Documentof The World Bank FOROFFICIALUSEONLY ReportNo: 29604-BU PROJECTAPPRAISALDOCUMENT ON A PROPOSEDIDAGRANT INTHEAMOUNTOF SDR24 MILLION (US$35 MILLIONEQUIVALENT) AND ONA PROPOSEDGLOBALENVIRONMENTFACILITY GRANT INTHEAMOUNTOFUS$5MILLION TO THE REPUBLICOF BURUNDI FORAN AGRICULTURALREHABILITATIONAND SUSTAINABLELAND MANAGEMENTPROJECT June 30,2004 Environmental,Ruraland SocialDevelopmentCentralAfrica CountryDepartment09 Africa RegionalOffice This documenthas a restricteddistributionandmay beusedby recipientsonly inperformanceof their official duties. Its contentsmaynototherwisebedisclosedwithout WorldBank authorization. CURRENCYEQUIVALENTS (ExchangeRateEffectiveFebruary2004) CurrencyUnit = Burundifranc 1084BF = US$1 1.46275US$ = SDR 1 FISCALYEAR January 1 - December31 ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS 4DB African DevelopmentBank 4FO Administrative andFinancial Officer \IDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 9PL Adaptable ProgramLending ZOOPEC CooperativeCredit Unions IPAE Provincial Agriculture and Livestock Departments IPP DetailedProcurementPlan PCMU Inter-provincial ProjectCoordination and MonitoringUnit 3RR/FRR EconomicRate ofReturn/ Financial Rate of Return 3 J EuropeanUnion 'A0 FoodandAgriculture Organizationof the United Nations ?MRs Financial Monitoring Reports 3DP Gross DomesticProduct 3EF Global Environment Facility SNP Gross National Product SPP Global ProcurementPlan HIV HumanImmunodeficiency Virus [DA International DevelopmentAgency [DP Internally DisplacedPerson [FAD InternationalFund for Agricultural Development [NECN Institute for Environment and the Conservationof Nature, Burundi [PRSP InterimPoverty ReductionStrategyPaper [RAZ Institute for Agronomic andZootechnical Research, Burundi [SABU Burundian Institute for Agricultural Sciences LC Local Communities LIA Local Implementing Agencies MAE Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock MATET Ministry of Land Management,Environment and Tourism MRRDR Ministry of Inserting War-DistressedPersons into Normal Life NAP National Action Plan (UNCCD) NGO NongovernmentalOrganization NPCMU National Project Coordination andManagementUnit PIM ProjectImplementation Manual PMP Pest ManagementPlan PO ProducerOrganization PRASAB Burundi Agriculture Rehabilitation and SupportProject PSR ProjectStatusReport RPF ResettlementPolicy Framework SIL Sector InvestmentLoan SLM SustainableLand Management SOE Statementof Expenditure SP Service Provider STABEX Stabilization System for Agricultural Export Revenues(EU) SRFP StandardRequestFor Proposal TSS Transitional Support Strategy UNCCD UnitedNations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP UnitedNations DevelopmentProgram UNOCHA UNOfficefor Coordination andHumanitarianAffairs 2 FOROFFICIAL USEONLY Vice President: Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: EmmanuelMbi Sector Manager: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh Task Team Leader: Ousmane Seck This document has a restricted distribution andmay be usedby recipients only in the performance of their official duties. I t s contents may not be otherwise disclosed lwithout World Bank authorization. I BURUNDI Agricultural Rehabilitation and Sustainable LandManagement Project Project Appraisal Document Africa RegionalOffice Date: June 30,2004 Team Leader: Ousmane Seck Sector ManagerDirector: JosephBaah-Dwomoh Sector(s): Agriculture, LandManagement, Country ManagerDirector: EmmanuelMbi Environment ProjectID: PO64558 Theme(s): Agriculture sector rehabilitation, rural LendingInstrument: Sector InvestmentLoan policies and institutions, other rural development, (SIL)(IDA-GEF blended) sustainable land and natural resources management, environmentalpolicies and institutions Global SupplementalID: PO85981 Team Leader: Ousmane Seck LendingInstrument: Specific Investment Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector Loan (100%) FocalArea: L-Landdegradation Themes: Landmanagement(P);Water resource management(S) Supplement Fully Blended?:Y Project FinancingData [] Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [] Other: Source Local Foreign Total RECEPIENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT 23.69 11.31 35.00 ASSOCIATION GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 3.63 1.37 5.00 BENEFICIARIES 0.47 0.00 0.47 Total: 27.79 12.68 40.47 FY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Annual 8.5 8.1 7.8 4.1 4.0 2.5 Cumulative 8.5 16.6 24.4 28.5 32.5 35.0 4 FY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Annual 1.1 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 Cumulative 1.1 2.1 3.5 4.2 4.7 5.0 Does the project depart from the CAS incontent or other significant respects?Re$ I PAD A.? Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Re$ PAD 0.7 [ ]Yes [XINO Havethese beenapproved by Bank management? [ ]Yes [XINO Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [XINO Does the project include any critical risks rated "substantial" or "high"? Re$ PAD C.5 [X ]Yes [ ] No Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Re$ [XIYes [ ]No Projectdevelopmentobjective Re$ PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 The development objective o f the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Sustainable Land Management Project is to restore the productive capacity o f rural areas through investments in production and sustainable land management and through capacity building for producer organizations and local communities. Beneficiaries would also include war-distressedreturnees and internallydisplaced persons. Projectdescription [one-sentence summary of each component] Re$ PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4 The Project has three maincomponents: 0 Support for production and sustainable land management investmentswould finance demand-driven subprojects and their effective planning and implementation by producer organizations and local communities. It will also provide emergency support for retumees and internally displaced personsfor their reintegration inthe agricultural sector. 0 Support for capacity building and institutionalstrengthening would enhance the access to information andcapacity o fproducer organizations, local communities and localproject's implementingagencies. 0 Support for Project coordination and managementwould finance Project management and monitoring and evaluation. Which safeguardpoliciesare triggered, ifany? Re$ PAD 0.6, TechnicalAnnex 10 SafeguardPolicies Triggered by the Project N o Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OPBP 4.04) PestManagement (OP 4.09) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, beingrevised as OP 4.1 1) Involuntary Resettlement (OPBP 4.12) Indigenous Peoples(OD 4.20, being revisedas OP 4.10) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) 5 Safety o f Dams (OPBP 4.37) [XI [I Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)' [I [XI Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [XI [I Loadcredit effectiveness: NO Covenants applicable to project implementation: YES 6 CONTENTS Pages A. STRATEGICCONTEXT AND RATIONALE ....................................................................... 9 1. Country and sector issues ......................................................................................................... 9 2. The Government strategy....................................................................................................... 10 3. Rationale for IDA andGEF involvement ............................................................................... 11 4. Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes ....................................................... 12 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 13 1 . Lending instrument ................................................................................................................. 13 2. Project development objective andkey indicators ................................................................. 13 3. Project components ................................................................................................................ 14 4 . Lessons learned andreflected inthe Project design............................................................... 19 5. Alternatives consideredandreasons for rejection .................................................................. 20 C. IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 20 1. Partnershiparrangements ....................................................................................................... 20 2 . Institutional and implementation arrangements ..................................................................... 21 3. Monitoringand evaluation o f outcomes and results .............................................................. 22 4. Sustainability and replicability ............................................................................................... 22 5. Critical risksand possiblecontroversial aspects .................................................................... 23 D APPRAISAL SUMMARY .6. Loanandcredit conditions andcovenants............................................................................. 24 ....................................................................................................... 24 1. Economic and financial analyses ........................................................................................... 24 2. Technical ................................................................................................................................ 25 3. Fiduciary................................................................................................................................. 25 4. Social...................................................................................................................................... 25 5. Environment ........................................................................................................................... 27 6 . Safeguard policies .................................................................................................................. 28 7. Policy Exceptions andReadiness ........................................................................................... 29 Annex 1:Countryand Sector Background .................................................................................... 30 Annex 2: Major RelatedProjectsFinancedby the Bank andlor other Agencies .............................................................................. ....................... 35 Annex 3: ResultsFramework and Monitoring 39 Annex 4: DetailedProject Description 53 Annex 5: ProjectCosts ..................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................... 66 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements ....................................................................................... 67 Annex 7: FinancialManagementand DisbursementArrangements 72 Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements .......................................................................................... .......................................... 78 Annex 9: Economicand FinancialAnalysis 84 Annex 10: Safeguard PolicyIssues ................................................................................................. ................................................................................... 87 7 Annex 10: SafeguardPolicyIssues ................................................................................................. 87 Annex 11:IncrementalCost Analysis ............................................................................................ 91 Annex 12A: Assessmentof LandDegradationand SustainableLand ManagementOptions102 Annex 12B: Social Issuesand Frameworkfor CommunityParticipation ................................ 109 Annex 13: ProjectPreparationand Supervision ..................................................................................... ......................................................................... 122 Annex 14: Documentsin the ProjectFile 123 Annex 15: StatementofLoans and Credits ................................................................................. 124 Annex 16: Countryat a Glance 125 Map.............................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................... 127 8 A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. Countryand sector issues Poverty in Burundi. Burundiwas one o f the poorest countries in the world even before the severe civil crisis and ethnic conflict in the 1990s that further devastated living conditions, especially in rural areas. Per capita GNP in 2001 was only US$lOO, the second lowest in the world.2 Burundi's 7.2 million people3 are concentrated in a small geographic area, with a population density o f 270 persons per square kilometer, the highest in Africa? Poverty in rural areas, where 91 percent o f Burundi's people live, rose from 35 percent in 1992 to 58 percent in2002. At the same time, urban poverty (mainly inBujumbura) doubled from 34 percent to 68 percent (nationally, the percentage o f poor people rose from 35 percent in 1992 to 59 percent in 1997 and to more than 60 percent in 2002). Overall, income poverty has been at more than 50 percent o f the population over the last six years. The economic collapse and the discontinuation o f many public services in Burundi caused widespread suffering and severely restricted agricultural development by making access to agricultural inputs and markets difficult. Crops and cattle were pillaged, and market prices and private sector employment fell while inflation rose. Poverty is especially bad among Burundi's 839,000 refugees and 388,000 internally displaced persons.' Low agricultural production andproductivity. Burundi has substantial agricultural potential, with adequate rainfall and good soil. About 90 percent o f Burundi's people rely on agriculture for their livelihood, and it accounts for 50 percent o f GDP and more than 80 percent o f export earnings. Agricultural production i s mainly rain-fed and subsistence-oriented crops except for such export- oriented cash crops as coffee, tea, and cotton. Burundi was self-sufficient in food production until the civil crisis disrupted production and caused it to lag behind population growth. Looting and destruction o f goods and livestock deprived farmers o f their most important possessions, and distribution and marketing channels for agricultural inputs and products collapsed. Structural weaknesses in Burundi include poor technological development, low fertilizer use, small plots, and little economic diversification. Land degradation and wetlands of Burundi. By the 1980s the growing population,6 limited natural resource base, low government investment in the smallholder sector, and an economy limited mainly to employment inthe primary sector were already causing land fragmentati~n,~exploitation, and expansion into marginal areas. The Government's lack o f research and extension services, and the disruption inthe provision o f agricultural inputsto the rural sector left agricultural households unable to increase production. Mining natural resources was the inevitable result. The 1994 civil war, coupled with food insecurity and increased vulnerability to climatic pressures, exacerbated the country's problems. 'WorldDevelopment Indicators 2003, World Bank. Source : Ministry of Planning, Development andReconstruction - M.P.D.R.- (BDI/99P04-PNP Project). Burundi: surface area-27,830 sq km; landarea (without LakeTanganyika)-21,950 sqkm; arable land area-9,000 sq!a UNOffice for the CoordinationandHumanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). 'Ruralpopulationdensityat 689 personsper squarekilometer of arable land (World Development Indicators 2003) Farm size inmost regionsaverages at less than halfahectare(IPRSP). 9 Soil erosion and siltation o f the Nile and Congo basin watersheds and Lake Tanganyika have increased due to deforestation and watershed degradation, threatening biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Perverse policy incentives, lack of sound property rights and long-term investment inthe land, and weak regulatory and enforcement authority are the main causes o f these problems. And resource use planning i s hampered by poor monitoring and lack o f environmental and natural resource-related data. The expected return o f many internally displaced persons after the civil war and the launch o f a Project to increase agricultural production will significantly increase the pressure to develop Burundi's wetlands. Environmental services could be affected both directly, through drainage and canalization, and indirectly, through increased runoff and sediment from adjacent hillsides. Low capacity for research and extension services. Overall research capacity is low. Short-term applied research needs to be strengthened. One o f the sector's major constraints is the lack of an efficient extension system that translates research solutions into practical packages for addressing farmers' priority constraints and providing a smooth supply o f agricultural services. Specifically, inadequate input supplies, lack o f credit, and ill-organized and weak service delivery are making farmers' access to inputsalmost nonexistent. The Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock, moreover, has limited capacity to design, implement, and monitor rural development policies and projects. Almost no data i s available onthe rural sector. Excessive dependence on coffee, tea, and cotton. The last decade's low international commodity prices hit export earnings hard. Coffee accounted for 75-80 percent o f export receipts in 1999- 2002. Between 1990 and 1997 marketed coffee production plummeted 43 percent and cotton production fell by half, A limited domestic market, weak marketing infrastructure, poor human capacity, and complicated licensing requirements further reduced the competitiveness o f these sectors. The tea sector i s a government monopoly with high potential for privatization and reform, accordingto a 2002 EU-financed study. Poor access to rural jhance. Lack o f access to financing is a major constraint to long-term investment in land and technology. Less than 5 percent o f the population has access to credit or other financial services. There are no rural development banks. High risk makes lending unattractive to private commercial banks. Cooperative credit unions exist, but they are unprofitable and cannot efficiently meet the needs o f the agricultural financial sector. (For further information, see annex 1.). 2. The Governmentstrategy The Government o f Burundi recognizes the following priorities in agricultural and rural development: (a) raising production and productivity and diversifying sources o f income in rural areas; (b) improving the quality o f services and their delivery to farmers; (c) improving the institutional framework for better access to markets and appropriate policy planning and implementation; and (d) promoting sustainable land use and improving natural resource management through sustainable farming practices, proactive support for natural resource management, and regulations and incentives addressing environmental externalities.' Environmental impacts and outcomes, bothpositive andnegative, as a result o fProject interventions andexisting landuse that are not assessedincludedineconomic analyses and insectoralplanning ofthe above mentionedactivities. 10 According to the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy (IPRSP), the Government seeks to address these issues by (a) supporting the reintegration o f displaced persons and other victims o f conflict into agricultural production; (b) rehabilitating and developing rural and agricultural infrastructure and promoting small, non-farm income-generating activities; (c) improving the quality o f service delivery to farmers with better extension services, access to inputsand finance, and technology; (d) supporting high-value export crop production; (e) supporting microwatershed management, sustainable farming appro ache^,^ integrated nutrient and pest management, natural resource use planning for protection areas and buffer zones, land titling and long-term leases, and community management; and (0 stimulating rural employment through public works programs. The Government is already working on some macroeconomic reforms: (a) implementing a comprehensive strategy for private sector development o f coffee, tea, cotton, and horticulture with STABEX funds from the European Union; (b) liberalizing producer pricing and marketing arrangements; (c) enacting a land law; (d) updating national policy and programs for managing natural resources and the environment and enlisting communities to help restore and protect vulnerable ecosystems; and (e) introducing legal and regulatory instruments to improve agricultural planning and management. The Government has also created a program, called the Agricultural Rehabilitation Program for War-Distressed Persons, to resettle refugees and internally displaced persons into their normal life and occupations before the civil war. As a part of Burundi's participation in the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a National Action Program for the Battle against Land Degradationwas drafted in2001, reviewed for validation in September 2003, and is expected to be released shortly. It lists seven objectives covered by nine ProjectJiches and will cost an estimated US$10.3 million. There have been some positive developments from a pilot program by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): more sustainable farming practices adopted on steep slopes insome areas, a new consensus on the urgency o f soil fertility problems and the need for integrated sustainable land management solutions, and efforts to evaluate the impact o f land degradation on agro-based production and livelihoods. 3. Rationalefor IDA and GEFinvolvement Following the signing o f a peace accord and the installation o f a transitional government, in March 2002, the Bank approved a two-year Transitional Support Strategy (TSS). The TSS is designed to consolidate the achievements made under the emergency assistance Interim Strategy. Inaddition to the key macroeconomic reforms, it emphasizes on the rehabilitation o f the rural development and agricultural sector, providingthe basis for national reconciliation, poverty reduction, and economic growth. The proposed Agricultural Rehabilitation and Sustainable Land Management Project i s in keeping with spirit o f the 2002 TSS even though not explicitly mentioned. The decision for its advanced preparation was endorsed by the Country Team, in order to accompany the ongoing- reconciliation process and to facilitate the reconstruction o f the country. Given the long history of serious internal conflict inBurundi, the proposed project is eligible under the post conflict category o f IDA Grant. Supporting productive activities in the rural sector will undoubtedly jumpstart the sector and promoting the competitive and supportive service delivery (through the private sector when possible) are critical for stabilizing the country's economy. While the private sector i s acquiring the necessary capacity with the support from the proposed project, it will further improve the quality o f public sector service delivery. Noted inthe National Environment Strategy, 1997. 11 Several development partners-including the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)," the UnitedNations Development Program, the FAO," the European Union,12 the African Development Bank (ADB), and the French and Belgian development cooperation agencies- support rural sector activities in Burundi, but their outreach remains geographically and technically limited, with large parts o f the country receiving little support (see annex 2). The World Bank's support will strengthen Government partnerships with other donors, coordinate activities, mobilize more donor financing (including incremental grants), and encourage greater discipline and accountability inProject implementation. Unsustainable agricultural practices and deforestation o f transboundary resources are global environmental concerns. (For other pressures on natural resources in Burundi, see annexes 1 and 12.) The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) will support investment and capacity building to stabilize soil loss, reduce sediment accumulation, and provide incremental resources for sustainable land management and improvements in land cover. The extra effort required to encourage and support sustainable land management should bring long-term benefits for sustainable agriculture and other global benefits, including maintenance and prevention o f natural habitat loss. This will contribute to conservation o f on-farm and wetland biodiversity, maintenance o f the environment services provided by the wetlands, and storage o f carbon inforest and wetland sinks.I3GEF support will help ensure that, alongside the increased agricultural production supported by the International Development Association (IDA), steps will be taken to avoid increased land degradation on the hillsides and direct and indirect detrimental impacts on wetlands, generating such offsite benefits as helping to maintain hydrological cycles that affect international water resource. The global significance o f the natural resources as well as the Government's lack o f sufficient resources to combat these threats presents a strong case for GEF involvement, which will also help Burundi in its global obligations toward the various environmental convention^.'^ 4. Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes The proposed Agricultural Rehabilitation and Support Project (PRASAB) would directly improve food security by revitalizing and diversifying agricultural production and establishing sustainable land management. The Project i s fully consistent with the strategies and activities o f the Government's IPRSP, the Agricultural Rehabilitation Program for War-Distressed Persons, and the World Bank's Transitional Support Strategy. The Project is also consistent with the priorities and initiatives o f the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), particularly the agricultural, market access, and environmental initiatives. The proposed Project would specifically addressthe following issues (details are inannex 4): (a) Poor agricultural production and productivity. (b) Reintegrationo fwar-stricken distressed population into agriculture. (c) Excessive dependence on a few crops and the need to diversify income sources inrural areas. (d) Introductionofsustainable land management. (e) Inadequate agricultural services. (f) Institutional strengthening, especially for subproject planning and policy formulation. IoThe Bank operationis expectedto scale up activities,piloted by aFA0 Project, innineprovincesexclusively (Kirundo, Ngozi, Muyinga, Cankuzo, Makamba, Rutana, Bubanza, Muramvyaand Mwaro) andinone province (Bururi)sharedwith IFAD, which operates (Cibitoke, Kayanza, Gitega, and Karuzi) or will operate (Ruyigi andBujumburaRural) inthe remainingsix provinces. GEF supportedSLMactivities will operate onpriority areas identifiedinpreparation. In2004, FA0plansto providehoes, seeds, andasmall quantity offertilizersto nearlyall provincesas emergencyassistance. EUsupport is beingcoordinated closely with PRASAB andwill focus onheavy investmentsinthe cash crops sector. l3Marshlandsandpeatlands represent the largestcomponentofthe terrestrialbiological carbonpool. l4See annex 11 12 The Project would establish explicit linkswith IDA'Ssecond social action Project, BURSAP 11, now under preparation. In particular, it would link with the building o f such new agricultural infrastructure as markets, slaughterhouses, small irrigation canals, and seeds for vegetable gardens in select areas. The Project would also establish links with the BurundiRoad Sector Development Project, whose rural roads component covers feeder roads in the northern, western, and southern parts o f the country and whose feeder roads are chosen by socioeconomic criteria. And the Project would link with the agricultural and environmental activities o f the Emergency RehabilitationCredit (ERC I), especially for facilitating proper implementation and accelerating disbursement o f non committed finds (US$5.5 million). PRASAB would organize annual meetings with all Project authorities to ensure that its priorities are taken into account intheir annual work plans. The World Bank will work with other donor agenciesto focus on activities and areas not covered by their support in order to revive and strengthen rural productive capacity and to improve land and natural resources management. (For further information, see annexes 1and 2.) B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 1. Lendinginstrument The appraisal team recommends a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) as the appropriate lending instrumenttojumpstart reconstruction inrural Burundiand pave the way for an Adaptable Program Loan (APL). The SIL will be fully blended with a GEF grant to support the sustainable land management component o f the Project. The appraisal team rejected an APL because the difficulty o f post-conflict reconstruction, loss o f capacity in general, and disruption o f agricultural services in many provinces make it unrealistic for the Bank to initiate a long-term commitment without prior short-term rehabilitation investments. 2. Projectdevelopment objective and key indicators The Burundi Agricultural Rehabilitation and Support Project (PRASAB) would contribute to the Government's strategic goal o f improving the livelihoods o f rural people through economically and ecologically sustainable investments. PRASAB's development objective is to restore the productive capacity o f rural areas through investments in production and sustainable land management and through capacity building for producer organizations and local communities. Beneficiaries would also include war-distressed returnees and internally displaced persons. The proposed Project would support these objectives by financing activities to increase the productivity o f male and female farmers and farmer groups and by improving the institutional and technical capacities o f producer organizations, local communities, and government institutions to revive the rural sector and enhance management o f endangered lands. The activities o f the Project would complement those financed by other donors and the Government and support existing strategies to revive the rural sector. Also, the approach-including investments by producer organizations and communities, supported by local implementing agencies-has been tested and usedby IFAD, the FAO, andthe French development cooperation agency. The key outcome and impact indicators for measuring the effectiveness o f Project interventions are: (a) number o f subprojects and smallholder families benefiting from the production investments, (b) number of startup kits distributed to distressed people (returning refugees and internally displaced persons) returning to agriculture, (c) percentage o f producer organizations making profitable investments with the Project's help, (d) increase in yields o f major food crops from productivity 13 improvements, (e) number o f hectares o f rehabilitated land and agricultural land protected against degradation, (f) proportion o f requests for help with sustainable land management, and (g) change inthe use of wetlands inProject areas from under productionto not under production). (For further information, see annexes 3 and 12.) 3. Projectcomponents The Project hasthree maincomponents (see annex 4 for details): 1. Support for productionand sustainable land management investments. 2. Support for capacity buildingand institutional strengthening. 3. Support for Project coordination and management. Component1. Supportfor productionand sustainable land managementinvestments US$27.42 million(US$24.62 million plusGEF increment US$2.80 million) This component would finance demand-driven subprojects and their effective planning and implementation by producer organizations and local communities. Subcomponent Ia. Production and sustainable land management investments (US14.62 million plus GEF US$2.80 million) The subprojects, to be selected on a demand-driven basis using participative approaches, include infrastructure investments and related extension activities initiated by producer organizations and local communities, and other extension activities that are not directly related to these investments but are well targeted and contribute to the Project's objectives. Selection criteria, a list o f non- eligible investments, and the conditions and mechanisms for subproject preparation, submission, appraisal, and implementation are detailed in the Project Implementation Manual. Examples o f typical subprojects are in annex 4. Financing would be through grants, with an upfront beneficiary contribution (cash or in kind) o f at least 5 percent o f the subproject cost. This component would finance civil works, equipment and materials, training, and technical assistance for subproject preparation and implementation. This subcomponent would also support the technical assistance required for preparation and implementation o f subprojects that increase the productivity o f existing farming systems, improve the quality o f service delivery (including input supply and training services), and expand farmers' access to high quality seeds and planting material. The National Project Coordination and Management Unit (NPCMU) will contract out these services on a competitive basis to local implementing agencies4ompetent international and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, cooperatives, and producer organizations. If no local implementing agencies are available, the NPCMU will contract to the Provincial Agricultural and Livestock Departmentsof the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock. Local implementing agencies would provide information on Project activities and processes (obtaining funds, reporting) to the groups. Service providers would help producer organizations and local communities that have limited capacity to implement subprojects, ifnecessary (the subprojects would budget up to 10 percent o f Project costs for implementation). Particular attention would be paid to subprojects that help the population's most vulnerable segments. Support would also be given to producer organizations that have mechanisms for women to retain their earnings and actively participate in subproject decision-making. The Project would ensure that committees at different levels are strengthened and maintain the necessary independence and autonomy in their operations. 14 Activities to be supported include scaling up the successes of the FAO-supported program that piloted an integrated approach to agricultural productivity enhancement and sustainable land management. The `Chaine de Solidarite' tested community monitoring o f land management activities that were promoted with such incentives as provision o f livestock. But as a pilot program, it was limited in scope. Replication of the successes would be done gradually, based on available capacity, social stability, and drive (see annex 4), and would expand to include swamp and hillside management inan integrated microwatershedapproach. The delivery o f extension should ensure that the provided technologies are locally applicable and customized for rehabilitating degraded lands, conserving biodiversity, and improving the sustainability o f land use in wetlands currently under production. The Project would also build awareness o f other sustainable land management subprojects and strengthen the capacities o f local communities to manage natural resources. GEF resources would support the incremental sustainable land management components of subproject proposals that are clearly defined and comply with GEF selection criteria (see annex 4). Sustainable land management activities would address the key land degradation concerns in Burundi's five agro-ecological zones. The primary focus of these interventions are shown in table 1.1. Table 1.1Primary focus of sustainableland managementactivities Agro-ecological Western Western Congo-Nile Central Eastern zone Plains Escarpment Divide Plateau Depression Areas Mainland 0 Salinization Lossof Lossof 0 Lossofsoil e Decreasing degradationissue farmland pastureland fertility availability dueto due to of soil erosion erosion. moisture 0 Lossofsoil fertility 0 Improving e Controlling 0 Improving e Expanding e Improving water erosion pasture agro-sylvo- vegetation managemen (mountain managemen pastoral cover ( t for crest) t and production windbreaks) irrigated erosion systems land 0 Improving control 0 Introducing Primary focus for cultural basedon 0 Rehabilitati water sustainable land 0 Creating practices reforestation ng lowland harvesting management and (lower (mountain cultivated 1 techniques protectinga areas) crest) areas buffer zone aroundLake 0 Improving Tanganyika soils with calcium amendments Specific, technical recommendations for on-the-ground investments eligible under the GEF have been identified by agro-ecological zone and are listed inthe Project Implementation Manual. 