Mauritania - Community-Based Watershed Management Project

Document of Document of The WorldBank FOROFFICIALUSEONLY Report No: 36190 - 1MR. PROJECTDOCUMENT ONA PROPOSEDGRANT FROMTHE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND INTHEAMOUNT OFUS$6.0MILLION TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OFMAURITANIA FORA COMMUNITY-BASED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT May 30,2006 RuralDevelopmentIV CountryDepartment 15 Africa Region This documenthas arestricteddistributionandmaybe usedbyrecipientsonly inthe performanceoftheir official duties. Its contentsmaynot otherwisebedisclosedwithout World Bankauthorization.  CURRENCYEQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 30,2006) Currency Unit = Ouguiyas 263 Ouguiyas = US$l.OO US$1.44 = SDR 1.00 FISCALYEAR January1 - December31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABV Associations deBassin VersantI Watershed Associations ADC Association deDkveloppement CommunautaireI Community DevelopmentAssociation BAD BanqueAfricaine deDkveloppementI African DevelopmentBank CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBRD Community-BasedRural DevelopmentProjectI Projet deDkveloppementRural des CommunautksdeBase (PDSC) CBWM Community-BasedWatershed Management ProjectI Projet d'AmdnagementCommunautaire des Bassins Versants(PACBv) CCD ccu ConventionContre la Dksertij2ation Central CoordinationUnitI Unite'Central de coordination (UCC) CDP Community Development Plans I Plans de dkveloppementcommunautaires CFP Country FinancingParameters CNRADA CentreNational de RechercheAgronomique et deDkveloppementAgricole I National Agronomic andAgricultural ResearchCenter CNERV CentreNational d'Elevageet deRecherches Vktkrinaires I National Livestock andVeterinary ResearchCenter CRD ComitkRkgional de DkveloppementI RegionalDevelopmentCommittee CST Comitk Techniqueet scientiJiqueI Scientific andTechnical Committee I C V A Community Village Associations I Association de dkveloppementcomm~nautaire(ADC) DAF Directeur de 1~ d m i n i s t r ~ tet n ~ odes Finances I Director o f Administration andFinance D E N Environment Directorate (MRDE)I Direction de E 'environmement(MDRE) DPSE Direction des Politiques et du Suivi-Evaluation I Directorateof Policy, and Monitoringand Evaluation EA ExtensionAgents I Agents de vulgarisation desBassins Versants FMR FinancialMonitoringReport GEF Global EnvirorlmentFacility I Fonds de 1'EnvironmentalMondial (FEM) GIRNEM Projet de GestionIntkgrk des RessourcesNaturelles de 1'EstMauritanien GIS Geographic Information System I Syst2med 'Information Gkographic (SIG) GTZ GesellschaftFuer technischeZusammenarbeitI Germantechnical Cooperation ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Researchinthe Dry Areas ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-And Tropics IDA International Development Association IAssociationInternationale deDkveloppement(AID) IDPIAM IntegratedDevelopmentProject for IrrigatedAgriculture inMauritania I Programme de dkveloppementintkgrk de E 'agriculture irrigude en Mauritanie (PDIAIM) MDRE Minist2re deDkveloppementRural et de 1'EnvironnementI Ministryo fRuralDevelopment, and Environment NGOs Non-governmental Organizations I OrganisationsNon-gouve~ementales(ONG) 1  P A N L C D Plan d'ActionNational deLutte contre laDksertiJication RCU Regional CoordinationUnit SLM Sustainable LandManagement I GestionDurable des Terra (GDT) SOE Statement of Expenses STAP GEF Scientific andTechnical Advisory Panel UNCCC UnitedNations Conventionon Climate Change UNCCD UnitedNations Conventionto Combat Desertification Terminology Hakem PrefecU'Administrator of a Moughataa Moughataa Administrative subdivision Wali Governor of awilaya Wilaya Administrativeregion Vice President: GobindT. Nankani CountryManagerDirector: Nils 0.Tcheyan, Acting Sector Manager: MaryBarton-Dock Task Team Leader: Lucie H.G. Tran *. 11  ... 111  MAURITANIA Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject CONTENTS A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE .....................................................................Page 1 1. Country and Sector Issues................................................................................................... 1 2. Rationale for IDA and GEF Involvement........................................................................... 2 3. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes ................................................ 3 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 4 1. LendingInstrument............................................................................................................. 4 2. Program Objectwe andPhases............................................................................................ . . 4 3. Project Development Objective andKey Indicators........................................................... 4 4. Project Components............................................................................................................ 4 5. LessonsLearned andReflected inthe Project Design........................................................ 7 6. Alternatives Considered andReasonsfor Rejection.,;........................................................ 8 C. ~ L E M E ~ T A T I O N ............................................................................................................. 8 1. PartnershipArrangements................................................................................................... 8 2. Institutional andImplementation Arrangements ................................................................ 9 3. Monitoring And Evaluation O f OutcomesResults........................................................... 12 4. Sustainability andReplicability........................................................................................ 13 5. .Critical risks andpossible controversial aspects............................................................... 14 6. Grant Conditions and Covenants ...................................................................................... 16 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY................................................................................................... 16 1. Economic AndFinancialAnalyses................................................................................... 16 2. Technical........................................................................................................................... 16 3. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 17 4. Social................................................................................................................................. 17 5. Environment...................................................................................................................... 18 6. Safeguardpolicies............................................................................................................. 19 7. Policy Exceptions andReadiness...................................................................................... 20 iv  21 Annex 2: Major RelatedProjects Financedbythe Bank and/or Other Agencies......................... Annex 1:Country and Sector or Program Background................................................................ Annex 3: Results Framework andMonitoring.............................................................................. 29 Annex 4: DetailedProject Description......................................................................................... 32 40 h e x 5: Project Costs.................................................................................................................. 45 h e x 7: FinancialManagement andDisbursement Arrangements ............................................ h e x 6: Implementation Arrangements...................................................................................... 47 52 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements........................................................................................... 58 Annex 9:Economic andFinancial Analysis ................................................................................. 66 Annex 10: SafeguardPolicy Issues............................................................................................... Annex 11: Incremental Cost Analysis .......................................................................................... 68 73 Annex 13: STAP Roster Review.................................................................................................. Annex 12: Technical Annex - LandDegradation......................................................................... 83 92 Annex 14: Project Preparationand Supervision........................................................................... h e x 15: Documents inthe Project File..................................................................................... 97 99 100 h e x 17: Country at a Glance................................................................................................... h e x 16: Statementof Loans and Credits ................................................................................ 101 Map: BRDNo .34804 V  MAURITANIA CO1MR/IUNITY-BASED RURALDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DOCUMENT AFRICA AFTS4 Date: May 30,2006 Team Leader: Huong-GiangLucie Tran Global Supplemental ID: PO87670 Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and LendingInstrument: Specific Investment Loan forestry sector (7O%);Inigation anddrainage FocalArea: L-Landdegradation (30%) Supplement FullyBlended?: No Themes: Landadministration and management(P);Other rural development (S) Project FinancingData [ 3 Loan [ 3 Credit [XI Grant [ 3 Guarantee [ 3 Other: For LoanslCreditslOthers: - Total Bank financing (uS$m.): - Proposedterms: - Total 54.80 10.00 64.80 vi  Borrower: ResponsibleAgency: MinistryofEconomic Affairs MinistryofRuralDevelopment, andDevelopment Hydraulics andEnvironment Nouakchott Nouakchott Islamic Republic o fMauritania IslamicRepublic o f Mauritania Project implementation period: September2006 to March2011 Expectedeffectiveness date: September 29, 2006 Expectedclosingdate: September 30,201 1 Does the project depart from the CAS incontent or other significant respects? Ret: PADA.3 [ ]Yes [XINO Does the projectrequire any exceptions from Bankpolicies? Ref: PAD D.7 [ ]Yes [x ] No Havethese beenapproved byBankmanagement? [ ]Yes [x ] No I s approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [x ] No Does the project include any criticalrisks rated "substantial" or "high"? Ref: PAD C.5 [x ]Yes [ ] N o Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Re$ PAD D.7 [x ]Yes [ ] No Project development objective Ref: PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 Theproject development objective is to lessenthe incidence of landdegradation at the watershed levelwithinthe Community-Based RuralDevelopment (CBRDlproject areaby assisting rural communities to generatebenefits through community-driven investments addressingland degradation andpromoting SustainableLandManagement (SLM)practices. Global Environment objective Re$ PAD 23.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 The global objective is to limit landdegradation andto safeguardcritical ecosystemfunctions through community-driven SLM activities that improve agro-sylvopastoral managementand increasevegetation cover while securing livelihoods andglobal environmental benefits (i.e,, reduced sedimentation o fwaterways, improvedinterconnection andintegrity o f ecosystems, enhancedcarbon storage rates, andincreased opportunities for biodiversityconservation). Project description [one-sentence summary of each component] Ref: PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4 Component A: Capacity Buildingfor SustainableLandManagement will develop local and regional capacity to adopt andreplicate innovative watershed and landscapemanagement approaches. Component B: ProvidingIncentives for SustainableLandManagement Practices - would support the researchand development, demonstration and application o fnew, innovative SLM technologies andenergy efficient technology at the watershedlevels, income-generating activities, andinstallation of closures andboundaries for the protectiono f grazing areas and plantations. vii  Component C: Project management andMonitoringandEvaluation - would support project coordination, monitoring andevaluation activities, anda communication strategy. Which safeguard policies are triggered, ifany? Re$ PAD D.6, TechnicalAnnex 10 EnvironmentalAssessment (OPBPIGP 4.0); Pest Management (OP 4.09); InvoluntaryResettlement (OPIBP 4.12). Significant, non-standardconditions, if any, for: Re$ PAD C.7 Boardpresentation: None Grant effectiveness: (a) Amendment o f the regulations (arrctks) for establishing the Pilot Steering Committee (Comitt: de Pilotage) to reflect the new responsibilities of the Committee; (b) amendment of the regulations for establishing the Central Coordination Unit, to reflect the new responsibilities of the unit; (c) update and amend all project manuals of the CBRD including those of Project Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation to cover implementation o f the Project; (d) the opening o f a Project Account and with an initial deposit of $40,000 of counterpart funds; (e) establishment o f a computerized information system satisfactory to the Bank for the financial management o fthe Project; (f) recruitment of external auditor. Covenants applicable to project implementation: None. ... Vlll  ix  A. STRATEGIC CONTEXTAND RATIONALE 1. Country andSectorIssues 1, Mauritaniais a Heavily-IndebtedPoor Country (HIPC), with a per capita GDP of US$350 (2002) and a poverty rate o f 46.3 percent (2000). It i s one o f Africa's largest states, with some 1.1million square kilometers, but over 90 percent of the landis desert. Thepopulationis small (2.6 million), but growingrapidly at 2.4 percent per year, Despite continued rural-urban migration, the rural sector provides employment for about 64 percent of the labor force and remains a main source o f income for the population. The rural areas also have the highest concentration o f the poor (75 percent), although the overallpovertyrate has declined since 1990. KeyElements of the Country's PovertyReductionStrategy 2. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (GIRM) has been implementing a wide range of policy, economic and sector reforms since 1992. Mauritania was one o f the first countries to present a full Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in 2001 and has been implementingit satisfactorily since then. The PRSP lays out four pillarsaimed at: (i) accelerating economic growtk (ii) developing growth in the economic environment o f the poor (particularly in the rural sector); (iii) developing humanresources and ensuringuniversal access to basic infrastructure and services; and (iv) strengthening institutional capacities and governance. The PRSP is to be implemented through Regional Poverty Reduction Programs for each of the 13 wilayas (regions). With respect to its second pillar, the PRSP recognizes that developing and diversifjmg the rural sector is essential to developing trade, reducing production costs and enhancing the competitiveness ofthe economy. 3. The CountryAssistance Strategy (CAS) (FY03-05) emphasizes the need to invest in natural resources management and envisions investment in natural resources management(NRM) capacity buildinginFY05 (highcase lendingscenario). Key Policy,Institutional,andOther Issues(root causes, barriers, andthreats) 4, General constraints hamperingthe Government's efforts to fight poverty include: (a) demographics (Mauritania's population is expected to double from 2.6 to 4.1 million by2015 with rapidurbanmigrationimpactingthe environment); (b) the weak capacity of public administration (implementing and managing economic and sectoral policies, managing strategic planning and programmin~monitoringo f public expenditures); and (c) the weak capacity o f civil society (recently developed and insufficiently structured which affects their ability to deliver quality assistance). 5. Inthe rural sector, the constraints include: (i)narrow and degraded natural a resource base where agricultural activities take place within a narrow strip of land (200 kmwide) characterized by low and erratic rainfall and interrupted by drought spells, (ii) limited transport infi-astructure providing access to markets and services, (iii) limited supply of productive services including agricultural services resulting inlow agricultural productivity, (iv) limitedlocal community ownership ofpublic investments as a result of a predominant top-down approach to public investments, (v) limitedaccess to investment andworking capital to boost agricultural productivity, and (vi) landtenure issues and the 1  implementation o f the pastoral code which is presentlybeingconcentrated inhigh value land andnot as muchinrainfed areas where it could help resolve farmer-herder conflicts. 6. Land degradation is a major concern inMauritaniawhere agro-pastoral areas and oases provide the ecosystems which serve as a primary source o f water for the cattle population, support agricultural and pastoral production, supply firewood and timber, supplycrops, andprovidethe habitat for fauna andflora. The integrityo fthe ecosystems i s threatened by constraintsto sustainable management of naturalresourcesincluding reduced arable land, pastureland, biodiversity and forest lands due to lack o f technical supervision and information, population pressures, limited access to technologies, poor management anduncontrolled usage o fresources. Government Strategy to Address Issues and Constraints 7. The Government's efforts to address the above constraints include putting in place such national strategies and policies as the: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP, revised in2001), the 2001 Agro-food Strategy; the 2002 Livestock Strategy; the Pastoral Code (2003); the Land Tenure Law "LoifonciBre et domaniale" (1997, 2002), the "Schkma ~ationaid 'Amknagement du Territoire"(1986), the Forestry Code, the Forest Action Plan; the bylaw for Game and Nature Protection "Code de la Chasse et la Protection de Ea Nature" (1997), the National Biodiversity Strategy (1998), the National Action Plans for Adaptation to Climatic Change (NApA)(2004) and for combating Desertification (PAN-LCD) (2002), the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) (preparedin2004). 8. In1986, the Government initiatedaDecentralization Strategywhichwas applied to ruralmunicipalitiesin 1989 leading to the creation o f 216 communes, ofwhich 163 are rural. Subsequently, a "National Strategy o f Decentralization and Local Governancewas preparedin2002. Country Eligibility for GEFCo-Financing 9. The Government o fMauritania signed the UnitedNations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) on October 14, 1994, and ratified the convention on August 7, 1996. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed on June 12, 1992, and ratified on August 16, 1996. The Convention on Climate Change (CCC) was signed on December 6, 1992, and ratified on January 20, 1994. The Government has also prepared and submitted an National Action Plan (NAP) in 2002 and the NAP'Spriorities are included inthe 2001-2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), 2. Rationale for IDA and GEFInvolvement 10. The Comunity-Based Watershed Management project (CBWM) builds on the community-based rural development structure begun under the CBRD project financed by an IDA credit signed in 2004 (Credit 3883-MAU) (the "baseline project") which focuses primarily on village-level investments, by broadening the base and supplementing it with natural resources management emphasizing sustainable land management (SLM) at the inter-community or landscape level. In this way, the Bank holds an advantage over other donors involved inlocal development operations bybeing able to focus its financing to support bothbroader village-level investments and adequate 2  attention to community-based natural resource managementinterms o f land degradation management. 3. Higher LevelObjectives to which the Project Contributes 11. The project would contribute to the Borrower's higher level objectives and sector priorities for poverty reduction by being aligned with the priorities in the PRSP (2001) which emphasizes the need to invest in natural resources management (NRM) and in capacity buildinginFY05 (highcase lending scenario). The preparation of the financing of the baseline project and then the CBWM project received strong Government support: an official request was made to the Bank for the financing of the CBWM project to complement the CBRD project, on aninter-community basis to improve the management of natural resources, and combat desertification within the context o f watersheds and landscapesmanagement. 12. The baseline project and the CBWM support the Gove&ent's program o f decentralization by soliciting the participation o f the regional, local and traditional authorities in project execution, as well as supporting the Government in the implementation of several other national strategies and policies with relevance to the rural sector. 13, The global objective is to limit land degradation and to safeguard critical ecosystem functions through community-driven SLM activities that improve agro- sylvopastoral management and increase vegetation cover while securing livelihoods and global environmental benefits (i,e., reduced sedimentation o f waterways, improved interconnection andintegrity of ecosystems, enhancedcarbon storagerates, and increased opportunities for biodiversity conservation). 14. The expectedglobal benefits o fthe GEF alternative include: 0 Arresting andreducing desertification (a globalbad); 0 increased opportunities for conservation o f biodiversity, mitigation of desertification, and preserving ecosystem integrity through the harmonization of policies and regulations supporting sustainable management of resources at the watershedlandscape level; 0 enhanced ecosystem integrity and sustainable land management due to adoption of improved land management and restoration practices, both inproductive landscapes and in riparian areas which result in decreased soil erosion, increased in carbon sequestration, andimproved conservation and sustainableuse o fbiodiversity; improved capacity for seed retrieval o f threatened riparian plant species and sustainable landmanagement through improving capacity o f communities to manage their landresources; restoration of globally important ecosystems (e.g., microclimates, fauna and flora, areas of significance for migratorybirds); 0 establishment of a replicable Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for land degradation, incorporating global concerns to the baseline M&E activities. 3  15. The expected nationalbenefits o fthe project wouldbe: e Improved land and water qualitylquantity for local use through restoration of degraded lands, resulting decrease in erosion rates, and sediment flow into water bodies; e Improved income flow o f rural communities through implementation and adoption o f sustainable landmanagementpractices intargeted areas; e Increased capacity for stakeholders to implement cross-sectoral approaches to land management, including improved outreach and involvement o f civil society, private sector, andgovernment institutions to planandmanagenatural resources, B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 1. LendingInstrument 16. The lending instrument i s a GEF grant. The C B W will be an extension of the CBRD financed with an IDA Specific Investment Loan. The project i s a partially- blended operation, being processed later than the IDA-financed operation and having a separatelegal documentation andBoardapproval date. 2. ProgramObjectiveandPhases 17, Not applicable. 3. ProjectDevelopmentObjectiveandKeyIndicators 18. The projectdevelopmentobjectiveis to lessenthe incidence of landdegradation at the watershed level within the CBRD project area by assisting rural communities to generate benefits through community-driven investments addressing land degradation andpromotingSLMpractices. 19. The overall project outcome expected for the project is that rural communities' increased usage of effective SLM techniques and practices lead to a decrease in incidences of landdegradation. 20, The keyindicatorsfor evaluating the achievement ofthe objective would be: e Appropriate implementation o fthe sustainable landmanagement processby the WatershedAssociations inProject area. e Two-thirds of activities introduced by the project are generating positive income flow for the communities. 0 25 percent increase in biomass (perennial grasses & shrubs regeneration) in targetedareas. 4. ProjectComponents 21. The project has three components which are aligned with the components of the baselineproject as follows. ComponentA: CapacityBuilding 22. Baseline Project Activities (IDA funding: US9.2 million). This component supports strengthening the capacity of community village associations (Associations de 4  dtveloppement communautaires (ADCs)) and selected rural municipalities to design and implement effective development plans; developing the technical capacity o f the communities' service providers (crop and livestock research-development, extension services, statistical, environmental and rural training agencies) with an emphasis on decentralized units; and strengthening the capacity o f micro-enterprises that directly supplygoods andmaintenanceservicesto the village associations. 23. CBWM Activities (GEF funding: US$l.5 million) - Capacity-Building for Sus~ai~ableLand Management. GEF incremental activities will include: (a) the development o f inter-community plans for watershed management; (b) the establishment of watershed associations inthe targeted areas; (c) collaboration with national and local researchinstitutions, extension services andcommunity associationsto adopt a watershed management approach in developing and transferring SLM technologies; (d) the review of policies, laws and regulations to provide incentives to rural communities to adopt sustainable management o f resources at the watershedlandscape level; and (e) exploration and identification o f future sustainable operation and funding options (e.g,, carbon markets, bio-carbon funds, environmental tax revenues, etc.) following project closure. The development o f watershed associations will provide a fora for discussion and interactionbetween village communities which, combined with the development of priority action plans, will also provide a mechanism for conflict resolution, e.g., between herders and farmers. ComponentB: InvestmentFunds 24. Baseline ProjectActivities (IDAfunding: US$30.3million). This component provides the meansto implement village and communal development plans while giving communities the opportunity to put into practice their strengthenedcapacities. The funds are intendedto bringbenefits to poor people andimprovetheir social, environmental and economic conditions andcomprise: (a) the Village Investment Fundwhich provides ADCs with capital input to execute their development plans, and (b) the Rural Communal RoadFunds to improve access to ruralroads within the communes. Contributions, mostlyin-kind,are required from beneficiaries at differinglevels depending on the type of investment. The community development plans are demand-drivenandidentifiedby the communities andcan include investments for village wells, soil andwater conservation to boost agricultural productivity (dykes and small dams); (ii) diversified agricultural production(village gardens); (iii) livestockhealth activities (vaccination parks) (iv) targetedactivities to protect the natural resourcesbase(dune fixation, vegetal cover regeneration); and (v) various other on- and off-farm income-generating activities (mills, village stores, agricultural rental equipment). Activities selectedbywomen arebe encouraged. However, the CBRD does not finance religious establishments and social services (healthcare and education) which are within the sphere of competenceof communes or are providedby other programs, butwill assist villages andcommunesto gain access to those services from sectoral programs, 25. CBW M Activities (GEFfunding: US$3.5 million) - Providing Incentivesfor SustainableLand Management Practices. The GEF component will provide investment capital, through the Local Investment Fund, for village communities to adopt sustainable resourcemanagementand conservationpractices within a watershed areaand at the inter- village community level. The watershed management plan, developed at the national 5  level with the assistance o f technical experts, would determine the types o f activities which would be eligible for funding. The investment proposals made by watershed associations would be demand-driven and would identify sustainable landresource management investments and activities to be funded. These investments must also be in harmony (i.e., no duplication of effort) with the CBRD community development plans (CDPs). Eligible activities could include: (a) the demonstration and application o f new, innovative SLM and energy efficient technologies (e.g., solar cooking stoves, solar electricity, biogas) at the watershed (regional or inter-village), and lower (village community) levels, establishment o f upstream and river bank protection to minimize erosion and sedimenttransport inthe watersheds, cattle routeslwells, pasture investments, inter-village forest managementinvestments); (b) income-generating activities (nurseries, ecotourism, fishing, gum arabic, medicinal plants); and (c) demonstrations o f better management practices or mechanisms to strengthen traditional grazing management systems and systems to reduce livestock-agriculture conflicts such as installation of closures and boundaries for the protectiono f grazing areas and plantations, The project would not hnd activities which are not linkedto GEF objectives or do not provide direct or indirect benefits to the global environment. 26. The component will be implementedby the Central Coordination Unit (CCU) of the CBRD project, under the supervision o f the lead environmental specialist. The implementation of this component will be an indicator o f whether innovative techniques for soil conservation introduced at the community level, their rate o f adoption, and the extent o f their inclusion in the watershed management plan and watershed CDPs have been successhl. Component C: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 27. IDA Baseline Activities (IDAfunding: US$Rl million). The baseline supports general project management and coordination expenses, monitoring and evaluation, and the development and implementation o f a communication strategy. Coordination would be carried out by the CCU located inNouakchott and also by the RegionalCoordination Units(RCUs) located innine regional delegations of the MDRE. The CCUwill also be responsible for carrying out a communications strategy designed to disseminate the project's activities, approaches, and results, through relevant local and national media. Activities will also be supported to develop an M&E system, including the development of keypoverty indicators, to effectively track and evaluate project progress and to ensure timely andrelevantperiodicreporting. 28. GEF Activities (GEF incrementalfunding: US$l.0 million). This component will be also be implemented by the CCU to ensure synergy and consistency between the objectives and activities o f the baseline project and the CBWM. The lead environmental specialist within the CCU will be responsible for facilitating, coordinating and monitoring the project's GEF activities. The component will hnd technical assistance associated with M&E, and the incremental operating costs o f additional personnel recruited as part o f regional teams (facilitators and animators) to execute GEF activities or to assist in managing these activities. Qualified technical assistance (e.g., an international research and development consulting firm) will be recruited under the component to assist the CCU, particularly in the development of the watershed management plan and the implementation o f M&E tools (e.g., scorecard system, 6  development o f tools to assess land degradation costs and SLM benefits). Monitoring indicators used for the baseline project would also apply to the CBWM, particularly for project management and development o f a communication strategy, but vary for M&E of NRMrelated activities. It is envisaged that the communications plan will eventually establish a group of SLM "champions", made up o f representatives of various stakeholders involved or impacted by the project, e.g., local government, community association members, extension service agents, women, youth. 