Documentof The WorldBank FOROFFICIALUSEONLY ReportNo: 35574-GN PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA PROPOSED GRANT FROMTHE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND INTHEAMOUNT OFUSD7 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA FOR A COMMUNITY-BASED LANDMANAGEMENT PROJECT June 2,2006 Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (AFTS4) Country Department 10 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 Bankauthorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate EffectiveJanuary 30,2006) Currency Unit = GuineanFrancs (GNF) 4,293 GNF US$l US$1.45 = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AGIR Project to Support Integrated ResourceManagement of the Niger andGambia River Basins (Appui CE la GestionInte'grke des Ressources du Niger et de la Gambie) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDD Community DrivenDevelopment CFAA Country Financial Accountability Assessment CNC National Coordination Unit (CelluleNationale de Coordination) CRD RuralDevelopment Commune (Communaute' Rurale de De'veloppement) DNH NationalDepartment for Water ResourceManagement (Direction Nationale de 1'Hydraulique) GIS Geographic InformationSystem IRAG Agricultural ResearchInstitute of Guinea (Institut de Recherches Agronomiques de Guine'e) LIF Local Investment Fund MAE MinistryofAgriculture andLivestock (MinistBre de 1'Agricultureet de 1'Elevage) MATD MinistryofInteriorandDecentralization (MinistBrede 1'Administration du Territoire et de la Dkcentralisation) M&E Monitoring andEvaluation ME MinistryofEnvironment M P MinistryofPlanning(MinistBredu Plan) NAPA NationalAdaptation Plan for Action NEAP NationalEnvironmental Action Plan NEPAD NewPartnership for Africa's Development NRM NaturalResourceManagement OGM Observatoire de la Guide Maritime ONRG National Observatory for Guinea (ObsewatoireNational de la Re'publique de Guine'e) OP Producer Organization (Organisation de Producteurs) PACV Village Communities Support Program (Programme d 'Appui aux Communaute's Villageoises, PACV) PACV2 Village Communities Support Program SecondPhase PDL Local Development Plan (Plan de Dkveloppement Local) PEGRN Enlarged Natural Resource Management Program (Programme Elargi de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles) PGCMB CoastalMarine and Biodiversity Management Project (Projet de Gestion C6tiBre et Marine et de la Biodiversite? PGCT Community-Based Land Management Project (Projet de Gestion Communautaire des Terres) P N N Second PhaseNational Rural InfrastructureProgram (Deuxiime Phase du Programme National des Infrastructures Rurales) PRA ParticipatoryRural Appraisal PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper sc Steering Committee S L M Sustainable LandManagement UNCCD UnitedNations Conventionto Combat Desertification UNFCCC UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change WMC Watershed Management Committee Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Country Director: Mats Karlsson Sector Manager: MaryA. Barton-Dock Task Team Leader: DirkNicolaas Prevoo GUINEA Community-BasedLandManagementProject CONTENTS Page A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1 1. Country and sector issues.,.................................................................................................. 1 2 . Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 2 B.3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes .................................................... 4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 5 1. Lendinginstrument............................................................................................................. 5 2 . Project Intervention Zones.................................................................................................. 5 3. Description of Baseline Project .......................................................................................... 5 4. Project development objective andkey indicators.............................................................. 8 5. Project components............................................................................................................. 8 6. Lessons learnedand reflected inthe project design.......................................................... 11 13 C.7. Alternatives considered andreasons for rejection............................................................ IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 14 1. Partnership arrangements.................................................................................................. 14 2. Institutional and implementation arrangements., .............................................................. 15 3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomesh-esults................................................................ 15 4. Sustainability andReplicability ........................................................................................ 16 5. Critical risks andpossible controversial aspects............................................................... 16 19 D APPW'SALSUMMARY .6. Grant conditions and covenants ........................................................................................ ................................................................................................. 20 1. Economic andfinancial analyses...................................................................................... 20 2. Technical........................................................................................................................... 21 3. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 22 4. Social................................................................................................................................. 22 5. Environment...................................................................................................................... 23 6. Safeguard policies............................................................................................................. 23 7. PolicyExceptions andReadiness...................................................................................... 24 Annex 1:Countryand Sector Background .............................................................................. 25 Annex 2: Major RelatedProjectsFinancedby the Bank andlor other Agencies Annex 3: ResultsFrameworkandMonitoring ........................................................................ .................30 36 Annex 4: DetailedProjectDescription ............................................................................................................... ...................................................................................... 41 Annex 5: ProjectCosts 47 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements ................................................................................. 48 Annex 7: FinancialManagementandDisbursementArrangements 51 Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements ...................................................................................... ..................................... 61 Annex 9: EconomicandFinancialAnalysis 65 Annex 10: SafeguardPolicyIssues ............................................................................................ ............................................................................. 67 Annex 11:ProjectPreparationandSupervision 70 Annex 12: Documentsinthe ProjectFile ................................................................................. ..................................................................... 72 Annex 13: Statementof LoansandCredits 73 Annex 14: Countryat a Glance ................................................................................................. .............................................................................. 74 Annex 15: IncrementalCost Analysis 76 Annex 16: STAPRosterReview ................................................................................................ ....................................................................................... 82 Annex 17: MonitoringandEvaluation ..................................................................................... 92 Annex 18: Site SpecificLandDegradationIssues 96 Annex 19: Map N o IBRD34774 . ............................................................................................. .................................................................... 101 GUINEA COMMUNITY-BASED LANDMANAGEMENT PROJECT PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT AFRICA AFTS4 Date: June 1,2006 Team Leader: DirkNicolaas Prevoo Country Director: Mats Karlsson Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and Sector Manager: Mary A. Barton-Dock forestry sector (85%); Sub-national Project ID: PO81297 government administration (10%); General Focal Area: Biodiversity information and communications sector (5%) LendingInstrument: Specific InvestmentLoan Themes: Landadministration andmanagement (P); Environmental policies andinstitutions (S); Participation and civic engagement (S) Environmental screening category: Partial Assessment ProjectFinancingData [ ] Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 0.00 Proposedterms: ASSOCIATED IDA FUND INTERNATIONAL FUNDFOR 2.65 1.25 3.90 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Total: 19.20 7.00 26.20 Borrower: MinistryofFinance Conakry Guinea ResponsibleAgency: PACV-CNC Conakry Guinea Tel: (224) 46 40 23 Fax: (224) 46 40 31 Email: pacv@afribone.net.gn FY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annual 0.20 1.00 1.50 2.50 1.80 Cumulative 0.20 1.20 2.70 5.20 7.00 Project implementation period: Start October 2,2006 End: December 31,2010 Expected effectiveness date: October 2,2006 Expected closing date: June 30, 2011 A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. Country andsector issues Guinea has a rich endowment o f natural resources (renewable and non-renewable) and its economy i s almost entirely dependent on these. The rural poor are particularly dependent on renewable natural resources and therefore the sustainable management o f those resources. Mineral mining and agriculture represent the most important economic activities, providing employment to about 80 percent o f total population. Agriculture i s the dominant activity o f the rural population (65 percent o f employment), while 30 percent o f the rural population is practicing livestock holding. Past growth was drivento a large extent by the agricultural sector. Increased agricultural production was, however, not through productivity increases but through increased surface under cultivation and decreased fallow periods in certain areas where population growth had led to increased land pressures (primarily along the main transportation axis to Senegal, Mali and CBte d'lvoire. While the root causes o f Guinea's poor socio-economic performance inrural areas are numerous, land degradation plays a major role. According to the PRSP, the constraints impeding the rural sector's development include: 0 the severe decline inproductionpotential o f land; 0 insufficient rural infrastructure (dirt roads, irrigation infrastructure, etc.); and 0 deficiencies in the framework governing private sector development (access to land and secure land tenure, access to credit, public support services, etc.). The PRSP concludes that the outlook for the rural sector will be largely contingent upon activities implemented to overcome these constraints andplaces the focus on the rural sector as a source o f growth. The Community-Based LandManagement Project (GEFProject) will focus on the first constraint, while a number o f other initiatives such as the multi-donor supported Second Phase National Rural Infrastructure Project (Programme National des Infrastructures Rurales, PNIR2) and Village Communities Support Program (Programme d'Appui aux Communaut&s Villageoises, PACV), and the USAlD supported private sector development initiatives, are focusing on resolving the other two constraints. The GEF Project will establish close working relationships with the PNIR2 and inparticular the PACV. Beyond having significant negative impacts on livelihoods inGuinea, declining landproductivity i s also threatening the natural environment, which has much wider impacts, given Guinea's status as a key watershed for many o f the major West Africa rivers (including the Niger, the Senegal and the Gambia rivers). Many neighboring countries depend on these waters for various purposes (e.g., water supply, food, transport, energy and tourism). Long-term sound management o f the waters i s indispensable in fighting the water scarcity and stress in West Africa, which i s expected to occur over the next decades. Several multi-donor regional programs are ongoing, although most activities in Guinea are limited in scope (See also Annex 2). Finally, many areas of Guinea have high levels o f biodiversity and are critical habitats for threatened species. The I U C N red list o f threatened species identifies, amongst others, a total o f 14 mammals, 10 birds, 1 and 21 plants,' which i s confirmed by the 1997 National Monograph on Biodiversity. UNEP states that out of 88 endemic plant species, 36 are threatened. As a result, interventions that protect or improve ecosystem health (in the case o f this project through the use o f sustainable land management) and reduce human encroachment on habitats also represent a critical contribution to the preservationo fbiodiversity. Inthe caseofGuinea, landdegradationis exacerbatedbyweak institutional capacity andlackof knowledge at both the national and local levels regarding sound environmental management in general and inparticular on how certain human activities, such as artisanal mining, deforestation and inadequately adapted agricultural practices, impact on fragile ecosystems. Little awareness exists of the longer-term multiple functions o f ecosystems and the important role land degradation control and prevention activities can have in these. In particular, there is a lack o f decentralized and site specific strategies o f sustainable land use linking (i)improved land management practices, which can generate immediate benefits, such as decreased production costs and increased farm income; and (ii)medium and long-term goals o f environmental management, including reversing trend in land degradation and loss o f (ago) biodiversity, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, improving carbon sequestration, and improving hydrological cycle at sub-watershed level andbeyond. 2. Rationale for Bank involvement The Bank has considerable experience to offer in institution and capacity building and its environmental safeguards are recognized as setting international standards. Inaddition, the Bank has recognized participatory community-based approaches as key to the successful implementation o frural development activities. The Bank adds value through providing technical assistance for designing and implementing sustainable land management projects that draw on worldwide experience gained through management o f its important GEF portfolio. The Project is consistent with the strategy proposed under the Bank ledmulti-donor initiative for SLM(TenAfrica), as it is cross-sectoral by its very design, seeks to harmonize and learn from past and ongoing activities in Guinea and elsewhere, and will scale-up successful interventions through the mechanism o f the ongoing Village Communities Support Program (PACV). The Bank can also bring incremental grant resources through its relationship with the GEF and partnerships with other stakeholders to assist Guinea intackling land productivity issues. b) Rationale for GEF involvement The Government ratified the three conventions aiming at reducing landdegradations, i.e., the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in June 23, 1997, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in May 7, 1993, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in M a y 22, 1991. The Project will contribute to the implementation o f these conventions, as all three conventions specifically recognize the link between land degradation and desertification, climate change and its negative impact on sites with biological importance at 'IUCNwebsite. 2 the national and global levels. Specifically, the Project will contribute to these conventions though the protection o f watersheds and by its emphasis on sustainable land management seek to control, mitigate, and prevent land degradation resulting from deforestation and other human interventions. It will do so through the provision o f capacity building, tools and the provision o f matching grants for critical investments for which no other sources o f funding exist. The link with these three Conventions andthe Project is summarized inthe Table below. The Project (Community-Based Land Management Project; Projet de Gestion Communautaire des Terres, PGCT) emphasizes the development o f replicable participatory mechanisms for buildingthe capacity of local stakeholders to recognize landdegradation causes and effects and apply sustainable land management practices in their activities (pilot sites will thus cover multiple ecological zones), as well as an institutional mechanism to exchange implementation experiences amongst different actors (development agencies, project staff, staff from government agencies) to determine best practice approaches and to widely disseminate information. The GEF project seeks to ensure sustainability through the implementation o f activities through existing national institutions and the mainstreaming o f its results through the second phase o f the PACV. This approach is fully consistent with the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), which emphasizes the need for mainstreamingthe results o f such interventions. The Project will focus on improving the environmental conditions in project sites through land degradation control and prevention activities. As such, it i s consistent with GEF objectives for Operational Program 15. Inparticular, through working with the PACV, the project i s seeking to mainstream land degradation considerations into community development planning and decision-making. Furthermore, by demonstrating the multiple benefits o f improved land and water management, the Project is expected to create awareness and mainstream sustainable land management and will do so through supporting the application o f innovative on-the-ground technologies. GEF strategic priorities under its Operational Program 15 (OP 15) for capacity buildingand the on-the-ground application o f innovative approaches are fully supported by the project. It i s fully recognized that without adequate capacity buildingo f local populations andproviding them with the means to take responsibility for controlling and preventing land degradation, it i s not possible to have a sustainable impact. Capacity building and the provision o f a basket of innovative approaches to control, combat and prevent land degradation are therefore important instruments o f the Project. Inthe absence of a new dynamic such as that proposed under the Project, the threats described above and detailed in Annex 1 will eventually cause irreversible land degradation, which will undermine the structure o f critical ecological systems and directly affect the income earning potential o f rural households living in and around these areas, and indirectly in surrounding countries, through reduced and uncertain water flows, as the watershed will be negatively impacted, and reduced land productivity. By focusing on land degradation prevention and control, the Project will provide the tools for sustainable land practices at both the local and national levels within Guinea. This would result in the maintenance and restoration o f the stability o fthese critically sensitive ecological systems. 3 3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes a) Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (Annex 1) Document number: 25925 GN Date o f latest CAS discussion: June 10, 2003 This Project supports the objectives o f the Government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) by improving the productivity and sustainable use o f the natural resource base in Guinea's coastal zone. The last CAS (Report No. 25925 GUI, 2003) identifies this project as a means to improve the management o f Guinea's environmental resources. The Project is consistent with the CAS and PRSP objectives o f supporting opportunities for employment and income-generating activities for the poor. Inparticular, it will contribute to an increase in the productivity o f rural assets (labor and land) through the conservation, regeneration, and sustainable use o f natural resources, and thus also to increased rural revenues and increased food security. In addition, it will strengthen the institutional capacity o f local governments andproducer organizations to identifydesign and implement such activities. The Project also supports the Millennium Development Goals o f reduced poverty and hunger (#1)and environmental sustainability (#7). Furthermore, the Project supports several o f the New Partnership for Africa 's Development (NEiPAD) objectives. NEPAD explicitly calls for greater attention by multilateral development institutions to the agricultural sector and rural development. It specifically targets the issue o f land degradation and identifies it as a priority for intervention noting that `initial interventions are envisaged to rehabilitate degraded land and to address the factors that lead to such degradation'. The GEF Project i s consistent with the strategy proposed under the Bank led multi-donor initiative for S L M (TerrAfrica), as it is cross-sectoral by its very design, seeks to harmonize and learn from past and ongoing activities inGuinea and elsewhere, and will scale-up successful interventions through the mechanism o f the ongoing Village Communities Support Program (Programme d'Appui aux Communautis Villageoises, PACV). The Project supports the Afiica Action Plan. Concerning Pillar I,it supports the integration o f database systems into national structure. All impact studies will be done through a public institute attached to the Minister o f Planning and built-up with support o f the French Government and the French GEF. All data collected through this Project will likewise be stored in an internet accessible portal to ensure sustainability of information. Concerning Pillar 111, it supports the drivers of growth by increasing agriculturalproductivity through the introduction o f sustainable landmanagement practices andbuildsthe capacity o f women and the poor though its socially inclusive capacity buildingactivities and support to income generation through matching grants and demonstration activities. 4 B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 1. Lendinginstrument GEF full-sized project (US$7.0 million) to beimplementedover five years. 2. ProjectInterventionZones The Project will interveneinselected sites within four watersheds. As part o fproject preparation, sub-watersheds o f the Kogon, Fatala, Gambia and Senegal River watersheds were selected as pilot zones. One criterion was that the selected sites would need to have already benefited from capacity building support under the PACV. A preliminary root causes and threats analysis for these sites i s presented in Annex 18. A table listing the Rural Development Communes (Communaute' Rurale de Dbveloppement, CRD) in the project pilot zones i s presented below. A map is included inAnnex 19. Table 1:PilotCRDs *CRD Prefecture NaturalRegion Tanhe Boke Maritime Malapouya Bok6 Maritime Mombbya Dalaba Middle Daralab6 Lab6 Middle I Noussv 1 Lab6 1 Middle I Donghol Sigon Mali Middle Fougou Mali Middle Por6daka Mamou Middle I Bouliwel IMamou I Middle I Tolo Mamou Middle Santou T6limklC Maritime Gougoudjb TClirnClC Maritime I Sarbkalv I T6lim616 I Maritime I 3. Descriptionof BaselineProject The Project will be associated with the first and second phase o f the PACV and implemented from 2006-2011. Start-up of the GEF Project will coincide with the last year o f the ongoing first phase of the PACV, while full implementation (four years) would coincide with the second phase (2007-2011). The Project i s intended to be a catalyst for sustainable land management (SLM).Itsresults will be fully integrated, and scaled up nationally, as part ofthe thirdphase of the PACV (2011-2014). 5 The proposed Project would complement the PACV in the pilot CRDs. The aim would be to achieve a synergistic effect, which i s demonstrated as follows: PACV support to develop and implement local development plans are targeted on social infrastructure2 at community level without taking land use planning into account, while GEF funds would be focused on incremental support to move towards an integrated planning approach for local development plans and piloting o f new or adapted technological approaches, identified through participatory methods with local communities, to achieve SLM. The PACV i s presently co-financed by IDA, FAD3,the African Development Fund (ADF), the Agence Franqaise de Dkveloppement (AFD) and the Government o f Guinea. This program seeks to reduce rural poverty through capacity-building at the level o fthe CRD. The PACV has three phases and was to be implemented over a period o f 12 years, in three phases o f four years each. The first phase became effective in 1999 and i s expected to close on June 30, 2007. The closing date for the first phase was extended twice because o f implementation start-up delays and postponement o f the local elections, which were a trigger for second phase financing. An additional financing grant was approved by the Board on January 24, 2006, to enable the PACV to complete first phase objectives and extend its geographic coverage from 100 to 146 CRDs. The second phase, which is currently under preparation, is expected to be launched inmid-2007. All 303 CRDs are to be included inthe PACV by the end o f its second phase. The first phase o f the PACV has three specific objectives: (i) establish an effective and efficient mechanism for transferring public funds to local communities for the financing o f prioritized rural community infrastructure; (ii) improve the regulatory, institutional, and fiscal environment and develop local capacity for decentralized rural development; and (iii) rehabilitate and promote regular maintenance o f infrastructure andrural roads. The PACV has tremendously improved the access o f communities to basic social services, including health, education, and potable water, with the construction o f 263 elementary schools, 155 health centers and dispensaries, and 167 water holes. In addition, the PACV has supported the establishment of 46 communal forests. The rehabilitation o f rural roads and construction o f 35 bridges has positively impacted access to markets and thereby provided a production incentive for local economies. Progress towards the PACV's overall program objective o f strengthening local governance and promoting the rural population's social and economic empowerment is satisfactory. The first phase o f the PACV has had a strong impact on local governance, with local communities feeling increasingly empowered to hold officials accountable for the efficient implementation o f development activities. Local tax collection has also increased dramatically in response to the need to raise contributions for local development activities funded by external financiers and the close involvement o f beneficiaries in the decision-making process. Socio-economic investments are likely to be added as part of the second phase. IFADco-financing hasbeenfully utilized and anew loanis under preparationto support the secondphase ofthe PACV. 6 One unplanned - and positive - impact o f the PACV is that it has become an efficient implementation vehicle for other development projects, including HIV/AIDS community mitigation activities, and health and education projects. The PACV has shown that communities can implement investment activities at the local level more efficiently than public services. The Guinea Education for All Project recently agreed to carry out construction o f over 100 elementary schools through the PACV to resolve implementation issues. In addition, all development projects operating in rural Guinea have agreed to use the local development planning process pioneeredbythe PACV as the sole vehicle for implementing local development activities. The PACV presently includes three components: (i) a local investment fund to finance village infrastructure; (ii) support for local development; and (iii) program management, monitoring and evaluation. Local Investment Fund (LIF) i s the mechanism for transferring funds to local communities to finance priority community infrastructure micro-projects. The LIF comprises two funding windows: a Village Investment Fund(Fonds d'Investissement Villageois,FIV) and an Innovation Fund (Fonds dYppui d I'Innovation, FAI). The FIV will help finance a predetermined menu o f basic social infrastructure, such as education, health, drinking water and sanitation facilities, and village access roads. Total first phase fundingfor these activities i s about US$20.0 million4. Support for Local Development component supports the rationalization and operationalization o f the regulatory and institutional environment for local development. The component includes support to five sets of activities: (i)streamlining the legal and regulatory framework for decentralization; (ii)effective fiscal and financial decentralization; (iii)CRDs' capacity to develop and manage local development programs (Plan de De'veloppement Local, PDL); (iv) strengthen the capacity o f the Ministry o f the Interior and Decentralization (MinistBre de 1'Administration du Territoire et de la De'centralisation, MATD) agencies and services, which are responsible for decentralization; and (v) sensitizing and training elected local officials and CRD administrative and technical staff in the areas o f local development government, planning and financial management. Total first phase funding for these activities is about US$11.0 million. Program Management, Monitoring and Evaluation component covers: (i)project coordination, oversight, and financial management, which includes establishing and operating the National and Regional Coordinating Units, and (ii) establishing and operating the overall monitoring and evaluation system. Total first phase fbnding for these activities component i s about U S 6 . 