15 Subcomponent 1b. Emergency support for returnees and internally displaced persons (US$l0.0 million) PRASAB would contribute to the Government's emergency program by supporting returnees and internally displaced persons in select Project areas by helping include them in local producer organizations, where possible, and by financing agricultural startup kits with seeds, planting materials, and inputsand implements for farming and cattle rearing. This subcomponent would join with the National Commission for the War Distressed Persons (NCWDP), and its provincial and commune-level organizations. The Project would also seek the guidance of the technical committee's subcommittee for returnees and displacedpeople (see sectionC.2). Component 2. Supportfor capacity buildingand institutionalstrengthening US$7.17 million (US4.97 millionplus GEFUS%2.20million) Subcomponent 2a. Enhancing the capacity of local communities,producer organizations, and local implementing agencies (US$0.57millionplus GEF US$O.86million) The Project would enhance the access to information and capacity of producer organizations and local communities. Demand-driven support would be provided for strengthening their participation by renewing local networks and cooperative relationshipsfrayed during the conflict. Other activities include (i)strengthening the organizational, technical, and management capacities of local communities and producer organizations and (ii)promoting an understanding in producer organizations and local communities of the broader environmental management issues related to land degradationand swamp land utilization andbenefits. Capacity building of producer organizations and local communities would be based on training needs and resulting training plans, linked to the productive and sustainable land management subprojects, and offered by contracted local implementing agencies. This subcomponent would support the preparation and implementation of training plans, workshops, and study tours for managers and committee members of producer organizations and local communities. This subcomponent would also strengthen, when necessary, local implementing agencies' capacity to provide services to producer organizations and local communities. The NPCMU has conducted a capacity assessment of local implementing agencies before negotiation and will develop a training plan to address gaps in organizational, technical, and business skills with training, workshops, and study tours. GEF resources would be made available to strengthen information management by local implementing agencies at the commune level in order to support decision making on sustainable land management and dissemination of good management practices, technologies, and lessons consistentwith GEF Operational PolicyNo. 15. Activities would include: Developing training manuals and field guides in local languages on sustainable land management methods in watershed management, wetland management, agro-forestry, soil stabilization, and improved water management. Disseminating methods and building awareness of the sustainable land management program ofPRASAB. Creating demonstration plots and exchanging information at the local and regional levels, including site visits, and farmer-to-farmer exchangesand visits. 16 Providing local implementing agencies with training, equipment, and supplies on modern land managementmethods. Subcomponent 2b. Supportfor institutional strengthening of key public services (US$4.40 million plus GEF US$1.34million) While the broad support needed for institutional development of the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministry of Land Management, Tourism and Environment is beyondthe scope of this subcomponent, assistance would be provided for select activities directly tied to the achievement o f expectedsector operation results. IDA supportwould be providedto the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministry of Land Management, Tourism, and Environment to strengthen their capacities for program planning and to develop effective management systems for monitoring agricultural investments. The Project would finance the purchase of vehicles, office equipment, consultants, services, training, workshops, and study tours. This subcomponentwould finance the rehabilitation of a limitednumber of researchstations, small equipment, vehicles, and agricultural inputs as well as training, workshops, and operating costs associatedwith research. GEF resources would help the Ministry of Land Management, Tourism, and Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock identify acceptable and functional priorities of sustainable land management and develop integrated approaches adapted to each region's agro-ecological zones. The GEF would also support analysis and advisory activities to design a modern, national institutional framework for landmanagementandto strengthennational planning for land resources, including a national land management plan. This would involve close coordination among the ministries and their agencies and would include improvements in monitoring and coordination of the use ofnatural resources, andplanning andresourceallocation. Activities to be financed include: Developing a national framework for sustainable land use planning through studies, workshops, and consultations. Strengtheningparticipatory institutional and legal mechanismsto ensure close collaboration and information exchange on sustainable land management by agencies under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, notably Burundian Institute for Agricultural Science(ISABU), Institute for Agronomic and Zootechnical Research (IRAZ), Provincial Agricultural and Livestock Departments (DPAE), Geographical Institute of Burundi (IGEBU), National Institute for Environment and the Conservation of Nature (INECN), and Department of Rural Infrastructure, Planning and Land Management (DGRPPF) through regular workshops. Implementing the recommendations of the special reportI5 on the program for evaluating land degradationand sustainable land management inthe areas coveredby PRASAB. Publishing an annual State of the Environment report by the Center for Environmental Information. l5Under preparationby Buursink,Bikwemu, andHabonimana. 17 Supporting an environmental monitoring framework by conducting periodic evaluations o f land degradation in PRASAB sites, strengthening laboratory facilities o f the INECN for soil and water analysis and ISABU for field mapping, and providing technical support to PRASAB. Training staff in wetlands and sustainable land management, with site visits, among other tools. Setting regional priorities for land conservation in dry land areas with the National Program for Erosion Control. This subcomponent would also finance improvements in agricultural research. Given the limited research capacity in the country and the specific needs o f producer organizations and local communities, the Project would support focused, short-term (two to three years) applied research aimed at solving productivity constraints in agriculture. The Project interventions would complement assistance from the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC), which has already helped rehabilitate research infrastructure and equipment (ISABU), to support continuing education, training, study tours, and workshops for researchers. Once rehabilitated, the institutes would focus on the local application and development o f lessons and research carried out elsewhere rather than duplicating fundamental research GEF resources would support research targeted at sustainable land management with an emphasis on field testing and package distribution including: Agricultural practices that improve the fertility and physical and chemical conditions o f soil and systems that intensifL fodder production to counter overgrazing. Economically valuable wood species that cause less soil degradation than agricultural crops (trees for fodder, fuel wood, construction timber, fruit, medicinal plants, and the like). Assessment o f the economic impact o f land degradation in the agro-ecological zones of PRASAB and the benefits o f early intervention to prevent or control degradation. Component3. Support for Projectcoordinationand management (US$5.41 million) This component would finance Project management and monitoring and evaluation. The main costs relate to establishing and supporting the NPCMU and three decentralized Inter-provincial Project Coordination and Management Units (IPCMUs) responsible for coordination and continuous monitoring, audits and periodic evaluation studies, and reporting. The Project would support the salaries o f a small team o f experienced technical specialists, as well as office rehabilitation, vehicles, consultant services, and training, workshops, and study tours for NPCMU and IPCMU staff. The operating costs o f these units and the preparation and implementation o f a Project completion report would also be covered. The Project would also support administration and tracking o f sustainable land management activities and monitoring of the Project's environmental indicators. Additional resources would be provided for training, workshops, and study tours for NPCMU staff to establish the participatory processesfor community-level implementation. 18 4. Lessonslearnedand reflectedinthe Projectdesign Several Bank-financed projects inBurundioffer valuable lessons for the design o f this Project: e Project design should be kept simple and tailored to the borrower's capacity to absorb and implement the Project. e Sustainability in rural development programs ensures the full involvement o f the most affected people. This Project would work with local producer organizations and would expand stakeholder contacts to include a broad cross-section o f local communities. e Efforts to increase agricultural production are likely to fail without concrete steps to minimize soil degradation. The Project's GEF contribution follows the UNCCD's recommendation o f maintaining soil fertility and quality and minimizing environmental impacts. e An in-depth institutional analysis ofthe participatinginstitutions is essential, andthe Project implementation schedule should be established onthe basis ofthis assessment. e GEF-supported activities should follow a two-pronged strategy: specific investments should intensively focus on select areas but use integrated solutions, and advisory activities should address policy gaps to mainstream sustainable land management objectives. e A sound integrated monitoring framework-with technical financial and accounting, and information on methods and indicators for monitoring-should be prepared and included in the MonitoringandEvaluation Manual. e The risk that new entities would become overly bureaucratic can be avoided through competitive selection o f local implementing agencies. Rural development projects in other countries also provide valuable lessons. For instance, the Agricultural and Livestock Services Project in Chad and the Food Security Project inBenin showed that usingNGOs and bilateral agencies as local implementing agencies for certain components can provide relatively fast and impressive results. But the administrative and operations costs absorbed by such agencies can be high and should be controlled. The FA0pilot program inBurundiand the Critical Ecosystems Pilot Project in Rwanda provided useful information on practical sustainable land and natural resources management. The first GEF Project in Lake Tanganyika addressed land degradation and pollution, but efforts to launch a significant program inBurundiwere hampered by the civil unrest. A second Project is now under preparation. The FA0 experience in constructing small irrigation works, terraces, and other basin management works has been fairly positive. But some works carried out duringProject cycles are not maintainedafter the Project ends, and others have been destroyed. The reluctance to "waste" valuable land on runoff prevention and dykes has to be addressed, and sustainability has to be achieved. The Project would address these risks by supporting close coordination among the beneficiaries and strengthening the capacity o f water user associations on sustainability and maintenance issues (for further information, see annex 2). 19 5. Alternatives consideredand reasonsfor rejection Nature of the Project. Given the multidimensional and extensive needs o f Burundi's rural sector, a broad, integrated rural development operation was a tempting option. But the complex management and coordination tasks involved and uncertainties o f the country's implementation capacity forced the appraisal team to choose a more focused approach with fewer components. This Projectwould be one ofthe initialprojects under the GEF's operational programon sustainable land management (OP15). A fully blended Project was chosen to demonstrate how immediately increasing local production could be fully integrated with measuresto ensure greater sustainability, rather than with separated and unrelated initiatives. Moreover, a blended Project was preferred to a standalone Project because of limited technical capacity and financial resources, and because it would facilitate more coordination between the agriculture and environment ministries, where the requisite skills and knowledge for Project implementation are. A standalone GEF Project would have a more limited impact compared with a larger blended IDA-GEF Project, which can more widely mainstream environmental considerations. Credits or grantsfor production investments (subcomponent la). Stakeholders and support agencies have long discussed the pros and cons o f financing subprojects for producer organizations with grants rather than with credits. Factors in favor o f one-time grants, with a small contribution from beneficiaries, were the lack of rural finance institutions, the extreme poverty resulting from the civil war, and the need to quickly reconstruct the countryside after the conflict. Choice of instrument. Returning refugees and internally displaced persons were factors in the decision o f what type o f instrument-emergency or regular operation-to use for rehabilitating the agricultural sector. The Decision Meeting agreed that PRASAB would be primarily an investment Project, laying a basis for medium-term growth in the agricultural sector. But in the short term PRASAB would also address the needs o f war-distressed people. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnershiparrangements The Project would be financed by IDA and GEF grants, the Government of Burundi, and beneficiaries. Despite the Project's self-standing nature, it would be linked closely with the development efforts o f the international agencies already active in the rural sector in Burundi. The main sources o f support are IFAD, the European Union, the ADB, and the French and Belgian cooperation agencies, many o f which are involved in specific activities that would benefit from the Project's complementary financing to producer organizations or local implementing agencies and service providers (see annex 2 and the Comprehensive Development Framework in the Project Files). For instance, in 2004 FA0 plans to provide hoes, seeds, and a small quantity o f fertilizer to nearly every province as emergency assistance. The Project would expand some o f the activities started by international agencies into larger areas. The Project's environmental activities would be closely coordinated with other implementing and executing agencies through the GEF's mechanisms and through close coordination among donors o f activities on the ground at the country and river-basin level. The coordination and partnership arrangements with donors would include participation inthe Project's Steering Committee, common supervision missions, common biannual reviews, and broad distribution o f reports. 20 2. Institutional and implementationarrangements Implementation agencies. The Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock would have overall responsibility for Project implementation, in close coordination with the Ministry o f Land Management, Environment, and Tourism (for implementation o f the GEF-supported sustainable land management activities) and the Ministry o f Reinstallation of Returnees and Displaced Persons (for assistanceto people displaced by the civil war).16 At the national levela steering committee, chaired bythe Ministryo fAgriculture and Livestock and composed o f ministers o f other key ministries, would define agricultural policy and strategies for its execution. A technical committee, composed o f high-level officials o f these key ministries, agencies, and institutions (ISABU, IRAZ, INECN, the University o f Burundi, and NGOs) would monitor and guide Project operations, and review and approve annual work plans and budgets to be submitted to the National Steering Committee. A technical subcommittee, chaired by the Ministry of Environment, would focus on implementing and monitoring sustainable land management activities. Another subcommittee, chaired by the Ministry o f Reinstallation o f Returnees and Displaced Persons, would provide guidance in implementing emergency support for returnees and internally displaced persons (subcomponent la). Participation o f other ministries and departments that can provide support to the Project, and the composition and tasks o f the Project-related committees, are described inannex 6 and the Project ImplementationManual. Project coordination and management. The NPCMU, under the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock, would be responsible for the coordination and operational and financial implementation of the Project. The NPCMU would consist o f a Project coordinator, an institutions and community development specialist, a rural development specialist, a sustainable land management specialist, a monitoring and evaluation specialist, a financial specialist, a procurement specialist, an accountant, and support staff, including an information technician. The Project would have three IPCMUs-in Makamba, Muyinga, and Muramvya. Eachunit would cover three to four neighboring provinces. Implementation of subcomponents. The implementation arrangements for each subcomponent, including eligibility criteria and non eligible activities, are detailed in annex 6 and the Project ImplementationManual. Flow of funds and accountabilities. During the initial stages o f the Project, IDA disbursements would follow transaction-based procedures using a Special Account and Statements o f Expenditures. The Project would be eligible for report-based disbursement procedures after providing satisfactory Financial Monitoring Reports to IDA for two consecutive quarters. Annex 7 details the financial management and disbursement arrangements. The GEF Grant would be disbursed following transaction-based procedures using a Special Account for clearly identified incremental sustainable land management interventions. The following Bank accounts are currently maintained for Project preparationfunds: 0 Special Account A (denominated in US. dollars). This account serves as the main Project account for Project implementation funds from IDA. Special Account B (denominated in U.S. dollars). This account receives GEF funds. l6Le Ministkre A la Rkinsertion et A la Rkinstallation des Dkplacks et des Rapatriks (MRRDR). 21 0 Project Account: This is denominated in Local currency and will received resources from the Government ofBurundi,otherthanthose from IDA andGEF grants , The Project would retain the current banking arrangements. The chart in annex 7 illustrates the proposedbanking and funds flow arrangements. (For further information, see also annexes 6 and 8.) 3. Monitoring and evaluationof outcomesand results Monitoring and evaluation would be an important function of the NPCMU. A comprehensive baseline study was preparedto gather data on the startup situation, establish appropriatetargets, and allow key indicators to be comparedat regular intervals. Annex 3 lists the main expectedoutcomes, results, and indicators for measuring the Project performance. It also contains a more comprehensive list of indicators in a log frame for Project management.These indicators, and their intermediate and final targets, would be consolidated in a Monitoring and Evaluation Manual to be adoptedby the Government. Annex 12 provides a framework for assessing land degradationthat directly supports the vision and objectives of OP15 - SLM. It comprises two parallel assessment approaches, one at the national level and one at the local level (commune or watershed level). Eachassessmentapproachinvolves: Assessingbaselineconditions of land degradation. Identifying optimum solutions to combat land degradation and evaluating the impacts of PRASAB and GEF interventions on land degradation. To measure achievement of development objectives, the Bank, with the help of competent outside agencies, will evaluate the Project at its midterm and at the end of the Project period. (For further information on monitoring and evaluation see annex 3.) 4. Sustainabilityand replicability Despite having an emergency feature, the Project's main purpose is to provide a framework for sustainable agriculture. Its extensive coverage and blended nature makes it the first Project of its kindinBurundi.Its long-term sustainability is uncertainbecause ofthe post-conflict conditions and rehabilitation issues in the country. However, it is in line with Burundi's rural and agricultural development policy and its Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy and operations would likely continue after the Project is completed. Moreover, the Project is within a larger framework o fwhich complementary activities are endorsed and financed by other development agencies, which could continue even if a follow-on Project is not financed by the World Bank Group. Appendix 1 of Annex 2 provides the framework of donor involvement in rural development and their investments inthe areas of institutional support andcapacity building, livelihoodgeneration, and environmental sustainability. Sustainability of the productive investmentsand capacity building financed by the Project would be enhanced by empowering producer organizations and civil society organizations and increasing their management responsibilities in agricultural support services. An important part of each subproject design would be a maintenance plan that collects funds from the beneficiaries of subproject facilities. 22 GEF-supported actions would lay the foundation for a long-term sustainable land management framework to carry on the resource management techniques to the next phases o f rural development. Experiences and practices from successful sustainable land management, particularly in erosion control, soil fertility and watershed management, and sustainable use of wetlands and conservation will feed into the national land management strategy and would provide the basis for replication through future sub-projects and other donors' assistance programs as they move from emergency relief operations to long-term development interventions, including agricultural development and natural resources management programs. Project lessons would be shared with other countries in the region and links developed with regional and other research and institutional strengthening initiatives. Negotiations with rebels for a ceasefire are expected to allow Project activities to be implemented across the entire country. But the Project is designed to reach up to 10 provinces (see footnote 8). The Project's geographical selection criteria are detailed inthe Project ImplementationManual. 5. Critical risksand possiblecontroversialaspects Risks Riskmitigationmeasures Mitigated riskrating ToProject development objectives: -Insecurity-and potential lack National and local government H o f adequate social stability support, careful selection o f Project inProjectareas. areas, and involvement o f local communities and stakeholders in Project preparation and implementation. Land use disputes and Social stability and the lack of H conflicts that would prevent conflict are prerequisites for successful implementation subproject approval. Conflict o f sustainable land resolution would be encouraged management activities. through traditional channels. A participatory process involving communities and raising awareness o f the long-term benefits of development activities would be used to promote sustainable land management activities. To Component I: Support to production and sustainable land management investments Producers and communities Many producer organizations M may be too slow to form already exist, and the Project would new producer organizations, finance service providers to help delaying Project producers and communities better implementation. understandthe benefits o f group and participatory approaches. 23 Funds for subprojects may The NPCMU and IPCMUs would S not be used efficiently, advise producer organizations on economically, or exclusively accounting for Project transactions. for intendedpurposes.Funds Accounting procedures applicable to may not be properly subprojectswould be simple, with an accounted for. emphasison reporting. 0 Communities would be involved in monitoring subproject expenditures. To Component 2: Capacity building 2nd institutional strengthening Lack of capacity at the local 0 Programs to strengthen the capacity levels may be a bottleneck o f producer organizations, local for subproject communities, local implementing implementation and agencies, key public services, and operations. other concerned groups have been designed as an integral part of the Proiect. .P 6. Grants conditions and covenants The GEF Grant Agreement has been duly executed and ratified and all conditions precedent to its effectiveness, except only the effectiveness of this Agreement, have been fulfilled. GEF Grant: All conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the Development Grant Agreement have been fulfilled, subject onlyto the effectiveness ofthe GEF Grant Agreement. D. APPRAISALSUMMARY 1. Economicand financialanalyses (a) Economic NPV = 8.9 billion Burundi francs, at 12percent discount rate; ERR= 33 percent The financial benefits will not be quantified for the entire project, so an overall economic rate of returnfor the Project hasnot beencomputed.Butthe economic rate ofreturn has beencomputed for the productive investments and their support subcomponent. (Economic and technical data, summarized in annex 9, are based on farm and subproject models and are available in the Project Files and inthe Project Implementation Manual.) Many qualitative benefits would accrue to the country and its economy from the Project, including increased monetization (reflected by reduced barter); increased efficiency in the productive rural sector (from improvement in farmers' skills and the quality o f producer organizations); and more participation inthe economy by marginal groups. (b) Financial NPV= N/A; FRR =varying by subproject (see annex 9) 24 The financial benefits o f the productive investments and support subcomponent and analysis o f the representative farm and subproject models are presented in annex 9. Since this subcomponent facilitates investments by the final clientele at the grassroots level, measuring the return on investments and increase in rural incomes is critical. The financial impacts o f the remaining subcomponents cannot be quantitatively determined so the overall financial rate o f return for the Project is not computed. 2. Technical A potential technical problem is the limited capacity o f producer organizations and local communities to prepare subprojects. But the production and sustainable land management subprojects are small, and competent service providers can help if beneficiaries lack the required capacity. For sustainable land management, the important technical issue is sustainable approaches for Burundi. There has been considerable resistance to land and soil conservation measures because people see it as wasting land. Approaches with more productive soil conservation solutions, such as growing productive hedgerows, vetiver, or pasture grass, are desirable. Demonstration and sensitization are essential for change. There may also be resistance to other unfamiliar techniques, such as "no-till" cropping. Productivity would only be raised on a sustainable basis if technologies that are appreciated and understood by the population are established. 3. Fiduciary The NPCMU is new, and its financial management system has not been fully established yet. An assessment o f the Project's financial management arrangements included a review o f accounting, reporting, auditing, flow o f funds and internal control systems. Operational systems are being defined and documented, and personnel are being trained. The Project would establish a financial management system to support management, monitoring, and control o f Project resources to ensure efficiency and effectiveness inoutput delivery for project objectives. The Project would produce the financial monitoring timeline in the Financial Management Assessment Report. (The financial monitoring timeline i s presented in annex 7. Further details about the financial, disbursement, and procurementarrangements are inannexes 7 and 8). 4. Social 4.I. Opportunities, constraints, impacts, and risks arising out of sociocultural context. The Project has a framework for community participation in subproject preparation and implementation that outlines (i)the steps in community development, (ii)subproject selection criteria, and (iii)a monitoring and evaluation process. For example, communities would be asked to form diverse Project committees as their liaison with PRASAB. Awareness buildingand capacity buildingwould continue for at least a year, or as long as a community has producer organizations or community activities engaged with the Project. Capacity building would be supported by the sustainable land management program, especially in areas with high environmental sensitivity (important wetlands, steep slopes, poor soil) because people have focused on meeting short-term survival needs and because land in Burundi is managed mainly at the household level. Grants would be provided through subprojects for investment in the sustainable land management program's longer term benefits. 25 Participants would be included in monitoring and evaluation. Project committees would be able to collaborate with Project agents to produce PRASAB's trimestrial reports and verify them with producer organizations and local communities. The qualitative reports o f local implementing agencies would allow producer organizations and local communities to evaluate progress in terms of problems and solutions and to reformulate the Project's activity schedule if necessary. Different stakeholders can choose to hold meetings and report their own information. Land tenure conflicts are likely to be a serious issue for the rural population. These conflicts can be intra-ethnic, inter-ethnic, or even between families. Reintegrating returnees o f all types will exacerbate land tenure conflicts that were already a major problem before the war. Ethnicity, a hidden factor in land conflicts, caused people to leave duringthe civil war and lose their land. But land tenure conflicts are also a land problem. Lack o f conflict i s a precondition for subprojects, and any conflicts arising from or related to sustainable land management subprojects would be addressed through conflict resolution measures based on local traditions. Land conflicts are first addressed to the community notables (Bashingantahe), and if they cannot resolve them, they go to the Communal Administrator and, ifnecessary, to a communal tribunal. 4.2 How would key stakeholders participate in the Project? Country visits during Project preparation and appraisal to commune-level officials and local offices o fthe Ministryo f Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministry o f Land Management, Tourism and Environment laid the groundwork for administrative and technical Project support. Members o f rural communities were interviewed for input on their participation. They would participate in all Project stages, from design to evaluation, through community-level and producer organizations subprojects. The Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock would have overall responsibility for the Project, having participated in its planning and design and collaborated with key ministries (Land Management, Tourism, and Environment; Communal Development; Planning; and Reinstallation o f Returnees and Displaced Persons). The technical committee would facilitate participation o f key agencies, institutions, and NGOs, such as ISABU and INECN(see annex 6). 4.3 Potential social issues. (1) Differential access to Project benefits. There may be differential access to some o f the rural population. People who have been socially marginalized and have difficulty joining or forming a producer organization (returnees, child household heads, ex-combatants) may not have the resources needed for productive investments, but they would benefit from sustainable land management investments in communities where these investments take place. The returnees would benefit from the emergency assistance for war-distressed people included inthe Project. (3) Conflicting demandson the same resources.Resettlement o f returnees may put additional andlor conflicting demands on the resources as some returnees may find that their land has been appropriatedor sold duringtheir absence, a potential source o f conflict. 26 (4) Positions of expected winners and losers. Funding some POs and not others may well be a source o f community conflict or tension. (6) Social risks to the Project. With some rebels having become bandits, violence and theft directed at Project personnel and resources (vehicles, computers) are risks. PRASAB's territorial offices and personnelmay be particularly at risk inan impoverishedrural context. 4.4 Monitoring the main social impacts of the Project. The main social issues o f the Project would be monitored through baseline, biannual, and final evaluations, as well as periodic and topical surveys each year (see further aspects on social issues inannex 10.) 5. Environment Potential issue Yes/No Integration, if applicable Establishment of a policy, Yes The Project would support preparation of the textes d 'application .. . . regulatory, and institutional for environment assessment procedures. The Environment Code framework for was enacted by the Government in 2000. The code assigned environmentally sustainable authority for the environmentto the Ministry of LandManagement, growth and natural resource Environmentand Tourism. The adoption of national environmental management. assessment procedures would (i)ensure that future development activities are assessed for potential environment and social impacts during the planning stage and that appropriate mitigation measures are adopted and (ii)provide a legal basis for the Ministry of Land Management, Environment and Tourism to enforce environmental analysis assessment requirements inthe country. Enhancement of the Yes The Project's capacity building for producerorganizationsand local livelihoods of the poor communities would enhance the livelihoods of poor people. through better and more Capacity building would take place in sustainable land transparent management of management, pest management, small irrigation infrastructure natural resources and less management, and environment analysis, particularly environmental vulnerability to screening of subprojects. Producer organizationswould also benefit environmentalchange. from the opportunity to exchange information on best practices, transfer of knowledge, and study tours to neighboringcountries. Protection from Yes Subprojects proposing small irrigation or pesticide use and those environmental risks and related to the artisanalproduction of palm oil would be requiredto pollution. carry out an environmental impact assessment at the planning stage to ensure that potential impacts (salinization, pesticide poisoning, water pollution, and water-related diseases) are identified early and mitigated during subproject implementation.Support would also be provided for the development of the Project Implementation Manual. The main results o f the Project's safeguard policy studies were (a) the development o f an environmental screening process for subprojects; (b) the preparation o f a pest management plan with provisions for training in the safe handling o f pesticides and integrated pest management; (c) the identification o f training needs for management o f small irrigation infrastructure, including small dams; (d) proposals for effective environmental management at the Ministry o f Land Management, Tourism and Environment; and (e) preparation o f an Environmental Management Plan. These studies were discussed during the appraisal mission, including coordination mechanisms for the Ministry o f Land Management, Environment and Tourism the during Project implementation. 27 Consultations during preparation of the environmental analysis report were carried out with producer organizations, national experts, and representativesof associations,technical services, and ministries.The environmental analysisreport notedthat producer organizations will needadditional organizational and professional support. In June 2003 a workshop was conducted to inform the public of the Project's objectives and status, to obtain participants' views and opinions, and to formulate recommendations for addressing rural development constraints and improving Project preparation. The safeguardpolicy studies were disclosed inthe Bank's Infoshop on January 23,2004, and inthe Bank's Burundi Country Office, as well as to NGOs and civil society, producer organizations and relevant ministries on January 20, 2004. 6. Safeguard policies 6.1.Safeguard policies triggered by the Project. 6.2Safeguards screeningcategory. B - PartialAssessment. 6.3Safeguard andenvironmentalscreeningcategories B Partial Assessment. The proposed Project has beencategorizedas a "B/S2" on the basis of the - financing of smallholder productive infrastructures and agro-processing facilities. For details regarding the triggering of safeguard policies concerning Environmental Assessment, Pest Management, Involuntary Resettlement, Safety of Dams, and Projects on International Waterways, see Annex 10. Potential impacts resulting from the project's activities are likely to include soil erosion, soil and water pollution, flooding, salinization, loss of flora and fauna. The project has been designed to mitigate impacts that might be due to project activities, while also addressing Burundi's broader problems such as land degradationand water stress. The project is not expected to generate cumulative impacts, for example, as a result of increased pesticide use or ineffective water management, as appropriate mitigation measures have been developed. "BysupportingtheproposedProject,theBankdoesnotintendtoprejudicethefinaldeterminationoftheparties'claimsonthe disputedareas. 