Document of
Public Disclosure Authorized The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: PAD978
PROJECT PAPER
ON A
Public Disclosure Authorized PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 8.75 MILLION FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
FOR A
Public Disclosure Authorized SUSTAINABLE LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
MAY 28, 2014
Environment, Natural Resources, Water and Disaster Risk Management (AFTN3) Western Africa 1 (AFCW1) Africa Region
This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does
Public Disclosure Authorized not imply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration and the updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank’s policy on Access to Information.
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective April 17, 2014)
Currency Unit = Ghana Cedi Ghana Cedi 2.77 = US$1
FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CEA Country Environmental Analysis CPS Country Partnership Strategy CREMA Community Resource Management Area DADU District Agriculture Development Unit EAMP Environmental Analysis and Management Plan EPA Environment Protection Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FC Forestry Commission FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FIP Forest Investment Program FM Financial Management FMP Forest Management Plan FSD Forest Services Division [of the Forestry Commission] GCAP Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective GIS Geographic Information System GoG Government of Ghana GRR Gbele Resource Reserve GSIF Ghana Strategic Investment Framework [for SLM] IDA International Development Association LSC Local Steering Committee LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MESTI Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MDAs Ministries, Departments, Agencies MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MoU Memorandum of Understanding
ii
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NGO Non-Governmental Organization NREG Natural Resources and Environmental Governance Program NRM Natural Resource Management NSBCP Northern Savannah Biodiversity Conservation Project NSLMC National Sustainable Land Management Committee PCU Project Coordinating Unit PDO Project Development Objective PES Payment for Environmental Services PIM Project Implementation Manual PSC Project Steering Committee (of SLWM Project) REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RPF Resettlement Process Framework SADA Savannah Accelerated Development Authority SFM Sustainable Forest Management SLM Sustainable Land Management SLWM Sustainable Land and Water Management SOP Social Opportunities Project SAWAP Sahel and West Africa Program in support of the Great Green Wall Initiative TCO Technical Coordination Office [of EPA] UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WD Wildlife Division [of the Forestry Commission]
Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Yusupha Crookes Sector Director: Jamal Saghir Sector Manager: Magda Lovei Task Team Leader: Martin Fodor
iii
GHANA
SUSTAINABLE LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT, ADDITIONAL FINANCING
CONTENTS
Project Paper Data Sheet v Project Paper 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing 2 III. Proposed Changes 4 Annexes 1. Revised Results Framework 14 2. Summary of Changes in Results Framework 21 3. Operational Risk Assessment Framework 25 4. Detailed Description of Project Activities 30 5. Revised Project Architecture and Component Costs 40 6. Implementation Arrangements (including M&E, Procurement, FM, Disbursements, and Safeguards) 42 7. GEF Incremental Cost Analysis 53 8. Appropriate SLWM Options for Northern Ghana 68 9. Biodiversity Profile of New Project Sites 75 10. Economic and Financial Analysis 80 11. Summary of Project Achievements to Date 85 12. Project Projections for Area under SLWM (AF) 86 13. Detailed Activity Costs for AF (Cost Tables) 87 14. Map of Project Area 96
iv
ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET Ghana Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing (P132100) AFRICA AFTN3
Basic Information – Parent Parent Project ID: P098538 Original EA Category: B - Partial Assessment Current Closing Date: 15-Feb-2016 Basic Information – Additional Financing (AF) Additional Financing Project ID: P132100 Scale Up Type (from AUS): Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Proposed EA Category: B - Partial Assessment Expected Effectiveness Country Director: Yusupha B. Crookes 27-Nov-2014 Date: Sector Director: Jamal Saghir Expected Closing Date: 28-Feb-2018 Sector Manager: Magda Lovei Report No: PAD978 Team Leader: Martin Fodor Borrower Organization Name Contact Title Telephone Email Ministry of Finance Hon. Seth Terkper Minister +233302665132
Project Financing Data – Parent ( Sustainable Land and Water Management-P098538 ) Key Dates Approval Effectiveness Original Revised Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Signing Date Date Date Closing Date Closing Date P098538 TF-95451 Closed 22-Feb-2010 09-Mar-2010 09-Mar-2010 14-Oct-2010 14-Oct-2011 Effectiv P098538 TF-97579 20-Jan-2011 20-Jan-2011 20-Jan-2011 15-Feb-2016 15-Feb-2016 e
Disbursements % Cancelle Disburse Undisbur Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Currency Original Revised Disburse d d sed d P098538 TF-95451 Closed USD 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 100.00 Effectiv P098538 TF-97579 USD 8.15 8.15 0.00 4.73 3.42 57.99 e
v
–Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing (P132100) [ ] Loan [X] Grant [ ] IDA Grant [ ] Credit [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other Total Project Cost: 13.25 Total Bank Financing: 0.00 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source – Additional Financing (AF) Amount Borrower 4.50 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8.75 Total 13.25 Policy Waivers Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant No respects? Explanation
Does the project require any policy waiver(s)? No Explanation
Bank Staff Name Title Specialization Unit Martin Fodor Senior Environmental Team Leader AFTN3 Specialist Gayatri Kanungo Environmental Specialist Co-Team Leader & GEF AFTN3 Technical Specialist Lydia Sam Procurement Assistant Procurement Assistant AFCW1 Luis M. Schwarz Senior Finance Officer Senior Finance Officer CTRLA Yesmeana N. Butler Program Assistant AFTN3 Edith Ruguru Mwenda Senior Counsel Senior Counsel LEGAM Charity Boafo-Portuphy Program Assistant AFCGH Lesya Verheijen Consultant AFTN3 Robert Wallace Sr Financial AFTMW DeGraft-Hanson Management Specialist Anders Jensen Senior Monitoring & Monitoring &Evaluation AFTDE Evaluation Specialist Specialist Esther Awume Team Assistant AFCW1 Charles John Aryee Procurement Specialist Procurement Specialist AFTPW Ashong
vi
Matthieu Louis E T Consultant Legal Associate LEGAM Bonvoisin Franklin Kuma Kwasi Consultant Social Safeguards AFTN3 Gavu Ana Isabel Dos Reis E Consultant AFTN3 Sousa Piedade Abreu Philippe Eric Dardel Senior Environmental SLM Specialist AFTN3 Specialist Felix Nii Tettey Oku E T Consultant Environmental Specialist AFTN3 Non Bank Staff Name Title Office Phone City
Locations Country First Administrative Location Planned Actual Comments Division Ghana Upper West Upper West Region X X Sissala West District Ghana Upper West Upper West Region X Daffiama Bussie Issa District Ghana Upper East Upper East Region X X Talensi District Ghana Upper East Upper East Region X X Kassena Nankana West District Ghana Northern Northern Region X Mamprugu Moaduri District Ghana Upper West Region Wa East X X Ghana Upper West Region Sissala East X X Ghana Upper East Region Builsa X X Builsa South District Ghana Upper East Region Bawku West X X Ghana Northern Region West Mamprusi X X
Institutional Data Parent ( Sustainable Land and Water Management-P098538 ) Sector Board Agriculture and Rural Development Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)
vii
Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co- Co-benefits % benefits % Agriculture, fishing, and forestry Agricultural extension 35 and research Agriculture, fishing, and forestry General agriculture, 26 fishing and forestry sector Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 20 Justice Agriculture, fishing and forestry Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 13 Justice Water, sanitation and flood protection Information and communications Information technology 6
Total 100 Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % Environment and natural resources Land administration and management 54 management Environment and natural resources Water resource management 35 management Environment and natural resources Biodiversity 11 management
Total 100
Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing ( P132100 ) Sector Board Environment Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co- Co-benefits % benefits % Agriculture, fishing, and forestry Agricultural extension 35 50 50 and research Agriculture, fishing, and forestry General agriculture, 25 50 50 fishing and forestry sector
viii
Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 20 25 25 Justice Agriculture, fishing and forestry Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 20 25 25 Justice Water, sanitation and flood protection
Total 100 I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information applicable to this project. Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % Environment and natural resources Land administration and management 40 management Environment and natural resources Water resource management 16 management Environment and natural resources Biodiversity 20 management Environment and natural resources Climate change 24 management
Total 100
ix
GHANA
SUSTAINABLE LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT, ADDITIONAL FINANCING
I. Introduction
1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors for (i) an Additional Financing (P132100) in the amount of US$8.75 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) under Ghana’s GEF-5 allocation to the Ghana Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (SLWMP) combined with (ii) a restructuring of the original Project1 (P098538) to revise the Project Development Objective, Results Framework, and design, and to extend the closing date.
2. Additional Financing (AF). The proposed AF is sought to finance implementation on a larger geographic scale and expanding the range of SLWM interventions to other ecosystems through the following activities: (i) scaling-up the area under sustainable land and water management2 interventions from the original target area of 2,000 ha to an expanded area of 6,000 ha; (ii) scaling-up biodiversity management in the Western Wildlife Corridor by expanding establishment of Community Resource Management Areas from two to four sites; and (iii) adding sustainable forest management (SFM) activities in eight gazetted Forest Reserves (FR) with a total area of 172,224 ha3. The activities are based on the landscape approach in Upper Ghana’s savanna, which is characterized by vulnerability, low climate resilience, and high poverty. They will contribute to carbon sequestration and increased resilience of the beneficiary communities to climatic variability. The AF will tackle environmental degradation, while enhancing natural resource-based livelihoods in project communities and surrounding areas.
3. Restructuring. The restructuring aims to (i) simplify the Project Development Objective; (ii) modify components and consolidate sub-components; (iii) update the Results Framework with mandatory Core Sector Indicators and indicators for the new activities; (iv) reallocate funds among disbursement categories, (v) make disbursement categories consistent with the revised components, and (vi) extend the closing date to February 28, 2018.
4. Key Outcomes. The key outcomes for the proposed AF and restructuring include: (i) integrated landscape management practices4 adopted by target communities, (ii) sustained
1 Project Restructuring was requested in a letter from the Ministry of Finance, dated March 30, 2014 2 The definition of Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) is based on TerrAfrica’s definition: the adoption of land use systems that, through appropriate management practices, enables land users to maximize the economic and social benefits from the land while maintaining or enhancing the ecological support functions of the land resources. 3 This is approximately 25 per cent of the total area of protected forests in Northern Ghana. 4 Integrated landscape management practices include management of soil, water, vegetation and animal resources. It involves a holistic approach that integrates social, economic, physical, and biological assets. For the purposes of this proposal, this definition will encompass other approaches such as integrated natural resources management (INRM), integrated water resources management (IWRM), integrated ecosystem management (IEM), eco-agriculture and sustainable forest management (SFM), and many facets of sustainable agriculture, agriculture water management (AWM), biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation, such as agroforestry. 1 flow of environmental services in agro-ecosystems, (iii) improved management effectiveness of existing protected areas, and (iv) enhanced carbon stocks in forests and non-forest lands. These will help reverse land degradation and enhance maintenance of biodiversity in target watersheds.
5. Partnership Arrangements. The proposed AF will form a part of the greater Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP) supporting the Great Green Wall Initiative5. The additional financing supports the SLWM project which was earlier approved under the SIP6 umbrella. It will be co-financed by a $4.5 million equivalent in-kind contribution from the Government of Ghana and coordinated closely with relevant projects of the Bank and other development partners, including Ghana Natural Resource and Environmental Governance Technical Assistance Project (P129769), Ghana REDD+ Readiness Grant (P124060), Ghana Forest Investment Program (P124770), Ghana Social Opportunities Project (P115247), Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (P114264), and Ghana Environmental Management Project funded by Canada.
II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing in the amount of $ 8.75 million
6. Background. SLWMP is funded by a five year $8.15 million GEF grant and a $7.80 million Government in-kind contribution. It was approved on November 30, 2010, became effective on February 8, 2011, and is currently planned to close on February 15, 2016. Disbursements started on May 16, 2011, and they are currently at 58 per cent.
7. Project Development Objective (PDO). The original PDO is to (a) demonstrate improved sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in selected micro-watersheds; and (b) strengthen spatial planning for identification of linked watershed investments in the Northern Savannah region of Ghana. The Project has three components: (i) Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning ($ 1 million GEF); (ii) Land and Water Management ($6.45 million GEF); and (iii) Project Management and Coordination ($0.7 million GEF).
8. Key Indicators for PDO: Original PDO indicators include (i) area of land in selected micro-watersheds under new sustainable land and watershed management technologies (ha); (ii) management effectiveness in Gbele Resource Reserve and Wuru Kayero and Wahabu Wiasi corridor sites measured by the GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) index (score, disaggregated); and (iii) pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large-scale multipurpose water storage investments (number).
9. Performance. Progress towards Achievement of the PDO and Implementation Progress are rated Moderately Satisfactory. The Project has transitioned from establishing the systems and capacity for participatory watershed and Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) management to deployment of that capacity for bringing selected degraded community areas of Northern Ghana under SLWM interventions. Importantly, these interventions are identified, implemented, and owned by the beneficiary communities, creating a foundation for their
5 The SAWAP aims to expand SLWM in targeted landscapes and in climate vulnerable areas in West African and Sahelian countries. 6 SIP is the Strategic Investment Program for sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa under the TerrAfrica program. 2 sustainability and replication in other areas. Sixty nine SLM interventions (sub-projects) and 38 SLM technology demonstration sites within 28 target villages across eight districts of three of the poorest Regions have been implemented. These directly benefit 284 farmers, 34.5 per cent of whom are women. The scale of these results is below the originally envisioned target for this stage of the project, possibly due to underestimating the time and resources required for upfront capacity building and implementation systems establishment on the ground. These upfront project investments in developing capacity at national and sub-national levels, training and equipping extension personnel supporting farmers’ implementation of SLM, M&E, and participatory watershed management planning have now started to pay off. Project performance reflects that significant investment of time and resources were needed to establish planning and robust delivery systems for SLWM interventions before the physical interventions are rolled out.
10. Key Achievements. A Spatial Planning Unit was established and fully equipped within Savannah Accelerated Development Authority. Project community mobilization and planning consultations took place in 45 communities, directly benefiting over 7,000 farmers. Forty five micro-watershed plans have been developed with additional 24 under completion in 2014 – these are key to the long term success of the adoption of SLWM practices. Sixty nine sub-projects are being implemented by farmer groups in 13 communities; over 600 additional sub-projects are planned to be implemented in the 2014 rainy season7. In addition, 48 SLWM technology demonstration sites were established. A GIS based M&E system is being operationalized. In the wildlife corridor, thirty three communities were mobilized to establish CREMAs, and the training and management activities in the Gbele Resource Reserve were implemented. A Watershed Planning Manual, Guidelines for Proven SLWM Technologies, and CREMA educational materials were produced to facilitate awareness and education. A draft environmental index was developed to link SLWM interventions to payment for environmental services (to be revised based on experience of its implementation in 2014), and baseline environmental data on water quality, stream flow, fish, and micro-invertebrates was collected (see Annex 11 for Project Achievements to Date).
11. Rationale for AF. Providing additional financing to the Project will capture the efficiencies and economies of scale in expanding SLWM throughout the target Northern Ghana landscape. It will also enhance the landscape approach by enriching the original menu of SLWM interventions with sustainable forest and rangeland management. Including forests and rangelands in the target landscape mosaic under SLWM will help capture benefits of climate change mitigation through forest management and land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF). The project has invested considerable time and resources into participatory SLWM planning, establishment of a decentralized delivery mechanism, building capacities, systems, and testing a model of community-driven SLWM interventions. The AF will capitalize on this upfront investment in a robust model and systems that can demonstrate results at a watershed level through a significant expansion of area under SLWM interventions without significant additional capacity building expenditures. Given that expansion in coverage will take place largely in the original project area where implementation capacity has been established already, rapid increase in delivery on the quantitative targets is likely, magnifying the project's
7 Project received 830 sub-project proposals by the time of Additional Financing Appraisal Mission, with additional proposals expected. Based on the implementation experience, it is expected that about 80 per cent of these will meet the approval requirements for funding and implementation. 3 demonstration effect. Detailed planning projections for achieving the Project targets for area under SLWMP based on the actual implementation experience were prepared (See Annex 12 and additional Annexes for information and rationale required by GEF).
12. Key AF Outputs. The additional financing will lead to (i) tripling of the farmland area under SLWM sub-projects (from 2,000 to 6,000 ha); (ii) the addition of two new beneficiary districts to the existing eight and increase of number of extension zonal areas covered in the existing districts; (iii) an increase in the number of direct beneficiaries from 7,000 to 20,000; (iii) the bringing of eight gazetted forest reserves under sustainable forest management; and (iv) increase from two to four in the number of CREMAs in the 4,786 km2 area of the Western Wildlife Corridor covering elephant migration route from Nazinga Game Ranch in Burkina Faso through Gbele Resource Reserve to Mole National Park in Ghana. Importantly, the AF will support innovative financing of farm-level SLWM technology adoption with Payments for Environmental Services (PES) that SLWM generates.
13. Consistency with Country Partnership Strategy. Both the original and proposed additional grant activities are fully consistent with the current Country Partnership Strategy 2013-2016 (CPS, presented to Board on September 19, 2013) as they specifically respond to the priorities under the CPS pillar 1 on natural resources management and environmental governance which highlights the importance of addressing environmental and land degradation due to its negative impact on economic growth, as well as pillar 2 on improving competitiveness and job creation, to which the Project contributes through improved community-driven management of natural resource based livelihoods. The Project complements poverty reduction efforts of other Bank financed projects in Northern Ghana, the poorest and least resilient part of the country. The Project is also consistent with the Government of Ghana Strategic Investment Framework (GSIF) for Sustainable Land Management 2011-2025. The Project activities are fully consistent with the Country determined adaptation and mitigation actions included in the Ghana’s Second National Communication to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, dated September 2011), Third National Communication to UNFCCC (currently in draft), and the Ghana Technology Action Plan (dated February 2013).
III. Proposed Changes
Summary of Proposed Changes Proposed changes are principally related to addition of financing for significant scaling up of Project activities and impacts in the existing Project area (expanded by the addition of two districts). The proposed changes will (i) simplify the Project Development Objective; (ii) modify components and consolidate sub-components (under Component 2); and (iii) update the Results Framework with mandatory Core Sector Indicators and indicators for the new activities, (iv) reallocate funds among disbursement categories, (v) make disbursement categories consistent with the revised components, and (vi) extend the closing date to February 28, 2018.
The covenants and disbursement conditions for the original grant have been fulfilled and will be dropped.
4
One new covenant and two disbursement conditions are introduced for the AF grant (see below).
The Project will accept use of new Bank Procurement Guidelines dated January 2011. Change in Implementing Agency Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Project's Development Objectives Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Results Framework Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change of EA category Yes [ ] No [ X ] Other Changes to Safeguards Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Legal Covenants Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Yes [ X ] No [ ] Cancellations Proposed Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Disbursement Arrangements Yes [ X ] No [ ] Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Disbursement Estimates Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change to Components and Cost Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Institutional Arrangements Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Financial Management Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Procurement Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Implementation Schedule Yes [ X ] No [ ] Other Change(s) Yes [ ] No [ X ] Development Objective/Results Project’s Development Objectives Original PDO Project Development Objective is: To (a) demonstrate improved sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in selected micro-watersheds, and (b) strengthen spatial planning for identification of linked watershed investments in the Northern Savannah region of Ghana. Key Indicators for PDO: - Area of land in selected micro-watersheds under new sustainable land and watershed management (SLWM) technologies (ha); - Management effectiveness according to METT score in Gbele Resource Reserve and Wuru Kayero and Wahabu Wiasi corridor sites (score, disaggregated); - Pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large-scale multipurpose water storage investments (number) Change in Project's Development Objectives Explanation:
5
The PDO is narrowed down to better reflect the Project’s focus and nature of interventions. Focus in the remainder of the project period will shift from demonstration of SLWM practices to expansion of the adoption of the sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in the Kulpawn-Sissili and Red Volta watersheds. The project will focus less on spatial planning at a large scale, with no additional financing towards it since the spatial planning activities are expected to be completed within the original timeframe. Proposed New PDO - Additional Financing (AF) To expand the area under sustainable land and water management practices in selected watersheds Change in Results Framework Explanation: Changes in the Results Framework entail adding mandatory Core Sector Indicators for the Biodiversity, Forestry, and Land Management and Land Administration sectors, and adding indicators for newly introduced activities. In addition, targets for existing indicators are revised upwards to reflect planned scaled-up activities. Specific changes to the Results Framework are as follows: one indicator is moved from the PDO to Component level; eight new indicators are introduced (of which four are Core Sector Indicators); five indicators are revised (including revisions of target values to reflect scaling-up of Project activities); and three indicators are dropped (including two custom indicators that are replaced with Core Sector Indicators). See Annex 1 (Revised Results Framework) for details. Compliance Covenants - Additional Financing (Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing - P132100 ) Source of Finance Description of Funds Agreement Date Due Recurrent Frequency Action Covenants Reference The Recipient shall, not later than three (3) months after Effective Date, recruit or assign the following Schedule 2, additional 27-Feb- GEFU New Section V personnel: an 2015 assistant financial management specialist, a procurement specialist, and an assistant project coordinator. Covenants - Parent (Sustainable Land and Water Management - P098538) Finance Description Ln/Cr/TF Agreement of Date Due Status Recurrent Frequency Action Reference Covenants
6
No withdrawal shall be made under Component 1 until a signed and effective MoU Schedule between 31-Jan- Marked for TF-97579 2; Section MEST and 2012 Deletion IV; B1(b) SADA, detailing fiduciary support and reporting requirement s for Component 1, has been provided. No withdrawal shall be made for subprojects under subcompon ent 2.3 until Schedule satisfactory 30-May- Marked for TF-97579 2; Section subproject 2013 Deletion IV; B1(c) guidelines have been added as an addendum to the Project Implementa tion Manual. Not later than three months Schedule after the 20-Apr- Marked for TF-97579 2; Section Effectivene 2011 Deletion IV; E ss date, the Recipient shall recruit an
7
experienced procuremen t officer to MEST.
Conditions
Source Of Fund Name Type GEFU Withdrawal condition Disbursement (achievement of PDO Indicator 1 (area under SLWM) Description of Condition No withdrawals shall be made from the AF grant to Categories 2 and 4 unless the Recipient has (i) achieved the 2014 targets for land area where sustainable land and water management practices have been adopted as a result of the Project (the Project Development Objective indicator 1); and (ii) operationalized Payment for Environmental Services, in form and substance satisfactory to the World Bank
Source Of Fund Name Type GEFU Withdrawal condition Disbursement (revision of Sub-Project Guidelines) Description of Condition No withdrawals shall be made from the AF grant to Category 2 unless the Recipient has submitted updated guidelines for activities under Part B of Project, to address existing gaps due to the delayed development and operationalization of the Environmental Index, in form and Substance satisfactory to the World Bank.
Finance Loan Closing Date - Additional Financing (Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing - P132100 ) Source of Funds Proposed Additional Financing Loan Closing Date GEF Secretariat as Implementing Agency 28-Feb-2018
Loan Closing Date(s) - Parent ( Sustainable Land and Water Management - P098538 ) Explanation: The closing date of the original grant is extended by two years to February 28, 2018, to synchronize it with the Additional Financing Closing Date. Status Original Closing Current Closing Proposed Closing Previous Closing Ln/Cr/TF Date Date Date Date(s) 14-Oct-2011, 03- TF-95451 Closed 14-Oct-2010 14-Oct-2011 Feb-2012
8
TF-97579 Effective 15-Feb-2016 15-Feb-2016 28-Feb-2018 15-Feb-2016 Change in Disbursement Arrangements Explanation: Descriptions (names) of the disbursement categories 2 and 3 are changed to match the revised component descriptions (names). Disbursement schedule is revised to reflect implementation plan for Additional Financing. Change in Disbursement Estimates (including all sources of Financing) Explanation: Descriptions (names) of the disbursement categories 2 and 3 are changed to match the revised component descriptions (names). Disbursement schedule is revised to reflect implementation plan for Additional Financing. Changes pertain to disbursements of the AF grant. Expected Disbursements (in USD Million) (including all Sources of Financing) Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual 0.00 2.82 2.74 2.48 0.71 Cumulative 0.00 2.82 5.56 8.04 8.75 Allocations - Additional Financing (Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing - P132100 ) Disbursement %(Type Source of Category of Allocation Currency Total) Fund Expenditure Proposed Proposed Goods, Consultant Services, Training, GEFU 0.00 100.00 Incremental Operating Costs - Part A Goods, Works, Consultant and Non- Consultant Services, GEFU 4,840,000.00 100.00 Training, Incremental Operating Costs - Part B1,3,4 Goods and Works - Part GEFU 3,470,000.00 100.00 B2 Goods, Consultant Services, Incremental 440,000.00 100.00 GEFU Operating Costs - Part C Total: 8,750,000.00 Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Explanation: To ensure adequate support for effective project management and coordination and to address the project management cost overruns, reallocations are made under Grant TF97579 from Categories 1 and 2 to Category 4.