5. Lessons Learned andReflected inthe Project Design 29, Capacity building of c o ~ ~ u n i associations. t y Under the Natural Resources Management project in Mauritania, pertinent lessons incorporated into the project's design are: (a) empowered rural communities are emboldened to steer Government technical services toward their needs and initiate the process to reverse the trend toward impoverishment; (b) creating a critical mass o f investments ensures wider distribution of wealth within the communities through creation o f revenue and employment; (c) within the demand-driven approach, local communities must be trained to balance short-term, village-oriented interests with long-term investments and inter-village resources management; (d) monitoringand evaluation i s not to be overlooked. 30, Transfer of grants (lessons from various Bank and GEF-financed projects): Where there i s great human pressure on natural resources and the main economic activities are dependent on natural resources, project strategy should focus on both alternative livelihood and ecosystem-based natural resource management. However, in transferring funds to communities, provisions should be made to build adequate administrative managementcapacity (basic bookkeepinglaccounting) for the funds. 31. ~acilitation(various projects in Mauritania). Project staff acting as facilitators rather than implementers provides a sound framework for capacity building, transfer of knowledge, use o f traditional knowledge and governing structures which may lead to local ownership, empowerment, increased effectiveness, and provides a greater prospect for sustainability. 32. Lessons from the GEF LandDegradation Linkage Study (2001) incorporated into project design: Projects with a peoplelland management focus tend to address land degradation issues more directly. (The project employs a demand-driven, participatory approachto local empowerment). The most effective linkage projects appear to be those where land degradation is built in as an initialcomponent of the problem and the solution, (The project's objective i s focused on reducing land degradation through SLM and related activities). In biodiversity linkage projects, rangeland environments have created the best land degradationhiodiversity synergy. (Potential sites identified include rangeland environments). 7  6. Alternatives ConsideredandReasonsfor Rejection 33. Three lending options were considered: separatedassociated operations, blended operation and an APL, The option o f separatedassociated operations was rejected in favor of a partially-blended operation, because the latter offers better synergies with the baseline project in terms o f coordination o f project activities and implementation by the same project coordination unit for both the baseline and GEF-financed projects. Implementation by the same project coordination unit for both project offered cost savings in terms of staffing, operating cost, and time, while building capacity and ownership at the national level. The M L option was rejected because o f the need to align closely the implementation of the CBWM activities with the baseline project activities andproject duration. 34. The CBWM will be an extension o f the CBRD which i s financed with an IDA Specific Investment Loan. The project is a partially-blended operation, beingprocessed later than the IDA-financed operation and having a separate legal documentation and Board approval date. The project will be implemented over five years and will lag the baseline project bytwo years inproject start-up, Itwill also close about a year later. The lag will be advantageous since preliminary activities and basic structures for implementing the project would have been initiated or established, particularly: the selection o f community associations, preliminary consultations, training and technical assistance inthe formulation of local development plans would have been launched, and the new watershed associationsto be formed could gain from the experience; the central database established under the CBRD would be inplace and activities for developing a Geographical InformationSystem(GIS) for M&Ewouldbemore advanced. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. PartnershipArrangements 35. A coordination mechanismwill be established for the collaboration with the GEF national focal point for Mauritania in the Direction de 1'Environnement (DEW of the Ministbre de DCveloppement Rural et de 1'Environnement (?VIDE) CBRD staff and the to avoid duplication and reinforce synergies between national, regional, and global initiatives. These mechanisms will also include a regional coordination mechanism. The role and responsibility o f this structure will be reinforced by other ongoing projects supported by IDA and other donor organizations already funding related interventions in the country such as UNDP, IFAD,GTZ. 36. The project will collaborate with the Oasis Sustainable Development Program (IFAD) in the area around the oases; where local associations already exist under the Oasis project, no new associations will be created to avoid duplication o f effort and resources. The project will also seek to coordinate and collaborate with the following projects: the Desert Margins Program (UNEPIICRISAT), the Small Grants Program (UNDPIGEF), the Poverty Reduction Project in Aftout South and Karakoro (PASK) (IFAD), the Natural Resources Management Program (GTZ), the Biological Conservation Project in Mauritania and Senegal (UNDP), the Rural Electrification through Solar Panels and Windmills Project (UNDP), Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) (USAID), andthe TenAfricaPartnership to access other donor activities. 8  2. Institutionaland Implementation Arrangements 37. The project is designed to foster bottom-up decision-making: the watershed associations (Association de BassinsVersants (ABV)) will be assisted indeveloping their watershed management plan, which will then be approved by the local public authorities (through approval committees). An agreement("convention") willbe signed between the ABVs and interested parties to endorse the planand to clarify roles andresponsibilities. From the plan, the ABVs will select their priority activities and formulate annual action plans which would include subprojects for investment and training in SLM and income- generation. They will be supported with technical assistance provided by the Decentralized Regional Coordination Units and the project's Central Coordination Unit (CCU) (responsible for coordinating and managing the project). The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee will provide technical guidance and advice to the project, and may play a role in policy dialogue and technical information dissemination. Oversight for harmony with the country's laws and policies, and intersectoral coordination rests with the Steering Committee. The details o f roles and responsibilities at eachlevel are describedbelow. At the NationalLevel: 38. Project Central Coordination Unit (CCU): The CCU, under the tutelage of the Ministry o f Rural Development and Environment (MDRE) will be responsible for implementing the C B W . Since the C B W is a partially blended project with the CBRD, the coordination o f the CBWM. will use the existing structure o f the baseline project for project coordination and managementto maintain consistency and efficiency. Staffing o f the CCU comprises: (i) a core management team (Project Coordinator, Director o f Administration and Finance, Internal Auditor, and Procurement Specialist); (ii)experts covering M&E and such key aspects of the project as community participatiodtraining, rural infrastructure, agricultural services contracting, natural resourceslenvironmental safeguard issues, and gender and social safeguard issues; a technical expert, the lead environmental specialist position within the project, will be responsible for the technical management aspects o fthe CBWM andwill be supported by a full-time technical assistant; and (iii)assistants dealing with project communication, logistics, computer systems. 39. The CCU is responsible for briefing the MDRE before each meeting o f the Steering Committee, and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (defined below). The CCUwill also be the contact point for responding to informationneeds, e.g., from TerrAfrica Briefings including quarterly reports and summary notes. The CCU's responsibilities include: (i)preparing the annual work programs and budgets for project activities; (ii) planning and implementing such activities; (iii) maintaining the project's financial integrity; (iv) implementingthe M&E system includingthe impact analysis; (v) facilitatingwith sectoral operations to help village communities andrural communes gain access to basic social services; and (vi) collaborating with other development partners and Government-financed development projects to avoid duplication o f effort and to ensure complementarity with such initiatives. Unlike the CBRD, under the C B W , the CCU will handle all direct payments to contractors and service providers for the watershed associations which, unlike the CBRD's community development associations 9  "Associations de Dtveloppement Communautaires (ADC), will not be managing their own funds under the project. 40, TheSteering Committee(Comitd de Pilotage, CP): Provides overall guidance to the project. It will be responsible for: (i) reviewing the annual work plans, budgets, and project's results prepared bythe CCU; (ii) assessing the progressmade towards achieving project's objectives; (iii)facilitating the project's implementation through the coordination among CP's members. It is chaired by the Ministry o f Economic Affairs and Development (MAED) and consists of key ministries involved inproject activities (Rural Development, Interior, Health, Education, Equipment, Water, etc.), representatives (mayors) from elected local governments (communes), and civil society (NGOs). The CP meets twice a year, with one o f the meetings to include other development partners. TheminutesofCP's meetings will be sharedwith IDAandthe GEF. 41. Scientific and TechnicalAdvisory Committee(Comitd scientifique et technique, CST): This committee, which will be establishedinthe context o f the C B W does not exist inthe baseline project design. Its role would be to review the technical elements of the project activities which are new and innovative (e.g., solar cooking stoves, biogas) and having a national scope, guarantee the coherence and scientific quality of activities, and contribute to the monitoring, and evaluation of the project from a technical standpoint, and be involved inthe dissemination o f results. The committee would meet as needed and selected members o f the committee would participate in field missions. The committee would be chaired by the GEF Focal Point of Mauritania (DEW), and include a core team of: the CCU as Secretariat, international experts in related disciplines, representatives or project staff of other related donor-funded programs. Representatives from donors, national research institutions, the university, extension services, other Government technical services departments (e.g., DPSE, DAYDE, DRV), and civil society would be invited to participate as observers. The CTS may also be involvedinpolicy dialogue and informationdissemination involving best practices inside andoutsideofthe country. At the Regional Level: 42. DecentralizedRegional Coordination Unit-RCU: Project management will be decentralized to the regional (wilaya) level. The Comitb Rbgional de Dbveloppement (CRD) selects the watershed sites andoversees the regional programand is chaired bythe Governor (Wali) o f the region. The CRD i s composed o f Government representatives (the Hakems), public services, representatives of local government (communes) and civil society (NGO, professional associations). Each regioninthe project areahas a Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) which i s under the supervision o f the Dblbgation Rbgionale du DbveloppementRural o f the MDRE. 43. The RCU will be incharge o f implementingproject activities on the ground and would beresponsible for approving the plans for watershed management. Inparticular, it will ensure that the M&Esystem is carried out according to planandthe "Association des Bassins Versants" (ABV) or watershed associations receive the necessary assistance in implementing project activities. The RCU is staffed with the Regional Coordinator, an accountant and a data entry operator. It works with the Cadre mobile d'assistance technique (CMAT) recruited by the project to strengthen the Regional Delegation in 10  terms o f staffing. The CMAT are expectedto be retained by these delegations at the end of the project. As with the CCU, the core staff o f the RCUwill be under a performance- contract to bejointly assessedbythe Borrower and GEF. At the LocalLevel: 44. Local Public Authorities and Oversight: Central and local technical services o f the State and local authorities o f the communes are expected to play an important role in the CBRD and CBWM. Local authorities are expectedto: (i) participate inthe validation process and implementation o f the watershed management plan which must be aligned with the Regional Poverty Reduction Programs and the development agenda of the communes and the region; (ii) that the different investments conform with relevant verify rules and legal texts; (iii) supervisethe implementation o f subprojects; and (iv) assist the communities in conflict resolution should they arise. The watershed management plan and the activities contained therein will be vetted by an Approval Committee at the Moughataa (prtifecture) level, coordinated by the Prefect (Hakem) o f the concerned Moughataa. The Approval Committee will be comprised of representatives of the sectoral ministries, local governments, andlocalNGOs. Details would be provided inthe Project Implementation Manual. 45. Watershed Associations (Associations des Bassins Versants - ABVs) are ultimately the principal implementing units o f the CBWM, They are governed by applicable laws and regulations. They will group together representatives from different ADC villages under the CBRD. The project will not intervene in areas which do not have ADC villages. With assistancefrom technical specialists, ABVs will beresponsible for designing the development and investment plans for selected watersheds through a participatory approach. The approach will involve several villages, and for rural communes, it will involve all villages inthe watersheds. Funds will be managedby the CCU for the ABVs. ABVs and rural communes will be responsible for contracting suppliers and service providers, procuring goods and services needed to implement investment plans, and assuring proper operation and maintenance of the investments, and the CCU will pay directly the contractors or providers. The ABVs will be responsible also for assessing the performance o f agricultural and facilitation services. The composition o f eachABVs would include: at least three representatives from eachADC, one representative from the livestock herders (transhumants), and a representative each from other users o fwatershed resources, e.g., fishermen, charcoal manufacturers, etc.. 46. Matching grants under the h c a l Investment Fund (Component B) will be providedusingthe following criteria: (i) ABV is a socially cohesive group withwhich the the project can work; (ii) ABV has inplace a watershed management plan; and (iii) the sub-projects are technically, financially, and environmentally sound with indications that the ABV will take responsibility for its realization, operation and maintenance. The ABVs are required to follow a transparent process in the procurement of goods and services and are subject to technical supervision andmonitoringo fthe sub-projects. Ifan ABV violates the agreement signed with the project's CCU through any misuse or misappropriation o f fknds, support from the project will be suspended. 11  3. MonitoringAnd Evaluation of OutcomeslResults 47. To ensure harmonization andcoordination, the project will use the monitoringand evaluation system designed for the baseline project and adds relevant information needed for its GEF-funded activities. The central database being developed under the baseline project will capture data collected from project activities, national databases, studies and surveys, as well as inputs fiom the CBRD's Central Coordination Unit's (CCU) financial monitoring system, The Geographic Information System (GIS) for the baseline and the CBWM. is beingdeveloped inparallel with the GIS system o fthe IPDIAproject, with the collaboration o f the central mapping agency o f Mauritania. The GIS information once available may be usedfor capturing diagnostic information on villages and communities, monitor initiatives and community interventions related to watershed management and land degradation. In the meantime, GIS data and information used in the design of watershed management plans will be provided as part o f a technical assistance or consultant services contract to develop the plans and training will be provided to Government technical staff as part ofthe contracts. 48. The project would supplement the financing for M&E activities under the baseline project for incremental equipment and operating costs, andconsultant services to carry out analyses and impact assessments, and for study tours to capture best practices andlessons from experienceswith environmental M&E. 49, At the local level, the project will support community-based M&E as a tool for building the capacity of watershed associations to implement their watershed management plans. M&E will build on accepted traditional methods o f surveillance which exist at the village level, and involve watershed associations in surveillance activities and reporting o f abuses o f natural resources to the proper local authorities. Ecological monitoring would initially be carried out by extension agents with the possibility of transferring such responsibilities to watershed associations as their capacities are developed. Local facilitators would be trained inbasic data collection and assistedwith minimal equipment andtransport necessary for themto effectively carry out their tasks. 50. As in the baseline project, to ensure objectivity, the project will contract with third parties (the MDRE's M&E unit, other agencies, and consultants) to measure its outcome indicators and conduct targeted studies and surveys as needed. Inyear one, the project will work with these parties to define an appropriate quantitative approach to assess the project's overall impact, e.g., indicators for measuring successful adoption of the SLM approaches by the watershed associations will be measures using a scorecard system. However, overall responsibility for the collection of indicator data and analysis o f results rests with the M&E system located within the CCU and assisted by RCUs. Capacities o f the CCU and the Ministry o f Rural Development and Environment (MDRE) (particularly its statistical unit) will be strengthened so as to build complete ownership o fthe M&E systemby the Government. 12  4. SustainabilityandReplicability 51. RepZicabiZity. The project will be tested initially in two pilot sites', following which successful approaches will be replicated to a total o f four sites by the end o f the project implementation period of five years. The selection criteria for scaling up to other sites will be specific to watershed management and land degradation problems to better ensure replicability from one site to the next. A detailed replication strategy will be proposedat the endo fthe second year o fproject implementation. 52. The project will collect best practices and lessons from other related initiatives and other donor-financed projects in the area and incorporate applicable approaches during the project execution period, in addition to collecting and disseminating such information through the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Representatives from other donor agencies (GTZ, UNDP, UNEP, FAD), with programs under preparation and execution were invited to participate in the preparation o f the project. Donors were also invitedto attend a stakeholder's workshop heldto endorse findings of studies completed during the project's preparation. The project intends to remain in contact with the representativeso frelevant programsby solicitingtheir involvement, e.g., as observers, in the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, field trips, and workshops. 53, The TerrAfrica Parnership on SLM is available to assist inscaling up and scaling out interventions from the CBWM project, within Mauritania and beyond. The TerrAfrica Partnership would provide a platform for knowledge, promoting and disseminating best practice, toolkits, and analytical work, gathered from other countries inAfrica whichwould assistMauritania's SLMinitiatives. 54. Sustainability Together with the baseline project, the project will employ a demand-driven, participatory approach to building local capacity for managing small projects, formulating development plans, contracting and supervising small procurement works, funds management, monitoring, and application o f new SLM technologies, Communities will gain experience innegotiating contracts with government, civil society andprivatesector andbuildpartnerships withthem. The project will provide an enabling environment for strengthening local ownership o f natural resources management initiatives through demand-driven investments with beneficiary contributions in kind (labor and basic materials). At the regional and national levels, the project would frame interventions within the decentralization process and would contribute to strengthening the capacity o f national ~sociations/institutio~ designing, planning and managing in watershed management plans in the context o f land degradation by involving these important stakeholdersinthe preparation, implementation and evaluation processes, 55. The environmental communications strategy and materials to be made available through GEF funding will also contribute to building stakeholder capacity in SLM implementation. 'Thetwo watershed pilot sites are: Greiguel(3 communes, 32 villages), and Tengharada (1 commune, 12 villages). The total number o f villages targeted willbe around 150villages over five years of implementation. 13  56. The project will be implemented within the framework o f relevant national policies and regulations which the Government has established which will contribute to the long term prospects o f the project's sustainability. Furthermore, the baseline study and review o f policies and regulations will make recommendations on harmonization of relevant laws andregulations whichwill directly impact the project. 57. Following the coup of August 2005, the Bank has maintained a close dialogue with the current Government of Mauritania and has received confirmation from the Government o f its strong commitment to the current lendingprogram. 58. Inorder to ensure financial sustainability, the economic aspectsofmanaging land degradation will be taken into account and innovative financial mechanisms will be explored including national environmental funds, regional partnership centers for communities, carbon financelsequestration, and returning environmental tax revenue to the local level, In particular, profitable options would be highlighted on community development plans. 5. CriticalRisks and PossibleControversial Aspects 59. The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) revealed that the systems for planning, budgeting, monitoring and controlling public resources in Mauritania are improving but remain at a level that they do not provide sufficient reasonable assurance that funds are used for the purpose intended. The risk o f waste, diversion and misuse o f funds was assessed as partially high. The overall project risk from a financial management perspective is therefore considered partially high. Nevertheless, various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed. The financial management arrangements o f the project are designed to ensure that funds are used for the purpose intended, and timely information is produced for project management and government oversight, andfacilitate the compliance with IDA fiduciary requirements. 60, As the CFAA recommendations on financial accountability reforms havenot fully been implemented yet, the Country Risk is assessed as partially high. Various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed and thus the project risk from a financial management perspective could be moderate provided the risk mitigating measures are properly addressed. 61. The table below identifies the key risks that project management may face in achieving its objectives and provides a basis for determining how management should address these risks. 14  R i S k S Risk MitigationMeasures Rating Inherent Financial Management Risks: Fundsmay notbe usedinanefficient and M The team o f qualifiedand experienced staff inplace economical way and exclusively for purposes would reduce this risk. intended due to corruption andpoor governance. Strong internal control procedures to be set up and maintained under control with strengthened follow-up o f Audit Reports. Confusion may arise between CBRD and C B W M M A dedicated accountant willhandle C B W M operations transactions. under DAF supervision. Financial Management Control Risks: Teething problems mayjeopardize timeliness and accuracy o f financial report andthus slow down M Training o f staff is expectedto be providedby a FM the disbursement process. consultant before effectiveness. Other Project Risks: Lack o f cooperation betweenstakeholders due to H Conduct stakeholder analysis as prerequisite for development o f watershed mgt. plans. Put inplace with communities, participative mechanisms to encourage involvement o f disadvantaged groups (transhumants, nomads, women, youth) inSLM, Encourage traditional methods o f conflict resolution involving localauthorities and laws. Competition for resources creates conflicts. M Ensure participative process inresources management and decision-making so that benefits are evident to all stakeholders; ensure transparency, availability o f informationinthe use o fresourceslfimds. Use o f local laws and locaytraditional methods o f conflict resolution. Weak implementation capacity at the local M Training and assistance for relevant institutions/ (communities, service providers) and institutional organizations. A communication strategy will be put in levels (local authorities, local collectivities) may place to provide incentives for communities to cause bottlenecks inimplementation and limit participate ininter-village activities, targeting women effective feedback and support from communities. and vouth. Weak cohesion o f inter-village associations and M Pilot sites are chosen inareas which have some groups (slow to form). cohesionaround common interests inuse o fnatural resources. Baselineproject would have already launched local development plans and would provide a basis for the project. Participative process plustraining and technical assistance will improve cohesiono f mourn. Prolonged drought periods would negate positive H Buildcapacity for early warning system within effects o fproject investments communities; support diversification o f livelihood options; identify options for interventions for water conservatiodmanagement activities to be included in project activities; identify linkages withongoing national and donor initiatives to mitigate risks due to drought. H=High S = Substantial N Moderate N=Lowhegligible 15  6. Grant ConditionsandCovenants 62. The following are conditions of effectiveness: e Amendment o f the regulations (arr8tCs) for establishing the Pilot Steering Committee (ComitC de Pilotage) to reflect the newresponsibilities o fthe Committee. Amendment o f the regulations for establishing the Central Coordination Unit, to reflect the newresponsibilities o fthe unit. Update and amend all project manuals o f the CBRD including those of Project Implementation, MonitoringandEvaluationto cover implementation of the Project. Financial Management: the recipient has opened a Project Account and made an initial deposit of $40,000 ofcounterpart funds. Establishment of a computerized information system satisfactory to the Bank for the financial managemento f the Project. Recruitment o f external auditor to include and assess the CBWMproject. D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 1. EconomicAndFinancialAnalyses 63. A cost-benefit analysis for the whole projectwas not undertaken because: (a) the benefits derived from capacity building activities cannot be quantified, and (b) the benefits derived from investments innatural resources management and sustainable land managementcannot be easily quantifiedinmonetary terms. Consequently, anillustrative cost-benefit analysis of the income-generating activities was carried out. The analysis shows that it should not be difficult to reach a minimum o f 10 percent internal rate of return (IRR) and economic rate o f return (ERR) on average for such sub-projects as soil and water conservation (dikes and thresholds), acacia gum tree rehabilitation, village garden, andAfiican gardens. Economic andFinancialAnalysis(NPV inUS$'OOO) Thresholds 35% 8,1 60% 7Y9 19% 5,0 Acacia GumTrees 38% 28,9 152% 30,9 24% 24,2 Village Gardens NC 8Y0 NC 525 502% 4,2 IrrigatedAfrican Gardens 145% 37,8 >1000% 38,7 128% 35,7 Note: NC =not computable; NR= not relevant 2. Technical 64, The project supports environmentally sound investments that would promote sustainable landmanagement practices among beneficiary communities inthe watershed intervention areas. The investments would correspondto beneficiary needs andbe driven 16  by the contents of a planfor watershed managementformulated at the national level for each watershed. The plan and specifications will be drawn up by technical experts in consultation with the communities to ensure aparticipatory approach. Proposals for local investment funding for inter-community subprojects will be reviewed by a Scientific and Technical Committee responsible for technical soundness and quality oversight. Technical design and implementation o f the subprojects will be carried out with the assistance o f technical services personnel fiom the CCU and from the Regional Delegation Units and the soundnessandbenefits fiom the investments will bemonitored through M&E methods established for the project (e.g., scorecards, etc.). For each investment selected by the ABV, a technical note will be produced describing its specifications (including technical description, performance, operation and maintenance procedures, costs andbenefits, etc.). Environmental screening will be performed prior to each sub-project's execution, andregularmonitoringo f environmental impact will ensure that adequate safeguards measures are taken into account. Community memberswill be given appropriate training and follow-up assistance to acquire and maintain new skills andtechnologies introduced. 3. Fiduciary 65. The overall conclusion ofthe assessment is that the current financialmanagement (FM) arrangements are satisfactory to meet IDA FM requirements though some recommendations should be implemented by effectiveness such as: (a) extend external auditors contract to the new operation; (b) update and extend the existing FM systems includingmanual o fprocedures; (c) Initialdeposit o f Counterpart Fundsreleased. 66. By effectiveness, the project will not be ready for report-based disbursements. Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-baseddisbursement procedures, as described inthe World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e. direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. However, when project implementation begins, and the recipient (GOM) requests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will beundertakenby IDA to determine ifthe project is eligible. 4. Social 67. Degradation of agricultural production systems in the watersheds has lead to reduced agricultural production and as a result to increased poverty. The degradation in the watersheds has been particularly dramatic and would eventually lead to the abandonment o f many o f these agro-ecosystems. The project objective is to sustainably increase agricultural production and diversification and revenues in the four selected watershedbasins. 