Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 66514-AFR

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 38.7 MILLION (US$60 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA

AND

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 38.7 MILLION (US$60 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL

FOR

THE FIRST SERIES OF PROJECTS UNDER THE SECOND PHASE OF THE

WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (WAAPP-2A)

April 26, 2012

Agriculture and Rural Development Unit (AFTAR)

Sustainable Development Department

Africa Regional Integration Department (AFCRI)

Africa Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official

duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective Date: January 31, 2012)

Currency Unit = United States dollars (US$)

FCFA 498

GHS 1.68

=

=

US$1

US$1

US$ 1.55108 = SDR 1

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFAAS African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services

AFAO Association des femmes de l’Afrique de l’Ouest / West Africa Women’s Association

AFSTA African Seed Trader Association

AFTFM Financial Management Unit, Africa Region, World Bank

AIPO/OAPI African Intellectual Property Organization

APESS Association pour la promotion de l’élévage au Sahel et en Savane /Association for

the Promotion of livestock in the Sahel and Savannah region.

APL Adaptable Program Lending

ARIs Agricultural Research Institutions

ASPEN Africa Safeguard Policy Enhancement

AWP&B Annual Work Plan and Budget

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program

CARGS Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Schemes

CAS Country Assistance Strategies

CAVA Cassava-Adding Value for Africa

CERAAS Centre d’Etude Régional pour l’Amélioration de l’Adaptation à la

Sécheresse/Regional Center for Drought Adaptation Studies

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CORAF/WECARD Conseil Ouest et Centre Afrique pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricole/

West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

COSTAB Project’s Costs Table

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DAF Director of Administration and Finance

DDI Direction de la Dette et des Investissements/ Directorate of Debt and Investments

DISEM Direction des Semence (Senegal)/Directorate of Seeds

DPV Direction de la Production Végétale (Senegal)/ Directorate of Crops

EAs Environmental Assessments

EAAPP Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program

ECOWAP Economic Community of West African Agricultural Policy

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EMPs Environmental Management Plans

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

iii

ESMPs Environmental and Social Management Plans

FA Finance Assistant

FAAP Framework for Africa’s Agricultural Productivity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAOSTAT Statistics of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FBOs Farmers-Based Organization

FFS Farmers Field Schools

FIRCA Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles/

Interprofessional Fund for Agricultural Recherche and Advisory Services

FNRAA Fonds National de Recherches Agricole et Agro-alimentaire/ National Fund for

Agricultural Research and Food

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

IDA International Development Association

IER Institut d’Economie Rurale / Institut of Rural Economy

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IFR Interim Financial Report

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

ISO

ISRA

International Organization of Standardization

Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole / Senegal Institute for Agricultural

Research

ISTA International seed testing association

ITC Information and Communication Technology

KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

LABOSEM Laboratoire des semences

LCV Laboratoire Central Vétérinaire/ Central Veterinarian Laboratory

LTA Laboratoire de Technologie Alimentaire/ Food Science Technology Laboratory

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

METASIP Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (Ghana)

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Ghana)

MoU Memoranda of Understanding

NAIP National Agricultural Investment Programs

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NCB National Competitive Bidding

NCoS National Centers of Specialization

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGOs Non-Government Organizations

NSC National Steering Committee

NSVC-TF National Stakeholder’s Value Chain Task Force

ORAF Operational Risk Assessment Framework

PAD Project Appraisal Documents

PASAOP Programme d'Appui aux Services Agricoles et aux Organisations Paysannes

PCN Project Concept Note

iv

PCU Project Coordinating Unit

PDO Project Development Objectives

PIM Project Implementation Manual

PMP Pest Management Plan

PNIA Programme National d’Investissement Agricole/ National Agricultural Investment

Program

PPP Public-private Partnerships

PPRSD Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate

R&D Research and Development

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RCoE Regional Centers of Excellence

RIAS Regional Integration Assistance Strategy

ROPPA Farmer Organizations and Agricultural Producers

ROPPA Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs agricoles/ Network of

Organisations and Agriculture Producers

RSC Regional Steering Committee

RTIMP Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Project

SARI Savannah Agriculture Research Institute

TTL Task Team Leader

UCTF Technical and Fiduciary Coordinating Unit

VSD Veterinary Service Directorate

WAAPP West African Agricultural Productivity Program

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WASA West Africa Seed Alliance

Regional Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili

Country Director: Elizabeth L. Lule (acting)- Regional

Integration

Yusupha B. Crookes - Ghana

Vera Songwe - Senegal

Sector Director: Jamal Saghir

Sector Manager: Karen Mcconnell-Brooks

Task Team Leader: Abdoulaye Toure

v

AFRICA

The First Series of Projects under The Second Phase of The

West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-2A)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1

A. Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 1

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context ................................................................................. 1

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes .......................................... 2

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................................4

A. PDO............................................................................................................................... 4

Project Beneficiaries ........................................................................................................... 5

PDO Level Results Indicators ............................................................................................. 5

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5

A. Project Components ...................................................................................................... 5

B. Project Financing .......................................................................................................... 7

C. Program Objective and Phases...................................................................................... 7

D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design .................................................. 8

IV. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................9

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements .......................................................... 9

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 10

C. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 11

V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................11

A. Risk Ratings Summary Table ..................................................................................... 11

B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation ................................................................................ 12

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................13

A. Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................... 13

B. Technical ..................................................................................................................... 14

C. Financial Management ................................................................................................ 14

vi

D. Procurement ................................................................................................................ 15

E. Social (including Safeguards) ..................................................................................... 15

F. Environment (including Safeguards) .......................................................................... 16

G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered (if required)...................................................... 17

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring .........................................................................18

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................23

Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................42

Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) .................................................72

Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan ....................................................................................75

Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis ..............................................................................79

Annex 7: Country Summaries ....................................................................................................88

List of tables

Table 1: Status of Phase 1 (WAAPP-1A) Triggers ........................................................................ 4

Table 2: Targetted NCoS, their area of specialization areas and their key partners ....................... 6 Table 3: Project Cost and Financing (‘000 $US) ............................................................................ 7

Table 4: Summary of the results of baseline economic analysis of WAAPP-2A ......................... 14

Table 2.1: Priority and secondary value chains selected by WAAPP-2A country ....................... 29 Table 2.2 WAAPP-2A Project Cost.............................................................................................. 31

Table 2.3 GHANA - COST .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 2.4 SENEGAL - COST ....................................................................................................... 33 Table 2.5: NCoS to RCoE upgrading criteria ............................................................................... 36

Table 2.6: List of improved/adapted varieties/technologies released by WAAPP-1A GHANA

their characteristics and potential impact ...................................................................................... 39 Table 2.7: List of improved/adapted varieties/technologies released by WAAPP-1A SENEGAL,

their characteristics and potential impact ...................................................................................... 41

Table 3.1 M&E Reponsibilities. ................................................................................................... 51

Table 3.2. Fiduciary risk assessment for Ghana ........................................................................... 53

Table 3.3. Fiduciary risk assessment for Senegal and CORAF. ................................................... 55 Table 3.4 Flow of funds ................................................................................................................ 60 Table 3.5: Categories of expenditures .......................................................................................... 61 Table 3.6 Action Plan to address weaknesses / List of conditionalities ....................................... 61 Table 3.7: Risk mitigation for Ghana ........................................................................................... 68

Table 3.10: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review .......................................... 70 Table 5.1: Main focus of implementation ..................................................................................... 76 Table5.2: Proposed skill mix ........................................................................................................ 78

Table 5.3: Role of Other Partners ................................................................................................. 78

vii

Table 6.1: Financial analysis of crop budgets ............................................................................... 84

Table 6.2: Results of Economic Analysis ..................................................................................... 87

List of Boxes

Box 1: WAAPP-1A Risks Assessment ......................................................................................... 12 Box 2.1: Criteria for obtaining the label of RCoE ........................................................................ 27 Box 2.2: Research networks and relation with NARS and CGIAR system ................................. 35

Box 3.1: Institutional Assessment of CORAF/WECARD .......................................................... 42

viii

PAD DATA SHEET

The First Series of Projects under the Second Phase of the

West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-2A)

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

Africa Region

Basic Information

Date: April 26, 2012

Sectors: Agricultural extension and research (70%),

Agro-industry, marketing, and trade (20%),

Public administration- Agriculture, fishing

and forestry (10%)

Acting Country

Director: Elizabeth Laura Lule

Themes: Rural services and infrastructure (30%),

Regional integration (28%), Technology

diffusion (27%), Rural policies and

institutions (10%), Climate change (5%) Sector

Manager/Director:

Karen Mcconnell

Brooks/Jamal Saghir

Project ID: P129565 EA

Category: B - Partial Assessment

Lending

Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan

Team Leader: Abdoulaye Toure

Does the project include any CDD component? No

Joint IFC: No

Recipients (the Participating Countries): Republic of Ghana, Republic of Senegal

Responsible Agency:

CORAF/WECARD for the regional components

7 Avenue Bourguiba

BP 48

Senegal

Contact: Paco Sereme

Title: Executive Director of CORAF

Telephone No: (00221-33) 8699622

Facsmile: (00221-33) 8255569

Email: secoraf@coraf.org

ix

Ghana:

Ministry of Food and Agriculture

P.O. Box M37

Accra

Telephone No: (00233-302) 666567/663036/671360) Contact: The Minister, Ministry of Food

and Agriculture

Facsmile: (00233-302) 663250

Email: infor@mofa.gov.gh

Senegal

Ministere de l’Agriculture

Building Administratif, 3eme etage

BP 4005

Dakar

Telephone No. (00221-33) 8497312

Facsmile: (00221-33) 8233268

Project Implementation

Period:

Start Date: May 22, 2012 End Date: June 30, 2017

Expected Effectiveness Date: October 1, 2012

Expected Closing Date: December 31, 2017

Project Financing Data(US$M)

[ ] Loan [ ] Grant [ ] Other

[ X ] Credit [ ] Guarantee

For Loans/Credits/Others

Total Project Cost (US$M): 131.8

Total Bank Financing (US$M): 120.00

Financing Source Amount(US$ million)

BORROWER/RECIPIENT 11.8

International Development Association

(IDA)

120.0

Total 131.8

Expected Disbursements (in US$ million)

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Total Annual 12 24 28 28 20 8

Cumulative 36 64 92 112 120

x

Ghana Annual 6 12 14 14 10 4

Cumulative 18 32 46 56 60

Senegal Annual 6 12 14 14 10 4

Cumulative 18 32 46 56 60

Project Development Objective (s)

The development objective of WAAPP-2A is to scale-up the generation, dissemination and adoption of

improved technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural commodity areas.

Components

Component Name Cost (US$ million)

Component 1: Enabling conditions for Regional Cooperation in

the Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural

Technologies

7.2

Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (NCoS) 27.4

Component 3: Support to Demand-driven Technology

Generation, Dissemination and Adoption

75.1

Component 4: Project Coordination, Management and

Monitoring and Evaluation

10.3

Compliance

Policy

Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects? Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [ X ] No [ ]

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No

Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X

Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X

Forests OP/BP 4.36 X

Pest Management OP 4.09 X

Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X

Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X

xi

Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X

Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X

Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 X

Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60

Legal Covenants

Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

Description of Conditionality

Effectiveness Conditions:

For Ghana and Senegal: (i) that the Subsidiary Grant Agreement has been executed on behalf of the

Participating Country and CORAF; and (ii) submission of a legal opinion certifying that the Subsidiary

Grant Agreement has been duly authorized by the Participating Country and CORAF and is legally

binding upon the Participating Country and CORAF in accordance with its terms.

Disbursement Condition: no withdrawal shall be made under the regional components until and unless

the Financing Agreements of the two Participating Countries have been executed and delivered and all

conditions precedent to their effectiveness have been fulfilled.

Implementation Covenants

1. Safeguards

Prior to the award of each contract for works to construct, rehabilitate or upgrade the relevant

infrastructure under the Project, the Participating Country shall: (i) furnish to the Association a written

attestation for the specific site where the works will be undertaken, that the works shall not cause or

result in resettlement, or submit to the Association for its review and approval the related site-specific

Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) in accordance with the provisions of the Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF) and in form and substance satisfactory to the Association; (ii) submit to the

Association for its review and approval the related site-specific Environmental and Social Impact

Assessment (ESIA) or Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), as the case may be, in

accordance with the provisions of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and

in form and substance satisfactory to the Association; (iii) consult upon and disclose the site-specific

ESIA or ESMP and RAP, if there is one, as approved by the Association; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that

the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and RAP,

if applicable, are appropriately included in the works contract concluded for the site and that they are

implemented in the carrying out of the relevant parts of the Project.

The Participating Country and CORAF shall follow and apply at all times in the implementation of the

Project the provisions of the Pest Management Plan (PMP) in a timely manner, ensuring that: (i)

mitigation and monitoring measures acceptable to the Association are designed and implemented with

due diligence and employing appropriate environmental expertise; and (ii) adequate information on the

implementation of the measures contained in the PMP is appropriately included in the progress reports.

The Participating Country and CORAF shall take all measures required on their behalf to: (i) screen,

under the relevant parts of the Project, the activities under the research proposals and grants proposals

submitted for financing out of the proceeds of the Credit; (ii) ensure that each Beneficiary: (A) carry out

xii

an appropriate site-specific ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and a RAP, if there is resettlement, for

each such activities in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF and RPF, as the case may be, and in

form and substance satisfactory to the Association; and (B) consult upon and disclose the site-specific

ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and the RAP, if there is one, as approved by the Association; (iii)

verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental/social institutions) before

approving the Research Proposal or Grant proposal that the activities meet the environmental and social

requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that they are consistent with the

Association’s applicable environmental and social assessment and safeguard policies and comply with

the environmental and social review procedures set forth in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) or

the applicable Procedures Manual, as the case may be; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that the relevant

mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and RAP, if there is

one, are appropriately implemented.

The Participating Country and CORAF shall carry out of the Project pursuant to its obligations under,

and in accordance with environmental safeguards and international good practice and standards

consistent with those of, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

2. Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B)

The Participating Country and CORAF shall:

(a) prepare a draft AWP&B for each Fiscal Year, setting forth, inter-alia: (i) a detailed description

of planned activities for its parts of the Project for the following Fiscal Year; (ii) the sources and uses of

funds thereof; and (iii) the responsibility for execution of said Project activities, budgets, start and

completion date, outputs, and monitoring indicators to track progress of each activity;

(b) on or about November 30 of each Fiscal Year and after considering the comments provided by

the National or Regional Steering Committee, as the case may be, furnish to the Association for its

comments and approval, the draft AWP&B and, promptly thereafter, finalize the AWP&B taking into

account the Association’s views and recommendations thereon; and

(c) adopt and sign the final version of the AWP&B in the form approved by the Association not

later than December 31 of such Fiscal Year.

3. Mid-Term Review

The Participating Country and CORAF shall:

(a) maintain policies and procedures adequate to enable it to monitor and evaluate on an ongoing

basis, in accordance with the National or Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators, as the case

may be, the carrying out its parts of the Project and the achievement of the objective thereof;

(b) prepare, under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association, and furnish to the Association,

on or about May 15, 2015, a report integrating the results of the monitoring and evaluation activities and

setting out the measures recommended to ensure the efficient carrying out of its parts of the Project and

the achievement of the objective thereof during the period following such date; and

(c) review with the Association, on or about July 15, 2015, or such later date as the Association

shall request, the report referred to in the preceding paragraph (b), and, thereafter, take all measures

required to ensure the efficient completion of its parts of the Project and the achievement of the objective

thereof, based on the conclusions and recommendations of the said report and the Association’s views

on the matter.

xiii

CORAF Arrangements: Subsidiary Grant Agreement

CORAF shall exercise its rights and carry out its obligations under the Subsidiary Grant Agreement in

such manner as to protect the interests of Ghana, and Senegal and the Association and to accomplish the

purposes of the Credits. Except as the Association shall otherwise agree, CORAF shall not assign,

amend, abrogate or waive the Subsidiary Grant Agreement or any of its provisions.

Team Composition

Bank Staff

Name Title Specialization Unit

Abdoulaye Toure Sr Rural Development

Specialist

Team Leader AFTAR

Claudia Ocana Pardinas Senior Counsel Lawyer LEGAF

Wolfgang M.T. Chadab Senior Finance Officer Disbursement CTRLA

Luis M. Schwarz Senior Finance Officer Disbursement CTRLA

Agadiou Dama Agricultural Services

Specialist

Co-TTL Mali (retiring) AFTAR

Yao Alexis Haccandy Agriculture Economist Co-TTL Senegal AFTAR

Kadir Osman Gyasi Agriculture Economist Co-TTL Ghana AFTAR

Yeyande Sangho Agricultural Economist Co-TTL Mali (new) AFTAR

Kofi Nouve Sr. Agriculture

Economist

Team Member AFTAR

Sossena Tassew Operations Analyst Team Member AFTAR

Aifa Fatimata Niane

Ndoye

Agriculture Economist Team Member AFTAR

Anders Jensen M&E Specialist Team Member AFCW1

Ousmane Megnan Kolie Financial Management

Specialist

FM Team Leader AFTFM

Robert Degraft Hanson Financial Management

Specialist

Team Member AFTFM

Osval Andrade Romao Financial Management

Specialist

Team Member AFTFM

Celestin Adjalou

Gnamien

Financial Management

Specialist

Team Member AFTFM

Adu-Gyamfi Abunyewa Sr Procurement Specialist PS Team Leader AFTPC

Mahamadou Bambo

Sissoko

Procurement Specialist Team Member AFTPC

Mamadou Mansour Procurement Specialist Team Member AFTPC

xiv

Mbaye

Cheikh Sagna Sr. Social Development

Specialist

Team Member AFTCS

Africa E. Olojoba Sr. Environmental

Specialist

Team Member AFTEN

Marie-Claudine Fundi Language Program

Assistant

Team Member AFTAR

Agathe Michèle Tatieta Team Assistant Team Member AFCF1

Rose Abena Ampadu Program Assistant Team Member AFCW1

Moussa Fode Sidibe Team Assistant Team Member AFCW3

Non Bank Staff

Name Title Office Phone City

Hermann Pfeiffer Sr Agricultural Officer FAO/TCIA Rome

Yamina Cherrou Agricultural Officer FAO/TCIA Rome

Frans Goossens Sr Economist, value chain

specialist

FAO/TCIA, consultant Rome

Abdoul-Aziz Sy Sr Agricultural Research

specialist

FAO/TCIA consultant Rome

Locations

Country First

Administrative

Division

Location Planned Actual Comments

1

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

A. Regional Context

1. Agriculture is a dominant economic sector in the Economic Community of West African

States (ECOWAS). About 65 percent of the region’s population lives in rural area and most

depend on agriculture which contributes 35 percent of the regional Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) and over 15 percent of exports. However, the low productivity and growth of the sector1

seriously erodes the competitiveness of West African products on world and domestic markets.

The region is food self-insufficient and food insecure (particularly in the North or in the Sahel).

Regional production covers 80 percent of the population’s food needs in ECOWAS, about 20

percent of its imports being food products. For rice alone, West-Africa imported 4.2 million tons,

with a market value of nearly US$1.9 billion in 2009, according to the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) statistics. As a net importer of cereals (i.e., rice and wheat) and livestock

products, West Africa is severely affected by the current rise in global food, financial and fuel

prices. Intra-regional agricultural trade remains limited and its share of total world agricultural

trade is marginal. Climate change, increasing population, and degradation of natural resources

are posing additional challenges to the rural livelihoods in this natural resources dependent

economy.

2. The ECOWAS members, which are nearly all low income countries2, face an urgent need

for improved agricultural productivity, so as to: (i) satisfy food needs of their growing and

increasingly urbanized population; (ii) promote sustainable economic growth and reduce rural

poverty; and (iii) build a strong regional agricultural market3 for primary and transformed

agricultural products. To this end, ECOWAS has initiated a regional approach through its

agricultural policy (ECOWAP)4, and supported the formulation and implementation of

harmonized National Agricultural Investment Programs (NAIP); during the period 2010-2011,

the ECOWAS Commission for Agriculture coordinated the participatory preparation and

adoption of NAIPs and the three mobilizing and federating programs in the 15 Member States.

The signing of compacts by stakeholders of each country and at regional level is a sign of

commitment that these NAIPs are the main framework for all donors’ interventions.

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context

3. Despite the importance of agriculture for employment, economic growth and exports,

overall agricultural output growth rates have been about the same as population growth. In

addition, the growth of the sector is based primarily on the extensification of production, with

1 A recent study by Fugli (2009) shows that agricultural growth in Sub-Sahara Africa continues to be resource-led

(expansion of cropland and exhaustion of pasture of resources) rather than productivity-led, that is getting more out

of existing resources. For details, see: Keith Fuglie (2009), Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa,

Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 2 Except for Ghana, considered as a mid-income level country since 2010

3 The World Bank (2007), “World Development Report 2008. Agriculture for Development”.

4 In 2005 the ECOWAS Heads of States adopted the ECOWAS Agricultural Policy (ECOWAP), as an instrument

for the coordination of the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), the agricultural

component of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), within the region. CAADP is the key

platform for food and agricultural development in Africa.

2

low productivity, high use of natural resources and low labor remuneration. Women play

important roles in production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. However, they

are not always well taken into account in development policies and strategies for modernizing

the agricultural sector.

4. One of the main challenges in West Africa is to satisfy the demands of a rapidly growing

population that is expected to increase from 300 million in 2011 to about 500 million by 2030.

The recent food, fuel and financial crisis have demonstrated the need to base food security in

West Africa on the utilization of the region's agricultural potential. This option would

simultaneously contribute to economic growth and reduction of poverty. There exist immediate

pathways to achieve rapid growth in agriculture through greater focus on productivity

enhancement. As it will be shown later in this document (Annex 6) it is possible to rapidly

increase yields of key commodities that represent the basis of the West African food security

system. With the adoption of new variety and improved crop management practices, millet yield

can be raised by 30 percent from 600 kg/ha to 780 kg/ha; irrigated rice systems could benefit

from yield increase by nearly 50 percent, from 1,560 kg/ha to 1,950 kg/ha; and cassava yield can

be raised from 14 tons/ha to 20 tons/ha, corresponding to more than 40 percent increase.

5. The West African Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) is a two-phase, ten-year,

horizontal and vertical Adaptable Program Lending (APL) to support the implementation of

CAADP’s agricultural research and development (R&D) pillar, as reflected in the national

agricultural investment plans and the regional mobilizing program. The R&D pillar was further

articulated within the Framework for Africa’s Agricultural Productivity (FAAP). Under the

overall coordination of Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) at continental level,

the mandate for agricultural research for West Africa was given to the West and Central African

Council for Agricultural Research and Development/Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la

Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF/WECARD), henceforth referred to as

CORAF.

6. The overall goal of the WAAPP is to contribute to agricultural productivity increase in

the participating countries. Under the first phase of WAAPP, the Board approved three series of

support projects, including WAAPP-1A (for Mali, Senegal, and Ghana) in 2007, WAAPP-1B

(for Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Nigeria) in 2010, and WAAPP-1C (for Benin, Guinea

Liberia, Niger, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, and Togo) in 2011. While there is still a need to

complete the coverage of all ECOWAS countries, with the inclusion of Guinea, Guinea Bissau,

and Cap Verde in the program, since the countries under the WAAPP-1A are already at the end

of the first phase of the program they have thus requested to start their second phase.

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes

7. The WAAPP will continue to be an instrument of the World Bank’s Regional Integration

Assistance Strategy (RIAS) for West Africa and its Regional Action Plan for Sub-Saharan

Africa. The program also supports the implementation of the Country Assistance Strategies

(CAS) in the region, and contributes to achieving two principal objectives of the Bank: (i) make

agriculture more productive and sustainable to increase economic growth, improve food security,

and reduce poverty; and (ii) support regional integration. The WAAPP-2A will continue to

provide a regional framework for ECOWAS countries to collaborate in the implementation of

national and regional agricultural strategies for technology generation, dissemination and use in

3

local farming systems. These interventions are expected to contribute to increased agricultural

productivity and overall economic growth while reducing poverty in beneficiary countries.

8. In light of the results achieved under the first phase, the extension of the program into its

second phase for the first series of participating countries5 (Ghana and Senegal) is justified.

However, WAAPP-2A for Mali could not be processed at this time as the Bank has suspended its

operation in Mali due to the existing political situation. Therefore, this PAD will only cover

Ghana and Senegal. Since 2007, the WAAPP-1A countries have been working on strengthening

agricultural productivity of root and tuber crops in Ghana, drought-resistant cereals in Senegal

and rice in Mali. Overall, WAAPP-1A made satisfactory progress towards achieving its

development objectives. With still one year prior to the closing date (December 2012), all PDO

indicators are on track of meeting their targets. Specifically: (i) project beneficiaries (180,000 in

February 2012) are expected to reach 275,000 beneficiaries at the end of the project, and 40

percent of the beneficiaries are expected to be women; (ii) 17 technologies have already been

released, all of which are showing potential yield improvement of 20 to 40 percent ; (iii) about

100,000 ha (out of the 171,000 ha expected) are covered with improved technologies made

available through the project; and (iv) regional integration activities are being consolidated

through the researchers exchange program which involved around 100 persons and through the

exchange of genetic materials involving over 100 improved cultivars that have crossed the

borders and are being tested and demonstrated in recipient countries.

9. It is worth noting that while only 65 percent of the targets for the number of beneficiaries

and the area under improved technologies were reached as of February 2011, the project is on

track of reaching or even surpassing the targets. The adoption of the varietal technologies that

have been released through WAAPP-1A follows an exponential expansion curve in the first

years of adoption, both in terms of the number of beneficiaries and areas covered. One of the

main factors limiting adoption was the lack of sufficient quantities of improved seed and planting

materials, which has been addressed through the scaling-up of seed/planting materials

multiplication programs during the 2011 cropping seasons (mainly rainy and the off seasons). As

regards the gender target, the project has reached a total of around 30 percent of women

beneficiaries. The project closing date has been extended to December 2012, allowing the

process of adoption to continue during the 2012 cropping season and this is a factor which will

contribute to achieve the PDO targets.

10. In addition, as shown in Table 1 below, the triggers for moving from the first to the

second phase have all been reached in the two participating countries. That is: (i) both countries

have ratified the common ECOWAS regulations for the registration of genetic materials and

pesticides and started implementation; (ii) they have either established (Ghana) or strengthened

(Senegal) their national registration systems for plant materials and pesticides; (iii) National

Centers of Specialization (NCoS) have been established and are operating and each NCoS has

involved several researchers from participating countries under the visiting scientists program;

and (iv) competitive research grant schemes are satisfactorily operating in the two countries.

11. At the regional level, noteworthy are the significant improvements of CORAF’s role in

preparing, supervising and coordinating the program as well as in leading the preparation and

5 Preparation of WAAPP-2A was stopped right after negotiations because the Bank suspended its operation due to

the political situation. The second phase for Mali will be processed at a later stage and as soon as the Bank re-

engages its operations.

4

dissemination of studies. This has helped forge a harmonized vision, and develop common

strategies and priority action plans for strengthening regional cooperation in technology

generation, dissemination and adoption. Both the national and regional apparatus are in place for

a successful consolidation and scaling-up of program results in the WAAPP-1A countries over

the next five years.

Table 1: Status of Phase 1 (WAAPP-1A) Triggers

Triggers Ghana Senegal

Common regulations for the

registration of genetic materials

and pesticides

Each country has ratified the common ECOWAS

regulations for the registration of genetic materials and

pesticides and launched the implementation.

Functional national registration

systems for genetic materials

and pesticides

The national variety release

committee and pesticides

registration committee held

several meetings and

validation workshops to

review and harmonize

protocols and release new

technologies.

The Comité national

consultatif des semences

et des plantes and the

Sous-comité national de

gestion des produits

chimiques have been

strengthened and operate

to release several

technologies.

NCoS established and

operational

The CSIR Crop Research

Institute has been

strengthened to become the

NCoS for Root and tuber

Crops and is supported by

other institutions such as

the Food Research Institute

(FRI), Soil Research

Institute (SARI), and PGRI.

The Centre d’Etude

Régional pour

l’Amélioration de

l’Adaptation à la

Sécheresse (CERAAS)

has been strengthened to

become the NCoS for

dry cereals.

CARGS system consolidated

Research exchange program 14 visiting scientists and 4

study tours (19

participants) organized as

of December 2011.

7 visiting scientists and 3

study tours (17

participants) organized

as of December 2011.

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

A. PDO

12. The development objective of WAAPP-2A is to scale-up the generation, dissemination

and adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural

commodity areas. The participating countries’ priority areas are aligned with the region’s top

agricultural commodity priorities, as outlined in the ECOWAP. Reaching this objective implies:

(i) strengthening the regional cooperation in the generation of technology; (ii) scaling-up

dissemination and training programs focused on regional and national priority commodities; and

(iii) developing collaborative mechanisms (through Memorandum of Understanding or MOUs)

and synergies with the governments’ subsidy programs as well as with other projects and

programs intervening along the targeted value chains.

5

Project Beneficiaries

13. The Project’s primary beneficiaries are the producers, processors and all other actors of

the selected value chains. The beneficiaries include also the key participants in the generation

and dissemination of technology, including researchers, extensionist, public and private

extension services and advisory agencies, research institutions, universities, NGOs, and

government agencies involved in value chains management.

PDO Level Results Indicators

14. The expected outcome at the end of the Project are: (i) direct project beneficiaries reach

at least 2,100,000, of which 40 percent female; (ii) 15 technologies, with at least 15 percent

productivity increase over the control for each technology that is generated by the Project (NCoS

and Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Schemes or CARGS); (iii) 80 percent of Producers

have a knowledge of the generated/released technologies by the end of the Project; (iv)

1,900,000 ha are covered with new technologies; (v) at least 1,240,000 processors/producers, i.e.,

60 percent of Project beneficiaries, have adopted at least one of the new technologies; and (vi) 20

percent of the beneficiaries have used technologies generated in other countries.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Components

15. The proposed WAAPP-2A development objective, components, results framework,

outcome indicators, build on the achievements of WAAPP-1A and takes into account lessons

learned from the preparation of WAAPP-1B and WAAPP-1C and from the implementation of

Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (EAAPP).

16. Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in the Generation,

Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies (US$7.9 million of which US$7.2

million IDA). This component aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the

exchange of technologies, so as to allow participating countries to benefit fully from the regional

cooperation in technology generation and exchange. The component includes two sub-

components: (i) Implementation of ECOWAS common regulations on genetic materials,

pesticides, fertilizer and veterinary products; and (ii) Implementation of regional WAAPP

strategies, which consist of mainstreaming regional strategies into national action plans including

activities related to (a) Knowledge management, information, and communications systems; (b)

Mainstreaming Gender; (c) Mainstreaming Climate Change; (d) Sustained mechanism to

financing agriculture research and development; (e) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR); and (f)

Environmental and social management safeguards.

17. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization - NCoS (US$28.4 million of which

US$27.4 million IDA). This component aims at strengthening regional cooperation in

technology generation by aligning national priorities with the regional ones. It will support the

upgrading of the National Centers of Specialization (NCoS) into Regional Centers of Excellence

(RCoE). It will also strengthen relevant national research centers associated with NCoS in the

development of the value chain and facilitate synergies with relevant Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and other international research centers. It will

mainly finance construction and rehabilitation of core infrastructure, ISO certification of the

NCoS, capacity building, grants to implement core research activities and capacity strengthening

6

for CORAF. The details of the activities under Component 2 including the list of evaluation

criteria and the description of the upgrade process of the NCoS to RCoE are found in Annex 2.

Table 2: Targeted NCoS, their area of specialization areas and their key partners

Country Host Institution for

NCoS

NCoS Area of

specialization

National

Research

Centers

associated with

the NCoS

International

Technical

Partners

Ghana

Council for Scientific

and Industrial Research

(CSIR)

Crop Research

Institute (CRI)

Root & Tuber

Crops

Food Research

Institute,

Savannah Arid

Research

Institute, Plant

genetic Research

Institute, Soil

Research Institute

IITA, CIP,

CIAT

Senegal

Institut Sénégalais de

Recherche Agricole

(ISRA/CERAAS)

Centre d’Etudes

Régional pour

l’Amélioration

de l’Adaptation

à la Sécheresse

(CERAAS)

Dry Cereals

(millet,

sorghum,

maize, fonio)

Institut de

Technologie

Alimentaire

(ITA) ;

Bureau

d’Analyses

Macro-

économiques

(BAME) and

Centre National

de Recherches

Agronomiques

(ISRA/CNRA)

of Bambey

ICRISAT

CIRAD

Source: CORAF

18. Component 3: Support to Demand-driven Technology Generation, Dissemination

and Adoption (US$84.7 million of which US$75.1 million IDA). This component aims at

strengthening priority-focused demand-driven agricultural R&D, scale-up technology

dissemination and adoption within participating countries and facilitating access to improved

genetic material. It includes three sub-components: (i) Demand-driven Technology Generation

that will continue to strengthen the regional CARGS managed by CORAF and the existing

CARG scheme in each of the participating countries; (ii) Support to Accelerated Adoption of

Released Technologies that will scale-up the adoption of released technologies to continue

bridging the gap between farmers’ and researchers’ yields for selected priority commodities. The

strategy consists of disseminating technologies developed under WAAPP-1A by the NCoS and

strengthening of technology delivery systems, in order to achieve rapid but sustainable impact on

the ground. In this regard, the project will work closely with government subsidy programs as

well as with other projects and programs intervening along the targeted value chains; and (iii)

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material that will increase the availability of and

producers’ access to improved genetic materials (seed, planting materials, and animal breeds) for

the targeted priority value chains.

7

19. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$10.8 million of which US$10.3 million IDA). The Project will continue to be coordinated:

(i) at the national levels by existing national coordinating units, which successfully coordinated

the implementation of WAAPP-1A; and (ii) at the regional level by CORAF on the basis of a

well-defined mandate agreed by the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) under the Annual Work

Plan and Budget (AWP&B).

B. Project Financing

Lending Instrument

20. The lending instrument of the Program is a regional IDA of 10-year horizontal and

vertical APL consisting of two phases, each lasting five years. The horizontal APL, which started

in 2007 with IDA financing to three countries, has covered three series of projects and provided

a financing to a total of 13 ECOWAS countries. WAAPP-2A is intended to start the vertical APL

by providing IDA financing for the first series of projects under the second phase of the APL, so

as to consolidate and scale-up program results in Ghana and Senegal and achieve the overall

PDO of the Program.

Table 3: Project Cost and Financing (‘000 $US)

Project Components

Project

cost

IDA

Financing

%

Financing

Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in the

Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural

Technologies. 7.1 6.6 5.4

Component 2. National Centers of Specialization 27.5 26.5 22.1

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven Technology Generation,

Dissemination and Adoption. 78.3 68.6 56.1

Component 4. Program Coordination, Management and Monitoring

and Evaluation 9.4 8.8 7.4

Total Baseline Costs 122.3 110.5 91.0

Physical contingencies 0.4 0.4 0.4

Price contingencies 9.1 9.1 7.6

Total Project Costs 131.8 120.0 100.0

Source: WAAPP 2A COSTAB

C. Program Objective and Phases

21. As stated earlier the WAAPP is a program used to support the implementation of

ECOWAP through the implementation of CAADP’s fourth pillar.

22. The development objective of the Program is to contribute to sustained agricultural

productivity growth in the top priority commodity subsectors of ECOWAS, as reflected in

ECOWAP. The priority subsectors were identified in an International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI) study that was commissioned by CORAF and adopted under ECOWAP. In

addition to aquaculture, which was not covered in the study, the Program will focus on

enhancing the development of roots and tubers, livestock, rice, maize, sorghum and millet, fruits

and vegetables, and oilseeds. The IFPRI/CORAF study found that these commodity subsectors

8

make the greatest contribution to the region’s agricultural growth and food security and can thus

contribute substantially to reducing extreme poverty by 2015.

23. The Program thus will support ECOWAS countries in: (i) creating the enabling

conditions for technological cooperation by harmonizing regulations; (ii) marshalling the

financial and human resources to develop a sound research program for each priority commodity

within regional centers of specialization; (iii) sharing technologies that are already available as

well as the technologies that will be developed and released by the centers of specialization; and

(iv) scaling up the regional adoption of these technologies by developing common strategies to

promote the use of improved genetic materials, yield-enhancing technologies, postharvest

technologies, and best practices to accelerate sustainable, positive change in agricultural

productivity. Through these efforts, the Program will be an important instrument for ECOWAS

countries to implement the recently adopted ECOWAP.

24. Phase 1 was an initiation phase that sets up the Program’s framework in terms of the

enabling environment and the mechanisms for sharing technology, developing a center of

specialization for each of the targeted commodities, and setting up the mechanisms to accelerate

technology generation and adoption.

25. Phase 2, while building on the first phase’s structure and achievements, will be a

deepening and expansion phase that will see further strengthening of the enabling conditions for

regional cooperation and M&E, consolidating the NCoS initiated in phase 1, mainstreaming the

demand-driven competitive agricultural grant scheme and scaling up adoption of the released

improved technologies with an emphasis on adoption of improved seeds, plants, breed stocks,

and fingerlings.

26. The targeted outcome at the end of the 10-year program will be: (i) 30 percent

productivity increase (farmers’ yield) achieved over the control technology in at least two of the

region’s top priority commodity sub-sectors in each participating country; and (ii) adoption of

improved varieties by at least 70 percent of project beneficiaries, with clear spill-over effects

across participating countries.

D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design

27. Key lessons are learned from the implementation of the first phase of WAAPP-1A and

the preparation of the series that followed (WAAPP-1B and 1C). Lessons learned from the

implementation of the first phase reinforce the need for the second phase of the program to adopt

a two pronged approach built around strengthening regional cooperation and scaling-up

technology generation and mainly dissemination and adoption. Specific lessons learned are the

following:

(i) Given the large number of countries participating in WAAPP, the regional

planning, exchange and monitoring mechanisms should be clearly defined and

harmonized at design stage to optimize regional exchanges and synergies, focusing

on regional and national priorities for R&D;

(ii) In recognition of the need to mainstream a value chain approach in R&D activities,

the NCoS should cover key segments along the considered value chain and the

NCoS concept should be broadened to also include research institutions that

specialize in processing and post-harvest;

9

(iii) Regional integration enhances a pooled demand for improved technologies at

regional level. Lessons learned show that dissemination action plans, including

strengthened research-development linkages and scaling-up of the adoption of

improved technologies, work best when they involve public and private extension

services and partner with farmers’ organizations and the private sector;

(iv) To allow for improved complementarities between agricultural R&D at the national,

regional and international levels, the functions and responsibilities of CGIAR

institutes, CORAF and NCoS should be clearly defined applying the principle of

subsidiarity; and

(v) For increased sustainability, the articulation and integration of WAAPP within

regional and national agricultural sector investment programs should be

strengthened.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

28. The institutional arrangements set up for WAAPP-1A are still relevant and will continue

to govern WAAPP-2A implementation. Each country and CORAF will maintain and strengthen

the existing steering committees and project coordination units (PCUs). The national steering

committees will meet at least twice each fiscal year and the regional steering committee will

meet at least once each fiscal year to undertake, among others, approval of draft Annual Work

Plan and Budget (AWP&B), approval of annual report, and review of implementation progress.

Each country has updated its PIM, based on lessons learned, especially in the key areas which

are related to priority setting for research and extension activities and M&E of Project outcomes

and outputs.

29. At the national level the institutional arrangements are: (i) for Ghana the Ministry of

Food and Agriculture (MoFA) will be responsible for the oversight of the Project; the

coordination of the Project will be entrusted to the PCU established by MoFA and which has

been coordinating WAAPP-1A; and (iii) for Senegal, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) will be

responsible for the implementation of WAAPP-2A. It will delegate the overall coordination,

M&E to the existing Technical and Fiduciary Coordinating Unit (UCTF) which was established

by PSAOP and is implementing WAAPP-1A and GEF’s Sustainable Land Management Project.

Detailed implementation arrangements in each of the two countries are presented in Annex 3.

30. At the regional level, project coordination will continue to be entrusted to CORAF which

has already demonstrated the capacity to coordinate preparation and implementation of the three

series of the first phase.

31. At least one-fifteenth (1/15th

) of the proceeds of each participating country’s IDA

financing will be made available to CORAF. Each country will conclude a subsidiary grant

agreement with CORAF, detailing the nature of technical support and coordination expected

from CORAF and the level of financial support to be provided to CORAF by each participating

country. CORAF will use approximately 1/3rd

of the proceeds for regional coordination activities

and approximately 2/3rd

for the regional CARGS.

32. In order to speed up dissemination of project results and ensure achievement of the PDO

10

during this second phase, CORAF will build further synergies with some regional organizations,

that have a large network coverage, including the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory

Services (AFAAS), the Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organizations of West

Africa (ROPPA), the West Africa Seed Alliance (WASA), the relevant CGIAR centers (IITA,

ICRISAT, AfricaRice), the International seed testing association (ISTA), the African Seed

Trader Association (AFSTA), the Association des femmes de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (AFAO), the

Association pour la promotion de l’élévage au Sahel et en Savane (APESS), etc.

33. Component 1 will continue to be implemented by CORAF and the national coordination

units of each country on the basis of annual work plans and results-based Memoranda of

Understanding (MoU) concluded with each of the concerned directorates of the Ministries of

Agriculture and/or other implementing partners. The MoU will delegate responsibility for project

implementation to the relevant directorate or partner and will set forth the implementation

details.

34. Component 2 will be implemented by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

(CSIR) in Ghana and the Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole (ISRA) in Senegal on the

basis of the AWP&B approved by the national WAAPP Steering Committees.

35. While the national window under Sub-component 3.1 will be implemented by the

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in Ghana and the Fonds National de

Recherches Agricole et Agro-alimentaire (FNRAA) in Senegal, the regional window of Sub-

component 3.1 will be implemented by CORAF.

36. Components 3.2 and 3.3 will be managed by the project coordination units on the basis of

contractual arrangements to be concluded with suitable public and private service providers in

accordance with the provisions of the PIM.

37. Component 4 will be implemented by the PCUs at the national level and by CORAF at

the regional level.

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation

38. At the country level, the PCUs will be responsible for the internal monitoring of Project

indicators and outcomes as defined in the Results Framework. Each M&E unit, as well as all key

implementing agencies will produce semi-annual progress reports along with notes synthesizing

information on the national priority sector and information on research grants and results.

External service providers will be recruited to organize the required reference and evaluation

surveys in project implementation years 1 and 3 (which will complete the baseline surveys under

Component 2). As the second phase of the 10-years program, WAAPP-2A will build on the

results of WAAPP-1A. Since the end-of-project results of the WAAPP-1A are not yet available,

the baseline for WAAPP-2A will be updated in year 1, so as to fully account for the results of the

first phase. Detailed M&E responsibilities are presented in Annex 3.

39. The NCoS in participating countries will be responsible for measuring the impact of

technologies released and transferred under Component 2. To this end, the NCoS will carry out

farm surveys to measure the indicators on productivity improvement and technology adoption.

Such panel surveys will be conducted over the Project’s life cycle and will include both a control

group and beneficiaries of released technologies. They will also perform supply chain analysis

and benchmarking to identify on a regular basis any knowledge gaps and key areas for future

11

research programs, as well as to provide an update on country progress and performance along

the commodity chains in their particular areas of specialization.

40. External monitoring (supervision) and implementation support will be ensured by the

respective Governments in close collaboration with the World Bank and CORAF.

41. CORAF will have the responsibilities of monitoring program outcomes and impact at the

regional level by: (i) subcontracting with appropriate regional and international agencies to

update studies on the region’s agricultural productivity; (ii) producing an annual consolidated

report, based on the countries’ reports and their specific studies, to be shared with all ECOWAS

countries; (iii) informing participating countries on a yearly basis on implementation progress

and the use of funds transferred from country proceeds, with all relevant documents (including

financial statements and audits, and progress reports) as approved by its Steering Committee; and

(iv) maintaining the web-based databases on grant administration and results while developing

and maintaining an agricultural research resource database in terms of publications and research

skills available in the region.

C. Sustainability

42. As specified in the Project Appraisal Documents (PAD) of WAAPP-1B and WAAPP-1C,

the Project’s sustainability critically relies on: (i) the development of clear mechanisms for

disseminating and sharing technologies across countries; (ii) the establishment of recognized

Regional Centers of Excellence (RCoE); (iii) the efficiency and sustainability of the agricultural

advisory systems; and (iv) the development of appropriate financing mechanisms (budgetary

contributions) to support core operations of the regional institutions (CORAF and NCoS). The

proposed Project will contribute to WAAPP’s long-term sustainability by helping participating

countries to set up a sustainable funding mechanism, including contributions from governments

and beneficiaries, to finance future technology generation and dissemination. The setting of such

mechanism will draw on successful experience in the region, such as the experience of the Fonds

Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles (FIRCA) in Côte d’Ivoire. In

addition, strengthened NCoS and technology generation and dissemination systems with full

participation of the private sector, and adoption of highly productive technologies by

beneficiaries are expected to further strengthen the sustainability of the Program’s activities.

V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

A. Risk Ratings Summary Table

Risk Rating

Stakeholder Risk M

Implementing Agency Risk M

- Capacity M

- Governance L

Project Risk

- Design L

- Social and Environmental L

12

Risk Rating

- Program and Donor L

- Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability M

Overall Implementation Risk M

B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation

43. Based on the assessment of risks identified in phase one (refer Box 1), the major risks

related to the second phase of the Program are: (i) capacity constraints due to weak capacity and

aging research and extension staff; (ii) weak regional exchanges complementarities and

comparative advantages; (iii) dispersion of efforts because of lack of priority setting; and (iv)

limited integration into the implementation mechanisms of the national agricultural investment

programs.

44. In order to mitigate the risks, the Project will support: (i) planning and implementing a

national capacity building action plan, including on-the job and academic training for young

researchers, and backstopping from CGIAR centers; (ii) strengthening of mechanism to

exchange improved technologies between WAAPP-countries; (iii) using competitive research

grant systems on the basis of a clear targeted priority program at national and regional levels; (iv)

integrating WAAPP coordinating units into harmonized national investment coordination

systems; and (v) adoption of a sustainable financing mechanism for technology generation and

dissemination.

Box 1: WAAPP-1A Risks Assessment

Key risks to the PDO identified for WAAPP-1A included: (i) break down of cooperation between CORAF and

national coordination units; (ii) inadequate core funding for CORAF during implementation; (iii) inability of

CORAF to maintain a coherent program across ECOWAS countries; and (iv) lack of coordinated approach for

donors’ interventions in technology generation and dissemination. The risk factors (ii) and (iv) were rated

moderate whereas the risk factors (i) and (iii) were rated negligible and substantial, respectively. Close IDA

monitoring of project implementation by countries and CORAF has been a determining factor in keeping the

level of identified risks within manageable limits. And since the monitoring arrangements will be maintained

for phase 2, as a result all of these risks may be considered as being low or moderate as the program moves to

its second phase.

As regards to project components, four key risks (all rated moderate) were identified. These are: (i) regional

consensus on mechanisms for sharing technology knowledge and product not developed; (ii) country

commitment for funding centers of specialization is weak; (iii) rigorous standards and review mechanism of

CARGS are not applied; and (iv) linkages between development projects to promote adoption of technologies

are weak. The assessment of these risks show that the project has achieved significant results in strengthening

the mechanisms for sharing technologies between countries and in rigorously applying the CARGS guidelines,

and these two risks are today lower than at the beginning of the project. In addition, countries have

demonstrated strong commitments in funding the NCoS and progress is being made to strengthen technology

adoption through greater synergies with development projects and programs. However, the success and

sustainability of the project critically depends on setting up a sustainable mechanism for funding agriculture

research and development on the one hand, and for ensuring large scale adoption of improved technologies on

the other hand. Therefore, these two risks are still assessed to be moderate and will require close monitoring

during the implementation of the second phase of the program.

13

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

A. Economic and Financial Analysis

45. The financial and economic analysis estimates returns at national and regional levels

from improved productivity and efficiency in priority value chains supported by WAAPP-2A.

Expected benefits are due to: (i) the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved

production and processing technologies; (ii) enhanced technology spillovers between ECOWAS

countries arising from cross-border transfer of technologies and networking of researchers; and

(iii) sound communication and agriculture advisory services to enhance the Project’s

effectiveness in the field of dissemination.

46. In view of the need to harmonize the methodologies used to assess prospective returns to

the different series/phases of the WAAPP, this ex-ante economic and financial analysis for the

WAAPP-2A uses the same methodology (minimum national impact assessment) as the first

phase of WAAPP.

47. The financial analysis of crop budgets of the priority crops shows the impact on financial

profitability to be large, with all crop models financially viable. Yield increases vary between 25

and 48 percent with use of improved technologies and crop husbandry practices. All models are

financially profitable, which demonstrates the sound basis of the technology dissemination

process.

48. The results from the economic analysis show that WAAPP-2A is an economically

acceptable project. Table 4 summarizes the average yield required for the Project to breakeven at

the end of the fifth year under different scenarios. The baseline scenario is a situation with no

spillovers in which Project activities are confined in Senegal and Ghana. In such a scenario, the

estimated average yield increase required for the Project to be economically viable is 7.3 percent

for millet in Senegal, and 8 percent for cassava in Ghana. The improved millet, rice and cassava

technologies should be applied on approximately 1 million hectares in the two participating

countries. Given the agroecological similarities across West Africa, the Project is expected to

generate spillovers for the three participating countries as well as the other ECOWAS countries

(e.g., cassava between Ghana and Togo; millet between Senegal and Mali and/or Ghana; and rice

between Mali and Senegal and/or Ghana). Under the two spillover scenarios, the minimal annual

growth rates of yields to breakeven (i.e. reach an Internal Rate of Return of 12 percent) are

significantly lower and attainable in each country, as shown in the table. Detailed results of the

economic and sensitivity analysis are presented in Annex 6.

14

Table 4: Summary of the results of baseline economic analysis of WAAPP-2A

Baseline scenario

Average yield increase required

to breakeven at the end of the 5th

year

SENEGAL

(i) Without spillovers 7.3%

(ii) With spillovers in Ghana and Senegal 3.6%

(iii) With spillovers in West Africa 1.1%

MALI

(i) Without spillovers 3.7%

(ii) With spillovers in Ghana and Senegal 3.1%

(iii) With spillovers in West Africa 1.1%

GHANA

(i) Without spillovers 8.0%

(ii) With spillovers in Togo 5.9%

(iii) With spillovers in West Africa 2.1%

B. Technical

49. The Project’s design is based on existing institutions which have been strengthened

during the implementation of WAAPP-1A and have demonstrated high competence to

implement project activities. The design incorporated lessons learned from the implementation of

WAAPP-1A and the preparation of WAAPP-1B and WAAPP-1C. In addition, the Project is

firmly anchored in the national medium term agricultural investment programs prepared through

the CAADP process. Furthermore, the preparation was done through a participatory process that

led to strong stakeholder ownership in participating countries. All readiness conditions have been

met and the project is ready to start disbursing resources from the first year.

C. Financial Management

50. A Financial Management (FM) assessment of WAAPP-2A was conducted in December

2011, by the Bank’s FM team, in accordance with the new Financial Assessment Principles.

During its assessment, the Bank’s FM team consulted the various texts establishing the national

institutions in charge of implementing the Project and reviewed the fiduciary arrangements of

proposed implementing entities which have experience in managing IDA financing. A review of

the FM capacity of the entities involved in the implementation of WAAPP-2A identified inherent

and control risks, for which the team developed corresponding mitigation measures. The residual

control risk is Moderate. The proposed FM arrangements for this Project are considered adequate

to meet the Bank’s minimum fiduciary requirements under OP/BP 10.02. The implementing

entities are compliant with the Bank’s FM requirements and there are no overdue audit reports

and interim financial reports from these entities. The detailed assessment, together with the

proposed arrangements for disbursements, accounting, auditing, and monitoring, are provided in

Annex 3.

15

D. Procurement

51. Procurement assessments for CORAF and the implementing agencies in Ghana and

Senegal were done during the period September to December 2011. The assessments reviewed

the procurement procedures, organizational structures and functions, staffing, staff skills, quality

and adequacy of supporting and control systems, etc., at the country and project management

levels. The overall risk for procurement (prior to mitigation measures) is considered Medium-L

for CORAF because of the strong human resource and technical capacity strengthening and their

experience in implementing WAAPP projects. Overall risks for procurement in Ghana was high

even though they have previous experience in implementing Bank-funded projects including

WAAPP-1A, but have now lost all their experienced procurement specialists. On the other hand,

for Senegal, the overall procurement risk is medium-L due to the implementing agency’s

experience in implementing other Bank financed projects including WAAPP-1A. The

assessments recommended a number of actions to mitigate the procurement risks as enumerated

in Annex 3 of this PAD. With the implementation of these measures the procurement risks are

expected to be reduced to Medium-L for the entire project.

52. For the proposed Project, the following guidelines will apply: (i) "Guidelines:

Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits

& Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011; "Guidelines: Selection and

Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank

Borrowers" dated January 2011; and (ii) “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and

Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants”, dated October 15,

2006, and revised in January 2011.

E. Social (including Safeguards)

53. WAAPP-2A is expected to have no significant negative social impacts. Project

beneficiaries are mainly small-scale farmers who dominate African agriculture not only in local

food production, but also production for regional and international markets - in which women

play a critical role. The Project will work to ensure that the circumstances of small-scale farmers,

particularly women, are accounted for in setting priorities for the CARGS and implementing the

research they finance. The grant schemes will require, for example, that bids for competitive

grants clearly identify the farm population that will benefit from the research. Adaptive research

will be conducted in farmers’ fields. Competitive grants to implement R&D will be open to

producers’ organizations and agribusiness associations and not only to research organizations.

The Project will work with development operations and public–private partnerships to promote

producers’ use of technologies.

54. Under WAAPP-1A, -1B and -1C, CORAF has recently designed a regional gender

strategy to mainstream gender considerations in technology generation and adoption. The Project

will support implementation of this strategy in each participating country, and the strategy will

be improved with the proposed Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment. The assessment will

highlight country-specific initiatives and national strategies to further mainstream gender

dimensions considerations in the agricultural sector, and it will capture potential sources of

human conflict, especially between herders and farmers, which if not mitigated could have

serious negative impacts on the Project.

16

55. As a Category B Project, the foreseen social impacts are expected to be local, sites

specific and easily manageable. The Involuntary Resettlement operational policy (OP/BP 4.12) is

triggered because of the expected land acquisition, loss of assets or loss of access to livelihoods

support means upon which local beneficiary communities depend. To comply with World

Bank’s OP/BP 4.12 policy principles and guidelines, the participating countries under the

leadership of CORAF have prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) applicable to each

country on how to comply with the above-mentioned land use/right issues. The RPF is available

and has been cleared by both CORAF and World Bank. It was adopted by each country,

consulted upon, and publicly disclosed in the participating countries and at the InfoShop on

February 9, 2012.

F. Environment (including Safeguards)

56. WAAPP-2A is expected to have a positive environmental impact through its support for

agricultural technologies that promote better use of land and water resources. Potential

environmental risks could include point and nonpoint pollution of water sources, other issues

associated with the use of agricultural chemicals, and negative environmental impacts associated

with the rehabilitation of irrigation or small-scale civil works on research stations. Research on

transgenic crops is neither explicitly planned nor excluded. If it becomes part of the research

agenda supported under the Project, it will proceed with environmental safeguards consistent

with international good practice and the regulatory framework of the host country. In particular,

such research must be done in accordance with the obligation of each country under international

treaties to which it is a party, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Potential adverse

environmental impacts associated with the NCoS activities will be of low intensity, minor, site

specific, and handled under safeguard measures already in place for ongoing activities.

57. Mitigation measures under the Project will include: the application of integrated pest

management practices and the application and promotion of pesticide management practices

outlined in the guidelines of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of

Pesticides; risk management for transgenic crops through the national biosafety framework and

international best practice; and the use of environmental impact assessments as appropriate for

minor civil works.

58. WAAPP-2A builds on WAAPP-1A, the first phase. It is a Category-B project due to the

fact that potential social and environmental impacts are expected to be local, site-specific and

manageable. The ESMF and PMP for the precedent project (WAAPP-1A) have been reviewed,

adapted and adopted within the context of the new orientations of WAAPP-2A which follows the

same line of intervention as WAAPP-1A, with a focus on technology dissemination.

59. During WAAPP-1A implementation, close supervision of the implementation of

safeguard measures were conducted by the social and environmental safeguards specialist of the

Bank. In addition each country and CORAF appointed social and environmental safeguard focal

points in charge of supervision of the implementation of the social and environmental safeguard

mitigation measures. A capacity building plan was also implemented including a regional

training workshop in Dakar (Senegal) for all safeguard focal points. The recent assessment

indicates that the safeguard focal points have the required knowledge and are playing a key role

in ensuring that safeguard measures are well implemented.

60. The ESMF includes further provisions for capacity strengthening at all levels for the

17

successful implementation of the project safeguard measures, in compliance with national and

Bank safeguard policies. The PMP sets forth the basic principles each member-country would

follow to adequately handle the possible usage of pesticides, especially during this second phase

mostly focused in dissemination of agriculture technologies. The ESMF and the PMP have been

prepared, consulted upon, and disclosed in-country and at the InfoShop prior to appraisal on

February 9, 2012.

G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered (if required)

61. No other policies have been triggered.

18

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP- 2A)

Results Framework

Project Development Objective (PDO): To scale-up the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural

commodity areas.