9
Current Category of Disbursement %(Type Ln/Cr/TF Currency Allocation Expenditure Total) Current Proposed Current Proposed Gds, Cons TF-95451 USD 200,000 200,000 100 100 Ser,Trng,Wkshp, Sytrs TF-95451 Designated Account 0 0 0 0 Total: 200,000 200,000 Goods, Consultant Services, Training, TF-97579 USD 1,033,125 944,000 100 100 Incremental Operating Costs - Part A Goods, Works, Consultant and Non- Consultant Services, TF-97579 3,984,243 3,604,428 100 100 Training, Incremental Operating Costs - Part B1,2,3b,4,5 Goods, Works, TF-97579 Consultant Services - Part 2,400,000 2,542,090 100 100 3a Goods, Consultant TF-97579 Services, Incremental 732,632 1,059,482 100 100 Operating Costs - Part C TF-97579 Designated Account 0 0 0 0 Total: 8,150,000 8,150,000 Components Change to Components and Cost Explanation: The original component structure remains the same. The structure of sub-components under Component 2 is revised to reduce number of sub-components and simplify presentation. Component 2 originally included five sub-components which are now grouped into four sub-components for (i) systems, capacity and monitoring for SLWM; (ii) implementation of SLWM (sub-projects); (iii) national SLM and PES monitoring; and (iv) management of biodiversity corridors (including new SFM activities). Detailed subcomponent structure and costs are presented in Annexes 4 and 5. Current Component Proposed Component Current Cost Proposed Action Name Name (US$M) Cost (US$M) Capacity Building for Capacity Building for integrated spatial integrated spatial 1.00 0.94 Revised planning planning Water and Land Land and Water 6.45 14.46 Revised Management Management
10
Project Management Project Management and 0.70 1.50 Revised and Coordination Coordination Total: 8.15 16.90 Other Change(s) Change in Institutional Arrangements Explanation: With introduction of new SFM activities in gazetted Forest Reserves, MESTI will implement Component 2 in collaboration with one additional entity, the Forest Services Division of the Forestry Commission. Change in Procurement Explanation: The Project will adopt the new Procurement Guidelines, the “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011 and the “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011. This is a World Bank requirement. Change in Implementation Schedule Explanation: Revised implementation schedule reflects time needed to implement proposed additional or scaled-up activities under Additional Financing through February 28, 2018. Appraisal Summary Economic and Financial Analysis Explanation: AF interventions are the same as in the original Project, with addition of rangeland and forest management; therefore, the economic analysis follows similar terms. Considering that the project follows a framework approach, with few specific investments identified in advance, a full ex ante economic analysis is not possible.
However: • International experience suggests that SLWM technologies bring substantial long-term productivity gains; • Investments in capacity-building will be particularly cost-effective if the project catalyzes larger SLWM investments and broader uptake in northern Ghana; • AF interventions will rely on capacity building efforts from the earlier phase of the project to reach greater development targets.
Reliable figures are not available for the financial returns of the range of relevant SLWM technologies in northern Ghana, in particular as SLWM investments under the first project phase are still quite recent. However, during project preparation, estimates of the returns for a number of improved agricultural land management practices from 1991 farm models were updated with current prices. The results for the Northern Savannah suggested that internal rates of returns: (i) were mostly positive; (ii) varied widely between the practices; but (iii) in only a few cases (introduction of woody fallows, use of animal traction) were unequivocally large enough to exceed the high estimated discount rates of subsistence farmers (estimated at 20–30 percent). The rationale of the project remains as originally set, to provide incentives to
11 farmers to overcome the barriers to introduction stemming from high start up costs (or low returns) and high rates of discounting, and to generate a more reliable understanding of the nature of the incentives needed, and how they compare to the marginal social benefits derived from improved environmental services.
In terms of the agricultural productivity increases, results from demonstrations and farmer fields show increases of between 20 and 30% from the ongoing SLWM interventions. Some technologies like the use of compost and bunding have resulted in productivity increases as much as 30% in the project districts. Experience from the Canada-funded Ghana Environmental Management Project (GEMP) SLWM interventions in the Northern Savannah show similar results.
While CREMAs initiated under the previous phase are still, as anticipated, at the development phase, previous studies suggest that in the corridor areas they would eventually be financially viable under a variety of small-scale, sustainable commercial hunting and fishing uses. Hence, estimates of potential annual revenues for two corridor areas ranged from $12,000–$18,000 per village, compared to annual patrolling and management costs of around $1,000 per village. These are long term projections based on restoration of wildlife populations and establishment of well-managed sport hunting enterprises. These levels of income will not be achieved during the lifespan of the project, but milestones toward eventual full sustainability can still be set for the project itself.
Additionally, an independent impact evaluation (IE) will be carried out to assess overall achievement of expected project results particularly given that the project is piloting the PES based incentive system. Technical Analysis Explanation: The technical design is appropriate to the setting. PES approaches have been successful elsewhere, and here a conceptual framework based on PES is adapted to local conditions and combined with support to overcome capacity limitations of both farmers and government extension services. The capacity of the regional Forestry Commission offices is considered adequate to implement the biodiversity and sustainable forest management aspects of the project. The design of the proposed activities in the corridor areas and the Gbele Resource Reserve has benefited from earlier work carried out under the Northern Savannah Biodiversity Conservation Project (NSBCP) as well as from experience gained to date under the ongoing SLWMP. NSBCP, in particular through a consultative process, supported development of management plans for the Gbele Resource Reserve and the biodiversity corridor areas; and guidelines for piloting and implementing CREMAs. The Project is designed to support implementation of these management plans. The SLWM technologies to be employed are largely tested and well-understood in Ghana. The Project design places more emphasis on innovation and experimentation in incentives and extension systems for supporting the implementation of the technologies. Social Analysis Explanation: The Project is expected to positively impact target farming and CREMA communities through improved agricultural productivity, expanded livelihood opportunities, increased resilience to climate change, and enhanced flow of environmental services (e.g. through improved water or carbon sequestration services). Participatory, consensus-based, and community-driven approach to activities on the ground mitigates against potential social risks. Participation of women will be given emphasis to ensure the gender dimension particularly at the local community level. Potential for involuntary resettlement is low; however, a Resettlement Policy Framework prepared, consulted upon, and disclosed for use by the original Project will continue to be applied to manage potential resettlement.
12
Environmental Analysis Explanation: The Project’s principal motivation is improved sustainability of land and water management, enhanced biodiversity, and contribution to climate change resilience. The Project is expected to lead to measurable biophysical improvements in the target Kulpawn – Sissili landscape through improved vegetative cover, reduced soil erosion, reduced siltation and sedimentation, enhanced biological diversity, improved landscape connectivity, and carbon capture. The Environmental impacts of the project will likely be overwhelmingly positive, with only minor potential for local adverse environmental impacts from activities such as tree planting, stone bunding or other soil conservation measures. The Environmental Analysis and Management Plan prepared, consulted upon and disclosed for use by the original Project will continue to be applied to manage environmental risks. Risk Explanation: AF activities constitute no changes to the original risk levels associated with the Project. See ORAF (Annex 3) for detailed discussion and assessment of risks and risk mitigation measures.
13
Annex 1. Revised Results Framework
Project Development Objective: to (a) demonstrate improved sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in selected micro-watersheds; and (b) strengthen spatial planning for identification of linked watershed investments in the Northern Savannah region of Ghana.
Revised Project Development Objective: to expand the area under sustainable land and water management in selected watersheds.
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised Area of land in Dropped Ha 0 144.42 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Semi-Annual Project MESTI selected micro- Reports PCU watersheds under new sustainable land and watershed management (SLWM) technologies Indicator One: New Ha 0 144.42 1,500 2,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Semi-Annual Project MOFA Land area where Reports sustainable land and water management practices have been adopted as a result of the project i Indicator Two: New Number n/a 284 3,000 4,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Semi-Annual Project MOFA Land users Reports adopting sustainable land management
14
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised practices as a result of the project ii Indicator Three: Revised Score 0 Annually Manageme Forestry Management – 100 nt Commission Effectiveness Effectivene – Wildlife Tracking Tool ss Tracking Division score in Gbele Tool Resource Reserve (METT) and Wuru Kayero, scores, i.e. Wahabu Wiasi, rapid Sumboru assessment Bechausa and based on a Gbele-Mole scorecard corridor sites questionnai re Gbele Resource 45 888 88 92 92 95 100 Reserve Wuru Kayero 28 51 51 51 53 53 75 Corridor Site Wahabi Wiasi 34 38 43 48 50 50 50 Corridor Site Sumboru n/a 21 30 30 40 45 50 Bechausa Corridor Site Gbele-Mole n/a 21 30 30 40 45 50 Corridor Site
8 The large increased score from baseline number (for Gbele GRR, Wuru Kayero and Wahabi Wiasi) is owing to the revision in the format of METT tracking tool which now captures more scoring indicators. Overall, the score increase by end of project will be similar to what was originally envisaged. 15
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised Indicator Four: New Number 0 7,000 9,000 11,500 14,000 17,000 20,000 Semi-Annually Project MOFA Direct project Reports FC-WD beneficiaries iii FC-FSD EPA SADA of which female (Percent) 0 34.5 30 30 30 30 30
Pre-feasibility Continued Number 0 0 0 2 2 n/a 2 Annually Project SADA studies conducted [At Reports for new large- Intermedi scale multi- ate Level] purpose water storage investments iv Intermediate Results (Part A): Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning
Intermediate Continued Yes / No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Semi-Annual Project SADA Result Indicator Reports One: Integrated spatial development framework produced for Northern Savannah zone Intermediate Continued Number 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Semi-Annual Project SADA Result Indicator Reports Two: Pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large- scale multi-
16
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised purpose water storage investments v Integrated sub- Dropped Number 0 0 2 Annual Project SADA basin plans Reports developed Intermediate Results (Part B): Land and Water Management
Intermediate Revised Number 0 44 44 68 80 124 168 Semi-Annual Number of MOFA Result Indicator watershed One: developme Communities with nt plans Community available Watershed Development Plans consistent with the Watershed Development Planning Manual vi Intermediate Revised Number 0 38 54 70 90 110 130 Semi-Annual Project MOFA Result Indicator Reports Two: Demonstration plots established in the target watersheds Farmers Dropped Number 0 284 4,000 Semi-Annual Project MOFA benefitting from Reports improved land management in accordance with sub-project
17
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised agreements
Intermediate Revised Number 0 9 20 40 60 85 98 Semi-Annual Project FC-WD Result Indicator Reports Three: Targeted CREMA communities adopting management plans according to criteria defined in CREMA agreements Intermediate Revised Yes/No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Semi-Annual Report’s EPA Result Indicator availability Four: A study on feasibility of sustaining SLWM activities through PES market mechanism Intermediate New Ha 0 0 0 300 600 600 600 Semi-Annual Project FC-FSD Result Indicator Reports Five:
Area reforested vii [within target forest reserves] Intermediate New tCO2/Ha 0 0 0 0 5.8 13.3 26.6 Annually Ex-Ante FC-FSD Result Indicator Carbon Six: balance
Carbon stored in Tool forest ecosystems (EX-ACT) and emissions for carbon
18
Current Data
Responsibil
Baseline Progress Target Source/
PDO Level Frequency ity for Data Unit Values Methodolo Results Collection
Core of Measure gy New
Indicators MTR 2014 2015 2016 2017
2010 2018
C=Continue N=
D=Dropped Feb 2014 R=Revised avoided from measureme deforestation and nts forest degradation Intermediate New Ha 0 0 0 56,607 126,234 172,222 172,222 Semi- Project FC-FSD Result Indicator Annually Reports Seven: Forest area brought under management plansi Intermediate New Index TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD End of NDVI EPA Result Indicator from a from a Project measureme Eight: baseline baseline Evaluation nt index Normalized survey survey Difference conducte conducte Vegetation Index d by d by (NDVI) in target Project Project areas ix effective effective ness ness Intermediate Results (Part C): Project Management and Coordination Intermediate Revised Yes / No n/a No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Annual Project MESTI Result Indicator Reports PCU One: Project M&E system providing required reports and data in a timely manner
i This indicator is used as a proxy for (decreasing) land degradation. This indicator is a replacement for the original custom PDO indicator on area under SLM; the current status information is provided based on the information collected for the original indicator ii This indicator will be measured as a number of farmers practicing improved land management in accordance with sub-project agreements
19
iii Direct project beneficiaries are defined to include all beneficiaries at Project input level, among others: all persons included in the training and awareness activities, including staff of the beneficiary agencies, and the outreach trainings; farmers participating in the organized demonstration activities; farmers benefitting from subprojects on private and communal land; members of communities participating in the CREMAs; participants of workshops and conferences organized by the Project; and any laborers hired for project works. iv This indicator is removed from the PDO level and moved to the Component level (Part A) v At Kambai river basin located on the Black Volta in Lawra district of the Upper West Region and at Temne river basin on the White Volta in the Garu district of the Upper East Region vi Plans are prepared by the community and facilitated by the technical project team; plans are approved by NSLM Committee. Consistency of the plans with the Manual is determined by virtue of their acceptance / approval by the TCO. vii This indicator will measure the total area reforested through enrichment planting and planting of degraded areas in the target forest reserves. viii This is measured as a total area of the eight target forest reserves with management plans: target value for 2015 is total area of Mawbia, Kulpawn Tributaries and Ambalara FRs; target value for 2016 is total area of Pudo Hills, Chiana Hills and Bepona FRs; and target value for 2017 is total area of Sissili Central and Sissili North FRs. ix NDVI is used as a proxy indicator for land degradation Note: The above Results Framework table in the Project Paper varies slightly from the one in Project Portal due to the Portal not populating the table correctly. The above version prevails. Manual population of the table was authorized March 18, 2014 by OPCS Help Desk.
20
Annex 2. Summary of Changes in Results Framework
SLWMP Restructuring and Additional Financing – P098538 and P132100
Original PDO Revision to PDO Rationale/remarks PDO: to (a) To expand the area The PDO continues to be relevant but demonstrate improved under sustainable land revised to better reflect the Project’s focus sustainable land and and water management and nature of interventions. Focus in the water management practices in selected remainder of the project period will shift practices aimed at watersheds. away from demonstration of SLWM reducing land practices to expansion and adoption of the degradation and sustainable land and water management enhancing maintenance practices aimed at reducing land of biodiversity in degradation and to enhancing maintenance selected micro- of biodiversity in the Kulpawn-Sissili and watersheds; and (b) Red Volta watersheds. The project will strengthen spatial focus less on spatial planning, with no planning for indication financing in the AF related to this type of of linked watershed planning. investments in the Northern Savannah region of Ghana Original indicator Revision to indicators Rationale Area of land in selected Dropped The indicator has been replaced by the core micro-watersheds under indicator ’Land area where sustainable land new sustainable land and water management practices have been and watershed adopted as a result of the project’ management (SLWM) technologies (ha) New – ‘Land area where See above – Higher target values reflect sustainable land and increased focus on expanding the area water management under SLWM. This indicator will serve as practices have been a proxy indicator for land degradation. adopted as a result of the project (ha)’ New – Land users This is an applicable core indicator for the adopting sustainable Land Management and Administration land management sector practices as a result of the project (number) Management Revised - Management The indicator has been revised to sharpen effectiveness according Effectiveness Tracking the wording and to include two additional to METT score in Tool score: Gbele biodiversity corridor sites that are included Gbele Resource Resource Reserve and with Additional Financing Reserve and Wuru Wuru Kayero, Wahabu Kayero and Wahabu Wiasi, Sumboru Wiasi corridor sites Bechausa and Gbele-
21
(number) Mole corridor sites (number) New – Direct project This is a core indicator. beneficiaries (number), of which female (percentage) Pre-feasibility studies Continued The indicator has been moved to conducted for new component 1 as spatial planning is not part large-scale multi- of the revised PDO yet is critical to guide purpose water storage future SLWM investments investments (number) Intermediate indicators Part A: Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning Integrated spatial Revised - Integrated This indicator has been revised to reflect master plan produced spatial development the need for production of a development for Northern Savannah framework produced for framework, rather than a master plan. zone (text) Northern Savannah zone Further, the unit of measure is changed (yes/no) from “text” to “yes/no” Pre-feasibility studies Continued (at This indicator has been moved from PDO conducted for new component level) to component level large-scale multi- purpose water storage investments (Number) Integrated sub-basin Dropped The indicator has been dropped as the plans developed corresponding activities will not be (number) implemented due to time and funding constraints. Part B: Land and Water Management Villages covered by Revised – The indicator has been revised to better agreed Community Land Communities with reflect the related Project activity, i.e. the Use Plans (number) Community Watershed development of Community Watershed Development Plans Development Plans, instead of Community consistent with the Land Use Plans. The element of quality Watershed assurance of the process, which is Development Planning embedded in the institutional set up for the Manual (number) watershed management planning, is added, by the measurement linked to the Plans’ consistency with the adopted Manual. Target has been revised upwards, to reflect scaling up of activities under Additional Financing. Demonstration plots Revised – The indicator has been revised to specify established in the project Demonstration plots the location of demonstration plots; target area (number) established in target has been revised upwards, to reflect scaling watersheds (number) up of activities under Additional Financing Farmers benefitting from Dropped This indicator is dropped in order to (i) improved land correct the ambiguity on the director 22
management in project beneficiaries indicator (which, in accordance with reality, has a wider scope than just the agreements [direct farmers benefitting from improved land project beneficiaries] management in accordance with (number), of which agreements), and to (ii) commence use of female (percentage) the Core Indicator on “land users adopting sustainable land management practices as a result of the Project”, which, in essence, measures the same Project outcome, at the PDO level. Targeted CREMA Revised - Targeted The proposed revision takes account of the communities CREMA communities lengthy process of CREMA creation that implementing adopting management may preclude actual implementation of management activities plans according to management activities within the Project according to criteria criteria defined in lifetime defined in CREMA plans CREMA agreements (number) Feasibility study on Revised – A study on The formulation of the indicator is re- financial contribution of feasibility of worded for clarity; the unit of measure is environmental services sustaining SLWM changed from “text” to “yes / no” markets to activities through PES implementation costs of market mechanism SLWM conducted (text) (yes / no) New – Area reforested This new indicator has been added to [within target forest measure the outputs of the new Sustainable reserves] (ha) Forest Management activities, introduced with the Additional Financing. The indicator will measure outputs of the enrichment planting activities. New – Carbon stored This indicator has been introduced to track in forest ecosystems outputs of GEF investments under the and emissions avoided Climate Change and SFM focal area. Ex- from deforestation and Ante Carbon Balance Tool (EX-ACT) will forest degradation be used for carbon measurements. New – Forest area This new Core Indicator for the Forestry brought under sector has been added to capture the management plans outputs of the new Sustainable Forest (ha) Management activities in the eight target forest reserves, introduced in the Additional Financing. New - Normalized Use of NDVI is new in Ghana – this Difference Vegetation indicator is introduced to measure changes Index (NDVI) in target in vegetation cover as well as to help areas project agencies build capacity for its use. Baseline and target values will be established by a study conducted prior to Project effectiveness
23
Part C: Project Management and Coordination Project M&E system Revised - Project M&E Unit of measurement is revised from “text” providing required system providing to “yes / no” reports and data in a required reports and timely manner (text) data in a timely manner (yes / no)
24
Annex 3 Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) Ghana: Sustainable Land and Water Management, Additional Financing (P132100)
Project Stakeholder Risks Stakeholder Risk Rating Moderate Risk Description: Risk Management: 1. Slow uptake in formation of CREMAs. The risk stems 1. Risk is being managed by participatory and gradual approach pursued by the Wildlife from historically low trust of Upper Ghana communities Division (WD) in formation and operationalization of CREMAs, through awareness and in Government interventions that entail demarcation or outreach activities to promote understanding that management of CREMAs is for the designation of customary land for a fear of potential land communities' benefit. The awareness and outreach activities are conducted at the take. regional level and inside the specific communities. The increased focus of the SLWM activities on rangeland management will allow better involvement of the pastoralists, who are engaged in the rangeland activities. At the same time, introduction of the sustainable forest management activities inside and outside forest reserves will promote focus on efficient use of forest resources, involving various stakeholders in the forestry sector.
2. Land tenure risk. Land tenure systems in Northern 2. Risk is being managed through participatory approach to planning and Ghana where traditional and formal tenurial arrangements implementation of project activities and close engagement of local communities, may overlap create complexity and risks to accurately Government entities and traditional authorities in project execution, drawing on the understanding and devising incentives for project Bank extensive experience throughout the portfolio on dealing with Ghana’s complex implementation. land tenure situation. Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Client In Progress Both Implementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks) Capacity Rating Substantial Risk Description: Risk Management:
25
1. Given MESTI is relatively new to implementation of 1. Project will support on-going training of new staff coming on board. The PCU will Bank projects and the addition of a new participating ensure the Forest Services Division is properly integrated into the implementing agency (Forestry Commission’s Forest Services Division) structure. and involvement of two new districts, certain capacity constraints are expected.
2. The FM risk rating is maintained at substantial due to 2. MESTI has a functioning Internal Audit Unit to help minimize risk. The GoG systemic weaknesses in financial management capacity financial regulations and manuals are adequate for operational control. These manuals which is evident by inadequate oversight and supervisory document clearly the approval and authorization hierarchies applicable for processing arrangements on the financial management functions, financial transactions. External audit will be conducted, and combined IDA/GEF potential high risk in the verification and validation of supervision will be provided throughout the life of the project. In addition, the following expenditures and possible noncompliance with guidelines. FM measures identified by the MTR will be implemented: (i) improve the understanding of project staff on IDA Financial Management processes and procedures, it is recommended that Financial Management training should be organized by the project; (ii) the project should consider preparing an accounting manual that clearly spells out the policies and procedures to ensure consistency in financial operations and reporting; (iii) periodic Value for Money Audits on the beneficiary agencies are to be conducted by the Internal Audit of MESTI to ensure that project objectives are achieved; and (iv) a time table to ensure smooth change over from the manual system to automated system should be developed by the Project Accountants. Adequate training and supervision should also be provided.
3. Procurement risk is Substantial due to: (i) Lack of 3. The following measures will be in place to mitigate procurement risk: (i) Regular regular update and reporting on procurement planning; (ii) update of procurement plan till project closure, with copies sent to the Bank for Delays in processing and submitting procurement information on a quarterly basis; (ii) PMU/ IAs should ensure prompt submission of documents to Bank- slow turn around; and (iii) procurement documents and response to Bank comments to the Bank, and PCU to apply Insufficient knowledge and experience in the use of Bank due diligence and effort in ensuring very good quality of documents are sent to the Bank procurement procedures and systems. to reduce review time; and (iii) Enhancement of procurement capacity of existing Procurement Officer through attending procurement trainings on Procurement and World Bank procurement in particular, and providing support (dedicated and focused personnel) to the PO (either from outside or in-house OR BOTH) to improve procurement delivery.
Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency:
26
Both In Progress Implementation Governance Rating High Risk Description: Risk Management: 1. Capture of resources at central government level for 1. Work plans prepared by the Project will be carefully reviewed with particular institutional capacity building activities that are not attention to shifting focus of activities to the ground, which is the main premise of the directly linked to achieving the PDO and overspending on Additional Financing. Close FM supervision and close follow up on expenditures. overhead and project management expenditures. Additional project training to project accountant staff will be considered.
