AIDE MEMOIRE Ghana Mid Term Review and Additional Financing Pre-Appraisal Mission Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (P098538 and AF-P132100) January 20-31, 2014
Public Disclosure Authorized
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. A World Bank team 1 carried out a Mid Term Review of the Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (SLWMP) (P098538) and pre-appraisal of SLWMP Additional Financing (AF) (P132100) on January 20-31, 2014. The mission included a field visit2 (see Annex 1 for mission agenda). The objective of the mission was to (i) carry out the Mid-Term review of SLWMP and identify Project restructuring adjustments to improve Project performance; and (ii) pre-appraise the Additional Financing for SLWMP the Government had requested. The mission followed up on the technical discussions that took place in October and December 2013. Notes of these are in Annexes 11-13. 2. The National SLM Coordinator for Ethiopia, Mr. Melaku Tadesse from Ministry of Agriculture, joined the mission, sharing experience on the implementation and scaling up of SLM activities in Ethiopia.
Public Disclosure Authorized 3. This Aide Memoire summarizes the mission’s key findings and recommendations. These are subject to approval by the Bank management. The draft aide memoire was reviewed at a wrap-up meeting of January 31, 2014 chaired by Hon. Deputy Minister Bernice Heloo. 4. The Bank team sincerely thanks the Government of Ghana (GoG), particularly the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI) as the coordinating Ministry for the Project; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Wildlife Division (WD) of the Forestry Commission; the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA); the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA); and Traditional Leaders, Regional and District entities in project area, including the District Agriculture Development Units (DADU) for their excellent collaboration and courtesies extended to the mission. List of persons met by the mission is attached as Annex 7.
CONTEXT Public Disclosure Authorized 5. Project Development Objective (PDO) / Global Environment Objective (GEO). The SLWMP PDO / GEO is to: (i) demonstrate improved sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in selected micro-watersheds; and (ii) strengthen spatial planning for identification of linked watershed investments in the Northern Savannah region of Ghana. The SWLMP is funded by a US$8.15 million grant from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and in-kind contribution by GoG equivalent to US$7.8 million; it has three components: (A) Capacity building for integrated spatial planning; (B) Water and land management; and (C) Project management and coordination.
1The team included Martin Fodor (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTN3, Team Leader), Gayatri Kanungo (Environmental Specialist, AFTN3), Isabel Abreu (Environmental Specialist, AFTN3), Lesya Verheijen (Operations Officer, AFTN3), Edward Dwumfour (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTN3), Philippe Dardel (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTN3), Robert De Graft-Hanson (Senior Financial Management Specialist, AFTMW), Charles Ashong (Procurement Specialist, AFTPW), Lydia Sam (Procurement Assistant, AFTPW); Franklin Gavu (Safeguards Specialist, AFTN3), Charity Boafo-Portuphy (Program Assistant, AFCW1); and Esther Awume Public Disclosure Authorized (Program Assistant, AFCW1); with Anders Jensen (Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, AFTDE) and Yesmeana Butler (Program Assistant, AFTN3) providing remote support. 2 Field visits to sub-projects sites in Upper West Region (Sissala East District: Tumu, Bassissan; Sissala West District: Dasima; Hamili District: Bufiema; Jolinyiri District: Issa) and Upper East Region (Bawku West District: Zebilla, Namogo, Nakong; Builsa South Distric: Banchosa) and meetings with DADUs (Bawku West, Tumu) , CREMA Communities ( Nakong, Bufiema, Jolinyiri) and EPA staff on the ground. Report from the field visits on Annex 14.
1
KEY ISSUES 6. Critical Path for Additional Financing. Teams reviewed the timeline for preparation and processing of SLWMP Additional Financing (AF) – proposed to be provided through a GEF grant in the total amount of US$8.75 million, drawn from four pillars under the GEF-5 STAR allocation3. Of this amount, about 80% should fund investments on the ground while up to 5% can be allocated to project management. One critical path is the preparation of the AF details that are to form the basis for the AF / Restructuring Project Paper and need to be developed by the GoG (template shared with GoG). These include: (i) Results Framework, (ii) description of activities, (ii) detailed costs, (iii) implementation plan, (iv) procurement plan, (v) description of institutional arrangements, (vi) GEF tracking tools, and (vii) updated Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Processing schedule and agreed Project architecture for Additional Financing are included as Annexes 4 and 6. 7. Work Plan for Remaining Project Period. The teams reviewed in detail the remaining funds, time, and implementation capacity to deliver Project targets. The Mission received GoG assurances that based on the assumptions derived from the project’s actual performance to date, the remaining resources are sufficient to achieve the original Project targets. The GoG team is fully committed to deliver on the original targets, particularly those related to the PDO indicators as key measures of Project success, while taking cognizance of spending, to date, 127% of the original allocation for Project Coordination4. The achievement of the original targets is considered possible by prioritizing physical investments on the ground in the remaining original project life and optimizing the sequencing of preparatory activities that will lead to implementation of sub-projects on the ground in the beginning of the next rainy season. 8. Restructuring Request. In conjunction with preparation of the AF, the Project will undergo Restructuring.5 The Ministry of Finance (MoF) request for restructuring needs to be provided to the Bank by February 15, 2014. Restructuring will entail (i) simplifying the PDO; (ii) streamlining the components and sub-components; (iii) refining the Results Framework; and (iv) designating funding for the biodiversity activities, implemented by the Wildlife Division, as a separate withdrawal category, to facilitate better monitoring of use of grant proceeds. Additional restructuring changes may include lowering of the Designated Account ceiling (currently US$1,000,000) to provide for a closer monitoring of expenditures, and introducing disbursement categories for better tracking of operating costs, goods, works, and consulting services. Should GoG wish to request reallocation of funds from the original allocations to disbursement categories, e.g. to accommodate the Project Coordination overrun from GEF funds, needs to include it in the MoF request for AF/Restructuring. A possibility to revise project targets during restructuring was raised with the Client; the final decision was to adhere to the original targets. The original grant has a high Designated Account ceiling (US$1,000,000). This will be lowered for the AF grant to ensure tighter monitoring of expenditures of the grant proceeds. 9. MTR Report. The MTR report and the 2013 Annual Report were not available to the Mission. However, the MTR consultant presented preliminary findings from his field work which took place in parallel to the mission field visit. These were broadly consistent with the Mission findings.
KEY FINDINGS/PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION
3 Biodiversity – US$1,851,852; Land Degradation – US$2,777,778; Climate Change – US$2,268,519; and Sustainable Forest Management – US$1,851,851 4Based on Expenditure Review carried out by the Project and availed to the MTR mission, also see para 13 and Annex 4 5Level 1 restructuring approved by the Bank Board together with the Additional Financing will be required.
2
10. Progress towards Achievement of PDO remains rated Moderately Satisfactory. While achievement of the original intermediate Project targets lags significantly, it is considered that the original intermediate targets did not sufficiently account for the long period required to build up implementation systems. These systems have now been established, and it is expected that the project achievement of targets will accelerate substantially. (See Annex 3 for updated Results Framework). 11. Implementation Progress (IP) is rated Moderately Satisfactory. The project has made a transition from establishing the systems and capacities to deploying that capacity for implementation of physical investments on the ground. It is also reportedly on track for planning and sub-project preparation for the next rainy season, at a significantly increased scale required to achieve the set targets.
12. Expenditure Review (ER) prepared by the PCU presented a summary of the expenditures per component / sub-component to date. The ER found that, at project mid-term, subcomponents 2.1 and 2.2 spent close to 80 percent of their original funding allocation, while Component 3 (Project Management and Coordination) spent 127 percent of its original funding allocations. The ER informs the work plan for the remaining project period and potential reallocation funds within the project. See Annex 5 for ER summary.
13. Linkages with Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP). The original Project design envisaged strong links between “soft” SLWM investments and “hard” investments by GSOP and leveraging GSOP funds through District authorities. These links are yet to be established; however, they are fundamental for success of scaling up and mainstreaming of SLWM activities, in particularly those related to water management. The teams are encouraged to utilize opportunities presented by GSOP and GSOP AF to the fullest extent. 14. Component 1 – Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning, implemented by SADA. Activities under this Component have not significantly progressed during the last supervision period. In order to advance implementation, 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 would deliver the planned Spatial Planning Framework through a Memorandum of Understanding with SADA. By February 15, 2014, SADA will prepare the detailed TORs as well as cost estimates for the assignment. The Bank Procurement Specialist will provide guidance on appropriate arrangements of engaging TCPD. SADA advised that the two planned pre-feasibility studies for water infrastructure will be contracted out through competitive bidding. 15. Component 2 – Water and Land Management, implemented by MoFA, EPA, and WD. The project invested considerable time and resources into participatory SLM planning, establishment of decentralized delivery mechanism, and building capacities and systems. To date, forty eight SLWM technology demonstration sites were established. Forty four micro-watershed management plans covering 44 villages / communities are developed6. Sixty nine SLM sub-projects were approved out of 84 submitted in 2013. These sub-projects directly benefit 284 farmers, 34.5 percent of whom are women. The indicated number of direct beneficiaries includes only farmers covered under the signed sub-project agreements. However, this figure is close to 4,000 if a total number of people benefiting from demonstration activities and training activities is considered (see Annex 3 for updated Results Framework). 16. In relation to the biodiversity corridors, extensive consultation activities for creation of CREMAs have been completed in Site 1. Next step for Site 1 is to demarcate the CREMA boundary and adopt the
6 This number includes 15 plans finalized in 2013 and currently under implementation
3
CREMA Management Plan. Consultations are ongoing in Site 3. Civil works in GRR (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. 17. Component 3 – Project Management and Coordination, under MESTI. MESTI elevated the role of Project Coordinator and designated the Director for Environment as the new Project Coordinator. The arrangement brings considerable convening power and senior level leadership; however, it limits the availability of Project Coordinator for day to day project management. Mission requests a full time Assistant Project Coordinator be engaged for timely and pro-active discharge of day to day coordination functions. The Focal Points from Implementing Agencies (MoFA, FC-WD, and EPA) continue to be actively engaged in expediting implementation. SADA has begun to participate systematically in Project coordination.