28 POLICY EXCEPTIONSAND READINESS APPLICABILITY Does the Project require an exception from Bank policies? Yes I X No I TBD Ifan application is still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to make a determination. Compliance Applicability of Business Policies Check applicable items: Financing o f recurrent costs (OMS 10.02) Cost sharing above country 3-yr average (OP 6.30, BP 6.30, GP 6.30) Retroactive financing above normal limit (OP 12.10, BP 12.10, GP 12.10) Financial management (OP 10.02, BP 10.02) 0 Involvement o fNGOs(GP 14.70) 29 Annex 1: Country and Sector Background BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable LandManagementProject 1. Livingconditionsand economy after the crisis Burundi, a small country of 27,830 square kilometers and 7.2 million people, suffered from severe civil crisis and internal war since 1993. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination o f Humanitarian Affairs, the war pushed 839,000 refugees lived into neighboring countries, mainly Tanzania, and displaced 388,000 people in different parts o f Burundi. The resettlement o f returning and displaced people has started but i s far from complete. The war left a very chaotic social, political, and economic situation in addition to havinga heavy toll on Burundi's people and causing many casualties. The conflict exacerbated the natural resources management challenge, slashing investment inthe land and increasing deforestation as a result o f slash and burn agriculture. The crisis o f the 1990s devastated Burundi's living conditions and economy, especially in the countryside, where 90 percent o f the people live. In 2001 only 48 percent o f the population had access to potable water. Between 1992 and 2002 infant mortality rates grew from 10.0 percent to 10.6 percent, malnutrition rates more than tripled from 6 percent to 20 percent, and school enrollment rates dropped from 52 percent to 37 percent. Some 28 percent o f primary schools were destroyed during the crisis and 34 percent o f health centers no longer operate, making social services inaccessible to the impoverished population. Between 1992 and 1998 maternal mortality ratios increased from 110 deaths per 100,000 births to 800. The rate o f HIV/AIDS prevalence increasedto 16.6 percent among the urban population and 7.4 percent o f the rural population. Gross national income decreased from 1992 to 2000, but it has slowly started to recover. Per capita income dropped from US$210 to US$lOO over the same period. The Government's budget deficit ballooned from 2.4 percent to 8.7 percent o f GNP. Exports coffee, tea, cotton, and other cash crops-Burundi's main foreign currency earners-fell from an average o f US$76 million in 1990- 93 to US$50 million in 2000. The economy continues to be based mostly on agriculture, which brings inmore than 80 percent o fexport earnings. 2. Mainsector issues Poverty. Burundiis one o f the poorest countries inthe world, with a per capita GNP o f US$lOO in 2001. In 1993 the proportion o f the population below the poverty level was 25 percent in rural areas and 33 percent in urban areas. These figures have since increased by 80 percent in rural areas and doubled in urban areas. The situation is worse in rural areas. Farms located in remote areas, lower production levels, less access to and use o f agricultural inputs, falling market prices, pillaging of harvests and cattle, an employment downturn in the urban private sector, and increasing inflation have caused per capita income to fall significantly. From 1992 to 2000 income fell in real terms from 74,443 Burundifrancs to 44,903, an average annual decrease o f 5 percent. Rural poverty has a number o f dimensions. With intensive population pressures, it increases land fragmentation, with an average plot size o f 0.7 hectares per household. Lack o f food security and increased vulnerability to such climatic pressures as irregular rainfall further degrade the natural resource base o f production. 30 Impact of conflict. Burundiwas traditionally self-sufficient in food production, but the civil crisis disrupted production and caused it to lag with population growth. Looting and destruction of household goods and livestock deprived farmers o f their most important income-generating potential. The distribution and marketing channels for agricultural inputsand products collapsed at the same time. The political crisis and large number o f displaced persons and refugees exacerbated the agricultural problems. The crisis was most devastating in the regions that experienced intense fighting and significant population displacement. Agricultural output declined sharply after the start of the crisis, with 1997 production levels 21 percent lower than the average volume for 1989-93 and agricultural per capita GDP down 33 percent. The political and social conflict displaced many people, leadingto slash and burnactivities and rapid deforestation. Low agricultural production and productivity. Around 90 percent o f Burundi's people rely on agriculture for their livelihood, and it accounts for 50 percent o f GDP and more than 80 percent of export earnings. Most agricultural production i s subsistence-oriented, except for such cash crops as coffee, tea, rice, sugar, and cotton that target export markets. Land fragmentation and soil degradation, combined with poor agricultural productivity, are key issues identified by local communities (the Bank's Poverty Note for Burundi, February 1999). Land fragmentation has not been compensated for by enough increases in agricultural productivity. Adverse incentives for cash crop production are an important structural problem, Production is mainly done with hand-held tools and basic technology. Fertilizer use is extremely low and plot sizes are small. And the country has reached the limit o f traditional land cultivation and has little economic diversification in the rural sector. Land and wetlanddegradation.By the 1980sthe growing population, limited natural-resource base, low government investment in the smallholder sector, and an economy largely limited to agricultural employment were already causing land fragmentation and exploitation, and expansion into marginal areas. The Government's lack o f research, extension services, and provision of agricultural inputs to the rural sector left agricultural households unable to increase production. Miningnaturalresources was the inevitable result. While the conflict exacerbated the unsustainable land use, lack o f long-term investments inthe land presaged it. Overexploitation o f land, smaller farms (less than half a hectare), and fewer fallow periods have led to severe land degradation. Loss o f soil fertility, soil erosion, and silting o f rivers are the most critical issues. Estimates o f soil loss range from 4 tons per hectare a year in the east to about 18 in the center-west. The Muminva zone has been hardest hit, with annual soil loss as high as 100 tons per hectare. Soil erosion and siltation o f the Nile and Congo basin watersheds and Lake Tanganyika have increased due soil erosion, threatening biodiversity. Heavy population pressure and population movements have led to unsustainable land use practices. Marginal lands are increasingly being cultivated, and ecologically significant lands are vulnerable to encroachment. In the northeast, dry spells are becoming a growing problem in a region where the soil is poorly suited for agriculture. Communities are less resilient to climactic variations, aggravating the poverty alleviation challenge. Land degradation contributes to declining agricultural productivity and threatens agricultural and other biodiversity and hydrological systems that are o f global significance. Burundi's flood plains and wetlands, the marais, are o f national and international significance. Much o f the border of Burundi lies within marais that drain into Lake Tanganyika, and the Congo and Nile watersheds. The marais provide essential such environmental services as flood regulation, sediment retention and control, fish production, and wildlife habitat. They are two types: high altitude, mainly in the Nile basin, above 1,700 meters in the mountain forest zone, and low and medium altitude, between 775 and 1,700 meters in altitude, located primarily in the Rusizi plains, the central plateau, the Kumoso depression, and the Congo river basin. The delta de la Rusizi de la Reserve Naturelle de la 31 Rusizi in the Bujumbura Rural province i s a RAMSAR site. Most o f the wetlands are in the Nile basin and are important inregulating effluents into the Ruvuburiver, a southern source o f the Nile. The wetlands cover some 321,000 hectares and are a major agricultural resource that constitute the remaining arable and fertile land reserves. They have been only one-quarter developed despite the growing population pressure. According to the draft environmental analysis report, (i)240,716 hectares, 8.6 percent o f the land, is covered with natural vegetation, including uncultivated swamps and savanes; (ii)1.2 million hectares, 43.4 percent o f the land, i s covered with crops (food crops), excluding cultivated swamps; and (iii)81,403 hectares, 2.9 percent o f the land, i s covered with cultivated swamps. While so far surface irrigation through gravitation and in the swamps has been practiced, the Ministry o f Land Management, Tourism and Environment lacks the institutional capacity to determine which areas o f the country are irrigable. Civil conflict and the lack o f resources for investment have prevented planneduse and management of swamps under production. Marshlands and peat lands are also very important for greenhouse gases becausethey are the largest component o f the terrestrial biological carbon pool. Degradation o f these marshlands would release significant amounts o f carbon and methane into the atmosphere. Through soil management and the reduction in degradation, the Project would positively contribute to carbon storage and limit the greenhouse gas emissions from wetland sinks. Excessive reliance on cofSee, tea, and cotton. Export crops suffered a double blow from the conflict, with collapsed global commodity market prices for cotton and coffee and dramatically lower volumes o f coffee and cotton production. World prices for coffee that were the lowest in a decade have posed major difficulties for the coffee sub-sector. Coffee is the most important export crop for Burundi, providing 80 percent of the country's export revenue. The volume of marketed coffee plummeted from 34,925 tons in 1990 to 20,000 tons in 1997. Cotton production also fell, from 5,475 tons in 1990 to 2,381 tons in 1997. The situation worsened because o f low factor endowments, a limited domestic market to complement export-oriented crop production, and a less than favorable regulatory structure, leading to difficulties in obtaining licenses and permits. (The European Union is expected to provide support to revive these sub-sectors and improve their competitiveness.) Inadequate agricultural research and extension services. A stock o f technological innovations already exists and could increase small farmers' productivity. Research projects still need to be closely related to solving farmers' priority problems. The continuous generation o f new technology that i s necessary requires a dynamic agricultural research system with strong skills in orientation, selection, programming o f priority research themes, and planning o f specific research projects and their implementation. These improvements are needed to ensure that agriculture in Burundi can maintain and improve its comparative advantage on the global market, resolving the immediate smallholders' production issues, whether primarily market or subsistence-oriented. Furthermore, the extension system must be able to effectively deliver appropriate technologies to interested farmers. Production estimates for food crop are presented inthe Project File. Poor access to agricultural finance. Weak credit markets and poor access to financing are major constraints to agricultural development. Less than 5 percent o f the people have access to credit and other financial services. There are no rural development banks, and the private commercial banks generally do not supply credit for agriculture because o f the significant risk. Lack o f credit is a leading cause for low use o f other inputs in production, which is compounded by poorly organized and inadequate input supplies and makes accessto farm inputsalmost nonexistent for farmers. 32 Capacity constraints. The economic collapse and discontinuation of many public services have caused widespread social suffering, which has affected agricultural development. Duringthe 1994- 95 crisis about 500 education centers were destroyed and the student enrollment rate declined to 51 percent. The pool o f qualified civil servants and technicians is limited, and the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock has insufficient capacity to design, implement, and monitor rural development policies and Projects. Information and data on the rural sector is nearly nonexistent, and what information exists is poorly organized and difficult to access. The country's infrastructure, especially secondary and rural roads, has deteriorated, making it difficult for farmers to reach markets or export agricultural products. The Government's strategy The Government o f Burundi recognizes the following priorities in agricultural and rural development: 0 Raising production and productivity and diversifying sources o f income inrural areas. 0 Improving the quality o f services and their delivery to farmers, especially o f extension, quality seed and other farm inputs, improved agricultural technologies, and rural finance. 0 Improvingthe institutional framework for better access to markets, efficient service delivery, and appropriate policy planning and implementation, including the preparation and monitoring o f investment projects and coordinationo f donor Projects. e Promoting sustainable land use and improving natural resource management. The government has to seek win-win options that yield increasing returns from environmentally sustainable approaches (including integrated pest and nutrient management), to proactively support improved natural resource use (wetland and dry land resource use plannin protection areas, and buffer zones), and to address the various environmental externalities ?i through regulatory means (protection areas) and by providing incentives for sustainable land use and protection of ecosystem services (for instance through land titling, leases, community management of natural resources). The Government's strategy for the sector, as expressed in the IPRSP and other documents, is to promote broad-based environmentally sustainable agricultural and rural growth through a series of actions, including: (a) supporting and reintegrating displaced persons and other conflict victims into agricultural production; (b) rehabilitating and developing rural and agricultural infrastructure; (c) improving the quality o f service delivery to farmers; (d) developing access to microcredit institutions; (e) improving agricultural research and extension services and seed production; (0 promoting and expanding the use o f improved agricultural inputs and integrated pest management; (g) restocking animal resources; (h) increasing access to markets and removing agricultural trade barriers; (i)supporting high-value export crop production; (i) encouraging sustainable land management in degraded lands and marshes under production by supporting micro watershed management, sustainable farming approaches, integrated nutrient and pest management, natural resource use planning in protection areas and buffer zones, and community monitoring; (g) stimulating rural employment through public works programs; and (h) promoting small non-farm income-generating activities. IsEnvironmental impacts and outcomes, both positive and negative, as a result of Project interventions and existing land use that are not assessedincludedin economic analyses and in sectoral planningof the abovementionedactivities. 33 The Government is convinced that the private sector must be the engine o f economic growth. It intendsto disengage from agricultural production and privatize state enterprises. And inconjunction with the implementation o f the poverty reduction strategy the Government has called on professional organizations and the private sector to take a greater role in the conceptualization and management o f development programs and strategies. The Government is pursuing legal and regulatory reforms to create a more favorable incentive structure for private enterprises and foreign investment, including revision o f bankruptcy laws and labor and civil codes. The Government is in the process o f undertaking the following key macroeconomic reforms: (a) initiation o f a comprehensive strategy for private sector development and for reviving the coffee and tea sub-sectors with the support of the EU through STABEX funds; (b) liberalization o f the producer pricing and marketing arrangements; (c) enactment o f a land law; (d) updating o f the national policy and program for managingnatural resources and the environment and enlistinglocal communities inthe effort to restore and protect vulnerable ecosystems; and (e) introduction o f legal and regulatory instruments for planning and management o fthe sector. As a part o f Burundi's participation in the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, a National Action Plan (NAP) is being drafted and is intended to outline the Government's priorities and programs to address land degradation issues in the country. The NAP makes the case clear for the need for interventions to counter the ongoing degradation o f hillsides and watersheds inecosystems that are critical to maintain the water and soil nutrient cycles. Efforts to evaluate the impact o f land degradation on agro-based production and on livelihoods are being made. It is seen as vital to rehabilitate marshland and hillside farming through environmentally sustainable practices for addressing poverty and food security needs, as well as to lessen the pressure on natural resources and off-site impacts o f landdegradation. The Project also addresses several o f the New Partnership for Afiica's Development's (NEPAD) objectives. NEPAD explicitly calls for greater attention by multilateral development institutions to the agricultural sector and rural development. It specifically targets the issue o f land degradation and identifies it as a priority for intervention noting that `initial interventions are envisaged to rehabilitate degraded land and to address the factors that lead to such degradation'. This Project would be such an intervention. Implementationo f practices that leadto the conservation of wetlands i s also considered critical by the NEPAD and this Project would seek to address the land use factors that threaten marsh and swamp ecosystems. 34 Annex 2: Major RelatedProjects Financedby the Bank and/or other Agencies BURUNDI:AgriculturalRehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject MAJOR RELATEDPROJECTSFINANCED THEBANKAND/OROTHERAGENCIES BY Sector issueaddressed Project Latest Supervision(PSR) Ratings Implement.I Dev. Objective 35 EquipmentI infrastructure Coffee, tea & cotton infrastructure Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Program-N/A - EU R6insertiondes Sinistr6s Appui 9 lartinsertiondes sinistris - Stabex-EU ongoing - Skcurisation systtmes de Contribution des Filitres Animales 9 la production & augmentation Stcuritt Alimentaire (CFASA -FMFA) apports protkiques Agriculture -Livestock- Projet d'Appui Institutionnelau Secteur Capacity Building - Agricole -PAISAB -negotiated - Foodsecurity & food Food Security & NRMSupport Project - improvement contribution PASAGE-UNDP FA0 - RuralDevelopment, EDF8" & 9" -to be allocated - reinsertion des sinistrks. Foodproduction& Food Security Specific Program-PSSA - productivity increase FA0 1 - IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U(Unsatisfactory), HU(Highly Unsatisfactory) 1 Specific information about selected interventions: IFAD,through the PRDMR and PGRRR, has concentratedits interventions on rehabilitation ofthe Ministryof Agriculture and Livestock and its provincial offices infour provinces, on improvement of food crops production and efficiency of agricultural labor, and on conservationand improvement of soil fertility, The European Union, besides the actions carried out under PREBU in the whole country, has undertaken emergency program in three provinces to support export crops (E 3.3 million) and implementation of a food crops program PAPV (E 3.25) covering two collines in 10 provinces, and intends to follow through with its commitment to rehabilitate the export crop sub- sectors with E 20 million. FAO-supported program PSSA will improve marches and lowlands in five provinces, French assistance has concentrated on improving the production systems and increasing protein production mainly in two provinces. Belgian Cooperation has provided support for rehabilitation of seed sub-sector and for ISABU. 36 7-1 - I J a L u 2 U I a a* 2nI ; t na SNOIIVTldOd e 3 1 m 3 " aNv x a a " e a a e e 2u ce m - 1 c P (1 c (1 U ti j J C c I/ c ? - c u j 9 s h t- E c I U t- c - Annex 3: ResultsFrameworkand Monitoring 1. Results framework The development objective o f the proposed PRASAB is to restore the productive capacity in the rural areas through production and sustainable land management investments and capacity building in POs and LCs. The beneficiaries will also include war-distressed returnees and internally displaced persons. Because of integration o f an environmental element, the Project will have two lines of outcome: it will directly help to reduce poverty and improve food security by revitalizing and diversifying agricultural production, contributing to improving rural incomes and increasing productivity, and it will address land degradation using GEF funds to supplement IDA financing and strive for incremental benefits accruing from sustainable land management in specific areas within significant ecosystemssuch as watersheds andwetlands. Its strategy includes the promotion of producer organizations, improving agricultural services to farmers, promoting sustainable agricultural and landuse practices through community-driven NRM related subprojects. GEF resources will be targeted towards removing the barriers to sustainable land management practices and to developing agricultural methods that help in restoring degraded soil systems and maintaining agro-biodiversity and other ecosystem services. PDO Outcome Indicators Useof ResultsInformation PDO is to restore the productive 1. At least 75 percent of the 1-2. PY1-PY2: verify the capacity in the rural areas benefiting POs and LCs continue financial results and follow-on through production andto function for the benefit of their plans ofthe benefitingPOs. sustainable land management members and follow the norms of investments and capacity good environmental and building inPOs and LCs.. sustainablelandmanagement 2. At least 80 percent of returning PY3-PY5: concentrate on refugees and displaced families improvement of the strategy and having received Project-financed replication of successful models kits have returned to normal innewcommunes andprovinces. agricultural life IntermediateResults Results Indicatorsfor Each Use of Outcome Monitoring (One per component) Subcomponent Component 1: Substantive invigoration of - The Project has supported at PY1-PY2. Verify that by mid- rural development in Project least 4,000 subprojects. term at least 75 percent of the areas has taken place in form of subprojects are financially viable sustainable, productive - At least 30 percentofthe and have implemented the investments in the agricultural subprojects initiated and managed recommendedSLMactions. sector, initiated and by women. implemented by POs and LCs, and based on agro-ecological - At least 50 percent ol PY3-PY5: Low level of PO zoning principles, and by re- subprojects financed have allowed success and subproject inserting returning refugees and introducing sustainable land management tools may indicate a IDP into normalagricultural life management measures of at leas1 need to eliminate some types of 0,lO ha of agricultural holdings POs from eligible beneficiaries. impactedby subprojects. 39 - The land area where SLM is practiced, is at least 7.000 ha by Project mid-term and by Project end at least 18.000 ha. - At least 20,000 returning refkgees and IDP have received Project support Component 2: Key services to POs and - By Project year 2, at least 80 PY1-PY2: Determine the message farmers by the MAE, MATET, percent of the annual training plan md service effectiveness and LIAs and private sector service for POs, LCs, and LIA agreed mtreach among the members of providers have substantially with the Bank has been the benefitingPOs. expanded. satisfactorily implemented. - By Project year 2, at least 80 PY3-PY5: Check annually the percent o f subprojects submitted output of the assisted MAE and to Selection Committees have MATET departments and the use beenapproved and implemented. of LIAs and SPs, and suggesl corrective actions ifneeded. - By Project yea r- 2 at least 8C percent of POs and LCs interestec in starting SLM subprojects have access to LIA services. - By Project mid-term, at least 8C percent o f the annual plans foi SLM capacity building agreec upon with the World Bank foi MAE and MATET art implemented satisfactorily including specific support to tht National Program for Erosior Control. - By Project year- 1, the lanc monitoringplan, coveringperiodic evaluations o f land conditions a representative sites in the fivc agro-ecological zones, is prepare( and underway. - By Project end, a Land Use Pla~ (Schema Directeu d'Amenagement du Territoire) i put inplace inten Provinces. 40 -By Project mid-term, at least 15 applied or adaptive research technologies have been tested and adapted and by Project end, at least 35 have been tested and adapted. -By Project end, at least 15 new technologies disseminated to farmers in Project areas by public andprivate-sector agencies. Component3: Efficient Project Coordination By Project mid-term, at least 80 and Management. per cent of approved contracts have been implemented satisfactory and 90 per cent by Proiect end. 2. Arrangements for results monitoring There are no public or private sources o f information and data that will directly help monitor Project operations or measure the achievement o f its results. Therefore, the Project will need to establish its own monitoring and evaluation structure. The monitoring and evaluation functions will be an integrated part o f Project management arrangements. The NPCMU will have a monitoring and evaluation unit led by a qualified M&E specialist and an information technician in its staff. For the fieldwork, an M&E assistant will be recruited for each o f the three IPCMU. In addition, the staff o f the NPCMU and IPCMUs will have specific tasks to provide information and data on their specialized areas. Recruitment o f qualified staff for the unit will be crucial for building the foundation o f an effective M&E system for the Project. The unit will provide a direct link to the National Project Coordinator and the Technical Committee, thus facilitating efficient implementation o f planned activities and early actions on the basis o f the monitoring output and evaluation studies. The M&E system allows to assessthe success o f the subprojects and other interventions; to bringthe lessons learned to bear on the design o f new activities o f the planning cycle, and to disseminate best practice in integrated ecosystem management. The IPCMU in collaboration with LIAS,will provide periodic information and data on POs, but for collecting output data from the farmers, the Project will need to establish a network o f farms to be followed, besides arranging sample surveys every two years and at the end o fthe Project. Most o f the monitoring data will be obtained from a computer-based management information system (MIS) to be installed at NPCMU and its inter-provincial offices. The preparation o f the system, including installationo f suitable software, will be contracted out on a competitive basis, and the system shall be ready to operate before Project effectiveness. A comprehensive baseline study has been prepared to establish adequate data on the start-up situation in order to set appropriate targets and to allow the comparison o f key indicators at regular intervals. Such. The list o f indicators shown above, to be extended according to the needs o f the Project management, as well as their intermediate and final targets, will be consolidated in a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) manual. Ultimately, the magnitude o f both the national and global benefits o f the Project is determined by the interaction between ecological and socio- 41 economic processes. The M&E system of the Project will be directly linked to that o f the baseline program (earlier programs or projects). This link will include the sharing o f data, quality control standards, and design o f data collection methodologies and studies. To measure the achievement o f Project development objective, the Project will organize, every two years and at the end o f the Project period, evaluation studies with the help o f competent outside agencies. The monitoring and evaluation results will be discussed at the meetings o f the Steering Committee and the Technical Committees. Local implementation agencies (LIAS), service providers (SPs) and producers and local communities will be included inthe monitoring and review o f Project outputs and outcomes through workshops and separate studies. The following table provides information on annual target values and arrangements for data collection and reporting. 42 I -0 0 I 1. . . - . I I sm 0 0 0 m 0 0 cc b I m 0" 3 e /E sm g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m b 00 m 0, 3 3 s g 0 0 0 0 m 2 lr) I? 00 P4 2 0" 3 s g 0 0 0 m 0 0 I? 00 2 0 0, v) 3 c, 0 h - .Is 0 0 0 3 I I 0 m 2 0" 3 2 c 2 4 -3c' Y cd I - 3 m 3 a 4c sc 3 m m a 4 $ 2c g g s g 00 v, 00 t- 00 g g s g I vr 00 00 t- 00 I I I I w 2 2 2 c m d d (d 1 .-m8 se .-a 8e 0- 0 4:s 3 4: g 0 0 c\I 00 4:s 0 0 ,-A0 W m - m 0 4:s 0 0 4:s 4: s 0 00 0 4:s 0 4: g 0 0 ,-A0 \m c\I m v) 00 4:s 0 4:s 4: s 0 2 00 0 4:s g 0 00 4:s a, 5 0 z4 2 4 Appendix 1 Sustainable LandManagementProgram ProjectDesignSummary - Hierarchy of Objectives Key Performance Monitoring and CriticalAssumptions Indicators Evaluation Sector related CAS Goal: Sector Indicators: Sector/Country :from Goal to BankMis Reports: A CAS is inpreparation but the Transitional Support 0 Per Capita GDP 0 National statistics Government pursues Strategy(TSS) forms the policies of political and basis o ftheBank's current Occurrenceof 0 Nationalbudget macroeconomic strategy disease, Infantand stability and sustains childmortality. 0 Poverty studiesand the liberalization ofthe Revitalize o fthe rural surveys domestic economy. economy to increase 0 Percentageo fpoor incomes, reduce poverty, and vulnerable 0 UNDP reports Peace and stability provide livelihoods for population. maintained returnees, reinforcenational 0 Sector reports stability and strengthenthe sustainable managemento f natural resources 0 Increaseo f viable producers. 0 Higher average household incomes among beneficiary farmers or lower share o fpopulation underthe poverty line among beneficiary farmers Hierarchy of Objectives Key Performance Monitoring and CriticalAssumptions Indicators Evaluation Program Purpose: End of Program Means ofverification: (from Purposeto Goal: Indicators: Increaseincomes, 0 Numbero f 0Reports basedon b Fullcollaboration ofa1 employment, access to producers with updates o fthe baseline relevant implementing agricultural services and access to inputs rural household survey agencies. credit, basic infrastructure, and services. at the end o fthe Improve smallholder food Project. D Timely delivery of security through increasesin Number o f micro- 0 inputsand productionand productivity projects 0Beneficiary implementation Strengthenparticipatory implemented. assessmentsand approaches and increase feedback surveys. capacity for improved 0 Number o f local natural resource and groups and 0Sector reports. sustainable land communities active management insustainableland 0Mid-termand final management. Project evaluations 46 Increase in household expendituresand savings. Increasein productivity GEFOperational Program Objective: To mitigatethe causes and Preservationor Project MIS Strong country negative impacts o f land restoration o fthe (Environmental commitment to degradation through structure and monitoring framework address land sustainable land functional integrity to be inplace including degradation. managementpractices, o f ecosystems as assessmento f land thereby contributing to measuredby a set conditions at 1 Adoption o f maintenance o f critical of applicable SLM representativesites by integrated andcross- ecosystemfunctions and indicators ecological zone. sectoral policies and structure (including soil approachesto GEF assistancewould focus erosion, siltation, Environmentdatabase sustainable land on fundingthe incremental change in and GIS data. management. costs o f accelerating locally vegetative cover, driven actions on monitoring o f 1Supervision reports. 1 Coordination o f sustainableland encroachmentlprod implementation and managementto maintain uction infragile 1Project evaluation (mid channels of and restore agro- lands and key term and final) information are ecosystems, stabilize biodiversity in between the three sediment storage and release representativesites, levels (national, inwater bodies, andreduce see annex 12A). provincial and carbon dioxide emission, community) is improve carbon Institutional and established sequestration humanresource GEF support would be capacity is consistent with the work strengthenedto program priorities o fthe improve UNCCD sustainableland management planningand implementation. I Policy and regulatory framework is strengthenedto facilitate wider adoption o f sustainableland management practices 47 Project Development Dutcome/Impact Means of Verification: From Objective to Objective: Indicators: 'urpose) The development objective Numberof bProject MIS. Nationalgovernment 3 f the proposed PRASAB is subprojectsand remains committed to to help farmers inthe smallholder bEnvironmental thedecentralization o f Project areas realize benefits families to benefit surveys, maps. Project decision from production and from the makingand sustainable land production and bField inspection and strengthening o fthe managementinvestments sustainable land surveys. Pos. through capacity building management ProducerOrganizations investments. bFieldreports. Localcommunes, POs (POs) and Local andregional authorities Communities (LC), already Numberof bBankdisbursement are responsiveto the existing, and with the help displaced people records. objectives and o f new skills, information benefitingfrom participatory principles andappropriate start-upkitsand bAudit reports. ofthe PRASAB. technologies. The retuming to beneficiaries will also agriculture. DQuarterly Project Development plans and including war-distressed progressreports. sub-project proposals returnees and internally Percentageo fthe are reviewed and displaced people. benefitingPOs and * Supervision reports. approved on a timely LCs that are basis. GEF financing will aim to making profitable realize incremental benefits, investments with Evaluationreports Funds are available on inspecific areas ineachof the help o fthe atimely basis the five agro-ecological Project. zones o fthe country, on the basis o f community-directed Improvement in sub-projects addressingland productivity degradation, promoting through increases sustainableagricultural inyields of major systems and improving food crops. management o f wetlands Area where appropriately SLM technologies are adopted, including indigenous and local knowledge. Area where agro- ecological packageshave been adopted. SLM indicators (soil erosion, siltation, change in vegetative cover, encroachments in fragile areas, biodiversity) show stability or 48 improvements as monitoredin representativesites. 