2. Limited availability of Project Coordinator for day to 2. A full time mid-career professional personnel will be added to Project Coordination day project management due to function elevated to Unit as Assistant Project Coordinator to support timely and proactive discharge of day to Senior Director Level. day coordination functions and help ensure quality.
3. Expansion to new districts and addition of a new 3. Appropriate orientation and training will be given to new entrants in the program participating agency could give rise to miscommunication under AF. about project activities, leading to financial management and procurement related difficulties in implementation.
4. Risk of collusion and leakage due to large number of 4. An independent verification mechanism by entity unrelated to the Project structures sub-projects and provision of incentive packages. will carry out sample-based verifications.
Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Client Not Yet Due Implementation
Project Risks Design Rating Moderate Risk Description: Risk Management:
1. Weak oversight of the project implementation 1. Project oversight will be strengthened through improved engagement of the Local Steering Committee (LSC), Project Steering Committee (PSC), NGOs, and Regional
27
Agricultural Directors. 2. Limited uptake of SLWM practices due to focus on 2. Project will modify planning and extension support to subprojects to promote dry narrow range of wet/farming season bound activities, season (farming non season) sub projects, and monitor both the realism of planning and while at the same time planning a major increase in the strict adherence to Project guidelines and standards to ensure quality. number of subprojects.
3. Failure to capture landscape-approach synergies 3. Strengthened coordination between MoFA and the Wildlife Division for subprojects (SLWM sub projects in CREMAs) identification within CREMA management planning activities
Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency:
Client In Progress Both Social and Environmental Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: Risk of potential adverse environmental and social The Project will continue to rely on the participatory, community driven approach in impacts from community level sustainable land and planning and implementing small scale, low-impact sustainable land and water biodiversity management activities. management activities on farmland and communal lands. To manage safeguards risks, Project will continue to apply the safeguards frameworks: Environmental Analysis and Management Plan (EAMP) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Client Not Yet Due Implementation Program and Donor Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: Risk of duplication in implementation of the SLWM Improved involvement of local authorities and District Assemblies, and closer activities financed through other programs and initiatives, coordination with related projects working in the North of Ghana (e.g. Ghana Social or missing out on synergies. Opportunities Project (GSOP) and Ghana Environmental Management Project (GEMP, CANADA). Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Both In Progress Both Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Rating Moderate
28
Risk Description: Risk Management: 1. Limited impact if supported activities are not 1. Targeted engagement and dissemination of results to key decision-makers. mainstreamed by government in the long run. Such a Acceptance of environmental service markets is likely to increase over time. Explore the mainstreaming is likely to depend on finding sustainable possibility of tapping into other complementary environmental services market as a financing alternatives that do not create fiscal pressures, means of ensuring the viability of the PES system. These would include state funding possibly through the development of environmental for climate adaptation or other non-marketable public services, and private financing. markets for water, carbon and biodiversity (PES – Payment for Environmental Services)
2. Incomplete M&E system and lack of M&E plan. 2. A GIS based M&E system is being operationalized; preparation of a Monitoring and Supervision Plan for the Project was requested. Resp: Status: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Client Not Yet Due Implementation Overall Risk Overall Implementation Risk: Rating Low Risk Description: Systems and institutional arrangements already put in place as a result of the activities to date. These should help efficiently roll out the AF activities with both adjusted and new indicators to closely monitor the new SLWM options introduced and for new Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) activities.
29
Annex 4: Detailed Description of Project Activities
1. The Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (SLWMP) project is designed around three components: (1) Capacity building for integrated spatial planning; (2) Land and Water Management, and (3) Project management and coordination. The project supports a comprehensive landscape approach to sustainable land and watershed management at the community level with planning activities at the regional and district levels. Additional financing to the project is available through GEF-5 resources (under Biodiversity (BD), Land Degradation (LD), Climate Change (CC), and Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) focal areas), which will upscale and expand activities within the same component structure.
2. The rationale for expanding the current project through the additional financing is that: (i) the proposed up-scaling in coverage will provide adequate scale to generate and demonstrate results at a watershed level; and (ii) the Project was originally designed with a wider coverage, which could not be funded under the then available GEF-4 resources. This additional financing through GEF-5 resources will offer a unique opportunity to tackle environmental degradation with multiplying impacts on poverty reduction in project communities and surrounding areas. The increase in project coverage with additional financing will allow contiguity of the communities along the target sub-watershed rivers (Kulpawn, Sisilli, and Red Volta) and further contribute to demonstrating improved SLWM and forest management practices, and consequent reduction of land degradation, thus increasing the project’s impacts. These developments are expected to result in greater generation of global environment benefits including improvement in the provision of ecosystem services associated with broader watershed management interventions.
3. The revised component structure of the three integrated components is:
Revised Additional Total Component Restructured component Financing Financing Financing
944,000 0 944,000
1 Capacity building for integrated spatial planning Component
2.1. Systems, capacity and monitoring for sustainable land and
water management 2,178,348 880,000 3,058,348
2.2. Implementation of sustainable land and water management 2,542,090 3,470,000 6,012,090 in micro-watersheds (subprojects)
2.3. National SLM and PES monitoring 499,344 460,000 959,344 2.4: Management of riparian biological corridors Component 2 a. Implementation of Corridor Management Plan in the Western 926,736 Biodiversity Corridor b. Support to Gbele Resource Reserve Management 3,500,000 4,426,736 Land and Land Water Management 2.4.c Sustainable Forest Management n/a
30
1,059,482 440,000 1,499,482
3. Project Management and Coordination
nt nt 3 Compone
Total 8,150,000 8,750,000 16,900,000
Component 1: Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning ($944,000 from GEF, all from original grant, LD Focal Area9)
4. This component provides integrated spatial planning tools (for mapping, analysis, monitoring and evaluation) to strengthen the capacity of SADA to guide and undertake decision-making for land and water related investments across the Northern Savannah region. Spatial planning takes into account ecological units such as watershed and is expected to result in the identification of both large-scale water and flood management infrastructure investments. The component finances establishment of a small spatial planning unit within SADA, mapping and spatial planning exercises, and two pre-feasibility studies of investments identified in the Integrated Water Resources and Flood Management Plan (at the Kambai river basin located on the Black Volta in Lawra district of the Upper West Region and at the Tembe river basin on the White Volta in the Garu district of the Upper East Region). The outputs of Component 1 will guide future water investments in Northern Ghana.
5. Activities under Component 1 will not receive Additional Financing.
Component 2: Land and Water Management ($14,456,518 from GEF [original grant: $6,146,518 (Land Degradation (LD) - $5,146,518; Biodiversity (BD) – $1,000,000), AF grant: $8,310,000 (BD - $1,750,000; LD – $2,650,000; Climate Change (CC) – $2,160,000; and Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) – $1,750,000])
6. This component will scale up support for community flood and land management at the micro- watershed level, including both management of agricultural land and ecological infrastructure through the adoption of SLWM technologies in two additional districts and 88 more communities (as part of AF), with stronger focus on rangeland management as one set of SLWM options. The Project will support SLWM implementation in two new districts (Daffiama-Bussie-Issa and Mamprugu Moaduri), in addition to expanding activities within current districts (Builsa South, Talensi, Bawku West, Kassena- Nankana West, Wa East, Sissala East, Sissala West, and West Mamprusi) using additional financing resources from both GEF LD and CC (LULUCF) funds. It will also be associated with parallel labor- intensive civil works investments in small-scale flood and water management infrastructure through the Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP) to provide for a comprehensive approach. GSOP input incentives through payment of labor intensive works will complement the SLWMP input and output based incentives for the beneficiaries to reverse land degradation and enhanced agricultural productivity and maintenance of biodiversity in watersheds.
9 See also Annex 7 for GEF incremental activities. 31
7. The activities on management of riparian and other biological corridors will expand in coverage and will now include two additional corridor sites (Sites 2 and 4) for CREMA establishment10 (Sumboru Bechausa and Gbele-Mole), in addition to the two sites already supported (Wuru Kayero and Wahabu Wiasi), using GEF BD funds.
8. The Component will also include new SFM activities in gazetted forest reserves (from GEF SFM funds) aimed at reducing pressures on protected forest estate in Northern Ghana and creating a contiguous management zone of the forests between Gbele Resource Reserve and Mole National Park. Target forest reserves are: Ambalara and Kulpawn Tributaries Forest Reserves where new FMPs will be prepared and key SFM activities implemented. In addition, management plans will be produced for the other six forest reserves (Pudo Hills, Mawbia, Chiana Hills, Sissili North, Sissili Central, and Bepena Forest Reserves) and natural regeneration will be encouraged through forest protection activities in these forest reserves, including through fire management. However, it is envisaged that other interventions (management prescriptions) will be implemented in future in these six forest reserves.
9. The component overall will fund technical assistance, equipment, incremental operating costs, and input- and output-based incentives based on SLWM subproject agreements, preparation and implementation of CREMA Management Plans, and SFM activities in the forest reserves.
Subcomponent 2.1: Systems, Capacity and Monitoring for Sustainable Land and Water Management ($3,058,348 from GEF [original grant: $2,178,348; AF grant: $880,000])
10. This subcomponent supports strengthening capacities of districts and rural communities for micro-watershed and land use planning; promotion of SLWM practices; and performance monitoring and verification of SLWM activities under subproject agreements. The following Project activities are included in this subcomponent:
11. Sustainable Land Management Planning: This involves strengthening capacities of districts and rural communities for micro-watershed and land use planning and promotion of SLWM practices – the main thrust of activities will be in the two new districts (Daffiama-Bussie-Issa and Mamprugu Moaduri), some activities may include districts that are already participating in the Project, as needed;
12. Provision of training and resources to conduct participatory and micro-watershed exercises: this involves the provision of technical assistance, training and support to strengthen (current eight pilot districts) and build capacities of two new districts in micro - watershed management techniques, and specifically to conduct participatory micro – watershed planning exercises at the community level. This, in turn, will build the organizational and planning capacity of the new communities and local government agents to identify watershed issues and needs. The training program will be delivered to staff of agriculture, water resources, forestry and planning unit, among other staff in the new districts and additional staff in the current districts, to account for expansion of activities in these areas.
13. The micro-watershed plans will represent the following: (i) broad-scale and informal consensus on the location of major categories of land type and existing land use, (ii) mapping of water
10 CREMA is a geographically defined area that includes one or more communities that have agreed to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner and was introduced and pilot-tested by Ghana’s wildlife authorities under the Protected Areas Development Programme (PADP). 32
and flood management issues, (iii) identification of community level water and flood infrastructure investments, (iv) management needs for new and existing infrastructure, and (v) suitability of different land zones for application of the various soft SLWM technology options including for climate change mitigation through LULUCF. It is important to note that micro-watershed plans have proven world over to be a positive tool for creating local ownership. It is a step in the process that is critical to the long term success of the adoption of SLWM practices.
14. In addition, the community planning exercise will provide for: i. An entry point for awareness-raising of SLWM approaches and technologies. The project rationale will be explained to communities in terms of short-term external assistance being provided for the adoption of improved SLWM technologies in line with the external benefits these provide, but emphasis will be given to the long-term benefits of these technologies to farmers and their households, especially in the face of the likely impacts of climate change ii. Establishment of detailed baselines for each community of existing implementation of SLWM technologies and agricultural productivity, against which these will be monitored over the project lifespan; iii. Forum for discussion of requirements and incentives for successful introduction of SLWM technologies; and iv. Identification of any land use issues, uncertainties or disputes germane to the project, which may need the intervention or support of the District Assembly (DA) to resolve.
15. Development of district extension approaches based on incentive structures established for promoting SLWM. Awareness of the best SLWM technology options is a pre – condition for spreading SLWM. However, creating an enabling environment to promote the adoption of these practices on the ground has some major challenges. Capacity of extension agents will be built through training in appropriate SLWM technologies and current extension approaches. SLWM training program will be implemented to cater for new extension staff in current Project districts (to compensate for turnover of staff due to transfers, resignation, and retirement) and new Project districts, and a set of existing training materials for extension service providers will be used, based on the menu of SLWM technologies. The key elements of the extension approach will be: i. Establishment of demonstration plots for selected SLWM technologies in target communities. ii. Supporting formation of Farmer Groups or individuals interested in applying similar technologies.
16. Monitoring performance under SLWM sub-project agreements: support to specific monitoring and evaluation activities on the performance of the implementation of sub-project agreements. These activities will be supported by training, services and operational expenditures outside of the subprojects themselves. DADUs will have the responsibility for signing and monitoring sub- project agreements (as well as the subsequent provision of extension and inputs) with beneficiaries. Relevant local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) would be engaged to assist the communities in the signing and monitoring of sub-projects agreement - specific Terms of References (TORs) and /or Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) would be developed as when necessary for this cooperation. Drawing up of agreements would include recording the GPS location and size of the plot (although not detailed mapping of plot boundaries), and endorsement at the community level. Contracts will specify
33
the roles and responsibilities of the beneficiaries and the DADUs. Incentives would be concentrated on the farmer implementing the new technology, but some minor portion may be provided to the land owner (who would in any case benefit from the improvements to the land).
17. The agricultural productivity within participating communities will be monitored and compared to an equivalent control group of non-participating communities as a means of estimating the contribution of the new SLWM technologies to rural livelihoods. The control group will be selected from communities and farmers in fringing districts to the project area. This would be taken from the baseline studies.
18. The project will also employ a feedback mechanism (applied at the same time as contractual performance and payment obligations are assessed) to monitor farmers’ perceptions of performance and satisfaction under the introduced SLWM technologies. The grievance mechanism that has been developed by the Project will provide the basis for developing the feedback mechanism.
19. A third party verification of SLWM contracts will be carried out to inform the provision of performance-based incentives to avoid collusion. This will be based on: (i) checks of the total volume of agreements for a community and (ii) spot checks of individual contract plots on a representative sample basis.
20. Specifically, under the AF financing, the Sub-Component activities will include: - SLWM planning (formation and training of district level planning teams; watershed planning exercise; training for community level watershed management teams; NGO support to micro- watershed planning; and purchases of field equipment); - Strengthening capacity to promote SLWM (purchase of motorbikes for new extension agents; informal farmer-to-farmer extension and demonstration activities; study tours for community members and extension agents; and media services for extension); and - Monitoring performance under SLWM sub-project agreements (purchase of bicycles as an incentive for farmers providing informal extension support; purchase of motorbikes for DADU district monitoring officers (Management and Information System (MIS) officers); procurement of equipment for establishing the GIS office in Bolgatanga TCO and of satellite imaging; independent verification; and project monitoring and supervision); - Incremental operating costs, such as operating costs for vehicles and motorbikes; maintenance of office equipment; and other administrative costs.
Subcomponent 2.2: Implementation of SLWM in micro-watersheds ($6,012,090 from GEF [original grant: $2,542,090, AF grant: $3,470,000]).
21. This component will finance SLWM subprojects in agricultural lands and rangelands, including upfront expenditures on provision of inputs and payment of output incentives based on the developed environmental indices linking SLWM technologies.
The following activities will be undertaken: 22. Direct inputs to farmers will be provided through subprojects contracts (based principally on the SLWM menu of options – Annex 8). The upfront subprojects’ inputs to farmers will facilitate the implementation of improved SLWM technologies on sustainable basis, e.g. small on-farm earthworks,
34
in-field structures such as bunding and ridging, and near-field water harvesting structures, including dugouts up to 250m3 capacity.
23. Farmer groups (each including at least five farmers and 2 ha of land or 100 meters of riverbank) will be supported to undertake improved land management practices that produce local or global environmental services (e.g. biodiversity conservation, improved carbon sequestration, reduced siltation, etc), based on the Project supported technologies as described in “Specific Guidelines for the Implementation of Sustainable Land and Water Management Subprojects” (currently in draft form). Upfront support, such as extension, and provision of critical inputs, e.g. new seed varieties, tree seedlings, and basic equipment will be provided to allow farmers to implement the technologies. Subsequent output based payments will be determined though the Project Environmental Index (PEI)11, depending on the SLWM technology used by a specific subproject. Subsequent inputs will be performance-based according to implementation criteria specified in subproject agreements. These may take different forms, e.g. cash payments, or necessary items to implement subsequent stages of the SLWM technology (maintenance or expansion of area under the technology), and/or linked livelihood support inputs such as equipment for processing agricultural products, carts, bicycles, beehives, small livestock, etc.
24. The project will also explore options for cost sharing of larger capital investments such as sustainable small-scale (i.e., solar / wind / treadle) pump irrigation as part of the incentive structure.
25. Under Additional Financing, more focus will be dedicated to rangeland management as a set of SLWM technology options supported by the Project to ensure sustainability both economically and ecologically. Rangelands in the country are not normally managed to produce fodder. On the other hand, these areas have the potential for optimizing the production of forage for the improvement of livestock and wildlife.
26. Specific support will be in the context of livestock grazing and multiple uses of rangelands, and include activities such as establishment of community rangelands, including provision of veterinary services and watering points, and development of fodder banks for dry season feeding of livestock. The pasture and range management activities include silvo-pastoral activities such as the farmer managed natural regeneration, planting of shade trees and fodder trees, riverine vegetation management, and water resources protection. The project will also draw on lessons and experiences available in Ghana and in other countries in the region, including from the Livestock Development Project and the Afram Plains Agricultural Development Project to improve the rangeland and fodder bank management activities, and on guidelines for farmer managed natural regeneration (from World Vision International and other NGOs).
27. The sub-component will draw upon and advance the work on PES based incentive system to farmers adopting SLWM. Environmental index takes into account specific ecological and economic factors that reflect benefits and costs of adopting SLWM technologies and reflects the costs of needed
11 The PEI (currently in draft form) defines the methods of incentive provision to farmers to include various options based on (i) incentives required for adoption of promising technologies based upon a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.5 (GH₵ /ha) and (ii) payment levels for individual and composite environmental service (GH₵ 50/point) looking at various farming scenarios. These are defined on some basic assumptions that the benefit realization will from the 4th year onwards, some technologies require greater incentives than other, the expenditure in the first year tends to be higher than the remaining years etc. 35
inputs that the landholder demands as compensation for the conservation services. Several alternatives are being considered for advancing the development of the index.
28. Alternative (1), in which PES replaces the current incentive system as of the beginning of implementation of the AF: Farmer groups (each including at least five farmers and 2 ha of land or 100 meters of riverbank) will be supported to undertake improved land management practices that produce local or global environmental services (e.g. biodiversity conservation, improved carbon sequestration, reduced siltation, etc) as well as on-farm benefits, based on the Project supported technologies as described in “Specific Guidelines For The Implementation of Sustainable Land And Water Management Subprojects” (currently in draft form). Participants will receive upfront support, such as extension, and provision of critical inputs (e.g. new seed varieties, tree seedlings, and basic equipment), followed by a series of performance-based payments based on the incremental environmental benefits generated by the SLWM technology used by specific subprojects, as measured with the project’s Environmental Index.
29. Alternative (2), with PES approaches being tested in parallel with the current approach: Farmer groups (each including at least five farmers and 2 ha of land or 100 meters of riverbank) will be supported to undertake improved land management practices that produce local or global environmental services (e.g. biodiversity conservation, improved carbon sequestration, reduced siltation, etc) as well as on-farm benefits, based on the Project supported technologies as described in “Specific Guidelines For The Implementation of Sustainable Land And Water Management Subprojects” (currently in draft form). As under the original project, most participants will receive a mix of upfront support and ex-post compensation (such as extension, and provision of critical inputs, e.g. new seed varieties, tree seedlings, and basic equipment), based on the cost of implementing the technologies. This approach will be gradually replaced by a PES approach in which participants will receive upfront support, such as extension, and provision of critical inputs (e.g. new seed varieties, tree seedlings, and basic equipment), followed by a series of performance-based payments based on the incremental environmental benefits generated by the SLWM technology used by specific subprojects, as measured with the project’s Environmental Index. The PES approach will be first introduced on a pilot basis at several sites, and then gradually expanded to other sites.
30. Specifically, under the AF financing, the Sub-Component activities will include: - Establishment of community rangelands, including provision of veterinary services; - Development of fodder banks for dry season feeding of livestock and watering points; and - Support under SLWM agreements (including input and output incentives).
Subcomponent 2.3. National Sustainable Land Management and Payment for Environmental Services Monitoring ($959,344 from GEF [original grant: $499,344, AF grant: $460,000])
31. Under this subcomponent the Project will continue to finance monitoring and evaluation of programs that link local activities to national SLWM objectives, to strengthen their broader impact and replicability. This includes the monitoring of environmental services generated in the project area, including vegetation, soil carbon, surface and ground water, through the implementation of the environmental indices linked to the SLWM technologies to support the wider adoption of SLWM and impact of project activities. The Component will continue supporting operation of the GIS based Monitoring and Evaluation system.
36
32. The subcomponent will support a study on feasibility of sustaining SLWM activities through PES based market mechanism.
33. The subcomponent will also support development of a PES Strategy that will include activities aimed to (i) determine marketable value of the Environmental Services in the Project Area, (ii) identify potential buyers of environmental services generated via the project and assess their willingness to pay relative to the cost of providing those services (as determined under the established environmental indices), to inform a strategy for continuation and scale-up of PES systems by the close of the project, (iii) assess legal, policy and land ownership context in the implementation of PES through consultations, and (iv) examine existing rules for PES markets and deals. The project will also explore the possibility of tapping into other complementary environmental services market as a means of ensuring the viability of the PES system. These would include state funding for climate adaptation or other non-marketable public services, and private financing.
34. With Additional Financing, this sub-component will also include a design and implementation of a Project Impact Evaluation to assess impacts of implementation of SLWM interventions attributable to the Project support and effectiveness of the incentive mechanism, including variants. Impact Evaluation will be conducted based on the accepted IA methodology and will use data collected as part of activities under Sub-Component 2.1 as one of the data sources.
35. Specifically, under the AF financing, the Sub-Component activities will include: - Conducting a regional learning workshop each year of AF implementation (2015-2017) to discuss Project implementation and lessons learnt with regional and national stakeholders; - Development of a PES Strategy; - Vegetation monitoring; - Carbon stock monitoring; - Maintenance of the GIS-based M&E system; - The Project Impact Evaluation; and - Incremental operating costs.
Subcomponent 2.4: Management of riparian and other biological corridors ($4,426,736 from GEF [original grant: $926,736; AF grant: $3,500,000]).
Specific activities under Subcomponent 2.4 will include:
36. Implementation of Corridor Management Plan in the Western Biodiversity Corridor, including completion of CREMA creation activities in Sites 1 and 3 (including boundary demarcation and mapping) and start of implementation of activities under their CREMA management plans and preparation of the Ecotourism Strategy through the original financing. The Additional Financing will support expanding the creation of CREMAs and implementation of activities therein to sites 2 and 4 (which contain more communities) in the western corridor [Currently, under the SLWMP, CREMAs are being established in site 1 and 3 of the western corridor based on their proximity to existing National Parks which are endowed with globally significant wildlife population in the northern savanna region of Ghana]. The subcomponent will support conducting i) biological surveys (flora and fauna) and ii) livelihood assessment within the entire western wildlife corridor for the purpose of establishing baseline data for CREMA management. The subcomponent will support wildlife monitoring (through
37
use of the Management Information System (MIST)) and wildlife staff training. The ecotourism promotion activities will include ecotourism market chain analysis and direct support to communities for ecotourism subprojects.
37. Support to Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR) Management, including construction of game viewing platforms and water points within GRR as originally planned and production of maps of GRR. Through support of the Additional Financing the project will result in: maintenance of internal access routes and fire breaks; wildfire and biodiversity conservation awareness activities; provision of two watering points for the three fringe communities in Gbele Resource Reserve to minimize livestock entry into the Reserve for water, particularly during the drier months of year [This will serve as direct benefit to affected communities, strengthen community collaboration in Reserve management and also minimize conflicts between management and fringe communities of the Reserve]; support for the maintenance of existing staff housing infrastructure in Gbele and Wahabu camps; provision of additional 15 rooms for Gbele and Wahabu Camps to facilitate the range system of staff patrol in the GRR; and support for opening up a 60km (cumulative total distance) access tracks between Gbele and Wahabu camps to facilitate rapid response in staff patrol duties in GRR. The AF grant will finance purchase of the equipment and fire supplies for the WD activities, including binoculars, GPS, digital camera, camcorder; flashlights, haversacks, wellington boots, tents, camp beds, water bottles, boots, etc.
