the generation and adoption of technologies to improve West Africa's agricultural productivity and growth. AGRA's goals over the next decade are to introduce 400 new and improved crop varieties in selected countries of West Africa19 to eliminate hunger among 30 million people and move 15 million more out of poverty; the transfer of varieties is accompanied by work to improve soil fertility, irrigation, farm management practices, and access to markets and finance. AGRA focuses on food crops for domestic consumption and value-added transformation, for animal feed. 5. The coordination of development partners with respect to the WAAPP has included donor representation at CORAF's annual meeting, and CORAF has initiated specific donor meetings to discuss its program. Resources provided by the IDA-funded operation, combined with assistance from other donors, will help CORAF continue such meetings during implementation. IDA will provide an opportunity for donor collaboration by inviting donors to participate in Project supervision about twice a year. 19 Initially Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal; plans are underway to include Côte d'Ivoire if possible. 71 6. The private sector has shown a lot of interest to collaborate with WAAPP during the preparation of the project. More specifically Nestle with its processing network in Africa and its regional research center based in Côte d'Ivoire, AGRIFA in Burkina Faso, several breweries in the three countries, animal feed industries have expressed the desire to collaborate in the domain of: (i) sharing of technical information and co-financing of research activities; (ii) adapting identification of research proposals to take into account the needs of the private sector: (iii) develop linkage with project to connect producers to the markets they offered. 7. Aside from CORAF, which assumes responsibility for regional implementation of the WAAPP, national Project Coordination Units in each participating country will be responsible for national implementation: the PCU established under the PAFASP in Burkina Faso, FIRCA in Côte d'Ivoire, and ARCN in Nigeria. The Bank will enter into Financing Agreements with each participating country and into a Project Agreement with CORAF. At least one-fifteenth (1/15th) of the proceeds of the IDA financing will be made available to CORAF under subsidiary grant agreements between each of the countries and CORAF for regional coordination activities as well as for implementing the strategy to mainstream climate change, the regional competitive grant scheme, and the development of the yield-prediction tool. Regional and national implementation arrangements are discussed in additional detail in the sections that follow. Regional Implementation Mechanisms 8. CORAF, through its Dakar-based Executive Secretariat, will assume overall coordination of the WAAPP, with FARA playing an advisory role (as assigned by the AU/NEPAD). CORAF works region-wide with stakeholders that include national agricultural research systems (NARS), producer organizations, private agribusinesses, and civil society, including NGOs. The WAAPP will adapt and strengthen CORAF's existing implementation arrangements in the key areas of communication, financial management, procurement, and M&E to remain in compliance with the Bank's fiduciary and reporting requirements. 9. CORAF will monitor the overall implementation of the Project. It will report on progress related to the effectiveness of the dissemination mechanisms and the increase in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the WAAPP's areas of interest. More specifically, CORAF will manage: i) component 1b and 1e; ii) the WAAPP's regional window of the competitive grant scheme (CARGS) in collaboration with the participating countries; and iii) component 3.4. CORAF's M&E system will collate and synthesize information generated by the M&E systems of the participating countries. 10. Each country will conclude a subsidiary grant agreement with CORAF, detailing the nature of technical support and coordination expected from CORAF and the level of financial support to be provided to CORAF by each participating country. National Implementation Mechanisms Burkina Faso 11. The ministry in charge of agriculture (Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Hydraulique et des Ressources Halieutiques (MAHRH) - Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fischeries Resources) is responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of the Project. MAHRH will ensure the coordination of the Project through the existing Project Coordination Unit (PCU), established under the MAHRH's Secrétariat general within the framework of the PAFASP project. 72 12. The implementation arrangements: A National Steering Committee will be established not later than three months after the effective date. It will include representatives from the relevant government institutions, private sector, and civil society, including NGOs, famer organizations, and others. The Committee, which will be maintained throughout the implementation of the Project, will provide policy guidance and oversight for Project coordination and implementation. It will also approve the Program's Annual Work Plan and Budget and annual technical and financial reports. 13. The overall coordination of the Project is entrusted to MAHRH and will be carried out through the PCU. The specific implementation arrangements include: (i) The overall coordination of project implementation is entrusted to the PCU of ADMDP (ii) A National Steering Committee (NSC)) will be established and maintained throughout the implementation period of the project to provide policy guidance and oversight to the National WAAPP Coordinator and implementing units. (iii) The NSC will be chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry in charge of Agriculture (MAWFR) with the Executive Director of INERA as Secretary. (iv) The NSC composition shall include representatives from the government and stakeholders, both farmers and the private sector. The SNC shall meet at least twice each Fiscal Year to undertake, inter alia, the review and approval of the draft AWP&B and the approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator not later than each October 31 to follow on, and assess the progress in, the carrying out of the precedent AWP&B. (v) The PCU shall appoint key additional staff including a deputy coordinator, Procurement Officer, an Accountant, a Communication Officer. (vi) The PCU shall conclude with each concerned Directorate of the MAWFR and each other implementing partner a result-based Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) delegating responsibility for implementation of Parts 1.3 and 1.4 of the Project to the relevant partner and setting forth the implementation details and the partner's undertaking to assure the efficient carrying out of such parts of the Project. (vii) The PCU shall entrust to INERA and IRSAT implementation responsibilities for the component 2 (NCOS) within the frame of the AWP&B in accordance with the Project Implementation Manual. (viii) The PCU shall entrust to CNRST the management of component 3.1 related to the National Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme (CARGS) pursuant to the Policy and Management Guidelines for Implementation of CARGS. 73 Côte d'Ivoire 14. The Ministry of Agriculture (MinAgri) will delegate responsibility for the overall coordination of the Project implementation to FIRCA (Established by Decree No. 2002-520), which will be responsible for day-to-day coordination and management of the IDA grant, procurement, M&E, reporting, assessment of impacts, and systematic analysis of lessons learned. 15. FIRCA is mandated to finance: (i) demand-driven applied and adaptive research on agronomic and forestry issues; (ii) technology transfer activities to ensure adoption; and (iii) capacity building for farmer organizations. 16. The specific implementation arrangements include: (i) The overall coordination of project implementation is entrusted to FIRCA by the MINAGRI. For such purposes, the MINAGRI will sign an execution agreement with FIRCA. In addition, the Ministry of Economy and Finance will enter into a financial agreement with FIRCA for the purposes of making available to FIRCA the proceeds of the grant necessary for Project execution. (ii) A national WAAPP Oversight Committee (WAAPPAC) will be established not later than three months after the effective date and maintained throughout the implementation period of the project to provide policy guidance and oversight to the National WAAPP Coordinator and implementing units. (iii) The WAAPPAC will be chaired by the Minister of Agriculture (or his/her designee) with the Director of Planification as Secretary. (iv) WAAPPAC composition shall include representatives from the government and stakeholders, both farmers and the private sector. The WAAPPAC shall meet at least twice each Fiscal Year to undertake, inter alia, the review and approval of the draft AWP&B and the approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator not later than each October 31 to follow on, and assess the progress in, the carrying out of the precedent AWP&B. (v) The Executive Director of FIRCA acting as project coordinator shall appoint additional key staff including, a Deputy Coordinator, a Technical Advisor, an Internal Auditor, a Financial Management Specialist, a M&E Officer, and a Procurement Officer. (vi) FIRCA shall conclude with each concerned Directorate of the MINAGRI a result-based Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entrusting responsibility for implementation of Parts 1.3 and 1.4 of the Project to the relevant Directorate and setting forth the implementation details and the Directorate's undertaking to assure the efficient carrying out of such parts of the Project. (vii) FIRCA shall enter into an agreement (convention de gestion) with the CNRA within the framework of the Execution Agreement whereby FIRCA shall entrust to CNRA its implementation responsibilities there under and ensure Part 2 is carried out by CNRA on the basis of the AWP&B, in accordance with the Project Implementation Manual and in cooperation, as the case, with the Société Ivoirienne de Technologie Tropicale (I2T), the Agence Nationale d'Appui au Développement Rural (ANADER), and the Département de Foresterie et des Sciences du Sol de l'Institut National Polytechnique Houphouët Boigny. (viii) FIRCA shall be specifically responsible for the management of component 3.1 (b), the national window of the CARGS. 74 Nigeria 17. The Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA) will be responsible for the coordination and management of coordinating and managing the IDA Credit, procurement, M&E, reporting, the assessment of impacts, and systematic analysis of lessons learned. 18. The ARCN, established under Decree No 44 of May 26, 1999, is mandated to coordinate, supervise, and regulate agricultural research, training, and extension in the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and Federal Colleges of Agriculture (FCAs). In addition, the Federal Ministry of Finance has oversight of credit facilities through its Department of International Economic Relations. The Department of International Economic Relations will undertake joint monitoring and coordination with the federal and state implementation agencies to ensure efficient and effective utilization of funds for intended purposes. 19. The Specific implementation arrangements include: (i) The overall coordination of Project implementation is entrusted to ARCN of FMA. (ii) A national WAAPP Advisory Committee (WAAPPAC) will be established not later than three (3) months after the effective date and maintained throughout the implementation period of the Project to provide policy guidance and oversight to the National WAAPP Coordinator and implementing units. (iii) The WAAPPAC will be chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture with the National WAAPP Coordinator as Secretary. (iv) The WAAPPAC composition shall include representatives from the government and stakeholders, both farmers and the private sector. The WAAPPAC shall meet at least twice each fiscal year to undertake, among other things, the review and approval of the draft Annual Work Plan and Budget; approval of the annual report to be prepared by the Project Coordinator not later than each October 31; and follow and assess progress in carrying out the Annual Work Plan and Budget. (v) The ARCN shall appoint the project coordinator and key staff, including two operations officers, an M&E officer, a procurement officer, an accountant, and a communications officer. (vi) ARCN shall conclude with each concerned department of the FMA and each other implementing partner a results-based MOU entrusting responsibility for implementation of Parts 1.3 and 1.4 of the Project to the relevant department or partner and setting forth the implementation details and the department's or partner's undertaking to assure the efficient carrying out of such parts of the Project. (vii) ARCN shall entrust to the NIFFR its implementation responsibilities under Part 2 of the Project within the framework of the AWP&B and, in accordance with the Project Implementation Manual. (viii) ARCN shall be specifically responsible for the management of component 3.1 (b), related to the national competitive grant scheme (CARGS), pursuant to the Policy and Management Guidelines for Implementation of CARGS. 75 Project Implementation Manual (PIM) 20. Each Participating country has prepared and adopted a PIM that was reviewed by the Bank prior to negotiations. The PIM provides detailed information of the institutional and implementation arrangements including: (i) priority setting for research and extension activities; and (ii) M&E for project outcomes and outputs. 76 Figure 3: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B for Burkina Faso LEGEND MAHRH Hierarchical link OVERSIGHT COMMITTE Functional link Contractual link Coordination - WAAPP PIU-PAFASP Focal Points (MAHRH, MRA, MECV) CNRST Scientific Committee Central Directorates INERA (MAHRH, MRA, MECV) Partners ­ Institutes - Partners - ­ Institutes - Universities Universities Regional Directorates Private Service MAHRH, MRA, MECV) Providers and NGO Research Teams and NGO Regional Chambers of Producers Organizations Agriculture 77 Figure 4: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B for Côte d'Ivoire MINAGRI WAAPP Oversight Committee FIRCA Scientific and Technical Technical and Fiduciary Committee Coordination Unit Component 3 Component 2 Component 1 Services Providers CNRA MINAGRI /MIPARH 78 Figure 5: Organizational Chart of WAAPP-1B for Nigeria FMA&RD WAAPPAC ARCN CARGS NIFFR OTHER OTHER (NCOS) NARS PROJECTS BENEFICIARIES/END USERS ARCN- Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria CARGS-Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme FMA&RD-Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development WAAPPAC-WAAPP Advisory Committee 79 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-1B) Introduction 1. A financial management assessment of the West Africa Agriculture Productivity Program ­ Phase 1B (WAAPP-1B) was conducted by the Bank's financial management team on January and February 2010 in accordance with the new Financial Assessment Principles. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the implementing entities have acceptable financial management arrangements, which will ensure: (1) the funds are used only for the intended purposes in an efficient and economical way, (2) the preparation of accurate, reliable and timely periodic financial reports, and (3) safeguard the entities' assets. The detailed assessment, together with the proposed arrangements for disbursements, accounting, audit, and monitoring is provided below. Overview of Program and Implementation Arrangements 2. WAAPP is a two-phase, ten years Program to support the implementation of ECOWAP through the implementation of CAADP's fourth pillar (the MAPP). The proposed project (WAAPP-1B), while building on the first phase's structure and achievements, is a deepening and expansion phase that will see further strengthening of the enabling conditions for regional cooperation and M&E, consolidating the centers of specialization, mainstreaming the demand- driven competitive agricultural grant scheme and scaling up adoption of the released improved technologies. WAPP-1B will be implemented through four operational components: component 1: Enabling conditions for sub-regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies. Component 2: Strengthening the National Centers of Specialization (NCOS). Component 3: Funding of Demand-driven Technology Generation and Adoption. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation. WAAPP 1 B will be implemented at the regional level by CORAF (ECOWAS' mandated implementing agency) and at the national level by the national coordination units of: (i) PAFASP and CNRST in Burkina Faso, (ii) FIRCA in Côte d'Ivoire and (iii) ARCN in Nigeria. Country Issues 3. Countries specific and governance issues are addressed into the risk assessment under the country level risk category. 80 Risk Assessment and Mitigation Country: Burkina Faso Risk Risk Risk Mitigating Measures Risk after Remarks rating Incorporated into Project Design mitigation measures INHERENT RISK M Country level M Implementation of the 2007 PEFA M Burkina's CPIA rating: 3.7 recommendations through the PAST confirmed the progress made i. Delay in the is deemed satisfactory based on the so far. implementation of the donors' assessment following the different PFM reforms February 2010 steering committee Ongoing repeated PEFA to that might hamper the meeting of the PFM reforms. independently reassess overall PFM progress made so far and environment. address remaining ii. Corruption and poor Key actions and results on the insufficiencies. governance may affect corruption side are the following: (i) public sector significant increase in the As a result of the overall performance Transparency International rating adequate framework, country (Burkina moved from 2.9 in 2007, system arrangements will be 3.5 in 2008 to 3.6 in 2009); (ii) used as much as possible. creation of the High State Authority of Control; (iii) Publication of the report on the corruption status in 2008 followed by sanctions; (iv) and ongoing creation of the Chamber of Discipline at the Cour des Comptes. Entity level S Develop a Project Implementation M At national level, PAFASP Involvement of four Manual during the PPF period to prior or at will be in charge of the overall entities might hamper the describe roles and responsibilities negotiation management coordination project implementation between the PAFASP, CNRS, (done) across the three entities. A in absence of INERA, IRSAT and CORAF. Steering committee will be put coordination. in place to ensure adequate coordination and oversight of the all program. Project level S Develop adequate Project M Implementation Manual (PIM) as prior or at Involvement of 4 well as a detailed manual of negotiation implementing entities procedures. (done) might create delay in the reporting system and bottleneck in the funds flow that could jeopardize the project implementation. CONTROL RISK S M Budgeting M Develop manual of procedures to L PAFASP has its own budget Lack of comprehensive plan project activities and prepare prior or at cycle deriving from its manual budget cycle related budgets, as well as to collect negotiation of procedures. CNSRT and its encompassing the information from the implementing (done) Institutes INERA and IRSAT different implementing entities in charge of the different follow the national budgeting entities' activities. components. arrangements. Accounting S Develop manual of procedures to S CNRST accounting team is cover chart of accounts, routine prior or at well decentralized at the i. CNRST and its accounting and administrative negotiation INERA and IRSAT and the 5 Institutes (INERA and activities between the CNRST and (done) stations located up country. At IRSAT) do not have 81 written policies and INERA. the central level, the staff procedures covering all consists of 10 employees with routine accounting and an Accountant General. related administrative activities for project management to ensure a sound control environment. ii. Absence at CNRST and INERA of an Procure adequate accounting PAFASP is in the process to adequate computerized software and IT equipments to procure a multi project accounting system to ensure appropriate books keeping. 3 months after accounting software. meet the project Train CNRST, INERA and IRSAT effectiveness accounting needs (the accounting staff on the use of the one currently in function software. is in test version and deals only with budgeting process). That could lead to delay or Recruit one accountant at PAFASP inaccurate financial to handle the new projects' 3 months after reporting. transactions. effectiveness iii. Accounting staff at PAFASP might not suffice for the new project needs to prevent delay or inaccurate financial reporting. Internal Controls M Amend the ToR of the newly L and Internal Audit recruited internal auditor at the prior or at PAFASP so as to include the new negotiation i. The newly recruited project in the scope of theirs works. (done) internal auditor at PAFASP might not include WAAPP in the scope of its work to provide assurance on the new project's activities. ii. INERA's financial Appoint a permanent financial Internal audit function is well controller is not controller at INERA. 3 months after established at CNRST INERA permanent. The latter is effectiveness and IRSAT. The staff consists present twice a week. of one Chief Internal auditor at With regard to volume of CRNST and one internal transactions, in the Auditor officer at INERA. context of the WAAPP, this might not suffice to ensure an adequate ex ante control. iii. The internal audit function in place at CNRST faces some Include institutional capacity resources constraints to building for CNRST's internal audit properly perform their unit by allocating sufficient budget work as per their annual under the component 4 aimed at audit plan. This might allowing the unit to properly weaken the control perform its duties. environment. 82 Funds Flow S Open at the Central Bank a M Designated Account i. Funds might be diverted, used for non project eligible purposes or comingled with other projects funds managed by PAFSASP, CNRST, and INERA. ii. The competitive grant system to be created Describe in the manual of prior or at under the component 2 procedures, arrangements (key negotiation might not be properly control, procedures for eligibility...) (done) managed to ensure proper management of the competitive grant system. iii. Report-based disbursement (default Special audit opinion will be disbursement method) required on the adequacy for the use might not be well of the research grant mechanism. understood by the project and disbursement rate To mitigate any risk related to the could be impacted. report-based disbursement, the Bank The scope of the Bank LOA and FM Units will provide supervision mission will appropriate training. include review of grant system. Financial M Agree on appropriate Interim L PAFASP and CNRST will Reporting Financial Report for each main prepare separate IFR. Delay and difficulties in implementing entity and deadline for prior or at Consolidation will be the preparation of submission. negotiation performed by PAFASP as acceptable IFRs due to (done) leading entity. CNRST's IFR the number of will integrate INERA and implementing entities IRSAT transactions. and the decentralized aspect of the project. Auditing M M Recruit an external auditor Prior or at The current external acceptable to the Bank based on negotiation for audit arrangements at ToR that will be drawn up to cover the agreement CRNST ant its Institute (i) ISA 240, 250 and 300 on fraud, of the ToR. are not effective to corruption, and (ii) PAFASP, (done) ensure timely CRNST, INERA and IRSAT. submission of an 3 months after acceptable audit report A specific opinion will be required effectiveness since there is not annual on the adequacy for the use of the for the audit performed by the research grant mechanism. recruitment of Supreme Audit the external Institution. auditor. Overall FM risk S M 4. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the implementing entities and the mitigation measures provided, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Moderate. 83 Country: Côte d'Ivoire Risk Risk Risk Mitigating Measures Residual Remarks Rating Incorporated into Project Design Risk Rating INHERENT RISKS Country Level The current Peace Political instability might H GoCI is working with Donor to H Agreement is being delay project implement the 2008 PEMFAR implemented, with implementation action plan in order to strengthen delays but with the country Public Financial unprecedented political A recent Audit in the Management system. The Bank will and significant Coffee and cocoa sector funded Institutional Development political steps. revealed Governance and and Governance Grant (DGDI) is Corruption issues in the recording progress in building The Bank financial Agricultural sector. These transparency in the budget management team is issues may weaken the execution and reporting process. involved in the reform governance and process specially in transparency environment GoCI has set up a reform committee addressing governance of the Project since it is assisted by the Bank to address issues in coffee and implemented is the same institutional and governance issues cocoa sector. The sector. in the Coffee and Cocoa sector. intention is to scale up and extend the recommendations to all economic key sectors and public interest entities like FIRCA. Entity Level Develop a project implementation The project staff will be S manual to ensure appropriate M trained continuously implementation of activities; Prior or at during the life of FIRCA has no track negotiations project. record in managing (done) Bank's projects. Recruit a financial management 1 month expert to strengthen FIRCA. after effectiveness Project Level S Develop a project implementation M Resource transfers to Project implementation activities to describe activities Prior or at beneficiaries will be arrangement involves implementation processes and the negotiation well documented in the different actors at role and responsibility of each (done) manual of procedures National and Regional national and regional actor and appropriate level (including different (CORAF) supervision missions technical departments and will be conducted with Ministers) and complex FIRCA has experience in managing due consideration of the mechanism (Competitive an Agricultural grant mechanism in mechanism of financing Agricultural Research its previous activities. which will be subject to grant). This arrangement internal and external might delay and slow audit. down project' activities implementation. CONTROL RISKS Budgeting M Recruit a qualified financial M The Bank team and Budget preparation is a management staff who will take part 1 months project staff will work relatively strong part of to the annual Budget conference after closely to establish GoCI budget process, but process lead by the MEF to secure effectiveness comprehensive project improvements are needed appropriate fund allocation based on cost tables, detailed in the consistency among entities work plan. work programs, and 84 projections used by quarterly budgeting for various ministries and Train project FM staff on budget the first 12 months of agencies. Funds may be cycle. the project not appropriately allocated and delayed. Accounting M M FIRCA has already an Country Integrated Upgrade the current accounting 3 months accounting policies and Financial Management software to host the WAAPP-1B after procedures which are System does not provide project. effectiveness documented and are all information required Train project FM staff the upgraded applied in practice by the Bank for financial version of the software. (SYSCOHADA). reporting and auditing. Internal Control & S Recruit an internal auditor to M Internal Audit strengthen the internal control 1 month National internal control system. after systems do not have the effectiveness capacity to cover project activities. In addition, FIRCA does not have its own internal Audit unit to Amend and adopt the administrative Prior or at provide assurance on the manual that will outline and clearly negotiations project's operations. define approval and authorization (done) procedures that aim to build an Current manual of adequate internal control system in procedures needs to be FIRCA. improved to ensure a sound control FIRCA is subject to annual audit by environment. a statutory auditor which reports to the Board (Conseil d'Administration). Funds Flow The arrangements for Given the number of S Open a Designated Account at the M the flow of funds will spending entities Central Bank (BCEAO) that will be be fairly disbursement of funds managed by the Public Account. straightforward and might be delayed and Open a project's account that will detailed in the updated diverted. be located at a reliable commercial procedures manual. Bank. This Bank account will be managed by FIRCA based on a joined signature procedure. Disbursement under the Describe in the manual of Prior or at The scope of the Bank Research grant procedures, arrangements (key negotiation supervision mission mechanism may be control, procedures for eligibility...) (done) will include review of diverted. to ensure proper management of the grant system. competitive grant system. Special audit opinion will be required on the adequacy for the use of the research grant mechanism. Financial Reporting FIRCA will use its Delay and difficulties in experience in producing the preparation of S Agree on appropriate Interim M financial reporting to acceptable IFRs due to the Financial Report for each main meet the project number of implementing implementing entity and deadline Prior or at requirement. for submission. 85 entities. negotiations The IFR guidelines will (done) be used by the project management team over the life of the project. Auditing S Recruit an external auditor S Recruitment of the acceptable to the Bank based on Prior or at External Auditor may not ToR that will be drawn up to cover negotiation be transparent and (i) ISA 240, 250 and 300 on fraud, for the selected Auditor may not corruption, and (ii) the different agreement be independent. implementing entities involved in of the ToR. Côte d'Ivoire. (done) A specific opinion will be required 3 months on the adequacy for the use of the after research grant mechanism. effectiveness for the recruitment Overall FM risk S M 5. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the implementing entities and the mitigation measures provided, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Moderate. Nigeria Risk Risk Risk Mitigating Measures Incorporated Residual Remarks Rating into Project Design Risk Rating INHERENT RISK Country Level H The Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) S Robust financial 2010-2013 focuses on how the Bank Group management Funds may not be used and partners can help the government arrangements exist at in an efficient, strengthen its own systems over the long ARCN and would be accountable and term. It emphasizes governance as its core used. Country systems transparent way. theme and supports on-going initiatives to will be used including Government's periodic strengthen procurement and public financial for FM staffing and budget reports are still management amongst others. This could systems. untimely and delays are minimize opportunity for corrupt practices experienced in the and ensure efficiency, accountability and preparation of public transparency. accounts as well as audit. Entity Level S ARCN will be responsible for monitoring M project implementation. Adequate capacity While ARCN is the building in Bank procedures and implementing entity, disbursement guidelines will be given to FM NIFFR would also carry staff. Periodic and detailed risk-based audit out aqua culture will be carried out for all project activities. activities and there would be activities in some adopted villages. Likely weak capacity at NIFFR and the adopted villages to implement the 86 project components and to effectively monitor progress and embrace accountability for results. Project Level M The Project Financial Management L Appropriately qualified arrangements incorporate clear accountability and competent project Lack of previous requirements including specific timing for staffs have been experience in project retirement of funds and internal audit assigned and would implementation could arrangements amongst others. take requisite training impact on FM on World Bank procedures and guidelines. Budgeting M The financial manual of procedures L documents the budget preparation Failure to prepare procedures. comprehensive budgets, effectively monitor Monitor budget execution through semester periodic budgets and Interim Financial Reporting. incorporate project finances in budgets and Synchronize project budget in the national financial records. budget. Accounting M Submit IFRs to account for the project funds. M Accounting and This would be generated from the Pliny E internal control Failure to appropriately computerized accounting system in use in procedures including account for project funds ARCN. chart of accounts and provide full established and supporting documented in the documentation. project financial ,manual of procedures. Internal Control and M The revised financial manual of procedures M Internal Audit will clearly state mechanism for follow up on advances/imprests for operational work. 3 months Inadequate after documentation of Capacity for internal auditors on independent effectiveness transactions, ineligible and effective internal audit function that will expenditures and non- focus on risk management approaches. retirement of funds. Funds Flow M Open a Designated Account for project M Skills enhancement funding. will be arranged to Delay in funds flow and strengthen weak areas inability to prepare Build capacity in Bank FM procedures and including in use of quality and timely disbursement guidelines. client connection and Withdrawal Applications e-disbursement. 87 Financial Reporting M Upgrade the existing computerized financial M accounting system ­ Pliny E - to be used for Delay in the submission reporting purposes. 3 months of accountability reports after to government and to effectiveness Bank, delayed finalization and Agree on appropriate Semester Interim Prior or at submission of annual Financial Reports (IFRs) format and submit negotiation financial statements. IFR to Bank at agreed timing. (done) Auditing M Extend the services of external auditor for M ARCN to incorporate project activities. Delay in the submission 3 months of audit reports and after unacceptable audit effectiveness reports. Overall FM Risk M M 6. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the implementing entities and the mitigation measures provided, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Moderate. CORAF 7. To avoid duplication, the Bank financial management team has decided to rely on the recent financial management supervision performed in January 2010 on the WAAPP-1A component implemented by CORAF. From this assessment, it stands out that the financial management risk rating is Moderate. The review has formulated recommendation in the areas of budget preparation and execution and compliance with Interim Financial Report submission. Strengths and Weaknesses Country Strengths Burkina PAFASP Unit has an adequate track record in managing Bank-financed projects. Faso CNRST and its Institutes: INERA and IRSAT are established since 1978 and have been modernized with the decrees No 2005-414 and No 2009-148 respectively approving the status of CNRST and defining the attributions and organization of INERA and IRSAT. As per these decrees, both Institutions are managed by using of the country national PFM system. Côte FIRCA is currently functioning as a private company with a Board and an Executive d'Ivoire Director with qualified technical staff. The financial management capacity will be strengthened by the recruitment of an experienced financial management expert and a qualified internal auditor who will report to the WAAPP Oversight Committee. Nigeria The assigned staffs are professionally qualified and the Financial Administrative Department is equipped with computerized financial systems ­ Pliny E. All financial management staffs are trained in the use of the system. CORAF CORAF has been strengthened during the implementation of the Phase 1 A of the WAAPP. The current financial management arrangements are more than adequate. 88 8. Weaknesses and action plans to address are described in the section 13 the financial assessment report. Staffing Country Description of FM staffing for the project Burkina Project FM staff will consist of (i) the accounting staff of the CNRST Accounting Faso General Office, (ii) INERA and IRSAT accounting services, and (iii) PAFASP fiduciary staff which will be reinforced by the recruitment of one additional accountant. CNRST Accounting General Office consists of ten employees covering the revenue section, expenditure section and accounting section as per the country accounting arrangements. Côte FIRCA FM staff will be reinforced by the recruitment of a FM expert and an internal d'Ivoire auditor. Nigeria The assigned staffs are professionally qualified and the Financial Administrative Department is equipped with computerized financial systems ­ Pliny E. All financial management staffs are trained in the use of the system. The Financial Administrative Department will include project activities in their daily operations in line with use of country systems. CORAF Recent supervision has confirmed that the FM staff is on board and well familiar with the Bank procedures. Budgeting Country Budgeting Arrangements Burkina At CNRST (including INERA and IRSAT), the budgeting arrangements follow the Faso country national system. PAFASP budgeting arrangements are well described in their manual of procedures and adequate to run the project's activities. Côte FIRCA budget preparation is a relatively strong and well embedded in national d'Ivoire budgeting arrangement. However, improvements are needed to ensure consistency among forecasts used by various ministries and agencies Nigeria Budget preparation will follow the federal government procedure. This is currently used by ARCN. CORAF Budget procedures will need to be reinforced specifically with regard to the number of the executing entities overseen by CORAF. Accounting Country Accounting Arrangements, Policies and Procedures Burkina Project accounting policies and procedures will be documented in the manual of Faso procedures. The project through its administrative and financial management units will apply the OHADA (Organisation pour l'Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires) accounting principles ­ SYSCOHADA which calls for double entries system. CRNST will procure an adequate accounting software de manage the project's operations. This will be deployed at INERA and IRSAT level. Côte The existing FIRCA's Financial and Accounting Procedures Manual will be d'Ivoire amended to serve as basis to draft the fiduciary procedures relevant to the WAAPP. OHADA accounting principles ­ SYSCOHADA which calls for double entries system will be applied. Nigeria All accounting and control procedures will be documented in the Financial Manual 89 of Procedures and regularly updated by the Accountants and shared with IDA and the Government. IDA Funds will be accounted for by the Project on a cash basis, augmented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Accounting records will be maintained in dual currencies (i.e. Naira and US Dollars). CORAF Current accounting standards and procedures will continue to be used. A separate trial balance will be produced for WAAPP 1 B. Internal Control / Internal Audit Country Internal Control / Internal Audit Burkina To complement the internal controls that will be described in the manual of Faso procedures, reliance will be placed on the use of country system on CNRST, INERA and IRSAT financial controllers and internal auditor team. INERA financial controller will need to be permanent as opposed to the current situation whereby its presence is twice a week. Capacity of CRNST, INEARA and IRSAT internal audit unit will be strengthened by allocating sufficient budget under the component 4 aimed at allowing the unit to properly perform its duties. Reliance will be place on PAFASP internal auditor newly recruited. Côte In Côte d'Ivoire an Instruction No 192 has been taken by the Ministry of Finance to d'Ivoire (i) assign a public accountant to each IDA-financed project, and (ii) a financial controller in charge of the prior internal control of all payments related to the project. An internal auditor and a financial expert will be recruited to comply with this instruction in the case of FIRCA. The abovementioned arrangements will be complemented by the amended manual of procedures. Nigeria ARCN will update its current manual of procedures to reflect the FM arrangements for WAAPP 1 B. Project activities, records and accounts will be reviewed and subjected to internal audit by appropriately qualified internal auditors. CORAF Current internal procedures will continue to be used. Reporting and Monitoring 9. All implementing entities in the different countries will have to prepare quarterly IFR and annual Financial Statement composed of the following: (i) Financial reports (sources and uses of funds by funding source and uses of funds by activities of the project), (ii) Projected expenditures and cash forecast for the next quarter (four months), and (iii) Bank reconciliation statement for the Designated Accounts and the Transactions Accounts showing the cash balance available at end of the semester under review. IFR will be submitted no later than 45 after the end of the semester. Country Financial Reporting Systems, including interim and annual reporting Burkina PAFASP will prepare a separate financial report for the project transactions. Faso CNRST financial reporting will include INERA and IRSAT transactions. A consolidated financial report will be prepared by PAFASP as leading entity. Côte No specification. d'Ivoire Nigeria In compliance with Nigeria Government reporting requirements, ARCN will prepare monthly returns to the Accountant General of the Federation for incorporation in the Government accounts. CORAF Last IFRs were not duly submitted for WAAP1 A and failed to comply with the Bank's requirements. Training has been provided to the FM staff as part of the recent 90 supervision. CORAF will submit to the Bank and the different WAAPP-1B member countries a financial report on quarterly basis. External Audit 10. The annual financial statements and the quarterly Interim Financial Reports prepared by the implementing entities as well as internal control system applied will be subject to an annual audit by a reputable, competent and independent auditing firm based on terms of reference that are satisfactory to the Bank. These TORs have been cleared during appraisal. The audit scope will be tailored to the project's specific risks. A specific opinion will be required on the adequacy of use of the competitive agricultural research grant mechanism. The auditor will also provide a management letter on the internal control procedures outlining recommendations for improving the control system, accounting, and financial procedures as a result of the audit. Recruitment of the external auditors in each implementing entity should be completed 3 months after effectiveness. The implementing entities will be required to produce, no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year, audited annual financial statements in compliance with International Standards on Auditing. Country External Audit Arrangements Burkina See arrangements described above. Faso Côte See arrangements described above. d'Ivoire Nigeria ARCN will extend the services of the entity's qualified external auditor based on Terms of Reference acceptable to the Bank to perform the audit of the Project and to express an opinion on the annual financial statements in compliance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). CORAF The mandate of the current auditor (Mazars) in charge of auditing WAAPP-1A will be extended to include WAAPP-1B. Two separate reports will be issued. Funds flow Disbursement Arrangements 11. For all countries the minimum value of applications for reimbursement, direct payment and special commitment is 20 percent of outstanding advance made to the Designated Accounts. Country Disbursement Methods and Mechanisms Burkina For the first 18 months, the project will use the transactions-based disbursement. Faso Following a review of the first IFRs and a risk assessment, the project might shift to the report-based disbursement. It is worth mentioning that PAFASP is already using the report-based disbursement. Côte For the first 18 months, the project will use the transactions-based disbursement. d'Ivoire Following a review of the first IFRs and a risk assessment, the project might shift to the report-based disbursement Nigeria For the first 18 months, the project will use the transactions-based disbursement. Following a review of the first IFRs and a risk assessment, the project might shift to the report-based disbursement CORAF CORAF will receive funds from IDA based on the subsidiary agreement with the three countries. CORAF will use the transaction- based. Banking arrangements and funds flow 91 12. Detailed fund flows for each country are presented in the appendixes. Country Accounts Flow of funds Burkina Designated Account will be opened at the West See detailed fund flow in the Faso African Central Bank in Ouagadougou to appendixes. finance 2 separate transaction accounts in Upon grant effectiveness and commercial banks for PAFASP and request from the project, the Bank CNRST, INERA, IRSTA, respectively. will deposit the amounts of CFAF . 