68, From its onset and throughout preparation, the project team focused on reviewing social issuesinthe designated watersheds to identifypotential constraints for cooperation between villages and communities in the same watershed. The project will use the findings of the socio-economic study and the appraisal report (social issues) for the CBRD to explore in greater depth current social data tied to the social development objectives of the project, namely: (i) stakeholder inclusion, and (ii) accountability their and ownership of the project through full and broad-based participation of all the beneficiaries over the project lifespan. The CBWM will seek to analyze further constraints that could delay the activities o f the various beneficiary groups ( such as a 17  rural exodus and low literacy level o f ABV managers, which could pose a serious obstacle to sound management o f their activities, etc.), as well as capitalize on and boost opportunities for the attainment o fproject objectives. 69. Inaddition, theprojectwillseekto tap intothesocialdiversitywithinthevillage communities in order to foster a harmonious balance and cohesion among the different social groups usingwatershed resources. The method used inthe preparatory process o f the CBWM facilitated involvement o f all stakeholders (beneficiaries, commune mayors, the public andprivate sectors, technical services, civil society organizations, etc.) through on-site visits and consensus-building workshops. The participatory approach used during the planningphase of the project will be strengthened and intensified, in order to build a consensus around efforts to combat land degradation (for example, soil management, pastureland, forests, revenue-generating activities, introductiono fnew technologies). 70. Current social organization structures (truck fming and cottage-industry cooperatives, mutual assistance groups for the building o f dikes and wells, ADCs, etc. will be usedbythe watershed association (ABV), inorder to expand the participationof village communities inthe implementation o f watershed management plans, The use o f these local institutions will contribute significantly to the effectiveness o f the project as well as its sustainability, with the objective o f fostering equitable growth and poverty reduction. Taking into account the fact that the watershed communities use common resources (forests, pasturelands, agricultural ecosystems, water supply points, etc.) covering different areas, social conflicts between farmers and animal breeders related to the cohabitation o fthese two groups are commonplace. 71. To this end, the project will use the regulatory mechanisms in place to reduce these conflicts: (i) the traditional mechanism (internal conflict management methods involving traditional chiefs, imams, village sages, andjemmas, inorder to mediate such conflicts); (ii)external mechanisms, usingmediation and arbitration through communal, departmental, and regional committees, along with representatives o f farmers, animal breeders, and users. This mechanism relies on the pastoral code and other legal and regulatory mechanisms inplace. Inorder to minimize the potentialrisk o f social conflicts at the level o f inter-community organizations (ABV), which could affect project activities, the project will cany out conflict management capacity-building activities for all staff involved in the CBWM Project implementation process. This i s designed to foster and sustain the inclusion o f all the various stakeholder groups in the planning, implementation andmonitoring o f sub-projects andbeyond. 72. The socio-economic study has demonstrated the need to take into account the priorities and interests of women inorder to overcome gender-related disadvantages and increase the involvement o f women in controlling natural resource degradation. The project will buildthe capacity o f women inthe areas o f energy substitution (introduction of solar and bio-gas cookers, improved ovens, etc.) and techniques for the restoration o f degradedland. 5. Environment 73. From an environmental and social safeguard point o f view, the Mauritania Community-Based Watershed Management Project (CBWM) i s a Category B project. That is, there could be adverse environmental and social impacts o f the project, but they 18  are expected to be localized, not complex or irreversible, and avoidable or at least manageable to an acceptable level. There are three Bank Safeguardpolicies applicable to the project. These include: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01); Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) andPest Management (OP 4.09). 74. At the time of the environmental and social assessment of the project, the range, scale, locations and number of sub-projects, as part o f the CBWM initiatives were unknown. Inorder to provide the foundation for identifyingthe potential impacts o f sub- projects, once identified, and determining what mitigation measures should be put in place, the Bank requires the development o f an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)).In addition, it was determined, basedon project envisioned activities leading, inparticular, to diversification and intensification o f agriculture, that the Pest Management Policy is triggered. This requiredthe development ofaPest~anagementPlan (PMP). 75, Because the CBWM, a GEF-funded project, is intervening in the same interventionzones as the Community-Based RuralDevelopment (CBRD) project already under implementation, it was deemed in this case that the ESMF and the RPF for the CBRD project should be adapted to suit the development objective, description and institutional and implementation arrangements o f the CBWM. On the other hand, the PMP prepared for the CBRDP has been simply re-disclosed, since there was no need for the preparation of a new one. This was based on the fact the existing PMP i s national in scope. 76, The ESMF and RPF have been prepared2, in full compliance with Bank and national safeguard policies, by local consultants, following a broad consultation framework, involving all relevant stakeholder groups. The PMP3has already been the subject o fconsultation inthe preparation o f CBRD. 6. Safeguardpolicies Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No EnvironmentalAssessment (OPIBPIGP 4.01) [XI [I NaturalHabitats(OPIBP 4.04) [I [XI PestManagement(OP 4.09) [XI 11 CulturalProperty(OPN 11.03, beingrevisedas OP 4.11) [I [XI InvoluntaryResettlement (OPIBP 4.12) [XI E l IndigenousPeoples COP4.10) [I [XI Forests(OPIBP 4.36) [I [XI Safety ofDams (OPIBP 4.37) [I [XI ProjectsinDisputedAreas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* [I [XI ProjectsonInternationalWaterways (OPIBPIGP 7.50) [I [XI 'ESMFdatedNovember 1,2005; RFP datedFebruary 1,2006. PMPdatedFebruary 16,2006. * By supportingtheproposedproject, theBank does not intend toprejudicethefinal dete~inationof theparties' claimson thedisputedaveas. 19  7. Policy Exceptions andReadiness 77. There are no policy exceptions applicable to the CBWM project. The project was designed in a highly participative process involving consultation with other donors, and participation in the preparation process by stakeholders and civil society. Consultation through a stakeholders' workshop held on October 19-20, 2005, at preparation validated findings in the project's baseline studies4 and informed publicly of the project's design and content. The newly formed Government of Mauritania provided support through ministerial representation, national television and press coverage to demonstrate its interest andcommitment, The baseline studies presented were: (i) analysis of laws and regulations, (ii) characterization and an soil degradation, (iii) social analysis of communities at the pilot sites, and (iv) biophysical analysis of sites. 20  Annex 1: CountryandSector or ProgramBackground MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject Background 1. With a GDP of $350 per capita (2002) and a poverty rate of 46.3 percent (2000), Mauritaniasupports a population o f 2.6 million people with an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent. More than 90 percent o f the land surface is desert. Although there is an increasing trend o frapidurbanization, largelyas a result o fmigrations due to drought, the rural sector has the highest concentration o f the poor (75 percent) and remains the main source o f income for the population employingan estimated 64 percent o fthe labor force. KeyElementsofthe PovertyReductionStrategy 2. Mauritania has been engaged for a little over a decade in ambitious reform policies that have affected all aspects o f the country's political, economic and social life. The country was eligible for the poverty reduction initiative for heavily indebted poor countries (HPC) inMarch 1999 and launched its first povertyreductionstrategy on a highlyparticipative basis inthe 1990s. The poverty reduction strategy is built on four mainthemes: (i) Accelerating economic growth (with a target rate o f 7 percent), through direct and indirect effects onjob creation andnew revenues, and through its impact on the Government's budget revenues, which will inturn support sectors that directly benefitthe poor. (ii) Developinggrowth inpoverty-stricken areas throughaparticipatoryapproach. (iii) Developinghumanresources, with a focus on education, heath, and access to essentialinfrastructures (iv) Promotingtrue institutionaldevelopment and goodgovernance. 3. To achieve these objectives, in the medium-term (by 2005), the Government is implementing a coherent package o f macro-economic stabilization, deepening structural reforms, and implementing investment programs targeting areas with direct impact on poverty (rural development, urbandevelopment, education, health, potable water). Inthe long term, the Government's intends to: (a) reduce the proportion o f the population living below the poverty threshold to under 27 percent by the year 2010 and below 17 percent by 2015, (b) achieve by 2015, the social development objectives defined on the basis o frecommendations emerging from various world summit meetings; and (c) reduce social and spatial disparities. 4, The CountryAssistance Strategy (CAS) (FY03-05) emphasizesthe needto invest in natural resources management and envisions investment in natural resources managementcapacity buildinginFY05 (highcase lendingscenario). 21  Development Issues and Constraints 5. While the successfulimplementation o f the national programs and policy reforms has contributed to a good performance, the Mauritanian economy i s still laboring under an undiversified and uncompetitive productive base, inadequate infiastructures, an ineffective training system, inefficient financial intermediation services, and limited institutionalcapacities. 6. The following general constraints are hampering the Government's efforts to fight poverty: e Demographics. Mauritania's population is expected to double from 2.6 to 4.1 million by2015; andrapidurbanmigrationtowards the capital, Nouakchott, at the rate o f 5 percent per year, are expected to increase demand for social services and impact environment. e Weak Capacity of Public Admjnistratjon inimplementingeconomic and sectoral policies, managing strategic planning and programminglmonitoring o f public expenditures, organizing administrative services, statistical data systems, and under-equipped regional services undermine the effectiveness o f poverty reduction strategies. e Weak Capacity of Civil Society which are recent and insufficiently structured which affects their ability to be effective partners to implementing poverty reduction programs with the Government and to provide outreach to the population, 7. Mauritania also remains the Sahelian country most affected by drought and desertification; repeated cycles o f drought and resulting natural resource deterioration seriously affect the population's productive capacities. Vegetation and forest resources are sparse, and except for mining and fisheries, the country lacks directly exploitable natural resources. Water scarcity i s a widespread problem. Desertification and environmental degradation are threatening arable land (45 percent o f the total surface) andurgent actions are neededto mitigatethis threat. Access to potable water (for human andanimal consumption), limitedroadinfrastructure, particularly inrural areas, severely curb access for the rural population to agricultural services, health care, sanitation, education, andbusiness and social services. As a result, large areas lie fallow interms o f their potential for growth for lack of connecting feeder roads to markets. 8. Inthe rural sector, the constraints to development include: e A narrow and degraded natural resource base where agricultural activities take place within a narrow strip o f land (200 km wide); the land i s characterized by low and erratic rainfall, interrupted by drought spells; the limited arable land i s threatened by soil degrading practices and advancing dune formations; and biodiversityi s threatenedby over-exploitation o f forest formations. 22  Limited transport infrastructure to access markets and services due to a combination o f public investment decisions, poor implementation o f transport policies, and the vastness o f the country and the isolation o f rural populations, which poses a challenge to developing a roadnetwork. Limited supply of productive services including agricultural services, resulting in low agricultural productivity. Limited local community ownership of public investments as a result of a predominant top-down approach to public investments, low level of decentralization to the rural areas, and low involvement o f local communities in public investment decision making. Limited access to investment and working capital with no viable system for rural micro-finance for rural communities to acquire needed productive assets and servicesto boost agricultural productivity. Land tenure and the imple~~ntationapastoral code which is presently being of concentrated inhigh value land and not as much inrainfed areas where it could help resolve fanner-herder conflicts. 9. Landdegradation is a major concern inMauritaniawhere agro-pastoral areas and oases provide the ecosystems which serve as a primary source o f water for the cattle population, support agricultural and pastoral production, supply firewood and timber, supplycrops, andprovide the habitat for fauna andflora. The integrityo fthe ecosystems i s threatened by the following constraints to sustainable management of natural resources: Loss of arable land due to drought, lack o f technical supervision and distribution o f available technologies, increase inpopulation, lack of collectivevision and long-term planning, and difficulties in managing intercommunity areas. Result: reduction in yield, income, food security. Loss of pastureland due to inadequate tradition-based rules, lack of fmiliarity and irregular application o f the pastoral code, spatial management difficulties, lack o f participation of communities, numerous regulations and measures for managing intercommunity forums. Result: increase in conflicts, greater competition for resources. Loss of biodiversity from uncontrolled hunting, fishing, and deforestation, unfdliarity with regulations, limited personnel for monitoring, land clearing, reduction in the water table, and poverty pressure. Result: disappearance o f plant andanimal species, reductioninmedicinalplants, 23  Loss of forest land from poor access to alternative technologies, and lack o f supervision. GovernmentActions to AddressIssuesandConstraints 10. The Government has put in place various national strategies and policies to address the above constraints. Inthe ruralsector, the Government's long-term strategy is to: (a) facilitate growth to ensure food security inthe country; (b) ensure equal access to resources in the sector; (c) increase public goods and services needed to develop the sector sustainably; and (d) build capacity for integrated and participatory rural development. 11. Key strategies andpolicies include: e Country Environmental Strategy Paper (CESP) and the the Environmental Strategy (to be updated) which addresses environmental concerns from increased populationpressuresandurban environmental problems. ~ultisectoralProgram to CombatDesertification (Programme Multisectoriel de Lutte Contre la Dbertification (PMLCD)) - multisectoral program at the national andregional levelwhich was presentedto the donor community in 1992. National Action Plan to Combat Desertification (Plan d'Action National de Lutte Contre la D~sertification (PAN-LCD) (2002)) - priorities o f the plan highlightthe urgent need to: (a) develop scientific and technical methods to take into account environmental issues including land degradation; (b) develop national capacity to address environmental issues (application o f national environmental policies at every level); (c) implement environmental impact studies. Inthis context, the project i s the implementation o f the PAN/LCD 5;the project team i s required to participate in meetings organized by the MDRE on desertification and land degradation. The project would sharewith the PANlLCD lessons and information gathered through the M&E component which supports landdegradation monitoringthrough satellite imagery. National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) (Plan d'Action National pour 1'Environnement et le Dkveloppement Durable (PANE)) which formulated a legal and institutional framework for environmental management. Land degradation i s an essential component o f the PANE$ which i s part o f the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. National Action Plunfor Adaptation to Climatic Change (NAPA). National BiodiversityStrategy (1998). Forestry Code and ForestAction Plan. By-Law for Game and Protection of Game and NaturdCode de la Chasse et la protection de la Nature (1997). ((Rapport National SUT la Mise en CEuvre de la CCD en MauritanieD,Rkpublique Islamique de Mauritanie, Ministbre duDtveloppement Rural de de 1'Environnement, Direction de l'Environnement, janvier, 2005. 24  General Policies and Strategiesfor Rural Sector Development through theyear 2015 (1998, revised in 2001). Letter of Development Policy for Irrigated Agriculture through the year 2010 (dated 1999) - puts in place key measures to promote efficiency and diversification in agricultural production in the Senegal River Valley (liberalization of the rice sub-sector, implementation o f the IDA-funded Integrated Development Program for Irrigated Agriculture (IDPLLVPDIAIM) which provides for the rehabilitation o f irrigated perimeters; and strengthening financial institutions to provide access to credit for farmers). Land TenureLaw (Lois Foncisre et domaniale (1997, 2002)). Agro-food Strategy (2001) identifies import substitution andexport nichemarkets as growth sectors inthe short to mediumterm. Letter of Livestock Development Policy (2004) complements the PastoruE Code and were drafted as a result of a study "Livestock Contribution to Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth"(2002) which recognized the fact that, over the last 20 years, the livestock sector has made an unrecorded but significant contributionto national economic growth andto poverty alleviation. Pastoral Code (Code Pastoral) (2003) (Loi No. 2000-044). The livestock sector, which is characterized inMauritania by a mobile production system with flexible use o f natural resources, accounts for about 25 percent of the GDP compared to three to five percent for the rest o f the agriculture sector. However, little support had been provided for this type o f mobile animal husbandry except for limited serviceson animal healthcare andto the foundation o fpastoral organizations. No laws exist granting right o f access and utilization o f natural resources to pastoralists. Consequently, the Government has opted for a package o f measures which will promote and preserve the transhumant livestock husbandry, reinforce the capacity o f pastoral organizations and livestock managers, and elaborate and apply the pastoral code. 0Loi d'~rientationor Guideline Law No. 50-2001 o f July 19, 2001 the Poverty - Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) has been raised to the level o f a law in Mauritania; the law contains guidelines for combating poverty. The Bank and IMF considered that this provided the solid basis for continued international assistanceto Mauritania, particularly since it marked a completionpoint under the HlPC initiativebeguninearly 2002. 0Decentralization Strategy (Ordinance No. 86-134, April 13, 1986), was applied to rural municipalities in 1989 and led to the creation of 216 communes, o f which 163 are ruralmunicipalities. A National Strategy of Decentralization and Local Governance (2002) - focuses on the legal and institutional ftamework, fiscal resources, financial transfers fiom central government to the communes, managerial capacities o f the communes, and linkages runningthrough decentralization and local development, good governance, and sustainable development. 25  CountryEligibilityfor GEFCofinancing 12. The Government of Mauritania has signedratified the following conventions: (i) the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) - signed on October 14, 1994, and ratified on August 7, 1996; (ii) Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) - signed on the June 12, 1992, and ratified on August 16, 1996; (iii) the Conventionon Climate Change (CCC) was signed on December 6, 1992, and ratified on January 20, 1994. The Government has also prepared and submitteda National Action Plan(NAP)in2002 and the NAP'Spriorities are included in the 2001-2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP); and the new environmental strategy to be implemented with UNDP's assistance through the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) (Plan National d'Action pour 1'Environnement (PANE) which was developed through a participative process and in accordance with the relevant international conventions (CCD, CBD,the convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention)). The major objectives o f the NEAP are to: (i) promote extensive consultations at the community and departmental levels regarding environmental degradation and develop natural resources in the areas o f pastoralism, forestry, and protection o f marine and inland wetlands; (iii)develop ecotourism as an alternative method for maximizing the potential o f the country's natural biodiversity heritage; (iv) implement a massive program to utilize butane gas and alternative energy sources in place o f charcoal; and (v) establish arrangements for monitoring and evaluating environmental policies andprograms. Rationalefor BankandGEFInvolvement 13. The CBWM project builds on the community-based rural development structure begun under the IDA-financed CBRD project which focuses primarily on village-level investments, by broadening the base and supplementing it with natural resources managementemphasizing sustainablelandmanagement (SLM)at the inter-community or landscape level. Inthis way, the Bank holds an advantage over other donors involved in local development operations bybeing able to focus its financing to support bothbroader village-level investments and adequate attention to community-based natural resource managementinterms o f landdegradation management. HigherLevelObjectivesto which the ProjectContributes 14. The project would contribute to the Borrower's higher level objectives and sector priorities for poverty reduction by being aligned with the priorities in the PRSP (2001) which emphasizes the need to invest in natural resources management (NRM) and in capacity buildinginFY05 (highcase lendingscenario). The preparation o f the financing of the baseline project andthenthe CBWM project received strong Government support: an official request was made to the Bank for the financing o f the CBWM project to complement the CBRD project, on an inter-community basis, to improve the management of natural resources and combat desertification within the context of watershedsandlandscapesmanagement. 26  15. The baseline project and the CBWM support the Government's program o f decentralization by soliciting the participation o f the regional, local and traditional authorities in project execution, as well as supporting the Government in the implementation o f several other national strategies and policies with relevance to the rural sector mentionedabove. 16. The global objective o f the CBWM i s to limit landdegradation and to safeguard critical ecosystem functions through community-driven SLM activities that improve agro-sylvopastoral management and increasevegetation cover while securing livelihoods and global environmental benefits @.e,, reduced sedimentation of waterways, improved interconnection andintegrity of ecosystems, enhancedcarbon storagerates, andincreased opportunities for biodiversityconservation). 17. The expectedglobal benefitsofthe GEF alternative include: e stopping andreducing desertification (a globalbad); increased opportunities for conservation of biodiversity, mitigation o f desertification, and preserving ecosystem integrity through the harmonization of policies and regulations supporting sustainable management o f resources at the watershedlandscape level; e enhanced ecosystem integrity and sustainable land management due to adoption o f improved land management and restoration practices, both in productive landscapes and in riparian areas which result in decreased soil erosion, increased in carbon sequestration, and improvedconservation and sustainableuse o fbiodiversity; improved capacity for seed retrieval o f threatened riparian plant species and sustainable landmanagementthrough improving capacity of communities to manage their landresources; restoration of globally important ecosystems (e.g., microclimates, fauna and flora, areas o f significance for migratorybirds); establishment o f a replicable M&E system for land degradation, incorporating global concernsto the baseline M&E activities. 18, The expectednationalbenefits ofthe projectwouldbe: e Improved land and water qualitylquantity for local use through restoration o f degraded lands, resulting decrease in erosion rates, and sediment flow into water bodies; e Improvedincome flow o frural communities through implementation and adoption o f sustainablelandmanagementpractices intargeted areas; e Increased capacity for stakeholders to implement cross-sectoral approaches to land management, including improved outreach and involvement of civil society, private sector, and government institutions to planandmanagenatural resources, 27  19. The project development objective is to lessenthe incidence oflanddegradation at the watershed level within the CBRD project area by assisting rural communities to generate benefits through comunity-driven investments addressing land degradation andpromotingSLMpractices. 20. The overall project outcome expected for the project is that the rural communities' increased usage o f effective SLM techniques and practices lead to a decreaseinincidences of landdegradation. 28  - 32 - Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring MAURITANIA: Community Based Watershed Management Project To limit land degradation andto safeguard critical ecosystem functions through community-driven SLM activities that improve argo-sylvopastoral management and increase vegetation cover while securing livelihoods and global environmental benefits (i.e., reduced sedimentation of waterways, improved interconnectedness and integrity of ecosystems, enhanced carbon storage rates, and increased opportunities for biodiversity conservation). Appropriateimplementationof Y2 to Y4. Assess relevance and the sustainable land management replicability of the SLM approach process by the Watershed for scalingup at the national level. Associations in Project area. I Y3 andY5. Assess the 2/3 of activities introduced replicability of the approach tested generate positive income flow at the sites and make adjustments for the communities. as needed. Y2 to Y5. Focus on successful 25% biomass increase in project techniques adopted in reducing soil areas treated, indicating degradation. sustainable regeneration of grass and shrubs. I ComponentA: CapacityBui ling for Sustanable Land Management (SLM) Watershed associations and Two plans for watershed Y2 to Y4. Assess the viability and relevant institutions have management are developed and applicability of techniques sufficient capacity to adopted for the selected sites by proposed in the watershed implement the SLM approach the end Year2, and 4 by end of management plans and make introduced. Year 4. adjustments as needed. Watershed associations have Y3 to Y5. Assess the effectiveness developed and applied local of capacity building activities and rules for SLM. ensure that they respond to the needs of watershed associations Each watershed association has and their environment. adopted at least2improved SLM practices. Y5. Contributeto the exploration of sustainable, future funding options The CCU has outlined a strategy for SLMactivities/practices at the for financing SLM activities. national and international levels.  - 33 - Component B: Providing Incentives for SLM ABVs are able to identify and At least eligible20 sub-projects Y2 to Y5. Assesstheeffectiveness implement investments are financed and implemented. of investment fund use and success identified in the watershed rate of SLM practices introduced management plans Sustainable maintenance rules and applied. for investments are elaborated and appliedin at least80% of Y3to Y5. Assess level of subprojects lasting more than 1 ownership of investments by year. ABVs. Y3to Y5. Monitor effectiveness of technical services provided at the local level. Component C: Project Man: gement and Monitoring& Evaluat n The CCUprovideson time At least 80%of activities Y1 to Y5. Assist the project the means necessary to reach contained in the annual work coordination unit in decision the objectives of the GEF programs have been making, management and project, using the tools and implemented. evaluation of projectactivities. standards acceptableto the GEF. Safeguards measures have been Y1 to Y5.Ensure quality reporting appliedin accordance with the of project activities. The M&E systemallows ESMF. indicators and project Y1to Y5. Mitigatefinancial, performance tobe measured. Performancemonitoring environmental and social risks indicators are regularly updated. associatedwithproject The CCU has prepared and implementation. implemented an effective Performance/mgt.chartand communication strategy periodic reportson activities and Y3to Y5. Assesstheeffectiveness indicators are produced and of communication tools. disseminated on time. Project partners and the beneficiary population in the watersheds are sensitized to project objectives and activities.  SLM issues withinexisting national frameworks for development through: (a) developing the capacity inthe target countries to mobilize resourcesfor SLM andthe managementof drylands; (b) developing methodologies for the evaluation o f the costs o f land degradation and the benefits o f SLM; (c) improving the enabling environment to address landdegradation inthe target countries (policies, institutions andmanagementpractices). Theresults ofthis project would contribute to the financial sustainability issuesrelatedto watershed managementinMauritania. 6, Linkage with the Famine Emergency Warning Systems (FEWS) Network. FEWSmakes available maps, data, remote sensing and satellite imageryphotographs for determiningrainfall patterns and other infomation, which would be used for developing an early warning system with decision makers, local authorities, and local communities. Inthis way, decision makers can be alerted in a timely manner to prepare contingency plans e.g., sowing of seeds, harvesting o fcrops, water rationing, etc., 31  - 32 - Annex 3: ResultsFrameworkandMonitoring MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject To limitlanddegradation andto safeguardcritical ecosystemfmctions throughcommunity-driven SLM activities that improve agro-sylvopastoral management and increase vegetation cover while securing livelihoods and global environmentalbenefits (i-e., reduced sedimentation o f waterways, improved interconnectedness andintegrity of ecosystems, enhancedcarbon storage rates, andincreased opportunities for biodiversity conservation). ProjectDevelopment ProjectOutcomeIndicators Use of ProjectOutcome Objective@DO) Information To lessenthe incidence of land Appropriate implementation o f Y2 toY4. Assess relevance and degradation at the watershed the sustainablelandmanagement replicability o f the S L M approach level Within the targeted processby the Watershed for scalingup at the national level. project areas by assisting rural . communities to generate benefits Associations inProject area through commuiity-driven Y3 andY5.Assess the investments addressing land 213 o f activities introduced replicability o f the approachtested &@.