Document of · Web viewASP-PCU Africa Stockpiles Programme - Project Coordination Unit ASP-SC Africa Stockpiles Programme Steering Committee CAS Country Assistance Strategy CCAME

Document ofThe World Bank

Report No: 32232-MNA

PROJECT DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED GRANT FROM THEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$1.7 MILLION AND US$4.0 MILLION, RESPECTIVELY, TO SOUTH AFRICA AND TUNISIA

IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF

THE US$21.7 MILLION AFRICA STOCKPILE PROGRAMME – PROJECT 1

August 12, 2005

ASP TeamMiddle East and North Africa RegionAfrica Regional Office

1

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Multiple) Currency Unit = US$

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AfDB African Development BankAFR Africa RegionANPE Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (Government of

Tunisia – National Agency for the Protection of Environment)APL Adaptable Program LoanASP Africa Stockpiles ProgrammeASP-P1 Africa Stockpiles Programme - Project 1ASP-PCU Africa Stockpiles Programme - Project Coordination UnitASP-SC Africa Stockpiles Programme Steering CommitteeCAS Country Assistance StrategyCCAME Cross-Cutting Activities Management EntityCESA Country Project-specific Environment and Social AssessmentCFAA Country Financial Accountability AssessmentCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCILSS Comité Permanent Inter Etat de Lutte contre la Sécheresse (Permanent

Inter State Committee for Drought Control)CLI Crop Life InternationalCPD Crop Protection DepartmentDANIDA Danish International Development AgencyDBSA Development Bank of Southern AfricaDDS Département des Déchets Solides (Government of Tunisia – Department

of Solid Waste)DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-TrichloroethaneDEAT National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Government

of South Africa)DGF Development Grant FacilityDGIS Directorate General for International CooperationDNACPN Direction Nationale de l’Assainissement et du Contrôle des Pollutions et

des Nuisances (Government of Mali – National Department of Sanitation, Environmental Pollution Control)

DPVCTRF Direction de la Protection des Végétaux, du Contrôle Technique et de la Répression des Fraudes (Government of Morocco – Department of Plant Protection, Technical Control and Fraud Repression)

DSPR Direction de la Surveillance et de la Prévention des Risques (Government of Morocco – Department of Risk Prevention and Monitoring)

2

EA Environmental AssessmentEMP Environmental Management PlanEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEU European UnionFAAO Financial and Administrative Assistant OfficerFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFFEM French Facility for Global EnvironmentFM Financial ManagementFMENV Federal Ministry of Environment (Government of Nigeria)FMR Financial Management ReportFMS Financial Management SpecialistGAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GEF Global Environment Facility GEFSEC Secretariat of the Global Environment FacilityGEO Global Environmental ObjectiveGoT Government of TunisiaGTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Aid Agency)ICB International Competitive BiddingIDA International Development AgencyIOMC Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of ChemicalsIPCS International Programme on Chemical SafetyIPM Integrated Pest ManagementISDS Integrated Safeguards Data SheetIVM Integrated Vector ManagementMDTF Multi-Donor Trust FundMFMTA Municipal Financial Management Technical Assistance ProjectMNA Middle East and North Africa RegionMOE Ministry of EnvironmentM&E Monitoring and EvaluationNCB National Competitive BiddingNEMC National Environment Management Council (Government of Tanzania)NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGOs Non-Governmental OrganizationsNIP National Implementation PlanNSC National Steering CommitteeOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOED Operations Evaluation DepartmentOM Operational ManualOP Operational ProgramPAD Project Appraisal DocumentPAN-Africa Pesticides Action Network - AfricaPAN-UK Pesticides Action Network - United KingdomPDO Project Development ObjectivePIC Prior Informed Consent PMP Pest Management PlanPMU Project Management Unit

3

POPs Persistent Organic PollutantsPRONAGDES Programme National de Gestion des Déchets Solides (Government of

Tunisia – National Program for Waste Management)RAP Resettlement Action PlanSA Special AccountSBC Secretariat of the Basel ConventionSOE Statements of ExpenditureSTAP Scientific and Technical Advisory PanelTA Technical AssistanceTF Trust FundTORs Terms of ReferencesTSU Technical Support UnitTTL Task Team LeaderUN United NationsUNDB United Nations Development BusinessUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWHO World Health OrganizationWWF World Wildlife Fund