1Greater awareness o f SLM activities and issues among producers (survey responses) Output from each Output Indicators: Means ofverification: [fromOutputs to Component: 0bjectives) Component 1 Support for productive and sustainableland managementinvestments Demand-driven micro- projects in 1Numberof sub- DQuarterly Project Localcommunes, POs (i)seedmultiplication, projects progress reports. andregional authorities private small scale irrigated incorporating are responsiveto the horticulture and vegetables sustainableland. * Supervision reports. decentralized and production, promotion o f participatory natureo f high-capacity, low-cost 1 Number ofagro- Project MIS. the operation. irrigation infrastructure, tree ecological crops in small scale packages Fieldinspection and 1Plans include a long- plantations (fruits, palm), introduced. survey reports. term planninghorizon and agro-processing(sugar, perspective. palm-oil, essentialoils); D Numberand Environment (ii) rehabilitation of quality o f services monitoring Development plans and livestock sector by scaling provided. sub-project proposals upFA0pilot "Chaine de are conform to local solidarite" and artificial D Number o f priorities, are truly insemination activities; producers with demand drivenand are (iii)traditionalcashcrops increasedaccess to coordinated with productionandprocessing better services. ongoingrelated (tea, coffee, and cotton), activities. including shade grown * Environmental varieties; monitoring is (iv) watershedmanagement hnctional. * Technical assistance andsoil management and support services practices that respondto the SLM field based are timely, related specific needs o f each agro- research directly to needs ecological zone, including implemented. identifiedinmicro- agro-sylvo-pastoral projects and include approaches such as the FA0 simple andpractical initiated "Chaine de Number o f technical staff applications. solidarite", conservation tillage, conservation o f trained in SLMand providing services. NPCMUand IPCMUs nativespecies, agro- actively encouragethe forestry, community adoption o f SLM woodlots, and improved approaches in runoffmanagement PRASAB supported activities. (SLM 49 (v) non-farm income specialist acts as a generating activities champion of SLM) (handicrafts, agricultural tools repair) SLM is includedas a defined element o f Technical assistance larger sub-projects providedfor the preparation (over $5000) and implementationof subprojects, to improve the quality o f service delivery, inputsupplyand training services, inparticular as related to sustainable land managementpractices Component 2. Support for CapacityBuilding, targeted research and Institutional Strengthening Enhancedaccess to 1Capacity gaps Project MIS Researchincludes information and capacity of identified and technologies that producer organizations Trainingplans B Field inspection and scientifically test and developed. feedback surveys customize native Strengthenedlocal species and indigenous community participation 1Training plans at D Quarterly Project knowledge along with and renewal o f local local, provincial progress reports new methodsthat are networks and cooperative andnationallevels responsiveto local relationships implemented. D Environmentalsurveys needs, which are then Capacity among and analysis disseminatedin communities developed and 1 Numbers o f people practical terms to the strengthenedwith GEF trained and B Reviews and audits farmers. resourcesthrough CDCs to certified on active propose and implement duty match training Bankdisbursement National govemment sustainableland plans at all three records remains committed to managementactivities and levels: the decentralization o f to disseminate good Local-POs and Quarterly Project Project decision managementpractices. communities progress reports making and (CDCs) strengthening o fthe Improved capacity o fLIAS Regional - LIAs - Supervision reports Pos. to provide services to POs DPAEs, NGOs, andLCs by addressinggaps private sector A capacity assessment inorganizational, technical, National- Evaluation report of LIAs will be financial management, Institutions- conducted byNPCMU through training, workshops MAE, MATET, PY1-PY2: Determine prior to negotiation anc andstudytours. researchcenters, the message atraining planwill be other key agencies. effectiveness andreach developed to address Support for data collection among the members o f gaps inorganizational, and monitoringat the the benefitingPOs and The Ministry technical, financial decentralized level as well LCS departments management, and as to establish effective dealing with land business skills through management systems for PY3-PY5: Check management training, workshops monitoring micro-projects annually the output o f policy, regulatory, the assistedMAE and study tours. program planning, departments andthe use 50 strengthening andmonitoring are IfSPs, and suggest Close coordination through training seminars capableof 1) .orrectiveactions if betweenMAE, andworkshops, inthe area producing annual ieeded. MATETandother o f sustainable land and long-term related agencies management plans andbudgets, regarding Project 2) to plan activities with focus on Institutional support and agricultural and sustainableland advisory activities to natural resource management. strengthennational level management land andnatural resources projects, and 3) to Ministries are managementand the related monitor rural committed to the legal and policy framework development and decentralization o f including a national land use landmanagement Project decision and managementplan indicators. making and to the need (Elaboration d'un Schema for establishing Directeur d 'Amenagement 1Key staff equipped sustainable land du Territoire). andtrained to managementto control support sustainable landdegradation and Establishment o fnational landmanagement protect the productive environmental quality and improved wetlands. standardslnorms watershed and Focused short-term (two to wetlands Reports received by the three years) applied research management by Ministries are reviewec aimed at findingappropriate mid-term. and respondedto ina solutions to constraints to timely manner agriculturalproductivity. 1SLM database and monitoring Targeted applied research, framework and supportedby GEF, on program developed environmentally sustainable and periodic land management evaluations o f land approachesincluding conditions integrated conservation (degradation farming techniques, related) at improved water representative sites managementmethods, , are undertaken. integrated nutrient managementand soil bCompletion o f a conservation as well as the draft national land monitoringo f ecosystem use management health plan by fourth year. Dissemination o f knowledge through training and field bThree SLM related demonstration through the targeted research LIAS projects completed. Annual workshop for 1 Center for progress monitoring, Environmental training and consultations Information withthe stakeholders functional with accessible and updated informationon environmental 5 1 indicators (Project MISto linkto center). Office andresearch infrastructure adequate to Project activities are procured and distributed. Component3. Support to Project Managementand Monitoring Management o fthe Project and the monitoring and Existence o f 1 Project MIS including ' The NPCMU i s able to evaluation o f its activities qualified staff provincial MPU attract: the numbers o f by aNationalProject mobilized, with reports. qualified staff needed Coordination and defined to coordinate activities Monitoring Unit (NPCMU) performance goals. BFieldinspection and inallregions; the located inthe Ministry o f surveys. numbers ofNGOs and Agriculture private sector 1Work programs defined and DEnvironmental surveys associationswith Coordination and updated regularly. and analysis. adequate diversity o f management o f SLM skills to support the activities with MATETand program's activities in 1Office and DAudits provincialMPUs transport all regions. infrastructure BQuarterly Project Measurementofprogress in adequateto Project progress reports BEnhancedfocus on SLM activities andthe activities are SLM related objectives tracking o f its procured and Annual performance i s ensured. implementation B distributed. reviews. D Coordination with Additional resourcesto be 1Training plan Supervision reports provincialunits is providedfor training, B implemented strong workshops, studies, and studytours 0Evaluationreport 52 Annex 4: DetailedProjectDescription BURUNDI:Agricultural Rehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject 1. Project approachandstrategy PRASAB would contribute to the Government's strategic goal of restoring rural people's productive capacity and livelihoods through economically and ecologically sustainable investments. The Project would address the decline inrural development caused by the 1990s civil war by financing productivity- and income-raising subprojects initiated by producer organizations and local communities for male and female farmers and by promoting the institutional and technical capacities o f producer organizations, government institutions, and civil society organizations. GEF grant-financed activities would realize incremental benefits, in specific areas, from community-directed subprojects addressing land degradation, promoting sustainable agricultural systems, and minimizing the loss of wetlands through an integrated micro- watershed approach and through related research and pilot programs, capacity building, and institutional strengthening. The Project would seek "win-win" solutions to enhance the ecological and economic value of land use and would help lay the groundwork for long-term sustainable land management by incrementally enhancing the institutional and technical capacities o f producer organizations, local communities, NGOs, private operators, and government institutions. PRASAB activities would support existing strategies and policies to revive the rural sector and would complement those financed by other donors and the Government. Because the rural sector is so impoverished from the civil disturbances of the last decade, the funds for producer organizations' and local communities' productive investments would come from one-time grants o f up to 95 percent o f the investment budget, with a 5 percent upfront contribution incash or kind. The Project has specific measures to (a) improve smallholder farmers' food security by increasing agricultural and livestock productivity in an environmentally sustainable manner, (b) increase rural incomes and thus reduce poverty levels, and (c) reduce land degradation and enhance natural resource management in specific areas. Another major component supports local capacity buildingfor research at established institutions and addressescapacity building at the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministryo f Land Management, Environment and Tourism. The Project would support community-implemented plans and investments with incremental GEF financing for sustainable farming and agro-forestry with local species and micro- watershed management, including soil stabilization and water conservation. The Project would also develop a sound incentive framework and regulatory mechanisms for sustainable land and natural resources use, including a national land management plan, information and monitoring services, public awareness o f available options and their benefits, and capacity buildingfor implementing activities. 53 The Project would address land degradation in watershed areas in an integrated manner, maintaining the hydrological cycles important to trans-boundary resources. The focus in wetlands would be on improving the sustainability of production methods in areas already under agricultural production and protecting ecosystem services. The Projectwould mitigate harmful environment impacts from program activities and help to minimize agrochemical runoff. 2. Projectcomponents The Project has three maincomponents: 1, Support for production and sustainablelandmanagementinvestments. 2. Support for capacity building and institutional strengthening. 3. Support for Project coordinationand management. Component 1. Support for productionand sustainablelandmanagementinvestments. US$27.42 million (US$24.62 million plus GEF incrementUS$2.80 million) This component aims to restart productive agricultural investments inthe agricultural sector and address land degradation by funding small subprojects initiated by producer organizationsand local communities. Subcomponent I(a). Productive and sustainable land management Investments (US$I4.62 millionplus GEF US2.80 million) The subprojects include infrastructure investment and related extension activities, as well as other extension activities that may not be directly related to these investments but that are well targeted and contribute the Project's objectives. The Project would finance subprojects initiated by producer organizations and local communities through a participative process. The types of subprojects may include (i) providing selected planting material, bean floating tanks, and scales for coffee producers (inNgozi, Kirundo, and Muyinga), cooling tanks and generators for milk producer groups (in Mwaro, Muramvya, Ngozi, and Kirundo), artisanal crushing units for sunflower seeds (in Kirundo) and soya seeds (in Gitega) and improved planting materials, selected palm tree plants and associatedcover plants (pueraria) and small equipment for palm producer organizations around the Rumongere industrial plant (inBururi and Makamba), equipment for producer organization nurseries (coffee, palm trees, food crops), modern beehives and beekeeping equipment such as extractors and helmets (in Kirundo, Ngozi, and Bubanza), and small-scale irrigated horticulture and low-cost irrigation infrastructureand equipment; (ii)rehabilitating the livestock sector by scalingup the FAO's "solidarity chains" pilot program and artificial insemination activities (in Muyinga and Ngozi); (iii)creating non-farm income-generating activities (handicrafts, repair facilities of agricultural tools, brick and tile-making, carpentry, tailoring); and (iv) developing vegetable and foodcrop production in improved swamps and along the canal inKajeke (Bubanza). GEF resources would provide incrementalfinancing for sustainable land managementcomponents of these investmentsaccording to the criteria inthe Project Implementation Manual and from OP15 where needed and for (v) improving microwatershed management, soil management practices such as conservation tillage, conservation of native species, renewal of degraded hillsides and pastures through agroforestry, community woodlots, and ecologically sound terraces, and sustainable land and water management. Some of the activities supportedare the 54 construction o f windbreaks, grassed waterways, riparian buffer zones, crop cover, and filter stripsto reduce water andwind erosion. The main beneficiaries of productive investmentswould be producer organizations and local communities. These organizations bring together agricultural or livestock producers to increase their incomes through joint action on production, processing, and marketing o f agricultural or livestock products. Financing would be grants, with a 5 percent upfront beneficiary contribution (incash or kind). Producer organizations and local communities benefiting from PRASAB are expected to have implemented about 4,000 subprojects affecting some 80,000 to 100,000 families by the end o f the Project. At least 75 percent of the first investment subprojects should be considered profitable by the participants and have their maintenance secured. At least 75 percent o f the benefiting producer organizations should continue to function for their members. The subproject details to be supported with Project funds would not be determinedin advance because of the demand-driven approach of PRASAB. Instead, producer organizations and local communities would prioritize critical areas for investment and would depend primarily on locally available technologies and solutions and traditional methods vetted and augmented by scientific knowledge. Producer groups have at least 10 membersand include cooperatives, associations, groups of farmers or livestock breeders and non-farm producer organizations. Investmentdecisions would be based on producer organizations potential for sustainability. Additionally, to conform with the Project concept, the approved investment requests and supported activities should (a) deal with a variety of rural activities, (b) use the identified potential of each natural region to the best advantage, and (c) take into account the assistance already provided by the European Commission, IFAD, French and Belgian development cooperation agencies, and other donors, complementing their support and avoiding overlap. The Project would cover at least 10 o f 16 provinces (Kirundo, Ngozi, Muyinga and Cankuzo provinces in the northeast; Makamba, Rutana, and Bururilgprovinces in the south; and Bubanza, Muramvya, and Mwaro provinces in the west). Implementation is expected to gradually expand capacities and speed up as the provinces and communities meet the eligibility requirements. The selection criteria and a list on non-eligible investments, as well as the conditions and mechanisms for preparation, submission, appraisal, and implementation arrangements for subprojects, are detailed inthe Project ImplementationManual. In practice, the versatility of investments are expected to include such small water management schemes as irrigation schemes, ponds and dams, hydroagricultural retention pools, hillside water retention structures, and pastoral wells. They would also include rehabilitation and improvement o f local stores and small agroprocessing infrastructure and investments to increase the production and marketing o f existing and new agricultural and livestock products. The criteria for approving subprojects are detailed in the Project ImplementationManual. This subcomponent would also support technical assistance for preparing and implementing subprojects to increase productivity o f the existing farming systems, improve the quality of service delivery (including input supply and training services), and increase farmers' access to high-quality seeds and planting material. The NPCMUwould contract out these services to l 9Bururi provincewill be sharedby PRASABand the plannedIFAD TPCRSP. 55 competent international and local NGOs, community groups, consulting firms, cooperatives, and producers' apex organizations, here called local implementing agencies, and if they are not available, to provincial agriculture and livestock departments. During appraisal, the Government agreed that provincial agriculture and livestock departments would operate in the provinces o f Cankuzo,Bubanza, Makamba, Muramvya, and Rutana. Local implementing agencies would also provide information on Project activities and processes(obtaining funds, reporting) to the groups. At the local level, service providers would help producer organizations and local communities with limited capacity to implementtheir subprojects if necessary. (The subproject would allocated up to 10 percent o f Project costs for subproject planning and implementation assistance). The delivery of extension should ensure that the provided technologies are locally applicable and include customized approaches for rehabilitating degraded lands, conserving biodiversity, and improving the sustainability of land use in marshlands currently under agricultural production. Activities to effectively promote the economic interests and participation o f producer organizations and local communities in the Project include (i) building awareness for eligible subprojects, including sustainable land management grants, and enabling local communities and producer organizations to identify, prepare, and implement them with technical service providers when necessary; (ii) ensuringrepresentation or local communities and producer organizations in the Project's steering committees and decision-making processes; and (iii)strengthening the local communities' capacities to use simple planning tools, manage natural resources, apply improved and sustainable farming methods, and use indigenous and local knowledge and native species. The process of applying for and disbursing funds under this subcomponent is detailed in annex 6. To facilitate rapid implementation of the productive and sustainable land management investments, the selected local implementing agencies in the provinces would have to finalize the comprehensive inventory of potential producer organizations and local communities before appraisal with information on the domicile, legal form, administrative structure, current and past activities, and experience of the listed producer organizations and the number of members, mode of representation, and other factors. The producer organizations and local communities assisted by this subcomponent would be selected from those expressing interest in Project activities and based on their likely sustainability, the relevance of their objectives, and their past activities in relation to PRASAB goals. Sustainability i s difficult to assess in advance, but such factors as a producer organization's date o f establishment, its past performance, endorsement o f local administrators, cohesion of its membership, and a common bond (common "center of interest," such as joint capital or investments, cash or bank account, piece o f land, or herd o f cattle or other animals) can indicate sustainability. Factors for local community participation include similar criteria on environmental and sustainable land management improvements. At the local level, producer organizations and local communities could employ service providers (firms, associations, individuals, public sector units) to implement subprojects, if they lack the necessarycapacity. Inrural areas there are many potentially suitable agricultural advisers and engineers, whom the public service sector cannot employ because o f lack of funds or because they do not have competitive experience for the few posts available, These potential service providers need to be trained in PRASAB activities and approved practices. Subprojects demanding more expertise could recruit service providers from outside their communes or provinces. 56 GEF-supported grants would be available for incremental sustainable land management activities (eligible under OP15) that are clearly identified in subprojectrequests, supportedby acceptable indicators for measuring their success. Incorporation of clearly identified sustainable land management activities in subproject proposals would be a desirable criteria in the selection of subprojects for producer organizations and a requirement for disbursements over US$5,000. Because the Project is blended, funds would flow through the subproject approval process, but clear accounting of GEF-financed activities would be required. The proposedgeneralcriteria for selectionof subprojectsfor GEF support include: Highsensitivity ofthe environment (important wetlands, steep slopes, poor soil). Significant offsite impacts, especially transboundary. Severity of degradation. Incorporation of sustainable land management activities (as in the Project Implementation Manual and OP 15). Incrementalactivities only (over demonstratedbaseline). Feasibility. Chanceof success. Bank environmental screeningprocess completed. Neighbors consulted. GEF support would reinvigorate the effectiveness of local community participation in land management. After a decade of civil unrest, effective support is needed to re-establish local networks and cooperative relationships. The GEF would enhance access to information and the methods and capacity of producer organizations, communities, and service providers. A framework for community participation (see annex 12) was developed and is detailed in the Project Implementation Manual. The GEF component would encourage community-level involvement in improving local land management with appropriate local technologies and local traditions compatible with long-term, sustainable environment management. Activities may include pilot and demonstration plots, grants for the use of sustainable techniques, and awareness building. Pest Management. Consistent with the Project's Pest Management Plan, producer organizations would receive training courses in integrated pest management and safe handling of pesticides. Training activities would focus on (a) promoting integrated pest management, (b) training producer organizations in integrated pest management with public awareness programs and integrated pest management networks, and (c) managing pesticides safely (transport, storage, handling, distribution, destructionof packingmaterials, application, poisoning, protective gear, and public awareness). By the end of the Project it is expected that (i)50 phytosanitary inspectors, employees from provincial agriculture and livestock departments, and service providers would have been trained as trainers and (ii)1,000 farmers would have been trained in integrated pest management.The GEF would support the producer organizations' access to information and publications, andthe remaining activities would be funded by the IDA. 57 Environmental analysis training. To ensure that future subprojects are environmentally and socially sustainable and to promote understanding of the broader environmental management issues, producer organizations would be trained in environmental assessment by qualified service providers trained as trainers under the capacity-building component for the Direction de 1'Environnment et du Tourisme in the Ministry of Land Management, Tourism, and the Environment. Management of irrigation inpastructure. To ensure the effective management of such irrigation infrastructure as small dams, small irrigation perimeters, and water retentionpools, producer organizations would be trained by qualified service providers during the planning, conception, and implementation stages. These service providers would have been trained under the capacity-building component for the Direction du Genie Rural et de la Protection duPatrimoine Foncier inthe Ministryof LandManagement, Tourism, andthe Environment. Information exchange. GEF funds would allow the Project to support (i)exchange o f information among local and regional producer organizations, (ii)visits by producer organizations to learn best practices, (iii)workshops for producer organizations to facilitate the transfer o f knowledge, ,and (iv) the production of training manuals on such topics as water use and integrated pestmanagement. Opportunities exist for coordination with Burundi's Programme National de Lutte Anti- Erosive, managed through the Ministry o f Environment, which follows a participatory, watershed-based approach. Its measures would be implemented by producer organizations and their communities, and may include planting 20,000 hectares of trees in the Bugesera region, consistent with Burundi's National Action Program for the Battle Against Land Degradation (2001). The aims for agricultural extension would be to (i) increase productivity o f existing farming systems; (ii) develop farming techniques that preserve soil fertility (no tillage) and manage water resources, and (iii)improve the quality o f service delivery, including demand-driven extension and training services. The last 20 years have not shown enough technologies suitable for Burundi's conditions or effective methods for disseminating available technologies. The reforms instituted in the Directorate o f Agricultural Extension o f the Ministryof Agriculture and Livestock and the respective provincial agriculture and livestock departments inthe early 1990s did not have time to provide substantial results because o f the civil disturbances and lack of funds. In the context of liberalization and privatization of production activities, the Directorate of Agricultural Extension and provincial agriculture and livestock departments have adopted a policymaking role, regulating at the central level and facilitating agricultural technology development and transfer. Unlike civil society organizations, provincial agriculture and livestock departments cover the entire country and can be important for disseminating future innovations. A study is planned to more clearly define the mission and roles o f the Directorate o f Agricultural Extension and provincial agriculture and livestock departments, especially for technology transfer ( collection o f information and data, actual message deliveries, research-extension links). 58 Subcomponent I@). Emergency support for returnees and internally displaced persons (US$I0.0 million). The civil war resulted in an estimated 1.2 million refugees and internally displaced persons. The Government created a special program, called the Program o f Rehabilitating the War- Stricken Persons' Agriculture, to help refugees and internally displaced persons return to their normal lifeand former occupation. PRASAB would contribute to the Government's emergency program by financing seed, inputs, and implements for farming and cattle rearingfor smallholder returnees and internally displaced persons. Support would also be available through component 1(a), including from the GEF, for acceptable incrementalcosts. National Coordination for War Displaced Persons (NCWDP) units in communes and/or provinces would first identify returningrefugees and internally displaced persons. Then the units would try to incorporate as many of the refugees and internally displaced persons as possible into the producer organizations making productive investments or to organize them into their own producer organizations. Where this i s not possible for war-related or social reasons, the Project would provide "emergency kits" to families following arrangements to be developed with the NCWDP. Component2. Supportfor capacity buildingand institutionalstrengthening US$7.17 million(US$4.97 million plusGEF US$2.20 million). Subcomponent 2(a). Enhancing the capacity of local communities,producer organizations, and local implementing agencies (US$0.57millionplus GEF US$0.86million) The Project would enhance the access to information and capacity of producer organizations and communities. Support would be provided for strengthening local community participation by renewinglocal networks and cooperative relationshipsthat had frayed during the conflict years. Other activities include (i)strengthening the organizational, technical, and management capacities of local communities and producer organizations; (ii)ensuring representation of local communities and producer organizations on the Project's steering committees and in decision-making processes; (iii)developing professional and inter- professional organizations for better management o f key agricultural subsectors; and (iv) promoting understanding o f the broader environmental management issues related to land degradation and swamp land utilization. Capacity building for producer organizations and local communities would be based on demand, linked to productive investment subprojects and offered by contracted local implementing agencies. The component would support in-country training, workshops, and study tours for managers and committee members o f producer organizations and local communities. The benefiting producer organizations and local communities would generally be grassroots organizations, but the Project may also assist vertical organizations that already exist or that are established by producer organizations or local communities. Such vertical organizations are typical in the cooperative movement, but there are provincial or national level associations for other grassroots organizations. The grassroots producer organizations supported would often begin informally (with an "administrative certificate," however), but 59 the long-term goal is to formalize them and make them permanent and sustainable. In practice, the types of producer organizations benefiting from the Project's capacity-building support are farmer groups, associations, and women's and youth groups involved in producing food and nonfood crops, processing and marketing food and nonfood crops, servicing farm equipment, and providing financial services (the Project would not provide funds for on-lending). This subcomponent would also strengthen, when necessary, the capacity of local implementing agencies, to enable them to provide services to producer organizations and local communities. Local implementingagencies would also provide information on Project activities and processes (obtaining funds. reporting) to the groups. A capacity assessment of local implementing agencies would be conducted by the NPCMU before negotiation, and a training plan would be developed to address gaps in organizational, technical, financial, and business skills with training, workshops, and study tours. The implementation strategy of this subcomponent is for the NPCMU to contract out execution o f provincial field operations to competent civil society organizations called local implementing agencies. Though an adequate number of local implementing agencies and service providers exist in Burundi, their capabilities and capacities are often limited and need improvement. Potential local implementingagencies include: Local and international NGOs that may originally have shown interest in the humanitarian field but are presently active inagricultural or rural development. Local NGOs usually lack financial and other resources, whereas international NGOs have transport facilities that allow them to intervene effectively in rural areas. A list of potential internationalNGOs i s included inthe Project ImplementationManual. Rural microfinance institutions that are interested in agricultural credit and that are dealing with producer groups and associations, but that have limited funds and professional capacity and relatively small outreach. Inthe rural areas the most active microfinance institutions are COOPECS2', COSPEC2', COFIDE, COPED, and "Burundidirect." Private enterprises in the agricultural sector that are usually organized around the profit-oriented cash-crop activities. Some of them may be involved indeveloping new export produce, such as tropical fruits, flowers, vegetables, and edible oils. Enterprises o f potential interest for the Project include "Ma Culture," "Nile Plantation," "Fruitex," "Florex," and "Rugofarm." Agricultural consulting firms. Producers' apex associations and cooperatives, for instance UCODE.22 CoopCrativesd'Epargne et de CrCdit. CoopCrative SolidaritC avec les Paysans pour 1'Epargne et le crCdit. 22Union des CoopCrativespour le DCveloppement. 60 The NPCMU would select the local implementing agencies on a competitive basis. The eligible local implementingagencies should have (i)an office and programs inthe respective province (or at least in the neighboring province) or be prepared to establish them, (ii) experience in rural development and productive or social investments, and (iii)competent technical personnel intheir employ or the ability to recruit them. Under this subcomponent, the Project would provide grants for improving organizational, technical, financial, and business skills among potential local implementing agencies and service providers so that they can provide high-quality services to producer organizations, local communities, and smallholders in productive and sustainable land management investments. (The Project would not provide funds for on-lending.) The Project would finance-according to the specific needs o f each local implementing agency or service provider-a small office, transport equipment, office material, in-country training, workshops, and study tours. For new units in the provinces, other needs, such as refurbishment o f offices, could be considered. The sustainable land management component would involve collaboration with local NGOs to train extension agents and encourage the use of integrated production systems that are also environmentally sustainable (involving fish ponds, integrated nutrient management, and the like) by farmers and producer organizations. GEF support would be available for incremental activities inreinforcing localcapacities including seminars, training, and awarenessraising. Subcomponent 2@). Supportfor institutional strengthening of key public services (US$4.40 millionplus GEF US1.34 million) Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (US$0.66 million plus GEF US$0.38 million). The Government approved a strategy of withdrawing from direct production in agriculture and from processing and marketing agricultural products. Consequently, the European Union has financed a program to rehabilitate the traditional cash-crop sectors (coffee, tea, and cotton). This new approach would allow the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to concentrate on such typical public sector activities as regulatory policy frameworks, quality control, and monitoring and evaluation. But past activities have not necessarily offered effective capabilities in these areas. The financial resources to develop these activities and keep them at the desired level are lacking. The Project would develop program planning capacities and effective management systems for monitoring agricultural investments. The Project would finance a few vehicles and office equipment as well as training, workshops, study tours, and recruitment of technical assistants for agricultural planning, monitoring and evaluation, and information technology. The Project would not allow overall restructuring and strengthening o f the Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock or Land Management, Environment and Tourism, but assistance would be provided for select activities directly tied to the achievement o f expected results of sector operations. So the Project would support building o f specific institutional capacity in both ministries at the central and decentralized levels, based on studies that would analyze the capacity o f both institutional and human resources and make proposals to amend the situation. 61 The beneficiaries in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock would be the General Directorate o f Monitoring and Evaluation and the Unit o f Planning, Coordination o f Studies, Programming and Budgets in the Cabinet. (Beneficiaries at the Ministry o f Land Management, Environment and Tourism are describedbelow) In addition to contracts to implement the productive investment subcomponent, selected provincial agriculture and livestock departments would all receive directly allocated funds to strengthen their monitoring and evaluation unit. This support includes a vehicle suitable for field travel, a computer set, a photocopier, office furniture, and funds for operational expenses, maintenance, and staff training. The European Union has committed 300,000 euros to establish a production and market information and the French Development Cooperation has promised additional funds to finance the system's first-year o f operations. PRASABwould provide complementary financing, especiallyafter the first year. The Project would allow the provincial agriculture and livestock departments to: Train local teams with responsibility in the PRASAB Project area on modern land management methods. Train the forest technicians on agroforestry techniques. Train the rural engineers onwetlands management. Provide equipment and supplies. Train key farmers ineach colline area on modern land management methods. Train forest inspectors on modern land management methods. 0 Train staff inenvironmental concepts o f wetlands management. The Project also proposes to strengthen information management to support decision-making on sustainable land management by strengthening the Direction du GCnie Rural et de la Protectiondu Patrimoine Foncier at the national level. To strengthen the capacity for integrated land use planning and implementation, including land degradation analysis at the national level, the Project would (i) develop the National Framework for Evaluation o f Land Degradation (following the recommendations of the report by Bikwemu, Buursink, and Habonimana); (ii)update global information and environmental monitoring systems and implement participatory institutional mechanisms to ensure the collaboration o f Burundian Institute for Agricultural Sciences(ISABU), Institute for Agronomic and Zootechnical Research (IRAZ), Provincial Agriculture and Livestock Departments (DPAE), Geographic Institute o f Burundi (IGEBU), and National Institute for Environment and Nature Conservation (INECN) ,(iii)develop and finalize the National Land Use and Management Plan; and (iv) consider the creation o f a National Land Management Institute. 