18. Monitoring of Project Activities. The mission reiterates the suggestion made during the earlier technical meetings to produce an overall Project Monitoring and Supervision Plan. The Project teams from DADUs, MoFA, EPA, and TCO undertake a variety of monitoring activities. Implementing these based on a plan, with a clear definition of level, detail, and frequency of monitoring will allow for better planning, clearer understanding, improved reporting and better efficiency of such activities.
19. Governance Improvements. Mission recommends closer oversight of the project by the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and the Local Steering Committee (LSC). The Project Coordination, Technical Advisory and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) functions of the project require substantial strengthening. The mission notes that the Project Technical Advisor and the Project M&E staff did not participate in the MTR. 20. Plan for Achievement of SLWM Targets. The GoG counterparts shared a plan to increase the area of land under SLWM technologies entailing development of 24 new watershed management plans and 664 new sub-projects7 by the end of 2014. Assuming that a typical sub-project improves land management on an area of 2 ha, total area brought under SLWM by the end of 2014 will be 1,328ha, based on the MOFA estimates. Project made similar projections for 2015. 21. Disbursements. As of January 30, 2014, the grant disbursements stood at $4,726,106 or 57.99%. The project is yet to meet the withdrawal condition for Category 3 (Good, works and consultants' services for Part B.3 (a) in form of the Sub-Project Guidelines. The previously delayed work on the Guidelines is now well advanced, and the disbursement condition is expected to be met by February 20, 2014, after the ongoing review by the World Bank. 22. Financial Management (FM). The latest regular FM Review took place in November 2013 (see Annex 9 for Financial Review). Additional meetings on the FM took place during the mission. The FM rating remains Moderately Satisfactory (MS). The project has fully complied with the financial management covenants of regular submission of quarterly financial management reports and audits. The main factors requiring attention remain: (i) to further improve the understanding of project staff on IDA Financial Management processes and procedures, including the quality of financial reports, it is recommended that FM 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
7 Based on the assumption that 15 sub-projects would be developed from each management plan
4 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. 23. The FM risk rating is maintained at substantial due to potential high risk in the verification of expenditure by the other Implementing Agencies and inadequate oversight on these expenditure and activities, including insufficient clarity and reasonable justification of budgeted amounts, long overdue balances not yet retired, non-compliance with thresholds for transfer to IAs, etc. These issues have been thoroughly discussed with Project Coordinator and the Project Accountant and will be followed up and monitored by the Bank during the next review. 24. Procurement. Based on the procurement review and discussions with the Project, the overall procurement arrangement and performance is rated Moderately Satisfactory. Mission provided detailed advice on procurement arrangements for the SADA and Biodiversity components (See Annex 10 for full Procurement Assessment). 25. Safeguards. The World Bank carried out a safeguards review of a sample of SLWMP subprojects in December 2013 8 . The safeguards compliance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory. The review recommends that the Project adopts (i) a simplified Environmental Screening Checklist (a simplified screening checklist was developed during the review, and it will be used by the project for assessing all subprojects); (ii) grievance redress mechanism; (iii) improved management of agro-chemicals; and (iv) project safeguards guidelines, currently under preparation.
AGREEMENTS REACHED AND PENDING ACTIONS/NEXT
26. The next mission – appraisal mission for the Additional Financing - is planned to take place in late March 2014. The agreed next steps and actions are summarized in the below table:
Table of agreed actions
Action Responsibility Due date
Quarterly Monitoring report in Corridor and GRR WD Feb 3, 2014 Baseline data for water quality monitoring ( other baselines) EPA Feb 3, 2014 Community watershed plans to the WB (additional 7) PCU Feb 4, 2014 Work Plan 2014 and tentative Work Plan 2015 PCU Feb 4, 2014 Component Reallocation/Restructuring Estimates for Project to MOF PCU Feb 6, 2014 GEF documents for MTR to WB: WD - GEF tracking Tool (BD METT for current 3 targets) Feb 8, 2014 - MTR update on GEF cofinancing (in template provided) Feb 3, 2014 MoF Request for AF and Restructuring to WB MoF Feb 10, 2014
8The review included field visits to three micro-watersheds in West Mamprusi, Builsa South, and Bawku West districts.
5
Initiate bidding for Ecotourism study consultancy WD Feb 10, 2014
AF project paper (DRAFT) with GOG inputs ( including results PCU Feb 10, 2014 framework activities, costs, implementation arrangements, maps) to WB Action plan with key interim milestones for delivery of 2014 sub- PCU Feb 10, 2014 projects Comments to PCU-Guidelines for subproject guidelines WB Feb 10, 2014 Comments to PCU - Draft Environmental Indices WB Feb 10, 2014 Draft MTR report from consultant to WB PCU Feb 11, 2014 Sample sub-project MOA’s (for watershed plans and project MoFA Feb 13, 2014 proposals already provided to WB) Annual Progress Report PCU Feb 14, 2014 Initiate procurement of consultancy for waterhole construction WD Feb 14, 2014 GEF Tracking Tools (for AF baseline)for BD, LD, SFM and PCU Feb 15, 2014 CCsubmitted to WB Submit IFR PCU Accountant Feb 15, 2014
TOR for TCPD to WB PCU/SADA Feb 15, 2014 Final MTR report to WB PCU Feb 17, 2014 Update of the PIM (structure of PSC, guidelines for implementation PCU Feb 23, 2014 of SLWM MoU between SADA and TCPD SADA Feb 28, 2014 Safeguards Leaflets prepared and submitted to WB for approval PCU Feb 28, 2013 M&E Plan / MIS PCU March 30, 2014
DISCLOSURE The Bank and Republic of Ghana confirm their understanding and agreement to publicly disclose this Aide- Memoire. The disclosure of this Aide Memoire was discussed and agreed to with project counterparts led by Dr. Bernice Heloo at the wrap-up meeting that took place on January 31, 2014 at MESTI, Accra.
ANNEXES
Annex 1. Mission agenda Annex 2. Key MTR Findings Annex 3. Updated Results Framework Annex 4. Processing timeline for Additional Financing Annex 5. Expenditure Review Summary
6
Annex 6. Proposed Project Architecture for Restructuring and Additional Financing Annex 7. List of Persons Met by the Mission Annex 8. List of documents received by the mission Annex 9. Financial Review Annex 10. Procurement Review Annex 11. Notes from Technical Discussions, October 1, 2013 Annex 12. Notes from Technical Discussions, October 31, 2013 Annex 13. Notes from Technical Discussions, December 20, 2013 Annex 14. Summary report from the field visit
7
Annex 1 – Mission Agenda
Time Meeting Monday, January 20 8:00-9:00 Meet with the Regional WD manager (Tamale) 9:00-10:30 Travel to Bawku West (Zebilla) (Upper East Region) 10:30-13:00 Meet with DADU staff and field visit to Namogo (Upper East Region) 13:00-14:00 Lunch and travel back to Bolgatanga 14:00-17:00 Work in Nakong (both CREMA and sub-projects)(Upper East Region) Tuesday, January 21 8:00-10:00 Travel to Builsa South ( Builsa district of the Upper East Region) 10:00-12:00 Work in Banchosa (New CREMA site for AF) 12:00 Travel from Builsa to Tumu (Sissala East district,Upper West Region) Wednesday, January 22 9:00 Meet with DADU office at Tumu (Sissala East district, Upper West) 9:00-10:00 Discussions with DADU staff 10:00-12:0 Travel and field work at Bassisan (Sissala East district, Upper West) 12:00-13:00 Travel back to Tumu 13:00-14:00 Lunch 14:00-16:00 Visit Proposed dam site and rangeland site at Dasima (Sissala West district, Upper West Region) Thursday, January 23 9:00 Meet with the WD staff at Tumu office 9:00-10:30 Discussions with Gbele Reserve staff 10:30 Travel to Bufiema (Hamili District) and Jolinyiri (New District for AF) (Upper West Region) Friday, January 24 9:00 Meet at Regional MoFA office 9:00-10:00 Discussions with RADU and DADU staff 10:00-12:00 Field visit to Kpalinye and rangeland management site (Upper West) 12: 00-13:00 Visit to EPA regional office Monday, January 27 08.30-9.00 Courtesy Call on Hon. Minister 09.15-13.00 Presentation of Annual Report (focus on component/ sub-component outputs and bottlenecks) – MoFA, EPA, WD, SADA Introduction to Component 1 Restructuring Proposal 14.10-15.00 Update on Financial Summary 15.00-16.00 Presentation on progress towards PES strategy; carbon measurement Tuesday, January 28 09.00-10.00 Presentation of Lessons from Ethiopia SLM up scaling experience for Ghana; Discussion 10.10-10.40 Presentation of Expenditure Review and implications for the rest of original SLWMP 10.40-12.30 Presentation of 2014 Work Plan (incl. implication for targets for the rest of the original SLWMP) Other issues: project management and coordination; progress against Results Framework; sub-project guidelines and community satisfaction
8
feedback; NGO engagement in delivery 12.30-13.00 Presentation on related projects (GEMP, SOP)
14.10-16.50 Presentation of Additional Financing components (sites, activities, detailed costs, institutional arrangements, implementation plan…) 17.00-18.00 Procurement discussion: SLWMP and AF FM discussion: SLWMP and AF Wednesday, January 29 09.00-10.00 Discussion Component 1 SADA and TCDP 12.00-13.30 M&E: Results Monitoring including proposed review/revisions of targets/ indicators for SLWMP and AF 14.30-15.20 AF pre-appraisal discussions continued; processing schedule Discussion on GEF requirements (GEF Tracking Tools, co-financing and linkage to the Sahel Program; BRICKS) 15.30 -17.00 Donors meeting: other SLM related projects; experiences of delivering through NGOs; charcoal production; AF; R&D Thursday, January 30 9.30-10.00 Meeting Ministry of Finance 10.10-11.30 Meeting the Project Steering Committee – includinga presentation by the Ethiopia National SLM Coordinator; a presentation by the MTR Consultant on key findings of the MTR; and Findings of safeguards review Friday, January 31 8:30-11:00 Meeting to discuss draft Work Plan 2014 11:00-14:00 Mission wrap up meeting
9
Annex 2 - Key MTR Findings
Project implementation started late (Board approval – November 2010; preparatory activities started in June 2011; and first sub-projects implementation started in 2013). Duration of the project’s preparatory activities and processes (such as building extension capacity, community engagement) appears underestimated by the original project design.
