Project Brief Identifiers



Download 0.93 Mb.
Page3/8
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size0.93 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
Coordination with other partners and projects

An essential characteristic of this program approach for an integrated ecosystem management is the creation of a strategic collaborative framework for all relevant activities in the program intervention zone. Therefore strategic partnerships ensuring co-financing and enhancing a continuous dialogue, cooperation and complementary actions and facilitating the implementation of all on-going local, national and regional programs and projects, especially with those that are aimed to implement the National Action Plan to Combat the Desertification are a key for the successful implementation of this concept. The proposed program will build on and complement existing strategies, plans and projects.


Those on-going or planned relevant initiatives in the Sahelian zone of Burkina Faso are:
- The “National Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP) which is the baseline program of the program SILEM, and fully described earlier.
- The “National Agricultural Services Project” (PNDSA2), a combined nationwide agricultural research and extension project in a second five year-phase of implementation (1998-2002) is designed to provide agricultural technology development and transfer services to rural communities and to support initiatives of producers organizations. The national agricultural research institutes (INERA and IRSAT) and the national extension service (DVA) supported by the project are the major providers of agricultural technologies in the country and will therefore necessarily contribute technical assistance to the proposed project. Financial assistance is likely to arise through cost sharing for training of farmers and for the services of the extension agents.
- The GEF-supported Natural Ecosystems Management Program (PAGEN) under preparation builds on the CBRDP and PSB and support natural resource management activities inside natural habitats of the Sahel Partial Reserve (Northern Burkina) and inside other wildlife conservation areas in south-western Burkina. Its focus will be on biodiversity conservation (elephants) and on sustainable, locally controlled natural resource management (rangeland, water) inside the conservation areas. The proposed GEF Sahel Integrated Lowland Ecosystem Management Program will complement the activities of the above-mentioned GEF project by helping rural communities undertake integrated ecosystem management practices as preventive measures to protect the conservation areas from anthropogenic destruction of such natural habitats if SILEM intervention sites are located closely to PAGEN sites. Activity comparison between the two projects is described in Annex 1.
- The Programme Sahel Burkinabe/Burkina Sahel Program (PSB), supported by Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and UNDP, is an anti-desertification program and works closely with CILSS. It is the only initiative currently involved in this area. The participatory use of natural resources by different groups of the population as well as a common approach in integrated land use planning and developing of natural resource management concepts is one of the main objectives and has been achieved successfully in some areas. Conflict management and community consultation, linking agro-pastoralists and pastoralists in a consultative unit is crucial and a condition to further investments in the German sponsored PSB/GTZ. To ensure sustainability local, self-managed investment fund as well as a local system to monitor the impact of environmental actions will be established under the proposed project. CONAGESE is currently collaborating with GTZ to implement the German contribution to the Program Sahel Burkinabe mentioned above and could be a natural host of a Steering Committee to concretize the strategic collaboration framework.
- The multi-country research program of UNDP “Desert Margins Program (DMP)” (with participation from GEF, USAID, World Bank, France etc.) in Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Niger, Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe coordinated by ICRISAT/CILSS for western Africa, mostly a research or technology development program which will collaborate with the project to provide desertification mitigation technologies, knowledge and training.
- Burkina Faso is the only African country with an AIJ (Activities Implemented Jointly) project under the Climate Change Convention with support from the World Bank, Norway and Denmark. Components are community based forest management (300,000 ha in 6 years), solar technologies promotion and improvement of carbon sequestration. The activity is now planned to become part of the national Community Driven development program (CBRDP).
3. Lessons learned and reflected in proposed project design:

Sector & Themes KM

The project design is based on various lessons that are also reflected in the baseline CDD program (CBRDP) . These include:


Community-driven development,
Lessons from past experiences in IEM in Africa and elsewhere clearly indicate that natural resources are from social and economic points of views most efficiently managed when communities who use such resources are deeply involved in the decision-making process as well as in the control process. This supports the need for the CDD approach and for a substantial investment in capacity building to enable communities, and in particular to empower marginalized groups such as the poor to participate in both processes. CBRDP and this Program take into account the five critical factors that characterize successful CDD projects and which are: (i) good local organizational capacity or the existence of viable community groups; (ii) the appropriate fit of technology to community capacity; (iii) effective outreach strategies; (iv) client responsive agencies; (v) enabling policies and government commitment.
Integrated objectives and ecosystem management
The need to associate or integrate productivity-growth and income generating activities with integrated ecosystem management activities to increase expected economic and social benefits for communities, and the need to improve the security of land tenure, particularly in lowlands, in order to increase investments in the lowland ecosystem have also been taken into consideration by using CBRDP and its land tenure security pilot as bases for the Program.
The integration of better integrated crop and livestock husbandry in lowland ecosystems will draw from experiences such as the Pilot Pastoral Perimeters Program (PPPP) which established, in Chad and Senegal in particular, that proper use of rangeland, with rules set up by the community on spatial and temporal bases, can improve rangeland and the relationship among pastors, farmers and traders.
The need for long term commitment and financial sustainability in order to have a significant impact on IEM which is a lesson learned from several past NRM experiences is reflected in the long-term/APL approach taken as well as the financial sustainability component of the Program that calls on sustainable financing partnerships between the rural communities and external public and private sector partners.
In building up on PNDRD and CBRDP and by paying a particular attention to national and global IEM action plans and to communities within the peripheries of protected habitats, the Program also complies with the following recommendations of QAG regarding biodiversity projects in Africa: (i) the need to integrate biodiversity conservation agenda into the broader national development agenda; (ii) the need to focus on methods for dealing with socio-economic pressures in perimeter zones in which populations may be dependent on the utilization of the protected habitat (e.g., forest).
By involving key national institutions (Project Preparation Committee with PNGT, CONAGESE, INERA,etc.) in the design and implementation, the Program also insures that other recommendations of the Bank's QAG review are reflected in the project, such as: (iii) the need to take into account technical and stakeholders’ review of the final design; (iv) the need to have clearly defined goals and objectives so as to have well focused project efforts, to monitor progress and demonstrate impact.
Demand-driven funds for investments
The need for beneficiaries participation in the identification, planning implementation and co-financing of micro projects at the local level in order to achieve desired results and the need to adjust the level and the nature of co-financing (or contribution) of beneficiaries in the case of IEM so as to have the desirable level of interest and participation in IEM are well known and taken into account in the design of both CBRDP and this Program.
Institutional sustainability and Accountability
Along with CBRDP, the Program builds on national institutions as a key for success and sustainability. In particular it builds on the local decentralized structures such as the CCTP at the provincial level for donors coordination, the village land management committees (CVGT) to be established under CBRDP and other IEM sub-committees and clubs to be established under this Program. The decentralization and the land tenure infrastructures to be implemented under CBRDP provide solid bases for institutional sustainability of the Program.
The Program also attempts to establish financial sustainability of the above-mentioned institutions and their IEM activities, by focusing specifically on the subject in its capacity building component, through south-north partnership contracting efforts and other sustainable IEM financing mechanisms.
Along with CBRDP, the Program builds on the lesson that all efforts at devoting authority and resources to the local level will fail unless local institutions (traditional and modern) are sufficiently representative of the local population and are accountable to them. The participatory planning process, involving all segments of the population, which leads under CBRDP to the local development plans, and the local democratic governance institution building process that result in CVGT and IEM subcommittees, under CBRDP and this program, are expected to provide for the local population the required levels of representation and accountability
Technology fit
A key lesson in agricultural technology development and transfer and environmental management is that individuals or communities will not adopt a technology unless it fits their environmental, intellectual and socioeconomic capacities, as well as their socio-economic needs, and provides them with substantially greater expected benefits and lower risks, in comparison with their traditional technologies. It is also a well-known fact that high time discount rates of medium to long-term benefits expected from IEM tend to lower the adoption rate of related technologies, unless adequate policy instruments, such as compensations and rewards, are used to provide sufficient adoption incentives. The capacity building component of the Project takes all the above factors into consideration, including the creation of adequate enabling environment for IEM technology adoption, by assisting rural communities, interest groups and the government with the identification and implementation of needed policy instruments and reforms.
4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership:

The Government’s concern for land and environmental degradation issues is demonstrated by the numerous existing IEM related strategies and action plans mentioned earlier, which were designed to deal specifically with such issues. These include the environmental action plan (NEAP), the desertification mitigation action plan (PAN-LCD), the soil fertility management strategy and action plan (PAGIFS), the national Biodiversity strategy. Burkina Faso has also ratified all international conventions related to the Program, such as the Bio-diversity convention (2 Sept, 1993), the Climate Change Convention (2 Sept, 1993), the Convention to Combat Desertification (26 Jan, 1996). Other conventions ratified include the Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) and the Wetland (Ramsar Convention).