23Not only for traditional activities (coffee, tea, and cotton), but also for food crops and livestock. 62 Through training seminars and workshops, GEF resources would help the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministryof Land Management, Environment and Tourism to assimilate ideas of sustainable land management in their policies and programs and develop integrated approaches to land management. GEF resources would also support institutional and policy gap analysis and advisory activities to strengthenland and natural resources management and the related legal and policy framework, including a national land management plan. Areas for attention include planning and resource allocation and natural resources use monitoringand coordination. This would involve close coordination between the Ministry of Land Management, Environment and Tourism (including the National Institute for Environment and Conservation of Nature) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, because the responsibilities and capacities are likely to be spread over the two ministries. Areas for attention include: Resource use planning and environmental management, including delineation o f government agencies' roles and a decentralized approach for managing natural resources. Natural resources use monitoring and coordination (data collection, monitoring of indicators of ecosystem values, land and water use, biodiversity as well as socioeconomic indicators inthe Project area). Capacity enhancement through training seminars and workshops. The Ministry of Land Management, ,Environment and Tourism (IDA US$0.31 million plus GEF US$0.62 million). GEF support would enhance the capacity of the Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme o f the Ministry o f Land Management, ,Environment and Tourism by (i)supportingthe geographic information system, which lacks sufficient qualified personnel and equipment and is needed to support the incremental aspects of the Project; (ii) training five staff members in environmental assessment; (iii)supporting the Project environmental specialist with an international consultant; and (iv) providing training on the development of environmental norms and procedures (water and air quality standards, safe pesticide use). Potential training sites include Tunisia, Benin, and Kenya. Additional support for the Department of Rural Engineering would be provided as on-the-ground training for field engineers inthe management of wetlands (marais), small dams, and irrigation works. Strengthening research agencies (US$3.43million plus GEF UB0.34 million). This activity would finance improvements in agricultural research. Given the limited research capacity in the country and the specific needs of producer organizations and local communities, the Project would support focused, short-term (two to three years) applied research aimed at solving the constraints to agricultural productivity. The Project interventions would complement assistance from the Belgian Technical Cooperation, which rehabilitated research infrastructure and equipment, and support continuing education, training, study tours, and workshops for researchers. GEF incremental fundingwould be available to enhance research quality and focus on environmentally sustainable land management. 63 External financing o f research stopped in 1996, suspending or slowing down research programs and causing qualified researchers to depart. Research infrastructure was destroyed or damaged in the 1993 civil war. Development of new production technologies continues to be necessary and requires dynamic well focused agricultural research systems with strong competencies in selection o f priority research themes and in planning and implementation of specific research programs. The Project would thus finance (i)improvements in agricultural research, including the Agricultural Research Instituteof Burundi-ISABUand other research institutes (FACAGRO, IRAZ, CNTA, and private institutes) and (ii)development and implementation of efficient demand-driven agricultural research and extension subprojects for new technologies. While the Projectwould promote competitive research, the ISABUinparticular needs Project funds to recover the capability to innovate and produce new agriculturaltechnologies. Project interventions would complement assistance from the Belgian Technical Cooperation and would aim to rehabilitate research infrastructure (sheds, offices, laboratories, housing), providing the equipment needed for research operations (tools, information technologies, transport equipment) and ensuring continuing education and training of researchers (studies, conferences, seminars, and technical assistance for selected topics). The Project would invest in better access for farmers to high-quality genetic material (again complementing Belgian assistance). Grants would be provided for applied or adaptive research on priority themes through participatory diagnostic work financed with Project funding. These grants would be available to private and public research institutions. Important areas for research support include (a) offering access to better genetic material, (b) developing good technologies for improving soil conservation and fertility, (c) fighting against plant and animal parasites, and (d) increasingthe value of agricultural produce with better conservation and processing. Various research institutes have their specializations that would serve as the basis for allocating research tasks or projects. A committee o f representatives from different research institutes and the steering committee and management o f PRASAB would make decisions on the research programs to be financed. The committee would use the demand of new technologies as expressed by producers, their relative importance in improving food security and income generation, and financing already provided by other donors as criteria for selecting these programs. Multidisciplinary research would also be given special consideration. GEF resources would be used to strengthen the quality of research and reinforce the focus on environmentally sustainable land management and the reduction of soil and land degradation. Integrating conservation farming and increasing productivity in existing farming systems, improved water management, species mix, integrated pest management, and integrated nutrient management are areas to be studied, tested, and applied in pilots, with results disseminated to communities and producer organizations. GEF-supported targeted research would provide information, knowledge, and tools to improve the quality and effectiveness o f its projects and programs. The specific objectives of targeted research planned under PRASAB are to facilitate the refinement and adoption of innovative sustainable land management practices and technologies, including early warning and monitoring systems. 64 Targeted research would initially focus on partnerships with small farmers, pastoralists, and other natural resource users and stakeholders to demonstrate under field conditions cost- effective agronomic practices that improve soil fertility management as alternatives to shiftingagriculture, tillage methods that have minimal impacts on soil structure and improve soil and water conservation, and systems that improve livestock production in areas with limited rangeland or pasture. Targeted research would also develop analytical tools and frameworks to assess the benefits o f early intervention to prevent or control degradation. GEF resourceswould support targeted research to support sustainable land management with emphasis on field testing and distribution o f packages including (i)agricultural practices that improve the fertility and physical and chemical conditions of the soil as well as systems that intensify fodder production to counter overgrazing; (ii)woody species that are economically valuable and cause less soil degradation than agricultural crops (trees for fodder, fuel wood, construction timber, fruit, medicinal plants); and (iii)assessment of the economic impact of land degradation in the agro-ecological zones of PRASAB and the economic and ecological benefits o f early intervention to prevent or control degradation. Project lessons would be shared with other countries in the region. Regional contacts and partnerships would be enhanced, for example, with the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Southern Africa, the International Center for Research in Agro-Forestry (especially its eco-regional Project, the African Highlands Initiative), the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute (African Soils program), and other CGIAR and research organizations. Component3. Support for Projectcoordination and management(US$5.41 million) This component would finance Project management, monitoring, and evaluation. The main costs relate to establishing and supporting the NPCMU in the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock and the three IPCMUs responsible for coordination and continuous monitoring, audits and periodic evaluation studies, and reporting (including a Project completion report). The Project would support the salaries of a small team of experienced technical specialists, office rehabilitation, vehicles, training, workshops, and study tours for the NPCMU and the IPCMUs. Itwould also cover the units' operating costs. Inaddition, GEFresources would support the incremental costs of establishing and managing sustainable land management activities and tracking their implementation, as well as the monitoring o f environmental indicators related to Project objectives and activities. NPCMU monitoring would include ecological system data inProject areas, fragility and degradation of marshes and watersheds, current agriproduction systems, community needs and interest, and applicability of sustainable land management practices. The NPCMU would also monitor the impacts of institutional and policy change including land ownership and user rights patterns and would make ongoing recommendations for policy and regulatory reforms. A key feature of this program is that it would be implemented through communities. Additional resources for training, workshops, and study tours would enable the NPCMU to establish participatory processes for implementation. 65 Annex 5: ProjectCosts BURUNDI:AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable Land ManagementProject Project Cost By Componentand/or Activity Local Foreign Total US %million US %million US %million A - Support for Production and Sustainable Land Management Investments (SLM) (US$27.76) 1 - ProductiveInvestments 4.83 3.70 8.53 2- SLM Investments 4.74 1.19 5.93 3- Support Services 3.12 0.23 3.35 4- Emergency Support for Returnees and IDP 6.29 3.66 9.95 B - Support for Capacity Building and Institutional 1 Coordination - 4.06 0.63 4.69 2- Monitoring 0.26 0.26 ~ Y Total Baseline Cost 26.99 12.46 39.45 Physical Contingencies 0.03 0.15 0.18 Price Contingencies 0.77 0.07 0.84 27.79 12.68 40.47 ~Total Project Costs Interest during construction Front-end Fee Total Financing Required 54.79 25.14 79.93 The Ministryof Finance has exempted the project from all taxes. The total project cost net of taxes is: US$40 millions (100%). 66 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable Land ManagementProject 1. ImplementationAgencies: The MAE will have the overall responsibility for Project implementation in close coordination with MATET, especially for the implementation o f the GEF supported SLM's activities. At the national level, a steering committee, composed of Ministers and/or their representatives for Agriculture, Environment, Community Development, Planning and Reconstruction and other key ministries and related key agencies, will define policy and strategy for the sector and modalities of their execution. The Ministries involved are the MAE; Development Planning and Reconstruction; Finance; Interior; MATET; Communal Development; and Reinstallation o f Displaced and Expatriated People. The Director General of ISABU and the Coordinator of PRASABare also members of the Committee. It i s planned that representatives o f the private sector and NGOs will be included in the Committee, as well (possibly as an advisory panel). A sub committee chaired by the Ministry of Environment will focus on the GEF Sustainable Land Management (SLM) activities and another chaired by the Ministryo f MRRDRon Component 1 (b). The Committee will also be responsible for overall monitoring and evaluation o f Project implementationand will approve the annual work plans and budgets, keepingthem in line with the Project's objectives. It will organize at least one annual meeting with representatives o f the donors to ensure adequate coordination o f the rural sector activities. A Technical Monitoring Committee, composed of high-level officials in key ministries, agencies and institutions (ISABU, IRAZ, INECN, University of Burundi, POs and L C representatives and NGOs), will be established to monitor and guide the operations of the Project and to analyze and approve the documents to be submitted to the NSC. A technical subcommittee will focus on the implementation and monitoring o f the SLM's activities and another on the subcomponent 1(b). The PIM will describe the relationships between the various ministriesand departments that can provide support to the Project and the tasks and responsibilities o f the different committees. 2. Project Coordinationand ManagementUnit A NPCMU, located under the MAE, will be responsible for the technical and financial implementation of the Project. It will be staffed by a small team of experienced technicians including a Project coordinator, an institutions and community development specialist(s), a rural development specialist, a SLM specialist, a monitoring and evaluation specialist, a financial specialist, a procurement specialist, an accountant and support staff. The staff will be recruited on a competitive basis. The team will also be responsible for the coordination, implementationand monitoring o f the SLM activities. 67 For field coordination and guidance, the Project will have three decentralized units, called IPCMUs supervised by the NPCMU. Each IPCMU will cover at least three provinces. They will be located at Mukamba (for Bururi, Makamba and Rutana Provinces), Muyinga (Kirundo, Muyinka, Ngozi, Cankuzo), and Muranvya (Muranvya, Bubanza, Mwaru). The IPCMUs will have a staff of an inter-provincial coordinator, a monitoring and evaluation officer and a secretary/accountant. Two selection committees will be established, one at the communal level, a Communal Approval Committee (CAC) for the approval and selection of subprojects costing less than 5.000 US $, and a second one at the Provincial level, Provincial Approval Committee (PAC) for larger subprojects costing morethan 5.000 U S $ The PIM will specify the tasks of the different organs and their members and staff, including the competencelevelsrequired. 3. Implementationof componentsand subcomponents Component1: Supportfor Productiveand Sustainable Land ManagementInvestments Subcomponent 1 (a): Sup~ortfor Productive and Sustainable Land ManagementInvestments for producer organizations and LCs. Before Project operations will start in a province, NPCMU will engage a LIA on a contract basis to promote and provide general guidance for implementing the Project operations concerning producer organizations and local communities inthe province. (Lists of potential foreign and national LIAs are inthe PIM) At the outset ofthe Project ina province, the respective LIA will preparean inventory of the existing producer organizations inthe province, including the type of category to which they belong (cooperative, association, women's group); type of their activities; membership; structure and staffing/membership; and their strengths and weaknesses. Because the approach of supporting producer organizations will be demand-driven, no pre-selectionof the producer organizations to be assisted will be done. The LIAs will have the task of informing the existing producer organizations and local communities about the Project facilities and the process of obtaining funds under the Project. They will then help organize participative diagnostic meetings for interested producer organizations and local communities. producer organizations and local communities will choose their priority investments and prepare subproject plans and financing requests-if necessary, with help of local service providers. The actual implementation of productive investment subprojects will be the responsibility of the producerorganizations and local communities that have identifiedand initiated them; but for subproject planning, procedural assistance, and technical advice they could recruit local SPs with Project funds. These SPs will be specialized local agencies, consulting firms, or individuals that either have the necessary skills or are deemed sufficiently prospective to be provided with complementarytraining. LIAswill help process and evaluate the applications, which will be approvedby CACs, or in the case of more substantive requests or capacity-building applications by subcommitteesof the PACs, according to a set of criteria to be agreed upon. The NPCMU will supervise and ensure that the LIAs, PACs, and CACs comply with the approved rules. The criteria to be used for approving subprojects will include the following: the pertinence of the subproject 68 activities in respect to PRASAB objectives including SLM; the number of members benefiting; the average cost per benefiting member; the probable financial benefits per member; and likely sustainability, including the reliability of the maintenance plan made for the subproject investmentor activity. The sustainability is difficult to Project inadvance, but information such as the date of the PO establishment, implementation of past activities, recommendation by local administration, and a common bond between the members (group cohesion, commonly-owned capital, cash or bank account, herd, or piece of land) could serve as suitable proxies of the sustainability. Details of the process, including the practices of procurementand disbursementof funds, are provided inthe PIM Subcomponent 1(b): Emergency support for returnees and internally displaced uersons PRASAB will contribute to the Government's emergency program by supporting returnees and IDPs in selected Project areas by helping them be included in the local producer organizations, and where that is not possible due to social tensions, by financing agricultural start-up kits that would include seed, selectedplanting materials, and inputs and implements for farming and cattle rearing. In implementing this subcomponent, the Project will liaise with the NCWDP, and its provincial and commune-level organizations. The Project will also seek guidance of the SteeringCommittee's subcommitteefor the returnees and displacedpeople (see SectionC.2). Component2 :Support for capacity buildingand institutionalstrengthening 2(a) Enhancingthe Cauacitv of local communities andproducer organizations and LIAs NPCMU and the provincial administration units will carry out the implementation of this subcomponent with the help of LIAs. The potential LIAs will make improvement plans and financing requests on their own needs to NPCMU as capacity strengthening subprojects. NPCMU will approve them within budgetary limits and by using agreed-upon criteria. The LIAs could also formulate joint plans to strengthen several service providers in their respective provinces (for instance, in order to organize larger seminars) and present them to NPCMU for approval. Individual local service providers may present to the respective provincial LIAs their own capacity enhancingsubprojects that will help them strengthentheir capacity and skills. The LIAs will evaluate the requests and submit them to the PAC for approval. NPCMU and the World Bank supervision missions will monitor the compliance of the agreed-uponrules ofthe subcomponent. For the training needs of producer organizations and local communities, the Provincial LIAs will prepare annual training plans. They will be reviewed and consolidatedby NPCMU and passed on to the World Bank for the Bank's no-objection. Once approved, the Capacity Building SectionofNPCMU will supervisethe implementation ofthe plans. Consistent with the Project's Pest ManagementPlan (PMP), the producer organizations will receive support through training courses in integrated pest management (IPM) and safe handling of pesticides. Training activities will focus on: (a) Promotion of IPM through, among other things, the organization of farmers into producer organizations; developing IPM training capacity at the DPAEs; and training the trainer in IPM through a national IPM workshop ; (b) Training of producer organizations in IPM through (i)public awareness raising programs and establishment of IPM networks at the level of the producer 69 organizations; (ii)access to information on IPM (posters, literature and other materials promoting IPM); and (iii)access to publications by ISABU on IPM research activities and results; and (c) Safe pesticide management as they relate to transport, storage, handling, distribution of pesticides and destruction of packing materials, safe application procedures, risks of pesticide poisoning, the importance of protective gear, and public awareness of the dangers of pesticides (d) study tours to neighboringcountries. It is expected that by the end of the Project, (i)50 persons (phytosanitary inspectors, DPAE personneland serviceproviders) will have beentrained as trainers; and (ii)1,000 farmers will have beentrained inIPM. To ensure that future sub-projects are environmentally and socially sustainable, and to promote and understanding of the broader environmental management issues among the producer organizations, they will be trained in environmental assessment through qualified service providers who will be trained as trainers under the capacity building component for the Direction de 1'Environnment et du Tourisme, Ministry of Environment. The producer organizations will receive relevant training through qualified service providers during the planning, conception, and implementation stages and management of such infrastructures, These service providers will have been trained under the capacity building component for MATET to ensure the effective management of irrigation infrastructure such as small dams, small irrigation perimetersor water retentionpools. 2(b) Suoport for Institutional Strenp;theningof KeyPublic Services The process of making Project funds available for the purposes of this subcomponent will start by these Ministries making an annual action plan for the subcomponent within the budget allocation indicated inthe Project cost estimates. The action plan will includea list of purchases and other eligible costs for the year. As with the Research subcomponent below, NPCMU will process the annual plans and their budgets and present them to the NSC for approval. The NPCMU and the World Bank supervision missions will monitor the complianceof the agreed-upon implementation of the annualplans. ISABU,the researchdepartmentofthe MAEwill also prepareannually anaction plan for the subcomponent within the budget allocation indicated inthe cost estimates of PRASAB. This action plan will include a list of purchases and other eligible costs for the year. The NPCMU will process the annual plans and their budgets and present them to the NSC for approval. The procedures concerning this component including the practices of procurement and disbursement of funds, are detailed inthe PIM. Component3. Supportto Project Coordinationand Management. Implementation arrangements are those explained in the PAD section C.2. They are illustrated in the organization chart attached to the PIM and to the Administrative Financial andAccounting Manual. 70 4. Coordinationwith OtherDevelopmentEfforts The Project will work in collaboration with central governmental services (DGA, DGE, DGSE, DGVA, ISABU, CNTA) and the DPAEs. collaboration will take place through the various Project committees, in which these organizations are members, and through extensive dissemination o f all the information and data the Project produces, thus helpingthem intheir own planning and monitoring and evaluation activities inthe rural sector. Despite the self-standing nature o f the Project, it will be closely linkedwith the development efforts o f the international agencies active in the rural sector in Burundi (the main agencies are IFAD, EU, French Cooperation, Belgian Cooperation, UNDP, and FAO, for details see Annex 2). Many o f them are involved in specific activities that will benefit from the complementary financing to producer organizations or local implementation agencies and service providers that PRASAB can support. In addition, the other projects and programs in the rural sector only cover a part of the provinces or investment needs (see Annex 2), and PRASAB will expand the coverage of some of their activities to larger areas. The French and Belgian Cooperation Services are expected to provide limited parallel financing for the first year investment costs to help establish a market information system in the MAE (PRASAB will finance the operating costs and investment costs beyond the first year). The Project will also be closely coordinated with those of other Implementing and Executing Agencies of the GEF, both through the GEF and also through closer coordination of activities on the ground at the country and province level. 5. PrincipalProjectareas The Project will have a national coverage. However, in practice the provinces where the Project will operate will depend on a number o f factors, such as the number of producer organizations available for or interested in Project activities; agricultural potentials and opportunities; on-going activities with which PRASAB operations could link; and other development agencies supporting producer organizations or micro-Project investments inthe province. For instance, IFAD will cover four provinces with partially similar support as PRASAB, and it is planning to enter two or three other provinces. Because no province is fully covered with the same type of activities that PRASAB supports, none of them will be excluded from consideration, but at the time o f appraisal the following provinces appeared to have the best prospects to benefit from the Project funds to start with Makamba, Rutana, Kirundo, Muyinka, Ngozi, Cankuzo, Muranvya, Bubanza, Mwaru, and inaddition one half of BururiProvince (see map inPIM). Inthe case that PRASAB will enter provinceswhere other development agencies are active, the Project authorities will have discussions and semi- annual coordination meetings with such agencies to harmonize and complement each others' development efforts. The administrative chart i s inthe P I M and inthe Project Administrative FinancialAccounting Manual 71 Annex 7: FinancialManagementand DisbursementArrangements BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable Land ManagementProject 1. Implementationarrangements ProjectManagementStructure. The main implementing agency for the Project will be the MAE through the NPCMU. The NPCMU is a new structure. It will be responsible for the technical and financial implementation of the Project. The Project will have three Inter-provincial Project coordination andmanagementunits. The daily supervision of accounting activities will be carried out by the Administration and Financial Officer (AFO), who will be assisted by a Chief Accountant and an Accountant. An internal audit function will be requiredto ensure strong supervisionand quality assurance at various stages of the Project. Planning,Budgetingand BudgetaryControl. The Project will ensure the existence of suitable work plans. Planning will be done within the guidelines issued in the PIM which has been adopted by the recipient. A well-defined budgeting and budgetary control systemwill be put inplace. Annual budgetswill be prepared based on specific guidelines contained in the Project implementation manual and on annual work plans, The PAD and the PIM will include a disbursement schedule. They will be used as the basis for the preparationof annual budgets. The plan will be updatedas part of Project implementation. The budget format will be based on Project components and will be integrated into the Project accounting system. The budget will be used as a managementtool. Expenditureswill be authorized inaccordancewith agreedbudgets. Accounting System. Financial ManagementManual. The accounting system of the Project will be based on well documentedManual of Financial and Accounting Procedures. Proper books of accounts will be kept on double entry principleusingthe cashbased system. Written job descriptions with defined duties, responsibilities, lines of supervision and approval limits will be established. Definition o f responsibilities should ensure segregationof duties for proper accountability. A consultant has been appointed for the documentation of the Financial Management Procedures. 72 Staff and Transactions Recording. The Project will be under the responsibility of the National Project Coordinator who reports to the MAEe. The National Project Coordinator is experienced in the implementation of World Bank financed projects. He will be assisted by the Administrative and Finance Officer (AFO). The accountingunit will be under the control of the AFO. H e will be assisted by the Chief Accountant and the Accountant. The AFO and the Chiefaccountant have been recruited.The recruitmentofthe Accountant has started. The Accountant should have a good knowledge of Information Technology. An accounting software has been purchasedto manage the accountingfunction. The Project chart of accounts have been established. Accounting staff have been trained to maintain the system. Training will be required for other accounting staff. Appropriate controls will be instituted to safeguardthe confidentiality, integrityand availability of the data. Books of Accounts. A well defined filing system has been put in place. The system allows authorizedusers easy access to accountingand supportingdocuments on a permanent basis,. 2. ReportingArrangements Integrated Financial Management System. The Project will put in place an Integrated Financial Management System. The system should integrate the Budgeting, Operating and Accounting Systems to facilitate monitoring and reporting. System generated formats for periodic reports will be developed and agreed with Project management.An action plan will be reachedwith the borrower. Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs). Consolidatedquarterly FMRs will be produced to include: Sources and Uses of Fundsby Project Categories and Components Output MonitoringReport ProcurementMonitoringReports Project managementshould be able to produceFMRsby effectiveness. Financial Statements. In compliance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and World Bank requirements, the Project will produce annual Project financial statements. Financial Statements will include: A Statementof CashReceiptsand Payments. A Balance sheet that shows Assets andLiabilities ofthe entity. A Statementof Sources and Uses of Funds. Notes to the financial statements including accounting policies underlying the preparationof financial statements. A ManagementAssertion that Bank funds have beenexpended inaccordance with the intendedpurposesas specified inthe World Bank legal agreement. 13 3. Audit Arrangements Internal Auditing. As an important part of the ongoing monitoring o f the system o f internal controls, the internal audit function will provide an independent assessment o f the adequacy of, and compliance with, the established controls and procedures. The Internal Audit function will be contracted out to a local firm o f consultants. The selected firm will be acceptable by IDA interms o f independence, qualifications and experience. The selection will be basedon terms o f reference agreed with IDA. The firm will report directly to senior management in order to ensure the independence o f the function. The frequency and extent o f internal audit review and testing of the internal controls will be consistent with the nature, complexity, and risk associated with the Project's activities. Internal audit reports will address internal control deficiencies, or ineffective policies or procedures. Project management will be expected to correct the deficiencies ina timely manner. External Audit. Qualified independent auditors will be appointed by Project Management. The selected auditors will be acceptable by IDA interms of independence, qualifications and experience. The audit will be based on terms of reference agreed with IDA. The external audit work will include all World Bank funds, Government funds and other funds o f the Project. Furthermore, the financial statements of the Project including the GEF, will be audited every six months. The date o fthe first audit will be determinedinconsultationwith IDA. In addition to the audit report, the auditor will be requiredto prepare a Management Letter where internal control weaknessesandrecommendations for improvements, are highlighted. A single audit opinion will be issued on Project income and expenditures, special accounts and statement of expenditure. The audit reports along with Management Letters will be sent to IDA and all other financing partners not later than four months after the end o f each preceding period. 4. Supervision Financial Management Supervision will be done by the Project Financial Management Specialist over the Project life to ensure the implementation o f strong financial management systems. Regular Statement O f Expenditure (SOE) reviews will be undertaken where necessary, in compliance with World Bank requirements. The Project Status Report (PSR) will include a financial management rating. 5. DisbursementArrangements Allocation of Grants Proceeds ( Table C ). 74 Table C 1:Allocationof IDA Grant Proceeds I ExpenditureCategory Amount in SDR I FinancingPercentage I (1) Matching-Grants 14,000,000 100% of amounts disbursed (2) Goods 1,410,000 100% (3) Works 180,000 100% (4) Consultants' services 5,030,000 100% (including audits) (5) Training 850,000 100% (6) Incremental operating 570,000 100% costs (7) Refundingof the Project 800,000 Amount due pursuant to Preparation Advances Section 2.02 of this Agreement (8) Unallocated 1,160,000 ~ Table C 2: Allocation of GEF Grant Proceeds Expenditure Category Amount inUS$million FinancingPercentage (1) Marching-Grants 2.00 100% of amounts disbursed (2) Goods 0.22 100% (3) Works 0.00 100% (4) Consultants' services 1.07 100% I (including audits) (including I (5) Training 1.37 100% (6) Incremental operating 0.09 100% I costs . . ~ I I I (7) Unallocated 0.25 Total m Banking Arrangement. The following bank accounts will be used for transferring project funds: While the special account under the IDA grant may be the same as that usedunder the PPF, that does not pertain to the GEF grant, as there i s no provision for refinancing GEF PPG grants. Special Account A: Denominated in U S dollars. This i s the main Project account into which are deposited Project implementation funds from IDA. Special Account B: Denominated in U S dollars. This receives funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 75 Project Account: This is denominated inLocal currency and will receive resources from the Government o f Burundi, other than those from IDA and GEF grants. These accounts will be maintained in a Commercial Bank accepted by IDA. The Project funds will be disbursedthroughthe current bankingarrangements. Disbursement of IDA Funds to Project Managemem IDA disbursements will be based on traditional disbursement procedures (transaction-based disbursements), Le., reimbursements, direct payments and the use of certified statements of expenditure. The project will be eligible to use report-based disbursements after providing Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs) satisfactory to IDA for, at least, two consecutive quarters and maintaining a satisfactory project rating. Financial Monitoring Reports include information on sources and uses of funds, procurement and contract management, and physical progress in project implementation. This change in procedure will be at the borrower's choice and i s expected to take place duringthe second year of project execution. Uses o f Statement of Expenditures:Disbursements for all expenditures should be made on the basis of statements of expenditure for expenditures for: (a) goods under contracts costing less than $150,000 equivalent each; (b) works under contracts costing less than $200,000 equivalent each; (c) services of consulting firms under contracts costing less than $100,000 equivalent each; (d) services of individual consultants under contracts costing less than $50,000 equivalent each; (e) Matching Grants; (f) training not subject to contract; and (8) incrementaloperatingcosts. Special Account: To facilitate project implementation and reduce the volume of withdrawal applications havingto be sent to IDA, the borrower will open a special account in U S Dollars ina commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to IDA. Under transaction-based disbursements, the authorized allocation of the special account will be US$2 million, based on the average o f 4 months o f eligible expenditures expected to be made from the account. Replenishment applications will be submitted monthly, accompanied by copies o f reconciled bank statements. Under report-based disbursements, the advance to the special account will be based on a forecast o f expenditures for a period not to exceed 6 months. Replenishments will be made quarterly on the basis o f FMRs showing expenditures made duringthe previous quarter, together with a forecast o f expenditures for the upcoming 6 month period and reconciled bank statements. Disbursementof GEF Funds to Project Management. GEF funds will be disbursed to Project Management inaccordance with GEF procedures. Disbursementof Fundspom the Special Account A toproducer organizations. Funds will be disbursed from the Special Account A to producer organizations for activities to be implemented under approved sub-projects. Sub-projects approved will indicate the arrangements through which payments will be made. producer organizations will be required to open Bank Accounts in Commercial Banks acceptable by IDA. These accounts will receive funds from the Special Account A and the contributions from producer organizations. Where producer organizations do not have easy access to Banks, special arrangements will be made with the Commercial Bank in which the Special Account A is maintained, to facilitate the transfer of funds. 