7 million. The second phase o f the PACV will buildon the strengths o f the first phase and will add a pilot land security component as well as expand the basket o f eligible activities to include support for socio-economic micro-projects. Inaddition, the second phase seeks to attain national coverage. At the present time, the Bank and IFAD are likelyto provide about US$40 million for the second phase. Discussions with Government and other donors are ongoing. Includingsupport fromthe AdditionalFinancingapprovedby the BoardonJanuary 24, 2006. 7 4. Project development objective and key indicators (a) Development Objective The development objective of the Project i s to reduce land degradation through the integration o f SLM practices into the overall development planning process of communities and local governments in selected pilot sub-watersheds. The GEF funded project thereby broadens the scope o f the PACV. (b) Global objective The global objective o f the Project is to pilot sustainable and replicable approaches to the prevention and mitigation of the causes andnegative impacts o f land degradation on the structure and functional integrity of ecosystems. By adopting an integrated cross-sectoral approach facilitated by linking up with the PACV, and by using sub-watersheds as a planning basis, it will contribute to the protection o f selected critical watersheds. The objective will be achieved through the implementation o f activities compatible with OP 15 (SLM)and corresponds to GEF strategic priorities for capacity building and the on-the-ground application o f innovative approaches andtechnologies. (c) Key indicators Project indicators will be consistent with the expected outcomes based on the objectives o f Operational Program 15. These indicators are detailed inAnnex 3 and i n c l ~ d e : ~ 0 surface under sustainable land management compared to baseline assessment (25,000ha at endo f Project); 0 reduction in sedimentation rate as a measure o f riparian health (to measure both water quality and erosion - 10percent reductionby end o f Project); and 0 stabilization o f native biological status (selected fi-om 4-5 key site-specific species to be identified through the baseline surveys) As part o f the first year work program, detailed analyses will be carried out on all sites. Based on the results o f these studies the key indicators will be developed and goals set for the mid-term and end o f project reviews. The indicators will be reflected in the Project Monitoring and Evaluation Manual. The baseline studies are planned for the first six months o f Project implementation. 5. Project components Description Summav The Project's strategy i s based on PACV's participatory approach involving greater awareness and assumption o f responsibility on the part o f beneficiaries. It aims to put local actors who are Basedonthe baselinesurveys whichwillbe carried out immediatelyfollowing Grant Effectiveness. 8 reliant upon natural resources at the center o f the process o f generating ideas, decisions and interventions for the management o f these natural resources. Inorder to effectively address land degradation, local beneficiaries must be provided with adequate resources, appropriate information, and a supporting institutional framework. Furthermore, the project will approach landdegradationwithin the framework o f watershed management planning. The specific design principles (as described below) are consistent with the approach envisaged by Operational Program 15. The proposed Project aims to integrate the ecological, social and economic dimensions o f land degradation to ensure full participation and cooperation at all levels. Specifically, the GEF will support (i) building o f communities to promote new land management techniques, (ii) capacity implementation o f micro-projects having a positive impact on productive land and associated ecosystems, (iii) capacity buildingo f decentralized agents o f the relevant technical ministries as appropriate, and (iv) development o f methodologies for environmental information management and support for the exchange o f information to encourage a holistic SLM approach throughout the country. Specific Components I.LocalInvestmentFund. GEF complement KLS3.4 million): Insupport o f the annual investment plans derived from the PDL, the Project will supplement the targeted local investment funds under the PACV by providing earmarked matching grants for micro-projects having a positive and incremental effect on the productive services o f land and water: (i) matching grants for micro-projects that are relatively complex or have broad indirect benefits and are executed by the CRDs; and (ii) matching grants for micro-projects emphasizing S L M that are relatively small and technically simple, which would be implemented by the beneficiaries themselves. Incentives for critical S L M oriented activities will be built in by varying the counterpart contribution for selected micro-projects. The Project will supplement the PACV LIFmatching grant through the allocation o f an envelope o f US$20,000 to US$50,000 per year and per CRD for undertaking the S L M focused micro- projects identified in their adapted PDL and approved through the micro-project approval mechanisms o f the PACV. Beneficiary contributions rates will be 10-20 percent in-kind. The contribution for these types o f micro-projects has been set to encourage investments in activities aimed at maintaining and/or improving land quality (SLM), and reducing pressures on sensitive ecosystems. As activities can only be contracted by legally recognized entities, all activities would be organized through the CRD using the existing Supervision Committees (Conzitis de Suivi, CS). Examples o f eligible micro-projects are: (a) Sustainable land and management focused investments, including in relation to: (i) soil fertility management; localized soil erosion control; localized river bank protection; degraded land restoration; support to conservation agriculture or tillage; introduction o f locally adapted agricultural technologies for purposes of reduction o f risk to fanners from precipitation changes; development o f improved pastures for purposes of reduction o f need for brush fires and 9 ensuring sufficient-quality animal fodder; and support to forestry and agro-forestry investments for purposes o f income diversification, land protection and wood-supply increase (firewood, construction). (b) Operational research and development activities, upon request by local communities, relating to on-farm or on-site testing and validation o f new technologies and activities for purposes o f landproductivity improvement. (c) Provision o f support to demonstration activities for purposes o f reduction o f land degradation pressures, 11.CapacityBuildingfor LocalDevelopment. GEF complement (US2.5 million): The SLMfocus o fthe Project adds an additional dimension to the capacity building activities o f the PACV. GEF incremental funding will focus on strengthening the capacity o f local governments and rural communities inthe selected pilot sites for spatial planning o f development activities, and for the planning, implementing and coordinating o f development actions that reflect S L M priorities. Existing Local Development Plans (Plan de De'veloppement Local, PDL) would be adapted with the assistance o f the Project using a new set o f training tools that will assist communities in identifying constraints and identify solutions. Inaddition, the capacities o f local communities to monitor and evaluate the micro-projects will be strengthened and indicators selected following a participatory process. PACV as already made a start with this. The GEF OP15 allows for the funding o f a wide range o f land management activities as long as they are incremental to a defined baseline and will bring incremental benefits to the broader environment. Activities identified through participatory techniques with local stakeholders would be ranked on the basis o f likely incremental benefits in the PDL to ensure maximum benefits from limitedresources. 111.ProjectManagement,CoordinationandMonitoringandEvaluation. 111.1. ProjectManagementand Coordination. GEF Complement (US$U.5 million): Implementation o fthe PGCT will be completely integrated into the structure o f the PACV. The Project will provide funding to the Ministry o f Planning (MP), MATD and agencies o f technical ministries implicated in project execution, such as the MinistryofAgriculture andLivestock (MinistBrede 1'Agricultureet de 1'Elevage, MAE) andthe MinistryofEnvironment (MinistBre de I'Environnement,ME),to support the incremental cost of Project implementation and management. In addition, the Project will fund the costs o f participation in annual meetings to exchange implementation experiences and relevant baseline and impact data with other S L M focused projects and stakeholders. Project implementation would be adjusted on the basis of the recommendations o f these meetings. 10 111.2. MonitoringandEvaluation GEF Complement KJS$0.6million): The Project has specific requirements that will go beyond the requirements of the baseline Project. The internal M&E system of the baseline Project has been adapted to the requirements of the GEF, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the landuse andplanning monitoringcomponents ofthe M&Esystem ofthe PACV. The impact evaluation system has been developed and is modeled on the Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project (Projet de Gestion C6tiBre et Marine et de la Biodiversite', PGCMB). Close collaboration will be sought with national institutions such as the Agricultural Research Institute of Guinea and the University of Conakry. Remote sensing techniques would be usedto measure vegetation coverage and the extent o f land and water degradatiodrestoration, as well as sediment loading into rivers. A link would be sought with AGRHYMET (inNiamey) to measure the evolution of vegetation indexes or with another service provider, depending on the costs charged by AGRHYMET, and with a Guinean institution to develop a methodology o f monitoring and reducing brush fire. The baseline and impact studies will be carried out by institutions independent from the implementation structure of the PACV. Links for this will be sought through the to be created National Observatory o f Guinea (Obsewatoire National de la Re'publique de Guine'e, ONRG) and the National Statistic Directorate to ensure local capacity buildingand integration o fcollecteddata into national systems. To assist with M&E, a GIS baseline database would be established for each CRD and pilot watershed. The approach used would be the same as for the PGCMB to ensure that information can be aggregated and compared amongst GEF supported projects. More importantly, after technical validation, it would be the used as the basis for the national database of the PACV. 6. Lessonslearnedandreflectedinthe projectdesign Based on a broad body of experience, including Guinea and other countries with World Bank (including the first phase o f the PACV) and non-World Bank funded rural development and natural resource orientedprojects, the following lessons were usedinthe design o f the project: Integrated obiectives and S L M All interrelated ecosystems should be taken into account by modeling the impact of planned S L M interventions on the landscape as a whole; hence, a sub-watershed approach has been adopted. The need to integrate SLM concerns into development. Inbuildingon the baseline Project, and by paying particular attention to land degradation control and prevention action plans and to communities livingwithin sensitive watersheds, the Project builds on the need to integrate SLM concerns into development not only at the community level but also at the sub-watershed and watershed levels. Measure for results. The Project supports an independent impact monitoring and evaluation mechanism drawing on national and international expertise and supported by the OGM. Project impact would bemeasured through comparisonto time series data where these exist, 11 Institutional sustainability and accountability Use existing institutions. Similar SLM oriented projects in Guinea have not been sustainable because their set-up was too much project oriented and did not sufficiently empower existing national institutions. Along with the baseline Project, PGCT builds on national institutions as a key for sustainability. In particular it builds on the local decentralized structures from the National Directorate for Decentralization, the different agencies from MAE, and the Guinean Agricultural Research Institute (RAG), etc. The support to the decentralization process, implemented under the first phase o f the baseline project, provides a solid basis for institutional sustainability o f the Project. In addition, the Project supports the building o f an internet accessible national database through the ONRG that would serve as a repository for all information collectedby national and donor supported initiatives. Devolve authority to appropriate levels. Along with the baseline Project, PGCT builds on the lesson that all efforts at devolving authority to the local level will fail unless local institutions are sufficiently representative o f the local population. The participatory planning process, which leads to the adapted local development plans, and the local democratic governance building process that go into the establishment and maintenance o f the sub-watershed management committees, are expected to provide increased accountability. Community-Driven Development Recognize community needs. The experience with community-based multi-sectoral or natural resources management projects in West-Africa over the last few decades indicates that the interests o f communities tend to progress from addressing immediate needs such as food, health care and income generating activities towards longer-term interests such as natural resources management, to ensure livelihoods are sustained over time. Among the latter, those pertaining to cropping areas are generally givenpriority over those involving the management o f communally used areas, such as surface water resources, rangelands, forests and nature reserves. Focus activities. S L M activities tend to be fragmented and random, without taking into account either the multiple functions of the local resources as part o f larger production systems or the interest o f the various stakeholders involved. As a result, the achievements tend to be short-lived while leadingto social inequity and instability. Stakeholder involvement. Lessons from past experiences clearly indicate that natural resources are most efficiently managed when communities are entirely involved in the decision-making and control processes. This supports the need for the participatory Community Driven Development (CDD) approach and for a substantial investment in capacity building to enable communities, and inparticular vulnerable groups, to participate inbothprocesses. The need for beneficiaries' participation in the identification, planning, implementation and co- financing o f micro-projects, and the need to adjust the level and the nature o f co-financing, are well known and taken into account inthe design o fboth the baseline Project andPGCT. 12 Maintenance o f micro-projects. Experience under the PACV and other CDD style operations have clearly demonstrated the difficulty in setting up viable maintenance and cost recovery arrangements, which jeopardizes the longer-term viability o f investments. Timely follow-up and training with beneficiaries and targeted training programs are therefore needed to ensure agreed cost recovery andmaintenance arrangementsare being adhered to. Training and follow-up. It i s important to train beneficiaries (either as individuals or organized inprofessionalorganizations) over the course ofseveral cropping seasons, inthe use ofproposed new techniques and follow the application in real life conditions. They should also receive feedback on the results o f any sociological, technical and economic monitoring that has taken place. This has beenintegratedinto the M&E system. Capacity constraints. The CDD approach transfers a number of activities to beneficiaries assisted by service providers. Capacity constraints at all levels (community, public, private, NGO) will be evaluated duringimplementation. Socio-Economic Factors Technology fit. A main lesson in agricultural technology development and transfer is that individuals will not adopt a technology unless it fits their cultural, intellectual and socioeconomic capacities, andprovides them with substantially greater benefits and lower risks. It is also known that hightime discount rates o f medium to long-term benefits from activities associatedwith land degradation control and prevention tend to lower the adoptionrate o f relatedtechnologies, unless compensation and rewards are used to provide incentives. The LIF and capacity building components o f the Project take these factors into consideration. 7. Alternativesconsideredandreasons for rejection Two main alternatives were considered andrejected: 0 A freestanding GEF project aimed at supporting the introduction o f improved SLM practices inspecific geographic areas. Inthe absence o f a link with a broader based local development operation, limited incremental resources would not allow for an adequate scaling up o f change-inducing capacity-building and investment support to other areas. Project activities could therefore not be mainstreamed into the local development planningprocess andwould thus notbe able to achieve sustainable impact. 0 Supplement the PACV LIF for certain types o f micro-projects focused on land degradation control and prevention, without making changes in the capacity building approach at the community and CRD levels. This would have the advantage o f reduced overhead costs as well as faster project start-up, as less capacity building investments would be needed. This approach had as main drawbacks that it would have been difficult to: (i) mitigate externalities from conflicting activities inneighboring CRDs and focus on land degradation based on a holistic approach, or (ii) optimize available resources, as the interaction o f upstream and downstream activities would not have been taken into account in the decision making process, as will be when using a watershed based 13 approach. It would also have likely biased micro-projects under the LIF away from those withhigher risks. Under this approach, itwould havebeenunlikelythat substantial global benefits would be obtained from improved services derived from the watershed and improved health o fthe ecosystem. The Project,as designed i s most likely to be sustainable through its integration with the PACV and its mainstreaming inthe final phase o f this program and thus achieve global benefits using limitedresources. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnershiparrangements The AFD-French Cooperation is likely to continue to provide parallel financing to the PACV and will provide financial and technical assistance to the capacity building elements o f the PGCT, where geographic intervention overlaps. IFAD i s likely to support a continuation o f its pari-passu financing arrangements under the second phase o f the PACV. At this point it i s unclear whether ADF would continue its support; however, site selection has taken this uncertainty into account. The French Global Environment Fund and French Cooperation supported Obsewatoire de la Guinke Maritime (OGM) will provide capacity building support on impact evaluation, as it i s also doing for the PGCMB. It will continue to do so, once foreign funding is stopped and the OGMis transformed into ONRG. Partnership arrangements will also be sought with the IDA supported ongoing Second National Rural Infrastructure Project (PNIR2) through the same mechanisms that are already employed by the PACV (coordination at the regional level on the basis o f needs identified inthe PDLs). Of greatest concern to the Project i s the need to ensure that rural infrastructure desired by local populations, and indeed needed for local development, minimizes and where possible reduces land degradation. Similarly, linkages would be established with the HIV/AIDS project, which also has a community support fund managed by the PACV. The project would thus work in a network o f projects that support a large number o f different types o f micro-projects aimed at supporting sustainable local development. At the regional level, the Project would seek partnership arrangements with the ongoing multi- donor supported Project for Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin and the ongoing multi-donor supported Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management Project. The Niger River Basin Project focuses primarily on institutional capacity building and information exchange to achieve best practice approaches. It also includes tests for different categories o f micro-projects but none o f these are planned in the Guinea part o f the Niger watershed. The Project would seek to establish ties with the coordinating mechanism o f the Niger River Basin to ensure that it can benefit from experience elsewhere and contribute and validate its own experiences. The Senegal River Basin Project has a similar focus as the Niger River Basin Project. The Project would seek to collaborate with the Senegal River Basin Project to exchange best practice experiences and collaborate on site selection to avoid that there will be unexpected externalities 14 or duplication o f efforts. This risk o f duplication i s low as the Senegal River Basin Project has only limited funds available for on-the-ground activities (20 community-based micro grant activities planned in four countries); the supported activities are different from those o f the Project. Collaboration with similar projects at the national level has been actively pursued to avoid duplication o f activities and actively learn from the lessons with past experiences. Collaboration on GIS and M&E issues has been established with the USAID supported Enlarged Natural Resource Management Project and the EU supported Project to Support the Integrated Resource Management of the Niger and Gambia River Basins. The project preparation team also pursued close collaboration with several UNDP/GEF supported activities such as the Conservation of Biodiversity through Integrated Participatory Management in the Nimba Mountains and the National Adaptation Planfor Action. 2. Institutionalandimplementationarrangements The Project will be implemented through the same structures that are responsible for the coordination, management and implementation o f the PACV. The philosophy o f the PACV i s to use existing Government institutions to the extent possible for technical support andcoordination o f Project activities. Overall management and coordination o f the Project will be ensured by the Implementation Unit (CelluleNationale de Coordination, CNC) under the Ministry o f Planning. The CNC, which i s adequately staffed for the implementation o f the PACV and has shown its strength during the implementation of the first phase o f the PACV, will be appropriately strengthened by the Project with the addition o f (i) an accountant; (ii)procurement assistant; a (iii)GISspecialist/cartographer; and(iv)afocalpointtoassisttheNationalCoordinator. a Project implementation will be on the basis o f detailed work programs. For each component, a detailed work program has been prepared for the first 18months o f implementation. Preparation o f subsequent annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans will follow the same calendar as for the PACV, to ensure appropriate integration. Review and approval o f the work program will be the responsibility o f PACV's Steering Committee (SC), which meets twice each year6. At the first meeting, the results o f the previous year's work program and the proposed work program and budget for the following year are discussed, while the second meeting i s used to review progress towards attaining work program objectives. Implementation progress of work programs will be reviewed bi-monthly by the Technical Implementation Committee (Comitk technique d'exe'cution, CTE) o f the CNC, which would be enlarged to include the PGCT focal point. 3. Monitoringand evaluationof outcomeshesults Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes will be managed within the framework o f PACV. The existing M&Eprocedures and capacity of the PACV will be upgradedwith support from the The present SC does not include the Ministryo f Environment. The SC will be expanded to include such representationbefore Grant Effectiveness. 15 PGCMB and the OGM, and include a GIS based system for planning, monitoring and evaluating project implementation and impact. Part o f the M&E system will be managed by local communities and they will receive training in collecting the data and its interpretation. The PGCT will add a number o f indicators to the existing ones presently collected by the PACV2. These indicators are detailed inAnnex 3. Three studies would be carried out to measure project impact: (i) a baseline study o f the selected sites, which will be carried out immediately following Grant Effectiveness; (ii) animpact study at mid-term; and(iii) end-of project impact study. It an should be noted, however, that the mid-term study may not be able to draw statistically significant conclusions because o f the long lead time needed before certain activities result in measurable changes, especially where this concerns erosion control activities or soil and plant investments expected to lead to increased carbon sequestration. Details for the M&E system are provided inAnnex 17. 4. Sustainability and Replicability The combined project (PACV and GEF Project) will be coordinated, managed and implemented through existing structures. Combined with capacity building support o f these agencies, the mainstreaming o f the proposed alternative Project approach through the explicit linkage o f land degradation as a threat to agricultural productivity i s expected to significantly contribute to the longer-term sustainability o f the Project. The integrationo f capacitybuildingandbuy-inof local communities at the onset will provide for their fbll empowerment by the end o f the Project, and should result in their realization o f the importance o f SLM. These communities would thus have the capacity to ensure a follow-up o f the activities undertaken duringthe Project. The Project will start in pilot sites to ensure that experience can be gained with this expanded approach to local development. The design o f the Project is specifically kept flexible to allow for continual adjustment based on experience gained during implementation and through exchanges with similar SLM oriented projects inGuinea andthe sub-region, as the goal is to test replicable approaches to S L M in Guinea. Only after a satisfactory evaluation o f project activities at mid- term and confirmed towards the end of project implementation -with all stakeholders- will the approach be mainstreamed into the thirdphase o fthe PACV. 5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects Risks RiskMitigationMeasures RiskRating with Mitigation Measures To project development objectives/global environmental objectives 16 Tinancing gap o fbaseline The GEF h d e d activities will not be )roject iffectedifthe PACV2 i s to be scaled lownbecause o f insufficient funds, as site ;electionis flexible andthe project could fnecessary collaboratewith other donor imdedDroiects Impact due to demographic The envelope i s flexible and can provide 3 Jressures invulnerable zones nore resources to those areas under severe stress, while providing less funding o areas under low or moderate stress. 4llocations are therefore made on the )asis o f a participatory diagnostic. rechnological adaptation to [ndrought prone areas, emphasis willbe h-ought )laced on risk diversification and adapted :ethnologies inthe context o f SLM. I'o comDonent results Component 1 Limited adoption due to high The beneficiary contribution i s adapted to M financial risk or long lag time the riskhenefit profile o f the proposed before benefits become apparent activities. Hence the GEF will contribute the risk portion as an incentive for farmers to adopt promising activities that control or reverse landdegradation. Insufficient capacity to provide The first phase o f PACV implementation M support services for micro- has shown that this poses only a modest project formulation and risk. Inaddition, civil servants that would implementation to beneficiaries work directly with beneficiaries would be pre-selected and trained to ensure quality services. Moreover, the Project will focus on CRDs that were already included inthe first phase o fthe PACV. Difficulty for beneficiaries to The beneficiary contribution excludes a mobilize their contribution cashpart to ensure that beneficiaries are M able to mobilize their contribution. In addition, only direct beneficiarieswill be asked for contributions. Competitionbetween PACV Most communities are expected to have and PGCT substantial needs, inaddition, the PACV M allowance o fUS$50,000 per CRD i s small relative to socio-economic infrastructureneeds 17 Insufficient resource Continued follow-up with communities mobilization for maintenance on maintenance issues. This has been a S serious issue underthe PACV and similar projects elsewhere and increased emphasis will be placed on this under PACV2. Component 2 Insufficient attentionto SLM Appropriate training and follow-up with M issues inlocal development local communities to ensure that land plans degradation issues are appropriately addressed. Targeted incentives to local communities to address these issues (inpart through lower counterpart contributions than under regular PACV micro-projects) Provision o f targeted capacity building andawareness raising activities. Component 3 Weak institutional capacity in Participating agencies have over five N Ministries for financial and years o f experience inimplementingthe procurement management first phase o fPACV and are well acquainted with Bank requirements. Overall risk rating S N= negligible; M=moderate; S =substantial The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) revealed that the systems for planning, budgeting, monitoring and controlling public resources in Guinea are improving but remain at a level that they do not provide sufficient reasonable assurance that funds are used for the purpose intended. The risk o f waste, diversion and misuse o f funds was assessedas partially high. The overall Project risk from a financial management perspective is therefore considered partially high. Nevertheless, various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed. The financial management arrangements of the project are designed to ensure that funds are used for the purpose intended, and timely information i s produced for project management and government oversight, and facilitate the compliance with IDA fiduciary requirements. As the CFAA recommendations on financial accountability reforms have not fully been implemented yet, the Country Risk i s assessedas partially high. 18 The table below identifies the key risks that Project management may face in achieving its objectives andprovides a basis for determining how management should address these risks. Risk Risk RiskMitigation Measure Rating Inherent Financial Management Risks: M The existingteam has adequate Funds may not be usedinan experience and audits have not efficient and economical way and shown and quality related issues. exclusively for purposes intended Strong internal control procedures due to corruption andpoor have been set up andwill be governance. maintainedthroughout Project implementation. Confusion may arise between GEF M A dedicated accountant will be and IDA transactions. handling the Project financial management under supervision o f the senior accountant o f the PACV. Financial Management Control Risks: M Training ofnew accountant i s Teethingproblems mayjeopardize expected to be providedby a FM timeliness and accuracy o f financial Consultant before effectiveness. report and thus slow down the disbursement .Process. H=High S = Substantial M=Moderate N=Lowhegligible Various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed and thus the Project risk from a financial management perspective could be moderate provided the risk mitigating measures are properly implemented. 