&tion andpromoting SLM generatepositive income flow at the sites andmake adjustments practices. for the communities. as needed. Y2 to Y5. Focus onsuccessful 30%biomass increase inproject techniques adopted inreducing soil areas treated, indicating degradation. sustainableregeneration o f grass and shrubs, utcome ent (SLM) Watershed associations and Two plans for watershed Y2 to Y4.Assess the viability and relevant institutions have management are developed and applicability o f techniques sufficient capacity to adopted for the selected sites by proposedinthe watershed implement the SLMapproach the end Year 2, and4 by end o f management plans and make introduced. Year 4. adjustments as needed. Watershed associations have Y3 toY5. Assessthe effectiveness developed andappliedlocal o f capacitybuildingactivities and rules for SLM. ensure that they respondto the needs o f watershed associations Eachwatershed association has and their environment. adopted at least 2 improved SLMpractices. Y5. Contributeto the explorationo sustainable, future fimdingoptions The CCUhas outlined a strategy for SLMactivitieslpractices at the for financing S L M activities. national andinternational levels, 32  - 33 - Component B: ProvidingIncentives for SLM ABVs are able to identify and DAt least eligible 20 sub-projects DY2 to Y5. Assess the effectiveness implement investments are financed andimplemented. o f investment funduse and success identified inthe watershed rate o f S L Mpractices introduced management plans Sustainablemaintenancerules andapplied. for investments are elaborated and appliedinat least 80% o f Y3 to Y5. Assess levelof subprojects lastingmore than 1 ownership of investments by year. ABVS. Y3 to Y5. Monitor effectiveness of technical services providedat the local level. Component C: ProjectMan: Iement and Monitoring& Evaluat n The CCUprovides on time At least 80% ofactivities Y1to Y5. Assist the project the meansnecessary to reach contained inthe annualwork coordinationunit indecision the objectives o fthe GEF programs have been making, management and project, usingthe tools and implemented. evaluation ofproject activities. standards acceptable to the GEF. Safeguards measureshave been Y1to Y5.Ensurequality reporting applied inaccordance with the o fproject activities. The M&E system allows ESMF. indicators andproject Y1to Y5. Mitigate financial, performanceto be measured. Performance monitoring environmental and socialrisks indicators are regularly updated. associated withproject The CCUhasprepared and implementation. implemented an effective Performancelmgt. chart and communication strategy periodic reports on activities and Y3to Y5. Assess the effectiveness indicators areproducedand o f communication tools. disseminatedon time. Project partners andthe beneficiary populationinthe watersheds are sensitized to project objectives and activities. 33  - 34 - Arrangements for Project Performance and Results Monitoring 1. To ensure harmonization and coordination between the two projects, the CCU will be responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of the CBWM's performance and results monitoring, The project will supplementfinancingfor the baseline project's M&E system and strengthen it to accommodate the additional requirements o f the CBWM. Specific responsibilities for data collection and processing, performance indicators updating and results analysis anddissemination will be assignedto keyplayers: the UCC (its M&E Unitinparticular), the CCU's regional counterparts inthe Wilayas involvedin the project, external partners (national institutions, consulting firms and individual consultants), and the watershed associations. Specific responsibilities for each of these keyplayers will bedetailedinanAnnex to be attachedto the CBRD's M&EManual. 2. Data Collection. (a) Development Objectives indicators: A score card system will be used to measure on a yearlybasis how well the ADCs have mastered the techniques and practices introduced. The score card system will take into account the following aspects: (1) watershed association structure and operation (criteria for membership, organization, governance, communication, management o f membership fees, capacity for social mobilisation); (2) the capacity for planning and monitoring the activities o f the association (ability to use and adoption o f the monitoring tools provided by the project); (3) the ability to define and apply the rules andregulations of SLM (local conventionsllaws); (4) the adoption and level o fproficiency o f using SLM techniques introduced (participation intraining, mobilization o f resources for SLM, maintenance o f investment activities), etc. The score card system will be used each year by the watershed associations inthe form o f a self-evaluation exercise. They will be assisted by a consultant specialized inparticipatory methods. Data collected inthe field will provide input into the CBRD data base which will contain a table to be updated on the watershed associations in addition to the existing table on the ADCs. The additional annex to the CBRD's M&E Manual will include definitions andweights o f selection criteria, as well as the means and ways that they will be put into practice for M&E should be agreed between the project and its beneficiaries. The additional annex to the CBRI)'s M&E Manual, which mustbe submitted to the Bankprior to project effectiveness (ii) The biomass indicator will be measured usingthe line transect survey and complemented with the plot survey in areas treated by the project and in reference areas. The design o f the initial test system will be carried out by a partner research institution which would also be responsible for general environmental monitoring other key aspects o f the watershed environment (rainfall, groundwater level, vegetation cover andbiodiversity, etc.). 34  - 3 5 - (b) Other key project performance indicators. The following table details the organization and frequency o f the Result Framework Indicators. Key indicators include: (i) Component A: Capacity buildingindicators for watershed associations and institutions involved in SLM. The participatory design o f watershed development plans provides the best measuring tool o f ownership o f the watershed approach. Benchmark studies to prepare watershed development plans will be usedto establishthe baseline for monitoringindicators, which will be illustrated on maps using a Geographic Information system (GIs). The project's Scientific and Technical Committee will provide quality control for each o f the four watershed management plans before they are validated bythe project. (ii)Component 13: Local Investment Fund-related Indicators. The CBRD database currently under implementation should include tables on the C B W subprojects and document the project preparation phase, execution, technical monitoring, financial benefits, and environmental impacts o f the investments. Economic impact evaluation o fthe CBWM subprojects will be carried out inYears 3 and 5, just as for the sub-projects o f the ADCs under the CBRD. ii)ComponentC: Projectmanagementindicatorsfortheprojectwillbethe same as those of the baseline project, taking into account the quality o f financial management as indicated in the audit reports, application o f standards for procurement acceptable to the GEFIIDA, and for environmental safeguards. This also includes the capacity to measure and update its performance indicators and to produce timely reports (management performance charts andreports). 3. Capacity. The CBRD's M&E Manual defines the data collection organizational setup, definition o f indicators, methods and data collection tools, and information reporting. Staffingincludes: at the national levela recentlyrecruited Unit Chief, assisted by a computer specialist and two data entry staff, and at the regional level, a Regional Coordinator for the CBRD who is also responsible for M&E, one data entry staff, andthe technical team o f the EMAT(Equipe mobile d'appui technique) which includes engineer- level technicians who will also be responsible for supervising data collection inthe field. An M&EManualdetailingrules andresponsibilities for data collectionhasbeenprepared underthe CBRI). 4. Thejoint CBRDICBWM project team will focus its efforts on data collection and updating the database o f the ADCs and ABVs and the subprojects o f the CBRD and CBWM. The team will beresponsible for updatingthe M&E Manual andthe database to reflectthis priority. 5. The CBRD will collaborate with relevant external institutions for the implementation o f the test transect and plot survey system used to measure the physical 35  - 36 - impact o f SLM activities which will be contracted to a research institution (e.g., ICARDA). However, the development o f a GIs for the project sites will be included in the contracts for consulting firms hiredto develop the watershed management plans. In both cases, these intiatives will include programs to train the technical personnel o f the project (CCU and RCUs), to build capacity in these areas (e.g., collaboration with national researchers, recruitment o f student interns, etc). 6. The project will supplement the financing of M&E activities under the baseline project and would fund incremental costs for: equipment (computer hardware, survey material, piezometers, rain-gauges, digital maps, etc.); operating costs (allowances for trainees, travel allowances); training andworkshops; consultants required for the surveys, impact evaluation; and study tours needed to integrate best practices and lessons learned from experiences inenvironmental M&Einother countries. Monitoring and Supervision of Safeguards Performance 7. Successfulimplementationof the project safeguardrequirements andperfomance measurement requires regular monitoring and evaluation o f activities undertaken by the project to comply with national and Bank safeguard policies. This will also help ensure that implementation o f project safeguard measures are systematically carried out all through project lifespan. 8, To do so, the following indicators need to be measured, as part of the project globalmonitoringplan: Numberofsub-projects screenedonenvironmental andsocial safeguardgrounds; Numberofsubproject needing specific ESIAS; NumberofESIAs conducted; Numberofsub-projects with costedEnvironment Management Plans(EMPs) andlor ResettlementAction Plans (RAPS); NumberofEMPsandlor RAPsimplementedaccordingto schedule; Number/Frequencyof Safeguard supervision undertaken; Numbertrainingprogramscarried out for safeguardcapacity strengthening; and NumberofInstitutionslorganizationstrained. 9, Inaddition, bio-physical changes from the baseline - such as changes inground water recharge; changes in surface water level; changes in biodiversity both flora and fauna; improvements in agricultural soils structure; and biomass - in the natural environment should bemeasured, as part o fthe monitoringsystem. 36  s m s d \o Nm s sm \o m N 3 t-- I I I I  g d d 0 00 3 N W g d d W W 3 3 00 m m W I I 00 m g I N N d I W 00 I N N I N I , *  3 s 0 co X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X  -40- Annex 4: DetailedProjectDescription MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject 1. The IDA-funded Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRD) (the "baseline project") for $45.0 million (Cr. 3883-MAU) was approved by the Board in April 20, 2004. Its objective is to reduce poverty, improve livelihood conditions and increase access to services at the local village community level. The proposed Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant for a Community-Based Watershed Management Project (CBWM) will supplement the baseline IDA-financed baseline project and will complement its interventions for sustainable livelihoods, and improve the managemento f natural resources (desertification in particular) through inter-community interventions and targeted investments within the fi-ameworks o f watershed and landscape management. The project will be implemented over five years, initially at two pilot sites within the CBRD area and representative of two main ecosystems in Mauritania, and scale-up to a total o f four sites bythe endo fthe project. 2. The project will search for the most relevant way to deal with watershed management, associating the communities and taking into account the decentralization process andthe pertinent laws, particularlyMauritania's "Code Pastoral" (Pastoral Code) currently being formulated. The landscape approach will be documented and discussed in a participative manner with all the stakeholders to highlight its advantages and constraints. The project will also take into account the functions o f different ecosystems (agriculture, pastoralism, tourism, habitat for biodiversity) in the country, and draw benefits from other donors' studies and programs (e.g., GIRNEM work on inventory o f the potential o f humidzones inthe east). LendingInstrument 3. Three lending options were considered: separatedlassociated operations, blended operation and an APL. The option o f separatedlassociated operations was rejected in favor o f a partially blended operation, because the latter offers better synergies with the baseline project in terms of coordination o f project activities and implementation by the same project coordination unit for both the baseline and GEF funded projects. Implementation by the same project coordination unit for both project offered cost savings in terms o f staffing, operating cost, and time, while building capacity and ownership at the national level. The APL option was rejected because o f the need to align closely the execution o f the GEF funded activities with the baseline project's activities andprojectduration. 4. The CBWM will be a component o f the IDA project which is a Specific Investment Loan. The project i s a partially-blended operation, beingprocessedlater than the IDA operation and having a separate project document and Board date. The project implementation period is five years, whereas the IDA baseline project implementation period is six years. It will lag the baseline project by two years in project start-up and will close about a year later. The lag will be advantageous since preliminary activities and basic structures for implementing the project would have been initiated or established, particularly: the selection o f community associations, preliminary 40  -41 - consultations, training and technical assistance in the formulation local development plans would have been launched, andthe new watershed associations to be formed could gain from the experience; the central database would be in place and activities for establishing a Geographical Information System (GIs) needed for M&E would be more advanced. 5. The project has three components which are aligned with the components of the baseline project. ComponentA: CapacityBuilding 6. IDA Baseline Activities (IDA funding: US$9.2 million). This component supports strengthening the capacity o f community village associations (ADCs) and selected rural municipalities to design and implement effective development plans; developed the technical capacity o f the communities' service providers (crop and livestock research-development, extension services, statistical, environmental and rural training agencies) with an emphasis on decentralized units; and strengthenedthe capacity o f micro-enterprises that directly supply goods and maintenance services to the village associations. 7. GEF Activities (GEF incremental funding: US$l.5 million) - Capacity Building for SustainableLand Management. Under the CBWM, this component will supplement the baseline project's activities and develop local and regional capacity to adapt and replicate innovative watershed and landscape management approaches. The main beneficiaries will be the village communities, rural communes, inter-village associations such as watershed associations, civil society directly implicated in project implementation, and Government institutions interacting with communities. The component will be implemented by the Central CoordinationUnit (CCU) o f the baseline project andwill support the following activities. 0 Development of watershed and landscape management decision support tools to assist the communities and the local government in the local development planning process; a focus will be placed on the land use optimization, natural resources conservation with particular emphasis on land degradation while maximizing socio-economic objectives. The tools developed will include Geographical Information SystemslNatural Resources Management (GIs-NRM) databases o f watersheds, and watershed management plans (She'mas d'ame'nagements) basedon the GIs data. 0 Establishment and strengthening o f watershed associations and decision-making institutions relatedto watershedlandscape management; training andassistanceto watershed associations and other village associations in the targeted watershed areas, disadvantaged groups (women, youth, transhumants), rural communes. Supportto civil society, local andregional authorities, andtraditional authorities, in the development, implementation and monitoring of local watershed development plans. The development o f watershed associations will provide a fora for discussion and interaction between village communities, which combined with the development of priority actionplans, will also provide a mechanism for conflict resolution, e.g., betweenherders andfarmers. 41  - 42 - 0 Fostering collaboration between the project and national and local research institutions, university, and extension services, and existing conmiunity associations to adopt a watershedlandscape management approach indeveloping and transferring sustainable land management technologies. Involvement of research institutions will be carried out on a thematic basis depending on the competency of the institution concerned (e.g., CNRADA, CNERV, ICRISAT, ICARDA, etc,); encouraging partnerships between the communities and the research and extension services for using sustainable resources management technologies (training o f research staff to work with communitieslland users, development o ftools to assess landdegradation costs and SLMbenefits, etc.). 0 Review o f policies, laws, regulations as neededduring project implementation to identify reforms required for providing adequate incentives (such as improved tenure security, conflict resolution systems) to rural communities for the sustainablemanagementof landresources at the watershed and landscapelevels, 0 Explorationand identificationof future, sustainableoperation and funding options (e.g., through information available from donor institutions, national environment funds, regional partnership centers for communities, bio-carbon fund, and returningenvironmental tax revenueto the locallevel). 8, The project would fund consultant services for technical assistance and studies, facilitation, animation, training and study tours, data collection costs, equipment and contracts for GIs information gathering, small equipment for training and demonstration o fnew technologies, and general operating costs. ComponentB: InvestmentFunds IDA BaselineActivities (IDAfunding: US$30.3million). 9. This component provides the means to implement village and communal development plans while giving communities the opportunity to put into practice their strengthenedcapacities. The funds would bringbenefits to poor people andimprove their social, environmental and economic conditions and represent 66 percent o f total project cost and 79 percent o f IDA'Sfinancing. They comprise: (a) the Village Investment Fund and(b) the RuralCommunal RoadsFund. The Village Investment Fundprovides ADCs with capital input to execute their development plans, and Rural CommunalRoadFunds to improve their access to rural roads within the communes. Contributions, mostly in- kind, are required from beneficiaries at differing levels depending on the type of investment, but average about 30 percent. The community development plans are demand-driven andidentified by the communities andcan include investments for village wells, soil and water conservation to boost agricultural productivity (dykes and small dams); (ii) diversified agricultural production (village gardens); (iii) livestock health activities (vaccination parks) (iv) targeted activities to protect the natural resources base (dune fixation, vegetal cover regeneration); and (v) various other on- and off-farm income-generating activities (mills, village stores, agricultural rental equipment). Activities selected by women would be encouraged. However, the CBRD would not finance religious establishments and social services (healthcare and education) which are within the sphere of competence of communes or are provided by other programs, but 42  - 43 - will assist villages and communes to gain access to those services fiom sectoral programs. GEFActivities (GEF incrementalfunding: US$3.5million) Providing Incentivesfor - Sustainable Land Management Practices. 10. The GEF component will provide investment capital, through the Local Investment Fund, for village communities to adopt sustainable resourcemanagement and conservation practices within a watershed area and at the inter-village community level. The watershed managementplans, developed at the national level with the assistance of technical experts, would determine the types o f activities which would be eligible for funding. The investment proposals made by watershed associations would be demand- driven and would identify sustainable landresource management investments and activities to be funded. These investments must also be inharmony (ie., no duplication of effort) with the CBRD community development plans (CDPs). Eligible activities could include: (a) the demonstration andapplication o fnew, innovative SLMand energy efficient technologies (e.g., solar cooking stoves, solar electricity, biogas) at the watershed (regional or inter-village), andlower (village community) levels, establishment of upstream andriver bank protection to minimize erosion and sediment transport inthe watersheds, cattle routeslwells, pasture investments, inter-village forest management investments); (b) income-generating activities (nurseries, ecotourism, fishing, gum arabic, medicinal plants); and (c) demonstrations o f better management practices or mechanisms to strengthen traditional grazing management systems and systems to resolve livestock-agriculture conflicts such as installation of closures and boundaries for the protection o f grazing areas and plantations. The project would not fund activities which are not linkedto GEF objectives or do not provide direct or indirect benefits to the global environment. 11, The component will be implemented by the CCU of the CBRD project, under the supervision o f the lead environmental specialist. The implementation o f this component will be an indicator of whether innovative techniques for soil conservation introduced at the community level and their rate o f adoption, and the extent of their inclusion in the watershed managementplanandWCDPs have been successful. 12. The project would fund costs for establishment and management o f the fund, consultant services, training, recruitment o f facilitators to train and assist the watershed associations insubmitting investment proposals, and costs associatedwith acquisition o f information, materials and equipment for the demonstration o f new and innovative techniques in SLM and income-generating activities. Beneficiary contributionwould be in-cash or in-kind (labor and basic materials) and percentage of contribution may vary depending on the type o f activity. Component C: Project management and Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E). IDA BaselineActivities (IDAfunding: US$4.1million). 13, The baseline supports general project management and coordination expenses, monitoringand evaluation, andthe development andimplementation of a communication strategy. Coordination would be carried out by the CCU located inNouakchott and also by the Regional Coordination Units (RCUs) located innine regional delegations of the 43  -44- MDRE. The CCU will also be responsible for carrying out a communications strategy designed to disseminate the project's activities, approaches, and results, through relevant local and national media. Activities will also be supported to develop an M&E system, including the development o f key poverty indicators, to effectively track and evaluate projectprogress and to ensuretimely andrelevant periodic reporting. GEFActivities (GEFincrementalfunding: US$I.0million). 14. This component will be also be implemented by the CCU to ensure synergy and consistency between the objectives and activities o f the baseline project and the CBWM. The lead environmental specialist within the CCU will be responsible for facilitating, coordinating and monitoring the project's GEF activities. The component will fund technical assistance associated with M&E, and the incremental operating costs of additional personnel recruited as part of the CCU and the regional teams (facilitators and animators) to execute GEF activities or to assist in managing these activities. Qualified technical assistance will be recruited under the component to assist the CCU, particularly inthe development of the watershedmanagementplanandthe implementation ofM&E tools (e.g., scorecards, development o f tools to assess land degradation costs and SLM benefits). Monitoring indicators used for the baseline project would also apply to the CBWM, particularly for project management and development o f a communication strategy, but vary for M&EofNRMrelated activities. The project would fund vehicles, equipment, technical assistance, consultant services, studies and surveys, audits, training, study tours andworkshops for effective project implementation andM&E. 15. To promote the project's objectives, the project will supplement the baseline project's co~~unication strategy with targeted dissemination o f information specific to SLM successes at community level and land degradation, targeting different levels of stakeholders, including women and youth (schools), andplace a communications agent at the watershed association level to follow up on these activities. The project would fimd limited communications equipment, production of communications and promotional materials, television and radio air time, consultant services and contracts for animation o f local theaterlsongs, training and study tours, subscriptions to technical journals, and associated operating costs. It is envisaged that the communications planwill eventually establish a group o f SLM "champions", made up of representatives of various stakeholders involved or impacted by the project, e.g., local government, community associationmembers, extension service agents, women, youth. 44  -45 - Annex 5: ProjectCosts MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject Table5A: ProiectCost Summarv Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component andor Activity us U S $million U S $million $million A. Capacity Buildingfor SLM 1.40 0.25 1.65 B. ProvidingIncentivesfor SLM 0.13 3.62 3.75 C. ProjectManagement andM&E 0.70 0.40 1.10 Total Baseline Cost 2.23 4.27 6.5 Physical Contingencies 0.05 0.01 0.06 Price Contingencies 0.17 0.04 0.21 Total Project Costs' 2.45 4.32 6.77 Interest duringconstruction 0 Front-endFee 0 Total Financing Required 2.45 4.32 6.77 'Identifiable taxes and duties are US$0.60 million, and the total project cost, net o ftaxes, i s US$6.18 million. Therefore, the share o fproject cost net o ftaxes is90%. Table5B: ProjectCost SummaryandGEFFinancinPShare (US$ Million) Global Environment cost \Facility Including % of (GEF) % Contingencies Total Financing Financing A CAPACITY BUILDING FOR SLM 1. Developmentof Watershed Management Plans 107.1 1.6 99.7 93.1 2. Supportto Watershed Associations 390.4 5.8 376.2 96.4 3. Supportat the Local Level (Hakems,Mayors) 764.7 11.3 542.1 70.9 4. Supportat the RegionalLevel 327.8 4.8 274.6 83.8 5. Supportat the National Level 226.3 3.3 187.3 82.8 7. Harmonizationof Policies, Laws and Regulations 7.2 0.1 5.8 80.0 Subtotal CAPACITY BUILDING FOR SLM 1,823.5 26.9 1,485.8 81.5 6. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR SLM PRACTICES 1. Demonstrationof Techniquesand Practices 251.2 3.7 195.9 78.0 2. Local Investment Fund 3,472.4 51.2 3,300.0 95.0 3. EnvironmentalImpact Studiesof Sub-projects 42.2 0.6 40.8 96.5 Subtotal PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR SLM PRACTICES 3,765.9 55.5 3,536.7 93.9 C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND MBE 7. Project Managementand Coordination 640.7 9.4 494.9 77.3 2. Project Monitoringand Evaluation 234.0 3.5 216.6 92.6 3. Communicationand Awareness Strategy 315.9 4.7 271.O 85.8 Subtotal PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND M8E 1,190.5 17.6 982.5 82.5 Total PROJECT COSTS 6,779.9 100.0 6,005.0 88.6 45  - 46 - Table 5C: ProjectComDonentsFinancing (US$ Million) a 7 931 7.4 89 107.1 1.6 61.9 37.8 1.4 3762 $6.4 14.1 3.6 m.4 5.8 37.9 m3 14.1 5421 70.9 2226 B1 --- 761.7 11.3 160.9 3812 Z6 274.6 838 522 16.2 512 -----------1J25 187.3 8L8 3.0 172 -- m.a 4.8 62 2685 z 3 33 64 leo.9 390 Sa mo 1.4 ;no 72 0.1 5.8 1.4 1,468 81.5 337.7 185 - 1 . m 23.9 X i 3 391 l a 9 780 5 3 220 - B1.2 3.7 1B.5 71.4 53 -----------77.4 33Mo E O - 1i24 5.0 34724 512 34Z4 40.8 %5 1.5 35 - 422 0.6 3.8 60 15 35327 a 9 558 1.5 1724 4.6 3785.9 5 5 SSn.7 1 8 46  -47- Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject 1. The CBWM project will be implemented as a component o f the baseline project, the CBRD, under the auspices o f the same national institutions to ensure the consistency o f the GEF component with the main IDA project. The institutions involvedwill be the same as those implementing the IDA baseline project, except for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee which will be newly created. Their capacities will be reinforced through the Component A "Capacity Building". The project will be implemented as follows. 2. The project is designed to foster bottom-up decision-making beginning with the ABVs which will be assistedindeveloping their plans for watershed management, which will then be approved by the local public authorities (through approval committees). An partnership agreement ("convention") will be signed between the ABVs and interested parties to endorse the plan and to clarify roles and responsibilities. From the plan, the ABVs will select their priority activities and formulate annual action plans which would include subprojects for investment andtraininginSLM and income-generation. The will be supported with technical assistance provided by the Decentralized Regional Coordination Units and the project's Central Coordination Unit (CCU - responsible for coordinating and managing the project). The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee will provide technical guidance and advice to the project, andmay play a role inpolicy dialogue andtechnical informationdissemination. Oversight for harmony with the country's laws and policies, and intersectoral coordination rests with the Steering Committee. Details of roles andresponsibilities at eachlevel. are described below. At theNationalLevel: 1. Project Central Coordination Unit (CCU): The CCU, responsible for executing the baseline project and under the tutelage of the Ministry o f Rural Development and Environment (MDRE) will also responsible for implementing the CBWM. Since the CBWM i s a partially blendedproject with the CBRD, the coordination of the CBWM will use the existing structure of the baseline project for project coordination and managementto maintainconsistency andefficiency, 2. Staffing at the CCU consists of: (i)a core management team (Project Coordinator, Director o f Administration and Finance, Intemal Auditor, and Procurement Specialist); (ii) experts covering M&E and such key aspects o f the project as community participatiodtraining, rural infrastructure, agricultural services contracting, natural resourceslenvironmental safeguard issues, and gender and social safeguard issues; a technical expert, the lead environmental specialist position within the project, will be responsible for the technical management aspects o f the CBWM; and (iii)assistants dealing with project communication, logistics, computer systems. All project staff are under a renewable two-year contract, with terms of reference, qualifications, experience, and expected outputs satisfactory to the Association. The Borrower and the Association will determinethe renewal or termination of contracts basedonperformance evaluations, particularlywhen the expected outputs have been achieved. Ifnecessary, the number of 47  - 48 - staff will be adjusted during implementation, Terms and conditions o f the contracts are spelled out inthe ImplementationManual. 