The project developed a Watershed Planning Manual and a Manual / Guidelines for Proven SLM Technologies for Land users and Extension Service Providers – DADU extension workers in the project target areas were trained on use of these. The micro-watershed planning process, which underpins the roll- out of SLM activities, is ongoing, with 44 micro-watershed plans in place or close of completion (of the 80 originally planned). Yet the range of SLWM options actually being implemented is very narrow – with most communities and extension workers focused primarily on tree planting, and little interest in the dry season activities and water management. The communities seem very interested in implementing the project activities – however, not all of them are fully aware of the project support options.
Component 1 experienced significant delays due to the fact that SADA was just established at the same time as the project started and lacked implementation capacity.
The involvement of local authorities and District Assemblies appears low which may hamper local-level support to the Project.
The Project did not sufficiently focus on building synergies with other projects working in the North of Ghana that have related objectives (e.g. Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP) and Ghana Environmental Management Project (GEMP).
Adequate project reporting was lacking as information / communication / reporting channels between the Project Coordinating Unit at MESTI (PCU) and implementing agencies were not properly established.
The project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) remains weak in the absence of adequate M&E capacity (the PCU had hired a dedicated M&E Specialist who left after just a couple of months in a position – the M&E function was reportedly taken over by the M&E Unit of the EPA).
The project originally envisaged involving NGOs in project implementation; this approach was not utilized.
The Project supported a number of awareness raising activities; however, it failed to utilize innovative information dissemination technologies / channels.
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). The training and management activities in the Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR) were implemented on schedule, yet civil works have not started due to delayed procurement.
10
Annex 3. Updated Results Framework
Target Values (cumulative) Data Collection and Reporting Outcome Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Frequency Data Responsibility Indicators and Collection for Data MTR Reports Instruments Collection Status
PDO/GEO Area of land in selected micro- watersheds 144 under new Records of sustainable land 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 fulfilled MoFA 0 0 Annual and watershed ha ha ha ha ha SLWM (DADUs) management contracts (SLWM) technologies (ha) Management effectiveness Gbele: according to Gbele: 55 METT score in 45 Management Gbele Resource 88 (?) W-K: ------End of Effectiveness Wildlife Reserve and W-K: 28 50 project Tracking Division Tool Wuru Kayero W-W:34 W-W: and Wahabu 50 Wiasi corridor sites (score,
11 disaggregated) Pre-feasibility studies conducted for 0 new large-scale SADA 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 multipurpose Annual progress SADA water storage reports investments (number) Results Indicators for Each Component Component 1- Capacity building for integrated spatial planning Integrated spatial master Initial Plan No SADA plan produced N/A - - - - mapping completed Annual progress SADA for Northern reports Savannah zone. Integrated sub- basin plans SADA 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 developed Annual progress SADA (number) reports Component 2: Water and Land Management Outcome Baseline 2011 2012 2013 MTR 2014 2015 2016 Frequency Data Responsibility Indicators Status and Collection for Data Reports Instruments Collection Villages covered by District agreed Agric. 0 20 60 80 80 80 80 Annual MoFA Community 44 progress Land Use Plans reports (number)
12
Demonstration plots 48 District Agric. established in 0 0 20 50 70 80 80 Annual MoFA the project area progress reports (number) Farmers benefiting from improved land management in accordance 284 2,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Survey of with MoFA 9 0 0 Annual participant agreements 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% (DADUs) [direct project satisfaction beneficiaries] (number), of which female (percentage) Targeted CREMA communities 0 implementing management Annual Wildlife activities 0 0 0 10 15 20 20 Annual progress Division according to reports criteria defined in CREMA plans10 (number)
Feasibility N/A - - - Buyers - PES End of Annual EPA study on
9 Defined as number of farmers included in the existing sub-project agreements 10 Likely to include NRM activities such as patrolling, establishment & monitoring of local resource use regulations, and fire management. 13 financial No identified strategy project progress contribution of completed reports PES markets to implementation costs of SLWM conducted Component 3: Project Management and Coordination Project M&E system Satis. Satis. Satis. No Satis. Satis. Satis. providing Annual N/A annual annual annual annual annual annual required reports Annually progress MEST report report report report report report and data in a reports timely manner
14
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 4. Processing timeline for Additional Financing
Actions Responsible/Clearing Authority MTR for SLWM/ Pre-appraisal AF Jan 20-31 Documents from GoG: detailed description of activities; detailed costs (including cost breakdown) & implementation plan; procurement plan; Results Framework; GEF tracking tools; description of implementation arrangements; Draft PIM Update GOG Feb-10-2014 Final PIM Update 23-Feb-2014 Zero draft AF Decision Meeting package: PP, PID, ISDS, Draft GA, Draft DL, GEF Datasheet and GEF Tracking Tool TEAM March-1-2014 PUBLIC HOLIDAY - Independence Day March-6-2014 Send Appraisal package for clearance - OUTSIDE THE PORTAL TL to SM manual 3-Mar-14 Circulate Appraisal Package 5 days before decision meeting to: CD, OSD (Ed), RSA, CL, CTR FO, peer reviewers, Senior Advisor; cc: SD, SM, RPM, RMFM, TT, Regional Quality Unit Service Accounts PLUS GEF Secretariat TL to List 5-Mar-14 Circulate comments prior to the Decision Meeting, along with agenda, to: same TL to List 11-Mar-14 Decision Meeting CD 12-Mar-14 Draft Decision Note of Decision Meeting, with summary of key elements and authorization to proceed with Appraisal; risk rating; adequacy of economic analysis; confirm transfer on safeguards TL to CD 14-Mar-14 Distribute final Decision Note to: OSD (Ed), RSA, CL, CTR FO, peer reviewers, Senior Advisor; cc: SD, SM, RPM, RMFM, TT, Regional Quality Unit Service Accounts; CC: CD, GEF Sec TL to List 18-Mar-14 ISDS - TTL updates and sends for decision TL to SM 18-Mar-14 PID - TTL updates and circulates for disclosure TL to CD 18-Mar-14 18-March-04-April- Appraisal mission - 5 days duration (prepare GFR - GK) 2014 CLEARANCE: Draft Negotiations Package: Appraisal completion note; draft disclosable PP; draft GA; draft DL; CTR FO; TACT + Invitation to Negotiate; and Procurement Plan: TTL to CTR GEF RC clear & FO SM concur 29-Mar-14 Final Package submission to GEF GK to GEF 29-Mar-14 Cleared Negotiations Package to CC for clearance, CC: CL, CTR FO, SM, RPM, RMFM, RSA, ROSD, SD, TT, FMS, PS, Regional Quality Service Accounts TL to CC 2-Apr-14 TL circulates cleared Negotiations Package TL to CD 3-Apr-14 CD authorizes negotiations, by signing invitation and sending it to Borrower CMU 7-Apr-14
15
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
TL to CD and Circulate Notice of Invitation to Negotiate to EDs SECPO 7-Apr-14 Negotiations 4/8-9/2014 Revise GA and DL, if needed and prepare Minutes of Negotiations, to be cleared by: CL, CTR FO & Sign 9-Apr-14 Summary of Negotiations (plus minutes) to: CD, SD, ROSD, RSA, CL, CTR FO, SM, peer reviewers; CC: TT, Regional Quality Service Accounts 9-Apr-14 TTL to CD, Circulate Notice of Status of Negotiations to ED s SECPO 10-Apr-14 Final package (PP, MOP, 2337, signed minutes, GA, DL, Borrower Approval of Neg. Docs) to CL and CTR FO, at least 5 days before sending to SEPCO 10-Apr-14 TL submits cleared Approval Package to SM for concurrence TL to SM (3 d) 14-Apr-14 CL prepares the Statutory Committee Report and sends to TL; TL arranges for signature by the Borrower representative and RVP 14-Apr-14 TL submits cleared Approval Package to CD (for clearance) TL to CD (3 d) 15-Apr-14 TL submits cleared Approval Package to RVP / designee (for decision) TL to RVP (3 d) 18-Apr-14 EASTER WEEKEND 18-21-April-2014 TL returns original signed Statutory Committee Report to CL; CL sends it through CC to LEG SVP GC either before or after signature by the other signatories 18-Apr-14 Submission to SECPO (18 business days before Board) 30-Apr-14 PUBLIC HOLIDAY (US MEMORIAL DAY) 26-May-14 Board 27-May-14