6. Grant conditions and covenants The following conditions would apply to effectiveness: (i) Beneficiary has adopted the GEF Project Implementation Manual, in form and substance satisfactory to the World Bank; (ii) Beneficiary has established, inform and substance satisfactory to the World Bank, the steering committee set up under the Recipient's Village Communities Support Program (Phase I), as the Steering Committee for purposes o f Project implementation. (iii) Beneficiary has selected an auditor with qualifications, experience and terms of reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposes o f Project implementation; and 19 (iv) Beneficiary has selected on a competitive basis, a GEF Focal Point, with qualifications, experience and terms o f reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposes of Project implementation. The following covenants would apply to GEF Project implementation: Focal Point to be maintained at all times; Steering Committee to bemaintained at all times; PACV's CNC shall bemaintained with adequate staffing PACV's Regional CoordinationUnits shall be maintained at all times; Annual reporting arrangements would follow the same calendar as those detailed in the PACV financing agreement; Work programs and associated budgets and procurement plans will be submitted to IDA on same schedule as detailed inthe PACV financing agreement; Micro-project must adhere at all times to safeguard documents; Mid-Term Review to be carried out no later than December 2008; and All agreed studies for the Mid-Term Review (technical audit and financial audit o fmicro- projects, economic and financial impact analysis o f micro-projects) will be made available to the Bank no later than October 31,2008. D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 1. Economic andfinancial analyses Like the PACV, the Project does not lend itself to classic quantitative cost-benefit analysis because on one hand, the expected capacity building benefits have undetermined life expectancies and cannot be quantified inmonetary terms, while on the other hand, the demand- driven nature o f investments also leaves the specific investments that will be made under the Project undetermined. Not enough is known about investment attitudes o f the rural communities to attempt a simulation exercise. However, it i s possible to demonstrate in qualitative terms that economic and social returns are likely from the capacity building and the LIF components. A more detailed analysis is presented inAnnex 9. Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Capacity Building: The Capacity Building component i s most likely to generate substantial economic benefits. Decentralization, land use planning and human capacity building will improve the economic decision-making process. The promotion of improved land management/degradation control decision-making i s also likely to increase the public benefits o f the Project. Instudies for other countries, returns to humancapacity building are significant, especially when there i s an adequate enabling environment. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Local Investments: The LIF will generate numerous investments for which no classic ex-ante cost-benefit analysis can be carried out. However, many eligible types o f investments are predeterminedand are known to generate significant economic benefits. Previous experience suggests that rural communities usually select projects with very highrates ofreturnsandlow risks, andmanage them muchmore efficiently than Government or project agencies. Most micro-projects are expected to generate an economic rate o f return exceeding 15%. A study on the benefits and cost-effectiveness o f the various types o f micro- 20 projects eligible under the Project will be carried out in the first six months o f project implementation. For those investments where benefits are uncertain an analysis o f the financial soundness o f proposed activities will be undertakento maximize chances o f sustainability. Inaddition, the Project is expected to generate external benefits from activities that will mostly accrue to other parts of the (sub-) watershed, such as improved water quality and water flow through erosion control activities. Fiscal Impact: The long-term objective i s for CRDs to be able to raise fiscal resources from increased local economic activity and consumption, thereby contributing to the funding o f their local development plans while reducing the need for fiscal transfers from the central Government. Inthe short-to-medium term, fiscal transfers from the central Government will be needed to cover what the beneficiary contribution does not. It must be recognized that the long- term capacity-building needs o f rural communities will require considerable support, and that such support will need to come largely from the outside, including support to cover the operating costs o f the Project and intermediaries. Such operating costs are part o f the investment required to build institutional, andultimately, fiscal sustainability. 2. Technical A key technical issue is to ensure that complex and interrelated sub-watershed issues are well understoodby rural communities and local governments (CRDs), so as to trigger the right mix o f investments. This issue is tackled as follows: An adequate institutional support framework will be put in place to ensure that local development plans reflect land degradation control andpreventionpriorities; Technical quality o fmicro-project activities will bereviewed periodically by national and internationals experts; Information, education and communications campaign targeted on pilot sites before trainindcapacity buildingactivities start; Evaluation o f impact o f trainindcapacity building activities with appropriate follow-up training where needed; Wide dissemination of technical issues for the benefit o f rural communities and policy makers through annual fora; Technical manuals will be produced for small scale micro-projects, with specification of technical standards and norms, andwill be made widely available; Independent technical audits to verify proper execution o f micro-projects will be conducted periodically and on request; Communities may use a portion o f the resources allocated to them by the Project to recruit technical expertise to assist inthe design, supervision andreception o fworks. The STAP Review focuses on the scientific and technical soundness o f the project and is presented in Annex 16. The STAP Reviewer's comments were requested at an earlier stage and 21 have been incorporated into the project design, They greatly contributed to strengthening the overall technical quality o fproject design. 3. Fiduciary Financial management issues (seeAnnex 7): Financial management procedures have been adapted from the manual prepared for the first phase o f the PACV, primarily to reflect the different funding source. The CNC would be responsible for financial management and an accountant would be added to enable it to assume the additional workload resulting from the management o f the GEF Grant. Financial management capacity o f the CNC has been evaluated annually during first phase PACV implementation. The overall conclusion o f the assessment i s that the current financial management arrangements are satisfactory to meet IDAFMrequirements though the contract for external auditors under the PACV shouldbe extended to the new operation. By effectiveness, the project will not be ready for report-based disbursements. Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e., direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. After Project implementation start-up, the Recipient may request conversion to report-based disbursements, subject to a review by IDA to determine ifthe Project i s eligible. Procurement Arrangements (see Annex 8): Procurement would be handled by the CNC using an adapted version o f PACV's present procurement manual to reflect recent changes in procurement guidelines. The same ceilings would apply to the GEF Project as apply to the PACV. Procurement capacity o f the CNC has been evaluated annually duringthe course o f first phase PACV implementation. Demand-driven micro-projects under the LIFwill be procured inaccordance with the provisions o f paragraph 3.15 o f the procurement guidelines. These guidelines provide much flexibility for working with communities in as much as procedures are acceptable to IDA. Procurement procedures for demand-driven micro-projects have been detailed in the existing Project Implementation Manual. These have proven to ensure transparent and efficient management o f local procurement. Unlike the PACV, where all micro-projects are executed through the CRD, under the GEF Project, micro-projects can also be executed by formally recognized groups or associations. 4. Social Local community involvement is critical for the success o f the project and the establishment and management of a coastal conservation zone. Activities during preparation included local diagnostic and stakeholder mapping, surveys, broad-based information workshops and communication sessions. Project start-up activities would include training, field visits, 22 village/community meetings and workshops at the project target sites. Project baseline and follow-up studies will be based on social indicators developed with participation o f local communities. The positive experience from the Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project will be used to ensure extensive involvement o f local communities in the process at all stages of Project implementation. Interms ofsocialsafeguards, OP/BP 4.12 related to Involuntary Resettlement was triggeredand a Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) has been prepared. An RPF as a mitigation measure was chosen because some o f the S L M measures proposed by the project may lead to restrictions in accessing part of the natural resources by the local communities. The RPF spells out the participatory tools and procedures that will be used to associate the local communities in the process o f decision making and inthe management o f access to the concerned natural resources. The RPF was cleared by the Bank and disclosed in-country on February 17, 2006. It was submittedto the InfoShop on the same date. The RPFis the same as that prepared for the second phase ofthe baseline project. The Project will not acquire landor any other land related assets through the micro-projects that it intends to finance. Hence no Resettlement Policy Framework was deemed necessary to prepare. 5. Environment The base-Project has a category `B' rating. In fulfillment o f the World Bank Environmental Assessment guidelines OP/BP/GP 4.01, and in conformity to the recently adopted national environmental impact assessment legislation, the Recipient has prepared an Environmental and Social Assessment as part o f preparation. An Environmental and Social Management Plan - to provide guidelines for screening projects and identifying mitigation measures when necessary - was also prepared and made available in-country and at the Bank InfoShop on February 17, 2006. 6. Safeguard policies Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [XI [I NaturalHabitats (OP/BP 4.04) [XI [I Pest Management (OP 4.09) [I [XI Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revisedas OP 4.1 1) [I [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [XI [I Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [I [XI Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [I [XI Safety o f Dams (OPA3P 4.37) [I [XI Projects inDisputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [I [X 1 Projects on InternationalWaterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [I [XI * By supporting theproposedproject, the Bank does not intend toprejudice thefinal determination of theparties` claimson the disputed areas 23 7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness No policy exceptions are sought. The different detailed manuals (administrative and financial management, monitoring and evaluation, procedures for capacity building and the local investment hnd) were submitted by the Beneficiary prior to appraisal and the Project's procurement plan spanning the first 18 months o f implementation have been reviewed at appraisal. An overall implementation manual, which places the various manuals in a framework, will be submitted as a condition of effectiveness. 24 Annex 1:Country andSector Background GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject I.CountryContext Guinea has a rich endowment o f natural resources (renewable and non-renewable) and its economy is almost entirely dependent on these. The rural poor are particularly dependent on renewable natural resources and therefore the sustainable management o f those resources. Mineral mining and agriculture represent the most important economic activities, providing employment to about 80 percent o f total population. Agriculture is the dominant activity o f the rural population (65 percent o f employment), while 30 percent o f the rural population i s practicing livestock holding. The importance o f fishing (5 percent o f rural employment) i s reflected in its contribution to the national diet (40 percent o f animal proteins are provided by fish consumption). Household energy depends for 99 percent on wood fuels, and the healthcare systemdepends for 80 percent on traditional medicine practices, which rely on the availability o f flora and fauna species. While the root causes o f Guinea's poor socio-economic performance inrural areas are numerous, land degradation plays a major role. According to the PRSP, the constraints impeding the rural sector's development include: 0 a severe decline inproductionpotential o f land; 0 insufficient rural infrastructure (dirt roads, irrigation infrastructure, etc.); and 0 deficiencies in the framework governing private sector development (access to land and secure land tenure, access to credit, public support services, etc.). The PRSP concludes that the outlook for the rural sector will be largely contingent upon activities implemented to overcome these constraints andplaces the focus on the rural sector as a source o f growth. Beyond having significant negative impacts on livelihoods in Guinea, Declining land productivity i s also threatening the natural environment, which has much wider impacts, given Guinea's status as a key watershed for many o f the major West Africa rivers (including the Niger, the Senegal and the Gambia rivers). Many neighboring countries depend on these waters for various purposes (e.g., water supply, food, transport, energy and tourism). Long-term sound management o f the waters i s indispensable in fighting the water scarcity and stress in West Africa, which i s expected to occur over the next decades. Finally, many areas of Guinea have highlevels of biodiversity and are critical habitats for threatened species. The IUCNred list of threatened species identifies, amongst others, a total o f 14 mammals, 10 birds, and 21 plants: which i s confirmedby the 1997 National Monograph on Biodiversity. UNEP states that out o f 88 endemic plant species, 36 are threatened. As a result, interventions that protect or improve ecosystem health (in the case o f this project through the use o f sustainable land management) 'IUCNwebsite. 25 and reduce human encroachment on habitats also represent a critical contribution to the preservation o fbiodiversity. 11.Main Sector Issues. a. Declining agricultural production potential Gains in past levels o f food production primarily reflect the expansion o f surface areas under cultivation. Improvements inyields have been negligible between 1991-1995, with the exception o f cassavawhose yield actually fell from 7.0 to 6.1 metric tons per ha. The causes for stagnating and declining agricultural productivity are multi-facetted. In many parts o f Guinea, agricultural technologies have remained relatively unchanged due to poor technical support provided by agricultural extension and research, and insufficient access to markets, which limits the ability o f farmers to sell surplus production and obtain modern inputs to intensify production. In addition, rural poverty has caused seasonal migration o f agricultural labor to the coastal zone for employment, which limits the availability o f labor required for intensive land cultivation, which has the perverse effect that more land i s needed to feed the same population. The presence o f traditional production systems in many areas o f Guinea is the result o f adaptation to local constraints in the past but they no longer respond to the present-day conditions. Increased demand for land as a result o f population growth and changes in seasonal labor availability has led to an increased emphasis on extensive agricultural technologies where slash and burn i s used to clear land, and decreases in the time period that land is allowed to lay fallow. Inthe Fouta Djallon area, fallow periods for up to 15 years were common, now land use data and on-site observations indicate that there have been drastic reductions in the fallow periods in many areas where demographic pressures are increasing and thus a concomitant decline in soil fertility. Landused for extensive cultivation and pasture now accounts for almost halfo f all arable land, underscoringthat land rotation is becoming increasinglydifficult. Slash and bum contributes to reduced agricultural productivity because o f the loss in organic content o f the soil and increased risk o f soil erosion due to the heavy rains at the start o f the cropping season. InMiddle andLower Guinea, added landpressures are causedbythe extensive livestock system and the practice o f moving herds from Middle Guinea to the relatively more humid coastal areas duringthe dry season. This practice causes widespread damage to productive systems and is the source o f conflicts between farmers andpastoralists. These developments are all, in varying degrees, contributing to land degradation. Even though estimates o f erosion are limited, some studies indicate that it i s an increasingly serious issue. Erosion i s directly related to topography and rainfall. It i s generally accepted to be o f importance in many parts of Guinea given the terrain (hilly with many steep slopes). Moreover, there is visible run-off in rivers during the peaks o f the rainy season. One o f the more recent studies estimated soil erosion at 0.3-0.5 mmper annum on relatively flat terrain. Given the thin layer o f 26 fertile topsoils inmany areas and the topography o f land under cultivation, this means that there is a highthreat o f soil erosion. Miningactivities have a dramatic impact on land (directly erosion) and water (through run-off and pollution from transformation o f bauxite) and many o f the ecologically important estuaries. Given its overall importance to the economy, Government has been slow in adopting and enforcing policies that would place restrictions on mining. Support services. Past donor supported interventions to improve agricultural productivity through improved extension and research have only had limited success. The main reasons were the poor capacity o f frontline workers and the lack o f responsiveness to local needs. Inaddition, there has been a poor linkage between agricultural research and extension to get adapted technologies to farmers, and agricultural research and local needs, which has limited the usefulness of many adapted technologies. Tests with the contractualization o f such services have been somewhat successful under the IDA funded National Agricultural Services Project. Plans to mainstream the results o f these tests have not yet been implemented due to lack o f donor funding, even though such need is recognized as the most promising way to make service delivery responsive to needs. Insufficient rural infrastructure. Although some progress has been made inphysical rehabilitation through donor, NGO and local efforts, the countryls stock o f basic infrastructure, such as roads, public buildings, markets and processing facilities, remains largely in disrepair and wholly inadequate. The situation has been made worse by the spillover effects o f (now ended) wars in neighboring countries and internal rebel activity. All this combines to hinder providing access for farmers to inputs and markets, improving access to health, education, security and other government services, and promoting governance and national integration. Within this context, two areas o f stand out: (i) rural roads; (ii)commercial infrastructure. Rural Roads: Most o f the rural road network i s barely functional and rapidly deteriorating due to lack o f maintenance. Because o f poor access, many rural communities are cut o f f for parts o f the year from essential social services and markets. With respect to roads, the PRSP's goal i s to achieve balanced development o f the road network underpinning the nation's economy and places a high priority on reducing isolation to the poorest areas. This will be implemented through the National Transport Plan and the Rural Transport Policy, currently under consideration. These activities are supported under the second phase of the National Rural Infrastructure Project. Market Infrastructure: Private and export-led agricultural development o f the rural sector has been seriously constrained by inappropriate regulatory frameworks, lack o f investment resources and a shortage o f basic post harvest and marketing infrastructures. Through the efforts o f the Agricultural Export Promotion Project (PCPEA) (1993-2002), the Government has made some steps toward improving the agricultural investment climate, notably through the elimination o f duties on imported agricultural inputs fertilizers and pesticides) and with the creation o f the "one 27 stop shop" export facilitation centers (CAFEX). The PRSP aims to stimulate the rural economy by capitalizing on the emergence o f locally-based professional organizations, and potential marketing partners, to initiate the efficient linkage o f farmers to more profitable distribution channels, and, in time, facilitate their integration in high-value produce export supply chains at the internationalandregional level. Part o fthis strategy includes developing the basic ruralbased infrastructure necessary for more effective processing and marketing o f agricultural, livestock and fishing products. Along with this, the PRSP aims to buildcapacity o f farmers' organizations inthe logistical, quality management, technical and marketing skills to ensure (i) adequate an and continuous supply and (ii) develop a contractual framework that would ensure sustainable operation and maintenance o f these facilities. These activities are supported under the second phase o f the PACV. Access to land and secure landtenure Land ownership in rural areas is governed by traditional arrangements and land use rights are given out on the basis o f social customs and kinship relations. Best land has traditionally been reserved for members o f the dominant group. In the case o f Guinea, the traditional system i s renderedless transparent because o f past Government attempts to interfere inthe traditional land ownership system. Given the increased demand for land and the required investments to make landmore productive, a more formal system o f land ownership is needed. It is evident that land tenure has an effect on land fertility. Where user rights are clear, significant investments are made in building and maintaining soil fertility. Where user rights are temporary or not clearly defined, no long-term investments are made. Application decrees for the forestry code have not yet been adopted leaving the formal status o f community and private forest holdings unclear thereby providing incentives for outsiders to log wood. A test to pilot landsecurity insome areaswillbe parto fthe secondphase o fthe PACV Access to credit The absence o f agricultural credit because o f the high perceived risks and poor access to financing in general are major constraints to agricultural development. No formal rural banking exists making it almost impossible for farmers to gain access to credit and other financial services. Lack o f credit is a leading cause for low use o f modem inputs inproduction, which i s compoundedby poorly organized and inadequate input supplies and makes access to farm inputs almost nonexistent for farmers. 111.Government Strategy The Government's development strategy for the rural sector emphasizes: 0 Improving food production and ensuring food security 0 Raising rural incomes, inparticular through export development 0 Conserving natural resources 28 Itwill operationalizethis by: 0 Placing producers, professional organizations and local governments at the heart o f the development process 0 Enhancing andimprovingthe quality and efficiency o f Government services 0 Institutionalizingcapacity buildingo f all stakeholders (OPs, CRDs, agencies) 0 Facilitating access to landand rational management o f landresources 0 Improving rural infrastructure The Government strategy specifically recognizes the potential negative effect o f development activities, including mining, on the environment and especially on land andwater resources. It is therefore also calling for the development o f bench marks to which all stakeholders will have to adhere, environmental assessmentsof new activities and monitoring o fnew activities. As part o f Guinea's participation in the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, a National Adaptation Plan for Action (NAPA) i s being draftedand is intended to outline the Government's priorities and programs to address land degradation issues inthe country. The NAPA makes the case for the need for interventions to counter the ongoing degradation o fhillsides andwatersheds inecosystems that are critical to maintainthe water and soil nutrient cycles. It is seen as vital to improve farming through environmentally sustainable practices for addressing poverty and food security needs, as well as to lessen the pressure on natural resources and off-site land degradation. The Project would be insupport of the NAPA. 29 Annex 2: Major RelatedProjectsFinancedby the Bankand/or other Agencies GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Sector issue addressed Project Latest Supervision(PSR) status Ratings Implement. Dev.Objective Progress (DO) (W wld Bank/ IDA I Zommunity- Village Communities Support Program S HS Empowerment, poverty (PACV) Phase 1(P050732P098959) alleviation andrural ievelopment Community- Village Communities Support Program Underpreparation Empowerment, poverty Phase 2 (PO65129) alleviation andrural development RenewableEnergy DecentralizedRuralElectrification MSfor S Project (P074288) IDA;MU for GEF RoadRehabilitation NationalRuralInfrastructure Program HU U Phase 2 (PO65 127) Biodiversity conservation GEF Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Board approval i s plannedfor and environmental Management Project (PGCMB) June 22,2006 management incoastal (P070878) zone Land andWater Reversing LandandWater S S Degradation Degradation Trends inthe Niger River Basin (P070256). Regional Program UNDP/WB/GEF LandandWater SenegalRiver BasinWater and Underpreparation Degradation Environmental Management Program (P093826) Regional Program UNDP/WB/GEF ItherAgencies Landmanagement and Conservation ofBiodiversity through biodiversityconservation IntegratedParticipatory Community Management inthe NimbaMountains UNDP / GEF To beimplementedfrom 2005til2013 Climate change and NationalAdaptation Plan ofAction adaptation (NAPA). UNDP/GEF. Launched in 2005 30 Biodiversity conservation Identification o f Capacity-Building Needs for BD Strategy Implementation and Strengthening o fthe C H M (Add on). UNDP/GEF. Supplemental preparationphase. Capacity buildingfor National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Global Environmental Management UNDP/GEF. Launched Natural Resource EnlargedNatural Resource Management Management Project (PEGRN) USAID. On-going. Specific information about selected interventions: 1. Second phase ofthe Village Communities Support Program (PACV) The PACV2, which is under preparation, will buildon and expand on the first phase. Bythe end o f the second phase, the project i s expected to cover the entire country. Inaddition, as the first phase clearly demonstrated, beneficiary populations are now asking for different types o f micro- projects than what i s now included inthe PACV. The project will therefore enlarge the menu o f eligible investments. The rural infrastructure activities under the first phase will inpart be taken over by the second phase o f the PNIR and inpart mergedwith the LIF. Instead, the project will include a pilot landsecurity component. 