1 billion into the Designated Account. Côte One Designated Account located at the Central See detailed fund flow in the d'Ivoire Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and one appendixes. project accounts established in a commercial Upon grant effectiveness and bank will be managed by a FIRCA. The DA request from the project, the Bank will be managed by the Department of Public will deposit the amounts of CFAF Debt (Direction de la Dette Publique - DDP) in 1.5 billion. coordination with FIRCA following national public financial management procedures (transfert en Capital). The project account will be managed based on joint signatures of the Executive Director FIRCA and the Financial Management Expert, or their representatives Nigeria One US$ DA to which the initial deposit and See detailed fund flow in the replenishments from IDA funds will be lodged. appendixes. One Current (Draw-down) Account in Naira Upon credit effectiveness and with a commercial bank to which draw-downs request from the project, the Bank from the DAs will be credited once or twice per will deposit the amounts of US$3 month in respect of incurred eligible million. expenditures, maintaining balances on this account as close to zero as possible after payments. CORAF A pool Designated Account will be open to See detailed fund flow in the receive contribution from the three countries. appendixes. Upon grants/credit effectiveness and request from CORAF, the countries will deposit the amounts of FCFA 480 millions. Disbursement by component 13. The table below sets out the expenditure categories and percentages to be financed out of the grants and credit proceeds. Given that all countries are eligible to the countries financing parameter IDA fund will finance all expenditures at 100% including taxes. However, each country will provide fund to compensate addition cost relevant to civil servant intervention in the project. The expected contribution from GoCI is estimated at US$3 million for the entire project life. 92 BURKINA COTE D'IVOIRE NIGERIA Total FASO Amount allocated Amount allocated Amount allocated Amount allocated N° Category SDR USD SDR USD SDR USD SDR USD Works under parts 2.3 and 1 500,000 0.73 1,300,000 1.92 2,800,000 4.25 4,600,000 6.90 3.3(ii) of the Project Goods, consultants services, training, and 2 operational costs under the project a) CORAF 220,000 0.33 450,000 0.67 700,000 1.00 1,370,000 2.00 b) Country 4,980,000 7.62 12,050,000 18.38 19,100,000 28.95 36,130,000 54.95 Small grants under component 3 2.1 and 3,750,000 5.65 5,100,000 7.70 5,800,000 8.80 14,650,000 22.15 Grants under component 3.1 (b) CORAF regional window 4 450,000 0.67 900,000 1.33 1,300,000 2.00 2,650,000 4.00 grants under component 3.1 (a) Total 9,900,000 15.00 19,800,000 30.00 29,700,000 45.00 59,400,000 90.00 Amount 14. The table below sets out the expenditure category to be financed out of the FPCR Core Trust Fund grant proceeds. BURKINA COTE NIGERIA CORAF TOTAL FASO D'IVOIRE Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount allocated allocated allocated allocated allocated (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) N° Category 1 Goods, consultants' 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 1,000,000 19,000,000 services, training, operational operating costs under sub- components 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. Total Amount 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 1,000,000 19,000,000 Use of SOEs 93 15. The use of SOEs will be in line with the procurement's thresholds. Retroactive financing 16. A retroactive financing clause is included into the IDA financing agreements for expenditures occurred from October 1st, 2009 as follows: for Burkina Faso, an amount not to exceed the equivalent of SDR 500,000 for eligible expenditures under category (1), (2), (3) and (4); for Côte d'Ivoire, an amount not to exceed the equivalent of SDR 1,000,000 for eligible expenditures under category (1), (2), (3) and (4): for the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an amount not to exceed the equivalent of SDR 1,500,000 for eligible expenditures under category (1), (2), (3) and (4). The retroactive financing was needed to cover the expenses occurred by the countries for project preparation and to quick start up project activities as none of the countries was provided with a Project Preparation Facility. Action Plan to address weaknesses Country Actions Date due by Responsible Body Burkina Recruit one Accountant at PAFASP to 3 months after PAFASP Faso handle the new project activities. effectiveness Appoint a permanent financial controller at 3 months after CNRST INERA. effectiveness Strengthen the capacity of the CNRTS's Prior or at CNRST / IDA Internal Audit Unit by allocating sufficient negotiations budget under the component 4 aiming at (done) allowing the Unit to properly perform its CNRST / IDA duties. Procure and set up adequate accounting 3 months after software with a multi site / multi project effectiveness version and IT equipments. PAFASP / CNRST Develop a manual of procedures (i) Prior or at describing the roles and the duties of each negotiations implementing entity, (ii) covering chart of (done) account and segregation of duties, (iii) and arrangements for the competitive grant system. PAFASP / Prior or at Agree on appropriate IFR format negotiations CNRST Appoint an external audit with adequate (done) PAFASP / ToR covering the entire project activities. CNRST 3 months after effectiveness Côte Recruit an internal auditor and an 1 month after FIRCA d'Ivoire experienced Financial Management Expert. effectiveness FIRCA Amend and adopt a manual of procedures 3 months after with specific fiduciary procedures relevant effectiveness FIRCA to the WAAPP 1 B. By negotiations Update existing software to host the (done) FIRCA WAAPP 1 B Project including Financial 3 months after 94 and M&E Modules. effectiveness Recruitment of a new External Auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to 3 months after FIRCA the Bank. effectiveness Agree on appropriate IFR format Prior or at FIRCA negotiations (done) Nigeria Agreement of format of un-audited Interim Prior or at ARCN with Financial Report (IFR) and Annual negotiations support and Financial Statement and External Auditors (done) guidance of Terms of Reference. IDA task team. Retain short-term consultant to: (a) not later than 3 ARCN incorporate project activities in the months after computerized FMS used by ARCN; and (b) effectiveness incorporate project activities in ARCN ARCN Financial Manual of Procedures. Prior to Open Designated Dollar Account, Current disbursement of Draw-down account in Naira and Dollar IDA credit ARCN interest Account and IDA advised of proceeds authorized bank signatories. 3 months after Extend the services of external auditor for Effectiveness ARCN to incorporate project activities. Train FM staff on Bank FM and ARCN Within 6 Disbursement guidelines. months of effectiveness CORAF Extend the services of external auditor for 3 months after CORAF WAAPP 1 A to incorporate project Effectiveness activities. Conditionalities For negotiations: (a) The agreement on appropriate IFR format for the three countries (done). (b) The agreement of external auditor ToR for the three countries (done). (c) The adoption of a financial manual of procedures dealing with the new project's activities in the three countries (done). Financial covenants The following is stated in the Financing Agreements as a financial covenant to be completed four (4) months after effectiveness date: the appointment of the external auditors on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association in the three countries and in CORAF. For the Financing Agreement and Grant Agreements with Côte d'Ivoire: the Recipient shall cause FIRCA:(i) to recruit, not later than one (1) month after the Effective Date, an accountant, and an internal auditor on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) to upgrade, not 95 later than three (3) months after the Effective Date, the computerized financial management system to be used for the Project. For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Burkina Faso: for such purposes, the Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date: (i) recruit for the PCU an accountant, and a financial controller on the basis of terms of reference and with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) acquire the accounting system to be used for the Project. For the Financing and Grant Agreements with Nigeria: The Recipient shall take all measures required on its behalf to ensure that the Project activities are incorporated into ARCN's computerized financial system not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date. Supervision plan 17. FM implementation support plan will be consistent with a risk-based approach, and will involve a collaborative approach with the entire Task Team (including procurement). The first FM review will be carried out within 6 months of grant/credit effectiveness. This detailed review will cover all aspects of financial management, internal control systems, overall fiduciary control environment and tracing transactions from the bidding process to disbursements. Thereafter, the on-site supervision intensity will be based on risk, initially on the appraisal document risk rating and subsequently on the updated financial management risk rating during implementation. Given a residual risk rating of moderate at project appraisal, the financial management specialist on-site visit will be once a year. Additional supervision activities will include desk review of semi-annual IFRs, quarterly internal audit report, audited Annual Financial Statements and management letters as well as timely follow up of issues arising, and updating the financial management rating in the Implementation Status and Results Report (ISR) and the Portfolio and Risk Management System. Conclusions of the FM Assessments 18. Following the financial management assessment of the entities involved in the WAAPP- 1B, inherent and control risks were identified and related mitigation measures were developed. The residual control risk is modest. The table below summarizes the conclusion of the assessment per country. Regional Level Implementing agency and overview of Status implementation arrangements CORAF / CORAF is the sub-regional body for scientific CORAF has been strengthened ECOWAS co-operation and coordination, with a vocation during the implementation of the to strengthen national research capacities for Phase 1 A of the WAAPP. The the economic and social development of current financial management countries in the sub-region. arrangements are more than adequate. Country Level Implementing agency and overview of Status implementation arrangements Burkina Faso The Ministry in charge of Agriculture PAFASP has an adequate track 96 (MAHRH) is responsible for the overall record in managing Bank-financed coordination of the Project. MAHRH will projects evidenced by the ensure the coordination of the project through satisfactory rating following the the PAFASP and CNRST. recent midterm review. CNRST will need to be reinforced to meet the Bank fiduciary requirements as per OP/BP 10.02. Côte d'Ivoire The Ministry of Agriculture (MinAgri) will FIRCA will need to be reinforced have the institutional responsibility for the to meet the Bank fiduciary project. MinAgri has designated FIRCA that requirements as per OP/BP 10.02. has been set up by the Government in the framework of the Bank Agricultural Services Support Project (PNASA) to coordinate and manage the Project. Nigeria The Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA) ARCN has designated appropriate through the Agricultural Research Council of professionally qualified Nigeria (ARCN) will be responsible for the accountants and internal auditors coordination and management of the IDA for WAAPP -1 B. credit. 97 Appendixes: Detailed fund flow Burkina Faso IDA & TF IFR WAAP Fiduciary Unit located at PAFASP Designated Account in BCEAO PAFASP Transaction Account in Commercial CNRST, INERA, IRSAT Bank Transaction Accounts in Commercial Bank CORAF Local services providers Legend: Transfers of funds Flow of documents Payment to suppliers 98 Côte d'Ivoire IDA & TF Interim Un-Audited Financial Report (IFR) Withdrawal applications Direct Payments Applications DDP Designated Account BCEAO Financial and Technical Report Supporting documents FIRCA Commercial Bank Project Advances Account Supporting documents CORAF BENEFICIARIES Providers of Goods and Services Documents flow Funds flow 99 Nigeria IDA & TF Credit Account Interim Un-Audited Financial Report (IFR) Withdrawal applications Direct Payments Applications ARCN Designated Account USD Financial and Technical Report Supporting documents ARCN Current Draw Down Account Naira Supporting documents CORAF BENEFICIARIES Providers of Goods and Services Documents flow Funds flow 100 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-1B) A. GENERAL 1. Procurement for the proposed Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004, revised October 2006 and May 2010; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, revised October 2006 and May 2010; and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreements with the three countries participating in the Project. 2. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Grants and the Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between each recipient and the Association in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. 3. A General Procurement Notice (GPN) will be prepared and published in United Nations Development Business (UNDB), in Development Gateway (dgMarket) and in at least one national newspaper after the project is approved by the Bank Board, and/or before effectiveness. Since this is a regional project, advertisements will be published in a major newspaper of each country participating in the project, as much as practical. The GPN would show all International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for works and goods contracts and all consulting services involving international firms. Specific Procurement Notices for all goods and works to be procured under ICB and Expressions of Interest for all consulting services to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 and above would also be published in the UNDB, dgMarket as well as in the national press of Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria (the participating countries) and Senegal (the seat of CORAF). (a) Procurement of Works 4. Only minor works would be procured under the project and would include: renovation of Agricultural Research Out-Reach Centers, and renovation of offices and laboratories. 5. Procurement will be done using the Association's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and National SBD, agreed with or satisfactory to the Association for NCB. Civil works with an estimated value of US$5,000,000 (for Nigeria and for Côte d'Ivoire); and $3,000,000 (for Burkina Faso) equivalent or more per contract will be procured through International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Civil works contracts costing less than US$5,000,000 (for Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire) and $3,000,000 (for Burkina Faso) equivalent per contract will be procured through National Competitive Bidding (NCB) ), using the Association's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all National Competitive Bidding, pending the finalization of the National SBDs procedures acceptable to IDA. Civil works contracts with an estimated value of less than US$50,000 per contract may be awarded through Shopping, with at least three quotations obtained from qualified contractors in response to a written invitation, giving the description of works, the basic specifications, and the required completion time. 101 6. Direct contracting will be used in exceptional circumstances and only with the prior agreement of the Association, provided it meets the criteria specified in Para. 3.6 of the Procurement Guidelines. (b) Procurement of Goods: 7. Goods procured under this project would include: office equipment, information technology equipment and software, vehicles and motor cycles, laboratory equipment and materials for aquaculture, nutrition and biotechnology, fish feed mills, a media center, testing kits, fish processing equipment, and training and communications equipment. 8. Procurement will be done using the Association's SBD for all ICB NCB, pending the finalization of the National SBDs agreed with or satisfactory to the Association. Goods with an estimated value of US$750,000 (for Nigeria); and $500,000 (for Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire) equivalent or more per contract will be procured through ICB. Goods contracts costing less than US$750,000 (for Nigeria); and $500,000 (for Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire) equivalents will be procured through NCB, using the Association's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all National Competitive Bidding, pending the finalization of the country National SBDs procedures acceptable to IDA. Goods contracts costing less than US$50,000 per contract may be procured through Shopping procedures in accordance with Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the Procurement Guidelines and further detailed in the June 9, 2000 Memorandum on Guidance on Shopping available at the Bank's external web site for procurement. Such goods will normally include readily available off-the-shelf items that cannot be grouped, or standard specification commodities 9. Direct contracting will be used in exceptional circumstances and only with the prior agreement of the Association, provided it meets the criteria specified in Para. 3.6 of the Procurement Guidelines. 10. Since CORAF will be implementing the Project from Senegal, for the procurement of goods using National Competitive Bidding procedures, CORAF shall follow and apply the competitive bidding procedure normally used for public procurement in the Republic of Senegal (see below Section B (a). (c) Procurement of Non-Consulting Services 11. Non-Consulting Services under this project would include services related to transportation, insurance, operation and maintenance. The procurement of non-consulting services will follow similar procedures and bidding documents as for the procurement of goods. (d) Selection of Consultants 12. Consulting Services under this project would include external auditing, impact studies, M&E, environmental and social impact assessment, outcome mapping or scoping studies, mid- term evaluation of the project, project baseline studies, advisory services, technical assistance, engineering and design studies, construction supervision, development of strategies (including for communication), research projects, and preparation or revision of manuals. 13. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) will be used for contracts estimated to cost US$200,000 equivalent and above by using the Bank's standard Request for Proposals. 102 Consultant services estimated to cost less US$200,000 may be procured through Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications (CQS) in accordance with Paragraph 3.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. In each of the three countries, short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants from the three countries participating in the project and Senegal (the seat of CORAF, the Regional Coordinating Unit) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. Unless agreed to otherwise by the Association, external auditors will be selected through QCBS with a weight of 50 points for price, in accordance with Para. 3.20 of the Consultant Guidelines, or by Least Cost Selection outlined in paragraph 3.6. The eligibility of government-owned universities shall be determined on a case by case basis (as per 1.11 c of the Guidelines for the selection of Consultants), and shall be cleared by the RPM. Consulting services of individual consultants (IC) will be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of the Consultant Guidelines. 14. Single source selection may be used for consulting firms (and NGOs, etc.) and individual consultants in exceptional circumstances and only with the prior approval of the Association, provided it meets the criteria specified in Paras. 3.10 and 5.4, respectively, of the Consultant Guidelines. 15. Grants and Small Grants The project will provide grants and small grants for demand-driven research and agricultural extension activities, which will be selected through a competitive grants scheme that is administered by CORAF and the existing national CARGS schemes. Eligible expenditures include research and lab equipment, machinery, supplies, operational costs, consulting services, publication. The modalities for administering the CARGS and Commissioned Research Grants will be specified in the CORAF Grants Manual and in each of the countries' manuals for CARGS. The Association's World Bank procedures for procurement will be used. CORAF and the countries will be responsible for ensuring that the selected recipients of these grants and small grants have the minimum capacity to implement the grant contract or proposal. (e) Training 16. Training under this project would be done through study tours, workshops, seminars, conferences, and on the job in the course of implementing programs such as the communications strategy and R&D. All training activities will be carried out on the basis of an approved annual training plan that will identify the general framework for training activities for the year, including: (i) the type of training or workshop, (ii) the personnel to be trained and their qualification and position, (iii) the institutions that will conduct the training and its duration, and (iv) the anticipated results from the training. (f) Operating Costs 17. Operating costs that would be financed under the project may include office rent and maintenance; utilities (including electricity, water and gas), communications (including telephone and internet charges); equipment rent, operation and maintenance; office materials and supplies (stationary and other consumables, but not the purchase of equipment); lease of vehicles, operation, maintenance and repair; and travel cost and transport of the staff associated with project implementation. These items will be procured by using the implementing agencies' administrative procedures, which were reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank. 103 B. ASSESSMENT OF THE AGENCY'S CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT PROCUREMENT (a) National Procurement Systems and Ongoing Reforms Regional Coordinating Unit, CORAF 18. Being located in Dakar, Senegal, CORAF operates in the national environment of procurement in Senegal. Following approval of the government of Senegal of the 2003 CPAR action plan, the country has adopted a new Procurement Code in 2007 (decree n° 2007-545 dated April 25, 2007), which complies with the Procurement Directives of WAEMU and good international practices. In accordance with this code, a Public Procurement Directorate was created in 2007 (decree N° 2007-547 dated April 25, 2007) for controlling procurement transactions of any public contracting authority and a Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics­­ARMP) was set up in 2007 (Decree n° 2007-546 dated April 25, 2007) for handling policies, complaints and audits. These two entities are operational. In addition, the government already prepared main national bidding documents which have been adopted by the ARMP. Except for the restrictions that for NCB only bidders from one of the member countries of WAEMU are eligible to compete, there is no major deviation of the national Code from the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. For procurement under the project, the WAEMU eligibility restriction will not apply. Burkina Faso 19. The public procurement system in Burkina Faso is currently under reform. A Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR) was carried out in 2005 in order to: (i) measure progress made in the previous five years, (ii) analyze the procurement environment, (iii) assess the 2003 National Procurement Act in view of: (a) transparency, efficiency and competition principles required for International Standards, and (b) the harmonization process (among sub- regions countries) initiated by the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). 