3. Key Functions of the CCU. The CCU is responsible for briefing the MDRE before each meeting o f the Steering Committee, and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (defined below). The CCU will also be the contact point for responding to information needs, e.g., from TerrAfr-ica Briefings including quarterly reports and summary notes. The CCU's responsibilities include: (i) preparingthe annual work programs and budgets for project activities; (ii) planning and implementing such activities; (iii) maintaining the project's financial integrityby implementingthe financial management system recommended by IDA; (iv) implementing the M&E system including the impact analysis; (v) facilitating with sectoral operations to help village communities and rural communes gain access to basic social services; and (vi) collaborating with other development partners and Government-financed development projects to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure complementarity with such initiatives. Unlike the CBRD, under the CBWM, the CCU will handle all direct payments to contractors and service providers for the watershed associations which, unlikethe ADC, willnot bemanaging their own funds underthe project. 4. TheSteering Committee(Comitel de Pilotage, CP): Provides overall guidance to the project. It will be responsible for: (i)reviewingthe annual work plans, budgets, and project's results preparedbythe CCU; (ii) assessingthe progress made towards achieving project's objectives; (iii)facilitating the project's implementation through the coordination among CP's members. It i s chaired by the Ministry o f Economic Affairs and Development (MAED) and consists of key ministries involved inproject activities (Rural Development, Interior, Health, Education, Equipment, Water, etc.), representatives (mayors) from elected local governments (communes), and civil society (NGOs), The CP and its members were established by Arr6te` 1222/MDRE/MAED. The CP meets twice a year, with one of the meetings to include other development partners. The minutesofCP's meetings willbe sharedwith IDAandthe GEF. 5. Scientific and TechnicalAdvisory Committee (Cornitel scientifique et technique, CST): This committee, which will be establishedinthe context o f the CBWM does not exist inthe baseline project design. Its role would be to review the technical elements of the project activities which are new and innovative (e.g., solar cooking stoves, biogas) and having a national scope, guaranteethe coherence and scientific quality o f activities, and contribute to the monitoring, and evaluation o f the project from a technical standpoint, and be involved in the dissemination o f results. The committee would meet as needed, and selected members o f the committee would participate in field missions. The committee would be chaired by the GEF Focal Point o f Mauritania (DEW), and include a core team of: the CCU o f the CBRD as Secretariat, international experts in related disciplines, project staff from other related donor-funded programs. Representatives from other donors, national research institutions, the university, extension services, other Government technical services departments (e.g., DPSE, DAY DE, DRV), and civil society would be invitedto participate as observers. The CTS may also be involved in policy dialogue and information dissemination involving best practices inside andoutside o fthe country, 48  - 49 - Regional Level 6, DecentralizedRegional Coordi~ationUnit-RCU: Project managementwill be progressively decentralized to the regional (wilaya) level. The Comitb Rbgional de Dbveloppement (CRD) selects the watershed sites and oversees the regional program and i s chaired by the Governor (Wali) o f the region. The CRD is composed o f Government representatives (the Hakems), public services, representatives o f local government (communes) and civil society (NGO, professional associations). Each region in the project area has a Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) which i s under the supervision o f the Dblbgation Rbgionale du Dbveloppement Rural o fthe MDRE. 7. The RCU will be in charge o f implementing the project activities on the ground and would be responsible for approving the plans for watershed management. In particular, it will ensure that the M&E system i s carried out according to plan and the "Association des Bassins Versants" (ABV) or watershed associations receive the necessary assistance in implementing project activities. The RCU is staffed with the Regional Coordinator, an accountant and a data entry operator. It works with the Cadre mobile d'assistance technique (CMAT) recruited by the project to strengthen the Regional Delegation. The CMAT are expected to be retained by these delegations at the end o f the project. As with the CCU, the core staff of the RCU will be under a performance-contract to bejointly assessedbythe Borrower andGEF. At the LocalLevel: 8. Local Public Authorities and Oversight: Central and local technical services of the State and local authorities of the communes are expected to play an important role in the CBRD and CBWM. Local authorities are expected to: (i) participate inthe validation process and implementation o f the watershed management plan which must be aligned with the Regional Poverty Reduction Programs (PRLP) and the development agenda of the communes and the region; (ii) that the different investments conform with verify relevant rules and legal texts; (iii)supervise the implementation o f subprojects; and (iv) assist the communities in conflict resolution should they arise. The watershed management plan and the activities contained therein will be vetted by an Approval Committee at the Moughataa (prbfecture) level, coordinated by the Prefect (Hakem) of the concerned Moughataa. The Approval Committee will be comprised o f representatives o f the sectoral ministries, local governments, and local NGOs. Details would beprovidedinthe Project ImplementationManual. 9. WatershedAssociations (Associations des Bassins Verstants ABVs) (at least - two are planned to be created by the mid-term review) are ultimately the principal implementing units o f the CBWD. They will group together representatives from different ADC villages under the CBRD. The project will not be intervening in areas which do not have ADCs. With assistance from a team including technical specialists (team composition: facilitators, NGOs, research institutions and extension services staff, ABVs will be responsible for designing the development and investment plans for selected watersheds through a participatory approach. The approach will involve several villages, and for ruralcommunes, it will involve all villages concerned with constraints to watershed management. Fundswill be managed by the CCU for the ABVs, ABVs and rural communes will be responsible for contracting suppliers and service providers, 49  - 50 - procuring goods and services neededto implementinvestment plans, and assuringproper operation and maintenance of the investments, and the CCU will pay directly the contractors or providers. The ABVs will be responsible also for assessing the performance o f agricultural and facilitation services. The composition of each ABVs would include: at least three representativesfrom eachADC, one representative from the livestockherders (transhumans), and a representative each from other users o f watershed resources, e.g., fishermen, charcoal manufacturers, etc.. 10. Matching grants under the Local Investment Fund (Component B) will be providedusingthe following criteria: (i) ABV i s a socially cohesive group withwhich the the project can work; (ii) ABV has inplace a watershed management plan; and (iii) the sub-projects are technically, financially, and environmentally sound with indications that the ABV will take responsibility for its realization, operation and maintenance. The ABVs are required to follow a transparent process in the procurement of goods and services andare subject to technical supervision andmonitoringof the sub-projects, Ifan ABV violates the agreement signed with the project's CCU through any misuse or misappropriation o f finds, support fkom the project will be suspended. In cases of support for on-farm research, proposals for matching grants by communities may also be implemented byresearchinstitutions. Coordinationwith Other DevelopmentInstitutions 11. A coordination mechanismwill be establishedfor the collaboration with the GEF national focal point for Mauritania and the CBRD staff to avoid duplication andreinforce synergies between national, regional, and global initiatives. These mechanisms will also include a regional coordination mechanism. The role and responsibility o f this structure will be reinforced by other ongoing projects supported by the World Bank and other donor organizations already fundingrelatedinterventions inthe country. 12. The project will collaborate with the Oasis Sustainable Development Program (IFAD) in the area around the oases; where local associations already exist under the Oasis project, no new associations will be created to avoid duplication o f effort and resources. The project will also seek to coordinate and collaborate with the following projects: the Desert Margins Program (UNEPIICRISAT), the Small Grants Program (UNDPIGEF), the Poverty Reduction Project in AAout South and Karakoro (PASK) (IFAD), the Natural Resources Management Program (GTZ), the Biological Conservation Project in Mauritania and Senegal (UNDP), the Rural Electrification through Solar Panels and Windmills Project (UNDP), Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) (USAID), and the TerrAfi-ica Partnership to access an array o f donor activities. 50  - 51 - Project Areas 13. The project will be implementedinitially in two pilot sites which were selected according to the following criteria: (i) the watersheds had to be representative o f the Mauritanianecosystem; (ii) a developmentproject capable offinancingthe basic needsof the communities hadto be inplace; (iii) of degradation had to evident; and (iv) the signs watershed had to be adequately populated. The two pilot sites selected are: (a) the micro-watershed o f Greiguel (agro-pastoral ecosystem) (comprising 3 communes, 32 villages) in the Assaba Region, and (b) the micro-watershed o f Tengharada (oasis ecosystem) (1 commune, 12 villages) in the Adrar Region. Successes in the methodological approaches developed during the pilot phase would be replicated and scaled up to a total of four sites (at most 120 villages) within the baseline project area, The baseline study on soil degradation "Charactkrisation de la dkgradation des sols" has identified 31 potential sites for fhture intervention within the CBRD area (i.e,, in 10 out of 13 regions inMauritania). 51  - 52 - Annex 7: FinancialManagementandDisbursementArrangements MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject A. SUMMARY OFFINANCIALMANAGEMENTASSESSMENT ImplementingEntity/Staffing 1, The existing CBRD Central Coordination Unit (CCU) will be responsible for implementing the new CBWM operation, Staffing at the CCU already includes: (i) a core management team (the Project Coordinator, Director o f Administration and Finance, an Internal Auditor, and a Procurement Specialist); (ii) covering M&E experts and such key aspects of the project as community participatiodtraining, rural infrastructure, agricultural services contracting, natural resourceslenvironmental safeguard issues, and gender and social safeguard issues; a technical expert, the lead environmental specialist position within the project, will be responsible for the technical management aspects of the CBWM and who will be supported by a full-time technical assistant; and (iii)assistants dealing with project communication, logistics, computer systems. Only an additional accounting assistant will be required to handle CBWM operations under CCUDAFsupervision, RiskanalysislRiskAssessments (see conclusionofCBRDFMAssessment) 2, Strengths and Weaknesses(update) Strengths: the project will benefit from the satisfactory FM capacity o f CBRD project. Weaknesses: risk of confusion o f transactions related to both IDA- and GEF- financed operations. 3. Znformation Systems. The existing computerized FM Systems will be revised andreflected accordingly inthe manual o fprocedures, 4. Financial Reporting and Monitoring. Similar to CBRD, FinancialMonitoring Reports (FMR) will be preparedon a quarterlybasis by the DAF and submittedto CCU managementandIDA for the purpose o fmonitoringproject implementation. 5. Annual project financial statements will also be required consisting o f the following: (i) Statement o f Sources andUses o f funds (by Credit Categoryhy Activity A showing IDA and Counterpart Funds separately); (ii) A Statement of Cash Position for Project Funds from all sources; (iii)Statements reconciling the balances on the various bank accounts (including GEF Designated Account) to the bank balances shown on the Consolidated Statement o f Sources and Uses o f funds; (iv) SOE Withdrawal Schedule listingindividualwithdrawal applications relating to disbursements by the SOE Method, byreferencenumber, date andamount; (v) Notes to the FinancialStatements. 52  - 53 - AccountingPolicies and Procedures 14. Project accounts will be maintained on an accurate basis, augmented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Accounting records will be maintainedin dual currencies (Le., Ouguiyas and USD). The Chart of Accounts will facilitate the preparationo f relevant quarterlyand annual financial statements, includinginformation on the following: H Total project expenditures, H Total financial contributionfrom each financier, Total expenditure on eachproject componentlactivity, and Analysis ofthat total expenditure into civil works, various categories of goods, training, consultants and other procurement anddisbursement categories. 15. Annual financial statements will be prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IASs). All accounting and control procedures documented inthe existing manual ofprocedureswill apply. B. AUDITARRANGEMENTS 16. The GEF Agreement will require the submission of Audited Project Financial Statements for CBWM to the Bank (IBRD)within six (6) months after year-end. A single opinion on the Audited Project Financial Statements in compliance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), will be required including the accuracy and the propriety o f expenditures made under the SOE procedures and the extent to which these can be relied upon as a basis for credit disbursements. In addition to the audit reports, the external auditors will be expected to prepare a Management Letter giving observations and comments, and providing recommendations for improvements inaccounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the GEF agreement. The contract o f the existing auditor for CBRD project will be extended to cover the new operation as well as. C. DISBURSEMENTARRANGEMENTS 17. The overall project funding will consist o f an IDA Credit as well as Government o f Mauritania Counterpart Funding, as required under the approved Country Financing Parameters(CFPs) for Mauritania. A 10percent overall contributionis expected from the Government o f Mauritania under the Operation. The following accounts will be maintained bythe CCU: (i) One (1) designated account in U S Dollars with a respective current account inOuguiyas which will be managed by CCU. Funds will be used to makepayments to suppliers inthe respective contract currencies; (ii) A Project Account in Ouguiyas opened at the Central Bank, where Counterpart Funds will be deposited. Interest income received on the designatedaccount will be depositedto the respective project account or any other account o fborrower, 53  - 54 - Summaryof FundsFlow Diagram Counter-part Funds (Government) I I BankAccounts Designated Account Current BankAccounts Account in Account in Ouguiya Ouguiya CCUlCBWlM I I MethodofDisbursement 18. The CCU i s already submitting quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs) under a separate operation i.e. the Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRD). However, it will not be ready for report-based disbursements for this new operation by effectiveness Therefore, the transaction-based disbursement procedure (as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook) will be followed initially, i.e. direct payment, reimbursements, special commitments and replenishments o f the designated account. Disbursements will be made on the basis o f the standard "goods, work and servicesyycategoriesin line with CBRD arrangements, currently in place. The same accounting module will also be utilized inorder to facilitate CCU's disbursements under several IDA operations. 19. When the financial reports are adequate and produced on a timely basis, the borrower will request conversion to report-based disbursements. A review will be undertaken by IDA to confirm the project's readiness to use the IFR disbursement method. The adoption of report-based disbursements will enable the CCU to move from monthly replenishments under transaction-based disbursements to quarterly IFR-based disbursements to the Project's designatedAccount . Use of Statements of Expenditures(SOEs) 20. Disbursements for all expenditures will be made against full documentation, except for items claimed under the Statement of Expenditures (SOE) procedure. SOEs will be used for payments claimed under contracts for: (a) works and goods inan amount inferior to US$250,000; (b) consulting firms inan amount inferior to US$lOO,OOO and (c) individual consultants in an amount inferior to US$50,000 as well as small equipment, office supplies and training. Documentation supporting all expenditures claimed against 54  - 55 - SOEs will beretainedbythe CCUandmade available for review when requestedby IDA periodic supervision missions and project external auditors. All disbursements will be subject to the conditions o f the GEF Grant Agreement and the procedures outlined inthe Disbursement Letter. 21. When the project moves to IFR-based disbursements, all o f the documentation will bemaintainedat the CCU. Designated Account 22. To facilitate project implementation and reduce the volume o f withdrawal applications, a designatedAccount inU S dollars andthe respective equivalent account in local currency (Ouguiyas) will be openedbythe CCU ina commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to IDA. The authorized allocation will be US$600,000 for the designated account. The respective allocation will cover about four months o f eligible expenditures. The CCU will be responsible for submitting monthly replenishment applications with appropriate supporting documents for incurred expenditures. The Ministryof Finance andthe Central Bankwill ensure that payments inforeign currency are made within 3 days o f submission o f an invoice. To the extent possible, all o f IDA'S share o f expenditures should be paid through the designated account. Withdrawal Applications for the replenishment o f the designated account will include a reconciliation o f the account, a bank statement and any other required documents until such time as the borrower may choose to convert to report-based disbursement. The borrower may also choose to pre-finance eligible project expenditures between project signing and effectiveness and claim reimbursement from the GEF grant, upon effectiveness. 23. Upon credit effectiveness, IDA will deposit the amount o f U S dollars 600,000 into the designatedaccount. The designated account will beused for all payments inferior to twenty percent (20 percent) of the authorized allocationandreplenishment applications will be submittedmonthly. Further deposits by IDA into the Designated Account will be made againstwithdrawal applications supportedby appropriate documents, Counterpart Funds and Taxes 24. The cost sharing between IDA and the GoM will be limited to 90 percent globally. While project costs include all taxes and contracts for goods and services are approved all-taxes included in accordance with Bank procurement Policy, the borrower will. be authorized to submit its claims for local expenditures all-taxes excluded, inorder to expeditepayments. 55  - 56 - 25. Withdrawal Schedule Category Amount of the Percentage of Expenditures to be Grant Financed Allocated (expressed in USD) (1) Civil Works 10,000 100% o f local expenditures all-taxes excluded (2) Goods 360,000 100%o f foreign expenditures and 100%of localExpenditures all-taxes excluded (3) Consultants' 580,000 100%o fforeign expenditures and 100%of services local expenditures all-taxes excluded (4) Training, Study 550,000 100% Tours, Workshops (5) Sub-projects 3,000,000 100%o f amountsdisbursed (6) Operating Costs 900,000 100%oflocalexpenditures all-taxes excluded (8) Unallocated 600,000 TOTAL AMOUNT 6,000,000 NEXTSTEPS Action Plan 26. The action plan to be implemented before Credit Effectiveness is tabulated below. ACTION Target CompletionDate 1. Extendthe contract ofthe existing external auditors to the new II By effectiveness 2. Update and extendFMSystems (re-customize the accounting software, By effectiveness add specific sectionto the existing manual o fprocedures where needbe). 3. Release50% of annual forecast o fcounterpart funding ($80,000) By effectiveness By Graut Effectiveness ,the recipient will release 25 percent of counterpart funds for the lSt forecast ($40,000). annual 56  - 57 - 27. Financial Covenants. A financial management system, including records and accounts will be maintained by the CCU. Financial Statements will be prepared in a format acceptable to the Bank, and will be adequate to reflect in accordance with sound accounting practices the operations, resources and expenditures inrespect ofthe project. 28. SupervisionPlan. Supervision activities will include: review of quarterly FMRs; review of annual audited financial statements and management letter as well as timely follow up of issues arising; and participation in project supervision missions as appropriate. The Bank FMS in charge will monitor the timely implementation o f the financial management arrangements. Conclusions 29. The overall conclusion o f the assessment is that the current financial management arrangements are satisfactory to meet the Bank's FM requirements, though some recommendations should be implemented by effectiveness, 30. The conditions of effectiveness related to FM are: (a) extend external auditors contract to the new operation; (3) update and extend the existing FM systems including manual of procedures; (c) open a Project Account; (d) Initial deposit of Counterpart Funds released equivalent to $40,000. (see also Section C.6 above). 31. By effectiveness, the project will not be ready for report-based disbursements. Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e. direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. However, when project implementation begins, and the GoMrequests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will be undertaken bythe Bankto determine ifthe project is eligible. 57  - 5 8 - Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject A. GENE= 1. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out inaccordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated inthe Legal Agreement, The various items under different expenditure categories are described ingeneral below. For each contract to be financed by the Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need'for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Planwill be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project. 2. Procurement of Works: The project will finance the rehabilitation o f MDRE buildings in the project-affected regions under the Capacity Building for Sustainable Development of Lands component. Procurement o f civil engineering works costing less thanUS$500,000 equivalent willbedone followingNCB7procedures. No contract above that sum is envisagedbut inthe event it becomesnecessary, the contract will be awarded following ICB8proceduresOther civil engineering contracts costing less than US$50,000 equivalent will beprocuredthrough lump sum, fixed-price contracts awarded onthe basis o f quotations obtained from at least three qualified domestic contractors invited to bid and preferably more than three in order to have at least three comparable offers. The invitation to bid shall include a detailed description of the works, including required specifications, the requiredcompletion date, a basic form of agreement acceptable to the Association, andthe relevant drawings, where applicable. Inall cases, the award shall be made to the contractors who offer the lowest price quotation for the required work provided they have the experience and resources to complete the contract successfully. National preference i s not applied. The procurement will be done using such bidding documents as are agreedwith, or acceptableto, the Association. 3. Publication: A General Procurement Notice (GPN) shall be prepared by the Borrowers and published in the United Nations Development Business online (UNDB online) and in the Development Gateway Market (dgMarket), to announce the major consulting services required, and ICB, if any. The GPN shall include works contracts procured through ICB, all contracts for goods procured through ICB and all major consulting contracts (those valued at US$200,000 or more). In addition, a Specific Procurement Notice (SPN) i s required for all goods to be supplied through ICB and any invitations for expressions o f interest for contracts estimated to cost more than US$200,000 must be publishedon the UNDB and dgMarket websites. Regardless o f the amount o f the contract a request for expressions o f interest (EOI) shall be published in the official Gazette or in a national newspaper and, if applicable, on an electronic portal 'NCB:International National Competitive Bidding ICB: Competitive Bidding 58  - 59 - of fkee access to consulting fims. Inthe case of NCB an SPN shall be publishedinthe official Gazette or ina newspaper o f national circulation and, as the case may be, on an electronic portal of free access. The award of contracts shall also be published on the UNDBsite andthe dgMarket site, inaccordancewith the Bank's procurement guidelines @ara2.60) andconsultant selection guidelines (para 2.28). 4. Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project are essentially motor vehicles, motorcycles, office equipment, and furniture. Goods estimated to cost US$250,000 equivalent or more will be procured through ICB procedures. Goods estimated to cost less thanUS$250,000 equivalent are procuredthroughNCBprocedures. The direct contracting methodo f procurement may be used with the prior consent o f the Association in certain cases, for example purchasing of equipment or specific plant material for protecting watersheds. Vehicles estimated to cost less than US$150,000 per contract may also be procured through the UNDP Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office (IAPSO). 5. Goods estimated to cost less thanUS$30,000 equivalent may beprocured through national shopping procedures based on comparing price quotations fkom at least three qualified contractors, inaccordancewith IDA guidelines on procurement (paragraph 3S) and the memorandum on procurement through shopping published by the Bank on June 9, 2000 ("Guidance on Shopping"). Requests for quotations must be in writing, indicating the date and the place where the quotations may be submitted, a detailed description o f the items and the quantities required, as well as the required delivery time andplace for the goods, including installation requirements, ifany. The written requests for quotations must be issued to at least three qualified reputable suppliers; it may be better to solicit a greater number o f suppliers so as to be sure of receiving at least three proposals in the event some suppliers do not respond. The quotations are opened and evaluated at the same time. Wherever possible, items o f the same type that are required at the same time are bulked into packages o f an amount equal to or above the US$250,000 equivalent and procured through international competitive bidding in order to benefit fiom more competitive prices. 6. The procurement will be done using the Bank's standardbidding documents for all ICB and such standard national documents as are agreed with, or acceptable to, the Association. Community-BasedProcurement 7. Communities organized into watershed associations may benefit fiom the status of community association ,as the project will finance community-based sub-projects, such as construction o f dikes and weirs, erosion control of embankments, planning and layout o f market gardens, provision o f wire fencing, barbed wires, agricultural implements, phytosanitary products, and certain specific energy-saving household appliances, such as solar stoves. To this end andinaccordance withparagraph 3.17 ofthe guidelines, goods and works contracts awarded at the community level for the purposes 59  - 60 - of the project must comply with proceduresacceptableto the Association, as specified in the project implementationmanual. 8. Selectionof consultants:Ifit i s necessaryto have recourse to consulting services from firms and individuals for the implementation o f the components of the project-in particular, studies, technical assistanceandsupervision o fcivil works-such contracts are awarded in accordance with the "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004. All consulting contracts (except standard or normal assignments such as audits) for anamount aboveUS$lOO,OOO equivalent inthe case o f companies, are awarded in accordance with the quality and cost based selection method (QCBS), consistent with Part 1 o f the guidelines. For contracts less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent the short lists maybecomposed entirely o f national companies in accordancewith paragraph 2.7 o f the guidelines, on condition that a sufficient number o f qualified companies are available at a competitive cost, Nevertheless, if foreign companies show an interest, they may not be excluded. Standard or normal contracts for consulting services- for example audits -costing less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent in the case of companies, are awarded following the least cost selection (LCS) method, in accordance with paragraphs 3.1 and 3.6 o f the guidelines. Contracts for consulting services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent for companies may be awarded on the basis of the qualifications of the consultant, in accordance with paragraphs 3.1 and 3.7 o f the guidelines. Individual consultants are selected in accordance with Part V o f the guidelines. Selection o f UnitedNations bodies and NGOs i s made in accordance with paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 o f the guidelines. The direct contracting methodo fprocurement may be used with the prior consent o f IDA consistent with paragraphs3.9 to 3.13 ofthe guidelines. 9. Training Activities: These activities comprising workshops and study tours are aimed at capacity building, information sharing and the improvement of management skills. Training activities are part of the annual plan o f action and are included in the annual procurement plan of action. The annual training program (with indication of proposed budget, agenda, participants, venue, and all relevant details) i s determined duringthejoint review. 10. Operating Expenses: For operating expenses financed by the project, contracts are awarded using the administrative and procurement manuals and procedures o f the implementing agency, all o f which have been examined and deemed acceptable by the Association. These expenses include: current operating expenses such as fuel, office equipment, maintenance of office equipment, relocation under the project, supervision, andremuneration o f the localpersonnel engaged. Inany event emoluments of officers o f the public sector of the Borrower are excluded. Recurrent purchases such as office supplies and consumables, computers, vehicle maintenance services, among others, will be procured, where possible, so as to coincide with the periods o f the year inwhich the client's contracts are awarded. 