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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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.
Top Related