This program (SILEM) has also been endorsed by CONAGESE, the national environment management council that houses the focal points of all the above-mentioned international conventions.
The previously mentioned list of operations by the Bank and other donors also demonstrate the commitment of the Government to environmental conservation, given the large number of IEM projects agreed and co-financed with development agencies.
The commitment of the Government to the decentralization process also clearly appears from the long list of local development projects endorsed and co-financed by the Government. The Government is committed to decentralizing investment decisions to the rural community and provincial levels. This is demonstrated by the recent vote by the National Assembly of the orientation laws on decentralization (TOD). The creation of rural municipalities is scheduled to take place progressively over the next five to seven years.
5. Value added of Bank and Global support in this project:

Compared to other donors, the Bank and GEF are in a unique position to provide the Government and the people of Burkina Faso with a long-term (APL) and nationwide support to improve environmental and natural resources management all over the country. Such a support supplements the bilateral donors’ IEM interventions that are scattered in limited geographical areas across the country and also provides a cement to link up and strengthen such interventions. This nationwide and long-term platform support provides a framework for continuous optimum creation and exploitation of synergy among individual IEM interventions. It also uniquely provides the Government with an instrument to better coordinate all IEM interventions, to monitor and to manage the environment and natural resources in a more coherent and sustainable fashion across the country.


The fact that this project supplements a national community-driven rural development program provides GEF with a unique opportunity to tackle local and global environmental degradation issues at their root causes by providing support to grassroots communities to deal with such issues in the most efficient ways to stop and reverse environmental degradation. By supporting only the incremental costs of interventions above the costs covered by the base project (CBRDP), GEF is also able to help communities tackle such issues in the most cost-effective way.

E. Issues Requiring Special Attention
1. Economic
1.1 Like the base project (CBRDP), the Project (SILEM) 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, in any reliable way, be quantified in monetary terms. On the other hand, the demand-driven nature of investments also leaves undetermined the specific investments that will be made under the Project, thereby making impossible any reliable ex-ante estimation of costs and benefits. Not enough is known about investment attitudes of the rural communities to attempt a promising simulation exercise. However, it is possible to demonstrate in logical and qualitative terms, assuming economic rationality of decision making by the rural communities and private individuals, that substantial economic and social returns are likely to result from the capacity building component as well as from the local investment fund (LIF) component of the Project.
1.2 Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Capacity Building: The capacity building investment under the project is most likely to generate substantial economic benefits. The decentralization process, the land use planning and the human capacity building elements of the project will improve the economic decision making process itself. The greater ownership of the economic and IEM related decisions that will be made by the communities, and the increase in IEM knowledge/information can logically do nothing but significantly increase the feasibility, the cost effectiveness and at least the overall private benefits of IEM decisions. The promotion of collective IEM decision-making by committees representing the communities is also most likely to significantly increase the public economic benefits of the Project over long-term as well. Returns to human capacity building are usually significantly high, especially when there is an adequate enabling environment. The review of GEF-related activities in Burkina Faso, carried out during project preparation, suggests that the short-term annual effect of land management capacity building on productivity ranges from 12 to 30 percent increase in crop yields (Ouadba et al., 2001). The resources planned under this project to create the adequate enabling environment will therefore also significantly contribute to the cost effectiveness and to the high benefits that are expected from the capacity building component. Given the fact that the capacity building benefits are likely to accrue for many years to come beyond the project implementation period, benefits will most likely offset costs, with significantly high rates of returns on the capacity building investments.
1.3 Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Local Investments: The local investment funds (LIF) will generate several micro and meso projects that cannot be precisely predetermined given the demand-driven nature of such projects. Consequently, no classic ex-ante cost-benefit analysis can be applied in this case. However, many eligible types of investments are predetermined and are known to usually generate significant economic benefits when properly planned and carried out. Experience under the Environment Management Project (EMP) that preceded CBRDP and under other IEM projects in Burkina Faso suggest that rural communities when given the chance to identify and manage their projects usually select projects with very high rates of returns and low risks, and manage them much more efficiently than project management units (results of the pilot Test d’Exécution Directe under EMP in Burkina Faso).
As indicated in the PAD of the base project (CBRDP), research from various parts of the Sahel shows positive net returns to IEM investments, land restoration investments in particular. For example, the net value of techniques such as composting, windbreaks or rock bund is about US$ 700 per hectare. Research by INERA (national agricultural research institute) in the Bazega area of Burkina Faso indicates an increase in sorghum yields of 85 kilograms per hectare using erosion control techniques, an increase of 362 kilograms per hectare using organic fertilizer and composting techniques, and an increase of 824 kilograms per hectare (a doubling of yields) using a combination of the two techniques. The review of GEF related projects carried out in preparation of this project similarly indicates up to 35 percent increase in yields from soil water conservation techniques without manure and up to 100 percent increase in yields when manure is added (Ouadba et al, 2001).
Conservation tillage techniques to be promoted under the Project are known to have significantly positive impacts on yields and to significantly reduce labor costs. At least an additional 25 to 50 percent increase in yields and 10 to 25 percent reduction in costs are expected with such techniques.
The promotion of increased agro-biodiversity in lowlands by increasing the population of long-cycle photosensitive varieties of food grains would also increase average yields with no significant increase in production cost. The long-cycle varieties typically yield about 20-30 percent more than the medium-cycle varieties and about 30-50 percent more than the short-cycle varieties. In addition the long-cycle varieties tend to have much better grain quality, better cooking-, taste and storage qualities, and as a result to fetch much higher market prices (25 to 50% more), with consequently a greater positive impact on the farmer’s income, particularly on the income of the poor.
Estimates of growth multipliers for Burkina Faso suggest that each dollar of additional income generated in the agricultural sector will generate an additional US$ 1.90 of income in the local economy through the stimulation impact of spending on local goods and services (Delgado, Hopkins and Kelly, 1998).
1.4 Employment Creation: The Project will help to considerably lower rural unemployment, particularly dry season unemployment and under-employment. It will create or support new economic activities that will increase employment of farmers, artisans and traders directly or indirectly. New activities that will be generated by the Project include: cover crops seeds production and production of implements for conservation tillage; dry season gardening or dry season cropping in lowlands, lowland fisheries management, forest protection activities such as bees hiving and medicinal plants production inside gallery forests and holly forests, reforestation activities along international waters, production and marketing of energy–saving wood stoves, bush-fire brigades; bio-gas and bio-pesticides production, husbandry of endangered animal species, production, processing and marketing of endangered crops or varieties , etc. Additional employment will also be created for agricultural services providers, particularly NGOs, government services, farmers organizations and the private sector. It is expected that the incremental activities that the Project will generate will reduce rural unemployment by at least one half at intervention sites by the end of the program.
2. Financial
2.1 The additional economic activities that the project will generate are expected to be sufficiently profitable financially so as to result in increased capital accumulation at the farm level and particularly for the poor. This is expected to substantially improve the financial capacity of rural communities to maintain the investments made under the project and to expand investment activities beyond the lowlands and onto other rural sub-sectors.
2.2 Some expansion of the rural financial market is expected through project activities that will support the decentralized financial institutions. The south-north partnership contracts initiative under the Project is also expected to inject some financial resources into the local economies and to improve the financial sustainability of local investments (study on-going during preparation).
2.3 A financial soundness analysis (public and private finance analysis) will be undertaken for all projects identified with the communities, before projects are funded, so as to maximize chances of financial success and viability of such projects, and to minimize chances of bankruptcy of either the public or the private financial systems. In particular the capacity of the private and/or the public sectors to sustain recurrent costs of planned investments will receive a special attention.
2.4. Fiscal Impact: The Project is also likely to have a positive impact on public finance at the local level. The IEM investments under the projects such as holy and gallery forests, biodiversity conservation, etc. open up possibilities for eco-tourism and other economic activities that could generate fiscal revenues for the local governments.
2.5. The incremental cost analysis is provided in annex 4.
3. Technical


