TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBEVIATIONS...... 6 1. Situation analysis ...... 8 1.1. Background ...... 8 1.2. Barriers to achieving pollution reduction ...... 9 1.3. Baseline Description of Pollution in the River Basin ...... 10 1.4. Indicative hotspots and criteria for pilot enterprise selection ...... 12 2. Strategy ...... 18 2.1. Project rationale and policy conformity ...... 18 2.1.1. : Roles, Responsibility and Challenges...... 18 2.2. HOT SPOT and TEST Approach ...... 19 2.3. TEST Integrated Approach ...... 20 2.4. Outcome, Outputs, and Activities ...... 24 2.4.1. Expected outcome ...... 24 2.4.2. Expected Outputs and Activities ...... 24 2.5. Expected GEB under TEST ...... 29 2.6. Gender Mainstreaming ...... 29 2.7. Sustainability and Replicability ...... 29 2.8. Potential sources of (subsidized) venture capital for investments in EST ...... 30 2.9. Co-financing ...... 30 3. Project Results Framework...... 31 4. Total budget and workplan ...... 36 4.1. Overall Budget ...... 36 4.2. UNDP-UNIDO Budget ...... 36 4.3. Inputs under TEST ...... 40 4.3.1. Counterparts inputs ...... 40 4.3.2. UNIDO inputs ...... 40 4.3.3. International experts ...... 40 4.3.4. Regional/National Project Coordinator, National Experts and Project Support Staff ...... 41 4.3.5. Sub-contract ...... 41 5. Management Arrangements ...... 42 5.1. Introduction ...... 42 5.2. Overall Prpject Steering and Coordination ...... 43 5.2.1. Project Steering Committee (PSC) ...... 43 5.2.2. Project Coordination Team (PCT) ...... 43 5.3 Project Coordination Unit ...... 44 4

5.4 Collaborative arrangements related to the overall NBA/OSS-ITTAS project ...... 45 6. Monitoring Framework, Reporting and Evaluation ...... 45 6.1. M&E workplan and budget ...... 48 6.2. Audit...... 49 7. Legal Context ...... 50 ANNEX I: UNIDO LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 52 ANNEX II: UNIDO INDICATIVE BUDGET ...... 54 ANNEX III: Rationale for UNIDO Selection and Prior Obligations and Prerequisites ...... 57 Annex 3: Social and Environmental Screening Template ...... 59 Annex 4: Terms of Reference for PSC and Key Project Staff ...... 68 Annex 5: Co-Financing Letters ...... 79 Annex 6: Detailed Terms of Reference for Component 3 Task Leader ...... 80

LIST OF TABLE

Table 3.1: Complementary criteria for the selection of short-list pilot enterprises for TEST ...... 13 Table 3.2: Baseline information of potential pollution hotspots in the basin for TEST . 14 Table 3.3: Expected Outputs and Activities ...... 24

5

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBEVIATIONS

ACMAD African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development APR Annual Project Review BAT Best Available Techniques BEP Best Environmental Practices BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CILSS Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahelian Zone COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EMA Environmental Management Accounting EMS Environmental Management System GEB Global Environmental Benefits GEF Global Environmental Facility GIS Geographic Information System IAS Iullemeden Aquifer System IGO Intergovernmental Organization ITTAS Iullemeden Taoudeni Tanezrouft Aquifer System IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IW International Water IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MFCA Material Flow Cost Accounting NBA Niger Basin Authority NBO Niger Basin Observatory NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NFP National Focal Point NGO Non-Governmental Organization OSS and Sahel Observatory PCU Project Coordinating Unit PIF Project Identification Form PIR Project Implementation Reports PMU Project Management Unit POP Persistent Organic Pollutants RECP Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production RLWDT(/NB) Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin SAP Strategic Action Program SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement 6

TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis TEST Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology TSS Total Suspended Solid UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP CO United Nations Development Program Country Office UNDP RCU United Nations Development Program Regional Coordination Unit UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental Program UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization WMU Water Management Unit

7

1. SITUATION ANALYSIS

1.1. Background

Recognizing the socio-economic potential and rich natural/cultural heritage of the Niger River but also the alarming consequences facing its basin because of desertification and unsustainable natural resource exploitation practices, a transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) was carried out by the RLWDT/NB project. The TDA analysis revealed that most of the environmental problems are derived from (i) land degradation (vegetal coverage and soils), (ii) water resource degradation (water shortage and pollution), (iii) loss of biodiversity (flora, fauna and biotope), and (iv) degradation of the living environment (pauperization of the populations, invading aquatic vegetal species, climate variability).

In order to address these environmental issues, UNDP and UNEP have supported the Niger Basin Authority (NBA) and the Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS) to submit to the GEF a Project Identification Form (PIF) to secure funding from the International Waters Focal Area to finance a regional project entitled “Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS)”. PIF was approved by GEF Council in March 2014.

In the PIF, three factors have been identified as contributing to the decrease of the water quality of the Niger River: (a) The industrial pollution Along the Niger River, industrial activities are concentrated on block-making factories, agro-food industries (milk production factories, slaughtering houses, oil production factories, soap production factories, etc.), textile industries tanneries and dying industries. They are source of pollution due to the lack of purification mechanism and system for controlling the rejection of effluents in the river. In , several large scale industries are developed alongside the river in which they directly reject, without control of prior processing, their industrial effluents: the Nigerian Sugar Company (Bacita), Premier Brewerer, PLC (), and petrochemical Industries. The development of cotton cultivation and the promotion of some economic activities in the sectors of agriculture, animal rearing and fishing especially, should contribute to upgrade the industrialization level in the basin. (b) The mining pollution The pollution of the waters in the Upper Niger basin in is mainly due to the presence of mining industries with chemicals used in the mineral processing (namely cyanide for gold processing). In , gold indexes were found in the alluviums of many rivers and streams exploited by gold washing. Other mineral resources are known and some of them have already been exploited: talc, marble, platinum, malachite, copper, and galena. Important limestone deposits must be exploited for the production of cement and lime. Granites are exploited for the production of road aggregates. In , apart from the small holders using traditional rudimentary means and the clandestine gold washers, there is no big activity on the entire national portion of the basin. However, potentialities exist and strategic plans are being developed so as to make dynamic the activities in the sector.

8

The Niger Basin Strategic Action Program (SAP) recognized the need for all industries (mining, agro foods, textiles, tanneries, etc.) to take into account, the environmental and social aspects in the rules on the management of the industrial installations in other to encourage the sustainable management of natural resources. SAP options are mainly directed on developing /implementing pollution control measures through assessment and definition of water quality standards to respect. Additional measures are proposed to restore the ecology of the infested sites. However, the main roots of cause remain the capacity of industries to meet social and environmental responsibilities in their daily process . (c) Agricultural and various other pollution sources leading to proliferation of aquatic weeds Among others, 2 causes have been identified as the immediate reasons of proliferation of aquatic plant species identified in the TDA/SAP: (i) nutrients (organic matter and fertilizer), pesticides and chemical substances entering the river; (ii) direct discharge of pollutant effluents into the principal riverbed. The deep-rooted causes of proliferation of aquatic plant species: (i) Absence of quality standards, laws and standardized regulations concerning water; (ii) Failure to apply regulations on water pollution; Urban growth along rivers; (iii) Lack of education and awareness of populations; (iv) Insufficient monitoring/rigorous and coordinated control of quality of river water; (v) Inexistence of administrative structures responsible for managing the sources of diffusion of pollution in agriculture. The most characteristic invasive aquatic species in the basin are the water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes ), the water lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes) and reeds such as Typha australis . The invasion of the river by the proliferation of aquatic plants disrupts the ecological balance, restricts certain economic activities, blocks hydroelectric infrastructures and creates conditions favourable to the development of many disease-carrying aquatic organisms. UNDP intervention is addressing the roots of cause of the aquatic weeds and river pollution by building the capacity of industrials on industrial competitiveness and environmental/social responsibility, contributing in the reduction of wastewater discharges and pollution loads in the Niger River. To promote the active involvement of the private sector, in particular polluting industries, in the pollution load reduction efforts, an integrated methodology, called the Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST), developed by UNIDO has been chosen to be piloted in the basin. TEST has been tested in several Regions worldwide (e.g. Danube River Basin), with GEF or non- GEF financial support, within industrial hot spots areas, contributing to prevent discharge of industrial effluents into international waters (rivers, lakes, wetlands and coastal areas) and thereby protecting water resources for future generations. UNIDO, with its technical competency, will be responsible for the successful roll out of the TEST in the Niger Basin, with strong emphasis on the capacity development in the region. The project will focus only on the industrial and mining pollution experienced in the Niger River basin through the roll out of the TEST in the basin on a pilot basis. 1.2. Barriers to achieving pollution reduction

Despite the socio-economical potential and rich natural/cultural heritages, it can be considered that the Niger Basin has been susceptible to pollution, contamination and resource depletion for more than two decades. This can be attributed to the lack of institutional and regulatory frameworks which poses as barriers to designated inter-governmental organizations that are tasked to prevent, reduce and fight against pollution within Niger basin. Some of these barriers include: 9

• Lack of technical capacities of national focal structures; • Weak decision making capacities due to limitations of monitoring and equipment of the environmental observatory; • Absence of civil society engagement in the whole process.

After the Nile, and the Congo, the River Niger is the 3 rd largest rive in Africa by its length of approximately 4,200 km and a basin area of 2,117,700 km 2 runs in a crescent through countries such as , Niger, on the border with Benin and then through Nigeria, before discharging itself through a large delta, known as the into the Gulf of Guinea in the Atlantic Ocean.

Before the River Niger flows into the Atlantic Ocean, it passes through Tembakounda, , , , and Onithsa which are major trading, agro-processing and industrial cities which tend to discharge its waste water and other polluting substances directly into the river often without environmental consideration or because of the near absence of enforcing environmental regulatory laws and policies in these countries hence depicting situations where national government of countries which the river runs through are either unable to deal with the accumulated environmental challenges/problems or are ineffective to preventing, regulating, reducing and managing land/aquatic pollutions from anthropogenic and other related industrial activities.

Consequently, environmental economists, river morphologists and pollution experts have in recent past stated that, the lack of regulatory laws/policies enforcement coupled with weak enforcement mechanisms is a combined result of be common barriers militating against the national governments. Some of these common barriers (amongst others) include meager public/private financial budgets earmarked for environmental management issues and pollution reduction; lack of necessary human capacities in terms of expertise, skills; use of outdated measuring and detection technologies and equipment by designated authorities, and low knowledge and awareness programs needed to include different stakeholders (producers, consumers, policy and decision makers) in pollution control and environmental management issues.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that there seem to be a sense of insufficient/lack of political will to combat pollution within the basin to guarantee healthy water body of the Niger River throughout the riparian countries. For instance, industries report only to the (individual) States on pollution matters which are most time a non-synchronizing data base for other Ministries, Departments and Agencies within that country. The problem is further compounded when other countries and designated organizations such as the Niger Basin Authority making it not possible for to access to the industries water inputs and outputs for quality control as regional coordinated approach. The aforementioned challenges and problems continue to pose as greater risks in the processes of aiming to ensure protection and conservation natural resources in manner that social acceptable, environmentally friendly and economically sustainable.

1.3. Baseline Description of Pollution in the Niger River Basin

Review and analysis of various references and information provided during the Inception Workshop in Niamey, Niger (May, 7-8, 2015) on countries priorities regarding pollution sources of interest in this project, enabled to identify several areas of major pollution within the Niger River basin with

10 direct effect to the river and its interrelated groundwater system. These main point sources of pollution are consistent with reports from the NBA 1, 2.

In the Upper Niger, mining activities and factories in some of the main towns in Guinea (, Faranah, Dabola) along the river bank have been identified as the major sources of pollution of the Niger River. Mining activities, especially for diamond in Banankoro, have been associated with major deforestation and land degradation contributing to high organic and inorganic load to the river through runoff. Downstream of the mining area is Bamako, by far the largest city in the Niger River bank excluding Nigeria. There are several industries (textiles, tanneries, slaughterhouse, etc.) in the city discharging to the river their untreated or poorly treated effluents with various types of pollutants.

In the Inner Delta Niger, Agribusiness has been identified as a major source of pollution of the Niger River according to TDA report on Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS) 3. High inputs of fertilizers and pesticides on a yearly basis for more than 100 000 ha of irrigated land 4 for rice production downstream of Dam, contribute to high pollution load the river. This pollution constitutes a major threat to the rich biodiversity of the area. Indeed, the Inner Delta has been classified as a Ramsar Wetland Site due to its immense biodiversity with the two largest known bird nest colonies in Africa. Also, the area hosts 3 to 4 million resident or migratory water birds from almost all parts of the world, in particular Europe and Asia 5.

In the Middle Niger, rice production in Tillaberi, Niger contributes to organic, fertilizers and pesticides load similarly to the Inner Delta Niger but to a lesser extent. Downstream Tillaberi is the major city of Niamey hosting several small to medium scale industries including tannery, slaughterhouse, textile factory, etc. These enterprises discharge significant load of various pollutants to the Niger River. The National Hospital of Niamey has been identified as a source of pollution of great concern due to the nature of its effluents presumably loaded with pharmaceutically active compounds and other biomedical residues directly discharged to the river. Gold mining in Tera and Sirba, Niger and Essakane, have been pointed out as having significant pollution effect on the Sirba River, a seasonal tributary of the Niger River 6,7.

Downstream of Niger, the Sokoto basin in Nigeria is famous for cattle rearing amounting to more than15 million heads relying on groundwater exploitation through traditional unprotected wells suggesting high contamination of the groundwater with manure and nitrate which may be of concern due to the potential linkage between the surface water and groundwater as the IAS overlaps

1 Assessment for Monitoring the Water Quality in the Niger Basin, NBA/UNOPS/World Bank, 2005. 2 Study for the establishment of a system for monitoring the quality of water in the Niger basin, NBA/CIDA, 2010. 3 Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS), TDA report, OSS/UNEP, 2007. 4 http://www.on-mali.org/joomla/index.php/presentation 5http://www.wetlands.org/Whatarewetlands/Wetlandsinaridregions/WetlandsoftheSahel/AbouttheInnerNig erDelta/tabid/2288/Default.aspx 6Contribution à l’étude de la contamination et de la pollution des eaux souterraines par l’arsenic, cas de la zone d’impact du projet Essakane (burkina faso), LINGLINGUE Madi, 2iE 2009. 7 Impact des rejets de la ville de Niamey (Niger) sur la qualité des eaux du fleuve Niger, ALHOU Bassirou, UNamur/UAM-Niamey, 2007. 11 with the Niger River basin in the area. The area hosts slaughterhouses for beef production. More important, the city of Jebba in Kwara State hosts the largest Paper Mill in with is believed to have considerable pollution impact on the Niger River although there is a lack of available data as evidence. Many other some scale industrial units are located in northeastern States with potential pollution impacts on the river.

In the Lower Niger, the States of Niger and Koji hosts many enterprises with noticeable pollution load to the Niger River. It is estimated that more than 80% of industries discharge their effluent into the environment without pretreatment; whereas, neither the quantity nor the quality of these effluents are known. 8 In Nigeria, certain industries discharging their effluents into the river have preliminarily been identified in the PIF as potential hotspots: the Nigerian Sugar Company (Bacita), Premier Brewerer, PLC (Onitsha), and petrochemical Industries.

Besides the above pollution areas, it is not excluded that other potential hotspots linked to industrial and mining exist and could perhaps be found from field visit. Those areas may include the Benue basin of the Niger River basin covering , Chad and Nigeria.

1.4. Indicative hotspots and criteria for pilot enterprise selection

In the light of the baseline information described above, industrial and mining hotspots to serve as potential TEST pilot enterprises are indicated in the table 3.2. Pilot enterprises to be short listed for TEST implementation will be based on several criteria.

General aspects:

1) Geopolitical consideration: due to the immensity of the basin and the variety of stakeholders concerned within all nine countries and the amount of the budget of the component, pilot enterprises could be limited to one (1) enterprise per country. 2) Diversity of the activity sector: pilot enterprises must include both industrial and mining sectors as well as industrial enterprises with different activities (e.g. tannery and pulp & paper factory). This will demonstrate the versatility of the TEST approach to reduce pollution across a large spectrum of polluting activities; 3) Listed enterprises must be in business for at least 5 years and not present any foreseeable indication of going out of business; 4) Selected enterprises must be willing to adopt TEST implementation

Specific aspects: selection of hotspots for pilot activities of TEST will de determine based on information provided in table 3.1.

