Document of The World Bank

For Official Use Only

Report No: 48965 – AFR

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

FOR

PROPOSED CREDITS

IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 3.9 MILLION (US$6 MILLION EQUIVALENT), SDR 9.7 MILLION (US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND SDR 9.7 MILLION (US$15

MILLION EQUIVALENT), RESPECTIVELY TO THE REPUBLIC OF CAPE VERDE, THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL, AND THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE

A PROPOSED GRANT

IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 5.8 MILLION (US$9 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

AND PROPOSED GRANTS FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$2 MILLION, US$3 MILLION, AND US$5 MILLION,

RESPECTIVELY TO THE REPUBLIC OF CAPE VERDE, THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, AND THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE

FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF APL-A IN SUPPORT OF THE

WEST AFRICA REGIONAL FISHERIES PROGRAM (WARFP)

September 18, 2009 Sustainable Development Department Environment and Natural Resources Management Unit Country Department AFCF1, AFCW1, AFCRI Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective July 31, 2009)

Currency Unit = SDR SDR 1 = US$1.55333

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAP African Action Plan ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific AfDB African Development Bank AFR African Region AGO Attorney General’s Office APL Adaptable Program Loan BNF Bureau of National Fisheries in Liberia CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CCLME Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Program CDD Community-driven development CFAA Country Financial Accountability Assessment CFC Community Fisheries Centers CLP Local Fishers’ Committee (Comités Locaux de Pêcheurs) CLPA Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (Conseils Locaux des Pêches Artisanales) CMA Co-Management Association COREMAP Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Review CSRP Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches) DfID United Kingdom Department for International Development DGP Fisheries Department in Cape Verde (Direccão Geral das Pescas) DOF Department of Fisheries in Sierra Leone DPM Directorate for Marine Fisheries in Senegal (Direction des Pêches Maritimes) EC European Commission ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EMP Environmental Management Plan EOI Expression of Interest EOP End of Project ESA Environmental and Social Assessment ESW Economic and Sector Work ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FRAP Alternative Livelihoods Fund (Fond de Reconversion des Artisans Pêcheurs) GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GPN General Procurement Notice ICB International Competitive Bidding IDA International Development Association IMBO Institute for Fisheries Research in Sierra Leone IPA International Procurement Agency in Liberia IPPR Industrial Process Plant Retrofit ISTAM Improving Scientific Analyses and Techniques for Fisheries Management

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed without World Bank authorization.

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JMC Joint Maritime Commission LME Large Marine Ecosystem LPS Letter of Sector Policy MA Ministry of Agriculture in Liberia MCS Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance MEM Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport in Senegal (Ministère de l’Economie

Maritime) MERDMR Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources in Cape Verde MEY Maximum Economic Yield MFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Sierra Leone MITEP Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield M&E Monitoring & Evaluation NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations PAD Project Appraisal Document PAF Program for Africa’s Fisheries PCU Program Coordination Unit PEMFAR Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review PFM Public Financial Management PFMU Project Financial Management Unit in Liberia PIU Program Implementation Unit PNI National Registration Program PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers PTIS Proactive Trade Information System QSTM Quality, standards, metrology and testing RCU Regional Coordination Unit RIAS Regional Integration Assistance Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa SBD Standard Bidding Documents SCIC Sub-committee for handling infraction cases SFLP Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Program SIAGPS Systeme d’Information et d’Analyse et de Gestion des Pêches au Sénégal (Fisheries

Management Information and Analysis System in Senegal) SIL Specific Investment Loan SLAFU Sierra Leone Artisanal Fishing Unions TAC Total Allowance Catch TURF Territorial Use Rights Fisheries UEMOA West Africa Economic and Monetary Union UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea USAID United States Agency for International Development VMS Vessel Monitoring System WARFP West Africa Regional Fisheries Program WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

Vice President: Obiageli K. Ezekwesili Country Director: Richard G. Scobey

Acting Sector Manager: Ashok Subramanien Task Team Leader: John Virdin

WEST AFRICA West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

CONTENTS

Page

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1

A. Region and sector issues ..................................................................................................... 1

B. Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 5

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Program Contributes .............................................. 5

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 8

A. Lending instrument: Adaptable Program Loan (co-financed by GEF grants). ................... 8

B. Program Objective and Phases ............................................................................................ 9

C. Development Objective and Key Indicators for APL-A ................................................... 11

D. Program Components........................................................................................................ 12

E. Lessons learned and reflected in the program design ....................................................... 15

F. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 17

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ...................... 17

A. Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 17

B. Institutional and implementation arrangements ................................................................ 18

C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 19

D. Sustainability and Replicability ........................................................................................ 19

E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 20

F. Credit and grant conditions and covenants ....................................................................... 22

IV. PROGRAM APPRAISAL SUMMARY ....................................................................... 24

A. Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 24

B. Technical ........................................................................................................................... 25

C. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 25

D. Social................................................................................................................................. 26

E. Environment ...................................................................................................................... 28

F. Safeguards ......................................................................................................................... 28

G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 30

Annex 1: Country and Sector Program Background .............................................................. 31

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 44

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 46

Annex 4: Detailed Program Description ................................................................................... 57

Annex 5: Detailed Program Description in Cape Verde ......................................................... 69

Annex 6: Detailed Program Description in Liberia ................................................................. 74

Annex 7: Detailed Program Description in Senegal ................................................................ 84

Annex 8: Detailed Program Description in Sierra Leone ....................................................... 97

Annex 9: Detailed Program Description in the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission........ 108

Annex 10: APL-A1 Program Costs ......................................................................................... 112

Annex 11: Program Implementation Arrangements ............................................................. 115

Annex 12: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ................................. 119

Annex 13: Procurement Arrangements .................................................................................. 150

Annex 14: Program Economic and Financial Analysis ......................................................... 160

Annex 15: Safeguard Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 182

Annex 16: Program Preparation and Supervision ................................................................ 185

Annex 17: Documents in the Program File ............................................................................. 188

Annex 18: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 189

Annex 19: Countries at a Glance ............................................................................................. 193

Annex 20: Incremental Cost Analysis ..................................................................................... 205

Annex 21: Logical Framework of Related Donor Interventions in West Africa ................ 209

Annex 22: Map (IBRD 37019) ................................................................................................. 211

AFRICA

WEST AFRICA REGIONAL FISHERIES PROGRAM

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

AFTEN

Date: September 18, 2009 Country Director: Richard G. Scobey Sector Manager/Director: Ashok K. Subramanian Project ID: P106063 Environmental Assessment: Partial Assessment Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan

Team Leader: John Virdin Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (100%) Themes: Other environment and natural resources management (67%); Environmental policies and institutions (33%) Joint IFC: Joint Level:

Global Supplemental ID: P108941 Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan Focal Area: I-International waters Environmental Assessment: Partial Assessment Supplement Fully Blended?: Yes

Team Leader: John Virdin Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (100%) Themes: Other environment and natural resources management (67%); Environmental policies and institutions (33%)

Project Financing Data [ ] Loan [X] Credit [X] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 45.00 Proposed terms: Standard

Financing Plan (US$m) Source Local Foreign Total

BORROWER/RECIPIENT 1.30 0.00 1.30 International Development Association (IDA)

43.10 1.90 45.00

Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8.10 1.90 10.00 Total: 52.50 3.80 56.30 Borrowers: Republic of Cape Verde; Republic of Liberia; Republic of Senegal and Republic of Sierra Leone Responsible Agency: Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources; Cape Verde Ministry of Agriculture, Bureau of National Fisheries; Liberia Ministry of Marine Economy, Maritime Transport and Fisheries; Senegal Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; Sierra Leone

Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$m)FY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Annual 2.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 7.00 Cumulative 2.00 14.00 26.00 38.00 45.00

GEF Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$m) FY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Annual 0.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 Cumulative 0.50 3.50 6.50 9.50 10.00

Project implementation period: Start: October 15, 2009 End: December 15, 2014 Expected effectiveness date: December 15, 2009 Expected closing date: December 15, 2014

Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? Ref. PAD I.C.

[ ]Yes [X] No

Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Ref. PAD IV.G. Have these been approved by Bank management? Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board?

[ ]Yes [X] No [ ]Yes [ ] No [ ]Yes [X] No

Does the project include any critical risks rated “substantial” or “high”? Ref. PAD III.E.

[X]Yes [ ] No

Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Ref. PAD IV.G.

[X]Yes [ ] No

Project development objective Ref. PAD II.C., Technical Annex 3 The Project Development Objective is to strengthen the capacity of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone to govern and manage targeted fisheries, reduce illegal fishing and increase local value added to fish products. Global Environment objective Ref. PAD II.C., Technical Annex 3 See above: Combined project/global environment objective. Project description Ref. PAD II.D., Technical Annex 4 Component 1: Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries. The objective of this component is to build the capacity of Governments and stakeholders to implement a shared approach that would ensure that the marine fish resources are used in a manner that is environmentally sustainable, socially fair and economically profitable. Component 2: Reduction of Illegal Fishing. The objective of this component is to reduce the illegal fishing activities threatening the sustainable management of the marine fish resources. Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies. The objective of this component is to increase the benefits to West Africa from the marine fish resources, by increasing the share of the value-added captured in the region. Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management. The objective of this component is to support the countries to implement the Program in the context of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Strategic Action Plan, and to monitor results.

Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Ref. PAD IV.F., Technical Annex 15 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) apply to the project (APL-A1) which has been designated a Category B project. Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: Ref. PAD III.F. Board presentation:

• Evidence of the setting up of a legal framework for the Joint Maritime Committee within which the Fisheries Protection Unit of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Sierra Leone will operate, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

Loan/credit effectiveness:

For each of the four countries: • The country has adopted a Program Operational Manual (including a national action

plan for the implementation of the regional Resettlement Process Framework) and an Accounting and Administrative Manual, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association;

• The Coordinator for the national PIU has been recruited (and the accountant in Cape Verde), and the PIU and national steering committee has been formally established;

• The Subsidiary Agreement between the country and the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission has been signed; and

• Cross-effectiveness conditions between IDA financing agreement and GEF grant (except for Senegal who is not receiving a GEF grant).

Legal covenants applicable to program implementation:

For all four countries: • All fisheries surveillance activities shall be carried out by civilian authorities under

terms of reference limited to fisheries surveillance; • All goods, works, services and operating costs financed by Program are used

exclusively by civilian authorities for purposes of the Program, and not for any military purpose, or for any criminal investigation or proceedings, or for any other purposes unrelated to the objectives of the Program;

• Each fisheries surveillance mission financed by the Program shall be: (i) under the operational command or authority of a civilian fisheries officer and conducted during a specific time period that is duly recorded and documented; and (ii) conducted by personnel who have been properly trained in the operation of any equipment used; and

• All monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) activities carried out under the Program are reviewed periodically by an independent group of experts, whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are satisfactory to the Association.

For the CSRP:

• The CSRP will ensure that the activities under Component 2 are reviewed by an independent group of experts by no later than each of 24, 36 and 60 months after the effective date.

For Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone:

• The Accountant/Assistant Accountant (for Liberia and Sierra Leone only) and Procurement Specialist for the national PIU have been recruited, by no later than 4 months after the effective date.

For Senegal:

• The fishing vessel buy-back program shall be implemented through the purchase of industrial trawl vessels through an independent auditor and in accordance with arrangements and guidelines acceptable to the Association, excluding any arrangement that would permit the future use of such vessels for coastal demersal fishing in the West Africa region.

For Sierra Leone:

• Throughout implementation of the Program, the country’s Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources will maintain the Fisheries Protection Unit located within the Joint Maritime Committee (JMC) exclusively dedicated to fisheries surveillance activities and financially and legally independent from any security or enforcement activities of the JMC.

Financial covenants applicable to program implementation:

• External auditors are appointed in all four countries and the CSRP, and accounting software is installed (Cape Verde and Sierra Leone) or expanded/updated (CSRP, Liberia and Senegal) in order to host the Program, and the assistant accountant is recruited to the CSRP, within four months after effectiveness.

For Liberia:

• An assistant internal auditor will be recruited, within two months after effectiveness. Disbursement conditions applicable to program implementation:

For Liberia:

• No funds will be disbursed for national activities under Component 2 of the Program until a new regulation (Ministerial Decree) acceptable to the Association is adopted, clarifying the scope of Liberia’s Fisheries Act and the responsibility of its Bureau of National Fisheries for fisheries surveillance, and setting new fines and fee structures and ensuring consistency with UNCLOS.

For Senegal:

• No funds will be disbursed for the fishing vessel buy-back program under Component 1 until a qualified independent auditor has been recruited by the Government to manage the purchases.

• No funds will be disbursed for a sub-project under Component 1 until the appropriate Sub-Financing Agreement for such sub-project has been concluded.

For Sierra Leone: • No funds will be disbursed for national activities under Component 2 until the

current regulation has been revised by the adoption of a new Ministerial Decree acceptable to the Association concerning fisheries surveillance, and once a Fisheries Protection Unit within the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has been established in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

For All Countries:

• No funds will be disbursed for regional activities under Component 4, until the Regional Coordination Unit and Regional Steering Committee have been established at the CSRP, and the regional Operational Manual and Accounting and Administrative Manual have been adopted, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

1

WEST AFRICA WEST AFRICA REGIONAL FISHERIES PROGRAM

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

A. Region and sector issues 1. Regional Context. Coastal West Africa, from Mauritania to Ghana, is the westernmost region of the continent and home to a growing population of almost 300 million. With the exception of Mauritania, all of these countries are members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The region includes a wide range of countries at varying stages of economic development, five of whom have a per capita GDP below US$1,000 (Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Sierra Leone), and several of whom are emerging from conflicts within the last ten years. Poverty is widespread throughout this coastal region, and the economy in almost every country is heavily dependent on natural resources. 2. Sector Importance. Due to exceptional climatic and ecological conditions, the coastal countries of West Africa are endowed with some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. The marine fish stocks in these waters constitute a significant natural asset for the countries of West Africa, which is transboundary in nature (as both fish stocks and fishing fleets routinely migrate across national borders). More specifically, more than 1.6 million tons of fish are legally captured in West African waters each year, with an estimated wholesale value of US$2.5 billion. Given the size of this asset, the marine fish resources off the coast of West Africa play a role in the culture, lives and economy of the population as large as any of the other natural resources in the region. 3. This valuable natural asset is likely to remain over the near to medium term as one of the main components of economic growth in the region. For example, fisheries currently represent at least 10 percent of national GDP in some countries (Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and until recently Mauritania) and up to 25 to 30 percent of export revenues in Senegal. Fisheries provide between 10 to 30 percent of public revenues in several countries (Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea), and the sector directly and indirectly employs more than 3 million people in the region, including almost 10 percent of the population in Ghana and Sierra Leone, 17 percent of the working population in Senegal and roughly 10 percent of the working population in Cape Verde. Fish also provide up to 50 percent of total animal protein intake for the region’s population. 4. Key Sector Issues and Institutional Constraints. Despite the cultural and economic importance of West Africa’s marine fish resources, this natural asset is heavily underperforming, and could make a much greater contribution to economic growth and poverty alleviation if better managed. The underperformance of the region’s fisheries is due to: (i) the dwindling size of the asset, resulting from (a) insufficient capacity in the countries to govern and manage the use of the resources to sustainable levels and to prevent their overexploitation, and more specifically (b) the inability of countries to prevent illegal fishing; and (ii) the fact that the resources are largely taken in an offshore economy by foreign or industrial vessels who rarely land their fish catch in the region or participate in the local economy, so that the countries only capture a fraction of the

2

value. These three key constraints: a lack of governance, large amounts of illegal fishing and the lack of local value added, are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. 5. First constraint: lack of capacity to govern and manage the resource sustainably, and prevent overexploitation. The ocean is the last part of the world where man acts as a hunter-gatherer. Perhaps more than any other natural resource, in the case of fish stocks States own the rights to their use in the public space of the ocean. Despite varying levels of capacity and investment to date, coastal countries in West Africa have uniformly been unable to manage the use of the resources to levels that are both profitable and environmentally sustainable. Many Governments simply lack the basic tools needed to control access to, and use of, the marine fish resources (for example, registration of fishing vessels, transparency in the sale of fishing licenses, monitoring of fishing catch and effort, statistical capacity and information to track resource use). More crucially, several Governments have not adopted policies and regulations necessary to control resource use to both sustainable and profitable levels, or have conflicting policies in place (such as fishing fuel subsidies). 6. With Governments throughout the region unable to control who and how many users can have access to the fish resources, essentially rendering them common property resources subject to the tragedy of the commons,1 both global and local forces are driving increasing fishing pressure on them. Global and regional demand for fish for food consumption has consistently exceeded supply over the last two decades (and is only projected to continue to do so), providing high prices that have driven international fleets to West African waters. At the same time, the local realities for coastal communities in much of West Africa are such that the cost of entry into the fisheries is practically zero, driving the development of more and more local fleets. 7. Second constraint: inability to prevent illegal fishing. As a specific symptom of poor governance and management of the use of the resources, widespread illegal fishing is perhaps the second largest constraint to the marine fisheries asset making a greater contribution to economic growth and poverty reduction in the region. Many countries in the region do not have the means to control what happens in their waters, or to prevent vessels from fishing illegally, and essentially stealing the resources. Numerous foreign industrial vessels and fleets roam the waters of West Africa, going from country to country and taking fish from the water without legally registering or paying for the access to do so. Furthermore, many of these vessels never land their fish in the region and contribute to local processing jobs and revenues for West Africa, but rather take the fish abroad. Perhaps surprisingly, in addition to the roving foreign industrial fleets, the other two main sources of illegal fishing in West Africa are local: the Senegalese and Ghanaian small-scale fishing fleets, both of which have long outgrown the overexploited resources in their countries’ waters and move throughout the region in large wooden canoes with ice boxes and outboard motors (along with Sierra Leonean and Guinean small-scale fleets, to a much lesser extent). A recent study estimated that the amount of fish caught illegally is almost as high as the amount of fish caught legally in some countries, for example in Guinea (and likely Liberia, although no data exist). Similarly, the illegal catch in Guinea-Bissau was estimated to be equivalent to roughly 40 percent of the legal catch, and 35 percent in Sierra Leone. Estimates

1 The tragedy of the commons refers to open access to resources, where multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.

3

vary, but the value of the fish taken illegally from West Africa is likely in the order of US$100 million or more annually. In addition, damages are being done to the marine environment and fish resources as a result of illegal fishing (in many cases by foreign unlicensed trawlers) which may take years to recover and rebuild. Regional collaboration to stop this leakage of value and loss of resources is not only required, but can help reduce costs. Countries need significant investments in surveillance and enforcement, but in a way that ensures up front that they can sustain the operating costs of such investments. 8. Third constraint: failure to add value locally to the fish caught in West African waters. As mentioned previously, much of the fishing activity in West Africa’s waters functions as an offshore economy that provides little to no value locally in the region, as vessels pay a fee to the Governments to access the waters (or simply do so illegally with no fee payment), catch the fish and freeze it on board, and then land it at a foreign port for processing and export. Many of the countries lack the basic fish landing and food safety control infrastructure to support greater local fish processing and/or export industries. For example, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia all lack the basic port infrastructure to support a significant number of industrial vessels to land their fish, and almost all countries in the region lack the adequate infrastructure to provide the necessary support to small-scale fish landings (either to process landed fish for local consumption or for exports). Furthermore, at least three of the nine participating countries do not have a sanitary authority certified to export to the European Union. Perhaps most crucially, in addition to the constraints from a lack of infrastructure needed to support greater landing and processing of fish catch, those local processing companies that do exist, both for fish product exports and the much larger artisanal processing industries, are severely constrained by a decline of raw material, often due to overexploitation of the resources. In an already weak overall investment climate, the lack of sustainable and transparent governance regimes for the use of the resources and therefore the assurance of stable supplies has significantly constrained private sector investment in fish processing in several countries in the region. 9. The result of the three constraints mentioned above is that the size of West Africa’s marine fisheries asset is much smaller than it should be, and the majority of the value of even this reduced asset leaves the region. Due to the inability of Governments throughout the region to control the use of the marine fisheries resources, and the lack of means to prevent illegal fishing, the most valuable fish stocks in West African waters are overexploited and in some cases heavily depleted. Fishing pressure (and costs) has increased throughout the region while catches (and revenues) have remained stagnant or decreased. For example, according to recent studies by the University of British Columbia, fishing activity has tripled since the mid-1970s along the West African coast while the catch of high-value demersal (i.e. more sedentary) species has remained the same at 2 million tons. By 2002 the demersal stocks in the region had been reduced to a quarter of their levels in 1950, and currently almost all of the high-value coastal demersal stocks in West Africa are considered by FAO as fully or over-exploited, as well as many of the coastal pelagic (i.e. migratory) species. At the same time, most of the fish caught in the region provides little to no local value added to the region - of the US$2.5 billion in fish caught legally in West African waters, almost 60 percent is taken by foreign vessels, and generates only some US$500 million in value added to the local economy (20 percent). In summary, the marine fisheries asset is heavily underperforming for the coastal countries of West Africa as a result of the constraints mentioned above.

4

10. To help address these constraints, the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program has been designed to support the countries to collaborate to: (i) strengthen the governance of the use of the marine fish resources so that they recover to much more environmentally sustainable and economically profitable levels, while at the same time; (ii) invest where needed to increase the portion of the value of these resources that is captured locally within the region. 11. Regional and Government Responses to Key Sector Issues and Constraints. The Governments of the coastal countries of West Africa have widely recognized the important contribution by the marine fish resources to economic growth, foreign exchange earnings, public revenues, employment and food security. As such, the countries increasingly share the common concern of ensuring the sustainability of the resources and generating greater returns from their use over the long-term, as well as increasing the portion of those returns that are captured locally. This concern is reflected in each of the country’s macroeconomic policies and strategies. For example, in many of the recent Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) in the region, the fisheries sector has been listed as a key driver of economic growth in terms of wealth creation (e.g. Senegal, Cape Verde), a key source of public sector revenues (e.g. Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau), or a vital contributor to national food security. 12. The national policies and strategies for the fisheries sector all place an emphasis on sustainable management of the marine fish resources, and achieving an optimal contribution of the sector to economic growth and poverty reduction (notably to food security in many cases). Although starting from very different circumstances in each case, in order to respond to the challenges facing the marine fisheries sector as well as to help it achieve the economic potential noted in the PRSPs, the Governments have articulated strategies with a common approach: (i) build the capacity for governance of the sector; (ii) combat and reduce illegal fishing; and (iii) increase local landings and value added of fish products. 13. The countries also recognize, at the highest political level, that due to the shared nature of the resources, they need to collaborate at the regional level in order to reach these objectives. The seven coastal countries from Mauritania to Sierra Leone have clearly expressed their interest in such a regional approach through their participation and commitment to the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches - CSRP), and the adoption of its Strategic Action Plan (Plan d’Action Stratégique 2002-2010). The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission is an intergovernmental organization created on March 29, 1985 by means of a convention. The CSRP Strategic Action Plan for fisheries focuses in particular on strengthening resource management and increased monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) activities to reduce illegal fishing. 14. Lastly, the countries are increasingly demonstrating the significant political will needed to reduce illegal fishing, which does produce winners and losers. For example, in many of the countries of West Africa (such as Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia), foreign fishing companies and local joint venture companies, as well as some mid-level civil servants, stand to lose from a reduction of illegal fishing. However, in these same countries, Government treasuries, local small-scale fishing industries and coastal communities all stand to gain from such a reduction, as well as any fishing vessels that remain and fish legally, and therefore benefit from a subsequent increase in the resource base and profitability. In both Liberia and Sierra Leone for example, there is increasing awareness at the highest levels of Government of the

5

economic losses resulting from illegal fishing, and particularly to public revenues, and therefore there is significant commitment to address the problem, if the means are available. B. Rationale for Bank involvement

15. Rationale for Bank Involvement in the Sector. The rationale for World Bank involvement in the sector is that West Africa’s marine fish resources could make a much greater contribution to the region’s ‘triple bottom line’ of social, environmental and economic benefits, with public sector investments in: (i) strengthened governance that is more transparent and empowers users to have a long-term stake in the health of the resources; (ii) surveillance to reduce illegal fishing; and (iii) infrastructure to boost investment in local value-added to fish products. Such an approach is drawn from the recent World Bank publication Where is the Wealth of Nations?, which highlights the capital value of countries’ natural assets, such as marine fish resources, and provides a strong economic justification for sustainably managing renewable resources to provide long-term contributions to growth. The Bank’s comparative advantage in supporting West African countries to sustainably increase the wealth generated by their marine fish resources lies in: (i) quality economic and sector work, as the Program’s objective and design builds on analytical work financed by the World Bank in the fisheries sector of almost every participating country since 2003, including formal pieces of Economic and Sector Work (ESW) on the fisheries of four of the countries (Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal); (ii) ongoing policy dialogue with other donor partners to facilitate the implementation of needed policy reforms in the fisheries; (iii) the convening power to bring together stakeholders from local and national levels to reach consensus for resolving competing demands on the fish resources; and (iv) through the Regional Integration Department, the capacity to provide coordinated investments in both participating countries and at the regional level, towards the implementation of a collaborative approach to this shared resource. 16. Country Eligibility for GEF Co-Financing. The rationale for the GEF co-financing is that will support the three Governments to address some of the key issues targeted by the International Waters focal area of the GEF, such as unsustainable exploitation of fisheries and protection of fisheries habitats. In addition, the proposed GEF co-financing will assist these Governments to meet the targets set by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002, more specifically for sustainable fisheries to be achieved by 2015. All three countries are eligible to receive financing from the International Development Association (IDA). C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Program Contributes 17. The Program contributes to the higher level objectives set for the world’s marine fisheries by the WSSD. The WSSD felt over-fishing represented a serious crisis meriting a concerted effort by the international community over the proceeding 10 to 12 years, in order to restore the world’s fisheries to health by the year 2015 (including the coastal ecosystems that support these fisheries). The WSSD further called on donor agencies and stakeholders to create new and flexible partnerships to be able to respond to this growing crisis in world fisheries and implement the target for 2015.

6

18. Contribution to the CSRP Strategic Action Plan 2002 - 2010. The seven member countries of the CSRP have clearly expressed their interest to collaborate to manage the region’s fisheries and help achieve the objectives set by the WSSD, through participation in the CSRP and adoption of a Strategic Action Plan 2002 – 2010. The Strategic Action Plan calls for strengthened fish resource management among the member countries, and increased monitoring, control and surveillance activities to reduce illegal fishing. Both Ghana and Liberia, who are not members of the CSRP, share these priorities, as many of their fisheries, or fishing fleets, overlap with the CSRP member countries. To date, implementation of the Strategic Action Plan has been slow, largely due to financing needs of the countries. The proposed West Africa Regional Fisheries Program helps the member countries to respond to this need, and to collaborate with important fishing neighbors such as Liberia and Ghana to implement a shared approach to the region’s fisheries. 19. Contribution to the Africa Action Plan. The willingness of the countries of West Africa to collaborate to increase the value of their marine fisheries asset, and in particular to implement the needed governance and management reforms, fits squarely within the World Bank’s objective to promote shared economic growth in Africa through the implementation of the Africa Action Plan (AAP). More specifically, regional integration is one of the pillars of the AAP, which notes in particular the need “to create common institutional and legal frameworks in such areas as… the regulation of common property resources (such as fisheries).”2 In addition, a review of the implementation of the AAP by the World Bank recommended increasing attention to environmental management, specifically to reduce the cost of environmental degradation and improve the use of natural resources, in part through helping countries “undertake reforms in natural resources management policies (e.g. concessions, tourism, fisheries).”3 20. Contribution to the Regional Integration Assistance Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa (RIAS). In 2008, the World Bank completed a Regional Integration Assistance Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa in order to help leverage increased benefits for the region through investments in cross-border integration and collaboration. The RIAS notes that one of the main rationales for World Bank support to regional integration in Africa is the need for assistance with the management of shared natural resources, such as fisheries. The RIAS highlights the fact that fisheries lie across borders and require regional collaboration to ensure sustainable harvesting and to prevent conflicts. As such, one of the three pillars of the RIAS is to support coordinated interventions to provide regional public goods, focusing on regional water resources, forestry and fisheries. For this reason, the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program is listed in the RIAS in the indicative lending program for the World Bank (Table 3, page 47). 21. Consistency with IDA’s regional project eligibility criteria. This first APL of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) meets IDA’s regional project eligibility criteria. It supports: (i) at least three countries, all of whom need to participate in order to manage the fisheries and reduce illegal fishing; (ii) a platform for regional policy harmonization with a high degree of country and regional ownership, as evidenced by the region’s strategy for the fisheries,

2 Paragraph 18, page 8. Meeting the Challenge of Africa’s Development: A World Bank Group Action Plan. September 7, 2005. 3 Pages 10-11. Accelerating Development Outcomes in Africa: Progress and Change in the Africa Action Plan. Presented to the Development Committee, April 6, 2007.

7

the Strategic Action Plan 2002 – 2010 of the CSRP; and (iii) social and economic benefits that spill over countries’ boundaries, as a result of both fish stocks and fishers that migrate across national borders. Furthermore, the Program and its objectives were endorsed by the Conference of Ministers of Fisheries of the member states of the CSRP on October 26 – 27, 2007 and December 5, 2008, providing clear evidence of the commitment of the majority of participating countries. The WARFP will provide a regional framework on the basis of which CSRP member countries and Liberia and Ghana will collaborate, in order to implement national and regional fisheries strategies. The social and economic benefits of well-coordinated and improved management of the region’s fisheries can be expected to spill over countries’ boundaries, as the objective of the Program is not achievable without the coordinated participation of all 9 countries. 22. Contribution to Relevant GEF Operational Program Goals. The GEF co-financing is in line with the GEF international waters focal area, which addresses sustainable development challenges faced by states sharing transboundary surface, subsurface, and marine waters, including loss of critical habitats, over-harvesting of fisheries and subsequent negative impacts on livelihoods and poverty. The investments in the 9 countries will foster multi-state cooperation on priority transboundary water concerns through more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries resources management in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem and will assist countries in carrying out regulatory and institutional reforms that are needed. More specifically, the proposed investments will support the Strategic Objective 2, which aims at catalyzing transboundary actions that address issues such as overexploitation of fish stock and associated biodiversity, and are consistent with SP1 (Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and Associated Biological Diversity) of the International Waters Focal Area, under the GEF-4. This Program to support the development of sustainable fisheries in Western African countries is in line with the Strategic Partnership for Fisheries in Africa, approved in November 2005, which aims to promote the sustainable management of fisheries resources in the large marine ecosystems (LMEs) of Sub-Saharan Africa in order to assist coastal countries to make concrete progress towards achieving the fisheries and poverty reduction targets set by the WSSD. 23. Compliance with the Eligibility Criteria of the GEF Strategic Partnership for Fisheries in Africa. The Program is in line with the Strategic Partnership’s eligibility criteria:

(i) Sectoral strategies will include a long-term approach to ensure the sustainability of the fishery sector, poverty alleviation measures and activities designed to achieve those aims.

(ii) The proposed Program does not overlap with on-going activities, and is complementary to the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Program.

(iii) GEF funding to the proposed Program will cover the additional cost of activities providing environmental benefits extending beyond the countries’ borders.

(iv) The funding of the proposed Program meets the minimum co-financing ratio of three donor dollars to one GEF dollar. The proposed sum of US$10 million from the Partnership Investment Fund would complement the US$45 million in IDA funding and US$1.3 million in Government counterpart funding (see Annex 10).

(v) The proposed Program is consistent with the Partnership’s 10 operating principles.

8

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A. Lending instrument: Adaptable Program Loan (co-financed by GEF grants). 24. The West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (i.e. ‘the Program’) is proposed as a series of 3 overlapping Adaptable Program Loans (APLs). Each APL will have two phases of five years. As such, the Program utilizes the World Bank’s APL instrument: (i) horizontally, on a regional basis to support 9 countries through a series of overlapping APLs (i.e. APL-A for Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone; APL-B for the next group of countries, and APL-C for the remaining countries of the 9 eligible); and (ii) vertically, in that each country can receive support from two phases or installments over the APL Program, in order to deepen and expand the reforms supported in the first phase. The APL instrument is particularly well-suited to support the long-term reforms needed in the management and use of the region’s fisheries, with logical sequencing of events and phasing of activities with agreed milestones, and flexibility needed in execution (see Technical Annex 4 for a diagram of the Program). 25. This Appraisal document describes in detail the first phase of the first Adaptable Program Loan in the series, APL-A, which concerns four countries: Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone. As mentioned previously, this proposed APL-A will be the first of a series of overlapping similar APLs, with each APL involving different groupings of countries and having two phases of five years. The APL for the next group of countries (APL-B) need not wait until completion of the first APL to begin, and is expected to be approved in FY11/12, while APL-C would be approved in FY12/13. Taken together, this series of APLs (i.e., the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program) is expected to span 10 years, at the end of which period it will have covered all seven member countries of the CSRP (Cape Verde, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone) plus Liberia and Ghana. The West Africa Regional Fisheries Program has a shared objective and approach, meaning that each APL in the series would have the same framework, i.e. the same components and sub-components, but would be applied to different countries (with some different specifics for each country). This overlapping design addresses three key considerations: (i) encourage regional collaboration in the management and development of the region’s marine fish resources; (ii) offer long-term support (10 years) to progressively implement actions aimed at strengthening collaborative efforts to manage shared fisheries and fish resources; and (iii) give flexibility to groups of countries to participate in the WARFP as they become eligible, rather than wait for the end of the first phase of the initial APL to participate. Phase 1 of APL-B (APL-B1) and Phase 1 of APL-C (APL-C1) will each be described in a Project Appraisal Document (PAD), but in line with approval procedures for Adaptable Program Loans, they would be approved in principle by the Regional Vice President and then circulated to the Board, with the approval becoming effective after the end of a ten-day period during which a Board discussion could be scheduled if at least three Executive Directors so requested. 26. In order to implement the shared objective and approach, each APL in the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program will finance activities that would be implemented nationally in each participating country, as well as some activities better implemented at the regional level. Each APL would include investments for both ‘physical’ goods, works and services, as well as ‘soft’ activities such as technical assistance. Most of the physical investments would be made at the

9

national level, while ‘soft’ activities would be implemented at both the national and regional level. On the basis of capacity created in each of the participating countries over the first years of implementation, the Program would aim to gradually transfer implementation of more and more fisheries governance and surveillance activities to the regional level. Initial investments during Phase I in each of the countries will provide significant spillover benefits to neighbors, representing investments in both shared fish resources and fishing fleets. B. Program Objective and Phases 27. The development objective of the series of three overlapping APLs, taken together, is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the marine fisheries resources of West Africa, and the proportion of that wealth captured by West African countries. The three APLs would achieve this objective by: (i) strengthening the countries’ capacity to sustainably govern and manage their fisheries; (ii) reducing illegal fishing; and (iii) increasing the value and profitability generated by fish resources and the proportion of that value captured by the countries. 28. The rationale behind this objective is that while the countries of West Africa are endowed with valuable and shared natural resources in the form of their marine fish stocks, this natural asset is currently providing the region with far lower economic and social returns than it could be, due in large part to overexploitation and subsequent depletion of the resources by both legal and illegal operators. At the same time, the returns that the resources currently provide accrue mostly to foreign countries and fleets, because so much of the fish caught in West Africa’s waters is not landed in the region, but rather is taken directly to foreign ports where further value is added and jobs are created. These constraints, i.e. the: (i) low capacity of countries to collaborate to sustainably manage the marine fish resources and prevent their overexploitation, particularly by illegal fishing vessels; and the (ii) foreign and offshore legal harvesting of the resources that yields only a fraction of their value to local economies, characterize West Africa’s fisheries today. Collaborating to overcome these challenges presents a significant opportunity for the region to sustainably increase the wealth from one of its largest sources of natural capital, and provides the rationale for the Program’s objective and design. Given both these challenges and opportunities, this is a high-risk and complex, but also likely a high-impact, Program. 29. The cumulative outcome at the end of the three APLs will be: (i) the initial recovery of the resource base of at least 7 overexploited fisheries in the region; and (ii) at least a 25 percent increase in net economic benefits to the region from the fisheries targeted by the Program. 30. Phase 1 of each APL is an initiation phase that establishes the Program’s framework in terms of: (i) contributing to the reduction of the illegal fishing that is threatening the immediate health of so many of the fisheries; (ii) holding onto these gains by conducting widespread consultations and implementing the basic tools necessary for long-term policy reforms to give users a greater stake in the health of the resources and the benefits they can provide (and in some cases supporting fishing capacity and effort reduction); and (iii) building (in some cases as pilots for later replication) the basic infrastructure to support increased local value added to the fish caught in the countries’ waters. The first phase will generally target the fisheries based on the region’s

10

coastal demersal fish stocks (including shrimp and cephalopods). The first phase of APL-A (APL-A1) is the subject of this Appraisal document. 31. During this first phase, the Program will aim to build the basic capacity in each of the participating countries and the CSRP needed to support the gradual transfer of implementation of more and more fisheries governance and surveillance activities to the regional level. The key indicators that would trigger increased implementation at the regional level would include: (i) establishment of a working fishing vessel registry and ‘dashboard’ at the CSRP; (ii) identification of a working list of vessels available for lease for sea patrols, and crew, for time-bound, mission-specific, civilian-led fisheries surveillance patrols, and (iii) satisfactory fiduciary management of IDA funds. Progress towards these indicators would be reviewed together with the countries at the mid-term evaluation of APL-A1. 32. Phase 2, while building on the first phase’s structure and achievements, is a deepening and expansion phase that will see further strengthening of the policy reforms to empower stakeholders and users to have a greater role in the long-term health of the resources, by expanding the systems of fisheries management based on rights, which would have value and could in some instances be transferred and capitalized. The second phase would also support wider regional collaboration and networking to prevent illegal fishing. Pilots implemented for fish landing sites with integrated clusters of services would be replicated along the coasts, and a minimum integrated trade expansion platform for West African fish products would be widely adopted and used. The second phase would expand the fisheries targeted to include those based on the region’s stocks of small pelagic fish (such as sardines, anchovies, mackerels, etc.). 33. The total cost of APL-A1 is US$56.3 million over 5 years, including aggregate IDA financing of US$45 million (US$36 million in credits, US$9 million in grant), total GEF funding of US$10 million and total Government contributions of $1.3 million. From their IDA credit and grant proceeds, each of the four countries will provide a grant of equivalent to roughly 5 percent of their total budget (US$3.0 million in total) to the CSRP, of which three of the four countries are members (only Liberia is not), to assist in regional surveillance and marketing, knowledge sharing and dissemination, and coordination of monitoring and evaluation activities. The total estimated costs of Phase 1 of APLs A, B and C are given in the table below, estimated at roughly US$121 million. For illustrative purposes, the total cost of both phases of the series of overlapping APLs, covering all nine countries, would be US$200 million (of which US$177 IDA), assuming that the total costs of Phase 2 would be slightly reduced, as much of the activities would be implemented at the regional level and capture economies of scale. Table 1: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) APL estimated cost (US$ million)

Gov.’s GEF IDA Total cost APL-A1 (Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone) 1.3 10 45 56.3

APL-A2 1 0 40 41.0 APL-B1 (Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau)* 1 6.9 35 43.9 APL-B2 1 0 20 21.0 APL-C1 (Gambia, Mauritania)* 1 0 21 21.0 APL-C2 1 0 15.8 16.8 Total APLs 6.3 16.9 176.8 200.0

11

* Composition of countries in APL-B and APL-C to be confirmed based on country readiness. 34. The triggers for each country to move vertically within each APL from the first to the second phase will be as follows:

• At least 75 percent of all small-scale fishing vessels in targeted fisheries have been legally registered,

• a satellite-based industrial fishing vessel monitoring system is in place and functioning in each country, as a basis for a regional system,

• total fisheries surveillance patrol days at sea in the targeted fisheries increase at least 25 percent, and

• a regional fishing vessel registry is operating at the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission.

35. The eligibility criteria for a country to join the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program through participation APL-B or APL-C, include:

• identification of a series of policy reforms for improved governance of the fisheries and definition of a framework for investment to achieve these reforms (including actionable milestones); and

• a minimum legal and judicial framework for fisheries surveillance that is acceptable to the World Bank.

36. At the Program level, investments through the two phases of each of the three APLs (i.e. over a ten-year period) will aim to achieve the following key program outcomes (see Annex 3: Program Results Framework):

• Environmental Indicator: At least 7 overexploited fisheries show signs of a recovery, as measured by an increase in total landings per unit of fishing capacity (e.g. number of fishing vessels);

• Economic Indicator: At least a 25 percent increase in annual net economic benefits to each participating country from targeted fisheries; and

• Social Indicator: Effective operation of community co-management (i.e. Territorial Use Right Fisheries management) committees established in targeted fishing communities (%).

C. Development Objective and Key Indicators for APL-A 37. The development objective of the first phase of APL-A (i.e. ‘the project’) is to strengthen the capacity of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone to govern and manage targeted fisheries, reduce illegal fishing and increase local value added to fish products. The targeted fisheries for this first phase include: coastal demersal fish species (e.g. croakers, groupers, snappers, etc.), coastal shrimp and cephalopods (e.g. octopus and cuttlefish). Aligning national and regional measures around these priority fisheries ensures the project’s regional spillover, as investments in these resources will immediately benefit their neighbors, who share both fish resources and fleets. 38. In order to meet the development objective, the first phase of APL-A will focus on achieving several key outcomes, including (see Annex 3: Program Results Framework):

12

(i) Improved Governance indicator: Territorial use rights fisheries (TURFs) legally

established in targeted coastal fisheries by end of Phase 1; (ii) Reduction of Illegal Fishing indicator: Reduction of fishing vessels observed by

aerial/surface patrol or by radar and satellite monitoring, that are committing a serious infraction (i.e. fishing without a license, or fishing in a prohibited zone or using prohibited gear); and

(iii) Increased Local Value Added indicator: Increase or stabilization in the volume of exports from targeted fisheries.

39. Key intermediate indicators for Phase 1 of APL-A include the following (see Annex 3: intermediate outcomes): Improved Governance:

• Clear principles and policies are established to increase the wealth from fisheries through strengthened rights and equitable allocation of these rights which balances economic efficiency and social benefits;

• Percentage of small-scale fishing vessels in targeted fisheries that are registered by end of Phase 1;

• Number of communities that are allocated fishing rights; • Number of vessels reduced in targeted fisheries that are overexploited; Reduced Illegal Fishing: • Number of total patrol days at sea per year in targeted fisheries; • A satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring system (VMS) is in place and functioning

by end of Phase 1;

Increased Local Value-Added: • Pilot integrated fish landing site clusters established by the Program and operating by

end of Phase 1; and • A sanitary authority is accredited for certification of exports to the European Union,

in each country. 40. The Results Framework and arrangements for results monitoring (see Annex 3) identifies the other intermediate outcomes per component for Phase 1 and summarizes the tools and techniques for data collection, analysis and reporting. The Program Operational Manuals will provide detailed information for measuring all key indicators of program-supported activities. D. Project Components 41. The first phase of APL-A will support the following components and sub-components (with total costs in millions of U.S. Dollars in parenthesis). GEF is financing part of components 1 and 4. IDA is financing all four components. Objectives and detailed descriptions of each sub-component identified below are found in Annex 4: Detailed Program Description. The following components and sub-components form a menu of activities the Program could support in each of the nine participating countries. Those activities chosen within this menu by each specific

13

country are based on the local context, and the legal agreements with each country reflect in the Project Description the specific activities described in Annexes 5 through 9. 42. Component 1: Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries (US$9.8 M IDA, US$8.6 M GEF). The objective of this component is to build the capacity of Governments and stakeholders to implement a shared approach that would ensure that the marine fish resources are used in a manner that is environmentally sustainable, socially fair and economically profitable. This component will support the following sub-components: 43. Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($2.0 m IDA, $4.5 m GEF). This sub-component includes technical assistance, training, goods and equipment and operating costs for: (a) a strengthened policy and regulatory framework for the use of the fish resources; (b) implementation of vessel registration and maintenance of vessel registries, initially for selected fisheries; (c) assessment of the biological and economic status of key fish stocks, as the basis for management; (d) development of tools at the community, national and regional level to ensure transparency and accessibility of basic fisheries management information for controlling access to the resources; and (e) preparation and implementation of management plans that set levels of sustainable exploitation for targeted fisheries. 44. Introduction of Fishing Rights ($1.7 m IDA, $2.3 m GEF). This sub-component includes technical assistance, training, small community works, and goods for piloting: (a) the introduction/strengthening of fishing rights to targeted industrial fisheries; and (b) the introduction of fishing rights to small-scale fisheries through a process of co-management. 45. Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed ($5.7 m IDA, $1.4 m GEF). This sub-component includes small grants to communities, micro-finance to fishers, buy-outs of fishing vessels and technical assistance for those fisheries that are already overexploited, in order to provide: (a) support to industrial fishing vessel owners to reduce fishing effort; (b) transition of fishers working on industrial fishing vessels into alternative livelihoods; and (c) transition of small-scale fishers and fish processors to alternative livelihoods. 46. Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency ($0.4 m IDA, $0.4 m GEF). This sub-component includes technical assistance, consultations and operating costs for: (a) social marketing and communication; and (b) a network of independent journalists reporting on the Program. 47. Component 2: Reduction of Illegal Fishing (US$17.6 M IDA, US$0.1 M Governments). The objective of this component is to reduce the illegal fishing activities threatening the sustainable management of the marine fish resources and the wealth they can generate for the region. More specifically, this component aims to improve the fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems of participating countries and adapt them to the needs of fisheries management, within the framework of a coordinated approach between the participating countries. This component will support the following sub-components:

14

48. Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing ($0.6 m IDA). This sub-component includes technical assistance for: (a) the strengthening or development of appropriate legal frameworks, judicial institutions and practices applicable to illegal fishing vessels and activities; and (b) the implementation of adequate financing mechanisms for fisheries surveillance. 49. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems ($16.8 m IDA, $0.1 m Governments). This sub-component includes goods, works, operating costs and technical assistance for: (a) effective coordination of fisheries surveillance operations; (b) development of MCS plans and strategies; and (c) implementation of sustainable fisheries surveillance systems (including monitoring centers and stations, sea patrols and satellite-based vessel monitoring systems). 50. Strengthened Regional Collaboration for MCS ($0.2 m IDA). This sub-component includes technical assistance to enable the CSRP to monitor and support the network of MCS systems among the countries. 51. Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies (US$11.4 M IDA, US$0.2 M Governments). The objective of this component is to increase the benefits to West Africa from the marine fish resources, by increasing the share of the value-added captured in the region. This component will support the following sub-components: 52. Fish Landing Site Clusters ($9.5 m IDA, $0.2 m Governments). This sub-component includes goods and works for construction of one or two key fish landing sites in each country, as economic clusters, including: (a) basic infrastructure such as jetties, cold storage and electricity; and (b) clusters of economic support services, such as ice production, repair of vessels and gear, provision of fuel, quality control, auction and marketing infrastructure, etc. 53. Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) ($1.9 m IDA). This sub-component includes goods, works, training and technical assistance for: (a) a national and regional network of quality control infrastructure and trade information and services, to support increased exports of fish products from West Africa; (b) a regional proactive trade information system to ensure traceability of targeted supply chains; and (c) training and technical assistance to local enterprises. 54. Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management (US$6.2 M IDA, US$1.4 M GEF, US$1.0 M Governments). The objective of this component is to support the countries to implement the Program in the context of the CSRP Strategic Action Plan, and to monitor and evaluate results. This component will support the following sub-components: 55. National Implementation ($3.7 m IDA, $1.4 m GEF, $1.0 m Governments). This sub-component includes goods, works, technical assistance, training and operating costs for national Project Implementation Units (PIUs) in each participating country, embedded within the agency or Ministry in charge of fisheries, and staffed by external and local project management specialists.

15

56. Regional Coordination ($2.5 m IDA). This sub-component includes technical assistance and consultations for a Regional Coordination Unit at the CSRP, in order to: (a) support the harmonization of fisheries policy within the region; (b) conduct monitoring and evaluation of Program investments and share information and results throughout the region; (c) implement ongoing communication activities to raise awareness about the Program and implementation progress; and (d) provide implementation support to each of the countries, including the coordination of regional procurement. E. Lessons learned and reflected in the program design 57. This Program design directly reflects the lessons learned from global good practices summarized in the World Bank Fisheries Approach Paper Saving Fish and Fishers (2004), as well as experiences in West Africa such as the Integrated Coastal and Maritime Resource Management Project in Senegal, and the Bank’s large body of analytic work on the sector in the region. The design also reflects innovations from a multitude of non-Bank financed projects and programs, such as the fisheries co-management initiatives financed by the Government of Japan (JICA) in Senegal, and the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Program in West and Central Africa financed by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID). 58. Global experiences and lessons learned. Global experiences have shown three key lessons for the design of this Program. Firstly, in the absence of a strong governance framework that empowers users to take a long-term stake in the fisheries, underexploited fisheries will follow a typical pattern of boom and bust resulting in too many fishers chasing too few fish, causing both environmental degradation and economic losses. At the same time, countries with overexploited fisheries will never realize the full economic potential of these resources until they are rehabilitated. For this reason, investments in both underdeveloped and overdeveloped fisheries must begin with the governance framework for the sector, to ensure that the sector can either grow sustainably, or for fisheries that are already overexploited, can be rehabilitated to more profitable levels. As such, the Program includes a strong governance component that would accompany any investments in sector development and local value added, in order to ensure a sustainable supply of fish to local industry. 59. Secondly, on the basis of global experiences, fisheries have only been governed and managed at levels that were both environmentally sustainable and economically profitable when users have been given secure and enforceable rights to the access or output from the resources, as long-term incentives in their health. The form these rights take must be tailored to the specific context of countries with respect to the fish resources in question and the uses of those resources, including the social setting and culture. Fishing rights must also be complete, so that all commercial fishers targeting the specific resources are included, and limited enough to provide long-term incentives. Otherwise, if fishing rights are too diffuse to provide users with the appropriate incentives, it may still be economically rational to ‘mine’ the fishery for short-term gains (but larger long-term losses). Thus, the key to fishing rights is that fishers/users have the ability to exclude others from fishing, so that they bear both the costs of conservation and the benefits. This ensures that those who use the fisheries bear the costs of overexploitation.

16

60. Thirdly, while investments in surveillance and enforcement are essential for reducing illegal fishing and the associated economic losses, experiences in Guinea-Bissau and Indonesia have shown that such investments should be as low-cost and pragmatic as possible, in order for the operating costs of surveillance to be kept to sustainable levels after completion of Bank financing. For this reason, the Program focuses on incremental investments to show immediate results in reducing illegal fishing, such as leasing patrol vessels rather than procuring new boats. However, without such investments, continued illegal fishing can erode much of the value of the fish resources. Thus, investments in improved fisheries surveillance have a clear economic rationale for the Bank and for the countries. For example, the European Union is preparing new certification of origin requirements for fish products, which ensures that they were caught legally. Countries that cannot control their fisheries and certify that fish landed from their waters were caught legally, could risk a loss of access to the European Union markets. 61. Experiences and lessons learned in West Africa. Recent experiences in the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Program (SFLP) financed by DfID have provided valuable results in the fisheries of West Africa, to complement the above global lessons. The SFLP was a US$30 million investment by DfID in 25 central and western African countries from 1999 to 2006 to support research, community projects and larger pilot projects to test approaches to place livelihoods in small-scale fishing communities at the center of fisheries development strategies. The SFLP financed 83 community projects in 23 countries and 3 large pilot projects in 12 countries. Lessons learned included: (i) the need to focus on reducing vulnerability in fishing communities through cross-sectoral approaches; (ii) the importance of strengthening and empowering fishing communities and their organizations to engage in local development and co-management of the fisheries; and (iii) the critical role micro-finance can play in fishing communities. The SFLP concluded that establishing co-management partnerships between the Governments and fishing communities in western and central Africa worked, and the focus on improved resource management together with social development in fishing communities (particularly exploring wider livelihood options inside and outside the fisheries) was successful, in conjunction with efforts to build the capacity of Government agencies to support such partnerships. The SFLP highlighted the critical role that empowerment of fishing communities in decision-making can play, and this empowerment is central to the design of the Program. 62. The results of the SFLP have also been confirmed by the pilot investments financed through the Integrated Coastal and Maritime Resources Management Project in Senegal. This project has demonstrated a high demand in fishing communities for a greater role in the management of the resources, and the project has succeeded in supporting co-management partnerships between the Government and coastal communities. 63. Experiences and lessons learned in the implementation of regional programs. While the Program will be coordinated regionally, experiences with recent investments and preparation evaluations have shown that regional programs need to show results on the ground and concentrate on national implementation and strengthening national institutions, as well as regional organizations. For this reason, the Program follows the subsidiarity principle, with regional coordination and national implementation.

17

F. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 64. Several alternatives were considered in the design of the Program, towards meeting the objective of sustainably increasing the wealth the marine fisheries can provide West Africa. 65. An individual country by country approach was considered, however this leads to duplication of efforts; scarce resources spread too thin on too many areas; limited regional collaboration; and thus inexistent regional spillovers. Alternatively, a multi-country approach was considered, with no regional coordination. Such an approach usually provides a common project format to countries, but it still lacks the integrated regional perspective, and does not capture economies of scale from collaboration. Multi-country projects also miss out in cost savings as project preparation and supervision require separate cost centers, further reducing any regional synergy. Lastly, neither approach takes into account the transboundary or ‘fugitive’ nature of marine fish resources, which migrate across national borders and therefore require coordinated management. 66. A regional specific investment loan (SIL) instrument was considered, in order to alleviate some of these challenges. Such an approach calls for a series of SILs grouping at least three countries, but with each SIL lasting a short period. However, experiences around the world have shown that reform of the fisheries to more environmentally sustainable and economically profitable levels is a long-term endeavor that a short-lived SIL cannot accommodate. 67. For these reasons, a regional Adaptable Program Lending (APL) instrument best fits the long-term approach of fisheries reform needed, in order to implement the Strategic Action Plan endorsed by the Conference of Ministers of the CSRP. The phasing of an APL supports prioritizing investments based on incremental progress in reforms. To maintain the long-term perspective, retain the regional project characteristics, and accommodate countries to participate in the program, IDA’s instrument is designed as a series of three overlapping APLs. Each APL is 10 years, of two phases of 5 years each. Each APL involves a different group of countries, so to cover all CSRP member countries plus Liberia and Ghana.

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS A. Partnership arrangements 68. This Program will be implemented in partnership with several other donors, in order to help sustainably increase the wealth from the region’s marine fish resources. More specifically, the Program will be implemented in collaboration with the GEF-financed and FAO-executed Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project, which will ensure principles of ecosystem protection are incorporated into management of the fisheries, and the regional marine protected areas program funded by the Government of France. Both initiatives are housed at the CSRP, so that they will be able to work together on a day-to-day basis with the Program’s Regional Coordination Unit. The Program will also complement and build upon the two-year EU 2.5 million regional fisheries surveillance project at the CSRP, funded by the European Commission (EC). Furthermore, Program investments in Liberia and Sierra Leone will serve as pilots for the

18

DfID-funded Partnership for Africa’s Fisheries (PAF), which is based in NEPAD and aims to support wealth-based approaches to fisheries throughout the continent. The Program will seek parallel and complementary investments with the EC’s ACP Fish II Project and SFP Project (see Annex 2 for more details). The Program will also work together with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), to conduct research campaigns in the participating countries and provide training to local researchers, with the operating costs to be funded by the Program. Lastly, the Program will collaborate with the Consultative Committee on Fisheries established through the West Africa Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), which concentrates on harmonizing fisheries policies for its member countries, which include Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. See Annex 21 for a regional logical framework showing the collaboration between these initiatives. Additional sources of co-financing may be forthcoming during the course of implementation, as the Program is expected to ‘crowd in’ other donors. B. Institutional and implementation arrangements 69. Subsidiarity Principle. While both the approach and coordination of the Program are regional, implementation will take place on the ground at the national level with a focus on strengthening local institutions. As such, the Program aims to demonstrate concrete results early in implementation in each country, in order to encourage further local ownership. 70. Regional Level. APL-A1 will be coordinated at the regional level by a Regional Coordination Unit (RCU), housed at the CSRP in Dakar and reporting to a Regional Steering Committee of the Fisheries Directors from each of the participating countries. As countries join the Program in subsequent APLs, they would join the Regional Steering Committee at that time. The role of the RCU will be to: (i) support the harmonization of fisheries policy within the region (including convening regional technical committees of national experts to periodically review recurring policy issues); (ii) conduct monitoring and evaluation of Program investments and share information and results throughout the region; (iii) implement ongoing communication activities to raise awareness about the Program and implementation progress; and (iv) provide implementation support to each of the countries, including the coordination of regional procurement. The role of the Regional Steering Committee will be to oversee the activities of the RCU and to further coordination and communication between decision-makers in the countries. 71. National Level. The project (APL-A1) will be implemented at the national level by a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) established in each country, and embedded within the responsible technical agency for fisheries. Each PIU will be fully mainstreamed into this technical agency, although fiduciary responsibilities will vary by PIU depending on local capacity. Furthermore, each of the PIUs will report to the relevant Director of Fisheries, who will chair a national steering committee of relevant Government officials and local stakeholder representatives. Each of these steering committees has been formed during the preparation phase, and will continue to function throughout the project. Each national steering committee will take decisions on the overall direction of the project, and will be responsible for approving the annual work program and budget for submission to IDA, for approval for inclusion in the project. The Director and PIU Coordinator will be responsible for providing summaries of implementation progress and results from M&E to the national steering committee, who will take decisions on any necessary adjustments to project implementation on the basis of monitoring results.

19

C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results 72. Currently, the sector monitoring system within the responsible technical agencies in each country lacks the resources and coordination to adequately report on progress according to the Results Framework and monitoring indicators (see Section II.C above for project outcome indicators and Annex 3 for the Results Framework). For this reason, Component 4 of the Program will support capacity building in monitoring and evaluation in each of the technical agencies and national PIUs, through the recruitment of a full time M&E expert reporting to the Program Coordinator in the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU). 73. Furthermore, in addition to providing training and ongoing implementation support in the form of a full-time M&E specialist at the RCU, the Program will provide direct support to each country in the actual data collection and analysis. Through the establishment of national nodes of a ‘dashboard’ of key fisheries statistics, linked to a regional node at the RCU, the Program will institutionalize the data collection and analysis needed to fill the key indicators of the dashboard in each country. Through this activity, by the end of the Program, not only would the implementation of this Program be managed based on publicly available data on key sector indicators and statistics, but overall decision-making would be linked to this M&E as well. The ‘dashboard’ will serve as the final repository for all key performance indicators data, as well as other key statistics for the sector, and the information will be presented regularly to the national steering committees, as well as the Regional Steering Committee, and form the basis of an annual M&E report submitted to the World Bank by each country (using a standard format). The RCU will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the regional activities. 74. In terms of the Program’s key outcome indicators, baselines for APL-A1 have been established on the best available data, but will in some cases be re-measured/refined over the first two years of implementation. D. Sustainability and Replicability 75. The issue of sustainability beyond the implementation period is examined from the perspective of institutions, ongoing fisheries surveillance activities and phasing of activities. In terms of institutions, the Program will work to build the capacity of the CSRP through the RCU, in order to adopt the recommendations of a recent institutional and financial audit financed by the EU in 2007. As the capacity increases, the Program could potentially transfer fiduciary responsibility for regional coordination activities to the CSRP. Within each of the countries, the Program will ensure that PIUs are embedded within the responsible technical agencies, and mainstreamed into their work program. Furthermore, the Program will place an emphasis on building the capacity of these Ministries in charge of fisheries to become demand-based agencies, which would begin to share management responsibilities and costs with stakeholders and users, and particularly communities. 76. In terms of fisheries surveillance, the Program will support a pragmatic approach based on low-cost methods and technologies (e.g. leasing surveillance vessels instead of purchase), with a minimum of recurrent costs. In parallel, the Program will support countries to develop

20

sustainable financing mechanisms for surveillance operations, through public expenditure reviews that demonstrate the economic benefits of these operations and the public revenues they generate. Furthermore, over the two phases of the Program, the participating countries will be supported to develop a low-cost regional surveillance network that can capture economies of scale, and pool scarce resources. World Bank financing for recurrent costs of fisheries surveillance activities would gradually decline over the second phase of the Program. 77. In terms of phasing, Phase 1 of each APL will be designed to concentrate on investments, which would be deepened and expanded in Phase 2. However, the economic analysis conducted for the Program shows that the investment in APL-A1 would be economically justified even without the second phase. Similarly, the investments of Phase 1 are designed to empower local institutions and stakeholders to take a larger role in the fisheries, as these institutions would therefore be more sustainable after the end of Phase 1, and certainly after Phase 2. 78. In terms of replicability, the Program will implement a model for user-based management of the coastal fisheries (i.e. TURFs) that can grow horizontally and be replicated to communities throughout the region, particularly as more and more are established. The Program will support the PIUs and the RCU to promote these examples throughout the region, including exchanges between individual fishing communities to share lessons learned. Thus, the potential for replication is high, as the Program supports activities that should serve as models for the region outside of the areas of direct intervention. E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects

Risks Risk Rating before

Mitigation

Risk Mitigation Measures Risk Rating

with Mitigation

To project development objective Implementation Capacity: Participating countries will not have the necessary institutional capacity to implement the Program. Social: Resource management measures necessary will create negative social impacts in targeted communities, as a result of reduced incomes and/or livelihoods Political Will: The Program invests heavily in fisheries

H

H

H

The Program is designed based on integrated PIUs that will have significant technical assistance, as well as training budgets. Furthermore, the RCU will provide ongoing capacity building for each country The Program has designed component 1.3 to mitigate this risk where it occurs, with an alternative livelihoods fund available to help compensate fishers, fishing families and fishing communities for any losses, and to encourage alternative livelihoods to fishing The Program provides for transparent publication of information on infractions

H

H

S

21

surveillance, but Governments fail to prosecute fisheries infractions, so that investments fail to reduce illegal fishing Reputational Risk: Fisheries surveillance operations could contribute to successful enforcement of fisheries laws and the reduction of illegal fishing, but in so doing overstep the Bank’s mandate to finance only economic development activities (e.g. aggressive surveillance actions, prosecution of illegal behavior other than fishing)

H

and prosecutions, to encourage public monitoring, as well as monitoring by multi-stakeholder national steering committees The Program will only finance civilian-led fisheries surveillance operations, to implement fisheries laws aimed at increasing the economic benefits from the use of these resources. Program-financed goods under component 2 will only be used for fisheries surveillance, according to specific clauses in the legal agreements. The Program will also support periodic reviews of Bank-financed fisheries surveillance activities, by an independent group of experts

H

To component results Component 1: Excess number of fishers and fishing boats active within the region will impinge upon and jeopardize Program-supported activities in targeted TURFs, and that communities and governments will not be able to enforce community management measures Component 2: Countries are unable to sustain the recurrent costs of fisheries surveillance activities after the Program Fisheries surveillance activities could (unintentionally) contribute to exacerbating disputes among countries over fishing rights, e.g. when foreign vessels commit infractions Component 3: Fish landing site clusters are not properly managed or operated, so

H

S

S

S

The Program will ensure that participating Governments legally recognize the TURFs supported by each APL, and provide surveillance support as needed to communities to ensure their management measures are respected by outside fishers The Program: (i) includes support at the regional level for a study on mechanisms to sustainably finance surveillance in each country; (ii) focuses on low-cost, pragmatic surveillance operations with minimum recurrent costs; and (iii) develops a low-cost regional surveillance network that can capture economies of scale The Program includes support at the regional level to assist in the preparation and implementation of bi-lateral cooperation agreements, particularly within the sub-region (several of which already exist or have been drafted) The Program will support public-private partnerships, to assist the governments to identify potential managers and operators

S

M

M

M

22

that the infrastructure does not generate the intended benefits Component 4: Institutional weaknesses in the CSRP will hamper effective Program coordination and monitoring

S

for each site from the private sector The RCU will have full fiduciary responsibility, and will report to the Regional Steering Committee, while at the same time building capacity of the CSRP to implement the recommendations of the 2007 audit

M

Overall Risk Rating High Risk High Risk F. Credit and grant conditions and covenants 79. Board presentation:

• Evidence of the setting up of a legal framework for the Joint Maritime Committee within which the Fisheries Protection Unit of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Sierra Leone will operate, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

80. Credit and grant effectiveness:

For each of the four countries: • The country has adopted a Program Operational Manual (including a national action

plan for the implementation of the regional Resettlement Process Framework) and an Accounting and Administrative Manual, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association;

• The Coordinator for the national PIU has been recruited (and the accountant in Cape Verde), and the PIU and national steering committee has been formally established;

• The Subsidiary Agreement between the country and the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission has been signed; and

• Cross-effectiveness conditions between IDA financing agreement and GEF grant (except for Senegal who is not receiving a GEF grant).

81. Legal covenants applicable to program implementation:

For all four countries: • All fisheries surveillance activities shall be carried out by civilian authorities under

terms of reference limited to fisheries surveillance; • All goods, works, services and operating costs financed by Program are used

exclusively by civilian authorities for purposes of the Program, and not for any military purpose, or for any criminal investigation or proceedings, or for any other purposes unrelated to the objectives of the Program;

• Each fisheries surveillance mission financed by the Program shall be: (i) under the operational command or authority of a civilian fisheries officer and conducted during a specific time period that is duly recorded and documented; and (ii) conducted by personnel who have been properly trained in the operation of any equipment used; and

23

• All MCS activities carried out under the Program are reviewed periodically by an independent group of experts, whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are satisfactory to the Association.

For the CSRP:

• The CSRP will ensure that the activities under Component 2 are reviewed by an independent group of experts by no later than each of 24, 36 and 60 months after the effective date.

For Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone:

• The Accountant/Assistant Accountant (for Liberia and Sierra Leone only) and Procurement Specialist for the national PIU have been recruited, by no later than 4 months after the effective date.

For Senegal:

• The fishing vessel buy-back program shall be implemented through the purchase of industrial trawl vessels through an independent auditor and in accordance with arrangements and guidelines acceptable to the Association, excluding any arrangement that would permit the future use of such vessels for coastal demersal fishing in the West Africa region.

For Sierra Leone:

• Throughout implementation of the Program, the country’s Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources will maintain the Fisheries Protection Unit located within the Joint Maritime Committee (JMC) exclusively dedicated to fisheries surveillance activities and financially and legally independent from any security or enforcement activities of the JMC.

82. Financial covenants applicable to program implementation:

• External auditors are appointed in all four countries and the CSRP, and accounting software is installed (Cape Verde and Sierra Leone) or expanded/updated (CSRP, Liberia and Senegal) in order to host the Program, and the assistant accountant is recruited to the CSRP, within four months after effectiveness.

For Liberia:

• An assistant internal auditor will be recruited, within two months after effectiveness. 83. Disbursement conditions applicable to program implementation:

For Liberia:

• No funds will be disbursed for national activities under Component 2 of the Program until a new regulation (Ministerial Decree) acceptable to the Association is adopted, clarifying the scope of Liberia’s Fisheries Act and the responsibility of its Bureau of National Fisheries for fisheries surveillance, and setting new fines and fee structures and ensuring consistency with UNCLOS.