60  - 61- 11. Other: The procurement procedures and standardbiddingdocuments (SBDs) to be used for eachprocurement method as well as the model contracts for goods procured are presented inthe project implementation manual, B. ASSESSMENT OFCAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT PROCUREMENT 12. Procurement activities will be carried out by the Community-Based Rural Development (CBRD) Project in the Ministry o f Rural Development and Environment (MDRE). The project is staffed by specialists in financial management and public administration, and the procurement function is staffed by program managers o f the project and an assistant specializing in procurement-all trained and all having o fthe Rainfed NaturalResourceManagement Project (m) experience inBank procurement procedures, the latter gained during the implementation and the CBRD. 13. An assessment ofthe capacity o fthe implementing agency (CBRD) to implement the procurement actions for the project was carried out inJanuary 2004 by a procurement specialist from the World Bank headquarters who was inNouakchott when the project was being assessed. This first assessment proposed a plan o f action, the implementation o fwhich was reviewed by the procurement specialist employed at the Nouakchott post at the time o f the supervision mission inMarch and November 2005 and at the time of the present CBWM assessment exercise. 14. Project procurement within the PCU o f the CBRD is divided among the program managerswho ensure that there i s strict adherence to the procurement procedure (drafting of invitations to tender or documents relating to consultants, participating in the evaluation process with the Commission dkpartementale des marchks du MDRE (CDM) [Departmental Tender Board] or the Commission centrule des marchks (CCM) [Central Government Tender Board], drafting o f contract documents and monitoring of implementation). They are all helped in the procurement process by an assistant, a procurement specialist who centralizes the filing o f contract documents, ensures the scheduling of contracts with the C D M and the CCM, and monitors them until they are stamped, approved and signed, andensures that IDA'Snon-objection is obtained. Normal operations-related purchases are made by the purchasing managers (purchases made on the basis o f negotiations with suppliers). Program managers as well as the APM lend their support and counsel to the community inthe procurement assignments they carry out; and a manual, aimed at specifying community procedures is now beingdevelopedby a specialist firm. 15. Inlight of the performance of the current managers involved inprocurement at the CBRD and the tender boards and in order to buildcapacity inthe area o f purchasing and to guarantee better monitoring of tenders and contracts to be awarded by the beneficiaries (the communes and grass-root communities) the missionrecommends that a firmofprocurement specialists berecruited (on acompetitive basis). Inorder to makethe most o f its expertise inprocurement on the project, this firm will be required to provide support to the project incomplex tenders, especially during periods when the volume of work so requires, making every effort to provide training and transfer knowledge. For 61  - 62 - the moment the mission does not believe there is a need to recruit a procurement specialist but it i s important for the project to reservethe optionto recruit one inthe event that the workload, including supervision ofthe ABSs, so requires. 16. As far as work materials, office equipment, and supplies are concerned, the minimumrequired is available and functional. Nevertheless, it is necessaryto complete the setting up o f a procurement document filing system. A suitable location must be set aside, appropriately laid out, and a proper filing system put in place before the grant becomes effective. The supervision missions must monitor closely the filing and safekeeping o fprocurement documents. 17. Organization of the Ministry of Rural Development & Environment (MDRE): Under the organization chart of the Ministry of Rural Development & Environment, the procurement function is essentially perfomed by the CBRD (assessed above) which i s staffed by experienced personnel. It is inpossessiono f enough physical resources (desks, computers, filing facilities and files) to ensure the implementation of the project. Nevertheless, contracts over 2 million ouguiyas (MRO) are awarded by the CDM o f the MDRE, and contracts over 25 million MRO for goods and consultants as well as contracts of over 75 million for works are awardedbythe CCM, which is staffed bypersonsversedinIDAprocurementprocedures, 18. The CDM at the MDREhas solidexperienceinIDAprocurement procedures. Certain members of the boardhave benefited from training inprocurement procedures financed bythe World Bankandthe Afican Development Bank(ADB)throughprojects financed bythose institutions. Procurement risk is hiph. 19. Corrective measures to address the weaknesses identifiedhave been agreed upon as follows: i)CBRD programmanagersinvolvedinthe implementation o fthe CBWM, as well as CDM members, will receive training in procurement in order to build their capacity; ii)consultants or a firm of consultants will be recruited for short periods and for one-off support in specific technical activities or in capacity building and knowledge transfer as and when required; iii)a procurement planning and management system will be installedin the CBRD units involved inthe implementation o f the CBWM; and iv) filing of procurement documents will be improved;an appropriate filing system will be put in place and a specific location set aside for this purpose with a staff of full time officers, who will receive training. A procurement review will be conducted twice per year as part o f the supervision mission. An independent audit o f the project will be carried out onceper year. C. PROCUREMENTPLAN 20. The Borrower will develop a procurement plan for the first 18 months based on the annual work plan adopted. This will provide the basis for determining procurement methods. That planwill be agreed upon and transmitted to IDA before negotiations take 62  - 63 - place. Once approved by IDA, the planwill be available inthe project's database and in the Bank's external website. The plan will be updated annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs andimprovements ininstitutionalcapacity. Thresholds for ProcurementMethods and Prior Review Expenditure Contract Value Procurement Contracts Subject to Category Threshold Method Prior Review (US $1 1. Works >=500,000 ICB All <500,000 NCB None <50,000 Shopping None ~ 2. Goods >=250,000 ICB All <250,000 NCB None <30,000 Shopping None Vehicles < 150,000 IAPSO All Goods Regardless ofvalue Direct Contracting All 3. Consulting Services -3.A Firms >= 100,000 QCBS,QBS,FBS,LCS, All with TORs CQS -3.B Individuals >=50,000 I C All withTORS FirmsandIndividuals Regardless ofvalue Single Source All withTORs Note: QCBS=Quality- andCost-BasedSelection QBS = Quality-BasedSelection FBS=FixedBudgetSelection LCS = Least-Cost Selection CQS =Selection Basedon Consultants'Qualifications IC= IndividualConsultant Details of Procurement Arrangements involving International Competition and Prior Review of Contracts by the Bank List of works and goods contract packagesto be procured: "----- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Estimated Review Expected cost Prequali- Domestic byBank Bid- Completio Contract (US$ Procurement fication Preference (PriorI Opening n Date equivalent) Method (yesho) (yesho) Post) Date 19,000 Shopping No No Post 09/01/06 11141106 (tables, chairs, 148,000 IAPSO N o N O Prior 10101/06 01131IO7 wagon, 1 vehicle 63  , - 64 - 3 Office equipment No No Post 10105:OG 12'15106 (computers, printers,laptops, accessories) I Rehabilitation No No Post works Solar Kit No No Prior Demonstration No No Prior equipment I (scientific research equipmentto be -r-- suppliedby ResearchInstitutes SatelliteImage No No Prior 0l/lO107 02110107 Equipment Plantmaterialfor 15,000 No No Prior 04120107 07120107 protecting watershed; equipmentto measure pluviometry; etc. 3 Pick-ups No No Post I ICB Contracts estimated to cost above US$250,000 equivalent per contract and all Direct Contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank. D C Direct contracting (single source) NCB: NationalCompetitive Bidding ICB: International Competitive Bidding 2. ConsultingServices (a) List of consulting assignmentswith selection methods and time schedule. 1 1 4 5 6 7 I Review Expected Estimated by Bank Proposals Ref. cost (US% Selection (Prior I Submission Completion No. DescriptionofAssignment equivalent) Method Post) Date Date 1 Additional Personnel 70,000 IC Post 10101/06 06130108 2. Supportto the Watershed 35,000 IC Post 10110106 06130108 Associations to prepareand implementsubprojects (Individual Consultantsto be recruited) 3 Strengtheningof capacityat 25,000 IC Post loll 1/06 06130108 the nationallevel with respect to conservation of I water and land; conflict ~ management. 4. Strengtheningof capacityat 30,000 IC Post 10112106 06130108 the local level (Hakems, Mairies) with respectto conservationo fwater and 64  - 65 - 1Consultantsto be I 14 Study on plan for watershed 154,000 I I Post I04/15/07 112/31/07 I management CQ or IC 15 IIIFinancial Audit I 15,400 ILCS 1Post I06/01/07 I06130108 IC: Individualconsultant CQS: Selection Basedon Consultants' Qualifications LCS: Least Cost Selection (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO for firms andUS$ 50,000 for individuals per contract, and Single Source selection o f consultants (firms and individuals) will be subject to prior review bythe Bank. (c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists of 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,ofparagraph 2.7 o fthe Consultant Guidelines. Community-BasedProcurement 3. Financing o f activities will dependon applications received from the ABVs. Due to the demand-drivennature o f community-based subprojects, it is not possibleto predeterminethe exact mix o f goods, small works, and services to be procured in connectionwith these activities. 65  - 66 - Annex 9: Economic and FinancialAnalysis MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject 1. The project i s expectedto generate many benefits, some economic innature and others social and environmental innature. A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) for the whole project could not be carried out because of this mix, and also for the following reasons: (i) ofthecapacity-building components(empowerment ofcommunities and benefits support to local governance) defy quantification; and (ii) benefits from investments in natural resource managementsimilarly cannot be easily quantified inmonetary terms, 2. However, an illustrative Cost-Benefit Analysis was calculated on the incorne- generating activities which the ABVs are expected to undertake. The analysis shows that it should not be difficult to reach a minimumof 10percent internalrate of return (IRR) and economic rate of return (ERR) on average for such sub-projects as soil and water conservation (dikes and thresholds), acacia gum tree rehabilitation, village garden, and African gardens. KeyHypotheses 3. It is assumedthat investing indikes would allow the productionof sorghum (800 kglha) on five ha o f landpreviously uncultivated. Thresholds, on the other hand, allow a net gain o f 500 kgha o f sorghum. Inboth cases, to the value o f sorghum production is added that of cowpeas or the valuable hay in these dry land areas. Vegetable gardens consider only fresh produce valued at relatively low prices (100 UMlkg to 120UIvl/kg), even though women generally transform the bulk o f the product for later sales at prices often much higher. Vegetable prices are however higher for Afi-ican irrigated gardens, which can produce the whole year around. 4. There is little difference between economic and financial costs except in labor cost (whose economic cost i s 50 percent lower to account for unemployment and lack of alternativejob), and transport cost (which includes 10percent tax on fuel). Under project conditions, importedgoods are providedtax free to village communities. ResultsofEconomic andFinancialAnalysis 5. The table below shows highreturns on the ADCs' investment (contribution) and on the total investment as well. Some o f the investments (village gardens) generate positive stream o f revenue starting in year one, in which case one cannot compute an internal rate o f return. The levels o f net present values reflect the size andthe total life o f the investment. 66  - 67 - Economicand FinancialAnalysis (`000 USD) Thresholds 35% 8,1 60% 7,9 19% 5,0 Acacia gumtrees 38% 28,9 152% 30,9 24% 24,2 Village gardens N C 890 N C 595 502% 4,2 IrrigatedAfican gardens 145% 37,8 >1000% 38,7 128% 35,7 SensitivityAnalysis 6. The sensitivity analysis includes a break-even analysis and switching values. The break-even analysis indicates the number of years necessary to recover the total investment, and not just the ADC's contribution. This i s viewed against the total life o f the project. The switching value indicates the percent increaseldecrease o f a key factor that would bring down the internal rate o f return to the benchmark (10 percent) chosen for the analysis. Based on the level o f switching values and the break-even analysis, the models display little risk. Inthe case of vegetable gardens which is sensitive to low price, these are not as risky as it appears for the following reasons: (i) prices of all (about half o f dozen) products would have to drop at the same time; (ii) women that tend these gardens generally sell small quantities at harvest and transform (dry) the bulk o f the production for sale at later periods at much higher prices; (iii) the imputed labor cost in the financial returns is high compared to its opportunity cost; and (iv) it takes only one year out o f seven to break even. This explains why vegetable garden are popular investments with village associations. SensitivityAnalysis-Years to Break-Even and SwitchingValues Thresholds 4(20) > 100% -44% 39% -19% Acacia gumtrees 7(30) >loo% -47% 73% -40% Village gardening W O ) 60% -55% >loo% -29% Irrigated African 2(20) >100% -77% >loo%- -66% /garden Notes: NIA=not applicable; (a) rental dayslyear; (b) volume processedlyear; (c) store sales volume. 67  - 68 - Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues MAURITANIA: Community BasedWatershed Management Project 1. The project development objective is to lessenthe incidence o f landdegradation at the watershed level within the CBRD project area areas by assisting rural communities to generate benefits through community-driven investments addressing land degradation and promoting SLM practices, The overall project outcome expected for the project i s that the rural communities' increased usage o f effective SLM techniques and practices leadto a decreaseinincidences o f landdegradation. 2. The proposedGlobal Environmental Facility (GEF) grant for a Community-Based Watershed Management Project (CBWM) will supplement the baseline IDA-financed project (CBRD) and will complement its interventions for sustainable livelihoods, and improve the managementofnatural resources (desertification inparticular) through inter- community interventions and targeted investments within the frameworks o f watershed andlandscapemanagement. The project will be implemented over five years, initially at two pilot sites within the CBRD area and representative o f two main ecosystems in Mauritania, and scale-up to a total o f four sites bythe endo fthe project. Environmental and Social Considerations 3. Itis expectedthat the project will havemostlybeneficialenvironmental andsocial impacts. The environmental and social management measures have been almost fully integrated into the project component designs. The main positive environmental impact will be the improvement in environmental services of the watersheds through the adoption o f agro-ecological production systems and improved management o f pastures, which will stabilize or reduce erosion rates, and increase agricultural production and incomes. 4. A potential environmentalrisk wouldbethat through the success ofthe project by increasing agricultural production in the watersheds, the influx o f migrants from other areas o fthe country would be stimulated. These migrantswould increase the already high pressure on land in the four project watershed basins, which could lead to further deforestation and clearing o f lands. The increased influx o f migrants into the fragile watersheds could also lead to increased use o f steep hills for agricultural production, which could again increase erosion rates. This i s why empowerment o f farming communities to engage in participatory decision making and to manage common resources in the watersheds o f these lands are o f paramount importance. Such mechanisms would regulate the natural resource base o f the watersheds among local communities and to newcomers and facilitate improved sustainable management of these resources. 5, From its onset and throughout preparation, the project team focused on reviewing social issues inthe designatedwatersheds to identifypotentialconstraints for cooperation between villages and communities in the same watershed. The project will use the findings of the CBWM Project's socio-economic study and the appraisal report (social issues) for the CBRD (the baseline project) to explore ingreater depth current social data tiedto the social development objectives ofthe project, namely: (i) stakeholder inclusion, 68  - 69 - and (ii) accountability and ownership of the project through full and broad-based their participation o f all the beneficiaries over the project lifespan. The CBWM Project will seek to analyze further constraints that could delay the activities of the various beneficiary groups (such as a rural exodus and low literacy level o f ABV managers, which could pose a serious obstacle to soundmanagement o ftheir activities, etc.), as well as capitalize on andboost opportunities for the attainment o fproject objectives. 6. Inaddition, theprojectwillseekto tap intothe socialdiversitywithinthe village communities in order to foster a harmonious balance and cohesion among the different social groups using watershedresources. The method used inthe preparatory process of the CBWM Project facilitated involvement o f all stakeholders (beneficiaries, commune mayors, the public andprivatesectors, technical services, civil society organizations, etc,) through on-site visits and consensus-building workshops. The participatory approach used during the planning phase o f the project will be strengthened and intensified, in order to build a consensus around efforts to combat land degradation (for example, soil management, pastureland, forests, revenue-generating activities, introduction o f new technologies). 7. Current social organization structures (truck farming and cottage-industry cooperatives, mutual assistance groups for the building o f dikes and wells, community development associations (ADCs), etc. will be usedbythe watershed association (ABV), in order to expand the participation of village communities in the implementation of watershed management plans. The use o f these local institutions will contribute significantly to the effectiveness o f the project as well as its sustainability, with the objective to foster equitable growth and poverty reduction. Taking into account the fact that the watershed communities use common resources (forests, pasturelands, agricultural ecosystems, water supply points, etc.) covering different areas, social conflicts between farmers and animal breeders related to the cohabitation o f these two groups are commonplace. 8. To this end, the project will use the regulatory mechanisms in place to reduce these conflicts: (i) traditional mechanism (internal conflict management methods the involving traditional chiefs, imams, village sages, andjemmas, in order to mediate such conflicts); (ii)external mechanisms, using mediation and arbitration through communal, departmental, and regional committees, along with representatives o f farmers, animal breeders, and users. This mechanism relies on the pastoral code and other legal and regulatory mechanisms in place. In order to minimize the potential risk of social conflicts at the level o f inter-community organizations (ABV), which could affect project activities, the project will carry out conflict management capacity-building activities for all staff involved in the CBWM Project implementation process. This i s designed to foster and sustain the inclusion o f all the various stakeholder groups in the planning, implementation andmonitoringof sub-projects andbeyond. 9. The socio-economic study has demonstrated the need to take into account the priorities and interests of women inorder to overcome gender-related disadvantages and increase the involvement of women in controlling natural resource degradation. The project will buildthe capacity o f women inthe areas o f energy substitution (introduction of solar and bio-gas cookers, improved ovens, etc.) and techniques for the restoration of degraded land. 69  - 70- From an environmental and social safeguardpoint o f view, the Mauritania Community- Based Watershed Management Project (CBWM) i s a Category B project. That is, there could be adverse environmental and social impacts of the project, but they are expected to be localized, not complex or irreversible, and avoidable or at least manageable to an acceptable level. There are three Bank Safeguardpolicies applicable to the project. These include: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01); Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) and Pest Management (OP 4.09). 10. At the time ofthe environmental and social assessment of the project, the range, scale, locations and number o f sub-projects, as part o f the CBWM initiatives were unknown. Inorder to provide the foundation for identifylngthe potential impacts of sub- projects, once identified, and determining what mitigation measures should be put in place, the Bank requires the development of an ~nvironmentaland Social Management Framework (ESMq and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). In addition, it was determined, basedonproject envisioned activities leading, inparticular, to diversification and intensification of agriculture, that the Pest Management Policy is triggered. This required the development of aPestManagement Plan (PMP). 11. Because the CBWM, a GEF-fimded project, is intervening in the same interventionzones as the Community-Based RuralDevelopment (CBRD) project already under implementation, it was deemed in this case that the ESW and the RPF for the CBRD project should adapted to suit the development objective, description and institutional and implementation arrangements o f the CBWM. On the other hand, the PMP prepared for the CBRDP has been simply re-disclosed, since there was no need for the preparation of a new one. This was based on the fact the existing PMP i s national in scope. 12. The ESMF and WF have been prepared, in full compliance with Bank and national safeguard policies, by local consultants, following a broad consultation framework, involving all relevant stakeholder groups. The PlMp has already been the subject o f consultation inthe preparationo f CBRD. PotentialImpacts The potential project impacts includebut are not limitedto the following: (a) Environment: 0 Soil erosion, loss o fbiodiversitybothfauna and flora. 0 Extensive agriculture leadingto additional deforestation 0 Pesticidelinorgdic fertilizer residues resultingfrom agricultural intensification 0 Pastoral landdegradation resulting from overgrazing bylivestock; 0 Sedimentation o flocal streams and oueds; 0 Improper waste management 0 Elimination o f the natural enemies of crop pests and consequent alteration o f biologicalpest controlmethods; and 70  - 71- 0 Development o f pest resistance to pesticides, encouraging further increases in and reliance on chemicalpesticides use. (b) Social & Health 0 Loss of land andor other assets leading to loss o f shelter, property, loss o f economic activities, access to resourcesetc; e pesticides poisoning o f farmers anddeleterious effects on humanhealth, e Conflicts among village communities in decision making and sharing watershed resources. 13. The ESMF formulated standards methods and procedures specifying how subprojects, whose location, number and scale are unknown will systematically address environmental and social issues in the screening and categorization, siting, design, implementation, operational phases and maintenance of the subproject lifecycle. It includes: (i) systematization o f environmental and social impact assessment for all identified sub-projects before investment; (ii) procedures for conducting sub-project- specific EIAs, be they Limited Environmental Impact Assessment (LEIA) or Full Environmental Impact Assessment (FEIA) as applicable; (iii)preparation of Environmental Management Plans, either as part o fEIAsor free-standing, as appropriate, to ensure that the potential impacts listed above will be mitigated; (iv) capacity strengthening and awareness raising campaigns targeted at relevant stakeholder groups for better implementation and monitoring of project safeguard measures; and (v) roles andresponsibilities for environmental controlandmonitoring. 14. The RPF looked into the policy, legal and regulatory mechanisms on how to address cases o f land acquisition, loss o f economic activities, on the part o f affected people, as a result o f project activities. It also provides a coherent framework, eligibility criteria and asset valuation methods for compensation andlor resettlement o f affected people, as well as grievance mechanisms o f affected persons, in case o f unsatisfactory arrangements. The RPF defines the procedures for preparation o f site-specific Resettlement Action Plans(RAP) should any subprojects require them. 15. Together, these safeguard instruments, are considered both as a planningtool and a means for a harmonious integration o f the project in its bio-physical and social environment and as a way to maximize positive effects onthe same environment. 16. The PMP, on the other hand, addressed the concerns relating to the risks associated with potential increases in the use of pesticides for agricultural production, intensification and diversification, increases in disease vector populations which would arise from irrigation schemes and made propositions to strengthen national capacities to implement mitigation measures to minimize the risks. The PMP also identifies national agencies and other partners that could effectively collaborate in, as well as the institutionalarrangementsfor implementingthe plan. 17. The ESMF and RPF include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved, for screening, review and approval o f sub-projects, as well as implementation and monitoring o f their mitigation measures. The PMP also includes clear institutional arrangements to implement and monitor the plan. In view o f the limited institutional capacity to addressing project 71  - 72 - safeguard aspects adequately, the three safeguard instruments, together, include provisions to strengthening the capacity o f the various institutions and actors involved, as well as promotingcoordination and synergy among the various sectors inattending to the potential environmental and social impacts. All three instruments were submitted to ASPEN, the regional Safeguard Unit, and cleared for disclosure in-country and at Bank InfoShop, prior to appraisal. Public Consultation And Disclosure 18, As indicatedabove, the preparationof the project safeguardinstruments followed a broad consultation framework with all potential stakeholders. This participatory approach will be carried on throughout implementation, supervision andevaluation o fthe project. 19. Prior to disclosure in-country and at Bank InfoShop, a stakeholder workshop, chaired byMinistryo f Environment, was organized bythe project preparation committee, involving relevant project stakeholder groups in public agencies, such as MinistBre de l 'Agriculture; representatives of professional organizations, farming organizations; civil society; and NGOs. This approach was utilized with the intention o f presenting the results of the studies, fostering ownership and seeking input from these stakeholders in order to improve quality and soundnesso fthe of the instrument. Recommendations from both ASPEN and stakeholders' workshop have been reflected in the final safeguard reports, prior to disclosure. These recommendations and relevant provisions from the three set o f safeguard instruments will be reflected in Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Safeguard policies Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment (OPIBPIGP 4.01) [XI [I Natural Habitats (OPIBP 4.04) [I [XI Pest Management (OP 4.09) Ex1 [I Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, beingrevisedas OP 4.11) 11 [XI InvoluntaryResettlement (OPIBP 4.12) [XI [I Indigenous Peoples(OP 4.10) 11 Ex1 Forests (OPIBP 4.36) [I [XI Safety ofDams(OPIBP 4.37) [I [XI Projects inDisputedAreas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* [I [XI Projects on International Waterways (OPIBPIGP 7.50) [I [XI * By supportingtheproposedproject, theBankdoes not intend toprejudice thefinal determination of theparties' claims on thedisputedareas 72  - 73 - Annex 11:IncrementalCost Analysis MAURITANIA: Community-Based Watershed ManagementProject 1. This section discusses the incremental costs eligible for GEF funding for the project "Community-based Watershed Management Project" (CBWM), defined as the difference between the GEF alternative scenario and the baseline. The baseline considered i s the "Community-based Rural Development Project" (CBRD), For each of the three components o f the project, the section will: (a) identify the baseline, (b) describe what would happen if the baseline i s implemented, (c) indicate the costs o f the baseline, (d) describethe alternative scenario, (e) describe the expected benefits under the alternative scenario, (g) report the cost o fthe alternative, and(h) the incremental cost. 2. The relationship between the activities o f each component and the environmental benefits generated i s synthesized in three explanatory tables. The Incremental Cost Matrix is reported at the end o f the section, As most o f the decisions, practices and technologies that the beneficiaries o f the project will adopt cannot yet be determined, the analysis favors a qualitative approach. 3. Component A: Capacity Building (a) Baseline: This component supports capacity buildingactivities o f community village associations (ADCs) and selected rural municipalities to design and implement effective development plans; develops the technical capacity o f the communities' service providers (crop and livestock research-development, extension services, statistical, environmental and rural training agencies) with an emphasis on decentralized units; and strengths the capacity o f micro-enterprises that directly supply goods andmaintenanceservicesto the village associations. (b) Expected scenario under the baseline scenario: Communities will be provided with the necessary skills to effectively develop, implement, manage and monitor development plans and administer their localinstitutions. However, capacity building activities will not necessarily include or focus onnatural resource management. (c) Baseline cost: 9,200,000 USD(IDA) (d) GEF alternative scenario: Under the CBWM, this component will supplement the baseline project's activities and develop local and regional capacity to adapt and replicate innovative watershed and landscape management approaches. Particularly, - the component will support the following activities. Development of watershed and landscape management decision support tools to assist the communities and the local government in the local development planningprocess (e.g. intercommunitymasr plans for watershed management); a focus will be placed on the landuse optimization, natural resources conservation with particular emphasis on land degradation while maximizing socio-economic objectives. The tools developed will include Geographical Information SystemsNatural Resources Management (GIS-NRM) databases o f watersheds and watershed management master plans (Shbmas directeurs d'ambnagements) basedon GIs data, andlocalwatershed development plans. 