8Assessment for Monitoring the Water Quality in the Niger Basin, NBA/UNOPS/World Bank, 2005. 12

Table 3.1: Complementary criteria for the selection of short-list pilot enterprises for TEST

Enterprise Pollution parameters Selection basis activity sector Total annual mass load (mass/year) of: • nutrients (N, P); Professional evaluation and • organic matter (BOD/COD); judgement will take into • heavy metals; consideration enterprises with : • Industry • other pollutants (e.g., phenolic and high annual mass load; • aromatic compounds, etc.). high annual effluent Microbial contamination volume; Total annual effluent discharge (volume/year) • Substantial risk of adverse on Human health, Total annual mass load (mass/year) of: ecosystems, and socio- • cyanide, mercury, arsenic and acids; economic activities. Mining • heavy metals; • TSS. Total annual effluent discharge (volume/year)

13

Table 3.2: Baseline information of potential pollution hotspots in the Niger River basin for TEST

Basin Parameters conc. Effluent Country Location Activity sector Pollution Sources Pollutants Area at point source discharge Société Aurifère de Guinée (SAG) Société Ashanti Goldfield Cyanide, mercury. Gold mining La Société Minière du Dinguiraye Dinguiraye (SMD) , Société d’or SEMAFO Cyanide, mercury. Faranah TSS, acid mine,

Guinea Guinea Banankoro Diamond mining Unite industrielle AREDOR greasy emulsive Kerouane contaminants. Dabola Oil and Soap Mill Oil, detergents. Organic matters, Kouroussa, Slaughterhouses fats, TSS. Faranah Dyeing Dyes Alkaline discharges, oil

Upper Niger Upper and grease, Textile ITEMA phenolic 1140 m3/d compounds, sulfates, dyes, SS, heavy metals. Bamako Mali Mali BOD5 >250 mg/L O2; COD5 Organic matters, >688 mg/L O2; Slaughterhouse Abattoir frigorifique de Bamako pathogens, TSS, 300 m3/d PO4-- 7.25 mg/L; animal fats. NH4+ 12.9 mg/L.

14

Basin Parameters conc. Effluent Country Location Activity sector Pollution Sources Pollutants Area at point source discharge Organic matters, acid and alkaline BOD5 >1000 effluents, SS, Tannery Tannerie de l’Afrique de mg/L O2; BOD5 150 m3/d chlorides, l’Ouest (TAO) >2075 mg/L O2. sulfides, chromium. Pharmaceuticals Usine Malienne de Produits PhACs 30 m3/d & Drugs Pharmaceutiques (UMPP) Alkaline discharges, oil and grease, phenolic Textile COMATEX compounds, sulfates, dyes, TSS, heavy Segou metals.

Urea > 5939 t/yr,

Inner Delta Niger Niger Delta Inner Organic matters, ammonium Ag-industry fertilizers, phosphate >4055 pesticides. t/yr.

Organic matters, Tillabery Ag-industry Riziculture de Tillabery fertilizers, Niger Niger

Middle Middle pesticides.

15

Basin Parameters conc. Effluent Country Location Activity sector Pollution Sources Pollutants Area at point source discharge TSS > 300 mg/L; BOD5 >700; COD >1.500; Beverage BRANIGER TKN 10 mg/L; 20 m3/h pH 11.3; fecal strep. > 6600/100 mL. TSS > 30 mg/L; Organic matter, BOD5 >200; Textile ENITEX lime, dyes, heavy COD >500; TKN 30-40 m3/h metals. 14 mg/L; pH 11.2. TSS > 1000 Niamey mg/L; BOD5 Organic matters, >2000; COD Slaughterhouse Abattoir frigorifique de Niamey pathogens, TSS, >2000; TKN 100 300 m3/d animal fats. mg/L; pH 7.8; fecal coli > 3.10^6/100 mL. Organic matter; TSS > 12 mg/L; caustic soda; BOD5 >40; COD Dairy SOLANI nitric acid; soap >60; TKN 0.5 powder; bleach. mg/L; pH 8.7. PhACs; biomed Hospital Hopital National de Niamey compounds; organic matters. Sirba Gold mining Cynide, mercury. Tera Gold panning Acids, TSS.

16

Basin Parameters conc. Effluent Country Location Activity sector Pollution Sources Pollutants Area at point source discharge

gold mining and Arsenic 10-4300 Cynide, mercury, Essakane panning (over IAMGOLD Essakane SA µg/L in gw and 0-

Faso Faso arsenic, TSS. 200 sites) 780 µg/L in sw. Burkina Burkina

Chlorinated compounds, Paper Mill in Jebba; phenolic Kwara Pulp & Paper; The Nigerian Sugar Company compounds, Sokoto AgIndustry; (Bacita); NOx, sulfur, Kebbi Livestoks. Cattle rearing in Sokoto. heavy metals; Manure, nitrite, nitrate in gw. Ethylene, Nigeria Nigeria propylene, Premier Brewerer, PLC benzene, Niger Various (Onitsha); butadiene, 1,2- Koji Chemical Unspecified locations in Koji, dichloroethane, Anambra factories Kwara and Kebbi States. vinyl chloride, Lower Niger Niger Lower organic solvents, SOx, NOx, etc.

17

2. STRATEGY

2.1. Project rationale and policy conformity

2.1.1. Niger Basin Authority: Roles, Responsibility and Challenges. The Niger Basin Authority (NBA) is an inter-governmental organization tasked with the responsibility of promoting the cooperation amongst Member States and contributing to improve the living conditions of the basin populations through sustainable management of water resources and associated ecosystems. The NBA plays an effective role in managing the sustainable utilization and development of the Niger Basin’s cross-border water resources based on a shared vision and strategies of riparian states which include Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Chad. Since April 2008, NBA member states adopted the Niger Basin Water Charter, a legally binding instrument. Relating to protection of the environment, the Water Charter obliges parties to preserve the quantity and quality of resources, develop water planning, protection and management policies and protect the environment. The Water Charter helps in creating procedural rules on information exchange, notification and consultation for projects that may and or do have adverse on the entire river basin with some mechanisms to preventing pollution, discharges of wastewater into the Niger River and coordination/management of already polluted waters caused by human activities. Chapters 4, 12, 13, of the Water Charter clearly specify the general obligations of both the NBA as an institution and Member States collectively working together to prevent and reduce pollution in the Niger Basin in respect to household, agricultural and industrial waste management. For example, in Chapter 4, Article 53, subsection A, B and C, it is mentioned that member state shall cooperate with the Authority to arrive at mutually acceptable methods and techniques to prevent, reduce and fight against pollution in the Niger basin through: (a) Set goals and criteria for the environmental quality; (b) Establish techniques and practices in the fight against pollution at source; (c) Establish the list of substances whose introduction into the waters of the basin is prohibited, limited or submitted to researches or inspections. However, the NBA is being faced with some technical challenges to achieving this goal. Some of these challenges are limited knowledge regarding water resources and transboundary aquifer system; limited institutional capacities; and lack of sustainable financing mechanisms all of which have contributed (in part) to the poor management of natural resource in the region. TEST application will not only contribute, and facilitate, the processes aimed at strengthening NBA’s institutional capacities, but will also support local enterprises, industries to demonstrate the effectiveness of best practices and integrated management systems so as to reduce production costs, increase productivity while paying good consideration to the adverse environmental consequence as a result of their physical operations within the region.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 18

2.2. HOT SPOT and TEST Approach

For the purpose of this project and in line with this Component, the intervention will be based on two key parts; Hot Spot and Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies also known as TEST.

The Hot Spot Methodology is designed to identify, evaluate and prioritize pollution sources that are discharging their effluents into a common surface water body and or ground water aquifers. A “Hot Spot” is termed as a point of pollution or contamination

The Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology methodology (TEST) is developed with an overriding aim to improving the environmental management and competitiveness of businesses in developing countries and transition economies. It is a Best Available Practice (BAP) that has been implemented in many several regions worldwide (e.g. Danube River Basin), within industrial hot spots areas, contributing to prevent discharge of industrial effluents into international waters (rivers, lakes, wetlands and coastal areas) and thereby protecting water resources for future generations. Since its development, the TEST methodology has contributed to yielding very positive economic and environmental results as an Environmental Management Systems process. It also has the added benefit of being applicable to all types of businesses from micro, small and medium enterprises, to big companies in both industry and service sectors.

List of TEST projects implemented throughout the world including in Sub-Saharan Africa: • TEST Danube region: The project funded by UNDP and the GEF took place in five countries across the Danube River basin, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. UNEP and three National Cleaner Production Centers acted as national counterparts in 17 demonstration sites covering various sectors such as: food industries, pulp and paper factories, chemical plants, petrochemical plants, machinery factories and textile plants. • MED TEST project: Funded by the GEF and the Italian Government. It was implemented in three countries: Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Industrial sectors included: food, textile, chemical, ceramic, paper and leather industries. • TEST Cambodia project: Implemented in 11 industrial hot spots in the provinces of Phnom Penh and Kandal. The national counterpart was the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy. Industrial sectors included: textile, food, pulp and paper, paint companies. • TEST Mexico project: Funded by the Millennium Development Goals Fund (MDG-F) it was implemented in three States in South East Mexico. Sectors covered included: food processing plants, plastic factories and various service micro enterprises. The national counterpart was the National Cleaner Production Center. • TEST Honduras project: Funded by the Millennium Development Goals Fund (MDG-F) it was implemented in the Rio Blanco basin one chicken processing and two textile companies. The national counterpart was the National Cleaner Production Center.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 19

• TEST COAST project: Funded by the GEF it was implemented to the local hotel sector in four countries of the COAST (Collaborative Actions for Sustainable Tourism), namely Kenya, Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania.

In March 2014 the large succession project to the MED TEST partnership, namely the SWITCH MED Initiative , which spans nine countries of the MENA region (, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, and Palestinian Occupied Territories, Tunisia) was launched. It is a regional program supported by the European Commission and implemented by UNEP and UNIDO. Implementation of the TEST in the Niger River basin is expected to produce economic and environmental benefits to participating pilot enterprises by process costs savings and pollution stress reduction. 2.3. TEST Integrated Approach

TEST Approach is an integrated approach for sustainable production in the industrial sector. The Approach is built on 4 pillars:

‹ Revealing the "total costs" of resource use inefficiencies within production through the quantification of non-product output (NPO) costs; ‹ Assessing the industry resource efficiency and environmental performance against sector benchmarks and international best practices; ‹ Understanding the root causes of inefficiency and focusing on key consumers addressing the core process needs first when generating options for improvement; ‹ Installing an effective information system on priority material and energy flows, which helps to identify new opportunities for improvement, to monitor results and, last but not least, make people accountable for resource efficiency at the point where they influence it.

The TEST approach integrates and combines the essential elements of a set of tools, namely Pollution Hotspots Assessment, Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECP), Environmental Management System (EMS), Environmental Management Accounting (EMA), Transfer of Environmental Sustainable Technology (EST), and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with the learning cycle (plan, do, check, act). The approach is applied on the basis of a comprehensive diagnosis of enterprise needs (initial review). As a result of the customized integration and implementation of these tools and their elements, the key outputs include the adoption of best practices, new skills and a new management culture, enabling the enterprises to move forward on the path of improvement towards sustainable production.

The proposed approach in this project will consist of the following: ‹ Identify, assess and prioritize adverse contribution (pollutant types and load) of major industries located in the Niger River basin; ‹ Build local capacity and provide initial training in the integrated approach to facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technology (TEST) that will improve the environmental

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 20

performance and the productivity of priority industrial enterprises identified as pollution hot-spots. Introduce the TEST integrated approach (RECP, EMS, EMA, EST, and CSR) at the targeted pilot enterprises; ‹ Recommend mitigation measures, including policy mechanisms and technical solutions. Low cost technical solutions will be implemented during the project and the financial feasibility of more expensive technical solution will be assessed; and ‹ Disseminate the results of the project. The approach may be grouped in two parts, (i) the identification, assessment and prioritization of pollution hotspots and (ii) the introduction of the integrated approach for the transfer of environmentally sound technology (TEST) aimed at increasing environmental performance of enterprise-polluters. The combination of the two partss will contribute to ultimately reducing the pollution discharges into the Niger River basin. (i) Identification, Assessment and Prioritization of Pollution Hotspots

Although there is no universally accepted concept of a “hotspot” of pollution in a river basin management, examples of definitions are (i) point sources of contamination; (ii) non-point sources of contaminations; (iii) ecologically sensitive areas; and (iv) areas with environmental degradation. For the purpose of TEST implementation in this project, the concept of hotspot will be restricted to a source of major industrial, agricultural and or mining direct contamination of water in the basin. The baseline information on pollution provided in section B. (cf. to table 3.2) will be used to identify, assess and prioritize pollution hotspots according to an established methodology for hotspot evaluation 9 (ii) Introduction of the integrated approach for the TEST

‹ Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECP)

At the center of the TEST approach is the RECP tool, which enables the comprehensive assessment of feasible resource efficiency and environmental performance improvements within production systems. Its major output is sustainable production improvement measures, including the adoption of more efficient technologies and management programs. In other words, the RECP concept promotes the creation of more products (and services) while using fewer resources and creating less waste and pollution which in all addresses the three sustainability dimensions: production efficiency, environmental management and human development.

The RECP focuses on systematically identify potential applications of preventive techniques for pollution sources (where pollution is seen as a symptom of efficiency). The adopted pollution measures identified are classified in three categories ranging from no to low cost solutions to high investment, advance clean technologies (1) no cost measures, meaning no investment costs required; (2) the low cost measures such as good housekeeping and limited operational changes that improve

9 Methodology for identification, assessment and prioritization of pollution hotspots, 2 nd edition by UNIDO, 2004.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 21

resource efficiency; and (3) the measures which require additional investment, such as acquiring new equipment or technologies.

The RECP affects mostly the product and production levels of the management; in other words, the processes that take place to provide a service. Hence enterprises should adopt business strategies where they key look to maximize resource efficiency and cleaner production through, for example, the “4Rs strategy: Reduce, Recycle, Reuse, Recovery” 10 where applicable.

‹ Environmental Management System (EMS)

EMS and EnMS (Energy Management System) core elements are used as part of TEST to integrate resource efficiency into overall company management systems, providing procedures and internal resources for ensuring that the outputs of improvement programs are implemented, sustained and further developed. EMS built with the support of RECP and MFCA (Material Flow Cost Accounting) provides a stronger foundation for leading organizations toward continuous improvements of their sustainable production patterns.

EMS is the part of the overall management system of a business that includes the organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, maintaining the environmental policy. It focuses on identification and management of environmental aspects, and it is widely used as a tool to ensure compliance with environmental standards, such as ISO 14001 or any environmental system requirements. However, to operate properly it must be integrated with the other systems of the company. The EMS affects a lower, and therefore more complex, level of the management: the system level and builds a step by step process to respond and deliver on the RECP recommendations from the RECP level.

‹ Environmental Management Accounting (EMA)

Elements of EMA/MFCA (Material Flow Cost Accounting) are built into traditional RECP to strengthen priority setting based on non-product output costs and to put effective information and monitoring systems into place for important material and energy flows. A MFCA-based information system is essential for monitoring the performance of implemented improvement measures and programs to demonstrate their real impact on medium to long-term decisions, and thus promote their continuous application. It also enables accountability of enterprise members, as well as monitoring and reporting actual company performance using relative indicators measured against baselines and targets.

EMA is a valuable tool to assist management of an enterprise in understanding how environmental issues influence their accounting and financial business practices. ENA is defined as the identification, collection, analysis and use of two types of information for internal decision-making: (1) physical information on the use, flow and destination of energy, water and materials (including

10 www.iisd.org UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 22

wastes) of the business; and (2) monetary information on costs, profits and savings regarding the environment. It focuses on the optimization operations by tracking all environmental costs back to their source, especially costs of pollution “hidden” across the process of service provision, through the identification of cost centers that link into the RECP work (as it also helps to identify where RECP focus can be). The basics of EMA are that everything that the business acquires and that is not part of the final product should be reduced to a minimum. EMA looks into the production level of the management and is the most helpful tool to ensure buy-in from the manager of a company as it allows for the pinpointing and actual pricing of the inefficiencies in the production process 11 .

‹ Environmentally Sound Technology (EST)

According to Agenda 21 12 , “ESTs encompass technologies that have the potential to significantly improve environmental performance relative to other technologies” 13 . These technologies protect the environment, are less polluting, use resources in sustainable manner, recycle more of their wastes and products and handle all residual wastes in a more environmentally sound manner than technologies they are designed to replace. This tool builds on the concept of best available practices and can include end-of-pipe solutions after the potential for feasible preventive measures has been explored. The EST typically covers the recommendations from the RECP measures which require additional investment. ‹ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

CSR is a self-regulation mechanism integrated with a business model that enterprises use to implement voluntary actions as well as to comply with ethical standards and international regulations. It is based on close cooperation with stakeholders (internal CSR with staff; external CSR with surrounding communities) and integrates all sustainability considerations (social, environmental and economic) into business operations. CSR affects the lower portion of the management and its proper utilization ensures that the changes brought about during the project implementation are properly communicated to the stakeholders of the business. Test Methodology Sequential introduction and the integration of these management tools: TEST methodology sequence will be adapted/customized to each industrial sector and country/location. The sequential introduction and the integration of the management tools links the managerial aspects of environmental management to the technological aspects by introducing tools such as EMS and EMA. It gives priority to the preventive approach of cleaner production (systematic preventive actions based on pollution prevention techniques within the production process) and considers the transfer of additional technologies for pollution control (end-of-pipe) only after the cleaner production solutions have been explored. This leads to a transfer of technologies aimed at optimizing environmental and financial elements: a win-win solution for both areas.