24

For Senegal: • No funds will be disbursed for the fishing vessel buy-back program under

Component 1 until a qualified independent auditor has been recruited by the Government to manage the purchases.

• No funds will be disbursed for a sub-project under Component 1 until the appropriate Sub-Financing Agreement for such sub-project has been concluded.

For Sierra Leone:

• No funds will be disbursed for national activities under Component 2 until the current regulation has been revised by the adoption of a new Ministerial Decree acceptable to the Association concerning fisheries surveillance, and once a Fisheries Protection Unit within the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has been established in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

For All Countries:

• No funds will be disbursed for regional activities under Component 4, until the Regional Coordination Unit and Regional Steering Committee have been established at the CSRP, and the regional Operational Manual and Accounting and Administrative Manual have been adopted, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association.

IV. PROGRAM APPRAISAL SUMMARY A. Economic and financial analyses 84. An economic analysis has been conducted for APL-A1, based on a quantitative model developed for the region’s fisheries. The model uses the most recent catch, effort and price data from the targeted fisheries in order to calculate: (i) the current net economic benefits generated from these resources; (ii) the expected net economic benefits from the fisheries in 5 years under a business-as-usual scenario, without the project; and (iii) the projected net economic benefits from the fisheries in 5 years as a result of a scenario with project investments and associated reforms (through APL-A1). The net economic benefits for the fisheries include net returns to: (i) vessel and engine owners; (ii) labor; and (iii) Government. If labor is given as a cost and excluded from the net economic benefits, the measure could be considered the economic rent on the fisheries, or the wealth generated from the resources. The economic analysis also includes the benefits of returns on alternative livelihoods to fishing supported by the Program, as well as the investments in increased value added through Component 3. On the basis of the results from the analysis for each of the four countries of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone, the total benefits estimated to result from APL-A1 were over US$75 million. This estimate is based on US$55.7 million of net economic benefits from industrial and small-scale fisheries - primarily coastal demersal and shrimp fisheries - up to the point of catch landing or first sale, of which US$38.6 million represents gains in resource rents from the fisheries (net economic benefits excluding returns to labor). A further US$11.2 million of benefits is expected from income derived from alternative livelihoods, and US$8.4 million from value added from processing at landing site clusters. With a total cost of US$56.3 million, the net present value of the five-year

25

APL-A1, discounted at 10 percent, is US$3.1 million, for an economic rate of return of 16 percent. This estimate is conservative as it does not include various non-monetary benefits and positive externalities expected to be generated by the project. Furthermore, the low sensitivity values for increases in fish catch per unit of cost indicate the high-risk, high-impact nature of the project: essentially if the investments do not help rehabilitate the fish stocks and the catch rates, the estimated benefits would not materialize, while at the same time if it does, the benefits could be even higher than estimated, due to conservative parameters used such as prices. B. Technical 85. The Program has been developed based on recent biological and economic research clearly demonstrating that levels of fishing exploitation that are environmentally friendly (i.e. at levels below the maximum amount that can be harvested and still allow the stocks to regenerate to their previous size) are also much more economically profitable – providing higher levels of wealth for the country. In order to help the countries of West Africa capitalize on these findings and achieve levels of fishing exploitation that are both more environmentally friendly and economically profitable, the Program’s approach builds upon global experiences with the promotion of fishing rights to control access to the marine fish resources, implemented through collaborative (or co-management) partnerships between resource users and governments. These partnerships would be legally recognized and codified by the appropriate regulatory agency, clearly specifying the rights and management responsibilities of users. Results to date in both developed and developing countries have confirmed that this model is technically sound, and has generated both increased wealth from the resources, and helped reduce exploitation to more environmentally sustainable levels (see section II.E). 86. Furthermore, the Program’s design builds on lessons learned in the SFLP and the Integrated Coastal and Maritime Resources Management Project in Senegal, suggesting that efforts to support recovery in overexploited fisheries (e.g. in Cape Verde and Senegal) should be accompanied by support to embark upon alternative livelihood strategies for those interested. The Program reflects the good practices in both community development and micro-finance operations supported by the Bank, in order to tie commercially-competitive, non-subsidized, micro-finance and training in micro-enterprise development to individuals transitioning out of the fishing sector into new livelihoods. The design of APL-A1 complies with OP8.30, in that for the country where micro-finance is supported (Senegal), the micro-finance institution has been identified (Crédit Mutuel) and the necessity for remedial grant assistance for the institution assessed. In the case of APL-A1, remedial grant assistance is needed only with respect to the extension of micro-finance outlets to some new localities which will be in the TURFs (see Annex 7). C. Fiduciary 87. A fiduciary assessment of APL-A1 was carried out in May 2009, including an assessment of the financial management and procurement capacity of the CSRP and the proposed PIU arrangements in each country, particularly the accounting systems for Program expenditures and underlying internal controls (see Program files for the Financial Management Capacity Assessment and Procurement Capacity Assessment). The fiduciary assessment concentrated on

26

the arrangements in place in the CSRP, the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources (MERDMR) in Cape Verde, the Ministry of Agriculture (MA) in Liberia, the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM) in Senegal and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) in Sierra Leone. 88. In terms of financial management, the conclusion of these assessments was that CSRP, MERDMR, MA, MEM and MFMR do not have a financial management system in place that satisfies the World Bank’s minimum requirements under OP/BP10.02. For this reason, IDA and GEF funds for regional activities will be managed by a RCU, and IDA and GEF funds for activities implemented at the national level will be managed by PIUs. Financial staff and auditors will be recruited on a competitive basis, a strong system of information will be installed or updated in each of the PIUs and Administrative and Accounting Manuals of Procedure will be prepared or updated for each. Financial management risks inherent in the project entities and risks specific to project design have been rated as substantial, prior to mitigation. Several measures have been designed to mitigate these risks, including implementation of the action plan in Technical Annex 12, which will reduce the financial management risks to modest. These measures include supporting financial management and capacity building for the PIUs in each country. The operating procedures for each project activity will be clearly documented in the Program Operational Manuals. Financial Monitoring reports have been prescribed for reporting purposes. Full details of these measures are given in Annex 12. Funds for the project will be channeled through Designated Accounts in each country. 89. In terms of procurement, the assessment found that the overall procurement risk is high, prior to mitigation. The corrective measures designed to address the issues and risks are reflected in the action plan in the procurement technical Annex 13. These measures include reinforcement of the PIUs in each country with appropriate staff and capacity building through training of relevant project staff, in particular training of Procurement officers in World Bank procurement procedures to enhance their knowledge before the project effectiveness and on a continuous basis during the project implementation (See details in Annex 13). Procurement for the project will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated May 2004, revised October 1st, 2006; Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May 2004, revised October 1st, 2006; and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. These procedures will be described in the Operational Manuals. D. Social 90. First and foremost, the Program focuses on communities and communities’ rights to sustainably manage natural resources. As such, the key stakeholders in the Program are the fishing communities in the participating countries. These key stakeholders will be integral partners in collaboratively managing the pilot TURFs established in component 1. Thus, a good understanding of community perceptions, dynamics, cohesion and capacity to manage is vital to ensuring Program effectiveness. However, it is also important to recognize that, while fishing communities in West Africa bear many similarities – most immediately in terms of the livelihood challenges they face given their reliance on depleted fish stocks -- their characteristics and the support they will require will differ by country, reflecting social, ethnic and political differences.

27

A number of measures have been taken during Program preparation, and will be pursued further during implementation, to ensure that social and socio-economic factors are appropriately taken into account in each of the participating countries. 91. Importantly, detailed statistically representative socio-economic (Citizen Report Card) surveys of coastal communities (fishing and non-fishing communities) were undertaken in Senegal, Sierra Leone and Liberia as part of project preparation. These surveys generated entirely new data and information on fisher households’ and communities’ relative wealth, educational, and employment status, as well as on their investments in the fisheries sector. They also gathered information to assess the degree to which coastal households rely on marine resources to sustain their livelihoods. Additionally, the surveys assessed fishers’ knowledge of national fisheries laws and regulations on fishing gear, the extent to which fishers use legal vs. illegal gear, and the factors and incentives which might encourage fishers to move away from the use of illegal gear and harmful fishing practices. Significantly, though, the Citizen Report Card element of the surveys means that the information gathered will be disseminated back to the citizens in a user-friendly form so they can assess their community’s situation relative to others in the country and are empowered to introduce actions to improve their situation. 92. Semi-structured focus group meetings with coastal communities were undertaken during project preparation and will also be taken episodically during implementation. The initial focus groups have confirmed that coastal communities in the region strongly want to play a more informed and active role in managing the fisheries, and particularly the fisheries in their immediate locations. However, the focus groups also showed that capacities of fisher communities to take on the responsibilities and tasks implied in co-management vary considerably, in part reflecting the cohesiveness of communities. In the case of Liberia, for instance, community cohesiveness is considerably weaker than in Senegal, probably as a consequence of the war. The Program recognizes such differences and tailors community level support in each country accordingly. In Liberia, an emphasis is placed on fostering community cohesiveness and strengthening community-level capacity to work together and develop co-management initiatives as a means of resolving local challenges. In contrast, the greater social cohesiveness in Sierra Leone, however, has led the Program to support development of co-management committees’ capacities in areas such as community consultation, basic financial management and preliminary revenue generation. 93. The focus groups and various preparation activities also reinforced both the need and challenges in overexploited fisheries to assist fishers to find alternative livelihoods; many fisher households, particularly in Senegal, are already caught in a poverty trap as they invest more heavily in the sector to just maintain their livelihood at previous levels. Very often, they are increasing investments while seeing their earnings from the sector declining significantly. Many of the fishers (almost exclusively men) have few, if any, transferable skills to launch alternative livelihoods. Women participating in the sector are almost solely involved in fish processing and handling, are profoundly affected by reductions in fish landings, and have even fewer alternative income generating opportunities open to them than fishermen. The result is a deepening of poverty in these communities which reinforces the need for alternative livelihood solutions. For this reason, in the context of supporting the establishment and operation of the TURFs, and with the aim of encouraging and supporting fishers and fish processors in transitioning to income

28

generating activities, the Program supports carefully designed, highly practical and individualized skills retraining programs for both men and women in the sector. Training in microenterprise development is complemented with basic management and financial skills training and also life-skills management, provided over a two year period. In Senegal, this is complemented by Program support to broadened fishers’ access to market-rate microfinance, through increased support to a component of the ongoing Bank-financed Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project. E. Environment 94. Because this Program aims to implement a process that empowers communities to more sustainably co-manage the fisheries, and to help restore the fish stocks where needed, most of the activities are expected to have positive impacts on the environment. The Program is designed to help implement policies and institutional frameworks for fisheries resource management, and to enhance the livelihoods of poor fishing communities as a result. However, in the case of small-scale infrastructure and works supported by the Program to construct integrated fish landing sites throughout the region, an Environmental Management Plan has been prepared for each site, with mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Program’s design and budget. F. Safeguards 95. The following Safeguard Policies are applicable to APL-A1:

Safeguard Policy Applicability

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) Yes Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) No Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) No Pest Management (OP 4.09) No Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) No Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) No Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Yes Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) No Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) No Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)* No

Environmental Screening Category: B 96. Key Safeguard Policy Issues. The Program has conducted an Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for all four countries in APL-A, in order to identify any safeguards that could be triggered by the activities financed by this Program. On the basis of the ESA, the Program triggers the OP 4.01 for Environmental Assessment, as a result of the construction of fish landing sites in each country. For this reason, the Program will utilize the EMP prepared through the ESA, in order to ensure that any potential impacts arising through the construction of small-scale landing site infrastructure will be mitigated, in accordance with the environmental assessment safeguard (OP 4.01).

29

97. In addition to OP 4.01, the involuntary resettlement safeguard (OP 4.12) is triggered, due to: (i) the potential for acquisition of land to construct fish landing sites and other small infrastructure; and (ii) the potential for involuntary restrictions on access to the fish resources as a result of Program investments to strengthen fisheries management. Two separate safeguard instruments were prepared to address these two risks: (i) a Resettlement Policy Framework to address potential land acquisition; and (ii) a Resettlement Process Framework to address potential restrictions on access to fish resources. 98. The key social issue highlighted by the Environmental and Social Assessment is the potential restriction of traditional access to fish resources that may be introduced by the Program in targeted fisheries. Currently, the region’s fish resources are utilized through a system of open access that has allowed essentially more fishers and fishing pressure than the resources can sustain. The Program addresses this by supporting the introduction of fishing rights through a co-management process. It is from this transition away from open access to more regulated fisheries, that the key risks are created. These risks are largely social, because the implementation of rights-based systems implies that access to specific areas or types of fisheries will be controlled or restricted. 99. Concerning the transition from open access to more regulated fisheries and the potential loss of livelihoods as a result, the Program has prepared mitigation and compensation measures described in the regional Resettlement Process Framework (with national action plans for its application to be developed in each country). This framework outlines the consultative process that will be followed to develop and allocate fishing rights and to ensure alternative livelihoods to compensate for any restrictions on resource access. The Resettlement Process Framework describes support for alternative livelihoods to fishing in component 1.3 as the Program-wide instrument to address this social risk. This sub-component of the Program will help fishers in overexploited fisheries move out of the fishing sector to pursue alternative, potentially more profitable and sustainable livelihoods. This instrument will address these risks wherever they may emerge in local Program sites. Each country will prepare a national action plan for the implementation of the regional Resettlement Process Framework, as part of their Operational Manual, prior to effectiveness. 100. At identification stage, the Program noted the potential to trigger the natural habitats safeguard (OP 4.04) due to the possible impacts of infrastructure on such environments, as well as the international waterways safeguard (OP 7.50) and the projects in disputed areas safeguard (OP 7.60) due to potential investments in disputed waters. However, according to the ESA, no natural habitats will be affected by Program investments, so the safeguard (OP 4.04) is no longer triggered. Similarly, the Program is not investing in marine fish resources in shared or disputed waters, so these safeguards (OP 7.50 and OP 7.60) are not triggered. 101. The Environmental Management Plan, the Resettlement Policy Framework and the Resettlement Process Framework for the Program will be annexed to the Governments’ Operational Manuals, so that these instruments can be utilized as the main vehicles for communicating the safeguards requirements of activities financed by the Program.

30

102. The first drafts of the ESA and the regional Process Framework were made available to the World Bank by the CSRP on June 10, 2009 and June 15, 2009 respectively, and to the InfoShop on June 25, 2009. The first draft of the Resettlement Policy Framework was made available to the World Bank by the CSRP on June 26, 2009, and to the Infoshop on July 1, 2009. G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 103. No policy exceptions are requested. In terms of project readiness, key staff are currently in place in the CSRP to support each country to complete detailed operational manuals by effectiveness, and to recruit the key positions in each PIU. A preparation steering committee in each country is already in place, and would be established for the period of implementation as well, beginning by validating the operational manuals and work programs to launch the project in each country, by effectiveness.

31

Annex 1: Country and Sector Program Background

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program 1. Regional Context. Coastal West Africa, from Mauritania to Ghana, is the westernmost region of the continent and home to a growing population of almost 300 million. With the exception of Mauritania, all of these countries are members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The region includes a wide range of countries at varying stages of economic development, five of whom have a per capita GDP below US$1,000 (Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Sierra Leone), and several of whom are emerging from conflicts within the last ten years. Political instability and poverty are widespread throughout this coastal region, and the economy in almost every country is heavily dependent on natural resources. 2. Sector Importance. Due to exceptional climatic and ecological conditions, the coastal countries of West Africa are endowed with some of the richest fishing grounds in the world.4 The marine fish stocks in these waters constitute a significant natural asset for the countries of West Africa, which is transboundary in nature (as both fish stocks and fishing fleets routinely migrate across national borders). More specifically, over 1.6 million tons of fish are legally captured in West African waters each year, with an estimated wholesale value of US$2.5 billion. Given the size of this asset, the marine fish resources off the coast of West Africa play a role in the culture, lives and economy of the population as large as any of the other natural resources in the region. 3. This valuable natural asset is likely to remain over the near to medium term as one of the main components of economic growth in the region. For example, fisheries currently represent up to 10 percent of national GDP in some countries (Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, and until recently Mauritania) and up to 25 to 30 percent of export revenues in Senegal. Fisheries provide between 10 to 30 percent of public revenues in several countries (Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea), and the sector directly and indirectly employs over 3 million people in the region, including almost 10 percent of the population in Ghana and Sierra Leone, 17 percent of the working population in Senegal and roughly 10 percent of the working population in Cape Verde. Fish also provide up to 50 percent of total animal protein intake for the region’s population (although this figure is much higher in countries such as Ghana and Sierra Leone). Table 1. Importance of the Fisheries Sector in West Africa

Country Annual Reported Fish Catch (tons)

Contribution to GDP (%)

Employment (direct & indirect)

Contribution to Gov. Revenues (%)

Contribution to Total Export Revenues (%)

Contribution to Animal Protein Intake (%)

Mauritania 680,000 6.0 39,000 27 33 N/A Senegal 368,000 4.9 600,000 N/A 37 70 Gambia 33,000 4.0 6,000 7 N/A 40 – 50 Guinea-Bissau N/A 7 - 10 15,000 40 N/A N/A Guinea 94,000 6.0 112,000 N/A 10 - 30 40 Cape Verde 10,000 4.0 18,000 N/A N/A N/A Sierra Leone 134,000 9.4 230,000 N/A N/A 80 Liberia 15,000 3.2 33,000 N/A N/A N/A

Ghana 290,000 4.5 2,200,000 N/A N/A 60 TOTAL 1,624,000 3,253,000

Sources: World Bank Mauritania ESW (2008), World Bank Senegal ESW (2005), FAO Governance Study for Component 1 (2009), MRAG Estimation of the Cost of Illegal Fishing in West Africa (2009).

4 These conditions include a strong upwelling current in the north (where deeper, colder and more nutrient-rich water flows to

the surface), the presence of canyons that enhance the upwelling effect, large continental plateau with rich rocky habitats, and numerous estuaries and mangroves that provide natural refuges and spawning grounds.

32

4. Of the coastal countries of West Africa, Senegal, Ghana and Mauritania are by far the leading producers of marine fish resources in the region. Senegal is in fact one of the oldest fishing nations in West Africa, and its coastal communities have been involved in marine fisheries for centuries, developing a strong culture of fishing. The country has a powerful small-scale fleet that has proven its capacity for economic and technological adaptation in recent decades. Fishing and associated activities such as processing, marketing, services and other part-time activities together are estimated to provide more than 600,000 jobs in Senegal (accounting for 17 percent of the labor force, and 10 percent of the rural population). In addition to livelihoods, the fisheries in Senegal make an extremely significant contribution to food security, constituting some 70 percent of animal protein consumption in the country, as estimated annual per capita fish consumption is 26 kilograms - well above the world average of 16 kilograms and representing one of the world’s biggest fish consumers on a per capita basis. In terms of the country’s economy, between 1997 and 2002 the fisheries sector accounted for about 2.3 percent of the country’s GDP and 12.5 percent of the primary sector’s GDP (i.e. approximately US$714 million in gross production value generating an added value of about US$476 million), although recent numbers show this contribution to be even higher, close to 5 percent of GDP. Fish products also account for some 32 percent of the country’s exports by volume, and roughly 37 percent of the total export value (equivalent to roughly US$250 million). In summary, marine fisheries play a critical role in the economy in Senegal, in terms of contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange, food security and livelihoods. While fish resources in Senegal were historically exploited well below maximum sustainable levels, fleet expansion and the use of increasingly efficient fishing gear has caused fishing pressures to far exceed sustainable levels since the early 1990s. As a result, resources of bottom-dwelling (demersal) species, cephalopods and shrimp have declined substantially, in some cases to levels that may cause the complete disappearance of these species. Substantially reduced catches per vessel and high energy costs have caused virtually all Senegalese fisheries to currently suffer from negative economic returns. 5. In terms of the use of the marine fish resources, Mauritania is in a different position to that of Senegal. Demand for food fish among the population is far smaller, and the level of local employment in fishing is relatively low. Lacking a small-scale fleet and a tradition of fishing similar to its southern neighbor, Mauritania has primarily concentrated on maximizing the contribution of the sector to public revenues, and to adding value to fish once they are caught. The country has been extremely successful in this regard, and the sector has consistently represented close to 10 percent of its GDP, half of its exports and a third of its annual public revenues. Some 680,000 tons of fish are caught in Mauritania’s waters annually, but almost 95 percent is taken by foreign fleets. While overfishing levels have not yet led to the steep resource declines seen in Senegal, key species (cephalopods, selected demersal species) in Mauritania are over-exploited, and their economic returns are well below their potential. Small pelagic resources are likely also over-exploited. A large fleet of Senegalese pirogues operates in Mauritania facilitated by a bilateral fisheries agreement. 6. Despite its small size and smaller coastline (only 70 km long), the Gambia enjoys considerable marine fish resources that benefit from the flow of fresh water into the Gambia river estuary, which attracts marine species for feeding and reproduction. Although national fish production remains low (roughly 33,000 tons annually), fish remains a key staple of the Gambian diet. With an annual per capita consumption of 26 kilograms, demand for food fish in the Gambia is significantly above the world average and similar to levels in Senegal. 7. The level of fish production and the health of the resource base in Guinea-Bissau are difficult to assess, due to an almost complete lack of information and monitoring. Past estimates have suggested significant levels of potential fish production (roughly several thousand tons for shrimp, between 15,000 and 30,000 tons for bottom-dwelling or demersal species, and over 100,000 tons for small migratory or pelagic species annually). Currently, most of the fish caught in Guinea-Bissau’s waters is taken by foreign vessels that do not land it locally, both by industrial vessels from Europe and Asia as well as small-scale

33

vessels from throughout West Africa (particularly Senegal). With the exception of some communities in the Bijagos Archipelago, most of the population has little tradition of fishing, so the country has employed a strategy of selling access to its fish resources in order to raise badly-needed public revenues. The Government has negotiated official fisheries agreements with, among others, the European Union, Senegal, China and Côte d’Ivoire. Fees from these agreements and license sales for access to the fisheries generally provide anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of the Government’s annual budget. 8. Fishing in Guinea historically developed under the influence of small-scale foreign fleets, particularly from Senegal and Ghana. Although local Guinean communities gradually turned to fishing over time, the sector currently remains dominated by fishers from Ghana, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Liberia. This mix of foreign fishers from neighboring countries demonstrates the strategic position of Guinean fisheries, at the crossroads to the Gulf of Guinea and the countries of the Sahelian upwelling current. Potential Guinean fish production is relatively high, with stocks of migratory small pelagic resources varying between 50,000 and 200,000 tons annually, and estimated stocks of shrimp of between 2,000 and 4,000 tons, and stocks of cephalopods (e.g. octopus) between 5,000 and 12,000 tons. The actual current production level is difficult to estimate given the lack of reliable data and information, but is likely on the order of 94,000 tons annually. Although the overexploitation of the marine fish resources in Guinea is probably not as high as in Guinea-Bissau, it is nevertheless considerable – both in terms of volume and value. Similarly, exports are relatively low. For example, although the stocks of demersal species are estimated at roughly one third of the size of those in Senegal, the contribution of Guinean fish exports is over 100 times smaller than that of Senegalese exports. Through fisheries agreements, the sale of licenses, fines and property rental, etc., fisheries have often been the second largest source of public revenue in Guinea, after the mining sector. 9. Cape Verde is characterized by its narrow continental shelf and the depth of its waters. This explains why seasonal and migrating tuna stocks represent a significant portion of the current and potential fish catch in the country. This stock particularly attracts the interest of foreign fishers, with 112 ships – over 90 percent of which belong to the European Union – authorized to fish in the country’s waters in 2002. One of the major constraints on the operation of foreign vessels nevertheless remains the lack of control and surveillance of fisheries activities. Barely 10 percent of the foreign vessels operating in Cape Verdean waters declare the catches they make. Cape Verdean fishing also plays an important role in terms of food security given that annual fish consumption stands at 23 kg/year/person. Furthermore, for many rural populations in the islands, fishing is the only source of livelihood. In terms of the resource base, the country’s modest resources of demersal species, including lobster are likely over-exploited. 10. Sierra Leone has a long tradition of fishing, as evidenced by the presence of Sierra Leonean fishers off the coasts of many neighboring countries, particularly in Guinea. The civil war in fact reinforced the tendency for Sierra Leonean fishers to operate outside the country. The industrial fleet is made up of several trawlers that are owned nationally or chartered, as well as a foreign fleet established under different joint companies that target a variety of fish stocks. The local small-scale fleet includes some 30,000 fishers, who produce 70 percent of the fish consumed locally. The sector currently contributes almost 10 percent of the country’s GDP, and provides direct and indirect employment for some 230,000 people. 11. Fisheries in Liberia present similar characteristics to those in Sierra Leone. The resources have the potential to make a significant contribution to local economic growth. Although Liberia has a wide continental shelf whose sustainable potential was estimated before the war at roughly 180,000 tons of fish annually, national production currently does not exceed 15,000 tons per year. Furthermore, although per capita fish consumption is relatively low, given the losses to farming and livestock that occurred during the conflict, fish currently contributes to the animal protein needs of an estimated 80 percent of the

34

population. Liberia may be the only country in the region that can boast of relatively healthy fish stocks, despite reported high levels of illegal fishing. 12. Alternatively, Ghana has long been one of the main fishing countries in West Africa, with one of the two most experienced and developed small-scale fleets (along with Senegal). Annual fish production from Ghanaian waters totals roughly 290,000 tons, two thirds of which is taken by the local small-scale fishing fleet. The country imports an additional 200,000 tons annually, which – given the relatively low level of its exports (reaching a maximum of 50,000 tons) – makes it the largest consumer of fish in West Africa, at 29.7 kilograms per year, per person. In addition to forming a major component of Ghanaian food security (providing two thirds of Ghanaian animal protein needs), marine fish resources also serve as a considerable source of employment. The number of fishers engaged in marine fishing activities is estimated at 150,000, with almost 500,000 related jobs (processors, wholesale fish merchants, etc.). Furthermore, the number of people making a living from fishing activities is estimated at over 2 million. Along with Senegal, Ghana likely has the most heavily overfished, and depleted, marine fish resource base in the region. 13. In summary, the coastal countries in West Africa have a valuable renewable natural asset in their marine fish resources. Such renewable natural assets are a true gift of nature because they can potentially supply a sustainable source of benefits that can be reinvested to grow the value of the country’s capital and therefore wealth. Because the value of an asset is the value of both current and future benefits it can provide in an assumed lifetime, taking a greater amount of benefits from a renewable natural asset now than it can sustain will reduce the future stream of benefits from that asset, and thus its present value. Essentially, one is robbing the future to pay the present, by ‘mining’ the resources in the short-term as so many West African countries are currently doing with their fisheries. The value of renewable natural assets is therefore linked to their environmental well-being, where increases in sustainability lead to higher values and conversely a reduction in asset value may reflect resource degradation. For this reason, in many developing countries a key economic growth strategy is to sustainably increase the value of the natural assets and the portion of that value that stays within the country (i.e. is not captured by foreign operators) and is invested in produced and intangible capital growth. 14. Pursuing such a growth strategy has been a challenge (and a missed opportunity) for countries around the world, as highlighted in 2009 by a World Bank study of the global value of the marine fisheries asset, entitled The Sunken Billions: the Economic Justification for Fishing Reform. This study showed that the difference between the potential and actual net economic benefits from the world’s marine fisheries is about US$50 billion per year, or some US$2 trillion over the last three decades. The study concluded that if fish stocks were rebuilt, the current marine catch could be achieved with approximately half of the global fishing effort, demonstrating both the clear need, and reiterating the economic rationale for strengthened governance of the fisheries. These studies, Where is the Wealth of Nations? and The Sunken Billions, as well as the World Bank’s Fisheries Approach Paper, Saving Fish and Fishers (2004), provide a clear rationale for World Bank investment in the sustainable management of this natural capital asset in West Africa.

35

Box 1. Fisheries 101: The Economic Rationale for Fishing at Environmentally Sustainable Levels Marine fish resources: a natural asset. A country’s marine fisheries resources can be considered as a capital asset, which consists of the aggregate of the individual or discrete fish populations or ‘stocks’ (including marine fish resources such as crustaceans, cephalopods, etc., that are not necessarily fish) that can be found in that country’s national waters. Basis of economic values from a marine fisheries asset. The economic values to a country of its marine fisheries asset are derived from the fish that can actually be caught from the stocks present in the country’s waters. Because fish stocks reproduce and thus regenerate, this is a renewable natural asset. Of course a country’s fish stocks could in theory be entirely captured (i.e. ‘mined’) in a short period and thereby wiped out, although such an approach would for some species be technologically and economically quite difficult to complete. For others it would provide an immediate gain but would prevent any possibilities for long-term revenues from the asset. Since assets are measured as the present value of future consumption, this would in fact reduce the value of the marine fisheries asset. However, it is possible to catch an amount of fish small enough to allow the stocks to periodically regenerate to previous levels, i.e. sustainable fishing. From a biological point of view, sustainable fishing involves skimming off the growth of the fish stock, or what marine biologists call the “surplus production”. Essentially, this growth can be considered as the amount of fish from a given fish stock that if captured, would allow for enough individuals to remain and reproduce to regenerate the stock to the previous level – given the mortality of some fish due to natural disasters or destruction of their habitat, as well as net migration of fish into that environment or ecosystem. The maximum amount of fish from a given fish stock that can be captured and still allow the stock to reproduce and regenerate to the previous level is called the maximum sustainable yield, or MSY. Although this concept of MSY ignores the impact and risks of future environmental and other fluctuations and events, as well as economic variables, it has been most frequently been used for resource management purposes for over 50 years. Measuring the economic value of a country’s marine fisheries asset. The economic value of a country’s marine fisheries asset is often measured by the present value of the resource rents from the various fish stocks found within its waters. The concept of resource rent is based on Ricardo’s theory of land rents, whereby a natural resource is in fixed supply and thus the owner can charge a rent for its use. The rents constitute pure profit, since the recipient already owns the resource and has no additional investments to make (the profits are extracted from the efforts of the users). Thus, since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives Governments around the world jurisdiction over the marine fish resources in their waters, they already own a natural resource in fixed supply, whose use (capturing fish stocks) will generate pure profits above the cost of capital, i.e. resource rents. The value of a marine fisheries asset can therefore be measured as the present value of the resource rents generated by the use of the resources, i.e. the pure profits from fishing. Fisheries resource rents, and hence the value of a marine fisheries asset, are however, not maximized by capturing amounts of fish at or near the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in a country, but rather at a smaller amount. The MSY from a country’s fish stocks is the maximum production levels possible, but not the maximum profit levels – these are achieved at lower production levels. This is because the positive difference between fish catch levels and the costs of fishing (including the cost of capital or normal rates of profit) is always reached below the maximum production levels, i.e. MSY. The amount of fish caught from a given stock that yields the maximum profit levels and hence the maximum resource rents (i.e. the greatest surplus benefits available for reinvestment into other assets and wealth creation), is called the maximum economic yield (MEY). Trends in the economic value of countries’ marine fisheries assets. Over the last 50 years, the history of Governments’ attempts to manage fisheries has shown a familiar pattern around the world: a boom-and-bust cycle where rapid development and investment led to strong growth in catches and returns, as well as the number of fishers and fishing capacity. Then as the fisheries continued to grow in an uncontrolled environment beyond what the fish stocks and resource base could sustain (beyond both MEY and MSY), the resources started to decline, bringing down catch and growth rates. Recent global models of the status of marine fish resources* show that in almost every scenario modeled, the size of the fish stock was greater at MEY than at MSY, illustrating that profits and economic returns were greater at lower quantities of production, and diminished as fisheries approached the maximum production levels (MSY) – even at discount levels as high as 25 percent. Most marine fish resources around the world have been overexploited past levels that would generate the maximum contribution to wealth or economic growth. According to the models, the more overexploited the fishery, the greater the economic gains from reducing fishing effort and rebuilding the resource base (as harvesting costs rise at an increasing rate with declines in fish stocks). Similarly, a World Bank report in 2009, estimated that global annual losses as a result of overexploited fisheries totaled over US$50 billion. The economic rationale for fishing at environmentally sustainable levels. The recent models imply a win-win scenario both environmentally and economically: conservation promotes both larger fish stocks and higher profits. As long as the current size of the resource base (i.e. biomass of the fish stocks) is overexploited to levels that cannot produce MEY, there is no debate that reducing fishing effort and harvest is economically advantageous, the only question is how much and how fast. The latter depends on how fast the resource base can be rebuilt with reductions in fishing effort and harvests: for fast-growing species rebuilding the resource base to levels that can promote the MEY may only take a relatively short time, but for very slow-growing fish it may take decades. For this reason, even though there is much greater wealth and economic growth generated for a country by the marine fisheries asset over the long-term when fishing effort and harvests are reduced to levels that allow the resource to rebuild enough to support the MEY, there are significant financial, political and social transition costs in the short-term. This is the rationale for public financing and support to assist the resource users and stakeholders to reduce fishing effort to levels closer to MEY. This is also the rationale for providing the resource users and stakeholders with incentives to make this transition in the form of output-based fishing rights that can provide them with the security that they will reap the benefits of the rebuilding of the resource base, even as they are paying the costs. *Grafton et al. (2007) Economics of Overexploitation Revisited. Science, Vol. 318, December 7, 2007.

36

13. Key Sector Issues and Institutional Constraints. Despite the cultural and economic importance of West Africa’s marine fish resources, this natural asset is heavily underperforming, and could make a much greater contribution to economic growth and poverty alleviation if better managed. As mentioned previously, some 1.6 million tons of fish are legally captured in West African waters each year, with an estimated wholesale value of US$2.5 billion. However, the marine fish resources are currently generating far lower returns for the region than would be expected, because:

(i) the size of the asset is dwindling, due to both (a) insufficient capacity in the countries to govern and manage the use of the resources to sustainable levels and to prevent their overexploitation, and in particular (b) the inability of countries to prevent illegal fishing (essentially the theft of the resources), and

(ii) the resources are largely taken in an offshore economy by foreign or industrial vessels who rarely land their fish catch in the region or participate in the local economy, so that the countries only capture a fraction of their value.

Given this situation, an estimated additional US$300 million in annual value-added could likely be created in West Africa with better governance and management of the fisheries, as well as greater local investment. 14. First constraint: lack of capacity to govern and manage the resource sustainably, and prevent overexploitation. The ocean is the last part of the world where man acts as a hunter-gatherer. Perhaps more than any other natural resource, in the case of fish stocks Governments manage the use of the resource in the public space of the ocean. Despite varying levels of capacity and investment to date, coastal countries in West Africa have uniformly been unable to sufficiently manage the use of the resources to levels that are both profitable and environmentally sustainable. Many Governments simply lack the basic tools needed to control access to, and use of, the marine fish resources (for example, basic registration of legal fishing vessels, transparency in sale of fishing licenses, monitoring of fishing catch and effort, statistical capacity and information to track resource use). More crucially, several Governments have not adopted policies and regulations necessary to control resource use to both sustainable and profitable levels, or have conflicting policies in place (such as fishing fuel subsidies). 15. With Governments throughout the region unable to control who and how many users can have access to the fish resources, essentially rendering them common property resources subject to the tragedy of the commons, both global and local forces are driving increasing fishing pressure on them. Global and regional demand for food fish has consistently exceeded supply over the last two decades (and is only projected to continue to do so), providing high prices that have driven international fleets to West African waters. At the same time, the local realities for coastal communities in much of West Africa are such that few alternative employment opportunities exist to fishing as employment in agriculture declines, driving the entry and development of more and more local fleets. 16. Second constraint: inability to prevent illegal fishing. In addition to poor governance and management of the legal use of the resources, widespread illegal fishing is perhaps the second largest constraint to the marine fisheries asset making a greater contribution to economic growth and poverty reduction in the region. All of the countries in the region already have some form of fisheries legislation

Box 2. The legal basis of marine fisheries, i.e. how these resources became a natural asset for countries The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994, is essentially a “constitution for the sea”, which gives each coastal country around the world the right to exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources, including fish, to be found in the waters or on the ocean floor and in the subsoil of an area extending 200 nautical miles from its shore (i.e. the exclusive economic zone or EEZ). From this starting point, suddenly many coastal countries around the world were legally endowed with significant areas of the sea containing valuable fish resources that could be used to provide benefits for the populations, much as other natural assets already did. Since no one individual or company owned the marine fisheries asset, Governments have since managed the use of this asset on behalf of their people.

37

and legal framework governing the use of their marine fish resources, and in almost all cases (with a notable exception in Mauritania and to some extent Senegal), these rules are not being respected. As such, there are essentially three types of illegal fishing prevalent in West Africa right now: (i) unauthorized vessels fishing in a country’s waters, essentially entering its waters and stealing fish, (ii) authorized vessels that use unauthorized or illegal fishing gear or methods, such as nets that have meshes that are too small and capture juvenile fish before they can reproduce, thereby reducing the overall resource base at a cost to the country, and (iii) authorized vessels that fish in restricted areas or seasons, such as trawling in sensitive inshore nursery and spawning areas that are protected so the stocks can grow and replenish. 17. Many countries in the region simply do not have the means to control what happens in their waters, or prevent vessels from fishing illegally, and essentially stealing the resources. Numerous foreign industrial vessels and fleets roam the waters of West Africa, going from country to country and taking fish from the water without legally registering or paying for the access to do so. Furthermore, many of these vessels never land their fish in the region and contribute to local processing jobs and revenues for West Africa, but rather freeze their catch onboard the vessels and take the fish abroad. Perhaps surprisingly, in addition to the roving foreign industrial fleets, the other two main sources of illegal fishing in West Africa are local: the Senegalese and Ghanaian small-scale fishing fleet, both of which have long outgrown the overexploited resources in their countries’ waters and move throughout the region in large wooden canoes with ice boxes and outboard motors (along with Sierra Leonean and Guinean small-scale fleets, to a much lesser extent). A recent study estimated that the amount of fish caught illegally is almost as high as the amount of fish caught legally in some countries, for example in Guinea (and likely Liberia, although no data exist). Similarly, the illegal catch in Guinea-Bissau was estimated to be equivalent to roughly 40 percent of the legal catch, and 35 percent in Sierra Leone. Estimates vary, but the costs of this illegal fishing to West Africa are on the order of US$100 million or more annually, in lost revenue and local value added. In addition, the marine environment and fish resources are damaged as a result of illegal fishing (in many cases foreign unlicensed trawlers) which may take years to recover and rebuild. Regional collaboration to stop this leakage of value and loss of resources is not only required, but can help reduce costs. Countries need significant investments in surveillance and enforcement, but in a way that ensures up front that they can sustain the high operating costs of such investments.

Externalindustrial

Figure 1. Flow of Illegal Fish Catch in West Africa (Black = small scale catches; Red = industrial catches); Source: MRAG, 2009

38

18. Of course in the current context in West Africa and the targeted countries, efforts to reduce illegal fishing will produce ‘winners and losers’. Foreign fishing companies are generating large profits from illegal fishing in West Africa’s waters (which greatly reduces costs), and in many cases this includes local companies that act as joint ventures, as well as mid-level civil servants that help facilitate the process. Southeast Asian companies in particular have had a long fishing presence in West Africa, sending aging (sometimes more than 30 years old) trawlers to fish in illegal zones, or without licenses, causing significant damage to the resource base and large losses to the local economy as mentioned above. The local companies that act as joint ventures to facilitate these foreign operators are highly influential in countries like Ghana, Sierra Leone and Liberia. In contrast, the Governments of many West African countries are losing a tremendous amount of money to illegal fishing, and local small-scale fisheries are not only in competition with these vessels (causing many conflicts in Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and Liberia for example, when industrial trawl vessels fish in zones reserved for small-scale vessels), but also incur losses as a result of the destruction of the resource base. In summary, in many of the countries of West Africa (such as Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia), foreign fishing companies and local joint venture companies, as well as some mid-level civil servants, stand to lose from a reduction of illegal fishing. Conversely, in these same countries, Government treasuries, local small-scale fishing industries and coastal communities all stand to gain from such a reduction, as well as any fishing vessels that remain and fish legally, and therefore benefit from a subsequent increase in the resource base and profitability. 19. Third constraint: failure to add value locally to the fish caught in West African waters. As mentioned previously, much of the fishing activity in West Africa’s waters functions as an offshore economy that provides little to no value locally in the region, as vessels pay a fee to the Governments to access the waters (or simply do so illegally with no fee payment), catch the fish and freeze it on board, and then land it at a foreign port for processing and export. Many of the countries simply lack the basic fish landing and food safety control infrastructure to support greater local fish processing and/or export industries. For example, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia all lack the basic port infrastructure to support significant industrial vessels to land their fish, and almost all countries in the region lack the adequate infrastructure to provide the necessary support to small-scale fish landings (either to process landed fish for local consumption or for exports). Furthermore, at least one third of the nine participating countries do not have a sanitary authority certified to export to the European markets. Perhaps most crucially, in addition to the constraints from a lack of infrastructure needed to support greater landing and processing of fish catch, those local processing companies that do exist, both for fish product exports and the much larger artisanal processing industries, are severely constrained by a decline of raw material, often due to overexploitation of the resources. The lack of sustainable and transparent governance regimes for the use of the resources and therefore the assurance of stable supplies has likely constrained private sector investment in fish processing in several countries in the region. 20. Results in West Africa of these three constraints on the use of the region’s marine fisheries asset. The result of the three constraints mentioned above is that size of West Africa’s marine fisheries asset is much smaller than it should be, and the majority of the value of even this reduced asset leaves the region. Due to the inability of Governments throughout the region to control the use of the marine fisheries resources, and the lack of means to prevent illegal fishing, the most valuable fish stocks in West African waters are overexploited and in some cases heavily depleted. Fishing pressure (and costs) has increased throughout the region while catches (and revenues) have remained stagnant and in many cases decreased. For example, according to recent studies by the University of British Columbia, fishing activity has tripled since the mid-1970s along the West African coast while the catch of high-value demersal species has remained the same at 2 million tons. By 2002 the demersal stocks in the region had been reduced to a quarter of their levels in 1950. According to FAO, the state of the key fish stocks in West Africa is as follows:

39

Table 2. Fully and Over-Exploited Fish Stocks in West Africa, according to FAO (English translation)

Ghana Liberia Sierra Leone

Guinea Gambia Senegal Mauritania

Fully Exploited

Coastal Demersals

Pelon (Bigeye grunt), Otolith (Croakers), Crevette (Coastal shrimp)

Dorades divers (Grunts), Petit capitaine (Small African threadfin), Machoiron (Catfish), Crevette (Coastal shrimp), Otolith (Croakers),

Dorades divers (Grunts), Petit capitaine (Small African threadfin), Machoiron (Catfish), Otolith (Croakers),

Dorades divers (Grunts), Petit capitaine (Small African threadfin), Machoiron (Catfish), Otolith (Croakers),

Dentex, Machoiron (Catfish), Otolith (Croakers),

Dentex, Machoiron (Catfish), Otolith (Croakers), Rouget (West African goatfish), Soles

Dentex, Crevettes (Coastal shrimp)

Coastal Pelagics

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Anchois (Anchovy),

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Chinchard juane (False scad), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Chinchard juane (False scad), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Chinchard juane (False scad), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Macquerau (Mackerels), Anchois (Anchovy), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Macquerau (Mackerels), Anchois (Anchovy), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Macquerau (Mackerels), Anchois (Anchovy), Ethmalose (Bonga shad)

Over Exploited

Coastal Demersals

Petit capitaine (Small African threadfin), Dentex, Pageot (Red pandoras), Poulpe (Octopus), Seiche (Cuttlefish)

Carpe blanche (Grunt)

Carpe blanche (Grunt)

Carpe blanche (Grunt), Crevette (Coastal shrimp), Seiche (Cuttlefish)

Pageot (Red pandoras), Pagre (Seabreams), Thiof (White grouper), Crevette (Coastal shrimp), Poulpe (Octopus), Seiche (Cuttlefish)

Pageot (Red pandoras), Pagre (Seabreams), Thiof (White grouper), Crevette (Coastal shrimp), Poulpe (Octopus), Seiche (Cuttlefish), Yeet (Cymbium)

Pageot (Red pandoras), Pagre (Seabreams), Thiof (White grouper), (Octopus), Seiche (Cuttlefish),

Coastal Pelagics

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Chinchard noir (Cunene horse mackerel), Chinchard juane (False scad), Macquerau (Mackerels)

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Mackerels, sharks

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Anchois (Anchovy), Requins (Sharks)

Sardinelle plate (Madeiran sardinella), Requins (Sharks)

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Requins (Sharks)

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Requins (Sharks)

Sardinelle ronde (Round sardinella), Chinchuard blanc (Atlantic horse mackerel), Requins (Sharks)

40

21. At the same time, most of the fish caught in the region is taken in essentially an offshore economy that provides little to no local value added to the region - of the US$2.5 billion in fish caught legally in West African waters, almost 60 percent is taken by foreign vessels, and generates only some US$500 million in value added to the local economy (20 percent). In summary, the marine fisheries asset is heavily underperforming for the coastal countries of West Africa as a result of the constraints mentioned above.

22. Regional collaboration is needed. Given the nature of the marine fish resources in West Africa, as a r egional public good where both fish and fishers routinely cross national borders, the countries will only be able to address the constraints above and sustainably increase the contribution of this asset to l ocal e conomic g rowth, t hrough r egional c ollaboration. Th roughout W est A frica, a lthough t he character o f t he f ish re sources may differ a nd t he l evel o f d evelopment o f t he f isheries va ries b y country, t he t hree c onstraints m entioned ab ove ar e t he s ame, an d s hared ac ross bor ders. A s t he capacity of t his n atural capital as set t o c ontinue t o pr ovide these s ocial and e conomic be nefits diminishes w ith th eir o verexploitation, p articularly a fter s everal d ecades o r r elatively u ncontrolled access t o t he reso urces a nd g rowing illegal fis hing a ctivities, th e c ountries in creasingly s hare th e concern of ensuring the sustainability of the resources and generating greater returns from their use over the long-term.

Box 3. Dwindling Size of the Marine Fisheries Asset in West Africa: the case of Senegal. No country in West Africa provides a better example of resource overexploitation than Senegal, where access to the fisheries for small-scale vessels is essentially uncontrolled. In Senegal, fisheries production rose steadily until 1985, when catches began to level off and landings began to decline. Since then, small-scale fishing effort has continued to increase, although the number of industrial vessels initially remained stable and has recently begun to decline. Essentially, these small-scale vessels have continued to proliferate even as fish stocks and catches have declined, due in part to rising world prices and demand for food fish which helped offset declining catch rates, and by vessels going farther and farther up and down the coast of West Africa in search of fish, or constantly replacing overfished higher value species for lower value ones (i.e. ‘fishing down the food chain’).

The result of this uncontrolled growth in the small-scale fisheries is that many of the highest value coastal demersal stocks have been severely depleted and are now in rapid decline throughout the country. As Senegal’s coastal demersal fish stocks become increasingly overfished and as the degradation of the marine ecosystems on which they depend becomes more severe, the small-scale fishery that relies on them will probably continue to migrate to neighbouring waters, with the West African countries incurring higher costs and making less profit. For all these reasons, a 2004 World Bank sectoral study (ESW) concluded that Senegal’s coastal demersal fish stocks and the small-scale fisheries that depend on them are facing a crisis. Already, some estimates show that more than 30 percent of the coastal demersal species landed in Senegal by small-scale fishers are caught outside of the country’s waters. Furthermore, as many as 2,000 Senegalese pirogues are now estimated to be fishing in the waters of neighbouring Guinea-Bissau at any given moment. Senegal’s small-scale fishers are among the most dynamic in West Africa and this fishery has now become an important cross-border activity, with environmental and economic implications for neighbouring countries such as The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Guinea, as well as social concerns and increasing conflicts between local and Senegalese fishers as well as fisheries authorities. The impacts of the overexploitation of Senegal’s coastal fisheries on rural poverty in the country, as well as food security and macro-economic growth are significant. The resource base for the fisheries which account for roughly a quarter of the volume of fish caught in the country and 50 percent of the value of fish exports, is heavily overfished and facing a collapse. As this resource declines, the costs for the thousands of small-scale and often rural fishers to continue to participate in the sector will only increase, and the costs of relocating or shifting into new careers will certainly have profound social impacts along the coast, as will the reduction in one of the country’s largest exports. These social impacts can already be seen in the numbers of Senegalese fishers participating in the growing immigration of West African citizens to Spain and Europe by sea.

41

23. Regional and Government Responses to Key Sector Issues and Constraints. The Governments of the coastal countries of West Africa have widely recognized the important contribution by the marine fish resources to economic growth, foreign exchange earnings, public revenues, employment and food security. As such, the countries increasingly share the common concern of ensuring the sustainability of the resources and generating greater returns from their use over the long-term, as well as increasing the portion of those returns that are captured locally. This concern is reflected in each of the country’s macroeconomic policies and strategies. For example, in many of the recent Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) in the region, the fisheries sector has been listed as a key driver of economic growth in terms of wealth creation (e.g. Senegal, Cape Verde), a key source of public sector revenues (e.g. Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau), or a vital contributor to national food security. 24. In terms of the key sector issues and constraints, almost all of the Governments have elaborated them as the analytical basis for national sector plans and policies. These sector policies are listed in the table below:

Country National Plan / Policy for Fisheries

Mauritania Sustainable Development Strategy for the Fisheries Sector and Maritime Economy (2006-2008).

Senegal 2008 Fisheries Sector Letter of Policy (LPS), with Action Plan for Implementation

Cape Verde 2008 Fisheries Strategy (financed by the World Bank)

Guinea Bissau 2009 Fisheries Development Strategic Plan (in draft)

Sierra Leone 2007 Fisheries Sector Strategy Paper (financed by DfID)

Ghana 2009 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (in draft)

Liberia 2009 Fisheries Act (draft legislation) 25. The above national policies and strategies all place an emphasis on sustainable management of the marine fish resources, and achieving an optimal contribution of the sector to economic growth and poverty reduction (notably to food security in many cases). Although starting from very different circumstances in each case, in order to respond to the challenges facing the marine fisheries sector as well as to help it achieve the economic potential noted in the PRSPs, the Governments have articulated strategies with a common approach: (i) build the capacity for governance and management of the sector, (ii) combat and reduce illegal fishing, and (iii) increase local landings and value added of fish products. 26. The countries also recognize, at the highest political level, that due to the shared nature of the resources, they need to collaborate at the regional level in order to reach these objectives. The seven coastal countries from Mauritania to Sierra Leone have clearly expressed their interest in such a regional approach through their participation and commitment to the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches - CSRP), and the implementation of its Strategic Action Plan (Plan d’Action Stratégique 2002-2010). The sub-regional fisheries commission (CSRP) is an intergovernmental organization created on March 29, 1985 by means of a convention. The seven member states of the CSRP adopted a Strategic Action Plan for fisheries that focuses in particular on strengthening resource management and increased monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) activities to reduce illegal fishing. 27. In terms of the national legislation concerning illegal fishing fishing, regulations vary across the nine countries. In terms of the countries included in APL-A, all four participating countries have adopted

42

legislation on illegal fishing and MCS activities, although its level of detail and actual enforcement varies widely from country to country. 5 However, the existing legal framework in the four countries is likely to change in the near future, as new draft fisheries legislation is being proposed in Senegal and Liberia (on which the Bank will have the opportunity to provide comments). The definition of “illegal fishing” or “illegal fishing practices” comprises a number of different practices defined in the fisheries laws of the four countries (e.g., fishing without a license, fishing in prohibited areas or using illegal nets or other tools, etc.). The specific typology of illegal conducts penalized by each of the laws varies from country to country. As far as the four countries participating in APL-A are concerned, in most countries (e.g., Senegal and Cape Verde) sanctions for illegal fishing practices normally take the form of fines or confiscations (as opposed to imprisonment). However, in Sierra Leone some fishing infringements (e.g., fishing for marine mammals in the fishery waters or fishing in the inshore exclusion zone) are sanctioned with imprisonment up to 2 (and in some extreme cases 5 years), and limited prison (up to 6 months) is also contemplated in Liberia for the use of dynamiting to capture fish. Finally, the draft law in Liberia provides for imprisonment up to 10 years for illegal fishing practices. 28. From the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS), States have the duty, according to international law, to ensure compliance with and enforcement of both national and international conservation and management measures and to establish effective mechanisms to monitor and control the activities of fishing vessels in waters under national jurisdiction and on the high seas. According to UNCLOS, coastal states can arrest foreign vessels that infringe upon fishing regulations within their 12 nautical-mile territorial waters or 200 nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), but they must release the crew upon posting of reasonable bond or other security. Since the fisheries inspectors in each coastal state have a degree of discretion in determining whether an infraction has been committed, it is key that national legislations meet basic due process requirements, in particular regarding access to the judicial system. Currently, in the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone, the legislation allows for arrest of vessels, but does not clearly specify the due process for release. 29. Development Hypothesis for Bank Involvement in the Sector. The Program’s development hypothesis is that West Africa’s marine fish stocks are a natural asset that can provide significantly larger returns to the region’s economy over the long-term, if they are more sustainably managed. In most cases, the resources will only be able to provide such returns if fishing effort and capacity is reduced to levels that are both more profitable and allow the stocks to rebuild. Furthermore, countries are only likely to succeed in managing fishing exploitation to such levels if they provide a governance framework that empowers the users themselves to take a long-term stake in the health of the resources and the benefits they can provide, by allocating some form of fishing rights (i.e. rights to access the resources or to an output from the resources that function as property rights which could potentially be capitalized). Rights-based management systems have been the most successful examples around the world of both healthier fish stocks and greater economic benefits, although the examples are usually in more developed economies such as Iceland, Namibia, New Zealand and Norway. 30. The development hypothesis of this Program is that such systems could be customized to the specific conditions in West Africa, provided investments are made in the enabling governance framework for the introduction of rights (e.g. vessel registration and licensing, fish stock assessment, increased transparency, etc.), as well as to finance the transition costs involved in reducing fishing effort and capacity in overexploited fisheries (e.g. compensation for those leaving the fisheries, and investments to diversify livelihood opportunities in many coastal communities). Such a framework will only be successful if all users respect the ‘rules of the game’, and illegal fishing is reduced. Lastly, the Program’s

5 See, Decreto-Lei no. 53/2005 de 8 de Agosto (Cape Verde); Revised Fishing Rules and Regulations, 1973 (Liberia); Loi nº98-32 du 14 avril 1998 portant Code de la Peche Maritime (Senegal); and Fisheries (Management and Development) Decree of December 8, 1994 (Sierra Leone).

43

development hypothesis contends that even if such a framework is introduced to create greater economic benefits from the marine fish resources, the investments will not succeed if those benefits are not captured within the region. Currently the fisheries are an offshore economy, with many legal vessels failing to land or process fish catch in the region. For this reason, in parallel the Program aims to invest in the local skills, equipment and infrastructure needed to support greater local value added to fish products and higher levels of fish exports, to help bring some of this economy onshore.

44

An

nex

2:

Ma

jor

Rel

ate

d P

roje

cts

Fin

an

ced

by

th

e B

an

k a

nd

/or

oth

er A

gen

cies

WE

ST

AF

RIC

A:

Wes

t A

fric

a R

egio

nal

Fis

her

ies

Pro

gram

W

est

Afr

ica

Reg

ion

al

Pro

ject

s (b

ase

d a

t th

e C

SR

P)

Pro

ject

D

on

or

Sec

tor

Issu

e B

ud

get

Im

ple

men

tati

on

P

erio

d

Sup

port

fo

r M

anag

emen

t of

Fis

h

Res

our

ces

in W

est

Afr

ica

G

erm

any

Inst

itu

tion

al C

apac

ity

Bu

ild

ing

for

th

e C

SR

P a

nd t

he

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

U

S$

1.3

mil

lio

n 2

006

- 2

009

Imp

rov

ing

Sci

enti

fic

An

alys

es a

nd

Tec

hniq

ues

for

Fis

her

ies

Man

agem

ent

(IS

TA

M)

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Str

eng

then

ing

th

e m

eth

odo

logy

for

mo

nit

ori

ng a

nd

eval

uat

ion

sys

tem

s o

f fi

sher

ies,

an

d fi

sh s

tock

ev

alu

atio

n, i

n G

uin

ea,

Mau

rita

nia

and

Mo

rocc

o

US

$0.

6 m

illi

on

200

6 -

200

9

Tow

ard

s R

egio

nal

Po

lici

es f

or

Su

stai

nab

le S

mal

l-P

elag

ic F

ish

erie

s in

N

orth

wes

t A

fric

a

Net

her

land

s C

apac

ity

bu

ild

ing

for

sub-

reg

ion

al c

oop

erat

ion

and

m

anag

emen

t of

sm

all-

pel

agic

fis

h st

ock

s; d

evel

opm

ent

of

com

mo

n r

eso

urce

man

agem

ent

pla

ns

US

$0.

5 m

illi

on

200

7 -

200

9

Sup

port

fo

r C

o-M

anag

emen

t In

itia

tiv

es i

n th

e F

ish

erie

s S

ecto

r an

d

Mar

ine

Env

iron

men

t

Fra

nce

A

nal

ysis

of

the

co-m

anag

emen

t ex

per

ien

ces

in t

he

sub

-re

gio

n;

and

im

ple

men

tati

on

of

pil

ot

syst

ems

of

co-

man

agem

ent;

cap

acit

y b

uil

din

g f

or t

he

CS

RP

in

co

-m

anag

emen

t

US

$5.

0 m

illi

on

200

8 -

201

3

Can

ary

Cu

rren

t L

arg

e M

arin

e E

cosy

stem

Pro

gra

m (

CC

LM

E)

GE

F, O

ther

D

ono

rs

Res

earc

h an

d p

ilo

t ac

tiv

itie

s ai

med

to

su

ppo

rt

eco

syst

em-b

ased

man

agem

ent

of

the

fish

erie

s U

S$

8.0

mil

lio

n 2

009

- 2

014

Fis

her

ies

Mon

ito

ring

, Con

tro

l an

d

Su

rvei

llan

ce (

MC

S)

Pro

ject

E

uro

pea

n U

nio

n S

uppo

rt f

or

regi

on

al m

on

ito

rin

g an

d s

urv

eill

ance

p

atro

ls f

rom

th

e C

SR

P

EU

2.5

mil

lio

n 2

009

- 2

011

Afr

ica

Reg

ion

al

Pro

ject

s P

roje

ct

Do

no

r S

ecto

r Is

sue

Bu

dg

et

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Per

iod

Par

tner

ship

for

Afr

ican

F

ish

erie

s (P

AF

) D

fID

S

uppo

rt f

or

fish

erie

s po

licy

rev

iew

and

ref

orm

s, s

tren

gth

ened

fi

sher

ies

gov

ern

ance

, in

Afr

ica

US

$11

.3 m

illi

on

200

9 -

201

4

Str

eng

then

ing

Fis

her

ies

Pro

duct

s (S

FP

) H

ealt

h

Co

ndit

ion

s in

AC

P C

oun

trie

s

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Equ

ipm

ent,

tec

hn

ical

ass

ista

nce

and

tra

inin

g av

aila

ble

to

sup

port

co

untr

ies

to s

tren

gth

enin

g fo

od q

ual

ity

con

tro

l an

d p

roce

ssin

g of

fi

sh p

rodu

cts

in A

fric

a, C

arib

bea

n an

d P

acif

ic (

AC

P)

cou

ntr

ies

US

$62

.3 m

illi

on

200

2 -

201

0

Str

eng

then

ing

of

Fis

her

ies

Man

agem

ent

in A

CP

C

oun

trie

s (A

CP

Fis

h II

)

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Sup

port

AC

P c

oun

trie

s to

(i)

im

pro

ve

fish

erie

s po

lici

es a

nd

man

agem

ent

pla

ns;

(ii

) st

ren

gth

en c

ontr

ol

and

en

forc

emen

t ca

pab

ilit

ies;

(ii

i) s

tren

gth

en n

atio

nal

an

d re

gio

nal

res

earc

h

stra

teg

ies;

(iv

) d

evel

op

busi

nes

s su

ppor

tiv

e re

gu

lato

ry f

ram

ewor

ks

and

priv

ate

sect

or

inv

estm

ent;

and

(v)

in

crea

se k

now

led

ge

shar

ing

on

fish

erie

s m

anag

emen

t at

reg

ion

al l

evel

.

US

$12

.5 m

illi

on

Exp

ecte

d 2

009

-

201

4

45

Co

un

try

-Lev

el P

roje

cts

Pro

ject

D

on

or

Co

un

try

S

ecto

r Is

sue

Bu

dg

et

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Per

iod

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t P

has

e II

U

SA

ID

Sen

egal

C

oas

tal

zon

e m

anag

emen

t U

S$

4 m

illi

on

2

008

- 2

013

Su

stai

nab

le

Man

agem

ent

of F

ish

R

eso

urce

s

Wor

ld

Ban

k, G

EF

S

eneg

al

Co

-man

agem

ent

of c

oas

tal

fish

erie

s, a

lter

nat

ive

liv

elih

ood

s to

fis

hin

g U

S$

9.5

mil

lio

n 2

009

- 2

011

Inte

gra

ted

Co

asta

l &

M

arit

ime

Res

ou

rce

Man

agem

ent

(GIR

MaC

)

Wor

ld

Ban

k,

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Sen

egal

C

o-m

anag

emen

t of

co

asta

l fi

sher

ies,

alt

ern

ativ

e li

vel

iho

ods

to f

ish

ing

, nat

ion

al s

mal

l-sc

ale

fish

ing

ves

sel

reg

istr

atio

n

US

$6.

0 m

illi

on

2

005

- 2

010

Fis

her

ies

ST

AB

EX

E

uro

pea

n U

nio

n S

eneg

al

Co

-man

agem

ent

of c

oas

tal

fish

erie

s, f

ish

erie

s m

anag

emen

t p

lan

s, s

mal

l-sc

ale

fish

ing

ves

sel

reg

istr

atio

n

US

$9.

0 m

illi

on

2

007

- 2

011

Cap

acit

y B

uil

din

g f

or

Sm

all-

Sca

le F

ish

ers

JIC

A

Sen

egal

T

rain

ing

fo

r sm

all-

scal

e fi

sher

s’ p

rofe

ssio

nal

org

aniz

atio

ns

US

$1.

6 m

illi

on

200

8 -

201

2

Nat

ion

al R

egis

trat

ion

P

rogr

am (

PN

I)

Sp

ain

Sen

egal

S

mal

l-sc

ale

fish

ing

ves

sel

regi

stra

tio

n U

S$

0.5

mil

lio

n 2

006

- 2

008

Art

isan

al F

ish

erie

s D

evel

op

men

t P

roje

ct

AfD

B

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

Sm

all-

scal

e fi

sher

ies

infr

astr

uctu

re

UA

10

mil

lio

n 2

003

- 2

009

Inst

itu

tion

al S

uppo

rt

for

Fis

her

ies

Man

agem

ent

in S

ierr

a L

eon

e

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tan

ce f

or

fish

erie

s m

anag

emen

t E

U$

3 m

illi

on

2

007

- 2

009

46

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Program for Fisheries

Program Results Framework

APL Overall Program Objective

Indicators Use of Program Outcome Information

To sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the marine fisheries resources of West Africa, and the proportion of that wealth captured by West African countries.

Environmental Indicator: At least 7 overexploited fisheries show signs of a recovery, as measured by an increase in total landings per unit of fishing capacity6 Economic Indicator: Increase in annual net economic benefits to each participating country from targeted fisheries7 Social Indicator: Effective operation of community co-management (i.e. TURF management) committees established in targeted fishing communities (%)8

Gauge of impact of Program on the health and sustainability of targeted fish stocks Measure of increased wealth generated by targeted fisheries as a result of Program investments Measure of community participation in resource management

PDO APL-A1 Project Outcome Indicators9 Use of Project Outcome Information

To strengthen the capacity of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone to govern and manage targeted fisheries, reduce illegal fishing and increase local value added to fish products.

Improved Governance indicator: Territorial Use Rights Fisheries (TURFs) legally established for coastal fisheries (number) Reduction of Illegal Fishing indicator: Fishing vessels observed by aerial/surface patrol or by radar and satellite monitoring, that are committing a serious infraction10 (% of total number of vessels known/observed) Increased Local Value Added indicator: Increase or stabilization in the volume of exports from targeted fisheries (USD - % increase)

EOP measure of improved control of access to the fish resources, and greater empowerment of users MTR and EOP measure of reduction in illegal fishing Measures increased value added from targeted fisheries.

Intermediate Outcomes Intermediate Outcome Indicators Use of Intermediate Outcome Information

Component 1: Good Governance and Sustainable Fisheries Management

Clear principles and policies are established to increase the wealth from fisheries through strengthened rights and equitable allocation

Measure of policy outcomes for reduced poverty in fishing

6 Fisheries are considered overexploited on the basis of evaluations of the fish stocks that support them during the most recent FAO research campaign (see Table 2, Annex 1). For the indicator, there are a number of ways to measure fishing capacity for different types of vessels. In most of the countries in the region, one measure that is readily available to provide baseline data is the number of different types of fishing vessels. Other dimensions of fishing capacity such as vessel horsepower and types of fishing will also be considered and incorporated into Program monitoring during the course of implementation. 7 Net economic benefits = profits (i.e. net returns to owners, including depreciation and cost of capital) + net transfers to Government + net returns to labor 8 Effective operation based on committees being representative of all stakeholder groups in the community, meeting regularly and developing a resource management plan for the fisheries under their jurisdiction. 9 Project Outcome Indicators are generic for all participating countries, and will be specified for each country context, as described in the M&E Plan. Please see Appendix 1 to this Annex for more information. 10 Serious infraction = unlicensed industrial fishing vessel is fishing in a country’s waters; and/or a fishing vessel is in violation of fishing season or zone regulations

47

Capacity, rules, procedures and practices for good governance of the fisheries developed Fishing rights introduced in targeted communities Fishing effort and capacity adjusted to more sustainable levels, introduction of alternative livelihoods where needed

of these rights which balances economic efficiency and social benefits. (Yes / No)

Small-scale fishing vessels in targeted fisheries that are registered (%) Communities that are allocated fishing rights (number)

Vessels reduced in targeted fisheries that are overexploited (number)

communities through rights. Measure of efficient fisheries management. Measure of social impacts of the Program. Measure of reduction in source of overexploitation.

Intermediate Outcomes Intermediate Outcome Indicators Use of Intermediate Outcome Information

Component 2: Reduction of Illegal Fishing Improved fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems

Total patrol days at sea per year in targeted fisheries (number) A satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring system (VMS) is in place and functioning (Yes / No)

Measure of increased surveillance to reduce illegal fishing. Measure of capacity to monitor fishing fleets

Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Fish landing site clusters established Fisheries minimum integrated trade expansion platform (MITEP) piloted

Pilot integrated fish landing site clusters established by the Program and operating (number) A sanitary authority is accredited for certification of exports to the European Union, in each country (Yes / No)

Output of infrastructure investments to increase local value added Indicator of capacity of countries to export to the EU

Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring & Evaluation and Program Management Efficient management, monitoring and evaluation of project and dissemination of implementation results, at the national and regional level.