2. Second Phase o f the National Rural Infrastructure Program (Deuxibme Phase du Programme National d'Infrastructures Rurales, PNIR 2'1 PNIR 2 seeks to rehabilitate 5,600 km o f roads, and develop 4,000 ha o f lowlands and 2,000 ha o f coastal plains. One o f the project's weaknesses has been the absence o f an effective system for rural road maintenance and the inadequacy o f the corresponding budgetary resources, especially to replenish the Roads Fund (Fonds Routier). The implementing agency would be the Direction Nationale du GCnie Rural (DNGR) under the Ministryo f Agriculture and Livestock (MAE). Accompanying measures will be taken to ensure greater security o f land tenure and investments, and to preserve imperiled ecosystems. Inaddition, a participatory road maintenance strategy will be adopted and implemented in the field. Finally, linkages will be developed with activities under the PACV2 and the PGCT, albeit indirectly through the local development plans as an additional source of funding. Also, by collaborating using the same CDD based approach, the Project will as an additional benefit ensure that proposed infrastructure investments will be in accordance with in-depth analysis done o f the pilot watersheds rather than localized impact studies. 3. WB/GEF: Coastal Marine andBiodiversity ManagementProject (PGCMB) The PGCMB i s presently under preparation and is expected to become effective by September 2006. It aims to promote rational management o f Guinea's unique coastal biodiversity for local, national and global conservation and sustainable development ends, with a particular emphasis 31 on assisting communities in and around these priority areas to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoods options. The project has five closely inter-linked components. Three o f these will provide incremental support to the components o f the PACV 2 (the LIF, the Local Capacity-Building and the Project Management). The two additional components are: Component 1:Protection and conservation of coastal RAMSAR sites The aim is to provide the necessary strategic and operational tools and experiences to establish at least one coastal conservation areas (CCA) around the identified RAMSAR sites (e.g., Rio Pongo) through a participatory approach with concerned communities. Pilot intervention sites for the PGCT include selected sub-watersheds upstream o f the PGCMB sites (e.g., Tristao/Alcatraz, Rio Pongo). This will increase impact downstream and provide important lessons for impact assessments o f proposed interventions following an integrated landscape approach. Component 2: Institutional strengthening for integrated coastal zone management The weak capacity o f the institutions at national and regional level to sustainably plan, manage and monitor the area's natural resources and coastal ecosystems i s a barrier to the effective protection o f coastal biodiversity in Guinea. Targeted capacity building will be provided for stakeholders at national and local level to establish an integrated coastal zone management action plan and if needed appropriate legislation and to support the establishment o f a coastal zone stakeholder information mechanism around targeted W S A R sites (e.g., Tristao/Alcatraz, Rio Pongo). Activities o f the PGCT would be coordinated through the same base-Project (PACV 2) andthus provide for complementarities and synergies in specific project sites (i.e., up-stream o f PGCMB sites). A strategic decision was taken to apply the same baseline assessment methodologies for both projects. This will lead to a harmonized impact M&E system linked to the PACV 2's performance M&E system andthus facilitate greatly the comparison and assessment o f impact o f activities supported under bothprojects. 4. Identification o f Capacity-Building Needs for BD Strategy Implementation and Strengthening o f the C H M (Addon) Jointly financed by the GEF/UNDP and the Guinean Government, this add-on i s based on previous GEF/UNDP support given to Guinea for the development o f a National Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan and is managed by the new Ministry o f Environment. It i s expected that this supplemental support will result inan UNDP project proposalto strengthen the capacity of national and local stakeholders, in particular the Ministry o f Environment, to manage the biodiversity resources more sustainably. Together with the proposed NCSA, it will greatly reinforce the capacity o f the Ministry o f Environment to set standards regarding land uses and land and water management techniques including providing for linkages to the NAPA under development. 32 5. Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management Proiect. The four-year Project will bejointly financed by the World Bank, UNDP and GEF, and executed by the Senegal River Basin Authority. The development objective o f the Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management Project i s to provide a participatory strategic environmental framework for the environmentally sustainable development o f the Senegal River Basin and to launch a basin-wide cooperative program for transboundary land-water management. To successfully achieve the development objective, the project proposes to strengthen regional and national institutional capacity to enable these institutions to address priority basin-wide, transboundary water and environment management issues. This will allow the Senegal Basin's four riparian countries - Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal - to jointly build on ongoing initiatives in the Basin; develop a cooperative regional approach to the environmental management o f the Basin; and contribute to effective operation o f the Basin's water resources, providing benefits beyond national boundaries. The project's global objective is to promote broad, basin wide participation in developing and implementing measures that will lead to sustainable, transboundary management o f the Senegal River Basin's land andwater resources. The Project would seek to collaborate with the Senegal River Basin Project to exchange best practice experiences and also in site selection to avoid that there will be unexpected externalities or duplication o f efforts. This risk o f duplication is low, as the Senegal River Basin Project has only limited funds available for on-the-ground activities (20 community-based micro grant activities distributed over four countries) and the supported activities are different from those o f the Project. Moreover, the implementation o f these types o f activities in Guinea would require the setting-up o f a new project specific implementation structure. 6. Reversing Land and Water DegradationTrends inthe Niger River BasinProiect. The Project i s supported through a broad multi-donor initiative, including the World Bank, UNDP and GEF, and is implemented by the Niger Basin Authority. Its global environmental objectives are to reduce and prevent transboundary water related environmental degradation, prevent land degradation, and protect globally significant biodiversity, through sustainable and cooperative integrated management o f the Basin, informed decision-making, enhance existing capacity, and ensure the public's greater involvement in the Basin's decision- making process. The global environmental objectives will be achieved, through broad basin-wide participation and implementation of cooperative decision-making andbest practices, sustainable management o f the Basin's land and water resources, with special attention to the Africa Integrated Land and Water Initiative o f the GEF implementing agencies. The Project would seek to establish ties with the coordinating mechanism o f the Niger Basin Authority to ensure that it can benefit from experience elsewhere and contribute and validate its own experience. The Niger River Basin Project has no planned direct activities in the Guinea part ofthe Nigerwatershed. 33 7. Rural EnergyProiect The key development objective o fthe Bank and GEF supported Learning and InnovationLoanis to support the Government in implementing its strategy for increasing access to electricity in rural and peri-urban areas and in promoting the adoption o f Renewable Energy Technologies (RET). The project's global environment objective is to remove barriers to application, implementation and dissemination o f RET. Removal of barriers will make it attractive for the private sector to start investing in decentralized rural electrification schemes, and operate these on a fully commercial basis. As the project has not yet finalized intervention zones, a dialogue will be maintained to ensure that where overlap is potentially beneficial, the Project would include this inthe selection criteria for the remaining two pilot sites. 8. Conservationo f Biodiversity through IntegratedParticipatorv Community Management inthe NimbaMountains - UNDP This 9-year GEF supported phased program aims to contribute to the protection and sustainable use of the biological diversity o f the Nimba Mountains Biosphere Reserve, including the World Heritage Site. It is based on an integrated ecosystem management through participatory approaches according to the philosophy o f a biosphere reserve inwhich conservation of globally important biodiversity, landscape-level sustainable use o f natural resources and sustainable development are harmonized. The program further supports mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation into local and national level sustainable development planning. The program consists of: 0 supporting protection ofthree core reserve areas inthe Nimba Mountains 0 improving sustainable land planningand use, agricultural intensification and revenues in the buffer zone andtransition area o fthe Reserve, 0 promoting culturally appropriate animal husbandry and sustainable management and use o fwild fauna inthe buffer zone and transition area, 0 improving local health and hygiene conditions, including promoting complementarity between `modern' and traditional medicines, and sustainable use and management of traditional medicinal plants inthe buffer zone and transition area, and 0 strengtheningthe management authority for the Biosphere Reserve. Detailed management plans will be prepared to overcome the barriers to improved park management, improved agricultural practices and revenues, and improved animal husbandry and wildlife management. Near the end o f the program, it will develop exit strategies to rural development support, establish with the mining company an independent structure and sustainable financing mechanism to support integrated conservation and sustainable use o f the Nimba Mountains, and complete any remaining activities or needed institutional and legal reforms. 34 The PGCT will assure close coordination to exchange lessons learned related to the successful development and implementationo fmicro-projects through its annual fora. 9. Enlarged Natural Resource Management Project (Proiet Elargi de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles, PEGRN) This project places emphasis on the strengthening o f natural resource management andplanning capacities of local communities, increased agricultural production, support to small- and micro-. enterprises, and policy reform. It i s funded by USAID and implemented by a consortium o f NGOs. Coordination with the PEGRN would be in the same way as for the AGIR program through annual fora. The PGCT would also take advantage o f the work done by PEGRN on land mapping and experiences with GIS training. During preparation, extensive consultations have been held to ensure that there is no overlap in geographic sites o f the two projects and that lessons learned can be shared andused. 35 Annex 3: ResultsFrameworkandMonitoring GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject ResultsFramework ProjectDevelopment OutcomeIndicators Use of OutcomeInformation Objective/Global EnvironmentObjective 'DO: Reduce landdegradation .5,000haunder sustainable land At mid-term,progress towards these hrough the integration o f SLM nanagement, compared to baseline indicators would be reviewed and iractices into the overall ssessment. changes made inthe strategy where levelopment planning process o f appropriate. :orrununities and local govemments nselectedpilot sub-watersheds.. Evaluation at end o f project o f impact and replicabilityof approach to other parts o f the country and possibly sub-region. ?GEO: Pilot sustainable and Stabilization o fnative biological At mid-term, progress towards these .eplicable approachesto the itatus (selected from key site- indicators would be reviewed and irevention and mitigationo f the ipecific species identified through changes made inthe strategy where :auses and negative impacts o f land he baseline surveys); and appropriate. legradation on the structure and LO percent reduction in Functionalintegrityof ecosystems. iedimentationrates (as a measure o f Evaluation at end o f project o f water quality and erosion) impact and replicability o f approach to other parts o fthe country and possibly sub-region. Low impact could indicate problems with the incentives structure ofthe Local Investment Fund, awareness raising o f stakeholders, capacity building activities aimed at beneficiaries andpublic agencies, andor implementation arrangements o f the Project. IntermediateResults ResultsIndicatorsfor Each Use ofResultsMonitoring One per Component Component ComponentOne: ComponentOne: ComponentOne: Local InvestmentFund(LIF) LocalInvestmentFund(LIF) LocalInvestmentFund(LIF) CRDs use the local investmentfund By end o fproject, 60% ofmicro- Progress would be measured effectively inthe implementation o f projects funded under the LIF are annually and weakness would SLM activities defined intheir land properly executed and maintainedby indicate that: management plans. beneficiaries (OPs, CRDs). beneficiaries may have insufficient capacity to 15 innovative S L M technologies and carry out the activities activities adopted per site including development o f micro-project proposals incentives structure i s inadequate, and 36 0 eligible activities do not respondto community priorities Component Two: Component Two: Jomponent Two: Capacity Building for Local Capacity Building for Local Japacity Building for Local Development Development Development ZRDs and local communities inthe 50 % o f identified stakeholders ?oorprogress could indicate: targeted sub-watersheds have the trained inS L M approaches per lack o f ownershp in knowledge and competency required ZRD. beneficiary CRDs to plan, implement, andmonitor land incentives inplace for degradation control and mitigation By the end o f year 2,30 percent o f participation incapacity activities Fist year beneficiary CRDs have buildingexercises maynot appropriately adapted existing PDLs be appropriate to include S L M priorities. awareness raising and training have not 50% o f annually submitted S L M appropriately informed micro-projects are o f satisfactory stakeholders o f land quality, confirmed through technical degradation issues audits. inadequate follow-up measures after completion By end o fProject at least 60 percent o f the capacity building o f beneficiary CRDs have activities appropriately adapted and formally recognized existing PDLs usingthe design too complex given (sub) watershed as the planning context; simpler approaches basis and including land degradation may be needed concerns Component Three: Component Three: Component Three: Project Management, Project Management, Project Management, Coordination and Monitoring and Coordination and Monitoring and Coordination and Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Project Funds provided ina timely Project funds properly managed Y1-4: poor financial management manner to beneficiaries and delays inproviding funds to Work programs and calendar communities would flag need for Satisfactory functioning information adhered to additional training o f financial staff, system inplace and effectively used additional staff or need for different for project management and for Fundsmade available to management approaches (sub- monitoring and evaluating the communities when scheduled contracting/outsourcing) project M&E hasprovidedreliable Y1-4: ifM&Eevaluation indicates information, effective inguiding quality issues, the methods o f project management, and collection, training o f enumerators, independently evaluated and capacity o f staff doing the compilation and analysis would be reviewed. 37 Ui V U U0 e, 'CI aEl 38 0 4 .% a ..a t .3 g -T U L C $ 4V B .I c 2 g aC E P L zaI 54 L II 3 e, 5 I cII Ye, .I m B 0 0 0 7-I I a g g s 0 \o rn $ 1 g s s g g s 0 d rn 0, 0co 2 g g m m g$1 g W s g rn s rn g$1 3 3 \o a 2 'I I f cq 0 0 0 E U 0 m B u e 3 63 E U Annex 4: DetailedProjectDescription GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject The Project's strategy i s based on a participatory approach involving greater awareness and assumption o f responsibility on the part o f beneficiaries. It aims to put local actors who are reliant upon natural resources at the center o f the process o f generating ideas, decisions and interventions for the management o f these natural resources. Furthermore, the project will approach land degradation within the framework o f sub-watershed management planning, as the two are intimately linked. To accomplish this, the Project will take advantage o f an initiative already takingplace in the country concerned with capacity building for local communities (PACV). In particular, the implementation structure o f the GEF support will be fully integrated into the PACV and based on existing institutions. The Project will also directly support the National Environmental Action Plan, the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Guinea and feed into the National Action Planfor Adaptation (under development). One o f the main limitations o f the PACV i s that the program insufficiently includes natural resource management considerations into the land planningand needs assessment processes. Where it does so, it i s highly localized with little knowledge o f potential interactions elsewhere. It is for this reason that the Project will add a watershed-based approach to land use. Also, the tools made available to communities to assist them inthe landuse process that would culminate in a land use/degradation control program, will be more sophisticated than used by the PACV in the past. A multi-stage process would be applied. Firstly, an initial analysis would be carried out by technical staff o f existing information and updated land occupancy and land use data using satellite imagery o f the selected sub- watershed. Secondly, consultations would be held with communities to assess their priorities and constraints and how these match with the technical analysis. Subsequently, a series o f meetings would be heldwith the CRD Council and interested community level stakeholders to arrive at consensual solutions that are technically sound, inthe interest o f the communities, andmost importantly fully supported by the communities. The Project will therefore support the integration o f the ecological, social and economic dimensions o f land degradation to ensure full participation and cooperation at all levels into the PACV. Specifically, the GEF will support: (i) capacity buildingo f communities to promote new landmanagement techniques, (ii) the realizationo fmicro-projects having a positive impact on productive land and associated ecosystems, (iii) capacity buildingo f decentralized agents o f the relevant technical ministries as appropriate, and (iv) development o f methodologies for environmental information management to encourage a holistic approach throughout the country. Site Selection A limited number o f sub-watersheds will be targeted based on: (i) importance o f the environmental threats; (ii) their role as part o f regional, national and international 41 ecosystems; (iii) potential to strengthen existing programs; and/or (iv) the opportunity the to fill gaps in the coverage o f ecological sensitive areas in the country by other environmental programs. On the basis of this analysis, the Project will intervene in selected sites within four watersheds. As part o f project preparation sub-watersheds o f the Kogon, Fatala, Gambia andSenegal Riverwatersheds were selected as pilot zones. A preliminary root causes and threats analysis is presented in Annex 18. A table with the CRDs in the project pilot zones is presented below. A map i s presented inAnnex 19. Table: Pilot CRDs CRD I Prefecture I AdministrativeRegion I NaturalRegion 1 Tanbnb Bok6 Bok6 Maritime Malapouya Bok6 Bok6 Maritime Mombkya Dalaba Mamou Middle DaralabC Lab6 LabC Middle Noussy Lab$ Labb Middle Donghol Sigon M a l i Lab6 Middle Fouaou Mali Lab& Middle PorCdaka Mamou Mamou Middle Bouliwel Mamou Mamou Middle Tolo Mamou Mamou Middle I Santou I TClimClC I Kindia I Maritime I Gougoudjb TClimClC Kindia Maritime Sarbkaly TClimClC Kindia Maritime Specific Components I.TheLocalInvestmentFund. GEF complement (US3.4 million): In support o f the annual investment plans derived from the local development plans, the Project will supplement the targeted local investment funds under the PACV with earmarked matching grants for micro-projects focusing on SLM: (i) matching grants for micro-projects that are relatively complex or have broad indirect benefits and are executed by the CRDs; and (ii) matching grants for micro-projects emphasizing S L M that are relatively small and technically simple with direct benefits to the implementers, and implementedby direct beneficiaries. The GEF OP15 allows for the funding o f a wide range o f landmanagement activities so long as they are incremental to a defined baseline and will bring incremental benefits to the broader environment. In this demand-driven investment program involving several thousands o f potential micro-projects the determination o f incrementality and therefore 42 suitability for support by GEF will be made prior to adoption o f the local development plans. Incrementality o f activities would be determinedas follows: 0 Establishment o f a baseline reflecting landdegradation concerns 0 Identification ina participatory mannerof main SLMissues 0 Assessment of effectiveness and constraints to the application o f SLM friendly activities 0 Identification of priority actions in a participatory manner and assess incremental value ofthese actions The retained actions need to be reflected inthe local development plans requiredby both the PACV and the PGCT. The Project will supplement the PACV matching grant mechanism through the allocation o f an envelope o f US$20,000 to US$50,000 per year and per CRD for undertaking the sustainable land management micro-projects identified in their adapted PDL and approved through the micro-project approval mechanisms o f the PACV2. Beneficiary contributions rates will be minimized, on average 10-20 percent in-kindbased on the type of investment. As activities can only be contracted by legally recognized entities, all activities will be channeled through the CRD. Activities implemented by groups o f beneficiaries or individuals will be supervisedby the CS. Eligible investments will include: 0 sustainable land and water management investments including: soil fertility management; localized soil erosion control; localized river banks protection; restoration o f degraded lands; support for conservation agriculture or conservation tillage; introduction of locally adapted agricultural technologies that reduce the risk to farmers from changes in precipitation; development o f improved pastures to reduce the need for brush fires and ensure sufficient quality animal fodder; and support to forestry and agro-forestry investments to diversify incomes and protect land andincrease wood supply (firewood and construction, etc.); 0 operational research and development activities requested by communities for on- farm or on-site testing and validation of new technologies and activities that improvelandproductivity andhave no negative impact on the watershed; and 0 support for demonstrationactivities that will reduce land degradation pressures. These investments are not eligible under the PACV. Emphasis will be placed on alternative technologies that may also attract interest from NGOs and firms specializing inimportingorganic produce from developing countries. The LIF would be supervised through the Regional Coordination Units o f the CNC (Component 2 o f the PACV). 43 11.CapacityBuildingfor LocalDevelopment. GEF complement (US82.5 million): The Project adds an additional dimension to the capacity building activities o f the PACV. GEF incremental funding will focus on strengthen the capacity o f local governments and rural communities in the selected pilot sites for spatial planning o f development activities, and for the planning, implementing and coordinating o f development actions that include SLM priorities. It will support the following activities: provision o f GIS based planning and investment decision support tools such as maps (with natural resources and land quality information, important for local development as well as their role in SLM), M&E tools such as a GIS based database system, and master plans for the sub-watershed. A multi-disciplinary technical and scientific task force will be set up to review with beneficiaries the proposed sub-watershed development plans to ensure they are consistent with ongoing activities elsewhere in the sub-watershed and will have the desired impact; development of training tools, including a technical reference manual to aid local communities inthe revision o fthe PDL and the design o fmicro-projects. 0 dissemination o f technical information and transfer o f knowledge in relation to land degradation control and mitigation technologies and potential profitable activities, through training, testing and demonstrating sustainable land use technologies and activities; 0 support to participatory rural appraisals (PRAs) to adapt existing local development plans to reflect S L M priorities; 0 training for improving the landuse planning skills o f decentralized services, CRD officers and community leaders, and provision o f related adapted data base management tools; 0 support local groups for all matters related to SLM and land degradation preventiodcontrol, including provision of organizational, management and negotiation skills; 0 support to natural resource use conflict resolution mechanisms (design and implementation) that may otherwise contribute to land degradation; Upon completion o f the capacity building activities, and technical analysis and validation, a team experienced in participatory techniques will work with CRD stakeholders to achieve a bottoms-up view o f landdegradation issues affecting the CRDs inthe sub-watershed. Onthe basis ofthe participatory interventions, the stakeholders will express their concerns and proposed mitigation actions at the CRD level, which are subsequently incorporated in the PDL. The resulting adapted PDLs are subsequently aggregated for the pilot site and compared to the technical analysis. The teams working 44 with the stakeholders will be invited to participate in this review. Where the PDL is insufficiently noting land degradation concerns, in relation to the technical analysis, the team will returnto the CRD to verify whether the omission is due to lack o f sensitization or other issues (land security, absentee owners, cultural, etc.) and see to what extent it can improve on this. Under no circumstance will the adapted PDL include concerns and activities for which there i s insufficient support under the localpopulations. The main difference from the PACV i s related to the elaboration and validation o f the PDLs under the Project. As a first step to the elaboration o f adapted PDLs, all existing PDLs for the sub-watershed are translated by a cartographer into a digitized (GIS) development plan for the entire sub-watershed. This consolidated plan i s reviewed by a technicaVscientific team drawn from different technical agencies and institutes to ensure that the plan is technically coherent (no negative externalities), and appropriately addresses concerns related to S L M priorities. Once validated, adapted local development plans are submittedto MATD for inclusion in official regional development planningand to ensure that only one PDL will be used for each o f the CRDs. As o f this point both baseline project and GEF funded Project follow the same procedures, i.e., on the basis o f the adapted PDLs, annual investment plans are prepared and submitted for funding under the different matching grant mechanisms o f the LE(CRD andsub-watershed levelactivities executedbythe relevant CRDs). The coordination o f the drawing up o f local development plans (PDL) within a given (sub) watershed will be the responsibility o f the decentralized technical agencies, which will receive support from technicians drawn from the University o f Conakry and/or research institutions and service providers. The Project will fully fund the cost o f the technical support. The PACV supports, in the context o f the PRSC, the creation o f an institutional environment supportive o f sustainable local development. As the enabling institutional environment desired by the Project coincides with the priorities o f the PACV (capacity buildingo f the deconcentrated services, and piloting o f landtenure security intervention activities), no additional fundingwill be allocated to this activity. 111.ProjectManagement,CoordinationandMonitoringandEvaluation. 111.1.ProjectManagementandCoordination. GEF Complement (US$O.S million): Implementation o f the PGCT will be completely integrated into the structure of the PACV. The Project will provide funding to the MP, MATD and MAE to support the incremental cost o f Project implementation and management. In addition, the Project will fund the costs of participation in annual meetings to exchange implementation experiences and relevant baseline and impact data with other SLMfocusedprojects andstakeholders. Project implementationwouldbe adjusted onthe basis o fthe recommendations o fthese meetings. 