11 De Palma and Csutoras, 2003 12 Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 13 Agenda 21: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=52 UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 23

Furthermore, the TEST methodology helps companies to improving their environmental management and competitiveness. The combined tools aim to change production processes, management practices and strategic vision of a company in a manner that will ensure the sustainable search for greener practices and process optimization. It puts environmental management within the broader strategy of environmental and social business responsibilities by medium and large scale companies towards the adoption of sustainable enterprise strategies. The main advantage of this integrated approach is the complementary of each tool. The EMA component provides the financial justification to invest in the options identified during eh RECP assessments while the EMS introduction enables a company to monitor and systematize its processes. CSR as umbrella tool provides the strategic approach as well as social dimension required to achieve continuous improvements. In sum, the introduction of the TEST integrated approach at the enterprise level follows this sequence: ‹ The existing situation is improved by better management of the existing processes; ‹ The introduction of the new cleaner technology (or if not sufficient also of optimized end- of-pipe solutions) is considered; ‹ The lessons learned from each TEST project’s implementation is reflected in the respective company’s business strategy.

2.4. Outcome, Outputs, and Activities 2.4.1. Expected outcome

The expected outcome of this component is to: “Introduce systematic and integrated approach of industrial competitiveness and environmental/social responsibility to reduce wastewater discharges and pollution loads in the Niger River”.

2.4.2. Expected Outputs and Activities

The outputs and activities for the component are described in the table 3.3. Table 3.3: Expected Outputs and Activities

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 24

Inception Impl. Final Expected Outputs and Activities 12/15- Jan.’17 - Jan.- Responsibility Budget 2/16 Dec.‘19 Dec.‘20 Output 3.1: Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (Including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) UNIDO 3.1.1. Review and evaluate NBA’s existing water body data and inventorying International & processes vis-à-vis member countries. National Experts 3.1.2. Carry out the identification and verification of member states hot-spots UNIDO priorities relating to their individual river basin management and pollution International & control/prevention plans. National Experts UNIDO 3.1.3. Identify areas for modification and proper coordination of the NBA’s International & basin-wide water body data and inventorying processes. 313,882 National Experts

3.1.4. Carry out an in-depth basin-wide analysis of regulations/standards needed International & to control/manage pollution discharge to water bodies and conservation of National Experts aquatic biodiversity. 3.1.5. Define and set basin-wide parameters and mitigation standards for International & contaminants discharges from potential polluting industries. National Experts 3.1.6 Design holistic monitoring and enforcement strategies of pollution International & control/mechanisms for NBA and member countries. National Experts International & 3.1.7. Compile and evaluate exiting (industrial) pollution hot-spot baseline data. National Experts Output 3.2: Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed.

3.2:1. Define and set criteria for selection of pilot industries/enterprises. UNIDO 703,400 3.2.2. Carry out the identification, and selection of pilot enterprises in line with International and project goal(s) National Experts 3.2.3. Conduct on-site visits to selected pilot enterprises & undertake a cleaner UNIDO production assessment (CPA) to determine their potentials/readiness in line International & with project goal(s) National Experts

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 25

Inception Impl. Final Expected Outputs and Activities 12/15- Jan.’17 - Jan.- Responsibility Budget 2/16 Dec.‘19 Dec.‘20 3.2.4.. Compile a preliminary technical assessment (diagnostic) report of pilot International & enterprises facilities and highlight best sites and conditions for pollution hot- National Experts spots monitoring. UNIDO 3.2.5. Design customized and or sector-specific pollution control and mitigation International & measures for pilot enterprises. National Experts 3.2.6. Organize stakeholders’ workshops/seminars and deliver presentations of International & the TEST methodology. National Experts UNIDO 3.2.7. Presentation of diagnostic reports to selected enterprises. International & National Experts

UNIDO, NBA, 3.2.8. Seek and confirm voluntary commitments (agreements) from pilot International & enterprises to the proposed environmental management system. National Experts 3.2.9. Nominate demo site coordinators and prepare inception training materials International & for pollution control/ mitigation measures based on the enterprise needs and National Experts sector.

Output 3.3: Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently introduced. 3.3.1. In collaboration with Niger Basin Authority, set up a Regional Project UNIDO, NBA, Advisory Board (consisting of all relevant stakeholders) to ensure that national International & 847,700 priorities/plans are effectively implemented in this phase. National Experts 3.3.2. Organize and conduct preparatory training sessions (for demo site TEST Team coordinators) towards the implementation of the TEST Approach.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 26

Inception Impl. Final Expected Outputs and Activities 12/15- Jan.’17 - Jan.- Responsibility Budget 2/16 Dec.‘19 Dec.‘20 3.3.3. Phase I: Design customized tools and plan the introduction and integration of 3 different “ soft ” complementary environmental management tools into pilot enterprises daily operations: TEST Team -Cleaner Production Assessment (CPA) -Environmental Management System (EMS) -Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) 3.3.4: Evaluate options and coordinate the introducing/implementation of the 3 soft tools either simultaneously or step-by-step manner (Depending on the TEST Team enterprise specific situations). 3.3.5. Conduct a rapid assessment of Phase I, evaluate and benchmark achieved UNIDO milestones necessary for next phase. 3.3.6. Phase II: Indentify requirements for investments in environmental sound TEST Team technologies (EST). 3.3.7. Carry out environmental sound technology assessments and end-of-pipe TEST Team solutions in pilot enterprises. 3.3.8. Based on sufficient financial investment, plan the introduction of TEST Team Technology Change at enterprise level. TEST Team 3.3.9. Phase III: draft sustainable enterprise strategies to ensure continued use International & of TEST Approach. National Experts TEST Team 3.3.10. Plan the integration of TEST Approach into pilot enterprises business International & and functional strategies. National Experts UNIDO 3.3.11. Establish a virtual/physical network to communicate the performances International & & results of pilot enterprises. National Experts 3.3.12. Design customized tools for pilot enterprise and co-ordinate the UNIDO introduction and integration of: International & -Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) which complements EMS National Experts Output 3.4: TEST programme results and experiences disseminated. 680,472 3.4.1. Carry out the preparation of a publication on the applications of the UNIDO TEST approach in the Niger River basin for public access.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 27

Inception Impl. Final Expected Outputs and Activities 12/15- Jan.’17 - Jan.- Responsibility Budget 2/16 Dec.‘19 Dec.‘20 3.4.2: Organize National/Regional public and stakeholders seminars to highlight UNIDO the potential benefits of applying the integrated TEST approach at various International & industrial levels. National Experts 3.4.3. Create an online real-time project website fir virtual information sharing. UNIDO 3.4.4. . Initiation of networking activities on TEST between the NBA and other UNIDO TEST project partners (e.g. Med Test, Danube River Basin Test project) 3.3.5 Collaborate with Regional Project Advisory Board coordinates the proper UNIDO dissemination of results and experiences among NBA member states and key International & manufacturing industries National Experts UNIDO 3.4.6. Engage Stakeholders for TEST scaling up in consultation with NBA and International & other relevant institutional stakeholders in member countries. National Experts UNIDO 3.4.7. Highlight and promote Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) and International & voluntary environmental reporting at enterprises level. National Experts

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 28

2.5. Expected GEB under TEST

The Global Environmental Benefits of this component implementation will include: ‹ establishment of water quality standards comparable to other IW quality standards; ‹ reduction of organic and nutrients emissions (load reduction in terms of BOD, COD, N, P as per GEF tracking tool) and microbial contamination from some industries (e.g., tanneries, slaughterhouses, etc.) which would result to an improved wastewater management; ‹ reduction of hazardous substances from industries and mining through implementation of EST by introducing Best Available Techniques (BAT), Best Environmental Practices (BEP); ‹ partnership and cooperation on tackling water pollution issues in the basin under harmonized standards, agreements and regulations. The project will garner partnerships/networks with lessons learned from similar project around the world which would contribute to effectively implement the Niger Basin Water Charter. The Charter itself was based on country members water codes and stands as a good example of possible harmonization of their legislature related to the water resource management within the basin. All these specific pollution abatements will contribute to the overall improvement of water quality in the Niger River Basin and mitigate effects of pollution on public health and ecosystems. The outcome of pollution abatement through the TEST is consistent with the GEF GEB for i) improved energy efficiency, ii) reduced pollution and siltation of IW, iii) reduced pollution load in IW from nutrient enrichment, and iv) reduced risks on human health and the environment through reducing and eliminating production, use and releases of POPs and their waste.

2.6. Gender Mainstreaming The project, at its inception phase, will invest in a Gender Assessment both at the national level as well as at the regional level to identify the baseline situation. Based on the Gender Assessment, a Gender Action Plan will be developed, which will propose a set of concrete interventions that the project can incorporate in order to enhance its contribution towards gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment with a corresponding set of indicators to be monitored throughout the project implementation period (especially for annual reporting through PIRs, at mid-term review, and at terminal evaluation) and propose the end-of-project targets related to gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment. Both the Gender Assessment and the Gender Action Plan will be presented to the PSC members for their review, comment and approval. The Gender Assessment and the Gender Action Plan will be completed prior to the submission of the first PIR for this project. The TEST component will be assessed together with the overall project interventions. Thus, the Gender Assessment and the Gender Action Plan for the overall project will include the TEST component.

2.7. Sustainability and Replicability

Although the implementation of TEST through this project is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach to reduce stress in the Niger River basin with active engagement of the private sector, as shown in other basin (Danube, Mekong, etc.), it no less expected that the TEST would be adopted by various enterprises beyond the pilot ones and in other sectors. Pilot enterprises implementing the TEST approach to environmental management will find it a learning experience that will lead to a continuous improvement of their economic and environmental profits. Since part of this component implementation includes publication and dissemination of the lessons learned at pilot enterprises level, it is expected that those pioneer experiences will be shared with the industrial and mining sectors

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 25

to overcome the challenge of environmental management to improve their overall performance, including productivity. This can mostly be achieved through a sustainable financing mechanism that will accompany enterprises own investment. Since Governments and organizations advocating for the protection would prefer promoting a preventive integrated approach such as TEST, they would have an opportunity to not only achieve a better protection of the environment as a whole, but also to encourage the economy on both a micro and macro level, with positive social impacts. TEST would therefore considerably contribute to the development of effective partnerships in the field of industrial environmental management between the private and public sectors and provides win-win solutions to both sectors. This in return would trigger more confidence in investing on TEST from various sources

2.8. Potential sources of (subsidized) venture capital for investments in EST

Funding for investments in EST can be sought from various sources including countries’ governments and private sector among NBA Member States, Development Partners including international NGOs. Financial contributions from countries’ governments to be channeled through established mechanisms of funding to the NBA devoted to environmental issues. In collaboration with the Ministries of industry and mines of NBA Member States, polluting enterprises can be invited to a regional workshop to receive explanations of the economic and environmental benefits that can be achieved through TEST. Results of TEST projects in other locations (Danube River basin, Med TEST, COAST TEST, etc.) will be used as success stories to foster adoption and support of the TEST by participant enterprises. Large diffusion of the workshop information can be performed to reach out to non-participant enterprises. In partnership with civil society and NGOs active in the field of pollution control and environmental protection within the Niger River basin, funding for EST could be lobbied from traditional and potential Technical and Financial Partners of the NBA. Those partners include: World Bank, African Development Bank/African Water Facility; West African Development Bank, Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa, Islamic Development Bank, ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, Netherlands Bank, Canadian International Development Agency, French Development Agency, West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), European Commission, BMZ/KFW, Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development, OPEC Fund for International Development, Saudi Fund for Development, Abu Dhabi Fund for Development. 2.9. Co-financing It is envisaged that the overall project duration will be from 2016 -2021 (5 years), while the implementation of TEST is expected to be for 4 years. The TEST implementation pilot should be completed before the overall project will be completed to allow time for lessons learned and best practices documentations, etc. UNIDO will present a co-finance calculation for a 5-year implementation period and 1 year for project preparation (in 2015) Any investment to be made by participating private sector/industries required for TEST application should be counted as co-financing. However, it is not possible to secure co-financing letters to show these financial commitments to GEF at this stage as we have not identified the exact participants in/beneficiaries of the TEST application yet. So, this will be tracked as the project implementation progresses.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

Page 30

3. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK :

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD: N/A Country Programme Outcome Indicators: N/A

Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one): 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national legislation 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program: GEF 5 IW A): Catalyse multi-state cooperation to balance conflicting water uses in trans-boundary surface and groundwater basins while considering climatic variability and change GEF 5 IW C): Support foundational capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted research needs for joint, ecosystem-based management of trans-boundary water systems Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes: Outcome 1.3: Innovative solutions implemented for reduced pollution, improved water use efficiency, sustainable fisheries with rights-based management, IWRM, water supply protection in SIDS, and aquifer and catchment protection Outcome 3.3: IW portfolio capacity and performance enhanced from active learning/KM/experience sharing Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators: Indicator 1.3: Measurable water- related results from local demonstrations Indicator 3.3: GEF 5 performance improved over GEF 4 per data from IW Tracking Tool; capacity surveys Indicator Baseline Targets Source of verification Risks and Assumptions End of Project

Project Objective 14 • Number of • Many sites known • Industrial pollution hotspots • Examination of Risks: The objective of the industrial effluent but very few basinwide identified and database and 1. Political Risks: Insufficient/lack project is to sites identified, properly assesses assessed and inventorised into monitoring of political will from NBA member mainstream a assessed and and inventorised NBA database and systems systems countries and industries to “jointly” programme of inventorised • 90% of pilot • Transfer of Environmentally • Interview with combat pollution and hazardous industrial pollution by/for NBA industrial sites Sound Technology (TEST) participating chemical discharges in the Niger reduction in the Niger • % of pilot have adopted the approach successfully industries River Basin River through the industrial sites to TEST approach introduced, accepted and taken • Analysis of costs Level of risk: High. launching and have adopted the • 90% of TEST forward by 90% of the pilot and benefits and 2. Economical Risk: Economic promotion of private- TEST approach sites have industrial sites interview with factors (jobs, incomes, corporate • sector driven initiatives % of TEST sites demonstrated • Applicability of the TEST participating earnings) might outweigh based on the adoption that have sustainability of approach including sustainability industries environmental consideration and of environmentally and demonstrated the approach aspects and “win-win” concept • Interested resource conservation economically • sustainability of Minimum of 10 are successfully demonstrated enterprises have Level of risk: High –Medium sustainable best the approach new industries • TEST programme results and registered their Level of risk: Medium - Low. practices • Number of new requesting to be experiences disseminated interest through industries included in • Other industrial enterprises, not formal Assumptions:

14 Objective (Atlas output) monitored quarterly ERBM and annually in APR/PIR

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 25

requesting to be subsequent part of the programme, have application Voluntary disclosure of financial included in programmes sites expressed interest in taking on procedure reports concerning returns on subsequent have the TEST approach environmental investments and programmes application of the TEST approach will be readily forthcoming since this will be part of the agreement 15 Outcome 1 • % of the TEST • Balance between • More than half of the • Project Risks: Introduce systematic innovative industrial participating pilot enterprises evaluation 1. Political Risks: Insufficient/lack and integrated approaches competitiveness have taken on board the survey/report of political will from NBA member and approach of industrial implemented at proposed systematic and • Laboratory countries and industries to “jointly” environmental/so competiveness and the pilot integrated approach of industrial results. combat pollution and hazardous cial responsibility competitiveness and environmental/social enterprise levels • chemical discharges in the Niger responsibility to reduce recorded. were not a environmental/social Outcomes of River Basin interviews with wastewater discharges • % decrease in the concern or a responsibility Level of risk: High. enterprise’ and pollution loads in volume of a target business as usual • (based on baseline parameters), representatives. 2. Economical Risk: Economic the Niger River. pollutant in at polluting at least 10% 16 decrease in the factors (jobs, incomes, corporate enterprises level • discharges of the volume of a target pollutant in Voluntary earnings) might outweigh selected discharges from the selected disclosure of environmental consideration and enterprises' enterprises' recorded enterprises’ resource conservation • financial reports. recorded Energy efficiency gain in Level of risk: High –Medium • % Financial operations at the participating 3. Ownership Risks : Top return on enterprises, resulting from the management and shareholders of environmental application of the TEST selected enterprises don’t the investments and approach implementation of TEST approach application of the • At least 15 % financial return on midway of the project TEST approach environmental investments and Level of risk: Medium witnessed. application of the TEST • % success rate approach witnessed at >2/3 of 4. Non-voluntary disclosure of after the the sites TEST is piloted. financial report concerning to return introduction and • Positive impacts on women on environmental investments and implementation recorded and the info shared application of the TEST approach TEST Approach widely. might compromise project recorded in most evaluation of successes end results. pilot enterprises. Level of risk: Medium - Low. • Positive impacts Assumptions: on women from • Pollution and contaminant reduced pollution discharges prevention and loads and enforcement mechanism discharges to the established, water system will

15 All outcomes monitored annually in the APR/PIR. It is highly recommended not to have more than 4 outcomes. 16 the proposed targets will be reviewed and verified once the baseline assessment is done and the participating private sectors (those who are willing to invest) are identified [at the inception phase]”

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 32

be tracked • Manufacturing, mining and (through services related industries interviews, etc.). supported pollution control and prevention measures Financial Incentives packages • Top enterprise decision makers are willing to create funds for introducing and integrating the TEST approach within their business operations • Shareholders and external stakeholders (consumers, NGOs, etc.) supports the introduction and integrating the TEST approach.