16
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 5. Expenditure Review Summary
EXPENDITURE COMPONENT ALLOCATION (US$) %SPENT BALANCE Component 1 1,003,125 396,133 39 606,992
Sub component 2.1 STRENGTHENING CAPACITIES OF DISTRICTS & RURAL COMMUNITIES ($0.75 million) 750,000 600,285 80 149,715
Sub component 2.2 SYSTEMS & CAPACITY TO PROMOTE SLWM ($1.2 million GEF) 1,164,243 899,820 77 264,423
Sub component 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF SLWM IN MICRO WATERSHEDS ($3.0 million GEF) 3,000,000 399,967 13 2,600,033
Sub component 2.4 MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDORS ($1 million GEF [Biodiversity]) 1,000,000 258,036 26 741,964
Sub component 2.5 MONITORING OF SLWM & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ($0.5 million GEF) 500,000 296,994 59 203,006
Component 3 732,632 930,282 127 -197,650
TOTAL 8,150,000 3,781,518 46 4,368,482
17
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 6. Proposed Project Architecture for Restructuring and Additional Financing
Additional Financing Cps (Proposed) Original Project Restructured component
Component 1
Capacity building for 1. Capacity building for integrated spatial ------integrated spatial planning planning
Component 2 2.1: Strengthening capacities of districts and rural communities 2.1. SLM Planning, Capacity 2.1. SLM Planning, Capacity and M&E for micro-watershed and and M&E (potential small addition through LD land use planning (2.1+2.2+2.3b) 2.2: Systems and capacity to promote SLWM 2.3: Implementation of SLWM in micro- 2.2. Implementation of SLWM in micro- watersheds: 2.2. Implementation of SLWM watersheds (subprojects), 2.3.a. – Sub Projects in micro-watersheds + Rangeland Management activities + more 2.3.b – Monitoring (subprojects) funds for sub-projects performance under (through GEF LD and CC-LULUCF funds) SLWM subproject agreements 2.4: Management of riparian biological 2.4: Management of 2.4: Management of riparian corridors riparian biological biological corridors (Additional GEF BD funds to a and b) corridors a. Implementation of corridor a. Implementation of corridor plans a. Implementation of plans b. b. Support to GRR corridor plans b. Support to GRR c. c. Sustainable Forest Management a. b. Support to GRR (new through GEF SFM funds) 2.5: Monitoring SLWM 2.5. National SLM and PES and environmental 2.5. National SLM and PES monitoring monitoring services
Component 3
3. Project Management 3. Project Management and 3. Project Management and Coordination and Coordination Coordination
18
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 7 - List of People Met by the Mission
ACCRA (Focal Points also took part in field visit to districts below) Person / group Affiliation Hon. Joe Oteng-Agyei Minister, MESTI Hon. Dr. Bernice Heloo Deputy Minister, MESTI Silvester Anemana Chief Director, MESTI Daniel Amlalo Executive Director, EPA Emmanuel Adjetey MoF, Head of WBU Patience Abban MoF, WBU Fredua Agyeman Project Coordinator, MESTI Isaac Charles Acquah Focal Point, EPA Delali Nutsukpo Focal Point, MoFA Charles Amankwah Focal Point, Wildlife Division Opong Sasu Focal Point, Forestry Commission Ivy Lomotey Technical Officer, PCU, MESTI Florence Agyei EPA Ebenezer Appah-Sampong EPA Carl Fiati EPA Samuel Anka EPA Kingsley K. Amoako MoFA Delali Nutsukpo MoFA J.W. Koomson MESTI Chris Anab SADA Charles Fobi Accountant, MESTI Rosemary Darko Procurement Officer, MESTI K. Ohene Yankyera MTR Consultant, KNUST Bright Amegashie MTR Consultant, KNUST George Ahadzie Green Earth Organization Michael Creighton Canada Romeo Adomah Canada Bamba Aliou FAO Seth Adjeiboye Swiss Cooperation
BAWKU WEST DISTRICT Paul Musah AEA MoFA Akamaba John AEA MoFA Asaanah Paul AEA MoFA Suzie Aarom NSP MoFA Amadu Balinatu NSP MoFA Abubakari Malik NSP MoFA Yussif Sulemana DDA (MoFA) MoFA Charles Akwotiga Desk Officer, DDO MoFA
19
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Angbangbio Dominic DDO (MoFA) MoFA Osman Fuseini APO EPA John Naada Regional Manager Wildlife Division Bernard My-Issah RAO-Ext/TCO MoFA Forestry Services Division Kazaare Francis TCO (FC) Jacob Kabanda Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division/TCO
NAKONG Name Designation Institution Kabah James Kwolaga AEA MoFA Ibrahim Sumara Alidu Supervisor MoFA Francis Sadongo AEA MoFA Apinya Dominic District Director MoFA Osman Fuseini APO EPA
BACHONGSA Name Designation Institution
BASSISSAN Name Designation Institution
TUMU-DADU OFFICE Name Designation Institution Francis Moro AEA MoFA James B. Afetey MoFA Jacob A. Agyakinla DAO MoFA S.A Lardi Typist MoFA Tergu Eric Veterinary Officer MoFA Christiana S. Paaga Veterinary Officer MoFA Wirah B. Moses ACCF MoFA David Ayambire Headman MoFA Sarah B.M. Bamie DAO Fisheries Commission Cecilia Nandzo Typist MoFA Cecilia Egala PTA MoFA Sulemani Ibrahim National Service Personnel MoFA Naapor S. Franklin Veterinary Officer/TO II MoFA
20
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Hadija Adams E/O MoFA Kate Konkeni Haruna CFA MoFA Musah Hamatr Aramata National Service Personnel MoFA Nsiah Kwame Thomas PPRSD MoFA Romanus Dandeebo Headman MoFA
DASSIMA Name Designation Institution Bawiise Edward AEA MoFA Dramani Konmi Desk Officer MoFA
WAHABU CAMP Name Designation Institution Duo Albert Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Baliaweri Karinue Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Anuga Bakete Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Agyie Peter Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Salifu Musah Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Zallaria Issifu Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Abdul Mimin Abubakari Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Kennedy A. Anag-bey Wildlife Guide Wildlife Division Richmond Bradu Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Roger Amoah Wildlife Protection Officer Wildlife Division Maabier Polycarp Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Nana Owusu Ansah Park Manager Wildlife Division
JOLINYIRI Name Designation Institution Richmond Bradu Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Roger Amoah Wildlife Protection Officer Wildlife Division Maabier Polycarp Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Nana Owusu Ansah Park Manager Wildlife Division
BUFIEMA Name Designation Institution Richmond Bradu Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Roger Amoah Wildlife Protection Officer Wildlife Division Maabier Polycarp Assistant Wildlife Officer Wildlife Division Nana Owusu Ansah Park Manager Wildlife Division
21
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 8. List of documents received by the mission
1. Electronic and printed copy of the Ghana Strategic Investment Framework for SLM 2. Electronic and printed copy of the Manual / Guidelines for Proven SLM Technologies for Landusers and Extension Service Providers 3. Copies of a sampling of subproject proposals
22
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 9. Financial Review
Financial Management at Preparation
At the start of the project, it was agreed that the project be implemented by the Ghana Environmental Conventions Coordinating Authority (GECCA). The initial assessment of the financial management arrangements at the GECCA indicated that being a newly created entity it did not have the necessary functional units to support the financial management aspects for implementations; as such the financial management will be handled by the Finance and Accounts Unit (FAU) of the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MEST). The overall residual FM risk of the Finance and Accounting unit of MEST was rated as moderate though it was recognized that MEST, itself ,even though it has a functional financial management unit has never been involved in IDA funded operations and this posed an inherent fiduciary risk.
The overall financial management responsibility was to be handled by the Director of Finance and Administration (Dir., F&A) at the MEST. The responsibility of the Director was to ensure that throughout implementation there are adequate financial management systems in place which can report adequately on the use of project funds. The Director, F&A will assign a dedicated Principal Accountant (staff of CAGD) who was to be responsible for the operational and day to day transactional processing, whilst maintaining oversight responsibilities with regards to ensuring compliance with financial covenants such as submitting Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs). It was agreed that the Principal Accountant should have the requisite skills and technical qualification acceptable to the Bank.