PDO Level Results

Indicators* Co

re

Unit of

Measure Baseline

Cumulative Target Values**

Frequency Data Source/

Methodology

Responsibility

for Data

Collection

Description

(indicator

definition

etc.) YR 1 YR 2 YR3 YR 4 YR5

Program level Results

Indicators

Project Level Results

Indicators

Indicator One:

Direct project beneficiaries of

which 40percent female-

disaggregated by country Number

Gh= 100,000 125,000 250,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

Annual

Assessment/

survey made

by M&E if

necessary in

collaboration

with

consultants

PCU

Beneficiari

es who use

technologie

s generated

and

released by

the Project

Se= 80,000 100,000 150,000 300,000 600,000 700,000

Total 225000 400000 800000 1,200000 2,100,000

Indicator Two:

Beneficiairies who are using

technologies generated by other

countries - disaggregated by

country

Number

Gh =0 25,000 50,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU/NCoS

Se =0

20,000 30,000 60,000 120,000 140,000

Total 45000 80000 160000 240000 280000

Indicator Three:

Technologies generated by the

Project with at least 15percent

productivity increase over the

control – disaggregated by

country

Number

Gh=10 12

13

15

16

17

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU /NCoS

Informatio

n on

pipeline of

technologie

s to be

provided

by NCoS

Se= 18 20 22 24 26 26

Total

42 47 53 58 59

Indicator Four:

Producers with knowledge of

technologies generated/released

by the Project- disaggregated by

country

Percent

Gh=20 40 60 70 80 80 Year 1, 3, 5

Benchmark

and supply

chain surveys

PCU/NCoS

Se= 10 30 50 60 80 80

Indicator Five: Hectare Gh= 50,000 135,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 600,000 Annual Annual PCU / NCoS Informatio

19

Area under new technologies

disaggregated by country Se=40,000 100,000 150,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 assessment/

survey

n to be

provided

by

implementi

ng

agencies,

completed

by surveys

Total

235,000 350,000 600,000 800,000 1,100,000

Indicator Six:

Processors/ producers who have

adopted at least one new

technology -disaggregated by

country

Number

Gh= 25,000 60,000 150,000 250,000 300,000 400,000

Annual

Annual

assessment/sur

vey PCU / NCoS

Se= 30,000 60,000 120,000 240,000 360,000 420,000

Total=55000 120,000 270,000 490,000 660,000 820,000

Component 1: Enabling conditions for regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies

Intermediate Result indicator

One:

Pesticide products/and genetic

materials registered by national

committees - disaggregated by

country Number

Gh:

Pest= 200

GM= 4

250

7

300

10

350

12

400

13

450

15

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU

Distinction

to be made

by genetic

materials

developed

at national

and at

regional

level

Se:

Pest=166

GM=39

176

41

186

48

196

52

206

54

216

54

Total= 409 474 526 610 673 735

Intermediate Result indicator

Two:

Laboratories with ISTA/ISO

certification - disaggregated by

country

Number

Gh=0 0 0 1 2 3

Annual

Supervision

mission

PCU

Reference

laboratories

financed

under

Component

1

Se=0 0 1 2 5 5

Total=0 0 1 3 7 8

Intermediate Result indicator

Three:

Technologies with IPR-

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=0 0 2 3 4 5

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU /NCoS

Se=0 2 4 6 8 8

Total=0 2 6 9 12 13

Intermediate Result indicator

Four: Varieties generated by

NCoS/RCoE registered in

Regional catalogue -

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=0 0 5 7 12 15

Annual

Annual

assessment PCU and

CORAF

Se=0 0 3 6 10 12

Total= 0 0 8 13 22 27

20

Intermediate Result indicator

Five:

Hits for the regional/national

Web-based information system

on agricultural technologies and

research skills - disaggregated

by country

Number

Gh=0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU and

CORAF

researchers

/ country,

service

providers,

farmers

Se=0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

CORAF 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 200,000

Intermediate Result indicator

Six:

National action plans developed

on gender, communication and

climate change-disaggregated by

country

Number Gh=1 2 3 3 3 3

Annual

Annual

assessment

PCU/NCoS

communica

tion,

gender,

climate

change,

environme

ntal and

social

safeguards

Se=1 2 3 3 3 3

Component 2: National Centers of Specialization

Intermediate Result indicator

One:

Qualifying criteria met by the

NCoS to become RCoE -

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=0 2 3 4 5 6

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey PCU and

CORAF

total: 6

criteria Se=0 2 3 5 6 6

Intermediate Result indicator

Two:

NCoS/RCoE with ISO

certificate - disaggregated by

country

Yes/No

Gh=0 No No No Yes Yes

Annual

Annual

assessment PCU and

CORAF

Se=0 No No No yes yes

Intermediate Result indicator

Three: Technologies generated

by NCoS and demonstrated in at

least three ECOWAS countries

outside the country of origin -

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=0 0 2 3 4 6

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey PCU/NCoS

and CORAF

Technologi

es

generated

(released or

not)

Se=0 2 3 4 5 6

Total=0 2 5 7 9 12

Intermediate Result indicator

Four: Study sponsorship-

desegregated by country and

MSc and PHD

Number

Gh:

MCs=14

PHD= 2

34

10

44

15

49

20

53

20

53

20

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey

PCU/NCoS

Scientists,

extension

agents,

agro

dealers,

farmers,

community

members,

etc.

Se:

MCs=2

PHD=7

21

21

30

30

35

35

35

35

35

35

Total 86 119 139 143 143

21

Intermediate Result indicator

Five: Scientific exchange visits

- disaggregated by country Number

of

persons

Gh=12 16 20 24 30 32

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey PCU/NCoS

and CORAF

Se=4 9 14 19 24 29

Total 25 34 43 54 61

Component 3:Support to demand-driven technology generation, dissemination and adoption

Intermediate Result indicator

One:

Multi-country research

proposals financed by the

regional CARGS -

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=0 2 4 5 5 5

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey CORAF

Se=0 2 4 6 6 6

Intermediate Result indicator

Two:

National demand-driven

research projects financed by the

national CARGS -

disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=30 45 52 59 65 65

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey PCU (and

CARGS)

Se=37 44 51 57 62 62

Total= 67 89 103 116 127 127

Intermediate Result indicator

Three:

Demonstration plots established

– disaggregated by country

Number

Gh=400 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey

PCU (and

implementing

agencies)

Se= 700 3,000 6,000 12,000 18,000 20,000

Intermediate Result indicator

Four:

Number of technologies

demonstrated – disaggregated

by country

Number

Gh=10 12 15 20 22 22

Annual

Annual

assessment/

survey

PCU (and

implementing

agencies)

Se=5 8 11 13 15 15

Intermediate Result

indicatorFive:

Percentage of targeted clients

(male and female farmers or

businesses) satisfied with

extension services –

disaggregated by country

Percenta

ge

Gh=NA 30 50 60 70 70

Year 1, 3, 5

Participatory

assessment or

survey

PCU

Se=NA 40 50 60 70 70

Intermediate Result indicator

Six:

Certified foundation seeds and T/Ha

Ghana

Cas=400

Ma= 0

1,000

500

1,500

1,000

2,000

1,500

2,500

2,000

3,000

2,500

Annual

Supervision

missions and

Annual

PCU (and

implementing

agencies)

Foundation

seed for

priority

22

improved breed stock produced

– disaggregated by country and

by commodity

Cas= cassava

Ma=Maiz

Ri=Rice

Mil=Milet

Sgo=Sorghum

Senegal:

Ma= 150

Mi= 50

Sgo= 50

300

100

100

450

150

150

650

200

300

750

250

300

850

300

300

assessments/

survey

crops

Intermediate Result 4: Project Management and Coordination

Intermediate Result indicator

One: Percentage of procurement

activities executed in conformity

with the timing of the

procurement plan –

disaggregated by country

Percent

Gh= 80 80 80 80 80

Annual

Supervision

missions

PCU

Se=0 80 80 80 80 80

Intermediate Result indicator

Two:

Disbursement rate of IDA funds

– disaggregated by country

Percent

Gh=0 20 40 60 80 100

Annual

Supervision

missions PCU and

CORAF

Se=0 20 40 60 85 100

Intermediate Result indicator

Three:

A national M+E system with

database functional (structure,

data collection & organization,

up-to-date, reporting)- –

disaggregated by country

Rating (1-5)

Gh= 3 3 4 5 5 5

Annual

Supervision

missions and

Annual

assessment/

survey

CORAF

Se =3 3 4 5 5 5

Intermediate Result indicator

Four:

Percentage of subproject granted

with environmental management

plan that have been

implemented effectively –

disaggregated by country

Percent

Gh= 100 100 100 100 100

Annual

Supervision

missions and

Annual

assessment/

survey

PCU and

CORAF

Se= 100 100 100 100 100

*Please indicate whether the indicator is a Core Sector Indicator (see further http://coreindicators)

**Target values should be entered for the years data will be available, not necessarily annually.

23

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP 2A)

1. Since 2007, WAAPP-1A has been working on enhancing agricultural productivity of root

and tuber crops in Ghana, drought-resistant cereals in Senegal and rice in Mali. Overall,

WAAPP-1A made satisfactory progress towards achieving its development objectives. With still

less than a year prior to the closing date (December 2012), all PDO indicators are on track of

meeting their target. Specifically, and as of February 2012: (i) program activities have reached

180,000 beneficiaries and are expected to reach 275,000 beneficiaries by the end of the program;

(ii) 17 technologies have been released, all of which are showing potential yield improvements

of 20 percent to 40 percent; (iii) about 100,000 ha (out of the 171, 000 ha expected) are covered

with improved technologies made available through the program; and (iv) regional integration

activities are being consolidated through the researchers exchange program which involved

already around 100 persons and through the exchange of genetic materials involving over 100

cultivars that have crossed the borders and are being tested and demonstrated in recipient

countries.

2. The triggers for moving from the first to the second phase have been reached, as all two

participating countries have: (i) ratified the ECOWAS regulations for the registration of genetic

materials and pesticides and started their implementation; (ii) either established (Ghana) or

strengthened (Senegal) their national registration systems for plant materials and pesticides; (iii)

established operational NCoS and involved several researchers from participating countries

under the visiting scientists program; and (iv) strengthened competitive research grant schemes

that are satisfactorily operating (see Table 1).

The Project Development Objective

3. The PDO is to scale-up the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved

technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural commodity areas. The

participating countries’ priority areas are aligned with the region’s top agricultural commodity

priorities, as outlined in the ECOWAP. In order to reach this objective, the Project will

strengthen the regional cooperation in generation of technology, and scale-up dissemination and

training programs focused on regional and national priority commodities.

Project Beneficiaries

4. The Project’s primary beneficiaries are the producers, processors and all other actors of

the selected value chains. The beneficiaries include also the key participants in the generation

and dissemination of technology, along with researchers, public and private extension and

advisory agencies, research institutions, universities, NGOs, and government agencies, involved

in value chains management. The total number of direct beneficiaries for the three participating

countries by the end of the Project is expected to be 2,100,000, of which 40 percent female.

5. Key innovative futures in the design of the second phase of WAAPP are: (i) the

upgrading process from NCoS to RCoE; (ii) strengthened regional commodity R&D networks

involving research partners in all ECOWAS countries; (iii) enhanced regional priority research

planning and technology exchange mechanisms; (iv) strengthened R&D linkages and broader

partnerships with sector stakeholders, including farmer organizations, NGOs, donor

projects/programs and the private sector, for scaling-up technology dissemination; (v) a detailed

mandate for CORAF and RCoEs as facilitators of regional exchanges; and (vi) enhanced

24

recognition of WAAPP as a key actor for the implementation of national investment programs-

METASIP in Ghana and PNIA in Senegal – as well as for the regional agricultural investment

program under ECOWAP. In doing so, the WAAPP supports Pillar 4 of the CAADP process.

6. The second phase of the WAAPP Program is based on the following principles: (i)

continuity and consolidation of results achieved during the first phase, with high priority on the

regional scope of the program and strengthening of technology transfer activities and the

dissemination of technology innovations at a large scale; (ii) results-based contracting of

program implementation between the program coordination units and implementation agencies;

(iii) the integration of all value chain segments for the priority targeted value chains; and (iv) the

synergy and complementarities with on-going country-based and regional projects/programs.

Project Description

7. Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in the Generation,

Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies (US$7.9 million of which IDA

US$7.2 million). This component aims at strengthening the mechanisms for the cross-border

exchange of technologies, so as to allow participating countries to benefit fully from the regional

cooperation in technology generation and exchange. It includes two Sub-components:

8. Sub-component 1.1 Implementation of ECOWAS common regulations: Through

this sub-component the Project will continue to pursue and broaden the implementation of

ECOWAS regulations relating to pesticides, genetic materials, fertilizer and address the issue of

veterinary products. In this respect, interventions aimed at regional cooperation and linkages will

be strengthened to share experiences and learn lessons to enrich and modify where necessary

some of the activities to enhance the harmonization process.

9. The Project has already started to address, under WAAPP-1A, issues related to the

application of regulations of genetic materials, pesticides and fertilizers: (i) in Ghana, it

facilitated the Plant and Fertilizer Act 803 was passed in November 2010 to provide for plant

protection, seeds and fertilizer control. As a result the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services

Directorate (PPRSD), the National Seed Council and related committees (Technical and Variety

Release Committee and National Varietal Release and Registration), the National Fertilizer

Council and the related Fertilizer Advisory Committee have been established; (ii); and (iii) in

Senegal, similar committees (the Comité National Consultatif des Semences et des Plantes and

the Comité National de Gestion des Produits Chimiques) have been strengthened and since have

released several technologies.

10. Thus the dissemination and implementation of these regulations that have started under

WAAPP-1A will be scaled up under WAAPP-2A. In addition, in order to favor technology

dissemination in the livestock sector at national and regional levels, the project will address the

issue of registration and regulation of veterinary and animal products, such as vaccines,

biologicals (anti-sera, hypermine sera and growth promoters) and drugs. Currently, the common

regulations on livestock products are limited to WAEMU countries and there is a need to

broaden these regulations to all ECOWAS countries. Veterinary products such as vaccines,

biologicals (anti-sera, hypermine sera and growth promoters) and drugs are currently registered

by national boards and import permits are delivered by the respective veterinary services.

11. The activities financed under this Sub-component are: (i) At national level, (a) actions

plans to implement ECOWAS regulations on seeds and pesticides, as well as on fertilizer and

25

veterinary products when these two regulations will be adopted by ECOWAS, (b) training and

awareness programs for national institutions and major private stakeholders (seeds and fertilizer

agro-dealers, seed growers) on the ECOWAS regulations, (c) capacity building and operational

costs for the national registration committees and councils for genetic materials and pesticides as

well as for the national seed certification systems, (d) the upgrading of national reference

laboratories6 for genetic materials, pesticides and veterinary products, and (e) the ISO

certification process for the laboratories; and (ii) at regional level consultant services and

workshops (a) for the setting-up of the regional seed and pesticides councils and the development

of the regional catalogues on seeds and pesticides, and (b) for the process to develop the

common regulations on fertilizer (underway) and veterinary products.

12. Sub-component 1.2: Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action Plans.

The main activities under this Sub-component are:

13. Knowledge management, information, and communications systems: (i) at national

level, the sub-component will finance: (a) the updating and implementation of national

communication action plans (aligned with the regional communication strategy), including mass

communication (national/private FM stations and TV), and (b) the development of

communication material such as documentaries, newsletters and brochures and diffusion of

resource kits on CD/DVDs on innovation practices; (ii) At regional level, the sub-component

will finance (a) capacity building for CORAF’s regional communications/information technical

network of communications officers, including regular update of regional and national WAAPP

websites and initiation of regular web discussions among WAAPP members; and (b) the

implementation by CORAF of a distance learning program that will facilitate networking and

sharing of best practices among stakeholders and technical networks in the region.

14. Mainstreaming Gender. Under WAAPP, CORAF has developed a regional gender

strategy and action plans to mainstream gender concerns into national research and extension

programs. These were approved by all stakeholders in July 2011. The participating countries

will therefore prepare their national action plans in line with this regional strategy. The specific

actitivities that WAAPP-2A will finance are the: (i) updating and implementation of the gender

action plans; (ii) capacity building for the gender focal points and training programs on the use of

gender approaches and tool kits for stakeholders; (iii) screening of research proposals and

extension programs to address the needs of gender; (iv) integration of gender concerns in

communication messages; and (v) case studies on gender in technology generation and

dissemination.

15. Mainstreaming Climate Change. ECOWAS has developed a Climate Change Action

Plan to complement its Agriculture Development Policy (ECOWAP). In addition, CORAF is

preparing commodity-based climate change action plans to mainstream climate change issues

into the WAAPP. To this end WAAPP-2A will finance in each country: (i) the design and/or

implementation of commodity based climate change action plans in line with national and

regional strategies; and (ii) capacity building of relevant stakeholders for the purpose of

mainstreaming7 climate change considerations

8 in agricultural research and extension planning,

6 These consists of: (i) The Soil and Water Laboratory of IER and LABOSEM and the Laboratoire Central

Vétérinaire (LCV) of Mali; (ii) EPA’s Quality Control Laboratory and PPRSD and the Veterinary Service

Directorate (VSD) of Ghana; and DISEM, DPV and the Laboratoire Vétérinaire of the Ministry of Livestock of

Senegal 7 Mainstreaming actions will include the systematic integration of: (i) the promotion of sustainable agriculture

production systems; (ii) use of drought tolerant/resistant improved varieties, especially for cereals; (iii) sustainable

26

implementation and monitoring.

16. Sustained mechanism to financing agriculture research and development. WAAPP-

1A has successfully used a Competitive Agriculture Research Grant Scheme (CARGS), as

program instrument for funding competitive agriculture research and development. However,

the sustainability of these schemes remains a challenge. WAAPP-2A will, therefore, finance

activities that would strengthen the sustainability of these schemes including: (i) study tours,

consultant services, and workshops to support participating countries in the design or

improvement of their policies and financing mechanism to make competitive fund schemes more

sustainable and robust; and (ii) review of national legislations for the current competitive fund

schemes in order to harmonize technical and financial procedures, promote their effective,

transparent, and participatory management, and foster M&E systems and accompanying

institutional arrangements.

17. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). During the implementation of WAAPP-1A: (i) in

Ghana, the IPR office has been established at the CSIR/HQ and a training program on IPR for

the researchers was conducted, but the Plant Breeders Bill which is required to facilitate the

operations of IPR is yet to be passed in parliament; and (ii) in Senegal, ISRA has also conducted

a training program on IPR for researchers and is processing IPR protection of its first

technologies. WAAPP-2A will thus build on these achievements and finance: (i) studies on the

relevance and return on investment of IPR protection for specific technologies; (ii) the

registration process of IPR on strategic technological innovations, when the return to investment

is justified; and (iii) capacity building for the management of IPR.

18. Environmental and social management safeguards. Under WAAPP-1A, CORAF had

set up a regional social and environmental network comprising environmental and social focal

persons from each participating country. It had also organized a regional training for the focal

persons and a review of the implementation of the safeguard policies. WAAPP-2A will

consolidate these achievements and will therefore finance: (i) additional capacity building

(regional trainings and workshops) for the environmental and social safeguards focal points and

stakeholders; (ii) consultant services to assess implementation of the safeguard policies,

including the ESMF, PMP and RPF; and (iii) studies and workshops to address specific

safeguards issues at regional level.

19. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization (US$28.42 million of which IDA

US$27.26 million). Under WAAPP-1A, the Project has helped establish/strengthen the NCoS in

each of the participating countries through the upgrading of research facilities and equipments,

capacity building of researchers and the funding of priority research programs. This support has

already resulted in the release of 17 potentially high impact technologies, which are under

dissemination across the countries. WAAPP-2A will consolidate these achievements and support

the transformation of the NCoS into Regional Centers of Excellence (RCoE) on the basis of

graduation criteria (see Box 2.1 below and Appendix 2.1).

water and integrated soil fertility management, including minimum/zero tillage, permanent soil cover and rotations

(conservation farming); (iv) precision farming in terms of irrigation, placement of fertilizers and integrated pest

management; and (v) agro-forestry and integrated crop-livestock-natural resource management. This approach

involves a shift from a homogeneous model of crop production to farming systems that are knowledge-intensive and

adapted to specific locations and investment to support training of farmers on new practices. 8 See also ‘Save and grow’ (FAO, 2011). This initiative aims at producing more food for the global population in a

sustainable manner. It hopes to help low-income farm families in developing countries to maximize their yields

through improved production and healthy agro-systems.

27

20. During the second phase of WAAPP, Component 2 will support the process9 to upgrade

the (NCoS into RCoE, focusing on drought-resistant cereals in Senegal and root and tuber crops

in Ghana. To enable a comprehensive value-chain approach, each NCoS will broaden their scope

to include other relevant research institutions; mainly those specialized in processing and post-

harvest handling. Institutions eligible for support under Component 2 are shown in Table 2 (in

the main text).

21. The activities Component 2 will finance at national level are: (i) the upgrading of core

facilities and equipment of both the NCoS and their key national partners (as shown in Table 2)

including the rehabilitation/construction of additional infrastructure and equipment of

laboratories, research and seed production fields, training centers, offices, staff residencies and

guest accommodation for the NCoS. These facilities comprise several buildings, large research

fields and research sub-stations located in the main agro-ecological zones of the participating

countries. A preliminary assessment has identified the centers that will be rehabilitated and

inventoried the rehabilitation requirements for the research fields and infrastructure, but the

centers have not yet identified which civil works will be undertaken under the Project. Thus as a

next step, the research centers’ managers, in consultation with the researchers, will identify

specific infrastructure and/or research fields for rehabilitation and prepare a priority list of works.

The Procurement Plan for the Project’s first year includes provision for consultancy services

related to detailed technical studies for works and equipment. The research centers’ managers

will also prepare Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) or Environmental

Management Plans (EMPs) and a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) as necessary. Investments

will be contingent upon preparation of an ESIA or ESMP and RAP. Details and procedures for

carrying out specific ESIAs, ESMPs and RAPs were discussed in the context of the disclosed

ESMF; (ii) the processing of International Organization of Standardization (ISO) certification for

the NCoS management and NCoS laboratories through the delivery of technical advisory

services and workshops; (iii) the capacity building of researchers and facilitating regional

partnerships. The aging research staff and brain drain across national agricultural research

institutions require a coherent human resource development plan and a significant capacity

9 The process implies: (i) independent evaluation of NCoS systems; (ii) clearly defined criteria for harmonization

and synergy; (iii) upgrading core facilities and equipment by establishing good information and data management

systems, governance framework, strong research management, IT and M&E system; (iv) sustainable funding

mechanisms; (v) strengthening research-extension linkages; (vi) motivating extension officers; and (vii) promoting

pluralism in extension and greater integration of research and extension (Workshop to Share and Develop

Information and Knowledge linked to the Implementation of WAAPP Workshop, July 2011).

Box 2.1: Criteria for obtaining the label of RCoE

Agreement was reached among countries to use the following six (6) evaluation criteria for upgrading

NCoS to RCoE:

(i) Quality of research teams;

(ii) ISO Label Certification Relevance of the programs implemented by the RCoE vis-à-vis

regional priorities and needs;

(iii) Regional research program planning and networking;

(iv) Efficiency of information and communication strategy of Agricultural research results

(v) Contribution to significant capacity building of NARS through partnership with CGIAR &

ARIs in West Africa

(vi) Quantity and quality of “ready-to-go” agricultural innovations efficiently generated &

delivered

The methodology to evaluate the progression towards RCoE is outlined in Appendix 2.2.

28

building effort to promote young researchers. In order to strengthen core national research

capacities, the Component will finance: (a) the preparation and implementation of annual human

resource development plan in each participating country; (b) on the job and academic training

program for young researchers at PhD and MSc levels; (c) a research exchange program for

visiting scientists (mobility of researchers). The visiting scientists will be considered to be on

sabbatical leave. They will be paid by their home institutions while the host center bears their

local costs, including lodging, board and miscellaneous expenses. These visiting programs can

be extended for periods of up to 12 months. Special consideration will be given to young and/or

female scientists; and (iv) the support to priority agricultural research program. The research

programs of the NCoS will involve strategic and adaptive research in priority value chains.

Programs for priority research will be developed in close partnership with key stakeholders to

ensure their relevance. Priority research will also include farm surveys and supply chain analysis

and benchmarking to document progress and impact of transferred technologies over the

program life. These studies will also monitor on a regular basis the knowledge gap. Each NCoS

will develop a sub-regional R&D network involving relevant institutions from other participating

countries to ensure regional spillover. The component will finance: (a) small grants to teams of

researchers to undertake priority research activities responding to key constraints along the value

chain; and (b) capacity building and operations costs for the R&D networks; and (c) regional and

international partnerships, and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) for backstopping from

CGIAR (IITA, AfricaRice, ILRI, IRRI, ICRISAT, etc.) and other relevant international research

institutions. The MoUs will emphasize aspects such as the development of scientific research

protocols, and the provision of trainings, scientific expertise and joint implementation of research

programs and the provision of foundation genetic materials to NCoS.

22. At regional level the Component will finance CORAF’s support to the strengthening of

the NCoS including:,: (i) technical assistance to facilitate and monitor the transition from NCoS

to RCoE; (ii) regional planning workshops of research programs, exchange and training activities

and the consolidation of annual regional action plans; (iii) regional workshops to promote and

facilitate efficient partnerships with CGIAR centers within the framework of subsidiary

principle; and (iv) regional policy research and market integration initiatives to improve long-

term R&D sustainability.

23. Component 3: Support to Demand-driven Technology Generation, Dissemination

and Adoption (US$84.7 million of which IDA US$75.1 million). To bridge the gap between

research and farmers’ field productivity levels, this component aims at broadening the range of

adapted technologies across selected priority commodities and scaling-up their dissemination and

adoption. The priority commodities are among the eight strategic value chains identified at the

regional level (rice, drought-resistant cereals, cassava, maize, banana/plantain, fruits and

vegetables and livestock - meat and milk). Table 2.1 shows the selected commodities (priority,

secondary, and regional exchange) by each participating countries. The component will be

executed on the basis of an action plan that defines the contributions of the Project in terms of

(quantified) technology generation and dissemination activities. Furthermore, WAAPP-2A will

support the participating countries in adapting their extension strategies, methodologies and

organizations towards higher levels of efficiency, involving stakeholder platforms at local, zonal

and national levels and the use of modern information and communication technologies (ICT),

including the piloting of e-extension.

29

Table 2.1: Priority and secondary value chains selected by WAAPP-2A country

Senegal Ghana

Priority

commodities

Dry cereals and associated

crops

Root and tuber crops

(cassava, yam, sweet

potato, cocoyam)

Secondary Milk and meat Poultry and small ruminants

Regional exchange

commodities

Horticulture (tomatoes,

mangoes) rice

Horticulture (tomato onion

and pepper)

Dry Cereals, and rice

24. Sub-component 3.1: Demand-Driven Technology Generation. The program will

continue to strengthen and expand the activities of the existing national CARGS in each

participating country and the regional CARGS managed by CORAF. It will address priority

needs of stakeholders along the selected value chains, from production to postharvest handling,

marketing, processing and consumption and target research subprojects involving all NARS

stakeholders, including public research institutions, universities, NGOs, Farmers-Based

Organization (FBOs) and the private sector.

25. At national level, the Sub-component will finance: (i) annual stakeholders’ workshops to

develop, follow-up and update national R&D action plans for priority setting in the domain of

technology generation and dissemination for each of the targeted value chain; (ii) grants to

multidisciplinary adaptive research teams to address priority needs of stakeholders along the

value chains; and (iii) the testing and adaptation of technologies generated by NCoS in the sub-

region.

26. At regional level, WAAPP-2A will provide additional resources to the Regional CARGS

managed by CORAF, (i) for the financing of stakeholder priority setting workshops, and (ii)

provision of grants for the implementation of the research activities. The latter will be carried

through by multi-country team of researchers, involving at least three ECOWAS countries.

27. Sub-component 3.2: Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies.

This subcomponent aims to speed-up the adoption of released technologies. The strategy consists

of disseminating technologies developed under WAAPP-1A by the NCoS in order to achieve a

rapid but sustainable impact on the ground (see Appendix 2.2). Emphasis will be made on

increasing the efficiency of the technology delivery systems in participating countries which

requires an adjustment of extension strategies, methodologies, and coalitions between public and

private service providers such as FBOs, NGOs and the private sector.

28. At national level, the sub-component will finance: (i) annual extension stakeholders’

workshops at zonal and national levels to develop dissemination action plans; (ii)

demonstrations of released technologies responding to beneficiary needs; (iii) the development

of efficient extension methodologies including innovation platforms, Farmers Field Schools

(FFS) and Farmer Days; (iv) the promotion of released technologies through various information

systems and communications media to improve awareness of technologies options and expand

their use; and (v) participatory training on extension methodologies (including e-extension) and

released technologies for agricultural advisory service providers, including national extension

services, NGOs, input providers, FBOs, and other private stakeholders. In the case of Ghana, the

rehabilitation and equipping of MoFA national agricultural stations and the provision of the

vehicles required for the purpose will also be included.

30

29. At regional level, the sub-component will provide resources to CORAF to: (i) undertake

policy research and action towards promoting efficient participative and pluralistic extension

systems involving all key stakeholders within a regional ‘think-tank’ under the umbrella of the

African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS); (ii) support implementation of

technology awareness action plans developed by relevant regional organizations, including

among others AFAAS, African Network of Farmer Organizations and Agricultural Producers

(ROPPA)10

, the African Seed Growers Association and the African Seed Trade Association

(AFSTA).

30. Sub-component 3.3: Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material. This Sub-

component will increase the availability and producers’ access to improved genetic materials

(seed, planting materials and animal breeds) especially for the targeted priority value chains.

31. The Sub-component will finance: (i) the development/consolidation of seed production

policies and systems taking into account governments’ seed subsidy systems and the

implementation of multi-annual seed production planning sessions involving all stakeholders; (ii)

the development or improvement of the gene banks to help participating countries to manage

biodiversity and prepare for climate change through better conservation of their genetic assets;

(iii) the upgrading of the capacity of public research stations to produce and store breeder and

foundation seeds through investment in irrigation facilities as well as laboratory, and storage

equipment; (iv) the scaling-up of the production of certified seeds by private enterprises,

farmers’ organizations; and (v) the provision of mini kits of improved seeds to producers to

jump-start dissemination, along with training and technical assistance for seed companies and

seed producers.

32. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$10.8 million of which IDA US$10.3 million). The Project will be coordinated (i) at the

national level by existing national coordinating units, which successfully coordinated the

implementation of WAAPP-1A; and (ii) at the regional level by CORAF on the basis of an

AWP&B and a well-defined mandate agreed by the Regional Steering Committee (RSC). Each

participating country will allocate resources to CORAF commensurate with the role assigned to

it.

33. This Component will finance: (i) equipments, consultant services, non-consulting

services and operating costs for the PCU and CORAF to carry out and upgrade project

management, including fiduciary and M&E; (ii) annual training programs for PCU and

implementing agencies staff; and (iii) implementation of the communication action plan.

10

Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs agricoles (ROPPA).