Output 3.1 . • Degree of • Absence of precise • Water pollution database fully • Reviewed and Risks: Niger Basin Authority’s redefinition of regulation and accessible to interested parties updated 1. Absence of defined basin-wide Waterbody regulatory Standards, standards for • Report (printout and online) of Inventorying regulatory standards for discharging data/inventorying specifically in areas discharging water quality standards and processes pollutants. processes updated; such as: pollutants regulations reports, 2. Insufficient legal/monitory • pollution control and - Point sources of Insufficient/lack • NBA member instruments to reprimand pollution regulatory framework contamination; of political will to state approval (penalties, taxes, etc). improved. - Non-point sources of combat pollution; and adoption of 3.Insufficient financial resources for • (including the contamination; Inadequate updated a basin-wide surface and identification of causes - Ecologically sensitive enforcement of inventory process groundwater quality monitoring at and sources of areas; existing regulatory report(s). point source and non-point sources pollution) - Areas with human instruments to • Mechanisms for of contamination health risks; reprimand policy Risk level: High to Medium - Areas with pollution environmental (penalties, taxes, implementation Assumptions: clearly defined degradation. etc.). • NBA member countries place and accepted by • 60-80% of previous high priorities on the protection NBA member scoring/grading and conversation of natural countries. standards for resources and habitats. pollution hotspots • Pilot enterprises are willing to reviewed and or cooperate with the new revised as deemed inventorying process. necessary. • Piloting enterprises see the need • New standards for for such exercise and the pollution hotspots potential economic benefits to officially introduced. their business operations. • Regulatory Policy reviewed, updated to

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 33

current needs and good for implementation. • Output 3.2 . • Technical Insufficient • List of enterprises prioritized on • Signed Risks: Pollution hot-spots agreement financial resources the basis of their contaminant agreements by 1. Lack of comprehensive basin- identified and reached/signed for monitoring discharges available representatives of wide environmental customized to suit on NBA’s water quality • 9 basin-wide diagnostic pollution NBA member pollution/contamination data. current needs; basin- member countries • Insufficient hotspot survey carried out in countries. Level of risk: Medium wide assessment and on their individual competent participating NBA countries. • Basin-wide Assumptions: select ion processes of environmental personnel for the • 11 enterprises selected and diagnostic • Pollution diagnostic pollution pilot enterprises priorities. monitoring of diagnostic pollution hotspot pollution hotspot improved and • Number of basin- pollution often survey customized to suit their hotspots reports. reports. • mainstreamed. wide diagnostic due to the business models and physical Project monitoring and • Voluntary pollution hotspot reconversion operations evaluation reports. commitment survey carried out skilled workers to in participating other higher letters from NBA countries. paying jobs. selected enterprises • Number of willing signed and (in terms of social received by responsibility and Project voluntary coordinating reporting) team and enterprises Counterparts. selected and • diagnostic Progress project pollution hotspot reporting. survey customized to suit their business models and physical operations. • Correlation of chosen Enterprises with level of their contaminant discharges Output 3.3. • Number of • Lack of knowledge • # of low cost CP modifications • TEST assessment Risks: Transfer of customized EMS and expertise performed reports. 1. Insufficient competent personnel about the clean • Environmentally Sound and EMA training 1 customized EMS and 1 • Training at enterprises level for the technologies within Technology (TEST) and pollution customized EMA training and attendance monitoring of pollution NBA and ITTAS approach at the monitoring modules pollution monitoring modules sheets. Level of risk: Medium – Low countries. enterprise level for selected for each of the selected • Assumptions: efficiently introduced. enterprises enterprises developed Project evaluation • Enterprises are willing to apply developed. • At least 2 employees per demo UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 34

• Number of site/ pilot enterprises are reports. TEST methodological employees per demo trained. approach. site/ pilot • 15 persons within the region • Enterprises are willing to invest enterprises are trained so as to build reserved efforts in training employees for trained. pools of private/external experts the introduction and or • Number of persons for future needs. integration of the TEST within the region • At least $100,000 for potential approach. trained so as to build investment in TEST approach reserved pools of earmarked at selected enterprises private/external At least 9 low cost RECP experts for future modifications at selected needs. enterprises performed • Amount for potential investment in TEST approach earmarked at selected enterprises. • Number of low cost RECP modifications at selected enterprises performed. Output 3.4: • TEST website for • TEST programs • Final workshop disseminates the • Minutes of Risks: TEST programme the region created and experiences lessons learned and final report seminars held. 1. TEST results might have socio- were unknown in is made available results and experiences and functional. • Content and economic and political implications. the basin, at least disseminated • Regional seminars to virtual 2. Civil communities might use at enterprises level share TEST project activities/usage TEST results to justify legal actions results/lessons held. of the TEST against participating enterprises • TEST project website. Level of risk: Medium- Low evaluation report Assumptions: submitted/presented • Project stakeholders are in full to Regional Project agreement of project outcomes Advisory Board and irrespective of the nature of approved. lessons learned.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 35

4. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

4.1. Overall Budget The overall GEF funding for the project is governed by three different project documents. There are two project documents for the work to be delivered by UNDP, one with the NBA as implementing partner (shown as UNDP-NBA in the table below), and one with UNIDO as implementing partner (UNDP-UNIDO in the table below). The third project document covers the work to be delivered by UNIDO, working with OSS and UNESCO. While overall management of each of the components is clearly demarcated between the implementing Partners, some of the work leading to the outcomes is shared. As shown in the table below, Component 1 will be entirely delivered by UNEP-OSS but Component 2 will be jointly delivered by UNDP-NBA and UNEP-OSS, with UNDP-NBA having overall responsibility. Component 3 will be delivered mainly through UNDP-UNIDO, with a small part by UNDP-NBA. Component 4 will be led and mainly delivered by UNDP-NBA with the support of UNEP-OSS-UNESCO. The overall budget implications are summarised in the table below. Division of proposed budgets by Implementing Partner and Component Implementing Project Partner (Executing Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Total Management Agency) UNDP-NBA 2,885,714 200,000 2,593,036 446,250 6,125,000 UNDP-UNIDO 2,800,000 2,800,000 UNEP- OSS & UNESCO 2,300,000 1,700,000 275,000 225,000 4,500,000 2,300,000 4,585,714 3,000,000 2,868,036 671,250 13,425,000

4.2. UNDP-UNIDO Budget

Project Award ID: 00097201 ID(s): 00101032 Award Title: Projet TEST -ITTAS -Lutte contre Pollution du Fleuve Niger Business Unit: NER10 Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS) (Comp. 3: Introduce systematic and integrated approach of industrial competitiveness and environmental/social responsibility to reduce Project Title: wastewater discharges and pollution loads in the Niger River) (Short project title: TEST Roll-out in the Niger Basin) PIMS no. 4798 Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 36

Responsible Atlas Donor Amount Amount Amount Amount See Party/ Budgetary ATLAS Budget Total Activities Fund ID Name Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Budget Implementing Account Description (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) Note: Agent Code Output 3. Niger International 71200 69,465 175,395 122,430 400,290 767,580 1 Basin Authority’s Consultants Waterbody 71300 Local Consultants 76,615 174,158 38,953 112,763 402,489 2 data/inventorying processes updated; Contractual Services- 71400 73,920 44,000 22,000 71,500 211,420 3 pollution control Individuals and regulatory 71600 Travel 73,700 123,200 51,700 205,781 454,381 4 framework improved. Contractual Services- 72100 277,200 146,300 112,750 244,750 781,000 5 (including the Companies UNIDO 62000 GEF identification of Equipment and 72200 27,500 0 0 0 27,500 6 causes and sources Furniture of pollution) Independent Evaluation Implemented TEST 0 0 0 55,000 55,000 7 approach Information and 72800 0 0 0 23,650 23,650 8 Technical Equipment 74100 Professional Services 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 9 74500 Miscellaneous 16,000 10,000 10,000 20,980 56,980 10

PROJECT TOTAL GEF 619,400 678,053 362,833 1,139,714 2,800,000

Summary of Funds: 17 Amount Amount Amount Amount Funding Sources Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total GEF 619,400 678,053 362,833 1,139,714 2,800,000 UNIDO 3,520,638 3,520,638 3,520,636 3,520,638 14,082,550 Participating Governments, NBA and 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 4,400,000 OSS

TOTAL 5,240,038 5,298,691 4,983,469 5,760,352 21,282,550

17 Summary table should include all financing of all kinds: GEF financing, cofinancing, cash, in-kind, etc.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 37

NOTE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS ATLAS DESCRIPTION Output 3.1. Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) International Experts (2 short term experts) for 6 months in total, 3 w/m ($10,000 per w/m) per expert Output 3.2. Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed International Experts (3 short term experts) for 12 work months in total, 4 w/m ($10,000 per w/m) per expert and 1 long term coordinating expert for 12 months in total, 6050 per w/m International 1 71200 Output 3.3. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently Consultants introduced International experts (TEST specialist, CP/Industrial sector specialist, EMA specialist) for 12 w/m in total, 4 w/m per expert ($10,000 per w/m) and 1 long term coordinating expert for 12 months in total ($6,050 per w/m) Output 3.4. TEST programme results and experiences disseminated International experts for 12 w/m ($10,000 per w/m) and 1 long term coordinating expert for 12 months in total ($6,050 per w/m) Output 3.1. Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) National expert (2 short term expert) for 6 months in total, 3w/m ($3,000 per w/m) per expert Output 3.2. Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed National experts (industrial sector specialist, hot-spot assessment specialist, administrative support personnel) for 12 months in total, 4 w/m per expert ($3,000 per w/m). Regional/national project coordinator for 12 months in total (3,600 per w/m). Administrative support staff for 12 months in total (2,100 per w/m) 2 71300 Local Consultants Output 3.3. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently introduced National experts (industrial sector specialist, hot-spot assessment specialist, national EMA specialist) over a period of 12 months ($108,000). Regional/national project coordinator for 12 months in total (3,600 per w/m). Administrative support staff for 12 months in total (2,100 per w/m) Output 3.4. TEST programme results and experiences disseminated Regional/national project coordinator for 12 months in total (3,600 per w/m) and administrative support staff for 12 months in total (2,100 per w/m) Output 3.1. Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) In country service training over a period of 1 month (lump sum) Output 3.2. Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed Contractual 3 In country service training (lump sum) 71400 Services- Output 3.3. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently Individuals introduced In country service training (lump sum) Output 3.4. TEST programme results and experiences disseminated In country service training (lump sum)

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 38

Output 3.1. Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) Project travels (lump sum $20,000), UNIDO staff travels (lump sum $15,000), and international meetings including flight tickets & DSA (lump sum $33,000) Output 3.2. Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed Project travels (lump sum $35,000), UNIDO staff travels (lump sum $15,000), and international meetings including flight 4 tickets & DSA (lump sum $50,000) 71600 Travel Output 3.3. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently introduced Project travels (lump sum $50,000), UNIDO staff travels (lump sum $15,000), and international meetings including flight tickets & DSA (lump sum $30,000) Output 3.4. TEST programme results and experiences disseminated Project travels (lump sum $45,073), UNIDO staff travels (lump sum $15,000), and international meetings including flight tickets & DSA (lump sum $90,000) Output 3.1. Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody data/inventorying processes updated; pollution control and regulatory framework improved. (including the identification of causes and sources of pollution) Training through 3 workshops over a period of 12 months ($60,000) and Non-UNDP meetings in-country (lump sum $20,000) Output 3.2. Pollution hot-spots identified and customized to suit current needs; basin-wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved and mainstreamed Sub-contract(s) lump sums for 4 separate expert company consortiums over a period of 12 months ($40,000 per expert consortium), training (lump sum $32,000), and Non-UNDP meeting in-country (lump sum $50,000) Contractual 5 Output 3.3. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) approach at the enterprise level efficiently 72100 Services- introduced Companies Sub-contract(s) (Niger River quality diagnostic research, RECP & EMA implementation support, EMS & CSR implementation support, EST implementation support) over a period of 12 months (lump sum $40,000 per expert consortium), training (lump sum $70,000), and Non-UNDP meeting in-country (lump sum $40,000) Output 3.4. TEST programme results and experiences disseminated Sub-contract(s) (for website creation and data management and publicity & media coverage) over a period of 12 months (lump sum $50,000), training (lump sum $20,000), and Non-UNDP meeting in-country (lump sum $50,000) Equipment and 6 PMU operation office 72200 Furniture Independent Independent evaluation to be carried out in locations/countries where the TEST approach was implemented over a period of 1 Evaluation 7 month (lump sum) Implemented TEST approach Information and 8 For PMU office (lump sum) 72800 Technical Equipment Professional 9 Audit costs (US$ 5,000 per year) 74100 Services 9 Lump sum 74500 Miscellaneous

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 39

4.3. Inputs under TEST

4.3.1. Counterparts inputs

The Niger Basin Authority and the Ministries of Water Resources and Environment of the riparian countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Nigeria), the Ministries and national institutions in charge of industrial development will be the primary counterparts for this project Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS) for which UNIDO will be entrusted with the execution of component 3. It is expected that: ‹ NBA will support in the organization of seminars and workshops and contact with in- countries national focal points (NFP); ‹ Administrative support and full-time availability of NBA and OSS in countries representatives (NFP and other governments’ experts) to facilitate UNIDO ground work for the duration of their assignments on the project. ‹ In order to synchronize Output 1 and its activities with the inputs to be provided by UNIDO; NBA will embark on strategic steps to developing a protocol and or support other measures which will facilitate in promoting the harmonization of its regulatory framework on pollution control in the Niger countries. It is envisaged that this will positively add value in making the TEST methodology more attractive to industries and at same time act as an enforcement mechanism for industries to apply the end of pipe solutions as being proposed through this project as Best Environmental Practices (BEP) and Best Available Technologies (BAT)

4.3.2. UNIDO INPUTS

UNIDO will fulfil the following inputs:

UNIDO will be responsible for the execution of this Component activities that are considered to be of best practice and sustainable. These amongst others will include: ‹ Establishment of the TEST Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) responsible for overall coordination and facilitation of the project and establish communication channels between the stakeholders; ‹ The Staff of the PCU will facilitate the execution of this Component activities and will give valuable support for maintaining a “regional perspective” in the pilot countries and the selected enterprises ‹ Monitoring and assessment of proposed TEST project intervention results; ‹ Mobilization of international support for the TEST project. ‹ Execution of the Component 3 activities in the pilot countries will be jointly supervised with the technical assistance of the UNIDO Country Offices/Desks in the countries for effective monitoring of project execution and reporting.

4.3.3. International experts

International staff will be hired during the project as presented below. ∑ International consultant(s) (IC): S/He will be responsible to conduct the elaboration of standardized norms of wastewater discharge for pollution control within the Niger River basin. IC will also update and strengthen inventory of the Niger River quality and carry out hotspot analysis;

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

∑ TEST specialist(s): The responsible will evaluate the selected enterprises, develop adapted TEST training material and deliver the related training.

4.3.4. Regional/National Project Coordinator, National Experts and Project Support Staff A Regional/ National TEST Project Coordinator (NPC), National Consultants (NC) and Project Support Staff: they will be hired to assist ICs to collect data for the water pollution inventory and hotspots determination. They will also assist TEST specialists and subcontracted on TEST tools in their respective tasks as well as facilitate the monitoring and assessments of envisaged milestone as mentioned in the logical framework of this Component

4.3.5. Sub-contract

During the execution phase of this component, a subcontract will be necessary to support the implementation of the TEST tools (RECP, EMS, EMA, EST and CSR) at selected pilot enterprises. The tasks of the incumbent will include but not be limited to (i) organization of weekly meetings at the demonstration enterprises and (ii) follow-up of the CP and EMA implementation and administrative support as well as providing office space.

Provided they have the technical competences required to perform the subcontracts, preference will be given to the national counterpart, as well as other Ministries and national institutions.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

5. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 5.1. Introduction

GEF support will be implemented through two implementing agencies, UNDP and UNEP, with about two thirds of the 13.5 million USD budget through the UNDP and one third through UNEP. Executing agencies for the UNDP part will be the NBA and UNIDO, while the UNEP art will be executed by OSS and UNESCO.

Although there are two implementing agencies and several executing agencies with quite different inputs, one overall project coordination unit is proposed. In fact, it will be important to have a strong coordination unit to ensure that the different executing agencies work together closely.

More specifically, UNIDO will be the implementing partner for the outcome 3. This represents a total budget of US$ 2,800,000 financed by the GEF. UNIDO will receive project fund quarterly from UNDP HQ, based on their PCA advance request submission to UNDP HQ Finance. The financial reporting will be done through PDR reporting from UNIDO to UNDP. The expenditure will be reflected in Atlas when UNDP HQ Finance upload PDRs quarterly.

Figure 5-1: Overall Project Management

The terms of reference for the Project Steering Committee and Projects Coordination Team are provided in Annex X. An overview of the roles of these bodies are provided in Section 5.2. These will be reviewed and recommended for approval during the PAC meeting.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

Section 5.3 provides details of the Project Coordination Unit.