38. Sustainable Forest Management ($1,750,000 from GEF) – these activities are newly introduced with the Additional Financing. The project will support reduction of pressures on the forest reserves within the Western Biological Corridor through the following: assessment and diagnostic studies and preparation of forest management plans for effective management of the eight target forest reserves within the project area (Mawbia, Kulpawn Tributaries, and Ambalara (in year 2015), Pudo Hills, Chiana Hills, and Bepona (in year 2016), and Sissili Central and Sissili North (in 2017); assessment of carbon stock above and below ground; and enrichment planting (a total of 600 ha in Ambalara and Kulpawn Tributaries FRs) and natural regeneration in degraded areas (in the remaining six FRs), including watershed and riverine areas; wild fire management training and awareness creation for the FR staff and surrounding communities; establishment of green fire breaks (with a total area of 40 ha) and fire rides along the forest reserves boundaries (the fire rides will be 40 meters wide, as a rule, and will have a cumulative length of 350 km).
39. From among the 12 forest reserves within the western wildlife corridor, the eight target reserves were selected based on the proximity to the four CREMAs being created within the corridor along the SW - NE axis. Support to the forest reserves adjacent to CREMAs is expected to enhance SLM from the interventions in these areas. In addition, the cluster of three forest reserves in the NW part of the western wildlife corridor may be considered for basic level of support funds allowing. Detailed information on target forest reserves is presented in Annex 9 (Table 8).
40. This subcomponent will also include procurement of one pickup truck for the Forestry Commission regional office, 10 motorcycles for the forest reserve staff, and office equipment for the Forestry Commission regional offices.
41. Enrichment planting and establishment of green fire breaks in the target forest reserves will be done with indigenous tree species. It is expected that enrichment planting will require 555 seedlings per ha and establishment of green fire breaks will require 1,111 seedlings per ha (and additional 20 per cent
38
of this number for beating up, under both activities). Seedlings for these activities will be purchased from the established private nurseries in the project area.
42. Community Involvement. Both Wildlife Division (WD) and Forest Services Division (FSD) place great emphasis on involvement of adjacent fringe communities in implementation of activities in and around protected areas (GRR and forest reserves). In their experience, such involvement is essential to securing community cooperation, generating goodwill to biodiversity and forest conservation, preventing and combatting wild fires, and promoting sustainable use of non-timber forest products. To this end, both WD and FSD will use a preference scheme sourcing labor (non-consulting services, e.g. clearing, planting, weeding, etc.) mainly from the communities adjacent to the target protected areas. Also, all contracts with contractors will have a contractual clause encouraging use of local labor, thus further promoting cash revenue generation for the communities. The WD and FSD will monitor and report on all contracts (and their monetary value) with the local communities’ members.
43. In addition, FSD will consider planting fruit trees during establishment of green fire breaks on the perimeter outside target forest reserves, for the community use.
44. Additional Financing under this subcomponent will support scaling up of activities and scope of geographical coverage of the current biodiversity program under the Sustainable Land and Water Management Project to the entire Western Wildlife Corridor (the two remaining CREMA Sites, Site 2 and Site 4) to enhance wildlife migration and protection. It will also support natural habitat, wildlife and forest reserve management activities focused on maintaining and enhancing key habitat values as part of the broader approach to watershed management.
Component 3: Project Management and Coordination ($1,499,482 from GEF [original grant: $1,059,482 (all from LD), AF grant: $440,000 (BD - $100,000; LD – $130,000; CC – $110,000; and SFM – $100,000])
45. This component supports project management and coordination activities, including budgeting and planning, procurement and financial management, the costs of annual audits, annual and quarterly progress reports, the consultancy costs for the Technical Officer and Procurement Officer, external audit, and production of the Project Completion Report. The component finances technical assistance, incremental operating costs, and equipment as planned.
46. Specifically, under the AF financing, the Sub-Component activities will include: the Project Officer and the Project Procurement Officer consultancies; cost of external audit; production of the completion report; purchase of additional office equipment; financing for the Technical Advisory function; and operating and administrative costs of the Project Coordinating Unit, including field supervision.
39
Annex 5. Revised Project Architecture and Component Costs
The original Project component structure remains the same. The structure of sub-components under Component 2 is revised to reduce number of sub-components and simplify presentation. Component 2 originally included five sub-components which are now grouped into four sub-components for (i) SLWM planning and monitoring; (ii) implementation of SLWM (sub-projects); (iii) National SLM; and (iv) management of biodiversity corridors (including new SFM activities).
Revisions to Project architecture and costs are presented below.
Table 1. Revisions to Project Architecture and Component Costs
Original Spent to Remaining Revised Additional Total Original Restructured Financing Date Financing Financing Financing Project component
Component 1. Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning
Capacity Capacity building for 1,033,125 396,133 636,992 building for 944,000 0 944,000 integrated integrated spatial planning spatial planning
Component 2. Land and Water Management
2.1: Strengthening capacities of districts and rural communities for 750,000 600,285.47 149,714.53 2,178,348 880,000 3,058,348 micro-watershed 2.1. Systems, and land use capacity and planning monitoring for 2.2: Systems 1,134,243 899,819.80 234,423.20 sustainable land and capacity to and water promote SLWM management 2.3.b – Monitoring performance 600,000 266,582.28 333,417.72 under SLWM subproject agreements 2.3a: 2.2. Implementation 2,400,000 133,384.78 2,266,615.22 Implementation 2,542,090 3,470,000 6,012,090 of SLWM in of sustainable micro- land and water watersheds (Sub management in Projects) micro-
40
watersheds (subprojects)
2.4: Management of riparian 2.4: 1,000,000 258,036.05 741,963.95 biological 926,736 3,500,000 4,426,736 Management of corridors riparian a. biological Implementation corridors of Corridor a. Management Implementation Plan in the of corridor Western plans Biodiversity a. b. Support to Corridor GRR b. Support to Gbele Resource Reserve Management 2.4.c n/a Sustainable
Forest Management 2.5: Monitoring 2.3. National SLWM and 500,000 296,994.24 203,005.76 499,344 460,000 959,344 SLM and PES environmental monitoring services
Component 3. Project Management and Coordination
Project 3. Project Management 732,632 930,282.08 197,650.08 Management 1,059,482 440,000 1,499,482 and and Coordination Coordination Total 8,150,000 8,150,000 8,750,000 16,900,000
41
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements (including M&E, FM, Procurement, and Safeguards)
IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
1. Institutional Arrangements. The institutional and implementation arrangements remain largely as originally established, with MESTI remaining a Project Implementing Agency, providing overall project management and coordination leadership. Other beneficiary agencies under the Project are: EPA leading the PES and monitoring aspect of SLWM, MoFA leading the watershed planning and implementation of actual SLWM activities in agricultural landscape, and the Forestry Commission's Wildlife Division leading planning and implementation of SLWM through biodiversity management in non-agricultural landscapes. Under AF, the Forestry Commission will engage its Forest Services Division (FSD), as a new beneficiary agency, to implement the newly added sustainable forest management activities. SADA, as one of the original beneficiary agencies, will complete its role implementing activities under Component 1 once it concludes its activities under the original grant.
2. Project Management and Oversight. Project management is under the leadership of MESTI with oversight and guidance provided by a Project Steering Committee. MESTI is responsible for the overall coordination, implementation, financial management (FM), procurement, monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and communication of Project activities. To ensure local ownership and coordination of activities between Project Districts, a Local Steering Committee has been established, including District Coordinating Directors and representatives of Regional Coordinating Councils. The role of the LSC in guiding implementation of the AF activities will be strengthened.
3. Project Coordination Unit (PCU). A project secretariat to the Project Steering Committee is appointed within MESTI under the Environment Directorate. Fiduciary management is carried out within the Finance and Administration Directorate of MESTI; and fiduciary capacity has been built to support the project and to enhance the broader project management capacity of the Ministry. Project procurement is done by a Procurement Assistant, staff of the PCU.
4. Updated Project Implementation Manual (PIM). The updated Project Implementation Manual (PIM) describes detailed implementation, financial management (FM), procurement, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements for the Project post-restructuring and with introduction of the AF.
5. Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA), a beneficiary agency under the Project, is responsible for implementation of Component 1. MESTI has fiduciary responsibility under the signed MoU with SADA in accordance with PIM. In order to advance implementation of the spatial planning activities, SADA, in collaboration with MESTI, proposed an alternative implementation arrangement drawing on the expertise of the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD). TCPD is an autonomous GoG agency responsible for spatial planning; it has a track record in developing Spatial Planning Frameworks for other parts of the country. Under the arrangement, TCPD will deliver the planned Spatial Planning Framework through a Memorandum of Understanding with SADA. SADA is implementing all other activities under Component 1.
6. MESTI, the Implementing Agency under the Project, implements Component 2 of the Project in collaboration with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Wildlife Division (WD) of the Forestry Commission (FC) (of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources), Forest Services Division
42
(FSC) of the FC (of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources), and through its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
7. MoFA (as the lead Institution in the implementation of the participatory micro-watershed planning and sub-project agreements within each District under Components 2.1 and 2.2), in particular its Directorate of Crop Services, will (i) facilitate the implementation of SLWM activities in agricultural lands through District Agriculture Development Units and Extension Officers, (ii) undertake capacity strengthening program (awareness raising, extension worker to farmer visits, training of trainer farmer extension, etc.) under subcomponent 2.1; (iii) facilitate, monitor and support subproject agreements under subcomponent 2.2; and (iv) implement the SLW performance verification mechanism under Component 2.1. The Directorate of Crop Services through its Environment, Land and Water Management Unit will provide oversight of these activities at the national level, including technical backstopping.
8. EPA will (i) coordinate micro-watershed planning exercise which is a cross- sectorial activity jointly done by EPA and MoFA, under Component 2.1; (ii) lead national policy monitoring and development of PES strategy under Component 2.3.; (iii) develop and operationalize the environmental services index and related incentive system, (iv) provide technical input in the coordination of cross-sectoral activities under component 2; (v) host at its Regional EPA office in Bolgatanga a Project Technical Coordination Office (TCO) acting as secretariat to the LSC and implementing environmental service monitoring activities under subcomponent 2.3.; (vi) re-establish at EPA Bolgatanga office a GIS unit to collate field data on SLWM and CREMA activities and provide basic mapping services for the project; and (vii) deliver GIS based M&E services to the Project through EPA head office database interface and backbone of the M&E system serving as a hub for populating primary data, storage unit, aid in data manipulation and retrieval and visualization.
9. Wildlife Division (WD) of the Forestry Commission (FC) of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, through its head office and their Regional Office in Bolgatanga will coordinate and manage activities in GRR and Wildlife Corridors, under Component 2.4. The WD Bolgatanga office will have responsibility for producing operational plans, budgets and reports, under supervision of the Wildlife Division Head Office.
10. Forest Services Division (FSD) of the Forestry Commission (FC) of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources will coordinate and manage activities in the gazetted forest reserves, under Component 2.4, through its head office and its field offices in Bolgatanga and Wa. The FSD will have responsibility for producing operational plans, budgets, and reports.
11. Relevant local NGOs will be mobilized to support community engagement in both corridors and agricultural lands, specifically to: (i) provide extra capacity for community planning and institutional development exercises, including watershed management planning and discussion and drafting of SLWM agreements with Farmer Groups, and (ii) complement the technical expertise of District and Regional staff, (iii) provide independent verification of performance under SLWM contracts on a contractual basis, and (iv) trainings for the local village communities on areas such as management of wildfires, simple ecological monitoring methods, management of bird hunting zones, wildlife – livestock conflicts, dry season gardening, and tree planting.
43
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES/RESULTS
12. Overall Responsibility for M&E. MESTI will have overall responsibility for M&E, collating outputs and data from all Project beneficiary agencies for a consolidated M&E report as part of the annual progress reports. Some M&E data (especially activities and outputs as well as updates on all project indicators as per the Results Framework) will also be included in bi-annual progress reports. Specific monitoring responsibilities will include the following: All beneficiary agencies will be required to keep detailed records of activities, outputs and expenditures against agreed work plans and following standard formats, including robust financial monitoring. MoFA, FSD and EPA will be responsible for the data collection on Climate Change (CC), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and Land Degradation (LD) GEF tracking tools, WD will be responsible for the data collection on Biodiversity (BD) GEF tracking tool District Agriculture Development Units will be responsible for collecting primary data on SLWM contracts signed and the implementation of agricultural SLWM technologies on the ground. A third party verification system (complete information on the system to be detailed through the TORs) will be established by the NSLMC (sub-committee) to cross-check recorded performance under SLWM contracts, based on a sampling approach. Specialized monitoring of vegetation cover and soil carbon in the project implementation areas will be outsourced under the joint supervision of EPA and FC. Community Resource Management Committee will be responsible for simple community wildlife and natural resource monitoring systems in CREMAs. The Wildlife Division will collate information and monitor management effectiveness via the METT tool. FSD will undertake the assessment and diagnostic studies including the preparation and review of management plans for effective management of gazetted forest reserves within the project areas.
13. In addition, the Project will seek to encourage partners to engage in complementary monitoring activities for efficiency and effectiveness in projects implementation, in particular other projects implementing SLWM technologies as required in the case of projects being coordinated by MESTI.
14. The Project Impact Evaluation will assess impacts of implementation of SLWM interventions attributable to the Project support. Impact Evaluation will be conducted based on the accepted IA methodology and assess overall achievement of expected project results with a particular focus on testing the effectiveness of environmental services generated from the pilot PES schemes on the ground. Prior to the impact evaluation, a clearly defined methodology will be agreed to ensure that it will measure project effectiveness robustly and in synergy with the project’s M&E system. This methodology will draw on the baseline data collected under the original project and measure (i) whether the PES scheme is a cost - effective tool to enhance biodiversity and socio-economic welfare of beneficiaries, (ii) lessons from the PES schemes tested on the ground and their potential for replication (program spillovers on neighbors of beneficiaries), and (iii) the impact of adopting SLWM practices on the economic returns.
44
15. A consultancy/firm/center of excellence will be hired to facilitate the IE in close collaboration with the Project team. International and Bank’s expertise as relevant will be sought to support the project team
PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS
16. Procurement will be carried out in accordance with World Bank’s: (i) "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011; (ii) "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement; and (iii) “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants”, dated October 15, 2006, as revised in January 2011 and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. In undertaking procurement activities under the project, the following key objectives of procurement enumerated below and in line with Bank’s procurement guidelines should be adhered to at all times: (i) economy; (ii) efficiency; (iii) non-discrimination; (iv) transparency; (v) reliability; (vi) fairness; and (vii) accountability. Thus, the most preferred procurement method is one that guarantees and enhances competition to get value for money.
17. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) in MESTI will have sole responsibility for procurement management and oversight, including coordinating, consolidating and reviewing implementation plans, budget & reports; ensuring procurement complies with national and World Bank procurement guidelines. All beneficiary agencies will provide inputs for preparation of relevant procurement documents for procurement related to their own activities and manage execution of contracts for those. The PCU currently has a Procurement officer, who has been part of the project since its inception, and used to work under a procurement consultant, and so had gained some knowledge and experience in Bank procurement by doing and learning, coupled with attendance of trainings on Bank procurement. However the procurement officer will need further support at the PCU by an additional procurement officer/assistant, as well as from all the implementing agencies.
18. All beneficiary agencies such as MOFA, WD, FSD, and EPA will not undertake procurement activities except purchasing basic items, such as fuel, etc. for their operations.
19. Procurement Plan. For each contract to be financed by the Loan/Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Client and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. In preparing the Procurement plan the current prior review and methods threshold for the existing project, as shown below, is applicable The Procurement Plan for the Additional Financing grant was prepared, reviewed and cleared by the Bank. It will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs.
20. Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Review are presented below. All Direct Contracting and Single Source Selection shall be subject to prior review by the Bank.
45
Additional Notes: - Based on Specific needs and circumstances, shopping thresholds for the purchase of vehicles and fuel may be increased up to $500,000 equivalent. - The threshold for shopping is defined under para. 3.5 of the Guidelines and should normally not exceed $ 100,000 equivalent for off-the-shelf goods and commodities; and $ 200,000 equivalent for simple civil works. - CQS Threshold: The threshold for the use of CQS is determined on a case by case basis taking into account the nature and complexity of the assignment but shall not exceed $ 300,000 equivalent other than in exceptional situations in accordance with para. 3.7 of the Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants. - Operating expenditures are neither subject to the Procurement and Consultant Guidelines nor prior or post reviews. Operating expenditures are normally verified by TTLs and FM Specialists. - Irrespective of the thresholds and category of risk, the selection of all consultants (firms or individuals) hired for legal work or for procurement activities are respectively cleared by the LEG VPU unit with the relevant expertise and the designated PS/PAS or RPM as required. - Prior Review Contracts for the Hiring of Individual Consultants: Apart from legal work and procurement assignments, irrespective of the thresholds and category of risk, which shall respectively be reviewed by LEG VPU Unit with the relevant expertise and the designated PS/PAS or RPM as required, review of the selection process for all other individual consultants (Technical Experts) shall be solely be reviewed by the TTL. - Contracts below the threshold but falling within an exception as defined in clause 5.4 of the Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants are also subject to prior review or require the Bank’s prior no objection. - Special cases beyond the defined thresholds are allowed based on applicable market conditions. - Thresholds for which a shortlist may comprise only national consultants and the Borrower does not publish in UNDB online.
21. Procurement of Works. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and National SBD under National Competitive Bidding agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. Per the thresholds guidelines above shopping procedures may be used in accordance with Ghana Public Procurement Act 663 of 2003 and based on a model to be developed in the PPA procurement manual. Direct contracting may be used in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the Bank, in accordance with paragraphs. 3.6 and 3.7 of the Procurement Guidelines. NCB works contracts that are deemed complex and/or have significant risk levels, will be prior-reviewed. Such contracts will also be identified in the procurement plans. Any direct contracting would also be subject to prior review by the Bank. All other contracts are subject to post review.
46
22. Procurement of Goods. Goods orders shall be grouped into larger contracts wherever possible to achieve greater economy. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and National SBD under National Competitive Bidding agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. Per the thresholds guidelines above shopping procedures may be used in accordance with Ghana Public Procurement Act 663 of 2003 and based on a model to be developed in the PPA procurement manual. Contracts for goods, including NCB goods contracts that are deemed complex and/or have significant risk levels, agreed with Bank, will be prior- reviewed. Such contracts will be identified in the procurement plans. All other contracts are subject to post review.
23. Procurement of Non-consulting Services. Procurement of non-consulting services will follow procurement procedures similar to those stipulated for the procurement of goods, depending on their nature. The applicable methods shall include NCB and shopping. The World Bank’s Standard Bidding Document to use for bidding is “Procurement of Non-Consulting Services & User Guide, December 2002 revised April 2007 further revised March 2010” found at the World Bank website www.worldbank.org/procure.
24. Selection of Consultants: Consultancy services would be provided under the project and includes the following categories: financial, technical and procurement audits, economic and technical feasibility and design studies, supervision of construction works, institutional studies, monitoring and evaluation studies and technical assistance to the implementing ministries. In accordance with the threshold, methods of procurement will include Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS); Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS); while selection under Quality Based (QBS); Selections under Fixed Budget (FBS) and Least Cost Selection (LCS) methods will be applied in the circumstances as respectively described under paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the Consultants Guidelines. For all contracts to be awarded following QCBS, LCS and FBS the Bank’s Standard Request for Proposals will be used. Procedures of Selection of Individual Consultants (IC) would be followed for assignments that meet the requirements of paragraph 5.1 and 5.3 of the Consultant Guidelines. LCS procedures would be used for assignments for selecting the auditors. Single-Source Selection (SSS) procedures would be followed for assignments that meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.10-3.12 of the Consultant Guidelines and will always require the Bank’s prior review regardless of the amount.
25. Assignments estimated to cost the equivalent of $300,000 or more would be advertised for expressions of interest (EOI) in Development Business (UNDB), in DgMarket and in at least one newspaper of wide national circulation. In addition, EOI for specialized assignments may be advertised in an international newspaper or magazine. Foreign consultants who wish to participate in national section should not be excluded from consideration.
26. Regardless of the need for prior or post procurement review, all consultant TORs will be cleared by the World Bank.
27. Exceptions to NCB: For National Competitive Bidding (NCB) for goods and works and the selection of consultants, national procedures that are governed by the Ghana Public Procurement Act 663 of 2003, may be followed, with the following exceptions: (a) foreign bidders shall be allowed to participate in National Competitive Bidding procedures; (b) bidders shall be given at least one month to submit bids from the date of the invitation to bid or the date of availability of bidding documents,
47
whichever is later; (c) no domestic preference shall be given for domestic bidders and for works; and (d) in accordance with paragraph 1.16(e) of the Procurement Guidelines, each bidding document and contract financed out of the proceeds of the Credit shall provide that: (i) the bidders, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors shall permit the Association, at its request, to inspect their accounts and records relating to the bid submission and performance of the contract, and to have said accounts and records audited by auditors appointed by the Association; and (ii) the deliberate and material violation by the bidder, supplier, contractor or subcontractor of such provision may amount to an obstructive practice as defined in paragraph 1.16 (a)(v) of the Procurement Guidelines, as well as adhering to the Bank Policy on Fraud and Corruption.
28. Capacity Building and Training Programs, Seminars, Conferences, Workshops, etc: All training and workshops will be carried out on the basis of the project’s Annual Work Plans and Budget which will have been approved by the Bank on a yearly basis, and which will inter alia, identify: (i) the envisaged training and workshops; (ii) the personnel to be trained; (iii) the institutions which will conduct the training and selection methods of institutions or individuals conducting such training; (iv) the justification for the training, how it would lead to effective performance and implementation of the project and or sector; and (v) the duration of the proposed training; (vi) the cost estimate of the training. Report by the trainee upon completion of training would be required.
29. Operating Costs: Project operating costs would be procured using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures, which have been reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank.
30. Capacity Assessment of PCU-MESTI: As part of the Bank’s fiduciary requirements to ensure that implementing agencies continue to have systems, structures and capacity to administer procurement in compliance with the Bank’s Procurement and Consultants’ Guidelines under the project and consequently the AF, a procurement assessment was conducted on the PCU for the project at MESTI. It concludes that MESTI is in compliance with the procurement law, has experience in implementing World Bank-financed projects, and gained particular experience from the currently ongoing World Bank funded project, having run it for the 1st half of the project life. It continues to have an entity tender committee and review board in its permanent organization as final decision making authorities in addition to adequate internal technical and administrative controls and anticorruption procedures. The review also notes the existence of satisfactory appeals mechanisms for bidders. It is also noted that the procurements undertaken are in the approved procurement plans, but these must be regularly updated. It was also noted that records keeping and procurement filing will need some attention and improvement.
31. The Project has a Procurement Officer (PO) who has been with the Project since its inception and had worked under a previously recruited Procurement Consultant (resigned now) at the PCU. The PO therefore exhibits some experience and knowledge to conduct procurement under the project, however, given the nature of the project and the fact that all procurements will now be undertaken at the PCU, volume and complexity of the project procurement may pose some challenge. Thus, based on the MTR of the original Project, the overall procurement risk assessment is rated Substantial; The key risks for procurement are (i) the challenge to handle the high volume of procurement actions of projects on behalf of the Ministry and the other beneficiary agencies, and (ii) possible delays in preparation of technical inputs to procurement documents, evaluation of bids and technical proposals, coupled with the (iii) complexity associated to the Project;
48
32. To address the above risk areas, the following actions are envisaged: (i) Post an additional in-house qualified staff to support the PCU, to work with/under the Procurement Assistant, (ii) Close monitoring of procurement plans and assure quality on all aspects of the procurement process, including evaluation, selection and award, and monitoring of Contract implementation to completion, and continuous updating of the procurement plan at all times; and (iii) all effort must be made to include the specialized agencies in the preparation of relevant procurement documents – TOR, Specifications, technical inputs, etc.