31

Project Financing

Table 2.2 WAAPP-2A Project Cost

Project Costs Summary – Components by Financiers (000 US$)

Government IDA Beneficiaries Total

Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %

Component 1. Enabling Conditions for Regional

Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination and

Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

Implementation of ECOWAS Common Regulations 663 12 4,908 88 0 0 5,571 4

Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action

Plans 0 0 2308 100 0 0 2,307 2

Subtotal Component 1 663 8 7,216 92 0 0 7,878 6

Component 2. National Center of Specialization (NCoS)

Upgrading NCoS Core Facilities and Equipment 0 0 4,412 86 0 0 5,148 4

Capacity Building and Mobility of Researchers 0 0 9,663 100 0 0 9,662 7

Support to Priority Agricultural Research Program 320 2 13,290 98 0 0 13,610 10

Subtotal Component 2 320 1 27,365 96 0 0 28,420 22

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven Technology

Generation, Dissemination and Adoption

Demand-driven Technology Generation 5,623 17 25,379 78 1,557 5 32,559 25

Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies 1,130 3 36,301 94 1,256 3 38,687 29

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material 0 0 13,440 100 0 0 13,440 10

Subtotal Component 3 6,753 8 75,120 89 2,813 3 84,686 64

Component 4. Project Coordination, Management, and

Monitoring & Evaluation

Program Management 514 6 8,190 94 0 0 8,704 7

Monitoring and Evaluation 0 0 2,109 100 0 0 2,110 2

Subtotal Component 4 514 5 10,299 95 0 0 10,814 8

Total PROJECT COSTS 8,250 6 120,000 91 2,813 2 131,798 100

32

Table 2.3 GHANA - COST

A. Project Costs Summary – Components by Financiers (US$ ‘000)

Government IDA Beneficiaries Total

Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %

Component 1. Enabling Conditions for Regional

Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination and

Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

Implementation of ECOWAS Common Regulations 320 23 1,044 77 - - 1,364 2

Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action Plans

0 - 984 100 - - 984 2

Subtotal Component 1 320 14 2,028 86 - - 2,348 4

Component 2. National Center of Specialization (NCoS)

Upgrading NCoS Core Facilities and Equipment 0 - 726 100 - - 727 1

Capacity Building and Mobility of Researchers 0 - 2,917 100 - - 2,917 4

Support to Priority Agricultural Research Program 320 5 6,290 95 - - 6,610 10

Subtotal Component 2 320 3 9,933 97 - - 10,253 16

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven Technology

Generation, Dissemination and Adoption

Demand-driven Technology Generation 3,072 16 14,808 78 1,141 6 19,022 29

Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies 960 5 19,300 95 - - 20,260 31

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material - - 10,783 100 - - 10,783 16

Subtotal Component 3 4,032 8 44,891 90 1,141 2 50,065 76

Component 4. Project Coordination, Management, and

Monitoring & Evaluation

Program Management 329 13 2,287 87 - - 2,615 4

Monitoring and Evaluation 0 - 861 100 - - 861 1

Subtotal Component 4 329 9 3,148 91 - - 3,477 5

Total PROJECT COSTS 5,000 8 60,000 91 1,141 2 66,142 100

B. Project Costs Summary – Components and/or activity (‘000)

(GHS ) (US$)

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total

Component 1. Enabling Conditions for Regional

Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination

and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

Implementation of ECOWAS Common

Regulations 394 1,727 2,120 238,642 1,046,373 1,285,015

Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action Plans

1,242 114 1,356 752,822 69,020 821,842

Subtotal Component 1 1,636 1,840 3,476 991,464 1,115,393 2,106,857

Component 2. National Center of Specialization

(NCoS) Upgrading NCoS Core Facilities and Equipment 773 368 1,141 468,273 222,992 691,265

Capacity Building and Mobility of Researchers 2,515 1,669 4,184 1,524,436 1,011,309 2,535,745

Support to Priority Agricultural Research Program 7,138 3,451 10,589 4,325,758 2,091,515 6,417,273

Subtotal Component 2 10,425 5,488 15,913 6,318,467 3,325,817 9,644,283

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven

Technology Generation, Dissemination and

Adoption Demand-driven Technology Generation 25,290 5,361 30,651 15,327,152 3,249,230 18,576,382

Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies

22,332 6,425 28,757 13,534,805 3,893,897 17,428,702

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material 14,490 - 14,490 8,781,761 - 8,781,761

Subtotal Component 3 62,112 11,786 73,898 37,643,718 7,143,127 44,786,845

Component 4. Project Coordination,

Management, and Monitoring & Evaluation Program Management 1,593 2,292 3,885 965,159 1,389,135 2,354,294

Monitoring and Evaluation 231 1,085 1,316 139,895 657,412 797,307

Subtotal Component 4 1,823 3,377 5,200 1,105,053 2,046,548 3,151,601

Total BASELINE COSTS 75,997 22,491 98,488 46,058,702 13,630,884 59,689,586 Physical Contingencies - - - - - -

Price Contingencies 9,524 1,123 10,647 5,771,937 680,736 6,452,673

Total PROJECT COSTS 85,521 23,614 109,135 51,830,639 14,311,620 66,142,259

33

Table 2.4 SENEGAL - COST

A. Project Costs Summary – Components by Financiers (US$ ‘000)

Government IDA Beneficiaries Total

Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %

Component 1. Enabling Conditions for Regional

Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination and

Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

Implementation of ECOWAS Common Regulations 343 8 3,864 92 - - 4,207 6

Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action Plans 0 - 1,324 100 - - 1,324 2

Subtotal Component 1 343 6 5,188 94 - - 5,532 8

Component 2. National Center of Specialization (NCoS)

Upgrading NCoS Core Facilities and Equipment 735 17 3,686 83 - - 4,421 7

Capacity Building and Mobility of Researchers 0 - 6,746 100 - - 6,746 10

Support to Priority Agricultural Research Program - - 7,000 100 - - 7,000 11

Subtotal Component 2 735 4 17,432 96 - - 18,167 28

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven Technology

Generation, Dissemination and Adoption

Demand-driven Technology Generation 2,550 19 10,571 78 416 3 13,537 21

Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies 170 1 17,001 92 1,256 7 18,427 28

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material 0 - 2,657 100 - - 2,657 4

Subtotal Component 3 2,720 8 30,229 87 1,672 5 34,621 53

Component 4. Project Coordination, Management, and

Monitoring & Evaluation

Program Management 186 3 5,903 97 - - 6,089 9

Monitoring and Evaluation - - 1,248 100 - - 1,248 2

Subtotal Component 4 186 3 7,151 98 - - 7,337 11

Total PROJECT COSTS 3,985 6 60,000 91 1,672 3 65,657 100

B. Project Costs Summary – Components and/or activity (‘000)

(FCFA ) (US$)

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total

Component 1. Enabling Conditions for Regional

Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination

and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

Implementation of ECOWAS Common

Regulations 1,308,017 642,698 1,950,715 2,616,034 1,285,396 3,901,430

Mainstreaming Regional Strategies into National Action Plans

457,980 148,400 606,380 915,960 296,800 1,212,760

Subtotal Component 1 1,765,997 791,098 2,557,095 3,531,994 1,582,196 5,114,190

Component 2. National Center of Specialization

(NCoS) Upgrading NCoS Core Facilities and Equipment 884,081 1,240,330 2,124,411 1,768,163 2,480,660 4,248,823

Capacity Building and Mobility of Researchers 2,120,376 981,488 3,101,864 4,240,752 1,962,976 6,203,728

Support to Priority Agricultural Research Program 2,800,000 700,000 3,500,000 5,600,000 1,400,000 7,000,000

Subtotal Component 2 5,804,457 2,921,818 8,726,275 11,608,915 5,843,636 17,452,551

Component 3. Support to Demand-driven

Technology Generation, Dissemination and

Adoption Demand-driven Technology Generation 5,772,436 773,535 6,545,971 11,544,872 1,547,070 13,091,942

Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies

6,154,646 2,822,018 8,976,664 12,309,292 5,644,036 17,953,328

Facilitating Access to Improved Genetic Material 793,070 372,459 1,165,530 1,586,141 744,919 2,331,059

Subtotal Component 3 12,720,152 3,968,012 16,688,164 25,440,304 7,936,025 33,376,329

Component 4. Project Coordination,

Management, and Monitoring & Evaluation Program Management 1,422,154 1,410,686 2,832,840 2,844,308 2,821,372 5,665,680

Monitoring and Evaluation 290,160 320,000 610,160 580,320 640,000 1,220,320

Subtotal Component 4 1,712,314 1,730,686 3,443,000 3,424,628 3,461,372 6,886,000

Total BASELINE COSTS 22,002,921 9,411,614 31,414,535 44,005,841 18,823,229 62,829,070 Physical Contingencies 50,682 44,709 95,391 101,364 89,417 190,781

Price Contingencies 1,093,023 225,500 1,318,524 2,186,047 451,001 2,637,048

Total PROJECT COSTS 23,146,626 9,681,824 32,828,449 46,293,252 19,363,647 65,656,899

34

Appendix 2.1: Evaluation of progress from NCoS towards RCoE

1. As stated earlier, one the key objectives of WAAPP is the upgrading of the NCoS into

RCoE, through the integration of the regional dimension into the research institutions that

originally mainly consider national research priorities. To this end WAAPP-2A countries have

agreed on a list of evaluation criteria (see Box 2.1). Key elements to be considered in

combination are: (i) quality of research teams; (ii) ISO certification; (iii) regional research

programming and networking; (iv) efficiency of information and communication strategy; (v)

contribution to significant capacity building of NARS through partnership with CGIAR and

ARIs in West Africa; and (vi) quantity and quality of “ready-to-go” agricultural innovations

efficiently generated and delivered.

2. Quality of research team. The performance of the NCoS/RCoE depends primarily on

the ability of the research team to address efficiently priority research issues along the targeted

value chains. Transforming current NCoS into effective RCoE entails building strong research

teams (synergy, vision and leadership) of a critical mass of scientists and technicians with

outstanding levels of qualification and commitment. Research staff must dedicate at least 90

percent of their time to activities relevant for the targeted value chain. Research teams may be

composed of core professionals complemented with associated professionals11

originating

preferably from institutions of ECOWAS participating countries to stabilize the personnel and

ensure sustainability. The following steps may be envisaged to build efficient research teams for

each value chain across NCoS/RCoE: (i) define the critical expertise needed to address priority

activities related to each priority value chain for each NCoS/RCoE; (ii) check if available

expertise is aligned with the priority needs; (iv) in the case of “deficit”, indicate who best will be

qualified to fill the gap in order to build research teams that are qualified to face the challenges

and deliver expected outputs; and (v) define modalities and set a timeframe for filling identified

gaps.

3. ISO label certification: ISO certification is also a condition required for NCoS to

become RCoE. This will support the quality improvement of selected research centers and

associated laboratories. Main indicators that will be checked are:

Research team: (i) critical mass for optimal efficiency; (ii) competency of personnel

to address selected priority research issues; and (iii) personnel management;

Laboratory infrastructure and equipment (quantity and quality) and overall

environment;

Procedures and processes: (i) manual of procedure and management; (ii)

procurement, billing system and traceability; and (iii) internal and external audits,

follow-up measures and traceability of audit reports;

Day-to-day activities: (i) reporting activities; and (ii) communication and follow-up;

Timeliness of programme implementation;

Satisfaction survey of research customers.

11

Includes professionals from other ECOWAS countries (including WAAPP countries) sharing same type of

interest for relevant value chains (opportunity to strengthen inter-institutional cooperation through mobility and

partnership at regional level).

35

4. The ISO certification process will follow four steps: (i) the baseline diagnosis and

development of one to five years (depending on results of the baseline diagnosis) plan of action12

to enhance the NCoS/RCoE quality level; (ii) the mid-term monitoring and evaluation; (iii) the

final monitoring and evaluation; and (iv) the audit certification.

5. Regional research program planning and networking. An important condition to

move from NCoS to RCoE is to develop an efficient participatory mechanism for regional

research program planning, implementation, and M&E based on regional priorities along the

selected value chains and including all relevant stakeholders and institutions13

. This will require

significant changes at national and regional levels, with clear roles for NARS, RCoE, CGIAR-

Centres and ARIs operating in the same selected commodities. The proposed regional

programme planning is based on the setting up of a National Stakeholder’s Value Chain Task

Force (NSVC-TF) in each WAAPP country to be supported by NARS. A rotating annual

participatory regional programme planning workshop will be organized by the relevant

NCoS/RCoE in close collaboration with CORAF and according to the targeted value chains.

6. Role of NCoS/RCoE: (i) ensure alignment of NCoS/RCoE regional research programs

with WAAPP-2A development objectives; (ii) promote synergy between NCoS/RCoE, CGIAR

and NARES; and (iii) promote joint NCoS/RCoE and CGIAR planning workshops that will

address member countries capacity strengthening priority needs through a comprehensive

training program at degree and non-degree levels.

12

The Action Plan will be comprehensive including training of personnel in relation to the ISO standard and the

formulation of the quality control manual, etc). 13

Coordination between NCoS/RCoE, CGIAR, NARES & NSVC-TF is also a condition to move from national

priorities (NCoS) to regional ones (RCoE). As the 7 strategic value chains selected for the three above NCoS/RCoE

are also priorities for a number of CGIAR-Centers there is an urgent need for a thorough consultation in view of

minimizing duplication and optimizing the available expertise and physical facilities, on the basis of the subsidiary

principle. In order to optimize the cooperation programs, all entities (NCoS/RCoE , NARES, CGIAR & ARI)

operating on the same strategic value chains across the same ecosystems will agree on formal MoUs, defining the

domains of convergence and specific support areas along their comparative advantage.

Box 2.2: Research networks and relation with NARS and CGIAR system Role of the NSVC-TF. At national level, each NSVC-TF will organize a participatory national

programme planning workshop to: (i) discuss national research priorities linked to targeted value

chains; (ii) agree on cross-cutting priorities that need to be addressed at regional levels through the

NCoS/RCoE; and (iii) appoint a committee that will participate in the participatory regional

programme planning workshop. In addition, the NSVC-TF will support the NCoS/RCoE for

innovations testing and adaptation trials (competitive grants) and to participate to large-scale

dissemination and adoption of proven agricultural innovations in view of sustainable productivity and

income increase.

Role of the NARS. According to the specific value-chain, NARS will be the interface between

NCoS/RCoE and each National Stakeholder Value-chain Task-Force (NSVC-TF). Consequently, it

will help NCoS/RCoE to set up the specific NSVC-TF for each value chain at national level. This

approach is an excellent opportunity for member countries to show their interest and commitment on

specific sequences of each relevant value chains of common interest.

Role of CGIAR-Centres: (i) provide specific backstopping to NCoS/RCoE operating in the same value

chain (e.g. biotechnology, exchange of germplasm); (ii) promote joint planning workshops in the field.

of agricultural research and NARS capacity strengthening; and (iii) cooperate with NCoS/RCoE on

joint adaptive research, monitoring tours, M&E across multi-location trials on relevant value chains.

36

7. Efficiency of information and communication strategy. This criterion will assess the

NCoS/RCoE strategy in the areas of scientific and technical papers and public awareness.

8. Contribution to significant capacity building of NARS in West Africa: This criterion

is essential for NARES capacity strengthening across West Africa; its implementation will

require a strong partnership between the NCoS/RCoE on one hand, and the NARES and the

CGIAR-Centres on the other hand. Focus will be on academic/degree training at PhD and MSc

levels, as well as non-degree training courses for scientific and technical staff.

9. Quantity and quality of ‘’ready-to-go’’ agricultural innovations efficiently

generated and delivered. While the number and quality of proven agricultural innovations

delivered through Component 2 is important, special attention must be given to: (i) the

number/proportion of the above innovations that have been effectively disseminated and adopted

on a large scale through Component 3; and (ii) the contribution of the latter to tangible

productivity and income increase.

10. Table 2.7 below shows the scoring system that will be used for each criteria. The scoring

will be based on the following five steps rating scale: 1= Poor level of qualification; 2= Fair level

of qualification; 3= Good/medium level of qualification; 4= Very good level of qualification; and

5= Out-standing level of qualification.

Table 2.5: NCoS to RCoE upgrading criteria

Cri-

teria Selection criteria (Indicator) Selection criteria Description

Score

allocated

(1)

Coef-

ficient

(2)

Overall score

(3) = (1) x (2)

1 Quality of research teams

Quality, Critical mass & Partnership

(Expertise/skills required to address

priority research issues across each value

chain)

1 .. /5

2 ISO Label Certification Management, Laboratories & other

research facilities 1 .. /5

3 Regional research program

planning and networking

Participatory Regional Research

Program Planning, Management, M&E

(through partnership with NARES, CGIAR,

NSVC-TF, ARIs)

1 .. /5

4 Efficiency of information and

communication strategy Agricultural research results

communications 1 .. /5

5

Contribution to significant

capacity building of NARS

through partnership with

CGIAR & ARIs in West Africa

Degree/Academic (PhD, MSc) and Non-

degree training achievements 2 .. /10

6

Quantity and quality of

“ready-to-go” agricultural

innovations efficiently

generated & delivered

Number and quality of agricultural

innovations delivered (Comp. 2) and

disseminated (Comp. 3) by stakeholders at a

large scale & contribution to productivity &

income increase.

4 .. /20

Total score acquired for targeted NCoS/RCoE (out of 50): .. /50

Source: WAAPP pre-appraisal mission- Dec.2011.

(1): Score allocated per each criterion according to the rating scale description (ref. to preamble section)

(2): Allocated Index (coefficient or “Coefficient de pondération’)

37

Appendix 2.2: List of existing technologies to be promoted for quick adoption

Update on WAAPP Key Results (2011)

1. Regional integration agenda. WAAPP was designed to foster regional collaboration and

integration in the generation and dissemination of improved agricultural technologies. However,

getting the regional dimension of the program into motion proved more difficult than anticipated,

due to limited experience and channels of national agricultural research systems to work across

national boundaries. In addition, it was necessary to test and improve the mechanisms for

facilitating the exchanges of technologies and researchers during the first years of program

implementation. Today, the program has recorded an increasing number of interactions, sharing

and exchanges between the national research teams. These exchanges, which relate to both

technologies and R&D skills, are facilitated by the NCoS around which a regional network of

researchers is being built. Recently, NCoS in Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and Senegal have

organized regional workshops involving other countries, with the aim to mainstream regional

agricultural research priorities into the national programs. These workshops are now formalized

under WAAPP, with the requirement for all eight (8) WAAPP NCoS to organize annual

meetings to plan and evaluate progress of implementation of the regional agricultural research

and development agenda. WAAPP is also contributing to strengthen the CARGS, which have

become more efficient and are involving a broader spectrum of R&D stakeholders across the

region, including research institutes, universities, NGOs and the private sector.

2. Technology generation and dissemination. After three (3) years of effective

implementation in the first three countries (Ghana, Mali, Senegal), WAAPP-1A has strengthened

the NCoS and CARGS, resulting in the release of more than fifteen (15) potentially high impact

technologies (Tables 2.7 and 2.8 list the varieties/technologies released by Ghana and Senegal

under WAAPP-1A, y). These technologies are currently being disseminated in-country, and have

as well been shared between the participating countries for adaptation and dissemination.

GHANA

3. Cassava. Four (4) new improved varieties of cassava (CSIR-Ampong, CSIR-Otuhia,

CSIR-Sika bankye and CSIR-Broni bankye) with an average potential yield of 25-30 metric

tons/ha have been released in 2010, thereby providing opportunities to raise on-farm yield by

more than 100 percent (existing varieties yield, on the average, about 12 tons/ha). Among the

four released varieties, two have high starch content and hence very suitable for the starch

industry while the other two have good floor quality and are very poundable, making them

suitable for fufu preferred by local consumers. Planting material multiplication and

dissemination is on-going under WAAPP. Through the program, planting materials generated at

the NCoS are being demonstrated and disseminated in partnership with the extension services,

the IFAD-funded Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Project (RTIMP) and the Bill and

Melinda Gates funded CAVA project. Around 1,800 ha of demonstration fields of the new

varieties have been cultivated, involving close to 6,000 famers, mainly organized in farmer

groups. Planting materials of these varieties have also been given to Mali and Senegal where

they are currently being tested.

4. Cassava production techniques. In addition to new cassava varieties generation, efforts

have been made in improving production techniques through better weed control and

intercropping and rotation.

38

5. Cocoyam. The Ghana NCoS is at the verge of an historic release of two varieties of

Cocoyam (Xanthosoma sp.-ABN 01/004 and SW 011) to be finalized by early 2012. This feat

has attracted interest in the region and scientists from the other countries are following up on the

progress of this technology.

6. Sweet potato. Four yellow flesh (high carotene content) sweet potato varieties were

released in Ghana (Table 2.7). Three more sweet potato varieties (199062.1, Mohc and Cemsa

74-228) will also be finalized for release in 2012. Mohc and Cemsa 74-228 have cream skin

color, while 199062.1 has light orange skin color. All three varieties have yield potentials greater

than 10 tons/ha.

7. Yam. The production of seed yam (Dioscorea rotundata) using the vine technologies

have been developed in collaboration with IITA and are currently being tested and demonstrated

on farmers’ fields. The vine technology can produce six (6) times more seed yam than the mini-

sett method. This technology has also attracted high interest in the yam producing countries in

the region, where availability of seed yam is a major constraint in the production of the crop.

This technology has been shared with other countries which are planning to adapt them in the

coming season. Four hundred potential seed yam farmers in Ghana are involved in the validation

of the technology.

8. Composite flour. This technology follows in the line of the composite coarse

grain/wheat technology that has helped to reduce the cost of bread in Senegal. Around 96 bakers

(65 community bakers and 27 bakers of 24 senior high schools) in Ghana are being trained in the

use of four types of composite flours: cassava/wheat; sweet potato/wheat; cowpea/wheat; and

corn/wheat. The technology allows substitution of 20 to 100 percent of the pricier wheat flour by

coarse grain/tuber flour, depending on the target end product. These bakers are currently

operating in three (3) southern regions of Ghana.

9. Solar Dryer. This is made from local materials to produce faster drying and very

hygienic products. This technology reduces the length of drying to just 5-6 days depending on

the season, as compared to the two or more weeks that it takes to dry using the traditional

methods. In addition, while the traditional drying method produces moldy and poor quality

products, the new technology keeps the products clean and hygienic. About 400

processors/producers are involved in the demonstration and early dissemination activities. The

solar dryer was presented to the participating countries and some of them have shown a high

interest to test them in their local conditions.

10. Cassava Harvester. This technology was developed under the Ghana CARGS by

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in collaboration with the

University of Leipzig in Germany. The machine had been successfully tested and it works

perfectly well during the dry season when the ground is very hard and the cassava planted in a

row. This innovation is a technological breakthrough to help small scale and commercial cassava

farmers. About 90 farmers are involved in the demonstration of this technology. Some countries,

such as Côte d’Ivoire have expressed a high interest in the harvester. WAAPP-Ghana team is

preparing a dissemination plan, including the transfer of the technology to other WAAPP

countries.

39

Table 2.6: List of improved/adapted varieties/technologies released by WAAPP-1A

GHANA their characteristics and potential impact

Varieties/Technologies Description/outstanding characteristics Potential impact

CASSAVA

Cassava varieties

- CSIR- Ampong

- CSIR- Otuhia

- CSIR- Broni bankye

- CSIR- Sika bankye

- Superior to the existing varieties in terms of

yield, dry matter, resistance to African Cassava.

- Mosaic Disease (CMD) and adaptability to

forest, forest-savannah and coastal savannah

zones.

- Form wider canopies at early growth stages to

compete favorably with weeds thus reducing

labor input and costs for farmers. Varieties for

relay cropping.

- Increase in yield of cassava

to 40-60 t/ha as compared

to the 10-15 tons from

existing local varieties

- Increase in farmer income

and improved livelihood

Technology

- Improved cassava

cultivation practices using

herbicides and suitable

varieties to control weeds

under cassava production

- No residual herbicide (diuron and

atrazine/cynazin) effects on cassava roots

- Suitable crop management for weed control in

cassava

- Reduction in weed control

in cassava production by

40%

- Improved cassava

production using cassava

and legume intercropping

and rotation

- Improves soil fertility and cassava yield

through nitrogen fixation by the inter-cropped

legumes

- Farmers earn multiple

income from cassava and

legume

- Sustainability of soil

fertility for crop production

- Improved cassava

harvesting technology

- Operates on dig and pull technique, tractor

mounted and performs very well on dry soils.

- The system harvests a hectare of cassava field

in 20 min, as compared to 30 hours.

- Up to 75percent reduction

in labor requirement for

cassava harvesting and

80percent saving in time

requirement

SWEET POTATO

Sweet potato varieties

- CSIR- Hi-starch

- CSIR-Apomuden

- CSIR- Otoo

- CSIR-Ogyefo

- 20-40percent yield increase over farmer

varieties

- Two of the improved varieties (Apomuden and

Otoo) contain high beta-carotene

- Increase of farmers income

(by about 25- 50%)

depending on quality and

demand.

- Reduction in vitamin A

deficiency among

consumers.

Technology

- Drying of cassava and

sweet potato chips

- Wood shed of a plastic green house with high

heat generation capacity and well aerated to

prevent molding and browning (pre-boiling) of

R&T chips

- Higher volumes of dry

R&T chips in a shorter

duration

- Produces high quality dry

R&T chips

40

YAM

Technology

- Yam vine technology for

the production of seed

yam.

- Provides true to type seeds at reduced cost.

Higher multiplication rates.

- Potential of producing seed

yam with a 1:240

multiplication ratio

- Ridging as a mechanical

alternative to mounding

for yam cultivation

- Increase efficiency in yam production by 25%. - Reduces drudgery

- Use of mini-sett

technology of mother

seed yam multiplication

- Increase efficiency in yam seed production by

25%

- Increase in yield by about

25percent against use of

traditional setts.

COMPOSITE FLOUR

Technology

- Composite flour of

cassava/wheat

- Composite flour of sweat

potato/wheat

- Composite flour of

cowpea/wheat

- Composite flour of

corn/wheat

- Allows substitution of 20 to 100 percent of

pricier wheat flour

- Cheaper production of

bread

SENEGAL

11. Coarse grains (sorghum and millet). Four high-yielding drought-resistant varieties of

sorghum (ISRA 621 A, ISRA 621 B, ISRA 622 A and, ISRA 622 B) as well as two varieties of

millet (Thialakh 2 and ISMI 9507) showing percentage yield increases of 40 to 60 percent over

the control have been released. These varieties are being disseminated in Senegal involving a

dissemination plan using farmers’ organizations to scale up adoption. Ten farmers’ organizations

are currently producing seed on about 300 ha. These varieties have been shared with Mali and

Ghana where they are being adapted.

12. Improved agronomic techniques. Agronomic techniques for the optimum cropping

densities for sorghum and millet have been developed by the NCoS to help farmers to increase

crop yields by 40 to 100 percent.

13. Weed control. An integrated Striga sp. control strategy involving the application of

organic and mineral fertilizers in a cereal - cowpea crop rotation- has been developed. This

approach results in a 40-50 percent yield increase on farmer fields. Around 1,000 farmers are

involved in the dissemination of this technique through farmers’ field fora.

14. Composite flour for bread-making. Based on the successful results of the pilot

dissemination phase involving 30 bakers in the use of composite cereal/wheat flour technique for

bread making, Senegal is scaling up this technique with a target of reaching 150 bakers. Using a

value chain approach and contract farming arrangements, a task force involving the bakers

association, flour millers and farmers organizations have designed a dissemination plan to ensure

a widespread adoption of the technique. Senegal is also supporting Mali to fine tune and

introduce the composite flour technology in Mali.

41

Table 2.7: List of improved/adapted varieties/technologies released by WAAPP-1A

SENEGAL, their characteristics and potential impact

Varieties/

Technologies

Description/outstanding

characteristics

Potential impact

MILLET

Millet varieties

Thialakh 2 - 95 days cycle variety targeting

Southeast and East parts of the country

where low-yield varieties are used

(local varieties)

- Productivity increase up to 30%

ISMI 9507 - Short-cycle variety (85 days) for the

Northern part (low rain level),

- Tolerant to main diseases & good

organoleptic qualities (couscous)

- Productivity increase up to 30percent

ICMVIS 89305 - 95 days cycle variety targeting

Southeast and East parts of the country

where low-yield varieties are used

(local varieties)

SORGHUM

Sorghum varieties

ISRA 621 A and B

ISRA 622 A and B

- 105 to 110 days cycle variety; adapted

to South and South-central areas.

- Good quality for bread.

- Improved yield of about 40 to 60percent

compared to local varieties.

MAIZE

Maize varieties

8 new varieties registered

with WAAPP support

- Good ecological adaptability and good

organoleptic qualities

- Yields stability

- Improved yield of about 40 to 60percent

compared to local varieties.

FONIO SHELLING

Technology

Fonio grain shelling

machine

- Shelling time reduced from 2 hours for

2.5 kg manually to 8 minutes for 5 kg

with the machine.

- Improved quality of the shelled fonio

with a shelling rate of 99percent and a

broken rate of 1%.

42

Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-2A)

Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

1. The institutional arrangements set up for WAAPP-1A are still relevant and will continue

to govern WAAPP-2A implementation. Each country and CORAF will maintain and strengthen

the existing steering committees and PCUs.

Regional implementation mechanisms

2. WAAPP-2A is an ECOWAS Program. ECOWAS therefore chairs the Regional Steering

Committee that meets once yearly to review the AW&B and implementation progress. The

current regional Steering Committee which was very efficient during the implementation of

WAAPP-1A will therefore be maintained.

3. CORAF has been mandated by ECOWAS to coordinate the WAAPP Program at regional

level. CORAF has already demonstrated capacity to coordinate preparation and implementation

of the three series of the first phase (see Box 3.1). WAAPP-2A will continue to adapt and

strengthen CORAF’s implementation arrangements in the key areas of communication,

knowledge management, gender, financial management, procurement, and M&E, to ensure

efficient implementation and to remain in compliance with the Bank’s fiduciary and reporting

requirements.

4. At least one-fifteenth (1/15th

) of the proceeds of each participating country IDA financing

will be made available to CORAF. Each country will conclude a subsidiary grant agreement with

CORAF, detailing the nature of technical support and coordination expected from CORAF and

the level of financial support to be provided to CORAF by each participating country.

5. CORAF will support and monitor the overall implementation of the Program. It will

report on progress related to the effectiveness of the dissemination mechanisms and the increase

in agricultural productivity and competitiveness in the ECOWAS countries.

Box 3.1: Institutional Assessment of CORAF/WECARD

In 2011, a mid-term review of the Operational Plan and an Institutional assessment of CORAF/WECARD were

conducted. These assessments were appreciated by the Governing Board and main development partners of

CORAF/WECARD (DFID, the European Commission, CIDA, the World Bank, USAID and AusAID). This

resulted in the main observations as follows: (i) increase in the budget and progress made in diversifying funding

sources; (ii) diversification in research areas addressed by the various programs, such as climate change and other

subjects; (iii) a stable and strongly committed staff, and capacity to manage funds; and (iv) increased visibility and

recognition throughout the region.