5.2. Overall Project Steering and Coordination

5.2.1. Project Steering Committee (PSC)

The project Steering Committee (PSC) will be the highest decision-making body for the overall project. It should comprise membership from: NBA and ITTAS countries, i.e. Algeria, Bénin, Burkina, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Nigeria, GEF Implementing agencies, i.e. UNDP and UNEP GEF Executing agencies, i.e. NBA, OSS, UNIDO and UNESCO Project Coordination Unit represented by the Project Coordinator

The size of the PSC and the nature of its representation means that it can only meet annually. It is proposed that the meeting should take place immediately prior to the annual NBA steering committee meeting which take place in preparation for the NBA Council of Ministers Meeting. This would allow for the NBA, as the most prominent stakeholder in the project, to report directly to its own steering committee.

The PSC is responsible for making management decisions for a project in particular when guidance is required by the Project Coordinator. The PSC plays a critical role in project monitoring and evaluations by quality assuring these processes and products, and using evaluations for performance improvement, accountability and learning. It ensures that required resources are committed and arbitrates on any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems with external bodies. In addition, it approves the responsibilities of the Project Coordinator through the approval of his/her ToR and any delegation of its Project Assurance responsibilities. The PSC is the highest executive body for the project, provides strategic and policy guidance to the project implementation, and approves Annual Work Plans.

In order to ensure UNDP’s ultimate accountability for the project results, PSC decisions will be made in accordance to standards that shall ensure management for development results, best value money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. In case consensus cannot be reached within the PSC, the final decision shall rest with the Resident Representative of UNDP Niger Office as the Principle Project Resident Representative of the project.

5.2.2. Project Coordination Team (PCT)

In view of the relatively complex implementation arrangements with different implementing agencies and several executing agencies, it is clear that it will sometimes be difficult for the Project coordinator and the Project Coordination Unit to take some decisions involving the different partners. The relative infrequency of the meetings of the PSC means that it would be very useful to have an intermediary body with representation of senior decision-makers across both implementation agencies (2), all four executing agencies (4) and the PCU (1). This team would meet twice a year with one of the meetings to prepare the annual PSC meeting. Some allowance for ad hoc meetings should also be made in order to avoid any potential delays.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

5.3 Project Coordination Unit

The project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be put in place to manage the project as a whole, even if different executing agencies will have the main responsibilities for the various projects components. In fact, this unit is essential to ensure that the work on the four components is carried out in as integrated way as possible. It is only really Component 3, which is largely self- standing. Work on Component 1, which will produce a TDA and Sap for the ITTAS will have implications for both Component 2 and Component 4.

The PCU will be headed up by a Project Coordinator, working out of the NBA offices in Niamey with administrative support. This Project Coordinator will also take charge of Component 4 which is executed by three different executing agencies. The post of Project Coordinator/Task Leader for Component 4 will be a full-time post. This is a critical position and it is important that person filling this position has a continuous global view of the overall project, especially Components 1, 2 and 4. Component 4 is cross-cutting and deals with issues of governance and capacity that are relevant to the whole project. The proposed structure of the PCU is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 5-2: Structure of project Coordination Unit

The task leader for Component 1 will be a part-time position. Component 1 is the most specialised and technical of the four components. The task leader will be responsible for the coordination of a team of experts, and ensuring that their combined inputs lead to a high quality transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA). This will require an excellent good understanding of surface and groundwater resources and their interaction. The task leader will also be responsible for the drawing up of the Strategic Action programme (SAP) for the ITTAS. This will be based on a high degree of stakeholder consultation.

The task leader position for Component 2 is also seen as a full-time position. Component 2 largely comprises the design and implementation of a wide range of demonstration projects but there is the need to integrate across the different target areas and to ensure that implementation does not become compartmentalised along specific thematics (wetlands, UNDP Environmental Finance Services

forestry, protected areas). When successfully implemented, Component 2 will lead to the taking to scale of eco-system-based management in general and it is important that the Task Leader, working closely with the Project Coordinator ensures this. For this and other reasons, the Component 2 Task Leader will also work out of the NBA offices in Niamey.

The Task Leader for the TEST project leading to Outcome 3.1 under Component 3 is the TEST Project Coordinator, who will be recruited by UNIDO and will have the authority to run the TEST project on a day-to-day basis. The overall Project Coordinator will take charge of the work leading to Outcome 3.2, ensuring that industrial competiveness and environmental/social responsibility for reduced wastewater discharges is reinforced by legal and policy framework.

5.4 Collaborative arrangements related to the overall NBA/OSS-ITTAS project UNIDO would then be fully held accountable for the delivery of the first outcome of Component 3 (Outcome3.1) as an EA before UNDP and GEF. Nevertheless, the TEST Project Coordinator within the basin should bear the responsibility to report, whenever needed, to the overall Project Coordinator in the PCU in order to ensure good synchronization between the TEST PCU and overall project PCU during implementation of overall project activities. This will also facilitate the various reports and evaluation on the progress of the overall project to stakeholders. It is important to stress that the TEST project and Component 3 as a whole should not be considered as a standalone project, but as part of a fully integrated overall project. Consequently, the work leading to Outcome 3.1 under this Component will be executed by UNIDO. In addition to budget management and expenditures control, responsibilities will include hiring and administration of international and local personnel, procurement of goods and service, travel arrangements and other miscellaneous support as required. Besides the specificities mentioned above, the general governance of the project will follow UNDP GEF projects guidelines as presented hereafter and amended to suit the current project Component.

TEST Project Coordination Office (TPCO) A small Coordination Office under the full responsibility of UNIDO would be established within the NBA Offices in Namey, Niger. The TPCO will provide the day-to-day management and coordination function for activities governed by this Project Document for the execution of Component 3 by UNIDO.

TEST Project Coordinator : The TEST Project Coordinator, recruited by UNIDO has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Executing Partner within the constraints laid down by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The TEST Project Coordinator’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality, and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

Project Support : The Project Support role, providing administrative, management and technical support to the TEST Project Coordinator as required, will be provided through the Secretarial and Administrative Support planned for the PCU as a whole (see Figure 5.1).

The rationale for UNIDO Selection and prior obligations and prerequisites are presented in Annex III

6. MONITORING FRAMEWORK , REPORTING AND EVALUATION

The overall project Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS) as well as the execution of component 3 (Outcome 3.1-3.3) by UNIDO will be monitored through the M&E activities of UNDP guidelines. Monitoring of the UNIDO-implemented activities will be done primarily by the

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

project manager, with the support from the Headquarter based and Regional Project Coordinator, International and national experts. There will be interim and final reports on the UNIDO implemented activities. The interim report will be submitted upon completion of the first year of implementation to report on advances in the project, as well as problems encountered and necessary adjustments to the work plan. The final report will include a summary of all activities carried out, as well as lessons learned. UNIDO will ensure that the reports covering the TEST roll-out (Outcome 3.1-3.3, implemented by UNIDO) will be submitted timely manner to UNDP and to the overall Project Coordinator so that those reports will be incorporated into the reports covering the overall project.

Project start: A Project Inception Workshop for the overall project Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS), including the component 3 implemented by UNIDO, will be held within the first 2 months after the Project Coordinator is in place with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and program advisors as well as other stakeholders. The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. In this inception workshop UNIDO will cover all elements pertaining to the execution of component 3 which constitute integral elements of the overall project Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS) as well as the execution of component 3 by UNIDO The Inception Workshop should address a number of key issues including: a) Assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project. Detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team. Discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of GEF Implementing Agencies – UNDP and UNEP - and GEF Executing Agencies (or UNDP Implementing Partners) – NBA, OSS, UNIDO, and UNESCO – for each Component and for the overall project. The Terms of Reference for project staff, including those recruited by UNIDO, will be discussed again as needed. b) Based on the project results framework and the relevant GEF Tracking Tool if appropriate, finalize the first annual work plan. Review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks. c) Provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements. The Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and budget should be agreed and scheduled. d) Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for annual audit. e) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings. Roles and responsibilities of all project organisation structures should be clarified and meetings planned. The first Project Board meeting should be held within the first 12 months following the inception workshop. UNIDO will participate in these board meetings and report on all elements pertaining to the execution of component 3.

An Inception Workshop report is a key reference document and must be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting.

Quarterly: ‹ Progress made shall be monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Managment (ERBM) Platform. UNDP ERBM Platform will be updated quarterly by UNDP Niger CO, based on inputs provided by the Project Coordinator through the quarterly progress report. UNIDO will

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

submit the quarterly progress report to UNDP and to the Project Coordinator within 3 weeks after the end of each quarter. ‹ Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, the risk log shall be regularly updated in Atlas. Risks become critical when the impact and probability are high. Note that for UNDP GEF projects, all financial risks associated with financial instruments such as revolving funds, microfinance schemes, or capitalization of ESCOs are automatically classified as critical on the basis of their innovative nature (high impact and uncertainty due to no previous experience justifies classification as critical). Risk log will be updated in Atlas by UNDP Niger, based on the risk updates provided by the Project Coordinator in the quarterly progress report. UNIDO will update relevant risks in its quarterly progress report and submit it to UNDP and to the Project Coordinator. ‹ Based on the information recorded in Atlas, a Project Progress Reports (PPR) can be generated in the Executive Snapshot. ‹ Other ATLAS logs can be used to monitor issues, lessons learned etc... The use of these functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive Balanced Scorecard. Annually: ‹ Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July). The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements. UNIDO will contribute all elements pertaining to the execution of component 3 to the APR/PIR.

The APR/PIR includes, but is not limited to, reporting on the following: • Progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - each with indicators, baseline data and end-of-project targets (cumulative) • Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual). • Lesson learned/good practice. • AWP and other expenditure reports • Risk and adaptive management • ATLAS QPR • Portfolio level indicators (i.e. GEF focal area tracking tools) are used by most focal areas on an annual basis as well.

Periodic Monitoring through site visits: UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-term of project cycle: The project will undergo an independent Mid-Term Evaluation at the mid-point of project implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP Environmental Finance Services

UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. The management response and the evaluation will be uploaded to UNDP corporate systems, in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC) . UNIDO-implemented activities will be subject to this evaluation. UNIDO will prepare a management response to address evaluation findings concerning component 3 as an input into the overall management response.

The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the mid-term evaluation cycle. UNIDO will provide the inputs with relevance to component 3.

End of Project: An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid- term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response which should be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC) .

The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the final evaluation. During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report, to which UNIDO will contribute all relevant inputs regarding the execution of component 3 This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and knowledge sharing: Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. UNIDO will contribute results regarding the execution of component 3. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. UNIDO will contribute results regarding the execution of component 3. Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus.

6.1. M&E workplan and budget

Type of M&E Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame activity Excluding project team staff time Inception Workshop Within first two ° Project Manager 0a and Report ° UNDP CO, UNDP GEF months of project

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

Type of M&E Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame activity Excluding project team staff time start up Measurement of ° UNDP GEF RTA/Project Manager To be finalized in Start, mid and end of Means of Verification will oversee the hiring of specific Inception Phase and project (during of project results. studies and institutions, and delegate Workshop: evaluation cycle) and responsibilities to relevant team 0 annually when members. required. Measurement of ° Oversight by Project Manager To be determined as part Annually prior to Means of Verification ° Project team of the Annual Work ARR/PIR and to the for Project Progress Plan's preparation. definition of annual on output and work plans implementation ARR/PIR ° Project manager and team 0a Annually ° UNDP CO ° UNDP RTA ° UNDP EEG Periodic status/ ° Project manager and team 0a Quarterly progress reports Mid-term Evaluation ° Project manager and team Indicative cost : At the mid-point of ° UNDP CO 50,000 (to be financed by project ° UNDP RCU the NBA-implemented implementation. ° External Consultants (i.e. evaluation budget) team) Final Evaluation ° Project manager and team, Indicative cost : At least three ° UNDP CO 50,000 months before the end of project ° UNDP RCU (to be financed by the implementation ° External Consultants (i.e. evaluation NBA-implemented team) budget) Project Terminal ° Project manager and team At least three Report ° UNDP CO 0a months before the ° local consultant end of the project Audit ° UNDP CO Indicative cost per year: Yearly ° Project manager and team 5,000 Visits to field sites For GEF supported Yearly ° UNDP CO projects, paid from IA ° UNDP RCU (as appropriate) fees and operational ° Government representatives budget: 50,000 TOTAL indicative COST aThe costs are covered under Project Management Support Costs US$ 170,000 Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

6.2. Audit An Audit of the overall project will be conducted according to UNDP’s Financial Regulations and Rules.The component to be executed by UNIDO will be audited as part of the portfolio wide external audit of UNIDO Technical Assistance Projects.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

7. LEGAL CONTEXT

It is expected that each set of activities to be implemented in the target countries will be governed by the provisions of the Standard Basic Cooperation Agreement concluded between the Government of the recipient country concerned and UNDP or – in the absence of such an agreement – by one of the following: (i) the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement concluded between NBA on behalf of the recipient country and UNDP, (ii) the Technical Assistance Agreements concluded between NBA on behalf of the recipient country and the United Nations and specialized agencies, or (iii) the Basic Terms and Conditions Governing UNIDO Projects.

If the country has signed the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) : This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by reference constitute together a Project Document as referred to in the SBAA [or other appropriate governing agreement] and all CPAP provisions apply to this document. Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner. The implementing partner shall: a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried; b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm . This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

If the country has not signed the SBAA: This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by reference constitute together the instrument envisaged in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, attached hereto. Consistent with the above Supplemental Provisions, the responsibility for the safety and security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner. The implementing partner shall: a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried; b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document. Since the current project is a global/ multi country and regional one, the following stands: This project forms part of an overall programmatic framework under which several separate associated country level activities will be implemented. When assistance and support services are provided from this Project to the associated country level activities, this document shall be the “Project Document” instrument referred to in: (i) the respective signed SBAAs for the specific countries; or (ii) in the Supplemental Provisions attached to the Project Document in cases where the recipient country has not signed an SBAA with UNDP, attached hereto and forming an integral part hereof. This project will be implemented by the agency (name of agency) (“Implementing Partner”) in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures only to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP. Where the financial governance of an Implementing Partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial governance of UNDP shall apply . The responsibility for the safety and security of the Implementing Partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the Implementing Partner’s custody, rests with the Implementing Partner. The Implementing Partner shall: (a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried; (b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the Implementing Partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement.

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

The Implementing Partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document. ANNEX I: UNIDO Logical Framework

ANNEX I: UNIDO LOGICAL FRAMEWORK Intervention logic Indicators Sources of verification Assumptions Risks Goal: • Monitoring and evaluation • Pollution and 1.Political Risks: Insufficient/lack of Knowledge-based management, documents and reports contaminant discharges political will from NBA member governance and resources beyond project completion. prevention and countries and industries to “jointly” conservation by mining, agro- enforcement mechanism combat pollution and hazardous processing, chemical and established, chemical discharges in the Niger River manufacturing industries • Manufacturing, mining Basin improved and sustained. and services related Level of risk: High. (To ensure increased industries are supported 2.Economical Risk: Economic factors productivity, environmental pollution control and (jobs, incomes, corporate earnings) performance and taking social prevention measures, might outweigh environmental responsibilities in the region) • Financial Incentives consideration and resource packages provided. conservation Level of risk: High –Medium Outcome: • 0ver 50% of the TEST Iinnovative approaches • Project evaluation • Top enterprise decision 1. Ownership Risks : Top Introduce systematic and implemented at the pilot enterprise levels recorded. survey/report makers are willing to management and shareholders of integrated approach of • 10 % decrease in the volume of a target pollutant in • Laboratory results. create funds for selected enterprises don’t the discharges of the selected enterprises' recorded introducing and implementation of TEST approach industrial competiveness and • Outcomes of interviews with • integrating the TEST midway of the project environmental/social 15 % Financial return on environmental enterprise’ representatives. responsibility to reduce investments and application of the TEST approach approach within their Level of risk: Medium • Voluntary disclosure of wastewater discharges and witnessed. business operations enterprises’ financial 2. Non-voluntary disclosure of pollution loads in the Niger • Over 50% success rate after the introduction and • Shareholders and external reports. financial report concerning to return River. implementation TEST Approach recorded in most stakeholders (consumers, on environmental investments and pilot enterprises. NGOs, etc.) supports the application of the TEST approach introduction and might compromise project evaluation integrating the TEST of successes end results. approach. Level of risk: Medium - Low.