Vice Presidents: Christiaan J. Poortman (MNA) Gobind T. Nankani (AFR)

Country Director, Tunisia and Morocco: Theodore O. Ahlers (MNA)Director, Regional Integration: Mark Tomlinson (AFR)

Sector Director: Inger Andersen (MNA)

4

Sector Manager: Vijay Jagannathan (MNA)Task Team Leader: Steven P. Maber (MNA)

5

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, AFRICA REGIONAL OFFICEAFRICA STOCKPILES PROGRAMME - PROJECT 1

CONTENTS

Page

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE......................................................................8

1. Country and Sector Issues...................................................................................................8

2. Rationale for Bank Involvement........................................................................................10

3. Higher Level Objectives to Which the Project Contributes..............................................11

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................12

1. Financing Instrument.........................................................................................................12

2. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators.........................................................13

3. Project Components...........................................................................................................14

4. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design.......................................................17

5. Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection.........................................................18

C. IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................19

1. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements...............................................................19

2. Financing Partners.............................................................................................................21

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcomes/Results..............................................................21

4. Sustainability and Replicability.........................................................................................22

5. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects............................................................22

6. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants.............................................................................25

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY..................................................................................................26

1. Economic and Financial Analyses.....................................................................................26

2. Technical............................................................................................................................26

3. Fiduciary............................................................................................................................27

4. Social.................................................................................................................................28

5. Environment......................................................................................................................28

6. Safeguard Policies.............................................................................................................29

6

7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness......................................................................................30

ANNEXES....................................................................................................................................31

Annex 1: Africa Stockpiles Programme Background.............................................................32

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or Other Agencies................37

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring........................................................................41

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description.....................................................................................46

Annex 5: Project Costs...............................................................................................................53

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements.................................................................................65

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements.....................................72

Annex 8: Procurement...............................................................................................................78

Annex 9: Incremental Cost Analysis.........................................................................................84

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues............................................................................................94

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision.....................................................................97

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File.................................................................................99

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits.............................................................................101

Annex 14: Country at a Glance..........................................................................................104

Annex 15: STAP Roster Technical Review............................................................................108

Additional Annex 16: South Africa Technical Annex...........................................................114

Additional Annex 17: Tunisia Technical Annex....................................................................134

Maps............................................................................................................................................153

7

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

1. Country and Sector Issues

Over the past forty years, many countries of the continent of Africa have accumulated large quantities of pesticides which have now become unfit for use or reformulation and are therefore obsolete. Although these chemicals are no longer effective for controlling pests, they remain potent chemical toxins and thus still need to be carefully stored and handled. The unwanted buildup of such products has occurred due to inadequate stock management, non-distribution to farmers, bans on several pesticides, un-coordinated or inappropriate supply from donor agencies, unsuitable packaging and supplier incentive programs. The amount of publicly-held obsolete pesticides1 currently stockpiled across the continent of Africa2, is estimated at 50,000 tonnes. These stocks will continue to present a threat to the environment until they are safely removed and destroyed.

Many of these pesticides include Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)3, which are chemical substances that persist in the environment, and migrate across continents to bio-accumulate through the food chain, posing a risk to human and animal health as well as the environment. The stockpiles include varying proportions of POPs, ranging from small to substantial percentages. Once mixed, however, the entire stockpiles must be considered POPs-contaminated, posing correspondingly high levels of threat and requiring appropriately careful management and disposal. Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides are often in a severely deteriorated condition, poorly stored and located close to habitation or water supplies, and thus represent a serious risk to human health, ground and surface water, land use, and the environment.

The impact is often greatest on the poor. Abandoned pesticide stockpiles and dumps are often located in poorer communities where people scavenge for “recyclables” with no awareness of the dangers involved. Estimates of annual pesticide poisonings range in the millions and although reliable data is scarce, this has undoubtedly led to thousands of deaths, diseases, birth defects and disabilities in Africa alone.