    1. The main technical issue is how to insure that complex local and global IEM or environmental issues and their linkages to production activities are well understood by rural communities and local governments, so as to trigger the right types of investment demands, and how to insure that such knowledge is adequately reflected in the design and supervision of micro and meso-projects at the local or regional levels. This issue is tackled as follows:




  • The national council for environmental management (CONAGESE), which houses all the GEF focal points of Burkina Faso, will assist the project coordination unit (PNGT) in all matters related to the training of trainers, particularly with respect to the training of service providers (NGOs, etc.) who will be in charge of sensitizing communities, helping them identify or understand environmental issues, drafting IEM/land & water use plans and related project proposals, and assisting communities with the technical supervision of works contracted out under such projects.




  • The Project will undertake a wide dissemination of main technical issues and solutions identified in national IEM action plans and strategies, for the benefit of rural communities and policy makers;




  • Local and regional government technical institutions, well qualified, such as the regional research centers and universities, will be drafting proposals for applied IEM research or studies on behalf of local governments and will in most cases be conducting such research or studies themselves in collaboration with international centers of excellence or experts.




  • Technical manuals of procedure have been designed for possible IEM investments, with specification of technical standards and norms to apply, and will be made available to all contractors




  • The national and regional project coordination units have a minimum of technical expertise within their staff to intervene and assist service providers and communities for most technical matters, such as certification of the technical quality of IEM works contracted out.




  • The national environmental management council (CONAGESE) can be called on at any time by the Project Coordination Unit to set up a scientific committee, to assist the Project on any IEM/environmental technical matter.