52

Output 3.1 . • Regulatory Standards re-defined, specifically in • Reviewed and updated • NBA member countries 1. Absence of defined basin-wide Niger Basin Authority’s areas such as: Inventorying processes place high priorities on regulatory standards for discharging Waterbody data/inventorying - Point sources of contamination; reports, the protection and pollutants. processes updated; pollution - Non-point sources of contamination; • NBA member state approval conversation of natural 2. Insufficient legal/monitory control and regulatory - Ecologically sensitive areas; and adoption of updated resources and habitats. instruments to reprimand pollution framework improved. - Areas with human health risks; inventory process report(s). • Pilot enterprises are (penalties, taxes, etc). - Areas with environmental degradation. (including the identification of • Mechanisms for policy willing to cooperate with 3.Insufficient financial resources for a • 60-80% of previous scoring/grading standards for causes and sources of pollution) implementation clearly the new inventorying basin-wide surface and groundwater pollution hotspots reviewed and or revised as process. defined and accepted by quality monitoring at point source deemed necessary. • NBA member countries. Piloting enterprises see and non-point sources of • New standards for pollution hotspots officially the need for such exercise contamination introduced. and the potential Risk level: High to Medium • Regulatory Policy reviewed, updated to current economic benefits to their needs and good for implementation. business operations. Output 3.2 . • Technical agreement reached/signed on NBA’s • Signed agreements by • Pollution diagnostic 1. Lack of comprehensive basin-wide Pollution hot-spots identified member countries on their individual environmental representatives of NBA pollution hotspots environmental and customized to suit current priorities. member countries. reports. pollution/contamination data. needs; basin-wide assessment • Up to 9 basin-wide diagnostic pollution hotspot • Basin-wide diagnostic • Project monitoring and Level of risk: Medium and select ion processes of pilot survey carried out in participating NBA countries. pollution hotspot reports. evaluation reports. enterprises improved and • Up to 11 enterprises selected and diagnostic • Voluntary commitment mainstreamed. pollution hotspot survey customized to suit their letters from selected business models and physical operations. enterprises signed and • Enterprises prioritized on the basis of their received by Project contaminant discharges coordinating team and Counterparts. • Progress project reporting. Output 3.3: • 1 customized EMS and 1 customized EMA training • TEST assessment reports. • Enterprises are willing to 1. Insufficient competent personnel Transfer of Environmentally and pollution monitoring modules for selected • Training attendance sheets. apply TEST at enterprises level for the Sound Technology (TEST) enterprises developed. methodological approach. monitoring of pollution • Project evaluation reports. approach at the enterprise level • At least 2 employees per demo site/ pilot • Enterprises are willing to Level of risk: Medium - Low efficiently introduced. enterprises are trained. invest efforts in training • Up to 15 persons within the region trained so as to employees for the build reserved pools of private/external experts for introduction and or future needs. integration of the TEST • At least $100,000 for potential investment in TEST approach. approach earmarked at selected enterprises. • At least 9 low cost RECP modifications at selected enterprises performed.

53

Output 3.4: • TEST website for the region created and functional. • Minutes of seminars held. • Project stakeholders are 1. TEST results might have socio- TEST programme results and • Regional seminars to share TEST project • Content and virtual in full agreement of economic and political implications. experiences disseminated results/lessons held. activities/usage of the TEST project outcomes 2. Civil communities might use TEST • TEST project evaluation report submitted/presented website. irrespective of the nature results to whip up legal actions to Regional Project Advisory Board and of lessons learned. against participating enterprises approved. Level of risk: Medium- Low

ANNEX II: UNIDO INDICATIVE BUDGET Outputs. Budget line Description Duration (Work Month) Unit Cost ($) Total ($) 3.1 11-00 International Experts: 2 short term experts 6 months in total, 3 w/m per expert 10,000 per w/m 60,000 Niger Basin Authority’s Waterbody 15-00 Project Travels Lump sum 20,000 data/inventorying processes updated; 16-00 UNIDO Staff Travels Lump sum 15,000 pollution control and regulatory framework improved. 17 -00 National Expert: 2 short term expert 6 months in total, 3 w/m per expert 3,000 per w/m 18,000 (including the identification of causes National Project Coordinator 12 months in total 3,600 per w/m 42,200 and sources of pollution) 21-00 Sub-contract(s) 0 30-00 Train/Fellowship/Study 3 workshops over a period of 12 months 60,000 33 -00 In country Service Training Over a period of 1 month Lump sum 25,000 34-00 Non- UNDP Meetings (in-country) Lump sum 20,000 35-00 International Meetings (incl. flight tickets & DSA) Over a specified time: Lump sum 33,000 51-00 Miscellaneous Lump sum 20,682

3.2 11 -00 International Experts: 3 short term experts 12 work months in total 4 w/m per expert 10,000 per w/m 120,000 Pollution hot-spots identified and 1 long term coordinating expert 12 months in total 6,050 per w/m 72,600 customized to suit current needs; basin- 15-00 Project Travels Lump sum 35,000 wide assessment and select ion processes of pilot enterprises improved 16-00 UNIDO Staff Travels Lump sum 15,000 and mainstreamed 17 -00 Experts Nationaux -Nat. Ind. Sector Specialist. 12 months in total 3,000 36,000 -Nat. Hot-spot Assessment Specialist 4 w/m per experts per w/m -Nat. Administrative Support Personnel Regional/National Project Coordinator 12 months in total 3,600 per w/m 42,200 Administrative Support Staff 12 months in total 2,100 per w/m 25, 099 21-00 Sub-contract(s) - Lump sums 40,000 per expert over a period of 12 months 160,000 for 4 separate expert company consortiums consortium

54

30-00 Train/Fellowship/Study 32,000 33-00 In country Service Training Lump sum 45,000 34-00 Non- UNDP Meetings (in-country) lump sum 50,000 35 -00 International Meetings (incl. flight tickets & DSA) Over a specified time Lump sum 50,000 51-00 Miscellaneous Lump sum 20,500

3.3 11-00 International Experts -TEST Specialist Transfer of Environmentally Sound 12 w/m in total, 4 w/m per expert 10,000 per w/m 120,000 Technology (TEST) approach at the -CP/Industrial Sector Specialist enterprise level efficiently introduced. -EMA Specialist 1 long term coordinating expert 12 months in total 6,050 per w/m 72,600 15-00 Project Travels Lump sum 50,000 16-00 UNIDO Staff Travels Lump sum 15,000 17 -00 National Expert -Nat. Ind. Sector Specialist. Over a period of 12 months 3,000 108,000 -Nat. Hot-spot Assessment Specialist -Nat. EMA Specialist Regional/National Project Coordinator 12 months in total 3,600 per w/m 42,200 Administrative Support Staff 12 months in total 2,100 per w/m 25,100 21-00 Sub-contract(s) -Niger River Quality diagnostic research, Lump sum -RECP & EMA implementation support, over a period of 12 months 40,000 per expert 160,000 -EMS & CSR implementation support, consortium -EST implementation support. 30-00 Train/Fellowship/Study Lump sum 70,000 33-00 In country Service Training 49,800 Lump sum

34-00 Non- UNDP Meetings (in-country) 35,000 Lump sum

35 -00 International Meetings (incl. flight tickets & DSA) Lump sum 30,000 51-00 Miscellaneous 20,000 82-00 Independent Evaluation To be carried out locations/countries where the Over a period of 1 month Lump sum 50,000 TEST approach was implemented.

3.4 11-00 International Experts 12 months in total 10,000 180,000 TEST programme results and 3 National Experts per w/m

55 experiences disseminated 1 long term coordinating expert 12 months in total 6,050 per w/m 72,600 15-00 Project Travels 45,074 16-00 UNIDO Staff Travels 15,000 17 -00 Regional/National Project Coordinator 12 months in total 3,600 per w/m 42,200 Administrative Support Staff 12 months in total 2,100 per w/m 25,100 21-00 Sub-Contracts -Website Creation and Data Management Over a period of 12 months Lump sum 50,000 -Publicity & Media Coverage 30-00 Train/Fellowship/Study 20,000 33 -00 In country Service Training 50,000 34-00 Non- UNDP Meetings (in-country) Lump sum 50,000 35-00 International Meetings (incl. flight tickets & DSA) Lump sum 90,000 51-00 Miscellaneous Lump sum 27,000 45 -00 Office equipment Lump sum 13,5 00 Subtotal 2,545,455 10% Project Support Cost 254,545 Grand total 2,800,000

56 ANNEX III: RATIONALE FOR UNIDO SELECTION AND PRIOR OBLIGATIONS AND PREREQUISITES

1. Rationale for UNIDO Selection

UNDP is the GEF Implementing Agency for this project. UNDP Niger Country Office will be the Principle Project Resident Representative of this regional project. It will be implemented by UNIDO (UN Agency Implementation), based on their strong comparative advantages and expertise for the application of TEST. The project organizations Structure is presented below.

UNDP intervention is addressing the root causes of the river pollution by building the capacity of industries on industrial competitiveness and environmental/social responsibility, all of which that will contribute to the reduction of wastewater discharges and pollution loads in the Niger River. A Public Private Partnership will be established to undertake activities for better participation and coordination between stakeholders in the region.

UNDP will engage other UN agencies to support the institutional, industrial capacity development processes and UNIDO is well-placed to make significant contribution to this process based on its’s comparative advantage. UNIDO is the specialized agency of the United Nations that promotes inclusive and sustainable industrial development for poverty reduction, inclusive globalization and environmental sustainability. UNIDO therefore promotes sustainable patterns of industrial consumption and production. As a leading provider of services for improved industrial energy efficiency and sustainability, UNIDO assists developing countries and transition economies in implementing multilateral environmental agreements and in simultaneously reaching their economic and environmental goals. UNIDO developed the Hotspot analysis and Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) methodologies, and successfully applied the tools in several Regions worldwide (e.g. Danube River Basin, Mekong River Basin) within industrial hot spots areas. TEST methodology application in the Niger River basin was expected by the GEF in the approved PIF of the NBA/OSS-ITTAS project. UNDP will engage UNIDO to support the capacity development and successful application of the TEST which will be supported by policy interventions to promote pollution reduction, in line with the NBA Water Charter and the Niger Basin SAP, and to ensure the sustainability of the pollution reduction efforts piloted by the project. The policy interventions will be led and coordinated by NBA in partnership with UNDP Both hotspots and TEST methodologies have been successfully applied by UNIDO in a number of countries (Dnepr river “hot-spots”, Med-TEST, etc.), and UNIDO has the capacity to replicate them in the Niger River basin

UNDP Environmental Finance Services Page 25

2. Prior Obligations and Prerequisites

Once the project Improving IWRM, knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden- Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS) has been formally approved, as UNIDO is a UN Agency, UNIDO and UNDP will undertake a “UN Agency to UN Agency Contribution Agreement” (UN-UN IAA) for the purposes of transferring the funds (U$ 2,800,000 for the execution of component 3 by UNIDO. Under part A of the “UN Agency to UN Agency Contribution Agreement”, UNDP, as “Recipient Agency”, will be fully responsible for administering the contribution in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, policies and procedures, and administrative instructions, and carrying out the activities efficiently and effectively. It follows that UNDP’s activities under the project would be covered by UNDP’s own applicable legal framework. TEST is the flagship technical assistance product of the UNIDO Industrial Resource Efficiency Division (IRE)). In order to enhance UNIDO’s global role in ensuring environmental sustainability, the former Water Management Unit has been merged with the Cleaner Production Unit yielding a new unit called Industrial Resource Efficiency Division (IRE). With the merger of the units, TEST still maintains its usefulness/relevance thereby making it an integral part and methodology of UNIDO’s Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production toolbox. Consequently UNIDO IRE will be the lead entity for the implementation of the component. The bulk of resources allocated to this Component ($2.8 M out of $3 M) will be invested in the application of the TEST methodology at pilot scale in the basin to realize the pollution reduction in partnership with the participating private sector. The execution of this Component for which UNIDO will be responsible will be provided by UNDP under an UN-UN IAA with UNIDO once this UNDP/GEF project has been endorsed by the GEF CEO. Under this UN-UN IAA UNIDO will be entitled to a 10% management fee. Execution of the component will be supported by policy interventions to promote pollution reduction, in line with the NBA Water Charter and the Niger Basin SAP, and to ensure the sustainability of the pollution reduction efforts piloted by the project. These policy interventions will be executed by NBA. In addition to the “UN Agency to UN Agency Contribution Agreement” to be signed, UNIDO will extend subcontracts to the executing partners, which will specify the terms and conditions for the transfer of funds and implementation responsibilities under each sub/component.

58

ANNEX 3: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING TEMPLATE

The completed template, which constitutes the Social and Environmental Screening Report, must be included as an annex to the Project Document. Please refer to the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure and Toolkit for guidance on how to answer the 6 questions.

Project Information

Project Information Improving knowledge-based management and governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer 1. Project Title System (ITTAS) 2. Project Number 3. Location (Global/Region/Country) Africa/Regional/ Algeria, Benin, Burkina, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauretania, Niger, Nigeria

Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability

QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability?

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approach It is important to note that Component 2 of the project, which concerns sharing responsibilities and benefits with local communities and civil society in conserving basin resources, is focused on a livelihood enhancement based approach . This means that improved management of natural resources is accompanied by real livelihood benefits for all in each of the demonstration project areas. This is recognized as a condition for sustainability. The proposed projects under Component 2 are based on a participative approach with a high level of stakeholder participation during demonstration project site selection, design and implementation. Participation and inclusion are principles which underpin the whole process. Beneficiaries will form user associations for demonstration project implementation. These associations will work according to rules set down and agreed by the user associations themselves but according to management guidelines that ensure equality and non-discrimination and accountability Component 3 is aimed at improving the accountability of some of those who are responsible for damaging environmental sustainability through pollution of the Niger River. It has been a challenge to make Industrial polluters accountable in the past. Through Component 3, industry will be self-incentivized to be accountable and respect the rule of law. A win-win approach is a key driver, with private companies encouraged to invest in environmentally responsible behaviour for and making savings over time, especially since policy and legal changes are expected to increasingly punish environmentally irresponsible behavior through improved legislation (rule of law) Component 4 aims at providing capacity-building to support ecosystem-based management at all levels. The approach is therefore highly inclusive. Briefly describe in the space below how the Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment

Understanding gender issues and ensuring that they are properly taken into account in the planning and design process is a critical part of Component 2 in particular . • Water is the entry point for sustainable development, poverty eradication, human rights, reproductive and maternal health. • Access to water has impact on health and productivity for women and children. • The issue of poverty and land degradation and the challenge of sustainable development under such conditions, and given that women in the basin are more vulnerable than men to chronic poverty, it is clear that empowering women is an effective way to addressing many of the environmental challenges in the basin.

59

• Women will be given a prominent role in the decision-making process by ensuring equal representation of women in the user associations . • Given the key role that the user associations will play, this should ensure that women have a prominent role to play in terms of ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment . The capacity building and involvement proposed under Component 4, which will cut across all project activities, will be designed in such a way that women are equally represented at the different levels, especially at the civil society level where the project can have most influence. Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams environmental sustainability

The objective of the project is to improve knowledge-based management, governance and resource conservation of the Niger River Basin and the Iullemeden- Taoudéni/Tanezrouft Aquifers (ITTAS), to support IWRM for the benefit of communities and the resilience of ecosystems. The mainstreaming of environmental sustainability can be seen as the central theme of the project. Component 1 is focused on improving the sustainable management of water resources by better understanding the status of groundwater and the need for conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources. Component 2 recognizes the very strong linkages between socio-economic and environmental sustainability, especially in the targeted rural areas of the basin where livelihoods are so natural resources dependent. A key principle of the Component 2 demonstration sites is that environmental sustainability is dependent on socio-economic sustainability and vice versa in these areas. Environmental sustainability if thus inextricably mainstreamed into all activities. Component 3 is focused on reducing industrial pollution in the Niger River. The TEST approach aims to make the “polluters” more environmentally responsible and for industry to understand that it is there financial interest to be so. In view of profit-driven nature of the private sector this is a key element of environmental sustainability. Component 4 concerns Capacity building and stakeholders involvement in Niger River ecosystem based management. It is cross-cutting in nature and is aimed at supporting the required building of capacity to ensure that national policies and institutions (both at the national and basin levels) as well as civil society are able to support ecosystem-based management of the Niger River basin. The entire component therefore plays a major role in mainstreaming environmental sustainability through the improved capacity of all key players at all levels. The main focus of Component 2 is arguably the mainstreaming of environmental sustainability through the demonstration of a livelihood-based approach.

Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks

QUESTION 2: What are the Potential QUESTION 3: What is the level of significance of the QUESTION 6: What social and environmental Social and Environmental Risks? potential social and environmental risks? assessment and management measures have been Note: Describe briefly potential social Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before proceeding conducted and/or are required to address potential and environmental risks identified in to Question 6 risks (for Risks with Moderate and High Significance)? Attachment 1 – Risk Screening Checklist (based on any “Yes” responses). If no risks have been identified in Attachment 1 then note “No Risks Identified” and skip to Question 4 and Select “Low Risk”. Questions 5 and 6 not required for Low Risk Projects. Risk Description Impact and Significance Comments Description of assessment and management measures as Probability (Low, reflected in the Project design. If ESIA or SESA is required (1-5) Moderate, note that the assessment should consider all potential High) impacts and risks.