45 111.2. Monitoring and Evaluation GEF Complement (US80.6 million): The Project has specific requirements that will go beyond the requirements o f the baseline Project. The internal M&E system o f the baseline Project has been adapted to the requirements o f the GEF, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the land use andplanning monitoring components o f the M&E system o f the PACV. The impact evaluation system has been modeled on the Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project (Projet de Gestion Cdtidre et Marine et de la Biodiversitk, PGCMB). During implementation, close collaboration will be sought with national institutions such as the Agricultural Research Institute o f Guinea and the University o f Conakry. Remote sensing techniques would be used to measure vegetation coverage and the extent o f land and water degradationhestoration. Sediment loading into rivers will be routinely measured in the eight micro watersheds pre-identified during Project preparation with the help o f OGM. In addition, a link would be sought with AGRHYMET (inNiamey) to measure the evolution o f vegetation indexes, provided this would be cost-effective. The baseline and impact studies will be carried out by institutions independent from the implementation structure o f the PACV. To assist with M&E, a GIS baseline database has been established for each pilot watershed in each CRD. The approach used would be the same as for the PGCMB to ensure that information can be aggregated and compared amongst GEF supported projects. More importantly, after technical validation, it would be used as the basis for a nationalized database. 46 Annex 5: ProjectCosts GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject GEF Only Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component and/or Activity U S $ U S $ US$ million million mi11ion Local Investment Fund 3.4 0.0 3.4 Capacity Building 1.9 0.6 2.5 Project Management 0.7 0.4 1.1 TotalProjectCosts' 6.0 1.o 7.0 All Sources ofFunding Project Cost By Component Total Others and SourceofFunds GEF IDA IFAD Local Investment Fund 12.7 3.4 4.9 1.9 2.5 Capacity Building 9.4 2.5 4.5 1.4 1.o Project Management 4.1 1.1 2.3 0.6 0.1 TotalFinancing 26.2 7.0 11.7 3.9 3.6 47 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject The Project will be implementedinits entirety by the baseline Project. The following are the institutional arrangements for the second phase o f the baseline Project amended for the Project. Project oversight and orientation will be the responsibility o f a Steering Committee (SC) composed o f representatives o f the implementing agencies and the key stakeholders. This i s the same SC that oversees the PACV and has therefore already been established. The SC organizes at least two meetings a year with the Government and the donors participating inthe project's financing. The first meeting: (i)reviews the proposed annual work project; (ii) reviews the implementation status and progress toward achievement o f project's objectives; (iii)decides on necessary corrective actions relative to project implementation; and (iv) coordinates the various projects in the area o f decentralized rural development. The second meeting reviews progress in the agreed annual work program. The SC's present composition is as follows: 0 a representative from the Ministry o f Interior and Decentralization, who will be the SC's president; two representatives from the Ministryo fPlanningandthe Ministryo fAgriculture andLivestock, one o fwhom willbethe SC's vice-president; 0 one representative each from the Ministry o f Finance, Education, Public Health, Public Works andFisheries andAquaculture; 0 three representatives from civil society (NGOs andother private institutions); and seven representatives of CRD presidents, one from each o f the seven administrative regions. Prior to effectiveness o f the GEF Grant, one representative from the Ministry o f Environment will be added to the SC. The overall management and coordination o f the GEF Project will be entrusted to the Project Coordinating Unit (CNC) o f the PACV, attached to the Ministry o f Planning. This is a lightweight structure with most o f the day-to-day management o f project activities executed by line ministries. Its main focus i s thus coordination, liaison, supervision, monitoring, and longer term planning and policy support. Inaddition, it will assure overall financial management and accounting. It will also have direct responsibility for overseeing the operation o f the LIF, whose day-to-day management is handledby its four regional offices (Unite'Re'gionalede Coordination,URC). Duringthe first year o f GEF Project implementation, a fifth URC will be established in the Coastal Zone (BokC). While the regional coordinators and the Community Development Agents will monitor LIF activities and ensure the correct use o f LIF funds, they will have no power to reject or change micro-projects proposed by the CRDs, unless they do not conform to the agreed criteria and the approved Local Development Plan. The decision on which priority micro-projects to be submitted for hnding will rest totally with the CRDS. 48 To facilitate the programming, coordination and monitoring o f PACV operations, the CNC has established a Management Committee composed o f managers o f the various components, which convenes monthly to review the progress o f the project, ensure complementarity and an efficient coordination o f the activities o f the different project components, and consolidate programs, budgets, as well as quarterly and annual progress reports. The CNC acts as secretariat o f the Steering Committee and prepares documents commensurate with its functions. The CNC i s in charge o f preparing consolidated biannual activity programs and related annual budget proposals. These are based on the annual programs and budgets preparedby the executing agencies o f the different project components. The consolidated budgets and programs will be submitted to the Steering Committee for approval. Once approved, they will be submitted to the co-financiers o f the project. The PACV CNC, which has shown its strength during the implementation o f the PACV, will be appropriately strengthened to assume the additional workload resulting from the Project (accountant, procurement assistant, focal point in Conakry, a geographer specialized in GIS database management, and support staff). In addition, PACV will receive funding for two vehicles, office equipment, and incremental operating costs. The CRDs will be responsible for implementation o f the micro-projects qualifying for LIF financing along the following principles: (i)identification, selection, operation, oversight and maintenance, by and for the benefit o f village communities; (ii)contractual implementation o f works by local artisans, private enterprises, or by the communities/formally recognized groups themselves; (iii)responsibility for technical supervision and monitoring o f micro-project implementation shared by CRDs, territorial administration and deconcentrated sectoral services. In these cases, the CRD will be assisted by Community Development Agents. The CRD Council (Conseil Communautaire) will decide annually on micro-projects to receive funding from among the priority projects proposed to the CRD by the communities, and in general coordinate development initiatives. Through a service provider and in cooperation with the CRD, the PACV will recruit a Community Development Agent to assist the CRD in providing support for the local micro-project process, from "animation" through project execution. He/she will combine technical and animation skills and will be a conduit for information between the CRD and the communities, and act as an honest broker and advisor to the communities. The capacity o f the communities to manage and finance the ongoing operation and maintenance o f the infrastructure established will be strengthened, and the means/organizational arrangements to take on the new responsibilities created. The PACV provides incentives to Community Development Agents who are their interlocutors with communities. These field agents will also act as liaison between the service providers, the communities, the CRDs, and the PACV. The PACV sub-contracts with local organizations to provide technical, administrative, and financial training to CRDs' local elected officials and staff. In addition, local 49 organizations will also organize workshops for elected officials, community leaders, and deconcentrated personnel to discuss decentralization issues as well as the rights and responsibilities o f all stakeholders at the local level. FinancialSystem and Audit (see Annex 7) Monitoring and Evaluation The objective o f the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system i s to respond to the internal management and supervisionneeds o f all the project's stakeholders, including the executing agencies responsible for implementing the different project components, and CRDs for the micro projects. PACV's monitoring system is already organized as a network with each executing agency incharge of monitoring its own activities. The M&Eunit is incharge o f (i) developing and exploiting a data collection system appropriate to establish the performance indicators o f each project component; (ii) compiling and consolidating on a quarterly basis monitoring information including data related to expenditure and disbursements; and(iii) preparing consolidated quarterly implementation reports for the overall project. Progress reports will be submitted to the Bank twice a year. Each executing agency will be required to submit a biannual progress report for its component to the PCU no later than one month following the end o f each semester. The national M&E specialist will incorporate these individual reports into a consolidated progress report for the entire project. Independent performance evaluations o f the Project will be conducted twice: a mid-term review and an evaluation at the end. These evaluations will be conducted jointly by the Government o f Guinea and the co-financiers o f the project. These reviews will be based inpart on the results and recommendations of the evaluations indicated above and will help make adjustments resulting in a more efficient implementation o f the project. The reviews will coincide with those o fthe secondphase o fthe PACV. ODerational Manuals The Project Implementation Manual (PIM) o f the Project will detail day-to-day project implementation and will be adapted for the sites inwhich the Project intervenes to allow for the additional targeted matching grants for SLM. The P I M consists o f the following detailed manuals: (i)the Administrative and Financial Procedures Manual; (ii)the Technical Manuals (guidelines for specific types o f micro-projects); (iii)the Monitoring and Evaluation Manual; (iv) the LIF Manual; (v) the Resettlement Framework; and (vi) the Environmental and Social Management Framework. All manuals have been elaborated prior to appraisal and were confirmed at negotiations. The PIM, which consists o f primarily introductory text and references to the detailed manuals was, however, not yet completed. The PIM will therefore be submitted as a condition o f Grant effectiveness. Revisions to the PIM will be carried out during Project implementation on the basis o f field experience, and as mutually agreedbetweenthe Recipient and the Bank. 50 Annex 7: FinancialManagementandDisbursementArrangements GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Summary of Financial ManagementAssessment As part o f the Guinea Community Land Management Project preparation, a full financial management assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Financial Management Practices Manual issued by the Financial Management Sector Board on November 3, 2005. This report i s a record o f the results o f the assessment o f the related project implementedby the Village Community Support Project unit (PACV) through its financial management unit. The mains objectives o f the assessment is to determine: (a) whether PACV has adequate financial management arrangements to ensure that project funds will be used for purposes intended in an efficient and economical way; (b) PACV financial reports will be prepared in an accurate, reliable and timely manner; and (c) the entities' assets will be safe guarded. The Guinea CFAA conducted in 2003 shows that Guinea continues to make progress in the modernization o f its public financial management process and structures. Over the last three years there has been a noticeable improvement inmany o f the basic elements o f public financial management. The impact o f the improvements is, however, mitigatedby (a) the lack o f a reliable and predictable revenue stream, (b) excessive government expenditures outside the commitment control systems, and (c) the weak linkages between various elements o f public financial management processes Previous use o f extra- budgetary instrument undermining budget execution in general and in particular in the priority areas could be significantly scaled back in 2006 through reforms supported by the current IMF staffmonitored program. The public financial management systems andprocesses in Guinea are not yet at a level that would provide reasonable assurances to the Bank or other donors that the government's own systems can be used to channel funds to donor funded projects or programs. It is, however, not unreasonable to believe that if the current progress in improvements i s sustained and deepened that the objective o f using the government's own systems for channeling donor funds could be realized inthe medium term. Internal audit is not fully effective despite the extensive audit system inplace. There i s an elaborate internal audit function in the executive branch o f government as well as an external audit unit o f the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, these units lack adequate resources and training to carry out their functions: the government has been increasing resources with the assistance of the EU. Moreover, inspection reports are not systematically followed up and the Chamber o f Account needs more professional staff andrequired independence to perform appropriate audits. Although financial oversight institutions exist, they have limited authority. However, the Government o f Guinea has begun to address the most urgent issues. Two draft decrees 51 clarifying the role, obligation and privileges o f the Chamber o f Accounts have been approved. RiskAssessment Overall, the Community Land Management Project financial management assessment should be rated as moderate risk. The objectives o f the Project's Financial Management systemwould help to highlight the area o f risk and come up with an action plan which could help to mitigate the risk. The following are necessary features o f a strong financial management system: The PACV should have an adequatenumber andmix o f skilled and experienced staff: 0 the internal control system should ensure the conduct o f an orderly and efficient payment and procurement process, and proper recording and safeguarding o f assets andresources; 0 the accounting system should support the project's requests for funding and meet its reporting obligations to fund providers including Government o f Guinea, IDA, other donors, and local communities; 0 the system should be capable of providing financial data to measure performance when linked to the output o f the project; 0 an independent, qualified auditor should be appointed to review the Project's financial statements andinternal controls; and 0 an independent qualified Fiduciary Agency should be selected through a transparence process to ensure sound FMsystem as suggested above. The table below shows the results o f the risk assessment fiom the Risk Rating Summary. This identifies the key risks project management may face inachieving project objectives andprovides a basis for determining how management should address these risks. 52 3 5 m v, d E z E E I -F E /E E Strengthof FinancialManagementSystem The project financial management is strengthened bythe following salient features: The fiduciary team has been working under the PACV during the last four years, and has benefited o f additional training on Bank new fiduciary procedures. Internal auditing arrangements are also in place. The existing manual o f procedure i s being reviewed as necessary as possible. The project unithas a well h c t i o n i n g software namely "SUCCESS". There is a good understanding o f the Financial Reporting requirements given that the Project Accountant has a good experience inimplementingWorld Bank projects before. ImplementingEntityhtaffing The GEF Project will use PACV's existing financial and disbursement arrangements. These have been evaluated duringPACV implementation and found to be satisfactory. The existing PACV CNC will be responsible for implementing the GEF Project. Staffing at the CNC already includes: (i)a core management team (including the National Coordinator, a Finance Director, two Senior Accountants and a Procurement Specialist); and (ii)experts covering M&E andother key aspects o f the Project. Inaddition, aGEFfocal point specialized innaturalresources, anenvironmentalhocial safeguard specialist i s also on board. It is suggested that a GIS specialist, an accountant and an assistant procurement specialist will be added to the CNC to handle the additional responsibilities under the Project. Other specialties, related to civil works and agricultural services will be used on a contractual basis. Reviews over the past three years have shown that the CNC has satisfactorily managed the PACV. The projectAccounting andsoftware The PACV will maintain similar books o f accounts to those for other IDA funded projects. The books o f account to be maintained should include: a Cash Book, ledgers, journal vouchers, fixed asset register and a contracts registers. The books o f accounts will be maintained on a computerized system. A list o f accounts codes (Chart o f Account) for the project should be drawn up. This should match with the classification o f expenditures and sources and application of funds indicated inthe Grant Agreement. The Chart o f accounts should be developed in a way that allows project costs to be directly related to specific work activities and outputs o f the project. Books o f Accounts to be used for the project will be opened and a Chart o f Accounts will be completed inaccordance with the requirement inthe Grant Agreement. The accounting system is based on a well-functioning computerized, system. To that end, the financial management, accounting and procurement units o f PACV have been equipped with a computerized and integrated financial management appropriate to the scale o f the project. The computerized financial management system namely SUCCESS is multi-currency and includes the following modules which comprise: general accounting, cost accounting, monitoring and 55 evaluation, assets management, preparation o f withdrawal applications and tracking o f disbursements by donors, reports generating, including quarterly FMR (Financial Monitoring reports) and annual financial statements. Manualof procedure A Project Administrative, Financial andAccounting Manual is already put inplace. It describes : (i)the overall organization of the program including an organizational diagram andjob description o f the key persons o f the PIUS,including the accounting and financial staff; (ii) the accounting system which will be on accrual basis; (iii) main transaction cycles; format, the content, and timing of the project financial reporting, Le., financial statements and other financial reports including FMRs ( Financial Monitoring Reports ), filing system, etc.; (iv) the various operational procedures including budget management (planning, execution and monitoring) and management o f assets, procurement o f goods and services, and disbursement; and (v) internal control procedures. FinancialReportingandMonitoring Similar to the PACV, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e., direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. At least two sets o f financial reports will be prepared by the implementing team within the PACV unit. The quarterly Financial monitoring Reports (FMRs, as required by the Bank), the annual project's financial statements, and the project's consolidated financial statements. The quarterly FMRs agreed upon appraisal will be prepared and submittedto the Bank 45 days after closing o f the quarter following the date o f effectiveness. The FMRs will be based on formats developed in the Bank's Guidelines on Financial Monitoring Reports, agreed to with the Administrator and the accountants with some adjustments. The FMRswill include financial, physicalprogress and procurement information that i s useful to the Borrower while also providing the Bank with sufficient information to establish whether: (i) funds disbursed to the project are being used for the purpose intended; (ii)project implementation i s on track; and (iii) budgeted cost will not be exceeded. A copy o f Financial Monitoring Report Guideline will be provided to the team before project effectiveness by Bank FMS. Audit Arrangements. The project's consolidated financial statements will be audited annually by an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank in accordance with auditing standards also acceptable to the Bank. Audit reports o f reasonable scope and detail will be submitted to the Bank within six months of the end o f the audited period. The auditor will provide a unique opinion on: (i) project financial statement of expenditures (SOE); and (ii) Designated the the Account (DA). The auditor will also issue a separate management report on internal and operational procedures, outlining any recommendations for improvements to internal accounting controls and operational 56 procedures identified as a result o f the financial statement audit. Detailed terms o f reference for the selection o f the project's auditor should be prepared, discussed and agreed on before effectiveness. The Audit Scope will be tailored the project's specific risks in accordance with Bank's requirements and agreed with the Borrower. To ensure proper accountability o f funds managed by beneficiaries, technical and financial audits will be carried out on a sample basis. These audits will focus on the technical execution o f the works (technical quality and progress), systems in place to ensure appropriate maintenance, and that basic information is available to track the use o f the finds (receipts, contracts, comparison o f priceshids, etc.). Where funds are inappropriately utilized, the Project will cease supporting activities untilall funds havebeen accounted for. Incases where fraud is suspected, local authorities will be notified. Internalcontrol Detailed procedures have been developed for project accounting for each component. The objective o f the detailed procedures i s to ensure consistent financial reporting. The underlying systems take into account the specific needs and circumstances for each component including accountingprocedures at the Regional and CRD level. Internal accounting controls for the project are set out indetail inthe financial procedures o f the Project Implementation Manual and are satisfactory for providing reasonable assurances that accounts are properly recorded and resources safeguarded. The accounting system for the implementationunits for the components uses updated software. The accounting systemhas been evaluated over the past years and found to perform satisfactory. The CRDs (the base accounting unit) will provide quarterly activity reports to the Regions together with quarterly financial reports o f the activity o f the LIF. The Regions will submit quarterlyfinancial reportswith supportingdocumentationto the CNC. Similarly, the Ministry for Decentralization, incharge of the first component will provide quarterly reports to the CNC. The CNC will subsequently consolidate the financial reports o f the operational components. Work programsandbudgets As part of the preparation o f its annual work program and budget, each agency involved inGEF Project implementation will commit itself to specific performance indicators specifying clear targets to be achieved inthe course o f the year regarding improved access and quality o f service delivery. These targets reflect the goals implementing agencies want to achieve during Project implementation. The goals are specified in strategy documents that have already been prepared for the PACV and adapted for the GEF Project. Work programs will be presented to IDA and their approval i s a condition o f annual disbursements. N o later than November 30 o f each year, the CNC will submit to the Steering Committee (SC), with a copy to IDA, the aggregated proposed Annual Work Programs andFinancial Report for the Project as a whole and broken down by implementing partner. The report format will detail activities, associated unit costs and an implementation timetable. It will also include 57 monitorable progress indicators for each activity proposed in the work program. The work program andbudgets will be reviewedby the NCUprior to submissionto IDA for no-objection. Inaddition, the CNC will submit semi-annual progress reportsto the SC showingbudgetedand actual expenditures, source o f funds used, statements o f progress achieved on the basis o f the agreed upon indicators and the (revised) objectives and financial reports for the forthcoming six months. Disbursementarrangements The amounts and percentages to be financed through the GEF grant are detailed in the Table below. The grant will be disbursed over a period o f five years, from October 1,2006 till June 30, 2011. The grant closing date has been set at six months after the expected date for completion o f project activities (December 31, 2010), to allow for the orderly processing of final disbursement requests andthe production o fthe project's final audit and annual progress reports. Table: Disbursements DisbursementCategories AllocatedAmount Disbursementpercentages (US$) 1. Vehicles andEquipment 500,000 100% foreign and 80% local 2. Works 50,000 100%foreign and 80% local 2. Consultant's Services 1,000,000 100% o f foreign and 80% local 3. Training: 450.000 100% 3,000,000 100% o f amounts disbursed 500,000 90% 6. Unallocated 1,500.000 The Project will be funded bythe GEF grant, beneficiary CRD contributions and Government o f Guinea contributions in-kind.The Country Financing Parameters (CFP) for Guinea are expected to be approved infiscal year 2006 and 100% fundingexclusive o f taxes i s sought for this Project. Methodof Disbursement The Project will not be ready for report-based disbursements by effectiveness. Thus, at the initial stage, the transaction-based disbursement procedures (as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook) will be followed, Le., direct payment, reimbursements, special commitments and replenishments o f the Designated Account. Where the reports are adequate and produced on a timely basis, and the borrower requests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will be undertaken by the IDA to determine ifthe project is eligible for this method. The adoption o f report-based disbursements by the project will enable it to move away from transaction-based disbursement method to FMR-based disbursements to the Project's DesignatedAccount, based on FMRs. 58 Use of statements of expenditures(SOEs) Disbursements for all expenditures will be made against full documentation, except for items claimed under the Statement o f Expenditures (SOE) procedure. SOEs will be used for payments claimed under contracts for: (a) works in an amount inferior to US$, (b) goods in an amount inferior to US$; (c) consulting firms in an amount inferior to US$lOO,OOO (d) individual consultants in an amount inferior to US$50,000 as well as small equipment, office supplies and training. Documentation supporting all expenditures claimed against SOEs will be retained by the CNC and made available for review when requested by IDA periodic supervision missions andproject external auditors. All disbursements are subject to the conditions o f the Development Credit Agreement and the procedures defined inthe Disbursement Letter. Designatedaccount: The CNC will maintain one Designated Account in US Dollars with respective equivalent in current account in Guinean Francs which will be managed by CNC. Funds will be used to make payments to suppliers in the respective contract currencies. Interest income received on these accounts will be deposited to the respective accounts. The Designated Account in U S dollars with respective equivalent in local currency current account would be opened by the CNC in a reliable commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to IDA. The authorized allocations would be US$750,000 for the Designated Account. The respective allocations will cover about six (6) months o f eligible expenditures. The DesignatedAccount will be replenishedthrough the submissiono f Withdrawal Applications on a monthly basis and will include reconciledbank statements and other documents as required until such time as the borrower may choose to convert to report-based disbursement. The Recipient may also choose to pre-finance project expenditure and seek reimbursement from the Bank as needed. The Designated Account will be used for all payments inferior to twenty percent o f the authorized allocation andreplenishment applications will be submitted monthly. Further deposits by the Bank into the Designated Account will be made against withdrawal applications supported by appropriate documents. NEXTSTEPS Action Target CompletionDate 1. Extendthe contract o fthe existing external auditors to the By effectiveness new Operation 59 FinancialCovenants A financial management system, including records and accounts will be maintainedby the CCU. Financial Statements will be prepared in a format acceptable to IDA, and will be adequate to reflect in accordance with sound accounting practices the operations, resources and expenditures inrespect ofthe project. SupervisionPlan Supervision activities will include: review o f quarterly FMRs; review o f annual audited financial statements and management letter as well as timely follow up o f issues arising; and participation inproject supervision missions as appropriate. The Bank FMS incharge will play a key role in monitoring the timely implementation o f the financial management arrangements. Conclusions The overall conclusion o f the assessment i s that the current financial management arrangements are satisfactory to meet IDA FM requirements though one recommendation needs to be implemented by effectiveness, Le., the amendment o f the external auditor's contract under the PACV to include this Project. Byeffectiveness, the project will notbeready for report-based disbursements. Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described inthe World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed Le., direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. However, when project implementation begins and the borrower requests conversion to report- based disbursements, a review will be undertaken by IDA to determine ifthe project i s eligible. 60 Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject A. General Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out inaccordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers'' dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Loadcredit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementationneeds and improvements ininstitutional capacity. Procurementof Works: The GEF supported project will not fund any civil works, other than those under the matching grants o f the LIF andmanaged bybeneficiary communities. Procedures for these works are detailed inthe Project Implementation Manual. Procurementof Goods:Goods procured under this project would include: vehicles, motorbikes as well as office equipment, such as computers, photocopiers, office furniture, etc. National Competitive Bidding (NCB) will be used for locally available goods less than US$200,000 and Shopping for locally available goods less than US$50,000. Procurement will be done using the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and NCB, satisfactory to the Bank.'In exceptional cases procurement from IAPSO could be used for vehicles and office equipment. Procurement o f goods by communities would follow procedures detailed inthe Local Investment FundManuel. Procurementof non-consultingservices: Non-consultant services procured under the project includes a very limited number o f study-tours, surveys and surveillance. They will usually be procuredby direct contracting. Other Methods of Procurement of Goods and Works: The following table specifies the methods o f procurement, other than International or National Competitive Bidding, which may be used for goods and works. The Procurement Plan shall specify the circumstances under which such methods may be used: Procurement Method (a) Procurement from UnitedNations agencies I (c)Community Participation 61 Selectionof Consultants: Consulting services included under the Project include: incremental CNC staff, technical coordinators or advisors, studies such as follow-up studies, NGO contracts for community support through the participatory process, etc. Consultations also include the organization o fnumerous training modules and workshops. The following table specifies methods o f procurement, other than Quality and Cost-based Selection, which may be used for consultants' services. The Procurement Plan shall specify the circumstances under which such methods may be used. 1Procurement Method (a) SelectionBasedon Consultants' Qualifications (b) Least Cost Selection I (c) Sole Source Selection I The Project will enter into agreements with Government and/or donor supported institutions, such as the National Agricultural Research Institute and the University in Conakry for M&E of the Project, and for specific implementation support. As no competitive process would be possible, the Project would only find incremental costs. In addition, where capacities lack, the Project may enter into contractual arrangements with NGOs for certain aspects o f implementation (beneficiary training, participatory analyses, etc.) Operating Costs: The Project would fund incremental operating costs o f the implementing agencies (CNC and MAE).Normally, national shopping procedures would apply, except for the case o f gasoline, which i s purchased through a system o f vouchers. For this particular item, a national tender would be heldeach year. Others:The procurementprocedures for the matching grants under the LIF follow the guidelines for simplified procurement and detailed inthe Project ImplementationManual. The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the Project Implementation Manual. Review by the World Bank of Procurement Decisions: Except as the World Bank shall otherwise determine by notice to the Recipient, the following contracts shall be subject to Prior Review by the World Bank: (a) each contract for goods or works estimated to cost the equivalent of $200,000 or more procured on the basis o f International Competitive Bidding, Limited International Bidding or National Competitive Bidding, or Direct Contracting; and (b) each contract for consultants' services provided by a firm estimated to cost the equivalent of $100,000 or more; (c) each contract for consultants' services provided by an individual consultant estimated to cost the equivalent o f $50,000 or more. All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review by the World Bank. 62 B. Assessment of the agency's capacityto implementprocurement All procurement activities will be carried out by the CNC. An assessment o f the capacity o f the CNC to implement procurement actions for the GEF Project was been carried out by Mathieu Mkguhk as part o f appraisal inM a y 2006. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementingthe GEF Project and the PACV. The assessment supported the recruitment o f a procurement assistant to assist in handling the increased workload from the implementation o f the GEF Project. The only other issue identified was the need to add office space to house the procurement assistant. N o further issues were identified. The overall project risk from procurementis low C. ProcurementPlan The Recipient has developed a procurement plan for the first 18 months o f Project implementation, which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been formally agreed upon at negotiations. It will also be available inthe project's database andinthe Bank's external website. The Procurement Plan will be quarterly updated by the procurement staff o fthe CNC or as requiredto reflect the actual project implementation needs. D. Frequencyof ProcurementSupervision In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment o f the Implementing Agency has recommended two annual supervision missions to visit the fieldto carry out post review o fprocurement actions. E. Detailsofthe ProcurementArrangementsInvolvingInternationalCompetition 1. Goods, Works, andNonConsultingServices 71(a) List o f contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting: 1 1 (a) List o f contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting: 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 7 8 7 I Contract Estirir;;d Procurement P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments (Description) Method Bid- I I Four wheel US$200.000 ICB Post Prior 10/13/06 drive vehicles andmotor cvcles I I (b) ICB contracts estimated to cost above US$200,000 per contract andall direct contractingwill be subject to prior review by the Bank. 63 2. ConsultingServices (a) List o f consulting assignments with short-list o f international firms. 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 Ref.No. , Descriptionof Estimated Selection Review Expected Comments Assignment cost Method by Bank Proposals (Prior I Submission Post) 4 Livestock- US$105,000 QCBS Prior farmer conflict resolution 12 IIIErosion US$lOO,OOO QCBS Prior monitoring (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO (firms) or US$50,000 (individuals) per contract and single source selection of consultants (firms or individuals) will be subject to prior review by the Bank. (c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less thanUS$200,000 equivalent per contract, may be composed entirely of national consultants inaccordance with the provisions o fparagraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. 64 Annex 9: Economicand FinancialAnalysis GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Like the base project, the PGCT does not lend itself to classic quantitative cost-benefit analysis because on one hand, the expected capacity building benefits have undetermined life expectancies and cannot be quantified inmonetary terms. On the other hand, the demand-driven nature o f investments also leaves the specific investments that will be made under the Project undetermined. Not enough i s known about investment attitudes o f the rural communities to attempt a simulation exercise. However, it i s possible to demonstrate in qualitative terms that economic and social returns are likely from the capacitybuildingand the LIFcomponents. Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Capacity Building: The Capacity buildingcomponent i s most likely to generate substantial economic benefits. Decentralization, land use planning and human capacity building will improve the economic decision making process. Returns to human capacity building are significant, especially when there i s an adequate enabling environment. The review o f GEF-related activities in other countries suggests that the short-term effect o f capacity buildingon productivity ranges from 12 to 30 percent increase incrop yields (Ouadba et al., 2001). Given that the capacity buildingbenefits are likely to accrue for many years beyond the life o fthe project, they will most likely offset costs, with significant rates o freturns. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Local Investments: The LIF will generate numerous investments that cannot be precisely predetermined given the demand-driven nature o f the project. Consequently, no classic ex-ante cost-benefit analysis can be applied in this case. However, many eligible types o f investments are predetermined and are known to generate significant economic benefits. Previous experience suggests that rural communities usually select projects with very high rates o f returns and low risks, and manage them much more efficiently than Government or project agencies. Research shows positive net returns to natural resource management investmentdland degradation control and mitigation activities, inparticular land restoration. For example, the net value o f techniques such as composting, windbreaks or rock bunds is about US$700 per hectare. Conservation tillage techniques to be promoted under the Project are known to have significantly positive impacts on yields and to significantly reduce labor costs. The economic activities that the project will generate are expected to be sufficiently profitable so as to result in increased capital accumulation at the farm level and particularly for the poor. This i s expected to substantially improve the financial capacity o f rural communities to maintain the investments made under the project and to expand investment activities beyond the lowlands. A financial soundness analysis will be undertaken for all investments identified with the communities, so as to maximize chances o f financial success. The capacity of the private and/or public sectors to sustain recurrent costs o f planned investments will receive special attention. Provisions will be made to ensure the operation, maintenance and renewal o f those investments. Emphasis will be put on cost-minimization measures and on anticipating additional funding requirements to ensure investmentsustainability. 65 As an illustration, for other projects, financial rates of returnon the types o f micro investments proposed under the project have ranged from 27.8% (apiculture) to 13.9% for beans and 30.3% for soybeans (both nitrogen fixing crops, thereby also having a longer-term impact on agricultural productivity). Fiscal Impact: The long-term objective i s for CRDs to be able to raise fiscal resources from increased local economic activity andconsumption, and thereby contribute to the fundingo ftheir local development plans reducing the need for fiscal transfers from the central Government. In the short-to-medium term, fiscal transfers from the central Government will be needed to cover what the beneficiary contribution does not. It must be recognized that the long-term capacity- buildingneeds o fthe rural communities will require considerable support, andthat such support will need to come largely from the outside, including support to cover the operating costs o f the Project and intermediaries. Such operating costs are part o f the investment required to build institutional, and ultimately fiscal, sustainability. The micro-projects financed under the Project such as community forests, improved agricultural practices, and land restoration will increase the income earning potential o f the rural population and possibly lead to new opportunities (e.g., organic farming) that could eventually generate fiscal revenues for CRDs. 66 Annex 10:SafeguardPolicyIssues GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject SafeguardPoliciesTriggeredby the Project Yes N o Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [XI [I Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [XI 11 Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ I [XI Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [I [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [XI [I Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [I [XI Forests (OP/BP 4.36) 11 [X Safety o f Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [I [XI Projects inDisputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [ I [XI Projects on InternationalWaterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [I [XI OP4.01Social andEnvironmentalImpact, OP4.04 on NaturalHabitatsandOP4.36 on Forest Inspite ofthe expected.social and environmental benefits, OP4.01 is triggered becausepotential minor social and environmental negative impacts were identified as part o f the preparation process. Undetermined micro-projects will be carried out with GEF Project support. The individual as well as aggregate impact o f these activities will need to be monitored. Large-scale impacts such as major land use change will not be induced by the project. The GEF Project will therefore develop a framework for promoting sustainable development, through a sustainable watershed management approach, emphasizing the inter-relatedness and interdependency o f the ecosystem. Procedures have been designed to prevent that the GEF Project finances or induces major irreversible impacts. The project was prepared and will be implemented from a participatory perspective where all stakeholders, inparticular the local communities, play a central role. At the planningstage, three key participatory mechanisms were being used to involve communities. These are: (a) a basic assessment to obtain information on environmental and social assets and constraints to help evaluate the sustainability and broader impacts of various development options; (b) elaboration o f local development plans, which define basic development activities; and (c) the development o f a strategic framework and coordination mechanisms to draw together stakeholders and sectoral, local and upstream development plans ina coherent strategic vision. The community strategy will be a key tool for creating awareness, for consensus building, for generating participation inprocesses o f change and development, for making informed decisions and for resolving conflicts. At community level, the communication strategy will focus on the needs to ensure access to information for all local stakeholder groups; and to strengthen the * By supporting theproposedproject, the Bank does not intend toprejudice thefinal determination of theparties' claims on the disputed areas 67 ability o f all stakeholders to articulate and disseminate information, and make their own informed decisions. This should help communities become full partners in the process o f local and development planning. With the help o f the PACV, this process has already started and surveys have confirmed that communities feel empowered and are playing an increasingly important role inthe development process. The GEF Project will also support other activities and measures focused on the improvement o f the communities' livelihood and emphasize participation o f identified vulnerable groups, presently not supported by the base program. These focus on more specialized capacity building (income generating skills, leadership and community planning skills with an emphasis on sustainable use o f local resources), development o f priority community services and infrastructure and investment activities not supported bythe PACV. The project is given a Category B rating since the project will be designed to provide a framework for environmentally sound planning processes. Extensive public consultation processes considered essential to underpin participatory planning for sustainable management were used as part o f the preparationprocess. These processes have been set out in the Environmental and Social Management Framework, which was disclosed prior to project appraisal. All investments financed by the project will be subject to individual environmental and social assessments in accordance with procedures detailed in the ESMF. The project will also strengthen capacity and processes in Guinea for environmental assessment. Even without the GEF Project, the coming years will see infrastructure and private sector development in certain areas which could lead to the expansion o f mining, deforestation, tourism nodes, and in-migration. These trends are already being observed in certain coastal areas. The challenge will be to ensure that the GEF Project induces positive change, and encourages sustainable development. Forests - The Forest OP i s triggered because micro-projects supported by the project may have localized negative impacts. There are two levels at which the GEF Project seeks to guide decision makingprocesses: capacity buildingand information. In addition, assessments will be carried periodically to evaluate GEF Project environmental and social impact. OP/BP4.12 on InvoluntarvResettlementandLandAcquisition Two major factors have led to the triggering o f OPBP 4.12. The first factor is the potential for access restrictions on local communities' livelihoods activities. Communities living in buffer zones are also potentially affected insofar as these multi-resource use areas will be included in local development plans emphasizing sustainable resource use. Yet, the poorest and most vulnerable sectors o f rural populations are often the most dependent on renewable natural resources for income generation and risk management strategies. Often, they bear the direct and indirect costs from living in and/or near conservation areas, in terms o f loss o f access to resources, and damage to or loss o f crops, livestock and humanlife caused by wildlife. Hence, if affected communities do not participate inidentifying their resources, designing and agreeing on restrictions to these, and in proposing the mitigation measures, it i s unlikely that they will comply with conservation plans. To avoid such a negative effect on the population and avoid unnecessary conflicts, a Resettlement Process Framework has been commissioned and 68 completed. The purpose o f the framework is to describe the process by which potentially affected communities will participate in resource planning and management. The Resettlement Process Framework shows how Local Development Plans will be formulated and adapted with the local population duringthe design and implementationphases o fthe project. These plans are instruments that emphasize actions to give communities a voice and that provide them with means to negotiate their position with government authorities. Their design and development provide the opportunity for involvement of NGOs and other partners inhelping to empower local communities through various forms of capacity building. Once developed, these plans should become part o f the local development plans. No land acquisition or displacement are planned or will be financed under the GEF Project or baseline programs. Hence no Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was deemednecessary to prepare. No Indigenous people or sites known for bearing cultural heritage have been identified. Burial and sacred sites will be excluded from Project supported interventions and their location duly documented and recorded. 69 Annex 11:ProjectPreparationandSupervision GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Planned Actual PCN/Project Briefreview 08/30/2004 12/09/2004 InitialPID to PIC 09/15/2004 03/03/2005 Initial ISDS to PIC 09/15/2004 03/03/2005 Appraisal 01/15/2005 04/24/2006 Negotiations 03/08/2005 05/05/2006 Board approval 04/17/2005 06/22/2006 Planned date o f effectiveness 07/31/2005 10/02/2006 Planned date ofmid-termreview 12/10/2007 10/31/2009 Planned closing date 06/30/2009 06/30/2011 Key institutions responsiblefor preparation ofthe project: 0 Government of Guineathrough the CNC o fthe PACV 0 Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 0 MinistryofEnvironment 0 WorldBank Bankstaffandconsultantswho worked onthe project included: Name Title Unit DirkPrevoo Operations Officer/Team Leader AFTS4 Abdoulaye Tour6 Sr. RuralDevelopment Specialist AFTS4 Bella LeloumaDiallo Sr. Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Enos Esikuri Technical Specialist ENV Gabriele Rechbauer Consultant Jaime Webbe Junior ProfessionalAssociate AFTS4 Jane Hopkins Sr. Agricultural Economist AFTS4 Joseph Ellong LanguageProgram Assistant AFTS4 KadidiatouBah TeamAssistant AFMGN MathieuMeguhk Procurement Analyst AFTPC Mohamed Arbi Ben-Achour Safeguards Specialist (social) AFTS1 Racky Dia Camera Team Assistant AFMGN RenkeDesclaux Finance Officer LOAG2 SameenaDost Sr. Counsel LEGAF Susanne Leloup Consultant Suzanne Piriou-Sal1 Sr. RuralDevelopment Specialist AFTS3 Yves Prkvost Safeguards Specialist (environmental) AFTS4 Yves-Coffi Prudencio Sr. Agriculturalist AFTS2 Zik Ibrahima Coulibaly Infrastructure Specialist AFTU2 70 Bankfunds expendedto date onproject preparation: 1. Bankresources: US$O 2. Trust funds: US$235,000 3. Total: US$235,000 Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining costs to approval: US$O 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: US$70,000 (BBGEF) 71 Annex 12: Documentsinthe ProjectFile GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject MamadouTahirou Barry: ((Consultationpour lapre'paration duprojet de gestion inte'gre'edes kcosystBmes de Guine'e)),Conakry, M a i 2004. Detailedwatershed maps, June 2004 and December 2004 (DNHand OGM). Project Implementation Manuals for the Base Project. Implementation Manuals for the Project (M&E, LIF, Impact Evaluation). Impact studies ofthe base Project Site specific studies Environmental and Social Management Framework. Resettlement Process Framework 72 Annex 13: StatementofLoansandCredits GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Differencebetween expectedand actual Original Amount inUS$Millions disbursements Proiect ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orin. Frm. Rev'd PO65126 2005 GN-HealthSec Supt SIL (FY05) 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.77 2.42 0.00 PO65127 2005 GN-Natl RuralInfrastructure (FY05) 0.00 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.26 8.72 0.00 PO42055 2003 GN-GEF Decentr RuralElec (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.15 1.93 0.00 PO73378 2003 GN-Multi-SecalAIDS SIL (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.67 2.03 0.00 PO74288 2003 GN-DecentrRuralElectrification (FY03) 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 2.60 0.00 PO50046 2002 GN-Educationfor All APL (FY02) 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.58 24.21 -2.65 PO50732 1999 GN-Village Com Sup Prgm(APL) - Phase 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.35 -1.79 -1.48 I - ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ Total: 0.00 152.30 0.00 2.00 0.00 109.54 40.12 4.13 GUINEA STATEMENT OF FC's HeldandDisbursedPortfolio InMillionsofUSDollars Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1993 SGHI 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Approvals PendingCommitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Totalpendingcommitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 Annex 14: Countryat a Glance GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Sub- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan Low- Guinea Africa Income )evelo pment diamond' 2004 Popuiation, mid-year(millions) 8.1 7 8 2.338 GNIpercapita (Atlas method, US$) 460 800 5 D Lifeexpectancy GNi(Atlas method, US$ billions) 3.7 432 $84 Average annual growth, 1998-04 Population(%) 2 2 2.2 18 Laborforce (%I 2 1 10 2.1 GNI Gross per primary M o s t recent estimate (latest year available, 1998-04) capita enrollment Poverty (%of populationbelownationalpovertyline) Urban population (%oftota/population) 36 37 31 Lifeexpectancyat birth (pars) 46 46 58 Infant mortality(per looolivebirths) D4 Dl 79 Childmalnutrition (%ofchi/d@nunder5) 23 44 Access to improvedwater source Access to an improved water source (%ofpopulation) 51 58 75 Literacy(%ofpopulation age 159 65 61 Gross primaryenroiiment (%of school-age population) 81 95 94 -Guinea Male 92 $32 0 1 Low-incomegroup Female 71 88 88 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1984 1994 2003 2004 iconomic ratios. GDP (US$ billions) 3.4 3.6 3 5 Gross capitalformation/GDP 5 6 9.9 D 5 Exports Of goods and services/GDP 22.6 22.0 23.1 Trade Gross domestic savingslGDP t?3 7.4 8 6 Gross national savingslGDP ........ 8.3 6.6 7 6 T Currentaccount balance/GDP .. -7.3 -3.3 -2.9 interestpayments/GDP 12 0.8 Total debt/GDP 919 95.2 Total debt service/exports .... 42.7 6.4 Present valueof debtlGDP 52.5 Present value of debtlexports 238.1 indebtedness 1984-94 1994-04 2003 2004 2004-08 (averageannualgrowih) GDP 3.7 3 8 12 2.6 4.8 -Guinea GDP percapita 0.8 15 -0.9 0.5 2.8 Lowinco me group Exportsof goods and services 2.7 4 1 2.3 12 6.2 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1984 1994 2003 2004 Growth of capital and GDP (%) (%of GDP) Agriculture 217 24.6 24.9 15 Industry 28.8 36.4 36.7 Manufacturing 4.2 4.0 4.0 0 Services ........ 49.5 39.0 38.4 -15 - - Household final consumptionexpenditure 80.9 85.2 85.8 -30 Generalgov't final consumptionexpenditure 6.7 7.5 5.6 Imports of goods and services ...... 25.9 24.6 25.0 -GCF -GDP 1984.94 1994-04 2003 2004 (averageannualgrowth) Growth of exports and imports (%) Agriculture 3.6 4.5 2.9 4.1 '5 T Industry 2.6 4.7 0.4 2.9 10 Manufacturing 4.4 4.4 -4.O 2.0 Services 3.4 2.9 15 16 5 Household final consumptionexpenditure 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 0 Generalgov't final consumption expenditure -14 4.3 8.8 -0.5 -5 99 00 01 Gross capitalformation 2.2 2.1 -219 -5.1 Imports of goods and services 2.0 2.9 -3.0 0.0 Note:2004 data are preliminaryestimates. Thistablewas producedfrom the Development Economics LDB database. 