20. The 2005 CPAR Action Plan was adopted by the Council of Ministers in March 2006. The 2003 National Procurement Act, evaluated in light of the OECD Benchmark Indicators system, has been found unsatisfactory. There was a strong need to improve the institutional framework, even if major progress has been made. Based on the progress made since 2000 (the rate of compliance with the requirements of International Standards increased from 31 percent to 55 percent), the system has been found acceptable for National Competitive Bidding process. It has been agreed that the implementation of the Action Plan would help achieving a rate of compliance of 76 percent by 2010. One of the major actions currently under implementation is the updating of the 2003 National Procurement Act in light of a WAEMU Regional Guidelines as agreed by the World Bank and included in the CPAR recommendations. 21. The public procurement system has been strengthened in 2008 by : (i) the adoption of new procurement procedures, (ii) the creation of Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics including the Commission de Règlement des Litiges à l'Amiable (CRAL) which is in charge of the compliance process, and (iii) the deployment of procurement specialists in key ministries. 104 Côte d'Ivoire 22. Following the 2004 CPAR, a new Procurement Code (Decree N°2005-110 dated February 24, 2005), in line with the WAEMU's procurement Directives and international good practices, and key implementing regulations and documentation have been adopted in 2006. A national procurement capacity building program exists and is being implemented at the central and decentralized entities level. An electronic system for collecting and disseminating procurement information and for monitoring procurement statistics has been set up and needs to be spread over all of the contracting authorities. However, persisting issues remain that affect transparency and efficiency of the national procurement system: (i) the National Procurement Code authorizes to re-bid automatically when at least 3 bids are not received; (ii) the national standard bidding document for works indicates that bids which prices are considered as too low or too high are automatically rejected, and authorizes the use of point systems; (iii) the mechanism for dealing with complaints from bidders is not operational yet and the Government has committed itself to do it through the new public procurement regulatory framework (ONMP) which has been set up recently; and (iv) no procurement compliance review has been done so far. In addition, the volatile socio-political situation due to the civil war does not guarantee an effective functioning of the system and also has considerably increased fraud and corrupt practices. 23. In general, Côte d'Ivoire's procurement code and regulations do not conflict with IDA guidelines. However provisions related to the use of point systems and re-bidding when at least three bids were not submitted will not be applied for national competitive bidding. Nigeria 24. Nigeria has gradually been implementing a procurement reform program based on the recommendations of the 2000 Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR). A review of the progress made on implementing the recommendations of the 2000 CPAR as made during the PEMFAR in 2007, which showed a substantial improvements in public sector expenditure management and, consequently, in obtaining value for money. It has also introduced some level of transparency into the country's procurement process. One of the actions taken by the Government to advance the procurement reform in Nigeria include creation of a Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU) in 2002 as a Due Process Unit located in the Presidency, which transformed to Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) in 2007. The unit carries out due process reviews for the certification of contract awards and payments. The recent PEMFAR report indicated that contract prices were reduced substantially and have reportedly saved the Treasury a substantial amount. Since the 2000 CPAR, collaboration between procurement and financial management has been considerably strengthened. A Cash Management Team chaired by the Minister of Finance, of which the Bureau of Public Procurement is a member, ensures that payments are made only when certified by the BMPIU. The Public Procurement Act was promulgated in Nigeria in June 2007 with a view to further improve the public procurement system, which had been the subject of abuse and corruption in the past. However it will take some time before the impact of the new legislation can permeate to the project level. 105 (b) Institutional Responsibilities for Procurement 25. At the Regional level, procurement activities for the project will be carried out by CORAF through its Dakar-based Executive Secretariat of ECOWAS, which will continue the overall coordination of WAAPP, with FARA playing an advisory role (as assigned by the AU/NEPAD). CORAF will carry out the procurement activities for components under its responsibility, which includes governance, administration and change management and will implement the program for the demand-driven sub-projects. The agency is staffed by an Executive Director, a Director of Programs, a Director of Administration and Finance, Information and Communication Manager, 8 Program Managers, 2 planning and Impact Officers, and an Internal Controller. The technical staff will be responsible for preparing the technical aspects of bidding documents, including technical specifications and terms of references. The procurement function is carried out by a Procurement Specialist (PS) who has been recruited on a short-term basis for the WAAPP. CORAF has developed an administrative and financial manual of procedures for WAAPP in March 2009. 26. At the national level, procurement will be carried out by coordination units that are part of their respective Ministry of Agriculture of the three participating countries, with the following key responsibilities: coordination, management of IDA credit, procurement, and overall project's monitoring and evaluation and reporting. The procurement function is staffed by a designated Procurement Officer, supported by an Assistant PO that are dedicated for the implementation of this project. Though these staff relevant qualification for the position, they appear not to have the desired level of experience and skill in the Bank procurement procedures. Thus, training of the staff is recommended as one of the key priorities, while a procurement consultant may be engaged to provide technical support to the office, when the need arises. 27. Nigeria. The procurement responsibilities will be vested in the project management team of the National Coordinating Office (NCU), while the Ministry of Agriculture will have the oversight function for the project. (c) Procurement Capacity Assessment of the Agencies and Mitigating Measures for the Procurement Risk 28. An assessment of the capacity of the Regional Coordinating Unit and the implementing agency in each of the three countries to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out, as described below. The assessments reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the project and the interaction between the project's staff responsible for procurement and the Ministry's central unit for administration and finance. The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been identified, and corrective measures to reduce the procurement risk have been agreed on. Regional Coordinating Unit (CORAF) 29. An assessment of the capacity of CORAF to implement procurement activities was carried out by the Bank's Procurement Specialist based in Dakar reviewed in December 2008 and was updated last in February 2010. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure and functions, staffing, staff skills, quality and adequacy of supporting and control systems, legal and regulatory framework, recent performance on procurement, the procurement provisions of the existing manual and internal controls. 106 30. The assessment identified the following major weaknesses the procurement capacity of CORAF: (i) Many discrepancies exist between the procurement aspects specified in the Administrative and Financial Manual and the World Bank Procurement Guidelines. (ii) There are no adequate fiduciary control mechanisms in place for the management of sub-projects. 31. The overall risk for procurement by CORAF is therefore moderate. 32. The following measures to reduce the procurement risk have been agreed on: (i) Creating a full time procurement position designated for the project at the end of the first period of assignment (of one year) of the temporary PS. (ii) Extending the function of the temporary PS to: (a) capacity building of the whole team, and (b) quality control of the procurement process of the sub- projects. This capacity building approach would emphasize that the technical specialists and experts would have basic procurement capacity so as to properly handle technical responsibilities in preparing procurement, documents including terms of references and technical specifications. (iii) Improve the procurement knowledge of the Director of Administration and Finance (DAF) and two other key members of CORAF's staff through the coaching by the PS, internal workshops, and participation in CESAG and ISADE's training on World Bank procedures. (iv) Revising the Administrative and Financial Manual to include a section on procurement procedures in accordance with World Bank Guidelines and submit it to the Bank for approval. (v) CORAF to assume full responsible for procurement activities which they have to carry out and for coordinating and monitoring the procurement activities of the national units. (vi) Develop training, supervision and monitoring programs to ensure that procurement activities handled by all beneficiaries are in line with the Bank's guidelines and procedures and with the provisions of the Financing Agreements. Nigeria 33. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA) through the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) will be responsible for the coordination and management of the IDA credit, procurement, monitoring and evaluation, reporting, assessment of impacts and systematic analysis of lessons learnt. 34. The Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria was established under decree No 44 of May 26, 1999. The ARCN has mandate for the coordination, supervision, and regulation of agricultural research, training and extension in the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and Federal Colleges of Agriculture (FCAs). In addition, the Federal Ministry of Finance has oversight function on credit facilities through its Department of International Economic Relations (DIER). The DIER will undertake joint monitoring and coordination with 107 the Federal and State Implementation Agencies to ensure efficient and effective utilization of funds for intended purposes. 35. The overall coordination of project implementation is entrusted to FMA and will be carried out through ARCN. A national WAAPP Advisory Committee (WAAPPAC) will be established not later than three months after the effective date and will be maintained throughout the implementation period of the project to provide policy guidance and oversight to the National WAAPP Coordinator and implementing units. The WAAPPAC will be chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Water Resources (or his/her designee) with the National WAAPP Coordinator as Secretary. Each year, the WAAPPAC will hold two meetings, one of which would approve the Programme's Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B). The ARCN will have oversight responsibility for the implementation of the entire project including the research component. It shall monitor overall progress in implementing agricultural research projects being undertaken within the NARS. 36. The day-to-day administration of WAAPP will be handled by the National Coordination Unit (NCU) headed by a National Coordinator to be appointed by ARCN. The Unit will be responsible for project administration, reporting and monitoring of implementation. There shall be an Operations Manager, an M&E officer, a Procurement Officer and an Internal Auditor. A Project Accountant will be responsible for establishing and ensuring implementation of common financial management, procurement and reporting procedures for WAAPP. 37. Each Implementing Unit (IU) including the NCOS will have a Coordinator of WAAPP Project. A desk officer in the Finance and Monitoring and Evaluation Departments of the IUs will be responsible for the Management of WAAPP funds and M&E issues, respectively, within the establishments. 38. The Project adopted the Bank Generic Procurement Manual and prepared its Procurement Manual which also included built-in checks and balances, but their effective application will very much depend on the organization structure and the management which will be in place in PIU in the Ministry. The PMU was reviewed and we observed that records are adequately kept but will need to be improved and computerization. The Procurement Officer will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the procurement function at PIU. The PIU will set up evaluation committees on ad hoc basis for all procurement packages. 39. However, the candidate to serve as the Procurement Officer needs to have good educational qualifications and experience and have shown a good level of commitment to the project so far. The key Project team members (the Project Coordinator, Accountant, M & E, and the Procurement Officer) have so far been constituted. 40. The procurement risk is considered moderate. A number of actions to mitigate procurement risks are being addressed and in progress: (i) Training of the relevant staff in the NCU on Bank Procurement procedures before Project effectiveness to improve the capacity, (ii) Establish proper procurement filling system at NCU,etc. Burkina Faso: 41. In Burkina, the procurement activities will be carried out by three different entities: (i) AFAP PIU, and (ii) CNRST/INERA. AFAP PIU is a PIU of an existing project financed by the 108 Association. They will be responsible of the activities under components 1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4, will have an overview on all the procurement activities and assure the role of supervisor of the two others entities. This PIU has a procurement specialist who has good knowledge in Association's procedure. The last Post Procurement Review conducted by the Bank procurement specialist evaluated the procurement management in this project as moderately satisfactory and the risk was substantial. 42. CNRST and INERA which are considered to be in the same structure would be in charge of procurement regarding all contracts related to components 2, 3.1 and 3.2. CNRST is a department of the Ministry of High Education but has an important independency. INERA which will be playing an important role is one of the four research institutes of CNRST; it implemented a closed project funded by the Bank from 1998 to 2004. INERA and CNRST have both existing capacities to carry out procurement activities: (i) two procurement staff who have good knowledge in the country procurement system and one of them was working in a previous project, (ii) the technical competency to elaborate TORs and specifications, (iii) existing evaluation committee. The assessment evaluated the risk to be substantial. 43. The overall risk is evaluated to be substantial for Burkina. The weaknesses which must be addressed are: (i) the overloaded procurement specialist of PAFASP, and (ii) the low procurement capacities in CNRST and INERA. 44. The following measures to reduce the procurement risk have been proposed: (i) the recruitment of a procurement assistant to help in the PAFSP PIU, (ii) the closed collaboration between the new procurement specialist in the NCA and the procurement specialist of PAFASP, (iii) trainings on World Bank procedures for the new procurement specialist and the two procurement staff of CNRST and INERA. Côte d'Ivoire 45. The "Fonds Interprofessionnel Pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricole (FIRCA)" is established by Act No. 2001-635 09 October 2001 and the decree no. 2002-520 11 December 2002. It is led by a Board of Directors and an Executive Director appointed by the Board. It is a private utilities' organization. 46. FIRCA will be in charge of procurement under this project, including contracts management, supervision, procurement record-keeping, etc. A Memorandum of Understanding will be signed between the Ministry of Economic and Finance, the Ministry of Agriculture and FIRCA to formalize this partnership and responsibilities. An assessment of the capacity of FIRCA to implement procurement actions financed under the project has been carried out by the Bank's Procurement Specialist in February 2010. 47. Based on findings of the assessment, the following issues have been identified: (i) FIRCA has no IDA's procurement experience; (ii) the internal control is done by the board of FIRCA; (iii) despite the fact that the article 2.3 of the current code specifies that any private firm which benefits from public funds is subject to the national code, which means that the National Tender Board (DMP) must do the external control, FIRCA does not involve the DMP in their procurement process. Hence there is no external control; (iv) the role of all actors involved in the procurement is not clearly indicated in the procedures manual and the evaluation is based on the use of point system for any kind of the procurement method which is unacceptable to the Bank; (v) the filing is not made in a comprehensive manner. 109 48. The Procurement Risk Assessment at the Agency level is high Mitigating measures (i) The recruitment of a procurement specialist mastering IDA's procurement procedures with international experience and solid knowledge of Bank's operations during the implementation of the project. He will be responsible for the quality review of procurement activities for operations funded by the project, namely (a) prepare and update the procurement plan, (b) review and ensure the quality control of bidding documents/Request for proposals, (c) review and ensure the quality control of evaluation reports and decision of contract awards, (d) file procurement documents, (e) prepare procurement activities reports; and Update of FIRCA's operational manual in accordance with the project arrangements; (ii) The World Bank's SBDs will be used for each procurement method, as well as model contracts for works, goods and consultants procured in the framework of the project implementation, and FIRCA management teams (The Management and the Board of Directors) would approve all contracts. The DMP will be involved in the procurement process to ensure external controls. Assessment at the Country level 49. Due to the country post-conflict environment and the persistent volatile socio-political situation, which do not guarantee an effective functioning of the procurement system and has considerably increased fraud and corrupt practices, and also taking account of delays in implementing key actions of procurement reform like the setting up of the procurement regulatory body to ensure independent external control and complaints' reviews, the procurement risk has been rated moderate despite the corrective measures, and prior review thresholds fixed consequently. 50. The Procurement Risk Assessment at the Country level is average. 51. Mitigating measures: the new public procurement regulatory framework (ONMP) is being set up with the election of the President and the recruitment of Deputy General Secretary. A consultant had been recruited to correct deficiencies in the national bidding documents and align them with international standards. 52. In conclusion, the Overall Procurement Risk Assessment in Côte d'Ivoire, taking into account at country level and the implementing agency, is substantial. Overall Regional Risk Assessment 53. The main risks concerning the procurement capacity for the project at the time of appraisal can be summarized as follows: Insufficient responsibility on procurement matters has been assigned to procurement specialists; Insufficient procurement planning; Delays in preparing/updating procurement plans; 110 Delays in the submission of technical specifications and terms of reference by the technical units; Lack of participation in the private sector (mainly due to lack of confidence on both sides) in the procurement system; and Insufficient coordination of activities between the CORAF and the national teams. Country/Agency Procurement risk CORAF (Regional Agency) Moderate Burkina Faso Substantial Côte d'Ivoire Substantial Nigeria Moderate OVERALL Substantial 54. The overall procurement risk for the project is substantial. C. PROCUREMENT PLAN 55. At appraisal the recipients (Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria) and the regional organization (CORAF) developed procurement plans for project implementation which provided the basis for the procurement methods. These plans have been agreed between the each recipient and CORAF and the Project Team on and is available at the PCU of each of the countries. It will also be available in the project's database and in the Bank's external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. 111 Table 8.1. Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review Nigeria Expenditure Threshold for Procurement Contracts Subject to Prior Review Category Method (US$) Method Works >=5,000,000 ICB All < 5,000,000 NCB First 2 contracts per country <50,000 Shopping First contract per country Direct Contracting $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Goods and non- >=750,000 ICB All consulting <750,000 NCB First 2 contracts per country services <50,000 Shopping First contract per country Direct Contracting $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Consulting >=200,00 QCBS All contracts of $200,000 and above services from <200,000 QCBS, CQS, LCS, First contract per country firms & NGOs FBA, QS Single Source All Individual IC As specified in the procurement plan consultants Burkina Faso Expenditure Threshold for Procurement Contracts Subject to Prior Review Category Method (US$) Method Works >=3,000,000 ICB All < 3,000,000 NCB First 2 contracts for each entity in charge of procurement <50,000 Shopping First contract for each entity in charge of procurement Direct Contracting $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Goods and non- >=500,000 ICB All consulting <500,000 NCB First 2 contracts for each entity in charge of services procurement <50,000 Shopping First contract for each entity in charge of Direct Contracting procurement $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Consulting >=200,00 QCBS All contracts of $100,000 and above and the services from <200,000 QCBS, CQS, LCS, two first contracts under $100,000 firms & NGOs FBA, QS Single Source All Individual IC All contracts of $50,000 and above consultants 112 Côte d'Ivoire Expenditure Threshold for Procurement Contracts Subject to Prior Review Category Method (US$) Method Works >=5,000,000 ICB All < 5,000,000 NCB First 2 contracts <70,000 Shopping First contract Direct Contracting $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Goods and non- >=750,000 ICB All consulting <50,000 NCB First 2 contracts services <50,000 Shopping First contract Direct Contracting $10,000 and above; procedures for below $10,000 are specified in the PIM Consulting >=200,00 QCBS All contracts of $200,000 and above and the two services from <200,000 QCBS, CQS, LCS, first contracts under $200,000 firms & NGOs FBA, QS Single Source All Individual IC All contracts of $100,000 and above consultants ICB ­ International Competitive Bidding QCBS -- Quality and Cost-Based Selection method NCB ­ National Competitive Bidding CQS ­ Consultants' Qualification Selection method LIB ­ Limited International Bidding IC ­ Individual Selection method NB: All Term of reference regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior review D. FREQUENCY OF PROCUREMENT SUPERVISION 56. In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended two supervision missions in a year to visit the field to carry out post review of procurement actions. E. DETAILS OF THE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVING INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION 1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services (a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting by country: 113 Goods Category: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ref. No. Contract Estimated Proc. P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments (Description) Cost USD Method Pref. (yes/no) by Bank Bid- ($'M) (yes/no) (Prior / Opening Post) Date CORAF (No ICB contract) NIGERIA Project Vehicles WAAPP - 4x4 WD Utility 3.96 ICB NO YES PRIOR Nov., 10 1B/ARCN/P.VE Cabs, 4x4 WD DC H./ICB/GD/01 Pick-Up's & Motor bikes Office Equipment WAAPP - Computers and 6.00 ICB NO NO POST Nov., 10 1B/ARCN/OE/N Accessories, CB/GD/02 Photocopiers, Printers, UPS's, Scanners & Software Packages, Vsat & Accessories Laboratory Equipment & Material WAAPP - Incubators, Re- 1.63 ICB NO YES PRIOR Dec., 11 1B/ARCN/LE/I Circulatory System, CB/GD/04 Microscopes, Water Pump, Balances, Concentrators, Bio- Rod, DNA Sequence, Cell Homogenizer, Spectrophotometer, Analyzers, Extrusion Machine, Freezer, Pelletizes, HPLC, etc. Input Supports WAAPP - Improved 6.00 ICB NO YES PRIOR March, 11 1B/ARCN/IS/IC Seedlings, B/GD/05 Fertilizers, Agro- chemical etc. BURKINA FASO 4x4 WD Utility ICB No No Prior vehicles, 4x4 WD DC Pick-Ups & 1 Motor bikes 1.359 30/11/2010 114 CÔTE D'IVOIRE Acquisition of ICB No No Prior 14vehicules pick- up 4X4 double 1 cabin, of 3 0.985 30/11/2010 vehicles 4X4 hard top and 1 town vehicle Acquisition of a ICB No No Prior mobile sorting and 2 packing unit for 0.639 30/11/2010 seeds (rice, maize, etc.) Acquisition of No No laboratories 3 0.640 ICB Prior 02/12/2010 equipments for the CNS Civil Works Category: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ref. No. Package/Contract Estimated Proc. P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments (Description) Cost USD Method (yes/no) Pref. by Bank Bid- ($'M) (yes/no) (Prior / opening Post) Date NIGERIA Up Grade/Rehabilitat ion on National Centre of Specialization. WAAPP - Construction of 4.000 ICB NO NO PRIOR Dec., 10 1B/ARCN/ICB New Laboratories /CW/05 WAAPP - Furnishing and 0.528 ICB NO NO PRIOR Dec. 11 1B/ARCN/ICB Up Grading of /CW/07 Existing Laboratories 2. Consulting Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ref. No. Description of Estimated Selection Review by Expected Comments Assignment Method Bank (Prior Proposals Cost ($'M) / Post) Submission Date NIGERIA WAAPP - Development of 0.75 CQS POST Dec., 10 1B/ARCN/CQ/EM Environmental P/01 Management Plan WAAPP - Baseline Studies 0.20 QBS PRIOR Oct., 10 1B/ARCN/CQ/BL S/02 WAAPP - Establishment & 0.20 QBS POST Feb., 11 1B/ARCN/CQ/MI Integration of 115 S/03 Management Information System WAAPP - Identify core research 0.10 IC PRIOR Feb. 11 1B/ARCN/ICs/RB based national agricultural P/04 priorities WAAPP - Development of Business 0.75 QBS PRIOR March, 11 1B/ARCN/CQ/BP/ Proposals 05 WAAPP - Establishment of common 0.20 CQS PRIOR Feb., 11 1B/ARCN/CQ/RR regulations for the /06 registration of genetic materials and pesticides WAAPP - Study on intellectual 0.75 IC POST May, 11 1B/ARCN/IC/IPR/ property right in Nigeria 07 WAAPP - Technical Assistance and 0.20 QCBS PRIOR June, 11 1B/RCN/QCBS/T Feasibility Study for A/08 testing and adoption of new technologies. WAAPP - Production and Airing of 0.20 QCBS PRIOR July, 11 1B/RCN/QCBS/T TV and Documentary A/09 Programmes WAAPP - Production and Airing of 0.15 QCBS PRIOR July, 11 1B/RCN/QCBS/T Radio Programmes A/10 WAAPP - Production of Extension 0.10 CQS PRIOR July, 11 1B/RCN/QCBS/T Publications A/11 WAAPP - Technical Assistance on 0.75 CQS POST Sept., 11 1B/ARCN/CQ/TA Production, Processing, /12 Packaging & Marketing Techniques WAAPP - Development of Advisory 0.50 IC POST Feb., 11 1B/ARCN/IC/AD Service Manual M/13 WAAPP - Establishment of 0.20 QCBS PRIOR Dec., 10 1B/ARCN/QCBS/I Agriculture Information KCS/14 Kiosks & Design of Communication Strategy. WAAPP - Engagement of Technical 0.20 IC POST Sept., 10 1B/ARCN/ICs/TS Support Consultants on C/15 Project Mgt, Procurement, Finance and M & E & Communication Strategy WAAPP - External Auditor 0.05 LCS POST Nov., 10 1B/ARCN/LCS/E A/16 WAAPP - Seed Multiplications 0.20 LCS POST June, 11 1B/ARCN/LCS/E A/17 WAAPP - Seed Quality Assurance 0.20 LCS POST Aug., 11 1B/ARCN/LCS/E A/18 WAAPP - Enforcement of Seed 0.75 LCS POST Aug., 11 1B/ARCN/LCS/E goods/Regulations A/19 WAAPP - Domestification of 0.10 LCS POST Oct., 11 1B/ARCN/LCS/E ECOWAS Rules & 116 A/20 Regulations WAAPP - Engineering Design & 8.52 LCS PRIOR Sept., 10 1B/ARCN/LCS/E Supervision A/21 Total - Consultancy 11.242 Services (a) Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants from the countries participating in the project and Senegal in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. 117 Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-1B) Introduction 1. The economic analysis of the WAAPP follows recommendations for good practices in the World Bank and is based on experiences with similar projects in other regions. The analysis is structured as follows: (i) a brief summary of general issues for economic analysis of agricultural research and extension projects; (ii) a brief review of returns to past investments in agricultural research and extension projects worldwide with particular emphasis on West Africa and on the selected commodities; (iii) an overview of the economic importance of agricultural production, with emphasis on the selected commodities in each of the focus countries; (iv) exploring the efficiency gains from the proposed regional approach compared with national approaches as baseline scenario; (v) an estimation of the potential Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the proposed investments using key assumptions on adoption rates, yield increases, changes in farm costs; (vi) sensitivity analysis by varying key assumptions of important variables; and (vii) a fiscal analysis focusing on the implications on public expenditures of each focus country. Economic and Financial Analysis of Agricultural Research and Extension Projects 2. The Good Practice Notes "Ex-Ante Economic Analysis in AKIS Projects: Methods and Guidelines" (Horstkotte-Wesseler et al. 2000) and "Monitoring and Evaluation for World Bank Agricultural Research and Extension Projects" (Rajalahti et al. 2005) review issues to consider when undertaking an economic analysis of agricultural research and extension (R&E) projects. The particular challenges to conduct an economic analysis of agricultural R&E projects include: (i) the natural uncertainty of research outcomes and technology adoption and difficulties in establishing timetables for technology development and dissemination; (ii) the difficulties of capturing the diverse objectives of R&E projects, such as poverty reduction, natural resource conservation, food security, export promotion, economic growth, and reduction of social conflicts; (iii) the problems related to cause-and-effect attribution of impact due to diverse external factors (for example, rural credit institutions, input supply systems, product marketing systems, macro-economic policies), which are outside the direct control of the Project; (iv) the lack of reliable national data to make sound estimates; and (v) limited knowledge (inherent in ex ante analyses) to predict future benefit and cost flows. 3. The good practice notes emphasize that the calculation of a single summary measure should not be the major objective of the economic analysis of R&E projects, because it is usually subject to a wide range of assumptions. Rather, the mainstreaming of economic analysis into a process of evaluating costs and benefits for more efficient resource allocation within the R&E system should be the priority. 4. A large share of resources in R&E projects is allocated to institutional development. The investments for research, extension, and developing the seed system are very much interrelated and all three lead to increases in farm productivity, which is being measured in this analysis. While costs among three investments are easy to disaggregate, the benefits to farmers would be much harder to estimate. The analysis used below assumes a compounding effect of the three in influencing productivity of selected commodities and target countries. Returns to Past Investments in Agricultural Research and Extension Projects 5. Many ex post economic analyses have shown high rates of return to investments in agricultural research and extension (R&E). Alston et al. (2000) conducted the most 118 comprehensive review of the literature.20 The study reviewed 294 studies reporting 1,858 estimates of returns on investments in agricultural research and development (including extension). After eliminating extremes, the report found that the remaining 1,760 estimates indicated an average return of 73 percent per year. These results confirm the conventional view that returns on investments in agricultural research and development are relatively high. Returns averaged 88 percent on investments in research alone, 79 percent on extension alone, and 45 percent on R&E combined. The report argues that the lower estimates for R&E combined might be because the corresponding studies captured more of the total costs of the technology innovation process. No evidence was found of declining rates of return in recent years and little consistent difference among regions. However, the estimated rates of return tended to be lower in Africa (average return of 50 percent) and West Asia-North Africa (average return of 44 percent) than in Latin America and the Caribbean (average return of 53 percent) or particularly Asia (average return of 78 percent). The average return in developed countries was estimated to be 98 percent and in developing countries 60 percent. Rates of returns were similar across all research categories except for natural resource research where lower rates of return were mainly due to the longer production cycle. 6. A recent study by Alene and Coulibaly (2008), using polynomial distributed lag structure for agricultural research within a simultaneous system of equations framework, demonstrates that agricultural research in SSA has an impressive aggregate rate of return of 55 percent. The elasticity of productivity with respect to agricultural research is 0.38, implying that a 1 percent increase in agricultural research expenditures increases productivity by 0.38 percent. The elasticity of GDP per capita with respect to productivity is estimated at 0.95, indicating that a 1 percent increase in productivity leads to an almost equivalent 1 percent growth in per capita incomes. The poverty elasticity of per capita GDP is found to be ­0.60, implying that a 10 percent growth in per capita incomes--brought about largely through agricultural productivity growth--reduces poverty by as much as 6 percent. 7. The estimated aggregate rate of return of 55 percent is generally in agreement with past evidence on the returns to agricultural research and extension throughout the developing world and in sub-Saharan Africa; see the World Development Report 2008 (World Bank 2007) and Alston et al. (1999). Overall, the evidence points to high rates of return on investments in agricultural research and extension in sub-Saharan Africa. There is no reason to expect that economic returns in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria would be substantially below the high levels reported consistently in most analyses. Regional versus national approaches 8. Evidence of regional spillovers21 in Africa is limited but insightful. Easterly and Levine (1997) found that, ceteris paribus, an increase in the growth rate in one country by 1 percentage point over a decade could result in an increase in the growth rate in a neighboring country by 0.55 percentage points. The argument in this paper is that these spillover benefits could be strengthened through more focused and coordinated regional development strategies, and that countries generating the largest spillovers can serve as important growth poles for their 20 Alston et al. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D. Research Report 113, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 21 Spillovers are the transfers of economic benefits between firms in an industry or economy or between countries without compensating payment. In particular, knowledge spillovers--the external benefits from the creation of technological knowledge that accrue to parties other than the inventor--have a major effect on the extent of income convergence across countries. 119 surrounding regions. In terms of agricultural technology spillovers, Maredia and Byerlee (2000) use the yield performance of improved varieties to directly estimate spill-in coefficients. They show substantial spillover of wheat varieties derived from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), implying that many developing countries would fare better by allocating their scarce resources to the adaptation of technology spill-ins. Their study estimated large spillovers of wheat research, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. A more recent study (Abdulai, Diao and Johnson 2005) showed that investments on regional R&D approaches in African agriculture can yield up to three to four times the gain in direct benefits obtained within the innovating countries, in addition to substantial benefits from spillover gains to noninnovating countries in the region. 9. However, while there is ample evidence of high economic returns, incentives associated with the provision of regional public goods remain a real challenge in Africa. Therefore, how African countries are organizing themselves to deal with these incentive problems is a challenge. In the proposed Project, a way to solve the incentive problem is to have other countries to contribute to the development of a regional center of excellence. At the later part of the Project, the fund contribution can be extended to other countries in the region (other than the four focus countries), as they eventually will benefit from the technology generated by these regional centers of excellence. 10. Moreover, capitalizing on technology spillovers requires supporting public policies. The ability of individual firms (including farmers) or countries to perceive and take advantage of spillovers depends on their own skills and level of development. This includes having sufficient human scientific capacity to facilitate the sharing of ideas, knowledge, and materials across countries and to adapt them to local conditions. Complementary investments are therefore needed to reduce these costs to enable individuals or firms to take full advantage of potential spillovers. The proposed Project includes a component on institutional development and support for regional integration, which are very important to ensure that the potential high rate of return of research is achieved and technology spillover gains are attainable. The optimal level of these investments will depend on the current and targeted levels of key indicators (such as availability of scientists, laboratories per scientists, and so on) and comparing these levels with good practice levels in the region and globally. Economic Importance of Focus Commodities in West Africa Onions22 11. Production: Onions are the third most important vegetable crop in West Africa, next to peppers and tomatoes. Onions are the second most important crop in Burkina Faso, next to tomatoes. Production in West Africa reached 1.48 million tons, accounting for 2 percent of world production in 2008 (FAOSTAT). 12. Yield: Yield in West Africa is about 18.3 tons per hectare, and close to the world average of 19.8 tons per hectare (FAOSTAT). Yields in West Africa can range from 8 tons per hectare to 50 tons per hectare, based on various studies, with an average of about 15­19 tons per hectare. Yields in the Project countries are 15 tons per hectare (Burkina Faso), 10 tons per hectare (Côte d'Ivoire), and 15 tons per hectare (Nigeria). It is estimated that yield potential in the region can go as high as 25­40 tons per hectare, implying that the yield gap is about 10­31 tons per hectare. The yield in Western Europe, where most imports to West Africa come from, is 35.8 tons per hectare. 22 Main source: Rouamba, A., and L. Currah. 2005. "Onions in West Africa: State of Research and Future Prospects," Tropical Science 45(3): 131-140. 120 13. Consumption: There is inadequate supply to fill the demand in the region. Onions are an important part of many typically African dishes and they are consumed daily in most households. However, regional production is not adequate to satisfy the needs of the consumers for the whole year; as mentioned; huge quantities of onions are imported from Europe. 14. Problems: The causes of inadequate supply are climatic (the period suitable for production is very limited, from March through May according to the area), varietal (the choice by farmers of varieties which are not suitable for storage; highly productive varieties with resistance to diseases and pests are needed; breeding programs can counteract the effects of high temperatures, which make the growing season short and low yields produced, like short-day varieties or good storage performance), and structural (insufficient use is made of the storage systems that have been developed). Storage is a serious problem. 15. Research: Research has been carried out on onions in West African countries, notably Cape Verde, Senegal, and Burkina Faso, to improve the performance of the traditional landraces by breeding new varieties from them. Research programs to address important constraints are as follows: Yield: New varieties such as FBO5 can produce about 30­50 tons per hectare in good conditions. Other productive varieties are FBO6 from Chad and FBO7 from Nigeria. It seems to indicate that these technologies are readily deployable, so attaining productivity gains early on in the Project is possible. Good storage performance: Very little has been done for breeding local varieties intended for long-term storage. So far most research has been on the improvement of agronomic techniques (fertilizer use, water needs, when to harvest) and on developing storage structures to improve storage life. Tolerance to hot and humid season: It is almost impossible to cultivate varieties (imported or local) during the wet season, but some varieties are relatively tolerant to hot and humid conditions. Research is only starting, so it has made little impact on onion development in the region. Resistance to bolting: The gains in productivity obtained by selection and breeding are often offset by tendency to run to seed or bolt (flower prematurely) during the first season of production. Research in West Africa has repeatedly shown that onion bolting can be reduced if sowing is delayed until January or February, but this delay drastically reduces the yield because plants do not reach a large size before bulbing. The various schemes of onion breeding have so far made little impact on this problem. Efforts are needed to maintain and increase onion productivity, perhaps using molecular biology to reduce bolting rates. Resistance to pest and diseases: Growing onions as a monoculture seems to favor pests and diseases. There is little statistical evidence of the damage caused to onion crops in West Africa by pests and diseases, but in some localities entire fields may be destroyed. The local cultivar Violet de Galmi, which is widely grown in West Africa, is susceptible to both thrips and to pink root rot disease. Research programs in West Africa focus on these problems. High temperature effect on onion growth: Some local cultivars can withstand very high temperatures and continue to grow: Hilalia was the most resistant, based on greenhouse studies. 16. Others: Although quick to welcome new cultivars, farmers are often unwilling to accept that they have to keep buying the seed of improved varieties. There is a need for structural 121 adjustments in seed production and efficient organization of the seed trade. Growers need to be convinced of the value of obtaining improved seed only from specialized centers of seed production, or from specialized seed producers who have been thoroughly trained by competent authorities. 17. Recommendations: (i) increase productivity; (ii) study precocious flowering more thoroughly, using modern breeding techniques; (iii) give more attention to cultural techniques in storage performance; (iv) strengthen research on pink root rot disease and high temperature effects; (v) introduce modern techniques of water economy such as drip irrigation. Mango 18. Production: West Africa produces 34 million tons of mango, which is 4 percent of world production. Nigeria accounts for 60 percent of West African production. Production in Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire is currently low but has huge potential to grow and contribute to increased income for farmers. 19. Yield: Yield in West Africa averages 4 tons per hectare, compared to world average of 7 tons per hectare (FAOSTAT). It is estimated that yield potential in the region can go as high as 23 tons per hectare (current average yield in Mali) to 40 tons per hectare (Cape Verde), implying that the yield gap is about 19­36 tons per hectare. Average yields in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria are currently low at 6 tons per hectare. Bananas and plantains 20. Production: West Africa produces 8.7 million tons of bananas and plantains, which is 6­ 7 percent of world production. Four countries in West Africa--Ghana (34 percent), Nigeria (31 percent), Côte d'Ivoire (22 percent), and Guinea (7 percent)--contribute to 95 percent of West Africa's banana/plantain production. 21. Yield: Yield gaps are large in West Africa. In Côte d'Ivoire, yield gaps are estimated to be around 50­75 tons per hectare. Aquaculture 22. Fish consumption in sub-Saharan Africa is lower than in all other regions of the world, and sub-Saharan Africa is the only part of the world where consumption of fish is declining as the production from capture fisheries levels off and human populations continue to grow. Annual per capita consumption of fish declined by 2.1 kilograms over the last two decades. Since capture fisheries cannot meet the current market demand (6.6 kilograms per year per capita), aquaculture will have to play a pivotal role in maintaining the current level of consumption in many sub-Saharan African countries, including Nigeria. For the poor, aquaculture is considered a means of diversifying incomes, improving resource use, and reducing risks in case of crop or market failures. 23. Nigeria, according to the FAO Aquaculture Development Review in 2005, is the leading country in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of fish production. Producing about 580,000 tons, Nigeria accounted for more than 42 percent of the total fish production in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005. As the table below illustrates, aquaculture is contributing an increasingly higher share of total Nigerian fisheries production, from 5 percent in 1999 to 10 percent in 2005. 