Most of the countries in Africa lack adequate technical, institutional and financial capacity to develop the policy and regulatory conditions necessary to properly manage the cleanup of contaminated wastes/sites, together with the destruction of obsolete stocks of pesticides. They also lack the capacity and means to implement sound prevention practices.

1 “Obsolete Pesticides” means products: (a) whose usage is prohibited or severely restricted for environmental or health reasons; by applicable provisions of the Basel Convention, the Stockholm Convention and the Rotterdam Convention, (the Conventions) and/or national law consistent with the Conventions (please see Footnote 9 for full titles of the Conventions); or (b) that have deteriorated as a result of improper or prolonged storage and can neither be used in accordance with label specifications nor easily reformulated for use; or (c) that cannot be used for their intended purpose, and cannot be easily modified to accomplish such purpose or some other purpose. 2 “Africa”, for the purpose of this document, is defined as the continent of Africa.3 POPs are chemical substances that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food chain, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. POPs based pesticides include: Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, Heptachlor, DDT, Mirex, Hexachlorobenzene and Toxaphene.

8

The continuing accretion of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and lack of remediation combine to make the problems acute. Nevertheless, obsolete chemicals have generally not been considered a pressing development issue. The problem has not typically been identified in Country Assistance Strategies (CASs), and none of the National Environmental Action Plans prepared in Africa during the 1990s dealt with the problem. Several development agencies or donors such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Belgium, Finland, Japan, and the Netherlands have been active in starting the cleanup and disposal of obsolete pesticides, but the costs are very high and resources have been extremely limited. Understandably, both recipient countries and donor agencies are often reluctant to divert funds allocated to poverty alleviation, food security or other areas of intervention for this concern. A strategic programmatic approach for the African continent, combining activities and efforts from the international community, as well as the provision of additional funds dedicated specifically to pesticide/hazardous waste management and safe disposal, is therefore urgently needed.

Efforts have been made in recent years to improve control over pesticides. Many African countries have ratified international agreements, developed regulations, moved away from centralized purchasing systems, imposed controls for illegal dumping of hazardous wastes, imposed tighter border controls and developed Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs to reduce reliance on pesticides. However, the recent outbreaks of locusts in West Africa indicate the extent to which many countries still require vast amounts of pesticides at short notice and lack the capacity to adequately dispose of unused pesticides after such operations. In addition, in response to the increasing demand by countries importing agriculture products that pesticides should be well-managed, African countries need to increase efforts to prevent misuse and overuse of pesticides.

In 1994, FAO established a program on prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides. This program provides guidance and help to developing countries to design and implement projects and to produce inventories of obsolete pesticides stocks. The experience gained and information collected by FAO and CropLife International (CLI - the global federation of the plant science industry) have been of critical importance in setting up the Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) - which combines experience and resources from many agencies and donors in the common goal of ridding the continent of obsolete pesticides. The partnership comprises Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), United Nations (UN) specialized entities and other international organizations and the private sector. In order to remove all the estimated obsolete pesticide stockpiles on the continent of Africa (50,000 tonnes), the ASP is expected to require funding of US$200-250 million4 over a period of 10-15 years. (Please refer to Annex 1 for a detailed description of the long-term goals of the ASP continent-wide partnership and a full listing of the ASP partnership members).

The Bank was invited to join the ASP partnership in 2001 because of its experience in managing complex regional projects and in order to lead the program coordination, spearhead the

4 This figure is based on current estimates of obsolete pesticides on the continent; however actual costs could rise significantly if addition stocks are discovered during country level inventories.

9

fundraising efforts and develop the specific country-level projects. Since then, the Bank has played a key role in building a strong and cohesive partnership, inviting additional donors and partners to add their resources and skills, securing US$60 million in funding (with nearly half of this amount coming from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and developing the first Project operations (ASP-P1). ASP-P1 will focus on disposal and prevention activities in seven high-priority African countries: Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Tunisia. These countries were selected because they both have significant stockpile problems and have indicated a readiness to address them. All seven countries have ratified the Stockholm Convention on POPs5 and the Basel Convention on Transboundary Shipment of Hazardous Waste. Current estimates indicate that there are about 5,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides distributed through more than 1,400 sites in the seven countries. During implementation of ASP-P1 it is expected that follow-on projects in eight additional countries would be prepared from among the following priority countries: Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Liberia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Swaziland (see Annex 4).