'The diamonds showfour keyindicators inthe country(inboid)comparedwith its income-group average.If dataare missing,thediamondwill 74 1984 I 1984 1984 b4G 488 88 3 '1 24 i 1984 dobt 1 i s 1 80 7 5 1 0 D tltli 45 an n 6 ll 1 1 Annex 15: IncrementalCostAnalysis GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject This annex includes a brief review o f the environmental situation in Guinea, with focus on land degradation; Project development goals and global environmental objectives, the baseline scenario without GEF financing versus the alternative scenario o f an IDA-GEFblended Project and presents the incremental cost analysis. TheEnvironmental Situation in Guinea Increasing demand for land and wood from a growing population, which is still to a large extent utilizing traditional agricultural technologies, has resulted in increasing deforestation o f fragile zones, cultivation on marginal lands, and conversion to agriculture o f ecosystems such as forests, bottom-lands and marshes. Agricultural lands are overexploited as a result o f shorter fallow periods and soil fertility is declining leading to stagnating or declining yields (and increased need for land expansion). Soil erosion and siltation o f rivers has increased due to deforestation and watershed degradation, threatening biodiversity and other ecosystem services. The increased vulnerability o f soils due to slash and burnpractices to cyclical droughts contributes to increased degradation o f the natural resource base. Adverse policy incentives and a lack of a sound land tenure systemhamper long term investments in increasing the productivity o f land. Institutional capacity is weak and appropriate resource use planning is hampered by poor monitoring and inadequate environmental andnatural resource related data for most o f the country. GlobalEnvironmental Objectives The GEF Project will pilot a replicable delivery mechanism that would mainstream sustainable land management activities into the overall development planning process through the integration o f activities in selected areas into a community driven development program. The GEF supported project will incorporate the achievements o f other localized interventions (ongoing and past) supported by other donors. Introductiono f improved landuse and agricultural practices, and soil and water management measures are expected to help sustain livelihoods, reduce pressure on bottom-lands, forests and other fragile parts o f the productive ecosystem, conserve biodiversity, prevent loss o f and/or improve habitats, help maintain hydrological cycles affecting global water resources such as RAMSAR sites in Coastal Guinea though its upstream interventions, and international waters such as the Niger, Senegal and Gambia rivers, and contribute positively to carbon storage in bottomland sinks. Global benefits accruing from Project activities will also help Guinea inmeeting some o f its global environmental obligations as represented by its participation ininternational environmental conventions: Convention on Biological Diversity ratified on May 7, 1993 UnitedNations Convention to Combat Desertificationratified on January 28, 1997 0 Contracting partyto the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands on March 18, 1993 UnitedNations Framework Conventionon Climate Change ratified onMay 7, 1993 76 Guinea developed its first National Environment Strategy in September 1994, which has as its main objectives the improvement o f the quality o f life (health, lodging, potable water, infrastructures, urban sanitation), sustainable management o f natural resources, protection against major risks, prevention and mitigation o f sources o f pollution, protection o f cultural and natural sites. Efforts to implement the strategy are hampered by the lack o f resources, capacity and conflicting development priorities. Guineahas moved onthe UNCCD priorities andis inthe process o f drafting a national action plan to combat land degradation. The proposed Project activities will be fully supportive o f the priorities as they will emerge inthe National Adaptation Plan for Action (NAPA), especially capacity buildingand support to environmental monitoring. The NAPA i s expected to seek integration and harmonization o f the various initiatives addressing landdegradation, which the proposed Project fully supports. Guinea i s a member o f the Niger Basin Authority and has recently joined the Senegal River Basis Authority initiative. The Government recognizes the national and regional significance o f the hydrological functions o f the watersheds. Guinea recognizes the importance o f biodiversity conservation and management and has developed a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan with the support o f GEF/UNDP. This strategy has four main objectives: 0 Conservation o fbiological diversity 0 Sustainable use o f natural resources 0 Strengthening o f national framework for conservation and sustainable use 0 Strengthening sub-regional, regional and international collaboration for the protection o f biodiversity, the sustainable use o f natural resources, and the equitable distribution o f the benefits from such exploitation. While the Government o f Guinea recognizes the need for an intervention to address land degradation in watersheds, promote sustainable land use, and improve the management o f undisturbed lands such as bottom-lands, marshes along the riverbeds and forests that are increasingly encroached on by human activity, it is severely constrained in financial, technical andhumancapacity. Baseline Scenario -An IDA only PACV The baseline Project will be the PACV. The PACV2's objectives are to reduce poverty by empowering rural populations to make decisions about the development o f their community and to implement these. PACV2 also contributes to four higher-level objectives o f the PRSP: (i) strengtheningo f decentralizationand democratization; (ii) improving allocation and efficiency o f public expenditures; (iii) poverty reduction by improving service delivery; and (iv) improving public andprivate sector efficiency. PACV2 will focus on capacity buildingo f technical agencies (to improve service delivery). The main elements o fthis program are support to CRDs for socio-economic investments through micro-projects, as well as the technical assistance required for effective planning and 77 implementation o f these micro-projects. Also included i s capacity strengthening o f CRDs and local agencies that would support the design and development ofthese micro-projects. Support to the CNC, locatedinthe MinistryofPlanning is also included. Alternative Scenario: The GEF Co-funded Alternative The global objective o f the Project is to pilot sustainable and replicable approaches to the prevention and mitigation o fthe causes and negative impacts o f landdegradationon the structure and functional integrity o f ecosystems. By adopting an integrated cross-sectoral approach facilitated by linking up with the PACV2, and by using sub-watersheds as a planning basis, it will contribute to the protectiono fselected critical watersheds Overall, goals will focus on the maintenance o f critical ecosystem hnctions including hydrological cycles, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration. This will be accomplished while fostering multiple global benefits through maintenance o f trans-boundary water systems, biodiversity, and carbon sinks. Soil erosion is a chronic problem throughout the country. Deforestation and soil erosion can lead to increased sedimentation and greater flood risk downstream, while sediments also accumulate inbottomlands andreservoirs. Reducedflow inwatersheds encourages growth ofnoxious plants species and algae. For local stakeholders, landtenure in several parts o f the country i s unclear or not protected, especially where traditional structures are weak. In addition, producers lack the resources and often the technological know-how to invest inlong-term measures to maintain soil fertility. Continuation o f only baseline activities would limit Guinea's ability to continue its objective o f increasing productivity over the long term without addressing the issues o f land degradation, the cost o f which will also increase over time. The trend o f declining soil fertility and the lack of financial resources combine to intensify the pressures o f agriculture on fragile lands and bottomlands. Steps are thus needed to ensure that a basis i s created on which to build sustained land management and planning programs. Thus in the combined IDA and GEF operation, each play complementary roles - the PACV will strengthen the overall environment (including the pilotingo f vital land tenure activities), while the GEF grant will strive to enhance the longer term (and transboundary) benefits o f environmentally sound agricultural practices, land use, and natural resource management. Inadditionto activities supported underthebaseline scenario, the GEFalternativewill include support to the following activities: a) Grants for micro-projects: The GEF Project will finance micro-projects initiated by CRDs, producer organizations and formally recognized groups though a participative process. The details of micro-projects to be supported through GEF Project funds will not be determined in advance because of the demand-driven approach, however, they will focus on productive activities (agricultural research and extension, productive infrastructures, demonstration o f new technologies, etc.) and mitigatiodprotective measures (reforestation, etc.). The approach involves considerable participation o f producers and communities inprioritizing critical areas for investment. GEF Project supported matching grants will be available for incremental sustainable 78 landmanagement activities that are clearly identified in local development plans, supported by proposed indicators that are acceptable to measure their success. Incorporation o f clearly identified SLM activities in micro-project proposals will be a required criterion in the selection o f micro-projects. The financing will be provided as grants, with an upfront beneficiary contribution (cash or kind) o f at least 10percent o fthe micro-project costs. Capacity building of CRDs and Technical Services: The PACV will provide targeted support to central and deconcentrated agencies in the implementation o f decentralized development (focused studies and training on the operationalization o f decentralization and local development), as well as capacity building o f CRDs to plan for and implement local development activities, and adjust existing local development plans to include SLMconcerns. The GEF Project will support the strengthening o f capacity o f service providers, local NGOs and CRDs through training intechniques o f improved ecosystem management. The GEF Project will develop and deliver education and awareness programs that emphasize the way in which environmental issues reflect on, and are affected by, human activities; as well as ways inwhich long term ecosystem productivity can be maintained and enhanced through the use o f environment-fiiendly techniques. Training will also be provided to extension agents active inthe pilot zones inresponse to constraints identifiedby communities. Institutional development will help key decentralized public agencies assimilate the ideas o f sustainable land management in their policies and activities through improvements in natural resource use planning, monitoring and coordination, and improvement o f environmental management processes. Capacity building of OPs and otherformally recognized groups: The GEF Project will enhance the capacity o f community leaders, as well as that o f producer organizations (POs) and formally recognized groups. Support will be provided for: (i) strengthening the organizational, technical and management capacities o f local communities and POs; and (ii) promoting an understanding o f the broader environmental management issues related to landdegradation and how these need to be addressed. Support will also be provided to ensure that community organizations are included inthe adaptation o f existing local development plans to include S L M concerns. Capacity building of the producer organizations and local communities will be based on a situational analysis and demand, and linked to the local development plans, and offered by contracted service providers. The benefitingPOs and local communities generally will be grassroots-level organizations, but the GEFProject may also assist the capacitybuildingo fvertical organizations already existing or ones to be established by producer organizations or local communities. GEF support will be provided to strengthen the capacities of farmers and communities to manage natural resources sustainably, access knowledge on improved methods, use indigenous and local knowledge and native species and implement agricultural systems that enhance ago-biodiversity etc. This subcomponent will also strengthen, when necessary, the capacity o f service providers, to enable them to provide services to producer organizations and local communities. 79 Project administration and monitoring component would help support the N C U in coordinating, managing and monitoring and evaluating the GEF Project. Incremental CostAnalysis Matrix Incremental Costs. The underlying incremental cost analysis compares the total cost o f the activities under the Baseline Scenario directly linked with the GEF Project. The GEF Project coverage is limited relative to the PACV. Upon successful evaluation, replication will occur over a much wider geographic area, hence about one-third o f IDA and F A D ' s support to the PACV, or US$15.6 million, i s considered (see also Annex 5). In addition, about US$0.4 million in incremental funding from Government andbeneficiaries has been committed and included inthe analysis. Table 3: Incremental cost matrixfor GEFfunding Component cost cost DomesticBenefits GlobalBenefits Category USD M 1.Local Baseline 9.0 A limited number o f SLMrelated Activities might lead to limited global Investment micro-investments planned and benefits (mostly related to replanting Fund(LIF) implemented, mostly o f medium to o f community forests) but would lack long term local environmental the support for a coherent institutional benefits andtechnical framework. GEF 12.7 A significant number o f sustainable The improved hnctional integrity o f Alternative landmanagement micro-investments ecosystems will have positive impacts planned and implemented based on an beyond the limited (sub-)watersheds "integrated watershed management where the project intervenes, but will plan" will lead to the adoption o f have a positive impact that affects a sustainable landuse practices, Le.: (i) wider geographical range beyond the landuse changes incritical areas, national borders. such as river banks, flood prone or ground water recharge areas, and forest or natural habitats of significant biodiversity values; and (ii) sustainable agricultural practices. These changes will lead to enhancing the structural andfunctional integrity o f ecosystems, and improve rural livelihoods. Increment 3.7 2. Capacity- Baseline 6.8 Increased capacity o f communities to Buildingfor design and implement local SLM development plans, which do not always fully take into account land management issues. Institutional capacity strengthened andpolicies reformed to support decentralization. GEF 9.4 Increased capacity o f communities to Increasedunderstanding o f the human Alternative design and implement sustainable activities on the different parts ofthe land management of long-term local, eco-system is expected to lead to national and global environmental and reduced pressures on globally development interest. significant resources. The global environmental benefits will thus 80 include: (i) landdegradation halting and desertification,(ii) preserving biodiversity,(iii)preservingcarbon storage capacity and (iv) maintaining the conditionof internationalwaters. The LIFwill strengthenthis impact throughincentivesfor positive behavior. Increment 2.6 3. Project Baseline 2.5 Efficient andcapablestaffinplaceto Management implement,manageandevaluatethe and project'simpact. Coordination GEF 3.6 Same as above The strengthenedM&E system, will Alternative support improvedmonitoringof globalresources infulfillment of Guinea's internationalobligation (desertification,biodiversity, climate change) Increment 1.1 TOTALS Baseline 18.8 GEF 26.2 Alternative Increment 1.4 of which GEF 7.0 Government 0.4 and beneficiaries The incremental cost o f US$7.4 million on a total o f US$26.2 million under the GEF supported Alternative Scenario represents about 28%. This would be a conservative estimate since a significant portion of the cost o f the first phase o f the PACV could have beenconsidered as well. The French support to the PACV is not included inthe analysis, because future support may be financed from reflows, the size o f which i s not known. If these were included, the cost-sharing ratio would drop further. In addition, complimentarity with the PNIR 2 and other donor-funded activities were not included in the analysis, such as support provided by PEGRN, because the PNIR 2 had not yet started activities at the time o f Project appraisal and the PEGRNhad been reducedinsize and it was unclear how this would affect this project. 81 Annex 16: STAP Roster Review GUINEA: Community-Based LandManagement Project STAP REVIEWER: PalVedeld 1.Introduction' The overall impression is that the project is relevant and well suited for GEF support. My comments should be seen in light o f that the definitely project should be supported. Ido offer some questions, comments and suggestions concerning overall both goal and problem understanding, but also project design, participation, local knowledge and some other issues. 2. Scientific and technical soundness of the project I s there sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the project a sound scientific base? The documents provide substantial knowledge and insights in the problem at hand. It i s obviously a strength that the proposed project builds on and into the existing VPSC project and can utilize experience-based insights; both from the field, and in terms o f how one best can develop a good organizational structure. Iwouldstillaskforabetterbasicexpositionoftheoverallproblemoflanddegradation;itsmain causes and effects and how such causes and effects would typically vary within the country according to climatic, ecological, economic, cultural, social andpolitical factors. Established agricultural land can be degraded through soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion processes. This type o f degradation poses substantial challenges in terms o f identifying and getting regeneration activities implemented thus improving productivity on the existing land. However, in many districts, the major land degradation threat i s deforestation in various forms; caused by quite different processes such as land clearing for agriculture; both permanently an in shifting cultivation systems; but also charcoaling, legal and illegal cutting o f timber and a variety o f other activities lead to both deforestation and forest degeneration. What kind o f processes that are present in a particular area will depend on various contextual factors (climatic, ecological, economic, etc.) mentioned above. Important driving forces that create pressures for degradation comprise population growth and in-migration o f people. But it also relates to broader and more complex issues o f landtenure and policies, removal o f subsidies for agricultural inputs (fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, extension service) and outputs, increased conservation o f land, etc. The complexities and local variations in causes- and effects will thus demand more locally adapted and less blueprint oriented approaches. It i s then for example a question if the proposal The STAP review was done at a relatively early stage of project development to aid the team in fine-tuning project design. STAP review comments have been fully incorporated inthe final project description. 82 ought to should start out with lists o f activities that are acceptable for funding andnot, but rather let such items be subject for local deliberations. 2.2 Have all the threats to the ecosystembeen considered? From what i s mentioned above; a more detailed and regionally diversified description could have been included, especially to display the substantial regional variations and challenges o f the country. 2.3 Does the type of ecosystemmanagement proposedrequire further research? This project is more applied and a substantial research effort is not strictly necessary. One could consider some kindo f participatory research efforts on local knowledge and local values, norms andpractices onparticular landdegradation issues. 2.4 I s there a need to develop indicators to achieve the objectives? The LFA format andthe main objectives andindicators developed are good as they are. On a detailed basis, one could consider ifthe suggested soil improvement indicator o f "organic matter change," could be considered supplemented by soil phosphorous or even some kind o f yield or output measures. 2.5 Will appropriate monitoring be putin place? A substantial amount o fmonitoring is suggested inthe project on impact, onperformanceandon financial and project monitoring. All are o f course important. Iwant to raise two issues concerning impact monitoring: 1)A couple of places inthe document, the issue o fparticipatory monitoring is raised. Ifeel that the way it is described in the document, is an approach where participation becomes a means rather than a goal initself. Local people are to be used to collect the material for monitoring and receive a written report afterwards. A different thinking on participatory monitoring is that local people themselves, together with competent staff, develop indicators and measures for monitoring and that they are able to interpret results and correct actions themselves. Istill see these two approaches as more complimentary than alternative and hope it can be considered inthe final proposal. 2) Ialso raise the issue of the suggested GIS - monitoring system. It is now suggested with a rather substantial part o f total costs o f the programme. Iam wondering, for several reasons; first o f all; ifthis project i s a pilot and demonstration scheme; is a GIS type o f monitoring something that can be sustained upon donor withdrawal? Secondly; i s the local level competence and resource situation on GIS at a level where this methodology can be successfully used at present, and in the future? One should at least discuss possible alternatives to (an expensive and sophisticated) GIS system for this kindo f impact monitoring. 83 2.6 Will the approach taken in the project proposal achieve the objectives of conserving biodiversity? IthinkespeciallythattherelevantactivitiessuggestedintheLocalInvestmentfunds;boththe Intercommunity S L M Fund Component and the Village Investment Fund have very good and practical orientations. And Iwould lift out inparticular the ideas o f both individual and village level factors combined with the intercommunity approach. The latter is often neglected in projects like this, and Ifeel that i s an important andparticular asset o f this proposedproject. IwouldalsorecommendthattheLocalInvestmentFund,ifpossible,isgivenalargershareof total funds thanthe present suggested 64%. 2.7 What are the risks and constraintassociatedwith the approach? Ithinktheyarewelldiscussedintheproposalitself. 2.8 I s there any area weakness, gap inthe project? The project has, in general, a lot of good properties. Some aspects could still be discussed further. There should, as raised earlier, have been a better analysis o f causes and effects o f land degradation and maybe even discuss the practical implications o f a Bosempian compared to a Malthusian approach to landdegradation. There should be a more wholehearted and embracing emphasis on local participation and Ifeel inparticular that issues around local knowledge of both nature, and of social relations should have been more explicitly addressed throughout the proposal. Linked to this i s also the issue on challenges o f meeting local heterogeneity; both on natural and on social issues. ImissadescriptionoftheroleoftheWatershedManagementgroup;whoareinvited;whatkind o fpowers and authorities will they have; relative to the state, andto the project management. This is a pilot and demonstration activity. As such, it is important that one consciously selects sites that cover the range o f challenges related to project objectives that one will meet throughout the country at large (climate, ecology, markets, ethnic groups, political situation etc.). So, a closer discussion of possible criteria for selection o f sites would have been interesting and important precisely inthe context o f a pilot and demonstration activity. 84 2.9 Are there any controversial aspects about the project? The issue o f potential resettlement o f people is brought up a couple o f places in the project document, but with little description and analyses. Ihave problems in seeing if and how, such issues will be brought up, if the measures to be undertaken are brought up by local people? If such plans are relevant or important part o f the program, it should definitely be clarified, much better thanwhat i s done inthe present proposal. Some o f the ideas suggested in Appendix 15 may lead to substantial local conflicts and in the name o f participation; one may let the content o f such a list be part o f a participatory process as mentioned before. It is also mentioned in the project document that no funds will be used for fertilizers and pesticides. That position i s o f course a highly political issue; but in terms o f a participatory approach to generating such a list o f "eligible items", it seems rather probable that such items would be raised and demanded by local people. If a major problem i s declining soil fertility, resulting in more land being cleared for agriculture, more fertilizer may actually be a cost- efficient measure to address the problem. This issue i s widely addressed and debated by economists, and should at least beproblematisedinthe document. 2.10 Does the project introduce incentives that may lead to overharvesting (in the case of a sustainable use project)? Icannotseethatthisisanissueinthisproject. 2.11 How will drops in revenue as a result of conservation measures be compensated? As also stated in 2.9, resettlement processes or even conservation measures, that both could trigger drops in incomes for local people, are not addressed inthe document. To the extent it is seen as a probable and or substantial activity, it should definitely be addressed inthe proposal. 2.12 Are there legal instruments aspects that should be dealt with? One should clarify tenure issues around the list in Appendix 15 (Table 2), where several items have substantial legal "aspects" on banning land use; by whom and for whom, and who will cover the costs? 2.13 How will the model of sustainable use outlined in the project be developed? Itis extremely important with goodprocesses for localanchoring o fthe project ideas. The participation approach has been mentioned and it has been stated that it may deserve closer attention for the final proposal. Participation i s better approached as a human rights issue, than as aninstrument for external donors, wherever possible. 85 2.14 How effectivewill the proposedmodelbe inthe local situation? Ithinktheoverallmodel,asitispartiallytestedthroughthePACV,willworkwellwithsome adjustments. Very few references are, however, made to the review o f the PACV project; o f experiences gained, weak and strong sides etc. That could have been included somewhere inthe project document. 2.15 I s there evidencethat the projectoffersthe bestlong-termsolutions? There is o f course no evidence, as the project has not been implemented. One major challenge is ifthe project with its objectives will be continued upon donor withdrawal. Manyenvironmental programmes suffer from this. An advantage in this respect for the suggested project is the emphasis on local environmental benefits; which should cater better for local legitimacy and support to the program; compared to more pure conservation programmes where local benefits are usually less present. 3. Identificationof globalenvironmentalbenefits As also stated inthe project document, this project fits very well with the purposes laid down for GEF to "provide finding for the agreed incremental costs o f measures to achieve global environmental benefits inthe area o fbiodiversity". To the extent the project delivers planned output; benefits in terms o f restoration o f degraded lands, improved protection o f remaining important biodiversity resources and reduction in rates of future degradation will all contribute to sustainable biodiversity management and conservation. The project has a good flexibility in site selection and can select sites that have substantial global biodiversity interests. The global benefits are thus clear relative to CBD. The flexibility also allows for exchange of experiences and ideas between interventions in different ecological zones. The project will also rehabilitate land and improve vegetation cover and forests and as such contribute to enhanced carbon sequestration relevant for the UNFCCC. The project also plans interventions in the semiarid areas o f Guinea and will deliver results relevant for the UNCCD. Guinea has ratified all these three conventions and the proposedproject contain components that ina goodway contribute to theimplementationofthe conventions. 4. RegionalContext A substantial number o f major Afiican rivers (Niger, the Senegal and Gambia rivers) flow through Guinea and the protection o f these rivers, and reducing pollution into these is an important factor in itself and also inprotecting the economically and biological valuable marine environment along Guinea's coastal waters. As such the project has substantial regional meaning andimportance. 86 5. Replicability of the project This type of project has a good scope for replication, both within the country, to additional sites, but also regionally and even globally. 6. Sustainability of the project The sustainability o fthe project has several dimensions; First o f all; ifthe project ideas themselves are considered profitable inthemselves and iffarmers and local communities have been involved in developing them, one would expect that activities would continue after donor withdrawal. Secondly, if the local institutions in charge o f the project are able to secure a tax-base or other types o f economic instruments that can and will be used for this kind o f activities; it may be possible that project activities will continue upon withdrawal. Thirdly, the project has an expressed strong support from the government; it fits well into other government plans such as CAS andPRSP. This i s important ina sustainability context. Fourthly, if the project has not created separate new own institutions, but instead has placed its organization on long enduring existing organizations, it seems more likely that activities will be sustained upon donor withdrawal. This seems to be the case inthis project. One question inthis respect has still beenraised about status of the Watershed Management Committees. 7. Secondary issues 7.1Linkage to other focal areas The project is definitely "consistent with the operational strategies o f the other focal areas" such as carbon sequestration and with issues related to combating desertification and also to enhance aquatic biodiversity. This i s also reflected inthe project document. The proposal also describes a number o f correlated activities, both in Guinea, and also in neighboring countries that link up with the project objectives. One particular project in this respect is the AGIR project supported by EU, with a focus on Integrated Resource Management o f the Niger and Gambia River Basins. The project is well linked up at the national levelwith the VSCP project and utilizingpartlythe same organizational structure, andnot least the experiences from this programme. 7.2 Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects Reducedland degradation, deforestation and afforestation measures improve local climate, water retention amounts and quality, reduces soil and wind erosion, improves potentials for urban 87 water supply and electricity and reduces health hazards in addition to enhancing biodiversity resources and soil carbon sequestration. And, as already mentioned, an improved biodiversity management andafforestation andreduced soil erosion, will also enhance Guineas coastal waters and marine resources. Itis difficult to see anypossible negative environmental effects. 