122 Table 3: Fish Supply by Sector in Nigeria (000 tons) Sector 1999 2003 2004 2005 Local fisheries production 480 511 509 580 Artisanal capture 427 446 435 491 Industrial capture 31 34 30 33 Aquaculture 22 31 44 56 Aquaculture share in total 5% 6% 9% 10% Imports 4 663 648 611 Source: African Agri Food Summit, New Delhi, 2007 24. Increasing demand for fish: Forty percent (40 percent) of total dietary protein consumed in Nigeria (and as much as 80 percent for coastal and riparian communities) comes from fish. Per capita consumption of fish in Nigeria is 7.6 kilograms, which is nearly 40 percent below the WHO/FAO standard of 12.5 kilograms. With the current population of about 140 million increasing at a 3 percent growth rate, demand for fish is expected to increase from year to year. Even the current annual demand for fish of 1.7 million tons leaves the country with a shortfall of 500,000 tons. With fish capture decreasing each year, this growing demand can be met only by developing aquaculture at a rapid pace. 25. High market prices for fish: The fish price in Nigeria is high, at prices exceeding 575 (US$4) per kilogram. This is creating an attractive business environment for aquaculture development and the sector is growing at more than 10 percent per year. In the last decade, the aquaculture sector in Nigeria has shown robust growth. As illustrated in the table below, the cumulative aquaculture production growth from 1996 to 2006 has been 334 percent, or 30 percent average annual growth. Total table-size fish production increased from 19,500 tons in 1999 to over 84,600 tons by the end of 2006. Recent investments in catfish farming are estimated at 12 billion (US$102.5 million). Catfish fingerling production has increased from 2 million per annum to about 30 million per annum valued at 300 million (US$2.5 million). improved breeding and management of catfish would increase the survival rate from the present 60 percent to over 80 percent. These technologies would also reduce the growth rate/culture period for fingerlings by 33 percent from the present 6 weeks; they would reduce the growth rate/culture period for table fish by 20­33 percent from the 5­6 months level.. Economic and Financial Analysis Approaches 26. Ex-ante economic analyses were performed using a "minimum national impact" approach to indentify the minimum incremental benefit stream or minimum incremental yield increase which gives the breakeven point to justify the proposed investment and an "incremental adoption" approach, which determines whether the proposed Project can, under reasonable set of operating assumptions, produce the desired minimum benefit stream. Assumptions 27. Target commodities and countries: The analysis will focus on three countries (Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Nigeria) and several focus commodities (onions, mangoes, bananas/plantains, and catfish). There is a possibility that new research and extension approaches will be adopted by other countries in West Africa and that results of basic and strategic research on these key commodities will benefit other commodities, but these effects will not be part of the calculations. As a result, it is likely that the economic analysis results will be on the conservative side. 123 28. Production benefits: The incremental returns from increasing farm yields will be calculated net of farm cost increases. As such, the percentage increase in yield and percentage increase in farm costs will be applied to national total production values and will be applied across full area cultivated to derive the incremental returns. The actual extension "messages" on ways to improve profitability, reduce risk, and increase productivity come from experience gained with the best farmers in the country, coupled with results from research and adaptive trials carried out by the research and extension services. Almost all improvements in productivity come about from an increase in on-farm costs, due to the increase in the quantity or quality of purchased inputs (improved seed, more suitable fertilizers, better targeted pesticides) or an increase in labor inputs (to improve soil preparation prior to planting, to plant earlier, monitor for pests, and so on). Due to limited data on total costs of production, we assume that the associated increase in cost is 50 percent the increase in productivity, similar to the assumption adopted by other studies and for other counties in sub-Saharan Africa (such as the Tanzania National Agricultural Extension Project-Phase 2 and Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project). Sensitivity analyses used a more conservative assumption, 75 percent, and a less conservative assumption, 25 percent. 29. It will be assumed that benefits accrue across 20 years (based on other studies and economic analyses on R&E done in the past (for example, the Tanzania National Agricultural Extension Project-Phase 2, Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project, and West Africa Biotechnology Project). This is a conservative assumption, considering that many benefit- cost analyses use a 20­50 year duration. The discount rate is 14 percent, similar to many other studies, and 12 percent is also used for the sensitivity analysis. One major off-farm benefit from the Project is income generation and value added from processing. Due to limited data, these off- farm benefits will not be calculated. Because the analysis excludes these benefits, the total benefits will be underestimated. 30. Prices: Producer prices will be used. Input-output price relationships are not varied. Due to data limitations, market prices were used rather than economic prices. In the absence of producer prices, wholesale prices will be used and adjusted by subtracting estimated transportation costs. The producer prices used are the average of 2006­08 (or any latest available data). Where no price is available for a particular country, the average for the subregion or region will be used. Since market prices are used for the estimates, the results are Financial Rates of Return (FRR). 31. Off-farm costs: The Project's total annual cost per country until Year 5 will be used as the cost of the Project. The cost of maintaining the Project after Year 5 is assumed to be 70 percent of Year 5 expenditures (an assumption similar to those used in other studies). Sensitivity analyses are performed using a 50 percent cost. Estimates do not incorporate the costs of developing germplasm derived from CGIAR Centers that would be utilized and disseminated in the regional center of excellence. To the extent that this borrowed germplasm is used, the resulting benefits are likely to be overestimated. 32. Adoption: The "incremental adoption" analysis assumes a gradual effect of the Project on the adoption rate. For example, if by the end of the Project (Year 5) 60 percent more stakeholders/farmers are using new technologies, it is assumed that the Project's effect on individual farmers has been gradual (20 percent more farmers adopt in Year 3, 20 percent in Year 4, and so on). It is assumed that there are several readily deployable technologies and that extension service can start in Year 1, but the actual increase in productivity does not go up until Year 3. The yield increase, starting to accrue in Year 3, is assumed to be sustained until Year 20. For the sensitivity analysis, we allow for potential new technologies or varieties resulting from 124 investments in research to be available in Year 11, and productivity gains, which are assumed to be double the initial yield increases in Year 3, will start accruing from Years 13 to 20. 33. Regional spillover: We assumed that only half of the yield increases experienced in the innovating country (host of the center of specialization) is the yield increase used to estimate the spillover benefits to other countries in West Africa. Sensitivity analyses are performed, assuming that only one-quarter of the yield increases experienced in the innovating country (host of the center of excellence) would reach other countries. Another sensitivity analysis was performed, in which only half of the adoption rate assumed for the innovating country was assumed to be the adoption rate in other countries. Results Table 4: Yield increase results by country Analysis Yield Yield Cumulative productivity increase, Y1 increase, Y5 gain Y5 a) Burkina Faso Estimation 1, Minimum incremental yield increase: with spillover in Cote d'Ivoire and Nigeria Base analysis 0.13 0.4 1 Base analysis other 2 countries 0.06 0.18 0.4 Sensitivity analysis 1.1 0.24 0.7 1.6 Sensitivity analysis 1.1, other 2 0.06 0.18 0.4 countries Estimation 1, Incremental adoption (starting Y3) with spillover in Cote d'Ivoire and Nigeria Base analysis 1.4 -- -- Base analysis other 2 countries 0.7 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.2 2.7 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.2 other 2 1.35 -- -- countries Sensitivity analysis 1.3 2.4 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.3 other 2 1.2 -- -- countries Estimation 2, Minimum incremental yield increase: with spillover to West Africa Base analysis 0.1 -- -- Base analysis West Africa 0.05 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 Sensitivity analysis 2.1 West 0.05 0.15 0.35 Africa Estimation 2, Incremental adoption (starting Y3) with spillover to West Africa Base analysis 1 -- -- Base analysis West Africa 0.5 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.2 2.4 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.2 West 1.2 -- -- Africa Sensitivity analysis 2.3 2.1 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.3 West 1.05 -- -- Africa 125 b) Cote d'Ivoire Estimation 1, Minimum incremental yield increase: with spillover in Nigeria Base analysis 0.3 0.9 1.8 Sensitivity analysis 1.1 0.6 1.8 3.9 Sensitivity analysis 1.1 Nigeria 0.15 0.4 3.9 Estimation 1, Incremental adoption (starting Y3) with spillover in Nigeria Base analysis 3.2 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.2 6.4 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.3 Nigeria 5.5 -- -- Estimation 2, Minimum incremental yield increase: with spillover in West Africa Base analysis 0.2 0.6 1.2 Sensitivity analysis 2.1 0.4 1.2 2.4 Sensitivity analysis 2.1 Nigeria 0.1 0.3 0.6 Estimation 2, Incremental adoption (starting Y3) with spillover to West Africa Base analysis 2 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.2 4 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 2.3 3.5 -- -- c) Nigeria Estimation 1, Minimum incremental yield increase, no regional spillover Base analysis 1.03 3.1 6.2 Sensitivity analysis 1.1 0.99 3 6 Sensitivity analysis 1.2 1.07 3.2 6.5 Estimation 1, Incremental adoption (starting year 3) Base analysis 20 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.3 40 -- -- Sensitivity analysis 1.4 35 -- -- Burkina Faso 34. Low current levels of production: Current production of onions (18,000 tons; US$15 million), tomatoes (11,000 tons; US$6.5 million) and mangoes (9,600 tons; US$1.4 million) in Burkina Faso are small compared to regional production. A planned investment and Project cost of US$13.6 million for these three crops will require large percentage increases in productivity to be economically viable. 35. Estimation 1: with spillover productivity gains in other participating countries: Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria Minimum incremental yield increase 36. Base analysis: Assuming a spillover effect to other countries (Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria) at 50 percent of the yield increase in Burkina Faso, only 0.13 percent is required as an incremental increase in Burkina Faso (or 0.4 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 1 percent by Year 5), and 0.06 percent for the other two countries (or 0.18 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 0.4 percent by Year 5). With this assumption, spillover to these two countries will be 36 times the productivity increases in Burkina Faso (equivalent to about 97 percent of the total productivity increases that will go to 126 Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria). Most of this spillover effect will accrue to Nigeria, especially in its tomato and onion production. Nigeria's production of onions (0.6 million tons); tomatoes (1.7 million tons); and mangoes (0.73 million tons) is 56­66 percent of West Africa's production, and even a small percentage increase in yield will produce substantial increases in value of production. These figures indicate that the required incremental yield increases in Burkina Faso are modest (0.45 percent per year) and likely to be attainable given spillover gains in the other two participating countries. 37. Sensitivity analysis 1.1 (more conservative; only one-quarter yield increase for other countries): Assuming that the spillover effect to Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria is only 25 percent of the yield increase observed Burkina Faso, the required incremental yield increase is 0.24 percent in Burkina Faso (equal to 0.7 percent yield increase in Year 5, and 1.6 percent cumulative productivity gain by year 5), and 0.06 percent in the other two countries (equal to 0.18 percent in Year 5 and 0.4 percent cumulative productivity gain by Year 5). These are still modest figures and likely to be attainable. Incremental adoption [with one-time yield increase (starting in Year 3, and sustained over the years)] 38. Base analysis: 1.4 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso; 0.7 percent yield increase in the other three countries. 39. Sensitivity analysis 1.2 (more conservative; incremental adoption by 20 percent; only half the yield increase and only half the adoption compared as Burkina Faso): 2.7 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso; 1.35 percent yield increase in the other three countries. 40. Sensitivity analysis 1.3 (more conservative; incremental adoption by 20 percent; only half the yield increase and only half the adoption compared as Burkina Faso; with double the yield increase in Year 13 from new developed technologies): 2.4 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso; 1.2 percent yield increase in the other three countries. 41. Summary of results: With spillover benefits in Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria, the required productivity gains to break even are small. Based on the incremental yield approach, even though other countries have only a quarter of the incremental yield increase observed Burkina Faso, the required incremental yield increase is 0.24 percent in Burkina Faso (equal to 0.7 percent yield increase in Year 5, and 1.6 percent cumulative productivity gain by Year 5), and 0.06 percent in other two countries (equal to 0.18 percent in Year 5 and 0.4 percent cumulative productivity gain by Year 5). Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as in Burkina Faso, the required yield increase in Burkina Faso is 2.7 percent for 60 percent of area planted as the assumed adoption rate of new onion, tomato and mango technologies (starting in year 3, and sustained until Year 20) and 1.35 percent in the other two countries. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. 42. Estimation 2: with spillover to West Africa Minimum incremental yield increase 43. Base analysis: Assuming a spillover effect from increased yields for West Africa that is equal to 50 percent of the yield increase in Burkina Faso, the required incremental yield increase is 0.1 percent in Burkina Faso, and 0.05 percent for the rest of West Africa. 44. Sensitivity analysis 2.1 (more conservative; only one-quarter of yield increase): Assuming the spillover effect to be only one-quarter of the yield increase observed in Burkina 127 Faso, the required incremental yield increase is 0.2 percent in Burkina Faso and 0.05 percent for the rest of West Africa. Incremental adoption [with one-time yield increase (starting in Year 3, and sustained over the years)] 45. Base analysis: 1.0 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso for those that adopted; 0.5 percent yield increase in other West African countries for those that adopted. 46. Sensitivity analysis 2.2 (more conservative; incremental adoption by 20 percent; only half the yield increase and only half the adoption as compared as Burkina Faso): 2.4 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso; 1.2 percent yield increase in the other three countries. 47. Sensitivity analysis 2.3 (more conservative; incremental adoption by 20 percent; only half the yield increase; with double the yield increase in Year 13 from new developed technologies): 2.1 percent yield increase for Burkina Faso; 1.05 percent yield increase in the other three countries. 48. Summary of results: With spillover benefits in West African countries, the required productivity gains to break even are very small. Based on the incremental yield approach, even though other countries have only one-quarter of the incremental yield increase observed Burkina Faso, the required incremental yield increase is 0.2 percent in Burkina Faso (or 0.6 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 1.4 percent by Year 5) and 0.05 percent in the other two countries (or 0.15 yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 0.35 percent by year 5). Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as in Burkina Faso, the required yield increase in Burkina Faso is 2.4 percent for those that adopted new onion, tomato and mango technologies (starting in year 3, and sustained until Year 20) and 1.2 percent in other two countries. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. Côte d'Ivoire 49. Huge current levels of production: Current production of bananas/plantains is huge in Côte d'Ivoire (1.9 million tons) and in West Africa in general (8.7 million tons). West Africa's production is 6­7 percent of the world production. Four countries in West Africa--Ghana (34 percent), Nigeria (31 percent), Côte d'Ivoire (22 percent), and Guinea (7 percent)--contribute to 95 percent of West Africa's banana/plantain production. Yield gaps are large in West Africa; in Côte d'Ivoire, yield gaps are estimated to be around 50­75 tons per hectare. A planned investment and Project cost of US$ 31 million for Côte d'Ivoire will require a modest percentage increase in productivity to be economically viable. 50. Estimation 1: with spillover productivity gains in Nigeria (no current production in Burkina Faso) Minimum incremental yield increase 51. Base analysis: For the Project to break even, banana/plantain yields should increase by 0.3 percent every year. Due to the incremental nature of the yield increases, the country has to attain a 0.9 percent yield increase in Year 5 of the Project, with a cumulative increase in productivity of 1.8 percent until Year 5. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained by the Project. 52. Sensitivity analysis 1.1 (more conservative; only one-quarter of the yield increase in Nigeria): Assuming that the spillover effect is only one-quarter of the yield increase observed in 128 Côte d'Ivoire, the required incremental yield increase is 0.6 percent for Côte d'Ivoire and 0.15 percent for Nigeria. Incremental adoption [with one-time yield increase (starting in Year 3, and sustained over the years)] 53. Base analysis: A 3.2 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 54. Sensitivity analysis 1.2 (incremental adoption increase of 10 percent; with total increase in adoption by 30 percent in Year 5): A 6.4 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 55. Sensitivity analysis 1.3 (incremental adoption increase of 20 percent; double yield increase in Year 13): 5.5 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 56. Summary of results: With spillover benefits in Nigeria, the productivity gains required to break even become even smaller. Based on the incremental yield approach, even though Nigeria has only one-quarter of the incremental yield increase observed Côte d'Ivoire, the required incremental yield increase is 0.6 percent in Côte d'Ivoire (or 1.8 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 3.9 percent by Year 5) and 0.15 percent in Nigeria (or 0.4 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 0.8 percent by year 5). Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as Côte d'Ivoire, the required yield increase in Côte d'Ivoire is 6.4 percent for those that adopted new banana/plantain technologies (starting in Year 3, and sustained until Year 20) and 3.2 percent in Nigeria. The spillover benefit for Nigeria is about 70 percent of the productivity gains in Côte d'Ivoire. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. 57. Estimation 2: with spillover productivity gains in West Africa Minimum incremental yield increase 58. Base analysis: To break even, the Project should deliver an incremental yield increase of 0.2 percent every year for banana/plantain. Due to the incremental nature of the yield increases, this means that the country has to attain a 0.6 percent yield increase in Year 5 of the Project, with a cumulative increase in productivity until Year 5 of 1.2 percent. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. 59. Sensitivity analysis 2.1 (more conservative; only one-quarter of yield increase): Assuming that the spillover effect is only one-quarter of the yield increase observed in Côte d'Ivoire, the required incremental yield increase is 0.4 percent in Côte d'Ivoire and 0.1 percent for Nigeria. Incremental adoption [with one-time yield increase (starting in Year 3, and sustained over the years)] 60. Base analysis: 2 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 61. Sensitivity analysis 2.2 (incremental adoption increase of 10 percent; with total increase in adoption by 30 percent in Year 5): A 4 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 129 62. Sensitivity analysis 2.3 (incremental adoption increase of 20 percent; double yield increase in Year 13): A 3.5 percent yield increase for those that adopted starting in Year 3 (and sustained until Year 20). 63. Summary of results: With spillover benefits in the whole of West Africa, the productivity gains required to break even are very small. Based on the incremental yield approach, even though other countries have only one-quarter of the incremental yield increase observed Côte d'Ivoire, the required incremental yield increase is 0.4 percent in Côte d'Ivoire (or 1.2 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 2.4 percent by Year 5) and 0.1 percent in other three countries (or 0.3 percent yield increase in Year 5 and cumulative productivity gain of 0.6 percent by year 5). Based on the incremental adoption approach, even though other countries have only half the percentage yield increase and half the increased adoption rate as Côte d'Ivoire, the required yield increase in Côte d'Ivoire is 4 percent for those that adopted new banana/plantain technologies (starting in Year 3, and sustained until Year 20) and 2 percent in other countries. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. Nigeria 64. Estimation 1: No regional spillover 65. A special case without any regional spillover was considered for Nigeria to illustrate that the high rates of returns of the Project even under the most conservative scenarios. The WAAPP is designed to generate regional spillovers, implying that returns to the Project are even higher than those presented in this counterfactual scenario. Minimum incremental yield increase 66. Base analysis: To break even, the Project should result in incremental yield increases of 1.03 percent every year for catfish. Due to the incremental nature of the yield increases, this means that the country has to produce a 3.1 percent yield increase in Year 5, with a cumulative increase in productivity until Year 5 of the Project of 6.2 percent. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. 67. Sensitivity analysis 1.1 (less conservative; 25 percent cost increase): Even through the increase in cost is assumed to be just 25 percent, instead of 50 percent used in the initial calculation, the required incremental increase in productivity is 0.99 percent every year for catfish. This figure means that the required yield increase in Year 5 of the Project is 3 percent, with a cumulative increase in productivity until Year 5 of 6 percent. These figures are modest and are very likely to be attained. 68. Sensitivity analysis 1.2 (more conservative; 75 percent cost increase): If the increase in cost is assumed to be 75 percent, instead of the 50 percent used in the initial calculation, the required incremental increase in yield is 1.07 percent every year for catfish. This figure means that the required yield increase in Year 5 is 3.2 percent, with a cumulative increase in productivity until Year 5 of 6.5 percent. Despite a very conservative assumption of 75 percent associated increase in costs, the figures remain modest and are very likely to be attained. Incremental adoption [with one-time yield increase (starting in Year 3, and sustained over the years)] 69. Base analysis: A 20 percent yield increase for those who adopted starting in Year 3 (and sustained until Year 20). 130 70. Sensitivity analysis 1.3 (incremental adoption increase of 10 percent; with total increase in adoption by 30 percent in Year 5): A 40 percent yield increase for those who adopted starting in Year 3 of the Project (and sustained until Year 20). 71. Sensitivity analysis 1.4 (incremental adoption increase of 20 percent; double yield increase in Year 13): A 35 percent yield increase for those who adopted starting in Year 3 (and sustained until Year 20). 72. Summary of results: Even without regional spillovers, the required productivity gains to justify the investment in catfish in Nigeria are modest and are likely to be attained. The required incremental yield increase per year is 0.2­0.6 percent (equal to 0.6­1.8 percent yield increase in Year 5 or 1.2­3.6 percent cumulative productivity gain by Year 5), assuming a 25­75 percent percentage increase in production costs. Even when the adoption rate is assumed to be 10 percent in Year 3 and the cumulative adoption rate in Year 5 to be 30 percent, the required annual yield increase is 7 percent for those who adopted. There is limited catfish production in Côte d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso and other West African countries at present, but there is huge potential to develop catfish production there to satisfy increasing fish demand. 131 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Environmental and Social Considerations 1. From an environmental and social safeguard point of view, the WAAPP is a Category B Project. In other words, the environmental and social impacts of the Project, for the most part, are expected to be minimal, site specific, and manageable to an accepted level. Two Bank safeguard policies apply to the Project: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) and Pest Management (OP 4.09). At the Project Concept Note review meeting, it was agreed that this Project would not trigger the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12), as no potential issues related to land acquisition or loss of economic activity on the part of individuals or groups of individuals were foreseen in Project intervention zones. Project activities will take place on existing research stations or within the other implementing institutions and civil works will not be financed where there are claims on any of the land used in the research. As part of the social and environmental screening process, each participating country will prepare and avail a completed one-page "Land Acquisition Screening Form" that clearly shows selected lands are indeed free of any kinds of claims. 2. At the time of the environmental and social assessment of the project, the range, scale, locations and number of technology generation and transfer sub-projects, as part of the WAAPP initiatives were unknown. The difficulty inherent in defining what the real environmental and social impacts of envisioned sub-projects are and determining what mitigation measures to put in place, requires the development of a regional Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). In addition, it was determined, based on project envisioned activities leading, in particular, to diversification and intensification of agriculture, that the Pest Management Policy (OP 4.09) is triggered. This required the development of a regional Pest Management Plan (PMP). Potential Impacts 3. The Project's potential environmental, social and health impacts include, but are not limited to: Soil erosion and loss of biodiversity (fauna and flora), owing partly to Project activities and partly to poaching and land conversion in natural resource areas to which there is access near Project sites. Extensive agriculture leading to deforestation of ecosystems. Pesticide/inorganic fertilizer residues resulting from agricultural intensification and diversification. Sedimentation of water bodies due to land clearing and poor rehabilitation of borrow pits. Improper waste management. Elimination of the natural enemies of crop pests and consequent alteration of biological pest control methods. Development of pest resistance to pesticides, encouraging increases in and reliance on chemical pesticides. 132 Contamination of soil and water bodies. Uncontrolled import, sale, and distribution of pesticides. Weak institutional capacity for pesticide management. No integrated approach to limiting crop pests. Significant destruction of natural habitat. Soil salinization, alkalization, and acidification. Groundwater pollution (fertilizers; pesticides, and other contaminants). Cattle health issues (from pesticide dips) Unsafe management of pesticide containers. Nontargeted species destruction (by pesticides). Increase of waterborne diseases. Soil trampling and compaction by cattle. Selective browsing (by cattle) harms plants and ecosystems. Well and water point pollution (by cattle). Risks related to capacity deficiencies in biotechnology and biosafety. 4. The ESMF formulated standard methods and procedures specifying how technological research proposals whose location, number, and scale are currently unknown will systematically address environmental and social issues in the screening, categorization, sitting, design, implementation, and monitoring phases. The ESMF includes: (i) systematization of environmental and social impact assessment for all identified subprojects before investment and (ii) procedures for conducting subproject-specific environmental and social impact assessments (EIAs), be they Limited Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (LESIAs) or Full Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (FESIAs). 5. The proposed PMP, on the other hand, addresses concerns relating to the risks associated with potential increases in the use of pesticides for agricultural production, intensification, and diversification and potential increases in disease vector populations owing to irrigation schemes. The framework makes proposals to strengthen national capacities to implement mitigation measures designed to minimize such risks. The PMP, as part of the implementation arrangements, also identifies national agencies and other partners that could play a vital role in the success of the Project's social and environmental safeguards. 6. Both the ESMF and PMP include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved in each participating country, at the national and regional levels, for screening, reviewing, and approving subprojects, as well as implementing and monitoring mitigation measures for those subprojects. In view of the somewhat limited institutional capacity to address Project safeguards adequately, the two safeguard instruments include provisions to strengthen the capacity of the various institutions and actors involved and to promote coordination and synergies among the various sectors in attending to potential social and environmental impacts. Together these safeguard instruments are considered as a planning tool and a means for harmoniously integrating the Project with its biophysical and social environment to maximize project's positive effects in the subregion. 7. Both the ESMF and the PMP were submitted to the Africa Safeguard Policy Enhancement (ASPEN), the regional Safeguard Unit, and cleared for disclosure regionally by CORAF and at Bank InfoShop on March 09, 2010. 133 8. In addition, the project is set out to support the strengthening of national agricultural research centers and to upgrade the capacity of selected public research stations to produce and store breeder seeds through investments in irrigation facilities, lab and storage equipments. These centers are existing research stations located on government owned lands, comprising several buildings, large research fields and sub-research stations located in the main agro- ecological zones of the countries. While a preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the NCOs that will be rehabilitated and to inventory the rehabilitation requirements of the research fields and infrastructure, the centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken in the project. Following further consultation with researchers who are the main users of the infrastructures, the NCOs will identify specific infrastructure and/or research fields for rehabilitation during project implementation. While a preliminary assessment has been conducted to identify the NCOs that will be rehabilitated and to inventory the rehabilitation requirements of the research fields and infrastructure, the centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken in the project. Thus, the core facilities to be contracted and rehabilitated and the public research stations to be upgraded shall be selected according to the criterion that the facility or the station has been identified by the center's management on the basis of consultations carried out with its researchers during the preparation of the priority list of works and during the validation of the design of the works. Once selected and approved by the Association for financing, the NCOs managers will prepare and disclose an environmental impact assessments (EIA) or an environmental management plan (EMP), as necessary. Public Consultation and Disclosure 9. The ESMF and PMP were prepared in compliance with Bank and national safeguard policies, following broad consultation with all relevant stakeholder groups, consistent with the approach adopted at Project inception. This participatory approach will be carried on throughout Project implementation, supervision, and evaluation. 10. Prior to disclosure in-country and the Bank's InfoShop, a stakeholder workshop was organized by CORAF, involving Project stakeholder groups in public agencies in the four countries involved (Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Niger and Nigeria) and representatives of national research institutes and extension services, National Environmental Protection Agencies (NEPAs), professional organizations, farmer organizations; civil society; and NGOs. This approach was used to present the results of the studies, foster ownership, and garner input from these stakeholders to improve the quality and soundness of the instruments. Recommendations from both ASPEN and stakeholders' workshop have been reflected in the final safeguard reports, prior to disclosure. These recommendations and relevant provisions from the two sets of safeguard instruments will be reflected in the PIM. Monitoring and Supervision of Safeguard Performance 11. Successful implementation of Project safeguard requirements and performance measurement requires regular monitoring and evaluation of activities undertaken by the Project to comply with national and Bank safeguard policies. This M&E will also help ensure that Project safeguard measures are systematically implemented through the life of the Project. 12. To do so, the following indicators need to be measured, as part of the Project's global monitoring plan: Number of subprojects screened on environmental and social safeguard grounds. Number of subproject needing specific ESIAs. 134 Number of EIAs conducted. Number of subprojects with coasted Environment Management Plans (EMPs) or EIAs. Number of EMPs or ESIAs implemented according to schedule. Number/frequency of safeguard supervision and annual Project reviews undertaken; Number training programs carried out for safeguard capacity strengthening. Number of institutions/organizations trained according to measures identified and specified in the instruments. 13. In addition, biophysical and social changes (both negative and positive) from the baseline--such as changes in the quality of ground and surface water, changes in biodiversity of flora and fauna, land resource management, improvements in agricultural activities--in the natural environment in the Project intervention area should be measured, as part of the Project's global monitoring system. Safeguards Requirements in Project Legal Documents 14. As set forth in the financing agreements, each country and CORAF shall carry out Parts 2 and 3 of the Project pursuant to the provisions of the PMP in a timely manner, ensuring that: (i) mitigation and monitoring measures acceptable to the Association are designed and implemented with due diligence and employing appropriate environmental expertise; and (ii) adequate information on the implementation of the measures contained in the PMP is appropriately included in the Progress Reports to be prepared under the Project. 15. In addition, for each of the three countries and CORAF, each Recipient shall take all measures required so that each Participating Country's entity or CORAF: (i) screen, under Parts 2.1 and 3.1 (b) of the Project, the activities proposed to be financed under the Research Proposals and Grants proposals and establish that such activities avoid resettlement; (ii) ensure that each Beneficiary: (A) carry out an appropriate site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), as the case may be, for each such activities in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF and in form and substance satisfactory to Participating Country's entity or CORAF; and (B) disclose the site- specific ESIA or ESMP as approved by the Participating Country's entity in charge or CORAF; (iii) verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental/social institutions) before approving the Research Proposal or Grant proposal that the activities meet the environmental and social requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that it is consistent with the Association's applicable environmental and social assessment and safeguard policies and complies with the environmental and social review procedures set forth in the Project Implementation Manual or the manual for the existing competitive agricultural research grants scheme, as the case may be; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately implemented. 16. Furthermore, prior to the award of each contract for works under Parts 2.3 or 3.3 (ii) of the Project, each country shall: (i) furnish to the Association a written attestation for the specific site where the works will be undertaken that the works shall not cause or result in any physical Resettlement and/or financial compensation; (ii) submit to the Association for its review and approval the related site-specific Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), as the case may be, in form and substance 135 satisfactory to the Association; (iii) disclose the site-specific EIA or EMP as approved by the Association; and (ii) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, are appropriately included in the works contract concluded for the site and that they are implemented in the carrying out of Parts 2.3 and 3.3(ii) of the Project. 17. Lastly, each Recipient and CORAF shall carry out its respective Parts of the Project pursuant to its obligations under (in the case of Burkina Faso and Nigeria which are a party to the Protocol), and in accordance with environmental safeguards and international good practice and standards consistent with those of, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Arrangements for Safeguards Supervision 18. The supervision of safeguards implementation for the project will be done as part of the overall project implementation, by CORAF in conjunction with each of the participating countries he National Coordination Unit, and relevant experts involved in environmental mitigation. World Bank supervision teams will also include environmental and social safeguards experts on the team. To ensure effective Bank supervision, CORAF in conjunction with each country's implementation entity, will prepare and update detailed reports on the implementation of ESMF, and subsequent ESIAs/EMPs, as applicable, and the PMP, before Bank supervision missions. Appropriate budget for project supervision will be included in the project financial evaluation. Safeguard Policies Triggered Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [x] [] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [] [x] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [x] [] Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [] [x] Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [] [x] Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [] [x] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [] [x] Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [] [x] Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [] [x] Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [] [x] 136 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Planned Actual PCN review 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 Initial PID to PIC 11/04/2009 01/27/2010 Initial ISDS to PIC 11/04/2009 01/27/2010 Appraisal 03/22/2010 03/29/2010 Negotiations 05/11/2010 05/10/2010 Board/RVP approval 09/28/2010 Planned date of effectiveness Planned date of mid-term review Planned closing date Key institutions responsible for preparation of the Project: - CORAF - Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries and PAFASP (Burkina Faso) - Ministry of Agriculture and FIRCA (Côte d'Ivoire) - Federal Ministry of Agriculture and ARCN (Federal Republic of Nigeria) Bank staff and consultants who worked on the Project included: Name Title Unit Abdoulaye Toure Task Team Leader AFTAR Abimbola A. Adubi Sr. Agricultural Specialist AFTAR Agadiou Dama Sr. Agricultural Specialist AFTAR Amadou Alassane Sr. Agricultural Specialist AFTAR Ayi Adamah Klouvi Agric. Economist AFTAR Daniel M. Sellen Sector Leader AFTAR El Hadj Adama Toure Sr. Agriculture Economist AFTAR Ibrahim B. Nebie Sr. Agric. Extension Specialist AFTAR Jane C. Hopkins Sr. Agriculture Economist AFTAR Kadir Osman Gyasi Agric. Economist AFTAR Kofi Nouve Agric. Economist AFTAR Lucas Kolawole Akapa, Sr. Operations Officer AFTAR Manievel Sene Rural Development Specialist AFTAR Marie-Claudine Fundi, Language Program Assistant AFTAR Sossena Tassew Office Manager AFTAR Soulemane Fofana Operations Officer AFTAR Yao Alexis Haccandy Agric. Economist AFTAR Christian Berger Sr. Agric. Economist AFTAR Amadou Konare Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTEN Cheikh A. T. Sagna Sr. Social Safeguard Specialist AFTCS Edith Mwenda Sr. Counsel LEGAF Claudia Pardiñas Ocaña Sr. Counsel LEGAF Maurice Adoni Procurement Specialist AFTPC Mamata Tiendrebeogo, Procurement Specialist AFTPC Sunday Acheneje Procurement Specialist AFTPC Gerhard Tschannerl Consultant AFTWR Ousmane Kolie Fin. Management Specialist AFTFM 137 Diop Saidou Fin. Management Specialist AFTFM Akinrinmola Akinyele Fin. Management Specialist AFTFM Adenike Oyeyiola Sr. Fin. Management Specialist AFTFM Deo Ndikumana Sr. Operations Officer AFCRI Ursula Schmid M&E Specialist AFTSN Wolfgang Chadab Sr. Finance Officer CTRFC Tohomdet Obadiah Sr. Communication Officer AFREX Catherine Ragasa Consultant IFPRI Desire Coquillat Consultant AFTAR Bank funds expended to date on Project preparation: 1.Bank resources: US$318,636.87 2.FAO: US$ 2,480.00 3.Total: US$321,116.87 Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1.Remaining costs to approval: US$60,000 2.Estimated annual supervision cost: US$300,000 138 Annex 12: Documents in the Project File AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Regional AGRA, (June 2009), Early accomplishments, Foundation for Growth ECOWAS (November 2009) Regional Partnership for the implementation of ECOWAP/CAADAP ECOWAS (November 2009), International Conference on financing Regional Agriculture Policy in West Africa (ECOWAP/CAADP) FAO and the World Bank (2008), Tracking results in Agriculture and Rural Development in less than ideal conditions (a sourcebook for indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation. IFPRI (November 2006). Regional Strategic alternatives for Agricultural Led Growth and Poverty Reduction (Main text and Statistical tables) Côte d'Ivoire Banque Mondiale (Avril 2010) Country Partnership Strategy for Côte d'Ivoire 2010-2013 CNRA/IITA ( 2008) Actes du symposium sur la Banane Plantain, Abidjan Côte d'Ivoire Document de stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté (DSRP Côte d'Ivoire) Document du PRAREP (Financement FIDA) Document pays PPAAO/WAAPP (Décembre 2009) FAO, (Mai 2008) Politique Nationale de Développement du sous secteur des semences de la République de Côte d'Ivoire- Mai 2008 FIDA (Avril 2009) Document de Conception de Projet de Rehabilitation Agricole et de Reduction de la Pauvrete, Côte d'Ivoire. FIRCA (2006). Programme de Développement des filières Côte d'Ivoire Loi n° 2001-635 du 09 Octobre 2001 portant institution des fonds de développement agricole Décret no. 2002-520 du 11 Décembre 2002 portant création et organisation du FIRCA Manuel d'exécution du WAAPP Mali Manuel d'exécution du WAAPP Sénégal Manuel des procédures du FIRCA (FIRCA 2005) MiNAGRI (1993) Plan Directeur de Développement Agricole Côte d'Ivoire 1992-2015 MINAGRI (Fevrier 2009). Revue du Secteur Agricole Côte d'Ivoire MINAGRI (Mars 2010), Document de Formulation WAAPP Côte d'Ivoire 139 Plan Stratégique 2009-2014 et Plan Opérationnel 2009-2011 du FIRCA (FIRCA 2008) Programme de Développement des Filières (Portefeuille des projets FIRCA, 2004) Propositions de projet de I2T sur la conservation en frais de la banane plantain Propositions de projet de l'ANADER pour diffusion de technologies existantes sur la banane plantain Propositions de projet de R&D CNRA sur la banane plantain Burkina INERA (Janvier 2009), Principaux acquis de la recherche agronomique MAHRH (Janvier 2004), Document de Strategie de Developpment Rural Horizon 2015 MAHRH,MECV,MRA Document Guide de la révolution verte MHRH (Mars 2010), Document de Formulation WAAPP Burkina Faso World Bank, (May 2006) Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project, PAD, Burkina Faso World Bank, (November 2009), Agricultural Productivity and Food Security Project, PAD, Burkina Faso Nigeria Commercial Agriculture Development Project (PAD) Nigeria, (March 2010), WAAPP country document for Nigeria Third National FADAMA Development Project ( PAD ) 140 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Difference between expected and actual Original Amount in US$ Millions disbursements Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev'd P106063 2010 3A-West Africa Fisheries - Phase 1 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.99 1.34 0.00 P096407 2010 3A-Abidjan-Lagos Trade & Transp. Facilit 0.00 228.