2. Rationale for Bank Involvement

The Bank, as GEF Implementing Agent, will support the ASP-P1 according to its comparative advantage. The rationale for Bank involvement, described in greater detail in Annex 2 is threefold:

(a) The Bank as a GEF Implementing Agency has a responsibility to implement activities toward achievement of GEF operational programs. By implementing ASP-P1, together with the FAO, the Bank will support the first large scale GEF-funded activity toward achieving objectives of the GEF Operational Program 14 (GEF OP14) for Reducing and Eliminating Releases of POPs, and support the role of GEF as the interim financing mechanism for the Stockholm Convention on POPs.

(b) The Bank has significant global experience in managing trust funds that mobilize the resources of multiple donors for a shared purpose. Experience of such kind is key to managing the Bank Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for ASP-P1 as one of the main financing mechanisms – in combination with the GEF Trust Fund, Development Grant Facility (DGF), other trust funds and bilateral donations.

(c) The Bank has substantial and unique expertise in managing complex, multi-country and regional programs. It has also developed considerable experience in facilitating the interface between governments, NGOs and the private sector. In Africa, this experience derives from implementing such complex operations as the River Blindness Program, the Multi-Country HIV/AIDS Program, the Nile Basin Initiative, and the Greater Great Lakes Regional Strategy for Demobilization and Reintegration.

5 The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from POPs. In implementing the Convention, governments will take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment.

10

It is also important to note that Bank support to ASP-P1 is fully consistent with the implementation of the Bank’s Environment Strategy, the key pillars of that strategy being to improve people’s quality of life, quality of economic growth and quality of regional and global commons. One of the key objectives in improving people’s quality of life is protecting environmental health, which is reflected in ASP-P1’s approach.

3. Higher Level Objectives to Which the Project Contributes

ASP-P1 will contribute to national and global level objectives described in more detail in Annex 1. At the national level, ASP-P1 will contribute to the national development strategies (especially in agriculture and rural development) of the ASP-P1-participating countries in the areas of public health, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and strengthening of the agricultural sector. ASP-P1 will directly contribute to the GEO: Reduction of effects of POPs on the global environment. Specifically, ASP-P1 will address:

(a) improving the quality of life in the poor communities, by reducing environmental health risks;

(b) improving environmental protection; and

(c) enhancing the capacity of the agricultural sector to better manage crop pests.

ASP-P1 will also consolidate various approaches to obsolete pesticide cleanup, generate practical lessons from working in countries under different governance models and produce practical tools that will facilitate its replication in other countries and regions.

At the global level, ASP-P1 will contribute to the international efforts to eliminate persistent organic pollutants, improve management of toxic chemicals and promote alternatives to pesticide usage that include IPM and Integrated Vector Management (IVM). ASP-P1 obsolete pesticide disposal activities will be a direct implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the associated GEF Operational Program aiming to reduce the impact of POPs on the global food chain, pollution of transboundary waters, land and biodiversity. It will also contribute to achievement of the objectives of other international agreements such as the Basel, Bamako, Rotterdam and Biological Diversity Conventions.6

The ASP-P1 capacity building for pesticide management and disposal will enhance the overall capacity of partner countries for managing other toxic chemicals and hazardous waste in general. Significantly, ASP-P1 will promote the global trend toward IPM and utilization of alternative pest control technologies. It will also contribute to the needed awareness of the detrimental impacts that POPs and obsolete chemicals can have on the environment in developing countries and the global environment, and generate a body of globally shared knowledge on effective and economically viable approaches to pesticide management and disposal.

6 The full titles of the Conventions to which ASP-P1 objectives contribute are as follows: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001); Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989); Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (1991); Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (1998); and Convention on Biological Diversity (1992).

11

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Financing Instrument

There is an immediate and urgent need to implement a program to dispose of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and associated waste from Africa and to prevent their re-occurrence. As this PAD describes more fully below, the ASP will be implemented through a series of individual projects within a 10-15 year programmatic approach, beginning with a four year project, called ASP-P1.