76 6. Flow of Funds. Funds Flow Arrangements Financial Management risks will be reduced through the proper implementation of financial management arrangements. Compliance with the action plan below will enable the Project to comply with the World Bank's financial management requirements. FinancialManagement Action Plan Issues RecommendedAction Due Date Project Implementation A Project Implementation Plan shouldbe prepared, Done Plan discussedand agreedwith the World Bank. Reporting formats agreed The Formats o f FinancialMonitoring Done Reports(FMRs) should be determined and agreed with IDA. Documentation of Financial and Accounting Procedures to be used, Done Financial and Accounting should be properly documented. Procedures 77 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable Land ManagementProject 1. General Use of Bank Guidelines Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines Procurementunder IBRDLoans and IDA Credits" datedMay 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated inthe Legal Agreement. The generaldescription of various itemsunder different expenditure category are describedbelow. For each contract to be financed by the Grant, the different procurementmethods or consultant selectionmethods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed betweenthe Borrower andthe Bank project team inthe ProcurementPlan. The ProcurementPlanwill be updatedat least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvementsin institutional capacity. Procurementmethod and threshold Works (IDA only US$0.27million) procuredunder this project would include rehabilitation of the infrastructureof researchinstitutes and office buildings. Contractsfor works estimated to cost US$500,000 equivalent or more per contract will be procured using International Competitive Bidding (ICB) procedures and the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for ICB (a) Works contract betweenUS$30,000 and US$500,000 equivalent per contract will be awarded by National Competitive Bidding (NCB) procedures using National SBD agreed with the Bank. NCB will be carried out in accordance with Burundiprocurement law and regulation acceptable to the Bank. The NCB is consistent with the Bank key procurement objectives and ensure that: (i)bids will be advertised in national newspapers with wide circulation; (ii) the bid document clearly explains the bid evaluation and award criteria; (iii) bidders are given adequate response time (minimum four weeks) to prepare and submit bids: (iv) bids are awardedto the lowest evaluated bidder and not arbitrarily; (v) eligible bidders, including foreign bidder, will not be precluded from participation; and (vi) no domestic preferencemargins are applicableto domestic manufacturers and suppliers. (b) Small works estimated to cost less than US$30,000 equivalent per contract may be procured under lump-sum, fixed price contract awarded on the basis of quotation obtained from at least three qualified contractors in response to a written invitation. The written invitation shall include a description of the works, basic specification, the required completion date, a simple form of agreement acceptable to the Bank, and relevant drawings where applicable. The contract shall be awarded to the contractor who offers the lowest quotation provided that the bid is substantially responsive to the conditions specified in the written invitation. The related documents (instruction to bidders, model of contract) will be included inthe Project Implementation Manual (PIM). 78 Goods (Total US$2 million, of which IDA US$ 1.7 million and GEF US$O,3million) procured under this project would include vehicles, motorcycles, computers and accessories, laboratory and office equipment. The procurementwill be done using Bank's SBD for ICB and National SBD agreed with the Bank.The NCB is consistent with Bank key procurement objectives as described inparagraph l(b) above. (a) To the extent practicable, goods and equipment will be combined in packages estimatedto cost US$150,000 equivalent or more and will be procuredusing ICB procedures andthe Bank's SBD for ICB. (b) Goods estimated to cost less than US$150,000 equivalent per contract will be procured usingNCB proceduresandNational SBD agreedwith the Bank. (c) Goods including vehicles and computers estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract may be procured directly from IAPSO in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.6 of the Bank Guidelines. Office equipment, motorcycles, purchases of off-the-shelf items may be procured through prudent shopping procedures in package estimated to cost less than US$30,000 equivalent per contract in accordance with the provisions ofparagraph3.5 ofthe BankGuidelines. Consultancy services and training (Total US$12.36million, of which IDA US$9.66million and GEF US$2.7million) would cover: (i)identification, preparationand implementation of the subprojects, (ii) training for capacity building, (iii)support of project implementation, (iv) financial management and procurement support, and (v) various studies aimed to reinforce the capacity ofthe implementing agenciesto fulfill their mandateandresponsibility. (a) Consultant services estimated to cost US$lOO,OOO or more will be procured though Quality- and Cost- Based Selection (QCBS) method in accordance with section I1 of the Consultant Guidelines. Assignment estimated to cost $200,000 equivalent or more will be advertised inthe UNDB online and dgMarket and in at least one national newspaperof wide distribution. (b) Consultant services for assignment of a standard and routine technical nature such as engineering design, financial and technical audits estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalentper contract, may be awardedusingthe Least-Cost-Selection(LCS), inaccordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.6 of the Consultant Guidelines. Audit services may also be procured, using the Consultant Qualifications Selection (CQS) method, in accordance with paragraphs3.1 and 3.7 of the ConsultantGuidelines. (c) Training institutions for workshops and activities geared towards institutional and capacity building for contract less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent, will be awarded through the CQS method, inaccordancewith paragraphs3.1 and 3.7 of the ConsultantGuidelines. (d) In the case of assignments estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent the shortlist may be made up entirely of national consultants (in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines), provided that qualified national firms are available in the country and foreign consultants who wish to participate are not excluded from consideration. 79 (e) Single-source selection may exceptionally with IDA'S prior agreement be used for (i)training,(ii) advisory services relatedto activities of the technical support agencies, and (iii)consulting assignmentprovided by NGOs or other organizationto assist provinces, communes and community subprojects, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.9- 3.13 ofthe Consultant Guidelines. (f) Assignment requiring individual consultants like training activities, workshop, small studies, may be contracted by comparing the qualifications of individual consultants, who have expressed an interest in the assignment or who have been identified. All consulting services of individual consultants will be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 of the Consultant Guidelines. Some individual consulting services may, with the agreement of IDA, be selected under single-source basis in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph5.4 of the Consultant Guidelines. (j) Training, workshops, study tours, conference attendance will be carried out on the basis of approved annual work programs that would identify the general framework of training or similar activities for the year, including the nature of training/study tours/workshops, number of participants, and cost estimates. Community-basedprocurement (Total US$27 million, of which IDA US$24 million and GEF US$3million) under thisproject would comprise a broad spectrum of activities to be undertakenwith direct participation and financial contribution of the local communities. It is not possible to determine the exact mix of goods, small works, and services to be procured under these activities due to their demand-drivennature. Funding of these activities would be inthe form of grants. Therefore, the types of activities to be financed under subprojectsand their procurement details would depend on the needs identified by the community-based organizations and civil society organizations. The contract would be procured following simplified procurementproceduresas describedinthe PIM for community-basedprojects. Operating Costs include services of contracted staff of the Project managementoffice and incremental operatingcosts relatedto managingthe Project unit. Prior review threshold (a) Works contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more will be subject to prior review. In addition, the first contract below US$200,000 will be subject to prior review. For small works contract below US$30,000, the first contract will be subjectto prior review. (b) Goods contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$150,000 or more will be subject to prior preview. Inaddition, the first contract below US$150,000 will be subject to prior review. (c) Consultant services. All terms of referenceand all single source selectionregardless of contract cost, will be subject to prior review. Contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$lOO,OOO or more for firms and US$50,000 or more for individual consultants will be subjectto prior review. 80 2. Assessment of the agency's capacity to implementprocurement An assessment of the NPCMU's capacity to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out during appraisalinFebruary 2004 by Marie-Louise Ah-kee, Procurement Analyst; and reviewed by Prosper Nindorera, Procurement Specialist. The assessment outlines the main issues and recommendations and is in the project files. The project is judged as being at high risk mainly because of the lack of previously trained personnel in procurement, The NCPMU was already inplacewith a Project Coordinator, who is reported to have a wide experience in IDA-financed project implementation, a Financial Management Specialist, and an Accountant, while the recruitment of the Procurement Specialist was underway. In order to mitigate the procurement risk associated with the project and to build the procurement capacity of NPCMU, it was agreed at that time that the following measures would be taken: (i)the recruitment of the Procurement Specialist before credit negotiations; (ii)a Project Implementation Manual with detailed procedures and standard bidding documents to be usedfor each procurementmethod, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured; (iii)a three-day procurement training session program focused on procurement planning and contract management issues will be delivered during the project launching workshop; (iv) setting-up of an acceptable procurement record keeping and filing system within six months of implementation; and (v) during the first year of project implementation, the annual work program of the NPCMU will comprise at least 3 days procurementtraining for all the persons involved inthe procurement process without relevant experience and training. The first two measures have already been implemented: the procurement specialist has been recruited and working since May 11, 2004, well before credit negotiations; and the changes to be incorporated in the final version of the PIM were agreeduponduring negotiations. 3. ProcurementPlan The Borrower at appraisal developed a Procurement plan for project implementation which provides the basis for the procurement methods (attachment). This plan has been agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team during negotiations on June 4, 2004 and is available in AFTS3, room 56-602. It will also be available inthe Project's data base and in the Bank's external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvement in institutional capacity. For subprojects to be implemented by NGOs, civil society organizations, private sector entities, producer organizations, and local communities, their demanddriven nature makes it difficult to finalize procurementplan for this component at this stage. However, the appraisal document of each approved subproject will include a procurement schedule for completing this subproject. 4. Frequency of ProcurementSupervision The capacity assessment of the NPCMU has recommended that during the first year of project activities, a Bank implementation support mission will be carried out once every six month during the two first years of project activities and thereafter once every year provided the project performancepermits. During these missions a selective post review of contracts awardedbelow the thresholdwill be applied to at least one infive contracts. 81 Attachment Detailsof the ProcurementArrangements 1. Goods andWorks (a) List of contract packageswhich will be procuredusing ICB, NCB, shopping procedures, as well as procuring directly from IAPSO 0 Procurementof vehicles 0 Procurementof computers, printers, and accessories 0 Procurementof workshop equipment 0 Procurementof laboratory equipment Procurementof office equipment 0 Procurementof motos 0 Rehabilitation of infrastructureof the research institutes 1 2 3 4 6 ( 7 1 8 9 I Ref. No. Contract Estimated Procurement Domestic Review Expected Comments Description cost method (us$ooo) Preference by Bid (yedno) Bank Opening (Prior/ Date Post) ICB/l/vehicles/2005 Vehicles and motos 985 ICB No Prior Jan. 2005 NCB/l/works/2005 IRehabilitation of 160 NCB No Prior Jan. 2005 First infrastructureof I I I I I Icontract I (b) Works contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more and goods contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$150,000 or more will be subject to prior review. (c) The first goods and works contract using shopping and NCB proceduresbelow the prior review amount and the first IAPSO contract will be subject to prior review. 2. ConsultingServices (a) Listof ConsultingAssignments 0 Identification, preparationand implementation of the subprojects. Advisory studies relatedto activities of the technical support agencies. 82 Technical assistance: training to support the Service Providers, Producer Organizations, and local communities. Services by NGOs or other organization to assist provinces, communes, and community subprojects. Training for institutional capacity building. Various studies aimed to reinforce the capacity of the implementingagencies to fulfill their mandateandresponsibility 1 2 3 4 5 8 Ref. No. Descriptionof Estimated Selection Review by Expected Assignment cost Method (us$ooo) Bank Proposals (PriorRost) Submission Date REF1112004 Studies onproductive 125 Quality- and Prior Nov.2004 investment Cost-Based REF1212004 Thematic Research 100 Consultant Prior Dec. 2004 Qualification REFlll2005 Intemationalexpert in 60 Individual Prior Jan. 2005 Rural Development consultant REF1212005 Technical Assistance: 75 11Consultant IPost Jan. 2005 training the Producer Qualification Organizationand Community-Based Organization REF1312005 Support to kits 90 Consultant Post Feb. 2005 distribution Qualification REFf412005 TechnicalAssistance: 190 Quality- and Prior Mar.2005 MAEResearchInstitute Cost-Based REF1512005 Training the Provincial 90 Consultant Post . Apr. 2005 Agriculture and Qualification Livestock DepartmendOPD (b) Consultancy services contract estimated to cost the equivalent of US$lOO,OOO or more for firms and the equivalent of US$50,000 or more for individual consultants will be subject to prior review. (c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract, may be composed entirely of national consultants inaccordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. 83 Annex 9: Economicand FinancialAnalysis BURUNDI :Agricultural Rehabilitationand SustainableLand ManagementProject 1. FinancialAnalysis NPV =N/A; FRR= Varying (see Table 1) Besides financing productive investments at the local level, the Project is an investment in building capacity and sustainable institutions-private and public--at the grassroots level and different administrative levels. Consequently, the Project has been designed to significantly increasefunds available for economic endeavors of the rural population, especially poor men and women, as well as to achieve the maximum outcome at the lowest possible cost. Overall, the financial objective of the Project is that quantitative and qualitative benefits should outweigh the investmentcosts. For the other than directly-productive subcomponents the financial effects cannot be quantitatively determined with satisfactory accuracy. Thus, computing an overall financial rate of return (FRR) for the Project has not been attempted. Financial benefits arising from the component that finance productive investments or support them directly allow FRR or NPV to be calculated for the main activities expected to be financed under the respective subcomponents (ifa net profit is received already during the first year, NPV replaces the otherwisepresentedFRR). The farm models are basedon conservativeestimatesof attainable changes in family households or farmer group activities, taking into account the subsistence nature and risk minimizing strategy, typical of the targeted groups of population. Such changes include progressive productivity increases and changes in prevailing cropping patterns.Family labor availability and required for the new activities were also consideredin the farm budget models. The analysis is carried on a per-unit basis for farm enterprises (usually one hectare) or group operations for others. (Details of the calculations are in the PIM.) Model Investment Net PresentValue FRR (%) (BIF M) (BIFM) Groundnut production(1 ha) 0.2 19.2 Soya production(1 ha) 0.4 30.3 Tea collection shed 11.9 9.1 36.0 Coffee collection center 15.7 38.2 84 For comparison purposes, the average support that eachbenefitingPO will get from the funds intended to directly support agricultural income generation (support to productive investments, support to producer organizations, and agricultural extension program) has been computed to be for an average PO equivalent of US$4,000 to US$5,000. The support to a typical benefiting family (through a producer organization) will thus be equivalent of about US$200. 2. EconomicAnalysis NPV= BurundiFranc 8,9 billion, at 12% discount rate; ERR= 33 percent Because the financial benefits will not be quantified for the entire program, no overall economic rate o f return (ERR) for the Project will be computed. However, an ERR has been computed for the subcomponents that finance productive investments and support them directly. Economic and technical data, based on farm and enterprise models-also to be used as baseline for impact assessment-were collected in August-September 2003 (available in Project Files) The ERR for productive investments has been computed by using a 20-year benefit period. The hypotheses usedwere the following: The net value is the total of additional production attained with the help of the Project, after having deducted the costs o f production. The total of the investment costs o f the productive components (50 percent of Project costs) have been estimated including physical and price contingencies. In addition, economic .investment cost include the Project administration cost (without which there will be no productive investments by the producer groups), and 50 percent o f the capacity building, research and extension, and support agency investments, the rest having been estimated to provide long-term benefits not relatedto the productive investments made by producers groups. a The number of beneficiaries will increase to 80,000 - 100,000 during the Project period. The adjustments made for the economic analysis mainly reflect the removal of taxes and subsidies and other economic distortions. While the Project will increase on and off-farm employment in the rural areas, unemployment and under-employment will not be eliminated. Therefore, a conversion factor of 0.50 was used in the calculations to reflect the opportunity cost of unskilled labor. The policy reforms aiming at opening o f the economy that started in the 1990s, together with the open market determination of the exchange rate, reflect fairly well its real value and lead to the conclusion that domestic prices tend to correspond to border economic values. Prices and exchange rates are in constant (September 2003) terms over the 20-year period o f the analysis. The discount rate used was 12 percent. Based on these hypotheses, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the Project has been estimated at BF 12,558 billion. The benefit stream will turn positive from the 4th year onward, and the ERRfor the productive investments will be 33 percent. (Details ofthe economic analysis are inPIM.) 85 The new emergency-assistance subcomponent (for returningrefugees and IDPs) has not been included in the economic analysis. The Government calculations of the assistance needs and respective benefits are tentative, and on the cost side they include four times more funds per family than the value of the emergency package (seed, selected inputs and implements) that the Project will finance. There are no calculations available for the benefits o f a reduced emergency package and thus there is no basis for making assumptions that would allow including the emergency-assistance subcomponent in the economic analysis. However, although the production o f the returning refugees and IDPs would be lower than that of the "settled" producers, the returning refugees and IDPs do not have "with-the-Project" benefits that would need to be deducted to obtain net benefits. Thus, it can be assumed that the inclusion of the returningrefugees and IDPs would bot lower the EERotherwise computed. A sensitivity analysis on the different variables is presentedinthe following table. Test Change of Variable ERR(%) Base case 33% Test 2 10percent reductiono f costs 40% Test 3 10percent increase inproduction 39% Test 4 10percent reduction inproduction 27% Numerous qualitative economic benefits (benefits accruing to the nation and its economy) can be identified as a consequenceof the Project, including: (a) increased monetization inthe country, reflected in a reduction o f barter; (b) increased efficiency in the productive rural sector, resulting from the amelioration o f skills of farmers and the quality of staff in the producer organizations; (c) increased production and assets of low-income people, due to access to funds to finance their small local projects; (d) greater participation inthe economy o f marginal groups (poor men and women and isolated populations); and (e) enhanced knowledge o f financial issues-including the importance of savings--among low-income families. 86 Annex 10: SafeguardPolicyIssues BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable LandManagementProject Safeguard Policy Issues OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment: Under the auspices of the MAE, an environmental analysis (EA) was carried out by consultants inJanuary 2004. The EA identified and assessed potential environmental and social impacts related to future sub-projects. As the exact types and locations o f future sub-projects are not know at this time, the EA identified potential impacts that had been observed in similar projects. Thus, sub-project impacts could include water pollution and pesticide poisoning as a result of unsafe applications o f pesticides to cash crops; an increase in water-related diseases due to an increase in small-scale irrigation infrastructures, including small dams; salinization due to the excessive use o f fertilizers; changes in the river beds due to the removal o f sand and gravel for construction purposes; the release of wastewaters from palm oil production into the rivers of Imbo Plain and subsequently into Lake Tanganyika; drying up of agricultural swamps if managed ineffectively; and overgrazing and destruction of irrigation infrastructures due to cattle movements. The EA proposed the use of an environmental screening process for sub-projects to enable producer organizations, with the assistance of Local implementation Agencies (LIAS),to identify and assess the potential impacts o f their sub-projects and to prepare the appropriate mitigation measures, including carrying out of environmental analyses, if necessary. Towards this end, the Project will provide support for capacity building, including in the areas of integrated pest management, the management of irrigation-infrastructures, and environmental assessment o f sub-projects. As regards the institutional arrangements for environmental management, the EA recommended that the technical and human capacities at MATET be strengthened. More specifically, the EA recommended that the institutional capacity of the Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme be strengthened through the provision o f environmental assessment training for three o f the five engineers who are currently staffingthis office. Such training would enhance their ability to play an effective role in the review and clearance of EA reports and environmental screening results of future sub-projects, particularly those that involve the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, the treatment of wastewater from palm oil production in the Imbo Plain, and the use of pesticides, particularly for cash crops. The training would cover topics such as sustainable environmental management, environmental assessment procedures, environmental legislation, or the management o f environmental data bases. Furthermore, the Code de I'Environnement, Art. 52, 53, 54, requires that all works related to water management structures are subject to environmental assessment and cannot be implementedwithout the approval o fthe Ministry o f Environment. To further strengthen the EA capacity o f the Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme duringProject implementation, the EA report recommended that an Environmental Specialist be hired by the Project. This Environmental Specialist would be responsible for environmental issues under the Project, the preparation o f terms o f reference, the follow-up to environmental studies, training o f the producer organizations and other partners under the Project. 87 These recommendations were discussed with representatives of the MATET, and both, the EA recommendationsand their suggestions have beenincorporatedinto the Project.Thus, the Project proposes to support the development of textes d'application of environmental assessment procedures. Articles 21-27 of the Environment Code are referring to the requirement for environmental impact studies and environmental audits, however, clear guidanceon how to apply these requirementsis lacking. Thus, the textes d'application should define national directives, prepare sectoral guidance, provide a list of activities or projects which require environmental assessment prior to implementation, how to categorize these projects, and how public consultations would be carried out inthe environmental assessment process. As discussed during the appraisal mission, the Project would also provide support for (i) the development of national environmental norms and procedures as well as relatedtraining for current staff to train them in the interpretation and analysis of such norms; potential training locations would be Tunisia, Benin, Kenya; and (ii)the purchase of equipment, computers, printers for the Environmental Information Center (Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme) which is currently lacking the necessary resourcesto fulfill its mandate; as well as relevant training for staff to train them inthe interpretation of environmental data and the use of the necessary equipment. The Project would also provide support to the Direction du Genie Rural et de la Protection du Patrimoine Foncier (DGRPPF) of the MAE to ensure that the small-scale irrigation infrastructures, including small dams, are managed effectively under the Project. Thus, the Project would fund (i) recruitment of two specialistswho will be responsible for training the producer organizations in the management of small dams and small-scale irrigation infrastructures; and (ii)short-term training in the management of irrigation infrastructures (three weeks) for about 30 persons (technical personnel from the DPAE and DGR&PPF, consultants, private enterprises, firms carrying out studies, LIAS,service providers) who in turnwould train the producer organizationsinthis field. Consultations during preparation of the environmental analysis report were carried out with producer organizations, representatives of associations, technical services and ministries, national experts. The EA report notedthat producer organizationsare currently weak and will needsignificant organizational and professionalsupport. InJune 2003, the Project hadcarried out a workshop designed to inform the public about its objectives, its preparation status, to obtain the views and opinions of the participants and to formulate recommendationsdesigned to address rural development constraints andto improve Project preparation. To enhance coordination between the MATET and MAE during Project implementation, an Environmental Specialist has been recruited, as was also proposed in the EA. The key to effective coordination within the Project as well as between both ministries, will be the appointment of a qualified Environmental Specialist to the NPCMU. This person would be responsible for (a) reviewing the environmental screening results of the sub-projects submitted for funding and determining whether or not additional environmental work will be required; (b) coordinating the collection and analysis of environmental monitoring data carried out at the DPAE; (c) review the environmental monitoring results that will be transferred to the Environmental Information Center, Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme; (d) advise the Project on environmental management issues as required; and (e) liaise closely with the Director of the Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme who will 88 be the focal point for the Project within the MATET. The focal point, in turn, will report to the Directeur of the Direction Generale de 1'Amenagement du Territoire, de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme, who, inturn, i s the Vice-president of the NSC. OP 4.09 Pest Management: The PMP describes the current practices and policies of pest management, including the handling o f pesticides and steps taken towards the development of biological pest control. The PMP also highlights the dangers o f unsafe pesticide application, particularly in view o f the fact that the majority of the population are unable to read. Pesticides are used extensively on export crops such as cotton, coffee, irrigated rice, tobacco, and sugar cane and therefore pose the greatest danger to the population and the environment. Pesticides are used sparingly for food crops, primarily because the farmers cannot afford their purchase. Nevertheless, pesticides are used incorrectly on crops such as tomatoes, first inpowder form duringthe growing season to killpests, and after the harvest in liquid form to extend their shelf lives. Some farmers use pesticides to protect their maize and bean crops from pests. The PMP, which was prepared in consultation with representatives o f associations and technical ministries as part of the EA, recommends, among other things, (i)training o f producer organizations in integrated pest management and safe handling o f pesticides; (ii) support for research in integrated pest management, including training o f professionals at the DPAE and provision of equipment for research; (iii)and dissemination o f literature and information on integrated pest management through the ISABU. The Project would implement the recommendations of the PMP with a focus on producer organizations and local communities. OP 4.37 Safety of Dams: Inthe course o f preparing the EA, the consultants visited areas of the country that operate small-scale irrigation infrastructures, including small dams. The consultants held meetings with representatives o f the local agencies and associations, and noted that, so far, the government has given its support primarily to (i)medium- and large- scale perimeters for rice production in Imbo Plain (Mpanda-East, Mugerero and Rukaramu), covering a total area o f 4,785 ha, which are managed by the Societe Regionale de Developpement de 1'Imbo (SRDI); (ii)irrigation perimeters for sugar cane inthe plain of the Malagarazi of Moso, a total of 1,500 ha which are managed by the Societe Sucriere du Moso (SOSUMO); and (iii)small perimeters inthe swamps and flood plains (small scale) which are managed across the country to increase the production o f food crops such as rice, maize, beans, potatoes, covering a total area o f 4,649 ha. All these areas contain small dams and small-scale irrigation infrastructures. The generic dam safety analysis proposed a number mitigationmeasures that would have to be implemented by professionals. The EA notedthat effective water management was critical for improved production among producer organizations, including inthe centers that produce seeds. Duringdiscussions with the Direction de 1'Amenagement du Territoire, de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme and the DGRPPF it became clear that the preferred institutional arrangement for the management of small dams and other water management structures under the Project would be one where the Cellule Genie Rural o f the Services d'Amenagement Hydro-agricole, Gitega, works closely with the DPAEs. It was considered important to provide short term training for staff of the afore-mentioned Genie rural and the DPAEs. For proposed capacity buildingarrangements see relevant sectionunder OP 4.0 1Environmental Assessment, 89 OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement:Since there is a likelihood for land acquisition for sub- projects, the Project has prepareda ResettlementPolicy Framework (RPF). Itwas preparedas part of the EA report, and people have been informed about this RPF in the context of meetings and workshops. This RPF outlines principles and proceduresthat will be applied in the event that land acquisition will be necessary. It will be used in conjunction with the environmental screening process referred to earlier, thus giving producer organizations and others the opportunity to decide whether or not they should proceed with the sub-project in the face of land acquisition.The resultingcompensationwould have to bepaid out ofthe sub- project. OP 7.50 Projects on International Waters: The notification process is being carried out consistentwith the requirementsofthis legal safeguardspolicy. 90 Annex 11:IncrementalCost Analysis BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable Land ManagementProject This annex includes a brief review of the environmental situation in Burundi, with focus on land degradation; Project development goals and global environmental objectives, the baseline scenario without GEF financing versus the alternative scenario of an IDA-GEF blendedProject andpresents the incrementalcost analysis. 1. The EnvironmentalSituationin Burundi An analysis of the effects of the crisis on the environmentwas conductedandthat leadto the development of the National Program for the Restoration and Management of the Environment by the Ministry of Land Management, Environment and Tourism (MATET) in collaboration with UNDP and FAO. The renewed strategy assesses the state of environment and natural resources, the threats they face and the socio-economic pressures underlying those threats. The strategy makes explicit that inclusion of environmental services as a factor indecisions regardinglanduse andemphasizes sustainableapproachesto production. Extremely high demand for land, as a result of population pressures, land scarcity and declining soil fertility in agriculturally productive areas has resulted in increasing land fragmentation, cultivation on steep slopes and inmarginal lands and conversionto agriculture of ecosystems such as marshes, swamps, forests, and watersheds. Agricultural lands are overexploited and farming methods are basic and unsustainable.Soil erosion and siltation of rivers in the Nile and Congo basin watersheds and of Lake Tanganyika has increaseddue to deforestation and watershed degradation, threatening biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Adverse policy incentives, lack of sound property rights and long term investments inthe land, andweak regulatory and enforcementauthority are root causeswhile resourceuse planning is hampered by poor monitoring and lack of environmental and natural resource related data. The lack of food security and increased vulnerability to climatic pressures have exacerbatedthe degradationofthe natural resources. 