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 216.00 2.00 0.00 P108368 2010 AFR:Central African Backbone - APL1A 0.00 26.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.24 -1.55 0.00 P111556 2010 3A-East Afr Publ Hlth Laborat Net (FY10) 0.00 63.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.56 0.00 0.00 P117593 2010 Uganda- Eastern Africa Agric. Prod. PRJ. 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.27 0.50 0.00 P106369 2009 RCIP - Phase 2 - Rwanda Project 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.26 5.64 0.00 P108583 2009 3A-Air Transport Phase II-B APL (FY09) 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.71 -1.65 1.47 P099833 2009 3A-CEMAC Regional Institutions Support 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.94 -3.87 0.00 P100406 2009 3A-Lake Victoria Phase II APL 1 (FY09) 0.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.49 -10.38 0.00 P112688 2009 Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity 0.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.37 -6.75 0.00 P111432 2009 RCIP - Phase 3 0.00 151.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.57 -6.70 0.00 P100785 2008 3A-APL2 West &Centr Air Transp 0.00 46.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.19 14.92 0.00 P105140 2008 3A-West Africa Biosafety 0.00 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.15 0.00 P093806 2008 3A-Niger Basin Water Resources 0.00 186.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 167.70 69.48 0.00 P084404 2008 3A- MZ-MW Transmission 0.00 93.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.99 23.45 0.00 Interconnection P079749 2008 3A-W Africa Transp. & Transit Facilitat 0.00 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 146.01 2.72 0.00 P094103 2007 3A-Telecommunications APL (FY07) 0.00 164.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 134.75 56.07 0.00 P094084 2007 3A-W.Af Agric Prod Prgm APL WAAPP 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.36 14.23 0.00 (FY07) P097201 2007 3A-Reg&Domestic Pwr Mkt Dev. (FY07) 0.00 296.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 281.34 114.31 0.00 P079736 2007 3A-CEMAC Transp Transit Facil (FY07) 0.00 418.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 347.77 52.18 -17.80 P094917 2006 3A-WAPP APL 1 (CTB Phase 2) Project 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.58 45.52 0.00 P094916 2006 3A-WAPP APL 2 (OMVS Felou HEP) 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.97 42.27 0.00 P093826 2006 3A-SRB M. Water Res. Dvpt. APL (FY06) 0.00 109.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.31 34.56 0.00 P083751 2006 3A-West &Central Afr Air Tran TAL 0.00 33.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.89 20.32 1.48 (FY06) P079734 2006 3A-E Afr Trade & Transp Facil (FY06) 0.00 199.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.82 106.15 0.00 P075994 2005 3A-WAPP Phase 1 APL 1 (FY05) 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.87 -20.05 0.00 P080413 2005 3A-HIV/AIDs Great Lakes Init APL 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 -0.53 -1.84 (FY05) P092473 2005 3A-Afr Emergency Locust Prj (FY05) 0.00 59.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.78 3.78 0.00 P074525 2004 3A-WAEMU Capital Markets Dev FIL 0.00 96.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.19 63.69 9.94 (FY04) P069258 2004 3A-Southern Afr Power Mrkt APL 1 0.00 359.22 0.00 0.00 0.14 312.64 118.60 0.00 (FY04) P063683 2001 3A-Trade Facil SIL (FY01) 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 -5.40 -1.22 Total: 0.00 3,405.29 0.00 0.00 0.14 2,767.32 738.00 - 7.97 141 AFRICA STATEMENT OF IFC's Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1999 AIF 0.00 16.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 1999 AIF (Mgmt) 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2003 AIFH 0.00 18.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 2005 Afren 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 2005 Africa Re 0.00 0.00 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.40 0.00 2002 Africap 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.00 2006 Cape II 0.00 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2005 Celtel 0.00 11.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.83 0.00 0.00 2005 LFI 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 2004 Olam 30.00 5.60 0.00 0.00 30.00 5.60 0.00 0.00 2002 Osprey 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2001 PAIP 0.00 27.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.62 0.00 0.00 2002 SABCO 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 2006 SABCO 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2006 Standard Bank GR 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 Tullow 0.00 14.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.40 0.00 0.00 2006 Veolia Water AMI 44.62 31.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 94.62 150.08 85.40 0.00 30.00 55.93 10.40 0.00 Approvals Pending Commitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 2006 ARECO 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 2006 Brait IV 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 2004 BusPartners 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2003 African Lakes 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2006 CCS 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total pending commitment: 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 142 Annex 14: Country at a Glance AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) Burkina Faso at a glance 12/9/09 Sub- POVERTY and SOCIAL Burkina Saharan Low- Development diamond* Faso Africa income 2008 Population, mid-year (millions) 15.2 818 973 Life expectancy GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 480 1,082 524 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 7.3 885 510 Average annual growth, 2002-08 Population (%) 3.4 2.5 2.1 Labor force (%) 3.4 2.8 2.7 GNI Gross per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available, 2002-08) capita enrollment Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) 46 .. .. Urban population (% of total population) 18 36 29 Life expectancy at birth (years) 53 52 59 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 92 89 78 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 37 27 28 Access to improved water source Access to an improved water source (% of population) 72 58 67 Literacy (% of population age 15+) 29 62 64 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 73 98 98 Burkina Faso Male 79 103 102 Low-income group Female 68 93 95 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1988 1998 2007 2008 Economic ratios* GDP (US$ billions) 2.6 2.8 6.8 7.9 Gross capital formation/GDP 18.8 24.2 .. .. Exports of goods and services/GDP 11.0 12.8 .. .. Trade Gross domestic savings/GDP 2.7 8.9 .. .. Gross national savings/GDP 9.2 14.3 .. .. Current account balance/GDP -7.5 -10.4 -12.0 -11.7 Interest payments/GDP 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 Domestic Capital savings formation Total debt/GDP 32.3 52.0 21.5 21.2 Total debt service/exports 9.7 11.5 5.1 5.3 Present value of debt/GDP .. .. 12.0 11.6 Present value of debt/exports .. .. 99.9 103.6 Indebtedness 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 2008-12 (average annual growth) GDP 4.4 5.4 3.6 4.5 .. Burkina Faso GDP per capita 1.6 2.0 0.1 1.0 .. Low-income group Exports of goods and services 4.3 6.6 .. .. .. STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1988 1998 2007 2008 Growth of capital and GDP (%) (% of GDP) 60 Agriculture 29.6 39.2 .. .. Industry 22.3 19.1 .. .. 40 Manufacturing 15.6 14.8 .. .. 20 Services 48.1 41.7 .. .. 0 Household final consumption expenditure 77.3 68.9 .. .. -20 03 04 05 06 07 08 General gov't final consumption expenditure 20.0 22.3 .. .. GCF GDP Imports of goods and services 27.1 28.1 .. .. 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 Growth of exports and imports (%) (average annual growth) Agriculture 5.7 5.3 .. .. 30 Industry 2.9 7.4 .. .. 20 Manufacturing 3.8 5.8 .. .. 10 Services 2.9 5.7 .. .. 0 Household final consumption expenditure 2.8 4.2 .. .. -10 03 04 05 06 07 08 General gov't final consumption expenditure 3.6 8.6 .. .. Gross capital formation 5.1 4.5 .. .. Exports Imports Imports of goods and services 0.5 3.5 .. .. Note: 2008 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. 143 Burkina Faso P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Inflation (%) D o m e s t ic pric e s 8 (% change) Co nsumer prices 4.2 5.0 0.0 2.0 6 Implicit GDP deflato r 3.4 7.9 3.7 5.1 4 2 G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e 0 (% o f GDP , includes current grants) -2 03 04 05 06 07 08 Current revenue .. 14.2 16.2 16.8 Current budget balance .. 4.7 3.8 4.5 GDP deflator CPI Overall surplus/deficit .. -7.8 -9.1 -8.2 TRADE 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Export and import levels (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal expo rts (fo b) .. 323 625 678 1,200 Co tto n .. 205 354 329 Livesto ck pro ducts .. 46 85 90 900 M anufactures .. .. .. .. 600 To tal impo rts (cif) .. 634 1,036 ,1 9 11 Fo o d .. 1 10 133 140 300 Fuel and energy .. 71 301 326 Capital go o ds .. 194 381 41 7 0 Expo rt price index (2000=100) .. 196 102 103 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Impo rt price index (2000=100) .. 152 92 93 Exports Imports Terms o f trade (2000=1 00) .. 129 101 121 B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Current account balance to GDP (%) (US$ millio ns) Expo rts o f go o ds and services 267 362 738 805 0 Impo rts o f go o ds and services 635 807 1,783 1,922 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 -3 Reso urce balance -368 -445 -1,045 ,1 7 -1 1 -6 Net inco me -13 -3 2 -9 Net current transfers 184 156 228 197 -9 Current acco unt balance -197 -292 -815 -929 -12 Financing items (net) 231 257 1,074 904 -15 Changes in net reserves -34 35 -260 26 M emo : Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns) .. .. .. .. Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ ) 297.8 590.0 479.3 447.8 E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Composition of 2008 debt (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed 845 1,459 1,456 1,681 IB RD 0 0 0 0 IDA 234 710 468 626 F: 22 G: 110 To tal debt service 43 54 42 47 E: 291 IB RD 0 0 0 0 B: 626 IDA 4 11 4 4 Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws Official grants 142 214 654 652 Official credito rs 75 61 189 285 P rivate credito rs -2 0 11 -3 Fo reign direct investment (net inflo ws) 4 4 344 137 C: 54 P o rtfo lio equity (net inflo ws) 0 0 0 0 D: 578 Wo rld B ank pro gram Co mmitments 19 15 145 189 Disbursements 20 58 80 160 A - IBRD E - Bilateral P rincipal repayments 1 6 0 0 B - IDA D - Other multilateral F - Private C - IMF G - Short-term Net flo ws 18 52 80 159 Interest payments 2 5 4 4 Net transfers 16 47 76 155 No te: This table was pro duced fro m the Develo pment Eco no mics LDB database. 12/9/09 144 Côte d'Ivoire at a glance 12/17/09 Sub- Lower- POVERTY and SOCIAL Côte Saharan middle- Development diamond* d'Ivoire Africa income 2008 Population, mid-year (millions) 20.6 818 3,702 Life expectancy GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 980 1,082 2,078 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 20.3 885 7,692 Average annual growth, 2002-08 Population (%) 2.2 2.5 1.2 Labor force (%) 2.0 2.8 1.6 GNI Gross per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available, 2002-08) capita enrollment Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) .. .. .. Urban population (% of total population) 47 36 41 Life expectancy at birth (years) 57 52 68 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 81 89 46 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 17 27 26 Access to improved water source Access to an improved water source (% of population) 81 58 86 Literacy (% of population age 15+) .. 62 83 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 74 98 109 Côte d'Ivoire Male 83 103 112 Lower-middle-income group Female 66 93 106 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1988 1998 2007 2008 Economic ratios* GDP (US$ billions) 10.3 12.8 19.8 23.4 Gross capital formation/GDP 12.7 13.3 8.7 10.1 Exports of goods and services/GDP 30.5 39.4 47.8 46.5 Trade Gross domestic savings/GDP 15.2 19.7 14.6 17.9 Gross national savings/GDP 1.5 10.0 8.2 12.7 Current account balance/GDP -11.1 -3.4 -0.7 2.4 Interest payments/GDP 4.8 5.6 0.4 0.9 Domestic Capital savings formation Total debt/GDP 130.1 116.2 70.0 53.6 Total debt service/exports 34.1 26.4 4.5 9.1 Present value of debt/GDP .. .. 57.8 62.9 Present value of debt/exports .. .. 121.3 127.9 Indebtedness 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 2008-12 (average annual growth) GDP 2.5 0.1 1.7 2.2 4.1 Côte d'Ivoire GDP per capita -0.9 -2.1 -0.6 -0.1 1.5 Lower-middle-income group Exports of goods and services 1.4 4.6 -7.5 -8.1 3.1 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1988 1998 2007 2008 Growth of capital and GDP (%) (% of GDP) 30 Agriculture 32.0 24.1 23.9 25.0 20 Industry 22.7 23.0 25.3 26.1 10 Manufacturing 19.5 19.5 17.5 18.0 0 Services 45.3 52.9 50.9 48.9 -10 03 04 05 06 07 08 Household final consumption expenditure 67.6 73.8 76.8 73.6 -20 General gov't final consumption expenditure 17.1 6.5 8.7 8.6 GCF GDP Imports of goods and services 27.9 33.0 41.9 38.8 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 Growth of exports and imports (%) (average annual growth) Agriculture 3.4 1.8 1.8 0.5 20 15 Industry 4.4 -0.9 -0.7 2.7 10 Manufacturing 4.0 -1.9 0.1 2.4 5 Services 1.4 -0.4 2.7 3.0 0 Household final consumption expenditure 5.3 -2.2 14.3 4.8 -5 03 04 05 06 07 08 -10 General gov't final consumption expenditure -1.6 3.2 7.2 0.4 Gross capital formation 7.0 -1.7 -1.0 24.6 Exports Imports Imports of goods and services 6.8 2.9 3.8 -5.4 Note: 2008 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. 145 Côte d'Ivoire P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Inflation (%) D o m e s t ic pric e s 10 (% change) 8 Co nsumer prices 6.9 4.5 1.9 6.3 6 Implicit GDP deflato r -0.4 5.2 2.7 8.1 4 G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e 2 (% o f GDP , includes current grants) 0 Current revenue 25.8 19.2 19.7 20.6 03 04 05 06 07 08 Current budget balance -9.0 4.5 2.2 2.6 GDP deflator CPI Overall surplus/deficit 1 -1 .0 -1.2 -1.5 0.7 TRADE 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Export and import levels (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal expo rts (fo b) 2,784 4,458 8,488 9,865 12,000 Co co a beans 658 1,345 1,629 1,766 Crude o il .. 167 1,042 ,61 1 2 9,000 M anufactures 904 1,347 2,827 3,1 08 6,000 To tal impo rts (cif) 2,081 3,371 6,669 7,656 Fo o d 502 634 1,074 ,1 1 24 3,000 Fuel and energy 288 448 1,929 2,281 Capital go o ds 542 709 1,921 2,354 0 Expo rt price index (2000=100) 69 130 204 257 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Impo rt price index (2000=100) 91 103 220 255 Exports Imports Terms o f trade (2000=1 00) 76 126 92 101 B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Current account balance to GDP (%) (US$ millio ns) Expo rts o f go o ds and services 3,127 5,077 9,479 10,934 8 Impo rts o f go o ds and services 2,860 4,257 8,31 4 9,122 6 Reso urce balance 266 820 ,1 1 65 ,81 1 2 4 Net inco me -952 -768 -884 -976 Net current transfers -453 -483 -416 -268 2 Current acco unt balance ,1 -1 39 -431 -135 569 0 Financing items (net) 1,246 427 591 -535 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 -2 Changes in net reserves -107 3 -455 -34 M emo : Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns) .. .. .. .. Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ ) 297.8 590.0 479.3 447.8 E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Composition of 2008 debt (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed 13,342 14,852 13,865 12,561 IB RD 1,695 942 479 1 17 IDA 7 1,337 1,909 1,797 G: 1,344 A: 117 B: 1,797 To tal debt service 1,075 1,383 429 1,046 C: 188 IB RD 288 209 39 461 IDA 0 9 24 177 F: 2,912 D: 979 Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws Official grants 232 513 239 728 Official credito rs 82 35 -54 -558 P rivate credito rs 44 -260 -167 -177 Fo reign direct investment (net inflo ws) 52 380 427 402 P o rtfo lio equity (net inflo ws) 0 9 2 79 E: 5,224 Wo rld B ank pro gram Co mmitments 0 321 0 0 Disbursements 1 12 190 0 13 A - IBRD E - Bilateral P rincipal repayments 132 140 46 494 B - IDA D - Other multilateral F - Private C - IMF G - Short-term Net flo ws -20 50 -46 -481 Interest payments 156 78 17 144 Net transfers -176 -27 -63 -625 No te: This table was pro duced fro m the Develo pment Eco no mics LDB database. 2/1 1 7/09 146 Nigeria at a glance 12/9/09 Sub- Lower- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan middle- Development diamond* Nigeria Africa income 2008 Population, mid-year (millions) 151.2 818 3,702 Life expectancy GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 1,170 1,082 2,078 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 177.4 885 7,692 Average annual growth, 2002-08 Population (%) 2.4 2.5 1.2 Labor force (%) 2.6 2.8 1.6 GNI Gross per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available, 2002-08) capita enrollment Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) .. .. .. Urban population (% of total population) 46 36 41 Life expectancy at birth (years) 48 52 68 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 96 89 46 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 27 27 26 Access to improved water source Access to an improved water source (% of population) 47 58 86 Literacy (% of population age 15+) 72 62 83 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 93 98 109 Nigeria Male 99 103 112 Lower-middle-income group Female 87 93 106 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1988 1998 2007 2008 Economic ratios* GDP (US$ billions) 22.8 32.1 165.9 207.1 Gross capital formation/GDP .. .. .. .. Exports of goods and services/GDP 23.1 33.5 41.0 41.6 Trade Gross domestic savings/GDP .. .. .. .. Gross national savings/GDP .. .. .. .. Current account balance/GDP -10.9 -9.6 18.8 20.4 Interest payments/GDP 6.6 1.7 0.2 0.1 Domestic Capital savings formation Total debt/GDP 129.6 94.2 5.2 5.4 Total debt service/exports 29.5 11.8 1.7 0.6 Present value of debt/GDP .. .. 4.8 4.8 Present value of debt/exports .. .. 11.7 10.4 Indebtedness 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 2008-12 (average annual growth) GDP 3.3 6.0 6.4 6.0 4.4 Nigeria GDP per capita 0.7 3.5 4.0 3.6 1.6 Lower-middle-income group Exports of goods and services .. .. .. .. .. STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1988 1998 2007 2008 Growth of capital and GDP (%) (% of GDP) 12 Agriculture .. .. 32.7 .. 9 Industry .. .. 40.7 .. Manufacturing .. .. .. .. 6 Services .. .. 26.6 .. 3 0 Household final consumption expenditure .. .. .. .. 03 04 05 06 07 08 General gov't final consumption expenditure .. .. .. .. GCF GDP Imports of goods and services 22.0 38.1 25.9 24.7 1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 (average annual growth) Agriculture .. 7.0 7.4 .. Industry .. 3.8 -2.9 .. Manufacturing .. .. .. .. Services .. 14.4 12.9 .. Household final consumption expenditure .. .. .. .. General gov't final consumption expenditure .. .. .. .. Gross capital formation .. .. .. .. Imports of goods and services .. .. .. .. Note: 2008 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. 147 Nigeria P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Inflation (%) D o m e s t ic pric e s 35 (% change) 30 Co nsumer prices 54.5 10.3 5.5 1 1 .6 25 Implicit GDP deflato r 21.4 -5.6 4.8 1 .0 1 20 15 G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e 10 5 (% o f GDP , includes current grants) 0 Current revenue .. 16.2 28.4 32.8 03 04 05 06 07 08 Current budget balance .. 5.8 8.4 1 1 .6 GDP deflator CPI Overall surplus/deficit .. -9.3 -1.1 3.6 TRADE 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Export and import levels (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal expo rts (fo b) 7,069 0,1 4 1 1 66,605 1 84,1 7 100,000 Fuel 6,456 9,218 58,164 74,304 80,000 Liquified natural gas .. .. 6,844 7,709 M anufactures 28 140 .. .. 60,000 To tal impo rts (cif) 6,393 10,269 30,440 36,885 40,000 Fo o d 505 1,397 .. .. 20,000 Fuel and energy 64 123 .. .. Capital go o ds .. .. .. .. 0 Expo rt price index (2000=100) 58 45 253 344 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Impo rt price index (2000=100) 96 1 12 138 161 Exports Imports Terms o f trade (2000=1 00) 61 40 183 21 4 B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Current account balance to GDP (%) (US$ millio ns) Expo rts o f go o ds and services 7,403 10,972 68,061 86,077 30 Impo rts o f go o ds and services 7,052 1 2,671 43,039 ,1 51 05 25 Reso urce balance 351 -1 ,700 25,022 34,972 20 15 Net inco me -2,904 -2,892 1 -1 ,853 -12,005 10 Net current transfers 63 ,51 1 6 1 6 8,01 19,295 5 Current acco unt balance -2,490 -3,075 31 85 ,1 42,262 0 -5 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Financing items (net) 2,159 2,960 -22,150 -40,594 -10 Changes in net reserves 331 1 15 -9,035 -1,667 M emo : Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns) .. .. 51,333 77,484 Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ ) 6.4 88.0 125.8 1 1 8.5 E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS 19 8 8 19 9 8 2007 2008 Composition of 2008 debt (US$ mill.) (US$ millio ns) To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed 29,621 30,294 8,696 1 1 ,221 IB RD 2,728 2,278 381 211 A: 211 IDA 31 564 1,929 2,243 B: 2,243 To tal debt service 2,210 1,332 ,1 1 87 609 IB RD 429 467 201 205 IDA 1 4 35 37 D: 535 Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws Official grants 36 33 1,321 843 E: 323 Official credito rs 72 -473 150 63 F: 453 G: 7,456 P rivate credito rs 150 -25 -312 -37 Fo reign direct investment (net inflo ws) 379 1,051 6,032 3,636 P o rtfo lio equity (net inflo ws) 0 0 1,447 -4,684 Wo rld B ank pro gram Co mmitments 793 0 685 887 Disbursements 244 221 335 353 A - IBRD E - Bilateral P rincipal repayments 196 314 196 209 B - IDA D - Other multilateral F - Private C - IMF G - Short-term Net flo ws 49 -93 139 144 Interest payments 235 157 41 34 Net transfers -187 -250 99 1 10 No te: This table was pro duced fro m the Develo pment Eco no mics LDB database. 12/9/09 148 Annex 15: Maps AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP - 1B) 149 W E S T A FR I CA WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM PROJECT COUNTRIES MAJOR RAILROADS ECOWAS MEMBER COUNTRIES NATIONAL CAPITALS MAJOR PORTS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES MAJOR ROADS 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° FORMER L I B Y A A L G E R I A S PA N I S H AT L A N T I C SAHARA O C E A N Nouâdhibou 20° 20° M A U R I T A N I A Nouakchott MALI N I G E R CAPE VERDE Praia Dakar C H A D SENEGAL Lake Banjul Niamey Chad THE GAMBIA BURKINA S UD AN Bamako FASO Ouagadougou Bissau GUINEA N'Djamena GUINEA-BISSAU 10° NIGERIA BENIN 10° Conakry Abuja TOGO Freetown SIERRA LEONE CÔTE GHANA D'IVOIRE Yamoussoukro CENTRAL LIBERIA Lagos Monrovia AFRICAN Lo P Abidjan mé or t N Warri REPUBLIC Accra o vo Calabar Sekondi- CAMEROON Port Harcourt Douala Takoradi Bangui 0 250 500 750 KILOMETERS Malabo Yaoundé This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. E Q U AT O R I A L G U I N E A The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown D E M . R E P. IBRD 37712 MARCH 2010 on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or S Ã O T O MÉ A N D P R Í N C I P E Libreville OF São Tomé CONGO 0° acceptance of such boundaries. CONGO 0° Port Gentil GABON 20° 10° 0° 10° 20°