  • Collaborative protocols will be established between the Project and technical departments of line- ministries for the latter to assist the project with the design and supervision of sub-projects as needed, to insure adequate technical quality and coherence with sector policies and action plans




  • Independent technical audits will also be conducted periodically as needed, based on requests from communities, local governments or the Project Coordination units.




  • The Project provides the option for communities to use a portion of the resources allocated by the LIF, to finance the recruitment of technical expertise to assist in the design, supervision and reception of works to ensure the quality of the sub-projects.

3.2 Another issue is how to insure an adequate external technical control of project activities. The sub-projects control and approval mechanisms such as the Steering Committee of PNDRD, the CCTP contain or have access to technical expertise to judge the technical quality of Project activities. Furthermore the Project provides for CONAGESE to call periodically on an panel of national and international experts to conduct an external evaluation of the Project.



4. Institutional

The main institutional issues that the Project might face are being resolved under the base Project (CBRDP) as conditions of effectiveness, and they are most likely to be resolved when the GEF grant agreement for this Project is signed.


4.1 Executing agencies:
The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) of CBRDP will be the main executing agency of both CBRDP and this project (SILEM) at the national level. The PCU has demonstrated in the past, during the project that preceded CBRDP, its capacity to satisfactorily execute a village investment program. One major lesson learned during the predecessor project is that the speed of project implementation could be tripled by relying on service providers (government services, private sector, NGOs) to assist the PCU with project implementation tasks. The lesson will be applied in implementing CBRDP and this GEF window (SILEM). Finding sufficient and qualified service providers for each province may be an issue. A census of capable service providers has been carried out and necessary implementation manuals have been prepared. Several IEM investment aspects have been addressed in the selection of service providers and in the implementation manuals. Specific addendum for the implementation of this project (SILEM) will be added to each implementation manual where needed. Readiness of such addenda will be a condition of effectiveness for the Project. Furthermore a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the PCU and CONAGESE will be required as a condition of effectiveness of the Project to insure adequate technical quality of implementation, especially an adequate selection and IEM training of the service providers.
4.2 Project management:
As previously mentioned, there will be a joint management of CBRDP and SILEM by the same Project Coordination Unit, so as to maximize synergy and complementarities of both projects, save on fixed costs and thereby increase the cost effectiveness of both projects. There will nevertheless be one SILEM Coordinator within the PCU in charge of helping the overall Coordinator to implement the Project in accordance with rules and procedures of GEF and to track and account for the utilization of GEF resources within the blended project. The exact definition of roles and responsibilities of such a SILEM Coordinator within the PCU and how he/she should proceed to complete his/her mission will be addressed in an addendum of the implementation manual of CBRDP.
At the regional level, the Regional Directorates of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (DREP) are expected to progressively take over from the PCU its donors coordination role. Such directorates are quite weak and provision has been made for the base Project (CBRDP) to help strengthen their capacity.
At the provincial level the CCTP, the coordination mechanism for all local development activities will be also strengthen by CBRDP. The CCTP plays a vital role in the review process of socio-economic investments (schools, hospitals) and in selecting villages that will participate in the investment program. It also plays an important role in project monitoring, supervision and reception of civil works on behalf of the Government. The PCU will have small operational teams in 19 provinces (of direct intervention) to implement the blended project (CBRDP-SILEM) and to assist the CCTP.
It will be necessary to make sure that both the DREP and the CCTP are well aware of global environment issues and their relevance for local development activities, in particular GEF objectives, procedures and funding mechanisms. The Project will contribute to the capacity building of DREPs and CCTPs in that regard along with CBRDP.