The key recommendations formulated by the Board and Development Partners to CORAF/WECARD include: (i)

develop an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the institutional assessments; (ii) extend

research activities beyond technology generation and contribute to technology adoption; (iii) focus more on the

communication of results delivered by Programs; (iv) improve the dissemination of results delivered through

innovation platform activities; (v) recruit a Gender Specialist for facilitating the implementation of

CORAF/WECARD Gender Action Plan; (vi) measure the impacts of technologies and innovations developed

within the framework of project implementation; (vii) harmonize the audit and reporting systems and other

administrative questions in order to facilitate the work of CORAF/WECARD; (viii) support CAADP regional and

technical workshops to facilitate the implementation of National Agricultural Investment Programmes (NAIP) by

countries; (ix) support development of the strategy for tertiary agricultural learning in close collaboration with

agricultural research programs and institutions. These recommendations are also relevant to the implementation of

WAAPP

43

6. In order to speed dissemination of project results and achievement of the PDO during the

second phase, CORAF will build synergies with some regional organizations with a large

network coverage including: (i) the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS);

(ii) the Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA);

(iii) the West Africa Seed Alliance (WASA); (iv) the relevant CGIAR centers (IITA, ICRISAT,

AfricaRice); (v) the International seed testing association (ISTA); and (vi) African Seed Trader

Association (AFSTA).

National implementation mechanisms

Ghana

7. At the national level the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) will be responsible for

the oversight of the Project. The coordination of the Project will be entrusted to the Project

Coordinating Unit (PCU) established by MoFA and which has been implementing WAAPP-1A.

8. The specific implementation arrangements are:

(i) The National Steering Committee (NSC) of WAAPP will be maintained. It will

continue to provide political guidance and orientation to the national coordination

and implementation units of the Project. The NSC will be chaired by the Minister of

Agriculture (or his/her designee) with the WAAPP Coordinator ensuring the

Secretariat. The NSC will ensure the coherence and integration of WAAPP within

the METASIP.

(ii) The existing PCU will be maintained and strengthened in the field of procurement,

communication and extension. The Coordinator of WAAPP will continue to be

assisted by key staff appointed by MoFA and consisting of one (1) Financial

Controller, one (1) M&E Officer, one (1) Procurement Specialist, as well as the

required support staff (drivers, secretary). In addition, a technical expert (Extension

specialist) and a Communication Officer will be appointed by MoFA to assist the

Project Coordinator.

(iii) Implementation arrangements for Component 1 will be done through results-based

MOUs and/or contracts with all the relevant Directorate of MoFA, public and

private service providers responsible for the implementation of the Project’s

activities. The WAAPP Coordinator will be responsible for the preparation of these

result-based MOUs and contracts with all the entities.

(iv) Component 2 will be implemented by the Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research (CSIR). Eligible structures for support under Component 2 include: (a)

Crop Research Institute, which is the core NCoS, and (b) relevant institutes that

support the development of the roots and tubers value chain i.e., Food Research

Institute (FRI) and Savannah Agriculture Research Institute (SARI).

(v) Component 3 will be implemented as follows: (a) the national window under

Component 3.1 will continue to be implemented by the CSIR; (b) Components 3.2

and 3.3 will continue to be managed by the PCU on the basis of contractual

arrangements to be concluded with suitable public and private service providers in

accordance with the provisions of the PIM. The RELC system will be strengthened

and used as a stakeholder planning and assessment tool for Component 3; and (c)

The CARGS board will be broadened to include other relevant stakeholders of

44

WAAPP-2A. Technical subcommittees will be established for the review of CARGS

proposals.

Senegal

9. The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) will be responsible for the implementation of

WAAPP-2A in Senegal. It will delegate the overall coordination, monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) to the existing Technical and Fiduciary Coordinating Unit (UCTF) which was established

by PSAOP and is implementing WAAPP-1A and the GEF Sustainable Land Management

Project.

10. The specific implementation arrangements are:

(i) The WAAPP NSC will be maintained throughout the implementation period of the

project and broadened to include all actors of the value chain. The NSC will be

chaired by the Minister of Agriculture (or his/her designee) with the WAAPP

Coordinator as Secretary.

(ii) The Coordinator of WAAPP will continue to be assisted by staff consisting of: a

Technical Advisor, Disbursement Officer, Procurement Specialist, and an M&E

Specialist Furthermore the PCU will be strengthened by addititional staff; namely a

Finance and Administrative Officer, a Communication Specialist and a Gender

Specialist that should be recruited within three month of Project effectiveness.

(iii) Component 1 will be implemented through results-based MoUs and/or contracts

with all the relevant Directorate of MOA or any relevant public and private service

providers. The WAAPP Coordinator will be responsible for the preparation of these

result-based MOUs and contracts with all the entities.

(iv) Component 2 will be implemented by the Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole

(ISRA) in Senegal on the basis of the AWP&B approved by the national WAAPP

Steering Committees. Eligible structures for support under Component 2 include:

(a) CERAAS, which is the core NCoS, and (b) relevant institutes that support the

development of the dry cereal value chains, namely the Institut de Technologie

Alimentaire (ITA), the Bureau d’Analyses Macro-économiques (BAME) and the

Centre National de Recherches Agronomiques (CNRA/ISRA) of Bambey.

(v) Sub-Component 3.1 will continue to be implemented by the Fonds National de

Recherches Agricole et Agro-alimentaire (FNRAA), which was established by

PSAOP and is being used by WAAPP-1A.

(vi) Sub-components 3.2 and 3.3 will continue to be managed by the project

coordination units on the basis of contractual arrangements to be concluded with

suitable public and private service providers in accordance with the provisions of

the PIM.

2. Financial Management, Disbursement and Procurement

11. A Financial Management and Procurement Assessments of the Project’s implementing

entities have been conducted by the Bank fiduciary team during the period of November –

December 2011. The details of the assessments and recommendations are found in Appendix 3.1.

Following is the summary of the assessments.

45

Financial Management

12. A financial management assessment of the WAAPP-2A implementing entities was

conducted by the Bank’s FM team in December 2011 in accordance with the Financial

Assessment Principles and AFTFM ORAF guidelines, to determine whether the implementing

entities have acceptable FM arrangements, which will ensure: (i) the funds are used only for the

intended purposes in an efficient and economical way; (ii) the preparation of accurate, reliable

and timely periodic financial reports; and (iii) safeguard the entities’ assets. Following is the

detailed assessment, together with the proposed arrangements for disbursements, accounting,

audit, and monitoring.

13. The FM assessment identified inherent (such as weak capacity of the PCU in Ghana, and

governance issue in Senegal mainly due to weak budget execution procedures) and control risks

(including manual accounting system in Ghana, or accounting system not adapted to the Bank’s

requirement in the case of CORAF). The assessment also developed related mitigations measures

for these identified risks (see Appendix 3.1)

14. The residual risks after mitigation is rated Moderate.

Procurement

15. An assessment of capacities of implementing agencies to implement procurement actions

for the project has been carried out by Bank Procurement Specialists14

, during the period of

September-December 2011. The assessment reviewed the procurement procedures,

organizational structure and functions, staffing, staff skills, quality and adequacy of supporting

and control systems, legal and regulatory framework, recent performance on procurement, the

procurement provisions of the existing manual, and internal controls.

16. Regional level (CORAF). The assessment identified the following major weakness in

the procurement capacity of CORAF: (i) Some discrepancies exist between the procurement

aspects specified in the Administrative and Financial Manual and the World Bank new

Procurement Guidelines; and (ii) There are no adequate fiduciary control mechanisms in place

for the management of subprojects.

17. National level. (i) in Ghana, the assessment concludes that even though MoFA has a

procurement unit which has successfully managed several Bank-funded and other donor projects

in the recent past, and are currently implementing WAAPP-1A which closes in December 2012,

the procurement unit has lost all the experienced procurement staff who are very conversant with

the World Bank procurement procedures, and therefore lacks adequate procurement capacity to

manage the procurement activities of WAAPP-2A. There is an urgent need to staff the unit with

adequate numbers of procurement personnel to be trained in procurement; and (ii) in Senegal, the

assessment indicates that the implementing agency has not only previous Bank experience but

also has satisfactorily implemented the activities of WAAPP-1A. With respect to Procurement,

the implementing agency is staffed by a key procurement expert with acceptable background.

18. Overall Risk Assessment: The main risks concerning the procurement capacity for the

project at the time of appraisal can be summarized as follows:

14

Mamadou Mansour Mbaye, Procurement Specialist based in Dakar Country Office in April 2010 and updated in

September 2011; and in Accra by Adu-Gyamfi Abunyewa, Sr. Procurement Specialist on November 30, 2011.

46

Country/Agency Procurement risk

CORAF (Regional Agency) Medium-L

Ghana High

Senegal Medium-L

OVERALL High

3. Environmental and Social (including safeguards)

19. WAAPP-2A is a Category B Project. In other words, the environmental and social

impacts of the Project, for the most part, are expected to be minimal, site specific, and

manageable to an acceptable level. Three Bank safeguard policies apply to the Project:

Environmental and Social Assessment (OP 4.01), Pest Management (OP 4.09) and Involuntary

Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12). Guidelines on mitigation measures designed to minimize the

social and environmental impacts of the project are discussed in the ESMF.

20. When the environmental and social assessment of the Project was done, the range, scale,

locations and number of technology generation and transfer activities that will be undertaken

under the WAAPP initiatives were unknown. The difficulty inherent in defining what the real

environmental and social impacts of such activities might be determining what mitigation

measures to put in place made it essential to develop a regional ESMF. The Project triggered the

Pest Management Policy (OP 4.09) because its envisioned activities are assumed to lead to

agricultural diversification and intensification, and thus it was necessary to develop a regional

PMP. Site visits for the pre-appraisal mission covered all participating countries and identified

issues related to the loss of economic activity among individuals or groups of individuals. For

that reason, a RPF was prepared for each of the countries. The ESMF, PMP and RPF have been

consulted upon, reviewed by the Bank, and disclosed on February 9, 2012 (prior to appraisal)

both in-country and at Infoshop.

Potential Impacts. The Project’s potential environmental, social and health impacts include, but

are not limited to:

Soil erosion and loss of biodiversity (fauna and flora), owing partly to Project

activities and partly to poaching and land conversion in natural resource areas to

which there is access near Project sites.

Extensive agriculture leading to deforestation of ecosystems.

Pesticide/inorganic fertilizer residues resulting from agricultural intensification and

diversification.

Sedimentation of water bodies due to land clearing and poor rehabilitation of borrow

pits.

Improper waste management.

Elimination of the natural enemies of crop pests and consequent alteration of

biological pest control methods.

Development of resistance to pesticides, encouraging increases in and reliance on

chemical pesticides.

Contamination of soil and water bodies.

Uncontrolled import, sale, and distribution of pesticides.

Weak institutional capacity for pesticide management.

No integrated approach to limiting crop pests.

Soil salinization, alkalization, and acidification.

Groundwater pollution (fertilizers, pesticides, and other contaminants).

Cattle health issues (from pesticide dips).

47

Unsafe management of pesticide containers.

None targeted species destruction (by pesticides).

Increase of waterborne diseases.

Soil trampling and compaction by cattle.

Selective browsing (by cattle) harms plants and ecosystems.

Well and water point pollution (by cattle).

Risks related to capacity deficiencies in biotechnology and biosafety.

21. As noted, the ESMF and PMP were updated by CORAF and discussed during a sub-

regional workshop in Dakar in January 31, 2012. The ESMF formulates standard methods and

procedures specifying how technological research proposals whose location, number, and scale

are currently unknown will systematically address environmental and social issues in the

screening, categorization, sitting, design, implementation, and monitoring phases. The ESMF

includes: (i) systematization of assessment of environmental and social impacts for all identified

subprojects before investment; and (ii) procedures for conducting subproject-specific

environmental and social impact assessments, be they Limited Environmental and Social Impact

Assessments or Full Environmental and Social Impact Assessments.

22. The proposed PMP, on the other hand, addresses concerns relating to the risks associated

with potential increases in the use of pesticides for agricultural production, intensification, and

diversification and potential increases in disease vector populations owing to irrigation schemes.

The plan makes proposals to strengthen national capacities to implement mitigation measures

designed to minimize such risks. The PMP, as part of the implementation arrangements, also

identifies national agencies and other partners that could play a vital role in the success of the

Project’s social and environmental safeguards.

23. Both the ESMF and PMP include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and

responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved in each participating country, at the

national and regional level, for screening, reviewing, and approving subprojects, as well as

implementing and monitoring of mitigation measures for those subprojects. In view of the

somewhat limited institutional capacity to address Project safeguards adequately, the two

safeguard instruments include provisions to strengthen the capacity of the various institutions

and actors involved and to promote coordination and synergies among the various sectors in

attending to potential social and environmental impacts. Together these safeguard instruments

are considered as a planning tool and a means for harmoniously integrating the Project with its

biophysical and social environment to maximize its positive effects in the sub-region.

24. The ESMF, the PMP and the RPF were consulted upon, submitted to the Africa

Safeguard Policy Enhancement (ASPEN), the regional Safeguard Unit, and cleared for

disclosure regionally by CORAF and at the Bank InfoShop on February 9, 2012.

25. Public Consultation and Disclosure. The ESMF, PMP and RPF were prepared in

compliance with Bank and national safeguard policies, following broad consultation with all

relevant stakeholder groups, consistent with the approach adopted at Project inception. This

participatory approach will continue throughout Project implementation, supervision, and

evaluation.

26. Prior to disclosure in-country and at the Bank’s InfoShop, CORAF organized a

stakeholder workshop for Project stakeholder groups from public agencies in the participating

countries (Ghana and Senegal), including representatives of national research and extension

services, national environmental protection agencies, professional organizations, farmers’

organizations, civil society, and NGOs. This approach was used to present the results of the

48

studies, foster ownership, and garner input from these stakeholders to improve the quality and

soundness of the instruments. Main issues raised include: the roles of environmental and social

safeguards focal points, capacity building, M&E, and provision of adequate budget for

implementation and supervision of safeguards measures. Recommendations from both ASPEN

and stakeholders' were reflected in the final safeguard reports prior to disclosure. These

recommendations and relevant provisions from the two sets of safeguard instruments will be

reflected in the PIM.

27. Monitoring and Supervision of Safeguards Performance. Successful implementation

of Project safeguard requirements and performance measurement requires regular M&E of

Project activities to assess compliancy with national and Bank safeguard policies. This M&E will

also help ensure that Project safeguard measures are systematically implemented throughout the

life of the Project.

28. To this end the following specific safeguard indicators (not included in the result

framework)will be measured, as part of the Project’s global monitoring plan:

Number of subprojects screened on environmental and social safeguard grounds.

Number of subproject needing specific ESIAs.

Number of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) conducted.

Number of subprojects with EMPs or ESIAs and/or RAPs.

Number of EMPs or ESIAs and/or RAPs implemented according to schedule.

Number/frequency of safeguard supervision and annual Project reviews undertaken.

Number of training programs carried out for safeguard capacity strengthening.

Number of institutions/organizations trained according to measures identified and

specified in the instruments.

29. In addition, as part of the Project’s global monitoring system, biophysical and social

changes (negative and positive) from the baseline in the natural environment in the Project’s

intervention area—such as changes in the quality of ground and surface water, changes in

diversity of flora and fauna, land resource management, and improvements in agricultural

activities—should be measured.

30. Safeguards Requirements in Project Legal Documents. As set forth in the financing

agreements, each country and CORAF shall carry out Components 2 and 3 of the Project

pursuant to the provisions of the PMP in a timely manner, ensuring that: (i) mitigation and

monitoring measures acceptable to the Association are designed and implemented with due

diligence and employing appropriate environmental expertise, and (ii) adequate information on

the implementation of the measures contained in the PMP is appropriately included in the

progress reports to be prepared under the Project.

31. In addition, each participating country and CORAF shall take all measures on their behalf

to: (i) screen, under the relevant parts of the Project, the activities under the Research Proposals

and Grants proposals submitted for financing out of the proceeds of the Credit; (ii) ensure that

each Beneficiary: (a) carry out an appropriate site-specific ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be,

and a Resettlement Action Plan, if there is Resettlement, for each such activities in accordance

with the provisions of the ESMF and RPF, as the case may be, and in form and substance

satisfactory to the Association; and (b) consult upon and disclose the site-specific ESIA or

ESMP, as the case may be, and the RAP, if there is one, as approved by the Association; (iii)

verify (through its own staff, outside experts, or existing environmental/social institutions)

before approving the Research Proposal or Grant proposal that the activities meet the

environmental and social requirements of appropriate national and local authorities and that they

49

are consistent with the Association’s applicable environmental and social assessment and

safeguard policies and comply with the environmental and social review procedures set forth in

the IM or the applicable Procedures Manual, as the case may be; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that

the relevant mitigation and monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and

RAP, if there is one, are appropriately implemented.

32. In addition, prior to the award of each contract for works to construct, rehabilitate or

upgrade the relevant infrastructure under the relevant parts of the Project, the participating

country shall: (i) furnish to the Association a written attestation for the specific site where the

works will be undertaken that the works shall not cause or result in Resettlement or submit to the

Association for its review and approval the related site-specific RAP in accordance with the

provisions of the RPF and in form and substance satisfactory to the Association; (ii) submit to

the Association for its review and approval the related site-specific ESIA or ESMP, as the case

may be, in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF and in form and substance satisfactory to

the Association; (iii) consult upon and disclose the site-specific ESIA or ESMP and RAP, if there

is one, as approved by the Association; and (iv) thereafter, ensure that the relevant mitigation and

monitoring provisions of the ESIA or ESMP, as the case may be, and RAP, if applicable, are

appropriately included in the works contract concluded for the site and that they are implemented

in the carrying out of the relevant parts of the Project.

33. Lastly, each participating country and CORAF shall carry out its respective Parts of the

Project pursuant to their obligations under and in accordance with environmental safeguards and

international good practice and standards consistent with those of, the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety.

34. Arrangements for Safeguards Supervision. The supervision of safeguards

implementation for the Project will be done by CORAF as part of the overall project

implementation in conjunction with the Social and Environmental Focal Points in each of the

participating country’s National Coordination Unit, and relevant experts involved in

environmental and social mitigation. World Bank supervision teams will also include

environmental and social safeguards experts on the team. To ensure effective Bank supervision,

CORAF in conjunction with each country’s implementation entity, will prepare and update

detailed reports on the implementation of the ESMF, and subsequent ESIAs/EMPs and/or RAPs,

as applicable, and the PMP, before Bank supervision missions. Appropriate budget for Project

supervision will be included in the Project financial evaluation.

Safeguard Policies Triggered

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No

Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [x] [ ]

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [x]

Pest Management (OP 4.09) [x] [ ]

Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [ ] [x]

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [x] [ ]

Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [ ] [x]

Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [x]

Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [x]

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [ ] [x]

Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [x]

50

4. Monitoring & Evaluation

35. The national and regional M&E systems will be strengthened to document the outcomes,

intermediate results and outputs of WAAPP.

36. Monitoring of outcomes and impact at the regional level. At the regional level,

CORAF will subcontract with appropriate regional and international agencies to update studies

on the region’s agricultural productivity, based on the study done with IFPRI support in 2006,

which has also served as a baseline for monitoring progress in agricultural productivity in the

region. These studies are not related to participating countries only but will report on agricultural

productivity in the entire ECOWAS region, and they will be carried out twice over the life of

WAAPP.

37. CORAF will produce an annual consolidated report based on the countries’ reports and

their specific studies, to be shared with all ECOWAS countries. CORAF will also inform

participating countries on a yearly basis on progress in implementing activities and the use of

funds transferred from country proceeds, with all relevant documents (including financial

statements and audit, and progress reports) as approved by its Steering Committee.

38. CORAF and the national research grant agencies will be responsible for maintaining

web-based databases on grant administration and results. Such databases will be accessible to the

public and will disclose information on the following: requests for proposals, the selection

process and procedures, grantees, and results. In addition, CORAF will develop and maintain an

agricultural research resource database in terms of publications and research skills available in

the region. An independent evaluation of completed subprojects funded under the regional and

national windows will be performed annually starting at the end of year 2 following Project

effectiveness. This evaluation will capture, through a score-card approach, all relevant

dimensions of subprojects, including alignment with the region’s top priorities, participation and

intake of beneficiaries, quality of FM, compliance with Bank safeguard policies, scientific

achievements and efficacy for transfer to end-users, quality of documenting results and

communicating to the public, and so forth.

39. Measurement and reporting of Project outcomes and outcomes at the national level.

At the country level, the PCU will be responsible for the overall internal monitoring of Project

indicators and outcomes as defined in the Results Framework. The M&E units of the PCUs will

be strengthened with additional staff members solely dedicated to WAAPP activities. Each M&E

unit will produce semi-annual reports along with notes synthesizing information on the national

priority sector and information on research grants and results. External service providers will be

recruited to organize the required reference surveys and basic data collection in Project year 1

and year 3. M&E responsibilities are summarized in table 3.1 below.

40. The NCoS/RCoE in participating countries will be responsible for measuring the impact

of technology released and transferred under Component 2. To this end, the NCoS/RCoE will

carry out farm surveys to measure the indicators on productivity improvement and technology

adoption. Such panel surveys will be conducted over the Project’s life cycle and will include

both a control group and adopters of released technologies. They will also perform supply chain

analysis and benchmarking to identify on a regular basis any knowledge gaps and key areas for

future research programs, as well as to provide an update on country progress and performance

along the chains of commodities in their particular areas of specialization.

41. External monitoring will be ensured by the respective Governments in close collaboration

with the World Bank. CORAF will participate in the supervision missions. CORAF and the

World Bank will organize the required implementation support and supervision missions.

51

Table 3.1 M&E Responsibilities.

Activity Responsibility M&E Reports

Internal monitoring PCU in Ghana

UCTF in Senegal

Semi-annual progress report

Annual progress report

Project completion report

CORAF Annual consolidated report on

implementation progress

Progress report on CARGS

External monitoring

(supervision, mid-term

review)

Government of Ghana and Senegal

World Bank

Supervision & implementation

support reports (aide-mémoire)

Mid-term review reports

Impact evaluation CNS/CROE Supply chain analysis and

benchmarking studies

PCU and UCTF will prepare ToR and

recruit external consultants

Baseline surveys (Project year 1)

Reference surveys (Project years

3 & 5)

52

Appendix 3.1: Financial Management, Disbursement and Procurement Assessments

Financial Management

1. A financial management assessment of the WAAPP-2A implementing entities was

conducted by the Bank’s FM team on December 2011 to determine whether the implementing

entities have acceptable FM arrangements, which will ensure: (i) the funds are used only for the

intended purposes in an efficient and economical way, (ii) the preparation of accurate, reliable

and timely periodic financial reports, and (iii) safeguard the entities’ assets. Following is the

detailed assessment, together with the proposed arrangements for disbursements, accounting,

audit, and monitoring.

Overview of Program and Implementation Arrangements

2. The proposed Project is the first series of the second phase of the WAAPP. The Program

intervenes already in 13 ECOWAS countries, as the Board already approved three series of the

first phase, including WAAPP-1A (Mali, Senegal, and Ghana), WAAPP-1B (Burkina Faso, Cote

d’Ivoire, and Nigeria), WAAPP-1C (Togo, Benin, Niger, and Liberia, The Gambia, Sierra Leone

and Liberia.).

3. WAAPP-2A includes IDA financing to Ghana and Senegal. At the regional level

WAAPP- 2A which is an ECOWAS Program will support CORAF – an ECOWAS institution in

charge of coordinating the WAAPP Program at Regional level. At least one-fifteenth (1/15th

) of

the proceeds of each participating country’s IDA financing will be made available to CORAF.

Each country will conclude a subsidiary grant agreement with CORAF, detailing the nature of

the technical support and coordination expected from CORAF. At national level WAAPP-2A

will be implemented by existing institutions in each participating country. In Ghana, the lead

implementing agency will be the PCU within the MoFA which was also responsible for

implementing WAAPP-1A; it will continue with the coordination, fiduciary management,

monitoring and evaluation of WAAPP-2A. In Senegal, the existing UCTF which was established

by PSAOP and is implementing WAAPP-1A will be maintained for WAAPP-2A.

Country Issues

4. Countries’ specific and governance issues are addressed into the risk assessment under

the country level risk category.

Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures

GHANA. Use of Country PFM systems will remain the default for Bank operations but full

readiness is expected upon the completion of the GIFMIS project. Selectivity will, in the

meantime, prevail where it is considered that an entity within the government has developed

adequate PFM capacity to implement the project without ring-fencing.

53

Table 3.2. Fiduciary risk assessment for Ghana

Risk Risk

Rating

Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks

Conditions

for

Effectiveness/

Negotiations

Residual Risk

Rating

Inherent Risk

Country Level

Weaknesses in the effective

use of public funds, weak

oversight regarding

transparency and

accountability. Poor linkages

between strategic planning

and long term budgeting at

the sector levels.

M

- Strengthening the role of the

MMDAs in FM capacity building

through ongoing reforms in the

public financial management.

No M

Entity Level ( MoFA)

- The ability of MoFA and

PCU to effectively

coordinate implementation

and get key stakeholders,

research firms etc buy- in.

M - The implementation arrangements

include the establishment of key

technical and stakeholder

committees. These committees will

provide ongoing strategic guidance

and monitor the results of

implementation progress towards

outcomes.

No M

Project Level

- Coordination during

implementation amongst the

different stakeholders and

MoFA.

S - Staff members to be trained on IDA

policies and procedures. Intensive

IDA supervision to help identity and

address weaknesses.

No

M

Overall Inherent Risk M M

Control Risk

Budgeting

- Challenges in translating the

allocated funds into realistic

time bound budgets with

specific activities and

outputs.

- Risk of cost overruns and

adverse variations in

expenditure due to potential

slow implementation.

S

- Implementations challenges are

expected to be addressed through the

various institutional hierarchies

established for the project. The

budget for the project will be part of

the overall sector’s budget which has

to be prepared in line with GoG

timelines. The PCU will prepare

comprehensive initial 12 months

budget on the use of funds.

- Budget execution to be monitored by

IDA through quarterly reports and

IFRs

No

S

Accounting

- MoFA uses manual and

EXCEL based systems and

these have weaknesses in

tracking funding and

expenditures from various

sources as well as in

M

- Excel will be used initially, followed

by full migration to the GIFMIS as

soon as the new system becomes

operational. As an alternative

measure, part of the PPF to be used

to initiate the procurement of

accounting software.

No

L

54

Risk Risk

Rating

Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks

Conditions

for

Effectiveness/

Negotiations

Residual Risk

Rating

allocating expenditure.

- Accounting staff capacity to be

strengthened with the recruitment of

a qualified FMC on a two year

contract and the secondment of

additional staff from CAGD.

Internal Controls

- Risk of non compliance with

internal control processes.

- Possibility of weaknesses in

GAC (transparency in

processes) particularly in

procurement and contract

awarding/execution.

M

- The MoFA has a functioning

Internal Audit Unit to help minimize

risk however the unit has not been

very active regarding SIL and donor

funded projects. Operational funds

will be provided to support the unit.

- The GoG financial regulations and

manuals are adequate for operational

control under the project. These

manuals document clearly the

approval and authorization

hierarchies applicable for processing

financial transactions.

- Regular IDA supervision missions

and reviews will help ascertain level

of compliance.

No

M

Funds Flow

- Non compliance with the

IDA requirements and

procedures can pose a

challenge to smooth funds

flow arrangements, thus

undermining implementation

progress.

M

- Use of government approved

treasury and funds flow processing

for transfers to beneficiary agencies

should speed up cash flow.

- Training on IDA requirements to be

provided to core accounting staff and

the processes documented as part of

the PIM.

No

M

Financial Reporting

- Delays in processing and

submitting IFRs and other

progress reports.

M

- Training to be provided to core

accounting staff on IDA

requirements and the processes

documented as part of the PIM.

No

M

Auditing

- The risk that audits will not

be submitted on time to

ensure compliance with

covenants. MoFA is audited

by the GAS and their scope

of work and timing may be

different and this may lead

to delays in adhering to the

financial covenant dates.

M

- An arrangement will be made with

the GAS to complete and report on

the audit of the MoFA within the

defined timeframe. However where

this is not feasible then alternative

arrangement will be made using

private firms to audit project specific

transactions.

No

M

Overall Risk Rating S M

H – High S – Substantial M – Moderate L – Low

55

5. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the

implementing entities and the mitigation measures provided, the overall financial management

risk rating for this project is Moderate.

SENEGAL AND CORAF

Table 3.3. Fiduciary risk assessment for Senegal and CORAF.

Description of Risk Risk Mitigation Measures incorporated in Project

Implementation

Condition of

Effectiveness

(Yes/No)

Residual

Risk/ (Risk)

rating

Inherent Risks

Country Level

- PFM system is weakened

mainly by (i) weak

oversight of public sector

entities and agencies; (ii)

difficulties in the

interfacing between/or

integrating the various

FM information systems,

i.e. Revenues (GAINDE

for Customs, SIGTAS for

Tax), Expenditures

(SGFIP), and Accounting

(ASTER).

- Remedial measures are being taken to address the

weaknesses of the budget execution procedures and

internal and external controls through the ongoing

PFM TA.

- However, these country issues would not impact the

project as it is being implemented through the MDA

under the oversight of a Program Steering

Committee.

No S

Entity Level

- CORAF/WECARD at the Regional level and the

Technical and Fiduciary Coordinating Unit (UCTF)

which was established by PSAOP 2 at the national

Level will implement WAAPP-2A.

No M

- Project Level

- The WAAPP-2A will rely on the existing project

arrangements which FM risk has been rated

moderate and the FM performance moderately

satisfactory.

No M

Overall Inherent Risk Residual Risk: M

Control Risk

Budgeting

No risk identified. - The annual budgets will be based on an agreed

annual work program and annual procurement plan

and submitted to the Bank by November 30 of each

year.