33. Monitoring of Contract Implementation to Successful Completion. While the respective beneficiary agencies are managing contract execution and implementation, with backstopping from PCU, procurement will monitor all contract implementations to ensure that the timelines as indicated in the procurement plan are adhered to so the procurement can be complete to achieve the expected results. NB: Procurement Officers shall not be tasked with contract management and supervision because of the specialized nature of the contracts. Contract Management and Supervision requires multifaceted discipline and therefore the PCU shall work together with the various IAs and form a team with the requisite qualification, experience, including user and beneficiary agencies and relevant stakeholders to manage, supervise and monitor actual contract execution and delivery.
34. Contract management and Expenditure Reports. As part of the Procurement Management Report (PMR), MESTI will submit contract management and expenditure information in quarterly reports to the Bank. The procurement management report will consist of information on procurement of goods, works and consultants’ services and compliance with agreed procurement methods. The report will compare procurement performance against the plan agreed at negotiation and as appropriate updated at the end of each quarter. The report will also provide information on complaints by bidders, unsatisfactory performance by contractors and suppliers, and any information on contractual disputes. The agreed format for the PMR will constitute a part of the PIM.
35. Fraud and Corruption. All procuring entities as well as bidders and service providers, that is, suppliers, contractors, and consultants shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and execution of contracts financed under the project in accordance with paragraphs 1.14 of the Procurement Guidelines and paragraphs 1.22 of the Consultants Guidelines. The Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants, dated October 15, 2006, as revised in January 2011, shall apply to the project, in addition to the relevant Articles of the Ghana Public Procurement Act and other national legislation which refers to corrupt practices.
36. Documentation and Filing System. The PCU shall keep and maintain full records of procurement including minutes of any evaluations or negotiations, documentation and a competent filing system that delivers a complete audit trail in their procurement activities. The Bank’s annual post procurement reviews of the project shall be a combination of both documentary and physical procurement auditing. The records of procurement activities and associated filing system are expected to facilitate the performance the post procurement review.
37. Strengthening Procurement Capacity. To provide an appropriate level of support and oversight to other implementing agencies, MESTI will appoint an additional qualified and experienced procurement officer to work with the current procurement officer. With appropriate resources and oversight from MESTI, the procurement officers will:
49
- Identify specific capacity gaps within MESTI and develop and implement a focused capacity building program to address them; - Organize procurement training workshops to explain/train/raise awareness of relevant project procurement procedures and responsibilities within implementation agencies; - Ensure that the Project Implementation Manual is updated as needed to reflect agreed refinements to procurement and other procedures, and that this is disseminated to all staff involved in the project implementation as soon as possible; and - Conduct close monitoring of procurement plans on a monthly basis and closely monitor and exercise quality control on all aspects of the procurement process, including evaluation, selection and award.
38. Updated PIM includes detailed sections on procurement objectives, use of Bank guidelines, procurement plan, thresholds for procurement method and prior review, procurement tasks and responsibilities, strengthening procurement capacity, procurement categories, thresholds and methods, procurement steps, contract management and expenditure reports, publications of awards and debriefing, fraud, corruption, and documentation and filing system. PIM is considered a live document, expected to be updated from time to time as agreed, to reflect agreed refinements to Project procedures.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (FM) ARRANGEMENTS
39. Internal controls will be based on the government’s established accounting and internal control guidelines as documented in the Financial Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654) the Financial Administration Regulation (2004), Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) and in line with the internal audit manual of the Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning. Project implementing agencies will also follow government guidelines for recording and safe guarding of assets. The overall financial management responsibility rests with the Chief Director of MESTI. In order to facilitate payment of some expenditures, the key beneficiary agencies under Component 2, namely EPA, MoFA, WD, and FSD, will operate Project Accounts on an imprest system.
40. As part of the original grant facility, in line with the use of some aspects of the country systems, the financial management responsibility of the project has been under the direct supervision of the Director of Finance and Administration of the MESTI. The responsibility of the Director is to ensure that throughout implementation there are adequate financial management systems in place which can report adequately on the use of project funds. However, the daily transactional processing and financial reporting was handled by the Project Accountant, a staff of Controller and Accountant General’s Department. With regards to compliance with the financial covenants, the project has satisfactory complied with the financial covenants as per the Financing Agreement, albeit occasional delays in meeting the submission deadline dates.
41. In terms of financial management performance, generally the Project has been rated as Moderately Satisfactory implying that there are moderate weaknesses in the financial management but these are not significant or critical to affect overall implementation, and these can be resolved. The key challenges observed was the lack of credible and reliable periodic financial management reports, making it difficult for stakeholders to evaluate financial performance and link disbursement to performance against any benchmark such as annual budgets or procurement plans. To address and mitigate this risk, the Bank has
50
supported the project through series of capacity building activities and training. The latest FM Review conducted on the project was in November 2013 and the review maintained the rating as Moderately Satisfactory (MS). This rating implies that there are minor short comings in the FM systems that could jeopardize the capacity to provide timely and reliable information required to manage and monitor the implementation of the project but, resolution is likely. In recent time the project has fully complied with the financial management covenants of regular submission of quarterly financial management reports and audits.
42. Under the Additional Financing, there will be no change in the financial management arrangements, the funds flow, and disbursement arrangements. The addition of a new beneficiary agency, Forestry Services Division of the Forestry Commission, will not affect the FM design. The proposed arrangement is to use a single Designated Account (DA) (denominated in US dollars) under the direct responsibility of the National Project Coordinator but managed and operated by the Director of Finance and Administration. This arrangement to use a central account is important to ensure that the MESTI has oversight responsibilities over all the transfers and payments related to the implementation of programme activities.
43. As part of fund flow design it has been agreed that in order to facilitate payment of some minor local expenditure the identified key beneficiary agencies, namely (EPA, MoFA, WD, and FSD) will operate Project Accounts on an imprest system. The ceiling for the imprest will be based on a forecast of their quarterly Annual Work Plan but not exceeding the equivalent of $150,000; the use of these funds will be monitored through the imprest and reported upon by Project Accountant in the Interim Financial Reports. The types of expenditure envisaged to be funded under the imprest include stationery, local travel, and other operational costs. All significant capital expenditure including consultancy cost will be processed centrally at MESTI on behalf of the beneficiary agencies. The assessment of the financial management arrangement at these agencies concludes that they have adequate internal control systems in place to effectively manage and report on these funds.
44. Time Bound Action Plan. The action plan below indicates the actions to be taken for the project to address the weaknesses that have been identified to ensure the FM system are adequate.
Action Date due by Responsible i. The need to have an additional qualified accountant to support Not later than three months after Project Director implementation. effectiveness
45. Updated PIM includes detailed sections on FM procedures including: financial management responsibilities, capacity, flow of funds and disbursement, financial reports and audits.
DISBURSEMENTS
46. There is no change in the disbursement arrangement. The proceeds of the grant will be administered using transaction based disbursement (Statement of Expenditure (SOE)) returns for reporting on the uses of project funds and also for requesting subsequent funds. The disbursement schedule for the original and AF grant is provided below. The existing Designated Account ceiling is maintained at $1,000,000 – however, if the implementation accelerates and the Project may require higher
51
disbursement amount, the DA ceiling may be reviewed. Additional instructions for disbursements have been provided in a disbursement letter issued for this project.
Disbursement Projections by Year, for Original Grant (TF97579) and AF Grant, in $ million
Disbursed 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 to date TF97579 4.73 0.42 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 AF Grant n/a 0.00 2.82 2.74 2.48 0.71 Total for a year 0.42 4.82 3.74 2.48 0.71 Cumulative 5.15 9.97 13.71 16.19 16.90
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS
47. Project’s Environmental Analysis and Management Plan (EAMP) and Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) are key safeguards documents guiding environmental and social due diligence under the Project. Negative social and environmental impacts of project activities are expected to be minor. In general, impacts should be positive as the overall aim is to improve land, water and natural habitat management through technologies which also benefit participating communities and individuals. In order to be included in the menu of options for application during the project, an SLWM technology will first need to be judged to have a clear (and potentially quantifiable) environmental benefit, which is denoted by its score on an environmental services index. Forest Management Plans (and mini plans for some of the target Forest Reserves) guide safeguards treatment of activities within target forest reserves, including on aspects of Collaborative Forest Management and access rights for the fringe communities.
48. Expected social benefits include, but are not limited to: enhancement of livelihood sources, job creation, induced development, and the strengthening of local community ownership of sustainable land management investments. The project will promote female participation in each of the activities to be financed and data will be disaggregated to allow for assessment according to gender.
49. The updated PIM includes detailed sections on safeguards, including: positive environmental and social impacts, potential negative impacts, mitigation of potential negative environmental impacts and mitigation of potential resource access restriction and implementation responsibilities.
52
Annex 7: GEF Incremental Cost Analysis
A. Key Facts
1. Ghana lies in the Sahelian semi-arid belt and represents the tropical dry forest biome. Its ecosystems are characterized by the tropical dry climate of the Sudan-Sahelian zone. The country is divided into six agro-ecological zones defined on the basis of climate, reflected by the natural vegetation and influenced by the soils. These zones are: Sudan, Guinea and Coastal Savannahs, the Forest- Savannah Transitional, the Semi-deciduous Forest and the High Forest zones. Notably, the three northern regions are highly vulnerable to environmental degradation and climate change due to their geographic location and the dependence of their population on rain-fed agriculture and transhumance systems.
2. Focus on Northern Ghana. Further, in Ghana there is a visible developmental gap across the North and South of the country where the southern coastal and forest zones (both urban and rural) have been the epicenter of rapid poverty reduction, in contrast to the north which remains under-developed. The Northern region is landlocked and in comparison with the South, its geographic locale brings less rainfall, greater land and soil degradation, and a pre-disposition to droughts and floods. This forces agricultural households to adopt low-risk and low-input strategies, creating a virtual cycle of poverty. Despite attempts to remedy the situation, the decline in poverty still has not been equally spread geographically, and the poor in Ghana, therefore, continue to be concentrated in the Northern Savannah Ecological belt. Nine out of ten people in the Upper East Region or 88 percent; eight out of ten in Upper West or 84 percent; and seven out of ten in Northern Region or 69 percent of their populations lived below the poverty line12. Bridging this developmental gap has been a long-stated goal of most post- independence Governments of Ghana.
3. Agriculture represents 30.4 percent of Ghana’s GDP13 and agricultural land use accounts for more than 50 per cent of all land use, which currently is decreasing. It provides employment for an estimated 50.6 percent of the population as of 2012, particularly women (53 percent of whom are employed in agriculture). It contributes to insuring food security, provides raw materials for local industries, generates foreign exchange, and provides employment and incomes for most of the population (especially those living in the rural areas), thereby contributing to poverty reduction. It is also an important source of raw materials for the manufacturing industry.
4. The rapidly expanding population exerts pressure on the narrow and diminishing natural resource base and leads to increasing land-use conflicts. Area expansion and agricultural practices are placing a significant pressure on available natural resources.
5. Land degradation continues to increasingly affect land resources in Ghana, including agricultural lands, forests, natural habitats, and waterbodies. According to the government’s National Action Program to Combat Drought and Desertification, the land area prone to desertification has almost doubled in the last decades. Past studies estimate that 69 percent of the total land surface is prone to severe or very severe soil erosion, the main manifestation of land degradation in Ghana (Ghana Country
12 Second National Communication to the UNFCCC. 13 Ghana Statistical Service Newsletter, 3rd Quarter of 2013. 53
Environmental Analysis, 2006). Soil erosion obviously affects soil carbon content and vegetation cover, without speaking of inciting farmers to open new/set aside land to compensate for the loss of crop/grazing land potential. Land degradation is economically significant. A recent study (Ghana Country Environmental Analysis) estimated soil erosion to cost around 2 percent and forest degradation to cost about 5 percent of the national GDP.
6. Causes of Land Degradation. The causes of the land degradation are varied and closely associated with the particular ecological zone and production system. A leading cause appears to be unsustainable agricultural practices. The progressive reduction in fallow lengths in the predominant land rotation systems of farming, due to high population pressures, ranks foremost among the unsustainable agricultural practices. Others include overgrazing, over-harvesting of fuel-wood and uncontrolled bush fires.
7. With regards more specifically to trends affecting agricultural land (and related carbon content), these are firstly reflected by the significant expansion of agricultural land – including for livestock purposes - in Ghana (+25% over 1991-2011) over forests, wildlife reserves and savanna woodland. In addition, to keep up with rural population growth (+26% over the same period) and urban consumers demand, agricultural production has increased mainly through expansion of arable land (+71%) rather than yield increase (source: FAOSTAT), at the expanse, in particular, of fallow land and related vegetation cover. In Northern Ghana, this has occurred without significant changes with regards to traditional farm practices.
8. Climatic conditions in the country are changing and has become a threat to sustainable environmental management and livelihoods. Drought and floods in parts of the three northern regions of Ghana has become a recurring phenomenon to the people and environment. The country’s harsh and deteriorating climatic conditions combined with its high demographic growth rate jeopardize the impact of initiatives to reduce poverty, endanger food security and accelerate environmental degradation.
9. Forests in Ghana are representative of the dry forests of Africa. Ghana’s forests make up part of the Guineo-Congolean phytoecological region. Forests broadly fall into two vegetation zones, each with different vegetation and forest types, the High Forest Zone representing 34 per cent and the Savannah Zone representing 66 per cent of the forest area. Total reserved forest area is about 2.5 million ha in 266 gazetted Forest Reserves (FRs). The Savannah Zone covers 14.7 million ha of woodlands and includes some 0.88 million ha of reserves, of which Mole NP alone is about 0.5 million ha. There are 68 gazetted forest reserves with a total area 6,175.09sq (617,509 ha) in the three northern regions of Ghana.
10. Total land area of Ghana is about 23.85 million hectares. At the beginning of the last century, about one-third (i.e. 8.2 million hectares) of the area was covered by high forest while the remaining two-third (15.7 million hectares) was savanna woodland (Owusu et. al., 1999). The area of high forest (off reserve) has drastically reduced and the only remaining portions today are mainly in protected areas. Records show that at the turn of the last century, Ghana had about 8.8 million ha of primary forest. By 1950, the area had been reduced to 4.2 million ha and further to about 1.5 million ha by 1999 (Owusu et. al., 1999). This implies that from 1900 to 1950, the nation lost 50 per cent of its primary forest cover and also lost 60 per cent of it between 1950 and 1999. On a 100 year scale (1900 to 2000), the nation lost over 80 per cent of the closed forest (a reduction from 8.8 million ha to 1.5 million ha). Farrhead and Leach (1998) estimated the deforestation rate to be a massive 22,000ha per year around the late 90’s.
54
The FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2010 report estimated Ghana’s deforestation at 115,000 ha or 2.19 per cent per annum.
11. The condition of Ghana’s forests has been in decline for many years, particularly since the 1970s. Many forest reserves are heavily encroached and degraded, and the off-reserve stocks are being rapidly depleted.
12. By and large, country-wide the problem is one of gradual degradation rather than deforestation and is incremental rather than dramatic, with no single dominant driver. The underlying causes involve a complex of demographic, economic and policy influences. The immediate drivers include: forest industry over-capacity; policy/market failures in the timber sector; burgeoning population in both rural and urban areas; increasing local demand for agricultural and wood products; high demand for wood and forest products on the international market; heavy dependence on charcoal and woodfuel for rural and urban energy; limited technology development in farming systems and continued reliance on cyclical ‘slash and burn’ methods to maintain soil fertility and fire as a tool in land management.
13. Biodiversity and Protected Areas. Ghana serves as an important area for faunal migration. While several endemic species remain, species such as Roan antelope, hartebeest, Side striped jackal, Buffalo, Black and white colobus monkeys remained threatened. Ghana has several national parks and reserves, including, Mole, Bia, Bui, Digya, Kakum, Kyabobo, Ankasa Conservation Area, Shai Hills Resource Reserve, and Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary.
14. Forestry, agriculture, and biodiversity conservation are interrelated and dependent on each other, which calls for a holistic, landscape approach to land and forest management. Therefore, a win-win vision for the environment and regional economy is to turn floodwaters into a productive asset through investing in flood control whilst exploiting green drivers of growth compatible with improved watershed management. This would need to be supported with appropriate commercial and social infrastructure. Tree crops are identified as a key economic driver, and thus the potential for additional agricultural diversification and nature-based tourism need to be recognized for better land management. In addition, land provides habitats for biodiverse species. Due to wildlife requirements for water and to historical patterns of development that avoided river banks previously infested with onchocerciasis, natural habitat corridors centered along rivers form biodiversity corridors linking Mole National Park and Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR) with protected areas in Burkina Faso. Sustainable land management of the surrounding watersheds is, thus, key to supporting the continued survival of these riparian corridors, which, in turn, are critical to the hydrological services provided by the watershed as a whole, and form flood protection buffers along the main Volta tributaries flowing into Ghana from Burkina Faso.
B. Fit with National Priorities, GEF Strategic Priorities and SAWAP Relevance to GEF Strategic Priorities
15. GEF incremental support from land degradation, biodiversity, climate change related to land use & land-use change (LULUCF) and the sustainable forest management (SFM) incentive will be combined to generate a range of global public environmental benefits in the zones targeted by the project, including (i) land under sustainable land management practices that have the potential to mitigate risk of climate change; (ii) biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, and (iii) accumulated
55
terrestrial carbon from expanded or protected vegetation. The table below lists the GEF objectives, outcomes and core outputs to which this project contributes.
Table 2: Selected GEF-5 Focal areas: Objectives, Outcomes, and Core Outputs
Focal areas and Expected Outcomes Core Outputs Focal Areas Objectives Land Degradation-LD1: Agriculture 1.2: Improved agricultural 1.2: Types of innovative SL/WM and Rangeland Systems: Maintain or management practices introduced at the field level improve flow of agro-ecosystem 1.4. Increased investments in 1.5. Information on SLM services sustaining the livelihoods of SLM technologies and good practice local communities guidelines disseminated. Land Degradation-LD 3: Integrated 3.2: Integrated landscape 3.2: INRM tools and methodologies Landscapes: Reduce pressures on management practices adopted developed and tested. natural resources from competing by local communities land uses in the wider landscape Biodiversity-BD1: Improve 1.1. Improved management 1.2. New protected areas and Sustainability of Protected Area effectiveness of existing and coverage of unprotected threatened Systems new protected areas. species. Climate Change CCM-5: Promote 5.1: Good management practices 5.2.Forest and Non-forest lands under conservation and enhancement of in LULUCF adopted both within good management practices. carbon stocks through sustainable the forest land and in the wider management of land use, land-use landscape change, and forestry (LULUCF) Sustainable Forest Management- 1.2: Good management practices 1.2. Forest area under sustainable SFM1 : Reduce pressures on forest applied in existing forests management separated by forest type resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services
Relevance to National Priorities
16. Ghana Strategic Investment Framework (GSIF). The SLWM components of the Project are designed based on the Ghana Strategic Investment Framework for Sustainable Land Management 2011-2025 (GSIF, 2011). Specifically, Project will contribute to achievement of the following GSIF strategic outputs: (i) land use planning, mapping and development of land resources management plans at national, regional and local levels promoted; (ii) capacity of key institutions/actors to develop and support SLM plans, cross-sectoral integration and on-the-ground activity implementation/enforcement strengthened at all levels, particularly at decentralized level; (iii) rate of adoption of soil and water conservation measures by farmers increased; (iv) appropriate soil management practices promoted and adopted by farmers; (v) massive and sustained educational campaign mounted on all aspects of bushfire; (vi) use of simple agronomic soil and water conservation measures promoted; and (vii) fertility and productivity of soils on smallholder farms improved.
17. National Communications to UNFCCC. Though Ghana’s carbon emission is relatively small compared to the global average and emissions from other large developing countries, it has the potential to grow over the coming years under business as usual development scenario. Ghana has resolved to commit itself to pursuing a low-carbon development model, as expressed in the Ghana’s Second
56
National Communication to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, dated September 2011) and the Third National Communication to UNFCCC (currently in draft). The Project SFM activities are consistent with the communicated abatement scenarios under the forestry sector, namely [forest] protection and reforestation scenarios.
18. Ghana Technology Action Plan. Further, the SLWM interventions supported by the Project are consistent with the technology actions proposed under the Ghana Technology Action Plan (dated February 2013), in particular with the Action Plan for rainwater collection from ground surfaces (in the water sector); and the Action Plan for Integrated Nutrient Management / Integrated Soil Fertility Management and the Action Plan for Community Based Extension Agents (in the agriculture sector).
Link with the Sahel and West Africa Program in support of the Great Green Wall Initiative
19. In addition, Ghana is among the countries participating in the Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP) in Support of the Great Green Wall Initiative to expand sustainable land and water management in targeted landscapes and climate vulnerable areas. Under this program, which was approved by the GEF and LDCF/ SCCF Councils in May, 2011, the Republic of Ghana has allocated its GEF-5 resources for the development of a project in support of four focal thematic areas – Biodiversity, Land Degradation, Climate Change, and Sustainable Forest Management. The proposed additional financing is designed based on these available resources to expand the scope of the ongoing SLWM project.
20. The project is directly contributing to the following key performance indicators (KPI): KPI 1. Increase in land area with sustainable land and water management (SLWM) practices in targeted areas, compared to baseline (hectares, reported by crop, range, forest, wetlands, protected areas); KPI 2. Changes in vegetation cover in targeted areas, compared to baseline (hectares); KPI 3. Targeted institutions with increased adaptive capacity to reduce risks and response to climate variability, compared to baseline (#) KP4. Change in Carbon accumulation rates in biomass and soil compared to baseline (tc/ha).
C. Project approach
Baseline or Business-as-Usual Scenario 21. In the business-as-usual scenario, the Government will continue to fund and support its regular activities including the following specific initiatives and programs which are considered the baseline for the proposed project:
22. The Forest Investment Program (FIP). The overall goal of the FIP in Ghana is to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, while reducing poverty and conserving biodiversity. In order to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, the FIP aims to: (a) ensure the integrity, restoration and sustainable forest management of Forest Reserves by introducing more inclusive management and benefit sharing models, other financial incentives, and investments, for stakeholders; (b) restore forest cover in off-reserve areas by securing tree tenure and benefits, forest plantations and landscape restoration, and rehabilitation of degraded forest land; (c) increase trees and enhance carbon stocks in the farming system by promoting sustainable cocoa and
57
agriculture practices, and payment for environmental services; and (d) develop viable alternative livelihoods for local communities by addressing a broad range of technical, financial and market incentives, to reduce pressure on existing forests. An estimated $ 30 million of the overall FIP envelope ($50 million) is considered as baseline associated financing for the proposed additional financing (AF).
23. The proposed AF project finds clear synergies with the following activities that the FIP will introduce: (a) Change in tree tenure and benefits regimes that would provide incentives to plant, retain and manage trees, especially naturally occurring trees in off-reserve areas; (b) new inclusive models for management and benefit sharing arrangements rewarding relevant stakeholders (GoG, local communities, traditional authorities, private sector, civil society) for management of Forest Reserves; (c) new financial instruments and incentives (e.g. REDD+, commodity roundtables, green investment standards and incentives) and engaging the private sector in REDD+ and in sustainable investments in the forest and agriculture value chains; and ( d) improved coordination between ministries, agencies, stakeholders, both at national as well as sub-national and local level.
24. Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (GCAP). The objective of the GCAP is increased access to land, private sector finance, input- and output markets by small-holder farms from public- private partnerships in commercial agriculture in the Accra Plains and SADA zone. Results will be achieved through three interrelated sets of interventions. Component 1 seeks to realize improvements in the broad enabling and policy environment to reduce risks and uncertainty and reduce the up-front establishment costs facing investors while improving the governance and accountability arrangements by which investments occur. These are not spatially focused by design, although their application will imply a specific location. This will likely – but not necessarily – overlap with the focus areas of the other two components. An estimated $ 20 million of the overall GCAP envelope ($ 100 million) is considered as baseline associated financing for the proposed additional financing (AF).
25. Natural Resources and Environmental Governance (NREG) Technical Assistance Project. This technical assistance project design is based on identified cross cutting themes critical to progress in the governance of natural resources and the environment in Ghana. The World Bank is financing this TA operation with an IDA grant of $5 million and the Government will provide in-kind contributions of staff time and operational costs. For the purposes of the incremental costs analysis the NREG operation is considered as baseline associated financing for the proposed additional financing (AF).