Financial Management during Implementation The project become effective in January 2011, and received its first disbursement amounting to US$1,000,000 in May 2011. Early on during implementation, it was realized that the risk as envisaged during preparation was most likely to occur and indeed the fiduciary capacity of MEST became an issue of concern. The first comprehensive financial management review was done in January 2012, and the review concluded that the existing arrangements for the continuing adequacy and reliance of the financial management systems for the project were not adequate and did not meet the minimum requirement per OP/BP 10.02. Overall the FM arrangement for the project was rated Unsatisfactory (U) while the FM Risk considered High.
The main reasons for the poor financial management performance included:
Contrary to expectation, the client, failed in providing a qualified and fully competent Project Accountant. This lack of adequate technical competence of the assigned Project Accountant resulted in the critical weakness including; poor reporting, incomplete accounting records, poor filing and document referencing and a weak financial recording and accounting. Closely related to the above point, was the lack of adequate oversight over the financial management and accounting function of the project by the Director of Finance and Administration of the Ministry and the Project Director. Weak accounting and internal control structures with little accountability for advances and disbursements, which resulted in the expensing of amounts upon transfers irrespective of their requests having been based on estimates. Lack of credible and reliable periodic financial management reports, making it difficult for stakeholder to evaluate financial performance and link disbursement to performance against any benchmark such as annual budgets or procurement plans.
23
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
To address the above the Bank team proposed a set of mitigation measures which included initially hiring a short term consultant to help in designing a suitable processes and procedures, preparing a set of credible financial statement from project inception and secondly the Ministry re-assigning a new Project Accountant with qualification and experiences vetted by the Bank FM Team.
Following the series of mitigation measures proposed and regular interaction with the project management unit, the Bank subsequently undertook a follow up FM review in October 2012. The review concluded that there had been significant improvements in the accounting function and overall the project FM was upgraded from Unsatisfactory to Moderately Satisfactory.
The main factors accounting for a change in the FM performance rating include: the assignment by the client of a more technically competent Project Accountant, evidence of adequate filing and retrieval of all project financial transaction to allow for easy verification of balances and supporting documentation, preparation and submission of improved periodic financial statement, redesigning the manual cashbook into a spreadsheet cashbook with adequate references and initiating a process of recovering all advances transferred to participating MDA- some of which have had funds for over a year without any documentation.
Conclusion and Recommendations
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 shortcomings in the FM systems that can 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.
The key recommendation which can be incorporated in future projects being implemented by MEST will include: The need to consider creating a project management team for the fiduciary aspects (procurement, financial management and monitoring and evaluation), who will be a competitively recruited specialist who will work in collaboration with staff of the ministry. Fully mainstreaming these functions within the MEST poses a significant fiduciary risk due to the weak accountability measures and lack of understanding of IDA processes and project management functions.
24
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 10. Procurement Assessment
1. Procurement Planning and Processes. The mission had fruitful interaction with the Project, including the Director for Environment (new PC), the accountant and the Procurement officer in order to (i) review the status of procurement carried out by the project to date; (ii) review and agree on plans for outstanding procurement; (iii) discuss main procurement challenges encountered and propose solutions; and (iv) examine procurement documentation to assure conformance with agreed procurement procedures and processes per the legal agreement. The objective is to ensure that all outstanding procurement activities would be delivered and consultancy assignments completed and reports submitted to contribute to the project development targets. The mission noted low progress, thus the team would have to put in more efforts if all the planned/on-going procurement/contracts are to be completed before project closure. 2. The mission noted some issues with updating of procurement plan; time over runs (behind schedule) of some procurements with its attended challenges. The mission also noted that the procurement plans need to be revised in view of the new procurement methods thresholds, which has been circulated to the projects in the country portfolio. The mission informed the project that the Bank will work together with the Procurement Officer during the Bank’s Results Based Procurement Planning Workshop, 28-31 January 2014 to finalise the procurement plans and subsequently give clearance. 3. Outlook of Procurement. Per the procurement plans available to the mission this year, the mission observed the following since the inception of the project: Under Goods; out of 15 planned, 10-(67%) contracts have been completely executed, with 5-(33%) yet to initiate procurement process. Under Works; out of 2 planned, 1-(50%) contract implementation is on-going; while 1-(50%) yet to initiate procurement process. Under Consultancy, out 24 planned, 13-(54%) contracts have been completely executed, 10-(42%) yet to initiate procurement process, while 1-(4%) has been terminated. Thus at MTR, the complete procurement plan indicates 56% completed, 2% on-going, 39% yet to initiate procurement process and 2% cancelled. 4. Critical Issues discussed between the mission and the project: a. The use of Government Agency to Execute Aspects of the Project. The mission advised that the government cannot be treated as a service provider (consultant) on the project, but must perform its legal functions with increased activities due to the project; therefore fees shall not be paid to the government agency, but rather reimbursable costs. The project advised that in order to ensure delivery of the expected output, the project should prepare the TOR with the clearly defined output and timeline; qualification and experience of key staff; etc, and request the government agency to present a proposal for the project’s consideration and if found acceptable sign a MOU with the agency. Furthermore, given that this is not a procurement activity it should not be included in the procurement plan, but must be in the Work Plan under the appropriate cost center. (NB: If the proposal is not acceptable, or if that agency intends to hire consultants to deliver on its behalf, then the project implementing agency is advised to procure the consultants directly without passing through another government agency). b. Single Sourcing (SS)/Direct Contracting (DC) of a Service Provider. The mission was informed of the intention of SS/DC, because of the complexity, peculiarity, and the impressive delivery of a service provider in the vicinity, coupled with the fact that the initial design and implementation concepts was done by the service provider. After several deliberation, the mission was convinced and advised that the SS/DC can be pursued, given that a competitive approach may not yield the desired output or/and may not allow the firm which brought out the design and implementation concept take part in the procurement process because of the undue advantage over other prospective service providers.
25
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
5. General Procurement Issues. The mission noted serious delays in the delivery of contracts which continue to affect the overall procurement processes. Overall, the time lapses between bids opening to issuance of award notices are in excess of total planned periods; which subsequently push the completion date forward by that delayed time and impacts negatively on the entire procurement process. Notable areas of concern include time lags between negotiations and signing of contracts for services; procurement activities not conforming to the timelines in the approved procurement plans; and also project challenges in addressing Bank comments. The mission stressed that addressing Bank comments properly and in time in re-submissions speeds up the review and NO objection. The mission advised borrower to therefore ensure that quality of the procurement document sent to the Bank meet the Bank requirements to ensure faster receipts of Bank No Objections. Furthermore, the mission indicated that the Banks/missions recommendations must be implemented to forestall these situations mentioned above. 6. Records Keeping. Record keeping is Moderately Satisfactory at the Ministry as records for procurement conducted by the Ministry are present at the PCU, albeit lacking completeness; however, all records of procurements executed by the other implementing agencies are not completely available at the PMU. Furthermore, the Contract filing systems at the PMU need improvement. It is reiterated that dedicated, updated and well protected files must be created for each contract on the approved procurement plan, with documents well filed including copies of financial transactions (copies of payment vouchers, invoices and payment certificates), store/delivery receipts, etc. so as to give complete procurement picture of the contracts. 7. Procurement Systems and Arrangements. The mission reiterated that dedicated, qualified, and experienced personnel on the project must be task to deliver as expected and documented in the project implementation documents. The PMU used to have an experienced and qualified procurement consultant working with the current procurement officer (who was then National Service personnel at the ministry) on the project. The procurement consultant has left the job a couple of years back and the assistant has held the fort till now. The assistant, who is now the substantive procurement officer, of 1 year, has HND in Procurement & Supply Chain Management (2008) and BSc in Procurement and Logistics Management. She has some knowledge and experience in Bank procurement procedures and systems, since she has been part of the procurement team since the inception of the project, albeit not sufficient. The Bank has been constantly working with the procurement officer to ensure smooth procurement prosecution. The Procurement Officer has attended training in World Bank procurement on Goods and Consultancy Services at GIMPA. However, the procurement officer needs to continuously strengthen her capacity through training in World Bank procurements. 8. Post Procurement Reviews. The Bank undertook a Post Procurement Review (PPR) in April, 2013. The PPR gave an overall risk rating of Moderate; same as the risk rating for Procurement System and Contract Administration, while Procurement Processes was rated a Substantial risk. The PPR Report, recommended several actions to be undertaken to improve the procurement performance and lower the procurement risk rating; however the project is yet to implement the recommendations fully. The mission further informed the project to be in readiness for the next PPR which will be conducted in February 2014 and expressed a hope that the next PPR will indicate a better result. The mission, therefore, advised the Project to endeavor to completely implement the recommended activities stated in the previous PPR, before the next one is conducted, since these also have a bearing on the procurement risk rating and performance rating of the project 9. Overall Procurement Rating. Following the review, discussions above and the current transition situation at the PMU, the overall Procurement arrangement and performance so far for the project is rated as Moderately Satisfactory while procurement risk is Substantial.