The primary ASP-P1 financing instrument is a GEF grant of US$25 million which will be split between two principal implementing agencies: Bank (US$21.74 million) and FAO (US$3.26 million) towards a total Project cost of US$60 million to seven countries over a period of four years. In addition, funds are being mobilized through a MDTF, other trust funds, and bilateral support. Fundraising will continue actively throughout the life of the Project and already there are offers which, when secured, are expected to augment the confirmed budget. ASP-P1 focuses on the first seven countries that are best prepared for implementation as it will facilitate a rapid delivery of tangible results and development of practical experience that will contribute to efficient and well-informed preparation of the follow-on projects. The initiative in the first set of countries will help to maintain the overall ASP momentum and stimulate greater donor support and client interest in the continent-wide program. The Bank will prepare and implement a “follow-on project: ASP-P2”, integrating any lessons learned to date when the following is triggered: (i) new countries with sufficient funding are ready to begin additional ASP operations and (ii), an independent assessment of the overall program progress and of the lessons learned will help determine the readiness for moving from one Project to the next (P1 to P2, P3…) (see Annex 4).

The ASP follows the programmatic approach of a horizontal Adaptable Program Loan (APL)7. ASP-P1 considers seven countries. Negotiations with South Africa and Tunisia have been successfully completed. All relevant information about the South Africa and Tunisia Country Projects is presented in Annex 16 and Annex 17, respectively. The Global Environmental Facility will endorse the ASP-P1; Bank Board Approval is being sought for the first two Country Projects in the Programme, to South Africa and Tunisia. Once completed, the other “follow-on” projects of the APL will be circulated to the GEF Secretariat for approval on a no-objection basis and to the Board, 10 days before the Regional Management’s final approval of each grant8.

The remaining countries are all in advanced stages of preparation to meet the conditions for negotiations9. The GEF grant agreements will be negotiated as and when the relevant countries, in the opinion of the Bank, have satisfied two conditions of negotiation: (i) establishment of a

7 ASP follows the model of the Multi-country HIV/AIDS Program for the Africa Region (MAP) and the Multi-country Statistical Capacity Building Program. 8 In accordance with the usual APL procedures, approval of the remaining Country Projects would be provided at the Regional Vice President level in the absence of a request by at least three Executive Directors to have normal Board presentation.9 There will be only six GEF grant agreements, because project activities for Nigeria, the seventh ASP-P1 country, will be funded entirely from a Nigeria-specific, Bank-managed trust fund provided by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

12

Project Management Unit (PMU) with qualified and experienced staff, including a Financial Management Officer, and (ii) preparation of a Country Operational Manual (OM) and Financial Manual (as part of the OM).

All GEF grant agreements negotiated with those countries will be substantially similar in form and content to those for South Africa and Tunisia.

2. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators

The Development Objective of this Project is for several African countries to eliminate inventoried publicly-held obsolete pesticide stockpiles and associated waste, and implement measures to reduce and prevent future related risks. (Criteria for selection of the countries in the first phase of operations are explained in more detail in Annex 1).

ASP-P1 will implement various cleanup and site remediation measures to mitigate the impact of obsolete publicly-held pesticides stocks threatening communities, ecosystems, and the global environment. In parallel, ASP-P1 will strengthen the elements of a regulatory regime, management practices, and public awareness to prevent a recurrence of pesticide accumulation in the future.

The principal outputs of ASP-P1 will be twofold:

(a) Through its cleanup activities, ASP-P1 will eliminate, as far as is practicable, the risks from obsolete pesticides to communities, natural resources and ecological systems in ASP-P1 countries. At the same time, it will reduce the risks to the global environment from POPs and other persistent toxic pollutants.

(b) Through its prevention activities, ASP-P1 will reduce future risks from obsolete pesticides by putting in place the key elements of effective pesticide management, encouraging reduced reliance on pesticides through the promotion of IPM and IVM policies.

The Project’s success in meeting its Development Objective, ASP-P1 will be based on four indicators as summarized below, but explained in more detail in Annex 3.