4.3 Procurement issues:


The pilot "Test d'execution Direct (TED)" carried out during the predecessor project of CBRDP concluded that beneficiaries executed investments were satisfactorily managed, particularly with respect to procurement which turned out to be much better carried out, with much greater cost-effectiveness than the way it used to be carried out by provincial coordination units. This lesson will be applied in the blended Project for village and inter village investments , but there will be a need to provide the communities and the service providers with a minimum and adequate amount of technical and market information to help them make the cost-effective decisions. The Project will support the traditional market information systems used by the communities, particularly with respect to procurement of IEM goods and services.
At the national, regional and provincial levels, procurement for capacity building activities, investments in large scale studies and research under the project will be handled by the provincial operational teams or by the CPU with the assistance of CONAGESE, given the need for a large amount of technical, scientific and market information to make adequate cost-effective procurement decisions in such cases.
4.4 Financial management issues:
The main financial management issue is how to track within the blended project funds (CBRDP+SILEM) the use of GEF resources from SILEM, so as to be able to account for them separately for disbursement, audits and reporting purposes. There should be no difficulty in tracking GEF resources invested in capacity building activities and in regional research and studies. The main difficulty may reside with tracking GEF resources for village and inter-village investments. However, given the way supplemental investments are planned under SILEM at these levels there is little room for confusion. When SILEM funds alone, with beneficiaries contribution, the highest priority IEM project in the village, there should be no problem in tracking the GEF resources. When there is joint funding of village investment the supplemental type of investment to be funded by SILEM with GEF resources are well defined and can be costed separately. Given the fact that individual costing of components of micro-projects might increase implementation costs, standard cost allocation grids (SILEM vs CBRDP) or tables for different types of IEM micro and meso projects will be designed and used for accounting purposes only at the provincial and national PCU levels. A proper adjustment of the accounting software at the PCU level using the cost allocation ratios should be sufficient to achieve adequate tracking of GEF resources and accountability.
At the village and inter-village levels financial management procedures should be kept as simple as possible with one single blended fund, and no distinction between SILEM and CBRDP resources. Only the envelope that each one is contributing to the local investment fund may be mentioned for information when needed.
In order to maintain simplicity at the village level it may be better for the village to receive one check to implement the AIP and not two checks (one from CBRDP and one from SILEM). Both CBRDP and SILEM are under the obligation of having separate special accounts. However this may be strictly applied only at the national CPU level. The two types of funds may be blended in the bank accounts of the provincial operational teams. This will allow delivery of a single check to communities from the provincial accounts where adequate financial institutions exist.
5. Environmental



    1. Summarize significant environmental issues and objectives and identify key stakeholders. If the issues are still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to do so.

The Project aims at promoting the most sustainable and viable land use options and ecologically sound natural resource management, and thereby promote local and global environmental protection. The project does not by itself generate any specific environmental issue


5.2 Environmental category and justification/rationale for category rating: B - Partial Assessment
The base project (CBRDP) had a category “B” rating and its Environmental Assessment (EA) was carried out with results available publicly in country since July 1999. The EA classified the sub-projects to be funded by the local investment funds (LIF) in two categories. The first one consists of investments with positive or relatively minor negative environmental impacts (e.g., forest management, maintenance or repair of an existing physical work, construction of a building with a negligible footprint, etc.). The second category consists of sub-projects that may have a negative environmental impact. This category includes: rural roads, feeder roads through forest zones, tracks and pathways in pastoral zones, small scale dams, small piped water systems for large villages, wetlands and ecosystem management, and rangeland management.
Given the fact that this supplemental program SILEM will be supporting IEM sub-projects of the base project the EA of the base project applies for the most part to this supplemental program SILEM as well.
5.3 Determine whether an environmental management plan (EMP) will be required and its overall scope, relationship to the legal documents, and implementation responsibilities. For Category B projects for IDA funding, determine whether a separate EA report is required. What institutional arrangements are proposed for developing and handling the EMP?
The EMP recommendations of the base project (CBRDP) entirely apply to this supplemental program SILEM. They are as follows:
Environmental Management Plan. For sub-projects with a potential negative environmental impact, four types of interventions are envisioned to reduce or eliminate the possible adverse physical and/or socio-economic outcome. These activities are included in the program SILEM design and built into the sub-project investment costs:
Planning of investments: For any sub-project with potential negative environmental impacts a systematic review is conducted at the planning stage in order to predict the magnitude of these effects. Clarifying the relationship between the sub-project and its physical, economic, and social environment at the outset makes it easier to control or eliminate the adverse impacts. The EA has prepared a set of guidelines that will help the environmental screening and scoping of sub-projects submitted for funding. The investment phase will begin only after the EA is completed, and effective means for controlling negative environmental impacts are identified and properly costed. The scope and level of detail of the EA must match the nature and scope of the sub-project.
Implementation: During the investment phase the environmental mitigation measures identified in the EA study are implemented. These are measures that effectively eliminate or significantly reduce the sub-projects’ adverse environmental impacts. They may include relocating the program SILEM to a more appropriate site, modifying the design or construction techniques, changing the implementation period, or undertaking specific investments to rehabilitate the environment. The EA has prepared a set of generic mitigation measures based on the lessons learned from the previous project. This set will serve as a guide for formulating site-specific measures.
Monitoring & Evaluation: The monitoring and evaluation system will include basic tools for assessing whether the identified mitigation measures have been implemented and are effective. These tools include the items to be monitored, the methodology used, and the assignment of responsibilities. The development of indicators is a condition for ensuring that environmental impact management is an integral part of the standard program of monitoring practices. The monitoring program will be tied in with the existing GIS database developed under the previous project, and will allow the monitoring of changes due to program SILEM activities at national, provincial and local levels over the short, medium and long-term.
Capacity Building: EA legislation is new in Burkina Faso and national capacity in conducting EA is embryonic. Helping to build the administrative and technical capacity necessary for effective environmental assessment is therefore a key priority. A well-designed EA training module will be based on a thorough review of the roles of all the stakeholders, including program SILEM administrators, EA teams, local consultants, line ministries, NGOs, technical experts, and local communities. On-the-job training will play a critical role during this first phase of the program. In order to increase rapidly the competence of the operational staff, EA technical support mechanisms will be put in place at the beginning of the program SILEM.
6. Social