Regional database and ‘dashboard’ of key environmental, economic and social fisheries statistics established at CSRP (Yes/No) Annual M&E reports with all data on results indicators and M&E plan completed (Yes / No) Annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans completed (Yes / No) Community monitoring of local site conditions (environmental conditions, in-shore hygiene, water quality and possible climate change assessments) underway in TURFs (Yes / No)

To ensure that the CSRP is playing an increased role in fisheries information sharing and policy harmonization To ensure that technical and fiduciary management is adequate and that mitigation measures are in place for timely action. To gather reliable information on local in-shore conditions for baseline and progress monitoring.

48

Arr

an

gem

ents

fo

r re

sult

s m

on

ito

rin

g

T

arg

et V

alu

es

Dat

a C

oll

ecti

on a

nd

Rep

ort

ing

Pro

gra

m O

utc

om

e In

dic

ato

rs

Cou

ntr

y 2

009

201

4 2

019

Fre

qu

ency

&

Rep

ort

s D

ata

Co

llec

tion

In

stru

men

ts

Res

po

nsi

bil

ity

for

Dat

a C

oll

ecti

on

En

vir

onm

ent

Ind

icat

or:

A

t le

ast

7 ov

erex

plo

ited

fi

sher

ies

show

sig

ns

of a

re

cov

ery

by

EO

P, a

s m

easu

red

by

an i

ncr

ease

in

to

tal

lan

din

gs

per

un

it o

f fi

shin

g c

apac

ity

(nu

mb

er

of

ton

s o

f fi

sh l

and

ed p

er

fish

ing

ves

sel)

Cap

e V

erde

• S

pin

y l

ob

ster

s

• D

emer

sal

fish

• 30

ton

s11

•5

tons

12

• 33

ton

s

•6

tons

• 38

ton

s

•8

tons

An

nu

al f

ish

la

ndin

gs d

ata

Col

lect

ed a

t la

ndin

g si

tes,

fr

om c

omm

erci

al

logb

ooks

Fis

her

ies

tech

nic

al

agen

cy i

n ea

ch c

ount

ry,

aggr

egat

ed b

y t

he P

IU

and

tra

nsm

itte

d to

th

e R

CU

L

iber

ia

• C

oast

al s

hrim

p

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sh

• <

10

tons

• 13

6 to

ns13

• 12

ton

s

• 15

0 to

ns

• 14

ton

s

• 16

0 to

ns

S

eneg

al

• C

oast

al s

hrim

p

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sher

ies

• 34

ton

s14

• 52

2 to

ns15

; 2.

9 to

ns16

• 34

ton

s

• 52

2 to

ns;

2.9

tons

• 40

ton

s

• 52

2 to

ns;

2.9

tons

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

• C

oast

al s

hrim

p

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sh

• 56

ton

s17

500

tons

18

• 65

ton

s

• 55

0 to

ns

• 70

ton

s

• 60

0 to

ns

Eco

no

mic

In

dic

ato

r:

Incr

ease

in

an

nual

net

ec

ono

mic

ben

efit

s to

eac

h

Cap

e V

erde

•

Dem

ersa

l fi

sh

• S

pin

y l

ob

ster

s •

Pel

agic

fis

h

$2.5

mil

lion

19

$3.2

mil

lion

20

$3.8

mil

lion

A

nnua

l da

ta

coll

ecti

on,

incl

uded

in

MT

R a

nd Y

r 5

Eco

nom

ic m

odel

, b

ased

on

fis

h

lan

din

gs,

eff

ort

an

d pr

ice

data

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

to

coll

ect

annu

al f

ish

lan

din

gs,

eff

ort

an

d

pri

ce d

ata

11

To

tal

capt

ure

, as

man

y a

re t

aken

by

in

div

idu

als

12 5

ton

s al

l fi

sh s

peci

es l

ande

d pe

r sm

all-

scal

e ve

ssel

, as

a p

roxy

13

est

. 4,

500

tons

per

33

indu

stri

al v

esse

ls

14 3

4 t

on

s pe

r in

dus

tria

l tr

awle

r in

20

07

(i.

e. 1

,05

0 to

ns

per

31

shri

mp

tra

wle

rs)

15 F

or

yea

r 2

00

7, t

on

s o

f al

l co

asta

l d

emer

sal

spec

ies

(ex

clu

din

g s

hri

mp

) p

er t

otal

num

ber

of

ind

ust

rial

tra

wle

rs l

icen

sed

fo

r fi

sh o

r ce

ph

alo

po

ds

(exc

lud

ing

sh

rim

p t

raw

lers

) 16

Fo

r y

ear

20

07,

to

ns

per

sm

all-

scal

e v

esse

ls t

arg

etin

g c

oast

al d

emer

sals

17

1,4

00 t

ons

per

25 v

esse

ls

18 9

,00

0 to

ns

per

18

tra

wle

rs

19 F

or

20

06

, ex

clud

es i

nd

ust

rial

ves

sels

, an

d re

fers

on

ly t

o sm

all-

scal

e an

d se

mi-

indu

stri

al v

esse

ls,

and

in

clu

des

$2.

8 m

illi

on

in r

etu

rns

to l

abo

r, a

nd

-$0

.3 m

illi

on

in

reso

urc

e re

nt.

20

Of

wh

ich

$0

.2 w

ou

ld b

e re

sou

rce

ren

t (a

n an

nua

l in

crea

se o

f $

0.5

mil

lio

n f

rom

bas

elin

e),

and

$3.

0 r

etu

rns

to l

abor

.

49

coun

try

fro

m t

arg

eted

fi

sher

ies

(nu

mb

er –

net

an

nual

eco

nom

ic b

enef

its)

Lib

eria

• C

oast

al s

hrim

p

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sh

$3.9

mil

lion

21

$8.0

mil

lion

$1

2 m

illi

on

Pro

gra

m M

&E

R

epor

ts f

rom

R

egio

nal

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Uni

t to

app

ly e

cono

mic

m

od

el, a

nd

tra

nsm

it t

he

resu

lts

to t

he

PIU

s,

Wor

ld B

ank

Sen

egal

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sher

ies

-$3

.4

mil

lio

n22

$3.0

mil

lion

23

$10.

0 m

illi

on

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

• S

hri

mp

fi

sher

ies

• C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sh

• $1

.9

mil

lio

n24

• $6

9.7

mil

lio

n25

• $2

.0 m

illi

on

• $7

0.6

mil

lio

n26

• $2

.4 m

illi

on

• $7

5.0

mil

lion

So

cia

l In

dic

ato

r:

Eff

ecti

ve

oper

atio

n o

f co

mm

un

ity

co-

man

agem

ent

(i.e

. T

UR

F

man

agem

ent)

co

mm

itte

es

esta

bli

shed

in

targ

eted

fi

shin

g c

om

mu

nit

ies

(%)

Cap

e V

erde

0

75%

10

0%

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

from

R

egio

nal

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

Fac

ilit

ator

rep

ort

s o

f C

om

mit

tee

mee

ting

s

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by R

egio

nal

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

Lib

eria

Sen

egal

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

21

Fo

r y

ear

20

08,

in

clu

des

no

n-m

oto

rize

d sm

all-

scal

e fi

sher

ies

wit

h t

ota

l n

et e

con

om

ic b

enef

its

of

$2.

6 m

illi

on

(an

d to

tal

reso

urc

e re

nt

of

$0

.6 m

illi

on

), a

nd

in

du

stri

al t

raw

l fi

sher

ies

wit

h a

tota

l ne

t ec

onom

ic b

enef

it o

f $1

.3 m

illi

on.

Ex

clud

es m

oto

rize

d sm

all-

scal

e ve

ssel

s, a

ssu

med

to

be

targ

etin

g s

mal

l pe

lagi

cs l

arg

ely

. 22

Ex

clu

des

sm

all-

scal

e co

asta

l d

emer

sal

fish

erie

s so

uth

of

the

Gam

bia

. T

he b

asel

ine

for

the

actu

al r

eso

urc

e re

nt

(i.e

. p

rofi

ts o

r ne

t re

turn

s to

ow

ner

s, i

ncl

ud

ing

dep

reci

atio

n an

d co

st o

f ca

pit

al +

net

tra

nsfe

rs t

o G

ov

ernm

ent)

on

the

fis

her

ies

is -

$1

0.5

mil

lio

n.

23 E

xclu

des

smal

l-sc

ale

coas

tal

dem

ersa

l fi

sher

ies

sout

h of

the

Gam

bia.

The

tar

get

for

the

actu

al r

esou

rce

rent

(i.

e. p

rofi

ts o

r ne

t re

turn

s to

ow

ner

s, i

ncl

ud

ing

dep

reci

atio

n an

d co

st o

f ca

pita

l +

net

tra

nsfe

rs t

o G

over

nmen

t) o

n th

e fi

sher

ies

is $

3.0

mil

lion

at

2014

, and

$6.

0 m

illi

on a

t 20

19,

up f

rom

the

bas

elin

e o

f -$

10.

5 m

illi

on

. 24

Fo

r y

ear

20

06,

fro

m a

to

tal

of

$11

.2 m

illi

on

in

net

eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s (o

f w

hic

h $

9.5

was

res

ou

rce

ren

t) f

rom

th

e fi

sher

y,

onl

y $

1.9

mil

lio

n s

tay

ed i

n S

ierr

a L

eon

e, o

f w

hic

h $

1.1

was

re

sou

rce

ren

t.

25 F

or

yea

r 2

00

6, $

69

.2 m

illi

on

in

net

eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s fr

om

sm

all-

scal

e fl

eet

(of

wh

ich

$4

.9 m

illi

on

was

res

ou

rce

ren

t an

d $

64.

3 m

illi

on

was

ret

urn

s to

lab

or)

an

d $

0.5

mil

lio

n i

n n

et

eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s fr

om

th

e d

emer

sal

traw

l fl

eet

(i.e

. b

enef

its

fro

m t

he

traw

l fl

eet

that

sta

yed

in

Sie

rra

Leo

ne,

ou

t o

f to

tal

net

eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s o

f $

3.7

mil

lio

n fr

om

th

e fl

eet,

of

wh

ich

$3

.5

mil

lio

n w

as r

eso

urc

e re

nt)

. 26

Ann

ual

reso

urce

ren

t w

ould

be

$6.4

mil

lion

($4

.7 m

illi

on

fro

m s

mal

l-sc

ale

and

$1

.7 m

illi

on

fro

m d

emer

sal

traw

lers

).

50

Ta

rget

Va

lues

D

ata

Co

llec

tion

an

d R

epo

rtin

g

AP

L-A

1 O

utc

om

e In

dic

ato

rs

Cou

ntr

y 2

009

201

0 2

011

201

2 2

013

201

4 F

req

uen

cy

& R

epo

rts

Dat

a C

oll

ecti

on

In

stru

men

ts

Res

po

nsi

bil

ity

for

Da

ta

Co

llec

tio

n

Imp

rov

ed

Gov

ern

an

ce

Ind

icat

or:

T

erri

tori

al U

se

Rig

hts

Fis

her

ies

(TU

RF

s) l

egal

ly

esta

bli

shed

fo

r co

asta

l fi

sher

ies

(nu

mb

er)

Cap

e V

erde

0

0 0

2 2

At

leas

t 2

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

from

R

egio

nal

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

Pas

sag

e o

f R

elev

ant

Reg

ulat

ions

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

Lib

eria

0

1 A

t le

ast

1

Sen

egal

8

8 A

t le

ast

827

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

0

0

At

leas

t 4

Red

uct

ion

of

Ille

ga

l F

ish

ing

Ind

icat

or:

F

ishi

ng v

esse

ls

obse

rved

by

ae

rial

/su

rfac

e p

atro

l or

by

rad

ar a

nd

sate

llit

e m

on

ito

rin

g,

that

are

com

mit

ting

a

seri

ou

s in

frac

tion

(%

o

f to

tal

nu

mb

er o

f ve

ssel

s kn

own/

obse

rved

)

Cap

e V

erde

42

%28

42

42

30

%,

but

bas

elin

e m

easu

rem

ent

is

con

firm

ed/r

efi

ned

25

20

Mon

thly

re

po

rts

fro

m

com

pete

nt

auth

ori

ty f

or

fish

erie

s su

rvei

llan

ce

Rep

orts

fro

m

surv

eill

ance

pa

trol

s,

inco

rpor

ated

in

to e

ach

cou

ntr

y’s

fi

sher

ies

stat

isti

cs

‘das

hb

oar

d’

(see

co

mp

on

ent

1.1)

, an

d tr

ansm

itte

d to

re

gio

nal

‘d

ash

bo

ard

’ at

th

e R

CU

Com

pete

nt

auth

ori

ty f

or

fish

erie

s su

rvei

llan

ce i

n ea

ch c

ount

ry

Tra

nsm

itte

d to

P

IUs,

and

ev

entu

ally

RC

U

Lib

eria

(%

of

all

kn

ow

n

indu

stri

al v

esse

ls

targ

etin

g t

he

coas

tal

dem

ersa

l &

shr

imp

fish

erie

s o

bse

rved

fis

hin

g w

itho

ut a

lic

ense

)

83%

29

83

%

83

%

66

%,

bu

t b

asel

ine

mea

sure

men

t is

co

nfi

rmed

/ re

fin

ed

50

%

33

%

Sen

egal

(%

of

all

kn

ow

n

smal

l-sc

ale

ves

sels

th

at h

ave

a p

erm

it)

30

%

30

%

30

%

65

%

65

%

95

%

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

(% o

f al

l li

cens

ed

indu

stri

al v

esse

ls

88%

30

88

%

88

%

66

%,

bu

t b

asel

ine

mea

sure

men

t

66

%

44

%

27

CL

PA

s g

iven

leg

al j

uri

sdic

tio

n ov

er t

he f

ish

erie

s in

an

area

of

the

sea

28 U

sin

g 2

00

0 E

U r

epo

rtin

g d

ata.

29

Fo

r la

st d

ata

yea

r av

aila

ble

, 2

007

, th

ere

wer

e 5

0 l

icen

sed

ves

sels

, an

d c

lose

to

25

0 d

iffe

ren

t v

esse

ls w

ere

ob

serv

ed f

ish

ing

wit

ho

ut

a li

cen

se b

y U

NM

IL f

lig

hts

, in

th

e co

asta

l zo

ne.

Tot

al

know

n in

dust

rial

fis

hing

ves

sels

was

thu

s 30

0, a

t le

ast

250

of w

hich

wer

e fi

shin

g w

itho

ut a

lic

ense

, fo

r a

min

imum

val

ue o

f 83

% s

erio

us

infr

acti

on

s o

bse

rved

per

eve

ry k

no

wn

in

du

stri

al

fish

ing

ves

sel

(in

clu

sio

n o

f in

frac

tio

n to

th

e In

sho

re E

xclu

sio

n Z

on

e w

ou

ld i

ncr

ease

thi

s v

alu

e).

30 F

or

last

yea

r da

ta a

vail

able

, 2

00

1, t

here

wer

e 3

5 z

on

e in

frac

tio

ns

reco

rded

, w

ith

a t

ota

l o

f 4

0 li

cen

sed

in

du

stri

al v

esse

ls.

51

ob

serv

ed f

ish

ing

wit

hin

6-m

ile

IEZ

)

is c

on

firm

ed/

refi

ned

Incr

ease

d L

ocal

V

alu

e A

dd

ed

Ind

icat

ors:

In

crea

se o

r st

abil

izat

ion

in

th

e vo

lum

e of

exp

orts

fr

om

tar

get

ed

fish

erie

s (U

SD

- %

in

crea

se)

Cap

e V

erde

C

oast

al

dem

ersa

l fi

sh =

12

tons

L

ob

ster

s =

17

ton

s31

0%

0

%

5%

1

0%

1

5%

M

on

thly

sa

les

repo

rts

S

ales

rep

ort

s fr

om s

elec

ted

com

pani

es a

nd

asso

ciat

ions

, co

llec

ted

by t

he

PIU

Nat

ion

al P

IU

wil

l co

llec

t re

po

rts

fro

m

sele

cted

co

mpa

nies

and

as

soci

atio

ns

Ann

ual

data

wil

l b

e tr

ansm

itte

d to

th

e R

CU

Lib

eria

C

oast

al

dem

ersa

ls

= 0

ton

s S

hri

mp

= 0

to

ns

0 0

500

500

1,00

032

Sen

egal

(c

oas

tal

dem

ersa

ls)

69,0

00

tons

33

0%

0

%

0%

0

%

0%

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

Co

asta

l d

emer

sals

=

9,0

00

tons

S

hri

mp

=

1,40

0 to

ns

0%

0

%

5%

1

0%

1

0%

Inte

rmed

iate

O

utc

om

e In

dic

ato

rs

Cou

ntr

y 2

009

201

0 2

011

201

2 2

013

201

4 F

req

uen

cy

& r

epo

rts

Dat

a C

oll

ecti

on

In

stru

men

ts

Res

po

nsi

bil

ity

for

Da

ta

Co

llec

tio

n

Co

mp

onen

t 1

: G

ood

Go

ver

na

nce

an

d S

ust

ain

able

Fis

her

ies

Ma

na

gem

ent

Cle

ar p

rinc

iple

s an

d po

lici

es a

re

esta

bli

shed

to

incr

ease

th

e w

ealt

h

fro

m f

ish

erie

s th

rou

gh

str

engt

hen

ed

righ

ts a

nd e

quit

able

al

loca

tio

n o

f th

ese

rig

hts

wh

ich

bal

ance

s ec

on

om

ic e

ffic

ien

cy

and

soci

al b

enef

its.

(Y

es /

No

)

Cap

e V

erde

0

Dra

ft

Po

lici

es

com

ple

ted

and

unde

r co

nsul

tati

ons

P

oli

cies

ad

opte

d in

eac

h co

untr

y

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

from

R

CU

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n re

po

rts

fro

m

PIU

s

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

Lib

eria

S

eneg

al

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

31

Bas

ed o

n 20

03 d

ata,

las

t y

ear

avai

labl

e. E

xpor

ts h

ave

like

ly r

isen

sin

ce t

his

tim

e.

32 T

on

s o

f to

tal

exp

ort

s o

f co

asta

l d

emer

sal

fish

and

sh

rim

p –

ab

solu

te v

alu

es a

re g

iven

in

stea

d o

f pe

rcen

tag

e fo

r L

iber

ia,

sinc

e th

e b

asel

ine

is z

ero

. 33

Bas

ed o

n m

ost

rec

ent

yea

r da

ta a

vail

able

– 2

00

5 –

wit

h t

ota

l ex

por

t v

olu

me

of 8

3,1

04

to

ns,

of

wh

ich

83

% e

stim

ated

to

ori

gin

ate

from

co

asta

l d

emer

sal

fish

erie

s.

52

Sm

all-

scal

e fi

shin

g v

esse

ls i

n t

arge

ted

fi

sher

ies

that

are

re

gis

tere

d (

% o

f to

tal)

Cap

e V

erde

5

0%

5

0%

5

0%

7

5%

7

5%

1

00

%

An

nu

al M

&E

R

epor

t fr

om

RC

U

Ves

sel

regi

stry

in

eac

h co

untr

y,

lin

ked

in

to

nat

iona

l an

d

reg

ion

al

‘das

hb

oar

d’

Fis

her

ies

tech

nica

l ag

ency

in

eac

h co

untr

y,

lin

ked

to

N

atio

nal

PIU

s T

ran

smit

ted

and

coll

ecte

d by

R

egio

nal

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

Lib

eria

0

%

0%

0

%

50

%

75

%

10

0%

S

eneg

al

60

%

90

%

10

0%

1

00

%

10

0%

1

00

%

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

0%

0

%

0%

5

0%

7

5%

1

00

%

Co

mm

un

itie

s th

at a

re

allo

cate

d fi

shin

g ri

gh

ts (

nu

mb

er)

Cap

e V

erde

0

0 0

0 4

4 A

nnua

l M

&E

R

epor

t fr

om

the

RC

U

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n re

po

rts

fro

m

PIU

s

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

RC

U

Lib

eria

2

2 S

eneg

al

10

20

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

10

1

5

Ves

sels

red

uce

d i

n

targ

eted

fis

heri

es t

hat

are

over

expl

oite

d (n

um

ber

per

yea

r)

Cap

e V

erde

(s

mal

l-sc

ale

vess

els

– or

re

du

ctio

n i

n n

um

ber

of

fish

ers

equi

vale

nt t

o ta

rget

s fo

r ve

ssel

s)34

0 0

25

25

50

50

Lib

eria

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Sen

egal

(l

icen

sed

in

dust

rial

tr

awle

rs)

0

0 12

0

13

0

A

nnua

l li

cen

se

reg

istr

y

Nu

mb

er o

f li

cens

ed v

esse

ls

Min

istr

y o

f M

arit

ime

Eco

nom

y;

PIU

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Co

mp

onen

t 2

: R

edu

ctio

n o

f Il

leg

al

Fis

hin

g T

otal

pat

rol

day

s at

se

a pe

r y

ear

in

targ

eted

fis

her

ies

(nu

mb

er o

f to

tal

pat

rol

day

s/y

ear)

Cap

e V

erde

70

70

70

10

0 10

0 15

0 M

onth

ly

logb

ooks

fr

om

pat

rol

vess

els

Mo

nth

ly r

epo

rts

from

com

pete

nt

auth

ori

ty f

or

fish

erie

s su

rvei

llan

ce

Com

pete

nt

auth

ori

ty f

or

fish

erie

s su

rvei

llan

ce i

n ea

ch c

ount

ry

Tra

nsm

itte

d to

P

IUs,

and

ev

entu

ally

RC

U

Lib

eria

0

0 0

50

50

100

Sen

egal

(#

to

tal

patr

ol

day

s/y

r in

co

asta

l w

ater

s35)

200

200

200

275

275

400

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

348

348

348

500

500

696

34

Bas

ed o

n es

tim

ates

of

roug

hly

3 f

ishe

rs p

er s

mal

l-sc

ale

vess

el, i

.e.

a to

tal

of 4

,000

sm

all-

scal

e fi

sher

s an

d ro

ughl

y 1

,250

sm

all-

scal

e ve

ssel

s fo

r m

ost

rece

nt d

ata

avai

labl

e.

35 I

nclu

des

surv

eill

ance

of

both

ind

ustr

ial

and

smal

l-sc

ale

fish

erie

s.

53

A s

atel

lite

-bas

ed

fish

ing

ves

sel

mo

nit

ori

ng

sy

stem

(V

MS

) is

in

pla

ce

and

fu

nct

ion

ing

(Y

es

/ N

o)

Cap

e V

erde

N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

from

R

CU

Nat

ion

al P

IU

impl

emen

tati

on

rep

ort

ing

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

Lib

eria

N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Sen

egal

Y

es,

but

wit

hout

li

nk

to

AIS

36

Yes

, bu

t w

itho

ut l

ink

to A

uto

mat

ic

Iden

tifi

cati

on

Sy

stem

(A

IS)

Yes

, bu

t w

itho

ut l

ink

to A

uto

mat

ic

Iden

tifi

cati

on

Sy

stem

(A

IS)

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

No

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Co

mp

onen

t 3

: In

crea

sin

g th

e C

on

trib

uti

on o

f th

e M

ari

ne

Fis

h R

eso

urc

es t

o t

he

Loc

al

Eco

no

mie

s P

ilo

t in

teg

rate

d fi

sh

lan

din

g si

te c

lust

ers

esta

bli

shed

by

the

P

rog

ram

an

d

op

erat

ing

(n

um

ber

)

Cap

e V

erde

(S

anti

ago

) 0

0 0

0 0

1 A

nnua

l M

&E

R

epor

t fr

om

RC

U

Nat

ion

al P

IU

impl

emen

tati

on

rep

ort

ing

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

Lib

eria

(R

ob

erts

po

rt)

1

Sen

egal

(K

afou

ntin

e)

1

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

(Ko

nak

ree

Dee

)

1

A c

ompe

tent

san

itar

y

auth

ori

ty (

CA

) is

ac

cred

ited

for

ce

rtif

icat

ion

of

exp

ort

s to

the

E

uro

pea

n U

nio

n, i

n ea

ch c

ount

ry

(Yes

/No

)

Lib

eria

N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

from

R

CU

Nat

ion

al P

IU

impl

emen

tati

on

rep

ort

ing

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

No

No

No

No

No

Co

mp

onen

t 4

: C

oo

rdin

atio

n,

Mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d E

valu

ati

on

, an

d P

rog

ram

Ma

nag

emen

t

Reg

iona

l da

taba

se

and

‘d

ash

bo

ard

’ o

f

key

en

viro

nm

enta

l,

econ

omic

and

soc

ial

fish

erie

s st

atis

tics

esta

bli

shed

at

CS

RP

(Yes

/No

)

CS

RP

N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

R

esul

ts

sum

mar

ized

an

d se

nt t

o p

arti

cip

atin

g

cou

ntr

ies

An

nu

al r

epo

rt,

star

ting

yea

r 2

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

An

nu

al M

&E

rep

ort

s

wit

h a

ll d

ata

on

resu

lts

indi

cato

rs a

nd

M&

E p

lan

com

plet

ed

(Yes

/ N

o)

All

N

o

Y

es

Yes

Y

esY

es

Yes

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

Ann

ual,

sta

rtin

g Y

r 1

R

CU

, ba

sed

on

dat

a fr

om

PIU

s

36

Au

tom

atic

Id

enti

fica

tio

n S

yst

em

54

An

nu

al w

ork

pro

gra

ms,

bu

dg

ets

and

proc

urem

ent

plan

s co

mpl

eted

(Y

es

/ N

o)

All

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Ann

ual

M&

E

Rep

ort

Ann

ual,

sta

rtin

g at

eff

ecti

vene

ss

RC

U,

base

d on

d

ata

fro

m P

IUs

Co

mm

un

ity

mo

nit

ori

ng

of

loca

l

site

con

diti

ons

(en

vir

on

men

tal

con

dit

ion

s, i

n-s

hore

hygi

ene,

wat

er

qual

ity

and

pos

sibl

e

clim

ate

chan

ge

asse

ssm

ents

)

unde

rway

in

TU

RF

s

(Yes

/ N

o)

All

N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Nat

iona

l P

IU

rep

ort

s A

nnua

l, s

tart

ing

whe

n T

UR

Fs

esta

bli

shed

Nat

ion

al P

IUs

Tra

nsm

itte

d an

d co

llec

ted

by

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

ion

Un

it

55

Appendix 1: Detailed Arrangements for Data Collection (including Baselines) for Program Outcome Indicators Program Outcome Indicators 1. In terms of the environmental indicator on the health of the marine fish resource base, FAO categorizes the health of a fish stock as: (i) underexploited; (ii) fully exploited; or (iii) over-exploited, on the basis of research campaigns that assess the biomass of key stocks, as shown in Table 2 of Annex 1. However, these campaigns are expensive to conduct, and can also provide a one-off snapshot of the fish stocks, but may not capture fluctuations or longer-term trends. For this reason, the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program will utilize a more practical measure of the health of the fisheries and the fish stocks underpinning them, based simply on the trend in local landings of target species per unit of fishing capacity (which would represent a larger basket of species targeted by the fishery, such as one or two species representing the broader group of coastal demersal species). Landings are certainly a rough measure of the health of the underlying resources, but one that is easily collected. Similarly, in terms of a measure of units of fishing capacity, those that are currently available in the region are the number of different types of fishing vessels that are operating. This is not the ideal indicator, and does not include other dimensions of fishing capacity such as vessel horsepower and types of fishing, but it does provide a proxy of the landings for unit of fishing capacity, based on readily available information that can be used as a baseline. Furthermore, a stabilization or increase in local landings per vessel of targeted fish, in conjunction with a reduction of fishing capacity and/or the introduction of secure fishing rights, can provide a good indication of the health of the resources. A stabilization or increase in landings per fishing vessel in fully or overexploited fisheries is meant to track an increase in the actual biomass of the stock, so long as fishing effort remains relatively constant. This information and indicator can be easily fed back into community monitoring efforts as well, to influence local management decisions. Further complementary work has been conducted by FAO on the state of fish stocks in the region over a much longer time horizon, that will also provide information to monitor the health of the resource base.37 2. In terms of the economic indicator on the increase in wealth generated by the targeted fisheries, the Program has prepared an economic model of each of the targeted fisheries in the four countries, based on the best data available. The model provides a measurement of the net economic benefits to the country from the fishery, based on the sum of: (i) the profits to owners of vessels and gear; (ii) the net income of the crew (i.e. returns to labor); and (iii) the net transfers to Government. The key data inputs needed for the model for the targeted fisheries are: (i) fishing effort in the fishery (number and type of vessels); (ii) fish landed; (iii) capital and operating costs of vessels; and (iv) local fish product price data. This information has been collected for the baseline, and will be collected by the responsible technical agency in each country, with support from the PIU, to be entered into the fisheries statistics ‘dashboard’ supported by the Program in component 1.1. Through this dashboard, the data will be transmitted to the RCU regularly, who will calculate the net economic benefits through the current model. 3. In terms of the social indicator the participation and efficacy of representative community-based management committees is considered a good proxy for inclusion of various social groups in the decision-making process surrounding the fish resources. This is a simple measure, and relatively easy data to collect, for social participation. However, although baseline data are not yet fully available at the time of Appraisal (but likely to be before effectiveness), the Program will also monitor for an increase in the average household wealth status for fishing households in targeted communities (including comparisons to non-target community households). Data will be collected for household wealth based on a repeat of the social surveys (i.e. Citizen Report Cards) at mid-term and before the end of Program (see paragraph 91 in the main text).

37 Garcia, S. (2009) Rising to Depletion? Measuring the Progress of Countries towards the WSSD Objective for Fisheries Resources.

56

4. Improved Governance Indicator: Based on experiences in a variety of fisheries around the world, the introduction and ongoing support of secure fishing rights is an effective mechanism for sustainable governance and management of the use of marine fish resources, in order to avoid current situations of open access to the resources and the ‘tragedy of the commons’. As such, each PIU will provide, as part of their annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, an update of the progress of the Program in supporting the legal establishment and ongoing implementation of secure fishing rights in the targeted fisheries. These are being introduced as pilots in the region through the Program, which could be replicated widely. Information will also be provided in these Reports on the establishment and effective operationalization of community co-management committees in the targeted TURFs. Effective operationalization will be assessed by examining the extent to which these committees have engaged with their constituents in meetings and other such fora; are enforcing registration of boats; are working to ensure compliance by local fishers with national regulations; are working to set and enforce compliance with local fishing regulations; and are monitoring local conditions (in-shore environmental conditions, beach hygiene, water quality, etc.) and are forwarding this, and other, data for inclusion in the National Dashboards. 5. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Indicator: This indicator will be measured based on reports provided by surveillance patrols financed by the Program. Each patrol would provide a report of total vessels sighted and any serious infraction observed (i.e. a vessel fishing in a country’s waters without a valid license, or a vessel fishing in a zone of the sea or during a season that is prohibited by a country’s regulations). These reports would be transmitted by the competent authority for fisheries surveillance in each country to the PIU, with the data entered into the fisheries statistics ‘dashboard’ (together with the total number of fishing vessels known to be operating in the targeted fisheries in a country’s waters), and transmitted to the RCU. 6. Component 3 Indicator: This indicator measures the impact of Program investments in the value added locally to fish products from targeted fisheries. Data on the volume of fish products sold on the local markets or for export, and their price and their origins, will be collected from targeted fishing associations, communities and companies by the PIU. 7. In terms of the Project Outcome Indicators for APL-A1, the three indicators are generic, and were customized for the specific context in each of the countries. Thus the Financial Agreements include key performance indicators that reflect the agreements reached during negotiations with each country on the application of the three generic indicators listed in the Results Framework. For example, the indicator for reduction of illegal fishing given in the Results Framework: ‘fishing vessels observed by aerial/surface patrol or by radar and satellite monitoring, that are committing a serious infraction (% of total number of vessels known/observed)’ is applied to specific countries as: ‘percentage of all known industrial vessels targeting the coastal demersal & shrimp fisheries observed fishing without a license’ in Liberia, and ‘percentage of all known small-scale vessels that have a permit’ in Senegal, among others.

57

Annex 4: Detailed Program Description

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program A. Program Summary 1. The development objective of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the targeted marine fish resources in the participating countries, and the proportion of that wealth captured by these countries. This objective would be achieved by: (i) strengthening the countries’ capacity to sustainably govern and manage their fisheries, (ii) reducing illegal fishing, and (iii) increasing the value and profitability generated by fish resources and the proportion of that value captured by the countries. 2. The rationale behind this objective is that while the countries of West Africa are endowed with valuable and shared marine fish stocks, this natural capital is currently providing the region with far lower economic and social returns than it could be, due in large part to overexploitation and subsequent depletion of the resources by both legal and illegal operators. At the same time, the returns that the resources currently provide accrue mostly to foreign countries and fleets. This is because so much of the fish caught in West Africa’s waters is not landed and processed in the region, but rather is taken directly to foreign ports where further value is added and jobs are created. These constraints, i.e. the: (i) low capacity of countries to sustainably manage the marine fish resources and prevent their overexploitation, particularly by illegal fishing vessels, and the (ii) foreign and offshore legal harvesting of the resources that yields only a fraction of their benefits to local economies, characterize West Africa’s fisheries today. Overcoming these challenges presents a significant opportunity for the region to sustainably increase the wealth from one of its largest sources of natural capital, and provides the rationale for the Program’s objective and design. 3. In order to achieve the above objectives, the Program will include the following components, sub-components and activities available for all nine participating countries. These will form a menu of activities the Program could support in each country, which would be chosen based on the specific local context. These activities will be implemented at the national level in conjunction with ongoing regional coordination and policy harmonization financed by the Program. As such, the Program follows the subsidiarity principle, whereby a common approach is coordinated at the regional level, but implemented nationally in order to show concrete results on the ground. The legal agreements with each country therefore reflect the specific activities of APL-A1 described in Annexes 5 through 9. Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries 4. The objective of this component is to build the capacity of Governments and stakeholders to develop and implement policies through a shared approach that would ensure that the marine fish resources are used in a manner that is environmentally sustainable, socially equitable and economically profitable. This shared approach has its basis in the CSRP Strategic Action Plan adopted by its member states, and consists of: (i) developing and implementing the basic tools for transparent governance of the

APL-A (Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and

Sierra Leone) • Phase 1 (APL-A1): 5 years • Phase 2 (APL-A2): 5 years

APL-B (Ghana, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau)

• Phase 1 (APL-B1): 5 years • Phase 2 (APL-B2): 5 years

APL-C (The Gambia and Mauritania) • Phase 1 (APL-C1): 5 years • Phase 2 (APL-C2): 5 years

Start 2009 Start 2010 Start 2011

Year 10: End Phase 2

Year 5: End Phase 1

West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (Horizontal & Vertical APL)

58

industrial and small-scale fisheries, in order to control access to and adjust exploitation of the resources; (ii) creating and introducing rights to the resources that give users a long-term interest in the health and benefits from the fisheries; (iii) in situations where targeted fish stocks are already overexploited, implementing an approach that combines an initial reduction of the pressures on the resources through limits on access supported by training and provision of safety nets to encourage the transition of fishers to alternative, potentially more viable livelihoods in other sectors, in order to enable a transition to levels of fishing effort and capacity that are more sustainable; and finally (iv) ensuring strong channels of communication between resource users, stakeholders and decision-makers. 5. The Program’s support for good governance and sustainable management of the fisheries begins with the development and implementation of the basic tools for transparent governance of the industrial and small-scale fisheries, in order to control access to and adjust exploitation of the resources (sub-component 1.1). These tools will include: (i) a strengthened policy and regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries, (ii) registration of all fishing vessels; (iii) assessment of the status of key fish stocks, (iv) creation of a ‘dashboard’ of key management indicators consisting of biological, social and economic information about the fisheries, that is publicly available at the national and regional levels, and (v) on the basis of the previous four, preparation and implementation of management plans that set levels of sustainable exploitation for targeted fisheries, and create rights and allocation mechanisms for those fisheries. 6. Building on the implementation of the basic tools for transparent governance and control of access to the fisheries, the Program will finance piloting the introduction of rights to the resources that give users a long-term interest in the health and benefits from the fisheries (sub-component 1.2). This will include piloting (i) the introduction/strengthening of fishing rights to targeted industrial fisheries, and (ii) the introduction in all participating countries of fishing rights to small-scale fisheries through a process of collaborative, or co-management partnerships with the Governments. The rights for small-scale fisheries, and the roles and responsibilities of all partners in their co-management, would be codified legally through the appropriate instrument in each country, such as a ministerial decree for example. The process for identifying the specific types of rights and rights holders in these small-scale fisheries, and the appropriate legal instruments, is elaborated in the Program’s Resettlement Process Framework, which serves as guidelines for each of the participating countries. 7. For those targeted fisheries that are overexploited and have introduced limits on access through the previous sub-components (principally Ghana and Senegal), the Program will finance support for alternative livelihoods training so individuals opting to transition out of the sector are able to obtain the skills and resources necessary for this (see component 1.3). Such support for alternative livelihoods will be targeted to different users, and include: (i) vessel buy-back from industrial fishing vessel owners, (ii) alternative livelihoods training in micro-enterprise development for small-scale fishers and fish processors volunteering to leave the fishing sector, together with appropriate safety net support during their transition out of the fisheries sector, and (iv) safety net support (e.g. block grants and training) for selected poor communities with higher transition rates of small-scale fishers and fish processors to help stabilize socio-economic situations in those communities. 8. Finally, the Program will ensure strong channels of communication between resource users, stakeholders and decision-makers to ensure all are fully informed and consulted, and that all processes are fully transparent. This will include: (i) communications, social marketing, and stakeholder consultation, (ii) support for creation of a network of journalists who will report on the Program, and (iii) structured initiatives aimed at promoting transparency in the allocation of fishing rights. Sub-Component (1) Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries 9. The objective of this sub-component is to build the capacity of Governments and stakeholders (notably fishing communities) to transparently and effectively control access to the resources, while

59

ensuring that critical information for management is available to all users throughout the region. Controlling access to the marine fish resources is essential for countries to collaborate towards the Program’s objective, and this requires clear laws, rules, procedures and practices that are shared by all users. Program support would focus on two key areas: (i) strengthening the capacity of Government to develop sound policies for the use of the fish resources, enable stakeholder participation in policy and regulatory design and strengthen its implementation capacity; and (ii) improved management of the resources, through registration of all fishing vessels, assessments of fish stocks that define access of industrial fisheries and small-scale fisheries, as well as better assessment of the economic performance of fisheries and increasing the transparency of the political process of decision-making. More specifically, this translates into five key activities the Program will finance through this sub-component: (i) a strengthened policy and regulatory framework for the use of the fish resources; (ii) implementation of vessel registration and maintenance of vessel registries, initially for selected fisheries, (iii) assessment of the biological and economic status of key fish stocks, as the basis for management, (iv) the development of tools at the community, national and regional level to ensure transparency and accessibility of basic fisheries management information for controlling access to the resources, and (v) the preparation and implementation of management plans that set levels of sustainable exploitation for targeted fisheries. 10. Strengthening of Policy and Regulatory Framework for use of the Fish Resources. The Program will provide technical assistance to countries to assist them to hold consultations and make any necessary revisions to their policy and regulatory framework for a more sustainable use of the fish resources, and a will support greater empowerment of the resource users in their management. This technical assistance would assist the participating countries to implement the policy and regulatory changes needed to help harmonize fisheries governance and management in the sub-region, in order to implement the ‘Convention on Minimum Conditions for Access to and Exploitation of Fisheries Resources in the CSRP Member States’ currently being updated by the CSRP. In each country this regulatory framework review will be conducted in parallel to following Program activities (rather than as a precursor to them), so as to be informed and adjusted based on results on the ground. 11. Registration of all Fishing Vessels. The Program will support countries to legally register all small-scale and industrial fishing vessels, and to integrate this information into both national registries and regional databases that would provide public information on the nationality and size of all fishing fleets in the region. This registration process will ensure that all fishing vessels, particularly small-scale vessels, have obtained the basic official documents for ocean-going vessels specified in respective countries (act of nationality, size characteristics of the vessel – measured in gross tons as per the Convention of London, compliance with construction standards, safety at sea provisions, etc.), as well as their registration as a fishing vessel. Countries will be supported to accompany this registration process with clear procedures for vessels to enter or to leave the registries (or to have their status updated), as well as processes and funding for maintaining the registry and ensuring all relevant institutions contribute the required information periodically. The Program will finance goods and works for physical registration of fishing vessels, as well as goods, services and operating costs for establishing and maintaining national and regional registries and databases. 12. Assessment of the Status of Key Fish Stocks. Management of fish resources is knowledge intensive and requires some fundamental information about the size of the resources and how they are being used (and by whom), as a sound and transparent basis for decision-making by all users. As such, the Program will support countries to collect and assess key baseline information on the health of targeted fish stocks (including research campaigns to provide information on their biomass and growth), and to conduct (in partnership with fishers and stakeholders) ongoing monitoring and evaluation of trends in fish catch, effort and landings for key fish stocks. Furthermore, the Program will support countries to collect important social and economic statistics, such as costs and earnings of a sample of fishing vessels, as well prices and volumes of fish sold in local and export markets originating from target fisheries. Thus, through this activity, the Program will ensure support for data collection of the key Program indicators in Annex 3. The monitoring and evaluation activities financed by the Program will be carried out in parallel

60

to other governance reforms, rather than as a precursor to them, and the results can be fed back into the reform process and revisions to management measures made as necessary. The Program will finance goods for research and monitoring and evaluation, as well as services and operating costs. The Program will work together with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), which owns a fisheries research vessel based in Dakar that would be available to conduct research campaigns in the participating countries and provide training to local researchers, with the operating costs to be funded by the Program. 13. Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. The Program will support increased transparency and accessibility to all stakeholders of key information for the governance and management of the use of the marine fish resources. This transparency would be achieved through the development, installation and operation in each country of a ‘dashboard’ of fisheries management indicators, comprising social, biological and economic statistics, which would be linked to a regional information technology platform. Information in this dashboard, i.e. an information system of national and regional databases and websites, will include: (i) the vessel registry established in component 1; (ii) the number of licenses issued per fishery, per species and per access regime, as well as the total number of vessels licensed (including total number of months licensed, per gross ton); (iii) the total number of licensed gross tons of fishing vessels per fishery; (iv) the total fish catch per fishery (target species, by-catch and as far as possible discards); (v) the total fishing effort (in fishing days) per fishery; (vi) the number of fish surveillance patrol days; (vii) the total number of fishing vessels sited by surveillance patrols, as well as vessels boarded; (viii) the number of fishing vessels charged with an infraction (by type of infraction; (ix) the number of infraction cases presented (i.e. the number processed or going to court, the number of penalties administered and the effectiveness of the application of the penalties; and (x) the volume of fish products sold on the local markets or for export (including their price and their origins). Additionally, the ‘dashboard’ will include a section where information gathered and submitted by TURF co-management committees will be posted, including on factors such as periodic or unusual local catch information, in-shore incursions of larger vessels, local environmental and water quality monitoring, including elementary information monitoring climate change/disaster risk management factors, etc. In each country, the Program will finance the development and implementation of the rules and procedures for all relevant institutions to follow to ensure that the needed information is collected and transmitted to the ‘dashboard’, and that it is regularly maintained and updated, and shared publicly. Funds will be available for information/data collection and input (on the basis of research campaigns, local monitoring and evaluation described above), establishment of the database and software interface with the database (i.e. website) for the ‘dashboard’, and maintenance and monitoring of the dashboard (including support for local operators). The Program will also support periodic dissemination of key ‘dashboard’ information to key stakeholders including targeted fishing communities, translated into a user-friendly format. 14. Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans that set Levels of Sustainable Exploitation for Targeted Fisheries, and Create Rights and Allocation Mechanisms for those Fisheries. The Program will support the development and implementation of resource management plans for targeted fisheries (i.e. the units of management) that (i) set total levels of sustainable exploitation (e.g. a total allowable catch, or total level of fishing effort allowed), (ii) create quota and/or area-based rights to the fisheries, and (iii) develop an allocation mechanism for these rights that includes specific allocations for coastal fisheries. These management plans will constitute the regulatory framework for these targeted fisheries, drawing upon the tools for controlling access financed through the Program (as such the plans would constitute regulations enacted by the competent authority). In the process of developing these management plans, the Program will support participating countries to ensure that all stakeholders and their multiples objectives for the use of the marine fisheries resources are clearly defined, and that a process of negotiation and consensus-building is undertaken to agree on a set of realistic management objectives and policies for the plans that are coherent and aligned, and not mutually exclusive, and that such consensus building is politically feasible. The Program will support the creation or strengthening of consultation processes and structures at the national and local level for the functioning of management plans, enabling a clear process for their design, implementation and periodic adjustment. On this basis, each country will increase over time the participation and responsibility of stakeholders in the

61

management of the marine fish resources, through the provision of transferable fishing rights that function as incentives for more sustainable use of the fisheries. The Program will finance services for the development of resource management plans based on wide consultations, and operating costs for their implementation. Sub-Component (2) Introduction of Fishing Rights 15. The objective of this sub-component is to provide resource users with long-term incentives to sustainably manage the key fisheries targeted by this first phase of the Program. Such incentives will be created in the form of fishing rights, i.e. initially longer-term access rights, and eventually rights that may be transferred. The form these rights take will be tailored to the specific context of the participating countries with respect to the nature of the targeted fisheries, the uses of those resources, including the needs of the country – in terms of infrastructure and export earnings, and the institutional capacity of the license issuing agency and MCS system.38 Establishing such rights will require reform of fisheries governance practices and the role of public and private institutions for the fisheries in many cases, so that they also play an enabling role to support rights-holders, rather than strictly a command and control role. For small-scale fisheries in particular, this will require Governments to establish legally-recognized collaborative, or co-management partnerships with users, in order to define and execute policy, create and implement practical regulations and manage the resources. For industrial fisheries this means development and implementation of strategies to most effectively manage domestic and foreign fleets. Strategies may evolve between the short- and medium-term to reflect current physical and institutional constraints, and to enhance the domestic benefits. Strategies will not only focus on enhancing license fees, but also on increasing domestic value added to fish products after they are caught, private support for development of needed infrastructure and improvement of the effectiveness of MCS. More specifically, the Program will finance piloting of: (i) the introduction/strengthening of fishing rights to targeted industrial fisheries, and (ii) the introduction of fishing rights to small-scale fisheries through a process of co-management. 16. Introduction/Strengthening of Industrial Fishing Rights (by fishing vessel). In the short-term, the Program will support licensing of industrial fishing vessels, i.e. allowing them to actually engage in defined fishing operations, through the development of licensing procedures, for foreign and local industrial fishing vessels, including development of standard national licenses linked to defined resources management plans, and regionally coordinated national strategies and procedures for issuing licenses. Over the longer-term, this activity will support the introduction of fishing rights linked to quota defined in the management plans developed in component 1.1. These fishing rights would be tailored to the specific country context; in some cases they may take the form of transferable rights for individual industrial vessels for extended periods. In other cases, they may not be transferable, or may only be valid for limited periods. The Program will finance the services and consultations associated with creating and introducing these rights into targeted fisheries. 17. Introduction of Fishing Rights through a System of Co-Management. The Program will support the introduction of area-based rights to the coastal fisheries. Area-based rights have a long history around the world for management of coastal fisheries by local communities, particularly multi-species fisheries such as those found in West Africa. These rights will be introduced through a process of co-management that establishes a legally-recognized partnership between the Governments and coastal fishing communities, for creation of areas in which the latter would have exclusive fishing rights (and therefore a long-term stake in the sustainability of the resources). These area-based rights would take the form of territorial use rights fisheries (TURFs), areas of the sea within 6 miles of the coast that are managed by the local communities, and where fishers would have rights to use the resources and responsibility for

38 There are generally 12 different types of fishing rights: (i) licenses or authorizations to fish that are not transferable, (ii) individual quotas on fishing effort (including by fishing gear) that are not transferable, (iii) global fishing effort quotas that are not transferable, (iv) territorial use rights fisheries (TURFs), (v) transferable licenses, (vi) transferable individual effort (including gear units) quotas, (vii) transferable global effort quotas, (viii) quotas on community catches, (ix) catch limits by fishing vessel, (x) individual non-transferable quotas, (xi) individual transferable quotas (ITQs), and (xii) private fishing rights.

62

managing those resources sustainably. While the nature and form of the TURFs would vary in each of the countries, they would all share four common characteristics: local communities and resource users to whom these rights are conferred would (i) have the right to manage the nature and extent of the use of fish resources in TURFs, provided practices comply with national regulations; (ii) over time, assume increasing control over access to TURF resources and increasing responsibility for ensuring community compliance with regulations on fishing gear and methods; (iii) keep benefits from rights to access the TURFs, and (iv) assume responsibility for managing and monitoring the health of beach and in-shore environments, including on sanitation, waste disposal and water quality. 18. The Program will finance services for facilitation to establish legally-recognized co-management partnerships and create and introduce area-based rights, as well as support training for co-management committees and fishers’ representatives in basic management (including financial management). In some countries, the Program will support the establishment of infrastructure in the communities which will be used to house the co-management committee and create a community gathering space. Resources will also be provided to cover some of the operational costs of the co-management committees, including for monitoring and reporting on local fishing practices, and for monitoring and reporting on in-shore environmental conditions (in-shore resources, beach hygiene, water quality, etc.). Where feasible, the Program will support development of area co-management in combination with efforts to introduce alternative livelihoods (component 1.3) and activities to enhance the economic benefits of fisheries by improving quality and access to domestic and foreign markets (Component 3). Sub-Component (3) Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed 19. The objective of this sub-component is to reduce the fishing pressure on those resources targeted by the Program that are currently overexploited. In combination with measures to reduce illegal fishing (Component 2), reducing legal fishing pressure on overexploited resources would enhance the economic returns from these fisheries whilst also encouraging economic diversification in the local communities. To achieve fishing effort reductions in industrial fisheries, the Program will support selective buy-outs of industrial, locally owned and operated vessels in those fisheries that require immediate, substantial reductions of fishing efforts or that have operated at a substantial loss for over 3 years. Furthermore, the Program support will provide national crew members from industrial vessels which are ‘bought back’ with training opportunities to assist them in transitioning into alternative livelihoods. In small-scale fisheries, the Program will combine restrictions on expansion of the fleet with incentives to encourage fishers and fish processors to voluntarily transition into alternative, and potentially more viable, livelihoods. More specifically, for those targeted industrial and small-scale fisheries that are overexploited, the Program will finance: (i) an integrated support package of practical, medium-term training in micro-enterprise development and management, medium-term life-skills training and support, and improved access to (but not subsidies of) micro-finance for small scale fishers and fish processors to encourage and support their transition to alternative livelihoods; and (ii) for selected fishing communities with high levels of fishers and fish processors exiting the fisheries, community-level safety net support, overseen and supported by appropriate Government/NGO teams, which would include expanded access to micro-finance and practical training in micro-enterprise development and management for resident individuals and groups of individuals. 20. Support to industrial fishing vessel owners. The Program will provide support to industrial vessel owners to exit the fisheries in those countries where large nationally owned industrial fishing fleets require substantial, immediate reduction, for example Senegal or potentially Ghana. 21. Transition of Fishers Working on Industrial Fishing Vessels. The Program will support provision to microenterprise training for fishers who have been working as crewmembers on industrial vessels and who lose their employment because of reductions in the industrial trawl fleet as a consequence of this project. These crew members will also have broader access to (non-subsidized) microfinance.

63

22. Transition of Small-Scale Fishers and Fish Processors to Alternative Livelihoods. The Program will support initiatives which will encourage and support small-scale fishers and fish processors to transition to alternative livelihoods. This transition will understandably be a longer-term process and may, in some countries, be achieved by supporting processes and social structures that will later support transition. Where appropriate and feasible (as in Senegal), the Program will support training on microenterprise development and management accompanied by medium-term life skills management training. This will be accompanied by broadened access to non-subsidized microfinance as the Program will assist vetted microfinance institutions in expanding their geographic coverage to target fishing communities. In other countries (Liberia and Sierra Leone), the Program will support and provide technical assistance to foster community based management and community cohesion as a means of readying communities for transparent and effective TURF management, and moves by individuals into alternative livelihoods. Sub-Component (4) Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency 23. The objective of this sub-component will be to build broad consensus and support for the Program’s initiatives while also ensuring there is a high level transparency on the Program. The Program will finance: (i) tools to ensure the accountability of resource managers to users, such as communications, social marketing, and stakeholder consultation initiatives to improve public knowledge and understanding of, and engagement in, improved fisheries management; (ii) a capacity building initiative (which will support training, limited equipment purchases and local and sub-regional travel costs) to build a network of journalists (at country and sub-Regional level)who are informed about, and can report on, progress made under the Program, and particularly in terms of progress on initiatives to reduce fishing effort; (iii) transparency initiatives to help ensure that fishing communities are effectively consulted and informed about the allocation of fishing rights and have access to effective grievance and redress procedures on fishing rights allocations, and transition and safety net programs, and, (iv) the design and implementation of a community-level procedure for monitoring compliance by individuals receiving support for transition, and for community compliance with safety net support initiatives. 24. Social Marketing and Communication. The Program will finance: (i) the widespread dissemination of findings from Consultative Citizen Report Card Surveys undertaken during project preparation using regular media channels but also innovative approaches more suited to delivering messages to rural communities; (ii) widespread and continuing consultations on the Program, including during Program implementation; and (iii) local capacity building on social marketing approaches. 25. Network of Journalists Reporting on the Program. The Program will support efforts to build knowledge and capacity amongst local journalists in the region on fisheries management issues, in order to build journalist and media capacity to report on progress being made under the Program, particularly in terms of initiatives aiming to reduce fishing effort. More specifically, the Program will support the creation of an active network of local journalists within the region who cover and report frequently on the fisheries management issues and progress with Program implementation. As such, the Program will support skills development for local journalists to gather and disseminate information on fisheries management issues; limited equipment purchases necessary to support effective information gathering and reporting; and local travel for network journalists to facilitate their reporting of Program activities. Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 26. The majority of the countries in the region have signed onto the international plan of action sponsored by FAO to reduce illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and have also emphasized the importance of reducing illegal fishing in West Africa in the development of the Strategic Action Plan (2002-2010) of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (CSRP). The objective of this component is to support the countries to meet these international and regional commitments to reduce the illegal fishing activities threatening the sustainable management of the marine fish resources. More specifically, this component aims to improve the fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems of

64

participating countries and adapt them to the needs of fisheries management, within the framework of a coordinated approach between the participating countries. 27. For the first two years of Phase I of the Program, the European Union will provide some EU 2.5 million to the CSRP to support regional surveillance patrols and monitoring. In complement, this component aims to (i) create or improve the competent civilian national structures in charge of MCS and their operational frameworks; (ii) develop and implement strategies adapted to the contexts of specific fisheries, in particular artisanal fisheries, for a rational and efficient use of the available MCS systems; and, consequently and subsequently, (iii) reinforce regional cooperation to reduce illegal fishing. As this Program builds national capacity to collaborate on fisheries surveillance, and the EU project at the CSRP closes, the Program will gradually transition implementation of surveillance activities to the regional level to create a regional network, based on progress measured by triggers at the mid-term evaluation of Phase I. As such, the Program will support the implementation of the region’s strategy to reduce illegal fishing activities threatening the sustainable exploitation of the marine fish resources and socio-economic benefits for the coastal country, by building up national nodes of monitoring and information collection (through a common fishing vessel monitoring system and information platform established in each country and linked to the CSRP) and for a minimum sea patrol capacity, which would all be linked in a regional network coordinated by the CSRP. This regional network of national competencies for fisheries surveillance forms the core of West Africa’s strategy to reduce illegal fishing, as elaborated in the CSRP’s Strategic Action Plan adopted by the Conference of Ministers of Fisheries, and would be the objective of this component over the two Phases of the Program. Particular attention will be given to development of sustainable financial mechanisms to cover the recurrent costs of the MCS systems, prior to significant investments in goods and equipment. 28. Of course implementing the CSRP’s Strategic Action Plan and establishing a regional network to reduce illegal fishing in West Africa will result in both winners and losers as a result of a change from the status quo. Currently, foreign fishing companies are generating large profits from illegal fishing in West Africa’s waters (which greatly reduces costs), and in many cases this includes local companies that act as joint ventures, as well as mid-level civil servants that help facilitate the process. Southeast Asian companies in particular have had a long fishing presence in West Africa, sending aging (sometimes more than 30 years old) trawlers to fish in illegal zones, or without licenses, causing significant damage to the resource base and large losses to the local economy. The local companies that act as joint ventures to facilitate these foreign operators are highly influential in countries like Ghana, Sierra Leone and Liberia. In contrast, the Governments of many West African countries are losing a tremendous amount of money to illegal fishing, and local small-scale fisheries are not only in competition with these vessels (causing many conflicts in Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and Liberia for example, when industrial trawl vessels fish in zones reserved for small-scale vessels), but incur losses as a result of the destruction of the resource base. In these countries, Government treasuries, local small-scale fishing industries and coastal communities all stand to gain from such a reduction, as well as any fishing vessels that remain and fish legally, and therefore benefit from a subsequent increase in the resource base and profitability. For this reason, the countries are increasingly demonstrating the significant political will needed to reduce illegal fishing. For example, in both Liberia and Sierra Leone, there is increasing awareness at the highest levels of Government of the losses to the countries’ economies resulting from illegal fishing, and to public revenues, and therefore significant commitment to address the problem, if the means are available. Sub-Component (1) Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing 29. The objective of this sub-component is to prevent and reduce illegal fishing practices by strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of fisheries surveillance activities. The Program will finance: (i) the strengthening or development of national MCS plans and strategies, appropriate legal and institutional frameworks, and practices for addressing illegal fishing vessels and activities; and (ii) the implementation of adequate financing mechanisms for fisheries surveillance.

65

30. Enabling legal and judiciary environment for combating illegal fishing, including the development of MCS plans and strategies. Where they do not exist, the Program will first support the development of national MCS plans and strategies in each country, based on cost-benefit and cost-efficiency analyses to determine practical solutions for combating illegal fishing, as well as the results and lessons learned from efforts to implement sustainable surveillance systems. This planning will take into consideration the existing fisheries sector policy and fisheries management plans, and will identify the recurrent costs of implementation and sustainable sources of funding. The Program will provide technical assistance to assess regulatory and institutional frameworks for combating illegal fishing in each country, and to introduce any adjustments necessary to ensure that all infractions detected result in actual penalties that will serve as a deterrent. More specifically, the Program will support countries to ensure that their regulatory and judicial frameworks include: (i) appropriate regulations for the implementation of policies for sustainable fisheries, in particular with participation of key stakeholders, in support of policies and management plans adopted through support from Component 1 of the Program; (ii) rules, procedures and practices for an efficient processing and monitoring of infractions cases, including implementation of penalties and collection and management of revenues from fines; and (iii) mechanisms for ensuring transparency in the prosecution of infractions, implementation of penalties and collection and management of revenues from fines. This will include support for awareness-raising and participation of key stakeholders and civil society in the revision and implementation of the legal frameworks, as well as the development of institutional arrangements for transparent and efficient monitoring of prosecution processes and the imposition and collection of fines/penalties, as well as follow up to infractions. This work to review and revise the regulatory and institutional frameworks for combating illegal fishing will take place in parallel to Program support for actual MCS activities in each country, and will be informed their initial results on the ground. 31. Stable and adequate financing of surveillance functions. In each of the countries, the budget currently allocated the fisheries sector administration is limited and likely to be insufficient to fund the operation of surveillance activities that would be supported through this Program, which are by nature relatively expensive. As such, the program will provide coordinated technical assistance for the development and implementation of financial mechanisms to provide stable and adequate support for the long-term operating costs of the fisheries surveillance system in each country. Sub-Component (2) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems 32. The objective of this sub-component is the implementation of adaptive surveillance strategies to the context of targeted fisheries, based on good practices. The Program will finance: (i) an integrated approach and coordination of fisheries MCS along the supply chains, (ii) procurement of equipment, works (including equipment leasing) and/or goods for surveillance (such as a fisheries monitoring center, a satellite-based vessel monitoring system, radar capability, and patrol capacity where necessary); and (iv) development and dissemination of best practices in surveillance and control operations. 33. Coordinating MCS activities and an Integrated Approach to Surveillance. The Program will support strengthened coordination of the actions of the various entities involved in surveillance in each participating country, at sea and on land. The Program will focus on approaches aiming to identify and combat illegal fishing practices and offenders throughout the supply chains, from the landing site to the final market. The Program will provide technical assistance to support the effective coordination of fisheries surveillance operations (operational manuals, support to meetings and workshops, communication and data exchange instruments). 34. Implementing sustainable surveillance systems. The Program will support the procurement and operation of the surveillance equipment and systems needed to reduce illegal fishing and implement the MCS plans eventually developed in each country, including: (i) leasing or purchasing naval and airborne equipment, (ii) procuring satellite, radar or computer-based vessel monitoring technology, (ii) constructing fisheries monitoring centers, coastal stations or offices in strategic points (e.g. ports, airports, etc.), and (iv) implementing innovative tools or practices in conformity with international obligations (e.g.

66

Port State Measures, etc.). The Program will favor low-cost, practical solutions wherever possible, and will support training needs for local operators of MCS systems and newly procured equipment and technology. The Program will support implementation of MCS systems based on existing regulations and plans in the short-term, and as Program-supported MCS plans are developed based on the lessons learned, these systems would be adjusted and refined. 35. In supporting the implementation of fisheries surveillance systems, the Program will ensure that financing from the World Bank will be limited only to surveillance activities, and that the goods, works and services financed are used only for this purpose. Sub-Component (3) Strengthening Regional Collaboration for MCS 36. The objective of this sub-component is to enable the CSRP to monitor and support the network of MCS systems among the countries. In particular, through this activity the CSRP will provide support to the countries for the implementation of the fish catch certification scheme that will be required in order to access the European Union (EU) market, starting January 2010 (UE REG. 1005/2008). In order to comply with these new requirements for the EU market, procedures for collaboration between the concerned competent authorities of the sub-region will be necessary. In the particular case of Senegal, since the national fleet is operating throughout West Africa, the competent authority will have to verify that a national vessel requiring the catch certificate for fish caught in third country waters had the authorization to do so, and did it in accordance with the management measures in force. As such, the Program will provide technical assistance and training for the Senegalese designed competent authority, as well as its counterparts in the other countries. The Program will also finance the preparation of bilateral cooperation agreements, which could eventually lead to the development of a sub-regional agreement. Specific training and technical assistance on the 1005/2008 and similar regulations and their implication will be supported. In addition, under this sub-component, the Program will support periodic reviews and audits of the fisheries surveillance activities financed in the participating countries by the World Bank, by an independent group of experts. Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 37. The objective of this component is to identify and implement measures to increase the benefits to West Africa from the marine fish resources, by increasing the share of the value-added captured in the region. To ensure that a greater share of the value-added to marine fish products taken in the West Africa’s waters is captured in the region, the Program will: (i) expand or upgrade the infrastructure base for improved fish landing and processing in small-scale and industrial fisheries; (ii) strengthen the capacity of competent authorities and relevant institutions to support trade in fish and fishery-based products; and (iii) create opportunities for private investments in the sector by increasing the standards and information available on fish products and markets throughout the region. Sub-Component (1) Fish Landing Site Clusters 38. The objective of this sub-component is to reduce post-capture losses of fish in selected sites, and assist communities and countries to improve the professionalism and competitiveness of supply and value chains. The Program will finance infrastructure and service centers in one or two key landing sites in each country, or provide investments/guarantees to allow others to invest in such infrastructure and service centers. In either case, the results would be landing sites as economic clusters, with key infrastructure and economic support services, such as ice production and storage, repair of vessels and gear, provision of fuel, quality control, auction and marketing infrastructure, etc. Sub-Component (2) Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) 39. The objective of this sub-component is to help link the region’s suppliers to international markets. The Program will finance: (i) a national and regional network of quality control infrastructure and trade information and services, to support increased exports of fish products from West Africa, (ii) a regional

67

proactive trade information system to ensure traceability of targeted supply chains, and (iii) training and technical assistance to local enterprises. 40. Quality, standards, metrology and testing (QSTM) infrastructure and technical assistance. The Program will finance the establishment of certified public laboratories and competent sanitary authorities in participating countries as needed, as well as more broadly the development of relevant protocols and standards for quality and traceability, including training. 41. Proactive trade information system (PTIS). The Program will finance the creation of a PTIS for targeted supply chains, including product identification cards for traceability for selected fisheries, and training to support establishing information systems for traceability, etc. - and establishment of a regional information resource center to support information needs of small to medium-size enterprises. The core soft element of the proactive information system is the concept of “Products ID Cards” which is a central element of product differentiation. “Products ID cards” not only feature traditional “product and market profiles” for all country potentially viable fishery products but also any relevant information aimed at closing the knowledge gap from supply of raw material to delivering final products on the markets, including detailed recipes to implement standards and quality requirements, the environment of the production, production processes, the configuration of production lines, opportunities for investment, risks and risks mitigation measures, potential product profiles for export and domestic markets, detailed definition of the characteristics of targeted markets by sector and product lines, available and exploitable technologies by sector including training, marketing, product design, development and adaptation, packaging and labeling, Industrial Process Plant Retrofit (IPPR), as well as protocols to enable enterprises to translate the market requirements and regulations into concrete products adaptation and development. The cards will be developed for targeted fishery resources, and will be hosted on an easily accessible and user-friendly ICT based system. 42. Training and technical assistance to enterprises in the sector in business development. The Program will finance training for enterprises, including local specialized business development services providers that will help enterprise access relevant information and translate it into product adaptation and development. Sub-Component (3) Support for Marine Aquaculture Development 43. The objective of this sub-component is to help encourage the development of marine aquaculture, which could eventually provide increased supply to fish processors in the region. The Program will finance a regional aquaculture technique promotion program, support to promotion and development of common services in hatchery, post larvae development and vetrinarary services, and support for a revolving Project Development Fund to invest in new marine aquaculture enterprises. Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 44. This component will provide the support for national-level implementation and regional coordination, ensuring that regular monitoring and evaluation is conducted, and the results are fed back into decision-making and Program management. Sub-Component (1) National Implementation 45. The Program will be managed through national Project Implementation Units (PIUs) in each participating country, staffed by external and local project management specialists. The Units will be responsible to the relevant national authorities and be mainstreamed into the lead technical agency (although fiduciary responsibilities will vary and in some cases may rest with other agencies outside the PIU), and will report each six months to a local Steering Committee (established in each country during preparation). The purpose of the PIU would be to ensure efficient implementation of all aspects of Program activities in each country. Each PIU will prepare an annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan that would be reviewed with the Steering Committee and transmitted to the Regional Coordination Unit. The structure and staffing of the PIUs, and

68

the scope of their operations will differ from country to country, depending on the local requirements and operating constraints. Each PIU will be headed by a local PIU Director, supported by 1-2 local or external operational managers, if necessary supported by local operational assistants and short-term local or external technical specialists. Sub-Component (2) Regional Coordination 46. The Program will be coordinated and supported by a Regional Coordination Unit, housed at the CSRP. This Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will (i) support the harmonization of fisheries policy within the region, (ii) conduct monitoring and evaluation of Program investments and share information and results throughout the region, (iii) implement ongoing communication activities to raise awareness about the Program and implementation progress, and (iv) provide implementation support to each of the countries, including the coordination of regional procurement. The RCU will have sole fiduciary responsibility for funds on-granted to it by the countries, and will report to a regional steering committee of the participating countries. The RCU will collect and transmit each participating country’s annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan to the World Bank for non-objection. As many issues that national projects will face will have regional similarities, and their solutions may have been tried in other countries before, national PIU staff will frequently coordinate analysis of daily operational issues and responses directly with the RCU. B. APL-A1 (see Annexes 5 - 9) 47. The first phase of APL-A will support the countries of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone to implement the above Program, with coordination support at the regional level from a Regional Coordination Unit at the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (CSRP). The development objective of APL-A is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the targeted marine fish resources in the four countries of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone, and the proportion of that wealth captured by these countries. The region’s top priority fisheries for this first phase include: coastal demersal fish species (e.g. croakers, groupers, snappers, etc.), coastal shrimp and cephalopods (e.g. octopus and cuttlefish). Aligning national and regional measures around these priority fisheries ensures the program’s regional spillover. As mentioned previously, the above Program described in Section A constitutes a menu of activities that could be implemented in each country in order to achieve the common objective, and which would be chosen based on the specific local context. More specifically, through each of the above components and sub-components, the Program will support the implementation of the following activities in these first four countries in APL-A1, and at the regional level (with total costs in millions of U.S. Dollars in parenthesis). A detailed description of APL-A1 activities at the regional level and in each country is given in Annexes 5 through 9. A table depicting the components for which GEF and IDA respectively are lending support, is given in Annex 10.