(a) Risk Reduction - based on quantitative risk assessment methodologies relating to both health risks and environmental degradation, the Project will measure the percentage of publicly-held stocks removed and quality of ASP-P1 cleanup activities aiming to reduce pesticide stockpiles (Component 1).

(b) Improved Pesticide Management - based on qualitative and quantitative parameters, the Project will measure the adequacy of government strategies, including regulations, laws and institutional policies in bringing the management of pesticides and their associated wastes up to international standards (Component 1).

(c) Pesticide Disposal - based on quantitative parameters, the Project will track the amount of publicly held obsolete pesticide stockpiles that ASP-P1 will safeguard or destroy

13

(e.g., repackaging into safe containers, incineration, and disposal of contaminated containers) (Component 1).

(d) Service Delivery to ASP Countries - The Project will measure the quality, quantity and efficiency of support services, such as technical assistance, knowledge management, communications, and implementation support, that the international ASP-P1 technical assistance providers [initially FAO, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Pesticide Action Network - Africa (PAN-Africa), and Pesticide Action Network- United Kingdom (PAN-UK)] deliver to the ASP-P1 countries (Components 2, 3 and 4).

3. Project Components

ASP-P1 has four components: (a) country operations; (b) technical support; (c) cross-cutting activities; and (d) project coordination. Each of these is described in detail in Annex 4. Their indicative costs and financing are laid out in the following table. Detailed Project costs are provided in Annex 5.

COMPONENT Total Cost(US$m)

% ofTotal

Bank (DGF)

Financing(US$m)

% Bank Financing

GEF Financing to

the Bank(US$m)

% GEF Financing to

the Bank

Country Operations10 51.37 85.62 0.24 9 21.74 100

Technical Support 4.31 7.18 0.41 15 0 0

Cross-Cutting Activities 2.45 4.08 1.32 49 0 0

Project Coordination 1.87 3.12 0.73 27 0 0

Total Project Costs 60.0 100 2.70 100 21.74 100GEF Financing to ASP-P1 = US$25.0m: World Bank (US$21.74 million) and FAO (US$3.26 million)

The Project components and its overall design are based on recognition that the existing level of information on the extent, geographic distribution and characteristics of the obsolete pesticide stockpiles is insufficient for implementing pesticide disposal and site remediation measures. The design, therefore, reflects the need to carry out in all Project countries, detailed pesticide inventories, selection of disposal technologies and preparation of country-specific environmental and social assessments. Only following the adequate completion of these activities will the respective cleanup and disposal programs take place.

Component 1: Country Operations (Total: US$51.37 million)

This is the principal component of the Project, encompassing a full range of disposal, cleanup and prevention activities to achieve the Project objectives in the participating countries. It will include four sub-components: (a) cleanup and disposal; (b) prevention of pesticide accumulation; (c) capacity building; and (d) ASP-P1 management and monitoring. Budget has also been allocated for the preparation of ASP-P2 countries.

10 African Development Bank (AfDB) will contribute US$10 million, which will be allocated to Country Operations. However, the specific allocations to the different components have yet to be finalized.

14

(a) Country Cleanup and Disposal Activities will be based on comprehensive and detailed inventories of pesticide stockpiles and related contamination, determining the level of risk to adjacent and wider communities or critical natural resources (such as water supplies). The cleanup will include the repackaging of obsolete pesticides, transport and destruction of pesticides based on chemical analysis, needs assessment and technical capacity. In exceptional cases, the disposal and cleanup operations will include heavily contaminated soils. Where health risks from soils may be extremely high, e.g., in Mali, where the large spill of POPs and other pesticide is believed to be contaminating or threatening scarce water sources, contaminated soils will be treated using appropriate soil remediation technologies.

(b) Prevention Activities encompass strengthening of pesticide management through improvement of pesticide registration, licensing, enforcement of import controls, stock management, waste management, and formulation of effective procurement strategies, as well as promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides through improvement of pest control strategies with particular attention to IPM for agriculture and IVM for health care. Prevention activities will also include raising environmental and health awareness and training for pesticide distributors, users and farmers to encourage safe pesticide handling and alternative pest control. The country’s Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plan Coordinator will help ensure that the ASP learns from and complies with the country’s program to reduce or eliminate POPs in an environmentally safe manner.