26
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
10. PROCUREMENT ACTION PLANS (MTR): The mission/borrower agreed on the following action plan: Challenge Mitigation- Activities By when By whom
1 Procurement Planning in Prepare and revise current 31 January PMU / IA accordance with the new Procurement Plans using the new 2013 procurement METHODS Bank Methods Thresholds. The thresholds – Including the procurement should cover all review of the rest of the contracts under the project to the procurement in view of end of the Project. The the Additional Funding in procurement plan must be fully preparation updated with the actual information on the activity milestones. No new Procurement planning cycle should go beyond the Project Closure date. Please send this to the Bank for Review and Clearance 2 Focus on Regular update of procurement Quarterly (2 PMU / IA preparing/regular updating plan till project closure. Copies to weeks after and reporting on be sent to the Bank for end of quarter) procurement plan. information. - Use of the Procurement Plan as a monitoring and evaluation tool. 3 Borrower delays in PMU/ IAs should ensure prompt Immediately- PMU / IA processing and submitting submission of procurement & always procurement documents to documents to Bank.. Same as Bank. following on Bank response. Turnaround of Due diligence and effort in procurement Document ensuring very good quality of review documents are sent to the Bank to reduce review time.
4 New Bank Developments in Attend Bank Monthly continuous Monthly PMU /IA / WB Procurements and Procurement Clinic. Voluntary but Approaches helpful. To be abreast with Bank procedures and systems
5 Use of Bank Updated Consult Bank Procurement site on Always PMU / IA / WB Procurement Documents the internet regularly to update knowledge. Attend Bank Monthly continuous Procurement Clinic.
6 Improvement of Enhance procurement capacity of Immediately PMU / IA procurement performance existing Procurement Officer
27
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
and risks - Risk at through attending procurement SUBSTANTIAL and trainings on Procurement and World Performance Bank procurement in particular. MODERATELY Provide support (dedicated and SATISFACTORY focused personnel) to the PO (either from outside or in-house OR BOTH) to improve procurement delivery
11. Challenges and Lessons Learnt since project inception: a. Procurement Plans are not effectively used by IAs to monitor and evaluate procurement activities on the project, thus the procurements plans are seldom updated regularly. This attitude must be changed so as to reap the full benefit of the procurement plan and its functions. b. Under this project, there are too many “big and strong” IAs making coordination and harmonisation by the mother ministries somehow difficult. c. PROCYS history or information shows that procurement action from the borrowers side take comparably too long beyond the normal business cycle, especially evaluation and addressing Bank comments. d. Internal approval process takes longer time because of the chain of approval. e. TOR and Specifications are not generated on time or not at all to allow procurement to be implemented as planned. f. Most activities planned for in the annual work plan as procurement activities by implementing Agencies turns not to be done. 12. Additional Financing & Re-allocation: The mission noted that, the current staff are to implement the procurement, of similar nature as the current project, under the Additional Financing, thus the risk is Substantial, given the current situation and the discussion above. To be able to reduce the risk and prosecute procurement satisfactorily under the Additional Finance the above mitigation measures must be implemented.
28
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 11. Notes from Technical Discussions, October 1, 2013
Meeting of the Project Steering Committee of the Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (SLWM) with the World Bank
Results based monitoring plan and performance framework
This document summarizes the key points discussed and agreed at the meeting of SLM Steering Committee with the World Bank environment and natural resources sector team and M&E Specialist, to discuss the results based monitoring plan and the performance framework.
The following members of the PSC were present in the meeting: Ivy Lomotey, MESTI; Isaac Acquah, EPA; Ebenezer Sampong, EPA; Kingsley Amoako, MoFA; Delali Nutsukpo, MoFA; Anders Jansen, M&E Specialist, WB, Martin Fodor, Senior Environmental Specialist, WB and Isabel Abreu, Consultant, WB.
1. A document “Results-based monitoring plan” was delivered by MESTI during the meeting, following a request by the WB for this crucial information that was missing on the semi-annual progress report (Jan13-Jun13) delivered in August 13. The provided document indicates results against targets for each indicator. Each indicator has been assessed:
Indicator 1 - Area of land in selected micro-watersheds under new sustainable land and watershed management technologies: 144,42 ha is an estimated value: it is the area of the sub-projects approved by MoFA as it reads on the proposals submitted by farmers. Actual area will be confirmed on the ground after beginning of activities and after the rainy season. MoFA and EPA think the actual area might be higher than the estimated one MoFA thinks that if the agricultural intervention area under watersheds is combined with the intervention area under CREMAs in the wildlife corridor, target of 2000ha for 2015 is feasible 144,42 ha for 2013 include agricultural land only, no corridor area. Some of the sub-projects include only 1 farmer Some non-participating farmers are also benefiting and learning from activities taking place in communal areas 69 sub-projects approved: MoFA actually received more proposals but hasn’t approved all because of uncertainty of funding
Indicator 2 - Management effectiveness according to METT score in Gbele Resource reserve and Wuru Kayero and Wahabu Wiasi corridor sites According to the results based plan this indicator needs to be reported only in 2016 According to the M&E Specialist, it is a very easy indicator to get information on and it should be reported annually. It should be during the next field trip MESTI will coordinate with the WD to get retrospective data and to report it in the semi-annual reports
29
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Indicator 3 - Pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large-scale multipurpose water storage investments M&E Specialist doesn’t find it a good indicator for spatial planning and it should be reviewed According to EPA and MoFA the lack of data is due to the fact that this indicator depends on the development of the spatial master plan (Indicator 4 below). Martin suggests that the available information needs to be collated and included on the results-based report, as a comment
Indicator 4 - Integrated spatial master plan produced for northern savannah zone SADA has been facing challenges regarding the staff hired for this activity. SADA might have to consider a consultancy contract with UDS, or reaching an agreement with EPA in order to start this activity Fredua Agyeman, the SLM Coordinator, is in touch with SADA regarding this matter According to EPA, SADA has a number of MoUs with all the SLM implementing agencies, this activity could also be considered
Indicator 5 - Integrated sub-basin plans developed Same as above
Indicator 6 - Villages covered by agreed Community Land Use Plans 28 watershed management plans have been done. In April, the WB had sent comments on 13 plans. The remaining plan will be disclosed on MoFA’s website The watershed management plan identifies the main environmental and social problems and identifies possible interventions The low result against the planned 80 watershed plans is due to the delay in hiring the consult that would design the process to develop those plans The 14 watershed management plans collected in 2012 are demonstration ones used to pilot the process According to EPA, before 2013 more watershed management plans are expected to be ready. The target for 2014 might be high and might need to be reviewed
Indicator 7 - Demonstration plots established in the project area 38 demonstration plots have been established MoFA will send the coordinates Demonstration plots are 1ha and aimed at demonstrating the use of a specific technology The target was 50 demonstration plots for 2013. According to MoFA the initial plots have not been planned in order to be permanent and have been discontinued. The actual 38 should have been added to the previous ones, if these had not been discontinued. The target is supposed to be a cumulative amount adding to the previous ones
Indicator 8 - Farmers benefiting from improved land management in accordance with agreements 284 farmers benefiting, it is an average of 4 farmers for each sub-project
30
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
The team agreed on sub-diving this indicator according to the beneficiaries: household, men, women, the ones benefiting from demonstration activities, the ones benefiting from the preparation of the watershed plan, etc
Indicator 9 - Targeted CREMA communities implementing management activities according to criteria defined in CREMA plans According to the M&E Specialist this indicator should be a percentage Ivy will liaise with the WD to get more detailed information on the results reported as “on-going”
Indicator 10 - Feasibility study on financial contribution of PES markets to implementation cost of SLWM conducted Isaac informed that last week received a report from the consultant on the Environmental Index. On the other hand will look at the UNDP report and will come up with a document that will be distributed to the team next week Isaac will also distribute a timetable concerning the development of the PES strategy that will be taken to the legal department for assessment This information needs to be inserted on the results-based report as a comment
Indicator 11 - Project M&E system providing required reports and data in a timely manner This has not been discussed because, according to the M&E Specialist, it not part of the ISR. The ISR covers only information concerning the PDO. The M&E and Coordinating is a common component to all the projects, not directly linked to the PDO.
2. Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) It will be discussed in a future meeting due to time restrictions The M&E Specialist will send his comments
3. Field trip Isaac will send an itinerary of 1 week, by Thursday, the 3rd of October 2013. The trip is planned for the week starting on the 18th of October Martin mentioned the need to get a clear picture on the status of the project on the ground to base the ISR, the potential AF and to set the MTR date
4. Maps Isaac will liaise with the district offices to get the coordinates and to produce maps showing the project sites for each community as well the demonstration plots
5. Others Isaac provided a copy of his presentation at the meeting in Ethiopia Isaac to send the a copy of the Ghana Strategy Framework for Sustainable and Management
31
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 12. Notes from Technical discussions, October 31, 2013
SLM Bolga Roundtable, Debriefing Meeting
The WB thanks the GoG for organizing the field trip that allowed having a better understanding of the reality on the ground. This visit enabled the exchange of information with the central, regional and local SLM team and the beneficiaries of the project. The visit allowed contact with the whole chain of support from implementing agencies from managerial level to ground level.