60

I = 3 Moderate There are duty bearers at all Component 4 represents a major effort to provide cross- Risk 1: 1.5: Is there a risk that duty-bearers P = 1 levels of project implementation cutting capacity building. Component 1 includes a specific do not have the capacity to meet their (overall down to Water User output aimed at capacity building around the TDA and SAP obligations in the Project? …. Associations) process and application Risk 2: 1.6. Is there a risk that rights-holders I = 3 High There will be community Capacity building is an important part of the project and it will do not have the capacity to claim their P = 1 members (Comp 2) who need be important to ensure that it is fully inclusive to minimize rights? . this capacity this risk Risk 4: 3.1.2: Are any Project activities I = <1 Low There are project activities Monitoring and evaluation will be of both environmental and proposed within or adjacent to critical P = <1 (Comp 2) planned in protected social factors at the project level in these and other areas habitats and/or environmentally sensitive areas and forest areas. However areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. these activities are aimed at nature reserve, national park), areas supporting environmental proposed for protection, or recognized as sustainability and livelihoods in such by authoritative sources and/or these areas indigenous peoples or local communities…. Risk 5: 3.1.6. Does the Project involve I = <1 Low Reforestation may form a part Any reforestation in these areas will be of the same existing harvesting of natural forests, plantation P = <1 of the projects in forest areas indigenous forest development, or reforestation? I = 1 Low One of the pilot projects The aim is to improve fisheries but in a sustainable manner Risk 6; 3.1.7: Does the Project involve the P = 4 concerns improving sustainable through tried and tested approaches. Results, including production and/or harvesting of fish fishing monitoring and evaluation of catches and fish populations will populations or other aquatic species? be part of the detailed project design I = 1 Low One of the aims of the The climate resilient aspect of long-term sustainability will be Risk 7: 3.2.2: Would the potential outcomes P = 1 demonstration projects is to explicitly stated in the detailed demonstration project design of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to make existing approaches more potential impacts of climate change? climate resilient and sustainable I = 1 Low The target beneficiaries are Impacts should be positive and significant. In general, the aim Risk 8: 3.6.1: Are indigenous peoples present P = 3 largely the indigenous people in of the projects is to improve the existing livelihoods, not to in the Project area (including Project area of most of the Comp 2 change them, through introduction of more sustainable influence)? approaches (from environmental and socio-economic perspective) I = 1 Low Many of the project locations Impacts should be positive and significant. In general, the aim Risk 9: 3.6.2 : Is it likely that the Project or P = 1 will be on these lands because of the projects is to improve the existing livelihoods, not to portions of the Project will be located on the proposed target change them, through introduction of more sustainable lands and territories claimed by indigenous beneficiaries are the indigenous approaches (from environmental and socio-economic peoples? peoples perspective) Risk 10: 3.6.5: Does the proposed Project I = 1 Low This utilization will in most cases Impacts should be positive and significant. In general, the aim involve the utilization and/or commercial P = 1 be by the indigenous peoples of the projects is to improve the existing livelihoods, not to development of natural resources on lands themselves for their own change them, through introduction of more sustainable and territories claimed by indigenous livelihood enhancement approaches (from environmental and socio-economic peoples? perspective)

61

QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization?

Select one (see SESP for guidance) Comments Low Risk x The overall project is focused on an ecosystem-based approach to environmental and socio-economic sustainable Moderate Risk ☐ High Risk ☐ QUESTION 5: Based on the identified risks and risk categorization, what requirements of the SES are relevant? Check all that apply Comments Principle 1: Human Rights ☐ Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s This part of the project design is critical to the success of the Empowerment x project, especially Component 2 1. Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource

Management ☐ 2. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation It is important that this is explicit in the detailed design of x demonstration projects 3. Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions ☐ 4. Cultural Heritage ☐ 5. Displacement and Resettlement ☐ 6. Indigenous Peoples In most cases, the indigenous people are the target x beneficiaries 7. Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency ☐

Final Sign Off

Signature Date Description QA Assessor UNDP staff member responsible for the Project, typically a UNDP Programme Officer. Final signature confirms they have “checked” to ensure that the SESP is adequately conducted. QA Approver UNDP senior manager, typically the UNDP Deputy Country Director (DCD), Country Director (CD) , Deputy Resident Representative (DRR), or Resident Representative (RR). The QA Approver cannot also be the QA Assessor. Final signature confirms they have “cleared” the SESP prior to submittal to the PAC.

62

PAC Chair UNDP chair of the PAC. In some cases PAC Chair may also be the QA Approver. Final signature confirms that the SESP was considered as part of the project appraisal and considered in recommendations of the PAC.

63

SESP Attachment 1. Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist

Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks Answer Principles 1: Human Rights (Yes/No) 1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political, economic, No social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups? 2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on affected No populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals or groups? 18 3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic services, in No particular to marginalized individuals or groups? 4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in particular No marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them? 5. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the Project? Yes 6. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? Yes 7. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns regarding the No Project during the stakeholder engagement process? 8. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to project- Yes affected communities and individuals?

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality and/or the No situation of women and girls? 2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender, especially No regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and benefits? 3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during the No stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and in the risk assessment? 4. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural resources, taking No into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental goods and services? For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in communities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being

Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screening questions regarding environmental risks are encompassed by the specific Standard-related questions below

Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management

1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural, and critical No habitats) and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services?

For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological changes 1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or environmentally sensitive Yes

18 Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous person or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to include women and men, boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as transgender people and transsexuals.

64

areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park), areas proposed for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous peoples or local communities? 1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse impacts on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to lands would apply, refer to Standard 5) 1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? No 1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No 1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or reforestation? Yes 1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic species? Yes 1.8 Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water? No For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction 1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting, commercial No development) 1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental concerns? No 1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could lead to adverse No social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts with other known existing or planned activities in the area? For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and social impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar developments in the same forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered.

Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

2.1 Will the proposed Project result in significant 19 greenhouse gas emissions or may exacerbate climate No change? 2.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of climate Yes change? 2.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental vulnerability to No climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)? For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of floodplains, potentially increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically flooding

Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions

3.1 Would elements of Project construction, operation, or decommissioning pose potential safety risks to local No communities? 3.2 Would the Project pose potential risks to community health and safety due to the transport, storage, and No use and/or disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials (e.g. explosives, fuel and other chemicals during construction and operation)? 3.3 Does the Project involve large-scale infrastructure development (e.g. dams, roads, buildings)? No 3.4 Would failure of structural elements of the Project pose risks to communities? (e.g. collapse of buildings or No infrastructure) 3.5 Would the proposed Project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to earthquakes, No subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions? 3.6 Would the Project result in potential increased health risks (e.g. from water-borne or other vector-borne No diseases or communicable infections such as HIV/AIDS)?

19 In regards to CO 2, ‘significant emissions’ corresponds generally to more than 25,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). [The Guidance Note on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation provides additional information on GHG emissions.]

65

3.7 Does the Project pose potential risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational health and safety due to No physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during Project construction, operation, or decommissioning? 3.8 Does the Project involve support for employment or livelihoods that may fail to comply with national and No international labor standards (i.e. principles and standards of ILO fundamental conventions)? 3.9 Does the Project engage security personnel that may pose a potential risk to health and safety of No communities and/or individuals (e.g. due to a lack of adequate training or accountability)?

Standard 4: Cultural Heritage

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impact sites, structures, No or objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible forms of culture (e.g. knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to protect and conserve Cultural Heritage may also have inadvertent adverse impacts) 4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for commercial or No other purposes?

Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement

5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical displacement? No 5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to resources due No to land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical relocation)? 5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions? 20 No 5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community based property No rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?

Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples

6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of influence)? Yes 6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories claimed by Yes indigenous peoples? 6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands, natural resources, territories, and No traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples (regardless of whether indigenous peoples possess the legal titles to such areas, whether the Project is located within or outside of the lands and territories inhabited by the affected peoples, or whether the indigenous peoples are recognized as indigenous peoples by the country in question)? If the answer to the screening question 6.3 is “yes” the potential risk impacts are considered potentially severe and/or critical and the Project would be categorized as either Moderate or High Risk. 6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with the objective of No achieving FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned? 6.5 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of natural resources on Yes lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples? 6.6 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic displacement of No indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, and resources? 6.7 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples as defined by them? No 6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples? No 6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including through the No

20 Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups, or communities from homes and/or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating the ability of an individual, group, or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence, or location without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.

66

commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?

Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency

7.1 Would the Project potentially result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to routine or non- No routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary impacts? 7.2 Would the proposed Project potentially result in the generation of waste (both hazardous and non- No hazardous)? 7.3 Will the proposed Project potentially involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of hazardous No chemicals and/or materials? Does the Project propose use of chemicals or materials subject to international bans or phase-outs? For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as the Stockholm Conventions on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the Montreal Protocol 7.4 Will the proposed Project involve the application of pesticides that may have a negative effect on the No environment or human health? 7.5 Does the Project include activities that require significant consumption of raw materials, energy, and/or No water?

67

ANNEX 4: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PSC AND KEY PROJECT STAFF

INTRODUCTION

This annex provides the preliminary terms of reference for the • Project Steering Committee (PSC) • Project Coordination Team (PCT) • Project Coordination Uniy (PCU) • Project Coordinator and Component 4 Task Manager • Component 1 Task Manager • Component 2 Task manager and • Component 3 Task Manager

These terms of reference will be reviewed and further detailed during project start up. These Project Staff are for the overall UNDP-UNEP-GEF NB-ITTAS project, not just for the TEST Component.

PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)

Context

The project Steering Committee (PSC) will be the highest decision-making body for the overall project. The PSC will be the main project organ for overall policy decisions and for approval of work-plans and budgets as well as any adaptive management decisions necessary to realign the project.

General Responsibility

The PSC will be responsible for making management decisions for the project in particular when guidance is required by the Project Coordinator. The PSC will play a critical role in project monitoring and evaluations by quality assuring these processes and products, and using evaluations for performance improvement, accountability and learning. It will ensure that required resources are committed and will arbitrates on any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems with external bodies. In addition, it will approve the responsibilities of the Project Coordinator through the approval of his/her ToR and any delegation of its Project Assurance responsibilities. The PSC is the highest executive body for the project, provides strategic and policy guidance to the project implementation, and approves Annual Work Plans.

The size of the PSC and the nature of its representation means that it can only meet annually. It is proposed that the meeting should take place immediately prior to the annual NBA steering committee meeting which take place in preparation for the NBA Council of Ministers Meeting. This would allow for the NBA, as the most prominent stakeholder in the project, to report directly to its own steering committee.

Composition

The Project Steering Committee will have Permanent Members, as follows: • NBA and ITTAS countries, i.e. Algeria, Bénin, Burkina, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Nigeria, • Implementing agencies, i.e. UNDP and UNEP • GEF Executing agencies, i.e. NBA, OSS, UNIDO and UNESCO

68

• Regional Coordination of users and the private sector • Project Coordination Unit represented by the Project Coordinator

The PSC will also include members with observer status and invited experts, such as: • International cooperating partners providing co-financing and/or working on related initiatives • Technical experts as required by the PSC) • Relevant representatives of the Private Sector and NGOs may be invited to attend PSC meetings whenever required

Steering Committee Rules of Procedure:

The following rules of procedure are proposed and should be reviewed and adopted at the first PSC meeting: • The Project Steering Committee will be chaired on a rotational basis as agreed by its membership. • The PSC will meet at least annually, although “extraordinary” meetings can be organized according to specific need. • Meetings of the PSC will rotate between the participating countries when and where possible and in line with Management Board arrangements, taking into account logistical and resource considerations. • The PSC will make decisions as far as possible through a consensus. Permanent members of the steering committee will have voting rights, should voting be exercised. • The PSC will delegate representatives to sit on selection panels for consultants and service vendors, if requested by UNDP. • Permanent members of the PSC will appoint an alternate to attend PSC meetings, in the event that the designated representative is unable to attend. • An Annual Tripartite Review of the project will be chaired by UNDP, as part of a regular PSC meeting. The TPR will approve the Annual Project Review (APR) and Work Plan

The Specific Functions of the PSC shall include: • review and recommend approval of Annual Work Plans and budgets; • monitor progress in project implementation against agreed Outcomes and Outputs • provide strategic guidance, to ensure the timely and cost effective realization of project objectives; • validate project outputs and, where appropriate, project documents; • resolve conflicts and problem areas as needed to facilitate project delivery; and • ensure that country commitments, including technical and operational support are met. • The PSC may bring into effect various technical and scientific working groups as deemed necessary to support the work of the PSC and the project.

As the PSC represents the senior decision-making body for the project it will not expected to deal with day-to-day management and administration of the project. This will be handled by the Project Coordinator, and in coordination with the Executing Agency.

69

PROJECT COORDINATION TEAM (PCT)

Context and General Responsibility

In view of the relatively complex implementation arrangements with different implementing agencies and several executing agencies, it is clear that it will sometimes be difficult for the Project coordinator and the Project Coordination Unit to take some decisions involving the different partners. The relative infrequency of the meetings of the PSC means that it will be necessary to have an intermediary body with representation of senior decision-makers across implementation and executing agencies.

Composition

The Project Steering Committee will have Permanent Members, as follows: • UNDP and UNEP as GEF implementation agencies • NBA, OSS, UNIDO and UNESCO as the four executing agencies • Project Coordinator

Steering Committee Rules of Procedure:

The following rules of procedure are proposed and should be reviewed and adopted at the first PCT meeting: • The Project Coordination Team will be chaired on a rotational basis as agreed by its membership. • The PCT will norlmally meet twice a year, once being inpreparation of the PSC meeting. Some allowance for adhoc meetings will be made in order to avoid any potential delays • Much of the advice, guidnace and support to be provided by the PCT will be provided remotely through e-mail exchange etc.

The Specific Functions of the PCT shall include but not be limited to: • Providing technical and general support to the PCU and the executing agencies • Assisting in the preparation of PSC meetings • monitoring progress in project implementation against agreed Outcomes and Outputs • provide strategic guidance, to ensure the timely and cost effective realization of project objectives;

PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT

Context and General Responsibility

The project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be put in place to manage the project as a whole, even if different executing agencies will have the main responsibilities for the various projects components.

The PCU will be based within the offices of the NBA offices in Niamey and will comprise 4 key staff, each one with responsibility for one of the components. The PCU will be headed up by a Project Coordinator, who will also be in charge of the cross-cutting Component 4.

Allowance has been made for, administrative and technical support to be recruited locally.

70

Location:

Within the NBA offices, Niamey, Niger

Composition:

The PCU will provide a coordination and management structure for implementation of the entire project in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP as executed through the NBA and OSS Secretariats and under the day-to-day direction of the Project Coordinator, and based on the general guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Project Coordination Team (PCT). The PCU comprises: • Project Coordinator/Component 4 Task manager • Component 1 Task Manager • Component 2 Task Manager • Component 3 Task Manager • Finance, Adminstrative and Technical Support Unit, comprising at least o Finance and Administration Officer, o Administrative Assistant, o GIS, mapping and CAD technician(s)

Tasks • Organization and implementation of the technical activities and close coordination with the NBA, OSS, and UNIDO technical management and expertise teams. and general coordination between and among the various • Assistance in networking between and among project entities such as the PSC, national officials (all participating countries), Implementing Agency personnel, cooperating partners, National Focal Points, existing and potential co-financers, other related GEF and non-GEF projects, and others as appropriate and necessary; • Organization of project related consultative meetings for introducing and implementing the project and project components and, as necessary, programme activities (including arrangements for such necessities as simultaneous translation and the production of documents in various languages as may be necessary); • Collection and dissemination of information on policy, economic, scientific and technical issues related to the overall project • Preparation of progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning program activities and outputs; • Preparation and arrangements for hosting annual Review Meetings and Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluation processes; • Establishment of and assistance in networking between specialized institutions in participating countries and technical specialists from elsewhere; and • General Project management (financial, logistical and strategic).

71

PROJECT COORDINATOR AND COMPONENT 4 TASK MANAGER

Context

The PCU will be headed up by a Project Coordinator, working out of the NBA offices in Niamey with administrative support. This Project Coordinator will also take charge of Component 4 which is executed by three different executing agencies. The post of Project Coordinator/Task Leader for Component 4 will be a full-time post over five years and will be recruited through UNDP/NBA. This is a critical position and it is important that person filling this position has a continuous global view of the overall project, especially Components 1, 2 and 4. Component 4 is cross-cutting and deals with issues of governance and capacity that are relevant to the whole project. This is why the Project Coordinator will also be in charge of Component 4.

The Project Coordinator shall be in overall charge and have overall responsibility for the staff and day-to- day running of the PCU, under the supervision of the BCC and UNDP. The Project Manager is ultimately responsible for organizing and overseeing delivery on all aspects and activities of the Project

Location

The Project Coordinator will be based within the PCU within the offices of the NBA in Niamey. He/she will be expected to travel to regional and other International locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

Background

The Project Coordinator shall be in overall charge and have overall responsibility for the staff and day-to- day running of the PCU, under the supervision of the BCC and UNDP. The Project Coordinator is ultimately responsible for organising and overseeing delivery on all aspects and activities of the Project.

General Responsibilities

The Project Coordinator (PC) shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the UNDP-GEF BCLME Project, in general and in particular. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the Participating Countries, other Members of the PSC, the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency, UNDP Country Offices, existing and potential additional project donors, National Focal Points, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PSC or by the Project Coordinator him/herself. The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the approved Project Document and on the integration of the various donor funded parallel initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive technical, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all staff in the Program Coordination Unit.