26. This TA is expected to complement and collaborate with ongoing or planned activities such as Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), Forestry Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Forestry Investment Program (FIP), and Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES). The proposed AF finds linkages to the NREG through the following two areas of focus in the NREG: (i) Forestry Sector Management, where the TA will contribute to address the policy and institutional failures that are contributing to forest resource depletion by establishing an enabling environment for increased private sector, farmer and community involvement in forest management, and to enhance the capacity of state agencies to deliver forestry management services, including at district; (ii) Environmental Management and Climate Change where the TA will work to strengthen institutional structures for decentralizing environmental management and delivery of needed services; mainstream ecosystem service valuation into economic sector analyses and decision making; and mainstream climate change into government planning.
58
27. Besides the above projects which are considered baseline financing, the proposed project will draw lessons from the Ghana Environmental Management Project (GEMP), funded by the Canadian Government. This project aims to strengthen Ghanaian institutions and rural communities to enable them to reverse land degradation and desertification trends in the three regions of northern Ghana and to adopt sustainable land and water management systems that improve food security and reduce poverty.
28. In this business-as-usual scenario, the development priorities are to increase the income of rural land users by delivering demand-driven resources for livelihood activities, mostly agricultural; to improve governance in natural resources and; to tackle forest degradation which is driven mostly by demand for agricultural land and overharvesting of forest products for livelihoods. As a result the environmental sustainability dimension of increased rural productivity, forest and protected areas management would be limited.
29. Without GEF support, a landscape approach to conservation will include ad-hoc project-specific interventions often focusing on the the symptoms of the problem rather than on root causes/barriers and limited attention to the factors that enable the adoption and replication of SLWM. In the baseline scenario none of the current associated projects are tackling the issue of rangeland management with a focus on climtae change mitigation benefits. The government will continue to fund its programs including largely the salaries of the project personnel with minimal funding for activities within the watersheds and the parks. This would result in continuing degradation of productive and non-productive land-use systems with consequent loss of ecosystem function, and thus loss in global biodiversity benefits, increase in carbon releases from vegetation loss, and deterioration of soil quality and hydrological regimes. Continued land degradation would therefore lead to further reductions in farm yields, making agriculture unattractive, especially for the youth, which could increase rural-urban migration. With no incentive to integrate trees into farming systems or manage existing natural vegetation, households would experience increasing difficulty in obtainingg fuelwood and other tree products.
D. GEF Alternative
30. The GEF Alternative, through an additional financing to the ongoing SLWMP project (P09853814) is strategically designed towards maximum mainstreaming and leveraging impact on the ground related to the investments in the baseline projects (NREG, FIP, GCAP), as elaborated in the baseline scenario. It will be co-financed by a $4.5 million-equivalent in-kind contribution from the Government of Ghana.
31. Significantly, the AF-SLWMP project under the SAWAP portfolio will explore potential BRICKS (Building Resilience through Innovation, Communication, and Knowledge Services) support in the course of implementation on: (i) spatial planning (GIS); (ii) M&E of the project, including detailed SLM activities’ analysis and link to PES; and (iii) biodiversity planning and management (community resource planning). BRICKS is the regional hub for the Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP) in support of the Great Green Wall and is expected to provide operational services to country
14 The additional financing is supporting the ongoing restructuring SLWM project which was earlier approved under the SIP umbrella. The overall outcomes and the approach of the project remains the same, with additional funding adding to the geographic coverage and some new activities for sustainable forest management. 59
projects to help identify regional and global innovations, promote them through better communication, and put that knowledge into use.
Global Environmental Objective (GEO)/Development Objective (PDO): 32. The common GEO/PDO is to expand the area under sustainable land and water management practices in selected watersheds.
Scope of Analysis: 33. The additional financing would support the upscale of watershed management planning and corridor development to improve agricultural productivity and ecosystem services, rangeland management, sustainable forest management including sustainable management of land use, and management of community conservation areas in the Western Wildlife Corridor (WWC).
34. This Corridor extends over 143 km of natural vegetation between Nazinga Game Ranch in the north to Mole National Park in the south, covering portions of the Upper East and Upper West Regions, encompassing the sub-watersheds of the main tributaries of the Sissili and Kulpawn Rivers that flow into northern Ghana from Burkina Faso. The corridor has a perimeter of approximately 865 km and a surface area of about 4,786 km2. The area is divided into four Collaborative Wildlife Management Areas (CWMA) that are themselves expected to be made up of alliance or groupings of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs), forming management units that would be viable for investments to improve upon the socio-economic welfare of the people such as ecotourism.
35. The additional financing among others would provide support for implementation of management plans in two additional sites (Site 2 and 4) and support infrastructural development in the GRR within the Western Corridor covering about 273,000 hectares. The grant will also support the review of management plans for the eight target forest reserves and implement SFM practices in the two gazetted forest reserves (Ambalara and Kulpawn tributaries) situated between the GRR and Mole National Park. Also, management plans will be prepared for the other six gazetted forest reserves (Pudo Hills, Mawbia, Chiana Hills, Sissili North, Sissili Central and Bepena) and natural regeneration will be encouraged through forest protection activites including fire management in order to increase ecological connectivity and improve forest biodiversity, including corridors between protected areas. It is envisaged that other management prescriptions (interventions) will be implemented in future for the six forest reserves.
36. Two new districts (Daffiama-Bussie-Issa and Mamprugu Moaduri), in addition to the current districts (Builsa South, Talensi, Bawku West, Kassena-Nankana West, Wa East, Sissala East, Sissala West, and West Mamprusi), will be supported to implement SLWM activities, including rangeland management funded under the climate change mitigation focal area.
GEF Incremental Activities
37. Incremental project activities of this operation will assist the Government in improving the enabling environment for SLWM and SFM investments and, habitat management through enhancing capacities and knowledge to promote greater adoption of SLWM practices.
60
38. The expected outcomes for the proposed activities include: (i) integrated landscape management practices adopted by local communities, (ii) increased investments in SLWM, (iii) improved agricultural productivity, (iv) sustained flow of services in agro-ecosystems, (v) improved management effectiveness of existing protected areas, and (vi) restored and enhanced carbon stocks in forests and non-forest lands.
39. The proposed GEF increment to the SLWMP activities has been detailed in the project component description (Annex 4). The key activities to be undertaken in order to achieve the above outcomes are designed with the following focus: (i) participatory watershed planning; (ii) building capacities of extension providers to promote SLWM technologies; (iii) study tours; (iv) implementation of SLWM sub-projects in micro-watersheds including rangeland management; (v) implementation of environmental indices linked to SLWM technologies; (vi) management of riparian and other biological corridors; and (vi) preparing and implementing eight forest management plans under the SFM. Key outputs of the various components are presented below:
Component 1: Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning.
40. Activities under Component 1 will receive no Additional Financing.
Component 2: Land and Water Management ($14,456,518 from GEF [original grant: $6,146,518 (LD - $5,146,518; BD – $1,000,000), AF grant: $8,310,000 (BD - $1,750,000; LD – $2,650,000; CC – $2,160,000; and SFM – $1,750,000])
41. This component will receive additional financing and will scale up support for community flood and land management at the micro-watershed level, including both management of agricultural land and ecological infrastructure through the adoption of SLWM technologies in two additional districts and 88 more communities, with stronger focus on rangeland management as one of sets of SLWM options.
Subcomponent 2.1: Systems, Capacity and Monitoring for Sustainable Land and Water Management ($3,058,348 from GEF [original grant: $2,178,348; AF grant: $880,000])
42. Key outputs of the additional financing will include: a) provision of training and resources to conduct participatory and micro-watershed exercises for staff of agriculture, water resources, forestry and planning unit among other staff in the new districts; b)training of extension service providers in appropriate SLWM technologies; c) development of micro-watershed management plans mainly in the two new districts (Daffiama-Bussie-Issa and Mamprugu Moaduri) and in the new extension zones in the current districts; d) establishment of demonstration plots for selected SLWM technologies in target communities; e) formation of Farmer Groups or individuals interested in applying similar technologies; f) drawing up of sub-project agreements; g) monitoring performance under SLWM sub-project agreements through DADUs, including a third party verification of contracts; h) monitoring of the agricultural productivity within participating communities; and i) creating a feedback mechanism (e.g. through surveys) to monitor farmers’ perceptions of performance and satisfaction under the introduced SLWM technologies.
Subcomponent 2.2: Implementation of SLWM in micro-watersheds ($6,012,090 from GEF [original grant: $2,542,090, AF grant: $3,470,000])
61
43. Key outputs of the additional financing will include: a) Adoption of SLWM technologies in two additional districts and new extension zones in current districts (in 88 more communities), with stronger focus on rangeland management activities, through upfront support (such as extension and provision of inputs e.g. new seed varieties, seedlings and basic equipment for farmers) and outputs based payments determined through the environmental index; b) Labor-intensive civil works investments in small-scale flood and water management infrastructure through GSOP.
Subcomponent 2.3. National Sustainable Land Management and Payment for Environmental Services Monitoring ($959,344 from GEF [original grant: $499,344, AF grant: $460,000])
44. Key outputs of the additional financing will include: a) Monitoring of environmental services generated in the project area, including vegetation, soil carbon, surface and ground water, through the implementation of the environmental indices linked to the SLWM technologies; b) Determine marketable value of the environmental services in the Project Area; c) Identification of potential buyers of environmental services generated via the project and assessment of their willingness to pay relative to the cost of providing those services; d) Assessment of legal, policy and land ownership context in the implementation of PES through consultations; e) Examining existing rules for PES markets and deals; (f) Exploring the possibility of tapping into other complementary environmental services market as a means of ensuring the viability of the PES system; and (g) conducting a Project Impact Evaluation.
Subcomponent 2.4: Management of riparian and other biological corridors ($4,426,736 from GEF [original grant: $926,736; AF grant: $3,500,000]).
45. The additional Financing under this subcomponent will support to scaling up of activities and scope of geographical coverage of the current biodiversity program under the SLWMP to include the two remaining CREMA15 Sites (Site 2- Sumboru Bechausa and Site 4- Gbele-Mole, Annex 9) to enhance wildlife migration and protection in the entire Western Wildlife Corridor. It will also support natural habitat, wildlife and forest reserve management activities focused on maintaining and enhancing key habitat values as part of the broader approach to watershed management.
46. Additionally, the subcomponent includes newly introduced activities on sustainable forest management. The project will support reduction of pressures on the forest reserves and create a contiguous management zone of the forests between Gbele Resource Reserve and Mole National Park.
47. Key outputs of the additional financing will include: (a) establishment of two Collaborative Wildlife Management Areas, (b) training of the CREMA management units, relevant NGOs and WD staff, (c) study visits for community groups to existing functional CREMAs, (d) livelihood assessment study for the corridor area, (e) construction of two common water points (dug-outs) for three fringe communities’ livestock use, (f) provision of additional rooms in staff housing to facilitate the range system of staff patrol, (g) clearing of access tracks between the Gbele and Wahabu camps, (h) diagnostic studies to prepare eight forest management plans, (i) enrichment planting and natural regeneration in degraded areas within gazetted forest reserves, (j) establishment of green fire breaks and fire rides; and (k) assessment studies for carbon stocks (above and below ground).
15 CREMA is a geographically defined area that includes one or more communities that have agreed to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner and was introduced and pilot-tested by Ghana’s wildlife authorities under the Protected Areas Development Programme (PADP). 62
Component 3: Project Management and Coordination ($1,499,482 from GEF [original grant: $1,059,482 (all from LD), AF grant: $440,000 (BD - $100,000; LD – $130,000; CC – $110,000; and SFM – $100,000])
48. The component provides additional financing for technical assistance, incremental operating costs and equipment as necessary to support the expanded and newly introduced activities.
49. The GEF tracking tools for each focal area, including Biodiversity (METT), Land Degradation, Climate Change, and SFM will be provided by the project (GOG) thrice during the life of the project – Start (baseline), at Mid-term, and at Completion (final).
E. Incremental value added by GEF funding
50. Given that the baseline programs as designed do not particularly focus on removing key barriers limiting the current enabling environment for SLWM, and proposed SLWM investments can take more than two growing seasons to realize return on investment—which undermines incentives for adoption by poor smallholder farmers. The GEF support will, therefore, play a critical role in awareness building, knowledge sharing, building a network of community practitioners that can serve as agents of change and foster increased interest in viable SLWM and forest management activities, improving land quality monitoring at the local and national levels, and enhancing institutional capacities to carry out multi- sector investment programming.
51. The proposed GEF operation, funded under the SAWAP umbrella, will continue to support the development of the country’s emerging investment platform on SLWM, anchored in the emerging Ghanaian strategic investment framework for SLWM. Given that SLWM is a key element for the connectivity of the different fragmented habitats in Ghana, a mosaic approach to ecosystem management has been taken for the provision of essential ecosystem services. The proposed project as designed presents a comprehensive approach to sustainable land and watershed management linking forestry and biodiversity, that combines soft and hard investments at the community level, including in maintenance of ecological infrastructure, with planning activities which would eventually integrate these into a much larger program of water and flood management infrastructure across the Northern Savannah eco- agricultural zone. It is specifically designed to focus on watershed rehabilitation through multi-sectoral SLWM technologies, focused on cost-efficient delivery of a suite of environmental services (related to hydrology, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity), with the aim of linking these eventually to local and global environmental service markets. This approach also involves protection of the key biodiversity in the Gbele Resource Reserve and Wildlife Corridors and Forest Reserves, which will lead to success in SLWM in the adjacent agricultural land.
52. Notably, SLM activities for crops (conservation agriculture, hedges, agro-forestry, ridges etc), for livestock (fodder banks and sylvo-pastoralism for fodder and shadow, e.g. using acacia) along with improved fire control/management, do improve carbon sequestration in the soil (organic matter % as it is key to productivity) and above (particularly tree cover), and improve erosion control (avoided soil carbon loss, reduced motivation to open new farm land). This will be critical as, currently, tree cover in communal savannas (i.e. non forest reserves) is low in many areas. Carbon emissions balance calculations are detailed in Section F. Overall the project will promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through adoption of good management practices in LULUCF. While a methodology for
63
implementing carbon stock monitoring system will be at the project level, the proposed methodology and activities are intended to contribute to the establishment of a national level monitoring system in the longer term.
Incremental Cost 53. The GEF’s grant of $8.75 million (from LD, BD, CC, and SFM) along with a Government in- kind contribution of $ 4.5 million will be complemented with associated financing from the following: (i) FIP ($30 million); (ii) the Natural Resource and Environmental Governance Program (NREG-TA, $ 5 million); and (iii) the GCAP ($20 million). Thus, the total project cost under the baseline scenario is $ 59.5 million and the GEF alternative is $ 68.25 million.
Table 3: Summary of Additional Financing Costs by components and source ($US million)
GEF Focal Areas Associated Project Components GoG Total LD BD CCM SFM Fin. #1: Capacity Building for Integrated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spatial Planning #2: Land and Water Management 2.65 1.75 2.16 1.75 2.0 55.0 65.31 2.1. Systems, Capacity and 0.88 0 0 0 0.5 Monitoring for SLWM 2.2. Implementation of SLWM in 1.31 0 2.16 0 0.5 Micro-Watersheds 2.3. National SLM and PES 0.46 0 0 0 0.25 Monitoring 2.4. Management of Riparian and 0 1.75 0 1.75 0.75 Other Biological Corridors #3: Project Management and 0.13 0.1 0.11 0.1 2.5 0 2.94 Coordination TOTAL 2.78 1.85 2.27 1.85 4.5 55.0 68.25
F. Estimation of the impact of project sustainable forest/land management activities on carbon dioxide balance
54. The impact of project interventions on carbon emissions will draw essentially from either land use changes (e.g. afforestation over degraded savannah land) or, where land use remains broadly the same, improved land management (e.g. through adoption of conservation agriculture) and avoided degradation against current trends (e.g. avoided deforestation).16
55. Therefore, related carbon emission calculation has been made using the EX-Ante Carbon- balance Tool (EX-ACT, Version 5, standard edition), which comprehensively captures the main different GHG emissions for both forest and agricultural land types. Being user friendly, it can also be
16 Some project activities such as feasibility studies for infrastructure work may have an impact beyond the project if such infrastructure were indeed to be developed. However, these cannot be accounted for here. 64
used for further adjustments and monitoring by project teams as specific project research and M&E activities generate improved data and knowledge (in particular from the baseline survey that the project will undertake in year 1 of additional financing).
56. Under the baseline scenario, the current estimated rates of deforestation and forest degradation would prevail - the national deforestation rate is estimated to be 2.19% annually (FAO, 2011) - with a resulting loss in forest areas and reduced forest carbon stocks on the reduced forests. As a result of rural population growth, agriculture would increase production through expansion (rather than yield increase) over forest/woody land (captured under the previous item) and the area set aside for fallow land.
57. Under Additional Financing, main land use changes / improvements are expected to derive from: - Expanding community driven SLWM by +4,000 ha (in addition to the earlier project target of 2,000 ha) in eight districts already covered by the project as well as two new districts, respectively in the Upper West Region (Daffiama Bussie Issa)17 and the Northern Region (Mamprugu Moaduri)18. A large menu of technical options will be used, with emphasis on sustainable rangeland management (through LULUCF with climate change mitigation benefits) and sustainable forest management (SFM) and within the framework of micro-watershed management plans;
- Promoting sustainable forest management (SFM) in selected gazetted forest reserves, including enrichment planting over 600 ha in two reserves (which cover a total of 12,775 ha), and natural regeneration through improved protection including fire management activities over 1,000 ha in the other six reserves (which cover a total of 159,450 ha);
- Specific biodiversity promotion activities in two sites of the Western Biodiversity Corridor (Sumboru-Bechausa and Gbele Mole, i.e. 273,000 ha): although most related activities are not aimed at GHG emission issues per se, some will improve sustainable management of the protected area (e.g. drinking spots for cattle outside the area) or lead to similar SLWM activities than under the first two items (e.g. improved bush fire control).
58. The first two items are expected to have the larger impact on C emissions. However, assessing expected changes in GHG emissions remains relatively speculative. Indeed, the respective scale and location of each SLWM option cannot be accurately known for the moment as, following the approach that the project has adopted, the eventual choice of SLWM options will be left for local communities/farmers to determine. Yet, emission levels will be a function of eventual changes in diverse land cover types (e.g. forest, crops and pasture) as well as diverse technologies used (e.g. dry season gardening, composting, rangeland management, conservation agriculture and bush fire control). Therefore, a series of simple assumptions have been used to provide an estimate under EXACT: - The 1,000 naturally regenerated hectares and the 600 hectares with enriched planting within forest reserves add to SLWM targets. Natural regeneration is assumed to occur essentially on previously degraded land. Enrichment is assumed to turn the degradation level of the related
17 The district is located South East of Gbele Reserve. Land cover is dominated by deciduous shrubs and grassland mixed with scarce woodland; erosion risk is generally rated as moderate to very severe; soil fertility is generally poor (heavy leaching) but for relatively fertile sandy loam soils near Issa. 18 The district is located North of Mole National Park. Land cover combines mainly shrubland with woodland, as well as cropland with woody vegetation; erosion risk is variable, generally rated as moderate to severe or very severe. 65
forest land area from moderate to low (with project) instead of from moderate to large (without project);
59. Within the context of rangeland management, livestock production is expected to increase somewhat through improved rangeland management - though without N fertilization as nitrogen fixing leguminosis crops (Stylosanthes) will be used to improve enclosed pasture. Productivity increase will derive from improved feeding practices for cattle (+30%) and sheep (+60%) and not stock numbers: cattle numbers will remain stable and sheep numbers will keep on increasing at the current rate (+500), without being affected by the project. Importantly, the project will encourage further reduction of goat numbers (-500 with project) due to their impact on land degradation: as a result, the project should result in reduced methane emissions from livestock management (-2700 tC02-equ).
60. With regards to the SLWM targets (4,160 ha) and considering the emphasis put on rangeland management and SFM under additional financing, it is assumed that the changes will be shared equally between (1) crops, (2) rangeland management and (3) community managed tree planting and natural regeneration (i.e. 1,386 ha each):19 - Community managed tree planting and natural regeneration outside forest reserves - including through bush fire control - are considered here similar to reforestation over 1,386 ha of previously degraded land (avoided deforestation not accounted for);
- The additional 1,386 ha of annual crop land under SLWM on existing traditional crop land, including effective fire control/management;
- Sustainable rangeland management will mainly entail fodder crops/banks and improved pasture management, without input management, and on moderately degraded grassland (+1,386 ha with the project);
- It is assumed that there will be no changes in: fallow land area as compared with the baseline (i.e. reduction of the number of years during which farm land is set aside as fallow land in order for soil fertility to recover); use of chemical fertilizers (although promoted by extension services as part of some SLWM technologies, no changes are taken into account in that regard until market opportunities and viable input supply systems develop).
- GHG emissions due to actual project implementation (support/supervision services, construction of dugouts) have been considered as limited, therefore are not accounted for here.
61. The results shown below provide an estimate of avoided GHG emissions20 in tCO2 equivalent over 20 years as a result of the 3-year project as compared with the baseline scenario (without project). They indicate the comparative significance of forest management on the issue.
19 Indeed, as changes draw from farmers’ existing activities, crops can be expected to keep a substantial share of SLWM activities. 20 CO2, CH4 and NO2. 66
62. Total annual emission balance (tC02-eq) with project (per year over 20 years):
Enrichment planting and natural regeneration in gazetted forest reserves: 23,175 Sustainable rangeland management: 2,960 SLWM on cultivated land: 4,381 Other SLWM (community driven regeneration and tree planting) 21,331
TOTAL: 51,847
TOTAL PER HA: 9 tC02-eq/ha/year
63. Over 20 years, total GHG emission reduction as a result of the project is expected to reach 1,036,900 tC02-eq (as compared to a “without project” scenario), i.e. 180 tC02-eq/ha. With regards to Carbon sequestration specifically, the total figures indicate a balance of 837,600 tC02 and 175 tC02/ha (i.e. 8.7 tC02/ha/year).
Based on this, over the three years of actual project implementation under AF, the overall carbon balance will be 40 tC02/ha (at an average of 13.3 tC02/ha/year).
67
Annex 8 (Technical): Appropriate SLWM Options for Northern Ghana
1. Appropriate SLWM options for northern Ghana presented in this annex were determined through a participatory process involving local stakeholders and were based on local conditions and socio- economic context, including farm size and assets. The common technical elements that underpin most of the “win-win” SLWM options include; maintenance of good ground cover, restoration of soil organic matter and soil fertility, conservation and management of water, improved management of farm components, and control of pests and diseases. SLWM options are presented according to farming system and land type. Benefits to be derived by farmers and associated social and environmental issues as well as minimum requirements are also highlighted. Many of these options include consideration of climate change mitigation benefits, given that Ghana’s agricultural sector has the potential to contribute to global efforts to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon
2. SLWM technologies are organized into four categories below21. Within each category, a large number of specific techniques may be included, but for the sake of devising a manageable menu of options, and assigning environmental services indices to these, techniques will be grouped into a small number of models. Each model will be associated with a specific environmental index value that will determine the relative magnitude of the support that can be offered for implementation of that model, within the PES framework. Each model may therefore include a range of specific techniques, with some flexibility as to which is applied in a particular case, but will be defined by a set of minimum standards, with some techniques obligatory, others interchangeable, and others optional.