7.3 Degree of involvement of stakeholders inthe project This is an area where there may still be room for improvement in the project, both concerning planning, implementationandmonitoring activities. It must be said as a general challenge inbiodiversity management undertakings, project operators often come with a "hidden agenda" (not local) to the table, and want people to agree to the agenda inthe name o f participation. Ifwe see participation as goal in itself, as a right, and as a way to generate legitimate systems for resource management, then the project may plan for more participation on certain items. On the planning side, for example, it seems crucial that local people have a right to discuss and revise the list o f activities eligible for GEF co- financing as presented or suggested in Table 2, Appendix 15. On the implementation side, how will local people, and in particular poor local people, be involved inpractical implementation and monitoring activities? One item relates to that some o f the activities to be funded imply restricting particular people from using certain resources. This may lead to relative deprivation for some compared to other groups. A truly legitimate system where in particular vulnerable and poor groups are represented would be important to secure. This may, however, prove to be difficult to achieve. On monitoring; can we strike a balance between sophisticated and expensive "remote systems" and more barefoot local level participatory monitoring approaches? That is an important- and possible challenge. If we trust local knowledge, competence and institutions not least, participatory monitoring may actually form a glue o f legitimacy for project activities to be implemented and sustained. The present suggestion with reports and workshops for local people may not be the most effective way o fmeeting different groups o f local people andtheir interests. For all activities, it is also important that both village level institutions and not least the Watershed Management Committee are constituted and given rooms to operate in ways local people perceive as legitimate. This involves boththeir legitimacy and representativeness and also their ability to handle or resolve local conflicts. The proposal can be clarified inthis respect, and will most likely have the experience from the PACV to draw on inthis respect. One could also want closer descriptions o f LIF, POS and other organizations and their relationship to local people. 88 7.4 Capacitybuildingaspects This is an area where there is room for improvement inthe proposal. The words localknowledge i s not mentioned once in the document, and the thinking i s surprisingly old-fashioned in the sense that one talks consistently about transfer o f knowledge from project to local people. The meeting between local knowledge and experience and modern scientific knowledge i s crucial for this project. It must be important for the project to develop ideas and approaches that cater for a fruitfulmix; both because also experience-based, hands-on knowledge itself is crucial relative to the objectives o f the project, but also because it has to do with the legitimacy o f governance. H o w do local people experience the "encounters at the interface?" One challenge is then not only to train local people; but field staff must learn participatory approaches and be allowed or enabled to develop respect for the local knowledge. It i s possible that the PACV project has developed this kind o f staff; but in that case, it could be better reflected inthe project proposal. 7.5 Innovativenessof the projects Ithinkthisproject, despitesomemorecriticalpointsmade,ingeneralhasasoundandclear approach that makes it suitable as pilot and demonstrationproject. Inparticular, the sustainable use orientationthat Ireadintotheproject iswise. Working with local institutions at village level, but also applying a broader watershed perspective i s also important as an asset o f the project proposal. The broad array o fbenefits and the innovative type o f activities suggested i s another asset. B. Response to STAP Review comments The mainissues raisedbythe STAPreviewer can be grouped as follows: (i) for more need technical informationrelated to causes of landdegradation; (ii) monitoring and evaluation; (iii) insufficient information relatedto the proposed participatory processes; (iv) sustainability o f watershed management committees; and (v) capacity buildingand use o f indigenous knowledge. Information on land degradation. Following the STAP review, Annex 1 o f the Project Brief was substantially revisedto provide information on the linkages between the different sector issues (agricultural technology base, poor agricultural services/capacity, lack o f rural infrastructure and access to markets, landtenure systems, access to credit, and population growth as an overall issue). Inaddition, Annex 18, with a site specific roots and threats analysis, was added. Also, more detailed analyses o f the final the selected sub-watersheds are planned o f project preparation and would be available at the time o f appraisal. On the basis o f these analyses, confirmed through consultations with local 89 stakeholders, appropriate responses would be formulated ina participatory manner and usingthe community demand driven approach. It should be noted that the Project is piloting an approach o f integrating SLM into wider development issues. Project responses to the site specific constraints are flexible, as long as constraints are stakeholder identified and proposed activities are fully supported by local communities. Monitoring and Evaluation. There were two aspects to the comments, the first related to the integration o f a community basedM&E system, while the second related to the cost. The community will be fully involved inthe M&E process and not merely to "feed the beast." Community representatives involved inM&E information collection will also receive training to interpret data themselves that will help them make appropriate presentations to the community itself, but also to others. PGCT would verify data (also to assess the need for further training) and do a separate analysis covering a wider area that would be shared with communities also. The cost o f a GIs based system to the Project will be limited because the system will be co- funded from several sources. The PACV is inthe process o f designing a GIS based M&E system using IDA preparation funds for the second phase, GEF preparation funds for the PGCMB, and with technical support from OGM. The cost for individual projects is therefore low. Also, not using a GIS based system for this type of project would have serious drawbacks for measuring project progress and impact, as several indicators require a GIS based system for appropriate monitoring. Participatoryprocesses and capacity building. The PGCT places an important emphasis on working in a participatory manner with local communities to identify constraints and design solutions. It i s for this reason that capacity buildingis emphasized. The Project will notpropose or impose solutions, it is neutral. The teams that work on the situational analysis and potential solutions with local populations will have no ties with the Project other than this activity and will not include representatives o f government agencies to avoid a bias in community responses. Furthermore, communities will not know that their responses may lead to additional matching grants for S L M activities. They will likewise be unaware o f which types o f activities will be eligible for PGCT funding. This will hopefully lead to honest responses and the identified S L M oriented activities are more likely to have full stakeholder support. Avoiding biased responses is also the reason why these activities will be carried out as part o fproject preparation andnot after the project has already started its activities. Sustainability o fthe watershed management committees. The preparation mission confirmed the difficulty o f working with watershed management committees (WMC), especially regarding special interests and sustainability. The concept o f WMCs was therefore dropped fiom the project. Instead, existing government structures at the prefectoral and regional levels, which already fulfill a similar function under the PACV, would be responsible for activity coordination. This approach would be more cost-effective and be replicable as it uses existing agencies that have these responsibilities intheir mandate. 90 Use of indigenous howledge. As part o f the situational analysis, traditional activities will be reviewed and how changing circumstances have impacted these. The PGCT will favor resolving constraints to using traditional techniques or the use of indigenous knowledge rather than importing solutions. Adaptation o f indigenous techniques, where feasible, is also a more sustainable solution as beneficiaries can apply these technologies at much lower costs. Quite often, maintenance of these solutions is much easier. 91 Annex 17: MonitoringandEvaluation GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject 1.Introduction The strategy developed for the project M&E system is based on the (i) framework (see results Annex 3), (ii)lessons learned from the implementation o f the first phase o f the PACV and similar projects inthe country, (iii) methodology developed for the baseline studies and project impact evaluation system (identical for both PACV supplemental GEF projects), and (iv) GEF principles for monitoring and evaluation as well as for OP 15 on Sustainable Land Management. An M&Emanual has beendeveloped as part o fProject preparation. Identifiedproject staff at the national and local level, as well as service providers and civil society leaders, will be trained on M&E procedures as needed. During project implementation, the manual will be reviewed and adapted to ensure that it meets the project's needs. An outline o f the guidelines adopted for Project progress monitoring and impacts is described below, established based on the information gathered inthe diagnostic preparation phase, results framework and suggestions received from several interested parties during the project preparation phase and on the experience arising from the implementation o f other projects and programs. 2. M&E SystemComponents The project's M&E system includes: (a) impact monitoring; (b) performance monitoring; and (c) financial andproject monitoring. a)Monitoring of Results and Impacts The Project Impact MonitoringSystem has been structured insuch a way to provide information on the results and effectiveness o f the actions implemented, inparticular within the range o f the micro-projects, along with the evaluation o f how the project contributed to solving the core problem to be confronted: the lack o f participatory tools and methodology necessary for the reduction o f landandwater degradation inselected sites. The impact M&E system provides for the socioeconomic and environmental monitoring o f four pilot sub-watersheds. Works would be initiated by an initial diagnostic with the participation of the community, and would contemplate the follow-up o f the following indicators: social organization, land use evolution, evaluation o f revenues and o f physical assets o fproducers, soils (physical, chemical, and biological indicators), rainfall depending on data availability for the selected sub-watersheds hydro-sedimentometry, chemical characterization o f sediments, surface andgroundwater quality, and evaluation o f flora and fauna. 92 Native vegetative cover in sub-watersheds with micro-projects would be evaluated with the support o f images generated by remote sensors (satellite images, aerial photographs, etc.). An initial mapping would be undertaken and updated with a frequency to be determined. This mapping would be complemented by field information. The evaluation o f ecological aspects would consider the diversity and relative abundance o f species, and the occurrence o f natural regeneration, along with other indicators to be identified. The proposedproject impact monitoring system consists o f four modules: 0 Evolution o f state o f sub-watershed ecosystems 0 Evolution o frural activity systems 0 Evolution o frural poverty and capacity 0 Evolution o f implementationo f GEF eligible micro-projects Each module includes a certain number o f specific surveys bearing on a common sample o f households and/or production units. Within the sample, one will distinguish between the households / production units concerned with GEF micro-projects o f the FIL / PACV and those not concerned. Comparison o f evolution o f the different indicators and cross-analysis based on multi-themedata willmakeitpossible: 0 To characterize the evolution o f each theme on each site. 0 To determine the overall evolution o f the links betweeen poverty reduction, state o f land degradation and activity systems dynamics. 0 To determine the pertinence, efficacy andreplication o fproposed approaches. Of particular interest is the innovative approach taken to assess poverty and capacites o f rural communities. The indicators do not only select monetary poverty (income, consumption, ...)but also living standard indicators, access to resources, assets and production factors (to measure vulnerability to risks), social links and poor people's participation in decision-making ("empowerment") as well as indigenous perception o fpoverty. The collected data (annual surveys) are encoded so as to be entered by theme in a computer and GIS referenced in the database. This will allow to establish the evolution pattern o f the criteria chosen to assess the evolution o f each them; carry out multi-criteria analyses inorder to establish a causal relation andmap the elements and dynamics o fthe above. The outcomes and proposals resulting from this project would be widely disseminated in annual fora so that they may be used or adapted to confront similar problems elsewhere. b) Monitoring of Proiect Progress The project progress monitoring (managerial monitoring) aims to exercise systematic control o f scheduled actions, evaluating the adequacy o f execution inrelation to what was planned, and to facilitate any necessary modifications. General responsibility for project managerial monitoring will rest with the CNC, which, in close collaboration with technical and administrative management, would guide the executing units concerning progress, performance and any necessary adjustments. 93 The project follow-up will be carried out in a systematic manner, considering the phases for planning, execution, verification, and adjustment. The detailed Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan delineates a detailed form o f implementation o f Project monitoring and evaluation. Every year a schedule would be prepared regarding the establishment o f goals and indicators compatible with the general planningo f the project. Managerial monitoring would be performed through the collection and analysis o f information on the implementation o fplanned activities. The Semi-annual Follow-up Reportswould address: Physical execution o f the scheduled activities; 0 Financial execution; 0 Analysis o f the compatibility o fphysical and financial execution; 0 Information on non-conformities recorded within the period, highlightingrelevant andor unresolvedproblems up to that time; 0 Realization o f events with the participation o f the society, especially those focused on qualification, planning and evaluation; 0 Partnerships established within the period; 0 Other information deemed relevant. Participation of beneficiaries in M&E will be maximized. Resource persons at the CRD level will be trained indata collection and interpretation. Data collected bythese resource persons will be integrated into the overall project's M&E. Beneficiaries will be provided with feedback on project implementation and share in decisions on any necessary mid-course corrections. Consolidated M&E reports will be submittedevery six months to the Bank. Specific evaluation studies, independent mid-term and ex-post evaluations will be contracted by the CNC. Together with the M&E reports, these evaluations will provide feedback to adjust project activities and futuremanagement interventions that wouldbeincorporatedinto the Annual Work Plans. c) Financialandprojectmonitoring This will focus on the CNCs contracting and coordinating capacity and the relevance, quantity, quality, and economy of public sector, municipal, and civil society services. Project monitoring will be combinedwith financial monitoring. 3. ProposedActions for the NationalCoordinationUnit (CNC) The CNC will undertakethe following actions to effectively coordinateproject monitoring: 0 The CNC M&E specialist will be responsible for training partners, collating and reporting data; 0 The CNC and stakeholders will undertake a participatory process, to prepare a nationally owned M&Eplanand manual andto buildcommitment and ownership for M&E; 0 Eachpartner will report results quarterly using a simple, structured reporting form; 94 0 The CNC M&E unit will collate, analyze and prepare semi-annual summary reports o f aggregate activities, usinga standard format; 0 The CNC and key stakeholders will meet semi-annually to review and verify monitoring reports and to identify key lessons; and 0 The CNC M&E specialist and key stakeholders will update their operational and M&E manuals andprocedures based on lessons learned. 4. MonitoringandEvaluationBudget M&Eoperating costs are estimated at US$0.6 million. 5. Key Steps Actions Completion 1.M&EplanandM&Emanualproduced (up-date o fPACV March 31,2005 M&Emanual) 2. Training o f key staff December 31,2006 3. M&E included into the project launchingworkshop Project Effectiveness 95 Annex 18: Site SpecificLandDegradationIssues GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject Four watersheds were selected to pilot the Project's approach. The number o f watersheds has been limited to avoid dispersing project activities over too wide an area, which would increase overhead costs and reduce funding available for field activities. Inaddition, it would be harder to show an impact due to Project supported interventions. For the watersheds that were selected at an early stage o f Project preparation, a roots and threats analysis was carried out, which is presented below. Table 1: Roots andThreats Analysis for the Kogon andFatala Watersheds Problem Symptoms Immediate Causes Roots Extent Problem Rating hadequate Lack o f knowledge on Poorly trained Budget allocation National Substantial institutional sustainable land staff process not targeted capacities management on priorities Lack o f incentives Inadequate agricultural for collaboration L o w fiscal services provision even where revenues going structures exist mostly to salaries Insufficient even when there i s information for Poorly defined no operating budget informed decision mandates malung L o w capacity Insufficient Insufficient interagency operating budgets collaborationat the national, regional and Donor driven CRD levels initiatives Insufficient field Dresence 96 Deforestation hcreased scarcity in ?oorplanning of tural poverty, h t i r e zone. hbstantial :ertain zones of wood ?orestplantations hereby forcedto suitable for Ziventhe ocus on Zarbonization and for .mportanceof Ipportunities for :onstruction, especially wood as energy ncome generation ;loser to urban areas source nthe short-run withlimited Disappearanceof hadequate pricing )pportunity on useful species to rural framework for onger-term populations (plant and firewood and nvestments animal) sharcoal. Xapid urbanization No appropriate with associated political iighdemand for framework to (re) wood (construction plant mdenergy) on limitedareas. Undermined traditional control due to interventions byrent seeking outsiders Soil Erosion Increasedtopsoil run- Seasonallabor Poverty Entire zone. Substantial off due to removal of migration to urban plant cover through areas diminishing Changes in slashandbum. the supply of production system labor. with a shift from Increased difficulty in production for auto maintainingproductive Technologies no consumptionto potential of land longer adaptedto market oriented causing circumstances production (in stagnatingldeclining particular on yields. No access to lowlands) while fertilizers technical support i s Increased erosion along poor. gullies due to extension Population of landunder pressures. Poor functioning of cultivation markets Absence o f improved adapted Seasonalrainfall technologies for patterns with heavy sustainable land concentrations and water duringcertain managementthat periods are of interest to local populations 97 Overgrazing Shrinkage of land %educed 4bsence of 'articularly of Pastures available for cattle and ;ommunal idaptationof land aTelimtlC, ;onflicts based on land nanagement o f :enuresystemto Saoual et utilization. 3astures. :hanges in Koundara xoduction systems Movement of pastures Seasonal to lowlands and nigration of herds Export o f fertility riverbeds at a greater FromMiddle from pasturesto distance from habitats 3uinea to the ,andaround houses :oastal areas Highconcentration of Population growth cattle incertain zones causing degradation of Seasonal droughts land limitingcarrying of traditionalpastures Diminished Droductivitv o fDastures Lack of See deforestation Shortages of Absence of Entirezone Substantial alternative energy from alternative sources sources of wood. of energy givenlow renewable household incomes energy Relative cost and lack of advantage of incentives wood over other framework. sources of energy. Limitedaccess to newtechnologies Decliningfood Insufficient production Chemical inputs Inadequate focus Entirezone Substantial security to ensure food are not on improving local, sufficiency duringthe economically indigent, dry season viable. technologies Competition from Lack of Rural-urban imported cereals appropriate migration of technologies, especially young, Changes inurban tastes adaptedto the males, causing away from traditional environmental, (seasonal) varieties technical, and shortages of farm socio-economic labor. constraints of farmers. Pollution of the Miningactivities . Lack o f appropriate Downstream Likely pollution downstream areas of legal framework areas of high the Fatala et Kogon. Lack of follow-up and inadequate watersheds and control resources for follow-up 98 Detailed maps have been made overlaying specific geographic information on the watershed (vegetation coverage, topography, population density, land use), based on available geographic information. Several sub-watersheds, with the highest likelihood for land degradation were selected on this basis. Onsite visits were used to confirm the selection. The sub-watersheds are limitedinsize to avoid dispersal o f activities over too wide an area. As part of the first six months o f Project implementation, a detailed analysis will be carried out together with local populations to identify specific causes o f land degradation, as threats are likely to be location specific. This work will be carried out by a team that has been contracted for this purpose andhas no further affiliation with the project to limitbias on the part o f facilitators or communities. Project responses interms of capacity building and matching grants for activities that target land degradatiodsustainable land management will be tailored to the results o f the analysis. This will allow the maximum flexibility for responding to site-specific threats. Similarly, the envelope for matching grants will be determinedbased on the extent o f landdegradationineach site. The key indicators will be applicable to all interventions. Inaddition, for each project site, zone- specific indicators will be selected based on the threats identified with the local population. The evaluation will be based on careful mapping o f specific land attributes and/or values o f the representative sites at the baseline situation and in subsequent years. Changes will be evaluated every two years for four representative sites. This will not be systematically done in all o f the Project's intervention sites in view o f the time and cost involved. Instead, a few representative sites will be selected in each of the four watersheds and results will be extrapolated. The underlyingconcept of the evaluation is to determine how much land is under sustainable land management. Inthis way, the results o f the land baseline assessment can also be easily integrated withthe findings ofthe socio-economic surveys. The detailed in-site analysis will determine the types of activities that will be supported by the Project. For illustrative purposes, the basket o f activities supported by the Project i s shown below. Area I Prioritv ResDonses Level Type of action Jrgency Deforestation Qualitative and quantitative htercommunal Local development 3igh assessment of deforestation. plans for the CRD and Reforestation incollaboration aggregated for a wider with communitiesusing part of the watershed, multiplevarieties of trees established together with communities. Improvedproductivity of agroforestry Formal adoption o f such plans by local and Reduced wood consumption regional authorities. support to reforestationby local communities where suchdemand exists 99 'romotion of wood :onserving technologies Erosion 1.1 Development of ntercommunal, 2ollaboration of local Substantial nethodologies focusing on land iational :ommunities using fertility, erosion control on the iarticipatory 3asis of local knowledge and ipproaches. zxperience. rest and extension of Selection of land basedon nethodologies productivepotential. kWaterpollution Monitoring o f ongoing mining qational and Propose regulatory 3igh activities and evaluation of ,egional :eforms as part of potentialnegative zapacity building I environmentalimpact (Fatala ictivities and Kogonwatersheds) Energy See also deforestation Lack of Promotion of collaborationof Vational, Capacity buildingof High institutional the different agencies and megionaland technical agencies (in capacity ministries at the national, .oca1 part also through the regional and local levels. PACV) Capacity buildingprograms. Fundingof incremental operating costs Increased field presence Cross-sectoral collaboration at the watershed level Strengthening of knowledge National Baseline studies, SIG High information base andbuildingof national based cartography, databases incollaboration with measuring o f erosion government agencies and over time, design of donors. multi-sectoral database Reformo f land ownership National Land legislation High reforms legislation (through baseline (supported through the Project on the basis o f the pilot) PACV) 100 Annex 19: Map GUINEA: Community-BasedLandManagementProject 101 IBRD 34774 14° 12° 10° 8° S E N E G A L G U I N E A COMMUNITY BASED LAND MANGEMENT PROJECT (PGCT) Sambailo PROJET DE GESTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DES TERRES (PGCT) Youkounkoun KOUNDARA R Guingan R Saraboido Kamabi GUINEA- Niagassola Termesse Foul Amory Touba Lebekerin Balaki BISSAU MALI Madina M 12° Wora Gaya Hy Dayatou Madina Naboun 12° Fougou Salabande Gada Kolumbia Dougountouni Fello Telire Woundou R Koundoua Siguirini Doko GAOUAL Kounsitel Yembering Malea Linsan Donyel Matakaou Faranwalia R Sigon Fafaya Manda Diatifere M A L I Touba Tianguelbori Pilimini KOUBIA Kouratongo M M Banora Kintinian Bankon Wendoum Korbi Dion Kouramangui Tou Ganiakali Bourou Malanta Daleni MissiraM M Kolle LELOUMA Tountouroun Kona Sannou SIGUIRI Dialakoro Popodara M M TOUGUE Lansanaya M Kiniebakoura Kakoni Parawol LABE Tangali Sagale Piari R Garambe M B Kalan Nounkounkan Balandougouba M Kalinko DINGUIRAYE Dabiss Heriko Timbi Hafia Noussi Fatako Koin R Missira Koba Madina M Daralabe Selouma Koundianakoro Sansale Sangaredi Ninguelande M Mombeya MR Kansanyi Sintali Niandankoro Kinieran Tanene Sagale Dongol Bantinyel M Kanka Touma PITA Labe R Sansando R Tarihoi Sapekal Bourouwal Komola Koura Kebali Bodie Dialakoro BOKE Konsotami Tappe Norassoba Niantannia Kanfarande B Massi TELEMELE R Ley Miro Dltinn Mafara Kankama Koundian Morodou Daramagnaki M M Teguereya Sanguiana R Gongore Miti Kollabou Cissela Doura Tionthian Arfamoussaya Kala Niagara DABOLA Faralako KamsarBR Balato Malapouva M Gongore Dogomej Banko R M R Sinta DALABA Bate MANDIANA Bintimodia Banguigni Sangarea Poredaka Koumana Koba Bouliwel Konindou Nafadji Timbo Saramoussava N'dema KOUROUSSA Babila M Mankountan Sogolon Dounet Baguine Tolo Baro R Kegneko Kindoye B Kolle Karifamoudouya Kantoumanina Tougnifili Kolia FRIA Kebali MAMOU Kiniero Gberedou M Baranama Balandou Tondon Bangouva M Konkourie B MB Passya KANKAN Badi Soya Missamana Saladou Douprou Lisso Koumban BOFFA Oure-Kaba Bendou Tintioulen Falessade Sougueta R Banfele Tamita Tanene Samaya M B M Sandenia 10° Marela Sabadou Wassou R KINDIA R FARANAH Baranama 10° Koba Damakania M R Khorira Friguiage M Madina Nialia Moribaya A T L A N T I C Heremakono M Molota Woula Kouria DUBREK R Mambia M Maneya Tiro Douako COYAH Songoya R Boula O C E A N Wonkifong R Sikhourou Tokounou Komodou CONAKRY Banian Albadaria Maferiniah Mamouroudou R Kakossa R Allassoya Moussava R FORTECARTAH Sangardo Karala Kaback Linko Kaliya R S I E R R A L E O N E Mafran Soromaya Farmoreya Gbangbadou KEROUANE R Kobikoro R 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 KISSIDOUGOU MB Firawa Sokourala Benti Femessadoupombo RDamaro Samamania Diassodou Bendou Bambama Koumandou C Ô T E KILOMETERS Vombiro Banankoro Konsankoro Yende Bardou 14° C.R.D. INCLUDED WITHIN THE P.G.C.T. Fouala Kassadou Millimou Koudiadou Sibiribaro C.R.D. COMPRIS DANS LE P.G.C.T. Senko Kpolodou Vatanga Binikala R R R CREDIT RURAL Gue Dembou Moussadou R D ' I V O I R E Vasseridou MAURITANIA CR DIT RURAL Temessadou Bofossou Gnonsamo Gbakedou Gbessoba Balizia Ridou BEYLA M CREDIT MUTUEL Koundou GUEKEDOU CR DIT MUTUEL Panziazou M MACENTA Diaraguerela Fangamadou Nongowa Tekoulo Daro MB B BANKS Sengbedou Kouankan SENEGAL BANQUES Wondekenema R Boola M A L I Vouremei Seredou THE NATIONAL CAPITAL GAMBIA CAPITALE NATIONALE Koropara ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONAL CAPITALS Foumbadou GUINEA- CAPITALES DES MINISTØRES R SIDENTS Nzebela Womey Fassanroni Gueassou BISSAU 8° BURKINA PREFECTURE CAPITALS R Koule R RGoueke Laine 8° Kpale GUINEA FASO PR FECTURES Koyama Kobela Soulouta Gama Kokota C.R.D. CENTERS Gama Conakry CHEF-LIEU DE C.R.D. R Koni-koni LOLA N'ZEREKORE RM Tounkarata Bowe R Yalenzhou SIERRA CRD BOUNDARIES BM Nzoo Pela Bossou This map was produced by the LEONE LIMITES DE C.R.D. R R Bounouma Map Design Unit of The World Bank. CÔTE D'IVOIRE GHANA PREFECTURE BOUNDARIES YOMOU The boundaries, colors,denominations LIMITES DES PR FECTURES Banie Beta and any other information shown on LIBERIA INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES L I B E R I A this map do not imply, on the part of R A T L A N T I C FRONTIØRES INTERNATIONALES The World Bank Group, any judgment Bignamou Dieke on the legalstatus of any territory,or O C E A N any endorsement or acceptance of Gulf of Guinea such boundaries. 12° 10° 8° MAY 2006