Specific Duties

The Project Coordinator will have the following specific duties: • Manage all Components of the PCU, its staff, budget and imprest fund; • Prepare an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general supervision of the Project Steering Committee and in close consultation and coordination with related Projects uner the NBA and riparian states of NBA and ITTAS, National Focal Points, GEF Partners and relevant donors; • Coordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan;

72

• Direct the project monitoring and evaluation processes including the regional and demonstration components, and the design of the replication strategy to be developed from the demonstration projects; • Oversee the development of information management tools to ensure evaluation, monitoring and replication activities; • Ensure project compliance with all UN and GEF policies, regulations and procedures; • Ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related activities provided or funded by other donor organisations; • Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors; • Coordinate and oversee preparation of the substantive and operational reports from the Program;

• Foster and establish close linkages with the other Projects within the zone, with other related GEF programs and, where appropriate, other relevant regional International Waters and related programs and projects within and outside of the region;

• Represent the Project at meetings and other project related fora within the region and globally, as required; and

• Submit quarterly reports of relevant project progress and problems to the PSC, IA and EA. • Manage all activities associated with Component 4 of the project.

Qualifications • At least fifteen years of experience in IWRM, ecosystem-based management, surface and groundwater resources and conjunctive management and other fields related to the assignment. Experience in institutional and policy matters and transboundary water resources management will be essential. • Graduate and/or postgraduate degree(s) in a subject(s) related to the assignment (water resources, environmental management, natural resources economics etc). • Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills; • Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the GEF and the Implementing Agency (UNDP), and regional organizations related to Project and Programme activities, and currently identified Project and Programme donors); • Excellent working knowledge of both English and French • Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favourably considered.

COMPONENT 1 TASK MANAGER

Context

The task leader for Component 1 will be a full-time position running for the first 30 to 36 months of the overall project. Component 1 is the most specialised and technical of the four components. The task leader will be responsible for the coordination of a team of experts, and ensuring that their combined inputs lead to a high quality transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA). This will require an excellent good understanding of surface and groundwater resources and their interaction. The task leader will also be responsible for the drawing up of the Strategic Action programme (SAP) for the ITTAS. This will be based on a high degree of stakeholder consultation

73

The Component 1 Task Manager shall be in overall charge of the work to be carried out under Component 1 and will be responsible for ensuring that the specified outputs are delivered to standard and on-time.

Location

The Component 1 Task Manager will be mainly based within the PCU within the offices of the NBA in Niamey, with some time spent at home office as necessary. He/she will be expected to travel to regional and other International locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

General Responsibilities

The Component 1 Task Manager (PC) shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all the diagnostic studies leading to the drawing up of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the development of the Strategic Action program (SAP). General responsibilities will include: • Supervision of a team of international, regional and locally-based specialists working on short- term inputs. The planning of these inputs will be the responsibility of the Component 1 Task Manager. • Preparation of an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general supervision of the overall Project coordinator. • Coordinate and monitor the Component 1 activities described in the work plan; • Direct the project monitoring and evaluation processes as it relates to Compoenent 1. • Ensure project compliance with all UN and GEF policies, regulations and procedures; • Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors; • Submit progress reports as required by the Project Coordinator.

Specific Duties

The Component 1 Task Manager will have the following specific duties: • discussions with stakeholders, field visits and data collection activities. Data collection work will include the setting up and operationalization of a new data collection network aimed at filling critical gaps and providing longer records into the future. • The overall supervision of the groundwater modelling work in order to achieve an overalm understanding of the ITTAS system and its linkages with the Niger Basin and other surface water systems • Compilation of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and its acceptanvce by the member states. • Development of the Strategic Action programme (SAP) and national action programmes using a participative approach • Development of proposals for pilot demonstartion projects to be carried out under Component 2.

Qualifications • At least fifteen years of experience in IWRM, ecosystem-based management, surface and groundwater resources and conjunctive management and other fields related to the assignment. Experience in groundwater modelling will be favourably considered. • Graduate and/or postgraduate degree(s) in a subject(s) related to the assignment (water resources, environmental management, natural resources economics etc). • Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills;

74

• Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the GEF and the Implementing Agency (UNDP), and regional organizations related to Project and Programme activities, and currently identified Project and Programme donors); • Good working knowledge of both English and French • Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work experience in the region on issues related to the Project and Programme will be very favourably considered;

COMPONENT 2 TASK MANAGER

Context

The task leader position for Component 2 is a full-time position. Component 2 largely comprises the design and implementation of a wide range of demonstration projects but there is the need to integrate across the different target areas and to ensure that implementation does not become compartmentalised along specific thematics (wetlands, forestry, protected areas). When successfully implemented, Component 2 will lead to the taking to scale of eco-system-based management in general and it is important that the Task Leader, working closely with the Project Coordinator ensures this. For this and other reasons, the Component 2 Task Leader will also work out of the NBA offices in Niamey.

Location

The Component 2 Task Manager will be based within the PCU within the offices of the NBA in Niamey, with some time spent at home office as necessary. He/she will be expected to travel to regional and other International locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

General Responsibilities

The Component 2 Task Manager (PC) shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all the pilot demonstration projects implemented under Component 2. This will include site identification and the planning, design and implementation of the individual demonstration projects. General responsibilities will include: • Supervision of a team of international, regional and locally-based specialists working on both long-term and short-term inputs. This is probably biggest single task of the Component 2 Task Manager and will involve a wide range of expertise to be supervised. • Preparation of an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general supervision of the overall Project coordinator. • Coordinate and monitor the Component 2 activities described in the work plan; • Direct the project monitoring and evaluation processes as it relates to Component 2. • Ensure project compliance with all UN and GEF policies, regulations and procedures; • Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors; • Submit progress reports as required by the Project Coordinator.

Specific Duties

The Component 2 Task Manager will have the following specific duties: • Work with decision-makers, other stakeholders and team members in the final identification demonstration project sites under all four Outputs 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 covering the aquatic

75

environment, protected areas, mountain forest ecosystems and the conjunctive management of groundwater ans urface water. This identification will take place during the Inception Phase and also once the preliminary findings of Component 1 are known • Finalise recruitment of the key experts, set up and make operational the project team and identify stakeholder representation at the different levels. • Supervise the detailed planning and design of the individual projects in close consultation with stakehoder reoresentation • Supervise the implemntation of the core activities of the pilot demonstration projects. This will involve a considerable of delegation considering the thematic and geographical range of the proposed interventions. • Plan and supervise a capacity-building programme for the target communitie, including the organisation of locally-based workshops covering project management, ecosystem-based management and specific project-related aspects • In support of project replication and taking to scale : • Plan and supervise the organisation of on-site expereince sharing with other communities • Organize regional and national workshops for sharing experiences • Design and establish a monitoring and evaluation system based on monitoring of ecosystem and social (livelihood) indicators • Supervise the implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system. • Compilation of reports

Qualifications • At least fifteen years experience in IWRM, ecosystem-based management, surface and groundwater resources and conjunctive management and other fields related to the assignment. Experience in the management of large teams of different areas of expertise is esstential. Experience in the planning, design and implemnation of IWRM-style pilot demonstartion projects and/or IWRM planning would be highky desirable, as would experience with dealing with a wide range of stakeholders. • Graduate and/or postgraduate degree(s) in a subject(s) related to the assignment (water resources, environmental management, natural resources economics etc). • Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills • Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the GEF and the Implementing Agency (UNDP), and regional organizations related to Project and Programme activities, and currently identified Project and Programme donors); • Excellent working knowledge of French and English • Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work experience in the region on issues related to the Project and Programme will be very favourably considered;

COMPONENT 3 TASK MANAGER

The Task Leader for the TEST project leading to Outcome 3.1 under Component 3 is the TEST Project Coordinator, who will be recruited by UNIDO and will have the authority to run the TEST project on a day-to-day basis. The overall Project Coordinator will take charge of the work leading to Outcome 3.2, ensuring that industrial competiveness and environmental/social responsibility for reduced wastewater discharges is reinforced by legal and policy framework.

Detailed terms of reference for the project manager of this task are provided as Annex 6.

76

Location

The Component 3 Task Manager will be based within the PCU within the offices of the NBA in Niamey, with some time spent at home office as necessary. He/she will be expected to travel to regional and other International locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

General Responsibilities

The Component 3 Task Manager (PC) shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all the deliverables implemented under Component 3. General responsibilities will include: • Supervision of a team of international, regional and locally-based specialists working on both medium-term and short-term inputs. • Preparation of an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general supervision of the overall Project coordinator. • Coordinate and monitor the Component 3 activities described in the work plan; • Direct the project monitoring and evaluation processes as it relates to Component 3. • Ensure project compliance with all UNIDO and GEF policies, regulations and procedures; • Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors; • Submit progress reports as required by the Project Coordinator.

Specific Duties

The Component 3 Task Manager will have the following specific duties: • Work closoely with overall project coordinatorin the NBA offices in Niamey, Niger • Assist the UNIDO HQ Project Manager (PM) in providing the day-to-day management and coordination function for activities as mentioned in Outcome 3.1 of Component 3 of the project document. • Ensure that budget management and local expenditures including procurement, travel and other miscellaneous are properly recorded and receipts for payments of goods and service kept • Assist International Experts in the identification and verification of member states hot-spots priorities relating to their individual river basin management and pollution control/prevention plans. • Assist in the identification of demonstration enterprises from the region and collection of data for the water pollution inventory and hotspots determination. • Facilitate and ensure that voluntary commitment letters from selected enterprises are signed and received by Project coordinating team and Counterparts and assist TEST specialists in the setting up of TEST Enterprises Teams at demonstration sites • Facilitate the smooth implementation of TEST tools in their respective tasks as well as facilitate the monitoring and assessments of envisaged milestone as mentioned in the logical framework in Outcome 3.1 of Component 3 of the project document. • On behalf of UNIDO, liaise with relevant experts, national counterparts, as well as Ministries and national institutions and any other stakeholders meetings, workshop and or seminars as will be required. • Represent UNIDO at the Steering Committee meetings and any other • Prepare and submit quarterly progress report(s) first to the UNIDO Project Manager and thereafter to UNDP-Overall Project Coordinator within 3 weeks after the end of each quarter. • Carry out any other technical coordination tasks that may be required by the Project Manager in this duration

77

Qualifications and Experience • The expert is required to have advanced university degree in Natural Resources Management, Water Protection/Conversation and or Ecological Engineering. A first level university degree in Environmental Sciences, Chemical Engineering and or Industrial Relations with substantial number of years of professional hands-on experience in industrial development may be accepted. • A minimum of five (5) years of International professional level work experience is required. Proven experience in international project portfolio work for UNIDO (preferably complemented by work for other UN Organizations or other Multilateral Organizations) with relevant technical sustainable development field experience in developing countries (Africa essential). • The expert is required to have in-depth and advanced level of knowledge of environmental resources management; environmental technology transfer; resource efficient and cleaner production methods; CSR; and green best practices and participatory methodologies in working with beneficiaries for trainings, monitoring and evaluation work. • The expert is required to have sound knowledge concerning industrial operations and their resulting environmental conditions and problems in countries where this project will be implemented. • The expert is required to have excellent proven planning and organisation skills with good communication and interpersonal skills. Proactive, resourceful and possess good problem solving skills; ability to work in a multi-cultural team with client orientation and high integrity and professionalism. • Fluency in written and spoken English and French is required.

78

ANNEX 5: CO-FINANCING LETTERS

See a separate file.

79

ANNEX 6: DETAILED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR COMPONENT 3 TASK LEADER

UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PERSONNEL UNDER INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (ISA)

PROJECT: TEST (Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology) Roll-out to Strengthen Industries’ Environmental/Social Responsibility Capacities in the Niger Basin

Title: TEST National Project Coordinator (TEST –NPC) Main Duty Station and Location: Niamey, Niger Mission/s to: Some official travels to project demonstration sites Start of Contract (EOD): End of Contract (COB): Work Duration 12 work months with possibility of extension

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT Under the overall supervision of the Project Manager, PTC/ENV/IRE, the TEST National Project Coordinator (TEST-NPC) in collaboration with the other international and local experts and partners of this project shall carry out duties (mentioned below) that would contribute to the successful implementation of planned activities. The TEST-NPC’s duties shall be performed in accordance with applicable rules and regulations of UNIDO.

PROJECT CONTEXT The "Improving IWRM, Knowledge-based Management and Governance of the Niger Basin and the Iullemeden- Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (NB-ITTAS)" is a regional project financed by the Global Environment Facility and jointly implemented by UNDP and UNEP to support 11 countries in Western Africa (Algeria, Benin, Burkina, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauretania, Niger and Nigeria) in partnership with the Niger Basin Authority and the Observatory of Sahara and Sahel to support the implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Niger River Basin, to expand the knowledge base required for the improved management of the Iullemeden-Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (ITTAS), and to promote the conjunctive management of the surface and groundwater management in the basin. The overall objective of this UNDP-UNEP-GEF project is to support Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) concept for the benefit of communities and the resilience of ecosystems. To reduce pollution in the basin through industrial activities and to promote active participation of private sector in the pollution reduction efforts, the project supports through its Component 3 the roll-out of the Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST), which will contribute to reducing wastewater discharges and pollution loads in the Niger River basin through systematic and integrated approach in partnership with private sector. UNIDO has been chosen as an entity who will be responsible for the successful roll-out of the TEST in the basin for its knowledge and expertise required for the successful TEST application.

The Niger Basin Authority and the Ministries of Water Resources and Environment of the riparian countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Nigeria), the Ministries and national institutions in charge of industrial development will be the primary counterparts for this project.

80

Given the above context, the TEST-NPC is expected to coordinate closely with the overall Project Coordinator for the UNDP- UNEP-GEF project as well as with the Niger Basin Authority. The performance of the TEST-NPC will be assessed annually, or more often if required, by UNIDO following their procedures, with substantive inputs from the Project Coordinator.

Expected Main Duties Outputs to be Achieved Location Duration

As the TEST National Project Coordinator, assist the Project Manager in setting Duration of Niamey, up a “TEST Project Coordination Office Unit (PCU) within the NBA offices in Contract Niger. Niamey, Niger

Assist the UNIDO HQ Project Manager (PM) in providing the day-to-day management and coordination function for activities as mentioned in Outcome 3.1 of Component 3 of the project document.

Ensure that budget management and local expenditures including procurement, travel and other miscellaneous are properly recorded and receipts for payments of goods and service kept

Assist International Experts in the identification and verification of member states hot-spots priorities relating to their individual river basin management and pollution control/prevention plans.

Assist in the identification of demonstration enterprises from the region and collection of data for the water pollution inventory and hotspots determination. Ensure that the project produces the results Facilitate and ensure that voluntary commitment letters from selected enterprises specified in the project are signed and received by Project coordinating team and Counterparts and document, to the assist TEST specialists in the setting up of TEST Enterprises Teams at required standard of demonstration sites quality, and within the specified constraints of Facilitate the smooth implementation of TEST tools in their respective tasks as time and cost. well as facilitate the monitoring and assessments of envisaged milestone as mentioned in the logical framework in Outcome 3.1 of Component 3 of the project document.

On behalf of UNIDO, liaise with relevant experts, national counterparts, as well as Ministries and national institutions and any other stakeholders meetings, workshop and or seminars as will be required.

Represent UNIDO at the Steering Committee meetings and any other

Prepare and submit quarterly progress report(s) first to the UNIDO Project Manager and thereafter to UNDP-Overall Project Coordinator within 3 weeks after the end of each quarter.

Carry out any other technical coordination tasks that may be required by the Project Manager in this duration

Deliverables: Quarterly project reports are written and submitted. Quarterly financial expenditures are recorded and compiled in a report form.

81

MINIMUM ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENTS Education: Expert is required to have advanced university degree in Natural Resources Management, Water Protection/Conversation and or Ecological Engineering. A first level university degree in Environmental Sciences, Chemical Engineering and or Industrial Relations with substantial number of years of professional hands-on experience in industrial development may be accepted.

Technical and Functional Experiences: A minimum of five (5) years of International professional level work experience. Proven experience in international project portfolio work for UNIDO (preferably complemented by work for other UN Organizations or other Multilateral Organizations) with relevant technical sustainable development field experience in developing countries (Africa essential). Expert is required to have in-depth and advanced level of knowledge of environmental resources management; environmental technology transfer; resource efficient and cleaner production methods; CSR; and green best practices and participatory methodologies in working with beneficiaries for trainings, monitoring and evaluation work. Expert is required to have sound knowledge concerning industrial operations and their resulting environmental conditions and problems in countries where this project will be implemented. Expert is required to have excellent proven planning and organisation skills with good communication and interpersonal skills. Proactive, resourceful and possess good problem solving skills; ability to work in a multi-cultural team with client orientation and high integrity and professionalism.

Language: Fluency in written and spoken English and French is required.

REQUIRED COMPETENCIES

Core values: 1. Integrity 2. Professionalism 3. Respect for diversity

Core competencies: 1. Results orientation and accountability 2. Planning and organizing 3. Communication and trust 4. Team orientation 5. Client orientation 6. Organizational development and innovation

Managerial competencies (as applicable): 1. Strategy and direction 2. Managing people and performance 3. Judgement and decision making 4. Conflict resolution

82