No L

Accounting

56

Description of Risk Risk Mitigation Measures incorporated in Project

Implementation

Condition of

Effectiveness

(Yes/No)

Residual

Risk/ (Risk)

rating

The existing accounting

software is not adapted. - The existing accounting software and FM Manual in

CORAF/WECARD and TFCU will be updated in

order to handle the implementation of the WAAPP-

2A.

Yes M

Internal control

The existing manual does

not reflect the new project

specifics.

- The FM procedures setting up a harmonized

framework will be used as a robust internal control

tools for the project. It will be updated to reflect the

new project specifics.

No M

Funds Flow

- Two DAs in FCFA will be opened in a Commercial

Bank on terms and conditions acceptable to the

Bank. Reliance will be placed on the existing flow

of funds arrangements.

Yes M

Financial Reporting

- CORAF/WECARD as well TFCU of Senegal will

produce and provide to the Bank in a quarterly basis

an interim no unaudited financial report (IUFR).

No L

Auditing

- External auditors with experience and qualifications

satisfactory to the Bank will be appointed to

conduct annual audit of the Project’s financial

statements of CORAF/WECARD and TFCU.

Yes M

Overall Control Risk M

Overall Risk M

6. Following the financial management assessment of the CORAF/WECARD and TFCU

involved in the WAAPP-2A, inherent and control risks were identified and related mitigation

measures were developed. The residual control risk is Moderate.

57

Strengths and Weaknesses

Country Strengths / Weaknesses

Ghana - From the FM perspective, the key strength of the project is that it will be implemented under

the auspices of the Treasury Unit which is technically well resourced in accounting and FM

and has been involved in implementing previous IDA funded project and is currently

implementing two active projects including WAAPP-1A which has satisfactory ratings.

A possible weakness could arise from the inherent risk associated with work load challenges

of the Treasury Unit. This risk is primarily being mitigated through the competitive

recruitment of an FMS to support the unit and also the secondment of additional staff from

CAGD. Other fiduciary weaknesses will be address through training of the PCU staff.

Senegal - TFCU has an adequate staffing and financial management arrangements.

CORAF - CORAF has been strengthened during the implementation of the Phase 1 A of the WAAP.

The current financial management arrangements are more than adequate.

7. Action plans to address the weaknesses are described in the section 12 the financial

assessment report.

Staffing

Country Descriptions

Ghana The Financial Controller with the assistance of the FMC and Principal Accountant will have

oversight responsibilities with regards to ensuring compliance with financial covenants such as

submitting Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs), maintaining internal controls over

project expenditure and engaging external auditors. The FC will also be responsible for

maintaining and operating the project’s designated account and make payments to contractors

and service providers and verifying and authorizing payments for all contracts and activities

under this project. An additional staff will be seconded to support the team.

Senegal &

CORAF - Recent supervision has confirmed that the FM staff is on board and well familiar with the

Bank procedures.

Budgeting

Country Descriptions

Ghana - The MoFA, as a government agency follows the budget preparation guidelines as per the

Financial Administration Act (2003), the Financial Administration Regulation (2004) and

also the annual budget guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance. The overall budget will

be determined between the GoG and the IDA whilst the annual budgeting will be done in line

with the Government’s existing budget framework and timetable (MTEF/Budget calendar) as

part of the regular budget submission of MoFA. The budget line under which the funds will

be allocated for the project should be clearly identified and reported upon as part of the

MoFA budget allocations under a sub-budget category. This will ensure that the principles of

‘aid on budget’ are observed for this operation.

- The project will be required to prepare and submit to the Bank for approval its annual work

plans and budget including procurement plans. Once the budgets are approved copies will be

provided to the Financial Controller of MoFA to enable him monitor and review adequate

budgetary control on expenditure. Project management will ensure that all units and

component activities are correctly reflected in the work plans and budget. The assessment

concludes that the budgeting arrangements at MOFA are adequate.

- Approved budgets will then be submitted to the IDA for reference purposes. The current

budgetary control processes used mostly for the government’s discretionary budget are

capable of monitoring commitments and outstanding balances and this helps to reduce risk of

multiple payments. In addition the Bank approved PIM will outline the budgetary processes

for preparing the AWP&B. The assessment indicates that the budgeting processes are

58

satisfactory and can be relied upon to reflect the various components to be implemented.

Senegal &

CORAF - The annual budget will be based on an agreed AWP&B, annual procurement plan and closely

monitored during implementation. The PIM will describe the budgeting process for the

overall project. Senegal Coordination Unit will consolidate the project budget after the

submission of the respective Action plan and Budget of the FNRAA and ISRA.

Accounting

Country Descriptions

Ghana - The Treasury Unit, of MoFA, has the responsibility for maintaining the accounting records

and books of the ministry. The unit is headed by a Principal Accountant who reports through

the Financial Controller to the Chief Director. The Financial Controller is a qualified

chartered accountant with relevant years of experience, having worked at different MDAs

within the government service. Accounting and financial reporting for the proceeds of the

credit will follow the existing GoG accounting policies and rely on the existing systems

including the GoG Chart of Accounts, internal approval processes, payment vouchers, and

authorization limits. Currently, a combination of manual cash books and general ledger,

supplemented by excel spreadsheets are used for periodic returns.

- Due to possible work load and oversight challenges it has also been agreed that, asides the

Principal Accountant, there will be the need to assign or second a dedicated project

accountant to support implementation. However if the CAGD is unable to assign or second an

accountant there is provision for MoFA to recruit a project accountant to support

implementation. It is envisaged that the FMC will be recruited for an initial two year period

to help in setting up effective systems and train the GoG assigned accounting staff who will

subsequently take over project accounting function. As part of the implementation readiness,

IDA will organize FM training programmes for all project staff.

Senegal The current accounting standards in use in Senegal for on-going Bank-financed projects will

be applicable. SYSCOHADA is the assigned accounting system in West African Francophone

countries and will be applicable for Senegal and CORAF. Project accounts will be maintained

on an accurate basis, supported with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments

and to safeguard assets. The existing accounting software in CORAF and TFCU will be

updated in order to allow production of all accounting and financial data required: The

accounting procedures and the institutional arrangement of this new project will be

respectively documented in the existing Administrative and Accounting Procedures Manual of

CORAF and TFCU.

Internal Control/Internal Audit

Country Descriptions

Ghana - In line with the decision to adopt the UCS for implementation, the project’s internal controls

will rely on the government established accounting and internal control guidelines as

documented in the Financial Administration Act (2003) and the Financial Administration

Regulation (2004), and informed by the Internal Audit Agency Act (2003). In addition the

controls will follow the authorization and approval processes as per the internal control

guidelines issued by Internal Audit and Procurement Unit of the MoFA. The MoFA has a

functioning internal audit unit which helps to ensure a sound control environment for

transaction processing. However our assessment indicates that the unit is grossly understaffed

and as such focuses primarily on GoG funded activities. To mitigate this risk, the project will

provide some operational support to enable the unit include donor funded activities as part of

its oversight functions. The role of the internal audit will be regularly assessed during

supervision missions by reviewing their reports and management responsiveness to their

findings. This is to ensure that the role is not limited to transactional reviews (pre-auditing)

but adds value to the overall control environment.

Senegal & - As part of the PIM, the FM procedures setting up a harmonized framework will be used as a

59

CORAF robust internal control tools for the project. It will be updated to reflect the new project.

Reporting and Monitoring

8. All implementing entities in the different countries will have to prepare IFRs on a

quarterly basis and annual Financial Statement composed of the following: (i) Financial reports

(sources and uses of funds by funding source and uses of funds by activities of the project); (ii)

Projected expenditures and cash forecast for the next semester (six months); and (iii) Bank

reconciliation statement for the Designated Accounts and the Transactions Accounts showing the

cash balance available at end of the quarter under review. IFR will be submitted no later than 45

days after the end of the quarter.

External Audit

Country Descriptions

Ghana In line with its mandate as per the Ghana Audit Service Act (Act 584) the Auditor General is

solely responsible for the auditing of all funds under the Consolidated Fund and all public

funds as received by government ministries, agencies and departments. In this regard, and

consistent with the use of country FM systems, the Ghana Audit Service (GAS) will conduct

the audit of the project’s financial statements and furnish copies to IDA within 6 months of the

end of each fiscal year of the GoG. The capacity of the GAS is considered satisfactory.

However as is the practice, due to capacity constraints, it is usual for the auditor general to

subcontract the audit of donor funded project to private firms. Under the project this

arrangement will be followed subject to the Bank’s necessary procurement and technical

clearance of the TOR for the engagement of the audit firm. This is to ensure that there are no

delays in meeting the financial covenants for submission. The audit scope will be tailored to

the project’s specific risks and include special opinion on competitive grant. In line with new

access to information policy, the audited financial statements will be made available.

Senegal &

CORAF - The TOR for the external auditor will be satisfactory to the Bank and external auditors with

experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be appointed to conduct annual

audit of the Project’s financial statements of CORAF and TFCU. This audit should be carried

out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), and will include such tests

and controls, as the auditors consider necessary under the circumstances. Besides expressing

an opinion on the Project’s financial statements in accordance with ISA, the auditors will be

expected to prepare report on internal controls, management letters giving observations and

comments, and providing recommendations for improvements in accounting records,

systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the IDA Financing Agreement.

The audit reports and opinions on the financial statements including the management letter

and management response shall be submitted to IDA within six (6) months of the end of the

Recipients fiscal year. The auditors shall be appointed within four (4) months after

effectiveness. In line with new access to information policy, the audited financial statements

will be made available.

Disbursement Arrangements

9. Disbursement for Senegal will be transaction based, while for Ghana, it will be IFR

based. For both countries the minimum value of applications for reimbursement, direct payment

and special commitment is 20 percent of outstanding advance made to the DAs. Banking

arrangements and funds flow

10. Detailed fund flows for each country are presented below.

60

Table 3.4 Flow of funds

Country Accounts Flow of funds

Ghana - There will be only one designated account opened

and maintained by the MoFA on behalf of the

Project. IDA funds for implementing the project

will all be disbursed to a segregated designated

account operated and maintained by the Treasury

Unit of MoFA and managed and operated by the

Financial Controller (MoFA). The signatories to the

MoFA account will be the: (i) the Director of PCU

or the Chief Director (MoFA) (depending on the

value of transaction); (ii) the Financial Controller

(MoFA); and (iii) the Financial Management

Consultant. Specific details will be outlined in the

revised PIM.

- This arrangement to use a central account is

important to ensure that the Treasury Unit has

oversight responsibilities over transfers and

payments related to the implementation of

programme activities. As part of fund flow design it

has been agreed that in order to facilitate payment

of certain expenditures, it is likely that for

implementing Component 2 and 3 some other

agencies involved may be allowed to operate

Project Accounts on an imprest system. The ceiling

for the imprest will be based on the agreed work

plans of these agencies. The use of these funds will

be monitored through the imprest and reported upon

by the accounts officer at these agencies. This

arrangement which is what pertained under

WAAPP-1 will be improved to ensure that enough

funds are made available to the implementing

agencies to support their work and avoid the

situation where activities would be delayed due to

delay in receiving funds from the center. The key

beneficiary agencies are EPA, DCS, PPRSD CSIR

–PGRRI and CSIR –CRI. Prior to any such imprest

arrangements or transfers the FC and internal audit

unit will undertake an assessment and inform the

IDA FMS.

- The initial disbursement and ceiling

will be based on the expenditure

forecast for the first six months (but

not to exceed US$4,000,000).

Subsequent replenishments of the

DA would be done quarterly based

on the forecast of the net

expenditures for the subsequent 6

months after the first quarter, and on

duly approved withdrawal

applications submitted by the PIU

and supported by IFRs. Additional

instructions for disbursements will

be provided in a disbursement letter

issued for this project.

- In line with existing arrangements,

funds will be transferred to other

Ghana cedi denominated Project

Accounts at the implementing

agencies. Transfers to these sub

accounts will be imprest based and

will be in relation to the activities

outlined in their approved annual

work plans.

- The center will receive periodic

reports (as agreed between it and

these agencies) from these

implementing agencies in time to

enable the center consolidate these

into the single IUFR that would be

presented to the Bank within 45days

of the end of the quarter.

Senegal - A separate DA in FCFA will be opened in a

Commercial Bank on terms and conditions

acceptable to the Bank. This account will be

managed by the Ministry of Finance, through the

Expenditures Investment Department (DDI).

- Upon credit effectiveness and

request from the project, the Bank

will deposit the amounts of CFAF

4,000,000 into the Designated

Account.

CORAF - Designated account will be a pooled account in

which the countries’ initial advance will be

transferred, based on CORAF’s work plan. This

account will be also opened in a commercial Bank

in Dakar on terms and conditions acceptable to the

Bank.

-

- Upon credit effectiveness and

request from the project, the Bank

will deposit the amounts of CFAF

400,000 into the Designated

Account.

61

11. The table below sets out the expenditure categories and percentages to be financed out of

the credit proceeds. Given that the two countries are eligible to the countries financing

parameter, IDA fund will finance all expenditures at 100 percent including taxes.

Use of SOEs

12. The use of SOEs will be in line with the procurement’s thresholds.

Table 3.5: Categories of expenditures in SDR and USD

Ghana Senegal Total

Amount

allocated

Amount

allocated Amount allocated

N° Category SDR USD SDR USD SDR USD

1

Works under parts 2.1 and 3.2 (for

Ghana only) and 3.3 (iii) of the

Project

1.42 2.20 0.61 0.90 1.53 3.10

2

Goods, consultants services, non-

consulting services, training, study

tours, workshops and operational

costs under the project

a) Country 24.89 38.60 20.10 31.10 44.99 69.70

b) CORAF 0.91 1.40 0.91 1.40 1.82 2.80

3 Small grants under component 2.4

and Grants under component 3.1 (b) 9.80 15.20 14.20 22.00 24.00 37.20

4 CORAF regional window grants

under component 3.1 (a) 1.68 2.60 1.68 2.60 3.36 5.20

5 Unallocated 1.20 2.00 1.20 2.00

Total Amount 38.70 60.00 38.70 60.00 77.40 120.00

Table 3.6 Action Plan to address weaknesses/List of conditionalities

Country Actions Date due by Responsible

Body

Ghana - Recruit a FM Consultant to assist the Financial Controller (if

this is done under another IDA project there may not be the

need to have another accountant)

- Done MoFA Financial

Controller

- Assign a Project Accountant from CAGD -Done - MoFA

- Prepare a comprehensive initial twelve-months budget on the

use of funds Prepare a revised PIM to reflect WAAPP-2A

- Done - MoFA Project

Director

- Conduct FM and procurement training - At the start of the

project

- IDA

- Agree on the audit arrangements with GAS - Done - IDA/MoFA/GAS

Senegal &

CORAF

No actions required

62

Financial covenants

13. The standard financial covenants related to submission of IFRs, audit reports and the

maintenance of a sound FM system will be stated in the Financing and Project Agreements.

Supervision plan

14. FM implementation support plan will be consistent with a risk-based approach, and will

involve a collaborative approach with the entire Task Team (including procurement). The first

FM review will be carried out within 9 months of project effectiveness. Since all implementing

entities are running other Bank – financed projects, the implementation support mission for

WAAPP-2A will as much as possible be combined with the relating missions for the others Bank

- projects for the sake of synergy. This detailed review will cover all aspects of FM, internal

control systems, overall fiduciary control environment and tracing transactions from the bidding

process to disbursements. Thereafter, the on-site supervision intensity will be based on risk,

initially on the appraisal document risk rating and subsequently on the updated FM risk rating

during implementation. Given a residual risk rating of low at project appraisal, the financial

management specialist on-site visit will be once a year. Additional supervision activities will

include desk review of semi-annual IFRs, internal audit report, audited Annual Financial

Statements and management letters as well as timely follow up of issues arising, and updating

the FM rating in the Implementation Status report (ISR) and the Portfolio and Risk Management

System.

Conclusions of the FM Assessments

15. Following the financial management assessment of the entities involved in the WAAPP

2A, inherent and control risks were identified and related mitigation measures were developed.

The residual control risk is Moderate.

PROCUREMENT

A. General

16. Applicable Guidelines: Procurement for the proposed project will be carried out in

accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-

Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers"

dated January 2011; "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD

Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011; “Guidelines

on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans

and IDA Credits and Grants”, dated October 15, 2006, and revised in January 2011; and the

provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreements with the countries participating in the Project.

17. Advertising procedures: In order to get the broadest possible interest from eligible

bidders and consultants, a General Procurement Notice (GPN) will be prepared by each

participating country and published in United Nations Development Business online (UNDB

online), on the Bank’s external website and in at least one national newspaper, or technical or

financial magazine of wide national circulation in the recipient’s country, or a widely used

electronic portal with free national and international access after the Project is approved by the

Bank Board, and/or before Project effectiveness. The recipient will keep a list of received

answers from potential bidders interested in the contracts.

18. Specific Procurement Notices for all goods and works to be procured under International

Competitive Bidding (ICB) and Expressions of Interest for all consulting services to cost the

63

equivalent of US$200,000 and above would also be published in the UNDB online, on the

Bank’s external website, and the widely circulated national newspapers. For works and goods

using NCB, the Specific Procurement Notice (SPN) will be published in widely circulated

national newspapers in the country that is procuring for such works and goods.

19. Publications of Awards and Debriefing: For all ICBs, request for proposal that

involves the international consultants and direct contracts, the contract awards shall be published

in UN Development Business online and on the Bank’s external website within two weeks of

receiving IDA’s "no objection" to the recommendation of contract award. For works, goods, and

non-consulting services, the information to publish shall specified (i) name of each bidder who

submitted a bid; (ii) bid prices as read out at bid opening; (iii) name and evaluated prices of each

bid that was evaluated; (iv) name of bidders whose bids were rejected and the reasons for their

rejection; and (v) name of the winning bidder, and the price it offered, as well as the duration and

summary scope of the contract awarded. For Consultants, the following information must be

published : (i) names of all consultants who submitted proposals; (ii) technical points assigned to

each consultant; (iii) evaluated prices of each consultant; (iv) final point ranking of the

consultants; and (v) name of the winning consultant and the price, duration, and summary scope

of the contract. The same information will be sent to all consultants who have submitted

proposals.

20. NCB and other post review contracts shall be published in national gazette or on a widely

used website or electronic portal with free national and international access within two weeks of

the Borrower’s award decision and in the same format as in the preceding paragraph.

21. Procurement of Works: Minimal works contracts are expected to be procured under this

project. No ICB works contracts are anticipated. All works contracts are estimated to cost below

US$5,000,000 equivalent and will be procured through NCB. However, the first two NCB works

contracts, and contracts which are deemed complex and/or have significant risk levels, will be

prior-reviewed. Such contracts will be identified in the tables and also in the procurement plans.

Contracts estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured using

shopping procedures in accordance with Para. 3.5 of the Procurement Guidelines15

and based on

a model request for quotations satisfactory to the Bank. Direct contracting may be used in

exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the Bank, in accordance with paragraphs

3.7 and 3.8 of the Procurement Guidelines.

22. Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under the project would include: (i) Contracts

for goods estimated to cost US$500,000 equivalent or more per contract to be procured through

ICB; Goods orders shall be grouped into larger contracts wherever possible to achieve greater

economy; (ii) Contracts estimated to cost less than US$500,000 but equal to or above US$50,000

equivalent per contract may be procured through NCB; (iii) Contracts estimated to cost less than

US$50,000 equivalent per contract may be procured using shopping procedures in accordance

with paragraph 3.5 of the Procurement Guidelines and based on a model request for quotations

satisfactory to the Bank. Such goods will normally include readily available off the shelf items

that cannot be grouped or are standard specification commodities. Direct contracting may be

used in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the Bank, in accordance with

paragraph 3.7 and 3.8 of the Procurement Guidelines.

15

Shopping consists of the comparison of at least three price quotations in response to a written request. Additional

information on how to do prudent shopping is contained in the Guidance on Shopping available at the Bank’s

external web site for procurement under Procurement Policies and Procedures.

64

23. Procurement of non-consulting services: Procurement of non-consulting services, such

as transport services and servicing of office equipment, 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.

24. Selection of Consultants: Consulting Services under this project would include but are

not limited to external auditing, impact studies, environmental and social impact assessment,

outcome mapping or scoping studies, mid-term evaluation of the project, project baseline studies,

advisory services, technical assistance, engineering and design studies, development of strategies

(including for communication), research projects, and preparation or revision of manuals.

(i) Firm :Consultancy services would be selected using Request for Expressions of

Interest, short-lists and the Bank’s Standard Requests for Proposal, where required

by the Bank’s Guidelines. The selection method would include Quality and Cost

Based Selection (QCBS) whenever possible, Quality Based Selection (QBS), Fixed

Budget (FBS), Least Cost Selection (LCS), Single Source Selection (SSS) as

appropriate. Unless agreed to otherwise by the Bank, external auditors will be

selected through LCS in accordance with Para. 3.6 of the Consultant Guidelines.

(ii) Individual Consultants: Specialized advisory services would be provided by

individual consultants and will be hired in accordance with the provisions of

paragraphs 5.1 to 5.5 of the Consultant Guidelines.

25. Assignments estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more would be

advertised for expressions of interest (EOI) on the Bank’s Client Connection or Operations

Portal and in United Nations Development Business (UNDB) online, in addition to the respective

local newspapers of wide national circulation and National Public Procurement Authority’s

website. In addition, EOI for specialized assignments may be advertised in an international

newspaper or magazine. In the case of assignments estimated to cost less than US$200,000, but

more than US$100,000 in each country, the assignment would be advertised nationally. CORAF,

the Regional Coordinating Unit based in Senegal, will use Senegal as its country. The shortlist of

firms for assignments estimated to cost less than US$200,000 may be composed entirely of

national firms in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines

provided a sufficient number of qualified national firms are available and no foreign consultants

desiring to participate has been barred. For all contracts to be awarded following QCBS, LCS

and FBS, the Bank's Standard Request for Proposals will be used.

26. Procedure of Single-Source Selection (SSS) would be followed for assignments which

meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.8-3.11 of the Consultant Guidelines and will always

require the Bank's prior review regardless of the amount. Procedures of Single-Source Selection

of Individual Consultants (IC) would be followed for assignments which meet the requirements

of paragraph 5.6 of the Consultant Guidelines.

27. The use of civil servants as individual consultants or a team member of firms will strictly

follow the provisions of Article 1.9 to 1.11 of the Consultants Guidelines.

28. Research projects: The project will provide grants for demand-driven research and

agricultural extension activities, which will be selected through a competitive grants scheme that

is administered by CORAF. Eligible expenditures include research and lab equipment,

machinery, supplies, operational costs, consulting services, publication. The modalities for

administering the CARGS and Commissioned Research Grants will be specified in the CORAF

65

Grants Manual. Procurement under each activity will use simple methods and will be for small

contracts covering consultant services, training, goods, and workshops. The World Bank

procedures for procurement will be used. CORAF will be responsible for ensuring that the

selected recipients of these funds have the minimum capacity to implement the contract.

29. Capacity Building, Training Programs, Workshops, etc.: Training activities would

include academic training, workshops, study tours, seminars, conferences and on the job in the

course of implementing programs such as the communications strategy and R&D. All training

and workshop activities would be carried out on the basis of approved annual programs that

would identify the general framework of training activities for the year, including: (i) the type of

training or workshop; (ii) the personnel to be trained; (iii) the selection methods of institutions or

individuals conducting such training; (iv) the institutions which would conduct the training; (v)

the justification for the training, how it would lead to effective performance and implementation

of the project and or sector; and (vi) the duration of the proposed training; and (vii) the cost

estimate of the training. Report by the trainee upon completion of training would be required.

Each participating country and CORAF shall (i) furnish to the Association for its approval, not

later than January 31 of each year, a training program including an explanation of how such

training is consistent and conducive to the objectives of the Project and whether it offers the best

price/quality ratio, as well as the schedule for its implementation; (ii) select the trainers in

accordance with a transparent process and criteria satisfactory to the Association; and (iii)

furnish to the Association a report of such scope and detail as the Association shall reasonably

request on the expected results of each training and the benefits to be derived therefrom.

30. Operating Costs: Operating Costs financed by the project are incremental expenses

arising under the Project, and based on AWP&B approved by the Association. Such costs may

include office rent and maintenance; utilities (including electricity, water, and gas),

communications (including telephone and internet charges); equipment rent, operation and

maintenance; office materials and supplies (stationary and other consumables, but not the

purchase of equipment); lease of vehicles, operation, maintenance and repair; and travel cost and

transport of the staff associated with project implementation. These items will be procured by

using the implementing agencies’ administrative procedures, which are reviewed and found

acceptable to the Bank. The procedures for managing these expenditures will be governed by the

recipient’s own administrative procedures, acceptable to the Bank.

Assessment of Agencies’ Capacity to Implement Procurement

Institutional Responsibilities for Procurement

31. The project will continue to use existing PCUs that are implementing the first phase,

WAAPP-1A. At the regional level, procurement activities for the project will be carried out by

CORAF through its Dakar-based Executive Secretariat of ECOWAS, which will continue the

overall coordination of WAAPP, with FARA playing an advisory role (as assigned by the

AU/NEPAD).

32. At the national level procurement will be carried out by coordination units that are part of

their respective Ministry of Agriculture of the three participating countries including the PCU of

the MoFA in Ghana; and the Technical and Fiduciary Coordinating Unit (UCTF) which was

established by PPSAOP under WAAPP-1A on behalf of MOA in Senegal. These national

implementing units will have the key responsibilities of coordination, procurement, financial

management and overall projects monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

66

Capacity Assessment

33. An assessment of capacities of implementing agencies to implement procurement actions

for the project has been carried out by Bank Procurement Specialists16

, during the period of

September - December 2011. The assessment reviewed the procurement procedures,

organizational structure and functions, staffing, staff skills, quality and adequacy of supporting

and control systems, legal and regulatory framework, recent performance on procurement, the

procurement provisions of the existing manual, and internal controls. The overall assessment

rates procurement risk prior to mitigation as HIGH for the entire project.

Regional Level (CORAF). The assessment showed that CORAF is staffed by an Executive

Director, a Director of Programs, a Director of Administration and Finance, an Information and

Communication Manager, eight (8) Program Managers, two (2) Planning and Impact Officers,

and an Internal Controller. The technical staff will be responsible for preparing the technical

aspects of bidding documents, including technical specifications and TORs. The procurement

function is carried out by a Procurement Specialist (PS) who has been recruited on a full time

basis for the WAAPP. CORAF has developed an administrative and financial manual of

procedures for WAAPP in March 2009.

34. The assessment identified the following major weakness in the procurement capacity of

CORAF: (i) Some discrepancies exist between the procurement aspects specified in the

Administrative and Financial Manual and the World Bank new Procurement Guidelines; (ii)

There are no adequate fiduciary control mechanisms in place for the management of subprojects.

The overall risk for procurement by CORAF prior to mitigation is Medium-Likelihood.

35. The following measures to reduce the procurement risk have been agreed on:

(i) Maintaining the function of the PS to: (a) capacity building of the whole team; and

(b) quality control of the procurement process of the subprojects. This capacity

building approach would emphasize that the technical specialists and experts would

have basic procurement capacity so as to properly handle technical responsibilities

in preparing procurement, documents including terms of references and technical

specifications.

(ii) Improve the procurement knowledge of the Director of Administration and Finance

(DAF) and two other key members of CORAF’s staff through the coaching by the

PS, internal workshops, and participation in CESAG and ISADE’s training on

World Bank procedures.

(iii) Update the Administrative and Financial Manual to ensure its conformity to the

new World Bank Guidelines and submit it to the Bank for approval.

(iv) CORAF to assume full responsibility for procurement activities which they have to

carry out and for coordinating and monitoring the procurement activities of the

national units.

(v) Develop training, supervision and monitoring programs to ensure that procurement

activities handled by all beneficiaries are in line with the Bank’s guidelines and

procedures and with the provisions of the Financing Agreements.

16

Mamadou Mansour Mbaye, Procurement Specialist based in Dakar Country Office in April 2010 and updated in

September 2011; and in Accra by Adu-Gyamfi Abunyewa, Sr. Procurement Specialist on November 30, 2011.

67

National Levels.

36. The core staff in each country will include a Procurement Specialist familiar with World

Bank procurement procedures.

37. In Ghana, the assessment concludes that even though MoFA has a procurement unit

which has successfully managed several Bank-funded and other donor projects in the recent past,

and are currently implementing WAAPP-1A which closes in December 2012, the procurement

unit has lost all the experienced procurement staff who are very conversant with the World Bank

procurement procedures, and therefore lacks adequate procurement capacity to manage the

procurement activities of WAAPP-2A.

38. There is an urgent need to staff the unit with adequate numbers of procurement personnel

to be trained in procurement. These personnel should preferably be young graduates in the

Ministry who are interested to chart a path in procurement. In the meantime, since capacity

building could take a while to achieve and the projects cannot wait, it is recommended to recruit

at least one, but preferably, two qualified and proficient procurement consultant(s) with adequate

knowledge and experience in the use of Ghana’s Public Procurement procedures and the World

Bank procurement guidelines and procedures, to join and support the Ministry’s procurement

unit and assist in the management of procurement needs of the entire Ministry for at least the

first three years. The procurement consultants, apart from undertaking direct procurement

activities under the project, will also work closely with the mainstream staff and provide hands

on training and mentoring through procurement clinics, direct instructions, monitoring and

identifying their weaknesses and drawing up capacity building programs to strengthen their

capacities.

39. It is also noted that certain portions of the national procedures and accompanying

standard bidding document deviate from Bank procedures. In order to allow the use of national

procedures and bidding documents for NCB, some adjustments will need to be made to align the

national procedures to the Bank’s. These exceptions include provisions that must ensure that: (i)

foreign bidders shall be allowed to participate in the NCB procedures; (ii) 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, whichever is later; (iii) no domestic preference shall be given for

domestic bidders and for domestically manufactured goods; and (iv) in accordance with

paragraph 1.14(e) of the Procurement Guidelines, each bidding document and contract financed

out of the proceeds of the Financing shall provide that: (a) 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 (b) 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 1.14(a)(v) of the Procurement Guidelines.