69

Annex 5: Detailed Project Description in Cape Verde

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

($5.5 m IDA, $2.0 m GEF, $0.3 m Government) 1. Background: the Fisheries in Cape Verde. Cape Verde consists of a series of ten islands, about 500 kilometers from the coast of Senegal. Due to their volcanic origin, the islands’ continental shelf is narrow and covers less than 5,500 square kilometers, while the country’s territorial waters cover more than 734,000 square kilometers. Fish are among the country’s most important natural resources, employing over 18,000 persons (roughly 10 percent of the working population). 2. The country’s marine fish resources have been estimated to provide sustainable annual yields as high as 32,500 to 41,000 tons (of which 25,000 to 30,000 tons are tuna species), although catch levels only averaged 9,300 tons between 1998 and 2006. Furthermore, recent studies have suggested that these assessments were overestimated, and in fact some resources are already overexploited, such as coastal lobsters and some demersal fish species. 3. According to the most recent surveys, Cape Verde includes some 1,036 small-scale fishing vessels (of which more than 70 percent are motorized) using 77 unloading points and several landing sites. The country also has a semi-industrial/industrial fleet with 66 vessels (generally 10 to 12 meters long), based mainly on Santiago and S. Vicente (and to a lesser extent on Sal Islands). Since the 1990s, the total number of small-scale vessels has been slowly decreasing, while the number of semi-industrial vessels has been increasing. 4. From 1998 to 2006, the small-scale fleet caught an average of 5,600 tons (60 percent of the total catch), consisting of mainly coastal demersal fish and small pelagic species. Most of this catch is targeted to the local market, as the country only established a competent sanitary authority certified for export to the European Union in 2003. The following year Cape Verde exported 353 tons of fish products for a total value of US$1.5 million. 5. Key issues in the fisheries sector in Cape Verde include: (i) increasing overexploitation of coastal lobsters and demersal fish species, particularly in rural coastal fishing communities, (ii) surveillance operations have been underfunded and high levels of illegal fishing have been reported, and (iii) insufficient infrastructure to support local fish landing and processing. 6. Scenario for Project Investments to Achieve the Objective in Cape Verde. Project investments would aim to develop a scenario for achieving the desired outcomes and objective in Cape Verde, whereby the sustainability of the fisheries would be restored through the introduction of fishing rights and co-management regimes together with the provision of opportunities for youths in fishing communities to exit from the sector to pursue alternative livelihoods. The number of small-scale motorized vessels in operation would decline by 20 percent over the period of Phase I, with a steeper decline of one-third in the number of non-motorized vessels over the period, which would be an acceleration of an existing trend towards fewer such vessels. The number of semi-industrial vessels is expected to remain stable. As a result, catch per unit effort is expected to remain flat initially, and then increase by 5 percent annually from 2012. Consequently, a turnaround in the performance of the fisheries would be expected (see Annex 14 for expected benefits). Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Sub-Component 1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($1.1 m GEF)

70

7. Activity 1.1.1 Registration of all Fishing Vessels. The Project will finance the development and implementation of a system for linking the existing registration of all industrial vessels to a DGP registry to support fisheries management; develop and implement registration of all small-scale fishing vessels, and the establishment and maintenance of a fishing vessel registry at the Fisheries Department (DGP). This support will include technical assistance for (i) the development of the registration procedures (streamlining existing procedures for the small-scale vessels), (ii) the installation of a database in DGP for the vessel registry (linked to the ‘dashboard’, see 1.1.3), (iii) training for its operation and (iv) ongoing data entry. In terms of the small-scale fisheries, the Project will finance consultations among stakeholders on registration procedures, and the costs of registration campaigns. 8. Activity 1.1.2 Assessment of the Status of Key Fish Stocks. The Project will finance regular biological and economic assessments of the state of targeted fish resources (coastal demersal species, spiny lobsters), as well as simulation models of potential alternatives for management of these resources. The Project will finance technical assistance and goods, as well as limited research campaigns. 9. Activity 1.1.3 Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. In Cape Verde the ‘dashboard’ will be housed in the Fisheries Department (DGP), and will be designed according to the specifications described in Section A (Program Summary). This national node will be linked to the regional information platform established at the Regional Coordination Unit, and will include a regional vessel registry as an element of the ‘dashboard’. This activity will include financing for goods, consultant services and operating costs. 10. Activity 1.1.4 Preparation and Implementation of revisions of existing Management Plans that set Levels of Sustainable Exploitation for Targeted Fisheries, and Create Rights and Allocation Mechanisms for those Fisheries. The Project will finance long-term technical assistance to DGP to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Fisheries Sector Management Plan 2004 – 2014, and then to develop any necessary revisions to the Plan, facilitate wide stakeholder consultations and prepare subsequent regulations (for example the regulations necessary to introduce a satellite-based industrial fishing vessel monitoring system). This review will include the regulatory framework and judicial institutions for combating illegal fishing, including the introduction of any adjustments necessary to ensure that all infractions detected result in actual penalties that will serve as a deterrent. The firm will provide ongoing support with implementation of the revised Plan, including awareness-raising and participation of key stakeholders and civil society for any revisions needed to the legal framework, as well as the development of institutional arrangements for transparent and efficient monitoring of prosecution processes and imposition and collections of fines/penalties, as well as follow up to infractions. Sub-Component 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights ($0.5 m GEF) 11. Activity 1.2.1 Introduction of Fishing Rights through a System of Co-Management. The Project will finance the creation and implementation of co-managed marine protected areas that would evolve into pilot TURFs in the coastal fisheries, for the management of coastal demersal species and spiny lobsters. The Project will finance the establishment of community co-management associations to manage these marine protected areas and eventual TURFs, and provide them with extensive training and ongoing support. The Project will begin with pilot communities in high-fishing areas, and after two years will replicate these experiences to other communities. On the basis of the experience of the Project in these areas, before the end of Phase I the Government will pass new regulations for the implementation of TURFs for the coastal demersal fisheries.

71

Sub-Component 1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed ($1.2 m IDA) 12. Activity 1.3.1 Transition of Small-Scale Fishers and Fish Processors to Alternative Livelihoods. The Project will support, in conjunction with the establishment of marine protected areas and eventual TURFs, the promotion of small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) outside of the fisheries sector, targeted to youths in fishing communities where the resources are overexploited (particularly the spiny lobsters). More specifically, the Project will finance a firm to work with DGP and the Development and Innovation Agency to develop and implement a package of support targeted to youth in fishing communities, including training and technical assistance to develop alternative livelihoods to fishing and/or business models for SMEs that could receive finance from commercial micro-credit institutions. The package of support would also include ongoing mentoring in execution of the business plans for SMEs, and goods and equipment for start-up of operations (with a counterpart contribution). Participants would sign agreements with the Project not to continue fishing after a certain period of participation. Sub-Component 1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency does not apply to Cape Verde Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Sub-Component 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing does not apply to Cape Verde Sub-Component 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems ($1.8 m IDA, $0.1 m Government) 13. Activity 2.2.1 Implementing sustainable surveillance systems. The Project will provide technical assistance for the country to prepare a sustainable financing framework for management of the fisheries sector, notably fisheries surveillance operations, taking into account current and potential public revenue streams from fisheries. Additionally, the Project will provide support to DGP to recruit and train fisheries inspectors and observers to increase monitoring and surveillance coverage of the fisheries. Furthermore, DGP will install a satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring system (VMS) through funds from a recently-signed foreign fishing agreement with the European Union, and the Project will provide support to DGP to finance the operating costs of this system, as well as the purchase of additional goods and equipment to extend coverage in years three and four of Phase I. Finally, on the basis of an action plan to be developed by DGP for the implementation of the national MCS Plan in small-scale fisheries, the Project will support DGP to construct and/or rehabilitate two coastal surveillance stations and to conduct participatory coastal fisheries surveillance patrols with targeted communities. Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Sub-Component 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters ($2.0 m IDA, $0.2 m Government) 14. The Project will support a network of integrated fish landing site clusters based on existing works, starting with basic infrastructure for economic services at Santiago (e.g. cold storage and repair facilities, etc.), as well as at Sal, both of which would be managed by private operators in a public-private partnership. For Praia, the Project will finance electricity and water supply, as well as goods and equipment for a fish auction hall. Sub-Component 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) does not apply to Cape Verde Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Sub-Component 4.1 National Implementation ($0.5 m IDA, $0.4 m GEF)

72

15. The Project in Cape Verde will be managed through a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in DGP, staffed by external and local project management specialists. The PIU will report each six months to the national Steering Committee (established during preparation). The PIU will prepare an annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan that would be reviewed with the Steering Committee and transmitted to the Regional Coordination Unit. Activities within this sub-component will include: (i) technical assistance for national implementation, and (ii) operating costs for national implementation. Component 1. Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the FisheriesRegistration of all fishing vessels

Registration of all fishing vessels, operation and maintenance of vessel registry, database and equipment

$0.1 M GEF

Assessment of the status of key fish stocks

Regulator biological and economic assessments of targeted fish stocks, e.g. spiny lobsters and coastal demersal fish

$0.4 M GEF

Transparency and accessibility of fisheries management information

Development, installation and operation of a fisheries management information system, linked to regional database, including ongoing data collection

$0.2 M GEF

Preparation and implementation of fisheries management plans

Technical assistance and consultations to support review and revision of the 2004 – 2014 management plan, and revisions to the legal framework

$0.4 M GEF

1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights Introduction of fishing rights through a system of co-management

Creation and implementation of pilot TURFs in the coastal fisheries, for the management of coastal demersal species and spiny lobsters

$0.5 M

GEF

1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where NeededTransition of small-scale fishers and fish processors to alternative livelihoods

Training, technical assistance and small goods and equipment to support youths in fishing communities to develop and implement SMEs outside of the fishing sector

$1.2 M IDA

Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems Implementing sustainable surveillance systems

Technical assistance for development of sustainable financing stream of fisheries management and surveillance

$0.1 M IDA

Recruitment and training of fisheries inspectors and observers

$0.2 M IDA

Goods and operating costs for functioning of VMS $0.5 M IDA Support for participatory coastal surveillance of small-scale fisheries, including two coastal stations

$1.0 M $0.1 M

IDA Gov.

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters Basic infrastructure at Santiago $1.5 M

$0.2 M IDA Gov.

Basic infrastructure at Sal $0.2 M IDA Electricity and water supply at Praia $0.1 M IDA Fish auction hall at Praia $0.2 M IDA Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 4.1 National Implementation Technical assistance for a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in DGP, staffed by external and local project management specialists

$0.4 M GEF

Operating costs, goods and equipment for national PIU in DGP $0.5 M IDA

16. Tentative Implementation Plan and Chronology. The following schedule for implementation of the Project is expected in Cape Verde for the first 18 months: Activity Component Start Date End Date Completion of Operational Manuals, establishment of PIU 4.1 July 2009 October 2009 Establishment of vessel registry at DGP, preparation of 1.1.1 November 2009 February 2010

73

registration campaigns First research campaigns conducted, data analyzed 1.1.2 December 2009 April 2010 Recruitment and training of Community Organizers for pilot MPAs/TURFs

1.2 December 2009 April 2010

Recruitment of firm or NGO to develop program for youth SMEs in fishing communities

1.3 December 2009 April 2010

Feasibility study conducted for integrated fish landing site cluster on Santiago

3.1 February 2010 April 2010

Electricity and water supply at Praia completed 3.1 February 2010 June 2010 Consultations to confirm selection of pilot communities for MPAs/TURFs

1.2 April 2010 July 2010

Development and validation of methodology and procedures for fisheries SME program

1.3 April 2010 August 2010

Recruitment of firm to provide technical assistance on policy, management plans and legal framework

1.1.4 April 2010 August 2010

Completion of technical specifications for fish landing site cluster on Santiago

3.1 June 2010 December 2010

Community Organizers in place and begin work with communities to establish co-management associations

1.2 August 2010 December 2010

Completion of review of legal framework for use of VMS 1.1.4 September 2010 December 2010 Firm begins work to target initial round of youths in targeted fishing communities to develop SMEs

1.3 September 2010 December 2010

Introduction of regulations for use of VMS 1.1.4 January 2011 July 2011 Installation of ‘dashboard’ and training of local users, based on specifications developed through regional financing

1.1.3 January 2011 July 2011

17. Assessment of Country-Specific Risks and Mitigation Measures. The following risks to achieving the Project’s objective specifically in Cape Verde were identified, along with mitigation measures:

Risk factors Description of risk Mitigation measures I. Country and/or Sub-National Level RisksMacroeconomic framework Stable macro framework, with sustainable debt levels;

however, reduced access to concessional aid coupled with large investments needed in infrastructure; and persistent contingent liabilities and increase in food and fuel prices; CPIA rating is 4.1

Continued access to concessional borrowing from IDA; ensure borrowing is strategic and infrastructure maintenance affordable

Country Engagement with World Bank (including political aspects)

Track record of good governance and sound sector policy environment; central institutions strong but small human resources capacity; decentralization framework being developed

Provide support to build capacity of institutions and knowledge to support decentralization framework

Country Governance Government ownership and adherence to reforms is strong and there is limited risk of political instability

Continued support to government reform efforts through budget support and investments

Systemic corruption Track record of good governance and sound sector policy environment, transparency; need strengthen coordination of reforms across sectors

Continued support to government reform efforts through budget support and investments, including to build capacity for implementing reforms in sectors

Other (for example political/ election risks, country engagement with other MDBs/donors, social and environmental risks)

Low systemic corruption; TI corruption perception ranking for Cape Verde

Continued support for government reform efforts, including in PFM and M&E

II. Operation-specific Risks Lack of alternative livelihoods to fishing in the islands

Risk that alternative livelihoods to fishing will not be found in rural fishing communities in the islands, where overexploited fisheries are targeted by the Project.

The Project will focus on creating a mechanism to support development of alternative livelihood opportunities, with extensive technical assistance throughout the process, to work with fishers to test new livelihood possibilities and take them to scale.

74

Annex 6: Detailed Project Description in Liberia

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

($8.2 m IDA, $3.0 m GEF) 1. Background: the Fisheries in Liberia. Liberia has a long coastline (560 kilometers) with a wide continental shelf that supports marine fish resources which could make a significant contribution to local economic growth. More specifically, the country has considerable resources of: (i) shrimp, (ii) coastal demersal fish, (iii) small pelagic species (herring-like species), and (iv) large pelagics such as tuna. Liberia’s coastal region is home to some 58 percent of the population, and although per capita fish consumption is relatively low, fish currently contributes to the animal protein needs of an estimated 80 percent of the population. 2. As of 2007, the total catch from the marine fisheries was roughly 15,000 tons, although large amounts of fish were likely caught illegally or caught in Liberia’s waters and transshipped at sea for export, and thus never reported. However, this is far lower than what may be the potential fish yield from the country, which before the war reached well over 150,000 tons, including: 3. Currently, some 33,000 fishers and fish processors are directly employed in the small-scale fisheries, operating roughly 3,500 canoes (only 8 percent are motorized) and utilizing 137 landing sites. The motorized small-scale fishing vessels are generally used by large communities of Ghanaian (and in some cases from Benin or Cote D’Ivoire) fishers, and these vessels are far bigger than the small, wooden dug-out canoes that are often paddled and sailed by Liberian fishers, in what are almost parallel fisheries. While motorized canoes particularly target small-pelagic stocks, the small dug-out canoes particularly aim for high value demersal species. In terms of the communities participating in the small-scale fisheries, many are cut off from supply lines for the 5 months of the rainy season, and lack infrastructure for their small-scale landing sites, chilled storage, and ice, as well as access to micro-credit and/or supplies and repairs to vessels. Virtually all fishing gear is currently imported by Ghanaian fishermen – using subsidized credit from Ghana. 4. In 2007 there were more than 50 different licensed industrial vessels, and currently 33 vessels are reportedly legally operating. Although there are roughly 14 local companies affiliated with these 50 vessels, providing them with support services and receiving some fish from them for the local markets, much of the catch is still transshipped at sea for export. This is in sharp contrast to the past, when in 1973 industrial fish processing made the country the highest value exporter of fish products in Africa. However, currently there is no functioning fishing harbor, no competent authority for certifying fish products to export standards (legislation, training and equipment are all needed), nor cold storage/holding facilities at the airport. 5. The key issues specific to Liberia’s fisheries are: (i) very limited institutional capacity in the National Bureau of Fisheries which currently has no fisheries research capacity, leading to weak governance and management of the fisheries, (of note is that current foreign industrial fishing vessel license fees are very low compared to Sierra Leone and other countries), (ii) increasing damage to coastal ecosystems and fish spawning and nursing grounds (as well as to small-scale fisheries) from trawling (the country needs enforcement of an inshore 6-mile zone free from trawling), (iii) reportedly high levels of illegal fishing (some recent estimates cite 60 to 100 illegal vessels fishing in Liberian waters), (iv) numerous negative factors affecting local value addition and trade, such as lack of port and fish landing infrastructure, training, and quality control capacity for export certification, and (v) deep poverty and a high level of social fragmentation in fishing communities which will make implementation of some reforms very challenging. As a result, there are no legal fish exports from the country at the moment. Past evaluations and foreign surveys have shown the coastal demersal fish stocks to be either fully or overexploited.

75

6. Scenario for Project Investments to Achieve the Objective in Liberia. Project investments would aim to develop a scenario for achieving the desired outcomes and objective in Liberia, whereby immediate support will be provided to adjust the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries and quickly expand the institutional capacity at the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF). The core components of this scenario would be the strengthening of MCS functions and the capacity of the BNF through a combination of external technical assistance and training of local staff. This scenario would focus on quick adjustments of the industrial fishery while gradually introducing an area-based rights regime through a co-management process for small-scale fisheries. 7. Policy change would initially focus on strengthening MCS to keep industrial vessels out of the environmentally and socially sensitive inshore areas, and deter illegal fishing in deeper waters. Priority would be given to development of a management plan for coastal shrimp and demersal resources, then tendering and negotiating a 5-year contract with a single shrimp company to land catch and develop basic infrastructure in Liberia based on defined quota, in order to encourage local investment by the company as well as compliance with fishing regulations. At the same time, the legal and regulatory framework for all industrial license fees and conditions would be adjusted, license fees for the existing industrial fleet targeting demersal species would be increased to levels comparable to those prevalent in the region (and adjusted according to the effectiveness of MCS and the potential resource base in Liberia compared to neighboring countries), and a fisheries access agreement with the EU limited to deep-sea resources and tuna would be negotiated. These licensing arrangements would substantially increase public income from the sector, as well as enhance efforts to strengthen MCS. Furthermore, strengthened surveillance would help ensure that vessels that are currently not licensed will more seriously consider the purchase of a license if available, possibly increasing the number of licensed vessels and the tax base. To enable future legal exports to high value markets such as the European Union (including by EU operators in Liberian waters), high priority would be given to establishing and certifying a Competent Sanitary Authority. While eventually the country would develop some internal fisheries research capacity, management decisions during the first five years would be largely based on evaluation of historic research data and analysis of improved catch records, data from regional surveys, better collection and analysis of fishing logs of the industrial fleet and targeted new research executed by external scientists and institutions, while the capacity of BNF to review and assess scientific activities would be strengthened. 8. Under this reform scenario, landing site co-management associations would be created for small-scale fisheries – in 1-2 locations currently accessible year-round by road - to better regulate fishing activities inside the coastal zone that would lead to rights over areas of the fisheries within the 6-mile zone, while providing training and community-level investments for co-management associations and investing in value-adding equipment and infrastructure to increase production and facilitate better domestic marketing and exports, possibly through public-private partnerships with local or foreign companies. Income and other benefits of small-scale fishermen would increase through a combination of: (i) technical development of the small-scale fisheries; (ii) effectively excluding industrial fishing from the 6-mile inshore zone, (iii) better regulation of the import and control over the use of illegal gear, and (iv) improved access to domestic and export channels targeting higher value fish. Once co-management groups have been well established, they would focus on better regulating local fisheries and –if necessary – limiting access to heavily exploited resources. 9. In summary, the proposed project investments in Liberia are expected to adjust the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries, strengthening MCS and reducing illegal fishing. A contract would also be tendered and negotiated with a single shrimp company to land catch and develop basic infrastructure. 10. For the small-scale segments, catch per unit effort is expected to increase by 2 percent annually beginning in 2012, once strengthened MCS which keeps industrial vessels out of inshore waters is fully in place. Modest growth is also expected in the number of vessels operating, mostly in the non-motorized segment, as returns improve and fishing continues to be attractive as a source of livelihoods. Fishing

76

effort per vessel remains constant, but the increase in total fishing effort due to the growth in number of vessels acts to moderate increases in catch per unit effort. It is also assumed that license coverage for both small-scale segments will gradually increase to 100 percent, beginning with the motorized vessels, with improved institutional capacity for fisheries management developed through the project. Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Sub-Component 1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($1.4 m GEF) 11. Activity 1.1.1 Strengthening of Policy and Regulatory Framework for use of the Fish Resources. The country’s legal framework for the use of the fish resources is outdated. The Project will support a long-term technical assistance contract for a firm to provide legal, policy and training support for the Government to finalize and implement a new fisheries policy and regulatory framework. This support will include: (i) completion of the ongoing regulatory framework review to produce a new Fisheries Act, (ii) finalization of a new fisheries policy, (iii) preparation of the necessary fisheries regulations (including adjustments to industrial license fees, the introduction of TURFs, and regulations to ensure that all fishing infractions detected result in actual penalties that will serve as a deterrent), (iv) facilitation of broad stakeholder discussion of the revised rules, including the development of institutional arrangements for transparent and efficient monitoring of prosecution processes and the imposition and collection of fines/penalties, as well as follow up to infractions, (v) support for wide dissemination of the new regulations through print and radio/television/etc, and (vi) training for Government staff and stakeholders in the fisheries law and policy, and fisheries management, as well as to judicial institutions in laws combating illegal fishing. Similarly, the Project will support separate contracts for high-level technical assistance (including legal services) to Liberia to conduct negotiations on foreign fishing agreements. 12. Activity 1.1.2 Registration of all Fishing Vessels. A small-scale vessel registration and licensing system is currently in place. The Project will finance improved implementation of this system to ensure that all small-scale fishing vessels are registered, initially by strengthening the capacity of the Bureau of National Fisheries in the field and in the longer term by development of local councils. 13. Activity 1.1.3 Assessment of the Status of Key Fish Stocks. The Project will support a long-term contract for a university to provide support to BNF collect and analyze fisheries statistics, and execute research surveys. The university will also provide training and education to selected BNF and Government staff in fisheries biology, management and economics, as well as training to a wider group of staff to improve the quality of catch statistics for small-scale fisheries. 14. Activity 1.1.4 Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. The ‘dashboard’ will be housed in the BNF in Liberia, designed according to the specifications described in Section A (Program Summary). This national node will be linked to the regional information platform established at the Regional Coordination Unit. This activity will include financing for goods, consultant services and operating costs. 15. Activity 1.1.5 Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans that set Levels of Sustainable Exploitation for Targeted Fisheries, and Create Rights and Allocation Mechanisms for those Fisheries. The Project will finance a technical assistance to BNF to work with stakeholders to prepare and implement management plans for the shrimp and demersal fish species, based on existing information and data. These plans will be based on, and updated by, newly collected data resulting from the assessments of the status of key fishing stocks supported through component 1.1.3, including data collected from industrial and artisanal fisheries, analyses of industrial fisheries logbooks, surveillance data and from data from neighboring countries. This technical assistance will include support to adjust industrial fishing license fees on the basis of the management plans (including the terms and conditions of licensing, the costs, as well as specifying institutional arrangements for the licensing process that would promote good

77

governance and reduce pressure on BNF), and particularly an increase in license fees for the existing industrial fleet targeting demersal species. In terms of the shrimp fishery, once a management plan has been developed, a thorough review will be conducted of the options for licensing requirements, tender procedures and negotiating tactics, to tender and negotiate a long-term contract with a single shrimp company to land catch and develop basic infrastructure in Liberia based on defined quota. The technical assistance contract will include support to BNF prior to and during the shrimp contract tendering and negotiations. Based on the coastal demersals analysis (see component 1.1.3) and management plan, BNF would also determine a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for these fish resources. Applying FAO’s cautionary principles, and using estimates of small-scale catches, it would make an initial allocation of the TAC between industrial and small-scale users and create and allocate rights to industrial vessels applying for licenses up-to the allocated quota. Licenses would define quota, by-catch and discard levels and procedures to reallocate quota between license holders halfway during the season. Sub-Component 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights ($0.6 m GEF) 16. Activity 1.2.1 Introduction of Fishing Rights through a System of Co-Management. The Project will finance the creation of 1 to 2 pilot TURFs in the coastal fisheries, covering areas of the sea within 6 miles of the coast and in areas accessible year-round by road. To manage these TURFs, the Project will finance the creation of co-management associations (CMAs) in each TURF, (with varying numbers of communities in each site). Because community cohesion in the fishing communities is extremely fragile, and because many fishers are living a hand-to-mouth existence and rely quite heavily on the use of illegal fishing gear and methods, the Project will provide intensive and ongoing support to establish and operationalize the CMAs. CMAs are important not only in improving local fisheries management, but also in contributing to community integration and poverty alleviation. The CMAs would be comprised of fisher chiefs; elected fishers, fish processors, and fish transporters; respected community figures (such as elders), and women representatives, all of whom would serve on the CMA for a specific term. Each ethnic group resident in a community would be represented on the CMA. In exchange for the benefits of the TURF (including increased MCS support from the national government in these areas), communities, through their CMA, would agree to work to enforce, regulations banning use of illegal fishing nets and other destructive fishing methods. 17. Ongoing support for the establishment and operationalization of the CMAs will come in the form of: (i) training of contracted community organizers (NGOs, individuals or firms with deep experience in this field); (ii) frequent community mobilization meetings run by the community organizers; (iii) frequent practical training for CMA representatives and support by the community organizers to help representatives on daily management and oversight issues, including early identification and resolution of problems and conflicts; (iv) training and support for the development of local business management and marketing strategies for CMAs and, particularly, women processors; (v) a one-time fishing net exchange event in each CMA community where resident active fishers could trade in illegal nets for a new legal net; (vi) specialized training for CMAs, and provision of necessary equipment for monitoring the health of beach and in-shore environments, including on sanitation, water quality and eco-system health; (vii) special training for Bureau of National Fisheries head office and field staff and fisheries inspectors on community liaison and facilitation; (viii) a visit by a small, but representative, group of CMA members and Bureau head office and field staff to learn from community co-management experiences in another country; (ix) support for pilots in new fishing methods and business models in local communities; and (x) evaluations to develop private fisheries micro-credit access to the communities.

18. The Project will also support the construction of CMA Community Fisheries Centers (CFCs) in up to 4 communities and provide needed furnishings and equipment. These CFCs will provide a location where the CMA can have an office, hold meetings, and post information, as well as office space for community organizers. However, the CFCs’ design will also aim specifically at building community cohesion by offering an attractive place for residents to visit, gather and spend time. Some limited recreational equipment (for adults, youth, and children) will be provided to the centers to support this.

78

The Project will also provide investments in CMA sites for value-added equipment and infrastructure to increase production and facilitate better domestic marketing and potential exports (see Component 3). Furthermore, as one of the first activities in the sites, the Project will finance the establishment of well-sited banks of chorkor ovens for women processors and provision of hands-on training to women in the community on the operation and maintenance of the ovens. This will improve the quality of smoked fish, significantly reduce wastage of fish, and reduce exploitation of mangroves for fuel. 19. The first TURF will be in Robertsport, with other(s) to follow. This TURF will include one large Fanti community and one large Kru community, who will work together in an umbrella CMA that will function as a private association that would co-manage the fisheries in a defined territory of the sea, with eventually ownership of the fishing rights for the TURF. Where feasible, TURFs will be twinned with public-private partnerships with local or foreign companies, in order to create an integrated fish handling facility (see component 3). In each TURF, the Project would also support the provision of safety navigation systems for small-scale fishing vessels and the adaptive/affordable GPS systems to increase selectivity and efficiency, including training for fishers in their use and operation. The TURF at Robertsport will be a pilot, developing through a gradual process of increasing community responsibility for fisheries resource management. On the basis of the experience at Robertsport, the Government will pass a new regulation for the establishment of TURFs and the rights of fishers in managing access to fisheries in these areas, by the end of Phase I of the Project. The experience at Robertsport will be replicated to a second TURF in the country, to be determined by mid-term of Phase I. Sub-Component 1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed does not apply in Liberia. Sub-Component 1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency ($0.2 m GEF) 20. Activity 1.4.1 Social Marketing and Communication. The Project will finance communications to support the introduction of fishing rights and community cohesion. To increase knowledge of the new fisheries laws, garner support for the introduction of fishing rights in the TURFs, build understanding of CMAs and their roles and responsibilities, and deepen knowledge of legal and illegal fishing gear and practices, the Project will support a broad communications strategy covering targeted coastal communities, both large and small. The development of the communications strategy and messages will be undertaken by a contracted entity with deep information, dissemination and marketing experience in this area which will work with the local media in disseminating information. The communication strategy will draw on information from the new National Fisheries Law, the Consultative Citizens’ Report Card Survey, fish stock analyses, and other relevant information sources to craft clear, short messages that will be accessible to the public at large. These messages will be disseminated through different media including tv, radio, posters and brochures. Dissemination to communities in the TURFS will involve radio, posters, dedicated town hall meetings, and social marketing approaches such as local theatre troops to ensure effective penetration of messages. The national ‘dashboard’ will also support the two-way communication of information on key fisheries decisions and fisheries data. Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Sub-Component 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing does not apply in Liberia. Sub-Component 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems ($5.4 m IDA) 21. Activity 2.2.1 Implementing sustainable surveillance systems. The Project will support the development of a national MCS plan and strategy, based on cost-benefit and cost-efficiency analyses to determine practical solutions for combating illegal fishing. This planning will identify the recurrent costs of implementation and sustainable sources of funding, as well as prepare needed surveillance operational manuals. The Project will support the establishment of fisheries surveillance capacity that would be

79

hosted in, or connected to, a new headquarters for BNF financed by the Project. Within that headquarters, the Project will support the construction and equipping of a Fisheries Monitoring Center. The Fisheries Monitoring Center will be required to operate 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, run a continuous plot of the positions of all vessels within the country’s waters using a satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) and AIS, daily HF radio reports from fishing vessels and observers, radio reports from coastguard vessels, support data from BNF licensing and BNF air time. The Fisheries Monitoring Center would be equipped with communication systems, a VMS data reception platform, complete computers systems and office automation material and vehicles. The competent authority for fisheries surveillance, as part of the new BNF headquarters, will include (i) BNF/command center offices, (ii) a competent sanitary authority office, (iii) an office for the Port Authority, and (iv) a fish landing jetty with a slipway for vessel maintenance. In addition, the Project would construct and equip up to 2 coastal stations along the coast, which would serve as forward operational bases for fisheries surveillance. Each coastal station will be equipped with communication systems, complete computers systems and office supplies, vehicles, and eventually a replication of the VMS data reception platform in the Fisheries Monitoring Center. 22. The Project will also support the development of patrol capacity in the air and at sea, in the medium-term through financing a private service for sea and aerial patrol while national equipment is procured and local staff are trained, and in addition, when available, locally through the coverage of operational costs of coast guard patrol vessel to conduct surveillance of the inshore exclusion area and the trawling grounds. The elements provided indicate that no surveillance at sea with national equipment and crew is foreseen before the end of 2010, due to the training process and equipment delivery duration. Since the lack of surveillance would be a lethal factor for the project and the management of the sector, it is necessary to find alternatives. It is suggested to have recourse to leasing of private service for sea and aerial patrol. This support would include specific equipment (GPS camera, gauges, portable communication systems, etc.), as well as the costs of leasing vessels specific fisheries surveillance operations. On the basis of the experiences of leased patrols to reduce illegal fishing in the first two years of the Project, at mid-term review the purchase of patrol vessels for fisheries surveillance could be supported. To help implement this surveillance system, the Project would provide both short and long term technical assistance through the use of consultants from a retainer list to support the Fisheries Monitoring Center in the general management of surveillance activities and operations, as well as funds for specific studies and training for personnel of the Fisheries Monitoring Center (for example in finance, planning, human resource management, and specific surveillance technical matters). The Project will support the restructuring and upgrading of the fisheries observers program, which places observers on board industrial fishing vessels. To support the TURFs, the Project will support community monitoring and enforcement techniques, including canoes, GPS, digital camera and other communication equipment for participatory surveillance patrols (e.g. ‘canoe patrols’). Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Sub-Component 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters ($1.3 m IDA) 23. The Project will finance an integrated fish landing site cluster at Robertsport, in conjunction with the establishment of a TURF (see sub-component 1.2). The Project will support the construction and operation of the minimum infrastructure base and services necessary to attract private investors at Roberstport and help increase the value added to fish products, in conjunction with strengthened resource management supported by sub-component 1.2. The landing site cluster at Robertsport would be the nucleus and the pole of a network of landing site clusters including 3 small-scale landing site clusters to be developed in the framework of this Project. This approach could be replicated to other areas in the national territory, depending on road conditions and access and economic appraisal. In terms of basic infrastructure, the Project would support construction of a jetty around the lake, an elevated water tank, repairs of the existing water pipe, the installation of a water pipe to the Fanti communities, the installation of a solar-powered pump and the extension of solar street lighting. In terms of building the integrated landing site cluster, the Project will support the construction of a hygiene block and septic tank, an ice plant, cold stores, the gradual development of dry-docking industry, the set-up of common service centers

80

and the provision of extension services such as a set up of fishery material store, the provision of fuel and gas, net and crates repair, training in the maintenance of the cold chains etc. To be viable, the Roberstport Landing Site Cluster should be managed as a private enterprise. To this end, credit proceeds will finance the construction of the basic infrastructure while money will be earmarked to catalyze the involvement of private sector in setting-up and managing common services centers, dry docking industry and storage facilities in the cluster. The project should be supported by a capacity development program aimed at strengthening good governance through after capture losses and selective/targeted fishing. The existence of such a landing site will support and reinforce stakeholder management of the local resources as well, within the TURF. 24. As mentioned in sub-component 1.2, the Project could support the replication of the TURFs and the fish landing site clusters in 1 other site throughout the country, depending on the availability of year-round road access. The average cost would be estimated to be some US$0.5 million per site. The communities would be provided assistance to organize first around initial prototypes for basic infrastructure (such as chorkor ovens, insulated containers, etc.) built by local entrepreneurs, towards development of management associations. Sub-Component 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) ($0.6 m IDA) 25. Activity 3.2.1 Quality, standards, metrology and testing (QSTM) infrastructure and technical assistance. The Project will finance the establishment of a certified public laboratory and competent sanitary authority in Liberia, as well as more broadly the development of relevant protocols and standards for quality and traceability, including training. Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Sub-Component 4.1 National Implementation ($0.9 m IDA, $0.8 m GEF) 26. The Project in Liberia will be managed through a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in BNF, staffed by external and local project management specialists. The PIU will report each six months to the national Steering Committee (established during preparation). The PIU will prepare an annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan that would be reviewed with the Steering Committee and transmitted to the Regional Coordination Unit. Component 1. Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the FisheriesStrengthening of policy and regulatory framework for use of the fish resources

Long-term technical assistance contract for a firm to provide legal, policy and training support for the Government to finalize and implement a new fisheries policy and regulatory framework

$0.4 M GEF

Contracts for high-level technical assistance (including legal services) to Liberia to conduct negotiations on foreign fishing agreements

$0.1 M GEF

Registration of all fishing vessels

Registration of all small-scale fishing vessels, operation and maintenance of vessel registry, database and equipment

$0.2 M GEF

Assessment of the status of key fish stocks

Long-term contract for a university to provide support to BNF collect and analyze fisheries statistics, and execute research surveys

$0.3 M GEF

Transparency and accessibility of fisheries management information

Development, installation and operation of a fisheries management information system, linked to regional database, including ongoing data collection

$0.2 M GEF

Preparation and implementation of fisheries

Technical assistance to BNF to work with stakeholders to prepare and implement management plans for the shrimp and

$0.2 M GEF

81

management plans demersal fish species 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights Introduction of fishing rights through a system of co-management

Goods, works and services for the creation and implementation of 1 to 2 pilot TURFs in the coastal fisheries, for the management of coastal demersal species, starting in Robertsport

$0.6 M GEF

1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and TransparencySocial marketing and communication

Development and implementation of a communications strategy to support the introduction of fishing rights and community cohesion; including Citizen Report Cards, and dissemination in a variety of media

$0.2 M GEF

Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems Implementing sustainable surveillance systems

Technical assistance to develop a national MCS plan/strategy $0.1 M IDA Construction and equipping of a new headquarters for BNF with a competent civilian authority for surveillance, including a Fisheries Monitoring Center

$2.0 M IDA

Construction and equipping of 2 coastal surveillance stations $0.2 M IDA Goods, works and technical assistance for the establishment of a satellite-based vessel monitoring system at the competent authority for surveillance

$1.0 M IDA

Training for fisheries surveillance authorities $0.1 M IDA Leasing and operation of patrol boats $1.4 M IDA Fisheries observer program $0.3 M IDA Participatory coastal surveillance patrols (canoe monitoring) $0.3 M IDA

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters Basic infrastructure and support services for a landing site cluster at Robertsport $0.9 M IDA Replication to additional landing site clusters $0.4 M IDA 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform Quality, standards, metrology and testing (QSTM) infrastructure and technical assistance

Goods, works and services for the establishment of a certified public laboratory and sanitary sanitary authority, as well as more broadly the development of relevant protocols and standards for quality and traceability, including training

$0.6 M IDA

Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 4.1 National Implementation Technical assistance for a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in BNF, staffed by external and local project management specialists

$0.8 M GEF

Operating costs, goods and equipment for the PIU in BNF $0.9 M IDA

27. Tentative Implementation Plan and Chronology. The following schedule for implementation of the Project is expected in Liberia for the first 18 months: Activity Component Start Date End Date Completion of Operational Manuals, establishment of PIU in temporary housing for BNF

4.1 July 2009 November 2009

Training for BNF staff, including PIU, in Program Operational Manual and management

4.1 November 2009 December 2009

Equipment for PIU in place 4.1 November 2009 January 2010 Recruitment of firm to provide long-term, ongoing policy assistance to BNF

1.1.1 November 2009 February 2010

Identification of vessels for lease for sea patrols, and crew, for time-bound, mission-specific, civilian-led fisheries surveillance patrols

2.2 December 2009 February 2010

Terms of reference and request for proposals completed for 1.1.3 December 2009 April 2010

82

long-term contract to university to provide research and training support to BNF Recruitment and training of Community Organizers for pilot MPAs/TURFs

1.2 December 2009 April 2010

Preparation of technical specifications and bidding documents for new BNF headquarters, FMC and competent authority lab

2.2 December 2009 April 2010

Draft regulation on role of BNF in MCS is passed 1.1.1 February 2010 April 2010 Fisheries surveillance patrols conducted 2.2 April 2010 Ongoing Community Organizers in place and begin work with communities to establish co-management associations in Robertsport for MPA/TURFs

1.2 April 2010 September 2010

Completion of technical specifications and bidding documents for fish landing site cluster in Robertsport

3.1 April 2010 September 2010

Recruitment of University for research and training support 1.1.3 April 2010 October 2010 Recruitment of firm completed for construction of BNF headquarters, FMC and competent authority

2.2 April 2010 December 2010

New Fisheries Act is passed 1.1.1 May 2010 August 2010 Recruitment of firm for construction of fish landing site cluster in Robertsport

3.1 September 2010 January 2011

Technical specifications for construction of community centers for Robertsport MPA/TURFs completed and validated by communities

1.2 September 2010 December 2010

Recruitment of ‘dashboard’ operators and FMC center staff, and training

1.1.4, 2.2 September 2010 December 2010

First research and training campaigns conducted 1.1.3 November 2010 December 2010 Training for BNF and PIU staff 4.1 January 2011 July 2011 Installation of ‘dashboard’ and training of local users, based on specifications developed through regional financing

1.1.4 January 2011 July 2011

Policy assistance firm prepares draft coastal demersal and shrimp fisheries management plans

1.1.5 January 2011 July 2011

17. Assessment of Country-Specific Risks and Mitigation Measures. The following risks to achieving the Project’s objective specifically in Liberia were identified, along with mitigation measures:

Risk factors

Description of risk Mitigation measures

I. Country and/or Sub-National Level Risks Macroeconomic framework

The global economic crisis is expected to impact Liberia’s growth considerably in the short term, with estimates of 4.9% for 2009 (down from previous estimates of 14%). The large debt overhang poses challenges and increases the country’s vulnerability to external shocks. External public debt stood at US$3.1 billion or more than 300% of the estimated GDP in 2008. External shocks particularly from lower remittance inflows and falling primary commodity prices including iron ore and rubber could pose significant challenges for Liberia going forward. Poverty is pervasive in Liberia. From the recent (2007) survey, 64 percent of the population lives below the poverty line with most of the poor living in the rural areas.

Liberia is transitioning from post-conflict to economic reconstruction and development. The Government has made progress in improving fiscal management with a fiscal surplus of 1.2 percent of GDP in 2008 The medium-term economic outlook is reasonably favorable, with growth rates expected to increase to around 9 percent, supported by the recovery in sectors that the government estimates will fuel growth, i.e., agriculture, forestry, mining and service sectors. The country benefits from debt relief under the HIPC initiative rescheduling of debt to Paris Club creditors and is nearing the conclusion of a debt buyback operation (at a deep discount) with commercial creditors. The Government has prepared a Poverty Reduction strategy focused on rapid pro-poor growth. In addition the Government has prepared and is implementing a strategy to respond to the economic crisis.

Country Risk The security situation in Liberia remains fragile because of the number of (mostly)

UNMIL and its partners have supported the restructuring of the national police and army and the re-establishment of state

83

unemployed ex-combatants who have yet to be reintegrated into society, the lack of strong domestic institutions which can mediate conflicts and enable them to be resolved without recourse to violence. The fragile political situation in Liberia’s neighbors, Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea augments this risk further. Political risks loom large as the population looks for a substantial peace dividend. Failure to deliver jobs, social services and to tackle corruption could result in a lack of support for the Government’s reform agenda.

authority throughout the country. In March 2008 UN forces began a drawdown of the military component of UNMIL, but initiated a moderate increase of police personnel. Presently there are 10,231 peacekeepers and 1,226 police personnel in Liberia, with another drawdown of 2,000 military personnel expected to begin in September 2009. In sum, UNMIL is expected to retain a substantial security presence over the medium term. The activities being supported by the project to increase the population’s access to markets and basic services will contribute directly to addressing some of the contributing factors to conflict.

Country/ sector governance

For Liberia as a whole, risks of poor governance in implementation remain high and anti-corruption instruments are in their infancy The legislative framework to allow for the effective policing of corruption is in need of updating.

The Corruption Commission has been established (though it needs strengthening) to prosecute cases of corruption.

The program itself contains well- defined targeted activities and will utilize implementation mechanisms that contain Financial Management and Procurement frameworks that have been tested and are under constant monitoring.

Systemic corruption

In general, the inadequacy of internal controls in government systems, the history of widespread corruption during the interim government and lack of trained civil servants make project implementation in Liberia risky.

A substantial institutional strengthening component in the Project will help professionalize project management and reduce corruption risk.

Sector Governance, Policies and Institutions

Sector governance is still embryonic in Liberia, as the Bureau for National Fisheries simply does not have the capacity or resources to actively manage the fisheries.

A national PIU will be embedded in the Bureau for National Fisheries through the Project, and will provide training support, as well as support for policy development.

II. Operation-specific Risks Institutional weaknesses for fisheries surveillance

Risk that the Government will not designate a competent authority for fisheries surveillance, that could implement component 2 investments

The Government has agreed to pass a new regulation increasing the role of BNF as the competent surveillance authority, within the first six months of the Project, in parallel to the development of technical specifications for goods and works to be purchased through component 2.

84

Annex 7: Detailed Project Description in Senegal

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

($14.2 m IDA, $1.0 m Government) 1. Background: the Fisheries in Senegal. Senegal has always been endowed with significant marine fish resources, notably large pelagic fish stocks such as tuna, small pelagics such as sardines, deepwater demersals, coastal shrimp, cephalopods and coastal demersal fish stocks such as croakers and groupers. Of these resources, the coastal demersal fish stocks, as well as coastal shrimp and cephalopods, are some of the most valuable, generally representing only 25 percent of the total volume of all marine fish products landed in Senegal, but as much as 50 percent of the total value of fish exports from the country (as well as providing 37 percent of the employment). 2. Starting in the 1980s, the fish resources off Senegal have been heavily fished. Notably the coastal demersal and shrimp resources declined, and became increasingly over-fished. An estimate of the status of the stocks in 2007 suggested that few, if any, stocks were exploited at sustainable levels, and that some ran the risk of total extinction. Most fisheries have demonstrated declining net income since the early 2000s. While fishing effort (the size of the industrial, and notably the small-scale fleets) continued to increase during the last decade of the 20th century and early years of the 21st century, the physical decline of fish stocks accelerated.39 The status of most stocks, notably coastal demersals, shrimp and cephalopods currently demand immediate, radical action to substantially reduce fishing effort and allow stocks to rebuild. 3. Some 60,000 fishers currently participate directly in the fisheries, while as many as 600,000 people are indirectly employed by the sector in Senegal. An increasing percentage of fishermen currently operate in the coastal waters of neighboring countries. While some Senegalese fishermen have traditionally fished in waters of neighboring countries (from Mauritania to Liberia and even beyond) more recently fishermen facing increasing problems from declining catches and earnings in Senegalese waters, have departed in ever greater numbers to foreign waters, creating political and cultural tensions in those countries. 4. The fish resources in Senegal are largely targeted by the small-scale fisheries, which are some of the most prolific in West Africa. The 13,000 small-scale wooden fishing vessels in Senegal, known as pirogues, vary in length from 4 to 20 meters and use a diversity of gears (e.g. hand-lines, gillnets, seines etc.). The small-scale fisheries were responsible for over 90 percent of all the fish landed in Senegal in 2006 – a total of about 336,000 tons. Furthermore, they land all of the small pelagic species harvested in Senegalese waters (which, because they constitute regional stocks, have initially been less affected by increasing fishing pressure compared to demersal species), and more than half of the coastal demersal species. In 2006 the small pelagics constituted 67 percent of the small-scale fish landings, but only some 26 percent of the value. Recent analyses suggest even regional small-pelagics stocks are being over-exploited on account of the excessive total fishing effort (fleet size) in the region, notably Mauritania.

39 As an example of the decline in biomass, 2002 models of Senegal’s marine ecosystems suggested the total biomass of five of some of the most valuable coastal demersal species on the continental shelf (pandoras (Pagellus bellottii), white groupers (Epinephelus aeneus), sea breams (Pagrus caeruleostictus), goatfishes (Pseudupeneus prayensis) and lesser african threadfins (Galeoides decadactylus)), declined by roughly 75 percent over the fifteen year period from 1983 to 1998, while effective fishing effort for these species more than doubled over that same period. In particular, the abundance of white groupers declined from 60,000 tons in 1971 to 7,000 tons in 1999. More recently, an FAO working group survey in 2007 repeated scientific conclusions made over almost a decade that stocks of some of these same species are overexploited, and recommended that fishing effort targeting these stocks be substantially reduced. Furthermore, the same working group concluded that stocks of white groupers (Epinephelus aeneus) are in danger of extinction, and recommended that the fishery be closed immediately. Even coastal shrimp stocks (Penaeus notialis) and cephalopods (Octopus vulgaris and sepia species) in Senegal are heavily overexploited, and fishing efforts targeting them should be considerably reduced.

85

5. The small-scale fisheries in Senegal have been relentlessly growing, as people losing employment in the declining agriculture sectors migrated to the only employment source with low entry costs: coastal small-scale fisheries. These fisheries were able to increasingly out-compete the industrial fisheries, with their share of the total catch rising from 85 percent in 2000 to 90 percent in 2006, and the total number of pirogues increasing from 7,600 in 1986 to a reported 13,000 in 2006 (of which 12,600 were operating). At the same time, the small-scale fisheries have been increasingly supplying the on-shore processing plants with raw material for exports, and by 2006 provided over 50 percent of all fish supplied to the processing industry. The total value of the fish landed by the small-scale fisheries in 2006 was some US$182 million at first sale (75 percent of the total first-sale value of all marine fish products landed in Senegal). An unknown but substantial portion of that fish was caught in foreign waters. 6. The industrial fishing fleet of Senegal is one of the oldest in Africa. Created by foreign private entrepreneurs during the 1960s, the fleet initially targeted the local market for fish. When small-scale fishers in the 1980s strenuously objected to industrial vessels fishing for small pelagics, local industrial fishing since focused almost exclusively on demersal species - particularly shrimp and other high value species – and tuna. The trawler fleet comprised about 175 vessels in 1998, but facing declining catches and earnings and competition from small-scale fishermen, by 2008 the total number of trawlers was down to between 80 to 90 vessels. Industrial fish landings declined from 100,000 tons in 1997 to 32,000 in 2006, but catches may have been higher as a result of under-reporting, and transfers of fish at sea. In 2005 they constituted mostly coastal demersal species, with a total value of some US$62 million at first sale. 7. The key issues affecting the fisheries sector are to a large extent the result of the expansion of small-scale fishing effort until 2007 – and the initial expansion and then decline of industrial fishing. As a result, fish stocks and catches of high-value coastal demersals, shrimp and cephalopods have been seriously declining, along with total volumes of exports. This decline in catches of high-value coastal demersals and volumes of exports has been partly offset by corresponding increases in global and local prices, so that total export revenues have remained relatively constant. To limit the impact of declining catches of small-scale fisheries targeting coastal demersals in Senegal, some fishermen started to catch alternative and often lower value species, while others moved abroad. Up to 30 percent of the coastal demersal fish landed in Senegal by small-scale fishers may currently be caught outside the country. 8. Scenario for Project Investments to Achieve the Objective in Senegal. Project investments would aim to develop a scenario for achieving the desired outcomes and objective in Senegal, whereby fishing effort on coastal demersal and shrimp fisheries is substantially reduced as soon as possible, while increasing the domestic value added of the landed catch. This implies - given the currently available instruments and legal framework – a rapid reduction of the number of licenses for the industrial fishing fleet and to initially freeze, and eventually also to limit and then freeze/reduce the total number of permits available for small-scale fishing vessels targeting the coastal demersals (based on adjustments of these permits to become licenses that specify the fisheries, etc.), while introducing further management measures at the local and national level. To reduce the economic and social impact of these measures, some compensation will be required for each group, both fishermen and owners, as well as more general social investments for the fishers and fishing communities affected by the introduction of new resource management measures. To effectively translate the current political will to address the problem of resource over-exploitation, increased stakeholder participation in the decision making and implementation process will be critical. 9. In view of the current negative returns from the fisheries the Project would not follow the ‘traditional’ approach to manage resources – study resources and effort first, then adjust fishing effort, as it would require too much time. Instead, the approach will be to first reduce fishing effort substantially, based on available scientific data and analyses, and then evaluate the biological and economic impact. If scientific evaluations suggest that the initial reduction does not lead to clear signs of biomass expansion of a number of key species, further targeted reductions should be applied until a positive impact can be clearly demonstrated, at which time more formal resource management approaches based on annual stock-

86

assessments, detailed management plans and economic analyses could be applied. 10. At present Senegal only has the administrative tools to effectively adjust industrial fishing effort. The administrative and institutional capacity and mechanisms to control small-scale fisheries are only partly in place. Hence the Project will focus on rapid reduction of industrial fisheries, and to use the available administrative tools, starting with small-scale vessel registration and the allocation and enforcement of fishing licenses (permis de pêche), to freeze small-scale fishing effort. Once the current general fishing licenses have been made more specific about the terms and conditions permitted for fishing, in particular reflecting what gear, area, season and species can be used and targeted, and the local institutional capacity has been created to regulate local fisheries more carefully, a further reduction of small-scale fishing effort will be possible. 11. Industrial licenses are allocated at the discretion of the Minister of the Ministry of Maritime Economy (MEM) and can be renewed each year. Until now, no formal withdrawal or limitations have been applied, but a Ministerial decree mandating a freeze on licenses for coastal demersal fisheries has been in effect since August 2008. An audit of the fleet prepared in 2007 suggests that licenses for a modest percentage of the fleet should be immediately withdrawn for technical and administrative reasons. The Project will support a withdrawal of up to 50 percent of the remaining fleet, or as many as 40-45 trawl vessels. 12. Registration (‘immatriculation’) of small-scale vessels has been going on for some time - supported by several donors – but has not been completed. Unless the program is completed expeditiously, no formal means to restrict the expansion of the small-scale fleet is practically possible. The Project will aim to support a complete freeze of small-scale vessel registrations by the end of 2010, and in parallel the implementation of the requirement to obtain fishing permits to all small-scale vessels. 13. To be effective, administrative means – fishing licenses and registration – to reduce actual fishing efforts requires that ‘leakage’ in the form of illicit (non-licensed) industrial and small-scale fisheries will be held to a minimum (once the small-scale fisheries are fully registered and obtain fishing permits). Senegal does have some surveillance and control capacity, but its effectiveness, notably in coastal waters and across its boundaries with neighboring countries, needs to be further strengthened. The Project will particularly strengthen those activities. In addition, the Government needs to maintain its strong commitment to implement the above strategy of industrial trawler license reductions and a freeze of registration (and fishing permits40) for small-scale fishing vessels, while making every effort to reduce illegal fishing from Senegalese and foreign vessels. The Project will support fishers through the expansion of the current fishers’ alternative livelihoods fund (Fonds de Reconversion des Artisans Pêcheurs – FRAP) to include the crew of industrial vessels. 14. In summary, as a result of this scenario and Project interventions, the Government would aim to rebuild the coastal demersal fish stocks through: (i) a 50 percent reduction in the effort and capacity of industrial trawl vessels, and (ii) a freeze on the effort and capacity of the small-scale fleet targeting the coastal demersal stocks. Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Sub-Component 1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($1.9 m IDA) 15. Activity 1.1.1 Registration of all Small-Scale Fishing Vessels. The first phase of a national registration program (Programme National d’Immatriculation – PNI) for small-scale fishing vessels is currently being implemented in Senegal. This first registration of the fleet should be completed before the

40 The current fishing permits would be frozen first (after they have been administered to all of the fleet), and then eventually the more specific licenses to be developed with Program support (see component 1.2 below).

87

Project becomes effective, using existing Government and donor funds, including the passage of a Ministerial decree defining technical specifications and safety requirements for small-scale vessels to be registered (taking into account applicable regulations relating to building codes, safety and minimum sanitary requirements). After completion of the first registration of the fleet, the Project will finance operating costs for maintaining and updating the vessel registration, particularly at the level of local fisheries offices, on a declining rate until the end of Phase I of the Project, at which point the recurrent costs of maintaining the vessel registry would be financed solely by the Government. Furthermore, the Project will finance technical assistance to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy (MEM) to develop and pass a Ministerial Decree that prohibits registration of any new small-scale fishing boats targeting coastal demersal stocks, after 2010. More specifically, this decree would halt new registrations for all small-scale fishing vessels involved in coastal demersal fisheries across the country, while defining special procedures for fishermen who can document and demonstrate the complete loss of his/her vessel due to an accident. Current and future scientific and economic analysis of small-pelagics fisheries would provide information which may suggest the government needs to consider introducing a similar freeze on registrations for fishing vessels targeting small-pelagic fish species (see also component 1.2, and linkages between registration and licensing process). 16. Activity 1.1.2 Assessment of the Status of Key Fish Stocks. The Project will fund a synthesis of the information on the state of key fisheries including the fish stocks and their habitats. Additionally, the Government will, through its fisheries research institute (CRODT), assess the fishing effort of the industrial fleet, before and after the reduction of licenses (see component 1.3), and define a research program to monitor fisheries, stocks and habitats and to refine such fishing capacity and effort on an annual basis. 17. Activity 1.1.3 Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. In Senegal the ‘dashboard’ will build on the current Information and Analysis System for Management of the Fisheries (Système d’Information, d’Analyse et de Gestion des Pêches au Sénégal – SIAGPS), in order to include the specifications described in Section A (Program Summary). This national node will be linked to the regional information platform established at the Regional Coordination Unit. This activity will include financing for goods, consultant services and operating costs. 18. Activity 1.1.4 Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans that set Levels of Sustainable Exploitation for Targeted Fisheries, and Create Rights and Allocation Mechanisms for those Fisheries. The Project will finance technical assistance and operating costs to support the finalization and implementation of three national fisheries management plans currently under preparation in Senegal (for the shrimp, cephalopod and cymbium fisheries respectively). The Project would also support the development of a new management plan for the coastal demersal fish stocks. These plans will provide further indications about: (i) the need to further reduce overall (small-scale and industrial) fishing effort, (ii) the most effective way (from a scientific, social and economic point of view) to achieve these necessary effort reductions, and (iii) the risks of not achieving such reductions. These management plans would also suggest the order of magnitude of national small-scale catch levels, to be further distributed (in some form, such as adjusted fishing licenses, or fishing effort limits, catch limits, etc.) between and defined by the Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (based on adjustments of the roles of the Councils, as well as the types of small-scale fishing licenses - see 1.2). Sub-Component 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights ($1.7 m IDA) 19. Activity 1.2.1 Introduction of Fishing Rights through a System of Co-Management. The Project will support the Government to expand current co-management efforts towards the eventual establishment of Territorial User Rights Fisheries (TURFs) where possible along the coast (building on the four current Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils), in conjunction with access rights. Establishment of TURFs will be the ultimate objective of a phased approach that would result in local management of access to the coastal fish resources, and which would be supported by a system of local and participatory surveillance and

88

monitoring/research. As this will take time, the Project would provide support to existing system of registration and fishing permits (i.e. ‘permis de pêche’) to freeze the size of the small-scale domestic fleet targeting coastal demersal species. 20. Firstly, the Project would support the Government to ensure that all small-scale fishers are registered (see component 1.1) and apply for the fishing permits currently mandated by the law, by providing support to local fisheries offices (Fisheries Control Posts) along the coast (including office and communications equipment, transportation and training to all local offices). The Project would strengthen the ability of those Control Posts to control registration and fishing permits (which would become fishing licenses – see below) for the coastal small-scale fisheries, and would support the eventual transfer of these offices to Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (see below). 21. Secondly, the Project would strengthen the capacity of the existing 4 Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (CLPAs) – which are joint stakeholder and government councils for managing the coastal fisheries – and introduce the principles and/or practices of co-management to establish the remaining CLPAs identified (approximately 27), as part of the Government’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector Policy Letter, dated April, 2007. The various areas identified for establishment and management by the CLPAs are currently at different stages of readiness to introduce or move forward with co-management, having different levels of community cohesion, variable capacity in local institutional structures, differences in the strength of traditional leadership structures, and mixed capacity to manage fish resources. Given these differences in readiness of different potential CLPAs and sites, and in order to respond effectively to capacity needs, the first step the Project would take in supporting the expansion of CLPAs and co-management would be to assess potential sites for support by categorizing them as one of the following: (i) “Advancing”, having already begun to implement co-management; (ii) “Ready to Advance”, having established local structures, understood the full implications of co-management, and stated a willingness to move effectively to introduce co-management; and, (iii) “Preparing to Advance”, having commitment to the concept of co-management but not necessarily having established the necessary local structures or having detailed knowledge on the full implications of co-management. 22. In order to support the Government to establish all 31 CLPAs, including in some cases the establishment of local fishers’ committees (Comités Locaux des Pêcheurs – CLPs) at the community level, the Project would provide assistance to each site through an ‘integrated support package’ which is tailored according to their categorization or assessment of readiness (see paragraph 101 above). The ‘packages’ would include category-specific training on management, legal, scientific and policy aspects of co-management. Each of these ‘integrated support packages’ would include support for: (i) establishment and management of the CLPAs, (ii) ongoing small-scale vessel registration and licensing (see component 1.1), (iii) local and participatory monitoring and surveillance (see Component 2), (iv) training in basic financial management and the management of access rights, (v) community-based monitoring of the fisheries and coastal ecosystems, and (vi) support for establishment of CLPs in some cases, with the development of local-level resource co-management initiatives that would be financed through small sub-project grants. In addition, the Project would support (in close cooperation with local stakeholders) CRODT to map the demand for specific scientific data collection and local research in each Local Artisanal Fisheries Council area (see component 1.2), and prepare annual programs, including staffing and financial requirements, for research at the local and national level. 23. Thirdly, the Project will support the Government to work with stakeholder groups (using a joint committee) to pass a new Ministerial Decree further elaborating the roles and responsibilities of these Councils: (i) defining a maritime zone over which each Council would have jurisdiction (which, with all Councils combined, would cover the entire coast), (ii) defining the steps to transfer to the Councils the responsibility for fisheries management for their zones of jurisdiction (and the scope of this responsibility, including allocation and renewal of fishing permits, registration and preparation of fisheries regulations and eventually management plans for the zones), (iii) specifying the division of revenues from the fishing permits (in order to cover the operating costs of the Councils and other expenditures), and (iv) redefining

89

the relationship between the Councils (CLPAs) and the local fishers’ associations (such as the Local Fishers’ Committees – CLPs), the national consultative council for marine fisheries and the Ministry of Maritime Economy (including the local offices, i.e. control posts, and the support the Ministry). This last redefinition would – with funding from the Project – specify support to the Councils in terms of training of members and fishers, the provision of facilitators, support for research in specific Council areas, and the communication program and consultations. 24. Fourthly, with the creation and implementation of Councils covering all of the coastal fisheries, and their roles redefined according to Ministerial Decree, the Project would support the Government to develop and pass an additional regulation (Ministerial Decree), that would transform the current fishing permits into true fishing rights (as fishing licenses) that would be allocated by CLPA, by ensuring that each permit specifies at least (i) the area where the license is valid, (ii) the periods during which fishing is allowed, or not allowed, (iii) the specifications of the maximum or minimum size of the fishing vessel that can be used and specifications of the gear that can or cannot be used, (iv) species that can or cannot be targeted, and (v) treatment of by-catch. These access rights would apply to the fisheries managed by the local Councils, and would ensure that rights are targeted to the specific zones under the Councils’ management, which would eventually function as TURFs. 25. Finally, by the end of the first phase of the Project, with the permits having evolved into access rights (i.e. fishing licenses), the Project would support the Government in developing, with stakeholder input, and passing a Ministerial Decree prohibiting the issuance of any new permits for the zones under management by the CLPAs. Sub-Component 1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed ($4.5 m IDA) 26. Activity 1.3.1, Support to industrial fishing vessel owners. For the industrial trawl fleet targeting the coastal demersal fish stocks, the Government would, in close cooperation with representatives of the private sector (through a joint committee), support the reduction of the fleet. Currently there is a Ministerial Decree in place to freeze the issuance of all new licenses to the coastal trawl fleet (Arrêté No. 5166 of August 8, 2006). On this basis, and taking into account the current legal framework (article 26 of the 1998 Fisheries Law), the Minister of MEM would first give instructions to cancel licenses for vessels having operated or remained in Senegal for more than three years (including 2008) without renewing their license. At the beginning of Project implementation, the Government would work with industry representatives and stakeholders to finalize the procedures to reduce the remaining industrial trawl fleet by up to 28 percent (i.e. reducing industrial trawl fisheries licenses for coastal demersal fisheries, both for vessels targeting shrimp and cephalopods – both of which catch a large diversity of coastal demersal fish stocks) in two phases. The Government may also specify the minimum number of shrimp licenses that would be targeted for reduction as well. More specifically, the procedures would identify: (i) the first reduction of the fleet as agreed by the joint commission, (ii) the process of selection of the licenses to be withdrawn (through a participatory mechanism), (iii) the increase of the price of the remaining licenses (by about 25 percent), (iv) the obligation of the remaining license holders to land their entire catch in Senegal, (v) the option to owners who lost their licenses to sell their vessel to the Government (including the price to be paid per gross registered ton, linked to world market steel price plus a premium) within a defined period (about 2-4 months following the license cancellation), (vi) the date of the next fleet restructuring (i.e. license cancellation), and the minimum number of years during which no new industrial coastal demersal fishing licenses will be issued, and (vii) the appeals process/mechanism.