73  - 74 - - Establishment and strengthening o f watershed associations and decision-making institutions related to watershedlandscape management; trainingandassistanceto watershed associations and other village associations in the targeted watershed areas, disadvantagedgroups (women, youth, transhumant), rural communes, civil society, local and regional authorities, and traditional authorities, in the development, implementation and monitoring of local watershed development plans. - Fostering collaboration between the project and national and local research institutions, university, and extension services and different existing community associations to adopt a watershedlandscape management approach indeveloping and transferring sustainable land management technologies. Encouraging partnerships between the communities and the researchand extension services for usingsustainableresourcesmanagementtechnologies (trainingo fresearch staffto work with communitieslland users, development o f tools to assess land degradation costs and SLMbenefits, etc,). - Awareness training and sensitizing communities to land degradation issues (e.g., tours to witness disastrous consequences o f land degradation, use of demonstrations o f successful mitigationtechniques, dissemination o f information o fnew SLMtechnologies andapplications, etc.). - Review of policies, laws, regulations as needed duringproject implementation to identify reforms required for providing adequate incentives (such as improved tenure security, conflict resolution systems) to rural communities for the sustainablemanagemento flandresources at the watershed and landscapelevels. - Exploration and identificationof future, sustainableoperation and funding options (e.g., through information available from donor institutions, national environment funds, regional partnership centres for communities, bio-carbon fund, and returningenvironmental tax revenueto the local level). The project would in addition fund consultant services for technical assistance and studies, facilitation, animation, training and study tours, data collection costs, equipment and contracts for GIS information gathering, small equipment for training and demonstration o fnew technologies, andgeneral operating costs. (e) Expected local and global benefits under the GEF alternative: The GEF alternative will strengthen the capacity o f local communities and governments to adopt the watershed management approach in planning and implementing well coordinated localdevelopmentinterventions. This component would mainlyprovide watershed management decision support tools, institutions, regulatoqv'policy framework, training and information to all relevant stakeholders, As a result, environmental concerns will be integrated in the design and implementation of development plans and in decision-making processes, and sustainable methods to protect andmanage natural resource assets will be developed. That will contribute to indirectly generate both local and global environmental benefits, including contribution to: reducing land degradation and desertification, preserving the integrity o f ecosystems (including freshwater ecosystems), and to preserving the 74  -75- natural resource basel capital. Details on the linkages between the expected planned activities andthe environmental benefits are summarized inthe table below. Activities Direct imDact Local and global environmental benefits Developmento fwatershedand Improvedknowledge o fSLM Landdegradation/desertification landscape managementdecision practiced increased adoptiono f reduced(and possibly halted and suooort tools SLM technologies(with direct reversed) Establishment and strengtheningof benefit int e r n ofwind andwater Criticalecosystem' integrity, watershedassociation anddecision- erosion ofsoil, waterlogging, etc.) makinginstitutionsrelated to regulation functions and services watershedland management, and SLM integratedindecision- (including microclimates, fauna training inthe development, makingprocesses and flora, areas o f significance for implementationandmonitoring of ' Upstreamandoff-siteeffectsof migratorybirds, etc.) preserved, watersheddevelopment plans landdegradationtaken into restoredandpossibly improved Fosteringcollaborationbetweenthe consideration indecision-making mFreshwaterecosystems/ project andnationaland local processes waterways maintainedand researchto adopt watershed landscape management approachin protected (specifically the Oued developingandtransferring SLM Greigeland the Oued Tengharada technologies. Encouraging basins) partnershipsbetweenthe Land-useconflicts andpasture communities and the research and pressure reducedthanks to better extension services for using SLM land useplanning technologies. Awareness training Improvedknowledge and awarenesson land degradation, its causes andconsequences, mitigation techniques, andnew SLM technologies and applications Review ofpolicies, laws, regulations mReforms inthe policies, laws and regulations neededto support sustainablemanagement o f land resources at watershedand landscape levels identified mAdequate incentives (interms of tenure security, conflict resolution system, etc.) identified mLanddegradationissues mainstreamedinto local development processes, and enablingpolicy, legal and planningframework established mPoliciesandregulations supporting sustainable management o fresourcesat the watershedlandscape level harmonized Exploration for future funding Sustainabilityo f interventions guaranteed (0 GEFAlternative costs: 10,700,000 USD(IDA +GEF) (8) Incrementalcost: 1,500,000 USD(GEF) 75  - 76 - 4. Component B: Investment Funds (a) Baseline: This component aims at supporting the implementation o f projects identified inthe village and communal development plans while giving communities the opportunity to put into practice their strengthenedcapacities. The funds comprise: (a) a Village Investment Fund, which will target poor village communities and provide (ADCs) with capital input to implement their development plans, and (b) a Rural Communal Roads Fund, which will improve communities' access to rural roads. (b) Expected scenario under the baseline scenario: the nature o f investments and activities that will be supported through the local investment fund depends on the priorities identifiedinthe village and communal development plans, and may range from activities to boost agriculture productivity, to off-farm income generating activities, to livestock health activities, to health and education activities, etc. As such, there i s no guarantee that specific investments on environmental management are included. (c) Baseline cost: 30,300,000 USD (IDA) (d) GEFalternative scenario: A GEFcomponent is soughtto complement the project in areas o f natural resource management that concern more than one village by providing investment capital, through the Local Investment Fund, for village communities to adopt sustainable resource management and conservation practices within a watershed area and at the inter-village community level. Particularly, the GEF component will support the development of a master plan for watershed management involving more than one community. Eligible activities would be detailed inthe masterplanandcould include: the research and development, demonstration and application o f (1) new, innovative SLM technologies (e.g conservation agriculture technologies, tree- based technologies, upstream and river bank protection, etc.), (2) energy efficient technologies that reduce pressure on wood fuel harvesting (e.g., solar cooking stoves, solar electricity, biogas, etc.) at the watershed (regional or inter-village), and lower (village community) levels, and (3) establishment of upstream and river bank protectionto minimize erosion and sediment transport inthe watersheds, cattle routeslwells, pasture investments, inter-village forest managementinvestments; alternative income-generating activities (e.g. ago-forestry, nurseries, ecotourism, fishing, gumArabic, medicinal plants); and demonstrations o f better management practices or mechanisms to strengthen traditional gazing management systems and systems to resolve livestock- agriculture conflicts such as installation o f closures and boundaries for the protection o f grazingareas andplantations. (e) Expected local and global benefits under the GEF alternative: Local investments will be proposed by watershed associations (ABVs) in watershed community development plans (WCDPs) must be inharmony with the master planfor watershed management developed under the GEF component to be eligible for funding. 76  - 77 - Moreover, the project would not iimd activities which are not linked to GEF objectives or provide direct or indirect benefits to the environment. Therefore, the proposed GEE alternative will contribute to the achievement o f local and global ' environmental benefits as sumarized inthe table below. Activities Directimpact Localand global environmental benefits Research, development, . Soil erosionbywind (inthe I Critical ecosystem' integrity, demonstration and application of Tengharadasite) andwater (in regulationfunctions and services SLMtechnologies . the Greiguel site) reducedsoil (including microclimates, fauna andwater conservation improved andflora, areasofsignificance for Surface crusting, soil migratory birds, etc.) preserved, compotation anddeclining soil restored and possibly improved fertility reduced Landdegradationldesertification Dunemechanic andbiological reduced (andpossibly haltedand fixation, particularly inthe reversed) Tengharadabasin, andbetween 1Freshwater ecosystemmaintained AinTengharadaandTod) and preserved through decreased = Aquifer lossdecreased bankerosionl sedimentation/ Bankerosion, sedimentation, siltation siltation reducedflow regimes 1 Frequency and incidence ofdust regulated storms decreased 1 Naturalvegetation rehabilitated Productive capacity of land improved Research, development, = Pressureonl over-exploitationo f ..Biodiversityloss reducedboth demonstration and applicationof forestry resources (particularly becauseo f reduced exploitation of energyefficient technologies that reducepressure on wood fuel for fuelwood) reduced naturalresourcesandpreservation harvesting 1 Use of manure for energy ofnaturalhabitats; migration purposes decreased corridors maintained = Workload burden on women due 1 Forestryresources/herbaceous or to fuelwood collectiondecreased woody vegetation loss reduced (andpossiblyhaltedandreverted) 1Contribution to the improvement .o fcarbon sequestrationratesand to the reduction o f GHG Degradationof soil quality reduced due to the increased availability o fmanure Alternative income-generating = Pressureon/ over-exploitation ofl . Critical ecosystem' integrity, activities competition on natural resources regulation functions andservices (land, forestry, water, etc.) (including microclimates, fauna reduced andflora, areasof significance for migratorybirds, etc.) preserved, restored andpossibly improved = Landdegradationldesertification reduced (andpossibly haltedand reversed) 1 Biodiversityloss reducedboth becauseo freduced exploitation of naturalresourcesandpreservation o fnatural habitats = Contribution to the improvement 77  - 78 - of carbon sequestrationrates and to the reduction o fGHG =Land-useconflicts reduced Demonstrationsof better 1Grazingpressure on landand =Productive, pastoral andforestry managementpractices or mechanisms natural decreased vegetation functions of selectedecosystem to strengthen traditional grazing managementsystems and systemsto preserved resolvelivestock-agriculture conflicts 1 Soillforestry resources/ natural vegetation preserved =Reductiono f agriculture-livestock conflicts (f) GEF Alternative costs: 33,800,000 U S D (IDA GEF) + (8) Beneficiary contribution: in-kind (h) Incremental cost: 3,500,000 USD (GEF). The incremental cost will cover the costs for establishment and management o f the fund, consultant services, training, recruitment of facilitators to train and assist the watershed associations insubmitting investment proposals, and costs associatedwith acquisition of information, materials and equipment for the demonstration of new and innovative techniques in SLM and income-generating activities. 5. Component 3: Project Management and Monitoring&Evaluation (a) Baseline: The CBRD will support general project management, coordination and M&E activities or bothprojects (CBRD and GEF component), andthe development o f a communication strategy. The M&Esystem will includepoverty indicators. (b) Expected scenario under the baseline scenario: The M&Esystemwhich would be established under the baseline scenario would not incorporate indicators and monitoring tools to assess ecosystemand land degradation processes. As a result, the M&E system would not allow a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem dynamics and o f the land degradation processes, thus preventing to effectively intervene inaddressingthis problem. The only environmental benefits may arise from the correct application ofthe Bank's environmental safeguards. (c) Baseline cost: 4,100,000 U S D (IDA) GEFalternative scenario: The component will fundtechnical assistanceassociatedwith M&E, and the incremental operating costs associated with the execution of GEF activities or to assist in managing these activities. This component will focus on designing and implementing cornunity and scientific M&E systems to monitor global and local environment indicators to assess their impact (desertification/ landdegradation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, international waters, climate change) inproject areas, and on providing technical assistance associated with the M&E (e.g., scorecards, development o f tools to assess land degradation costs and SLM benefits). The GEF component will focus on specific activities such as the development of community-based and scientific monitoring and evaluation system (with indicators than can be monitored by communities, and scientific indicators on the other hand) for land degradation and watershed management assessment at the local and regional levels, and local and global environmental impact assessment. 78  - 79- (d) Expected localand global benefitsunder the GEF alternative: The establishment of a comprehensive M&E mechanism would allow a better understanding of the dynamics (root causes and processes) associated with land degradation, carbon sequestration, water resource management andbiodiversity conservation. As a result, a reduction in land degradation is expected and consequent improvement in ecosystem functions, reduction inbiodiversityloss, andprotectionofwaterways. Activities Direct imDact Local and Plobal environmental benefits TechnicalassistanceassociatedwithI Better understandingofthe 1 Landdegradation/ desertification the design and implementationof a underlyingroot causes, processes reduced M&Esystemto monitorlocaland global environmentindicators anddynamicsassociatedwith 1 Ecosystemfunctionspreserved landdegradation andimproved 1 Environmentalinformation 1 Aquatic ecosystemsproductivity systemandenvironmental andintegrity sustained indicators 1 Biodiversity loss reduced 79  ISnsclinc  -81-   - 83 - Annex 12: TechnicalAnnex LandDegradation - MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject 1.LanddegradationinMauritania 1. Land degradation is a major concern inMauritania and is an essential component of the National Environmental Action Plan (PANE), which i s part o f the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Emphasis has been placed on land degradation since the 1970s, following the major droughts whose effects are still being felt because o f demographic andpastoral pressures on the southern border zone o f the country (and on the enclaves o f productive areas forming the oases), where the agricultural, forest, and pastoral potential of the country come together, According to FA0 estimates, the only source from which data can be obtained, [number missing] hectares of soil have been lost. This situation drastically compromises the integrity o f the ecosystems, the sustainable ecological productivity o f which i s being reduced, while their original, rich biodiversity and regeneration capacity are diminishing. The maincauses identified in the PAN, inthe nationalpreparatory studies, andatthepilot sitesarepresentedinthe tablebelow: Threats and Root causes Measurescurrently being Additional consequences taken measures required Loss of arable land - Reductioninyield, - Operations to test measures -Enhancement o f income, food security -- Drought Lack o ftechnical indifferentprojects(dune technical forums supervision - Lack stabilization, tree planting, - Close o f information, supervision follow up, and -etc.) Supervisory agents o f the -Application o f distribution o f available MDRE[Ministre du measures to technologies ddveloppement ruralet de combat - Increase in the size o f I' e n v ~ r o n n e ~ e n t ~ ~osf t r y degradationina the population RuralDevelopment, Water harmonized - Lack ofcollective andthe Environment] present framework vision - Creation ofa - Lack o flong-term inthe 12 Wilayas(provinces) ofthe country watershed Planning association, - Difficulty managing - Presenceo f active NGOs in the fight against desertification watershed intercommunity areas - Formulationo fa local management plan development planat the ADC - Establishmento f [community development NGOs associations]or village level - Involvement o f traditional, loca1,and national authorities Loss of pastureland - Increase inconflicts, - Inadequate tradition- - Tradition-based rules - Monitoring o f greater competition for based rules; - Adoption of the pastoral inter-community resources - Lack o f familiarity code pastureland by the with and spotty - Delimitationof pastureland communities application o f the - Watershed pastoral code management plans - Spatialmanagement - Dissemination difficulties; lack of and enforcement recognition and of the pastoral participation of code  - 84 - communities; dearth o f - Investment in regulations and farming systems measuresfor managing intercommunity forums, especially with - Reduction respect to foreigners inrearing -Scant supervision - Presence o f certainprojects - Familiarity with potential; loss o fjobs incertainregions; mixedand and application o f and financial resources; -- Poor veterinary care Little investment for often unsustainable results the pastoral code increase infood pastureland at the community insecurity; migrationto management level urbancenters. Loss of biodiversity - Disappearance o fplant - Uncontrolled hunting - Huntingcode - Monitoring o f and animal species and fishing; little natural resources knownregulations, by communities limited personnel for monitoring - Disappearance or fragmentationo f habitats due to land clearing - Reduction in water table - Uncontrolled deforestation - Poverty - Disappearance andor -Lack o f internal - Establishing reduction inthe supply protection planting, gardens, ofmedicinal plants and community protection measures - Decrease inaerial - Inappropriate removal - Disseminationof pasture1land techniaues good practices Loss of forest land - Reduction inthe supply - Difficultyinaccessing - Distributiono f improved - Improvement in of firewood and timber alternative technologies stoves incertainregions access to - Lack o f supervision - Local protection alternative wood- based technologies - Recognition o f community laws bythe populations I -Forestry management plan Sources: 2002 PAN-LCD and2005 on-site surveys,  - 85 - 2. Mauritania's agro-pastoraland oases providethe ecosystemswhich serve as aprimary source of water for the cattle populations, support agricultural andpastoralproduction, supply firewood andtimber, supply crops, andalso providethe habitat for flora and fauna. 3. InMauritania, there are severaltypesofsoildegradationcausedbywinderosion, water erosion, deterioration of chemical quality, deterioration o fphysical quality, biological degradation, and disappearanceo fthe vegetative cover. (a) Wind-driven Erosion 4. Mauritaniais ecologically predisposed to this type o f erosion because o f its aridor desert climate, its violent winds, which are among the highest in the Sahara, the virtual absence of perennial plant cover, the presence of a sandstone substratum which, through the process o f alteration creates large sand masses (ergs), denuded slopes (regs), and rocky plateaus (hamadas) with sandbanks, all ofwhich create anunstable setting for plantlife. 5. Man-made factors such as the management o f agro-sylvo-pastoral spaces (deforestation, overgrazing, etc.) facilitate this type o f erosion. In fact, animal migration (small and large ruminants) from one region to another within the country, or towards Mali and Senegal, lead to hrther degradation of plant cover along the migration paths (migration corridors) and at the water supplypoints (wells, boreholes). The flattening o f landby large herds of nuninantsis also one o fthe maincauses of landdegradation, following the loss of structure ofupper soil layers. 6. Wind erosion factors are well known: mismanagement of natural resources, soil erodability, wind, the roughnesscoefficient, and geomorphologyinthe relevant zones. 7. Mismanagement of natural resources is the-most common cause o f wind erosion in Mauritania and affects virtually all of the country's ecosystems. This i s evident in: - Overgrazing because of the migration o f ruminants (cattle, camels, sheep, and goats) towards the rich pastureland, namely, the river valley and more specifically, the south of Gorgol (Adhf, Maghamazone), the Guidimaka, andthe Hodhs. - The felling of trees and uprooting o f shrubs for wood and other domestic purposes. This phenomenon is very widespread inthe Senegal River valley, where vast forest land has beencut down to meet various needs (charcoal, boundary control, etc.). - Brushfires are often causedbyman(unextinguished campfires, carelesssmokers, etc.). - The loss of structure and crumbling of upper soil layers, as a result o f flattening by animals andtheir reshufflingbythe wind; - Bad land tilling practices, especially the tilling or cover-cropping o f clayey soil in dry conditions (case o f irrigation schemes on the rightbank o f the SenegalRiver.) 8. Soil erodibility is proportionate to the sand content o f soil. This factor is therefore fairly high in arid and sub-arid areas where the soil consists of large amounts o f sand and silt. Consequently, sub-arid areas used for agro-pastoral purposes have a great deal o f the reg or gravely soil resulting from wind erosion o f pastureland, which not long ago was both abundant andvaried. This kindof landscapeis common inAssaba, inthe Hodhs, and, to a lesser extent, in the northernborder zone of the SenegalRiver valley. 9. Soil roudmess is determined by the extent of soil cover. For example, the wind drags sandparticles at a speed five times higher whensoil is bare comparedto whenit is covered.  - 86 - 10. With wind, weed and flows are factors. Mauritania has all kinds o f wind flows - one- directional, bi-directional, and multi-directional. The result is varying dunal formations which include the barchan dunes, linear dunes, transversal dunes, the Tamarix dunes, and the ripple dunes. (b) Water-driven soil erosion 11. Water erosion i s very significant inMauritania owing to its quite hilly landscape, violent and torrential rains, andrich hydrographic network, The soil i s very prone to rain-drivenerosion. Inthe south ofthe country, areolar erosion causedbyrain, anddeep linear finger-shaped erosion [doigts de gants par entrailles linbaires] can be seen after heavy rainfall. According to the UNDPRAO done study by SCETIAGRI, of one million hectares along the right bank o f the Senegal River, one-third o f dunal land i s gullied or salty. This type o f erosion is manifested in several ways - in groundwater, ravines, furrows, gulleys, or landslides, and affects virtually all the wilayas, particularly the hydraulic lines, landwith steep inclines, and slopes. The regions o f Assaba andGuidimakaare particularlyhardhitbywater erosion, as evidencedby: - Rivulets takingthe form o f small furrows formed by water, particularly at the top of slopes, on the sides of roads, and in fields that have been plowed. Since expansion i s created by the concentration o f excessive surface runoff, these rivulets becomeravines; - Landscapes containing a great deal o f surface pebbles and stones, located in pastoral and cultivated highlands, which are convex-shaped and have fairly steep slopes, once the finest soil particles havebeenremovedby surface runoff, - Furrows andravines on non-dunal soil with a fairly compact ferruginous crust and ferruginous "beige" soil on convex-shaped, average-falling gradients with vegetative cover; - Surface erosion of loamy-sandy soil, sometimes creates an exposed, hardened crust; - Soil deposits on gentle slopes or gravel, sand, and silt in streambeds caused by upstreamwater erosion. 12. Water erosion is particularly serious in watersheds owing to their complexity and the densityofmicro-basins. 13. InBrakna (the area surrounding Barkla), andinthe wadi areas, water erosion is havinga significant impact and has even cut off access to some roads. Several watersheds can be seen at the Lebher site alongside small rivulets which empty, from upstream to downstream, in the Hassei' Sidi Ahmedwadi, the OumChdei'g wadi, andthe Grei'guel wadi. (c) Deterioration of the chemical properties in soil 14. Degradation o f the chemical properties in soil may be the result o f the salination or alkalization of the soil. This degradation may also be attributable to the leaching o f the soil base and acidification, as well as by other forms on toxicity not linked to excessive salt or sodium. The reduction in the fertilizing elements absorbed by plants represents another form of degradation of the chemical properties insoil. This decline infertilizing properties could also be caused by a succession o f leachings, or by cultural practices which can be described as  - 87 - extractive, given that there is no compensation for the loss o f nutritive elements linked to fanning. (d) Deteriorationofthe physicalquality of soil 15. Degradation linked to a deterioration o f the physical quality o f soil is evident inthe loss of soil structure, soil crusting, silting, reduced permeability, and lower aeration, all factors that limit rooting. Physical degradation of soil may be attributable to several phenomena, among them, depletion of the organic matter insoil, formation o f impermeable plough soil, compacting as soil i s flattened by fairly sedentaryherds, etc. Degradation can also be causedbywaterlogged soil, which leads to hydromorphy. (e) Biological degradation of soil 16. Biological degradation o f soil is reflected in a decline inmicrobiological activity in the upper layers o f the soil. This imbalance inmicrobiological activity inthe soil i s attributable to deforestation, brush fires, overgrazing, excessive use o f chemical fertilizers, etc. Naturally, the result is a considerable decrease inthe productivity o f agricultural land. (f)Disappearanceofthevegetative coverldesertification 17. Insofar as soil degradation inMauritania is concerned, the desertfication problem i s the most acute, given that this process i s occurring at a rapid rate virtually everywhere in the country. The SenegalRiver valley i s the only area where the vegetative cover is still adequate; however, it too is gradually deteriorating becauseofpoor landmanagement. Studies conducted on pilot sites indicate that the soil i s depleted, resulting in lower yield as a result o f the loss o f soil nutrients. This has prompted the migration of farming to the central wadi (Assaba region), which inturnhas exacerbatederosion. N o comprehensive measureshave been taken to address the situation. In the oasis regions studied, soil degradation has led to a diminishedcapacity for replenishment of the watertable and to salinization of the soil, resulting ina decreaseinirrigatedcrops. The lowering of the watertable has ledto the loss ofdate palm trees, an important source o f revenue and food security inthese regions, resulting inthe exodus o fone segment o fthe population. 18. Observation o f the landand the informationprovided by the populationConcernedshow that forest resources are scant and are exploited in an uncontrolled manner, without the use o f cutting andremovaltechniques that are compatible with long-term management. 19. The populations living in the areas studied can readily point to the disappearance o f vegetable or animal species; primarily due to the loss o f their habitat and to uncontrolled exploitation. 2. Current measures 20. In view of the desertification problems, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritaniahas implemented several long-term measures, among them: 21. Institutional and legal measures:the country accededto the International Conventionto Combat Desertification in 1997 and launched its National Desertification Action Plan [PAN- LCD] in 2002. This program i s an integral part o f the National Environmental Action Plan (PANE) which is in turn part o f the National Poverty Reduction Program, Various laws have been adopted such as the pastoral code and the environmental law, as well as the huntingand  - 88 - fisheries code. Implementingregulations to these laws have not yet been prepared, and the population as a whole is not aware o f them all. The Government i s also in the process o f establishing decentralization mechanisms; however, the role o f communities has not yet been well defined interms ofthe managementofnaturalresourcesat the locallevel. 22, Plans are under way for the establishment o f a national environmental fund to permit communities to obtain resources for their initiatives to combat soil degradation. Several projects also provide financial resources to communities; however, it is not certain that these communities have the capacity to submit clearly articulated and fimctional programs to combat soil degradation effectively. 23. At the national level, MDRE! technicians are available to communities inthe 12wiZayas; however, these technicians lack the financial resources and training to provide support for community initiatives. A number o fNGOshave acquired expertise inimplementingprograms to combat desertification. 24, Technical measures: Through projects realized in the past, Mauritania has acquired expertise in a number o f technological areas. For example, the PLEMVASP [Projet de Lutte contre I'Ensablementlsand dune protection project] has successfully tested several anti-erosion techniques; the dune stabilization technique has been fairly well mastered by government technicians andhas facilitated the protection o f a numbero f infrastructures andtowns. 25. Several dikes anddams havebeenbuilt for purposeso f soil andwater retention; however, a significant portion o f this work has been stopped as a result o f ruptures caused by flooding upstream, which, increasingly, has been attracting the attention o f the Office o f Rural Development Planning [Direction des Ambnagements Rural], which i s focused on watershed approachesthat take entire watercourses into account. 26. Local measures: Invillages, the populations inpilot sites (agro-pastoral and desert areas) have tried a number o f anti-erosion techniques such as brushwood barriers, construction o f slowdown barriers, and retaining reservoirs. However, it must be acknowledged that these solutions have not been as successful as expected, owing to a lack o f comprehensive vision, technical expertise, continuity, andfollow up. 27. Populations have also conducted small-scale experiments involving the protection o f pastoral and forestry reserves; however, in addition to pressure exerted by outsiders, these initiatives are not sufficientlywide inscope. 28. Inter-village cooperation systems are inplace; however, they have not been mobilized to addresscommon ecologicalproblems. 3. Alternative solutionsenvisioned 29. Based on an analysis o f the situation, a comprehensive approach seems to be most appropriate. Such an approach should cover a broader swath o f territory extending beyond villages and including inter-village areas, thus leading to a long-term vision that mobilizes and assigns accountability to communities. This in turn will help solve development problems and expand access by populations to technology, and, in so doing, will bring to the fore the economic dimensiono f soilprotectionandthe environment ingeneral.  - 89 - Appropriatenessof awatershedapproach 30. The watershed approach applies to a specific geographical unit, the boundaries o f which are established by a separating line. Runningthrough this unit i s a body o f water or principal wadi, which empties into the affluent of another bigger body o f water. From a management standpoint, the watershed can be sub-dividedinto smaller sub-units, thereby makingthem easier to manage. This territory usually does not fall within administrative boundaries; the territory covered bythe watershed can cut through several departments andcommunes, and evenpart o f a village. The wadi basin is, however, clearly recognizedbythe communities livinginthose areas. 