Attendants: Opon Sasu, FC; Cletus Nateg, FC/WD; Charles Amankwah, WD; Fredua Agyeman, MESTI; Isaac Acquah, EPA; Ivy Lomotey, MESTI; Rosemary Darko, MESTI; Nicholas Iddi, MESTI; Sam Danse, SADA; Charles Fobi, MESTI; Kingsley Amoako, MoFA; Delali Nutksupo, MoFA.
Issues Discussion Next Steps GoG will draft an Action Plan that among others will cover the bellow issues Cost effectiveness of PC: SLWM planning and informed that 70-80% of the costs so far are for For the MTR, GoG will implementation preparation and not taken into account in this provide information on calculation how much has been spent Questionable link between on what vis a vis what has project cost and area under Environmental impacts have not been assessed been achieved SLWM effort ($23,000/ha; yet, and that should be included in assessing 10 day workshop): after cost/results relation $3.3 million, 2 years, 145 ha under SLWMP Slow pace of results is attributable to new structures such as SADA still under internal organization and to the fact that projects take time to provide effects on the ground
GoG needs to identify how to speed-up/scale-up sub-projects Improve cost-effectiveness GoG finds the target 1000 ha feasible if one /efficiency of the current includes sub-projects that take place in approach agricultural lands in CREMAs (adding to the agricultural lands in watershed areas) Project envisions to move from the current area under There are many other projects taking place. SLM move from 145 ha to There is a need to look at it under a sustainable 100 0ha by end of 2014. management of land perspective , integrate all Target for 2012 was 500 ha the different activities and actors and for 2013 1000 ha. Narrow mix of SLM MoFA: MoFA will train interventions Communities are used to certain practices and extension officers on: Although watershed have a slow rate of adopting different ones management plans include engaging in what brings faster benefits under -Community sensitization
32
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
different areas of their perception on benefits of different intervention (agriculture, SLM options water resources, etc,) sub- Sub-projects will continue over the subsequent -Current and new sub- projects include only years and MoFa will make sure that the scope of projects proposals to narrow mix: each activities in each community will be expanded include mixed community is implementing interventions only one type of activities: tree planting, riverbank vegetation. Farmer group of one MoFA indicated that no sub-project by one (minimum 5) farmer only has been approved Non-reporting on METT This was not required by the project, although WD will report on METT the WD has been asked to provided information score along the duration on this of the project Demonstration plots MoFA acknowledges limitations of the MoFA will look at i)how Design limits demonstration demonstration projects to design a proper potential /impact (no demonstration project and control /side by side ii) Retrofitting the comparison) current projects
Limited dissemination MoFA will introduce a effort mechanism to track efficacy of demonstration Limited dissemination project that will collect channels farmers feedback/what have farmers learnt from Unclear efficacy of it, and assess farmers dissemination effort deployment of such techniques/methodologies
MoFA will improve dissemination /outreach activities and channels Variable quality of Lack of assessment of farmers satisfaction and MoFA will introduce a AEA/DADU support performance mechanism to track farmers satisfaction and assess DADU performance Gaps in assessment of Gaps in the assessment sub-projects proposals MoFA will train the AEA sub- projects proposals by (availability of water, transport of water, fencing, on assessment of sub- MoFA fire prevention) projects and field verification of needs EPA office in Bolga The setting up of a GIS office in Bolga vs using GoG to present a M&E the GIS EPA unit in Accra needs to be clarified. plan where this matter Both are envisioned under the PAD, there is no will be covered agreement among the team on this CREMA WD: 50% of the work developed so far is Plan for speeding up Slow pace of CREMA sensitization/awareness CREMAS activities to be
33
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
related activities Engaging communities take time. Communities set up for the MTR are sometimes skeptical given the experiences with other projects with no sustainability. On the Plan needs to explain other hand there is a need to make communities how CREMAs will host understand that no land grabbing is involved SLM activities
Regarding the demarcation of CREMA, it has Activities will be been agreed that CREMA’s boundaries will be developed after establish on the map, no physical demarcation management plan will take place
CREMA management plan for site 1 hasn’t been developed MTR Hire a third party familiar MTR due in October 2013 Need to have a report to base the MTR on. with Ghana and Report should be done preferably by a third SLM/community work to party under guidance of both GoG and WB write the report
GoG will prepare the ToR by end of Nov 13. Activities will include, among others, an assessment of deviations from the PAD and PIM and an assessment of cost-effectiveness Annual Plan GoG will provide estimated costs indicating unit MESTI will coordinate Work Plan and Procurement cost and number of units work plans and budgets Plan to be ready by end of to send to the WB by end November 13 Project provides for contingency for physical of November 13 and cost deviations in case of prices changes, currency fluctuations
PCU Finance Manager will inform all implementing agencies on expenditures and balances, that will inform the preparation of the budget for 2014 SADA Integrated spatial master plan planned for 2013 SADA will come up with Ineffective implementation has not been accomplished. Initial mapping is alternative support arrangements under way, however in a very early stage and not implementation between SADA and MESTI linked to sub-projects information nor watershed arrangements: identifying management plans alternative options and justification for each by 15th of November Scale up SLM team was waiting for the watershed GoG will establish Engaging others (farmers, management plans to be ready to establish contact with SOP donors, SOP, SADA contact with SOP afforestation, etc.)
34
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 13. Notes from Technical discussions, 20th December 2013
SLM Work Plan 2014 Meeting
A meeting took place on the 20th of December to discuss the below matters:
Work Plan 2014: i) check whether the WP delivers on the proposed targets, ii) assess the allocation of costs between capacity building and implementation SLM sub-projects. Status of the process of hiring the Consultant to prepare the report that will inform the MTR ToR for Baseline Studies prepared by MoFA and for which the WB provided comments
1. The question why the project is not delivering on the proposed targets has been put on the table. Also the fact that the proposed WP will deliver 60 % of the target has been questioned. Delali (MoFA) informed that the targets have not been properly set upon project design that overlooked the small dimension of farmers. Also the proposed target would require additional activities and the engagement of farmers in larger areas, which is undermined by the small dimension of farmers and labor availability. On the other hand, it takes time for farmers to adopt different practices. Informed that target might be achieved after the end of the project once farmers have confirmed that SLM practices lead to increased productivity.
There has been consensus on the fact that targets set need to be reached during the duration of the project and not after the end of the project.
In order to cope with the small dimension of farmers, working with groups of farmers instead of individual farmers will be a preferable option.
The consultant preparing the report to inform the MTR will liaise with the different team members and assess why the proposed targets have not been reached and the need to review those targets.
2. Expanding areas under SLM in CREMAs. Delali explained that after the CREMAs management plans have been finalized, SLM options will be identified. The process will follow the following steps: defining boundaries identify activities within those boundaries, identify livelihood activities to support, draft the management plan. Mr. Amanquah explained that for site 1 the management plan will be ready by March 2014. After that, DADU extension officers will engage with communities in order to develop sub- projects proposals – this will take 2 months to be completed. This will allow activities to be implemented during the next planting season (end of May-June). So far, no information on the activities that will be taking place in CREMAS can be provided.
3. MoFA provided the team with a diagram of the process and entities involved in watershed management planning, sub-projects design and implementation.
4. The WB asked the team to provide an annotated version of the WP that helps to understand the proposed activities.
5. On what training activities are concerned, there is a need to conduct an assessment of needs for training. On the other hand an assessment of effectiveness of training should take planned.
35
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
6. The WP has been discussed. Comments have been inserted on the attached excel file. Due to time constraint not all activities have been covered. WD indicated the need to have information on how much has been spent by agency in order to know how much can be planned for the remaining of the project. WD will request this to the PCU.
7. Martin informed that an e-mail has been sent to the team on the 19th of December to inform about the BRIKCS project to support SLM in areas that are lagging behind such as M&E and GIS. The team will need to inform the WB of the decision on whether or not pursuing this opportunity.
8. On what the hiring of the consultant to produce the report that will inform the MTR is concerned, Rosemary informed that the Tender Committee has made the decision and that a letter will be sent on Monday after what the consultant will be hired.
Attendants: Delali Nutsukpo, MoFA; Kingsley Amoako, MoFA; Charles Amanquaah, WD; Ms. Rosemary Darko, Procurement Officer, MESTI; Anthony Appianti, EPA; Martin, Fodor, Senior Environmental Specialist, WB and Isabel Abreu, Consultant, WB.
36
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Annex 14. Summary report from the field visit
20th January
Zebilla (Upper East Region), meeting at the District Assembly with DADU Bawku West District: Discussions with DADU staff, MTR Consultant, TCO, MoFA and WB Staff 1. Bottlenecks of demonstration activities (38 current in place against the target of 50): According to DADU, approval process is not aligned with the period when activities should be implemented on the ground (rainy season) which leads to implementation being postponed for 1 year to the next rainy season. Lack of staff for all the activities and communities to cover has been pointed out as a constraint. According to EPA Accra, there was an initially late release of funds leading to delays in watershed management planning exercise and delays in the start of activities on the ground (took place only in 2013, instead of 2012). 1. Creation of farmers groups: DADU indicated that different groups have been created covering areas such as composting and maize production 2. Assessment of local impacts: TCO will provide a report on this 3. Main challenges in the implementation of sub-projects: DADU indicated late release of funds as the main constraint 4. Planned activities for 2014: MoFA indicated that each district will do a minimum of 3 watershed management plans – minimum of 24 watershed management plans Namogo, site visit, farmers’ group implementing sub-projects on tree planting and farmers producing and applying compost 1. Status: Sub-project being implemented by 2 farmers, includes mango and acacia tree planting and composting. According to DADU many other members of the community are now doing composting. 2. Impacts: Farmers reported improved maize yield after applying compost. Reduction in fires has been reported due to less burning practices for farming activities Nakong, future CREMA community 1. Importance of CREMA: Member of the community shared views on the importance of CREMA: importance for next generation to have animals back, using of animals dropping as medicine.