27. The Project will subsequently provide approximately US$3.0 million to finance a Government ‘buy-back’ fund for industrial trawl vessels (accompanied by a cancellation of the vessel’s license), in the two phases. The buy-back activities and the fleet reduction program would be implemented and operated by a Project-financed independent auditor hired by Ministry in charge of fisheries, who would help set the prices of the vessels. The Government would then buy-back the vessels from interested owners, so that

90

the vessels are removed from the fisheries (to reduce the fishing pressure on these resources, in order to allow them to rebuild and recover). The Project will also support the Government to launch a tender for an international firm to dispose of the purchased vessels in an environmentally safe manner, in accordance with internationally-accepted environmental standards. 28. Activity 1.3.2 Transition of Fisher Crew Working on Industrial Fishing Vessels to Alternative Livelihoods. This activity will finance a support package for fishers working as crewmembers on industrial vessels whose employment is adversely affected by the planned reduction of the industrial trawl fleet. This integrated package of support will include (i) medium-term training in micro-enterprise development and management, and (ii) broadened access to non-subsidized microfinance. Individual crew members may also volunteer to transition, in which case they will qualify to participate in micro-enterprise development and management training and may choose to access micro-finance. This support package is consistent with Senegal’s existing FRAP model, and will similarly include significant communication and outreach efforts to raise awareness. 29. Activity 1.3.3 Transition of Small-Scale Fishers and Fish Processors to Alternative Livelihoods. The Project will support the extension of the Alternative Livelihoods Fund (FRAP), to cover the entire coast, following the same procedures and modalities and working through the same micro-finance institution (Crédit Mutuel) as utilized by the Bank-financed Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project, and in line with OP8.30 (through provision of grant and guarantee assistance to the institution to extend coverage of commercial micro-credit to rural fishing communities supported by technical assistance in skills development from the Project).41 More specifically, this activity will provide incentives to encourage small-scale fishers and fish processors to voluntarily transition from the fishing sector into other, potentially more viable, livelihoods.42 The initiative will specifically target younger fishers and processors (aged 18 to 40 years) in overexploited fisheries. The incentive package for transition will consist of an integrated support package of (i) medium-term (2-year) practical training in appropriate micro-enterprise and management, and medium-term life-skills support (effective communications, problem identification and resolution, etc.), and (ii) increased access to market rate micro-finance through Crédit Mutuel. The integrated support package will provide transitioning individuals with support for a period of 2 years, and will commence at the time the individual formally signs up for transition. This incentive package for transition will be implemented by contracted independent entities (micro-enterprise development specialist agencies, micro-finance institutions, NGOs, etc.) with deep and tested experience in these fields. These entities will be required to liaise closely with each other in delivery of the programs, as well as share lessons across different countries. 30. The activity will also support safety nets for communities with higher rates of transition, who are likely to undergo substantial socio-cultural and socio-economic change. Because communities tend to be

41 The Program contributes to the poverty reduction objective of Crédit Mutuel Sénégal (CMS), which is to contribute to the improvement of the livelihoods and well-being of all socio-professional categories of the population in Senegal. Crédit Mutuel is one of the leading commercial micro-finance institutions in Senegal, having obtained confirmation of its ISO 9001Version 2000 certificate on March 27, 2009, and representing some 35 percent of the decentralized finance market in Senegal. The institution is the ninth largest employer in the finance industry in Senegal, the sixth largest institution in terms of net banking profits. The institution currently is partnered with the French Agency for Development (AFD) and the German Government-owned development bank, KFW, both of whom have provided guarantees to Crédit Mutuel, through the Government of Senegal, to expand operations. 42 In the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project, CMS is providing a line of credit for fishers at commercial rates, with the Government (through the project) providing 60 percent of the funds for the line of credit (to be fully repaid by CMS at the end of the project) and a guarantee for 40 percent of the micro-loans made by CMS from the line of credit. The terms for the micro-loans to fishers from CMS are at a fixed annual interest rate of 9 percent, with a duration specified on a case-by-case basis, up to a maximum of 3 years. The clients pay a fee of 3 percent at the outset as well as a counterpart contribution of 10 percent. West Africa Regional Fisheries Program support for micro-finance to fishers in Senegal will follow the same terms and procedures as the support through the Senegal Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project, with the Government providing an additional line of credit for CMS to lend at commercial rates to fishers targeted by the Program for the purposes of alternative livelihoods (60 percent of the funds to CMS) and a guarantee for defaulted micro-loans (40 percent of the funds to CMS). CMS will establish new branches in targeted fishing communities as needed to provide this micro-finance.

91

tightly knit, the spill-over effects of individuals’ transition to alternative livelihoods are likely to be considerable. For this reason safety nets are critical in order to cushion communities during this period of change, and to underpin individuals in those communities who transition out of the targeted fisheries. Two types of safety net programs will be supported: (i) an integrated package of improved access by a small group of resident community members to micro-enterprise development and management training, and broadened access to micro-finance; and (ii) community-driven development (CDD) activities aiming to raise living standards and well-being broadly in the communities (e.g. grain mills, small trading centers, etc.). A positive and negative list of CDD activities will guide this process and associated financing allocations. Oversight of the group microenterprise development and CDD activities will be undertaken by local committees with equal representation of women and men. However, general oversight and management of the CDD activities will be the responsibility of community development experts in the Ministry, and daily management will be the responsibility of a contracted entity – most likely an NGO – with experience in this area. Sub-Component 1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency ($0.3 m IDA) 31. Activity 1.4.1 Social Marketing and Communication. The Project will support the design and implementation of communications strategies, stakeholder consultations, and professional social marketing campaigns to improve public knowledge and understanding of, and engagement with, the new fisheries management policies being supported under the Project. These efforts will also underpin strengthened transparency and accountability in Project activities, including development of effective mechanisms by which individuals by lodge grievances for perceived infractions and inequities in Project activities, as well as support and information for independent journalists. Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Sub-Component 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing ($0.4 m IDA) 32. Activity 2.1.1 Enabling legal and judiciary environment for combating illegal fishing, including the development of MCS plans and strategies. This activity will provide technical assistance and training to support the implementation of port state measures, compliance with upcoming EU regulations concerning illegal fishing, and strengthening of safety at sea. This technical assistance will also include an assessment of the regulatory framework and judicial institutions for combating illegal fishing, and to introduce any adjustments necessary to ensure that all infractions detected result in actual penalties that will serve as a deterrent. More specifically, the Project will support Senegal to ensure that the regulatory and judicial frameworks include: (i) appropriate regulations for the implementation of policies for sustainable fisheries, in particular with participation of key stakeholders, in support of policies and management plans adopted through support from Component 1 of the Project; (ii) rules, procedures and practices for an efficient processing and monitoring of infractions cases, including implementation of penalties and collection and management of revenues from fines; and (iii) mechanisms for ensuring transparency in the prosecution of infractions, implementation of penalties and collection and management of revenues from fines. Sub-Component 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems ($1.8 m IDA) 33. Activity 2.2.1 Implementing sustainable surveillance systems. The Project will support surveillance of the coastal fisheries, in particular in collaboration with communities and fisheries, with a priority on the support of co-management (and the CLPAs) and the control of access. More specifically, the Project will finance: (i) strengthening of the operating capacity of the fisheries surveillance authority, particularly the coastal surveillance stations (including works and equipment such as radar, communication equipment, and small inshore patrol vessels), and (ii) participatory surveillance patrols with fishers and coastal communities (including safety and navigation equipment, training for local surveillance groups, and costs of patrols).

92

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Sub-Component 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters ($1.4 m IDA) 34. In conjunction with the Government’s plan in the Letter of Sector Policy to develop 8 major small-scale fish landing sites, 5 of which are to be financed through funds from the European Union (fisheries STABEX), the Project would support the development of at least one integrated landing site cluster at Kafountine, that can function as a special economic zone and a ‘growth center’. Taking advantage of the findings of an ongoing management study for 8 landing sites, supported by the Government of France, the Project would support investments in the infrastructure base and in a minimum platform of services necessary to attract private investors at Kafountine help increase the value added to fish products, and better extend and integrate the fishery driven value chains. This approach could be replicated to the other 7 sites identified by the Government. To be viable and sustainable, the Kafountine Integrative Landing Site Cluster would operate as a special economic zone with private developers and under concessional (or sub-contractual) private management. To this end, credit proceeds will finance the construction of the basic infrastructure while money will be earmarked to catalyze the involvement of private sector in setting-up and managing common services centers, dry docking industry, storage facilities and other infrastructure/services in the cluster. The project will be supported by capacity development program aimed at strengthening good governance through after capture losses and selective/targeted fishing. The Project could also support enclosure of the 5 landing sites financed by the European Union (STABEX), and provide any upgrades needed to ensure that these 5 sites have the minimum basic infrastructure needed to support value addition. Sub-Component 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) ($0.9 m IDA) 35. Activity 3.2.1 Training and technical assistance to enterprises in the sector in business development. The Project would support business development services for fisheries entrepreneurs in Senegal, to help local enterprises access relevant information to better integrate into global value chains. Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Sub-Component 4.1 National Implementation ($1.3 m IDA, $1.0 m Government) 36. The Project in Senegal will be managed through the existing Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in the Department of Marine Fisheries (DPM), staffed by external and local project management specialists. More specifically, the PIU will include a coordinator for the Project, and an Administrative and Financial Assistant. The PIU will report each six months to the national Steering Committee (established during preparation). The PIU will prepare an annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan that would be reviewed with the Steering Committee and transmitted to the Regional Coordination Unit. Component 1. Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the FisheriesRegistration of all fishing vessels

Operating costs and technical assistance to support the maintenance of national small-scale vessel registration

$0.4 M IDA

Assessment of the status of key fish stocks

Technical assistance to CRODT to synthesize state of the fish stocks, assess fishing capacity, and support communities

$0.5 M IDA

Transparency and accessibility of fisheries management information

Goods, services and operating costs for operation of a fisheries management information system, linked to regional database, including ongoing data collection

$0.4 M IDA

Preparation and implementation of fisheries management plans

Technical assistance and consultations to support development and implementation of a management plan for coastal demersal fish stocks; support for implementation of existing shrimp, cymbium and octopus management plans

$0.6 M IDA

1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights Introduction of fishing Office and communications equipment, training and $0.6 M IDA

93

rights through a system of co-management

operating costs to support local fisheries offices along the coast to ensure that all small-scale fishers are registered and apply for the fishing permits currently mandated by the law

Support to CLPAs through training on management, legal, scientific and policy aspects of co-management, as well as: (i) establishment and management of the CLPAs, (ii) ongoing small-scale vessel registration and licensing, (iii) local and participatory monitoring and surveillance, (iv) training in basic financial management and the management of access rights, (v) community-based monitoring of the fisheries and coastal ecosystems.

$1.0 M IDA

Technical assistance to develop Ministerial Decrees supporting co-management and access rights

$0.1 M IDA

1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where NeededSupport to industrial fishing vessel owners

Government ‘buy-back’ of industrial trawl vessels $3.0 M IDA

Transition of fisher crew working on industrial fishing vessels to alternative livelihoods

For crew members of vessels ‘bought back’, medium-term training in micro-enterprise development and management, and broadened access to non-subsidized microfinance

$0.5 M IDA

Transition of small-scale fishers and fish processors to alternative livelihoods

Training and micro-finance to fishers in targeted communities to develop and pursue alternative livelihoods to fishing

$1.0 M IDA

1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and TransparencySocial marketing and communication

Design and implementation of communications strategies, stakeholder consultations for the new fisheries management policies supported under the Project

$0.3 M IDA

Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing Enabling legal and judiciary environment for combating illegal fishing

Technical assistance and training to strengthen the regulatory framework and judicial institutions for combating illegal fishing, to ensure infractions are fully addressed

$0.4 M IDA

2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems Implementing sustainable surveillance systems

Small works to rehabilitate and equip coastal surveillance stations, including radar, communication equipment, and small inshore patrol vessels with safety and navigation equipment

$1.0 M IDA

Participatory surveillance patrols with fishers and coastal communities, including training for local surveillance groups, and costs of patrols

$0.8 M IDA

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters Basic infrastructure and support services for a landing site cluster at Kafountine $1.1 M IDA Enclosures and upgrades to infrastructure at 5 small-scale landing sites $0.4 M IDA 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems Business development services for fisheries entrepreneurs $0.8 M IDA Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 4.1 National Implementation Goods, equipment, technical assistance and operating costs for a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in DPM, staffed by external and local project management specialists

$1.3 M $0.7 M

IDA Gov.

37. Tentative Implementation Plan and Chronology. The following schedule for implementation of the Project is expected in Senegal for the first 18 months:

94

Activity Component Start Date End Date Recruitment of the Coordinator for the PIU 4.1 October 2009 November 2009 Recruitment of the Administrative and Financial Assistant for the PIU

4.1 October 2009 November 2009

Completion of Operational Manuals, establishment of PIU in DPM

4.1 July 2009 November 2009

Operating costs for completion of national registration program for small-scale vessels

1.1.1 November 2009 Ongoing

Equipment and support to fisheries control posts 1.2 November 2009 June 2010 Training in co-management to officers in fisheries control posts

1.2 November 2009 June 2010

Recruitment of a firm to provide technical assistance for ongoing and long-term policy support

1.2 December 2010 April 2010

Recruitment of a firm to provide technical assistance, training and goods to asses and establish targeted CLPAs

1.2 December 2010 April 2010

Completion of technical specifications and bidding documents for integrated fish landing site cluster at Kafountine

3.1 January 2010 May 2010

Establishment and operation of first round of CLPAs 1.2 April 2010 December 2010 Completion and passage of draft decree on freeze of registration of new small-scale fishing vessels

1.2 April 2010 December 2010

Operating costs for control posts, and completion of licensing of small-scale fleet

1.2 June 2010 December 2010

Preparation of detailed procedures for industrial fishing vessel buy-back, validated by industry

1.3 June 2010 December 2010

Recruitment of independent auditor to administer and facilitate buy-back

1.3 July 2010 December 2010

Recruitment of firm to complete works for integrated fish landing site cluster at Kafountine

3.1 July 2010 December 2010

Completion of Phase 1 of vessel buy-back 1.3 December 2010 April 2011 Installation of ‘dashboard’ and training of local users, based on specifications developed through regional financing

1.1.4 January 2011 July 2011

Equipment for targeted coastal patrol stations 2.2 March 2010 July 2011

17. Assessment of Country-Specific Risks and Mitigation Measures. The following risks to achieving the Project’s objective specifically in Senegal were identified, along with mitigation measures:

Risk factors

Description of risk Mitigation measures

I. Country and/or Sub-National Level Risks Macroeconomic framework

Thanks to the robustness of regional monetary arrangements, the relatively comfortable fiscal situation, and Senegal’s geographic and other advantages, the risk of significant macroeconomic slippage in the form of unsustainable inflation or sustained negative growth is minimal. However, the economy remains vulnerable to shocks: - Fiscal discipline needs to be sustained

over time. - Lack of diversification of the economy

creates a potential risk. Expansion has been concentrated in services, such as telecommunications, and construction of large infrastructure projects, such as roads, while the agricultural sector has performed poorly.

The Government and donors have been able to respond through the funding of remedial actions. Notwithstanding the likely slowdown in world growth, average growth of Senegal’s economy is projected at 5.5 percent for the period 2008-2010. The positive growth outlook and fiscal position (with low debt ratios) should help Senegal absorb unexpected economic shocks. The Government is aiming for a new growth model to increase the growth potential of the economy. It is putting together a set of policy responses to improve the business environment, diversify and strengthen exports, improve infrastructure and the energy sector, and reform the labor market. The Government has recently adopted an Accelerated Growth Strategy (AGS) to promote reforms in five selected clusters of activities. It also aims to channel spending toward factors conducive to growth such as education and health.

95

- Another risk if the country’s weak external competitiveness in light of the continued sluggishness of its exports.

The volatility of donor support is not considered a significant risk and is largely mitigated by MDRI.

The CAS places emphasis on (i) accelerated growth/wealth creation in order to promote a competitive business climate, build infrastructure for growth, facilitate access to finance, promote a diversified agricultural sector, and develop skilled labor; (ii) increased access to social services and the creation of opportunities for poor and vulnerable groups; and (iii) rural and urban synergies. Senegal agreed with the IMF on three years (2007-2010) an arrangement under the Policy Support Instrument (PSI) which was approved the IMF board on November 2, 2007.

Country Engagement With World Bank IDA Portfolio

Senegal has exited from the enhanced HIPC Initiative with a good basis for maintaining sustainable external debt levels over the medium term, especially if borrowing remains at concessional terms. Overall IDA portfolio management indicators have improved.

The recent Debt-Sustainability Analysis (DSA) conducted by the IMF, revealed low levels of public domestic and external debts, 6 percent and 41 percent of GDP, respectively, at the end of 2004. These low ratios indicate that Senegal’s public debt should be sustainable over the medium term, even in the case of negative shocks such as a decline in economic growth and/or a deterioration in the terms of trade. This positive assessment is being reinforced by the initiative of G-8 countries, to cancel the Senegalese debt from multilateral institutions (equivalent to a savings of about US$80-100 million in debt-service per year starting in 2006). Senegal now benefits from MDRI and enjoys a significant fiscal space that has led to the financing of core programs without excessive reliance on foreign borrowing. Moreover fiscal expansion, mainly large infrastructure projects in the Public Investment Program, are being financed through own resources, the private sector, and grant and concessional financing. Future debt service is projected to remain low and at sustainable levels. A number of factors have helped maintain portfolio performance, including (i) regular dialogue with stakeholders, (ii) regular monitoring of projects through portfolio reviews (quarterly mini-CPPRs and annual results-based CPPRs), (iii) AAA to underpin lending program, and (iv) decentralization of Bank staff to Dakar Office.

Systemic corruption

Recent events have led to some government spending irregularities, weaker budgetary controls by the judiciary and legislative powers, and fragile governance in public and quasi-public enterprises. Weaknesses have emerged in public financial management systems over the past few years, such as the growing use of non-competitive procurement procedures in public contracts (almost 60 percent of projects funded by domestic resources) and mismanagement in public and quasi-public enterprises (e.g., in the energy sector and the largest industrial firm operating in Senegal).

Strengthening governance is widely recognized as an essential element for the success of the development strategy in Senegal. Such a focus is crucial for improving public service delivery and promoting private sector development. In its CAS 2007-2010, the WBG will use three guiding principles to ensure that governance considerations are mainstreamed into its programs in Senegal. (i) Greater transparency and efficiency in the use of public resources (ii) Strengthening institutions responsible for fighting corruption and promoting good governance in the public and private sectors (iii) . Strengthening and modernizing the judicial system and mechanisms for private governance.

Other (for example security risks, country engagement with other MDBs/donors, capacity risks)

Senegal is vulnerable to regional instability. In Casamance, with a minority of rebel groups still not signatory to the peace accord, military action picked up in March April 2006. There is also a risk associated with deterioration in regional policies on key areas such as trade policy, infrastructure projects, and financial and competition policies. Senegal’s progress will depend on sustainable progress in these areas because of the limited size of its local market and significant economic regional externalities

The authorities are consolidating their strategy toward local communities and providing direct support to key sectors such as education, health, and governance. Pay and civil service reform would also help in the retention of expertise.

96

within WAEMU and ECOWAS. There is insufficient administrative capacity in Senegal, shortages of skills and slow program implementation. This risk is highest at the sectoral level and in local Governments.

Sector Governance, Policies and Institutions

The Ministry of Maritime Economy has completed a Letter of Sector Policy that provides a sound strategy for the implementation of the reforms needed for the sector achieve its objectives as described in the Country’s Accelerated Growth Strategy. However, the political will and capacity to implement difficult reforms remain a concern.

The donors to the sector have formed a Donors’ Group that is supporting through various investments, and monitoring the implementation of the Letter of Policy. These donors, and this project, will work with the Ministry to build its capacity, as well as focus on implementation of the policy.

II. Operation-specific Risks Moral hazard of industrial trawl fleet reduction

Risk that ‘buy-backs’ of industrial fishing vessels in Senegal will create a moral hazard, whereby vessel owners have incentives to continue fishing when they otherwise would not have, because of impending buy-backs.

The Project will recruit an independent auditor to set the terms of the buy-backs, both in consultation with industry groups and the Government, to avoid creating incentives for moral hazard.

Micro-finance for alternative livelihoods

Risk of collusion between the commercial micro-finance institution and borrowers, given that part of the line of credit is guaranteed by the Government.

The Project has identified CMS, one of the largest commercial micro-finance institutions in Senegal, so the risk is considered mitigated in comparison to the potential reputational risk to the institution if collusion were to occur. At the same time, fishers participating in the program to support alternative livelihoods, will have their case and progress posted in information centers in the community, so there will be public awareness of progress towards the new livelihood, or pressure if collusion were to occur. Lastly, the agreement with CMS specifies that all commercial and legal remedies will be exhausted by the institution in order to recover loans prior to seeking reimbursement from the guarantee fund. An independent management committee will be established to oversee the application of the guarantee, including representatives of Government, CMS and fisheries stakeholders. This committee will approve all applications by CMS for reimbursement from the guarantee.

97

Annex 8: Detailed Project Description in Sierra Leone

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

($13.9 m IDA, $5.0 m GEF) 1. Background: the Fisheries in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has a 300-kilometer long coastline with a sizeable continental shelf (covering an area of over 25,000 square kilometers and a width of up to 140 kilometers in the north) that is fed by substantial rivers and rainfall, providing the basic elements for extremely productive marine fisheries. As a result, the country has considerable resources of: (i) shrimp, (ii) cephalopods (cuttlefish and octopus), (iii) lobster, (iv) demersal fish species (croakers, snappers, catfish, groupers), (v) small pelagic species (herring-like species, bonga) and (vi) large pelagics (tuna, barracudas) – all of whom have well-established global markets with high prices. Based on these resources, the fisheries sector provides direct employment to some 100,000 persons and indirect employment to some 500,000 persons (almost 10 percent of the population). More specifically, in coastal areas some 25 percent of the male population of working age is reported to be involved in fishing at least part-time. Lastly, according to the PRSP the sector contributes almost 10 percent to the country’s GDP. 2. By 2006 the trend in the fisheries was a significant increase in the small-scale catch, from a level consistently between 40,000 to 50,000 tons during the 1980s and 1990s, to a totally of roughly 120,000 tons in 2006. At the same time, the catch of the industrial fisheries declined significantly during the 1990s, from a peak of 150,000 tons in 1989 down to some 15,000 tons in the few years thereafter, and remaining consistently between 13,000 to 15,000 tons today. However, as Sierra Leone is not certified by the European Union for exports (nor is there a dedicated fishing port), the volume of industrial fish caught in the country’s waters may be much higher, as most is transshipped to Las Palmas for entry to the European markets. Local fishing companies buy the fish that the foreign fleet is obliged to sell locally, and distribute the frozen catch locally or regionally (Liberia, Ghana). 3. The small-scale fisheries may not be actively managed, while the mostly foreign-owned industrial fleet is licensed by the Government, with license fees equivalent to roughly 10 percent of the value of the reported industrial catch. Habitat degradation (by trawling) and destructive gears (driftnets and beach seines with illegal small mesh sizes that capture juveniles) are having an important impact on the fragile coastal areas that serve as nursery grounds for shrimp and fish species. Partially as a result, the majority of valuable demersal fish species are either fully or overexploited (for example most species of croakers). As an illustration of this, the trends in catch-per-unit-effort of both fish trawlers and shrimp trawlers are downward over the last decade and a half. 4. The key issues appear to be (i) the entire sector is not well managed and provides substantially lower returns than it could be, (ii) destructive fishing gears and practices (such as inshore shrimp trawling, and beach seines and drift nets with small mesh sizes) are damaging sensitive nursery grounds and capturing juveniles species, (iii) reportedly substantial levels of illegal fishing, (iv) a majority of the fish caught by industrial vessels is transshipped at sea for export, with no local value added or export benefits, because there is not sufficient infrastructure nor EU-certified quality control, (v) the Ministry of Fisheries has a limited number of experienced staff, but organization and management of its tasks are ineffective, (vi) the capacity and funding of fisheries research is limited, and (vii) the potential for increased fishing effort and catch presents a risk of boom and bust if more effective management conditions are not first in place. More specifically, future licensing strategies for the industrial fleet need to combine the need to rebuild the over-exploited shrimp stocks, enhance the effectiveness of MCS, notably in the coastal zone and the fact that the single industrial fisheries jetty – currently being rebuilt – will only be accessible to the vessels of the single largest domestic fishing company. 5. Scenario for Project Investments to Achieve the Objective in Sierra Leone. Project investments would aim to develop a scenario for achieving the desired outcomes and objective in Sierra

98

Leone, whereby the Project would support a measured development of MCS capacity first and foremost, with an initial reduction of some industrial fishing and some form of fisheries management system being established early. Broad implementation of the management system covering most species and important fisheries would be developed gradually over 10 years. As fisheries inputs are added slowly and carefully in industrial and small-scale fisheries, a gradual increase in the net economic benefits may be reached: for shrimp the increase may occur within 3 years, for coastal demersals after some 15 years, depending on the effectiveness of the proposed Territorial Use Right Fisheries (TURFs) and the pace of stock rebuilding. 6. Under this scenario, reform and Project investments would focus on the coastal demersal fisheries, and could be expected to include the following:

• MCS improved to better enforce the prohibition of all trawling in the inshore exclusion zone; • Competent Authority for sanitary control is certified by EU, and exports of shrimp and fish can

target EU markets; • Inshore fish trawling declines and stops over time, in compliance with existing laws and

improved MCS (legal vessels comply with closed seasons, mesh size restrictions and restricted area regulations), and targets more high-value fish for exports and lower value fish for Freetown market, and takes advantage of Project investments in the competent sanitary authority;

• In exchange for discontinuing inshore trawling, a medium-term licensing arrangement (5 years) is established with a single, national company, guaranteeing access to the fisheries, so long as they will comply with a coastal demersal fisheries management plan and MCS requirements (see next bullet), land their catches locally and pay higher license fees;

• A stock assessment is finalized and a coastal demersal fisheries management plan completed, that sets a TAC and defines the allocation between industrial and small-scale fisheries;

• Small-scale fishers are enabled over time to better reach domestic and export markets, through the creation of Territorial Use Right Fisheries (TURFs) in the inshore exclusion zones. These organizations would focus on improving fisheries regulation and the quality and marketing of fish), and would be managed by stakeholders (Commission/Council/etc.) in some cases possibly supported by a public-private partnership agreement. Quality improvements would be made possible by existing and new small-scale infrastructure investments, equipment supplied to encourage introduction and enforcement of better fisheries regulation, as well facilities at the airport and port to store and export high-value fish. Co-management activities would be concentrated initially around four marine protected areas; actual organization to be based on clusters of fishing villages coordinated at the TURF level;

• MCS improvements would be targeted to the inshore exclusion zone to support these TURFs; • Project would provide support to these stakeholder groups managing the TURFs, in the form of

training and facilitation, and local monitoring and research, development of complementary shore-based infrastructure to support management and provide for increased fish quality and value added; and

• Industrial fish trawling arrangements would be reviewed after five years. 7. The benefits of this scenario would include:

• Profitability of industrial fish trawling fleet increases over time; • Profitability of small-scale fleets fishing in the TURFs increases over time; • Local small-scale fish processing increases, and domestic supply of fish stays stable; • Total fish exports from Sierra Leone increase over time; and • Government revenue from the sector increases.

8. In addition, under this scenario the following reforms and investments would be implemented in the shrimp fisheries:

• Shrimp fishery management plan prepared based on historic analyses and data, setting a total allowable catch (TAC) level, etc;

• Shrimp fishery potentially closed to recover for period to be determined by resource analyses; • Strengthened MCS in the inshore exclusive zone and 15 – m depth zone;

99

• The institutions and regulations needed to support local shrimp exports are developed over this time, notably the competent sanitary authority; and

• Fishery re-opened, and licenses are auctioned for shrimp fisheries outside the inshore exclusion zone.

• Following one year experience with the new system, review feasibility of a further increase in coastal shrimp fishing license fees, and link licenses and fees to annual quota and world market shrimp and fuel prices; and

• Licenses require local landing of shrimp, and require private investments in mobile landing system (lighters) and some processing and storage.

9. The benefits of this scenario would include:

• The same benefits for coastal demersal fisheries from Scenario 1; plus • License fees for shrimp fisheries increase substantially, generating more public revenue; • Shrimp sizes, market values and profits multiply several times over; and • Local value-added is increased, as well as exports.

10. In summary, Project investments in Sierra Leone are expected to strengthen the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries, by establishing total allowable catch, introducing fishing rights, and increasing the level of license fees. Concurrently, MCS will be strengthened in order to reduce illegal fishing, particularly to ensure industrial vessels stay out of the inshore zone. Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Sub-Component 1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($2.0 m GEF) 11. Activity 1.1.1 Strengthening of Policy and Regulatory Framework for use of the Fish Resources. The European Union, with support from FAO, is currently funding a review of the 2003 national fisheries policy, as well as the legal and regulatory framework for the sector. This review is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2009 (and has been complemented by the preparation activities for this Project, such as the development of the operational manual. Beginning in the first quarter of 2010, the Project will provide any technical assistance and support needed to develop the strategic framework for the implementation of the action plan for the new policy, including preparation of specific regulations. As part of this activity, the Project would support wide consultations on policy implementation and extensive technical and fisheries management training for staff of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and other stakeholders, such as universities and research institutes. 12. Activity 1.1.2 Registration of all Fishing Vessels. The Project will finance the marking and registration of all small-scale fishing vessels by the District Councils with the support of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, and the operating costs of maintaining a vessel registry. 13. Activity 1.1.3 Assessment of the Status of Key Fish Stocks. The Project will support the ability of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), the fisheries research institute (IMBO) and other institutions to continue the research contracts and surveys, data collection and analysis currently being financed by the European Union Institutional Support to Fisheries Management (ISFM) project, which is scheduled to be completed at the end of 2010. These surveys and research contracts will support the development and monitoring of the management plans supported in sub-component 1.2. 14. Activity 1.1.4 Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. In Sierra Leone the ‘dashboard’ will be housed in MFMR, designed according to the specifications described in Section A (Program Summary). This national node will be linked to the regional information platform established at the Regional Coordination Unit. This activity will include financing for goods, consultant services and operating costs.

100

15. Activity 1.1.5 Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans that set Levels of Sustainable Exploitation for Targeted Fisheries, and Create Rights and Allocation Mechanisms for those Fisheries. The Project will finance technical assistance to support the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources to work with stakeholders to finalize and implement a management plan for the coastal demersal fisheries outside of the 6-mile inshore exclusion zone for the industrial vessels, based on activities funded to date by the ISFM project, including research and data collected by IMBO (see component 1.1.3). This management plan will set a total allowable catch (TAC) for the fishery, and an allocation mechanism for industrial vessels to tender bids for a portion of that TAC, potentially resulting in increased license fees (for long-term licenses). Similarly, this technical assistance contract will also include support the Ministry to conduct the analysis necessary to set a total allowable catch for the coastal shrimp fisheries, and allocate this catch through long-term licenses with increased fees, in coordination with the Sierra Leone Maritime Administration. Thus by the end of year three of Project implementation, a total allowable catch and allocation process will be legally established for industrial coastal demersal fisheries and shrimp fisheries, outside of the 6-mile inshore exclusion zone. Sub-Component 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights ($1.2 m GEF) 16. Activity 1.2.1 Introduction of Fishing Rights through a System of Co-Management. The Project will support for the creation of four co-managed marine protected areas within the 6-mile inshore exclusion zone, which would evolve into four or more TURFs by the end of Phase I. The four proposed co-managed marine protected areas are: (i) the Sierra Leone River Estuary (Western Area and Port Loko District), (ii) the Scarcies River (Kambia District), (iii) the Sherbro River System (Bonthe District), and (iv) Yawri Bay (Western Rural and Moyamba District). These marine protected areas would be co-managed by communities who would be represented by a representative co-management association (CMA), and the Government. Fishing in these areas would be regulated by specific management rules developed and implemented by the communities together with the Government. As the communities develop more and more experience working with the Government to implement fisheries management measures in the marine protected areas, the Project would support the legal transition of these areas to full TURFs, where the communities would actually own the rights to fish in these areas. The boundaries of the TURFS could be defined along the borders of the four marine protected areas, or one or each of these areas could be sub-divided into numerous TURFs. 17. To qualify for establishment of a co-managed marine protected area, and to benefit from Government surveillance support to keep illegal fishing vessels out of the areas (see Component 2), communities, represented by an elected, representative co-management association (CMA), would need to first provide written confirmation that 25 percent of fishers in that community would, at the initiative’s outset, agree to stop using illegal fishing nets and practices that are currently causing significant ecological damage and degrading the value of the fisheries. The Project will support the establishment of a co-management community center in each marine protected area to provide an office and general meeting place for the qualifying CMA and community fishers and fish processors. The Project will also support technical assistance and local community facilitators to assist with the establishment and ongoing operation of each of the co-management associations. Furthermore, co-management associations will receive technical assistance to develop and ensure community level discussion and dissemination of marine protected area management plans, as well as of local site monitoring. The Project will support local site monitoring of fish catch and effort, conditions of in-shore and tidal marine resources, water quality, beach sanitation and ecosystem health conditions. Through sub-component 1.3 and 1.4, the Project will support the communities in the marine protected areas to fish more profitably and in more environmentally-friendly manners, and Component 3 will provide infrastructure in each marine protected area to support the communities to increase the local value added to the fish products.

101

Sub-Component 1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed ($1.4 m GEF) 18. Activity 1.3.1 Incentives for Change Program. The Project will support an “incentives-for-change program” for the communities within the four marine protected areas to encourage more sustainable and profitable management of fisheries in these areas. This activity will be structured in a multi-staged approach in which communities would be offered progressively larger incentives as they undertake increasingly more challenging changes in fishing practices, and as they continue to comply with those changes. The incentives include items that will immediately contribute to community development and community safety. Under phase 1 of the activity, a community in a marine protected area can be eligible for Project support if its Ward Committee, co-management association and local Facilitator each confirm that they have achieved a signup rate of 25 to 50 percent of fishers living in the community who have agreed to participate in the Government’s fishing net exchange program (whereby the Project will continue Government activities to sell legal nets to fishers at a 50 percent reduction in exchange for illegal nets). Those in the net exchange would sign up publicly and commit to never reverting to use of illegal fishing nets (e.g. with small mesh sizes that capture juveniles before they can reproduce). Upon qualifying for the Program, the community will receive a certain number of chorkor ovens and training in their use to increase the value added to smoked fish products. After 6 months, communities could qualify for phase 2 of the activity, provided compliance with use of legal fishing nets has remained high. The community could then choose one social good from a positive list for the community, such as pit latrines, wells, construction of a fish cleaning slab adjacent to the landing site, additional fishing net exchanges, additional chorkor ovens, technical training for women in micro-enterprise management and growth, a certain number of fishers’ safety vests, etc. After another 6 months of good compliance with legal fishing net use, communities could then qualify for phase 3 of the activity, and be eligible to select an additional social good from the positive list. Communities would also be supported in local level waste and hygiene management and monitoring, water quality and local eco-system monitoring, and periodic fish catch and effort monitoring within the marine protected area. 19. Regular management of this activity will be the responsibility of the co-management association and the community facilitator, together with the engagement of the Ward Committee. The co-management association would work with communities to get the level of sign-up needed to enter the incentives for change program initially, and reach consensus with the communities on which incentive will be chosen when they reach the next qualifying Phase. The co-management association will be most immediately responsible for ensuring there is a good level of compliance by the communities with the requirements of each Phase, but the community facilitator and Ward Committee will also play a role. Additionally, the two fishing unions (SLAFU and SLAAFU) will also monitor community compliance with the above requirements. They will do this by drawing on their Branch, Zonal and National Executive memberships. Lastly, the PIU in the Ministry will monitor compliance, through engagement of their local staff in each marine protected area and through random site visits and audits. 20. To ensure transparency in the marine protected areas, and particularly in the selection and allocation of incentives, the co-management association will maintain a current posting of fishing net exchanges on a public notice board, as well as violations and remedial actions and agreements. Incentives available to communities at each phase will be posted at all times, including the community’s selection of social goods once consensus is reached. Additionally, the notice boards will be used to assign responsibilities in the communities, and report on results of local level monitoring of fish stocks, eco-system health, water quality, beach sanitation, etc. Noticeboards will also be used to post useful information on fishing regulations and also on consultative citizen report card outcomes. 21. Lastly, to support management of the marine protected areas (and future TURFs), as well as implementation of the incentives-for-change program, the Project will support the rehabilitation or construction of local fisheries offices as meeting places for co-management associations, and where possible combined with coastal fisheries surveillance outposts (Bailor, Sulima, Goderich, Old Wharf,

102

Tombo, Shenge and Bonthe). Sub-Component 1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency ($0.2 m GEF) 22. Activity 1.4.1 Social Marketing and Communication. The Project will finance (i) stakeholder consultations and (ii) development and implementation of a coast-wide communication strategy. In terms of stakeholder consultations, the Project will support a series of such consultations undertaken at community, regional and national levels, to inform all groups of stakeholders and ensure there is, among them, a common understanding of the challenges of the sector, and the new fisheries management policies being supported under the Project. The stakeholder consultation process will draw heavily on information from the Consultative Citizens’ Report Card survey and discussions will be guided by findings from the survey. The Project will also support the design of a communication strategy that will ensure information regarding the Project is well disseminated among all parties during implementation. In order to ensure the media will report effectively on the progress of the Project, this activity will also support the formation of a network of journalists interested in fisheries management issues, and build their capacity. The project will support initiatives using different local languages and a mix of media channels, including community radio, television, posters, etc. The Project may also build on existing channels of social marketing such as “traditional theater” groups to ensure that even illiterate persons can effectively access the information. The role of the network of journalists is critical to build transparency around the project, mainly regarding the allocation of fishing rights, the safety nets initiatives, grievances around allocation of fishing rights, etc. The network of journalists will have ready access to “user-friendly” information derived from the Citizens’ Report Card Survey process. Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Sub-Component 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing ($0.1 m IDA) 23. Activity 2.1.1 Technical assistance to support an enabling legal and judiciary environment for combating illegal fishing, and developing MCS plans and strategies. The Project will support the judiciary system to develop the capacity for the prosecution of fisheries infractions, through provision of training to prosecutors. The Project will also support training and technical assistance to the Fisheries Protection Unit to be established by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (under the 1994 Fisheries Act) and operated through the Joint Maritime Committee (JMC), in order to develop a surveillance plan/strategy, including procedures for monitoring the cost effectiveness, results and benefits achieved from surveillance operations. Sub-Component 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems ($7.8 m IDA) 24. Activity 2.2.1 Implementing sustainable surveillance systems. The Project will support the construction of a Fisheries Monitoring Center to be managed by the Fisheries Protection Unit at the headquarters of the JMC at Murray Town, along with equipment to access to information systems on registered and licensed vessels. More specifically, the Fisheries Monitoring Center would be equipped with communication systems, a simple satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) data reception platform (partial subsidies would be provided for transponders for national vessels to participate in the system), complete computers systems and office automation material and vehicles. Based on a cost-efficiency analysis, the Project would also support the development of patrol capacity in the air and at sea, through the leasing of a plane and a sea patrol vessel to conduct surveillance of the inshore exclusion area and the trawling grounds, as well as providing operating costs for current patrol vessels (in collaboration with ongoing support from the AfDB for costs of 15 days at sea per month for the larger patrol vessel, 9 days per month for the cutters (i.e. 3 days per cutter / month), and 8 days for the 4 inshore patrol crafts (i.e. 2 days / boat / month). Based on the results of a review of the efficiency of the leased patrols after the first two years of implementation, the Project could subsequently finance the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources to purchase fisheries surveillance patrol vessels. The project would support

103

harmonization and development of curriculum and training for fisheries inspectors and observers, as well as other personnel directly involved in fisheries surveillance operations. It would include the development of surveillance modus operandi and subsequent operational manuals. Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Sub-Component 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters ($4.8 m IDA) 25. The Project will finance a network of landing site clusters in the TURFs, beginning with an Integrative Landing Site Cluster at Konakree Dee. At Konakree Dee, in the Sierra Leone River Estuary (Western Area and Port Loko District), the Project will support the construction and operation of the minimum infrastructure base and services necessary to attract private investors and help increase the value added to fish products, in conjunction with strengthened resource management supported by sub-component 1.2 through the establishment of a TURF in this area. The integrated landing site cluster at Konakree Dee would be the nucleus and the pole of a network of prospective landing site clusters to be gradually developed in the vicinity of the TURFs. In terms of basic infrastructure on the landing site cluster, the project would support water and electricity supplies, refuse recycling systems, rehabilitation of access roads and other minimum spatial development activities that could help attract private sector operations in the cluster. In particular, the Project would support reconstruction of the road from Lungi, repairs to the water pipe, a fish sorting shed and hygiene block, etc. 26. In terms of building the integrative landing site cluster, the project will support the construction of an ice plant, cold stores, the gradual development of dry-docking industry, the set-up of common service centers and the provision of extension services such as a set up of fishery material store, the provision of fuel and gas, net and crates repair, training in the maintenance of the cold chains etc. To be viable, the Konakree Dee Integrated Landing Site Cluster should be managed as a private enterprise. To this end, credit proceeds will finance the construction of the basic infrastructure, while funds would be earmarked to catalyze the involvement of the private sector in setting-up and managing common services centers, dry docking industry and storage facilities in the cluster. Additional facilities (such as storage and ice plant) will be put in place with public-private-partnership models, if private sector is not yet ready to engage. In such cases, government intervention could be catalytic, with clear entry-exit scenarios. The project would be supported by capacity development efforts aimed at strengthening good governance through after capture losses and selective/targeted fishing. The existence of such a landing site will create the conditions for common resource management for sustainable fishery based growth. To this end, the project will support the development of minimum infrastructure (common services) around the TURFs that will comprise cold storages facilities, cleaning and maintenance facilities, and any other service that could help reduce post capture losses around the TURF. This approach could be replicated to other areas in the national territory, depending on road conditions and access, and economic appraisal. Sub-Component 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) ($0.2 m IDA) 27. Activity 3.2.1 Quality, standards, metrology and testing (QSTM) infrastructure and technical assistance. The Project will finance the establishment of certified public laboratory and competent sanitary authority in Sierra Leone, as well as more broadly the development of relevant protocols and standards for quality and traceability, including training. Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Sub-Component 4.1 National Implementation ($1.0 m IDA, $0.2 m GEF) 28. The Project in Sierra Leone will be managed through a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, staffed by external and local project management specialists. The PIU will report each six months to the national Steering Committee (established during preparation). The PIU will prepare an annual work program, budget, update of the

104

monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan that would be reviewed with the Steering Committee and transmitted to the Regional Coordination Unit. Component 1. Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the FisheriesStrengthening of policy and regulatory framework for use of the fish resources

Technical assistance and consultations to implement the results of the ongoing policy review supported by the EU

$0.3 M GEF

Registration of all fishing vessels

Registration of all small-scale fishing vessels, operation and maintenance of vessel registry, database and equipment

$0.3 M GEF

Assessment of the status of key fish stocks

Training, technical assistance and surveys for collection and analysis of key fisheries statistics

$1.0 M GEF

Transparency and accessibility of fisheries management information

Development, installation and operation of a fisheries management information system, linked to regional database, including ongoing data collection

$0.2 M GEF

Preparation and implementation of fisheries management plans

Technical assistance and consultations to support finalization and implementation of a management plan for the coastal demersal fisheries outside of the 6-mile zone, and also for shrimp fisheries, as well as to adjust and increase license fees once a total allowable catch has been determined

$0.2 M GEF

1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights Introduction of fishing rights through a system of co-management

Goods, works and services for the creation and implementation of 4 marine protected areas and eventual TURFs in the coastal fisheries, for the management of coastal demersal species

$1.2 M GEF

1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where NeededIncentives for change program

Goods to communities in the 4 marine protected areas, linked to compliance with sound resource management; and infrastructure for management (co-management meeting rooms/coastal fisheries surveillance outposts)

$1.4 M GEF

1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and TransparencySocial marketing and communication

Development and implementation of a communications strategy to support the introduction of TURFs; including Citizen Report Cards, and dissemination in a variety of media

$0.2 M GEF

Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing Enabling legal and judiciary environment for combating illegal fishing

Technical assistance for training of judicial institutions for combating illegal fishing, and to develop MCS plans and strategies

$0.1 M IDA

2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems Implementing sustainable surveillance systems

Construction of a Fisheries Monitoring Center (FMC) at the Fisheries Protection Unit, training and technical assistance to staff

$0.4 M IDA

Goods, works and technical assistance for the establishment of a satellite-based vessel monitoring system at the FMC

$0.2 M IDA

Training for fisheries surveillance authorities $0.2 M IDA Leasing and operation of patrol boats and aerial patrols $7.0 M IDA

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters Basic infrastructure and support services for a landing site cluster at Konakree Dee $4.8 M IDA 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform Quality, standards, metrology and testing (QSTM) infrastructure and technical assistance

Goods, works and services for the establishment of a certified public laboratory and competent sanitary authority, as well as more broadly the development of relevant protocols and standards for quality and traceability, including training

$0.2 M IDA

105

Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 4.1 National Implementation Goods, equipment, technical assistance and operating costs for a national Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, staffed by external and local project management specialists

$1.0 M $0.2 M

IDA GEF

29. Tentative Implementation Plan and Chronology. The following schedule for implementation of the Project is expected in Sierra Leone for the first 18 months: Activity Component Start Date End Date Completion of Operational Manuals, establishment of PIU in JMC (temporary location)

4.1 July 2009 November 2009

Completion of technical specifications and bidding documents for construction of FMC at JMC

2.2 November 2009 February 2010

Recruitment of firm to provide policy and legal technical assistance and training

1.1.1 November 2009 April 2010

Identification of vessels for lease for sea patrols, and crew, for time-bound, mission-specific, civilian-led fisheries surveillance patrols

2.2 December 2009 February 2010

Recruitment and training of local NGOs or community facilitators to work on 4 MPAs/TURFs

1.2 December 2009 April 2010

Recruitment of firm for construction of FMC at JMC 2.2 March 2010 July 2010 Completion of review and plan for implementation of new fisheries policy

1.1.1 April 2010 October 2010

Fisheries surveillance patrols conducted 2.2 April 2010 Ongoing NGOs/facilitators begin consultations to establish co-management associations in at least 2 MPAs/TURFs

1.2 May 2010 October 2010

Construction of FMC at JMC completed 2.2 September 2010 December 2010 Completion of technical specifications and bidding documents for community meeting centers in at least 2 MPAs/TURFs, validated by communities

1.3 October 2010 December 2010

First research and training campaigns conducted 1.1.3 November 2010 December 2010 Completion of draft coastal demersal and shrimp fisheries management plans

1.1.5 December 2010 April 2011

FMC equipped, and staff trained 2.2 December 2010 April 2011 Construction of community meeting centers in at least 2 MPAs/TURFs

1.3 January 2011 May 2011

Completion of technical specifications and bidding documents for integrated fish landing site cluster at Konakree Dee

3.1 January 2011 May 2011

Installation of ‘dashboard’ and training of local users, based on specifications developed through regional financing

1.1.4 January 2011 July 2011

30. Assessment of Country-Specific Risks and Mitigation Measures. The following risks to achieving the Project’s objective specifically in Sierra Leone were identified, along with mitigation measures:

Risk factors

Description of risk Mitigation measures

I. Country and/or Sub-National Level Risks Macroeconomic framework

The conduct of macro policy has been conducive to sustained medium-term growth: real GDP growth in recent years has been consistently impressive, exceeding 9 percent in 2003 and remaining above 7% through 2006; 6.4 % in 2007 and an estimated 5.5% in 2008. Aggregate demand policies are

The Government is working closely with the IMF in the updating of the 2009 macroeconomic framework and its monitoring. The multi-donor budget support partners are also working closely with GOSL to encourage credible performance. One focus area of the project is to establish a credible budget through better forecasting of revenues and predictable releases to MDAs and LCs.

106

moving the nation gradually towards external and internal balance. The fiscal balance (after grants) has consistently improved from -10.6% of GDP in 2001 to -2.0% of GDP in 2007. Much of this adjustment is attributable to slower growth in expenditures, with additional compression in response to shortfalls in external support and revenues in 2007. (This excludes the impact of Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative stock reductions.) The current account balance including official transfers improved to -3.8% of GDP in 2007 from -5.8% of GDP in 2004. The estimate for 2008 shows a deterioration to -7.1% of GDP due to a combination of higher fuel and food prices and a collapse of mining output following accidents in the diamond and rutile industries. Price stability is pursued through monetary and exchange rate policies not only through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) but also in order to meet West African Monetary Zone criteria. The average rate of inflation over the period 2004-2008 was 13%. The rising inflation rates in 2007 and 2008 reflect global developments in food and fuels prices, with some additional pressure in 2007 coming from higher than expected monetary growth. The biggest risks come from slower than expected real GDP growth, or a collapse of trade value, both as a consequence of the Global Economic Crisis, and both affecting the government’s revenue base.

Country Governance

On September 8, 2007 Sierra Leone completed peaceful landmark elections with a rare transfer of both Presidency and Parliament to the former opposition party. Although the political manifesto of the APC is consistent with the ongoing reform program and the PRSP-II reflects a commitment to governance reform with a focus on public sector reform and corruption, results are yet to be seen. Quality of public administration is rated 3.0. Policy coordination and responsiveness has improved in the MoFED and some other ministries, while post-conflict service delivery is improving, and local councils have been established and are delivering devolved services. Sierra Leone’s 2006 CPIA rating for property rights and rule-based law is 2.5. Land is allocated by Paramount Chiefs in much of the country, and the Doing Business scores difficulty in obtaining business licenses as significantly worse than the regional average.

The new government has identified strengthening governance among its priorities, including anti-corruption, decentralization and civil service reform. On appointment, the President commissioned a transition team to make a stock take of government performance and development programs. Ministers are required to identify and deliver clear results within the first 100 days of office. The Bank/IDA, together with other DPs, will continue to engage on critical governance policy issues. The situation should continue to improve with ongoing reforms in public financial management, particularly in procurement, expenditure control, and the publication of audited public accounts.

Sector Governance, Policies and Institutions

Although the quality of budgetary and financial management in Sierra Leone has improved since the end of the civil war, including establishment of the legal and regulatory framework for budgeting,

The IPFMRP builds on the progress made to date, and will tackle key areas of weaknesses. Earlier and increased involvement of the cabinet in the budget decision-making process, including the setting of the

107

accountability and procurement, implementation of a financial management information system, removal of the backlog of annual financial statements, and establishment of basic budgeting, procurement and accounting procedures in the local councils there are remaining risks as evidenced by the performance in 2007 and the expenditures on costly extra-budgetary items. Although the the 2007 PEFA scores show that Sierra Leone is slightly above average for the region, while noting that major weaknesses still remain., the situation worsened in late 2007.

expenditure framework at the outset of the budget process, is one measure that is intended to build ownership of the budget framework. In addition, the increases in control, in particular commitment control, will need to be matched by a timely release of authority to incur expenditure so that the MDAs see the benefits to their operations of a more orderly process of budget execution.

Systemic corruption

Sierra Leone ranks poorly on the international indices for perceptions of corruption (TI ranking for 2008 is 158 out of 180; the Global Integrity Index Score on Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law is 66 “Weak”; and WBI WGI control of corruption ranking for 2007 is in the bottom 11% – 12% percentile). The 2007 CPIA rating for transparency, accountability, and corruption is 2.5. Oversight of the executive by the Parliament and Auditor General has historically been weak. Recent improvements include adoption of the public procurement act, and removal of the backlog in annual accounts. In addition, decision making is generally transparent, disclosure of information is improving with capacity constraints, and civil society role scrutiny is increasing.

Audit oversight of the executive has improved, with audit reports now being finalized on the 2007 accounts. The Public Accounts Committee has committed to complete the review of the 2002 – 2005 reports by January 2009 and the 2006 report by May 2009. The new government has indicated that it will pursue a new anti-corruption strategy. The Anti-Corruption Commission has been given power to bring cases direct to the courts without going through the Government, and the President has declared his assets and has required members of his cabinet to do the same.

Other (for example security risks, political/election risks, country engagement with other MDBs/donors, social and environmental risks at the country level)

A new President and government were elected in September 2007. The government has provided strong signals of its intention to tackle key governance issues, and is taking a measured approach to assessing the current performance of government and development programs before making major decisions.

The Bank/IDA, together with DPs, will engage on critical policy issues. The Bank/IDA will pay careful attention to the government’s policies and actions, and will engage jointly with development partners.

II. Operation-specific Risks Political will to enforce fishing regulations

Risk that investments in fisheries surveillance will not reduce illegal fishing, due to a lack of political will to enforce the regulations.

The Project will support fisheries surveillance through the Fisheries Protection Unit of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, located within the JMC, and with exclusive authority for fisheries surveillance activities. As such, the Project incorporates a wider review of surveillance activities by the other members of the JMC, as well as ongoing monitoring by a wide Project steering committee.

Fisheries surveillance operations

Risk that Bank funds for fisheries surveillance could be used for non-fisheries activities.

The Project will provide support for fisheries surveillance only through the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the funds will not be co-mingled with those intended for other purposes. The Legal Agreement for the Credit will clearly specify that funds can only be used for fisheries surveillance activities, including goods and equipment. Furthermore, periodic audits of funds for fisheries surveillance activities will be conducted by a group of independent experts.

108

Annex 9: Detailed Project Description in the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

($3.2 m IDA) 1. Background: the CSRP. The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission is an intergovernmental organization created on March 29, 1985 by means of a convention, in order to support the member states of West Africa to harmonize fisheries policy in the region. The CSRP consists of a Conference of Ministers of Fisheries from the member states, with a Secretariat to the Conference that is based in Dakar, Senegal. The Secretariat includes more than 20 staff members, and houses several international donor-financed technical assistance programs. The Secretariat will house the Regional Coordination Unit of the Project, which will implement several of the activities at the regional level, as well as undertake procurement for several activities that will be implemented at the national level in the participating countries. 2. The Project will aim to build the basic capacity in each of the participating countries, as well as the CSRP, over the first years of implementation, in order to support gradual transfer of implementation of more and more fisheries governance and surveillance activities to the regional level. In particular, the Project would support the essential tools in participating countries to implement regional policies and surveillance, building into a regional network over the course of Phase I. The key triggers for increasing implementation at the regional level would include: (i) establishment of a working fishing vessel registry and ‘dashboard’ at the CSRP, (ii) identification of a working list of vessels available for lease for sea patrols, and crew, for time-bound, mission-specific, civilian-led fisheries surveillance patrols, and (iii) satisfactory fiduciary management of IDA funds. Progress towards these triggers would be reviewed together with the countries at the mid-term evaluation of APL-A1, and based on the results additional IDA funds could be reallocated to the CSRP to increase implementation of sub-regional collaboration for fisheries surveillance. Component 1. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Sub-Component 1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures and Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries ($0.1 m IDA) 3. Activity 1.1.1 Transparency and Accessibility of Fisheries Management Information. The ‘dashboard’ will be housed in the Regional Coordination Unit of the CSRP, designed according to the specifications described in Section A (Program Summary) and including the data from the countries’ vessel registries established with Program support in each country. This regional information platform will be linked to the national nodes established at the PIUs in each country. This activity will include financing for goods, consultant services and operating costs. Sub-Components 1.2 Introduction of Fishing Rights and 1.3 Adjustment of Fishing Effort and Capacity to more Sustainable Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed are only implemented at the national level. Sub-Component 1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and Transparency ($0.1 m IDA) 4. Activity 1.4.1 Network of Journalists Reporting on the Program. The Project will support the creation of an active network of local journalists within the region who cover and report frequently on the fisheries management issues and progress with Project implementation. As such, the Project will support skills development for local journalists throughout the region to gather and disseminate information on fisheries management issues; limited equipment purchases necessary to support effective information

109

gathering and reporting; and limited travel for network journalists to facilitate their reporting of Project activities. Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Sub-Component 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing ($0.1 m IDA) 5. Activity 2.1.1 Stable and adequate financing of surveillance functions. The Project will provide coordinated technical assistance through the CSRP for the development and implementation of financial mechanisms to provide stable and adequate support for the long-term operating costs of the fisheries surveillance system in the participating countries. Sub-Component 2.2 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Systems is only implemented at the national level at the outset of the Project, but will transition gradually towards regional implementation, per the triggers in paragraph 2 above. Sub-Component 2.3 Strengthening Regional Collaboration for MCS ($0.2 m IDA) 6. Through the Project, the CSRP will provide support to the countries for the implementation of port state measures to combat illegal fishing. More specifically, the Project will provide technical assistance and training for the competent authority for surveillance in each country to implement the package of measures that have been adopted internationally as standards for port states. In addition, the Project will support periodic reviews and audits of the fisheries surveillance activities financed in the participating countries by the World Bank, by an independent group of experts. Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Sub-Component 3.1 Fish Landing Site Clusters is only implemented at the national level. Sub-Component 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) ($0.2 m IDA) 7. Activity 3.2.1 Proactive trade information system (PTIS). The Project will finance the creation of a PTIS for targeted supply chains in each participating country, including product identification cards for traceability for selected fisheries, and training to support establishing information systems for traceability, etc. - and establishment of a regional information resource center to support information needs of small to medium-size enterprises. The Project will support the development of the product ID cards for targeted fishery resources, which will be hosted on an easily accessible and user-friendly ICT based system housed at the CSRP. Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Sub-Component 4.1 National Implementation is only implemented at the national level. Sub-Component 4.2 Regional Coordination ($2.5 m IDA) 8. The Project will be coordinated and supported by a Regional Coordination Unit, housed at the CSRP. This Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will (i) support the harmonization of fisheries policy within the region, (ii) conduct monitoring and evaluation of Project investments and share information and results throughout the region, (iii) implement ongoing communication activities to raise awareness about the Project and implementation progress, and (iv) provide implementation support to each of the countries, including the coordination of regional procurement. The RCU will have sole fiduciary responsibility for funds on-granted to it by the countries, and will report to a regional steering committee of the participating countries. The RCU will collect and transmit each participating country’s annual work program, budget, update of the monitoring and evaluation indicators and procurement plan to the World

110

Bank for non-objection. As many issues that national projects will face will have regional similarities, and their solutions may have been tried in other countries before, national PIU staff will frequently coordinate analysis of daily operational issues and responses directly with the RCU. Component 1. Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries1.1 Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the FisheriesTransparency and accessibility of fisheries management information

Development, installation and operation of a fisheries management information system, linked to regional database, including ongoing data collection

$0.1 M IDA

1.4 Social Marketing, Communication and TransparencyNetwork of journalists reporting on the Program

Training, equipment and operating costs for journalists to travel to cover implementation of the Project

$0.1 M IDA

Component 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 2.1 Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing Stable and adequate financing of surveillance functions

Technical assistance to develop and implement mechanisms for sustainably financing surveillance operations

$0.2 M IDA

2.3 Strengthening Regional Collaboration for MCS Training and technical assistance to surveillance competent authorities, for implementation of a package of port state measures to combat illegal fishing, and support for periodic reviews and audits of fisheries surveillance activities financed by the Project, by an independent group of experts.

$0.1 M IDA

Component 3. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies 3.2 Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information and Systems – Regional Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform Proactive trade information system (PTIS)

Creation of a PTIS for targeted supply chains in each participating country, including product identification cards for traceability for selected fisheries, and training to support establishing information systems for traceability, etc. - and establishment of a regional information resource center to support information needs of small to medium-size enterprises

$0.2 M IDA

Component 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management 4.2 Regional Coordination Goods, equipment, technical assistance and operating costs for a Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) at the CSRP

$2.5 M

IDA

9. Tentative Implementation Plan and Chronology. The following schedule for implementation of the Project is expected at the CSRP for the first 18 months: Activity Component Start Date End Date Completion of Operational Manuals, establishment of RCU 4.2 July 2009 November 2009 Support to PIUs to complete Operational Manuals, annual work programs budgets and procurement plans, consultation and training in implementation, procurement and safeguards

4.2 November 2009 December 2009

First meeting of Regional Steering Committee convened 4.2 November 2009 December 2009 Finalization of an annual work program for fisheries research vessel provided by JICA

4.2 November 2009 January 2010

Identification of vessels for lease for sea patrols, and crew, for time-bound, mission-specific, civilian-led fisheries surveillance patrols in the countries

4.2 December 2009 February 2010

Preparation of terms of reference and bidding documents for firm to design ‘dashboard’ for each of the countries and the CSRP

1.1 January 2010 March 2010

Training and information for journalists on fisheries issues in the region, including stakeholder groups

1.4 January 2010 March 2010

111

Completion of terms of reference and recruitment of firm for study on mechanisms for sustainable finance of fisheries surveillance in each country

2.1 January 2010 April 2010

Supervision mission conducted to each of the countries 4.2 February 2010 April 2010 Completion of terms of reference for firm to provide technical assistance to countries on implementation of port state measures and recruitment of firm

2.3 April 2010 June 2010

Completion of design of ‘dashboard’ and specifications for all necessary goods and equipment in each country

1.1 April 2010 December 2010

Completion of study on mechanisms for sustainable finance of fisheries surveillance in each country

2.1 April 2010 December 2010

Firm recruited to develop PTIS 3.2 July 2010 September 2010 Technical assistance provided to each of the countries on implementation of port state measures

2.3 July 2010 December 2010

Establishment of regional fishing vessel registry with the ‘dashboard’

4.2 September 2010 February 2011

Completion of updated Action Plan for CSRP, and regional MCS

4.2 September 2010 April 2011

112

Annex 10: APL-A1 Project Costs

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

Project Cost By Component and/or Activity* Local

US $million Foreign

US $million Total

US $million A. Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries

1. Development of the Capacity, Rules, Procedures & Practices for Good Governance of the Fisheries

4.6 1.9 6.5

2. Introduction of Fishing Rights 4.0 0 4.0 3. Adjustment of Fishing Effort & Capacity to more Sustainable

Levels, Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods where Needed 7.1 0 7.1

4. Social Marketing & Communication 0.8 0 0.8 Subtotal Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries

16.5 1.9 18.4

B. Reduction of Illegal Fishing 1. Enabling Environment for Reducing Illegal Fishing 0.1 0.5 0.6 2. Monitoring, Control & Surveillance (MCS) Systems 16.9 0 16.9 3. Strengthening Regional Collaboration for MCS 0 0.2 0.2 Subtotal Reduction of Illegal Fishing 17.0 0.7 17.7 C. Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies

1. Fish Landing Site Clusters 9.7 0 9.7 2. Fish Product Trade Infrastructure, Information & Systems –

Minimum Integrated Trade Expansion Platform (MITEP) 0.7 1.2 1.9

Subtotal Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies

10.4 1.2 11.6

D. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management

1. National Implementation 6.1 0 6.1 2. Regional Coordination 2.5 0 2.5 Subtotal Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Project Management

8.6 0 8.6

Total Baseline Cost 52.5 3.8 56.3 Physical Contingencies Price Contingencies

Total Project Costs1 52.5 3.8 56.3 Interest during construction

Front-end Fee

Total Financing Required 52.5 3.8 56.3

* These amounts reflect IDA and GEF funding, as well as cofinancing described in the project description.