2. PRASAB-BroadDevelopmentGoals The blended IDA-GEF Project will help restore productive capacity and livelihoods in a country that is just emerging from severe conflict by revitalizing and diversifying its agricultural production on a sustainable basis through improved land use and enhanced environmental management. The proposed Agricultural Rehabilitation and Support Project (PRASAB) supports the strategies outlined in the Government of Burundi's Intermediate Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy and the World Bank's Transitional Support Strategy (TSS). GEF funds will supplement IDA financing and strive for incremental benefits accruing from establishing the basis for sustainable land management while fostering other global environmental benefits such as helping to maintain marsh and agricultural biodiversity as well as carbon sinks. The program will promote community directed micro-projects addressing land degradation, advancing sustainable agricultural systems and minimizing the encroachment and degradationof swamps, marshes and other wetlands through an integrated micro-watershed approach as well through related research and pilots, capacity building, 91 and institutional strengthening.Itwill seek `win-win' options inenhancingthe ecological and economic value of land use. It will enhance the institutional and technical capacities of producer organizations, communitiesand government institutions relatedto revivingthe rural sector. The GEF OP15 allows for the funding of a wide range of land management activities so long as they are incremental to a defined baseline and will bring incremental benefits to the broader environment. Inthis demand-driven investmentprograminvolving severalthousands of potential sub-projects the determination of incrementality and therefore suitability for support by GEF will be made during selection prior to approval. The M & E program will verify that the distinction is being maintained. OP15 will form the basis of these decisions as indicatedinmore detail inthe PIM. 3. Global EnvironmentalObjectives The root causes of pressures on Burundi's natural resourcesare multiple, complex and have a severe and rapid impact on the environment. While the Government of Burundi recognizes the need for an intervention to address land degradation inwatersheds, promote sustainable land use, and improve the management of its swamps, marshes and other wetlands that are increasingly encroached for agriculture, it is severely constrained in financial, technical and humancapacity. The country lies at the headwaters of the Nile and Congo river basins and includes a significant part of the unique ecosystem of Lake Tanganyika. The global significance of the natural resources as well as the Government's lack of sufficient resources to combat these threats presents a strong case for GEF involvement. GEF involvement will enable the Project to support sustainable land managementactivities that will scale up the successes of the FA0 supported pilot program and coordinate with a complementary IFAD program. Introduction of improved land use and agricultural practices, and soil and water managementmeasuresare expected to help sustain livelihoods, reduce pressure on swamps, marshlands and other wetlands, conserveon-farm and wetland biodiversity, prevent loss of and/or improve habitats, help maintainhydrological cycles affecting global water resources such as Lake Tanganyika, and contribute positively to carbon storage in wetland sinks. Global benefits accruing from Project activities will also help Burundi in meeting some of its global environmental obligations as representedby its participation ininternational environmental conventions: Conventionon Biological Diversity ratified on April 15, 1997 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification ratified on January 06, 1997 Contractingpartyto the RamsarConvention on Wetlands inOctober 10,2002 UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Changeratified on January 06, 1997 Burundi developed its first National Environment Strategy in 1992-93 at which point the socio-political crisis intervened. It was subsequently finalized in 1997 when Burundi ratified the UN conventions on biological diversity, climate change and desertification. The national Environment Law was adopted in June 2000. Since the crisis, there has been an effort to 92 establish a program that would beginthe strategy implementation.. This effort is constrained by the lack o f resources and capacity. Burundihas moved on the UNCCD priorities and has drafted a national action plan to combat land degradation. The proposed Project activities are to be fully supportive o f the priorities as being outlined by the NAP, especially the development o f the National Land use and Management plan, related capacity building and support to environmental monitoring. The NAP seeks to integrate and harmonize the various initiatives addressing land degradation as a part of different rural development activities under a coherent program. It also seeks to coordinate between the various stakeholders and evolve the program against land degradation ina consultative way. Burundi is a member of the Nile River Basin Initiative and the government recognizes the significance o f its wetlands' hydrological functions. It became a member of the Ramsar Convention on wetlands in 2002. While the environment strategy notes the use of wetlands ( " v i s ) in production, both agriculture in dry periods and for artisanal raw materials extraction, it cautions for a sustainable approach. It also includes in its objectives the need to protect certain wetland areas in their natural state thus preserving their environmental functions (ecological and hydrological). It will strengthen the Government's partnership with other donors, mobilize further donor financing and provide incremental resources that the country could not otherwise obtain to address environmental externalities (specifically the role and impacts of activities inBurundi on the transboundary lake resources. Not only does land use in this region affect the hydrology o f the lake systems but there is also a potential that effluents are responsible for the decay in the lakes. The issue of whether the increasing phosphorus, which increases the growth o f algae, in Lake Victoria could have been a result o f increased burning of in neighboring countries including Burundi is still being studied) and promote environmentally sound development inthe rural sector. The Burundian government recognizes the importance o f biodiversity conservation and management and has developed a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan with the support o f GEF/UNDP. This strategy lays out eight courses of action: conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biological resources; equitable sharing o f the responsibility and benefits of biodiversity management; biotechnology, public education and awareness building; research; impact studies and reduction of harmful effects; and cooperation and information exchange. 4. Baseline Scenario-An IDA only PRASAB Following the recent peace settlement, the baseline activities are only now beginningto pick up significantly. Prominent among these i s the proposed IDA grant of $35.0 million for the PRASAB. The immediate priority of the government is the revival of the agriculture sector in order to ensure basic food security and the rehabilitation o f the several thousands o f displaced persons returningsince the cessation of major conflict. Under these circumstances, the government, which is hampered severely by financial and human capacity constraints, is focusing on the near term priorities with regardto borrowing. 93 In the baseline - IDA only PRASAB, the focus is on quick-starting increased agricultural production, with the objective being to help farmers in the Project areas realize benefits from production investments through capacity building in Producer organizations (producer organizations) and with the help of new skills, information and appropriatetechnologies. The beneficiarieswill also includewar-distressedreturnees and internally displacedpersons. The main elements of this program are investments in the agriculture sector targeted to increasing production, capacity building mainly oriented at production and marketing and institutional strengtheningof the ministry of agriculture and livestock to withdraw from direct production, processing, and marketing of agricultural produce, and focus its mission on formulation of policy, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and collecting and distributing agricultural information. Support is to be provided to producer organizations for investments, through subprojects, in equipment and infrastructure related to producing cash and food- crops, agro-processing, livestock, irrigation etc., as well as the technical assistance required for effective planning and implementation of these subprojects. A sub-component involved coordination with and assistance to returnees to integrate into the agricultural sector and resume production. Also included is capacity strengthening of these producer organizations and of local implementing agencies that would support the design and development of the subprojects as well as institutional support to the Ministry of agriculture for changes to agri- marketing policies and institutions and for its decentralization process. Research is mainly focused on improving access for farmers to high-quality seeds and planting material. Support to the Project management and coordination unit, located in the Ministry of Agriculture is also included. The focus on environment sustainability of activities in the agricultural sector will be enhanced with GEF support. In the short term, the baseline situation will likely focus on production issues while GEF support will aid inaddressing issues relatedto landdegradation, primarily soil erosion, sedimentation, watershed degradationand encroachment of remaining wetlands. Given the policy gaps and implementation constraints this effectively implies that the country will have few mechanismsfor dealing with the continuing threats faced by these natural resources. 5. Alternative Scenario: The GEF Co-fundedAlternative Under the GEF alternative scenario -the IDA financed PRASAB with co-financing by GEF -theglobalenvironmentalobjectiveistopromoteacommunity drivenintegratedapproach towards improved management of natural resources (including watersheds, wetlands, forests and agricultural land) in order to combat the critical land degradation problem. Overall goals will focus on the maintenance of critical ecosystem functions including hydrological cycles, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration. This will be accomplished while fostering multiple global benefits through maintenance of trans-boundary water systems (Nile and Congo basins), agro and wetland biodiversity (including the preservation and sustainable managementof criticalhabitat for a broadrange of bird species) and carbon sinks. Soil erosion is a chronic problem throughout the country. Deforestation and soil erosion can lead to increased sedimentation and greater flood risk downstream, while sediments also accumulate inwetlands and reservoirs. Dustblowing from degraded lands increases nutrients levels in lake waters, encouraging algal growth. Water hyacinth and other invasive aquatic weeds are spreading through many waterways in Burundi. Agriculture is increasingly invading the wetlands and remaining forests, while national legislation and the land tenure 94 laws actually encourage the draining of marshes. For local stakeholders, tenure is often unclear and access to resources inadequate. Producers struggling to grow enough to feed their families on deteriorating soils have little ability to invest in long term measures to maintain their land. Relatively few local stakeholders have access to adequate means of communication, therefore lack o f awareness and understanding of the environmental consequences of agriculture related decisions is a major barrier to strengthening eco-friendly agriculture. Continuation o f only baseline activities would limit Burundi's ability to continue its objective of increasing productivity over the long term without addressing the issues of land degradation, the cost o f which will also increase over time. The trend o f declining soil fertility and the lack of financial resources combines to intensify the pressures of agriculture on steep slopes and in marshes and swamps, the last remaining areas o f arable land. Immediate steps need to be taken to ensure that a basis i s created on which to build sustained land management and planning programs. Thus inthis blended operation, IDA and GEF play complementary roles -the IDA loan will support a quick start approach aimed at immediate needs of increasing production and rehabilitating the sector and returnees while the GEF grant will be used to strive to enhance the longer term (and transboundary) benefits of environmentally sound agricultural practices, land use, and natural resource management. Inaddition to activities supported underthe baseline scenario, the GEFalternate will include support to the three components: a) Grants for sub-projects. The Project will finance subprojects initiated by producer organizations and local communities though a participative process. Selection criteria, a list of non-eligible investments, and the conditions and mechanisms for subproject preparation, submission, appraisal, and implementation are detailed inthe Project ImplementationManual. The types of subprojects may include, for example (a) infrastructure such as (i)selected small-scale irrigated horticulture (ii)low-cost irrigation infrastructure and equipment (iii) water management facilities (iv) bean floating tanks, and scales for coffee producers (v) artisanal crushing units for seeds and improved planting materials (vi) cooling tanks and generators for milk producer groups; (vii) planting material and seed crushing units and other equipment for nursery, (viii) artisan seed crushing unit and other small equipment for palm oil producer oad (ix) modern beehives and beekeeping equipment such as extractors and helmets; (b) sustainable agriculture and land management activities such as : (i)scaling up the FAO's pilot "solidarity chains" program and artificial insemination activities (ii) provision of high quality seeds and planting material, including cover plants; (iii) improvement of micro-watershed and soil management; native species conservation and degraded hillsides, woodlands and pasture renewal including through construction of windbreaks, grassed waterways, riparian buffer zones, crop cover, and filter strips to reduce water and wind erosion, and (c) non-farm income-generating activities such as (i)handicrafts making, (ii) agricultural tools repair, (iii) and tile-making, (iv) carpentry, (v) tailoring brick The details of subprojects to be supported through Project funds will not be determined in advance because o f the demand-driven approach o f PRASAB. Instead the approach involves considerable participation o f producers and communities in prioritizing critical areas for investment. Producer groups and local communities are the main beneficiaries and are of a wide variety, have at least 10 members, and include cooperatives, associations, groups o f farmers and/or livestock breeders and non-farm producer organizations. GEF supported grants will be available for incremental sustainable land management activities that are 95 clearly identified in subproject requests, supported by proposed indicators that are acceptable to measure their success. Incorporation of clearly identified SLM activities in subproject proposals will be a desirable criteria inthe selection o f PO subprojects and a requirement for those over $5,000. The financing will be provided as grants, with an upfront beneficiary contribution (cash or kind) of at least 5 percent of the subproject costs. It is expected that the producer organizations and local communities benefiting from PRASAB will have implemented, by the end of the Project, about 4,000 subprojects affecting some 80,000 to 100,000 families. b) Capacity building, targeted research and institutional strengthening. The Project will enhance the access to information and capacity of producer organizations (POs) and local communities (local communities). Support will be provided for strengthening local community participation, through renewal of local networks and cooperative relationships that had frayed in the conflict years. Other activities include: (i)strengthening the organizational, technical and management capacities of local communities and POs; (ii) ensuringLC and PO representation inthe Project's steering committees and decision-making processes; (iii)developing professional and inter-professional organizations for better management of key agricultural sub-sectors, and (iv) promoting an understanding o f the broader environmental management issues related to land degradation and swamp land utilization and benefits. Capacity building o f the producer organizations and local communities will be based on demand, linked to their productive investment subprojects and offered by contracted LIAs. The component will support in-country training, workshops and study tours for managers and committee members of producer organizations and local communities. The benefiting producer organizations and local communities generally will be grassroots- level organizations, but the Project may also assist the capacity building o f vertical organizations already existing or ones to be established by producer organizations or local communities. GEF support will be provided to strengthen the capacities o f farmers and communities to manage natural resources sustainably, access knowledge on improved methods, use indigenous and local knowledge and native species and implement agricultural systems that enhance agro-biodiversity etc. This subcomponent will also strengthen, when necessary, the capacity of LocalImplementing Agencies (LIAs), to enable them to provide services to producer organizations and local - communities. LIAs will also provide information regarding Project activities and processes (obtaining funds. reporting) to the groups. A capacity assessment o f LIAs will be conducted by NPCMU prior to negotiation and a training plan will be developed to address gaps in organizational, technical, financial, and business skills through training, workshops, and study tours. GEF will support the strengthening o f capacity o f implementing agencies and service providers including DPAEs (provincial agriculture and livestock departments), local and international NGOs and rural micro-finance institutions, cooperatives, producers' apex organizations and private enterprises in the rural sector through training in techniques of sustainable agriculture and improved ecosystem management. The SLM program will develop and deliver education and awareness programs that emphasize the way in which environmental issues reflect on, and are affected by, agricultural production; as well as ways 96 in which long term productivity can be maintained and enhanced through the use of environment-friendly techniques. The Project with GEF funds will support specific building o f institutional capacitv in Ministries o f Agriculture (MAE) and Environment (MATET) both ministries at the central and decentralized levels, on the basis of the recommendations of studies that will analyze the capacity o f both institutional and human resources and make proposals to amend the situation. Institutional development will help key public agencies assimilate the ideas of sustainable land management in its policies and activities through improvements in natural resource use planning, monitoring and coordination, and improvement o f environmental management processes. The Project will support the development o f a national land use and management plan, beginningwith studies in two provinces, Bubanza and Kirundo, where there are a number of significant marais as well as important land management issues to be addressed. The SLM component will involve training of extension agents and encourage the use o f integrated production systems that are also environmentally sustainable (involving for instance fish ponds, integrated nutrient management etc) among, farmers and producer organizations. The Project proposes to strengthen the DPAE to: Systematically train teams with responsibility in the PRASAB Project area, at the local level, on modern land management methods. Train the forest technicians in agro-forestry techniques. Train the ruralengineers inwetland management. Train key farmers ineach colline area on modern land management methods. Train the forest inspectors inmodern land management methods The Project also proposes to strengthen information management to support decision-making on sustainable land management, by strengthening the Direction du GCnie Rural et de la ProtectionduPatrimoineFoncier (DGMATET) at the national level. Train staff inenvironmental concepts of wetlands management. In order to strengthen the capacity for integrated land use planning and implementation, including land degradation analysis at the national level the Project proposes: Strengtheningof the Direction de 1'Environnement (DEMATET) Develop the National Framework for Evaluation o f Land Degradation, including update o f GIS systems, participatory institutional mechanisms to ensure collaboration of ISABU, IRAZ, DPAE, IGEBU, INECN, and consider the creation o f a National Land Management Institute. The Project proposes to enhance the capacity at the Direction de 1'Environnement et du Tourisme of MATET through (i)support o f a geographic information system (SIG) that currently lacks sufficient qualified personnel and equipment and is needed to support the incremental aspects o f the Project; (ii)environmental assessment training for five staff members; (iii)support for the Project Environmental Specialist from an international 97 consultant and (iv) the provision of training with regardto the developmentof environmental norms and proceduresfor Burundi. Given the limited research capacity in the country and the specific needs of the producer organizations and local communities, the Project will support focused short-term (two to three years) applied research aimed at finding appropriate solutions to constraints to agricultural productivity. The Project interventionswill complement the assistance provided by the Belgian Technical Cooperation, which helped rehabilitate research infrastructure and equipment (ISABU), support continued education, training and study tours and workshops for researchers. GEF incremental funding will be used to strengthen the quality of research and reinforce the focus on environmentally sustainableland management and the reduction of soil and land degradation. Integrating conservation farming and increasing productivity in existing farming systems, improved water management, species mix, integrated pest management and integrated nutrientmanagementare some areas that will be studied, tested and applied inpilots, with results disseminatedto communitiesand producer organizations. Targeted research will initially focus on partnerships with small farmers, pastoralists, and other natural resource users and stakeholders to demonstrate under field conditions: cost- effective agronomic practices to improve soil fertility managementas alternatives to shifting agriculture; tillage methods that have minimal impacts on soil structure and improve soil and water conservation; and systems to improve livestock production in areas with limited rangelandlpasture. Targeted research will also support the development of analytical tools and frameworks to assess the benefitsof early intervention to prevent or control degradation, as well as the status of land use types in the Project areas. In this connection the following specific applied researchsubjectsare proposedfor a reinvigorated ISABU. GEF resourceswill support targeted researchinsupport of sustainable land managementwith an emphasison field testing and distribution of packages including: Agricultural practices that improve the fertility and physical and chemical conditions of the soil as well as of systems that intensify fodder production to vounter the problem of overgrazing, Woody species that are economically valuable and cause less soil degradation than agricultural crops (trees for fodder, fuel wood, construction timber, fruit, medicinal plants, etc) and, Assessment of the economic impact of land degradation in the agro-ecological zones of PRASAB and the benefits of early intervention to prevent or control degradation. c) Project administration and monitoring componentwould help support the NPCMU in coordinating and managing SLM activities with MATET and provincial PCMUs. The NPCMU will act as a champion through its measurement of progress in SLM activities and the tracking of their implementation. 98 6. IncrementalCost Analysis Matrix The incremental costs are calculated as the difference between the GEF alternative scenario and the PRASAB baseline scenario. The results are presented inthe matrix below. The costs o f the proposed actions are over and above those incurred or planned by Burundito increase its agricultural production. The incremental cost, by which the alternative scenario exceeds the costs of the baseline situation, is estimated at US$5 million. Table 1:Incrementalcost matrix for GEFfunding Component cost cost Domestic Benefits SlobalBenefits Category US$M 1. Support for Baseline 27.35 Grants to producer ncreased stability and productive and o f which organization for meductioninpoverty i s likely land Prod. inv. 8.65 investments in .o indirectly have minor management SLMinv. 4.90 agriculture mvironmental benefits sub-projects support 2.46 production of food :hrough marginal services and cash crops; investments inland, albeit Emergency 10.00 increased incomes wer a longer time frame support and food security 0.52 Rehabilitationof Govt. 0.82 returnees with Beneficiaries provision o f agricultural livelihoods GEF 30.35 Provides Efforts to address land alternative communities with degradation help maintain o f which 8.65 immediate options global values of trans- Prod. inv. 7.00 to address land boundary water resources, SLMinv. 3.36 degradation that conserve naturalhabitats and support 10.00 threatens onfarm and wetland services agricultural biodiversity and preserve Emergency 0.52 productivity; forest and wetland carbon support 0.82 community initiated sinks projects and Substantial improvement in Govt. participatory the ability o f relevant Beneficiaries approaches agenciesto meet global strengthens environment commitments decentralized management of natural resources and local benefits Increment 3.00 2. Capacity Baseline 5.29 Capacity Minor environmental benefits building, of which enhancement o f may accrue over time with targeted Capacity agricultural sector at decentralizationand research, and buildingat three levels - efficiency gains as a result of institutional commune 4.47 producer withdrawal of government strengthening provincial 0.36 organizations, from direct moduction and 99 MAEand 0.16 implementing narketing MATET 0.94 agencies, including Research DPAEs and 3.01 provincial Project Govt. 0.82 unit staff, NGOs, andprivate sector operators; improved service delivery; research on improved techniques and inputs; institutional support for planning and monitoring agricultural policy GEF 7.29 Inadditionto above Substantialbenefitsas a alternative benefits, longerterm result of increasedcapacity of which perspectiveand o f communitiesto design and Capacity strategic planning implementmicro-projects; building at 6.47 elements introduced availability of agri-eco commune to land management technologicalpackages and provincial 0.82 through support for services; researchand MAEand national land monitoring of ecosystem MATET 0.44 managementplan health; and mainstreamingof Research and capacity sustainableland management Govt. 1.89 enhancementfor issues into agricultural and environment cross-sectoralpolicies and 3.32 monitoring at programs 0.82 MATET. Project lessons will also be Agricultural availablefor wider production on a application, especially in more sustainable regional areaswith similar basis implyinglowei ecological features; long-run costs to transboundarypartnerships producersand lower for research, information vulnerability to sharingand resource communities; managementwill be Community-based strengthened. approachput development agenda inlocal hands Increment 2.00 100 3. Project Baseline 5.31 Efficientand Minor global environmental Coordination of which capable staff in benefitsarising from and Monitoring Govt. 0.81 placeto manageand application of environmental coordinate Project safeguards activities largely focused on agriculture production issues Little coordination with Environment institutions GEF 5.31 Efficientand Integratedmanagementon alternative capable staff in local, provincial and national of which place, including levels leadingto basisfor Govt. 0.81 environmental regional andtrans-boundary specialists, to cooperationon management manage and of natural resources, coordinate issues at potentially with Rwandaand multiplelevels. Nile basincountries NPCMUto act as champion of SLM activities and focal point for information sharing. Increment 0.00 Totals Baseline 37.95 ~ GEF 42.95 alternative Increment 5.00 In addition, there are several other related projects that are ongoing and in preparation. Significant among these are: (i)Social Funds 11, that can coordinate the community development in PRASAB provinces (organization of CDCs); (ii)Emergency Rehabilitation Credit (ERC) - provision of counterpartfunding, from its agriculture, rural development and environmental management components; (iii)MDRP - coordination of repatriation of returnees; (iv) IFAD: the ongoing Rural recovery and Development program (USD 34.2 million) and the planned Post-conflict reconstruction program (USD 30 million) - this program is complementary to PRASAB and will operate in 6 non-PRASAB provinces and shares 1 province (Bururi) with PRASAB operations (v) Nile transboundary environmental action Project (planned) - potential for transboundary managementof wetlands with Rwanda (in the south of Rwanda and in the Kirundo province in Burundi; linkages with ongoing Project on integrated ecosystem management in Rwanda), with Congo of Rusizi delta reserve, currently establishedonly on paper, (300 ha) bordering Lake Tanganyika on its north shore that extends into Congo (IUCN is currentlytrying to delimit this area). 101 Annex 12A: Assessment of LandDegradationand Sustainable Land ManagementOptions BURUNDI :Agricultural Rehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject 1. GEF OperationalProgramon SustainableLandManagement The interventions promoted by PRASAB are designedto have a major impact on Burundi's agriculture and rural population, interms of increasedproduction, improved livelihoods, and GEF Operational Program on Sustainable Land Management (OP15 - SLM) in particular sustainable land resource management. The incremental PRASAB activities funded by the focus on the land resourcebase and on combatingland degradation. In 2002, land degradation was designated a focal area of the GEF and sustainable land management became a primary focus of GEF assistance to achieve global environment benefits within the context of sustainable development. OP15 - SLM operationalizes land degradation as a GEF focal area and provides guidelines for the development of activities eligible for GEF incremental financing to address the root causes and negative impacts of land degradation. The assessment of land degradationand sustainableland managementoptions covered in this annex directly supports the vision and objectives of OP15 -SLM. The annex provides a framework for assessment of land degradationthat is especially designed for PRASAB and other programs of a similar nature. The framework helps to ensure that PRASAB Project activities and the relatively modest GEF-funded incremental actions will be most effective vis-A-vis the serious land degradationproblemsthat face Burundi. The main direct cause of land degradation in Burundi is inappropriate land use, mainly unsustainable agricultural practices and overgrazing, and, to a lesser extent at this point, deforestation. Poverty, overpopulation, conditions of instability, and lack of alternative income options are among the key root causes of degradation. The negative impacts of degradation are no different than anywhere else: physical damage to soils or even complete loss of soils, and depletion of soil fertility or other chemical forms of soil degradation. The GEF will establish scientifically recognized methodologies to measure the incremental impacts of sustainable land management activities on the preservation or rehabilitation of stability, functions, and services of land and on livelihoods. The monitoring framework will include indicators to measure both the global environment and sustainable development impacts of GEF-supportedactivities. Below is an outline of the PRASAB methodology for measuring the impacts of the sustainable land management activities initiated by the PRASAB Project. Should a general GEF methodology for measuring incremental impacts of sustainable land management activities become available, then the monitoring and evaluation system designed for PRASAB interventionswill be adjustedaccordingly. 102 The PRASAB framework comprises two parallel assessment approaches, one at the national level and one at the local level (commune or watershed level). Each assessment approach involves: (1) assessmento f base line conditions of landdegradation, (2) identification of optimum solutions to combat land degradation, and (3) evaluation of the impacts of PRASAB/GEFinterventions on land degradation. 103 r r liI .I c sP 59I I I 2. National level baseline assessment Burundi can be divided into five distinct agro-ecological zones (see map), known as Imbo, Muminva, Mugamba (Congo-Nile divide), Plateau Central, and Depressions orientales. Available information allows for national level baseline assessment of land resource conditions by agro-ecological zone. Key indicators, in terms of land area, current (agricultural) land use, critical natural habitats, and others are summarized in Table 1 above. The table also shows the key land degradation concerns in each o f the five agro-ecological zones. PRASAB i s concerned with each o f the five agro-ecological zones as its intervention area (provinces selected) are distributed over the country; the Project will therefore address the key concerns in each of the five agro-ecological zones. The table is based on a detailed review o f the characteristics of Burundi's agro-ecological zones, withreports available at the Project. Map 1. Agro-ecological zones of Burundi I I 105 Table 2 summarizes an analysis o f priority land management interventions that need to be undertaken to address the key land degradation issues in each o f the five agro-ecological zones, to stop degradation and to initiate more sustainable forms o f landmanagement. Preliminary estimated targets for Project-funded SLMactivities include: Degradation of land cover Prevent further degradation o f the Rusizi reserve inthe Western Plains zone Prevent further degradation o f 20% o f the Forest reserves present in the Congo- Nile Divideand Depressional Areas (east) zones Physicalland degradation Prevent further degradation o f 50% o f the riparian lands o f Lake Tanganyika. Control erosion (mountain crest) and improve cultural practices (lower areas) on 10%o f farmland inthe Western Escarpment zone. Improve pasture management and erosion control based on reforestation on 10%o f pasturelands inthe Congo - Nile Divide zone. Expand agro-sylvo-pastoral production systems in 10% o f cultivated land o f the Central Plateau. Improve vegetation cover (windbreaks) and introduce water harvesting techniques to conserve soil moisture across the Depressional Areas (east) zone. Chemical land degradation Improve water management to prevent further salinization on 10%o f irrigated lands inthe WesternPlains zone. Improve soils with calcium amendments in20% o f acid soils o fthe Congo - Nile Divide 106 Table2: Burundi Primary focus for Sustainable Land Managementby agro-ecologicalzone - Western Congo Nile - Central Depressional Escarpment Divide Plateau Areas (east) Naturalregion Mumirwa Mugamba Buyensi, Bugesera, Kirimiro, Bweru, Bututsi Buyogoma, MOSO, Buragane Provinces where Bubanza, Bubanza, Muramvya, Ngozi, Kirundo, PRASAB will be Bururi, Bururi Mwaro, Bururi Muramvya, Muyinga, active Makamba Mwaro Cankuzo, Rutana, Makamba Loss of Loss of Loss of soil Lack of soil degradation issue farmland due pastureland fertility moisture to erosion due to erosion. Loss of soil fertilitv Improvewater Control Improve Expand agro- Improve management erosion pasture sylvo-pastoral vegetation for irrigated (mountain management production cover land. crest) and erosion systems. (windbreaks). Primary focus for and improve control based Rehabilitate Introduce Sustainable Land Create and cultural on lowland water Management protect a practices reforestation cultivated harvesting buffer zone (lower areas) (mountain areas techniques around Lake crest) Tanganyika Improve soils with calcium amendments The national level assessment thus provides strategic guidance to PRASAB interventions to ensure that land degradation i s reduced or minimized, that the productive capacity of the resource base i s maintained, and that the conservation of critical ecosystems of regional and global significance i s enhanced. Specific, detailed technical recommendations for improved land management (on-the-ground investments) have been identified by agro ecological zone and are listed in the Project Implementation Manual. This includes advise on the best approach for selecting specific intervention areas. Interventions designed to enhance national level land resource management decisions are integrated inthe Capacity Buildingcomponent of PRASAB. The national level assessment is not a level suitable for evaluating the impacts of relatively small, local level PRASAB/GEF interventions on land degradation. This will be done at the local level. 