2. Status of CREMA creation: By-laws have been laid out and signed by the involved communities. Demarcation will take place soon, after which project will start implementation.
21st January Bachongsa: in Builsa South (Upper East Region) : Site Visit for Community Consultations The mission team visited a potential CREMA site (Site 2 of the Western biodiversity corridor) for AF 1. Background: This community as a representative community within Site 2, is a potential site suggested for expansion under the additional financing proposal for the SLWMP for CREMA activities. 2. Discussion with the community on the importance of CREMA: members of the community, including women (who were present in high numbers) shared freely their understanding of the CREMA
37
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
concept. This awareness was owing to the earlier NSBCP project which had initiated awareness activities and discussion on CREMA governance structures during its project life. Communities clearly saw the need for conservation activities to ensure that the next generations continue to benefit from the natural resources. The communities relayed their interest in being part of the CREMA. The mission 3. Community level issues for consideration: members of the community raised issues for consideration including: lack of grazing land, need for livestock management, poor access to water, indiscriminate felling of trees for charcoal, high level of bush fire incidences, illegal game hunting, and fishing. 4. Recommendations: Should this community be part of the additional financing to the project, the mission team discussed the options for such communities to visit an established CREMA to better understand its significance and working.
22nd January Meeting with Forest Services Division (Wildlife Staff) in the Wahabu Camp (Gbele Resource Reserve) The mission team held discussion with the wildlife staff (led by Mr. Nana, the GRR Park manager) in the Wahabu camp to review the current work and the potential for expanding the work. 1. Background: The current SLWM project is providing finance for small infrastructure (waterpoints and animal viewing platforms) development, fire management related training and capacity building and updating the Monitoring information system of the WD to capture the floral and faunal species inventory. GRR was established in 1975 with a protected area of 565 Km2. Currently, GRR has 4 main camps and additional 3 satellite camps. 2. Update: The staff provided an update on the current status. There is a staff of 38 (2 women) in existence to date, who are involved in night and day patrolling for law enforcement for encroachment, cleaning of boundary lines, community sensitization (films, brochures documentaries etc) including conservation education in schools. The forest officers need to yet receive training through the WD on fire management so that they in turn could sensitize the communities on the bush fires and fire management within the park. The FC representative clarified that the trainings are planned for this year and that the TOR for waterhole construction is under discussion and the bidding process will soon be initiated by end of February 2014. 3. Issues for consideration: The WD staff proposed the need for further support to the creation of more waterholes, activities to support potential forest reserves (Kulpawn and the Ambalara headwaters FR) within the corridor areas. The team also identified the need for more staff housing (additional rooms in the camps), small access routes, bush fire management and trainings, motorcycles for patrol staff. 4. Recommendations: The mission team noted the issues and clarified the rationale for the additional financing using GEF resources. It reiterated the need for quick action on the inventory and the update of the MIST to enable a better judgment of the current status and proposing additional financing activities. The need for identification and justification of new proposed sites for additional financing would be critical and needs to be done in a timely manner. Jolinyiri (Upper West Region) and Bufiema: in Hamili district (Upper West Region): Sites Visit for Community Consultations The mission team visited two suggested potential site for development of sub-projects and CREMA under the AF.
38
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
1. Background: The community lies within the Site 4 for CREMA development and offers a potential for expansion of subprojects in this new district 2. Discussion with the community on the importance of CREMA: Discussions with the two communities were led by the District Assembly member who mediated the community views. The structure and the level of understanding of both the communities were similar. Members of the communities, including women, did not indicate a clear understanding of the CREMA concept. There were concerns raised about land ownership and some misconceptions on what the project intends to do. Human –wildlife conflict was a serious issue raised by both the communities. The mission team provided some clarifications on the various issues and elaborated on the benefits of natural resources management. 3. Community level issues for consideration: members of the community raised issues more in the form of a wish list including the need for, tractors for farming, vet clinics, livestock management, dug outs, shea butter processing machines, bee-hives, bush fire protection etc. 4. Recommendations: Extensive consultations are required with the communities on the concept of CREMA and suggestions were made to the GoG team to use friendly tools and maps during these discussions to clarify the concept of a biological corridor. Should these communities be part of the additional financing to the project, the mission team discussed the options for such communities to visit an established CREMA to better understand its significance and workings. The mission team also reiterated to the GoG team the need to obtain the baseline data ( demographics, farming types, other initiatives ongoing etc) for these communities to enable better planning of activities
Visit to Bassisan communities, Sissala East District, Upper East region: meeting with community members and field visits of two project subprojects on afforestation 1. Background: the communities have received support from the project, in particular MOFA (sensitization and training on CREMA). Outcomes include the setting up of a fire control committee and, from the community’s list of proposals, a tree planting intervention (subproject). CREMA includes 9 communities; demarcation has not started yet. 2. Discussion with the community on the importance of CREMA: The community expressed mixed understanding of what CREMA and associated subprojects were meant for (e.g. understood as a mere and possibly imposed restricted area) and that they should drive the process for their own benefits (instead of, e.g., being paid for the labour). Speaking in terms of “zoning” for development purposes rather than “demarcation” could be considered. 3. Issues for consideration: The afforestation area was planted uphill in 2013 and was all burnt down due to uncontrolled bush fire; an earlier afforestation and natural regeneration area (2012) located closer to the river bank has provided better and more useful results despite high failure rate. Silted river and degraded savanna forest can indeed justify interventions in the community, although potential impact beyond the community (e.g. downstream) may need to be confirmed; low population densities may not be conducive to the intensification process that SLM approaches convey. Technical improvisation by project teams suggests worrying poor technical capacity/support despite country’s experience on SLM. Associated failures are unlikely to generate much needed trust from the community’s side. One may need to re-assess how to ensure that micro-scale scattered subprojects do generate substantial impact on the broader river basin.
39
DRAFT – OFFICIAL USE ONLY – POST WRAP UP VERSION
Support teams somehow restricted the choice of subprojects to interventions that were not necessarily the most useful nor priority for the community (inter-cropping, water supply for livestock, building on the existing dam…).
Meeting with DADU Director and his team in Tumu, Sissala East District, Upper East region 1. Background: DADU deals with 5 communities (approx. 300 population each), mobilizing 9 technical agents plus an MIS officer. 2. Update: DADU teams have contributed to project related sensitizations of communities and demonstrations as part of overall extension activities. Four watershed plans have been completed. Since 2012, demonstrations (1 acre each) have involved mahogany transplanting and the mucuna+maize cropping system. 28 acres were realized against an initial target of 308. Some were affected by floods and absence of fencing. The objective for 2014 is to implement 5 subprojects proposals that were prepared in 2013. 3. Issues for consideration: According to DADU, slow pace draws from: the fact that this is a learning process; late training of staff on SLM (2013); project activities are only one aspect of DADU’s broader work. 4. Comments: Technical approximations (and associated failures) and questionable methodology for “demonstrations”: possible need to involve other specialized stakeholders (research institutions, other project teams…). Questionable supervision quality from the DADU is unlikely to dramatically change in the long run. MOFA/DADUs should consider SLM activities as fully part of their core agenda (instead of “project related”) to be consistent with the approach promoted under the project (i.e. using existing institutions and not creating new ones) and for action to be sustained and effective in the long run. Structural nature of the DADU-Community relationship and DADU’s reporting governance may not be conducive to an effective community driven process. In a long term perspective, consider a different support delivery system so that whoever the service suppliers are do “report to” communities/CREMAs (e.g. by seconding agents to CREMAs or involving specialized NGOs as brokers).
Visit to Dasima communities, Sissala West District, Upper West Region 1. Status: Two communities have implemented fire belt following training support, as well as a series of technical demonstrations (bounding, zero-tillage, herbicides, mucuna-maize intercropping, alley- cropping). 2. Plans: Five subproject proposals have been submitted and are yet to be implemented, among which a dam and improved pasture for livestock (4 acres of fenced Stylosanthes near village and road). 3. Issues to take into consideration: Within the communities’ area, a Fulani community raises cattle and grow crops on fields of which the fertility has been improved from livestock enclosure (kraal). They’re being blamed for setting fire to the area in order to feed their animals. This community hasn’t been involved in the project supported process yet. 4. Comments: Activities seem more successful than in earlier visits. Need to mobilize appropriate technical support to make sure the improved pasture exercise is implemented successfully. Need to involve broader technical support beyond the project’s scope (essential veterinary services) to support project’s activities that deal with rangeland management. Although sensitive, there is a need to involve the Fulani community in order to promote win-win technical solutions, develop effective watershed management
40