(c) Capacity Building will be tailored according to the specific individual country requirements and the current installed capacity. Environmental monitoring will also be supported through the provision of equipment and staff training for effective pesticide and other chemical management practices (see Annex 6, Section 8 for more details).

(d) Country Project Management and Monitoring activities will include establishment of a PMU in each of the countries in close collaboration with the appropriate environmental and agricultural authorities. It will be the PMU’s responsibility to implement the country level activities, solicit external technical support, monitor and evaluate Project activities and coordinate their implementation with the GEF-funded National Implementation Plans (NIPs) for the Stockholm Convention and similar initiatives. Country level management will also include establishment of a National Steering Committee (NSC) representing key stakeholders, such as NGOs and the private sector, and overseeing the work of the respective PMUs.

Component 2: Technical Support (Total: US$4.31 million)

This component will deliver to country Projects the highly technical and specialized expertise required for implementation, supervision and monitoring of country level activities outlined under Component 1 including: technical advice requested by the countries for the design and delivery of training; production of technical guidelines for cleanup and prevention operations; assistance in managing technical aspects of procurement and supervision of specialized contractors; advice on linking countries with other specialized agencies and organizations;

15

enhancement of health and safety; assessment of laboratory capacities; and oversight of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). The technical support will include advice on alternative disposal options, targeted to specific country and site conditions. FAO will be responsible for hosting a Technical Support Unit (TSU) to coordinate delivery of technical services envisaged under this component and tap into expertise of other ASP partners, e.g., United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO), Basel Convention Regional Centers, NGOs, and the private sector.

Component 3: Cross-Cutting Activities (Total US$2.45 million)

This component will deliver knowledge management, awareness-raising, strategic studies and outreach services across the entire ASP-P1 to capture synergies and cost savings through a coordinated multi-country, multi-partner approach. The key sub-components will include outreach to promote ratification of conventions relevant to project objectives, building NGO capacity, knowledge management and communication, e.g., hosting the ASP website. The strategic studies component will include an evaluation of alternative technologies for the disposal of obsolete pesticides. In addition, these studies will serve to improve the understanding of environmental health risks associated with the specific pesticides, and contribute to the prioritization and decision-making process within each country. WWF and PAN-UK will host the Cross-Cutting Activities Management Entity (CCAME) responsible for delivery of support services under this component.

Component 4: Project Coordination (Total: US$1.87 million)

This component will coordinate the implementation and monitoring of the ASP-P1 among the various partners. In addition to overall coordination, key activities include: developing and ensuring implementation of a fund-raising strategy, acting as a Secretariat to the Africa Stockpiles Programme Steering Committee (ASP-SC), maintaining awareness at the policy level about the Project, reporting to donors, preparing the bi-annual work plan and progress reports and financial reports, coordinating independent Project monitoring and coordinating the design of follow-on projects. Initially, the Bank will host the ASP Project Coordination Unit (ASP-PCU). During the implementation phase of ASP-P1 the PCU will be transferred to an appropriate African organization. NEPAD has been identified as a possible candidate.

16

4. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design

The Project design incorporates lessons learned from a considerable body of experience from (i) World Bank-supported obsolete pesticide stockpiles and waste cleanup interventions11; (ii) more than twelve years of interventions against risks from obsolete pesticides in Africa on the part of FAO, PAN-UK, the private sector and other ASP partners. It also reflects lessons learned from programs under chemical conventions similar to the Stockholm Convention, the Bank’s experience with regional programs and the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED) lessons on global partnerships.

Legal responsibility and custody of obsolete stocks: The project assumes that obsolete stocks are legally government-owned until disposal is completed. The grant agreements under which the project is financed will provide that the Bank will have no responsibility for ownership, custody or care of the stocks at any point during the inventory or disposal processes. Throughout the cleanup chain of events, third parties (in particular the disposal contractor) may have temporary custody. The ASP will require such third parties to carry adequate insurance to accommodate possible mishap.