40. The assessment rates procurement risk for Ghana prior to mitigation as HIGH.

41. Risk Mitigation: The Table below summarizes key risks identified and proposed

mitigation measures and/or actions to be agreed upon to reduce the risk from High to Medium-L:

68

Table 3.7: Risk mitigation for Ghana

No Key risks Mitigation Actions By Whom By When

1

- Lack of

proficient

procurement

personnel to

implement

procurement

actions

- Appointment of two qualified high level

procurement consultants through a competitive

process to support the project, at least for the first

three years.

MoFA - Preferably

prior to

project

effectivene

ss

2

- Lack of

adequate key

staff in the

Procurement

Unit

- Immediately identify and transfer at least three

interested staff, preferably young graduates of

varied background, to the procurement unit to be

trained and kept at the unit.

- Participation in procurement training workshops

for mainstream procurement and technical staff at

specialized procurement training institutions like

GIMPA (Ghana) or any other acceptable

institution to enhance their knowledge.

- Provide hands-on training and mentoring to the

procurement unit and other technical staff by

involving them in the activities of the project(s)

- Continuous capacity building program to be

developed for mainstream procurement and

technical staff to respond to specific gaps

identified.

MoFA’s Chief

Director

- MoFA’s

Project

Coordinator

- Procurement

Consultants

- Procurement

Consultants

- Not later

than 3

months

within

project

implementa

tion

-

3

- Lack of

familiarity with

current trends

and updates of

World Bank

procurement

guidelines and

procedures

- Preparation of project implementation manual

reviewed and agreed by Bank.

- Organize a workshop to update procurement staff

on current changes in Bank procurement

procedures and work closely with Bank PS.

- MoFA

Project

Coordinator

- Prior to

effectivene

ss

- At Project

launch and

throughout

the life of

the Project

4 - Lack of

Procurement

Plan

- Preparation Procurement Plan for the first 18

months and agreed with the Bank and

subsequently updating of procurement plans in

tandem with AWP&B and for agreed Contracts.

The critical approval times will be reflected in the

timelines of the procurement plans.

- Project

Coordinator

- Before

negotiation

s and

throughout

the life of

the Project

5 - Poor Record

Keeping

- Set up adequate filling system for project records

to ensure easy retrieval of information/data.

Designate an officer to be responsible for data

management.

- MoFA

Project

Coordinator

- No later

than 3

months

within the

Project

implementa

tion

6

Delays in taking

procurement

actions like

preparation of

BD, RFPs, BER,

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.

Procurement

Consultant and

Project

Coordinator

Throughout

the life of

the Project

69

No Key risks Mitigation Actions By Whom By When

TER, etc.

7

Fraud and

Corruption

(Kick-backs)

Enforce provisions of World Bank Guidelines, the

Public Procurement Act, the Financial

Administration Act and Internal Audit Agency Act

on Fraud and Corruption.

Observed cases to be referred to Auditor General

for further investigations.

MoFA’s Chief

Director

Throughout

project life

42. With regards to Senegal, the assessment indicates that the implementing agency has

previous Bank experience and has implemented the first phase satisfactorily. In terms of

procurement, the implementing agency is staffed by a key procurement expert with acceptable

background.

43. For NCB, CORAF shall follow and apply the competitive bidding procedure normally

used for public procurement in Senegal, with the modification that there will be no restrictions

on the number of bidders from member countries of the West African Economic and Monetary

Union eligible to compete.

44. Overall Risk Assessment: The main risks concerning the procurement capacity for the

project at the time of appraisal can be summarized as follows:

Country/Agency Procurement risk

CORAF (Regional Agency) Medium-L

Ghana High

Senegal Medium-L

OVERALL High

C. Procurement Plan

45. At appraisal each participating country (the recipient) and the regional organization

(CORAF) developed procurement plans for project implementation which provide the basis for

the procurement methods. These plans have been agreed between each recipient and the Bank in

February 2012 and are available at the PCUs in Senegal and Ghana, and at CORAF executive

secretariat. They will also be available in the Project’s database and in the Bank’s external

website. The Procurement Plans will be updated annually or as required to reflect the actual

project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity and upon agreement

with the Bank.

70

Table 3.10: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review

Expenditure

Category

Threshold for

Method (USUS$)

Procurement

Method Contracts Subject to Prior Review

Works

Senegal

Ghana

CORAF

>=5,000,000

<5,000,000

<100,000

ICB

NCB

Shopping

Direct Contracting

All

First 2 contracts

None

All

Goods and non-

consulting

services.

Senegal

Ghana

CORAF

>=500,000

<500,000

<50,000

ICB

NCB

Shopping

Direct Contracting

All

First 2 contracts for each entity

None

All

Consulting

services from

firms & NGOs

Senegal

Ghana

CORAF

>=200,000

<200,000

QCBS, QBS

QCBS, CQS, LCS,

FBA, QS

Single Source

All contracts of US$200,000 and above

First two contracts under US$200,000

All single source

Individual

consultants

Senegal

Ghana

CORAF

IC

All contracts of US$50,000 and above

All single source

Note: All Term of reference regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior technical review ICB – International Competitive Bidding QCBS -- Quality and Cost-Based Selection method

NCB – National Competitive Bidding CQS – Consultants’ Qualification Selection method

IC – Individual Selection method

Frequency of Procurement Supervision

46. In addition to the prior review supervision which will be carried out by the Bank, the

procurement capacity assessment recommends at least one implementation support mission each

year to carry out post-review of procurement actions and technical review. The procurement

post-reviews and technical reviews would cover at least 20 percent of contracts subject to post-

review. Post review consist of reviewing technical, financial and procurement reports carried out

by the Borrowers’ executing agencies and/or consultants selected and hired under the Bank

project according to procedures acceptable to the Bank.

Fraud, Coercion, and Corruption.

47. All procurement entities as well as bidders and service providers, i.e., suppliers,

contractors, and consultants shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement

71

and execution of contracts financed under the project in accordance with paragraphs 1.16 and

1.17 of the Procurement Guidelines and paragraph 1.23 and 1.24 of the Consultants Guidelines,

in addition to the relevant Articles of the respective country’s Public Procurement Laws/Code

which refer to corrupt practices.

72

Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF)

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP 2A)

Stage: Board

Project Stakeholder Risks

Stakeholder Risk Rating Moderate

Description: Risk Management:

Fragmentation of donor and development partners efforts in support of R/D activities in

the agricultural sector. Inadequate coordination mechanisms for implementing national

sector investment programs developed within CAADP.

Project design considers actual and potential donor support for R/D in selected commodity value chains. At national level,

activities are coordinated with sector coordination committees. A gradual shift of ‘project coordination units’ towards

national harmonized coordination systems is build-in component 4.

Resp:

MOFA

MA

Stage: Implementation

Due Date: By mid-term Status: Not yet

Due

Implementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks)

Capacity Rating Moderate

Description:

Limited regional coordination and technical support capacity due to growing number of

countries joining the project.

National teams lack of technical skills to address R/D issues in an integrated way and lack

of incentives to retain researchers in the National Research Institutes). Priority setting

remains sub-optimal (researchers give priority to their own interests, not to the national and regional.

Weak institutional capacity for national coordination and implementation. Weak incentives and motivation for researchers and government service staff to carry out project

activities.

Risk Management:

At the regional level, CORAF has developed regional coordination capacity through the implementation of WAAPP-1A and -1B, including for the animation of networks of operation specialist (M&E, Safeguard, Fiduciary, and

Communication). However, CORAF’s capacity may face new challenges to play a more pro-active role in promoting a

strengthened regional dimension.

Resp: CORAF Stage: Implementation Due Date: permanent Status: On going

Risk Management:

WAAPP will activate a stepwise priority setting for R/D action planning and monitoring (see component 2): (i) participative bottom-up results oriented priority planning at national level; (ii) regional priority consolidation by all

WAAPP members and facilitated by CORAF; and (iii) periodic follow-up, evaluation and priority adjustments by WAAPP

participating members, coordinated by CORAF.

Resp: CORAF and

NCoS Stage: Implementation Due Date: Supervision

missions Status: On going

Risk Management:

Promotion of collaborative research at the national and regional levels using a pool of researchers from universities,

research centers, NGOs, and elsewhere, as well as cross support from CGIAR centers. Strengthened research, extension farmer linkages.

Resp: PCUs and

NCoS Stage: Implementation Due Date: By Dec. 2013 Status: Not yet

Due

Governance Rating Low

Description: Risk Management:

73

Weak project management: project activities are spread over regional research and higher learning institutions as well as public and private extension services, which adds to the

Project's complexity.

Monthly management meetings involving all key stakeholders under the leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Finances.

Resp: PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: monthly Status

: On going

Risk Management:

Adequate financial management will be put in place before implementation starts, including fund flow arrangement, and auditing and reporting requirement will be made clear. Complementary training will be given to staff on bank procedures

and IFR preparation.

Resp: PCUs Stage: Design and

Implementation Due Date: By December. 2012 Status: Not yet

Due

Project Risks

Design Rating Low

Description:

Due to the complexity of design:

Strengthening the regional dimension of WAAPP is a complex process that is partially

untested.

Project activities are spread over federal/regional research institutes and centers as well as

higher learning institutions, which adds to the project’s complexity.

Risk Management:

Experience under WAAPP-1A and 1B has demonstrated that closer supervision by CORAF and the Bank team including a regional Task Team Leader (TTL) and country office based Co-TTL improved project management efficiency. Also

regional wrap-up meetings organized twice a year after the supervision missions and peer country performance rating

enhanced sharing of experiences and stimulated competition among countries. These mechanisms will be strengthened.

Resp: CORAF and

TTL

Stage: Design Due Date: By negotiation Status: completed

Risk Management:

Regional exchange processes will be clearly defined in design: to this end the mandate of CORAF will be

clearly defined.

Resp: TTL, PCUs

and CORAF

Stage: design Due Date: By negotiations Status: completed

Social and Environmental Rating Low

Description: Risk Management:

Weak institutional capacity for implementing safeguard policies. The project includes an ESMP, RPF, and PMP. Under WAAPP-1A each country appointed a social and and an

environmental focal points, and CORAF organized a regional level training with the support of ASPEN. Additional capacity building will be provided under WAAPP2A to strengthen the focal points and all the project teams in

implementing safeguard activities.

Resp: CORAF Stage: Implementation Due Date: By Dec. 20012 Status: Not yet

Due

Program and Donor Rating Low

Description: Risk Management:

Limited harmonization of sector support programs. There is increasing drive towards donor coordination and harmonization of development interventions in the agricultural

sector following the development of national agricultural investment plans and the signing of compacts within the CAADP framework. Also countries are setting up common sector program coordination units to harmonize donor interventions.

Resp: MOFA ,

MAEP Stage: Implementation Due Date: permanent Status: On going

74

Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Rating Moderate

Description:

Poor quality of delivered technologies and services. Limited spillovers between countries

Weak connection with the governments’ subsidy programs.

Weak and fragmented monitoring capacities at national level.

Sustainability of financing of R&D activities after project closing.

Risk Management:

The Project will support capacity strengthening of national R&D teams in line with identified capacity gaps through

specific support from countries with stronger NARS, the NCoS networks and selected partnerships with CGIAR Centers for high quality outputs. The M&E system and the SPN missions will monitor closely the spillover effects. The project will

develop an MOU with the Government subsidy programs in each to ensure that technologies developed under WAAPP will

be disseminated by these programs (mainly improved seeds).

Resp: CORAF and

PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: By end of first year Status: Not yet

Due

Risk Management:

WAAPP will support a dual strategy to strengthen the WAAPP M&E systems by: (i) regional networking for R&D

monitoring, with technical support from CORAF; and (ii) improved integration into harmonized national M&E systems, developed under country agricultural sector investment plans.

Resp: CORAF and

PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: By end of first year Status: Not yet

Due

Risk Management:

Each country will be supported to set up a sustainable financing mechanism for technology generation and dissemination based on levies deducted from import or/an export of agricultural commodities.

Resp: CORAF and

PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: By MTR Status: Not yet

Due

Other (Optional) Rating Low

Description:

Poor R/D/Farmer linkages due to fragmentation of responsibilities between ministries,

projects/programs and public and private partners along the priority value chains.

Risk Management:

Monthly coordination meetings between key program partners and broader stakeholder participation at bi-annual WAAPP

program planning and follow-up workshops.

Resp: PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: monthly Status: On going

Risk Management:

Promotion of partnerships with producer organizations and the private sector for scaling-up of improved technology

dissemination.

Resp: PCUs Stage: Implementation Due Date: Dec. 2013 Status: Not yet

Due

Overall Risk following review

Implementation Risk Rating: Moderate

Comments: This is a second phase of the program and lessons learned from WAAPP-1A have been incorporated in the design to mitigate the risks.

75

Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-2A)

Strategy and Approach for the Implementation Support Plan (ISP)

1. The implementation Support Plan is built on the premise that: (i) the Project is a

continuation of the WAAPP program in which twelve countries are involved. WAAPP-2A is a

second phase of the series that includes Ghana and Senegal; (ii) the implementation strategy will

build on the experiences gained under the implementation of WAAPP-1A, and preparation of

WAAPP-1B and WAAPP-1C for which implementation have just started; (iii) CORAF which is

coordinating the Project at the regional level has gained considerable experience implementing

the WAAPP; and (iv) CORAF has an experienced financial management team. With its full

roster of strong translation service providers, CORAF is also well equipped to overcome

language barriers (as WAAPP involves both English- and French-speaking countries). CORAF is

also augmenting its staff strength to include a Program Officer for WAAPP, who will be fully

dedicated to the management and coordination of WAAPP at the regional level. The role of the

Program Officer is to: (i) ensure the day-to-day interaction with participating countries, TTL, and

Co-TTLs; (ii) internal follow-up to ensure that CORAF personnel are responsive to partners and

implement WAAPP activities timely; and (iii) interact with consultant and coordinate the

preparation of AWP&B and biannual progress reports.

2. For each of the participating countries, project coordination will be carried out by the

existing WAAPP coordination units. Sufficient capacity strengthening and additional staffing are

included under the provisions of WAAPP-2A to further strengthen these project coordination

units. In each country, existing institutions public and private sector will be used to implement

the various components of the project. These institutions include research institutes, which are

already experienced in managing Bank projects.

3. The project will continue to develop, support and strengthen the four technical networks

that were initiated during the implementation of WAAPP-1A. These technical networks: M&E

network, fiduciary network, social and environmental focal points network, and NCoS

coordinators network proved to be effective in improving the capacity of technical staff and in

harmonizing procedures. The technical networks will be expanded to include that of

communication specialists and researchers organized by the NCoS. WAAPP is collaborating

with the World Bank Institute to develop distance learning courses and workshops for the

networks.

4. The program continues to grow in complexity. As Ghana and Senegal, which are part of

the first series of countries, are moving vertically into phase 2 (with the preparation of WAAPP-

2A) the program has expanded horizontally to cover 12 ECOWAS countries. This implies that

the technical networks need to be strengthened to ensure effective implement for the regional

objectives to be attained.

5. With regards to Bank supervision, current arrangement for implementation support

involving a regional TTL and Country based Co-TTLs will be maintained. The regional TTL

will be supported by two Operational Officers- one based in Washington and one in the field.

This arrangement will enhance interaction with WAAPP countries and improve monitoring of

progress. Enhanced FAO-CP budget (at least 10 Staff Weeks per year) should be allocated to

76

WAAPP to complement Bank Budget for FAO support to project supervision, as FAO was a key

partner in project implementation.

6. Each country has updated its implementation manual as well as its financial and

administrative management manual that have been reviewed by the Bank. Management and

fiduciary capacities are in place to initiate project activities, as PCUs for WAAPP-1A are intact.

Supervision will start immediately after Board approval and project launching workshop will be

organized at the regional level as well as in each of the countries. The frequency of supervision is

supposed to be two missions per year, as noted, and will include one full supervision (involving

fiduciary, safeguards, communications, and technical Bank specialists and consultants) and one

light supervision (TTL, Co-TTL, and fiduciary team) owing to budget constraints.

Implementation Support Plan

7. Technical Support. Most of the investments contemplated under the project are

relatively complex from technical standpoint, especially in terms of ensuring that the activities to

be funded actually result in expected efficiency improvements. In addition to the Bank core

supervision team, a number of consultants will provide technical assistance to implementation

agencies in the form of hands-on training and mentoring.

8. Fiduciary Support. The three World Bank country office based fiduciary teams

(Procurement and Financial specialists) will closely supervise the project’s fiduciary

management. They will participate in the twice yearly implementation support missions,

facilitate the capacity building of the fiduciary staff of the project, and at least ones a year the

procurement staff will organize a post review of the procurement activities.

9. Safeguards. The Bank specialists in Social and Environmental Safeguards based in

Country offices will have responsibilities for supervising safeguard activities. Each year, they

will conduct supervision of safeguard activities of the Project, participate in regional wrap-up

meetings to discuss findings, and draft action plans to improve implementation.

10. Main focus of implementation. Table 5.1 summarizes the main focus of implementation

during the life of the Project:

Table 5.1: Main focus of implementation

Time Focus Skills Resource

Estimate

Partner Role

First 12 months Project start up,

appointment of

additional staff,

national and regional

orientation workshops

for all implementing

institutions,

procurement of TAs,

equipment, processing

of procurement of

works, and regional

safeguard workshop

focal points.

Organization of at least

TTL + Operations

Officer + Co-TTLs

Procurement Specialists

for each Country

FM specialists for each

country

Social Safeguards

Specialists

Environmental

Specialists

Training and DCL

Bank Supervision

Budget $90,000

plus FAO/CP

10SW

Provide required

additional skills and

ensure that project

start-up activities are

implemented as

planned and

technical networks

are functioning.

77

3 Distance Learning

Courses (DLC) for

NCoS networks - one

per NCoS.

Specialist

Communication

Specialist

M&E Specialist

12-48 months Ensuring that Project

implementation is rated

Satisfactory towards

achieving PDO.

Organizing MTR to

draw lessons from

Project implementation.

TTL + Operations

Officer + Co-TTLs

Procurement Specialists

for each Country

FM specialists for each

country

Social Safeguards

Specialists

Environmental

Specialists

Training and DCL

Specialist

Communication

Specialist

M&E Specialist

Bank Supervision

Budget

US$300,000 plus

FAO/CP 30SW.

Provide required

additional skills and

participate in review

of implementation

progress, and

ensuring that the

Project is

implemented as

planned.

48-60 months Ensuring that lessons

learned from MTR are

implemented through

an action plan and that

Project continues to be

rated Satisfactory

towards achieving

PDO.

TTL + Operations

Officer + Co-TTLs

Procurement Specialists

for each Country

FM specialists for each

country

Social Safeguards

Specialists

Environmental

Specialists

Training and DCL

Specialist

Communication

Specialist

M&E Specialist

Bank Supervision

Budget

US$100,000 plus

FAO/CP 10 SW

Provide required

additional skills and

participate in review

of implementation

progress, and

ensuring that the

Project is

implemented as

planned.

Skills Mix Required

11. Table 5.2 summarizes the proposed skill-mix and number of staff weeks during project

implementation. It is anticipated that this will change over time as demand increases.

78

Table5.2: Proposed skill mix

Skills Needed No. of Staff Weeks per

Fiscal Year

No. of Trips per

Fiscal Year

Comments

TTL 10SW 4 Field office based

Operations Officer 10SW 3 Washington based

Co-TTLs 3 x 6 SW= 18 3 x 3 = 9 Country office based

Local Communication Specialists 3x1SW= 3 3x1=3 Country office based

Senior Communication Officer 2SW 1 Washington based

Regional Environmental

Safeguard Specialist

2SW 2 Country Office based

Regional Social Safeguard

Specialist

2SW 2 Country office based

Procurement Specialists 3x2SW=6 2 Country office based

FM Specialists 3x2SW=6 2 Country office based

M&E Specialists 2x2 SW=4 2 Country office based

Role of other Partners

12. The role of Partners and their expected inputs are summarized in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3: Role of Other Partners

Name/Official Institution Role

Executive Director of CORAF

CORAF Project Coordination at Regional level

Ensure achievement of overall PDO

Project Coordinators Each participating country Project level Coordination at National

levels

Ensure achievement of PDO at National

level

Country representatives

Director of the Investment Center

FAO Project supervision

Ensure provision of mix skills to support

quality of project implementation

Regional Director based in Accra AGRA Partnerships in the development of the

seed sector

Coordinators of Bank and other

development partners agricultural

development projects in the

participating countries

Project TTLs/CPM

Mainly World Bank- IFAD-

AfDB- USAID

Ensure synergies and complementarities

Ensure that each participating country

will set up a mechanism to implement

joint action plans to reduce duplication of

efforts and promote shared vision.

79

Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-2A)

A. Overview

1. This annex presents the economic and financial analysis for the first series of the second

phase of WAAPP in Ghana, Mali17

, and Senegal, referred to as WAAPP-2A. The analysis

estimates the return on investment at national and regional levels from improved productivity

and efficiency in priority value chains supported under WAAPP-2A. Expected benefits are due

to: (i) the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved production and processing

technologies; (ii) enhanced technology spillovers between ECOWAS countries arising from

cross-border transfer of technologies and networking of researchers; and (iii) sound

communication and agriculture advisory services to enhance the Project’s effectiveness in the

field of dissemination.

2. This annex is structured in the following sections: (i) a literature review of the economic

and financial analyses of agricultural research and extension (R&E) projects and the modeling of

technology spillovers in West Africa; (ii) a brief analysis of the priority value chains supported

by WAAPP-2A; (iii) the financial analysis of WAAPP-2A technologies on productivity; and (iv)

the economic analysis of the Project.

3. In view of the need to harmonize the methodologies used to assess prospective returns to

the different series/phases of the WAAPP, this ex ante economic and financial analysis for the

WAAPP-2A uses the same methodology as the first phase of WAAPP.

B. Economic and Financial Analysis of Agricultural R&E Projects

(a) Challenges in conducting an economic analysis of agricultural R&D projects

4. The methodology for economic analysis of investments in agricultural research and

advisory services is discussed in Price Gittinger (1982) 18

, World Bank (2000) 19

, and Rajalahti,

Woelcke and Pehu (2005)20

. Specific challenges in conducting an economic analysis of

agricultural research & extension (R&E) projects include: (i) quantifying and valuing direct

outcomes and measuring the effectiveness of investments in research and technology generation

and adoption; (ii) establishing timetables for technology generation, dissemination, and adoption;

(iii) capturing important direct and indirect outcomes, such as contributions to poverty reduction,

17

Mali has been removed from the PAD after negotiations with OP 7.30 in effect following the political unrest in

the country. However, Mali is included in Economic and Financial Analysis because: (i) it has been part of the first

series of WAAPP since 2007 and the analysis in part draws on results achieved under the first operation; and (ii)

Mali is likely to join the group under a separate PAD after the political situation has been resolved and OP 7.30

lifted. 18

Price Gittinger, J. (1982), Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects, Washington, DC: World Bank. 19

World Bank (2000), “Ex Ante Economic Analysis in AKIS Projects: Methods and Guidelines for Good Practice,”

Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) Good Practice Note, Washington, DC. 20

Rajalahti, R., J. Woelcke, and E. Pehu (2005), “Monitoring and Evaluation for World Bank Agricultural Research

and Extension Projects: A Good Practice Note,” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 20,

Washington, DC: World Bank.

80

food security, economic growth natural resource management, regional economic integration,

institutional capacity building (research institutions, extension services, medium- and long-term

human resources, knowledge management systems); (iv) the attribution of specific impacts to

external factors, such as positive externalities from other investments by the Bank, other donors,

the private sector or rural credit institutions, from enhanced input supply and marketing systems,

all mainly beyond the Project’s direct control; and (v) the lack of reliable national agricultural

statistical data.

5. Investments in research, advisory services and seed systems are very much interrelated,

and lead in case of successful implementation to increases in crop productivity and farm

revenues, which are measured in this analysis. Although the costs of research and advisory

services are easy to disaggregate, their benefits for farmers are much harder to measure, in

particular because the marginal impacts of research and advisory services are complementary.

The joint efforts and synergies should lead to a continuum of technology generation and

dissemination and eventually to greater productivity and competitiveness of agriculture. The

analysis assumes that the two types of investments have a compounding effect on the

productivity of commodities supported under WAAPP.

(b) Returns to Past Investments in Agricultural Research and Extension Projects

6. Overall, the literature points to very high rates of return on investments in agricultural

research in sub-Saharan Africa. Many ex post economic analyses have shown returns to

investments in agricultural R&D averaging between 40 percent and 60 percent. The World

Development Report 200821

found that international and national investments in R&D have paid

off handsomely, with an average IRR of 43 percent in 700 R&D projects evaluated in developing

countries in all regions. The most comprehensive review of the literature (Alston et al. 2000)22

examined 292 studies reporting 1,886 estimates of returns on investments in agricultural R&E.

The report found that the average rate of return across 1,367 ex post evaluations was 77.4

percent. Returns averaged 79.6 percent on investments in research alone, 80.1 percent on

investments in advisory services alone, and 46.6 percent on investments in R&E. However,

estimated rates of return tended to be lower in Africa (where returns averaged 50 percent) than in

other parts of the world.

7. Alene and Coulibaly (2008)23

found that the IRR for agricultural R&D in sub-Saharan

Africa was on average 55 percent. The elasticity of GDP per capita with respect to productivity

was estimated at 0.95, indicating that an increase in productivity of 1 percent would lead to

growth in per capita incomes of nearly 1 percent. The poverty elasticity of per capita GDP was –

0.60, implying that growth of 10 percent in per capita income would reduce poverty by 6

percent.

8. The estimated aggregate IRR of 55 percent is generally in agreement with past evidence

on the returns to agricultural research and extension in the developing world in general and in

21

World Bank (2007), World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, Washington, DC. 22

Alston, J.M., C. Chang-Kang, M. Marra, P. Pardey, and T. Wyatt (2000), “A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to

Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem,” Washington, DC: International Food and Policy Research Institute. 23

Alene, A., and O. Coulibaly (2008), “The Impact of Agricultural Research on Productivity and Poverty in Sub-

Saharan Africa,” Food Policy 34:198–209.

81

sub-Saharan Africa in particular. There is no reason to expect that economic returns in the

WAAPP countries would be substantially below the high levels reported consistently in most

analyses.

(c) Spillovers of technology in West Africa

9. The potential to capture spillovers24

of technology from outside the region is less in sub-

Saharan Africa than in other regions. One reason is that crops grown in sub-Saharan Africa are

more diverse and include many so-called “orphan crops” for which little global public or private

R&D is done. Examples are cassava, millet, yam and cocoyam. Another reason is the “agro-

ecological distance” between Africa and other regions which means that technologies imported

from other continents often do not perform well in Africa. Using an index of agro-ecological

distance, in which zero represented no potential for spillovers from the high-income countries

where most R&D is conducted, and 1 represented perfect spillover potential, Pardey et al.

(2007)25

estimated that the average index for African countries is 0.05, compared with 0.27 for

all developing countries. A final reason for sub-Saharan Africa’s difficulty in capturing

spillovers is the fragmentation of its agricultural research systems into nearly 400 distinct

research agencies, preventing realization of economies of scale in agricultural research (World

Bank 2007).

10. The WAAPP-concept proposes two strategic approaches to address the nearly absence of

technology spillovers. The first is a regional approach to agricultural research under which

countries are persuaded of the comparative advantage of establishing a NCoS or RCoE. Either

NCoS/RCoE is expected to realize economies of scale in agricultural research and become a new

source of technology spillovers in addition to traditional sources, such as the existing NARS and

CGIAR research centers. The second approach is to foster cooperation throughout the region.

Examples of activities used to lever regional agricultural spillovers include (i) promoting in each

country a regulatory framework for technology transfer; (ii) supporting regional advocacy,

exchanging and networking of researchers; (iii) establishing and/or enhancing national

institutions for certification and homologation of genetic materials; (iv) enhancing regional

knowledge management; and (v) linking national and regional project management at the level

of the NARS, NCoS/RCoE, and CORAF.

11. Although evidence of regional spillovers in Africa is limited, Easterly and Levine

(1997)26

found that an increase in the growth rate in a country by 1 percentage point over a

decade could result in an increase in the growth rate in a neighboring country by 0.55 percentage

points. They contended that (i) these spillover benefits could be strengthened through more

focused and coordinated regional dissemination strategies; and (ii) countries generating the

largest spillovers could serve as important growth poles for their surrounding regions. In

24

Spillovers are the transfers of economic benefits between firms in an industry or economy or between countries

without compensating payment. 25

Pardey, P.G., J. James, J. Alston, S. Wood, B. Koo, E. Binenbaum, T. Hurley, and P. Glewwe (2007), “Science,

Technology, and Skills: Background Paper for the 2008 World Development Report of the World Bank,” St. Paul:

InSTePP (available at http://www.instepp.umn.edu/publications/newpubs.html). 26

Easterly, W., and R. Levine (1997), “Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” Quarterly Journal

of Economics 112(4):1203–50.

82

addition, Abdulai, Diao, and Johnson (2005)27

showed that investments in regional R&D in

African agriculture can yield up to three to four times the gain in direct benefits obtained within

the innovating countries, in addition to substantial benefits from spillover gains to no-innovating

countries in the region.

12. The rationale of the WAAPP concept reflects Easterly and Levine’s assumptions. Their

findings are used to model spillover effects within WAAPP countries in general, and in this

analysis for WAAPP-2A in particular.

C. Economic Importance of Focus WAAPP-2A Commodities

13. A brief overview of the economic importance of the priority value chains supported by

the NCoS/RCoE in each WAAPP-2A country is provided here. The analysis focuses on the

priority value chains of WAAPP-2A: (i) cassava in Ghana; (ii) rice in Mali; and (iii) millet in

Senegal.

(a) Roots and tubers in Ghana

14. As of 2009, West Africa produced about 59.1 million tons of cassava and 44.9 million

tons of yam (FAOSTAT). Potential for growth of cassava is limited the domestic and regional

markets. West-African countries are not competitive in the international market of cassava

pellets for feed (which is dominated by Thailand and Indonesia), as the West-African farm gate

price is too high. The yield gap at production stage and the efficiency gap of processing are still

significant and justify the investments under WAAPP-2A.