113

APL-A1 Budget Table by Country and Regional Coordination Unit (US$):*

Components Senegal Cape Verde

Sierra Leone

Liberia S/t Countries RCU at CSRP

Total

Good Governance & Sustainable Management of the Fisheries

8,400,000 2,800,000 4,800,000 2,200,000 18,200,000 200,000 18,400,000

Reduction of Illegal Fishing

2,200,000 1,900,000 7,900,000 5,400,000 17,400,000 300,000 17,700,000

Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies

2,300,000 2,200,000 5,000,000 1,900,000 11,400,000 200,000 11,600,000

Coordination, M&E and Program Management

2,300,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,700,000 6,100,000 2,500,000 8,600,000

TOTAL 15,200,000 7,800,000 18,900,000 11,200,000 53,100,000 3,200,000 56,300,000 * These amounts reflect IDA and GEF funding, as well as co-financing described in the project description. Table 2: Financing by Country for APL-A1 (US$ millions):

Country/Component Governments GEF IDA Total Cost Cape Verde 1.1 1.2 1.3 Sub-Total 2.2 Sub-Total 3.1 Sub-Total 4.1 Total

0.1 0.2 0.3

1.1 0.5 1.6 0.4 2.0

1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 0.5 5.5

1.1 0.5 1.2 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 0.9 7.8

Liberia 1.1 1.2 1.4 Sub-Total 2.2 Sub-Total 3.1 3.2 Sub-Total 4.1 Total

1.4 0.6 0.2 2.2 0.8 3.0

5.4 5.4 1.3 0.6 1.9 0.9 8.2

1.4 0.6 0.2 2.2 5.4 5.4 1.3 0.6 1.9 1.7 11.2

Senegal 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Sub-Total

1.9 1.7 4.5 0.3 8.4

1.9 1.7 4.5 0.3 8.4

114

2.1 2.2 Sub-Total 3.1 3.2 Sub-Total 4.1 Total

1.0 1.0

0.4 1.8 2.2 1.4 0.9 2.3 1.3 14.2

0.4 1.8 2.2 1.4 0.9 2.3 2.3 15.2

Sierra Leone 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Sub-Total 2.1 2.2 Sub-Total 3.1 3.2 Sub-Total 4.1 Total

2.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 4.8 0.2 5.0

0.1 7.8 7.9 4.8 0.2 5.0 1.0 13.9

2.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 4.8 0.1 7.8 7.9 4.8 0.2 5.0 1.2 18.9

CSRP 1.1 1.4 Sub-Total 2.1 2.3 Sub-Total 3.2 Sub-Total 4.2 Total

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.5 3.2

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.5 3.2

115

Annex 11: APL-A1 Project Implementation Arrangements

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program 1. While both the approach and coordination of the Program are regional, implementation will take place on the ground at the national level with a focus on strengthening local institutions. As such, the Program aims to demonstrate concrete results early in implementation in each country, in order to encourage further local ownership. The Program will therefore be implemented by a national Program Implementation Unit (PIU) in each country, embedded within the responsible technical agency for fisheries. Each PIU will be fully mainstreamed into this technical agency, although fiduciary responsibilities will vary by PIU depending on local capacity. Furthermore, each of the PIUs will report on a day-to-day basis to the relevant Director of Fisheries, who will chair the national steering committee of relevant Government officials and local stakeholder representatives. Each of these steering committees has been formed during the preparation phase, and will continue to function throughout the Program. At the regional level, the Program will be coordinated by a Regional Coordination Unit, housed at the CSRP. This Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will have sole fiduciary responsibility for regional funds, with a Coordinator who would be selected by, and report to, a Regional Steering Committee comprised of the Directors of Fisheries from each of the participating countries. As countries join the Program in subsequent APLs, they would join the Regional Steering Committee at that time. 2. In terms of the national PIUs, each PIU will have a Program Coordinator, who reports directly to the Director of Fisheries, as well as to the national steering committee. In addition, the Coordinator will be supported by local and international experts and technical assistance as needed, depending on the country. Lastly, in each PIU an environmental specialist will be recruited, to ensure monitoring and compliance of Program investments with the Environmental Management Plan and Resettlement Process Framework. 3. In Cape Verde, a small PIU will be housed in the Fisheries Department (reporting to the Director), within the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources. This PIU will have fiduciary responsibility, and will be staffed by an accountant and procurement specialist financed by the Program, as well as a Program Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator who will be responsible for implementation of the M&E Plan and compliance with environmental and social safeguards documents. For component 1, the Program will recruit local facilitators/NGOs to work with the communities to establish the MPAs/TURFs, as well as to develop and implement alternative livelihood proposals. The program will also recruit two full-time Dashboard Operators, to operate the fisheries statistics ‘dashboard’ and to ensure all key data is collected and entered in the system. For component 3, through the PIU, the Program will support the Government to attract private investors to operate the integrated landing site clusters. 4. In Liberia, a PIU will be based in the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) within the Ministry of Agriculture, with the long-term goal of transitioning to become a permanent part of the Bureau’s operations. The Program will support new offices for the Bureau, and the PIU would eventually become a permanent unit within the BNF. The PIU will include a Program Coordinator and a Deputy Coordinator, who would be responsible for implementation of the Program activities, including the M&E Plan and maintaining compliance with the environmental and social safeguards documents. Three staff will be recruited and trained to operate the fisheries statistics ‘dashboard’ and to ensure all key data is collected and entered in the system. For component 1, the Program will finance a Fisheries Governance and Sustainable Management Specialist who will monitor and support policy reforms as well as the introduction of MPAs and TURFs, that latter of which will be implemented by community organizers that will help communities establish and manage the MPA/TURFs at Robertsport. For component 2, a fisheries monitoring center will be established that houses communications and the VMS for fishing vessels, as well as coordinates fisheries surveillance activities, and which will be managed by a MCS Specialist financed by the Program. For component 3, a value addition focal person will be recruited

116

starting in year three, to oversee construction of works in Robertsport and elsewhere, and assist the Government to attract private investors to operate the integrated landing site clusters. Fiduciary responsibility will rest outside the PIU, with financial management undertaken by a Program-financed accountant in the Project Financial Management Unit within the Ministry of Finance, and a Program-financed procurement specialist managed by the implementation unit for infrastructure investments within the Ministry of Works. 5. In Senegal, the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) will house the PIU, within the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM). This PIU will expand the existing unit within DPM for the implementation of the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project financed by the Bank, which will have full fiduciary responsibility for Program investments. A consultant will be recruited to this PIU as the Coordinator of this Program (working together with the current Coordinator of the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project), with the support of an administrative and financial assistant (who will also support the Sustainable Management of Fish Resource Project). The Directorate for Fisheries Surveillance within the Ministry will be responsible for implementation of component 2, and the Directorate for Processing Industries will be responsible for implementation of activity 3.2. Program activities will be supported by a part-time senior Procurement Specialist and a full-time Assistant Procurement Specialist, recruited already under the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project, and also a Financial Management Specialist currently recruited under this project. 6. In Sierra Leone, a Program Coordination Unit (PCU) will physically be housed initially within the Fisheries Protection Unit of the Joint Maritime Committee, as part of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. The PCU will report to the Director of Fisheries, and include a Program Coordinator, who will be responsible for implementation of the M&E Plan. The PCU will also include an Assistant Coordinator, who will focus on supporting the establishment of local offices in each marine protected area/TURF with community facilitators to work with the various communities to establish co-management associations. In terms of implementation of component 2, the Program will support operation of the Fisheries Protection Unit at the Joint Maritime Committee (JMC) as the competent and independent civilian authority for fisheries surveillance. For component 3, through the PCU, the Program will support the Government to attract private investors to operate the integrated landing site clusters. The PCU will have financial management responsibility, and will include also a full-time accountant reporting to the senior accountant in the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. Program procurement will be supported by a procurement specialist based in the PCU, and working closely with the Procurement Unit in the Ministry of Finance once it is established. 7. In terms of the national steering committees, the Director of Fisheries in each country (or their designate), supported by the Program Coordinator in the PIU, will convene quarterly a meeting of the Steering Committee of various Government officials across sectors as well as local stakeholder representatives. The Steering Committee will take decisions on the overall direction of the Program, and will be responsible for approving the annual work program and budget. The Director and PIU Coordinator will be responsible for providing summaries of implementation progress and results from M&E to the Steering Committee at each meeting, and the Committee will take decisions on any necessary adjustments to Program implementation as a result of monitoring results. 8. In Cape Verde, the national steering committee is expected to include: (i) Fisheries Department, within the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources, (ii) Planning Department, within the Ministry of Finance (Planning Department), (iii) the Coast Guard, (iv) Environment Department, within the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources, (v) Captain of the Port at Praia, (vi) National Institute of Fisheries Development, (vii) Maritime and Port Institute, and (viii) fishing professionals’ organizations. 9. In Liberia, the national steering committee is expected to include (i) the Bureau of National Fisheries within the Ministry of Agriculture, (ii) the Ministry of Defense, (iii) the Ministry of Justice, (iv)

117

the Ministry of Finance, (v) the National Port Authority, (vi) the Bureau of Maritime Affairs, (vii) the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, (viii) the Environmental Protection Agency, and (ix) the United Nations Military Operations. 10. In Senegal, the national steering committee is expected to include: (i) the Department of Marine Fisheries within the Ministry of Maritime Economy, (ii) the Department of Fisheries Protection and Surveillance within the Ministry of Maritime Economy, (iii) the Planning Unit within the Ministry of Maritime Economy, (iv) the Department of Fish Products Processing and Industries within the Ministry of Maritime Economy, (v) the Department of National Parks within the Ministry of Environment, (vi) the Department of Environment within the Ministry of Environment, (vii) the Department of Economic and Financial Cooperation within the Ministry of Finance, (viii) the Center for Oceanographic Research in Dakar-Thiaroye (CRODT), (ix) the National Interprofessional Council of Artisanal Fishers in Senegal (CONIPAS), (x) the Group of Industrial Fishing Owners (GAIPES), (xi) World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and (xii) Environment and Development Action in the Third World (ENDA), and (xiii) the World Conservation Network (IUCN). 11. In Sierra Leone, the national steering committee is expected to include: (i) the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, (ii) the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, (iii) the Sierra Fishing Company, (iv) the Sierra Leone Artisanal Fishers’ Union (SLAFU), (v) the Navy, (vi) the Office of National Security, (vii) the Ministry of Health and Hygiene, (ix) the Environmental Protection Agency, (x) the Sierra Leone Maritime Administration, and (xi) the Ministry of Local Government and Internal Affairs. 12. In terms of the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU), a Program Coordinator, Procurement Specialist, Accountant and Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist will be recruited to form a unit that is housed at the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (CSRP). The role of the RCU will be to (i) support the harmonization of fisheries policy within the region (including convening regional technical committees of national experts to periodically review recurring policy issues), (ii) conduct monitoring and evaluation of Program investments and share information and results throughout the region, (iii) implement ongoing communication activities to raise awareness about the Program and implementation progress, and (iv) provide implementation support to each of the countries, including the coordination of regional procurement. 13. The RCU will have sole fiduciary responsibility for funds on-granted to the regional level. The Coordinator will be selected by the CSRP and report to the Regional Steering Committee. The Coordinator will be responsible first for ensuring that an extensive training is held by specialists for each national PIU on the operational manuals for the Program and implementation, as soon as the national PIUs are staffed. The Coordinator will develop common templates for annual work programs, budgets, procurement plans and M&E reports that will be completed by each national PIU for the upcoming year, and will compile these documents annually (in November), for an annual report on Program implementation that will be presented to the Regional Steering Committee, and subsequently sent to the World Bank for non-objection. The Coordinator will travel frequently, providing ongoing implementation support to each of the countries. Similarly, the RCU Procurement Specialist and Accountant will travel to each national PIU at least once a trimester, to provide support and any needed training to each national PIU (or entities in each country with fiduciary responsibility). The Procurement Specialist and Accountant will also be on call to national PIUs and in frequent contact with them, in order to provide any needed support. The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will operate the regional node of the fisheries statistics ‘dashboard’, and produce regular summary reports targeted to different audiences. The M&E Specialist will also travel frequently to the national PIUs, to help build capacity for operation of the national nodes of the ‘dashboard’ and ensure data collection efforts for key performance indicators are underway. As mentioned previously, the M&E Specialist will ensure the key Program monitoring and evaluation data are collected and summarized in the annual report on the Program that is presented to the Regional Steering Committee. The M&E Specialist will also monitor compliance with safeguards in each

118

of the four countries, and track key indicators related to compliance with the Environmental Management Plan and the Resettlement Process Framework. The RCU will ensure timely procurement and implementation for all contracts and activities that are to be recruited regionally, constituting selection committees with the members or their designates of the Regional Steering Committee. Lastly, the RCU will recruit an independent auditor each year to conduct an audit of the special accounts in each participating country, as well as the designated account opened in Dakar for the RCU. 14. In terms of the Regional Steering Committee, the Program will constitute a steering committee with representatives of each of the four participating countries, with membership expanded to include each new country that joins the Program. The committee will be comprised of the Directors of Fisheries in each of the four countries, and/or their designates (as well as accompanying technical specialists). The committee will meet physically at least twice per year (with translation) in order to monitor Program progress, and in early December will review and approve the annual work program and budget for the RCU, as well as review implementation progress and measurements for key performance indicators, in order to recommend any specific adjustments needed to ensure the Program achieves its objectives. More specifically, the role of the Regional Steering Committee will be to oversee the activities of the RCU and to further coordination and communication between decision-makers in the countries. As the members of the Regional Steering Committee are the same as those of the CSRP’s Coordination Committee, the Program would aim to merge the Regional Steering Committee into this already existing body of the CSRP, once all nine countries have joined the Program. The Regional Steering Committee would therefore only exist to ensure that the oversight of the Program is followed by those countries who are participating, and would cease to do so once the composition included all members of the CSRP’s Coordination Committee of member states (Ghana and Liberia would act as observers for the purposes of following this Program). 15. The Program will be implemented according to Operational Manuals that will be developed prior to the completion of the preparation phase. A specific Operational Manual will be developed for each of the four countries, as well as an additional manual for the RCU and regional activities. The RCU will ensure that general project implementation specialists are recruited to conduct a thorough training of each national PIU in the respective Operational Manual, as one of the first activities of the Program. Overview of Institutional Arrangements for APL-A1: Regional Coordination Unit

(Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission)

Regional Steering Committee

Cape Verde Fisheries

Department (PIU)

Liberia Bureau of National Fisheries

(PIU)

Sierra Leone Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources

(PCU)

Senegal Dept. of Marine Fisheries

(COMO)

Steering CommitteeSteering Committee

Steering CommitteeSteering Committee

119

Annex 12: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements for APL-A1

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program A. Introduction 1. This annex summarizes the findings of the financial management capacity assessment for APL-A1 of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) during Program preparation. A financial capacity management assessment was carried out during preparation in accordance with the Financial Management Practices Manual issued by the Financial Management Board on November 3, 2005. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether the CSRP in Senegal, the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources (MERDMR) in Cape Verde, the Ministry of Agriculture (MA) in Liberia, the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM) in Senegal and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) in Sierra Leone have acceptable financial management arrangements to ensure that: (i) the funds will be used only for the intended purposes in an efficient and economical way; (ii) accurate, reliable, and timely periodic financial reports are prepared; and (iii) the entity’s assets are safeguarded. 2. The conclusion of this assessment was that CSRP, MERDMR, MA, MEM and MFMR do not have a financial management system in place that satisfies the Bank’s minimum requirements under OP/BP10.02. Therefore, the IDA funds that would be implemented at the regional level should be managed by a Regional Coordination Unit within the CSRP, and the IDA and GEF funds that would be implemented at the national level should be managed by Project Implementation Units (PIUs). The staff and the auditor will be recruited in a competitive basis, a strong system of information will be installed in the PIUs and an Administrative and Accounting Procedures Manual will be prepared. B. Summary of the project design and implementation arrangement

Summary of the Program 3. The development objective of this program is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the marine fisheries resources of West Africa, and the proportion of that wealth captured by West African countries. The APLs would achieve this objective by: (i) strengthening the countries’ capacity to sustainably govern and manage their fisheries, (ii) reducing illegal fishing, and (iii) increasing the value and profitability generated by fish resources and the proportion of that value captured by the countries. The Program will support the following components: Component 1: Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries Component 2: Reduction of Illegal Fishing Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management

4. In APL-A1, GEF Funds will support components 1 and 4, and IDA Funds will support to all four components. Implementation Arrangements 5. Regional Level: The Program will be coordinated at the regional level by a Regional Coordination Unit (RCU), housed at the CSRP in Dakar, reporting to a Regional Steering Committee composed of the Fisheries Directors from each of the participating countries. 6. National Level: The Program will be implemented at the national level by a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) established in each country, and embedded within the responsible technical agency for fisheries. Each PIU will have a Program Coordinator, who will report directly to the Director of Fisheries, as well as to the national steering committee. In Cape Verde, a small PIU will be housed in

120

the Fisheries Department, within the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Resources. In Liberia, a PIU will be based in the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) within the Ministry of Agriculture, with the long-term goal of transitioning to become a permanent part of the Bureau’s operations. In Senegal, the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) will house the PIU, within the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM). This PIU will expand the existing PIU within DPM for the implementation of the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project financed by the Bank, with full fiduciary responsibility. In Sierra Leone, the PIU will be housed in the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, building on the existing PIU of the European-Union financed technical assistance project, which will close at the end of 2009.

C. Country Accountability Issues

CSRP 7. A Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) has been conducted in all of the countries participating in APL-A1, and the conclusions are same: lack of strong control and weakness in the budget cycle. With the exception of Cape Verde, governance is still an issue in all of the other participating countries. At the sub-regional level, another issue is the accountability environment. Each country has its own system and the challenge is to harmonize all of them. Cape Verde 8. The CFAA for Cape Verde was conducted in June 2003. The overall risk rating of the public financial management system was substantial. Since that exercise, the Government has created a Unit under the Ministry of Finance to monitor the implementation of the CFAA action plan. Actions have been implemented and the assessment made by the donor since 2005 showed significant improvements in the areas of public expenditure tracking, notably external control and budget preparation, which was the priority area defined in the PRSP. However, significant progress is still needed in internal controls and the implementation of public chart of account in the integrated and comprehensive accounting system (SIGOF).

Liberia 9. A Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review (PEMFAR) was conducted in 2007 and included an analysis of Liberia’s PFM strengths and weaknesses. The findings from the PEMFAR show that the government has taken considerable actions to improve public financial management since 2006. Government revenues have increased several folds since 2002/03, and expenditure controls have been strengthened through the establishment of the cash management committee and the interim commitment control system. However, there are still weaknesses in the Government’s financial management systems, specifically within the areas of the legal and regulatory framework; internal and external audit functions; procurement and concessions; budget planning, formulation and execution; accounting, recording and reporting; human resources and payroll management; cash and debt management and aid management. 10. The Government’s developmental and poverty reduction priorities are anchored in the Poverty Reduction Strategy which is generally aligned with the budget although there is no formal poverty reduction expenditure tracking systems. The budget cycle is coordinated by an inter-ministerial Budget Committee and spending ministries are consulted early in the budgeting process. All revenues are by law to be deposited into a revenue bank account at the Central Bank and expenditure from this account is strictly in accordance with annual cash plans and allotments. However, the majority of donor expenditures are project-based and not executed through the government’s budget. 11. The country lacks qualified accountants to serve the public and private sector. A Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) in MoF provides centralized project financial management for donor projects. An International Procurement Agency (IPA) is also in place in MoF to handle procurement. The PFMU and procurement agency are staffed with qualified consultants with experience in managing donor-funded

121

projects. Fiduciary risks for donor funded projects are mitigated by the use of the PFMU and IPA which have internal controls and procedures and practices acceptable to the Bank. 12. The Government is making progress in PFM reforms. The Cabinet approved the Internal Audit Strategy in June 2008 which will oversee the establishment of an internal audit cadre and a charter clarifying the roles and responsibilities for internal controls. The MoF has moved from a single entry recording system to an interim accounting system that is now used to prepare budget reports. The interim system provides a foundation for migrating to IFMIS that will eventually handle all the accounting and recording for the consolidated funds with arrangements to capture and report on donor-funded projects. A PFM Law and its enabling regulations and manuals are being prepared that will further strengthen the legal and regulatory framework. Senegal 13. The CFAA for Senegal was conducted in 2003. The overall risk rating of the public financial management system was high. Since that exercise, the Government has created an Executive Secretariat under the Ministry of Economy and Finance to monitor the implementation of the CFAA action plan. The HIPC Country Assessment and Action Plan by the Bank and the IMF in November 2004 showed significant improvements in the areas of public expenditure tracking, notably internal control and budget preparation which was the priority area defined in the PRSP. However, significant progress is still needed in internal and external controls of budget execution and state-owned enterprises. Sierra Leone 14. PFM in Sierra Leone has improved significantly over the years as the budget process has been strengthened. All MDAs are now preparing strategic plans that are aligned to the PRSP objectives. An Integrated Financial Management Integrated System (IFMIS) have been installed and implemented in key MDAs. Internal Audit Units have been established in 14 MDAs. In the area of procurement, the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA) Secretariat is now fully operational with an Independent Review Panel and procurement units have been established in all public procuring entities. The Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) and related Public Perception Surveys are conducted regularly and action plans developed and implemented based on the recommendations from PETS. 15. The Government has made substantive progress in strengthening its public financial management framework and systems, implementing more than 80 percent of the 2002 CFAA recommendations. Major achievements include: (i) establishment of the legal and regulatory framework for budgeting, accountability and procurement; (ii) implementation of a financial management information system in the Accountant General’s Department in 2005 with IFMIS being rolled out to six MDAs in 2007; and (iii) reduction of the substantial backlog in producing annual financial statements such that they are now up to date. D. Assessment of risks CSRP 16. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the Program, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Substantial. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, it is expected that the risk will be reduced to modest. (cf. the appendices 2 CSRP: Summary of Risk Analysis and Mitigation Measures). Cape Verde 17. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the Program, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Substantial. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, it is expected that the risk will be reduced to modest. (cf. the appendices 2 Cape Verde: Summary of Risk Analysis and Mitigation Measures)

122

Liberia 18. The table in the appendices 2 Liberia, shows the results of the risk assessment in Liberia that was conducted during the FM assessment, highlighting risks which may hinder the achievement of project objectives, together with mitigation recommendations for the Project Management team and the PFMU. The risk assessment is based on the review and assessment of the PFMU since they will be managing the financial management functions. The overall risk before mitigation is substantial, and after mitigation it is expected to be reduced to modest. Senegal 19. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the Program, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Substantial. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, it is expected that the risk will be reduced to modest. (cf. the appendices 2 Senegal: Summary of Risk Analysis and mitigation measures). Sierra Leone 20. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues specific to the Program, the overall financial management risk rating for this Program is High. The appendices 2 Sierra Leone: Summary of Risk Analysis and mitigation measures illustrates the risk profile in Sierra Leone and the MFMR as well as at the project level that will need to be mitigated for Bank funds to be used for the intended purpose. E. Strengths and Weaknesses CSRP 21. Strengths: A senior accountant with strong experience in accountability has been recruited in a competitive basis and accounting software is in place. 22. Weaknesses: The management of IDA and GEF funds is new for CSRP and the knowledge of World Bank procedures by the staff is weak. The implementation of actions in the action plan in appendices 3 should strengthen the financial management of the RCU in the CSRP. Cape Verde 23. Strengths: A senior accountant with strong experience in accountability will be recruited in a competitive basis, and will receive training in World Bank procedures within the first four months of implementation. 24. Weaknesses: The mobility of high level staff in the public administration is one of the causes of the weakness in the overall fiduciary environment in Cape Verde. With the exception of PIUs implementing activities from IDA funds, it is difficult to find people with strong experience in World Bank financial and disbursement procedures. In addition, some issues in the financial aspects were raised during the preparation of the Program: lack of (i) a consistent information system, (ii) periodic and consistent external control, and (iii) an accounting and administrative procedures manual in order to implement all the accounting and administrative activities. The implementation of actions in the action plan in appendices 3 should strengthen the financial management of the PIU. Liberia 25. Strengths: The project financial management is strengthened primarily by the involvement of the PFMU. The staff in this unit is already managing Bank financed projects, and they will draw upon in their prior experience in implementation of the project financial management. The use of the existing units will also ensure the speedy and timely implementation of projects. PFMU will establish and maintain at all times appropriate financial management systems and practices that will meet the World Bank FM requirements.

123

26. Weaknesses: Liberia is a post conflict country, and the overall fiduciary and public financial management system in the country is very weak. The accounting staff at the BNF and MoA has no experience with World Bank financial and disbursement procedures. Successful implementation of this project will require ownership and active support from the Government. This is the greatest challenge that this Program will face. The current capacity of the PFMU is not sufficient to absorb the additional workload created by this upcoming operation. Senegal 27. Strengths: The financial management capacity built in the PIU under the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project will be consolidated and used to manage the Financial Management System of the WARFP. Under the Integrated Marine Coastal Resources Program (GIRMaC) also implemented by this PIU, a Financial Management Specialist and an Administrative and Financial Assistant with strong experience in accountability have been recruited in a competitive basis, both of whom know World Bank procedures regarding disbursement and accountability. 28. Weaknesses: With the exception of the PIU implementing activities from IDA funds, it is difficult to find people in the public administration with strong experience in World Bank financial and disbursement procedures. The implementation of actions described in the action plan in appendices 3 should strengthen the financial management of the PIU. Sierra Leone 29. Strengths: The project financial management is strengthened primarily by the presence of a Principal Accountant at MFMR who has had experience with other Bank funded projects and is familiar with the Bank’s Financial Management and Disbursement procedures. He will also facilitate building the capacity of new staff assigned or recruited for the PIU in the medium to long term. 30. Weaknesses: The major weakness is the lack of any Financial Management Information System in place to assist with timely reporting. This could however be mitigated by the use of a simple accounting software or spreadsheet package such as, MS Excel. The following measures incorporated in appendices 3 are necessary in order to further strengthen the FM capacity of MFMR. F. Financial and management arrangements Staffing Arrangements CSRP 31. A Senior Accountant with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank has been recruited on a competitive basis. However, due to the workload and the number of projects managed by the CRSP, the senior accountant should be assisted by an assistant accountant in order to strengthen the financial and accounting department. The senior accountant and her assistant will work under the supervision of the Coordinator of the RCU and the Financial and Administrative Director of the CSRP. As far as financial management is concerned, the Senior Accountant will have the responsibility to collect and control invoices, maintain the books, enter data in the accounting software, manage project’s bank accounts, and keep the books of accounts. He will also prepare the annual financial statement of accounts; prepare the unaudited interim financial reports (IFR), as well as the withdrawal and direct payments applications and will take the necessary arrangements in order to recruit the auditor. The Terms of Reference (TORs) of the accounting assistant will be prepared before the effectiveness of the credit and grant. Cape Verde 32. A Senior Accountant with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be recruited on a competitive basis, and will work under the supervision of the Coordinator of the PIU and the Director of DGP. As far as financial management is concerned, the Senior Accountant will have the responsibility to collect and control invoices, maintain the books, enter data in the accounting software,

124

manage project’s bank accounts, and keep the books of accounts. The Senior Accountant will also prepare the annual financial statements of account; prepare the un audited interim financial reports (IFR) as well as the withdrawal and direct payment applications and will take the necessary arrangement in order to recruit the auditor. The Terms of Reference (TORs) for this position will be prepared and the person recruited within the first four months after effectiveness of the credit and grant. Liberia 33. The Regional Project Accountant and the Unit Manager of the PFMU will be responsible for the overall financial management of the project. The PFMU will be working with an accountant employed at BNF who will help to facilitate processing of transactions. The PFMU is adequately staffed with personnel that have the requisite qualification and experiences needed for project implementation. Nonetheless an additional project accountant will be recruited and trained by PFMU in the Bank’s financial management and disbursement procedures as the project is proposed to be managed for first 3 years by the PMFU and subsequently transferred to the PIU at BNF. Senegal 34. The existing staff of the PIU (one Financial Management Specialist and one Financial and Administrative Assistant) within DPM for the implementation of the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project financed by the Bank will manage the funds of this project. The existing staff has relevant experience in accounting, auditing, disbursement and financial management procedures of the Bank.

Sierra Leone 35. There is adequate Financial Management capacity at MFMR to meet the minimum requirements of the Bank. There will be a need to recruit additional qualified accounting staff under the supervision of the Principal Accountant of MFMR to manage the accounting functions of the PIU. This could further be enhanced by further training in Bank’s disbursement and FM procedures. Accounting Policies Procedures CSRP 36. An existing administrative and accounting procedures manual is in place but has not been updated since 1998 and is not fully adequate to host the new Program. It will be updated in order to host the new Program and to take in account its specificities. SYSCOHADA is the assigned accounting system in West African Francophone countries. The Credit accounting will be on a cash or accrual basis. This will be documented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Accounting records will be maintained in local currency (FCFA). The Chart of accounts will facilitate the preparation of relevant quarterly and financial statements including information on the total Program expenditures, the financial contribution from IDA, and expenditures by component/category. The Financial Team will finalize the budget and action plan, which will be submitted to the Regional Steering Committee for approval. Cape Verde 37. An Administrative and Accounting procedures manual will be developed and will provide all the required details on accounting and financial procedures. It will define in particular the flow of accounting and financial information between the PIU, the Treasury Department, the World Bank and the beneficiaries as well as the modalities and formats of periodic reports. The Credit and the Grant accounting will be on a cash or accrual basis and accounting records will be maintained in U.S. dollars. The Chart of accounts will facilitate the preparation of relevant quarterly and financial statements including information on the total project expenditures, the financial contribution from IDA and GEF, and expenditures by component/category. In terms of budgets, each year the beneficiaries will draw up a detailed budget for activities to be carried out. This budget will be consolidated by the PIU and after its validation by the MERDMR and the national Program Steering Committee, and will be submitted to the World Bank for review, copied to the RCU.

125

Liberia 38. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) which is being used for other Bank finance projects will be used for the Liberia WARFP. The Regional Project Accountant and the Unit Manager of the PFMU will be responsible for the overall financial management of the project. The project financial management unit will be working with the accountant employed at BNF who will help to facilitate processing of transactions. An operational manual will be prepared before the project becomes effective, which will outline the process and procedures for initiation, receiving invoices, processing transactions, review and approval of transactions. Senegal 39. The current accounting standards in use in Senegal for on-going Bank-financed projects will be applied. SYSCOHADA is the assigned accounting system in West African Francophone countries. The Credit accounting will be on a cash or accrual basis. This will be documented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Accounting records will be maintained in local currency (FCFA). The Chart of accounts will facilitate the preparation of relevant quarterly and financial statements including information on the total project expenditures, the financial contribution from IDA, and expenditures by component/category. The existing Financial and Administrative Manual describes the budgeting process. The Financial team will finalize the Entity Action Plan and Budget, which will be submitted to a steering committee for approval. Additionally, a ‘no objection’ of the Bank will be required before implementation of the annual action plan. Sierra Leone 40. The Principal Accountant of MFMR will be responsible for the overall financial management of the project. There is a need to have an Accounting Procedures Manual, and an Operations Manual. The budgeting process is based on MTEF and is work plan driven and fully integrated into the planning process of the Ministry. Planned activities in the budget contain details of objectives, expected outcomes and performance indicators. Following the preparation of the sub level work plans, an annual budgeting meeting will be held for the entire ministry and these individual plans will be agreed upon and consolidated into the Ministry’s Budget. It is expected that each year the PIU at MFMR will present annual work plans and program funds will be utilized towards implementation of these work plans and budgets. Implementation will be monitored closely via quarterly IFRs. Accounting Software CSRP 41. Existing accounting software is in place but is not yet operational and does not provide all of the required information by the private accounting standards. It will be updated in order to host the new project and to take in account the specificities of this Program. This system provides the following data: un-Audited Interim Financial Reports (IFR), financial statements, withdrawal applications, Bank reconciliations and all needed financial reports. The books of accounts will also be maintained electronically in this software. Cape Verde 42. The PIU will establish a sound computerized information system. This system will provide the following data: un-Audited Interim Financial Report (IFR), financial statements, withdrawal applications, Bank reconciliations and all needed financial reports. The books of accounts will also be maintained electronically in this software. Liberia 43. The PFMU will establish an effective accounting system that provides for adequate segregation of functions, capable of recording all accounting transactions, and reporting correctly all assets and liabilities of the project.

126

Senegal 44. The existing Information System in the PIU allows the production of all required accounting and financial data: Financial Statements, Bank Reconciliation Statements, all the books of accounts and all financial reports including the Interim un-audited Financial Reports (IFR). Accounting procedures are documented in the existing Financial and Accounting Manual. This information System will be updated in order to host the new project.

Sierra Leone 45. The PIU will establish a Management Information System to enhance the accounting function. Internal Control CSRP 46. The system of internal controls in place is not fully adequate and does not appear to operate effectively in order to ensure proper authorization of expenditures in accordance with budget, and proper authorization of payments. Serious internal controls issues have been raised by the European Union Audit report. The existing administrative and accounting procedures manual will be updated in order to provide the description of the approval and authorization processes and the notion of segregation of duties and adequate internal control system. The Bank will organize capacity-building workshops in World Bank procedures and key internal control mechanisms. Cape Verde 47. The internal control system seems to operate effectively to ensure proper authorization of expenditures in accordance with budget, and proper authorization of payments. The Bank will organize capacity-building workshops in World Bank procedures and key internal control mechanisms (approval and authorization controls, bank reconciliation statements). These aspects will be included in the administrative and accounting procedures manual in order to minimize the controls risks. During supervision missions, the Financial Management Specialist will review and provide technical support as needed for the strengthening of the internal controls environment and he will pay attention to the effectiveness of the internal control system. Liberia 48. The internal auditor of the PFMU will be responsible for ensuring that the control environment for implementation is adequate and satisfactory. The duties and responsibilities of the internal auditor are documented in PFMU finance Manual and include reviewing the internal controls systems of all projects manage by PFMU. The internal auditor also prepares quarterly work plan and audit programs to facilitate review of the individual project. The internal audit unit will be strengthening by the appointment of an Assistant Internal auditor two month after effectiveness. Quarterly reports will be prepared and submitted to the regional project accountant, regional steering committee and the World Bank. Senegal 49. The existing Administrative and Financial Manual of GIRMaC provides a description of the approval and authorization processes. The Bank will monitor the adequacy of internal controls during supervision mission. At the national level, the Investment and Debt Direction (DDI) controls ex ante all expenditures and withdrawal applications before sending them to the Bank. Sierra Leone 50. The approval process and segregation of duties for this program will be integrated into the existing MFMR processes and will be adapted if necessary. The Internal Audit Unit of MFMR will undertake spot audits on a sample of project transactions throughout the year to ensure expenditure compliance with grant conditions and annual work plans.

127

External Audit CSRP – Cape Verde - Senegal 51. External auditors with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be appointed to conduct an annual audit of the Project’s financial statements. This audit will be carried out in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), and will include such tests and controls, as the auditor considers necessary. Besides expressing an opinion on the Project’s financial statements in accordance with ISA, the auditors will be expected to prepare a report on internal controls, management letters giving observations and comments, and providing recommendations for improvement in accounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the Financing Agreement of the Bank. The audit report and opinions on the financial statements including the management letter and management response shall be submitted to IDA within six months of the end of the Recipients fiscal year (June 30 of the close of the fiscal year). The auditors shall be appointed within 4 months after effectiveness. Liberia 52. The Auditor General of Liberia is primarily responsible for the auditing of all government projects; however due to capacity constraints it is usual practice that the Auditor General subcontracts the audit of donor funded projects to private firms. Independent and qualified auditors, acceptable to the Bank, would be selected to carry out the annual financial audit of the project. The arrangements (Recruitment of External auditors and preparation of terms of reference for auditor) for the audit of the project must be finalized within four months of the project being declared effective. The project financial statements including movements in the Designated Accounts will be audited in accordance with International Standards of Auditing (ISA) and a single opinion will be issued to cover the project financial statements, Statement of Expenditures (SOEs) and the Designated Account, in accordance with the Bank’s new audit policy. The auditors’ report and opinion with respect of the financial statements including the management letter would be furnished to the World Bank within six months (30th June) of the close of each fiscal year (December 31st ). Sierra Leone 53. The Audit Service Commission (ASC) of Sierra Leone is by law primarily responsible for the audit of all government finances and projects. However, in view of the prevailing capacity challenges, it is common practice for the ASC to subcontract the audit of donor-funded projects to private audit firms. The ASC will determine if this arrangement will be followed for this operation. As the case may be, the process of hiring a private audit firm will be subjected to the IDA/IBRD procurement guidelines for the selection of consultants as revised in October 2006. The Terms of Reference (TOR) that is satisfactory to IDA will detail the scope of work and form the engagement of auditor. The TOR will be prepared by MFMR to be discussed and agreed with IDA. All effort will be made to coordinate this process with the Regional Coordinating Unit. The appointment of auditors should be finalized not later than four (4) months of effectiveness in order to comply with audit covenants and ensure timely audit of program expenditure. The table below summarizes the auditing requirements under the Program.

Audit report Country Entity Due Date

Project’s financial statements Cape Verde PIU June 30

Project’s financial statements Liberia BNF June 30

Project’s financial statements Senegal PIU June 30

Project’s financial statements Sierra Leone PIU June 30

Project’s financial Statements Regional RCU June 30

128

54. As a financial covenant, all audit reports will be submitted to the Bank within six months after December 31 each year, together with the auditor’s management letter highlighting any deficiencies in financial management systems and the control framework. Reporting and Monitoring 55. The RCU at the regional level and the PIUs at the national level will prepare and provide to the World Bank a quarterly un-audited Interim Financial Report (IFR), in form and substance satisfactory to the World Bank. The report will:

(a) Set forth sources and uses of funds for the Project, both cumulatively and for the period covered by said report, showing separately funds provided under the Credit, and explain variances between the actual and planned uses of such funds;

(b) Describe use of funds by activity/components, both cumulatively and for the period covered by said report, and explain variances between the actual and planned Project implementation.

56. The first IFR shall be furnished to the Association not later than 45 days after the end of the first calendar quarter after the Effectiveness Date. It shall cover the period from the incurrence of the first expenditure under the Program through the end of such first calendar quarter; thereafter, each IFR shall be furnished to the Association not later than 45 days after each subsequent calendar quarter, and shall cover such calendar quarter. Formats for the IFR and financial statements were defined before negotiations and are attached to the minutes of negotiations. 57. The RCU and the PIUs will also produce Annual Financial Statements for these statements which comply with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and World Bank requirements. The Financial Statements43 will comprise of:

(a) A Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds;

(b) A statement of Commitments;

(c) The Accounting Policies Adopted and Explanatory Notes;

(d) A Management Assertion that Program funds have been expended for the intended purposes as specified in the relevant Grant agreements.

58. The RCU and the PIUs will be required to produce, no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year, audited annual financial statements. These financial statements will be subject to periodic audits (see paragraph on audits).

G. Disbursement and funds of flow arrangements Disbursement arrangements 59. Disbursements will be made in accordance with procedures outlined in the Disbursement Handbook for World Bank Clients. The proceeds of the credits and grants will be disbursed over a five-year period or others periods depending on the implementation speed. On Program closure, a period of four (4) months (grace period) after the closing date, as agreed with the Bank, will be allowed to complete processing of disbursement for eligible expenditures incurred up to and until the closing date of Credits and the Grants.

43 It should be noted that the Program financial statements should be all inclusive and cover all sources and uses of funds and not only those provided through World Bank funding. They thus reflect all program activities, financing, and expenditures, including funds from other development partners.

129

Disbursement Procedures CSRP – Cape Verde – Senegal 60. The transactions-based disbursement procedures will be used at the beginning. Upon effectiveness, an initial deposit equivalent to 4 months expenditures forecast will be released and deposited in designated accounts and subsequently replenished on monthly withdrawal applications. All replenishments or reimbursement applications will be fully documented except for contracts under the prior review threshold to be determined during the procurement assessment. SOE documentation will be retained at the RCU in the Regional Level and at the PIUs at the national level for review by Bank staff and auditors. At the mid-term review or other date, the FM system will be assessed in order to consider shifting to report-based disbursement procedures if the RCU and the PIU sustains satisfactory ISR rating and provide regular IFRs acceptable to IDA. Liberia 61. The project is expected to be financed through a US$12 million grant under IDA and GEF disbursed over a five year period. The Project Financial Management Unit will act as a disbursing unit. They will manage all banking, payments processing and preparation of withdrawal applications. The initiation, receiving invoices, processing transactions, certification review and approval of transactions will be done within the project implementing unit in line with the operational manual and thereafter, all requests for payment will be sent to the PFMU for processing and payments. The transactions-based disbursement procedures will be used at the beginning. All replenishments or reimbursement applications will be fully documented except for contracts under the prior review threshold given in Annex 13. Supporting documentation will be retained by the implementing agencies for review by the IDA missions and external auditors. Sierra Leone 62. The current FM Assessment of MFMR identified some weaknesses in the systems, therefore it was decided to use transaction-based disbursement at the beginning. In order for the project to move from transaction based disbursement to report based disbursement MFMR will be required during implementation to meet the following: (a) sustain satisfactory financial management rating during the project’s supervision; (b) submit Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFR) consistent with the agreed form and content within 45 days of the end of each reporting period, and (c) submit all expected Audit Reports by the due date and the management letter highlighting significant internal control or accountability issues. The Bank’s FM team will periodically assess the adequacy of financial management systems and this will form the basis of any change in disbursement approach and methods Designated Account (DA) CSRP 63. A separate DA in FCFA will be opened in a commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank. This Account will be managed by the Permanent Secretariat of the CSRP. The DA will be used for all payments financed by the Credits as indicated in the specific terms and condition of the Financing Agreements signed with countries. IDA funds will be ‘on-lent’ to the CSRP by each country as a grant, according to the terms of a Subsidiary Agreement signed between each country and the CSRP. Transaction-supporting documentation for Statement of Expenditures (SOE) will be retained and kept in a safe place by the RCU, which has the primary responsibility for maintaining all documentation. The Disbursement Letter, which will form an integral part of the Grant Agreement, will provide details of the disbursement methods, required documentation, DA ceiling and minimum application size, as agreed during negotiations of the Financing Agreements. The CSRP will be authorized to prepare Withdrawal Applications for the activities it manages, with the amounts withdrawn booked to each country’s Credit in the proportion of the amounts on-granted.

130

Cape Verde 64. Two separate DAs in USD will be opened in the central bank (BCV) on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank (one DA for IDA funds and one DA for GEF funds, with funds from one segregated from the other). Those Accounts will be managed by the director of Treasury in coordination with the Directorate of Fisheries. The DA will be used for all payments financed by the Credit and the Grant as indicated in the specific terms and condition of the Financing Agreements. Transaction-supporting documentation for Statement of Expenditures (SOE) will be retained and kept in a safe place by the PIU, which has the primary responsibility for keeping all documentation. The Disbursement Letter, which will form an integral part of the Credit and the Grant Agreements, will provide details of the disbursement methods, required documentation, DA ceiling and minimum application size, as agreed during negotiations of the Financing Agreements. Liberia 65. The PFMU will open a two Designated Accounts (DA) for the project (one DA for IDA funds and one DA for GEF funds, with funds from one segregated from the other). The designated accounts for the project funds will be maintained in US Dollars and opened at commercial bank, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the bank. Senegal 66. Two separate DAs in FCFA will be opened in a commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank (one DA for IDA funds and one DA for GEF funds, with funds from one segregated from the other). Those Accounts will be managed by the director of DDI in coordination with the DPM. The DA will be used for all payments financed by the credit and the grant as indicated in the specific terms and condition of the Financing Agreements. Transaction-supporting documentation for Statement of Expenditures (SOE) will be retained and kept in a safe place by the COMO, which has the primary responsibility for maintaining all documentation. The Disbursement Letter, which will form an integral part of the Credit and the Grant Agreements, will provide details of the disbursement methods, required documentation, DA ceiling and minimum application size, as agreed during negotiations of the Financing Agreements. Sierra Leone 67. Two separate DAs will be opened (one DA for IDA funds and one DA for GEF funds, with funds from one segregated from the other). Disbursements and payment processing will be managed centrally by MFMR in order to ensure control and financial monitoring. Disbursement and further replenishments of the Designated Accounts will be transaction based. Further deposits would be made into the account against withdrawal applications supported by appropriate full documentation and as per the instruction to be detailed in the Disbursement Letter and Grant Agreement. Supporting documentation for the expenditures claimed using the SOE’s procedures would be retained by PIU/MFMR for review by the supervision missions and external auditors. H. Loan condition and other financial covenants

Effectiveness conditions

68. The following effectiveness conditions are required:

Cape Verde Develop an Accounting and Administrative Procedures Manual to conform with the IDA/GEF-

financed Project, and recruit a senior accountant.

Liberia Develop an Operational Procedures Manual to conform with the IDA/GEF-financed Project

(including an annual work plan and budget).

Senegal

131

Update the existing Accounting and Administrative Procedures Manual to conform with the IDA/GEF-financed Project.

Sierra Leone Develop an Accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures to conform with the IDA/GEF-

financed Project.

Dated Legal Covenants 69. The following dated legal covenants are required: CSRP

Recruitment of the accountant assistant on a competitive basis, within four months after effectiveness.

Liberia and Sierra Leone • Recruitment of a project accountant (Liberia)/accountant assistant (Sierra Leone) on a

competitive basis. CSRP, Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone

Appointment of external auditors and installation of new (Cape Verde and Sierra Leone) or expansion/updating of existing (CSRP, Liberia and Senegal) accounting software to host the Program, within four months after effectiveness.

Conditions of Disbursement 70. The following conditions of disbursement are required: CSRP

Update the existing Accounting and Administrative Procedures Manual to conform with the IDA/GEF-financed Project.

I. Supervision Plan 71. Supervision of the financial management arrangements will be risk based. In this regard, in view of the overall financial management residual risk rated for each country, the financial system will be reviewed and assessed at the national and regional level. Given the substantial risk rating associated with existing Financial Management Arrangements two on-site supervision visits will be conducted each year by the Bank CO FMS to commensurate with the risk levels. These on-site supervisions will be complemented by desk review of the quarterly IFRs submitted to IDA at the end of each calendar quarter. In addition, the FM team will annually review the audited project annual financial statements and the auditor’s report and management letter thereon. All effort will be made to coordinate these activities with the overall regional project supervision plans.

132

Appendice 1: Summary of Financial Management Risk Analysis and mitigation measures CSRP

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure Conditionality Residual Risk

Rating I. Inherent Risks: Substantial Modest 1. Country Level The participating countries have not the necessary institutional capacity and the same level to implement this Program.

Substantial

The coordination between the regional and the national should be conducted on a periodic basis in order to tackle issues. The good governance maintains a fragile economical sustainability.

None

Modest

2. Entity Level Low capacity of CSRP to implement and monitor the project

Substantial

The project will be implemented by the CSRP through a RCU and the Bank will pay a special attention during the supervision mission to the adequacy of the financial management system for Project implementation.

None

Modest

3. Project Level Fisheries activities are risky from the fiduciary perspective given the nature of activities involved and the weakness of measures of prosecution fisheries infractions and infrastructure artisanal fishing.

Substantial

A RCU will be installed in order to implement the activities of the WARFP Project and will contribute to the proposed risk mitigating measures.

None

Modest

II. Control Risks: Substantial Modest 1. Accounting System & Policies Procedures A manual of procedures is in place but it is not fully adequate to host the new project. An accounting system is yet in place but doesn’t give all the information required by the private accounting standards.

Substantial

The existing administrative and accounting manual of procedures and the software SAGE will be update in order to take in account the specificities of the new project.

Yes. Condition of disbursement for the manual, and covenant for the software (within four months after implementation).

Modest

2. Budget The process of budget in the CSRP does not appear relevant

Substantial

The accounting system will be tailored to incorporate the process of Budget preparation and follow up. Annual budgets and work plans will be prepared by the RCU and will be submitted to the Bank and National PIU’s by December 10 of each year.

None Modest

3. Internal Control The internal control system in place is not fully adequate and does not appear to operate effectively to ensure proper authorization of expenditures in accordance with budget, and proper authorization of payments. Serious internal control issues raised by the EU Audit report

Substantial

The CSRP committed to urgently update the existing administrative and accounting manual of procedures in order to take in account the notion of segregation of duties and adequate internal control system.

Yes. Condition of disbursement.

Modest

4. External Audit The external audit of the CSRP is done External auditor with qualification and

133

currently in bi annually basis. Modest

experience satisfactory to the World Bank will conduct an annual audit of the program’s financial statements. This audit should be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), and will include such tests and controls as the auditor considers necessary under the circumstances. The external audit firm will be selected under a competitive basis and acceptable TORs.

Yes. The appointment of an external auditor within 4 months of Program implementation is a financial covenant.

Low

5. Funds Flow The possibility of mingling funds is great and the tracking of project expenditures is not evident.

Substantial

A segregated designated account will be opened in the commercial bank in Dakar in terms acceptable to the Bank, to track the program expenditures. This DA will be managed by the CSRP and the RCU. Banks reconciliations will do on a monthly basis with adequate level of control.

None.

Modest

6. Reporting The reporting system of CSRP is rudimentary and the periodicity is not regular.

Modest

The RCU will prepare quarterly IFRs and Annual Financial Statements of the project in format and substance acceptable to the Bank and will submit to the Bank according the periodicity initially agreed.

The IFR format was agreed during the negotiations.

Low

7. Staffing CSRP has not experimented staffs to manage IDA & GEF funds.

Substantial

Qualified and experienced Senior Accountant has been recruited. He should be assisted by an accounting assistant recruited under a competitive basis.

Yes. The recruitment of the accounting assistant within four months of Program implementation is a financial covenant.

Modest

Overall Risk Substantial Modest

134

Cape Verde

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure Conditionality Residual Risk

Rating I. Inherent Risks: Substantial Modest 4. Country Level Some constraints in the budget cycle and economical vulnerability due to the geographical configuration of the country.

Modest

The action plan of the CFAA has been adopted and implemented. The good governance maintains a fragile economical sustainability.

None

Modest

5. Entity Level Low capacity of MERDMR to implement and monitor the project

Substantial

The program will be implemented by the MERDMR through a PIU under the coordination of the DGP and the Bank will pay a special attention during the supervision mission to the adequacy of the financial management system for Project implementation.

None

Modest

6. Project Level Fisheries activities are risky from the fiduciary perspective given the nature of activities involved and the weakness of measures of prosecution fisheries infractions and infrastructure artisanal fishing.

Substantial

A PIU will be installed in order to implement the activities of the WARFP Project and will contribute to the proposed risk mitigating measures.

None

Modest

II. Control Risks: Modest Low 8. Accounting System & Policies Procedures A public comprehensive, integrated budgeting and accounting system is yet in place but doesn’t give all the information required by the private accounting standards.

Modest

The PIU will install appropriate accounting software and will elaborate an administrative and accounting manual of procedures. The activities to be financed by the project are clearly identified.

Yes. Installation of software within four months of implementation is a financial covenant.

Low

9. Budget The process of budget in the MERDMR seems relevant

Low

Annual budgets and work plans will be prepared by the PIU and submitted to the Bank by December 10 of each year.

None Low

10. Internal Control The internal control system is in place and seems operate effectively to ensure proper authorization of expenditures in accordance with budget, and proper authorization of payments. However the knowledge of World Bank procedures is weak.

Modest

The Bank will pay a particular attention to the internal control system during supervision missions and check if the duties are segregated between the staff. Key internal control mechanisms (Approval and authorization controls, Bank reconciliation statements …) will be included in the manual of procedures.

None.

Low

11. External Audit The system of external control of Supreme Audit Institution is not exhaustive and periodic in Cape Verde and this institution doesn’t conduct an external audit in conformity with the World Bank standards.

Modest

External auditor with qualification and experience satisfactory to the World Bank will conduct an annual audit of the project’s financial statements. This audit should be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), and will include such tests and controls as the auditor considers necessary under the circumstances.

Yes. The appointment of an external auditor within four months of implementation is a financial covenant.

Low

135

The external audit firm will be selected under a competitive basis and acceptable TORs.

12. Funds Flow The possibility of mingling funds is weak but the tracking of project expenditures is not evident.

Modest

A segregated designated account will be opened in the central bank (BCV) in terms acceptable to the Bank, to track the project expenditures. This DA will be managed by the DGP and Treasury Department of the MF.

None.

Low

13. Reporting The reporting system of MERDMR is not consistent and the periodicity is not regular.

Modest

The PIU will prepare quarterly IFRs and Annual Financial Statements of the project in format and substance acceptable to the Bank.

The IFR format was agreed during negotiations.

Low

14. Staffing MERDMR has not experimented staffs to manage IDA & GEF funds.

Substantial

The financial Staff of PIU (senior accountant) will be recruited under a competitive basis.

Yes. The recruitment of the senior accountant is a condition of effectiveness.

Modest

Overall Risk Substantial Modest

136

Liberia

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure Conditionality Residual Risk

Rating I. Inherent Risks: Substantial Modest 1. Country Level The PEMFAR assessment conducted in 2007 identified weakness in the country financial management systems with specific reference to Internal audit, external audit, legal and regulatory framework, budgeting , procurement and concession and cash and debt management

High

This risk is being addressed through the various public financial management ongoing reforms being finance by donors, the preparation of the financial management Act public procurement act, setup of cash management committee, interim commitments control systems, budget committee being setup.

None

Substantial

2. Entity Level BNF does not have experience in managing WB funded projects; weak technical capacity at BNF couple with government interference in the project implementation will affect the achievement of the overall objective of the WARFP project and the monitoring

and evaluation process.

High

The BNF staff does not have experienced in implementing World Bank projects and requires substantial capacity building in project management, procurement and financial management. This risk is being mitigated through plans to recruit a qualified and experience international professionals to setup the PIU, PFMU support for the project financial management projects and the oversight role the bank play through prior review and No-Objection process.

None

Substantial

3. Project Level Given the project amount, nature and couple with the fact that this is the first bank project within BNF (Ministry of Agriculture) and there is no fisheries act currently. There is the risk associated with inexperience and lack of coordination amongst the components and stakeholders. Weak fiduciary capacity at Ministry of Agriculture (BNF).

High

The first component of the project ‘Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries’ aims to build the capacity of Governments and stakeholders to develop and implement policies. And the project will be manage by a PIU which will be staff with personnel with technical expertise and with experience in managing the bank projects The involvement of the PFMU in financial management will minimize fiduciary risk.

None

Substantial

II. Control Risks: Modest Low 4. Accounting System & Policies Procedures With current projects managed by the project financial management unit and their current staffing will affect prompt disbursement to the project and submission of both the annual audit report and IFRs.

Substantial

A date has been set to review and assess the overall Operations of the public financial management unit. After the review additional staffs will be employed to strengthen the Unit. In addition, plans are under the way to move to greater use of country system that will reduce the workload issues at PFMU.

None.

Modest

5. Budget Weakness in budget and budgetary control procedures at BNF will affect the preparation, execution, submission and monitoring of the annual work plan and

Substantial

The process of preparation of the annual work plan and budget will be documented in the operational manual. Couple with assistance from the bank through review

None Modest

137

budget. and No-objection will help to redress the risk.

6. Internal Control/Internal Audit Staffing, quality of work of the Internal audit function at PFMU and possible conflict between the Unit head and the Internal audit department will affect the internal audit deliverables.

Substantial

PFMU finance manual emphasis on the process, reporting line frequency of internal audit report The effectiveness of the internal audit function at PFMU will be assessed regularly by the Bank FMS during supervision missions and external auditors.

None. Modest

7. External Audit

A weak audit environment is prevalent in Liberia and this might affect the quality of audit report received and hence their acceptability to the Bank. The identified risk will affect will also affect the audit report submission date as stated in the financing agreement

Substantial

Terms of Reference for the external auditors will be prepared by the client PFMU and agreed with the Bank, and the appointment of external auditors shall be completed within four months after effectiveness.

Yes, the appointment of an external auditor within four months of Program implementation is a financial covenant.

Modest

8. Funds Flow Possible delays in processing withdrawal applications and failure to inform the TTL to update form 384 in SAP will affect project implementation due to lack of fund in the DA

Substantial

Employ additional project accountant in order to strengthen the project financial Management Unit.

Yes, within four months of effectiveness, as a legal covenant.

Modest

9. Reporting Quality and timeliness in submitting IFR and other reports.

Substantial

The PFMU operates an efficient computerized system (Sun Accounts) capable of generating reliable reports. Standard IFR formats being used for ongoing IDA project will be adopted for WARP.

No Modest

Overall Risk Substantial Modest

138

Senegal

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure Conditionality Rating of residual

risk

I. Inherent Risks: Substantial Modest

1. Country:

Despite substantial improvements of the legal and regulatory framework, some provisions affect the transparency of the system.

Modest

The MEM will expand the financial arrangement to the existing PIU under the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project to manage the financial arrangement of this project. The Staff and the auditor will be recruited in a competitive basis, the system of information installed in the PIU and the manual of procedures elaborated will be updated.

No Modest

2. Entity Levels:

Low capacity of MEM to implement and monitor the Project.

Substantial

The Program will be implemented by PIU, and the Bank will pay a special attention during the supervision mission to the adequacy of the financial management system for Project implementation.

No Modest

3. Project level:

Fisheries activities are risky from the fiduciary perspective given the nature of activities involved and the weakness of measures of prosecution fisheries infractions and infrastructure artisanal fishing.

Substantial

The Program is not complex even if it is intended to involve several implementing agencies but they already have experience in the management of World Bank-supported projects. An existing PIU under the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project will implement the activities of the WARFP Project and will contribute to the proposed risk mitigating measures.

No Modest

II. Control Risks: Modest Low

1. Accounting System and Policies Procedures:

An administrative and accounting manual of procedures has been developed and provides all the required details on accounting and financial procedures. However this manual does not take in account the new project. The financial management is computerized. However knowledge of Bank FM and disbursement procedures is still weak.

Modest

The manual and the existing software will be update in order to take in account the specificities of the new program.

Yes. Updated the manual will be a condition of effectiveness, and updating the software within four months of implementation will be a financial covenant.

Low

2. Budget Execution

Annual budget are regularly prepared but approved late.

Modest

Annual work plans will be prepared and submitted to the Bank by November 30 of each year.

Low

139

3. Internal Control

The internal control is weak, and doesn’t operate effectively to ensure proper authorization of expenditures in accordance with budget and proper authorization of payment Modest

The Bank will pay attention to the effectiveness of the internal control system during supervision missions and the review of the annual audit reports as well the auditor’s management letter. In addition, the Administrative and Financial Procedures Manual will give a clear description of the approval and authorization processes.

Modest

4. External Audit

Lack of strong system of external audit. External control by the “Cour des Comptes” is not yet effective

Substantial

An external auditor with qualification and experience satisfactory to the World Bank will conduct an annual audit of the Project’s financial statements. This audit should be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), and will include such tests and controls as the auditor considers necessary under the circumstances. The external audit firm will be selected under a competitive basis and TORs acceptable to the Bank.

Yes. The appointment of an external auditor within four months of implementation is a financial covenant

Modest

5. Funds Flow None

Risk of mingling funds with those of other projects

Modest

Two Separate Designated Accounts (DA) will be opened in a commercial bank by the DDI and will finance activities of the Project.

Low

6. Reporting

The reporting system is not consistent in the MEM

Modest

The PIU will prepare quarterly IFRs project in format and substance acceptable to the Bank and Annual Financial Statements of the project in comply with International Accounting Standards

None Low

Overall Risk Modest Low

140

Sierra Leone

Type of Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks Conditions for Negotiation or Effectiveness

(Yes/No)

Residual Risk

Rating

Inherent Risk Country Level Weaknesses in public financial management by state institutions due to lack of capacity. Issues of accountability and transparency in PFM.

High

There is a an inherent risk that government entities are too weak to fulfill their functions, implement project activities, and to comply with Bank’s environmental, social and fiduciary safeguards Strengthening the role of the public institutions in FM capacity building through ongoing reforms in the public financial management in the medium to long term.

No

High

Entity Level Weak FM capacity at MFMR No prior experience in managing the finances of World Bank funded projects

High

The current ongoing PFM reforms should address the issues of lack of capacity within all MDAs. The presence of a Principal Accountant with previous experience in Bank funded projects will partially mitigate this risk.

No

Substantial

Project Level Weak FM capacity could result in slow execution of the program and delayed reporting impacting on physical progress

High The Principal Accountant of MFMR has had previous experience in other Bank funded projects and would further be guided by an Operational and Accounting Procedures Manual.

No

Substantial

Overall Inherent Risk High

High

Control Risk Budgeting Budget credibility in S/L is a major challenge in view of falling revenues and energy crisis nationally that strain budget resources.

High

Annual Work Program AWP to be finalized prior to effectiveness, as part of Operational Manual. Dialog will continue with MoF to allocate and release funds to the sector as per the AWP and budget

Yes, completion

of the Operational Manual, including the annual work

program, is a condition of

effectiveness.

High

Accounting Staff for this function may not have sufficient skills and capacity to perform

High Accounting Procedures Manual to be in place by effectiveness. The Principal Accountant for the project has previous

Yes Substantial

141

the tasks. Maintenance of books of accounts, correctness and reliability of data may be hampered if systems are not well developed and structured

experience on World Bank financed operations and will help build capacity of new staff to be assigned or recruited for the PIU.

Internal Controls/Internal Auditing Lapses in Internal Controls are source of potential challenges.

High

Besides the manual of procedures that provide clear segregation of duties, the Internal Audit Unit of MFMR will undertake spot audits on sample transactions of the project throughout the year.

No Substantial

Funds Flow Delays in transfer of funds, especially to rural recipients and Systemic delays in processing WAs at the MoFED. In addition, this being a regional project, the channel of funding activities and access to liquidity may be a challenge impacting on the success of the project

High Operate a dedicated Designated Account for the Sierra Leone part of the project that will be subject to bank disbursement rules. Training of the PIU staff and MoF on the mechanism of funds flow from the Regional Coordinating Unit will be conducted as soon as PIU staff are in place

No High

Financial Reporting MFMR may lack the capacity to prepare timely and acceptable reports for submission to the Bank. In addition, the PIU in MFMR may not be equipped with computerized system in the initial period or by effectiveness

High

Intensive reviews of detailed expenditure statements by auditors; review of IFRs, financial transactions and relevant accounting information. This would be enhanced if the FM environment is computer based under a suitable software that is compatible with Free Balance platform used in MoF;

IFR format was agreed during the negotiations.

No Substantial

Auditing The responsibility to audit public entities rest with the Audit Service Commission (ASC). ASC may delay timely delivery of annual audits due to capacity constraints.

High The Audit Service Commission will either audit the project or appoint a firm of auditors with qualifications and track record acceptable to the Bank to be engaged based on ToR acceptable to IDA.

Yes, external auditors to be

appointed within 4 months after effectiveness

(dated covenant)

Substantial

Overall Risk Rating High

Substantial

142

Appendice 2: Financial Management Action Plan for the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program CSRP

Weaknesses Action Responsible Body Completion Date

The existing Accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures is not fully adequate to host the new project

Update the existing accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures to conform with the IDA / GEF financed project.

RCU Before disbursement for regional activities under

Component 4

The existing information system doesn’t give all the required information for the private accounting standards

Update the existing information system in order to take in account the specificities of the new project.

RCU First trimester after

effectiveness

Weakness in the tracking of project expenditures.

Open separate Designated Accounts in the Commercial Bank

RCU By effectiveness

Absence of an annual audit by External Auditor

Prepare TOR for External Auditor satisfactory to the Bank.

Appointment of the auditor.

RCU

RCU

By negotiation

First trimester after effectiveness

Cape Verde

Weaknesses Action Responsible Body Completion Date

Lack of an Accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures for the project

Elaboration of the accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures to conform with the IDA / GEF financed project

PIU By effectiveness

No specific information system for the Project

Install a strong information system to host the Project.

PIU First trimester after

effectiveness

Lack of an experienced staff in the MERDMR to manage IDA & GEF funds

Recruitment of the senior accountant in a competitive basis. PIU By effectiveness

Weakness in the tracking of project expenditures.

Open two separated Designated Accounts in the Central Bank

PIU By effectiveness

143

Absence of an External Auditor

Prepare TOR for External Auditor satisfactory to the Bank.

Appointment of the auditor.

PIU

PIU

By effectiveness

First trimester after effectiveness

Liberia No Action Date due by Responsible 1 Project Operational Manual Effectiveness TTL and BNF 2 Terms of Reference for Auditors Effectiveness PFMU 3 Designated Account will be opened under term and

conditions acceptable to the bank and denominated in a currency agreed by bank

Effectiveness PFMU

4 Recruitment of External Auditors Four months after effectiveness

PFMU

5. Annual work plan and budget Effectiveness PIU/BNF 6. Recruitment of project accountant Four months after

effectiveness PIU/BNF

7. Recruitment of Assistant Internal Auditor Two Month after effectiveness

PFMU/BNF

Senegal

Weaknesses Action Responsible Body Completion Date

The existing Accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures doesn’t host the new project

Update the existing accounting and Administrative Manual of procedures to conform with the IDA / GEF financed project

PIU By effectiveness

The existing information system doesn’t host the new Project

Update the existing information system to host the new Project.

PIU First trimester after

effectiveness

Weakness in the tracking of project expenditures.

Open two separated Designated Accounts in the Central Bank

PIU By effectiveness

Absence of an External Auditor

Prepare TOR for External Auditor satisfactory to the Bank.

Appointment of the auditor.

PIU

PIU

By effectiveness

First trimester after effectiveness

144

Sierra Leone No. Action Responsible By when 1. Develop and adopt Accounting Procedures and

Operational Manuals for use by MFMR MFMR Effectiveness

2. Finalize Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the project

MFMR Effectiveness

3. Finalize IFR format MFMR/IDA By completion of negotiations

4. Appoint auditors at the national level MFMR Within four (4) months of project effectiveness

5. Recruit assistant accountant MFMR Within four (4) months of project effectiveness

14

5

Ap

pen

dic

es 3

: F

low

of

Fu

nd

s an

d I

nfo

rmat

ion

C

SR

P

Wor

ld B

ank

C

red

its

& G

ran

ts A

cco

unts

(W

ash

ingt

on)

Des

igna

ted

Acc

ount

(C

om

mer

cial

Ban

k)

Con

sult

ants

& S

uppl

iers

RC

U

PIU

‘s

Nat

iona

l L

evel

W.

A.

IFR

Rep

orts

/In

voic

es

Bud

get

14

6

Cap

e V

erd

e

Wo

rld

Ba

nk

C

red

it &

Gra

nt

Acc

oun

t (W

ash

ing

ton)

Des

ign

ated

Acc

oun

t (C

entr

al B

ank

in

Pra

ia)

Tre

asu

ry A

ccou

nt

(Cen

tral

Ban

k i

n P

raia

)

Co

nsu

ltan

ts &

Sup

pli

ers

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Ag

enci

es

Rep

ort/

Invo

ices

PIU

/DG

P

Con

vent

ion

IFR

W.

A.

14

7

Lib

eria

IDA

and

GE

F

Cre

dit

an

d G

ran

t A

ccou

nt

(W

ashi

ngto

n)

Des

igna

ted

Acc

ount

(C

om

mer

cial

Ban

k in

Mon

rovi

a)

Pay

men

t of

Pro

ject

com

pone

nt i

n ac

cord

ance

wit

h cr

edit

and

gra

nt

agre

emen

t.

14

8

Sen

egal

Wor

ld B

ank

C

redi

t &

Gra

nt A

ccou

nt

(Was

hing

ton)

Des

igna

ted

Acc

ount

(C

om

mer

cial

Ban

k i

n D

akar

Con

sult

ants

& S

uppl

iers

Im

ple

men

tin

g A

gen

cies

PIU

/DP

M

W.

A.

IFR

Rep

orts

/Inv

oice

s

14

9

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

Wor

ld B

ank

C

red

its

& G

ran

ts A

cco

unts

(W

ash

ingt

on)

MF

MR

Des

igna

ted

Acc

ount

(C

om

mer

cial

Ban

k)

Con

sult

ants

& S

uppl

iers

150

Annex 13: Procurement Arrangements for APL-A1

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program A. General 1. Applicable Guidelines: Procurement for the proposed Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated May 2004, revised October 1st, 2006 and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May 2004, revised October 1st, 2006 and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Credit or Grant, the Procurement Plan would define the appropriate procurement methods or consultant selection methods, estimated costs, the prior review requirements, and the time frame. The prior review and procurement method thresholds indicated below are intended for the initial Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan would be updated at least annually, or as required, to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. 2. The procurement arrangements for the project would follow Bank standard procurement procedures; however the use of Community Participation in Procurement for the implementation of sub-project grants deserves a special mention. The Program would support the establishment of CLPs (Comité Locaux des Pêcheurs) in targeted communities, and help them to develop local-level resource co-management initiatives that would be financed through small, sub-project grant. These activities might include, buy-backs of fishing nets, purchase of buoys and other materials to support management initiatives, and financing of artificial reefs, etc (about $1.7 million in the proposed project) which are summarized in the Component 1.2 in Senegal – see Annex 7. The procurement of these small goods and works in benefit of communities will be carried out in accordance with the Paragraph 3.17 of Bank’s procurement guidelines. These procedures would be described in the project implementation manual acceptable to IDA. 3. Cape Verde’s Procurement Environment: The Public Procurement law entered into force in January 2008 after approval by the national Assembly on July 2007. 4. As regulations were not published, no progress in setting up the Procurement Management Units (UGAs) took place. The new procurement law did not include any provision for internal controls of transactions handled by the UGA. Therefore it is recommended that all UDAs be supervised by a Commission to be set up within each DGPOG (Directorate for planning and budget management) within line ministries. This mechanism will ensure effective and appropriate internal controls (prior review) of contracts awarded by the UGAs. 5. The approved procurement law entrusted the Court of Auditors to review ex ante contracts above US$50,000. This disposition appears not to be adequate and creates potential conflict of interest when the CA acts as independent auditor and reviews ex-post Public expenditures. This situation should be avoided and be dealt with in the context of the public Finance management reform 6. Liberia’s Procurement environment: The Public Procurement and Concessional Law (PPCL) of Liberia entered into force in 2005, and provides a sound legal framework for the conduct of transparent and comprehensive procurement. The act includes anti-bribery and anti-corruption provisions. 7. Senegal’s Procurement Environment: Senegal adopted a Public Procurement Law in June 2006 and Public Procurement Code in April 2007 (Decree No. 2007-545 dated April 25, 2007) as part of the action plan of the Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) for Senegal carried out in FY03. The legal framework is in line with the international standard and the West African Monetary Union’s (WAEMU) guidelines. The independent regulatory body (ARMP) responsible for policy and handling complaints

151

from bidders and the Procurement Department (DCMP) responsible for controls of procurement’s transactions are fully operational and appropriately deal with their respective missions. Controls within the contracting authorities (CA) are effective through their respective Procurement Commission and Procurement Units. A system (SIGMAP) for collecting, disseminating, managing procurement information and monitoring procurement statistics has been developed and is operational at the level of the DCMP. The Government intends to spread the SIGMAP over the contracting authorities to improve efficiency and monitoring of procurement transactions. Key decisions with regards to sanctions, contract awards, sole source justifications and complaints are posted on the Public Procurement Website (www.marchespublics.sn). National Standard Bidding Documents (NSBD) have been drafted and are being used by the CA. However there is a need to ensure regular external and internal procurement compliance reviews. 8. In general, Senegal’s procurement laws and regulations do not conflict with IDA guidelines. However provisions related to the restriction of the eligibility of bidders to those coming from WAEMU countries only will not be applied. No special exceptions, permits, or licenses need to be specified in Credit documents since IDA procedures take precedence other those laws and regulations. Sierra Leone’s Procurement Environment 9. The Government has introduced a number of reforms in public financial management (PFM) including public procurement reforms meant to reduce the opportunities for corruption. The implementation of the public procurement law enacted in 2004 is part of the PFM reforms component of the Bank-financed Institutional Reforms and Capacity Building (IRCB) Project that is being implemented by the MoFED. 10. The Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2004 is comprehensive and covers all procurement in the public sector (Central Management Agencies, Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), Metropolitan, Municipal and District Councils as well as parastatal organizations and State-Owned Enterprises). The PPA created the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA), an autonomous regulator empowered to set rules and oversee public procurement practices by all public sector bodies. In turn, the NPPA has issued standard bidding documents and regulations to ensure open, competitive procurement across government. Dissemination of regulations has been carried out and procurement plans of many MDAs are tied into the budgeting process. Capacity building, development of a procurement cadre within the public sector and auditing of entities are the current challenges being tackled. 11. While there are some very real governance risks, the authorities have been making tangible progress that should be supported and strengthened. Government and the key budget support donors have agreed on a well defined program of governance reforms backed by a harmonized approach to reform and monitoring. These reforms and other measures will help reduce the currently high fiduciary risks faced by the donor community. 12. Procurement Implementation: Procurement activities under the project will be carried out by the following entities: (i) Cape Verde – by a Project Implementation Unit within the Directorate of Fisheries . (ii) Liberia – by the Special Implementation Unit (SIU) of the Ministry of Public Works; (iii) Senegal – the Project Implementation Unit within the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM); (iv) Sierra Leone - A Project Coordination Unit will be set up and housed in the Department of Fisheries (DoF) within the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. The overall regional coordination activities will be carried out by a Regional Coordination Unit within the CRSP in Senegal. The detailed assessment of the capacities of these Agencies to implement procurement actions for the project is available in Bank’s files. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the project. The overall procurement risk at the Program level is high. 13. Procurement of Civil Works. Civil works procured under this project would include: (i) fisheries monitoring centers, (ii) costal stations or offices in strategic points, (iii) basic infrastructure for integrated fish landing site clusters in each country, (iv) roads, repairs to water pipes, fish sorting shed and hygiene

152

block, etc. Works procurement would be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and National SBD agreed with the Bank for National Competitive Bidding (NCB). 14. Depending of the country, contracts for works will be procured through ICB, NCB or shopping in accordance with the thresholds indicated in the table below: Table 1: Thresholds and Procurement Methods for Works

Country ICB NCB Shopping

Cape Verde > = $3,000,000 < $3,000,000 < = $50,000

Liberia > = $3,000,000 < $3,000,000 < = $50,000

Senegal/ RCU-CSRP

> = $5,000,000 < $5,000,000 < = $50,000

Sierra Leone >= $3,000,000 < = $3,000,000 < = $50,000

15. Civil works procured through shopping will be done on the basis of simplified bidding documents by soliciting quotations from not less than three qualified domestic contractors (preferably more) in order to obtain at least three comparable offers. The invitation shall include a detailed description of the works, including basic specifications, the required completion date, and a standard form of agreement acceptable to the Bank, with relevant drawings, where applicable. In all cases the award shall be made to the contractor who offers the lowest price quotation for the required work, and who has the experience and resources to complete the contract successfully 16. Procurement of Goods. Goods procured under this Project would include: supply of naval and air borne equipment, procurement of satellite, radar and computer-based vessel technology; supply of software and computer equipment to set up Trade information System for targeted supply chains, etc. Goods procurement would be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and National SBD agreed with the Bank for National Competitive Bidding (NCB). 17. Direct contracting for Goods and Works may be only used on an exceptional basis and with the prior approval of the Bank in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.9 of the Procurement Guidelines. Table 2: Thresholds and Procurement Methods for Goods

Country ICB NCB Shopping

Cape Verde > = $300,000 < $300,000 < = $50,000

Liberia > = $300,000 < $300,000 < = $50,000

Senegal/ RCU-CSRP

> = $500,000 < $300,000 < = $50,000

Sierra Leone > = $300,000 < $300,000 < = $50,000

18. Goods estimated to cost the equivalent or less per contract than the amount indicated above under shopping may be procured on the basis of a comparison of written quotations from at least three eligible suppliers (preferably more; 6 are recommended to insure full competition and to anticipate limited response). The request for quotation will be in writing and will include key information needed by the suppliers, such as description and quantities of the goods, and time and place of delivery. For transparency purposes, quotations will be in sealed envelopes and opened at the same time. The award would be made to the supplier with the lowest price quotation, provided the goods have met the technical specifications included in the request for quotation.