107 3. Locallevel baseline assessment The PRASAB local levelbaseline assessmenthas a number o f important features, these are: (1) Identification o f the key land degradation concerns ina particular PRASAB intervention area, (2) Key element inthe selection o f demand driven Project interventions, (3) Identification o f optimum solutions to combat land degradation, and (4) Basis for evaluation o fthe impacts o fPRASAB/GEFinterventions on land degradation at the end o f direct Project involvement. A methodology for evaluationofthe results (impacts) ofthe SLMinterventions to be undertaken in the PRASAB area, in particular those supported by GEF, is under development. The methodology will be included in the Project Implementation Manual. The impact evaluation i s required to determine success and failure of Project interventions, and to determine which measures and approaches can be replicated elsewhere. A selected set o f basic indicators will be usedto provide concise, reliable information about the condition o f land, includingthe combined resources of soil, water, vegetation, and terrain that provide the basis for land use. The main land degradation indicators relate to : Degradation o f land cover Physical land degradation Chemical land degradation Sediment load o f streams The basic indicators will be applicable to all interventions. Inaddition, for each agro-ecological zone, zone-specific indicators will be selected. The evaluation will be based on careful mapping of specific land attributes and/or values o f the representative sites at the baseline situation and in subsequent years. A program for periodic evaluation o f changes is part o f this methodological approach. The method will not be applied to all PRASAB interventions, inview o f the time and cost involved, but will concentrate on a few representative sites selected in each of the agro- ecological zones. The results o f the evaluation can be extrapolated to other PRASAB interventions. The underlying concept o f the evaluation i s to determine how many hectares were improved, in different ways, by different means, and in different zones, as a result of PRASAB/GEF. In this way, the results o f the land baseline assessment can also be easily integrated withthe findings o f the socio-economic surveys. Implementation o f the local level baseline assessment (periodic evaluations o f Land Degradation at representative sites in PRASAB), including the strengthening o f laboratory facilities of INECN for soil and water analysis and the mapping capabilities o f the Department o f Soils/ university,has beenincorporatedinthe Capacity buildingcomponent ofthe Project. 108 Annex 12B: SocialIssues and Frameworkfor CommunityParti~ipation~~ BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject By the 1980s Burundi's combination of a growing population, a limitednatural resource base, lack of government investment in the small-holder sector, and an economy largely limited to employment inthe agricultural sector was causing land degradation and expansion into marginal areas. The government's lack o f research, extension services, and provision of agricultural inputs left agricultural households without the means to intensify production; mining natural resources was the inevitable result. Ten years of civil war has exacerbated both sides o f this problem and impoverished the rural population. Revitalizing the agricultural sector in order to rebuild household livelihood systems i s necessaryto reduce poverty and promote rural development. PRASAB's overall objective is to help restore the rural population's productive capacity through economically and ecologically sustainable investments. Sustainable land management as the basis for rural well-being i s imperative in Burundi, given its limited natural resource base and largely agricultural economy. GEF will add sustainability to the baseline Project's work toward improving agricultural production and productivity. S L M also will contribute to global resources such as Lake Tanganyika and forests reserves. GEF will work with communities and producer organizations to build capacity in SLM as an integral part of the baseline Project's short-term development benefits. 1. Recommendations Communitv participation: PRASAB should ensure staffs use o f the participatory approach so that communities and producer organizations can choose the options for sustainable production and land management that fit intheir Household Livelihood Systems (HLS). PRASAB will need to invest significant resources in the participatory approach throughout the duration o f the Project because it is, as one NGO reported, "a never-endingnegotiationwith everybody." PRASAB should capitalize on other organizations' experience with the participatory approach in SLM, sustainable production, and working with producer organizations. The NGOs CARE, CRS, WV, and Twitezimbere all have this experience. 241) MinistryofPlanning, Development,andReconstructionandUNDP, 2002, "National report onhuman developmentinBurundi, HIVIAIDS andhumandevelopmentinBurundi," Bujumbura,Burundi. 2) MinistryofAgriculture andLivestock and PRASAB, 2003, "Manualfor the monitoringandevaluationof PRASAB, Module I:generalconceptualguide," final version, Bujumbura, Burundi. 3) Ministry of Planning,Development, andReconstructionand UNDP, D. Ntiranyibagira, 2003, Forumon the GeneralStateofthe BurundianEconomy, "An outline ofthe problemoffood security inBurundi,", Bujumbura, Burundi. 109 It is critical that PRASAB clearly define the roles and responsibilities of its key partners (DPAE, Environment, Rural Development, Planning and Reconstruction, NGOs) at the beginning of the Project, in order to ensure that the partners understand andrespect them. PRASAB should work to build on existing committees rather than requiring a new one as a Project liaison. PRASAB also must ensure that the local administration and its staff respects the community's independence inelecting its committee. DPAE and other LIAS will need training in the participatory approach and monitoring to ensure that they use it, due to Burundi's tradition o f top-down development. Land-tenure issues in general and marginal groups' rights (women, child household [HH] heads), inparticular i s a subject that PRASAB should investigate at the beginning of the Project because 1) inrural areas there can be considerable differences between de jure and de facto land-tenure rights; and 2) land-tenure rights certainly will affect the Project. The World Bank Project in Rwanda may have useful information on this topic. PRASAB will need to investigate how to work with rural communities' diverse social groups without causing social tensions, as different groups (women, returnees) have different social status, which may result in differential access to natural resources and social networks: War victims (sinistrees) should participate incommunity-level SLMactivities and form producer organizations following the same procedures as other participants. PRASAB cannot depend on DPAEto take an effective role inthe Project initially, due to its lack o fresources (vehicles, motivation) for work. The Project should use teachers and other social-science professionals as social development agents (animateurs), not agronomists. PRASAB will need incentives for SLM because people are focused on meeting their short-term survival needs. It is strongly recommended that the Project begin on a small scale the first year; for example, working in three communes per province and three or four communities per commune. Poverty and food insecurity should not be usedas criteria for Project site selection because little if any empirical data are available on their distribution, particularly at the commune and community level. 110 0 PRASAB should recognize that rural Project staff and offices may become the target of theft or violence because they have resources. A security system should be set up for staff and offices inrural areas. Awareness- and capacity-building: PRASAB should rebuild ISABU's library so that the previous research on farming systems and technology transfer done in Burundi i s available to the Project. A document-review should be done so that PRASAB builds on previous research. Capacity-building should be demand-driven at the community andPO levels. The key to building awareness i s to facilitate the process o f people's identifyingtheir constraints on sustainable production and land management, and their learning the options available to address these constraints. Building awareness of SLM will have to be done primarily through discussion sessions, because only 53% o f men and 32% o f women are literate (MPDR and UNDP, 2002). The rural focus groups conducted for this consultancy reported that practical demonstrations and TA inthe fields i s their preferred means to build capacity to use new technology. Farmer-to-farmer visits are recommended to build participants' awareness o f and capacity to use sustainable production and land management techniques. These visits can be organized in terms o f gender (women-to-women) and PO activities (e.g. rice producers-to-rice producers). The radio is a useful means o f diffusinginformation even ifit is not interactive. Rural women reported having learned about the connection between trees and rainfall from the radio. Producer Organizations: PRASAB will need to invest significant resources in building PO capacity, as Burundians prefer to work at the household level rather than in associations, and the great majority o f producer organizations lack experience and management capacity. PRASAB will need to invest time in identifyingpotential win-win subprojects with Project participants, who are focused on their short-term suwival needs. Due to poverty and the tendency to misuse resources, PRASAB should have sound monitoring and control systems that make the producer organizations and communities accountable for the Project funds and goods that they receive. 111 It is essential that PRASAB conduct market studies as part of its work with producer organizati,ons. Lack o f market demand i s a major factor that limitsHHproduction and more difficult to address than increasing production. Gender: Gender roles in rural Burundi are likely to give men priority in working with PRASAB and women's participation probably will have to be encouraged, particularly in group decision-making. The Project should recognize that women's secondary social status will affect their participation. PRASAB should support having dynamic women who will speak up and participate in decision-making in general and on Project committees in particular, as their traditional passive role still tends to limit their active participation. PRASAB may need to assist women's producer organizations retain control o f the money they earn, as men traditionally have control over women's revenue. One option i s to help women's producer organizations open PO accounts with institutions such as UCODE or COOPEC. Monitoring and evaluation: producer organizations and communities should participate in the M&E process by providing their qualitative evaluationo f Project design, progress, and impact. PRASAB should conduct a midterm evaluation o f Project impact using the same methodology as used for its baseline and final evaluations. The M&E manual does not include a midterm evaluation; it proposes "legere" (limited) annual impact evaluations, but measurable changes inimpact cannot be expected eachyear. The sampling strategy for impact evaluation surveys should be based on a national survey done inBurundi(e.g. the Demographic and Health Survey or a poverty study) so that PRASAB can more easily link its results withexistingdata. A household material possessions inventory and children's nutritional status are recommended as two objective measures o f household well-being. They reflect expendituresand food security, respectively. "Major household expenditures''i s recommended as an impact indicator that reflects income, instead o f the indicator "change in household income'' inthe M&E manual. Self-reported data on household income is inaccurate and the detailed, seasonal data necessary for accurate income figures i s expensive to collect. 112 It is strongly recommended that PRASAB field-test the evaluation indicators proposed in the M&E manual. This i s an essential step in the evaluation process, as experience shows that indicators virtually always need revisionbased on field-testing. 2. Key Social Factors and Gender Households' focus on survival: Burundi's agricultural households are focused on using their limited resources for survival. This may limit their ability to invest in activities that return benefits in the long term (reforestation, oil-palms), and in new and therefore potentially risky activities. Land tenure conflict: The return o f all types o f war victims (IDPs, refugees, ex- combatants) will exacerbate Burundi's perennial land-tenure conflicts. Ethnicity i s a hiddenfactor inland conflicts as it affected who fled and who lost their land, but the problem will be presentedas a "land problem,'' which it also is. Marginal groups' rights to land (women, child household heads,) i s a subject that PRASAB should clarify at the beginningof the Project as inrural areas there can be considerable differences between dejure and de facto land rights. Corruption: The misuse o f resources at all levels i s reported to be commonplace and an obstacle to work. The rural population has low social status in Burundi's hierarchical society and therefore i s easily exploited. Civil servants may see PRASAB'ssubprojects as anopportunity for profit at the rural population's expense. DPAE: DPAE consistently i s reported to have technical competence but not the means (vehicles, fuel, motivation) to use it. The organizations that work with DPAE recognize that their lack o f resources may lead them to misuse Project resources and fail to meet their obligations. Social diversity and exclusion: Diverse social groups compete for scarce resources in rural Burundi, and poverty exacerbates the competition. The Project should determine if its work with minority groups (such as returnedrefugees, former IDPs, widows, orphans) will create social tensions. Gender: - Gender influences access to political power and economic resources in Burundi and men still have disproportionate control o f both, particularly in the rural population. - Thirty-two percent o f women and 53% o f menwere literate in2000 (MPDR and UNDP, 2002). Lack o f literacy and numeracy affect people's ability to manage producer organizations. 113 - Burundian women generally use rather than control economic resources; they basically have usufruct rights to their husbands' land, which belongs to their children. - Rural mencontrol the production o f and revenue from commercial crops (coffee, cotton), although women's labor i s usedto produce them. - Rural women's major economic activity i s agriculture, which includes producing, processing, and selling food crops, and working as agricultural daily wage - laborers. Single women (widows, desertees) with children are among the "vulnerables," the poorest stratum inrural communities. - M e n traditionally control household revenue from all sources, including women's earnings. - M e n also control community politics and decision-making; women generally do not have an active role ineither. - Working in associations increases women's access to key resources such as credit and land. 3. The ParticipatoryCommunityDevelopmentPlan Itis conventional wisdom that successful projects are basedon beneficiaries' fullparticipation in the Project, from planning to evaluation. This approach will require a significant, continuous investment o f time and energy from PRASAB's staff. MAE adopted the participatory approach to extension in 1992 and virtually all the organizations and NGOs that work in SLM and agriculture inBurundi have used it for more than a decade. However, MAE and its DPAEs still have a directive approach to community development and activities. The return o f refugees and IDPs i s likely to create problems such as conflict over land and food insecurity that will prompt a directive approach to solutions from all types o f civil servants. Producers are a low stratum in Burundi's hierarchical society so DPAE and other LIASwill need training in the participatory approach and monitoringto ensure that they use it. 4. Small-scale Start It is strongly recommended that the Project begin on a small scale the first year, for example working in four provinces, three communes per province, and three or four communities per commune. This would make a total o f 36-48 communities to work with the first year. If PRASAB funded two or three producer organizations per community it would have about 70- 150 producer organizations to work with the first year. This is a sufficient number o f producer organizations to test the Project's methodology, support the producer organizations' capacity- building and development process, and document ''lessons learned" for expanding Project implementation the second year. Starting small will enable PRASAB to identify and resolve its implementationproblems at a manageable scale. 114 This is essentially a field-test of the Project's methodology and ultimately will save PRASAB time and money by avoiding mistakes on a large scale. 5. Steps incommunity development The steps in the community development process are summarized in Table 1 at the end o f this annex. The important considerations for PRASAB inthe participatory approach are: PRASAB should make clear the local administration's and DPAE's roles and responsibilities inthe Project. These civil servants reportedly may feel threatened by community-up development and may seek to control community decisions and funds, inkeepingwithBurundi'stradition oftop-down development. PRASAB should work to build on existing community committees rather than requiring a newone to work with the Project. Encouragingdiversity on the committee will be necessary. PRASAB must ensure that the local administration and LIAs respect the communities' independence in forming their Project committees; otherwise, the administrators and LIAs are likely to influence the process or choose the committees. The administrationandthe DPAE have a very directive approach to this process. SLMwill needsupport becauseagricultural households are focused on meetingtheir short-term survival needs and because land i s managed mainly at the household level in Burundi. Incentives such as cash-for-work or an "infrastructure for nature swap" can be usedto support people's investment inSLM's longer-term benefits. Awareness- and capacity-building should continue as long as producer organizations or communities are engaged with the Project, or for at least a year. Farmer-to-farmer visits may be an effective way to implement this component. These visits can be organized in terms o f gender (women-to-women) and producer organizations' activities. Building awareness o f SLM will have to be done primarily through discussion sessions, due to high illiteracy rates in the rural population. Radio broadcasts are another option. 5. The Subprojects Selection criteria for subpro-iects One criterion for choosing PRASAB's subprojects should be considered, in addition to those in the PAD: Equal allocation among geographic areas, inorder to avoid political bias and tensions. 115 Criteria such as poverty and food insecurity are inappropriate because there i s little current information available on their distribution, particularly at the commune and community level, In 1999 the poverty rates in the natural regions where the Project may work did not vary much: 75% o f the population was poor in Bugesera; 72% in Bweru; 66% in Bututsi, Mugamba, and Mumirwa; and 65% inBuyenzi (MPDR and UNDP, 2002). Producer organizations These factors should be taken into account inPRASAB's work with producer organizations and subprojects: The drive to meet basic needs affects people's responses about potential subprojects. Rural men and women reported that to generate more revenue they would produce more of what they already are producing. Neither suggested producing new crops or could identify viable nonagricultural income-generating activities, nor could they identify "win- win'' subprojects. PRASAB will needto invest time working withparticipants to identify the latter. Rural women's responses about potential subproiects were: producing beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, peanuts, sorghum, corn, and soybeans; raising goats, cattle, chickens, and rabbits; basket-making; tailoring; petty trade in foodstuffs and consumer basics such as cloth and soap; a mill for corn and cassava. Rural men's responses about potential subpro-iects were: raising cattle and goats; producing potatoes, onions, passion fruit, oil palm, sunflower; tile- and brick-making; fishponds, carpentry, beekeeping. InNgozi and Muyinaa, DPAE's responses about potential subproiects were: producing oil palm, sunflower, peanuts; raising purebred cattle (men); raising goats (women); "only agriculture'' for women; carpentry; masonry; fishing; tailoring; tile-making; marketing foodstuffs. Producer organizations' indeoendent decision-making: The people who consider themselves experts on rural households' options to diversify and increase revenue- commune officials, DPAE, NGOs-may have useful experience with rural development, but they should not be allowed to make decisions about viable subprojects for producer organizations. Working inassociations: there i s no tradition o f communal work inBurundi; the driving force to form producer organizations has been people's recognition that they provide access to resources such as Project funding and support. producer organizations thus are formed to respond to external requirements, require intensive and continuous support to function, and generally fall apart when the support ends. 116 Povertv exacerbates competition for resources and both are likely to influence people to form producer organizations to access PRASAB resources, Per capita income inBurundi i s about $100 per year and the potential availability o f large sums of money may well lead to corruption at various levels (producer organizations, civil servants, Project agents). The producer Organizations affiliated with the parastatals are not autonomous and do not necessarily have experience implementing subprojects. They are likely to need capacity- building, like other producer organizations. Merchants in the north (Ngozi, Kirundo, Muyinga) reported that Burundi's marketing network is sluggish. Like farmers, they suffer from the general lack o f purchasing power that i s due to the country's poor economy and they could not identify potentially profitable commodities other than the staples they currently sell. Market studies: Market studies will be critical for the success of the subprojects. Previous experience in Burundi has shown that the post-production marketing chain i s problematical and a major constraint on returning revenue, more than production. Exportation to regional and international markets faces constraints that must be researched; information from USAID's Small Farming Systems Research Project should be available from CDIE in USAID/Washington, International Programs at the University ofArkansas (U.S.A.), or the ISABUlibrary. Grants versus credit: Development projects may facilitate access to credit for the rural population, but they rarely if ever provide grants. PRASAB's subproject grants may be seen as counterproductive to other projects' credit components. The grants also may create tensions at various levels (institutional, administrative, producers) between those who benefit from them and those who do not. Monitoring and Evaluation Participants should be included in the M&E process. The communities can collaborate with the Project agents to produce PRASAB's trimestrial technical monitoringreport. The LIA's qualitative monitoring report provides the opportunity for producer organizations and communities to evaluate their progress interms o f problems and solutions. The evaluation surveys should include people's opinions about PRASAB's impact on their natural resources, agricultural production, and incomes. Participants should have the opportunity to evaluate the Project's strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend improvements inits designand implementation. 117 A household material possessions inventory and children's nutritional status are proposed as two objective measuresof household well-being. The material possessionsinventory i s based on observation o f households' principal goods (tin roof, bicycle). The results are usedto define wealth categories, make an index and rank households, and assess changes over time. Children's nutritional status is determined by anthropometric measurements (weight and height), which are relatively easy data to collect and analyze. Candidate indicators for assessing Project performance are in Table 2 below. Most indicators should be disaggregated by sex in order to collect information on both HH heads (husband and wife). Table 1: Steps inthe CommunityDevelopmentPlan Task Peopleresponsible Time required 1. Make lists ofthe potential L I A s inthe Projectprovinces PRASAB One month headquarters 2. Identify the LIAs that will work with PRASAB ineach PRASAB Two months province; contactthe LIAs andcontractthemto work with headquarters PRASAB 3. Ineach province: meet with the governor andthe provincial PRASAB One-half day administrative authorities, all the province'scommune headquarters per province administrators, andrelevant governmentservices(DPAE, representative, Environment, Rural Development,PlanningandReconstruction, IPCMUheads NGOs), and LIA(s) to introduce PRASAB 4. Set up two IPCMUoffices: hire staff and install office PRASAB Two weeks equipment 5. Ineach province: organize the Projectteam for each commune IPCMUstaff One day per andits communities. The team will consist of an agronomist province (technicalagent) andan "animateur" (socialagent), with support from DPAE technicianswhen necessary 6. Ineach IPCMU: hold two half-days oftraining for the IPCMU IPCMUstaff, Two days per staff andthe Project agents; one half-day of orientation about PRASAB IPCMU PRASAB (objectives, methods, IDA, GEF), andanother of representative, training inthe participatory approach andaconsultantfor training inthe participatory approach 7. Ineachprovince: meetthe communities and introduce BothProjectagents, One to 2 PRASAB and communities a IPCMUstaff per day person 8. Projectagents: make a returnvisit to the community; ifthey Project agents One to 2 want to with PRASAB requestthat they form aProject communities committee per day 9. The community forms a Projectcommittee Community and One to 2 Projectagents months 118 Task Peopleresponsible Time required 10.Conduct participatoryexerciseswiththe community (village Community and Two days per map, transect, historicalprofile, agriculturalcalendar, Venn Projectagents community diagram, wealth-rankingexercise, women'dmen's economic activities) 11. Conduct aNaturalResourcesInventoryinthe community; Community and One to two one agent withthe women, andthe other withthe men. The Project agents days per objectiveis to leam about menandwomen andtheir resources, community andhow they usethem 12. Conduct anAgriculturalSurvey of the community's Project agents, Oneday per agriculturalandlivestockproductionsystems ineach community; community community one agent with the women, andthe other withthe men. The objectiveis to leam about H L S andpeople's perspectivesontheir problems with andopportunities for rebuildinglivelihoods 13.Communitiesreviewherifythe reports andget the final Project agents, 1-2 version community communities per day 14.Identifythe war victims inthe community. Project agents, Two weeks community 15.Producer organizations form, decide ontheir activities, obtain producer Sevenmonths commune-levelstatutes, andhave six monthsof capacity- organizations, buildingbeforethey designtheir subprojects. Project agents 16.The community decides on an SLMProject. Community, Project agents 17.The community decides howto organizeits awareness-and Community, Project Twoto four capacity-buildingsessions focused onPOmanagement, agents weeks sustainable agriculturalproduction, and SLM.Womenmaywant separate sessionswith a womanteacher. 18.Farmer-to-farmervisitswith farmers who have implemented Project agents, Ongoing sustainable productionandlandmanagementwith other projects; community women-to-womenandother types ofproducervisits are organizedto reinforceawarenessandcapacity 19. PRASABresearchesthe potentialfor radiobroadcastsabout PRASAB Two weeks land degradationand SLM 20. Ongoing: capacity-buildingfor committee membersfor Committee Ongoing managementand inclusivecommunity decision-makingand members, Project olanning: agents 21. Ongoing: community sessions to raise awarenessabout Community, Ongoing. sustainable productionand landmanagement,andevaluationof Projectagents techniquesthat havebeenadaptedadopted 22. Ongoing: capacity-buildingfor producer organizations for producer Ongoing managementoftheir activitiesandfinances organizations, Projectagents 119 Task People responsible Time required 23. Eachmonth: the community provides information for Community, Monthly PRASAB's system to monitor progressincommunity-leveland producer PO subprojects organizations, Project agents 24. Eachtrimester: the community provides information for Committee, Halfa day per PRASAB's monitoring system on technical progress, the community, Project community subprojects' activities, constraints on progressand how to address agents them, andthe next trimester's activity plan Table 2: Candidate Indicators for Evaluating Sub-projects Impact GEFObjectives CandidateIndicators 1, Reduce landdegradation by Percentchange inthe number of menand increasing public awarenessof women who can name 4 ways to control erosion. the available options for SLM. Percentchange inthe number menand women who can name 4 ways to improve soil fertility. Percent change inthe number of men and women who can name 4 reasons to plant trees Percent change inthe number of menand women who can name 3 environmental reasonsto manage the marais 2. Reduce land degradation by Percent change inthe number of households buildingcapacity to use that stabletheir livestock. sustainabletechnologies for Percent change inthe number ofhouseholds SLM. that have modern compost pits. 3, Support micro-watershed Change inthe percent of householdsthat have managementincluding soil thriving tree seedlings around their houses. stabilization. m Change inthe percent of householdsthat have thrivingtree seedlings around the perimetersoftheir fields. Change inthe percent of householdsthat have thriving fruit trees (or grevillea, or leucaena, or...) 4. Seek 'win-win' options to Indicatorso f change inhousehold income (i.e. increasing the economic enhance the ecological and value of landuse): economic value of land use. Change inpercent of H H s indifferent wealth categories, based onthe household materialpossessionsindex. Change innutritional status in children under 5 years. Percent change inthe number o f households that usedchemical fertilizer inthe last year. Percent change inthe number of kilograms of chemicalfertilizer usedby households inthe last year. Percent change inthe number of households that purchasedmodern veterinary products inthe last year. Percent change inthe total value of modern veterinary products purchased by the household last year. 120 Percent change inthe number of H H s that produced commercial crops (coffee, tea) last year. m Percent change inamount of HHproduction of industrial crops last year. m Percent change inthe number o f H H s that had at least one child inschool for the entire past year. Percent change intotal HHexpenditure on its five major purchases inthe last year. Percent change inthe number o f producer organizations that made a profit o f at least 50,000 FBuper member last year. 121 Annex 13: ProjectPreparationand Supervision BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject Planned Actual PCNreview 04/03/2003 4/14/2003 InitialPID to PIC 06/05/2003 8/07/2003 InitialISDS to PIC 06/05/2003 6/05/2003 Appraisal 01/26/2004 01/28/2004 Negotiations 05/24/2004 06/04/2004 BoardEVP approval 07/27/2004 Planned date of effectiveness 10/30/2004 Planned date of mid-termreview 10/30/2007 Planned closing date 10/31/2010 Key institutions responsiblefor preparation of the Project: Bank staff andconsultants who worked on the Project included: Bankfunds expended to dateon Projectpreparation: 1. Bank resources:US$134,093.87 2. Trust funds: GEF PDF-B US$174,283 3. Total: US$308,376.87 EstimatedApprovaland Supervisioncosts: 1. Remaining costs to approval: US$148,923.13 2. Estimatedannual supervision cost: US$20,700 122 Annex 14: Documentsinthe ProjectFile BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand Sustainable LandManagementProject 1. Frameworkfor CommunityParticipation 2. FoodCrop Productionin Burundi(Recent & Forecast) 3. EnvironmentalBaselinereport 4. ComprehensiveDevelopmentFramework 123 Differencebetween expectedand actual OriginalAmount inUS$Millions disbursements Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev'd PO74602 2003 BURUNDI- ERC 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.92 -1.00 0.00 PO71371 2002 BURUNDI - HIV/AIDS and Orphans 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.36 2.41 0.00 1 9 I2001IRegionalTrade Fac.Project-Burundi I 0.00 I 7.50 I 0.00I 0.00 1 0.00I 3.90 I 0.17 I 0.00 I PO64961 2001 PUBLIC WORKS AND EMPLOYMENT 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.24 -13.69 0.00 CREATION PO64510 2000 Social Action Project I1(BURSAP) 0.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.64 1.96 0.00 IPO00216 T1995 I - HEALTHPOPULATION I1 0.00 21.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.01 2.23 2.26 Total:I 0.00 I 170.80 I 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.00I 112.07I -7.92 I 2.26 1 STATEMENT OF IFC's HeldandDisbursedPortfolio InMillions ofUS Dollars Committed Disbursed ~ - IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 2001 AEF Florex 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 AEF V&F Export 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I I Approvals PendingCommitment I FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Total pendingcommitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 124 Annex 16: Country at a Glance BURUNDI :AgriculturalRehabilitationand SustainableLandManagementProject Sub- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan Low- Burundi Africa income Development diamond' 2 0 0 2 Population.mid-year (millions) 7.1 688 2,495 Life expectancy GNIpercapita (Atlasmethod,US$) 90 450 430 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) T 0.64 306 1,072 Average annual growth, 1996-02 Population (%) 2.o 2.4 1.9 Laborforce (%) 2A 2.5 2.3 GNI Gross per primary M o s t recent estimate (latest year available, 1996-02) capita enrollment Poverty (%of population belo wnationalpo vertyline) Urban population (%of totalpopulation) 10 33 30 Life expectancyat birth (years) 42 46 59 Infant mortaiityfper /000live births) 110 lo5 61 Child malnutrition (%of childrenunder5) 45 Access to improved water source Access to an improved water source (%o fpopulation) 78 58 76 Illiteracy(%of populationage a+) 50 37 37 Gross primaryenrollment (%ofschool-age population) 65 86 95 -5 urundi M ale 73 92 103 Low-income group Female 58 60 67 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1982 1992 2001 2002 Economic ratios* GDP (US$ billions) 1.0 1.1 0.69 0.72 Gross domestic investmentlGDP 14.5 15.0 6.9 7.9 Exports of goods and servicesiGDP 10.2 6.7 6.5 6.6 Trade Gross domestic savingslGDP -2.2 -5.1 -4.8 -4.5 Gross nationalsavingslGDP 22.0 6.6 T Current account balancelGDP -5.5 -3.5 Interest paymentslGDP 0.2 1.3 0.7 0.6 Total debtlGDP 22.4 94.4 155.2 187.5 Total debt servicelexports 7.5 36.4 41.6 38.3 Present value of debtlGDP 94.1 Present value of debtlexports 1772.3 Indebtedness 19 2-92 1992-02 2001 2002 2 02-06 (average annualgrowth) GDP 4.3 -1.6 3.2 3.6 -6 urundi GDP per capita 1.4 -3.6 1.3 1.7 Low-income group ~ STRUCTURE o f the ECONOMY 1982 1992 2001 2002 Growth o f investment and GDP (X) (%of GDP) Agriculture 56.9 52.5 50.0 49.3 40 T Industry 15.4 20.6 18.7 19.4 Manufacturing 8.9 15.0 20 Services 27.7 26.7 31.3 31.3 0 Privateconsumption 91.6 95.0 91.3 91.7 Generalgovernment consumption 10.7 10.1 t3.5 12.8 Imports of goods and services 26.9 28.6 18.2 18.9 -GDI +GDP 1982-92 1992-02 2o02 (average annualgrowth) Growth o f exports and imports (X) Agriculture 3.3 -0.3 3.8 3.9 I 5 O T Industry 4.3 -1.5 16.1 25.3 100 Manufacturing 5.4 -9.0 Services 4.9 -0.9 3.5 3.5 50 Private consumption 3.3 -4.0 -12.0 12.5 O Generalgovernment consumption 4.9 -1.7 u.7 0.9 -50 Gross domestic investment 3.3 1.1 2.8 6.9 Imports of goods and services 0.1 5.5 -5.7 22.5 125 Burundi PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1982 1992 2001 2002 D o m e s t i c prices (%change) Consumerprices 5.9 1.8 U.0 3.8 Implicit GDP deflator 5.7 5.7 t3.4 P.9 Government finance (%of GDP,includes current grantsj Current revenue 152 0.7 2t4 0.4 97 98 99 00 01 02 Current budget balance 0.4 4.9 3.8 2.2 Overall surplusldeficit 4.4 -8.5 -3.0 -1.1 -GDP deflator -CPI TRADE 1982 1992 2001 2002 (US$ millions) Export and import levels (US$ mlll.) Total exports (fob) 89 77 48 57 Coffee 78 49 52 54 Tea 3 9 14 15 Manufactures 3 11 1 1 Total imports @if) 2# 2# 157 8 3 Food 25 11 a a Fueland energy 30 26 21 22 Capitalgoods 51 78 68 88 Export price index(?395=W0) 90 54 59 60 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Import price index(?395=WO) 94 95 92 93 m~xports mlmports T e n s of trade (?395=WO) 96 57 64 65 B A L A N C E of PAYMENTS 1982 1992 2001 2002 (US$ millionsj Current account balance t o GDP (Oh) Exports of goods andservices 0 3 95 51 61 Imports of goods andservices 273 3 a I42 150 Resource balance -169 -2B -90 -89 Net income -8 -14 - a -x) Net current transfers 0 6 87 Current account balance -60 -24 Financing items (net) 73 31 Changes in net reserves 31 -D -7 -x) Memo: Reserves includinggold (US8 miilionsj Conversion rate (DEC, locaVUS$) 90.0 208.3 830.4 930.7 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1982 1992 2001 2002 (US$ millions) Total debt outstandinganddisbursed 227 1,022 1.070 1,204 16RD 0 0 0 0 IDA 66 473 562 648 G:96 Total debt service 8 40 23 24 IBRD 0 0 0 0 IDA 0 5 I4 16 Composition of net resourceflows Official grants 33 151 126 Officialcreditors 51 66 0 28 Private creditors 1 -2 2 -2 Foreigndirect investment 1 1 0 Portfolio equity 0 0 0 I World Bank program Commitments 21 50 48 90 Disbursements 16 49 a 36 A . IBRD F- Private E - Bilate-al 8 IDA D Mkmultilateral - Principalrepayments 0 2 0 n - ~ C-IMF G Short-term 126 MAP SECTION