Table 4. SLWM options by farming system
Agricultural land (rainfed farming) Technology Technical/Social/Environmental Feasibility Environmental Benefits 1. Land Areas with availability of land Mainly during vegetative fallow period rotation/improved Low population: land ratio Recycling of nutrients, soil fertility fallow system Requires long natural fallow period (8-15 restoration years) Erosion control Appropriate availability of herbaceous Prevention of nutrient and sediment leguminous plants and trees for improved transport into streams fallow Enhanced infiltration of water and recharge Absence of extensive grazing of groundwater No bush burning zone Carbon sequestration (above ground and Farmers already practise it soil) Increase fertility through nitrogen fixation and organic matter addition 2. Multiple cropping A common cropping system in all agro- Multi-canopy protects the soil from raindrop ecologies impact and reduce erosion Practised by all smallholder farmers Reduction in sediment and nutrient transport into streams Enhances infiltration of water Provides all year round cover
21 Detailed information on each technique and options for northern Ghana is available as Annex 16 in the original PAD 68
Sequester carbon above ground Strategy for food security Soil carbon improvement 3. Crop rotation Use crops of different effective rooting depths Improves soil physical condition for water Balance crops with high nutrient requirement intake with nitrogen fixing crops Reduces runoff, erosion and soil compaction Use crops with different susceptibilities to Restores soil fertility and adds organic pests and diseases matter to the soil Controls Striga infestation Improves crop yield 4. Cover cropping In dry areas cover crops compete for available Reduces soil erosion, soil compaction and moisture sealing Availability of planting material is a major Protects the soil from excessive heat and constraint leaching of nutrients Initial establishment is not compatible with Creates a good environment for extensive livestock grazing microorganisms Restores degraded land Sequester carbon and add organic matter to soil Improves soil fertility Reduces sediment pollutants into streams Enhances infiltration of water and soil moisture storage, reduces runoff and contribute to groundwater recharge 5. Strip cropping Best suited to well-drained soils Reduces erosion Waterlogging may occur on poorly drained Conserves soil and water soils Reduces sediment flow into rivers Slope-strip width relationship may not be Legumes fix nitrogen compatible with mechanized agriculture Increases water storage on the hillside Effective on slopes between 5 and 10 per cent 6. Agroforestry Water and nutrient competition between trees Reduced pressure in natural vegetation for and crops leading to reduced crop yields wood products and fodder Compatibility of crops in terms of morphology, Links erosion control practices with rooting system production Tree component – reduced land for arable Provides biodiversity corridors on farms crops Improved micro-climate in farms Exclusion of land from other uses e.g. grazing Recovery of native vegetation and species creating conflicts Creates favourable microcliamte sites for May interfere with mechanized farming, e.g. on-farm biodiversity ridging Protects the environment against extremes High initial labour input of climatic elements (rainfall, temperature, Land tenure issues may adversely affect tree windstorms, etc) planting thereby limiting adoption Sequester carbon above ground and in soil Climate mitigation potential (Smith and Martino, 2007); 0.33 and 0.72tCO2/ha/y in warm-dry and warm-moist areas respectively. The respective values for all
69
greenhouse gases (GHG) are 0.35 and 0.72tCO2-eq/ha/y 7. Afforestation and Not compatible with extensive animal Controls erosion Revegetation husbandry system Adds organic matter to soil through litter Fencing may be necessary in such areas fall Availability of plant species mix Recycles nutrients and improves soil Labour availability fertility Creates suitable environment for soil microbial activity Enhances infiltration and conserves soil moisture Regulates soil and ambient temperature Sequester carbon Promotes rapid growth of plants and rehabilitates degraded and marginal lands 8. Fodder banks Needed in livestock production areas Provides cover to control erosion and Rainfall/moisture availability may constrain enhance moisture conservation establishment Improves soil structure by fibrous roots of Availability of drought-tolerant grass/legume grass species and planting material Reduces sedimentation into streams Provide a buffer for livestock in the dry season 9. Mulching Availability of mulching material Reduces evaporation Not compatible with bushfires Regulates soil temperature Competing uses of vegetation resources Protects the soil from compaction of rainfall and animal trampling Controls erosion and enhances infiltration and soil moisture conservation Adds organic matter and nutrients to the soil Enhances soil productivity Reduces nutrient losses through erosion and leaching Recycles crop residues 10. Minimum tillage Availability of appropriate machinery Reduces compaction, maintains high Cloddy surface constrains seeding and infiltration rates and increases aggregate germination sizes Farming of planted seeds necessary Controls erosion and conserves soil moisture Reduces runoff 11. Zero tillage Availability and affordability of herbicides Creates favourable soil temperature for Availability of enough vegetative cover growth of crops and microbial activity Soils with low susceptibility to compaction and Improves soil structure, reduces runoff and crusting and good internal drainage erosion Less suitable for severely degraded soils Provides organic matter and nutrients to soil Soil carbon improvement 12. Ridge and Furrow Need to align ridges on the contour Effective water conservation and erosion system More effective on gentle slopes control measure
70
Structurally unstable soils not suitable 13. Tied-Ridges Not suitable in high rainfall zones Enhances infiltration and conserves soil Effective on soils with stable structure for moisture in dry areas slopes up to 7% Reduces runoff 14. Broad-bed and Suitable for heavy clay soils with drainage Enhances infiltration and surface drainage furrow problems 15. Zai Pits Suitable on most degraded gentle slopes (less Improves soil structure and enhance soil than 5%) hydrological properties Rehabilitation of crusted, hard, compacted and Improves soil organic matter content, micro- poorly structured soils and barren land organisms activity, aeration, nutrient cycling Suitable for arid and semi-arid areas (200-750 Enhances water infiltration and reduce mm/annum) runoff and erosion Require organic amendments (manure, Conserves soil water nutrients compost) to be effective Suitable for fairly deep soils. On very shallow soils, plant on top of the ridge or excavated soil It is labour intensive but suitable in areas where there is shortage of crop land and labour is available (No. Of zai pits/ha is 33000 maximum to 16000 minimum) Work norm is 50 pits/day 16. Semi-circular Applicable mainly in areas with sandy and Effective technology for reclamation and bunds sandy loam soils, crusted soils rehabilitation of shallow crusted sandy areas Rainfall ranging from 200-750 mm/annum Captures runoff and reduce erosion Uneven terrain significantly For slopes less than 5% steep Enhances water and nutrients storage and Mainly for arid and semi-arid areas nutrient cycling Need maintenance if not stabilized Require organic amendments to be effective (manure, compost) 17. Integrated Availability and affordability of mineral Provides favourable environment for rapid Nutrient Management fertilizers growth of crop to cover soil for erosion Technical know-how in application rates control Availability of organic sources of nutrients Maintains soil fertility and enhances soil Labour and transport costs for carting organic productivity material Cuts down the amount of mineral fertilizers to apply and reduces potential agro- chemical pollution of the environment Stimulates the activity of microorganisms for enhanced maintenance of soil fertility Improves infiltration, soil structure and reduce erosion and runoff Enhances crop yield Soil carbon improvement
71
18. Animal manure Availability of amount and quality manure Enhances soil fertility for early cover Labour and transport costs in collection, production for erosion control casting and spreading organic material Improves the productivity of soil Appropriate storage of manure Enhances crop yield Improves soil structure, infiltration, soil moisture conservation Soil carbon improvement 19. Composting Availability of raw material and water for Releases nutrients slowly and reduces risk compositing of nutrients leaching to pollute groundwater Quality of compost Enhances soil physical properties for Labour and transport cost in carting and enhanced infiltration, reduced runoff and spreading compost erosion Conserves soil moisture Recycles waste and contributes to waste management 20. Contour farming Ability to set contours Conserves soil moisture on the hillside Reduces erosion and nutrient losses Maintains the fertility of the soil Reduces the risk of sediment transport into streams and rivers Makes a saving on fertilizer use and cost 21. Contour bunds Suitable for slopes (1° to 7°) Conserves water and soil by reducing runoff Labour cost in digging the bunds and erosion Increases groundwater level Reduces sediment flow into streams and rivers 22. Stone bunds Availability of stones as raw materials Enhances infiltration, reduces runoff and Labour availability and cost in digging, conserves water collecting, carting and aligning stones Reduces soil erosion and improves soil Ability to set contours using simple surveying productivity equipment such as A-Frame or line level 23. Vegetative Availability of suitable grasses such as vetiver Enhances infiltration of water into the soil barriers Labour availability and cost in digging, carting Conserves water and soil through erosion in planting control 24. Compound It is an indigenous practice Recycling of nutrients in manure Farming System Sustainability of the system is tested Improves soil physical conditions for Socially acceptable enhanced water infiltration and storage Economically viable Contributes significantly to food security Grain yield is higher Recycles household degradable organic waste for productive purposes Contributes to environmental health 25. Mixed Farming It is indigenous in livestock production areas Recycling of crop residues and manure for It is a common practice with tested soil fertility and productivity improvement sustainability Closes the nutrient cycling loop from soil- Practicing farmers have the requisite skills crop-livestock-soil
72
Contributes to environmental health Enhanced grain yield and livelihood 26. Conservation Improved management of soil and water Crop pest and disease problems can increase Agriculture resources from farm to watershed levels: due to the residues left in the field Less flooding Social and cultural attachment to bush Less erosion and desertification burning as a means of land preparation More constant flow in rivers Requires higher management skills and may Better recharge of groundwater resources be labour-intensive at the start Improved water quality (less pollution) and Attractive where land (rather than labour) is reduced siltation effects downstream limiting Increased carbon sequestration and less carbon Difficulty in getting the requisite amounts of release (less fuel used, less organic matter crop residues for maintaining continuous degradation) cover due to competing uses of crop Mitigation of climate change residues and extensive grazing livestock. Improved water use efficiency Increased biodiversity through diversification Reduction in shifting cultivation and reduced land degradation Improved soil chemicals and physical properties Enhanced biodiversity Along rivers and dams (dry season farming) 27. Dry Season Creates incentive for river bank (buffer zone) Potential occurrence of salinity Gardening protection Potential conflicts between upstream and Permanent vegetation cover along rivers for downstream water users carbon sequestration May result in pollution of rivers due to Reduced erosion and sediment load in rivers increased use of agro-chemicals (misuse) Regulated river flow Highly labour and capital intensive (fencing, irrigation, guarding, etc) Social exclusion for farmers without land along rivers Communities may become unwilling to protect river banks due to shortage of land Communal land (dry season) 28. Fire Management Recovery of native vegetation and annual Herder and hunters may favour annual burns in agricultural species in landscapes (conflict) landscapes Reduction in wind erosion Traditional believes regarding bushfires
Reduction of soil erosion at the start of rains Suppression may be expensive or dangerous Increased carbon sequestration in farms and – limited ability to suppress fires pastures Effectiveness of early burning not well Protection of sacred grooves demonstrated Increased growing of annual crops, e.g., Difficulty in establishing bye-laws and cassava) enforcing them Challenges in setting up appropriate incentives for fire management Limited authority of traditional institutions (chiefs) in enforcing bushfire law
73
Indiscriminate bush burning
Table 5. Specification of SLWM options by land type
SLWM Flat land Sloping land (additional) 1. Conservation agriculture - Minimal burning - Contour ridging - Slashing and mulching - Strip cropping - Minimum tillage and direct planting - Contour bunds or stone - Ridging and furrowing lines - Crop rotation and intercropping - Vegetative barriers (trash- - High quality seed (right variety, high lines/ grass strips) yielding, pest and disease resistant) - Manure/compost - Optimal chemical fertilizer use - Integrated pest management 2. Agroforestry - Scattered and boundary planting - Planting Pits and semi- - Woodlots circular bunds - Woody fallow - Contour bunds with trees - Fodder banks - Live fences - High value fruits 3. Dry season gardening - Canals and/or water pumping equipment and protection of river - Earth basins/retention ditches banks - Furrows - Efficient water use - Same - High value crops, especially vegetables - High quality seed (right variety, high yielding, pest and disease resistant) - Improved crop rotation - Integrated nutrient and pest management 4. Fire management in - Minimum/or spot burning (crop land) - Same agricultural landscapes - Early burning/prescribed (parklands or grazing lands) - Community land zoning and management - Bush burning plans - Fire volunteers (fire management teams)
74
Annex 9 (Technical): Biodiversity Profile of New Target Areas
A. The Wildlife Corridors 1. Communities in the corridor areas are among the poorest in Ghana both geographically and in terms of occupations because most of the inhabitants are food crop producers in rural areas. These communities derive their main source of livelihood from agriculture (food crop cultivation). Apart from the Sissili river basin, suitable farming land is a major constraint to agriculture and livelihoods. As a result, game hunting and charcoal burning (especially in the Sissili river basin) have become important sources of livelihoods. Destructive activities of wildlife, particularly elephants, are a frequent occurrence in the area. The result is a threatened livelihood. The implication is that unless farmers see very clear and tangible benefits from corridor development, it will be difficult to convince them to participate in corridor activities. Table 6. Corridor sites
Cumulative Project Site Region District Capital Town No DA No DA support Kassena-Nankana Support Upper East Region Paga West through Site 1 2 2 SLWMP Upper West Region Sissala East Tumu project Kassena-Nankana Support Paga Upper East Region West through Fumbisi Site 2 Builsa South 3 3 additional financing to Upper West Region Sissala East Tumu SLWMP Builsa Suoth Fumbisi Support Upper East Region West Mamprusi Walewale through Sissala East Tumu SLWMP Site 3 Upper West Region 4 6 Wa East Funsi project Northern Region Mamprugu Moaduri Yagaba Support Wa East Funsi through Site 4 Upper West Region 2 7 additional financing to Daffiama/Bussie/Issa Issa SLWMP
No support Bawku West (part of Zebila Bongo Site 5 Upper East Region Bongo 4 12 Eastern TongoGambaga Talensi Biodiversity Corridor)
2. The project will focus upon Site 2 (W-SBCWMA) and Site 4 (W-GMWMA) within the Western Biodiversity Corridor which will be established as CWMAs.
Description of Site 2: Sumboru – Bechausa Collaborative Wildlife Management Area (W- SBCWMA)
3. The site cuts across three political districts, namely: Kassena-Nankana, Builsa, and Sissala East District Assemblies. It lies south of the boundaries proposed for the Wuru-Kayero Collaborative Wildlife Management Area and Nazinga Game Ranch in Burkina Faso. It is also situated north of 2 other collaborative wildlife management areas that, if adopted by the communities, will provide 75
connectivity with the Gbele Resource Reserve and Mole National Park. The site is surrounded by 26 villages, with different origins, beliefs, traditions, and cultural values.
4. The S-BCWMA is located within the Sissili River basin, with several important tributaries such as Pukuru, Pogawna, Takurefou and Hagefou-Mogbie on the western side of the Sissili and Bonaponi and Afoembele on the eastern side.
5. The Sissili River runs through the HDZ at this site, which will be important for a rapid development of the wildlife, for the annual production that can be taken and thus for the economics of the site.
6. The natural vegetation is Guinea Savannah Woodland, enclosing areas of scrub savannah, wooded savannah, savannah woodland and riparian forests along the Sissili River. The site currently harbours a variety of species of large wild ungulate and small to mid-sized carnivores; in fact: probably most the species typical to this savannah biome are present, although certainly in reduced densities; wandering out of the Nazinga Game Ranch, Gbele Resource Reserve, and Mole National Park.
Description of Site 4: Gbele - Mole Collaborative Wildlife Management Area (W-GMWMA)
7. The G-MCWMA, covering an estimated area of about 1,767 sq. km, is situated in only one political district, namely: Wa East, located in the south-western part of Upper West Region, about 115 km from Wa, the regional capital. The district is relatively remote, although the G-MCWMA is accessible through several routes. Looking to the north, the site is adjacent tothe proposed Wahabu - Wiasi Collaborative Wildlife Management Area, and further north again is the Sumboru – Bechawsa Collaborative Wildlife Management Area and the Wuru – Kayero Collaborative Wildlife Management Area. Looking southward, it is adjacent to the Mole National Park and the Chasia. Thus this site will provide connectivity with the Gbele Resource Reserve and Mole National Park to the Nazinga Game Ranch. The site is surrounded by 31villages.
8. There are 2 gazetted forests within the boundaries proposed for this CWMA. Local communities intensively exploit the available natural resources for their basic needs, to the point where poaching and other pressures have resulted in significantly reduced wildlife populations.
9. The site still currently harbors a variety of species of large wild ungulate and small to mid-sized carnivores. Probably most of the small to mid-sized species typical to this savannah biome are present, although in reduced densities, wandering out of the Gbele Resource Reserve and Mole National Park.
B. The Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR)
10. The Gbele Resource Reserve is one of the eighteen Wildlife Reserves (Protected Areas) in Ghana (Map 3). It is the only gazetted wildlife Protected Area (PA) in the Upper West Region and a representative sample of the Guinea Savannah Woodland Vegetation. The Reserve was established under the Wildlife Reserves (Amendment) Regulation of 1975 (L.I. 1022). The management authority of Gbele Resource Reserve has, since its creation, been the WD of the Forestry Commission.
76
Geographically, the reserve is located between latitude 10° 22' and 10° 44' N and longitude 2° 03' and 2° 12' W and covers a total area of about 565 km2 with a perimeter of about 125 km. It is about the third largest protected area in the country after Mole and Digya National Parks in Ghana.
11. The Gbele Resource Reserve administratively lies between three Districts: Sisaala East, Sissala West, and Nadowli. It is, however, strategically and approximately centrally located between the administrative capitals of these Districts: Tumu, 26 km north, Gwollu, 40 km northwest, and Nadowli, 50 km respectively. The Reserve headquarters are located at Tumu, the District capital of the Sissala East District.
12. Topography: The topography is relatively flat and low-lying between 210 and 310 metres above sea level. There is a gentle slope that drains the area into the Kulpawn River. A few rock outcrops are dotted around the reserve. In some areas these rock out crops are spread over a kilometre radius with varying shapes and sizes. The Kulpawn River has many tributaries that form a network of seasonal streams in the reserve and is major source of water for wildlife and livestock in the area. The river flows from the west of the reserve southward to the White Volta dividing the reserve into two parts.
13. Vegetation: The GRR lies in the Guinea savannah zone, which stretches across the whole of West Africa. It represents a fairly undisturbed ecosystem with dominant vegetation of the savannah woodland with grass layer 3 m tall during the rainy season. A recently conducted survey, although not detailed enough, reveals a large number and variety of woody and other species. The reserve is uniquely still pristine, with unmodified vegetative cover all over the reserve, with the only modified area being around the Gbele village. Many plants in the reserve have commercial value. The fruits of sheanut and dawadawa trees are harvested and processed into edible oils and condiments. Many species of grasses, Andropogon gayanus, Hyperhenia rufa, Ctenium sp., are used for thatch, brooms, and mats. Other plants produce edible wild fruits that are eaten for food. The vegetation is sustained by the annual burning during the dry season.
14. Fauna: The animals are distributed all over the reserve in different proportions. There is also a rich bird life in the reserve; a study in 2005 showed that there are about 194 species of birds (including waterfowl). There are about 20 fish species in the reserve, which are often illegally harvested by the fringe communities.
Table 7. Number of observations (no obs) and individuals (no indiv), Kilometric Abundance Index (KAI in number/km), Density (number/km²) and Mean Group Size (MGS) of GRR (Bouché, 2006)
Species No obs No indiv KAI Density MGS Roan 1 3 0.007 0.01 3.00 Buffon Kob 3 5 0.011 0.01 1.67 Bushbuck 2 2 0.004 0.01 1.00 Warthog 2 3 0.007 0.01 1.50 Common duiker 1 1 0.002 0.003 1.00 Patas monkey 1 4 0.009 0.01 4.00 White and Black Colobus 1 1 0.002 0.00 1.00 Total wild animals 11 19 0.042 0.05 1.73 Cattle 1 30 0.066 0.08 30.00
77
15. Threats: Ghana’s environment and environmental resources have come under intense pressure and threat of utter degradation in recent decades. Increased population growth leading to human activities (such as farming, mining, poaching, bush fires, and logging), pressures of poverty, application of low technologies in natural resource exploitation and utilization and unsustainable farming practices, domestic animals in the reserve during dry season for watering, poor law enforcement, lack of surveillance strategy for the reserve, bushfires in the reserve every year, and lack of support by law enforcement agencies are some of the key factors accounting for the rate of environmental degradation. Once-lush forest areas are being reduced into grasslands in several parts of the country and are currently threatened with desertification. These events have led to biodiversity loss, destruction of habitats of wildlife, and species extinction across the various ecological zones. The northern sector of the reserve has fewer animals than the southern area, especially around the Kulpawn River. Many species of animals once reported to exist in the reserve are now extinct. Among them are the buffalo, lion, and other animals; leopard, hyena, and wild dog are highly endangered in the area. The number of wild animals has been reduced due to poaching and the mingling of domestic animals (livestock) in the reserve, especially during the dry season.
C. Forest Reserves 16. The project will target good management practices in two national gazetted forest reserves (Ambalara and Kulpawn tributaries) situated between the GRR and Mole National Park and natural regeneration in the other six gazetted forest reserves (Pudo Hills, Mawbia, Chiana Hills, Sissili North, Sissili Central and Bepena) in the project area to generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services. The Project will also support preparation of updated Forest Management Plans for the eight target Forest Reserves.
In the targeted Forest Reserves the following are key causes of forest degradation: - wild fires (especially in the areas near settlements during the dry season, through the negligence of farmers, hunters and honey- harvesters). The recurrent annual fires destroy most of the saplings and retard the growth of those which survive the fires); - unauthorized cattle grazing (although, on the other hand, it has a positive benefit of reducing biomass in the dry season, thus reducing the chance of wild fires). Quite appreciable number of livestock from the communities graze in some reserves causing a lot of destruction to saplings through grazing and trampling activities to young shoots. Wild animals in the reserve also cause the same kind of damage to young shoots and regeneration. - Illegal exploitation: Owing to lack of readily available source of poles and firewood in the off- reserves and closeness of adjoining communities to the forest reserve, there is a high tendency for the local people to infringe on the reserve for poles and firewood. It is on record that some of the local people even cut live trees from the reserve and dry them for firewood and also for building poles. - Population pressures and existing trade in firewood has brought in its wake pilfering of wood from some of the reserves. - Another common injury to specific species is the removal of their bark for medicinal purposes. Those trees affected include Khaya senegalensi and Vitellaria. In some cases they are often mutilated so much that it results in the death of such trees. Another tree species which suffer similar fate include Par Kia biglobosa and Piliostigma thonningii whose barks are used for making waterproof extract for treating mud walls and floors.
78
Table 8. Target Forest Reserves
Open Degraded Total Forest Grasslan Waterbo Total Area Region District Forest Woodlands Perimeter( Reserve d (Ha) dy (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) km²)
Pudo Hills 635 580 17,725 0 18,940.00 41.46 Tumu Mawbia 4,503 3,225 36,001 104 43,833.00 57.13 Upper West Kulpawn Tributaries 760.50 0 9317.97 7.74 10,086.21 41.28 Wa Ambalara 285.51 429.27 1,974 0 2,688.78 57.4
Sub Total 6184.01 4234.27 65017.97 111.74 75,547.99 197.27
Chiana Hills 2,288 2,469 27,979 0 32,736.00 21.69
Sissili North 286.38 3,940.92 936.45 0 5,163.75 37.72 Upper Navaron East go Sissili Central 3,624 6,097 31,104 0 40,825.00 44.15
Bepona 217 1,695 16,039.80 0 17,951.80 47.72
Sub Total 6,415 14,202 76,059 0 96,676.55 151.28
Grand Total 12,599 18,436 141,077 112 172,224.54 348.55
79
Annex 10. Economic and Financial Analysis
Economic analysis
1. The interventions that are being proposed under additional financing follow the same approach and are essentially of the same type as under the earlier phase of the Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (Component 2), with increased emphasis on rangeland and sustainable forest management. Therefore economic analysis follows similar terms. In particular, the project has taken a framework, rather than a blue print project approach, with few specific investments identified up front. Given the demand-driven nature of the investments, and the difficulty of quantifying key marginal benefits in the form of watershed services, biodiversity conservation and capacity building, a full economic analysis is not available ex ante. This is further restricted by limited data from the initial phase of the project (i.e. ex post) as most field investments under community-driven watershed management plans and related subprojects are only about to be undertaken. International experience, however, suggests that SLWM technologies bring substantial long-term productivity gains.
2. Benefits from capacity building investments depend very much on the degree to which that capacity is utilized subsequent to the project. However, the capacity built under the earlier phase of the project should generate economies of scale such that, a similar capacity building allocation contributes higher impact as reflected in the revised project targets (e.g. 4,000 additional ha under improved SLWM under additional financing, i.e. against 2,000 in the initial project area).