153

Selection of Consultants

19. (a) Firm - Consultancy services which include: engineering studies, specialized studies (biological and economic), technical assistance, control and supervision of works, external audits etc, would be selected using Request for Expressions of Interest, short-lists and the Bank’s Standard Requests for Proposal, where required by the Bank’s Guidelines. The selection method would include Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) whenever possible, Quality Based Selection (QBS), Fixed Budget (FBS), Least Cost Selection (LCS), Single Source Selection (SSS) as appropriate; all consultancy services contracts estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent for firms could be awarded through Consultant’s Qualifications (CQ). 20. (b) Individual Consultants - Specialized advisory services would be provided by individual consultants selected by comparison of qualifications of at least three candidates and hired in accordance with the provisions of Section V of the Consultant Guidelines

21. Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent per contract for Senegal and less than US$100,000 for Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone may be composed entirely of national firms in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines provided a sufficient number of qualified national firms are available and no foreign consultants desiring to participate has been barred. Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$200,000 per contract for firms, and contracts for individuals for assignments estimated to cost above US$100,000 and single source selection of consultants (firms and individuals) will be subject to prior review by the Bank.

22. Procedure of Single-Source Selection (SSS) would be followed for assignments which meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.9-3.13 of the Consultant Guidelines and will always require the Bank's prior review regardless of the amount. Procedures of Selection of Individual Consultants (IC) would be followed for assignments which meet the requirements of paragraph 5.1 and 5.4 of the Consultant Guidelines. For all contracts to be awarded following QCBS, LCS and FBS, the Bank's Standard Request for Proposals will be used. 23. The use of civil servants as individual consultants or a team member of firms will strictly follow the provisions of Article 1.9 to 1.11 of the Consultants Guidelines. Table 3: Thresholds and Selection Methods for Consultants

Country QCBS QCBS/LCS/CQS/FBS Individuals

Cape Verde > $100,000 < = $100,000 N/A

Liberia > $100,000 < = $100,000 N/A

Senegal/ RCU-CSRP

> $100,000 < = $100,000 N/A

Sierra Leone >$100,000 <=$100,000 N/A

24. Workshops, Seminars and Conferences: Training activities would comprise workshops and training in the region and abroad, based on individual needs as well as group requirements, on-the-job training, and hiring consultants for developing training materials and conducting training. Selection of consulting firms for training services estimated to cost US$100,000 equivalent or more would be procured on basis of QCBS or QBS as appropriate. Training services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured through CQ method. When appropriate, training may also be procured on the basis of Direct Contracting subject to review and approval by the Bank. All training and workshop activities would be carried out on the basis of approved annual programs that would identify the general framework of training activities for the year, including: (i) the type of training or workshop; (ii) the personnel to be trained; (iii) the selection methods of institutions or individuals conducting such training; (iv) the institutions which would conduct the training; (v) the justification for

154

the training, how it would lead to effective performance and implementation of the project and or sector; and (vi) the duration of the proposed training; (vii) the cost estimate of the training. Report by the trainee upon completion of training would be required.

25. Operational Costs. Operational costs would include project implementation-related expenditures such as in-country travel, office supplies, office rentals, utilities, communication costs, staff salaries, per diem for project supervision activities in the field, etc.

B. Assessment of the Agency’s Capacity to Implement Procurement

1. SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF THE AGENCY’S CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT PROCUREMENT

Cape Verde

• The Directorate of Fisheries within the Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and marine Resources will implement procurement activities of the project.

The identified risks include the following:

• Lack of experience in Bank procurement • Lack of appropriate structure (staffing) in place to manage the procurement

function for implementation • Lack of procurement planning; • Lack of appropriate procurement filing system

The correctives measures include: (i) recruitment of a procurement consultant for the first year of the project; (ii) The assessment is recommending a procurement capacity enhancement plan that includes, among other things, a comprehensive and intensive procurement-training program for all staff involve in the procurement process of the project; (iii) establishment of a filing system for project records; (iv) re-assessment of procurement capacity of various executing agencies—one year after project effectiveness to ensure that appropriate capacity has been built.

• The overall risks assessment is high

Liberia

• The procurement activities will be carried out by the Special Implementation Unit (SIU) of the Ministry of Public Works to be replaced by and/or transformed into the Infrastructure Implementation Unit (IIU) shortly. The SIU has procurement capacity and is knowledgeable of Bank procurement guidelines and procedures.

The strength of the Special Implementation Unit are the following: • Existence of procurement unit within the entity ; • A proper filing system is being developed, but still need improvement;

Corrective measures are: (i) reinforcement of the entity with appropriate tools; (ii) a graduate with interest in procurement shall be appointed as procurement focal person to be attached to the SIU; (iii) training of relevant project staff especially Procurement officers on Bank procurement procedure to update their knowledge three months after the project effectiveness and on a continuous basis during the project implementation; (iii) establishment of electronic filing system for project records

• The overall risk assessment is considered high due to the country context, although the structure has required procurement capacity.

Sierra Leone

A Project Implementation Unit embedded within the Department of Fisheries (DoF) within the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources will implement the procurement activities for the project. The DoF does not have the relevant procurement experience in

155

Bank operations and has been identified to handle the overall procurement of this project. The strengths of include:

• The DoF has a trained Senior officer with responsibility for procurement whose capacity only needs to be strengthened to ensure DoF ownership.

• The procurement officer has completed a two week procurement course at the Sierra Leone Institute of Public Administration and Management.

The key issue and risk identified for procurement in implementing the project relates mainly to the lack of adequate capacity to manage civil works, (ii) the unit is understaffed; (iii) Lack of capacity to manage infrastructure related procurement In addition to the preparation and finalization of procurement plan, the corrective measures to be agreed upon during appraisal are (i) the training of relevant project staff especially the Procurement Officer to enhance his knowledge, (iii) In addition, the Regional Coordination Unit procurement specialist will visit at least once a trimester to provide support and any needed training; (iv) the establishment of adequate filing system for project records;

• The procurement risk is considered high.Senegal PIU in DPM Regional Coordination Unit

The PIU within the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) will be the agency responsible for the overall procurement activities for Senegal’s component. The Strengths of the PIU within the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM)

• The procurement staff’s knowledge of Bank procurement processing is good; • The internal control is adequate. There is proper separation of duties; • Authorization and approval process are properly followed; • Procurement Data Management: procurement documents are kept in adequate

folders • The procurement officer and several other staff have attended Bank

procurement training and they are very familiar with Bank procurement guidelines and procedures and are knowledgeable of procurement planning;

• The Bank financed Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project is being implemented in a satisfactory manner by the PIU/DPM.

The following measures are recommended: (i) the hiring of experienced Procurement consultant for preparation of bidding documents for specialized goods as needed; (ii) the training in procurement of all the project technical staff involve in the implementation of the project; (iii) Set up an electronic filing system. The procurement risk at project level is Moderate _________________________________________________________________ The Regional Coordination Unit will be responsible for the overall implementation and coordination of the regional procurement activities of the project. The strength and weakness of are the following: (i) existence of a procurement specialist recruited on a competitive basis during the preparation of the Program. During appraisal discussions, the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission expressed an interest in maintaining the current project coordinator and the procurement specialist for the implementation stage of the program. The assessment found that the procurement specialist has the relevant experience and knowledge for the position, however with the volume of work envisaged under the project, it was agreed to strengthen the RCU/CSRP with additional staff; (ii) most of the existing staff do not have experience in Bank procurement procedures; (iii) lack of adequate record keeping system; Corrective measures are: (i) recruitment of additional relevant and experienced Procurement Consultant within the Project Regional Coordination Team; reinforcement

156

of the entity with appropriate tools; (ii) training of relevant project staff especially Procurement staff on Bank procurement procedure to update their knowledge three months after the project effectiveness and on a continuous basis during the project implementation; (iii) establishment of electronic filing system for project records; (iv) a procurement consultant will be responsible for supporting the project including updating the procurement plan, keeping the procurement records and managing the procurement process and monitoring of performance to contracts requirements; (v) re-assessment of procurement capacity of various executing agencies—one year after project effectiveness to ensure that appropriate capacity has been built .

• The risk is considered high.

The overall project risk for procurement is High 26. The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been identified. The corrective measures that will be put in place to address the issues and risks are reflected in the table below. The plan has been agreed with the Borrower during appraisal and it includes: Schedule of Risk Mitigation Action Plan No

Tasks Responsibility Due Date Remark

1 Procurement Plan for the first 18 months prepared and agreed with the Bank

July 24, 2009 Finalized during negotiations

2 Recruitment of a procurement Consultant Recruitment of a procurement specialist

RCU/CSRP Cape Verde, Liberia, Sierra Leone

No later than 4 months within the project implementation

Competitive process

3 Participation in procurement training workshop at specialized institutions for project staff

“

No later than 3 months within the project implementation

To improve project staff skills in Bank’s procurement

4 Set up adequate filling system for project records. Designate a responsible for data management

“

No later than 3 months within the project implementation

To ensure easy retrieval of information/data

5 Preparation of the Project Implementation Manual

“

November 2009

To be reviewed and agreed by the Bank prior to effectiveness

Implementation Readiness 27. The following actions were initiated/carried out during the preparation of this project:

• Draft Procurement plan has been prepared and agreed during negotiations; • Selection of key staff, including a procurement specialist, to strengthen the capacity of the

national implementations units has been initiated and expected to be completed by October 2009.

• General Procurement Notice (GPN) has been advertised locally and in the United Nations Development Business (UNDB) Online and the DgMarket.

157

C. Fraud, Coercion, and corruption 28. All procuring entities, as well as bidders, suppliers, and contractors would observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and execution of contracts financed under the project in accordance with paragraphs 1.15 & 1.16 of the Procurement Guidelines and paragraphs 1.25 & 1.26 of the Consultants Guidelines. D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision 29. In addition to the prior review supervision, the capacity assessment of the implementing agencies has recommended supervision missions to visit the field twice a year to carry out post review of procurement actions. Annual compliance verification monitoring would also be carried out by an independent consultant and would aim to:

• verify that the procurement and contracting procedures and processes followed for the projects were in accordance with the Financing Agreement;

• verify technical compliance, physical completion and price competitiveness of each contract in the selected representative sample

• review and comment on contract administration and management issues as dealt with by the CT;

• review capacity of the CT in handling procurement efficiently; and • identify improvements in the procurement process in the light of any identified deficiencies.

E. General Procurement Notice (GPN) and Contract Award Disclosure Requirement 30. The Regional Coordination Unit will prepare a General Procurement Notice (GPN) based on the format which was discussed during the appraisal mission and the GPN will be advertised in United Nations Development Business (UNDB), and in Development Gateway (dgMarket) online in addition to local newspapers of wide national circulation after the project is approved by the Board of the Association, and/or before effectiveness. Specific Procurement Notices for all goods and works to be procured under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and Expressions of Interest (EOI) for all consulting services costing the equivalent of US$200,000 and above would be published in the UNDB, dgMarket and in the national press. 31. Contract awards done through ICB procurement method should be consistent with Paragraph 2.60 of the Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, May 2004 revised October 2006. Within two weeks of receiving the World Bank “no objection” to the recommendation of contract award, the borrower would publish in UNDB online and in dgMarket the results identifying the bid and lot numbers and the following information:

• name of each bidder who submitted a bid • bid prices as read out at bid opening • name and evaluated prices of each bid that was evaluated • name of bidders whose bids were rejected and the reasons for their rejection • name of the winning bidder, and the price it offered, as well as the duration and summary

scope of the contract awarded. 32. Contract Awards done through Direct Contracting procurement method would be consistent with Paragraph 3.7 of the Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, May 2004 revised October 2006. After the contract is signed, borrower would publish the following information in UNDB online and in dgMarket:

• name of the contractor • price

158

• duration • summary scope of the contract

This publication may be done quarterly and in the format of a summarized table covering the previous period. 33. Contract Awards for Consultancies would be consistent with Paragraph 2.28 of the Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers, May 2004 revised October 2006. After the award of contract, the borrower would publish in UNDB online and in dgMarket the following information:

• names of all consultants who submitted proposals • technical points assigned to each consultant • evaluated prices of each consultant • final point ranking of the consultants • name of winning consultant and the price, duration, and summary scope of the contract.

34. The same information would be sent to all consultants who have submitted proposals.

• name of the consultant to which the contract was awarded • the price • duration • scope of the contract

This publication may be done quarterly and in the format of a summarized table covering the previous period.

F. IDA Review Thresholds and the Procurement Plan 35. The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan was agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team at negotiations. The final procurement plan will be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review

Expenditure Contract Value Procurement Contract Subject to

Category (Threshold) Method Prior Review

US$ 000 US$ 000

1. Works Senegal/RCU-CSRP

- ≥ 5,000,000 ICB All

- Other countries:

≥ 3,000,000 Senegal/RCU-CSRP <5,000,000

- Other countries: NCB First 2 contracts per country

<3,000,000

<50,000 Shopping

2. Goods

Senegal/RCU-CSRP≥500,000

Other countries: ≥300,000

ICB All contracts

159

Senegal/RCU-CSRP<500,000

-Other Countries: <300,000 NCB First 2 contracts per county

<50,000 Shopping/IAPSO First 2 contracts per country

No threshold Direct contracting All contracts

3. Consultants

Firms No threshold QCBSAll contracts of 200,000 and more

<100,000 QCBS; LCS; CQ;

OtherFirst 2 contracts per countryFor contract below 200,000

Individuals No threshold IC All contract of 100,000 and more

No threshold Single Source All contracts

(Selection Firms &

Individuals)

4. Training Annual Plan All Training All TORs regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior review

**These thresholds are for the purposes of the initial procurement plan. The thresholds will be revised periodically based on re-assessment of risks.

Overall Procurement Risk Assessment: High X Average Low

160

Annex 14: Program Economic and Financial Analysis

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program A. Program Objective 1. As described earlier in this PAD, the overall objective of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the marine fisheries resources of West Africa, and the proportion of that wealth captured by West African countries. Specific expected outcomes at the end of the 10-year program include the initial recovery of the resource base of at least 7 targeted fisheries in the region, and a 25 percent increase in net economic benefits to the region from all fisheries targeted by the Program. B. APL-A1 Project Costs 2. Table 1 below summarizes the estimated project costs, by component and by country. Table 1: Estimated costs in present value

Cape Verde Liberia Senegal Sierra Leone Total Component 1 US$2.3 M US$2.7 M US$7.2 M US$5.5 M US$17.7 M Component 2 US$2.6 M US$4.9 M US$3.3 M US$7.5 M US$18.3 M Component 3 US$2.3 M US$3.0 M US$3.0 M US$5.0 M US$13.0 M Component 4 US$1.1 M US$1.4 M US$2.5 M US$2.0 M US$7.0 M Total US$8.0 M US$12.0 M US$16.0 M US$20.0 M US$56.0 M C. Overview of Program Benefits 3. The benefits arising from the program include those benefits that are measurable in monetary terms, and non-market benefits – such as from conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity and healthy ecosystems – for which monetary values cannot be quantified directly. Furthermore, because of the transboundary nature of the fisheries resources in the region, significant externalities exist, with interventions and activities in the sector in one country likely to have significant effects on neighboring countries. The overall benefits from this program are therefore likely to be greater than the estimated monetary value of the benefits given below. 4. The general types of benefits expected from the program are described by program component below. It should be noted that components 1 and 2 are closely interrelated, with each component contributing to the realization of benefits under the other. Specific benefits vary from country to country, depending on the unique circumstances of, and program activities in, each country. 5. Components 1 & 2: Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries; Reduction of Illegal Fishing:

• Sustained income from fisheries due to reduced overexploitation of fish stocks, with positive externality effects on neighboring countries where stocks are shared/migratory.

• Increased catch per unit effort, due to recovering stocks, and therefore reduced costs per unit catch.

• Income from alternative livelihoods of individuals who exit the sector. • Strengthened social cohesion within communities and among various stakeholder groups

including government agencies (non-monetary). • Coastal and marine biodiversity conserved, with positive effects on ecosystem resilience and

functioning (significant value, although no direct monetary measure). • Increased government revenue from fisheries licenses/permits from currently unlicensed vessels

which continue to fish under the new improved regime.

161

Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies

• Redistribution of existing benefits from foreign beneficiaries to in-country beneficiaries, for the portion of total catch, currently transshipped at sea, that will be landed in-country.

• Increased income (value added) and employment from processing, export and related activities arising from the increased proportion of catches landed in-country.

• Reduced losses from less spoilage of fish which currently do not reach any markets in sellable condition.

Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Program Management

• This component will ensure that the full range of benefits from Components 1, 2 and 3 above are achieved, and also contribute towards the overall long-term sustainable management of shared coastal and marine resources in the region.

D. Valuation of APL-A1 Project Benefits Benefits from Strengthened Governance and Reduced Illegal Fishing 6. A model was developed to estimate the quantifiable direct benefits – up to the point of catch landing/first sale – generated by the project, with a primary focus on the coastal demersal fisheries targeted by the first phase of the Project in each country. Where available, in-country historical data on landed catch volumes by species, average landed prices by species, and fishing effort by fishing segments (small-scale and industrial) were collected for use in the model. Information on operational and capital costs for different types of fishing vessels was also obtained for use in the model, from published sources or from informal surveys during the pre-appraisal missions and from in-country partners thereafter. This data enabled the estimation of net economic benefits obtained from various fishery segments in each country, as a baseline. From this baseline, two scenarios were then modeled for each country to estimate future benefits over 5 years, one being a “business as usual” without-project scenario, and the other a with-project scenario incorporating assumptions based on the investments and associated reforms implemented through various project components. Thus, in summary, the current situation plus two future scenarios were modeled for the targeted fisheries in the countries included in APL-A of the Program: (i) current net economic benefits from the fisheries (baseline); (ii) business-as-usual scenario for the next 5 years (without Project scenario); and (iii) reform scenario for the next 5 years (with Project scenario). 7. The model was designed to provide results allowing for explicit analysis of the benefits accruing to different groups, as well as the disaggregation of individual cost and benefit components. Specifically, the model results below are presented as follows:

• Annual net economic benefits from the coastal demersal fisheries, excluding depreciation and the costs of capital. This measure essentially reflects the operational cash flow generated from the fisheries, for the following groups: (i) net benefits to vessel and engine owners, (ii) net income to crew, and (iii) net transfers to government.44

• Annual net economic benefits from the coastal demersal fisheries, including depreciation and the costs of capital. This measure takes account of depreciation and costs of capital in calculating the net benefits to vessel and engine owners. This could be considered in economic terms the true benefits from the sector.

• Annual net economic benefits from the coastal demersal fisheries, excluding returns to labor. This measure includes only the following: (i) net benefits to vessel and engine owners, including depreciation and the costs of capital, and (ii) net transfers to government. This could be

44 In estimating the government’s receipts, 100 percent coverage of licenses for small-scale fisheries was assumed, although this is not currently the case in Senegal. The model also did not consider taxes on industrial fishery profits. Neither of these factors affect the overall estimate of net benefits for Senegal.

162

considered to be the economic rent derived from the fisheries, or the wealth generated from the resources, if labor is taken as a cost.

Cape Verde 8. A simplified version of the full economic model developed for Senegal was applied to estimate the net economic benefits from the small-scale and semi-industrial fisheries of Cape Verde. Due to limitations in data availability, particularly on fishing effort, estimates were made for net benefits in 2006 only, and not for the years prior. More recent data was not readily available. This analysis focuses on the operations of the sector up to the point where catch is landed; the economic benefits derived from processing activities are presented in a separate section below. 9. The fisheries of Cape Verde were analyzed in terms of three basic segments: small-scale motorized vessels, small-scale non-motorized vessels, and semi-industrial vessels. The key assumptions and results are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2. Net Economic Benefit Analysis for Small-scale and Semi-industrial Fisheries in Cape Verde, 2006

Small-scale Motorized

Vessels

Small-scale Non-motorized

Vessels

Semi-industrial

Vessels

Total

Number of vessels 756 280 70 1 106

Landed catch (metric tons) 5 446 588 4 018 10 052

Revenue45 (USD) 5 717 477 616 783 4 218 900 6 334 260

Net benefits (USD)

Excluding depreciation and costs of capital 2 147 835 381 818 2 415 700 4 945 353

Including depreciation and costs of capital 911 696 266 433 1 267 280 2 445 409

Resource rent (excluding returns to labor) – 377 006 11 888 59 430 – 305 688

Distribution of benefits (USD)

Returns to labor 1 288 701 254 545 1 207 850 2 751 096

Returns to vessel owners – 377 006 11 888 59 430 – 305 688

Transfers to government (license fees) 0 0 0 0

10. The results show that overall, the small-scale fisheries in Cape Verde are generating net economic benefits of over US$2.4 million for the country. If labor is taken as a cost, however, then the estimate of the resource rent is –US$300,000 (the motorized segment is delivering negative rent, while the other two segments are only marginally positive). As is the case in other countries in West Africa, therefore, most of the benefits from the sector are in the form of employment and labor income. Scenario 1: Business-as-Usual, 2010 to 2014 11. The baseline scenario assumes no change in the legal, institutional or policy framework for the fisheries sector in Cape Verde. Across all segments, catch per unit effort for both motorized and non-motorized segments is assumed to decline by 2 percent annually, as unsustainable exploitation of the resources continues from both small-scale fishers and semi-industrial vessels. As vessel owners

45 Landed price for pelagic species estimated at US$1.00/kg, demersal species US$1.50/kg. This estimate is conservative; the FAO estimate of gross value of landed catch for 2006 is almost US$25 million, implying an average price close to US$2.50/kg.

163

experience negative returns, and labor income declines, the number of small-scale vessels in operation, both motorized and non-motorized, is also projected to decline steadily, by 8 percent over the period; the number of industrial vessels increases by less than 10 percent over the period, due to the better returns to be found in this segment compared to the small-scale segments. All other key variables, including landed prices and fishing effort, were held constant throughout the period. Net economic benefits from the fisheries over this period are thus projected to decline steadily, to under US$1.0 million by 2014. Excluding returns to labor, net benefits would be around –US$0.9 million annually by 2014. Figure 1 below illustrates this decline in performance. Figure 1. Net economic benefits from Cape Verde fisheries, baseline scenario

(2,000)

(1,000)

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US dollars, thousands

Net economic benefits from Cape Verde fisheries - baseline scenario without program2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

12. The overall conclusion from this scenario is one of continuing, gradual deterioration – the fisheries would provide negative net economic benefits to the Cape Verde, with the benefits in terms of employment and labor income also shrinking. Scenario 2: With Project Investments, 2010 to 2014 13. The proposed project investments in Cape Verde are expected to help restore the sustainability of the fisheries, by introducing fishing rights and co-management regimes, while also providing opportunities for exit from the sector to pursue alternative livelihoods. The number of small-scale motorized vessels in operation is thus assumed to decline by 20 percent over the period, with a steeper decline of one-third in the number of non-motorized vessels over the period, which would be acceleration of an existing trend towards fewer such vessels. The number of semi-industrial vessels is expected to remain stable. As a result, catch per unit effort is expected to remain flat initially, and then increase by 5 percent annually from 2012. Consequently, a turnaround in the performance of the fisheries is expected, as illustrated in Figure 2 below, with net economic benefits increasing to US$3.2 million by 2014, and resource rents becoming positive as well.

164

Figure 2. Net economic benefits from Cape Verde fisheries, with-project scenario

(1,000)

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US dollars, thousands

Net economic benefits from Cape Verde fisheries - scenario with program2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

Liberia Current Situation, 2008 14. A simplified version of the full economic model developed for Senegal was applied to estimate the net economic benefits from the small-scale and industrial fisheries of Liberia. Due to limitations in data availability, particularly on fishing effort, estimates were made for net benefits in 2008 only, and not for the years prior. This analysis focuses on the operations of the sector up to the point where catch is landed; the economic benefits derived from processing activities, in both the small-scale and industrial segments, have not been included. 15. The small-scale fisheries were analyzed in terms of two basic segments: motorized canoes (typically of the Fanti community), and non-motorized canoes (of the Kru and Popoe communities). The results are summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3. Net Economic Benefit Analysis for Small-scale Fisheries in Liberia, 2008

Motorized Canoes

Non-motorized canoes

Total

Number of vessels 280 3 400 3 680

Landed catch (metric tons) 2 364 4 097 6 461

Revenue46 (USD) 4 728 000 8 194 000 12 922 000

Net benefits (USD)

Excluding depreciation and costs of capital 1 910 976 3 910 000 5 820 976

46 Landed price estimated at USD2/kg

165

Including depreciation and costs of capital 1 169 536 2 577 200 3 746 736

Resource rent (excluding returns to labor) – 422 944 622 200 199 256

Distribution of benefits (USD)

Returns to labor 1 592 480 1 955 000 3 547 480

Returns to vessel owners – 424 113 622 200 198 087

Transfers to government (license fees) 1 169 0 1 169

16. Overall, the results show that both segments of the small-scale fisheries generate significant economic benefits for Liberia, estimated to total over US$3.7 million in 2008. However, as is the case in other countries in the region, most of the benefits from the sector are in the form of employment and labor income. If labor is taken as a cost, then the estimate of the resource rent is negative for the motorized canoes47 (– US$423,000), while remaining positive for the non-motorized canoes, resulting in overall rent of US$199,000. Of this amount, only US$1,169 went to the Liberian government for license fees. 17. For the industrial trawl fisheries, the number of unlicensed vessels fishing in Liberian waters and the size of their catches, as well as the amount of the total Liberian catch transshipped at sea, are uncertain, although these are assumed to be significant. Furthermore, based on available data on licensed industrial vessels and their landed catches in 2008, a preliminary estimate suggests that these licensed vessels faced operating losses that year, with catch per unit effort around half of that recorded in other countries of the region. In any case, given that all industrial fishing operations in Liberia are foreign-owned, most of the benefits derived from these operations accrue to foreign interests. The benefits to Liberia itself consist of labor income and employment for Liberians as vessel crew members, license fees collected by the government, and the modest amount of value added from the operations of Liberian representative agents for foreign trawl vessels. 18. The net economic benefits to Liberia from the industrial trawl fisheries are estimated to be lower those derived from the small-scale fisheries, at US$1.26 million in 2008. The bulk of these benefits consisted of labor income for Liberian crew members on licensed industrial vessels, at US$1.18 million, based on the assumption that the requirement that 75 percent of crew members should be Liberian is being met. License fees collected by the government in 2008 amounted to US$79,560. Scenario 1: Business-as-Usual, 2010 to 2014 19. The baseline scenario assumes no change in the legal, institutional or policy framework for the fisheries sector in Liberia. For the small-scale segments, catch per unit effort for both motorized and non-motorized segments is also assumed to stay constant throughout the period, as are landed prices and fishing effort. There is no growth in the number of motorized vessels, given the negative returns to existing vessel owners in 2008. However, the total number of non-motorized vessels is expected to increase to around 3,500, but this increase levels off from 2012. 20. Net economic benefits from the small-scale fisheries over this period are thus projected to be around US$4.1 million annually through 2014. Excluding returns to labor, net benefits would be around US$270,000 annually. For the industrial trawl segment, it is expected that the license fees collected will remain at the very low level of 2008. Returns to labor from Liberian crew members on industrial vessels are expected to remain in the region of US$1 million annually.

47 The actual performance of the motorized segment may in fact be better than the estimate shown in Table 1 above; fixed costs may be lower if owners are able to obtain subsidized credit. For the purposes of the model analysis, an interest rate of 9.5% – the midpoint of lending and deposit rates – was used to reflect the prevailing interest rate environment in Liberia.

166

21. The overall conclusion from this scenario is similar to the analysis of the current situation, namely that Liberian fisheries provide a significant source of labor income and support many livelihoods in the small-scale segments. If nothing is done, however, the benefits from the sector are likely to decline and turn negative over time, posing a serious risk to the sustainability of incomes and livelihoods derived from the sector. Scenario 2: With Project Investments, 2010 to 2014 22. Under this scenario, the Project would provide immediate support to adjust the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries – a new fisheries law is currently being prepared and additional regulatory adjustments would be supported by the project - and quickly expand the institutional capacity at the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF). The core components of this scenario would be the strengthening of MCS functions and the capacity of the BNF through a combination of external technical assistance and training of local staff. This scenario would focus on quick adjustments of the industrial fishery while gradually introducing an area-based rights regime through a co-management process for small-scale fisheries. 23. Policy change would initially focus on strengthening MCS to keep industrial vessels out of the environmentally and socially sensitive inshore areas, and deter illegal fishing in deeper waters. Priority would be given to development of a management plan for coastal shrimp and demersal resources, then tendering and negotiating a 5-year contract with a single shrimp company to land catch and develop basic infrastructure in Liberia based on defined quota. At the same time, the legal and regulatory framework for all industrial license fees and conditions would be adjusted, license fees for the existing industrial fleet targeting demersal species would be increased to levels comparable to those prevalent in the region (and adjusted according to the effectiveness of MCS and the potential resource base in Liberia compared to neighboring countries), and a fisheries access agreement with the EU limited to deep-sea resources and tuna would be negotiated. These licensing arrangements would substantially increase public income from the sector, as well as enhance efforts to strengthen MCS. Furthermore, strengthened surveillance would help ensure that vessels that are currently not licensed will more seriously consider the purchase of a license if available, possibly increasing the number of licensed vessels and the tax base. To enable future legal exports to high value markets such as the European Union (including by EU operators in Liberian waters), high priority would be given to establishing and certifying a Competent Sanitary Authority. While eventually the country would develop some internal fisheries research capacity, management decisions during the first five years would be largely based on evaluation of historic research data and analysis of improved catch records, data from regional surveys, better collection and analysis of fishing logs of the industrial fleet and targeted new research executed by external scientists and institutions, while the capacity of BNF to review and assess scientific activities would be strengthened. 24. Under this reform scenario, landing site co-management associations would be created for small-scale fisheries – in 1-2 locations currently accessible year-round by road - to better regulate fishing activities inside the coastal zone that would lead to rights over areas of the fisheries within the 6-mile zone, while providing training and community-level investments for co-management associations and investing in value-adding equipment and infrastructure to increase production and facilitate better domestic marketing and exports, possibly through public-private partnerships with local or foreign companies. Income and other benefits of small-scale fishermen would increase through a combination of: (i) technical development of the small-scale fisheries; (ii) effectively excluding industrial fishing from the 6-mile inshore zone, (iii) better regulation of the import and control over the use of illegal gear, and (iv) improved access to domestic and export channels targeting higher value fish. Once co-management groups have been well established, they would focus on better regulating local fisheries and –if necessary – limiting access to heavily exploited resources.

167

25. In summary, the proposed project investments in Liberia are expected to adjust the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries, strengthening MCS and reducing illegal fishing. A contract will also be tendered and negotiated with a single shrimp company to land catch and develop basic infrastructure. 26. For the small-scale segments, catch per unit effort is expected to increase by 2 percent annually beginning in 2012, once strengthened MCS which keeps industrial vessels out of inshore waters is fully in place. Modest growth is also expected in the number of vessels operating, mostly in the non-motorized segment, as returns improve and fishing continues to be attractive as a source of livelihoods. Fishing effort per vessel remains constant, but the increase in total fishing effort due to the growth in number of vessels acts to moderate increases in catch per unit effort. It is also assumed that license coverage for both small-scale segments will gradually increase to 100%, beginning with the motorized vessels, with improved institutional capacity for fisheries management developed through the project. These assumptions are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4. Scenario 2 Assumptions for Small-scale Fisheries

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Small-scale motorized

Number of vessels 280 280 280 280 290 300

Catch per unit effort (kg per vessel per trip)

40.3 40.3 40.3 41.1 41.9 42.8

Landed catch (metric tons) 2 370 2 370 2 370 2 417 2 553 2 694

License coverage (%) 18 50 75 100 100 100

Small-scale non-motorized

Number of vessels 3400 3450 3500 3600 3700 3800

Catch per unit effort (kg per vessel per trip)

5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.1

Landed catch (metric tons) 4 070 4 130 4 190 4 395 4 608 4 827

License coverage (%) 0 10 25 50 75 100

27. Given that the catch composition of the motorized canoes varies, with pelagic species usually comprising one-third to one-half of the catch by weight – depending on the season and areas fished – the scenario results were recalibrated in order to reflect largely the coastal demersal fisheries, given the focus of project investments. This was done by reducing the revenues and costs for the motorized canoes by 30 percent. The overall trends in the model results are unaffected by this reduction. 28. Model results obtained for the small-scale segments show a steady increase in the net economic benefits derived from the sub-sector, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. However, the level of resource rents, as represented by net benefits excluding returns to labor, remains relatively low at less than US$750,000 by the end of the period. Small-scale fisheries are expected to remain as a significant generator of employment, but the rather low level of rents generated suggests the need for a greater focus on the management of small-scale fisheries in the future.

168

Figure 3. Projected Annual Net Economic Benefits from Small-scale Fisheries

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US dollars, thousands

Program net economic benefits from small-scale fisheries2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

29. For the industrial trawl segment, the number of licensed trawlers and total landings are both expected to increase. The basic assumption here is that these would not in fact represent an increase in overall fishing effort in Liberian waters. Illegal fishing is expected to decrease markedly, such that the increase in licensed vessels consists of the vessels of the contracted shrimp company, in addition to a shift to regularization and legalization of a small portion of existing fishing which is currently illegal. The dramatic increase in landed catch in this scenario is driven largely by assumed reductions in underreporting and transshipment with strengthened MCS. The annual license fee is assumed to be revised to US$300 per GRT beginning in 2011, which would be a level comparable to that of other countries in the region. 30. Model results obtained for the industrial fisheries show a significant increase in benefits for Liberia over the period, to US$4.4 million in 2014, a 350 percent increase over 2008. The bulk of the increase in benefits consists of increase in license fees collected by the government, which are expected to reach US$2.4 million by 2014. At close to US$2 million in 2014, total labor income for Liberian crew members on licensed industrial vessels would have increased by almost 70 percent over 2008, although this increase represents increased employment rather than increases in the wage rate. The assumptions and key results for the industrial fisheries are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5. Scenario 2 Assumptions and Results for Industrial Fisheries

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Assumptions

Number of licensed vessels 36 44 47 49 50

Total recorded vessel-days at sea (125 grt vessel equivalent48)

7 680 10 200 11 100 11 700 12 000

Total catch (metric tons) 4 992 7 140 13 320 14 040 14 400

48 Figure has been normalized across vessel sizes and is expressed in terms of equivalent 125 grt vessel-days

169

License fee per GRT (USD) 30 300 300 300 300

Benefits to Liberia

Income for Liberian crew members 1 336 650 1 708 500 1 849 200 1 939 650 1 984 875

Transfers to government (license fees) 91 260 1 629 600 2 235 000 2 355 000 2 415 000

Total 1 427 910 3 338 100 4 084 200 4 294 650 4 399 875

Senegal Current Situation and Recent Trends, 2002 to 2007 31. The full economic model developed to estimate net economic benefits was applied to the coastal demersal fisheries of Senegal. 32. The small-scale fisheries were analyzed according to four segments49 based on the available data. The ten most recent years of catch and effort data, and five years of price data, were used for inputs to the model. The results presented in Figure 4 below show that for the small-scale coastal demersal fisheries north of the Gambia, net economic benefits have declined dramatically and steadily since 2002, reflecting the decline in the resource base. Figure 4. Annual Net Economic Benefits from Small-scale Coastal Demersal Fisheries

(10,000)

(5,000)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CFA francs,milions

Net economic benefits from small-scale coastal demersal fisheries2002 - 2007

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

33. While the data for the parts of Senegal south of the Gambia are collected differently and not easily comparable, analysis of available data for Fatick and Zinguinchor suggests that while the overall benefits would be higher, the annual net economic benefits excluding returns to labor would still be negative. However, it is difficult to compare these data, since they are collected in different categories from the landings north of the Gambia, and they most likely reflect large quantities of fish caught in the waters of Guinea-Bissau and then landed in Senegal. 34. The industrial trawl fleet targeting coastal demersals – both shrimp and finfish trawlers – is also

49 Pirogue glaciere ligne (PGL), pirogue motorisee ligne (PML), filet dormant (FD), pirogue voile ligne (PVL).

170

facing difficulties. Including depreciation and capital costs, and excluding returns to labor, net benefits have also been on a declining trend, and were negative or close to zero in 2006 and 2007. Results are presented in Figure 5 below. 35. In summary, by 2006, the coastal demersal fisheries in Senegal were providing negative net economic benefits to the country, with the exception of returns to labor. In other words, the fisheries are essentially providing a source of employment, but creating little or no income for the economy otherwise. The existence of subsidies – in the form of tax exemptions on fuel and loans at low interest rates – does not alter the overall estimate of net economic benefits, although these represent a transfer of benefits from Government to fishers. In 2007, the overall net economic benefit from the coastal demersal fisheries in Senegal was –3,509 million CFA francs (–US$7.0 million50). Excluding returns to labor, the net benefit was –6,764 million CFA francs (–US$13.5 million). Figure 5. Annual Net Economic Benefits from Industrial Coastal Demersal Fisheries

(5,000)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CFA francs,milions Net economic benefits from industrial coastal demersal fisheries

2002 - 2007

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

Scenario 1: Business-as-Usual, 2010 to 2014 36. The model was then used to develop a baseline scenario for the five-year period 2010 to 2014. The underlying assumption in this scenario was that the deteriorating conditions seen over the period 2002-7 stabilize at the levels of 2007. In other words, key variables including catch, effort and average prices were held constant at 2007 levels, as were costs, with the notable exception of fuel costs which were assumed to be 400 CFA francs per liter (i.e. back to the levels of 2005-6). 37. Largely due to the assumed reduction in fuel costs, net economic benefits over this period are expected to be positive, at 5,954 million CFA francs (US$11.9 million) annually. However, excluding returns to labor, net benefits are negative at –750 million CFA francs (–US$1.5 million) annually. 38. The overall conclusion is similar to that of the current situation, which is that fisheries provide a source of employment, but otherwise create little income for the economy. In terms of performance of individual segments, the industrial fisheries are expected to provide positive benefits, while negative benefits continue to be experienced across most segments of the small-scale fisheries.

50 All amounts in CFA francs have been converted to US dollars at the rate of 1 US dollar to 500 CFA francs.

171

Scenario 2: With Project Investments, 2010 to 2014 39. Project investments will substantially reduce fishing effort on coastal demersal and shrimp fisheries as soon as possible, while increasing the domestic value added of the landed catch. This implies - given the currently available instruments and legal framework – a rapid reduction of the number of licenses for the industrial fishing fleet and to initially freeze, and eventually also to limit and then freeze/reduce the total number of permits available for small-scale fishing vessels targeting the coastal demersals (based on adjustments of these permits to become licenses that specify the fisheries, etc.), while introducing further management measures at the local and national level. To reduce the economic and social impact of these measures, some compensation will be required for each group, both fishermen and owners, as well as more general social investments for the fishers and fishing communities affected by the introduction of new resource management measures. To effectively translate the current political will to address the problem of resource over-exploitation, increased stakeholder participation in the decision making and implementation process will be critical. 40. In view of the current negative returns from the fisheries the Project would not follow the ‘traditional’ approach to manage resources – study resources and effort first, then adjust fishing effort, as it would require too much time. Instead, the approach will be to first reduce fishing effort substantially, based on available scientific data and analyses, and then evaluate the biological and economic impact. If scientific evaluations suggest that the initial reduction does not lead to clear signs of biomass expansion of a number of key species, further targeted reductions should be applied until a positive impact can be clearly demonstrated, at which time more formal resource management approaches based on annual stock-assessments, detailed management plans and economic analyses could be applied. 41. At present Senegal only has the administrative tools to effectively adjust industrial fishing effort. The administrative and institutional capacity and mechanisms to control small-scale fisheries are only partly in place. Hence the Project will focus on rapid reduction of industrial fisheries, and to use the available administrative tools, starting with small-scale vessel registration and the allocation and enforcement of fishing licenses (permis de pêche), to freeze small-scale fishing effort. Once the current general fishing licenses have been made more specific about the terms and conditions permitted for fishing, in particular reflecting what gear, area, season and species can be used and targeted, and the local institutional capacity has been created to regulate local fisheries more carefully, a further reduction of small-scale fishing effort will be possible. 42. Industrial licenses are allocated at the discretion of the Minister of the Ministry of Maritime Economy (MEM) and can be renewed each year. Until now, no formal withdrawal or limitations have been applied, but a Ministerial decree mandating a freeze on licenses for coastal demersal fisheries has been in effect since August 2008. An audit of the fleet prepared in 2007 suggests that licenses for a modest percentage of the fleet should be immediately withdrawn for technical and administrative reasons. The Project will support a withdrawal of 40-50 percent of the remaining fleet, or some 40-45 trawl vessels. 43. Registration (‘immatriculation’) of small-scale vessels has been going on for some time - supported by several donors – but has not been completed. Unless the project is completed expeditiously, no formal means to restrict the expansion of the small-scale fleet is practically possible. The Project will aim to support a complete freeze of small-scale vessel registrations by the end of 2010, and in parallel the implementation of the requirement to obtain fishing permits to all small-scale vessels. 44. To be effective, administrative means – fishing licenses and registration – to reduce actual fishing efforts requires that ‘leakage’ in the form of illicit (non-licensed) industrial and small-scale fisheries will be held to a minimum (once the small-scale fisheries are fully registered and obtain fishing permits). Senegal does have some surveillance and control capacity, but its effectiveness, notably in coastal waters

172

and across its boundaries with neighboring countries, needs to be further strengthened. The Project will particularly strengthen those activities. In addition, the Government needs to maintain its strong commitment to implement the above strategy of industrial trawler license reductions and a freeze of registration (and fishing permits51) for small-scale fishing vessels, while making every effort to reduce illegal fishing from Senegalese and foreign vessels. The Project will support fishers through the expansion of the current fishers’ alternative livelihoods fund (Fond de Reconversion des Artisans Pecheurs – FRAP) to include the crew of industrial vessels. 45. In summary, as a result of this scenario and Project interventions, the Government would aim to rebuild the coastal demersal fish stocks through: (i) a 50 percent reduction in the effort and capacity of industrial trawl vessels, and (ii) a freeze on the effort and capacity of the small-scale fleet targeting the coastal demersal stocks. For the industrial fleet, the number of vessels is reduced by 25 percent in 2010, and by a further 25 percent (from the 2007 baseline) in 2011. Model inputs assume that the reduction in vessels will be evenly distributed across vessel sizes. Fishing effort per vessel was held constant, such that reductions in the number of vessel-days at sea arise solely from the reduced number of vessels in the operating fleet. As a result of the reduction in overall fishing effort, catch per unit effort is expected to register increases over the 2007 baseline of 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. These assumptions are summarized in Table 6 below. Table 6. Scenario 2 Assumptions for the Industrial Coastal Demersal Fisheries

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of industrial trawler vessels

107 82 54 54 54 54

Total vessel-days at sea, (50 grt vessel equivalent52)

65,618 49,214 32,809 32,809 32,809 32,809

Catch per unit effort (kg per 50 grt vessel-day)

534 534 561 587 614 614

Total catch (thousand kgs) 35,032 26,274 18,392 19,268 20,143 20,143

46. The halving of the industrial fleet will result in an initial fall in net economic benefits. However, with the improvement in catch per unit effort and the reduction in costs from a smaller fleet, net benefits are expected to recover to levels close to those prior to the fleet reduction, as illustrated in Figure 6 below. In addition, the resource rents obtained, as measured by net benefits excluding returns to labour, register an increase of 60 percent.

51 The current fishing permits would be frozen first (after they have been administered to all of the fleet), and then eventually the more specific licenses to be developed with Program support (see component 1.2 below). 52 Figure has been normalized across vessel sizes and is expressed in terms of equivalent 50 grt vessel-days

173

Figure 6. Projected Annual Net Economic Benefits from Industrial Coastal Demersal Fisheries

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CFA francs,milions Projected net economic benefits from industrial coastal demersal fisheries

2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

47. For the small-scale fleet, the number of vessels remains constant until 2012, when it is assumed that voluntary exits from the sector will result in decreases in vessel numbers across all segments of 5% year on year, in each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Fishing effort per vessel remains constant. However, as a result of the overall reduction in fishing effort, particularly due to the reductions in the industrial fleet, catch per unit effort is assumed to increase across all segments from 2011. The basic increase assumed was 10 percent in 2011 and 15 percent in 2013, over the 2007 baseline. However for the PML and FD segments which registered very poor performance in 2007, greater increases of between 20 percent and 35 percent by 2013 were assumed, to bring the levels of catch per unit effort for those segments closer to the long-term average for the period 1997–2007. 48. Model results obtained for the small-scale fleet indicate a turnaround in the benefits obtained from the fisheries over the period, from –2 179 million CFA francs (–US$4.4 million) in 2010 to 2 369 million CFA frances (US$4.7 million) in 2014, as illustrated in Figure 7 below. Net benefits excluding returns to labor nevertheless remain negative throughout, although at a reduced level of –2 430 million CFA francs (–US$4.9 million) in 2014 compared to –4 365 million CFA francs (–US$8.7 million) in 2007. This suggests that further long-term measures to address the sustainability of the small-scale fisheries should be considered.

174

Figure 7. Projected Annual Net Economic Benefits from Small-scale Coastal Demersal Fisheries

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CFA francs,milions Project net economic benefits from small-scale coastal demersal fisheries

2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

Sierra Leone Current Situation, 2008 49. A simplified version of the full economic model developed for Senegal was applied to estimate the net economic benefits from the small-scale and industrial fisheries of Sierra Leone. Due to limitations in data availability, particularly on fishing effort, estimates were made for net benefits in 2006 only, and not for the years prior. More recent data was not readily available. This analysis focuses on the operations of the sector up to the point where catch is landed; the economic benefits derived from processing activities, in both the small-scale and industrial segments, have not been included. 50. The small-scale fisheries were analyzed in terms of two basic segments: motorized canoes, and non-motorized canoes. Assuming the overall catch data for the small-scale fisheries in 2006 are accurate, the number of vessels was then estimated for these two segments. The key assumptions and results are summarized in Table 7 below. Table 7. Net Economic Benefit Analysis for Small-scale Fisheries in Sierra Leone, 2006

Motorized Canoes

Non-motorized canoes

Total

Number of vessels 1 650 9 350 11 000

Landed catch (metric tons) 63 630 53 856 117 486

Revenue53 (USD) 55 440 000 47 124 000 102 564 000

Net benefits (USD)

Excluding depreciation and costs of capital 40 788 000 38 148 000 78 936 000

Including depreciation and costs of capital 36 322 000 32 912 000 69 234 000

Resource rent (excluding returns to labor) 632 500 4 301 000 4 933 500

53 Landed price for pelagic species estimated at USD0.75/kg, demersal species USD1.25/kg.

175

Distribution of benefits (USD)

Returns to labor 35 689 500 28 611 000 64 300 500

Returns to vessel owners 632 500 4 301 000 4 933 500

Transfers to government (license fees) 0 0 0

51. Overall, the results show that both segments of the small-scale fisheries generate very substantial economic benefits for Sierra Leone, estimated to total over US$69 million in 2006. However, as is the case in other countries in the region, most of the benefits from the sector are in the form of employment and labor income. If labor is taken as a cost, then the estimate of the resource rent is US$633,000 for the motorized vessels, and US$4.3 million for non-motorized vessels. 52. For the industrial trawl fisheries, the number of unlicensed vessels fishing in Sierra Leone’s waters and the size of the catches, as well as the amount of the total catch transshipped at sea, are uncertain, although these are assumed to be significant. Based on available data on licensed industrial vessels and their landed catches in 2006, and interviews conducted during the pre-appraisal mission in March 2009, it is estimated that most, if not all of the operations in both the shrimp and demersal finfish trawler segments are generating substantial profits. In any case, given that all industrial fishing operations in Sierra Leone are foreign-owned, most of the benefits derived from these operations accrue to foreign interests. The benefits to Sierra Leone itself consist of labor income and employment for Sierra Leoneans as vessel crew members, license fees collected by the government, and the modest amount of value added from the operations of local representative agents for foreign trawl vessels. 53. The net economic benefits to Sierra Leone from the industrial trawl fisheries are estimated to be much lower those derived from the small-scale fisheries, at US$2.4 million in 2006. The bulk of these benefits consisted of labor income for Sierra Leonean crew members on licensed industrial vessels, at US$1.01 million, based on the assumption that the requirement that 45 percent of crew members should be Sierra Leonean is being met. License fees collected by the government in 2006 were estimated at US$1.35 million. By comparison, the profits of the industrial fishing companies were estimated to be in the region of US$11 million, meaning that most of the resource rent from the industrial fisheries is not accruing to Sierra Leone. Scenario 1: Business-as-Usual, 2010 to 2014 54. The baseline scenario assumes no change in the legal, institutional or policy framework for the fisheries sector in Sierra Leone. For the small-scale segments, catch per unit effort for both motorized and non-motorized segments is assumed to decline by 2 percent annually, as unsustainable exploitation of the resources continues from both small-scale fishers and industrial trawler incursions into the inshore zone. All other key variables, including landed prices, number of vessels, and fishing effort, were held constant throughout the period. Net economic benefits from the small-scale fisheries over this period are thus projected to decline steadily, to US$58.2 million by 2014. Excluding returns to labor, net benefits would be around US$3.0 million annually. Figure 8 below illustrates this decline in the performance of the small-scale segments.

176

Figure 8. Net economic benefits from small-scale fisheries, baseline scenario

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US dollars, thousands

Net economic benefits from small-scale fisheries - baseline scenario without program2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

55. For the industrial shrimp trawl segment, catch per unit effort is also assumed to decline by 2% annually, due to the existing overexploited status of this resource. Industrial shrimpers are expected to experience deteriorating financial performance, which results in further reductions in the number of shrimp trawlers operating. The demersal finfish trawlers are assumed to see catch per unit effort unchanged, thus continuing to turn in stable, positive financial performance. The number of demersal trawlers is also held constant in this scenario. Overall, the net benefits to Sierra Leone from the trawl fishery are expected to decline from US$3.6 million currently, to US$2.6 million in 2014. License fees collected by the government are estimated at US$1.4 million in 2014, and labor income for Sierra Leonean crew at US$1.2 million. 56. The overall conclusion from this scenario is similar to the analysis of the current situation, namely that Sierra Leone’s fisheries provide a significant source of labor income and support many livelihoods in the small-scale segments. However, the amount of license fees collected by the government would have declined and stagnated from compared to their level today, as would the employment income and overall benefits derived from the sector. Scenario 2: With Project Investments, 2010 to 2014 57. The following reform scenario broadly reflects the ‘measured’ governance scenario assumes a measured development of MCS capacity, an initial reduction of some industrial fishing and some form of fisheries management system being established early, while broad implementation of the management system covering most species and important fisheries would be developed over 10 years. As fisheries inputs are added slowly and carefully in industrial and small-scale fisheries, a gradual increase in the net economic benefits may be reached: for shrimp the increase may occur within 3 years, for coastal demersals after some 15 years, depending on the effectiveness of the proposed Territorial Use Right Fisheries (TURFs) and the pace of stock rebuilding. 58. Under this scenario, reform and Project investments would focus on the coastal demersal fisheries, and could be expected to include the following:

• MCS improved to better enforce the prohibition of all trawling in the inshore exclusion zone;

177

• Competent Authority for sanitary control is certified by EU, and exports of shrimp and fish can target EU markets;

• Inshore fish trawling declines and stops over time, in compliance with existing laws and improved MCS (legal vessels comply with closed seasons, mesh size restrictions and restricted area regulations), and targets more high-value fish for exports and lower value fish for Freetown market, and takes advantage of Project investments in Competent Authority;

• In exchange for discontinuing inshore trawling, a medium-term licensing arrangement (5 years) is established with a single, national company, guaranteeing access to the fisheries, so long as they will comply with a coastal demersal fisheries management plan and MCS requirements (see next bullet), land their catches locally and pay higher license fees;

• A stock assessment is finalized and a coastal demersal fisheries management plan completed, that sets a TAC and defines the allocation between industrial and small-scale fisheries;

• Small-scale fishers are enabled over time to better reach domestic and export markets, through the creation of Territorial Use Right Fisheries (TURFs) in the inshore exclusion zones. These organizations would focus on improving fisheries regulation and the quality and marketing of fish), and would be managed by stakeholders (Commission/Council/etc.) in some cases possibly supported by a public-private partnership agreement. Quality improvements would be made possible by existing and new small-scale infrastructure investments, equipment supplied to encourage introduction and enforcement of better fisheries regulation, as well facilities at the airport and port to store and export high-value fish. Co-management activities would be concentrated initially around four marine protected areas; actual organization to be based on clusters of fishing villages coordinated at the TURF level;

• MCS improvements would be targeted to the inshore exclusion zone to support these TURFs; • Project would provide support to these stakeholder groups managing the TURFs, in the form of

training and facilitation, and local monitoring and research, development of complementary shore-based infrastructure to support management and provide for increased fish quality and value added; and

• Industrial fish trawling arrangements would be reviewed after five years. 59. The benefits of this scenario would include:

• Profitability of industrial fish trawling fleet increases over time; • Profitability of small-scale fleets fishing in the TURFs increases over time; • Local small-scale fish processing increases, and domestic supply of fish stays stable; • Total fish exports from Sierra Leone increase over time; and • Government revenue from the sector increases.

60. In addition, under this scenario the following reforms and investments would be implemented in the shrimp fisheries:

• Shrimp fishery management plan prepared based on historic analyses and data, setting a total allowable catch (TAC) level, etc;

• Shrimp fishery potentially closed to recover for period to be determined by resource analyses; • Strengthened MCS in the inshore exclusive zone and 15 – m depth zone; • Institutions and regulations to support local shrimp exports developed over this time, notably the

Competent Authority; and • Fishery re-opened, and licenses are auctioned for shrimp fisheries outside the inshore exclusion

zone. • Following one year experience with the new system, review feasibility of a further increase in

coastal shrimp fishing license fees, and link licenses and fees to annual quota and world market shrimp and fuel prices; and

• Licenses require local landing of shrimp, and require private investments in mobile landing system (lighters) and some processing and storage.

178

61. The benefits of this scenario would include: • The same benefits for coastal demersal fisheries from Scenario 1; plus • License fees for shrimp fisheries increase substantially, generating more public revenue; • Shrimp sizes, market values and profits multiply several times over; and • Local value-added is increased, as well as exports.

62. In summary, the proposed project investments in Sierra Leone are expected to strengthen the regulatory environment for industrial fisheries, by establishing total allowable catch, introducing fishing rights, and increasing the level of license fees. Concurrently, MCS will be strengthened in order to reduce illegal fishing, particularly to ensure industrial vessels stay out of the inshore zone. Notably, the shrimp fishery will be closed for 2 years, over 2010-11, to allow stocks to recover and generate greater returns thereafter. 63. For the small-scale segments, the declining trend in catch per unit effort is expected to be halted and reversed by 2011, with a return to catch per unit effort levels of 2006 by 2012. This expectation is based on the assumption that incursions by industrial vessels into the TURFs will be halted, coupled with a sustained switch to nets with larger mesh sizes by a substantial proportion of the small-scale fishers. Fishing effort and number of vessels is expected to remain stable with community co-management through the establishment and operation of the TURFs. Consequently, net economic benefits from the small-scale fisheries are expected to remain stable at around US$68 million annually throughout the period, after an initial decline to US$64 million. Resource rents are expected to be stable at US$4.8 million per year by 2014. 64. For the industrial trawl segment, the closing of the shrimp fishery during 2010 and 2011 is expected to result in a 25 percent increase over the 2006 level of catch per unit effort for shrimps, once the fishery is reopened in 2012. The demersal bycatch is also expected to register an increase of 15 percent. Fishing effort and the number of vessels operating in the reopened fishery from 2012 are assumed to remain stable at 2009 levels. The annual license fee for the reopened shrimp fishery is assumed to be doubled to US$400 per GRT, in addition to the existing royalty of US$18,000 per vessel which will remain unchanged. For the demersal trawl segment, catch per unit effort is expected to increase modestly at 2% annually from 2012, as a result of the 2-year closure of the shrimp fishery. The number of demersal trawlers operating is anticipated to increase modestly from the 29 vessels in 2009 to 35 in 2014. The annual license fee for demersal trawlers is also assumed to increase from US$150 to US$250 per GRT, in addition to the royalty of US$15,000 per vessel which remains unchanged. 65. Model results obtained for the industrial fisheries show a significant increase in benefits for Sierra Leone over the period, from US$3.7 million in 2009 to US$4.7 million in 2014. The bulk of the increase in benefits consists of increase in license fees collected by the government, which are expected to reach US$2.9 million by 2014, and importantly, be sustainable at this level from a sustainably managed resource base. Employment income for Sierra Leonean crew members would be US$1.8 million in 2014. Notably, the bulk of the benefits from the fishery would still accrue to the trawler owners. The overall net economic benefits from the industrial fisheries are illustrated in Figure 9 below.

179

Figure 9. Net economic benefits from industrial fisheries, with-project scenario

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US dollars, thousands

Net economic benefits from industrial fisheries - scenario with program2010 - 2014

Net benefits, excluding depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, including depreciation and capital costs

Net benefits, excluding returns to labor

Income from Alternative Livelihoods 66. Based on the model analysis which estimated net economic benefits up to the point of catch landing, the benefits arising as income from alternative livelihoods were also estimated, for those countries where project investments specifically facilitate exit of fishers from the sector. In Cape Verde, this benefit was estimated at US$1.2 million, being 100 percent of the labor income forgone from reductions in the fishing fleet in scenario 2 compared to scenario 1. In Senegal, this benefit was estimated at US$10 million, being 50 percent of the labor income forgone from reduction in fleet sizes in both the industrial trawl and small-scale segments in scenario 2, compared to scenario 1. Value Added from Component 3 67. The benefits from Component 3 of the project were also estimated in terms of the value added from the processing of fish at landing site clusters developed in each country with project investments. The value added estimated in this section is conservative, considering only the processing – sorting, packaging and freezing for onward marketing – of landed fish at each site, and not the wider benefits which will be obtained from the infrastructure developed and EU export certification facilitated by project investments. 68. A two-step approach was used to estimate value added. First, the annual volume of fish expected to be processed at each landing site cluster was estimated as a proportion of total landings in the area, based on total landings from relevant segments of the fishery in scenario 2 of the model for each country. Second, value added per kilogram processed was estimated based on the market prices for processed frozen fish, landed prices used in scenario 2 of the model, and information on processing costs gathered during pre-appraisal missions. It was also assumed that the landing site clusters would only become fully operational from the end of the second year of the project, and that capacity utilization would increase gradually over the third and fourth years of the project.

180

69. The estimated value added in each country from Component 3, in present value terms, is summarized in Table 8 below. E. Cost-Benefit Analysis 70. The net present values of project investments were calculated for each country and for the project as a whole. The benefits included (i) direct model results giving the gains in net economic benefits – up to the point of catch landing/first sale – in scenario 2 (with project) over scenario 1 (business as usual without project) from the small-scale and industrial fishing segments in each country, with a focus largely on coastal demersals54; (ii) income from alternative livelihoods of fishers who exit the sector as a result of project investments; and (iii) value added from fish processing at landing site clusters developed through project investments. Project costs were based on Annex 10. The discount rate used was 10 percent. For illustrative purposes, the internal rate of return (based on net economic benefits) was also calculated, to show the discount rate at which net present value would be zero. Results are summarized in Table 8 below. Table 8: Benefits, costs and net present value of project

Cape Verde

Liberia Senegal Sierra Leone

Total Project

1 Benefits 1.1 Net economic benefits from coastal

demersal industrial and small-scale segments, up to the point of catch landing - gain in scenario 2 (with project) over scenario 1 (without project)

4,974,43655 13,353,767 8,631,778 28,813,206 55,733,186

1.1.1 Gain in resource rent – net economic benefits excluding returns to labor

2,835,173 9,028,170 8,257,172 18,517,846 38,638,361

1.2 Income from alternative livelihoods

1,202,505 - 9,978,000 - 11,180,505

1.3 Value added from processing at landing site clusters

2,745,295 575,287 2,214,922 2,832,965 8,368,470

Total benefits 8,922,236 13,929,054 20,824,699 31,646,171 75,322,161

2 Project Costs 8,000,000 12,000,000 16,000,000 20,000,000 56,000,000

3 Net Present Value (at 10%) 83,610 704,279 1,523,148 6,065,702 3,086,198

Economic internal rate of return 11% 20% 18% 37% 16% F. Sensitivity Analysis 65. The sensitivity of the project’s net benefits under the with-project scenario was analyzed with respect to three key variables: fuel costs, average landed prices, and catch per unit effort. It is worth noting that any given percentage change in price has the same effect on fishing revenues – and therefore also on net benefits – as the same percentage change in catch per unit effort. The results of this sensitivity analysis are presented in the table below in terms of switching values, i.e. the percentage change in the values of the selected variables at which the project NPV in each country becomes zero.

54 For Liberia, a 30 percent reduction was applied to results in both scenarios for the motorized small-scale segment, in order to largely reflect the coastal demersals and not pelagics. 55 Estimated benefits for Cape Verde include pelagic fish stocks.

181

Table 8: Switching values of selected key variables

Cape Verde Liberia Senegal Sierra Leone Fuel costs +1% +19% +1% +14% Price, or catch per unit effort

-1% -2% -1% -1%

182

Annex 15: Safeguard Policy Issues

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program 1. The Program will finance investments in (i) the capacity of both Government institutions and stakeholders (particularly fishing communities) to more sustainably manage the fisheries resources, including to develop and implement rules, instruments and procedures to control access to the fisheries, to create and allocate fishing rights to access the resources, and to support alternative livelihoods to fishing for users where the resources are overexploited (component 1); (ii) goods, works and services to strengthen surveillance in participating countries, in order to reduce illegal fishing (component 2); and (iii) investments in basic infrastructure and enterprise skills development in order to increase local value added to fish products, notably through the construction of fish landing sites (component 3). 2. Based on these investments, the Program been classified in Environmental Assessment Category B. The Program has conducted an Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) with an Environmental Management Plan, in order to identify any safeguards that could be triggered by the activities financed by this Program. 3. Environmental Impacts. On the basis of the ESA, the Program triggers the OP 4.01 for Environmental Assessment, as a result of the construction of fish landing sites in each country. For this reason, the Program will utilize the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) prepared through the EA, in order to ensure that any potential impacts arising through the construction of small-scale landing site infrastructure will be mitigated, in accordance with the environmental assessment safeguard. More specifically, potential negative environmental impacts arising from Program investments in fish landing sites that were identified by the EA include (i) risks of pollution to water and soils and (ii) risks of undisposed solid and liquid waste. These impacts can be mitigated through the implementation of some relatively simple measures outlined in the EMP. 4. The main features of the EMP include:

• Measures to improve the current environment of targeted fish landing sites, • A checklist of environmental mitigation measures for each landing site, • A procedure of environmental screening for potential future sites, • Capacity building measures for environmental management of the sites, and • Institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of compliance.