15. In 2009, Ghana produced 12.2 million tons of cassava on 886,000 hectares, with yields

averaging 13.8 tons/ha. Yam production amounted to 5.8 million tons for 379,000 hectares, with

yields of 13.5 tons/ha28

. Statistics on cocoyam are not available. Cassava and yam are mainly

consumed in the domestic market, although south-north trade flows with countries in the Sahel

are growing. Statistics on these regional trade flows are not available.

16. National research focuses mainly on key bottlenecks of the value chain: (i) selection of

high-yielding disease-tolerant varieties of cassava, yam and cocoyam; (ii) seed multiplication of

yam; and (iii) processing of cassava in traditional products (gari & agbelima) and new products

(unfermented flour). Significant progress was made on the development of technical solutions

for traditional cassava processing (mainly gari).

(b) Rice in Mali

17. As of 2009, West Africa was producing about 10.3 million tons of rice (paddy) on 5.2

million hectares with an average yield of 1.96 tons per hectare for paddy rice29

. West-Africa also

imported 4.2 million tons of rice with a market value of US$1.89 billion in 2009.

27

Abdulai, A., X. Diao, and M. Johnson (2005), “Achieving Regional Growth Dynamics in African Agriculture,”

Development Strategy and Governance Division Discussion Paper No. 17, Washington, D.C.: International Food

Policy Research Institute. 28

FAOSTAT 29

FAOSTAT

83

18. In Mali, where the NCoS on rice will be strengthened, rice production amounted to 1.95

million tons of paddy in 2009. In addition, Mali imported 90,000 tons of rice with a value of

US$25 million in 200930

. Consumption per inhabitant averages 57.2 kg of rice31

annually. The

average production cost of rice varies between 96 FCFA/kg and 158 FCFA/kg (0.19-0.31

USS/kg), which implies that local rice is competitive in the domestic market.

19. In 2009, farmers in Mali cultivated about 846,000 hectares32

of rice with an average yield

of 2.3 tons per hectare. Production systems are dominated by two main categories: (i) traditional

rice farming comprising natural flood plain rice (yield: 1 ton per hectare), rain fed rice (yield: 0.8

tons per hectare), natural lowland and swamp cultivation (yield: 0.8-2 tons per hectare); (ii) rice

farming in water-management schemes consolidated on the basis of the degree of water control

involved (yield: 4-4.5 tons per hectare)33

.

(c) Dry cereals in Senegal

20. As of 2009, West Africa produced 11.5 million tons of millet and 10.2 million tons of

sorghum34

. In Senegal, where the NCoS on dry cereals (millet, sorghum, and maize) will be

strengthened, millet is the most imported cereal in the farming systems. It is the first cereal in

terms of production area with about 1.1 million hectares under cultivation in 2009. Millet

production is estimated at more than 810,000 tons under the 2009 campaign, with yields

averaging 0.8 tons per hectare. Sorghum production amounts to about 225,000 tons, with yields

averaging 0.9 tons per hectare and about 220,000 hectares under cultivation. Most millet is

consumed at the farm level. Value chains are being developed slowly (including the use of millet

in bread by WAAPP-1A), quality and volume of transactions being the main constraints for

wholesale traders.

D. Financial analysis

(a) Methodology for financial analysis

21. Based on the experience from other projects and available data, crop models were

developed for priority crops, namely millet (model 1), irrigated rice (model 2), other rice systems

(model 3) and cassava (model 4). The analysis is based on an assumption of the “with” and

“without” project situation and the "before" and "after" financing scenarios for yields and farm

revenues. Most improvements in productivity in the models come from an increase in quantity or

quality of purchased inputs (improved seed, more suitable fertilizers) or an increase in labor

inputs (soil preparation, weeding, harvesting and handling of incremental outputs).

(b) Results of financial analysis

22. The financial analysis of crop budgets shows the impact on financial profitability to be

large, with all crop models financially viable. Yield increases vary between 25 and 60 percent

with use of improved technologies and crop husbandry practices. All models are financially

profitable, which demonstrates the sound basis of the technology dissemination process.

30

FAOSTAT 31

Direction Nationale de la Statistique et de l’Informatique. Bamako 32

FAOSTAT 33

Ministry of Agriculture. National Rice Development Strategy. 2010 (draft document). 34

FAOSTAT

84

Table 6.1: Financial analysis of crop budgets

Crop models Current

yield

Yield with

project

support

Yield

increase

Net profit

without

project

Net profit

with project

Incremental

revenue

(kg/ha) (kg/ha) % US$/ha US$/ha US$/ha

Model 1 : Millet (variety, crop husbandry)

600 780 30% 34.0 67.6 33.6

Model 2: Irrigated rice (variety,

water management) 4,500 6,640 48% 632.8 1262.2 629.4

Model 3: Other rice systems (variety, crop husbandry)

1,560 1,950 25% 144.1 255.3 111.2

Model 4: Cassava (variety, crop husbandry)

14,000 20,000 43% 48.2 94.1 49.1

E. Economic analysis

Methodology and main assumptions for economic analysis

23. The economic analysis is based on the “minimum national impact assessment.” This

method identifies the minimum annual growth rate in net farm income (across the percentage of

farmers applying innovations) from increased yields that is required to attain an IRR of 12

percent (the breakeven point over a 20-year project lifecycle), assuming a proportional increase

in production costs arising from the adoption of more input-intensive technologies. This method

allows identifying the minimum incremental benefit stream that would justify the proposed

investments.

24. The calculations are based on average price data collected during the pre-appraisal

mission and available in the FAOSTAT database. Price data were not disaggregated around the

agricultural cropping cycle (therefore, ignoring the sometimes significant seasonal price

fluctuations during the cropping cycle).

25. The seminal assumption, based on Easterly and Levine (1997), is that half of the yield

increases (50 percent) experienced in the innovating country (host of the NCoS or RCoE)) is the

yield increase used to estimate the spillover benefits to other countries. In addition, a 1 year

delay for adoption was taken into account. In order to appraise benefits from regional spillovers,

three scenarios were considered in the baseline analysis, namely: (i) a conservative (baseline)

scenario, in which technologies benefit only the innovating country; (ii) a wise scenario, in

which technologies benefit neighboring countries with similar agro-climatic environments and

production systems; and (iii) a best-case scenario, in which technologies benefit all countries in

West Africa.

26. The sensitivity analysis was done by stressing the values of variables likely to affect the

project and the incremental benefits, such as adoption (number of hectares and yield increase

used as proxies) and the magnitude of spillovers from the innovating country to other countries.

85

27. Total annual costs of the Project from years 1–5 were extracted from the COSTAB of

each WAAPP-2A country. The cost to maintain the Project after Year 5 (recurrent costs that all

the countries will have to face to ensure WAAPP’s sustainability) is assumed to be 50 percent of

Year 5 expenditure.

28. The analysis assumes that (i) the Project will have a gradual effect on the adoption rate

from year 1 onwards, until 40 percent of the farmers at national level are reached (20 percent in

the case of spillovers to neighboring countries); (ii) the extension services can start dissemination

on the basis of technologies developed under WAAPP-1A; (iii) yield increase will be sustained

until Year 20 as the adoption of technologies broadens.

Results and Conclusions of the Economic analysis

Senegal (millet)

29. Base case (no spillover to neighboring countries). To break even (to reach a 12

percent IRR), a yield increase of 7.3 percent on average after 5 years (approximately 350,000

hectares) is required. Approximately 200,000 households should be reached in this case. Key

success factors of the Project are (i) the quality of new varieties and seed produced; and (ii) the

efficiency of implementation and outreach.

30. With spillovers in Ghana and Mali. Given that Mali and Northern Ghana have some

areas with similar agro-climatic environments to those in Senegal, the analysis considers

spillovers towards these countries. Farmers in Mali are cultivating 1.54 million hectares of

millet, those in Ghana 184,000 hectares, compared to 864,000 hectares in Senegal. With spill-

over effects, millet yields in Senegal should increase only 3.6 percent on average after 5 years,

compared to 7.3 percent if research results are only disseminated in Senegal. Investments to

improve regional cooperation will clearly pay off by favoring spilling of technologies from

Senegal in particular to Mali but also to Ghana. Total area under millet in Ghana is rather

limited, which does not justify Ghanaian top research only for the national millet market.

31. With spillover in West Africa. An optimal scenario, assuming the adoption of

improved technologies for millet by all ECOWAS countries (20 percent of farmers), was also

considered. To break even with spillovers to West Africa, millet yields should have an

incremental increase in Senegal of only 1.1 percent after 5 years. This scenario might be

somewhat challenging to materialize, but indicates clearly the economies of scale that justify the

concept of a Regional Centre of Excellence and the importance of networking.

32. Sensitivity analysis. Several scenarios were considered. Results in the Table below

show that the IRR of Project is in particular sensitive to the number of hectares covered under

new technologies (mainly varieties). For example, if at the national level only 30 percent of the

area under millet is reached, the IRR drops to only 4.6 percent.

Ghana (cassava)

33. Base case (no spillovers). To break even, cassava yields should increase on average

8.2 percent after 5 years. Approximately 350,000 hectares or 250,000 households should be

reached.

86

34. With spillovers in Togo. Spillovers in Togo were considered due to the close agro-

ecological similarity between the two neighboring countries and the similarities in the cassava

consumption pattern (which is not the case in Ivory Coast where cassava is processed into

atiéké). Farmers in Ghana are cultivating 885,000 hectares, compared to about 1 million hectares

in Togo, but yields in Togo on only about 7.1 tons per hectare (FAOSTAT). Given the high yield

gap in Togo, the potential impact of technology adoption is significant. With spillovers to Togo,

cassava yields in Ghana should increase only 5.9 percent after 5 years (compared to 8 percent in

Ghana alone). The importance of regional partnerships for research and extension in Togo is

evident.

35. With spillovers in West Africa. With spillovers to all of West Africa, cassava yield in

Ghana should increase only 2.1 percent after 5 years.

36. Sensitivity analysis. Several scenarios were considered. Results in the table below

show an IRR of 3.6 percent if only 30 percent of the area under cassava is reached in Ghana

instead of 40 percent of the area (base case). As for millet, the efficiency of adoption

(materialized through the size of the yield gain) is the key success factor of the Project.

Mali (rice)

37. Base case (no spillovers to other countries). To break even (IRR of 12 percent), rice

(paddy) yields in Mali should increase 7.3 percent after 5 years (approximately 330,000

hectares).

38. With spillovers in Senegal and Ghana. Spillovers in Senegal and Ghana were

considered due to the close agro-ecological similarity between the countries. Total area under

rice is 848,000 hectares in Mali, compared to 139,000 hectares in Senegal and 162,000 hectares

in Ghana35

. In addition, these three countries are the eldest WAAPP partners. To break even

(IRR of 12 percent), yields in these three countries should increase only 3.1 percent for rice after

5 years (adoption rate of 20 percent in Senegal and Mali), compared to 15.2 percent for Mali

alone.

39. With spillovers in West Africa. To break even at the level of West Africa (5.2 million

hectares of rice cultivated), yield should increase only 1.1 percent after 5 years.

40. Sensitivity analysis. Several scenarios were considered. Results show again that the

efficiency of dissemination and the achievement of yield increases at national and regional levels

are key success factors of WAAPP. If only 30 percent of farmers is reached instead of 40

percent, the IRR drops to 8.4 percent.

35

FAOSTAT

87

Table 6.2: Results of Economic Analysis

SENEGAL (Millet)

Break-even (IRR=12%) without spillovers (base case):

40% farmers applying innovations

Average yield increase (year 5):

7.3%

Hectares: 40% of area under millet (yield increase 30.5%)

Hectares: 30% of area under millet

IRR= 12.0%

IRR= 4.6%

Yield increase: +10%

Yield increase: -10%

IRR = 14.6%

IRR= 9.1%

With spillovers in Ghana and Mali (40% applicants in

Senegal and 20% in other countries) (IRR=12%) Average yield increase (year 5): 3.6%

With spillovers in West Africa (40 % applicants in

Senegal and 20% in other countries) (IRR=12%) Average yield increase (year 5): 1.1%

GHANA (Cassava)

Break-even (IRR=12%) without spillovers (base case):

40% farmers applying innovations

Average yield increase (year 5):

8.0%

Hectares: 40% of area (yield increase 33.4%)

Hectares: 30% of area under cassava

IRR= 12.0%

IRR= 3.6%

Yield increase: 36.7% (+10%)

Yield increase: 30.1% (-10%)

IRR = 14.9%

IRR= 8.9%

Yield increase: 43% (31% of area under cassava) IRR= 12.0%

With spillovers in Togo (40% applicants in Ghana and

20% in Togo) Average yield increase (year5) : 5.9%

With spillovers in West Africa (40 % applicants in Ghana

and 20% in other countries) Average yield increase (year 5): 2.1%

MALI (Rice)

Break-even (IRR=12%) without spillovers (base case):

40% farmers applying innovations Average yield increase

(year 5): 3.7%

Hectares: 40% of area under rice (yield increase 15.2%)

Hectares: 30% of area under rice (yield increase 15.2%)

IRR= 12.0%

IRR= 8.4%

Yield increase: +10%

Yield increase: -10%

IRR = 14.7%

IRR= 9.1%

With spillovers in Ghana and Senegal (40% applicants in

Mali and 20% in other countries) Average yield increase

(year 5): 3.1%

With spillovers in West Africa (40 applicants in Mali and

20% in other countries)

Average yield increase

(year 5): 1.1%

88

Annex 7: Country Summaries

AFRICA: West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-2A)

WAAPP-2A Country summary: GHANA

Sources of

Financing:

IDA: US$60 million

Sector background. The social and economic profile of Ghana has improved gradually over the last ten years. Real

GDP growth is forecast to rise to 4.7 percent in 2010 and to remain robust, supported by continued growth in

agriculture and services. According to the most recent household survey36

, Ghana’s poverty profile has improved

significantly in most regions. This positive trend is likely to continue if Ghana maintains the average economic growth

rates of the last few years, yet in some areas, poverty reduction remains an unyielding issue. Rural poverty is higher

than urban poverty. Contribution to GDP in 2008 was agriculture (34 percent), industry (25 percent) and services (41

percent).

Ghana’s Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II) states that the underlying causes of low

productivity in Ghanaian agriculture, are low adoption of existing technologies, limited appropriate technologies

especially for processing, transporting, handling and storage of crop produce, fish and livestock products as well as

dependence on supply driven approach to technology generation and dissemination that does not favor adoption of

technology by users (MOFA, 2009).

Ghana’s Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan 2011-2015 (METASIP)37

which is the country’s blueprint

for agricultural modernization, is consistent with the ECOWAP and the CAADP. There is agreement at national,

regional and continental levels on the importance of improving agricultural productivity in Africa if meaningful

sustainable development is to take place and if Africa is to effectively pursue the global Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs). There is also need to rationalize the use of scarce human and financial resources and avoid wasteful

duplication of efforts in African countries.

Selected value chain and

justification for selection:

Priority value chains: root and tuber crops (cassava, yam, sweet potato, cocoyam).

Supplementary value chains: livestock (poultry and small ruminants), Horticulture

(tomato, onion and pepper).

PDO targets:

Number of beneficiaries 700,000

Technologies generated by the Project with at least

15percent productivity increase

7

Area under new technologies 600,000 ha

Beneficiaries adopting innovations 70%

Project activities by components

Component 1. Enabling conditions for regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination, and adoption of

agricultural technologies

This component aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the exchange of technologies, so as to

allow participating countries to benefit fully from the regional cooperation in technology generation and exchange.

Subcomponent 1.1 Implementation of ECOWAS common regulations will finance:

(i) An action plan to implement ECOWAS regulations on seeds and pesticides, as well as on fertilizer and

veterinary products when these two regulations will be adopted by ECOWAS;

(ii) Training and awareness programs for national institutions and major private stakeholders (seeds and fertilizer

agro-dealers, seed growers) on the ECOWAS regulations;

(iii) Capacity building and operational costs for the National Seed Council, the National Fertilizer Council and their

committees as well as for the national seed certification system (PPRSD and seed certification staff); and

(iv) Upgrading of national reference laboratories including Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Laboratory for

pesticides and the quarantine facilities and reference laboratories of the veterinary services; and (v) the ISO

certification process for these laboratories.

36 Fifth Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS-5), Ghana Statistical Service, September 2008. 37 METASIP results framework targets in 2015 an increased productivity of: (i) 50 percent for cassava, yam, maize and sorghum;

(ii) 25 percent for cowpea and; (iii) 25 percent increased quality of poultry.

89

Subcomponent 1.2 Mainstreaming regional strategies into national action plan will finance:

(i) Update and implementation of the communication action plan to accelerate adoption of innovations in

agriculture;

(ii) Update and implementation of the gender action plan in order to mainstream gender concerns in project

activities;

(iii) Design and implementation of climate change action plans;

(iv) Support towards analytical work the establishment of a sustainable funding mechanism for agricultural

research, technology generation and dissemination activities; and

(v) Implementation and monitoring of environmental and social management safeguards measures.

Component 2 : National Centers of Specialization

This component aims at strengthening regional cooperation in technology generation by aligning national priorities

with regional ones. Under WAAPP 1, the CSIR-Crop Research Institute (CRI) was the NCoS for Roots and Tubers.

During the second phase it will be strengthened to become a Regional Center of Excellence. In addition to CRI, two

other partner research centers- Food Research Institute (FRI) and Savannah Research Institute (SARI) will be eligible

to component 2 as due to the key role they play in the development of the targeted value chains. WAAPP-2A will

finance:

(i) Upgrade of core facilities and equipment of NCoS and key partner institutions;

(ii) Building of the capacity of researchers and facilitating regional partnerships;

(iii) Support to priority agricultural research programs.

Component 3: Support to demand-driven technology generation, dissemination and adoption

This component aims at strengthening priority-focused demand-driven agricultural R&D and scale-up technology

dissemination and training.

Subcomponent 3.1- Demand-Driven Technology Generation will finance through FNRAA: (i) annual stakeholders’

workshops to develop, follow-up and update national R&D action plans for priority setting in the domain of

technology generation and dissemination for each of the targeted value chain; (ii) grants to multidisciplinary adaptive

research teams to address priority needs of stakeholders along the value chains; and test and adapt technologies

generated by NCOs in the sub-region.

Subcomponent 3.2- Support to technology transfer: (i) annual extension stakeholders’ workshops at zonal and national

levels to develop dissemination action plans; (ii) demonstrations of released technologies responding to beneficiary

needs; (iii) the development of efficient extension methodologies including innovation platforms, FFS and Farmer

days, (iv) the promotion of released technologies through various information systems and communications media to

improve awareness of technologies options and expand their use; and (iv) participatory training on extension

methodologies (including e-extension) and released technologies for agricultural advisory service providers, including

national extension services, NGOs, input providers, farmers’ organizations, and other private stakeholders, and the

rehabilitation and equipping of MoFA national agricultural stations and the provision of the vehicles required for the

purpose.

Subcomponent 3.3 - Promotion of sustainable seed systems: (i) the development/consolidation of seed production

policies and systems taking into account Government seed subsidy systems and the implementation of multi-annual

seed production planning sessions involving all stakeholders; (ii) the development or improvement of the gene banks

to help participating countries to manage biodiversity and prepare for climate change through better conservation of

their genetic assets; (iii) the upgrading of the capacity of public research stations to produce and store breeder and

foundation seeds through investment in irrigation facilities as well as laboratory, and storage equipment; (iv) the

scaling-up of the production of certified seeds by private enterprises, farmers’ organizations; and (v) the provision of

mini kits of improved seeds to producers to jump-start dissemination, along with training and technical assistance for

seed companies and seed producers.

Component 4. Project coordination, Management and M&E

Implementation arrangements

90

The MoFA will be responsible for the oversight of the Project. The coordination of the Project will be entrusted to the

PCU established by MoFA and which has been implementing WAAPP-1A. The specific implementation arrangements

will be as follows:

(i) The WAAPP Steering Committee (SC) will be maintained and chaired by the Minister of Agriculture (or his/her

designee) with the WAAPP Coordinator as Secretary. The SC will ensure coherence of WAAPP with and

integration in the METASIP.

(ii) The existing PCU will be strengthened in the field of procurement and M&E. The Coordinator of WAAPP will

continue to be assisted by staff consisting of a Financial Controller, a Monitoring & Evaluation Officer and a

Procurement Specialist, as well as the required support staff. In addition, a Deputy Coordinator (Extension

Specialist) and Communication Officer will be appointed by MOFA.

Component 1 Will be coordinated by the PCU which will sign result-based MoU with the relevant institutions

(PPRSD/MoFA for plants and fertilizer activities; EPA with respect to pesticides and implementation

of the environmental and social safeguards measures; CSIR/HQ for Intellectual Property Rights; the

PCU and CSIR/HQ for the communication action plan; WIAD/MoFA with respect to gender

activities; the Environmental Unit under DCS/MoFA for issues related to climate change).

Component 2 Will be managed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

Component 3 (i) Subcomponent 3.1 (adaptive value chain research-development) will be managed by

CSIR. The CARGS board will be broadened to other relevant stakeholders. Technical

subcommittees will be established for the review of CARGS proposals. The RELC

system will be strengthened and continue to operate as a stakeholder planning and

assessment tool for component 3.

(ii) Subcomponent 3.2 (support for technology dissemination) will be implemented by the

PCU through results-based MoUs (district agricultural directorates) and contracts with

public and private service providers.

(iii) Subcomponent 3.3 (seed multiplication) will be implemented by PCU through results-

based MoUs and contracts with public and private service providers.

Component 4 PCU will implement component 4.

91

Summary of WAAPP-2A: SENEGAL

Sources of Financing: IDA: US$60 million

Sector background. Approximately 58 percent of the Senegalese population lives in rural areas; 70 percent of this

rural population depends on agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture account for around 14 percent of Senegal’s

GDP. The Senegalese agricultural sector is comprised primarily of smallholder farmers practicing rain-fed

cultivation; currently less than 5 percent of cropped area is irrigated. As the primary irrigated crop, rice enjoys much

more stable production than the other seven main Senegalese crops (millet, groundnut, maize, sorghum, cotton,

cassava, and cowpea), which are highly exposed to drought and/or flooding and production variability.

Although rainfall variability explains a large portion of the weak Senegalese agricultural sector, it is not the sole

factor impacting production. A variety of factors interact to decrease production, including price instability of

agricultural products, decreasing soil fertility and deterioration of ecosystems, limited interest of the private sector to

invest in agriculture, and limited access to agricultural credit for farmers. The combination of these factors and

climatic variability has resulted in the Senegalese agricultural sector being “left behind.” Yields have remained low

and variable for the past 50 years (with the exception of rice), with no consistent yield increase trends.

The Government of Senegal selected the agricultural sector as a driver of economic growth, food security

improvement and poverty reduction over the 2011-15 periods. Senegal is a country with tremendous

transformational development potential which faces significant threats. More than 3 million people - about 25

percent of the total population – suffer from seasonal or year-round hunger, compromising Senegal’s ability to

achieve sustainable economic growth. This is the combined effect of longstanding underinvestment in the

agricultural sector, but also high vulnerability to drought, food shocks and external factors such as soaring food and

energy prices. The country has adopted through the CAADP process its National Agricultural Investment Plan –

‘Programme National d’Investissement Agricole’ - PNIA), aligned with the Senegalese Government’s Accelerated

Growth Strategy (SCA). The PNIA puts emphasis on the importance of: (i) adoption of a value chain approaches; (ii)

water mobilization for agriculture and livestock; (iii) crop intensification and diversification; and (iv) value addition.

The PNIA underlines the importance of livestock, dry cereals (millet, sorghum, maize, and fonio) and horticulture to

achieve poverty reduction.

Selected value chain and

justification for selection:

Priority value chains: dry cereals (millet, sorghum, maize, and fonio) and associated

crops (sesame, groundnut, and cowpea);

Supplementary value chains: milk, meat, and horticulture.

PDO targets:

Number of beneficiaries 700,000

Technologies generated by the Project with at least

15% productivity increase

12

Area under new technologies 700,000 ha

Beneficiaries adopting innovations 60%

Project activities by components

Component 1. Enabling conditions for regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination, and adoption of

agricultural technologies

This component aims at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the exchange of technologies, so as to

allow participating countries to benefit fully from the regional cooperation in technology generation and exchange.

Subcomponent 1.1 Implementation of ECOWAS common regulations will finance:

(i) An action plans to implement ECOWAS regulations on seeds and pesticides, as well as on fertilizer and

veterinary products when these two regulations will be adopted by ECOWAS;

(ii) Training and awareness programs for national institutions and major private stakeholders (seeds and fertilizer

agro-dealers, seed growers) on the ECOWAS regulations;

(iii) Capacity building and operational costs for the national registration committees and the councils for genetic

materials and pesticides once established as well as for the national seed certification system; and

(iv) Upgrading of national reference laboratories including DISEM, DPV and the Laboratoire Vétérinaire of

ISRA; and (v) the ISO certification process for the laboratories.

Subcomponent 1.2 Mainstreaming regional strategies into national action plan will finance:

(i) Update and implementation of the communication action plan to accelerate adoption of innovations in

92

agriculture;

(ii) Update and implement the gender action plan in order to mainstream gender concerns in project activities;

(iii) Design and implementation climate change action plans;

(iv) Support towards analytical work the establishment of a sustainable funding mechanism for agricultural

research, technology generation and dissemination activities; and

(v) Implementation and monitoring of environmental and social management safeguards.

Component 2: National Centers of Specialization

(i) This component aims at strengthening the NCoS. The main focus will be as follows: measures on dry cereals

supported through WAAPP-1A and upgrade the NCoS to a RCoE. To cover the entire value chain, the

following institutions will be eligible for financing under Component 2: (i) CERAAS, which is the core RCoE,

and (ii) relevant institutes that support the development of the dry cereal value chains: the Institut de

Technologie Alimentaire (ITA), the Bureau d’Analyses Macro-économiques (BAME) and the Centre National

de Recherches Agronomiques (CNRA/ISRA) of Bambey. The program will finance:

(ii) Upgrade of core facilities and equipment of NCoS and key partner institutions

(iii) Building of the capacity of researchers and facilitating regional partnerships

(iv) Support to priority agricultural research programs

Component 3: Support to demand-driven technology generation, dissemination and adoption

This component aims at strengthening priority-focused demand-driven agricultural R&D and scale-up technology

dissemination, and training and facilitate access to certified seeds.

Subcomponent 3.1- Demand-Driven Technology Generation will finance through FNRAA: (i) annual stakeholders’

workshops to develop, follow-up and update national R&D action plans for priority setting in the domain of

technology generation and dissemination for each of the targeted value chain; (ii) grants to multidisciplinary adaptive

research teams to address priority needs of stakeholders along the value chains; and test and adapt technologies

generated by NCOs in the sub-region.

Subcomponent 3.2- Support to technology transfer: (i) annual extension stakeholders’ workshops at zonal and

national levels to develop dissemination action plans; (ii) demonstrations of released technologies responding to

beneficiary needs; (iii) the development of efficient extension methodologies including innovation platforms, FFS

and Farmer days, (iv) the promotion of released technologies through various information systems and

communications media to improve awareness of technologies options and expand their use; and (v) participatory

training on extension methodologies (including e-extension) and released technologies for agricultural advisory

service providers, including national extension services, NGOs, input providers, farmers’ organizations, and other

private stakeholders.

Subcomponent 3.3 - Promotion of sustainable seed systems: (i) the development/consolidation of seed production

policies and systems taking into account Government seed subsidy systems and the implementation of multi-annual

seed production planning sessions involving all stakeholders; (ii) the development or improvement of the gene banks

to help participating countries to manage biodiversity and prepare for climate change through better conservation of

their genetic assets; (iii) the upgrading of the capacity of public research stations to produce and store breeder and

foundation seeds through investment in irrigation facilities as well as laboratory, and storage equipment; (iv) the

scaling-up of the production of certified seeds by private enterprises, farmers’ organizations; and (v) the provision of

mini kits of improved seeds to producers to jump-start dissemination, along with training and technical assistance for

seed companies and seed producers.

Component 4. Project coordination, Management and M&E

Implementation arrangements

The MOA will be responsible for the implementation of WAAPP-2A in Senegal. It will delegate the overall

coordination, M&E to the existing UCTF which was established by PSAOP II and is implementing WAAPP-1A and

GEF – Sustainable Management of Land. The WAAPP SC will be maintained and chaired by the MOA (or his/her

designee) with the WAAPP Coordinator as Secretary.

Component 1 Will be coordinated by the UCTF which will sign result-based MoU for activities related to fertilizer

with the Direction de l’Agriculture (DA), for seed regulations with the Division des Semences

(DISEM), for pesticides with the Direction de la Protection des Végétaux (DPV), Institut Sénégalais

de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) with respect to Intellectual Property Rights, and for veterinary

medicines with the Direction de l’Elevage (DIREL) & Direction des Services Véterinaires (DSV).

93

Component 2 Will be coordinated by Centre d'Etude Régional pour l'Amélioration de l'Adaptation à la Sécheresse

(CERAAS) on the basis of a result-based MoU with the UTCF.

Component 3 (i) Subcomponent 3.1 will be implemented by Fonds National de Recherches Agricole et

Agro-alimentaire (FNRAA), which was established by PSAOP and is being used by

WAAPP-1A;

(ii) Subcomponent 3.2 will be implemented by UCTF through MoUs and contracts signed

with the Agence Nationale de Conseil Agricole et Rural (ANCAR) and by FNRAA on a

competitive basis with public and private institutions and service providers;

(iii) Subcomponent 3.3 will be implemented by UCTF for the foundation seeds through

results-based MoUs and contracts with ISRA and by FNRAA for the certified seeds on a

competitive basis through results-based MoUs and contracts with public and private

service providers.

Component 4 PCU will implement this component.