Program cost-effectiveness
3. The project is focused on maximizing the efficiency of environmental service delivery, and improving understanding of the economics and potential market values of those services. In addition, the initial phase has confirmed the pilot and iterative nature of the project for both support services and the communities as they implement innovative approaches and adjust technologies to specific local contexts. On one hand, most benefits should therefore be expected beyond the project timeframe through subsequent, broader uptake and fine-tuned PES related incentives. On the other hand, although there can now be increased emphasis on implementation at community level as compared to the initial phase of the project, some investment in experimentation and monitoring will continue to add to project costs - but also provide a basis for evaluating future investments.
Table 9. Summary of benefits of additional project activities:
Activity Expected Benefits Remarks
Component 2: Participatory microwatershed ‐ Enhance shared understanding ‐ Need to identify key grassroots concerns and planning of watershed management issues empower communities to begin to address them and planning capacity between new communities and Districts ‐ Identify community level hard and soft land and water investments ‐ Identify efficient pattern of land uses at community scale
80
Improvement/adaptation of the ‐ Diversify menu to include ‐ Need to scale up numerous small scale SLWM menu of options and related sustainable rangeland and forest activities incentive system management ‐ Need to efficiently aggregate diffuse investments to ‐ Provide for sustainable up- access environmental services markets scaling of soft investments in ‐ Need for farmers and support services to watershed management progressively adjust some options to variety of local ‐ Increase efficiency of contexts environmental service provision ‐ Provide model for exploiting environmental service markets more widely Implementation of SLWM ‐ Increase medium and long-term ‐ Many SLWM technologies have been demonstrated technologies agricultural productivity to be beneficial to farmers and the environment in ‐ Increase effective lifespan of medium/ long term, but several short term barriers to hard water infrastructure uptake need to be overcome (including initial high investments costs for which PES offers a compensation ‐ Contribute to improvements in mechanism) stabilizing water flows for downstream users ‐ Increase resilience of agricultural systems to climate change ‐ Increase carbon sequestration Riparian natural habitat ‐ Maintain regional biodiversity ‐ CREMAs have functioned successfully in many conservation ‐ Maintain ecological areas in Africa infrastructure for flood protection ‐ Ecological infrastructure is and stabilization of hydrological often cheaper and more resilient flows ‐ Nature conservation and ecotourism need to be ‐ Secure long-term access to key integrated into landscape level approach to be natural resources sustainable ‐ Increase economic opportunities from eco-tourism and other environmentally friendly livelihoods
Financial analysis
4. The project has been designed as a modest pilot aimed at leveraging much more substantial programs of investment in northern Ghana. As such, Government contributions are not expected to have any significant impact on state finances.
5. Typical gross margins for rainfed cultivation of staple crops in northern Ghana are in the range 300–500 cedis per ha22. Hence relatively modest inputs with values in the order of 100 cedis per ha per year could potentially have a significant effect on farm economics.
6. Extensive farm economics studies have not been conducted in northern Ghana for around two decades and reliable recent figures are not available for the financial returns of relevant SLWM technologies in northern Ghana. However, during earlier project preparation, estimates of the returns for a number of improved agricultural land management practices from farm models constructed for
22 CSIR draft report: Economic Analysis of DTMA Varieties vis-a-vis Farmers Variety, 2009 81
23 different agro-ecological zones in 1991 were updated with current prices. The results for the Northern Savannah suggested that internal rates of returns: (i) were mostly positive; (ii) varied widely between the practices (and depending on whether individual or social labor opportunity costs were used); but (iii) in only a few cases (e.g., introduction of woody fallows) were unequivocally large enough to exceed the high estimated discount rates of subsistence farmers (estimated at 20–30 percent). The table below provides some indicative figures of private net returns based on these updated farm models for a number of conservation agriculture options in the savannah region. However, these should be treated cautiously and do not cover a full range of SLWM options.
Option Annual net return over first 20 years (GH cedis per ha) IRR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Woody -145 3 3 3 246 26 30 30 30 273 29 29 29 29 272 28 28 28 28 271 31.5 fallow Fodder -213 -40 -40 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 74 76 78 80 81 83 85 97 89 90 18.3 bank Stone -189 -1 0 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 -0.1 lines Vetiver -39 -43 -4 3 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 3 25 9.9 bunding
7. The rationale of the project is to provide incentives to farmers to overcome the barriers to introduction stemming from start-up costs (or low returns) and high rates of discounting. It will also generate a more reliable understanding of the type and size of those incentives needed, and how they compare to the marginal social benefits derived from improved environmental services. The higher than anticipated start-up costs can be explained by the need for initially high investments in providing the need inputs for the adoption of various SLWM technologies, farmer trainings, and demonstrations. However, these costs are expected to stabilize over the duration of the project as it is expected that farmer to farmer transfer of knowledge will increase, maintenance cost of the adopted technologies will be lower, and there will be better understanding of the SLWM options that work on the ground, thus reducing the costs on trial and error. For example, interventions involving tree planting is quite high because of the need for provision of protective material (fencing etc.) along with seeds and seedlings to ensure success of tree planting activities. Eventually, however, such additional costs will be eliminated, since the fencing material can be shifted around and reused.
8. In addition, the following table summarizes private benefits to farmers from the main groupings of SLWM technologies discussed in Annex 8.
Table 10. Potential benefits to farmers
SLWM technology Potential benefits to farmers Notes
Conservation Increased or stable (longitudinally and in Sedentary Farming Systems Project found a 30 agriculture response to climate variation) crop yields percent labor reduction and increase in maize yields through improved soil nutrient and water from 1.2 to 3 t/ha from CA practices retention (minimum tillage, direct planting, no slash and burn) Extended agricultural season through in Ghana.
23 FAO / World Bank (1991): Ghana Land Resource Management Study: Identification Mission. Report No 103/91 CP-GHA 28: Vol. II. FAO Investment Centre. FAO, Rome.
82
improved water retention 1990s data for Ghana suggest long-run yields are Reduced commercial inputs higher for CA techniques, but may be offset by initial Ability to continuously cultivate the same labor costs. piece of land, eliminating costs of acquiring and clearing new plots Agroforestry Commercial tree crops can yield higher Figures for northern Ghana suggest an IRR for woody returns than staple crops fallows of around 30 percent. Some tree products can Readily available tree products for be highly profitable, but markets may be small and consumption – firewood, fruits, fodder volatile. Return periods are around 6 years (except Off-season income timber at 20–30 years). Productive use of land with earth structures Dry season High value crops Dry season irrigated crops produce much higher gardening with Productive use of seasonally flooded land returns that staples24, but in some cases (e.g. river bank Off-season income tomatoes), increased use of agrochemicals may protection offset profits unless IPM techniques used. Crops produced are also more labor-intensive and perishable. Fire management Increased availability of native species Economics not well defined, but studies elsewhere Reduction in bushfire damage suggest a long-term improvement in soil fertility. Increased growing of annual crops – e.g. cassava Rangeland Increased livestock production and related Related gains depend on whether essential veterinary management and income increase/diversification, “in kind” issues are also addressed. fodder banks savings and draught power benefits Possibility of improved soil fertility for crops (manure, legume forage)
9. Studies under Northern Savannah Biodiversity Conservation Project suggested that CREMAs in the corridor areas would eventually be financially viable under a variety of small-scale, sustainable commercial hunting and fishing uses. Evidence from Nazinga and elsewhere suggests that under an appropriate rental/ management contract with the community, sustainable professional management, cropping according to ecological parameters at potential wildlife densities, the annual benefits for every 100 sq km could be about $20,000 for the local communities; $20,000 for the State, and about $85,000 for local businessmen supplying the sites and retailing the meat and fish products (gross sales). This is in addition to potential benefits from specialized bird-hunting schemes, as operated in Burkina Faso, and organization of non-timber forest product (NTFP) production chains. Estimates of potential annual revenues for the two selected corridor areas north of Mole ranged from $12,000–$18,000 per village, compared to annual patrolling and management costs of around $1,000 per village area. These are long- term projections based on restoration of wildlife populations and establishment of well-managed sport hunting enterprises, which require long-term support. These levels of income will not be achieved during the lifespan of the project, but milestones towards eventual full sustainability can still be set for the project itself.
10. Similarly, with regards to activities implemented by WD in GRR for the maintenance of fire breaks and opening up of access routes (and other activities), the Project financing will support critical
24 According to farm models developed under the Northern Rural Growth Project, net returns for dry season gardening are around GHC 3,000–4,000 per ha for tomatoes, maize and pepper (i.e. nearly 10x that from rain-fed production of staple), even using diesel-powered pumps. Factoring in the initial investment costs for diesel pumps, results in IRRs of around 40–70 percent. 83
needs in fixing access routes across wet grounds which tend to require some concrete works and, therefore, relatively higher investments through the project. Once these are done, WD will resort to GoG and Internally Generated Funds (IGF) from the Forestry Commission to sustain these activities, essentially using staff labor, as has been done in the past years to ensure maintenance and sustainability in the longer term.
11. Sustainability is central to the design of this Project. Overall, the Project’s exit strategy is based on its current design of mainstreaming project implementation into existing GoG structures (e.g. DADU’s within MOFA, WD and FSD in the Forestry Commission, etc.) on the ground so that relevant staff gain the capacities to improve their efficiency in delivery of the services and ownership of the activities to continue support in the longer term, particularly to scale up the subprojects in other districts including through use of the tested PES approach as seen relevant at the end of the project. Further at the local level, the participation of traditional authorities in the project is also a critical element for sustainability given their role as custodians of ancestral and community land, responsibility for the maintenance of law and order & conflict resolution and most importantly, as initiators and champions of development activities in their respective areas of jurisdiction. In addition, through the use of farmer to farmer extension approaches and relevant expertise from NGO’s on the ground, the project aims to sustain its efforts for future scale up and replication.
84
Annex 11. Summary of Project Achievements to Date
1. SLWMP was approved in November 2010 and became effective in February 2011. Project implementation started in May 2011.
2. The project has developed a Watershed Planning Manual and a Manual/Guidelines for Proven SLM Technologies for Landusers and Extension Service Providers. The micro-watershed planning process, which underpins the roll-out of SLM activities, is ongoing, with 45 micro-watershed plans in place.
3. Guidelines for sub-project development and a template of Memorandum of Agreement for sub- project beneficiaries have been developed and communities have been trained on use of these. In addition, forty eight SLWM technology demonstration sites were established
4. Sixty nine sub-projects covering 144 ha have been approved and are currently being implemented by farmer groups in 13 communities. These sub-projects directly benefit 284 farmers, 34.5 percent of whom are women. The number of direct beneficiaries for the SLWM activities is close to 4,000 if a total number of people benefiting from demonstration activities, training activities, and sub- projects is considered.
5. A spatial planning unit was established within SADA and fully equipped for implementation of activities on integrated spatial planning.
6. A GIS based M&E system has been established and is being operationalized in EPA to collect, collate and serve as the hub for populating primary data, storage unit, aid in data manipulation and retrieval and visualization for data retrieval and report generation. A total of 40 MIS officers (DADU officers responsible for monitoring) were trained in data collection for the GIS-based M&E system.
7. The Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) creation activities have focused on Site 1, with activities on Site 3 being implemented on a delayed schedule – due to their highly consultative nature, preparation of the CREMA management plans takes a long period of time (close to two years). To date, boundary of the Site 1 CREMA has been agreed and is ready to be demarcated. CREMA educational materials have been produced to facilitate awareness and education. A total of 33 communities were sensitized and have accepted the establishment of CREMA on their land.
8. The training and management activities in the Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR) were implemented on schedule, yet start of the small civil works was delayed, due to contracting issues (construction of water holes and bird and game viewing platforms are expected to be contracted in the first quarter of 2014 to an experienced conservationist firm that did similar work in the Nazinga Game Ranch in Burkina Faso). A draft Environmental index has been developed to link SLWM technologies for payment of output incentive. During the first year of implementation, the environment index will be defined further taking into account specific ecological and economic factors that reflect benefits and costs of adopting SLWM technologies. Baseline data on water quality, stream flow, fisheries and micro- invertebrate has been collected as a basis for linking the environmental indices with the SLWM technology being practiced.
85
Annex 12. Project Projections for Area under SLWM (Additional Financing)
2015 projections 2016 projection 2017 projection
projects projects projects projects
- - -
project) for for project) for project) for project)
port 2016 port
- - -
projects from from projects from projects from projects from projects from projects from projects
------
n)
duced in 2014 (and to (and in 2014 duced
projects projects projects
mated area (asuming an an (asuming area mated
- - -
stimated area (asuming an an (asuming area stimated
new watershed plans expected to to expected plans watershed new pro be on) and in 2015 SPs generate sub of No. Estimated (average plans watershed existing plan) per 10 sub of No. Estimated 10 (average plans watershed new plan) per sub of No. total estimated for 2015 E sub per of 2ha average sub plans watershed existing of No. 2015 support receive to expected in expected plans watershed new 2015 sub of No. Estimated (average plans watershed existing pla per 10 sub of No. Estimated 10 (average plans watershed new plan) per sub of No. total estimated for 2016 an (asuming area Estimated sub per of 2ha average sub plans watershed existing of No. sup receive to expected in expected plans watershed new 2016 sub of No. Estimated plans watershed exsisting plan) per 10 (average sub of No. Estimated 10 (average plans watershed new plan) per sub of No. total estimated for 2016 Esti sub per of 2ha average sub DISTRICT at 2014 as plans watershed of No. West Mamprusi 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 Bawku West 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160
Kassena Nankana West 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 Talensi 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 Builsa South 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 Wa East 6 2 60 20 80 160 5 3 50 30 80 160 4 3 40 30 70 140 Sissala West 5 2 50 20 70 140 4 3 40 30 70 140 4 3 40 30 70 140 Sissala East 5 2 50 20 70 140 4 3 40 30 70 140 3 3 30 30 60 120 Mamprugu (New) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 30 30 60 3 3 45 45 90 180 Bissa (New) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 30 30 60 3 3 45 45 90 180 TOTAL 46 16 460 160 620 1240 38 30 380 300 680 1360 42 30 450 330 780 1560
NB: The 2 new districts are allowed to present 15 sub-projects per watershed plan in total # of sub-projects 2080 total area for the 3 years – 4,160 ha 2017 to increase their coverage (cells shaded blue)
Average cost of sub-project – $1,500 Total estimated cost for sub-projects - $3,120,000
86
Annex 13. Detailed Activity Costs for Additional Financing (Cost Tables)
Component 2.1: Systems, Capacity and Monitoring for SLWM Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
I. Investment Costs A. Sustainable Land and Water Management Planning Formation and training of district level planning teams Lump 30,000 - - - 30,000 Watershed planning exercise 88 1,700 74,800 74,800 149,600 Training for community level watershed management teams Lump 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 TA /NGO support to microwatershed planning Lump 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 Field equipment Lump 20,000 - - - 20,000 Subtotal 144,800 94,800 - - 239,600
B. Capacity to promote SLWM Motorbikes for extension agents each 8 6,000 48,000 - - - 48,000 Informal farmer to farmer extension and demonstrations Lump 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Organize study tours for community members and extension agents Lump 15,700 25,700 41,400 media services for extension Lump 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Subtotal 103,700 65,700 40,000 - 209,400
C. Monitoring performance under SLWM sub-project agreements Bicycles each 100 100 20,000 - - 20,000 Motorbikes for MIS officers in 10 districts each 10 6,000 60,000 - - - 60,000 Procurement of equipment for establishing the GIS office in Bolga
Desktops each 2 1,500 3,000 - - - 3,000 Laptops each 2 2,000 4,000 - - - 4,000 Digital plotter Lump 1 3,000 3,000 - - - 3,000 GIS software Lump 10,000 - - - 10,000 GPS each 4 3000 12,000 - - - 12,000 LCD projector each 1 1000 1,000 - - - 1,000 Verification contract Lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 Project monitoring & Supervision Lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 Satelite imaging Lump 10,000 10,000 - - 20,000
87
Subtotal 153,000 40,000 30,000 - 223,000
Subtotal Investment Costs 401,500 200,500 70,000 672,000
II. Recurrent Costs Operating costs for vehicles and motorbikes 50,000 Subtotal - - - 50,000 - Maintenance of office equipment 20,000 Subtotal - - - 20,000 - Other administrative costs 50,000 Subtotal 50,000
Subtotal, recurrent costs - - - 120,000
Subtotal for Component 2.1 792,000 Contingency - - - 88,000
TOTAL 880,000
88
Component 2.2: Implementation of Sustainable Land and Water Management in Micro-Watersheds (SubProjects) Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
I. Investment Costs
2.2. Implementation of SLWM in micro-watersheds
Rangeland management
Establishment of community range lands including provision of veterinary services Lump 60,000 80,000 80,000 220,000
Development of fodder banks for dryseason feeding of livestock and watering points Lump 30,000 30,000.00 30,000.00 90,000
Subtotal 90,000 110,000 110,000 310,000
Support individual SLWM agreements -
SLMW sub-projects (input incentive) Lump 500,000 713,000 750,000 1,963,000
SLMW sub-projects (output incentive) Lump 40,000 50,000.00 60,000.00 80,000 230,000
Subtotal 720,000 983,000 1,030,000 80,000 2,813,000
Total 810,000 1,093,000 1,140,000 80,000 3,123,000
Contingency 347,000
Grand Total 810,000 1,093,000 1,140,000 80,000 3,470,000
89
Component 2.3. National SLM and PES Monitoring Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
I. Investment Costs National SLM and PES monitoring Regional Learning Workshop Lump 25,000 24,000 20,000 69,000 PES strategy Lump 20,000 30,000 - - 50,000 Vegetation monitoring Lump 20,000 20,000 - 40,000 Carbon Stock monitoring Lump 40,000 40,000 80,000 Maintenance of the GIS based M&E System Lump 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Project Impact Evaluation Lump 150,000 150,000 Subtotal 115,000 64,000 240,000 - 419,000
II. Recurrent Costs Operating costs Lump 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Subtotal 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 15,000
Subtotal 120,000 69,000 245,000 - 434,000 Contingency 26,000 Total 120,000 69,000 245,000 - 460,000
90
Component 2.4 (a): Management of riparian and other biological corridors (Biodiversity) Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
I. Investment Costs 1. Creation of CREMAs Sentization and awareness creation on CREMA concept by site 20,000 20,000 20,000 - 60,000 Negotiations and agreements on CREMA boundaries Lump - 20,000 20,000 - 40,000 Boundary demarcation and mapping Lump 30,000 30,000 60,000 Development and Implementation of CREMA mgt. plans Lump 40,000 50,000 10,000 100,000 Implementation of CREMA/Corridor management plans for site 1&3 Lump 50,000 70,000 80,000 50,000 250,000 Implementation of CREMA/Corridor management plans for site 2&4 100,000 100,000 200,000 Subtotal 110,000 190,000 260,000 150,000 710,000
2. Ecological Studies & Monitoring /m
Biological Survey and livelihood assessment as input into the Management plans Lump - 31,000 - - 31,000 Wildlife Monitoring (MIST) Lump 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 30,000 Wildlife staff training Lump - 10,000 20,000 - 30,000 Subtotal 10,000 51,000 30,000 - 91,000
3. Promoting Ecotourism Ecotourism market chain analysis Lump 15,000 - 15,000 Communities Ecotourism Subprojects Lump 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 Subtotal 35,000 20,000 20,000 75,000
4. Awareness Creation for WildFire Management - Sentization of communities on fire control and prevention Lump 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 Motorbikes (for each CREMA site) each 4 6,000 24,000 - - - 24,000 Fire protection supplies Lump - 30,000 - - 30,000 Subtotal 34,000 40,000 - - 74,000
5 . Training and Capacity Building and Fire Management Training on fire management of GRR Staff Lump - 20,000 - - 20,000 Subtotal - 20,000 - - 20,000
6. Provision of infrastructures and equipment -
91
Creation of two (2) community dugouts Lump 150,000 - - 150,000 Design & supervision of dug-out construction Lump 20,000 - - 20,000 Equipment for field operations Lump 30,000 - - - 30,000 Renovation of existing 20 rooms block Lump 80,000 80,000 Construction of 15 additional rooms for staff Lump 150,000 150,000 Construction of 60 km access track (cummulative distance) Lump 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Laptop computers each 2 2,000 4,000 - - - 4,000 Printer each 2 500 1,000 - - - 1,000 Subtotal 215,000 90,000 160,000 - 465,000
Total Investment Costs 404,000 411,000 470,000 150,000 1,435,000
II. Recurrent Costs Operatings costs Operating costs for vehicles and motorbikes Lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000 Subtotal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000
Maintenance of office equipment Lump 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Subtotal 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000
Other administrative costs lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000 Subtotal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000
Total Recurrent Costs 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 140,000
Grand Total 439,000 446,000 505,000 185,000 1,575,000 Contingency 175,000
Total for Component 2.4 (a) 1,750,000
92
Component 2.4 (b): Management of riparian and other biological corridors (Sustainable Forest Management) Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
I. Investment Costs 1. Assessment, diagnostic studies and review/preparation of management plans for effective management of eight (8) gazetted forest reserves
Assessment and diagnostic survey of fauna and flora and socio-economic surveys 8 7500 30,000 30,000 60,000
Stakeholder workshops for preparation of management plans Lump 35,000 38,000 73,000
Preparation and publication of management plans Lump 35,000 45,000 80,000
Training and Capacity building for forestry staff in fire management (Jointly with WD) Lump 15,000 15,000 30,000 Awareness creation in wildfire management and biodiversity conservation for communities Lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000
Construct and maintain fire rides along forest reserve boundaries (350km) 350km 90 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Revive fire volunteer squads and provide equipment and incentives for fire prevention and control Lump 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Procure seedlings for establishment of green firebreaks (40 meter wide, 40ha in total) 54,000 0.6 17,500 17,500 35,000 Establish green fire breaks along forest reserves (40 meter wide) Lump 17,500 17,500 35,000
Training and capacity building for communities on enrichment planting Lump 15,000 15,000 30,000
Procure seedlings for establishment of enrichment planting 200,000 0.6 82,800 82,800 165,600
Undertake enrichment planting in degraded areas within gazetted forest reserves including watershed and riverine areas 600 ha 600 180,000 180,000 360,000
Provision of sign post for gazetted forest reserves Lump 16,000 16,000
2. Assessment of Carbon stocks above and below ground in collaboration with EPA
Estimation of carbon stock 40,000 40,000 80,000
Pick up vehicle each 1 40,000 40,000 40,000
Motorbikes 10 6,000 60,000 60,000
Desktops each 3 1,000 3,000 3,000
Printer each 3 500 1,500 1,500
93
Laptops each 10 2,000 20,000 20,000
Total Investment Costs 683,300 515,800 75,000 40,000 1,314,100
II. Recurrent Costs
Operatings costs
Operating costs for vehicles and motorbikes /r Lump 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000
Subtotal 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000
Maintenance of office equipment Lump 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000
Other administrative costs lump 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000
Subtotal 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000
Total Recurrent Costs 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 260,000
Subtota l 748,300 580,800 140,000 105,000 1,574,100
Contingency 175,900
Grand Total 1,750,000
94
Component 3. Project Management and Coordination Unit Total Unit Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total I. Investment Costs Consulting Services - Procurement Officer /a 26 800 9,600 9,600 1,600 20,800 Technical Officer 26 1,500 18,000 18,000 3,000 39,000 External audit 4 15,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 60,000 Technical Advisory Services 50,000 50,000 Consultant for final report Lump - 30,000 30,000 Subtotal 50,000 42,600 72,600 34,600 199,800
Equipment office cabinet 3 200 600 - - - 600 Safe 1 1,000 1,000 - - - 1,000 External Hard drive 4 200 800 - - - 800 Laptop 2 2000 4,000 - - - 4,000 Desktop 2 1000 2,000 - - - 2,000 Subtotal 8,400 - - - 8,400 Total Investment Costs 58,400 42,600 72,600 34,600 208,200
II. Recurrent Costs A. Operating costs Vehicles operating and maintenance Lump 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 48,000 Office equipment operating costs Lump 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Other operating and administrative costs Lump 11,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 71,000 Field Supervision by PCU Lump 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000 - Subtotal 43,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 - 199,000 Contingency 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 32,800 Total for Component 3 109,600 102,800 132,800 94,800 - 440,000
95
Annex 14: Map of Project Area
96