5. In order to ensure implementation and compliance with the EMP, each PIU will recruit an environmental specialist to supervise compliance of the works and infrastructure planned in component 3, as well as overall environmental monitoring of the Program. The environmental specialist will work with the PIU to designate an environmental focal point within the Ministry in charge of fisheries in each country, to build capacity for ongoing monitoring of the EMP. The EMP also includes an environmental management framework within it, for the screening and identification of any potential environmental impacts of unidentified fish landing sites to be constructed in the Program (as replication of the pre-identified pilots), as well as any sub-projects that might be financed in fishing communities in Senegal as part of support to co-management of the fisheries. This framework and screening will be applied to such investments, to identify where specific environmental management plans would need to be prepared to accompany the activities. 6. Social Impacts. In addition to OP 4.01, the involuntary resettlement safeguard (OP 4.12) is triggered, due to (i) the potential for acquisition of land to construct fish landing sites and other small infrastructure, and (ii) the potential for involuntary restrictions on access to the fish resources as a result of Program investments to strengthen fisheries management. Two separate safeguard instruments were prepared to address these two risks: (i) a Resettlement Policy Framework to address potential land

183

acquisition, and (ii) a Resettlement Process Framework to address potential restrictions on access to fish resources. 7. Of these potential social impacts, the key issue highlighted by the environmental and social assessment is the potential restriction of traditional access to fish resources that may be introduced by the Program in targeted fisheries. Currently, the region’s fish resources are utilized through a system of open access that has allowed essentially more fishers and fishing pressure than the resources can sustain. The Program addresses this by supporting the introduction of fishing rights through a co-management process. It is from this transition away from open access to more regulated fisheries, that the key risks are created. These risks are largely social, because the implementation of rights-based systems implies that access to specific areas or types of fisheries will be controlled or restricted. 8. To address this risk, the Resettlement Process Framework (from which national plans of action will be developed in each country), describes the consultative process that will be followed to develop and allocate fishing rights (in particular TURFs) and to ensure alternative livelihoods to compensate for any restrictions on resource access. The Resettlement Process Framework describes support for alternative livelihoods to fishing in component 1.3 as the Program-wide instrument to address this social risk. This sub-component of the Program will help fishers in overexploited fisheries move out of the fishing sector to pursue alternative, potentially more profitable and sustainable livelihoods. This instrument will address these risks wherever they may emerge in local Program sites.The Resettlement Process Framework describes the key steps of this consultative process in each of the participating countries and in the development and implementation of TURFs, as the following:

(i) Development of the National Process Framework as part of each country’s Program Operational Manual;

(ii) An inventory and baseline survey of fishing communities in and around potential TURFs by the PIU (and in some cases individual facilitators, NGOs and/or local organizations recruited by the PIU to support co-management in each TURF);

(iii) Based on consultation with these communities, selection of TURFs and participating communities by the PIU (and confirmation by the Ministry in charge of fisheries);

(iv) PIU facilitation to communities to organize multi-community TURF Co-Management Associations (CMAs), and in some cases local fishers’ committees at the community level, in both cases as legally-recognized entities that would have the right to manage the fish resources in defined and contiguous geographic areas of the sea;

(v) Legal establishment of the TURFs by the Ministry in charge of fisheries, and recognition of the TURF CMAs and any local fishers’ committees/village fishing organizations;

(vi) Provision and confirmation of all available baseline information to the participating communities by the PIU;

(vii) Ongoing technical assistance and support to the TURF CMA and fishing communities to develop TURF co-management plans, measures and/or initiatives;

(viii) In parallel with the above step, identification by the TURF CMA, fishing communities and PIU of any Program-Affected Persons (PAPs) as a result of management measures and/or resource access restrictions introduced;

(ix) Provision by the PIU of technical assistance and financing for all mitigating measures, including in some instances alternative livelihoods to fishing, where access to the resources is restricted;

(x) Implementation of an informal and formal grievance resolution process; and (xi) PIU support for fishing community efforts to monitor TURF co-management.

9. It is envisaged that step 7 above would only require reductions in access to resources in those fisheries that are already overexploited, such as in Senegal and to a lesser extent Cape Verde. For these two countries, the Program would provide support for alternative livelihoods to fishing through component 1.3, as the Program-wide instrument to address this social risk. This sub-component of the Program will help fishers in overexploited fisheries move out of the fishing sector to pursue alternative,

184

potentially more profitable and sustainable livelihoods. This instrument will address these risks wherever they may emerge in local Program sites in these two countries. Conversely, in Liberia and Sierra Leone, it is expected that management measures implemented by the communities will focus more on future restrictions to ensure that new entrants do not increase fishing pressures beyond sustainable levels, and that current fishers in newly established TURFs do not use destructive gears, such as fishing nets with mesh sizes that are smaller than legally permitted and which capture a large proportion of juveniles before they can reproduce and help replenish the fish stocks. In these cases, the component 1.3 of the Program will provide, rather than alternative livelihoods, direct support to communities and fishers to allow them to transition to more environmentally-friendly fishing gears, such as provision of new fishing nets with legal mesh sizes, in exchange for the older and more destructive nets.

10. The Environmental Management Plan, the Resettlement Policy Framework and the Resettlement Process Framework for the Program will be annexed to the Governments’ Operational Manuals, so that these instruments can be utilized as the main vehicles for communicating the safeguards requirements of activities financed by the Program. 11. The key stakeholders identified in the Program are the fishing communities in the coastal areas of the four countries, as well as the fishers and processors that utilize these countries’ fisheries. The Governments conducted consultations on the draft EA and EMP in a sample of these communities in each of the four countries. Community facilitators working in targeted communities will work together with the Government in each country to ensure that compliance with safeguards issues are monitored throughout the project. 12. Safeguards compliance will be the responsibility of the Project Implementation Unit within the relevant technical agency in each country, who will recruit an environmental specialist to ensure that the Environmental Management Plan, the Resettlement Policy Framework and the Resettlement Process Framework is applied to all investments made by the Program. At a more general level, the PIUs will monitor the investments of the Program in introducing fishing rights in component one, to ensure that the funding for alternative livelihoods in component 1.3 is used to help address and mitigate any social risks that may arise from increased resource management and reduced fishing effort. 13. The first drafts of the Environmental Assessment and the regional Process Framework were made available to the World Bank by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission on June 10, 2009 and June 15, 2009 respectively, and to the InfoShop on June 25, 2009. The first draft of the Resettlement Policy Framework was made available to the World Bank by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission on June 26, 2009, and to the Infoshop on July 1, 2009. The drafts of the Environmental Assessment, regional Process Framework and Resettlement Policy Framework were disclosed in country in the following venues and dates: (i) in Cape Verde at the Department of Fisheries, as advertized in the Journal ‘Asemana’ on July 3, 2009; (ii) in Liberia at the Bureau of National Fisheries, as advertized in the ‘Daily Observer’ on July 2, 2009; (iii) in Senegal at the Department of Fisheries, as advertized in the journal ‘Le Soleil’ on July 6, 2009; and (iv) in Sierra Leone at the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, as advertized in ‘Premier News’ on July 2, 2009.

185

Annex 16: Program Preparation and Supervision

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

Planned Actual

PCN review 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 Initial PID to PIC 06/22/2007 06/27/2007 Initial ISDS to PIC 06/22/2007 06/22/2007 Appraisal 07/01/2009 07/13/2009 – 07/24/2009 Negotiations 07/13/2009 08/19/2009 – 08/26/2009 Board/RVP approval 10/15/2009 Planned date of effectiveness 12/15/2009 Planned date of mid-term review 01/15/2012 Planned closing date 12/15/2014

Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project:

• Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (CSRP), Dakar, Senegal Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:

Name Title Unit Xavier Vincent Sr. Fisheries Specialist AFTEN Carolyn Winter Sr. Social Development Sp. AFTCS Pape Demba Thiam Sr. Private Sector Development Sp. AFTFP Gert van Santen Consultant, Fisheries Specialist ARD Marcus Lee Young Professional AFTEN Liba Feldblyum Operations Analyst AFTEN Virginie Vaselopulos Language Program Assistant AFTEN Cedric Boisrobert Junior Professional Officer AFTEN Nicolas Kotschoubey Consultant, Environment Specialist AFTEN Nathalie Munzberg Sr. Counsel LEGAF Patrice Talla Anton Leis Garcia

Counsel Consultant, Legal Associate

LEGEN LEGAF

Victoria Gyllerup Operations Officer AFTRL Wolfgang Chadab Rajiv Sondhi Aissatou Diallo

Sr. Finance Officer Sr. Finance Officer Finance Officer

LOAFC LOAFC LOAFC

Osval Romao Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Aissata Zerbo Procurement Analyst AFTU2 Gayatri Kanungo Global Environment Facility AFTEN John Fraser Stewart Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTEN Yves Prevost Lead Environmental Specialist AFTEN John Virdin Task Team Leader AFTEN

Bank funds expended to date on project preparation:56

1. Bank resources: US$364,416 2. Trust funds: PHRD Recipient Executed Grant US$975,000; GEF Recipient Executed Grant US$450,000 3. Total: US$1,789,416

56 Preparation expenditures to date include costs of preparing the overall framework of the regional program that would apply to all 9 countries, as well as a significant part of the preparation of the subsequent APLs. Thus, these costs reflect reduced preparation expenditures for subsequent APLs, and the high transaction costs of initially establishing the regional program.

186

Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining costs to approval: US$0 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: US$225,000

Supervision Plan: 1. The Program will require intensive World Bank supervision and implementation support. In terms of planning, at the beginning of the Program the RCU will develop common templates for annual work programs, budgets, procurement plans and M&E reporting. The PIUs will ensure that these annual planning documents are approved by the steering committee in each country, and then transit them to the RCU by November 15 each year. The RCU will then compile them into one annual Program Planning/M&E report to the World Bank, for non-objection for the next year’s work program. 2. The following key documents will be utilized by the PIUs, RCU and World Bank to help supervise Program implementation:

• Program Appraisal Document (PAD), • Results Framework and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, • Operational Manuals, • Annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans, • Environmental and Social Assessment/Environmental Management Plan, and • Regional Resettlement Process Framework and national action plans.

3. World Bank supervision missions will be held twice per year (either as one mission to all four countries or as two separate missions to two countries each), every six months. Each supervision mission will culminate with a one day workshop where the key findings of the mission are presented to the Regional Steering Committee, and a second one day workshop where findings are discussed with regional groups of stakeholders. These two workshops would be organized and financed by the RCU, as part of regional coordination. In the interim 6-month period between each supervision mission, the World Bank will hold periodic virtual supervisions, through audio-conferences with each national PIU and the RCU to discuss implementation progress and any urgent issues. 4. The World Bank supervision team will consist of a Program Task Team Leader and technical specialists based in headquarters who would travel on the supervision missions and participate in virtual supervisions. In addition, local Task Team Leaders and contacts will be sought to manage particular countries or groups of countries specifically, along with local financial management and procurement specialists. Lastly, the World Bank will recruit an implementation support team, consisting of a technical specialist (ideally based in Dakar) who would provide on-call operational support to the PIUs in Cape Verde and Senegal, and another technical specialist who would provide support to Liberia and Sierra Leone. These two specialists would travel to the two countries for informal missions in the interim between supervision missions, to provide support to the PIUs. 5. In addition to World Bank supervision and implementation support, the RCU will have an accountant and procurement specialist who will provide constant support for fiduciary management to each of the PIUs, and who will conduct regular informal missions to build capacity and train counterparts. 7. In summary, the World Bank supervision team would consist of the following: 8.

Role Location Co-Task Team Leader for Cape Verde, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Co-Task Team Leader for Liberia, Sierra Leone Monrovia, Freetown and/or Accra Financial Management Specialist(s) Dakar; Accra Procurement Specialist(s) Dakar; Accra; Washington, D.C. Implementation Support Consultant for Cape Verde, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Implementation Support Consultant for Liberia, Sierra Leone To be determined

187

Lawyer Washington, D.C. Program Operations Analyst/Jr. Fisheries Specialist Washington, D.C. Social Specialist/Safeguards Washington, D.C. Fisheries Technical Specialist Washington, D.C. Program Task Team Leader Washington, D.C.

188

Annex 17: Documents in the Program File

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program 1. Akester (2008). Concept Note for West Africa Regional Fisheries Program Investments in Liberia.

FAO, Rome, Italy.

2. Akester (2008). Concept Note for West Africa Regional Fisheries Program Investments in Liberia. FAO, Rome, Italy.

3. Ba, M. (2009) Concept Note for West Africa Regional Fisheries Program Investments in Senegal. Dakar, Senegal.

4. FAO (2009) Bonne Gestion et Gouvernance Durable des Pêches au sein de la CSRP – PRAO Composante 1. [Summary Report plus 7 country Annexes], Rome, Italy.

5. FAO (2009) Port State Measures to Control Illegal Fishing. Rome, Italy.

6. Faye, M. (2009) Etude Environnementale et Sociale du PRAO. Commission Sous-Regionale des Pêche. Dakar, Senegal.

7. Kaindeneh, P (2009) Study of Fish Marketing in Sierra Leone. Dakar, Senegal.

8. MRAG (2009) Illegal Fishing in West Africa. London, United Kingdom.

9. Seisay, M. (2009) Proposal for Establishing 4 Marine Protected Areas in Sierra Leone. Dakar, Senegal.

10. Sciortino, J. (2009) Proposed Fisheries Infrastructure Investments in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Dakar, Senegal.

11. Sheriff, S. (2009) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Systems in Liberia. Dakar, Senegal.

12. Tenriero, J. (2009) Concept Note for West Africa Regional Fisheries Program Investments in Cape Verde. Dakar, Senegal.

189

Annex 18: Statement of Loans and Credits

CAPE VERDE: (As of June 18, 2009)

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P087004 2005 CV-Road Sec Support Project (FY05) 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 -4.73 0.00

P074055 2003 CV-Growth & Compet Pjt (FY03) 0.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 -2.69 -2.99

P074249 2002 CV-HIV/AIDS APL (FY02) 0.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 -6.59 -2.40

Total: 0.00 48.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.22 - 14.01 - 5.39

CAPE VERDE STATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

1992 AEF Growela 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 CECV 5.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.74 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 5.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.89 0.00 0.00 0.00

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

190

LIBERIA: (As of June 18, 2009)

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P113450 2009 LR - RRSP2-Budget Support 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.14 0.00 0.00

P113099 2009 LR-Urban and Rural Infra. Rehab. Project 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.90 0.00 0.00

P104716 2008 LR-Agric. & Infra. Dev. Proj. ERL (FY08) 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.48 -1.62 0.00

P107248 2008 LR-Econ. Gov. & Institut. Ref. TAL (FY08 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.11 0.46 0.00

P105683 2007 LR-Comm. Empowerment II 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 -0.52 0.00

P105282 2007 LR-Health Systems Reconstr. 0.00 8.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.84 2.60 0.00

P100160 2006 LR-Emergency Infrastructure ERL (FY06) 0.00 46.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.13 -22.48 -9.10

Total: 0.00 156.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.12 - 21.56 - 9.10

LIBERIA STATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total portfolio: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

191

SENEGAL (As of June 18, 2009)

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P087304 2009 SN-Dakar -Diamniado Toll Highway Project

0.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.82 0.00 0.00

P105881 2009 SN-Sustainable Mgt of Fish Resources 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.55 0.00 0.00

P115938 2009 SN-Nutrition/Cash Transfer Proj (FY09) 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.21 0.00 0.00

P105279 2008 SN-En. Sec. Recov. Dev Policy Financing 0.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.24 17.64 0.00

P097181 2007 SN-Nutr Enhanc. Prog II - APL (FY07) 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.09 -1.59 0.00

P089254 2007 SN-Quality EFA APL 2 (FY07) 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.84 8.47 0.00

P084022 2007 SN-Local Authorities Development Program

0.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.31 26.47 0.00

P093622 2006 SN-Agr Svcs & Prod Orgs APL 2 (FY06) 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.51 2.76 0.00

P088656 2006 SN-Participatory Loc Dev Prgm (FY06) 0.00 50.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.31 29.22 0.00

P083609 2006 SN-Agr Markets & Agribus Dev (FY06) 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.96 5.43 0.00

P086480 2005 SN-GIRMAC SIL (FY05) 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.27 1.77 0.00

P085708 2005 SN-Elec. Serv. for Rural Areas (FY05) 0.00 29.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.81 17.41 0.21

P073477 2005 SN-Elec Sec Effi. Enhanc.Phase 1 APL-1 0.00 15.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.34 12.08 5.43

P069207 2005 SN-Casamance Emerg Reconstr Supt (FY05)

0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 3.53 0.00

P051609 2003 SN-Priv Inv Promotion SIL (FY03) 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.87 11.15 3.41

P074059 2002 SN-HIV/AIDS Prevent & Control APL (FY02)

0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 3.85 3.85

P041528 2001 SN-Long Term Water Sec SIL (FY01) 0.00 125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 -18.05 -18.69

Total: 0.00 705.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 373.64 120.14 - 5.79

SENEGAL STATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

1980 BHS 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00

1999 Ciments du Sahel 10.20 2.26 3.12 0.00 10.20 2.26 3.12 0.00

1997 GTI Dakar 10.41 1.68 0.00 9.04 7.49 1.51 0.00 9.04

1998 GTI Dakar 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Kounoune 21.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 SEF Royal Saly 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 44.89 4.40 3.12 9.04 20.27 4.23 3.12 9.04

192

SIERRA LEONE: (As of June 18, 2009)

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P108069 2009 SL-Public Financial Management TAL (FY09

0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 0.00 0.00

P096105 2007 SL-Rural Dev & Priv Sec Dev SIL 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.70 6.12 0.00

P078389 2006 SL-IDP Transp (FY06) 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.49 16.29 2.99

P086801 2005 SL-Bumbuna Env. and Social SIL (FY05) 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 2.33 2.16

P087203 2005 SL-Power & Water SIL (FY05) 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.36 11.30 0.00

P074128 2003 SL-Health Sec Reconstr & Dev (FY03) 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.26 -5.50 1.52

P074320 2003 SL-Basic Edu Rehab (FY03) 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 -1.36 -1.75

P079335 2003 SL-Natl Soc Action (FY03) 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 -2.94 -2.94

Total: 0.00 219.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.87 26.24 1.98

SIERRA LEONE STATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total portfolio: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

193

Annex 19: Countries at a Glance

Cape Verde at a glance 9/24/08

Sub- LowerKey Development Indicators Cape Saharan middle

Verde Africa income(2007)

Population, mid-year (millions) 0.53 800 3,437Surface area (thousand sq. km) 4.0 24,242 35,510Population growth (%) 2.2 2.4 1.0Urban population (% of total population) 59 36 42

GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 1.3 762 6,485GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 2,430 952 1,887GNI per capita (PPP, international $) 2,940 1,870 4,544

GDP growth (%) 7.0 6.2 9.7GDP per capita growth (%) 4.6 3.7 8.6

(most recent estimate, 2000–2007)

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) .. 50 ..Poverty headcount ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP, %) .. 72 ..Life expectancy at birth (years) 71 50 69Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 25 94 41Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) .. 27 25

Adult literacy, male (% of ages 15 and older) 88 69 93Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) 76 50 85Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) 108 99 112Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group) 103 88 109

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 80 58 88Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 41 31 54

Net Aid Flows 1980 1990 2000 2007 a

(US$ millions)Net ODA and official aid 62 105 94 138Top 3 donors (in 2006): Portugal .. 16 23 47 Luxembourg .. 0 8 14 Netherlands 12 10 6 12

Aid (% of GNI) .. 30.9 18.1 12.2Aid per capita (US$) 214 296 208 267

Long-Term Economic Trends

Consumer prices (annual % change) .. .. 3.8 0.2GDP implicit deflator (annual % change) .. 2.3 -1.2 4.0

Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) 40.2 70.0 119.7 80.6Terms of trade index (2000 = 100) .. .. 100 98

1980–90 1990–2000 2000–07

Population, mid-year (millions) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.1 2.4 2.3GDP (US$ millions) .. 339 531 1,434 5.9 6.0 5.2

Agriculture .. 14.4 12.0 8.6 .. 4.0 0.6Industry .. 21.4 17.9 16.5 .. 5.1 8.4 Manufacturing .. 8.2 9.3 6.7 .. 3.8 6.5Services .. 64.3 70.2 74.9 .. 6.7 4.8

Household final consumption expenditure .. 93.4 92.9 73.9 .. 7.4 5.1General gov't final consumption expenditure .. 14.7 21.3 20.8 .. 7.2 -2.0Gross capital formation .. 22.9 19.7 40.6 .. 0.2 8.6

Exports of goods and services .. 12.7 27.5 19.9 .. 14.6 15.8Imports of goods and services .. 43.7 61.4 55.1 .. 8.5 10.1Gross savings .. 17.6 9.1 23.2

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. .. indicates data are not available.a. Aid data are for 2006.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

(average annual growth %)

(% of GDP)

20 10 0 10 20

0-4

15-19

30-34

45-49

60-64

75-79

percent

Age distribution, 2007

Male Female

0

50

100

150

200

1990 1995 2000 2006

Cape Verde Sub-Saharan Africa

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000)

-5

0

5

10

15

95 05

GDP GDP per capita

Growth of GDP and GDP per capita (%)

194

Cape Verde

Balance of Payments and Trade 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

Total merchandise exports (fob) 38 107Total merchandise imports (cif) 230 603Net trade in goods and services -184 -384

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts) 87 143

Current account balance -60 -126 as a % of GDP -11.4 -8.8

Reserves, including gold 28 181

Central Government Finance

(% of GDP)Current revenue (including grants) 20.8 30.4 Tax revenue 18.5 20.9Current expenditure 34.2 19.3

Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2007Overall surplus/deficit -25.9 -3.0

Paved roads (% of total) 69.0 ..Highest marginal tax rate (%) Fixed line and mobile phone Individual .. .. subscribers (per 1,000 people) 17 35

Corporate .. .. High technology exports (% of manufactured exports) 0.8 0.0

External Debt and Resource Flows

Environment

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed 326 601 Agricultural land (% of land area) 18 18Total debt service 16 31 Forest area (% of land area) 20.3 20.8Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI) – – Nationally protected areas (% of land area) .. 0.2

Total debt (% of GDP) 61.4 50.9 Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) .. 592Total debt service (% of exports) 7.2 4.8 Freshwater withdrawal (% of internal resources) 7.3 ..

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 33 123 CO2 emissions per capita (mt) 0.40 0.55Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0

GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

Energy use per capita (kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

World Bank Group portfolio 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed 0 0 Disbursements 0 0 Principal repayments 0 0 Interest payments 0 0

IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed 98 267 Disbursements 10 23

Private Sector Development 2000 2008 Total debt service 1 4

Time required to start a business (days) – 52 IFC (fiscal year)Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) – 35.7 Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 0 5Time required to register property (days) – 73 of which IFC own account 0 5

Disbursements for IFC own account 0 0Ranked as a major constraint to business 2000 2007 Portfolio sales, prepayments and (% of managers surveyed who agreed) repayments for IFC own account 1 1 Electricity .. 35.7 Access to/cost of financing .. 16.3 MIGA

Gross exposure 2 0Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) .. .. New guarantees 0 0Bank capital to asset ratio (%) .. ..

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. 9/24/08.. indicates data are not available. – indicates observation is not applicable.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

0 25 50 75 100

Control of corruption

Rule of law

Regulatory quality

Political stability

Voice and accountability

Country's percentile rank (0-100)higher values imply better ratings

2007

2000

Governance indicators, 2000 and 2007

Source: Kaufmann-Kraay-Mastruzzi, World Bank

IBRD, 0

IDA, 236

IMF, 13Other multi-lateral, 177

Bilateral, 100

Private, 18

Short-term, 58

Composition of total external debt, 2006

US$ millions

195

Millennium Development Goals Cape Verde

With selected targets to achieve between 1990 and 2015(estimate closest to date shown, +/- 2 years)

Goal 1: halve the rates for extreme poverty and malnutrition 1990 1995 2000 2007

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, % of population) .. .. .. .. Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) .. .. .. .. Share of income or consumption to the poorest qunitile (%) .. .. 4.4 .. Prevalence of malnutrition (% of children under 5) .. .. .. ..

Goal 2: ensure that children are able to complete primary schooling

Primary school enrollment (net, %) 91 .. 98 88 Primary completion rate (% of relevant age group) 51 64 102 92 Secondary school enrollment (gross, %) 21 .. 63 80 Youth literacy rate (% of people ages 15-24) 88 .. .. 96

Goal 3: eliminate gender disparity in education and empower women

Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%) .. .. 99 103 Women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of nonagricultural employment) .. .. 39 .. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (%) 12 11 11 15

Goal 4: reduce under-5 mortality by two-thirds

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 60 50 42 34 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 45 37 31 25 Measles immunization (proportion of one-year olds immunized, %) 79 66 80 65

Goal 5: reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths

Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) .. .. .. 210 Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) .. 54 89 .. Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) .. .. 53 ..

Goal 6: halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other major diseases

Prevalence of HIV (% of population ages 15-49) .. .. .. .. Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 162 164 166 168 Tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS (%) .. .. 41 33

Goal 7: halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic needs

Access to an improved water source (% of population) .. 79 80 .. Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) .. 40 41 .. Forest area (% of total land area) 14.4 .. 20.3 20.8 Nationally protected areas (% of total land area) .. .. .. 0.2 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. .. .. ..

Goal 8: develop a global partnership for development

Telephone mainlines (per 100 people) 2.3 5.4 12.1 13.8 Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 4.4 27.9 Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.2 1.8 7.0 Personal computers (per 100 people) .. 0.4 5.5 13.0

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. .. indicates data are not available. 9/24/08

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

Cape Verde

0

25

50

75

100

125

2000 2002 2004 2006

Primary net enrollment ratio

Ratio of girls to boys in primary & secondary education

Education indicators (%)

0

10

20

30

40

2000 2002 2004 2006

Fixed + mobile subscribers Internet users

ICT indicators (per 1,000 people)

0

25

50

75

100

1990 1995 2000 2006

Cape Verde Sub-Saharan Africa

Measles immunization (% of 1-year olds)

196

Liberia at a glance 9/24/08

Sub-Key Development Indicators Saharan Low

Liberia Africa income(2007)

Population, mid-year (millions) 3.8 800 1,296Surface area (thousand sq. km) 111 24,242 21,846Population growth (%) 4.8 2.4 2.1Urban population (% of total population) 59 36 32

GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 0.6 762 749GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 150 952 578GNI per capita (PPP, international $) 290 1,870 1,500

GDP growth (%) 9.4 6.2 6.5GDP per capita growth (%) 4.3 3.7 4.3

(most recent estimate, 2000–2007)

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) .. 50 ..Poverty headcount ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP, %) .. 72 ..Life expectancy at birth (years) 45 50 57Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 157 94 85Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 23 27 29

Adult literacy, male (% of ages 15 and older) 58 69 72Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) 46 50 50Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) 96 99 100Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group) 87 88 89

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 64 58 68Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 32 31 39

Net Aid Flows 1980 1990 2000 2007 a

(US$ millions)Net ODA and official aid 97 114 67 269Top 3 donors (in 2006): United States 32 19 16 88 European Commission 4 8 13 44 Japan 14 6 0 17

Aid (% of GNI) 10.4 10.2 17.4 56.3Aid per capita (US$) 52 53 22 75

Long-Term Economic Trends

Consumer prices (annual % change) 14.7 9.1 12.1 15.0GDP implicit deflator (annual % change) 9.1 -0.2 -1.3 14.0

Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) 1.0 1.0 41.0 61.3Terms of trade index (2000 = 100) .. .. .. ..

1980–90 1990–2000 2000–07

Population, mid-year (millions) 1.9 2.1 3.1 3.8 1.3 3.6 2.9GDP (US$ millions) 954 384 561 725 -7.0 4.1 -2.7

Agriculture 32.2 54.4 72.0 65.8 .. .. ..Industry 25.2 16.8 11.6 15.7 .. .. .. Manufacturing 6.9 .. 9.5 12.4 .. .. ..Services 32.3 28.8 16.4 18.4 .. .. ..

Household final consumption expenditure 66.1 .. 89.1 86.4 .. .. ..General gov't final consumption expenditure 19.1 .. 14.4 11.1 .. .. ..Gross capital formation .. .. 4.9 16.4 .. .. ..

Exports of goods and services 64.3 .. 21.5 25.4 .. .. ..Imports of goods and services 64.4 .. 26.0 64.5 .. .. ..Gross savings .. .. -21.4 39.8

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. .. indicates data are not available.a. Aid data are for 2006.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

(average annual growth %)

(% of GDP)

30 20 10 0 10 20 30

0-4

15-19

30-34

45-49

60-64

75-79

percent

Age distribution, 2007

Male Female

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1995 2000 2006

Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

95 05

GDP GDP per capita

Growth of GDP and GDP per capita (%)

197

Liberia

Balance of Payments and Trade 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

Total merchandise exports (fob) 120 41Total merchandise imports (cif) 182 142Net trade in goods and services -25 -283

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts) .. 685

Current account balance -131 -106 as a % of GDP -23.3 -14.6

Reserves, including gold 2 10

Central Government Finance

(% of GDP)Current revenue (including grants) 12.8 5.4

Tax revenue .. ..Current expenditure 7.5 5.3

Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2007Overall surplus/deficit -0.7 -0.9

Paved roads (% of total) 6.2 ..Highest marginal tax rate (%) Fixed line and mobile phone Individual .. .. subscribers (per 1,000 people) 0 .. Corporate .. .. High technology exports

(% of manufactured exports) .. ..External Debt and Resource Flows

Environment

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed 2,032 2,674 Agricultural land (% of land area) 27 27Total debt service 1 1 Forest area (% of land area) 35.9 32.7Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI) – – Nationally protected areas (% of land area) .. 15.8

Total debt (% of GDP) 362.2 435.5 Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) .. 58,109Total debt service (% of exports) 0.5 0.5 Freshwater withdrawal (% of internal resources) 0.1 ..

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 21 -82 CO2 emissions per capita (mt) 0.14 0.14Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0

GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

Energy use per capita (kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

World Bank Group portfolio 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed 130 0 Disbursements 0 0 Principal repayments 0 163 Interest payments 0 292

IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed 100 77 Disbursements 0 0

Private Sector Development 2000 2008 Total debt service 0 53

Time required to start a business (days) – 27 IFC (fiscal year)Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) – 100.2 Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 4 0Time required to register property (days) – 50 of which IFC own account 4 0

Disbursements for IFC own account 4 0Ranked as a major constraint to business 2000 2007 Portfolio sales, prepayments and (% of managers surveyed who agreed) repayments for IFC own account 0 0 n.a. .. .. n.a. .. .. MIGA

Gross exposure – –Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) .. .. New guarantees – –Bank capital to asset ratio (%) .. ..

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. 9/24/08.. indicates data are not available. – indicates observation is not applicable.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

0 25 50 75 100

Control of corruption

Rule of law

Regulatory quality

Political stability

Voice and accountability

Country's percentile rank (0-100)higher values imply better ratings

2007

2000

Governance indicators, 2000 and 2007

Source: Kaufmann-Kraay-Mastruzzi, World Bank

IBRD, 147 IDA, 109

IMF, 336

Other multi-lateral, 169

Bilateral, 493

Private, 199

Short-term, 1,223

Composition of total external debt, 2006

US$ millions

198

Millennium Development Goals Liberia

With selected targets to achieve between 1990 and 2015(estimate closest to date shown, +/- 2 years)

Goal 1: halve the rates for extreme poverty and malnutrition 1990 1995 2000 2007

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, % of population) .. .. .. .. Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) .. .. .. .. Share of income or consumption to the poorest qunitile (%) .. .. .. .. Prevalence of malnutrition (% of children under 5) .. .. 22.8 ..

Goal 2: ensure that children are able to complete primary schooling

Primary school enrollment (net, %) .. .. 66 39 Primary completion rate (% of relevant age group) .. .. .. 63 Secondary school enrollment (gross, %) .. .. 32 .. Youth literacy rate (% of people ages 15-24) .. 51 .. 67

Goal 3: eliminate gender disparity in education and empower women

Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%) .. .. 73 .. Women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of nonagricultural employment) .. .. 11 .. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (%) .. 6 8 13

Goal 4: reduce under-5 mortality by two-thirds

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 235 235 235 235 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 157 157 157 157 Measles immunization (proportion of one-year olds immunized, %) .. .. 52 94

Goal 5: reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths

Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) .. .. .. 1,200 Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) .. .. 51 .. Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) .. .. 10 ..

Goal 6: halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other major diseases

Prevalence of HIV (% of population ages 15-49) .. .. 1.4 1.7 Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 132 198 287 331 Tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS (%) .. 31 26 55

Goal 7: halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic needs

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 57 61 63 64 Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 40 36 32 32 Forest area (% of total land area) 42.1 .. 35.9 32.7 Nationally protected areas (% of total land area) .. .. .. 15.8 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. .. .. ..

Goal 8: develop a global partnership for development

Telephone mainlines (per 100 people) 0.4 0.2 0.2 .. Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Personal computers (per 100 people) .. .. .. ..

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. .. indicates data are not available. 9/24/08

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

Liberia

0

25

50

75

100

2000 2002 2004 2006

Primary net enrollment ratio

Ratio of girls to boys in primary & secondary education

Education indicators (%)

0

1

2

3

4

2000 2002 2004 2006

Fixed + mobile subscribers Internet users

ICT indicators (per 1,000 people)

0

25

50

75

100

1990 1995 2000 2006

Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa

Measles immunization (% of 1-year olds)

199

Senegal at a glance 9/24/08

Sub-Key Development Indicators Saharan Low

Senegal Africa income(2007)

Population, mid-year (millions) 12.4 800 1,296Surface area (thousand sq. km) 197 24,242 21,846Population growth (%) 2.8 2.4 2.1Urban population (% of total population) 42 36 32

GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 10.2 762 749GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 820 952 578GNI per capita (PPP, international $) 1,640 1,870 1,500

GDP growth (%) 4.8 6.2 6.5GDP per capita growth (%) 1.9 3.7 4.3

(most recent estimate, 2000–2007)

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) .. 50 ..Poverty headcount ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP, %) .. 72 ..Life expectancy at birth (years) 63 50 57Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 60 94 85Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 15 27 29

Adult literacy, male (% of ages 15 and older) 51 69 72Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) 29 50 50Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) 81 99 100Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group) 79 88 89

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 77 58 68Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 28 31 39

Net Aid Flows 1980 1990 2000 2007 a

(US$ millions)Net ODA and official aid 260 812 423 825Top 3 donors (in 2006): France 108 230 147 287 United States 36 57 23 38 Germany 12 80 17 35

Aid (% of GNI) 7.6 14.7 9.2 9.1Aid per capita (US$) 44 103 41 68

Long-Term Economic Trends

Consumer prices (annual % change) 8.7 0.3 0.7 1.7GDP implicit deflator (annual % change) 11.5 0.0 1.9 5.2

Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) 211.3 272.3 710.1 479.3Terms of trade index (2000 = 100) 99 99 100 83

1980–90 1990–2000 2000–07

Population, mid-year (millions) 5.9 7.9 10.3 12.4 3.0 2.7 2.6GDP (US$ millions) 3,503 5,717 4,692 11,151 2.6 3.0 4.5

Agriculture 20.1 19.9 19.1 14.7 1.9 2.4 1.9Industry 20.1 22.2 23.2 22.1 3.2 3.8 3.7 Manufacturing 13.5 15.3 14.7 13.2 3.1 3.1 1.3Services 59.9 57.9 57.6 63.2 2.3 3.0 5.8

Household final consumption expenditure 73.1 79.2 76.0 76.2 3.8 2.6 3.7General gov't final consumption expenditure 24.8 18.4 12.8 9.8 0.3 0.9 4.9Gross capital formation 16.6 9.1 20.5 31.9 0.2 3.5 10.7

Exports of goods and services 23.9 25.4 27.9 24.8 1.6 4.1 1.5Imports of goods and services 38.4 32.2 37.2 42.7 1.9 2.0 4.8Gross savings 0.1 -0.5 14.6 21.4

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. .. indicates data are not available.a. Aid data are for 2006.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

(average annual growth %)

(% of GDP)

20 10 0 10 20

0-4

15-19

30-34

45-49

60-64

75-79

percent

Age distribution, 2007

Male Female

0

50

100

150

200

1990 1995 2000 2006

Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000)

-5

0

5

10

95 05

GDP GDP per capita

Growth of GDP and GDP per capita (%)

200

Senegal

Balance of Payments and Trade 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

Total merchandise exports (fob) 922 1,628Total merchandise imports (cif) 1,517 3,574Net trade in goods and services -436 -1,829

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts) 233 874

Current account balance -275 -1,002 as a % of GDP -5.9 -9.0

Reserves, including gold 385 903

Central Government Finance

(% of GDP)Current revenue (including grants) 17.3 21.1 Tax revenue 16.1 19.4Current expenditure 12.3 14.6

Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2007Overall surplus/deficit -1.4 -6.1

Paved roads (% of total) 29.3 29.3Highest marginal tax rate (%) Fixed line and mobile phone Individual 50 0 subscribers (per 1,000 people) 4 35 Corporate 35 .. High technology exports

(% of manufactured exports) 7.6 5.9

External Debt and Resource Flows

Environment

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed 3,607 1,984 Agricultural land (% of land area) 42 43Total debt service 224 202 Forest area (% of land area) 46.2 45.0Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI) 641 1,298 Nationally protected areas (% of land area) .. 11.2

Total debt (% of GDP) 76.9 21.4 Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) .. 2,192Total debt service (% of exports) 13.9 6.0 Freshwater withdrawal (% of internal resources) 8.6 ..

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 63 58 CO2 emissions per capita (mt) 0.38 0.43Portfolio equity (net inflows) -2 0

GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) 5.5 6.0

Energy use per capita (kg of oil equivalent) 257 258

World Bank Group portfolio 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed 1 0 Disbursements 0 0 Principal repayments 3 0 Interest payments 0 0

IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed 1,330 671 Disbursements 92 133

Private Sector Development 2000 2008 Total debt service 19 5

Time required to start a business (days) – 8 IFC (fiscal year)Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) – 72.7 Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 23 46Time required to register property (days) – 124 of which IFC own account 13 38

Disbursements for IFC own account 5 13Ranked as a major constraint to business 2000 2007 Portfolio sales, prepayments and (% of managers surveyed who agreed) repayments for IFC own account 2 4 Access to/cost of financing .. 71.0 Tax rates .. 50.0 MIGA

Gross exposure 0 0Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) .. .. New guarantees 0 0Bank capital to asset ratio (%) 9.9 8.1

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. 9/24/08.. indicates data are not available. – indicates observation is not applicable.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

0 25 50 75 100

Control of corruption

Rule of law

Regulatory quality

Political stability

Voice and accountability

Country's percentile rank (0-100)higher values imply better ratings

2007

2000

Governance indicators, 2000 and 2007

Source: Kaufmann-Kraay-Mastruzzi, World Bank

IBRD, 0

IDA, 495

IMF, 26

Other multi-lateral, 493

Bilateral, 717

Private, 158

Short-term, 95

Composition of total external debt, 2006

US$ millions

201

Millennium Development Goals Senegal

With selected targets to achieve between 1990 and 2015(estimate closest to date shown, +/- 2 years)

Goal 1: halve the rates for extreme poverty and malnutrition 1990 1995 2000 2007

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, % of population) .. .. .. .. Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) 33.4 .. .. .. Share of income or consumption to the poorest qunitile (%) 3.5 6.5 6.6 .. Prevalence of malnutrition (% of children under 5) .. 21.9 20.3 14.5

Goal 2: ensure that children are able to complete primary schooling

Primary school enrollment (net, %) 45 .. 56 71 Primary completion rate (% of relevant age group) 42 37 38 49 Secondary school enrollment (gross, %) 15 .. 16 24 Youth literacy rate (% of people ages 15-24) 38 .. 49 ..

Goal 3: eliminate gender disparity in education and empower women

Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%) 69 .. 82 92 Women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of nonagricultural employment) .. .. 11 .. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (%) 13 12 12 22

Goal 4: reduce under-5 mortality by two-thirds

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 149 148 133 116 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 72 72 66 60 Measles immunization (proportion of one-year olds immunized, %) 51 80 48 80

Goal 5: reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths

Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) .. .. .. 980 Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) .. 47 60 52 Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) .. 13 11 12

Goal 6: halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other major diseases

Prevalence of HIV (% of population ages 15-49) .. .. 0.4 1.0 Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 192 214 238 270 Tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS (%) .. 62 53 48

Goal 7: halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic needs

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 67 69 72 77 Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 26 27 27 28 Forest area (% of total land area) 48.6 .. 46.2 45.0 Nationally protected areas (% of total land area) .. .. .. 11.2 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) 4.8 5.9 5.5 6.0

Goal 8: develop a global partnership for development

Telephone mainlines (per 100 people) 0.6 0.9 2.0 2.2 Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 2.4 33.2 Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.6 Personal computers (per 100 people) 0.2 0.7 1.5 2.1

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. .. indicates data are not available. 9/24/08

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

Senegal

0

25

50

75

100

2000 2002 2004 2006

Primary net enrollment ratio

Ratio of girls to boys in primary & secondary education

Education indicators (%)

0

10

20

30

40

2000 2002 2004 2006

Fixed + mobile subscribers Internet users

ICT indicators (per 1,000 people)

0

25

50

75

100

1990 1995 2000 2006

Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa

Measles immunization (% of 1-year olds)

202

Sierra Leone at a glance 9/24/08

Sub-Key Development Indicators Sierra Saharan Low

Leone Africa income(2007)

Population, mid-year (millions) 5.8 800 1,296Surface area (thousand sq. km) 72 24,242 21,846Population growth (%) 1.8 2.4 2.1Urban population (% of total population) 37 36 32

GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 1.5 762 749GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 260 952 578GNI per capita (PPP, international $) 660 1,870 1,500

GDP growth (%) 6.5 6.2 6.5GDP per capita growth (%) 4.6 3.7 4.3

(most recent estimate, 2000–2007)

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) .. 50 ..Poverty headcount ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP, %) .. 72 ..Life expectancy at birth (years) 42 50 57Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 159 94 85Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 25 27 29

Adult literacy, male (% of ages 15 and older) 47 69 72Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) 24 50 50Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) 155 99 100Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group) 139 88 89

Access to an improved water source (% of population) 53 58 68Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 11 31 39

Net Aid Flows 1980 1990 2000 2007 a

(US$ millions)Net ODA and official aid 91 59 181 364Top 3 donors (in 2006): United Kingdom 5 4 68 66 Japan 18 6 0 63 European Commission 8 8 14 59

Aid (% of GNI) 8.5 10.2 29.4 26.3Aid per capita (US$) 28 15 40 63

Long-Term Economic Trends

Consumer prices (annual % change) 20.0 111.0 -0.9 5.7GDP implicit deflator (annual % change) -6.0 70.6 6.1 11.4

Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) 1.0 151.4 2,099.0 2,985.2Terms of trade index (2000 = 100) .. 102 100 119

1980–90 1990–2000 2000–07

Population, mid-year (millions) 3.2 4.1 4.5 5.8 2.3 1.0 3.7GDP (US$ millions) 1,101 650 634 1,672 0.5 -5.1 11.2

Agriculture 33.0 46.9 58.4 44.3 3.1 -13.0 ..Industry 21.9 19.2 28.4 24.2 1.7 -4.5 .. Manufacturing 5.3 4.6 3.5 3.7 .. 6.1 ..Services 45.0 33.9 13.3 31.5 -0.9 -2.9 ..

Household final consumption expenditure 90.7 83.5 100.1 83.9 -2.7 -4.3 ..General gov't final consumption expenditure 8.4 7.8 14.3 12.6 -4.7 10.4 ..Gross capital formation 16.2 10.0 6.9 17.2 -1.1 -5.6 ..

Exports of goods and services 22.9 22.4 18.1 25.6 -1.6 -11.2 ..Imports of goods and services 38.2 23.8 39.4 39.4 -5.1 -0.2 ..Gross savings 0.5 2.6 -9.1 11.2

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. .. indicates data are not available.a. Aid data are for 2006.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

(average annual growth %)

(% of GDP)

20 10 0 10 20

0-4

15-19

30-34

45-49

60-64

75-79

percent

Age distribution, 2007

Male Female

0

100

200

300

400

1990 1995 2000 2006

Sierra Leone Sub-Saharan Africa

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000)

-30

-15

0

15

30

95 05

GDP GDP per capita

Growth of GDP and GDP per capita (%)

203

Sierra Leone

Balance of Payments and Trade 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

Total merchandise exports (fob) 75 280Total merchandise imports (cif) 161 372Net trade in goods and services -135 -231

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts) 7 38

Current account balance -101 -100 as a % of GDP -16.0 -6.0

Reserves, including gold 50 142

Central Government Finance

(% of GDP)Current revenue (including grants) 19.4 19.6 Tax revenue 10.2 11.1Current expenditure 19.7 17.2

Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2007Overall surplus/deficit -5.5 -4.2

Paved roads (% of total) 7.9 ..Highest marginal tax rate (%) Fixed line and mobile phone Individual .. .. subscribers (per 1,000 people) 1 .. Corporate .. .. High technology exports

(% of manufactured exports) 31.1 ..External Debt and Resource Flows

Environment

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed 1,226 1,428 Agricultural land (% of land area) 38 40Total debt service 47 34 Forest area (% of land area) 39.8 38.5Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI) 809 316 Nationally protected areas (% of land area) .. 4.5

Total debt (% of GDP) 193.4 100.5 Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) .. 28,641Total debt service (% of exports) 38.2 9.7 Freshwater withdrawal (% of internal resources) 0.2 ..

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 39 59 CO2 emissions per capita (mt) 0.12 0.18Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0

GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

Energy use per capita (kg of oil equivalent) .. ..

World Bank Group portfolio 2000 2007

(US$ millions)

IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed 0 0 Disbursements 0 0 Principal repayments 0 0 Interest payments 0 0

IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed 354 84 Disbursements 70 14

Private Sector Development 2000 2008 Total debt service 4 1

Time required to start a business (days) – 17 IFC (fiscal year)Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) – 56.2 Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 2 0Time required to register property (days) – 86 of which IFC own account 2 0

Disbursements for IFC own account 0 0Ranked as a major constraint to business 2000 2007 Portfolio sales, prepayments and (% of managers surveyed who agreed) repayments for IFC own account 1 0 n.a. .. .. n.a. .. .. MIGA

Gross exposure 0 5Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) .. .. New guarantees 0 0Bank capital to asset ratio (%) 18.5 19.0

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2007 data are preliminary. 9/24/08.. indicates data are not available. – indicates observation is not applicable.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

0 25 50 75 100

Control of corruption

Rule of law

Regulatory quality

Political stability

Voice and accountability

Country's percentile rank (0-100)higher values imply better ratings

2007

2000

Governance indicators, 2000 and 2007

Source: Kaufmann-Kraay-Mastruzzi, World Bank

IBRD, 0

IDA, 533

IMF, 35

Other multi-lateral, 343

Bilateral, 445

Private, 2

Short-term, 70

Composition of total external debt, 2006

US$ millions

204

Millennium Development Goals Sierra Leone

With selected targets to achieve between 1990 and 2015(estimate closest to date shown, +/- 2 years)

Goal 1: halve the rates for extreme poverty and malnutrition 1990 1995 2000 2007

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, % of population) .. .. .. .. Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) 82.8 .. .. 70.2 Share of income or consumption to the poorest qunitile (%) 1.1 .. .. 6.5 Prevalence of malnutrition (% of children under 5) .. .. 24.7 ..

Goal 2: ensure that children are able to complete primary schooling

Primary school enrollment (net, %) 43 .. .. .. Primary completion rate (% of relevant age group) .. .. .. 81 Secondary school enrollment (gross, %) 17 .. 26 32 Youth literacy rate (% of people ages 15-24) .. .. .. 48

Goal 3: eliminate gender disparity in education and empower women

Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%) 67 .. 71 86 Women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of nonagricultural employment) .. .. .. 23 Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (%) .. 6 9 13

Goal 4: reduce under-5 mortality by two-thirds

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 290 282 277 270 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 169 165 162 159 Measles immunization (proportion of one-year olds immunized, %) .. .. 37 67

Goal 5: reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths

Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) .. .. .. 2,100 Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) .. .. 42 43 Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) .. .. 4 5

Goal 6: halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other major diseases

Prevalence of HIV (% of population ages 15-49) .. .. 1.3 1.7 Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 214 282 371 517 Tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS (%) .. 28 33 35

Goal 7: halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic needs

Access to an improved water source (% of population) .. 57 57 53 Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) .. 12 12 11 Forest area (% of total land area) 42.5 .. 39.8 38.5 Nationally protected areas (% of total land area) .. .. .. 4.5 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) .. .. .. ..

Goal 8: develop a global partnership for development

Telephone mainlines (per 100 people) 0.3 0.4 0.4 .. Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.3 13.3 Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Personal computers (per 100 people) .. .. .. ..

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. .. indicates data are not available. 9/24/08

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

Sierra Leone

0

25

50

75

100

2000 2002 2004 2006

Primary net enrollment ratio (..)

Ratio of girls to boys in primary & secondary education

Education indicators (%)

0

1

2

2000 2002 2004 2006

Fixed + mobile subscribers Internet users

ICT indicators (per 1,000 people)

0

25

50

75

100

1990 1995 2000 2006

Sierra Leone Sub-Saharan Africa

Measles immunization (% of 1-year olds)

205

Annex 20: Incremental Cost Analysis

WEST AFRICA: West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

1. Project Objective The development objective of APL-A is to sustainably increase the overall wealth generated by the exploitation of the targeted marine fish resources in the four countries of Cape Verde, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone, and the proportion of that wealth captured by these countries. This objective would be achieved by: (i) strengthening the countries’ capacity to sustainably govern and manage their fisheries, (ii) reducing illegal fishing, and (iii) increasing the value and profitability generated by fish resources and the proportion of that value captured by the countries. 2. Status Quo Scope and Costs. In the absence of GEF assistance under the baseline scenario, the project will be implemented without particular attention to (i) strengthened governance and sustainable management of the resource base supporting the targeted fisheries in the four countries, or (ii) to expanding models of collaborative fisheries management (i.e. co-management) to a larger scale to reduce fishing pressure and restore stocks. Rather the project would be implemented with an emphasis on economic growth and reduction of illegal fishing in the targeted areas, and in particular on investments in coastal infrastructure to increase local value added to fish products.

(i) Component 1: Good Governance and Sustainable Management of the Fisheries. Without GEF funds, this component would not be included in the investments for Liberia, and would only support investments in alternative livelihoods in Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, with no support for strengthened governance for sustainable management of the fish resources. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$9.8 million, financed by IDA in order to support alternative livelihoods for fishing in Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, and the reduction of the industrial trawl fleet in Senegal.

(ii) Component 2: Reduction of Illegal Fishing. This component will focus on investments necessary

to build the capacity of the participating countries to reduce illegal fishing in their waters, particularly through greater monitoring, control and surveillance of the fisheries. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$17.7 million. No GEF resources will be applied as co-financing to this component.

(iii) Component 3: Increasing the Contribution of the Marine Fish Resources to the Local Economies.

This component will focus on helping to move the ‘offshore economy’ onshore in the participating countries, by investing fish landing infrastructure in order to increase the value added locally to fish products, as well as to support the development of local entrepreneurs and services. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$11.6 million. No GEF resources will be applied as co-financing to this component.

(iv) Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management. Without

GEF funds, this component will focus on supporting the Department of Fisheries in Cape Verde, the Bureau for National Fisheries in Liberia, the Department of Marine Fisheries in Senegal and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources to manage and implement the Project’s activities, but in the cases of Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone without significant attention to monitoring and evaluation of results, as well as information-sharing and replication. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$7.2 million, which would be financed by IDA and the Government of Senegal.

Benefits. Implementation of the baseline scenario investment program described above will be expected to generate national benefits as a result of the increased local value added to fish products in the countries

206

of Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone. All of these countries possess significant fish resources that are generating far lower returns for the region than they could be, as much of the fish is caught in an offshore economy (where a vessel may pay a license to catch a fish, then freeze it and export it directly without ever having landed the product locally or contributed to the national economy). In all three countries, coastal infrastructure is not sufficient to support increased local landings of fish products, and therefore all of the additional jobs that could be created in the countries to process these products. The baseline scenario would therefore lead to increased investments in coastal infrastructure to support greater local landing of fish products, as well as training and skills development for local entrepreneurs to provide processing and related services. These key features of the baseline scenario would provide significant support to increasing the contribution of the fisheries to economic growth in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone, through greater local landing and processing of fish products, and in many cases increased exports. The baseline scenario would, however, be insufficient to produce the global benefits arising from reducing the overexploitation of the fish stocks supporting the targeted fisheries in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone, by failing to strengthen the capacity of these countries to govern the use the fisheries and to sustainably manage the resources. The three countries would be investing in fisheries infrastructure, as well as reducing illegal fishing, without ensuring that the management infrastructure is in place to protect the resource base underpinning the sector. Thus, several potential global benefits of more sustainably managing the fisheries resources would be overlooked, including: • The development of the rules, capacity and procedures necessary for sustainably managing the

resources (such as registration of fishing vessels, monitoring and evaluation of the health of the resources and development of fisheries management plans);

• The introduction of rights to targeted fisheries in order to give stakeholders long-term incentives to sustainably manage the fish resources; and

• The importance of strong communication programs with stakeholders to exchange information about the management of the fisheries and the status of the resources, as well as experiences and benefits of restoration efforts.

GEF Alternative Scope and Costs. With support from the GEF, an expanded project could be undertaken comprising activities focused on strengthening the capacity of the Governments in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone to reduce overexploitation of the targeted fish stocks, and to introduce long-term rights to ensure that stakeholders and communities work in partnership to sustainably co-manage the use of the resources. Essentially, the GEF alternative would build sustainable governance efforts into the local economic development activities of the project, including the following incremental activities:

(i) Development of the capacity of the Governments of Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone to sustainably manage the use of globally significant fisheries. Approximately US$4.5 million in GEF resources would be applied to build the capacity of the Governments to introduce international good practices for sustainable fisheries management, drawing upon the lessons of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project. This would include registering all fishing vessels for management, installing national and transparent fisheries information systems, and the development of sustainable fisheries management plans.

(ii) Support for the introduction of fishing rights to resource users in targeted fisheries, which

would provide long-term incentives for sustainable exploitation. Approximately US$2.3 million in GEF resources would be applied to the targeted fisheries in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone in order to: develop and introduce long-term rights for industrial fisheries (such as quotas), as well as area-based rights for small-scale fishing communities. This would include implementation of the rules and regulations necessary in each case to empower

207

communities and stakeholders with rights to manage the resources, as well as to develop local community capacity to implement these rights.

(iii) Support for an ‘incentives for change’ program in Sierra Leone to help encourage coastal

fishing communities to implement more sustainable fishing strategies with lower levels of by-catch and capture of juvenile species. US$1.4 million in GEF resources would be allocated to support more sustainable fishing practices in Sierra Leone communities.

(iv) Introduction of extensive communications programs to ensure a two-way flow of information

on the health of the fish resources between users and the Governments, as well as from users to other users. Learning exchanges would be supported between different fishing communities, as well as between the different countries. More specifically, US$0.4 million in GEF resources would be allocated to support communication programs and replication.

(v) Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system in the Governments of Cape Verde,

Liberia and Sierra Leone that can incorporate information on results into real-time management decisions, particularly by ensuring that management decisions are taken on the basis of information on the status of the fish resources. More specifically, US$1.4 million in GEF resources would be allocated to help establish a real-time monitoring and evaluation system, which can also feed information to stakeholders to inform their decision-making, as well as support overall institutional strengthening and project management in the Governments.

Benefits. In addition to the national benefits associated with the baseline scenario, global benefits of the GEF alternative include: (i) building capacity in each of the three Governments to sustainably manage the fish resources and to reduce overexploitation of the fish stocks, as part of the countries’ broader economic development efforts in the fisheries sector, and (ii) ensuring that the sustainable management of the fish resources underpins any fisheries development efforts in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone, as models that would be replicated to other countries in West Africa.

Incremental Cost Matrix The total costs of the baseline scenario is estimated to be US$46.3 million. The GEF alternative is estimated at US$56.3 million. The incremental costs of the GEF alternative is therefore estimated at US$10 million. Component Cost

Category US$ Million

Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

1. Strengthened Governance of the Fisheries Baseline 9.8 Support for alternative

livelihoods to fishing in Cape Verde and Sierra Leone; strengthened governance only in Senegal

Some modest reduction of fishing effort on the fish stocks in Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, no benefits in Liberia.

With GEF Alternative

18.4 Capacity established in Cape Verde, Liberia and Sierra Leone to implement global good practices for sustainable fisheries management.

Reductions in fishing pressure on globally significant but overexploited fish stocks, as well as capacity established for long-term sustainable management of these resources.

Incremental 8.6 2. Reduction of Illegal Fishing Baseline 17.7 Reduced illegal fishing in

Cape Verde, Liberia, Short-term reduction in fishing effort on globally significant fish

208

Senegal and Sierra Leone stocks. With GEF

Alternative 17.7

Incremental 0 3. Increased Contribution to Local Economies from the Fisheries Baseline 11.6 Increased local landing and

processing of fish products.

With GEF Alternative

11.6

Incremental 0 4. Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation and Program Management Baseline 7.2 Management of the

implementation of the Project.

Efficient implementation of Project activities to reduce fishing pressure on globally significant fish stocks

With GEF Alternative

8.6 Implementation of a results-based monitoring and evaluation system, project management

Transmission of information on fish stock recovery and management, replication of lessons learned

Incremental 1.4 Totals Baseline 46.3 With GEF

Alternative 56.3

Incremental 10.0

20

9

An

nex

21:

Log

ical

Fra

mew

ork

of

Rel

ated

Don

or I

nte

rven

tion

s in

Wes

t A

fric

a

WE

ST

AF

RIC

A:

Wes

t A

fric

a R

egio

nal

Fis

her

ies

Pro

gram

Lo

gic

al

Fra

mew

ork

fo

r D

on

or

Inte

rven

tio

ns

in W

est

Afr

ica

n F

ish

erie

s57

Ov

eral

l G

oal

fro

m t

he

CS

RP

Str

ateg

ic A

ctio

n P

lan

: P

rom

ote

th

e su

stai

nab

le u

se o

f th

e fi

sher

ies

reso

urc

es i

n W

est

Afr

ica.

S

pec

ific

O

bje

ctiv

es

Inte

nd

ed R

esu

lts

Ou

tpu

ts t

o A

chie

ve

Res

ult

s A

ctiv

itie

s D

ono

r S

up

po

rt t

o e

ach

Ou

tpu

t

Pro

mo

te t

he

esta

bli

shm

ent

and

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

of

coo

rdin

ated

an

d h

arm

on

ized

p

oli

cies

for

th

e re

gula

tio

n of

ac

cess

to

th

e fi

sher

ies

and

the

al

loca

tio

n o

f fi

shin

g r

igh

ts

At

leas

t 2

fish

erie

s in

Wes

t A

fric

a ar

e re

gula

ted

to

ef

fect

ivel

y co

ntro

l ac

cess

and

fis

hin

g

effo

rt

A c

om

mo

n p

oli

cy

fram

ewo

rk f

or r

egu

lati

on

of

acce

ss a

nd t

he

allo

cati

on

of

fish

ing

rig

hts

is

dev

elop

ed f

or t

he

reg

ion,

an

d im

ple

men

ted

b

y th

e co

un

trie

s

Ela

bor

ate

com

mo

n p

rin

cip

les

for

a po

licy

to

reg

ula

te

acce

ss a

nd a

lloc

ate

fish

ing

rig

hts

at

the

reg

ion

al l

evel

; an

d d

efin

e co

mm

on

min

imu

m c

on

dit

ion

s of

acc

ess

to

val

idat

e w

ith

co

untr

ies

Ger

man

y -

Sup

po

rt f

or

Man

agem

ent

of F

ish

Res

ourc

es

in W

est

Afr

ica

S

tren

gth

en t

he

cap

acit

y o

f in

div

idu

al G

ov

ernm

ents

to

re

gula

te a

cces

s, a

nd c

reat

e an

d a

llo

cate

fis

hin

g ri

gh

ts

Wor

ld B

ank

– W

est

Afr

ica

R

egio

nal

Fis

her

ies

Pro

gra

m

DfI

D –

Par

tner

ship

fo

r A

fric

an

Fis

her

ies

(PA

F)

Pil

ot

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f fi

shin

g r

igh

ts i

n s

pec

ific

co

untr

ies

and

fis

her

ies

At

leas

t 50

% o

f o

bse

rved

fis

her

ies

infr

acti

ons

to

acce

ss r

egu

lati

on

s ar

e p

rose

cute

d

Th

e n

atio

nal

co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es f

or f

ish

erie

s su

rvei

llan

ce c

oop

erat

e re

gula

rly

to r

edu

ce i

lleg

al

fish

ing

Str

eng

then

th

e ca

pac

ity

of

nat

ion

al s

urv

eill

ance

co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es t

o c

oll

abor

ate

to r

educ

e il

leg

al

fish

ing

Wor

ld B

ank

– W

est

Afr

ica

R

egio

nal

Fis

her

ies

Pro

gra

m

Co

ndu

ct r

egu

lar

surv

eill

ance

pat

rols

Sup

port

th

e su

stai

nab

le

man

agem

ent

of

shar

ed f

ish

erie

s in

par

ticu

lar

At

leas

t on

e sh

ared

fi

sher

y in

Wes

t A

fric

a is

su

stai

nab

ly

man

aged

, ac

cord

ing

to

p

rin

cip

les

of

coll

abor

atio

n a

nd

co-m

anag

emen

t

Info

rmat

ion

and

k

now

ledg

e co

ncer

nin

g th

e st

ate

of

shar

ed f

ish

erie

s re

sour

ces

are

imp

rov

ed,

and

avai

lab

le t

o t

he

pub

lic

via

a c

om

mo

n p

latf

orm

Co

ndu

ct r

esea

rch

an

d p

ilo

t ac

tiv

itie

s to

str

eng

then

th

e k

now

ledg

e o

f m

arin

e ec

osy

stem

s in

th

e re

gio

n, a

nd

the

fact

ors

nee

ded

to

ens

ure

they

co

nti

nue

to s

upp

ort

the

fish

erie

s

GE

F –

Can

ary

Cu

rren

t L

arg

e M

ari

ne

Eco

syst

em P

rogr

am

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

- I

mp

rovi

ng

Sci

enti

fic

Ana

lyse

s an

d

Tec

hniq

ues

fo

r F

ish

erie

s M

anag

emen

t (I

ST

AM

) D

evel

op

a ‘d

ash

boar

d’ o

f k

ey f

ish

erie

s st

atis

tics

and

in

form

atio

n,

at t

he

reg

ion

al l

evel

and

in

eac

h co

un

try

Wor

ld B

ank

– W

est

Afr

ica

R

egio

nal

Fis

her

ies

Pro

gra

m

Sh

ared

fis

her

ies

are

iden

tifi

ed,

alon

g w

ith

th

e ch

alle

nge

s o

f en

suri

ng

that

th

ey a

re m

anag

ed

Co

ndu

ct p

roce

sses

of

con

sult

atio

n w

ith

key

st

akeh

old

ers

aro

und

sh

ared

fis

her

ies

in t

he

reg

ion

, to

id

enti

fy a

nd

imp

lem

ent

pri

nci

ple

s o

f co

llab

orat

ive

man

agem

ent

for

shar

ed f

ish

erie

s

Fra

nce

- S

uppo

rt f

or

Co

-M

anag

emen

t In

itia

tive

s in

the

F

ish

erie

s S

ecto

r an

d M

ari

ne

En

viro

nmen

t

57

Th

is l

og

ical

fra

mew

ork

is

for

ind

icat

ive

pu

rpo

ses

on

ly, i

n o

rder

to

dem

on

stra

te t

he c

om

ple

men

tari

ty a

mo

ng

var

ious

do

no

r in

ves

tmen

ts, a

nd d

oes

not

repr

esen

t an

off

icia

l st

rate

gy f

or t

he

reg

ion

’s G

ov

ernm

ents

or

do

no

rs.

It

is b

ased

on

the

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e S

ub

-Reg

ion

al F

ish

erie

s C

om

mis

sio

n S

trat

egic

Act

ion

Pla

n (

20

02

– 2

01

0).

21

0

acco

rdin

g t

o p

rin

cip

les

of

stak

eho

lder

par

tici

pat

ion

an

d co

-man

agem

ent

Dev

elo

p an

d i

mp

lem

ent

fish

erie

s m

anag

emen

t p

lan

s fo

r sm

all

pel

agic

fis

her

ies

Net

her

land

s -

To

war

ds

Reg

ion

al

Po

lici

es f

or

Sust

ain

ab

le S

ma

ll-

Pel

ag

ic F

ish

erie

s in

Nor

thw

est

Afr

ica

P

rom

ote

th

e co

nser

vat

ion

and

pro

tect

ion

o

f m

arin

e fi

sher

ies

reso

urce

s an

d th

e ec

osys

tem

s th

at s

upp

ort

them

Co

llab

orat

ion

b

etw

een

th

e C

SR

P

and

dif

fere

nt

acto

rs

in t

he

sect

or

lead

s to

beh

avio

ral

chan

ges

th

at

con

trib

ute

to

the

p

rote

ctio

n of

th

e m

arin

e ec

osy

stem

s in

th

e re

gio

n

Th

e m

ost

th

reat

ened

fi

sher

ies

reso

urc

es a

nd

mar

ine

eco

syst

ems

are

iden

tifi

ed,

and

cons

erv

atio

n m

easu

res

dev

elo

ped

and

im

ple

men

ted

Iden

tify

th

e m

ost

thr

eate

ned

sp

ecie

s, a

nd c

ondu

ct

awar

enes

s-ra

isin

g c

amp

aign

s to

pro

mo

te t

hei

r co

nser

vat

ion,

alo

ng w

ith

th

e de

vel

opm

ent

and

im

ple

men

tati

on

of

con

serv

atio

n st

rate

gie

s

GE

F –

Can

ary

Cu

rren

t L

arg

e M

ari

ne

Eco

syst

em P

roje

ct

WW

F, I

UC

N, o

ther

don

ors

–

Reg

iona

l P

rogr

am

fo

r th

e C

on

serv

ati

on o

f th

e C

oast

al

and

Ma

rin

e Z

on

e of

Wes

t A

fric

a Id

enti

fy t

he

mar

ine

eco

syst

ems

in t

he

reg

ion

th

at a

re

thre

aten

ed, a

nd w

her

e co

llab

orat

ion

for

man

agem

ent

is

requ

ired

, an

d c

ond

uct

th

e co

llec

tio

n a

nd

anal

ysis

of

key

d

ata

and

in

form

atio

n,

and

def

ine

a st

rate

gy

for

the

sust

ain

able

man

agem

ent

of t

hese

eco

syst

ems

GE

F –

Can

ary

Cu

rren

t L

arg

e M

ari

ne

Eco

syst

em P

roje

ct

MAP SECTION

BENIN

C Ô T ED ’ I V O I R E

M A L I

M A U R I TA N I A

A L G E R I A

LIBERIA

SIERRALEONE

FORMER SPANISHSAHARA

CAPE VERDE

G U I N E A

THE GAMBIA

S E N E G A L

GUINEA-BISSAU

NIGER

TOG

O

BURKINA FASO

GHANA

A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

Gulf of Guinea

AccraLomé

Nouakchott

DakarPraia

Banjul

Bissau

Conakry

Freetown

Monrovia

Bamako

Ouagadougou

Niamey

PortoNovoYamoussoukro

Nouâdhibou

Abidjan

Sekondi-Takoradi

20° 10° 0°

0°10°

20°

20°

10°

0°

10°

0°This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

0 250 500

KILOMETERS

RESOURCE AREA TARGETED BY THE PROGRAM

MAJOR PORTS

SELECTED CITIES

NATIONAL CAPITALS

INTERNATIONALBOUNDARIES

WEST AFRICAREGIONAL FISHERIES

PROGRAM

IBRD 37019

SEPTEMBER 2009

200nautical

miles

200nautical

miles