6.1 Summarize key social issues arising out of project objectives, and the project's planned social development outcomes. If the issues are still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to do so.


A social and institutional assessment was also carried out as part of the base-Project preparation, with the goal of understanding the social dynamics at the household, local institution, and community levels and maximizing the impact of the base-Project on the poor and traditionally marginalized groups. Key lessons and conclusions were fully integrated into the base-project design:
Institutional Development: There is no conflict between the institutions promoted by the CBRDP [ie,CVGT and the CIVGT) and traditional community-level organizations. On the contrary, traditional structures that will be represented by the CVGT/CIVGT will find in these a beginning of formalization. Very importantly, the social assessment shows that "communities" of villages exist, tied together by social, cultural, kinship, religious and market relationships. This provides the basis for encouraging villages to regroup and eventually to form rural municipalities.
Vulnerable Groups: One of the critical issues in bringing the entire community together to select, finance, and implement subprojects is how to ensure an equitable and representative decision-making process. Since most Burkinabé cultural groups are very stratified -- organized around caste, age, kinship, and gender divisions -- the LIF will use participatory planning and animation techniques to ensure that vulnerable groups (e.g., women, herders, youth, casts) are fully included in the decision-making process. Moreover, village-level committees will include representation from vulnerable groups. In addition, the program SILEM's land tenure pilot operation is specifically designed to develop a methodology to enhance land access and security for vulnerable groups. Once this methodology is established, the program SILEM will promote its implementation at the national level.
6.2 Participatory Approach: How will key stakeholders participate in the project?
The program SILEM has been designed to be broadly participatory at all levels, and first and foremost at the community-level. Well known participatory needs assessment techniques will be applied to involve the maximum number of beneficiaries in sub-program SILEM selection. The above mentioned social assessment will permit to refine these techniques.
7. Safeguard Policies
7.1 Do any of the following safeguard policies apply to the project?





Policy

Applicability




Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)

Yes




Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)

Yes




Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)

No




Pest Management (OP 4.09)

No




Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)

No




Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)

No




Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)

No




Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37)

No




Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50)

No




Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)*

No

7.2 Project Compliance



(a) Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with safeguard policies which are applicable.
Provisions made by the base project (CBRDP) to ensure compliance with applicable safeguard policies are as follows and apply as well to the Project (SILEM).
Environmental Assessment: The base project (CBRDP) is classified as Category B. The EA examined the project’s potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommended measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance in line with BP/GP/OP 4.01 (as discussed in section 5 above).
Natural Habitats: A positive natural habitat conservation outcome is expected through a collaborative agreement between the base project and the Project, the Sahel Lowland Ecosystem Management Program (SILEM). The incremental GEF funding will finance local capacity building and LIF sub-projects related to the conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity as well as land restoration.
Forestry: SILEM will support forestry activities that are environmentally sound (e.g., reforestation of degraded watersheds or improved communal forest management). In line with OP 4.36, these activities are included on the basis of their own social, economic, and environmental merits.
Pest Management: The projects do not involve the direct promotion or support the use of pesticides. In the few cases where they might recommend the need of pest control, an Integrated Pest Management approach will be used (biological control, cultural practices, and the use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest) that will minimize the need for chemical pesticides.
Cultural Property: The projects will not have a negative impact on any national or international cultural heritage or property.
Indigenous People: Not applicable.
Involuntary Resettlement: The projects will not involve any activities that displace people involuntarily.
Safety of Dams: The projects will only support the construction of small dams of less than 15 meters in height, such as farm ponds or local water retention structures. Generic dam safety measures designed by qualified engineers will be used in accordance with BP 4.37. The projects will not finance any dams that are 15 meters or more in height and pose particular design complexities, as these do not fit into the scope of the projects and in general will cost more than the maximum allowable cost of a project supported activity.
Projects in International Waters: The projects will support some activities aiming at protecting the following types of international waterways. and removing obstacles so as to permit free flow of waters. These include: any river, canal, lake, or similar body of water that forms a boundary between, or any river or body of surface water that flows through, two or more states, whether Bank members or not; any tributary or other body of surface water that is a component of any waterway described above; and any bay, gulf, strait, or channel bounded by two or more states or, if within one state, recognized as a necessary channel of communication between the open sea and other states--and any river flowing into such waters.
Projects in Disputed Areas: The project area does not include any disputed territory as defined in BP/GP/OP/7.60.
(b) If application is still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to make a determination.
8. Business Policies
8.1 Check applicable items:

_ Financing of recurrent costs (OMS 10.02)

Cost sharing above country 3-yr average (OP 6.30, BP 6.30, GP 6.30)

Retroactive financing above normal limit (OP 12.10, BP 12.10, GP 12.10)

Financial management (OP 10.02, BP 10.02)

_ Involvement of NGOs (GP 14.70)


8.2 For business policies checked above, describe issue(s) involved.

Financing of recurrent costs

As a condition for approving funding of sub-projects the capacity of the rural communities to cover over the short or long term the recurrent costs of the investment, independently or with the help of an outside partner , will have to be established.


Involvement of NGOs

NGOs will participate in project implementation as service providers. They will assist the rural communities with the design and the implementation of their local development and environmental management plans.




  1. Sustainability and Risks


1. Sustainability:

Sustainability

Institutional sustainability of development actions is the main objective of the first phase of the base-Program and of this supplemental program as well. Considerable resources will therefore be directed to institutional strengthening at all levels. At the sub-project/community level, sustainability also depends on the degree to which beneficiaries have ownership of the Project. This sense of ownership is an essential goal of the participatory process. The contribution required from beneficiaries, on average 10 percent in cash or in kind for public good IEM sub-projects (25 to 50 percent for private good IEM sub-projects), helps achieve this sense of ownership and therefore supports the sustainability of the investment. Where essential and feasible, community contribution for recurrent maintenance will be a condition of sub-project funding.


The program intends to insure sustainability through local capacity building. Farmers will be trained to understand the basic principles of proposed IEM technologies, such as soil and water management techniques, so as to be able to adapt the techniques according to their own objectives and resource conditions. Furthermore, an adequate enabling environment for IEM technology adoption will be maintained by strengthening the capacity of IEM governance bodies or pressure groups to identify and negotiate needed policy reforms with central or local governments, and to monitor and evaluate the implementation of such reforms.
The supplemental project also emphasizes financial sustainability by strengthening the capacity of rural communities in Burkina Faso to establish sustainable financing partnerships with the international private sector and with local governments of the northern hemisphere.
2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1):

Risk

Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure

From Outputs to Objective






Government commitment to decentralized decision-making and resource transfer to rural communities and their grouping (future rural municipalities) is not sustained



M

Ownership of the Program by the Government is high (preparation by National team; high level Steering Committee with representatives of all major ministries involved)


Legal framework for expanding the responsibilities of rural communities is not decided upon



M

To minimize this risk, issuance of the required legal text is a condition of negotiations



From Components to Outputs






Competent service providers are not available



S

A training program for service providers is included, to teach them the community-based land management/local development approach. A roster of competent service providers is being compiled as part of the preparation to assess availability of skills required for Project execution


Capacity to upscale project at desired rate is constrained by cumbersome approval and implementation procedures



S

The Project execution manual sets clear rules and criteria for sub-project selection and approval and for processing rules; model contracts and technical standards are included. This allows delegation of approval and supervision to intermediaries, thereby accelerating the pace of project execution.


Development of local capacity is slower than expected



S

The Project places heavy emphasis and resources on training and providing technical back up to community organizations


Technical back up is inadequate



M

Model agreements and funding are provided for hiring public and private technical service providers.


Marginal social groups are excluded from project investments



M

Social impact assessment has recommended safeguards, e.g. social control mechanisms will be established


Little or no desire from communities to invest in local and/or global environment protection sub-projects



M

Environmental awareness and education are provided and several incentive packages and mechanisms for IEM investment and technology adoption are built in the Project (i.e., lower beneficiaries contribution, etc.)


Insufficient competence of service providers to assist communities with integrated ecosystem management/land use planning



M

Competent national services and institutions will provide basic training to service providers and will directly provide services or refer to international competence in some cases. The expertise of the national environmental management council, CONAGESE, with respect to GEF focal points will be extensively used



Overall Risk Rating

M

The approach proposed under the Program is based on lessons learned from previous community-based NRM projects in Africa in general and in Burkina in particular, and presents therefore relatively low risks. Notwithstanding, the scale of implementation envisaged will be a challenge.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page