31. Following the lessons learned on this subject and observations made during preparatory studies, the establishment of a programto combat soil degradation through a watershed approach in order to reestablish and maintain the functions of ecosystems, is based on the following principles: - Involvementandparticipation of communities; - - Planningcovering a geographical areawider thanvillages; Givingdue consideration to localtraditional knowledge; --- Supporting economic andecological investments; Strengtheningtechnical capacity at the local, regional, andnationallevels; Providinginformation andbuildingawarenessat the community level; - - Providingtechnical support, follow up, andoverseeing the work o f communities; Integrating approachestested at the national level. 32. At the locallevel, the methodology envisionedisbasedonthe following steps: (0 Choosingsites and ~uildingawarenessat the community level 33. Duringthe pilot phase, two typical watersheds were identified. Testing ofthis approach was started, using the following criteria: i)the watersheds had to be representative o f the Mauritanian ecosystem; ii)a development project capable o f financing the basic needs o f the communities had to be in place; iii)signs o f degradation had to evident; and iv) the watershed had to be adequately populated. Basic studies identify approximately thirty other watersheds to which this approach can be expanded in agro-pastoral and desert areas; however, studies and closer cooperation inagro-pastoral zones are necessaryinthe case o f each potential intervention. The intervention unit could be a subdivision or offshoot o f the watershed or, for drier ecosystems, the agro-pastoral area. 34. The process will begin with consultations and exchanges between the technicians responsible for oversight and the communities regarding their perceptions of soil degradation problems in the case o f those communities whose input has been requested on deeply-rooted causes as well as solutions that have already been tried at the local level. Ifthe communities are willing andaconsensusis obtained, the processcanthenbegin. (iq Inventory and studies of the ecosystemsconsidered 35. Initially, basic studies will be carried out with a view to obtaining a better understanding o f the social and bio-physical setting. These studies will be carried out, insofar as possible, with the participation o f the communities, thereby combining scientific knowledge and local know- how. Feedback on the main elements will be provided to the communities at the time of preparation o f the management plan. Onthis basis, planners will submit proposals. Studies will cover all aspects of watersheds that are usefkl from a management standpoint, namely, the  - 90 - biophysical setting (hydrology, pedology, fauna, and flora), the human setting (composition o f the populations, economic activities - agriculture, livestock rearing, commerce), roles and responsibilities, practices regarding the use and management o f natural resources, priorities o f the communities, role o f marginalized groups, etc., and will be carried out by various providers (NGOs,localconsultants, andconsulting firms). (iii) ~stablishmentof an inter-community management structure 36. Studies and consultations will shed light o f the current social structure o f watershed communities and their views on the most effective means of community organization for them, so that they can assume responsibility for watershed management. During this phase, the communities will be assisted and supervised so that they can clearly understand their roles and responsibilities within this new entity and establish its operating rules (statutes, rules o f procedure), so that their group canbe recognizedby local andnationalauthorities, and additional training needs o f the main officials can be determined. This new entity will need to provide adequate communication mechanisms, management capacity, and the investment necessary. This entity canbe different from on-site organizations that have already beenestablished, (iv) Preparation and negotiation with the comm~nitiesof a watershedmanagement plan 37. Following the identification o f the main obstacles to be removed and o f the priorities needs of communities, an initial management proposal will be prepared and negotiated with the community management entity. This proposal should contain natural resource governance measures (local management rules to be established), community and inter-community investment proposals, economic measures (revenue-generating activities for the communities), as well as an ordering o f priorities, which will be reflected in yearly or multi-year planning. This plan will serve as the reference document on which an agreement was reached by consensus between the communities themselves and the authorities. It will provide a long-termvision of the future o fthe watershed, as well as the roles andresponsibilities o feachstakeholder. 38. A positive list of acceptable investments can serve as a guide for community proposals. However, it would be better for actual initiatives to come from the populations. There will be technical andlor financial participation bycommunities ininvestments (counterpart). 39. A subsequent exercise will be to ensure that community and inter-community managementproposals are includedinthe local development planso fcommunities or ADCs. (v) Establisment of structural investments 40, Investments will be established o f the basis of CBRD (rural community development project) procedures for the identification and selection of providers, follow up, and evaluation. Communities and community organizations will receive training in this area, using CBRD resources or, inthe case o f inter-community activities beyond the scope o f the CBRD, CBWM resources. Demonstrations will be designed to encouragethe use o ftechnological innovations. (vi) Trainingof stakeholders 41. The management plan will identify certain types o f training to be provided to communities and technicians at the local and national levels, and NGOs. It will be aimed at enhancing the skills of communities and the new entity in the areas o f planninglfollow up and evaluation, administrative and financial management o f investments, and in a number of  - 91- technical areas (anti-erosion techniques, management of forestry resources, management of fisheries resources, etc.). 42. Study trips will also beneededinsome communities so that useful lessons canbe learned from other projects. 43. Technical demonstrations are planned inorder to increasethe technological opportunities available to communities. Follow up related to these demonstrations will be carried out by national researchofficials. (vi0 Participatoryfollow up and evaluation 44. Communities and their community organizations will be assisted by CBRD technicians who will do follow work up and will receive training in this area. Communities may also be assisted by specialized NGOs, after evaluation of the scope of the work needed. Follow up will take place mainly ontwo levels: - at the level o f implementation o f the management plan: indicators and regular inter-community meetings. - at the investment level: this follow up will take place through the CBRD- establishedentities. (viig Integration at the national level of thepractical methodolorndeveloped 45. In practice, integration of the watershed approach means that laws, particularly those pertaining to decentralization, must be favorable, that the main technicians involved (local and national MDRE agents) should master the concept, and that appropriate financial resources should be earmarked inthe national budget and indesertification-related programs and projects. To that end, plans should bemade for activities aimed at: - Disseminating information and building awareness at the national level through - articles, radio andtelevisionbroadcasts, andinstructional materials; Including specific programs in government negotiations with donors, at round tables, andconsultations relatedto other projects; - Training a critical mass o f civil society stakeholders(NGOs and consulting firms) so that they can acquire knowledge relatedto the procedure. 46. Listof threatened species (IUCNRedList,2004) Species no 1ong;erfound inAD- Scientific Species Popular name 1 Addax nasomaculus Addax Werque 2 Oryxdana Oryxalgazelle Lemha 3 DamaliscusKorrigum Damalique Erikmin 4 Svncerus coffer Eiernoul 5 Pantherajardus 1 Buffe Panthere 6 Pantheraleo I Lims I Sbrio 7 Elvihid 7 Arinonyajubatus Guyard 8 Strutrocornelis Autriche Nagme Source: CBWMbio-physical study, July 2005.  - 92 - Annex 13: STAPRosterReview MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject Reviewer: WilliamCritchley Vrije UniversitietAmsterdam (November 3,2005) Preamble 1. This GEF Scientific and Technical Advisrory Panel (STAP) review o f the Community- Based Watershed Management Project (CBWM) in Mauritania follows the standard terms o f reference (TOR) relatingto such exercises. The thirteen issuesinthe TOR are covered, including the eight sub-questions under the first issue. There i s also a general comment section. The basic documentspresentedfor reviewwere (drafts of) the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) dated 25 Oct 2005, the Technical Annex, and the Incremental Cost Analysis. These were supplementedby the PAD of the base project (Community-Based Rural Development Project: CBRD), the original concept note o f CBWM, anda consultant's project preparationreport datedMay 2005. GeneralComments 2. The draft PAD is at an advancedstage. With some revisions and additions, the PAD sets out a case for aproject (CBWM) which is innovative, imaginative, and one that this reviewer can recommend to the GEF for support. The core o f the project is sustainable land management (SLM) which is the theme o f the OP 15 funding window o f GEF. The innovative aspect i s the addition of value to a base project (CBRD)9 by stimulating the establishment o f watershed associations (ABV), and then supplying them with finds to finance their own work plans" (subject to compliance with the `master plan' for the watersheds). These `inter-communal areas' between villages where common property resources are located, are indeed often underplayed by resource conservatiom` livelihood projects, and are serious land degradation liabilities. A viable but flexible model could indeed be the outcome o f the project. It i s further gratifying to see the attention given to poverty and disadvantaged members o f society. The project is MDG compliant. It is, furthermore, demand driven, havingbeen set up specifically at the behesto fthe host government. 3. The PAD follows a GEF path, emphasizing the global implications o f combating land degradation ina particular problem area-the drought and degradation-prone strip o f landalong the Senegalriver, where oases are important and both wind and water erosion serious. This is a very specific zone, and while limited in area, strategically important in global terms, and there will potentially belessons applicableto manyother countries. However the connection to climate change through carbon sequestration and potential impact on biodiversity12, and specifically agrobiodiversity are underplayed. Nor i s there explicit (any?) mention o f ecosystem function. curious that one acronym should have a `P' (signifying project) and the other, not. loItwouldbelogicalandhelpfulifboththe associations (the village levelADCs andwatershed levelABVs) and their respective work plans (VCD plans and WCD plans) hadmatchingFrenchand Englishacronyms. Currently the former are Frenchand the latter English. ''Anunfortunate term that should be replacedby somethinglike `framework plan' l220 endangeredspp. inthe concept note becomes 30 inthe PAD, and there are merely 8 named inthe Technical Annex. All appear to be macrofauna: mammals andbirds. Many other, less visible, fauna and flora will surely be impactedupon.  - 93 - There clearly is potential global environmental significance in terms o f both biodiversity and carbon storage. This requires more prominentlyhighlightinginthe PAD. SPECIFIC ISSUES REVIEWED (a) Scientific andTechnical Soundness 4. Will the approach achieveobjectiveof addressingland degradation? The landdegradation problems o fthe zone inquestion are well articulated inthe technical annex - though more qualitatively than quantitatively. The SLM interventions outlined are conventional and broadly appropriate, though there ought to be some room left open for spontaneous community initiative and innovation. The objective o f addressing land degradation should achievable ifimplementation goes ahead according to plan, and is begun early enough in the (relatively short) project lifespan, andi s continued throughout. The four year span is however effectively lengthened somewhatbyCBWM's two year lagbehindthe baseproject. 5. Risks and constraintsassociated withproject? There are a number o f risks associatedwith this project, but this i s to be expected with such an imaginative approach. The first, andmost important, is the assumption that communities/ groups o f villages within a watershed will be agreeable to set up associations that will jointly assemble work plans, manage funds well, and come together in implementation. This will require skilful facilitation, support and mediation. But this will also be helped by the fact that there has been previous experience with such approaches elsewhere inthe world. It is also explicit inthe PAD that the concepts behind the project have been significantly influenced through a participatory design process. 6. Gaps? As was pointed out in the introductionthere is little attention inthe document given to carbon sequestrationor biodiversity, ecosystem function or hydrology. Missing fiom the PAD-though present in the concept note - is mention o f monitoring and evaluation (M&E) indicators of biodiversity and carbon sequestered. That is an omission that should be rectified. The PAD also doesn't make it clear how large these watersheds/ areas o f intervention are, and how many families will be involved. As hasbeenmentioned already, there should be a window left open for identification o f local, innovative forms o f either (a) social organisation or (2) technical interventions. `Small-scale experiments' are noted to have occurred, butthat is the only reference to such initiatives. 7. Controversialaspects? None evident. 8. Aspects requiring extra research? As long as the monitoringand evaluation set-up makes a concerted effort to track what occurs - intechnical, financial and social terms - then the supporting research base is adequate. This M&Ewill beparticularlyimportant to providesupporting evidence interms ofglobalcredibility andrelevance.  - 94 - 9. How will model of sustainable usebe developed?How effective will it be? While the `master plan' for watershed development will act as the overall framework, the work plans for each watershed association will be negotiated and developed. If proved successful, these will constitute models o f genuine sustainable use. From the arguments prevented in the PAD and annexes, it is anticipated that at least some successfulbasic models will emerge. IO. Sufficient evidence thatproject offers best long-term solutions? There i s every reasonto be confident that this mixture o f a strongparticipatorybase to decision making together with a basket o f technical remedies and self-imposed governance regulations should indeed offer the best solutions -at least in the short term and with committed support from outside (it is noted that the Government seeks to establish a national environment fund), then inthe longer term too. (b) GlobalEnvironmentalBenefits 11. Sustainable land management in terms o f common property resources i s the focus o f CBWM. SLM in turn i s at the heart o f ecosystem fhction with its positive impacts on biodiversity above andbelow ground, and carbon sequestration. The latter, carbon sequestration, addresses climate change. International waters are also addressed. There are no drawbacks envisaged. (c) Project's Context within GEF Goals 12. CBWM fits comfortably within the GEF context. Its focus on natural resource management in an area with severe problems o f water and wind erosion, poor arable and to OP 15 - is clear. There is also a strong connection with OP 12 through the proposed better livestock related landmanagementpractices and resultant land degradation - and thus relevance management of common grazing and other forms o f landuse, including wooded areas, and thus an integrated ecosystem approach. Beside these technical aspects, CBWM is founded in the common aspirations of stakeholders, both local and the national level. It exudes a strong flavor ofdemand-drivennessandparticipatory involvement inplanningand activities. (d) Importanceof The Area of InterventionFrom a Conservation Perspective 13. The zone of implementation i s certainly important in national terms, and as has been pointed out already, such relatively well-endowed areas with better rainfall, oases and infi-astructureare criticalto Sahelian andother desert-dominated countries like Mauritania. There are specific land degradation problems here: especially wind erosion and riparian zone degradation. At a lower level, it i s the common property,' between-village focus o f the project that i s crucial - rather than the actual hydrological watershed that tends to be highlighted inthe documents. Nevertheless it should be noted that the `selected ecosystems' are not defined, and the five pilot sites not identified inthe document. (e) Scope for Replication of the Project 14. Potential replicability is a strength of CBWM, and it i s one o f the justifications for the project in the first place. As noted already, it could be relevant in a number o f countries with similar problems. Being founded on participatory methodology and a flexible, responsive funding arrangement for the new composite groups, it is the broad approach that will be replicable rather than any particular technical (or institutional) prescription. Naturally there is a cost implicationinthis concept of replicability-it can't easily spread spontaneously - andinthis  - 95 - context the proposed national environment fund (and other potential future sources o f fimding) will be critical determinants of replication. Interms of replication outside Mauritania, it is not apparent what mechanisms will be used in this context, or which immediate neighbours will share aninterest. (f) Potential For Continuation Of ChangesThe Project Aims To Achieve 15. Most of the comments in3.5 are relevant to this question also. Some o f the interventions will be self-maintaining if they yield production benefits quickly. Probably most technical interventions, in such a dry area on the inter-community lands will need continued maintenance fimding until proven, and hlly appreciatedby the associations. On the organisational fi-ont, the viability o f the watershed associations (the ABVs) will be critical. One question that needs answering is: what will be the legal status o f the ABVs? Will they be answerable to the communes under which they fall? Certainly the PAD appreciates that an enabling legislative environment i s necessaryto helppull (rather thanpush) the process forward. (g) Consistency of Project Design with Operational Strategies of Other Focal Areas 16. The focus on SLMimplies that biodiversityand climate change are addressed, as already noted. The direct relevance o f this project to integrated ecosystem management is also self- evident. It i s hardto envisage any negative impacts. (h) Linkageto Other ProgramslAction Plans 17. A large number of other programs and action plans have connections with CBWM and this i s explicit inthe PAD. The most obvious is the association with the base or `mother' project, the IDA-financedCBRD. CBWM i s designed to fill gaps within that larger project, and there will certainly be synergies. A list is given of Mauritania's national priorities, policies and strategies, which mesh well with CBWM. For example there is a good fit with the National Desertification Action Planwhich i s part of the National Environmental Action Plan - which in turnfalls under the PovertyReduction Strategy Policy. Annex Two ofthe PAD lists five World Bank supported projects that are related, and ten supported by other agencies that are related also. At a continental level NEPAD's thematic area # 01 is supported - though this i s not made explicit inthe PAD. (i) Mechanisms for Participation and Influence on Management of the Project 18. The project design has been participatory, at various levels, as well as the original idea being demand-ledby the Government o f Mauritania. Duringthe project's implementation the watershed associations will be involved in (indeed responsible for) the development o f work plans. Throughout CBWM there is a participatory theme, but of course puttingthis into practice will depend on multiple factors, including awareness raising and appropriate training - both of which are features o fthe project. Q) Other Beneficialor PossibleDamagingEnvironmentalEffects 19. The PAD doesn't specifically mention(or highlight)hydrological benefits that may occur from improved ecosystem function. It is unlikely that there could be any damaging environmental effects,  - 96 - (k) CapacityBuilding 20. C B W M will benefit from the already trained and experienced staff o f the immediate forerunner project, and presumably from CBRD scientists and facilitators also. There i s an overview of the planned capacity building for C B W in the Incremental Cost Analysis. Training capacity buildingwill be a strong component of the project, and will be provided at various levels, to communities, as well as to research and extension cadres. It could be made clearer how the existing knowledge and creativity o f the watershed communities can be developed andtappedinto. (1) InnovativenessoftheProject 21, CBWM is certainly an innovative project. There are three mainaspects that immediately step forward. The first i s the way that the project seeks to establish associations that are responsible for their common resources, the design o f their own work plans, and then provided with funds on a response-to-need basis, rather than fixed allocations for specific purposes. The second i s the participatory monitoring and evaluation systems to be established, which will give feedback on the community's perception o f environmental and productionbenefits - as well as helping to empower the communities. The third is the way in which the project will seek innovative future options for sustainable fundingincluding environmental funds, carbon markets andbio-carbon funds. (m) Potential for Impact Based on Lessons and Best Practices from Other Projects 22. The PAD and other supporting documents make it very clear that C B W i s not being created in a vacuum. There are comprehensive lessons learnt from previous World Bank supported, and other projects within Mauritania, as well as experience from elsewhere- as far as East Asia (but nevertheless relevant in principle) that lend credence to the probability of technical impact basedonthis participatory, community-based watershedmanagement approach.  - 97 - Annex 14: ProjectPreparationandSupervision MAURITANIA: Community-BasedWatershedManagementProject Planned Actual PCNreview November 15,2004 November 16,2004 InitialPID to PIC March9,2004 March 8,2005 Initial ISDS to PIC February25,2005 February 15,2005 Appraisal January31,2005 March 3,2006 Negotiations February20,2006 April 20,2006 BoardlRVP approval April 25,2006 June 22,2006 Planneddate ofeffectiveness July 26,2006 September 15,2006 Planneddate ofmid-termreview June 16,2008 March 2009 Plannedclosing date September 30,2011 Key institutionsresponsiblefor preparationofthe project: Community-BasedRuralDevelopmentpreparationunit (CBRD), MinistryofRural Development andEnvironment(MDRE) Bankstaff andconsultantswho workedon theprojectincluded: Name Title Unit Lucie Tran OperationsOfficer (TTL) AFTS4 IsmaelOuedraogo Sr. Agricultural Economist AFTS4 Amadou Ournar Ba Sr. Agricultural Specialist AFTS4 Yves-Coffi Prudencio Sr. Agriculturalist AFTS2 ElHadjAdamaToure Sr. Agricultural Economist AFTS4 SalamataBal SocialDevelopmentSpecialist AFTS4 Helene Bertaud Senior Counsel LEGAF SossenaTassew LanguageProgramAssistant AFTS4 NestorCoffi FinancialManagement Specialist AFTFM MoustaphaOuld ElBechir Procurement Specialist AFTPC ReneeDesclaux FinanceOfficer LOAG2 Yahya OuldAly Jean DisbursementAssistant AFMMR BatoulyDieng Team Assistant A F m AmadouKonare SafeguardSpecialist AFTS1 William Critchley Coordinator, ResourceDevelopment Consultant Unit,CIS-Centrefor International Cooperation Matteo Machisio Consultant Consultant Franz Schorosh Consultant FA0  - 98 - Bankfunds expendedto dateonprojectpreparation: 1. Bankresources: US$119,235 2. Trust funds: n.a. 3. Total: US$119,235 EstimatedApproval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining coststo approval: US$6,000 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: US$65,000  - 99 - Annex 15: Documentsinthe ProjectFile MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject << Analyse kconomique et financikre des micro-rkalisations gknkratrices de revenus prCvues dans le cadre duPACBV enMauritanie D, Rapport de Mission, Nicola Gergely, Mars 2006. (< CaractCrisation de laDkgradationdes Sols enMauritanie D, Diop Aliou, Octobre 2005. a EtudeRelativeA 1'Analyse Politique, Juridique et Institutionnelle D, Dr.Aly Fall, Octobre 2005. (( Etude Biophysique des Sous Bassins Versants de 1'Oued Greiguel (Assaba), et l'Oued Tengharada(Adrar) D, KaneNalla, Juillet 2005. "Evaluation Sociale et Economique des Bassins Versants de Goussa (Assaba) et Ain Tengharada (Adrar), DaOuld Khour, Juillet 2005. ((Rapport National sur la Mise en CEuvre de la CCD en Mauritanie D, Ministkre du Dkveroppement Rural et de l'Environnement, Direction de l'Environnement, Rbublique Islamique de Mauritanie, Janvier 2005. Project Cost Tables (COSTAB).  - 100- Annex 16: Statementof LoansandCredits MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject StatementofIDA Credits Olffemnce Batween ks.tsE ExpectedandActual SupewlslonRaIlng Disbursements* ProjectID Project Name DBVsloDmsnt Obiectivep imolementation FIscalYear IDA Undlsb. Orlg. FrmRsv'd PO71881 MR-GDLC(FY02) (CFEO) - MS MS 2002 3.30 0.95 0.39 0.39 PO71308 MR-EduSec DevAPL (FYO2) - (PNDSE) S S 2002 49.20 26.92 10.45 Po69095 MR-Urb DevPrgm(FY02) MS MS 2002 70.00 47.87 34.20 PO78383 MR-MiningSecTA SIL 2 (FYO4> (PRISM2) S S 2004 18.00 13.04 2.38 Po78388 MR-HIVIAIDSMultiSecCntd (FY04)-(PMLS) MS MU 2004 21.00 13.30 -1.37 PO81388 MR-CornBased RuralDev(FYO4) - (PORC) S S 2004 45.00 38.16 3.31 PO07180 MR-HigherEducation(FY05) MS MS 2005 15.00 13.21 3.38 PO80820 MR-IrrigatedAgr lntegr DevAPL 2 (FY05) S S 2005 39.00 33.51 3.00 PO94278 MR-Health8 NutritionSupport (FY06) 2008 10.00 10.00 Total 270.50 196.96 63.74 0.39 StatementofIFC's Held Disbursed FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Quasi Partic 2000 GBM 5.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 GBM 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 2005 GBM 9.18 0 0 0 9.18 0 0 0 PAL-Tiviski 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 Total Portfolio: 19.73 0 5 0 14.48 0 5 0  - 101- Annex 17: Country at a Glance MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershed ManagementProject Mauritania at-a-glance 4/3/06 Sub- I POVERTYand SOCIAL Saharan Low- Mauritania Africa income Developmentdiamond' 2004 Population,mid-yeafmillions) 2.7 719 2,338 GNI per capitq'Atlas method, US$) 570 600 510 Lifeexpectancy GNI(Atlas method, US$billions) 1.6 432 1,184 Average annualgrowth, 199844 Population(%) 2.4 2.2 1.6 Laborfor@%) 3.2 1.o 2.1 GNI Gross per primary Mostrecentestimate(latest year available, 199844) capita enrollment Poverty(%ofpopulationbelownationalpovertyline) 46 Urbanpopulatio$%oftotalpopulation) 62 37 31 Lifeexpectancy at biwears) 54 46 58 Infantmortalitfper 1,000 livebirfhs) 87 101 79 Child malnutritio@%ofchildrenunder5) 30 44 Accessto improvedwater source Access to an improvedwater sou$% ofpopulation) 35 58 75 Literacy(%ofpopulationage 15+) 41 65 61 - Grossprimaryenrollmef$??ofschool-agepopulation) 88 95 94 Mauritania Male 89 102 101 . -Low-incomegroup I Female 85 88 88 KEYECONOMICRATIOSand LONG-TERMTRENDS 1984 1994 2003 2004 Economicratios' GDP(US$ billions) 0.83 1.0 1.3 1.5 GrosscapitalformationlGDP 21.3 20.7 19.5 21.5 Exportsof goods and serviceslGDP 39.7 420 26.8 29.4 Trade Grossdomestic savingslGDP -2.7 16.9 21.3 25.4 Gross nationalsavingslGDP .. 21.2 5.4 19.4 Currentaccount balancelGDP -26.1 -3.6 -18.0 -35.6 InterestpayrnenWGDP 4.3 7.0 1.1 0.9 TotaldebffGDP 158.5 216.5 133.8 123.3 Totaldebt servicelexports 20.1 22.2 26.8 21.0 Presentvalueof debffGDP 46.5 41.1 Presentvalue of debffexports 131.3 104.6 Indebtedness 1984-94 199444 2003 2004 200608 (average annualgrowth) - GDP 2.2 4.8 6.4 6.9 11.6 Mauritania GDP percapita 0.0 2.3 3.8 4.3 9.2 -- Low-incomegroup Exportsof goodsandservices -2.1 -3.1 -9.5 8.5 53.9 STRUCTUREof the ECONOMY 4984 1994 2003 2004 ("9 of GDP) Growthof capitalandGDP("A) I Agriculture 28.6 27.0 20.0 18.3 Industry 25.4 31.1 30.4 33.6 Manufacturing 11.6 10.2 10.1 40 Services 46.0 41.9 49.6 48.1 20 - 0 Householdfinal consumption expenditure 75.6 66.6 63.0 59.7 -20 Generalgovt finalconsumption expenditure 27.1 16.5 15.7 14.9 Importsof goods andservices 63.7 45.8 63.9 69.7 GCF *GOP I 1984-94 199444 2003 2004 (averageannualgrowth) Growthof exportsand imports(%) L Agriculture 3.3 1.3 6.0 -2.7 20 Industry 2.8 2.5 5.6 5.6 15 Manufacturing 0.0 -6.5 6.8 6.3 10 5 Services 3.5 7.9 6.6 10.5 0 Householdfinalconsumption expenditure 4.2 4.9 22.2 7.0 -5 -10 Generalgov't final consumptionexpenditure -3.2 7.2 3.8 8.4 -15 Grosscapitalformation -4.2 8.5 -10.8 8.3 Importsof goodsandservices -5.2 4.7 10.1 9.8 ~ ~~ ~~ Note: 2004 data are preliminaryestimates *The diamondsshow four keyindicatorsinthecountry (inbold)comparedwith itsincome-groupaverage. Ifdataare missing,the diamond wilbe incomplete.  - 102- PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1984 1994 2003 2004 Domesticprices lnflatlon(%) (% change) 30 I Consumer prices 4.1 4.6 10.4 25 ImplicitGDP deflator 10.9 6.8 9.2 7.9 20 15 Government finance 10 5 (% of GDP, includes current grants) 1 "I 0 Current revenue 24.7 29.5 29.2 99 W 01 M 03 Current budget balance 6.7 -10.2 -2.6 Overallsurplusldeficit -3.1 -10.2 -2.6 -GDPdeflator -.o'CPI TRADE 1984 1994 2003 2004 (US$ mi//ions) Export and lmpolt levels(US$ mill.) Total exports (fob) 299 393 303 408 1,mT iron ore 144 163 172 193 Fish 148 207 145 146 Manufactures Total imports(cifl 302 328 564 925 Food 76 95 110 114 Fuel and energy 43 36 125 122 Capitalgoods 85 73 61 68 Exportprice index (2000=100) 115 104 107 ea 99 M) 01 02 03 M Importprice index (2000=100) 101 100 100 Exports .Inports Terms of trade (2000=1001 114 105 107 BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1984 l994 2003 2004 (US$ mi//ions) Current account balanceto GDP (W) Exportsof goods and services 322 431 328 429 Importsof goods and services 480 470 753 1,198 0 Resourcebalance -158 -39 -425 -767 5 Net income -39 -53 66 101 -10 Net currenttransfers 86 55 117 121 -15 -20 Currentaccount balance -218 -37 -239 -545 -25 -30 Financingitems (net) 211 26 -35 Changesin net reserves 6 11 Memo: Reservesincludinggold (US$mihionsf 81 44 32 39 Conversionrate (DEC, /ocaVUS$) 63.8 123.6 265.0 265.6 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCEFLOWS 1984 1994 2003 2004 (US$ mi//ions) Totaldebt outstandinganddisbursed 1,322 2,223 1,780 1,887 IBRD 49 13 IDA 55 301 545 546 G 174 Totaldebt service 67 102 126 126 IBRD 7 9 0 0 IDA 0 3 10 10 Compositionof net resourceflows Officialgrants Officialcreditors 77 86 Privatecreditors 20 0 0 0 Foreigndirect investment(net inflows) 9 2 214 242 Portfolioequity(net inflows) 0 Worid Bank program Commitments 0 20 0 0 A IBRD B- IDA - E Bilateral Disbursements 5 35 42 42 0 Otherrmltilateral - F Private -- Principalrepayments 3 9 6 6 C IMF - G - Short-term Net flows 2 26 36 37 interest payments 4 3 4 4 Nettransfers -2 23 32 33 DevelopmentEconomics 414106  - 103- Annex 18: Maps MAURITANIA: CommunityBasedWatershedManagementProject   MAURITANIA COMMUNITY BASED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROJECT WATERSHEDS PROJECT HEADQUARTERS PRIMARY ROADS SELECTED TOWNS PROJECT COORDINATION UNITS SECONDARY ROADS REGIONAL CAPITALS TRACKS NATIONAL CAPITAL IDA CREDIT (CBRD) RAILROADS REGIONAL BOUNDARIES IFAD (PASK) AIRPORTS INTERNATIONAL ISOHYETS (ANNUAL RAINFALL IN MM, 1970-84) PORTS BOUNDARIES NATIONAL PARKS 18