Country level ownership of the Project: The experience emphasizes, among others, the importance of strong country ownership, effective pesticide management, the reliance on technical expertise in waste management in the private sector, and engagement of pesticide companies, environmental and public health NGOs and other civil society participants. ASP has received strong support from governmental institutions and NGOs, which have actively participated in project preparation and workshops. ASP-P1 builds upon the existing initiatives which have taken place over the last 10 years in Africa to dispose of obsolete pesticides. In order to scale up disposal and prevention activities, several African countries requested and supported the development of a partnership to more rapidly address this issue ASP-P1’s design emphasizes country ownership not only through traditional co-financing requirements and public participation, but also through consolidating the crucial political and institutional support mobilized in the process of ratification of the Stockholm Convention. In addition, ASP-P1 countries have already begun to implement start-up project activities, e.g., a communication campaign in South Africa to collect privately owned stocks of obsolete pesticide, and activities supported by the Pesticide Action Network.

Prevention: Recognizing that effective pesticide management and judicious use of pesticides are key to preventing risks associated with pesticide stockpiling, ASP-P1’s design integrates substantial prevention and capacity building interventions early in the country operations.

Multi Donor Trust Fund: The recommendations resulting from the OED analysis indicate that the provision of sufficient grant resources is important to ensure program flexibility, and that donor funds achieve greatest efficacy when pooled. ASP-P1 has therefore established a MDTF, into which potential donors are encouraged to contribute.

11 The Bank has considerable experience in clean up of waste sites, such as sludge, mine tailing and uranium clean up (e.g., Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania). However, the Bank has limited experience in the cleanup of dispersed pesticide waste.

17

Awareness: ASP-P1 also includes awareness-raising amongst the full range of stakeholders in order to support effective pesticide management and prevention at country level.

Monitoring and Evaluation: M&E functions are built into ASP-P1 both at the country and program levels, and cover not only the core cleanup and pesticide management activities but also all technical support, cross-cutting and coordination services (see Annex 6 for more details).

Large-scale Regional Project: A flexible approach to the implementation of the ASP-P1 was found to be essential. This is required in order to enable additional partners to join the ASP partnership, as they become available, provided that they subscribe to the partnership principles of the ASP. Secondly, rather than trying to negotiate grant agreements with all countries prior to Bank Board approval, it was decided to conclude negotiations with countries demonstrating high readiness for implementation12. The remaining countries will then be supported to meet conditions for negotiations post Bank Board approval following the programmatic approach of a Horizontal APL.

5. Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection

Several alternatives were considered for the design of ASP-P1:

(a) Support Individual Initiatives by Donors in Parallel - This alternative would yield some short-term point-source gains for the clean-up operations, but it would not provide any of the economies of scale, synergies and visibility that a regional program can offer. Furthermore, this model does not provide adequate sustainability of any positive outcomes, since it lacks an integrated approach for the prevention of future pesticide accumulation.

(b) Create a Regional Pesticide Management Agency - to centralize the clean-up and prevention operations for the entire continent. However, this alternative was rejected because ultimately it would not be cost-effective and does not reflect the need for country ownership. Furthermore, both clients and donors are reluctant to create new regional bureaucracies.

(c) Launch a 10-15 year Adaptable Program Loan - that could expand as additional funding becomes available and build on the lessons from previous phases. This alternative was initially considered as a basis for implementing the entire ASP operation, but it was considered preferable to start immediately with a limited set of fully-funded countries in order to build up experience, tangible results and momentum, establish a working model and then scale up this experience in subsequent ASP activities.

12 The Governments of South Africa and Tunisia were deemed ready for implementation. Negotiations were successfully concluded.

18

C. IMPLEMENTATION

1. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

ASP-P1 institutional and implementation arrangements rely on close cooperation among ASP partners, a participative approach involving all stakeholders, their comparative expertise in Africa and their historic involvement in developing ASP. Each institutional entity will take responsibility for a key element of program implementation. While it would be possible to house all elements under one agency, the program would lose the synergies and comparative advantages of each specialized agency.

ASP-Steering Committee (ASP-SC) will review ASP progress once a year. It will be a forum to provide feedback and recommendations on the overall direction of the Program. The ASP-SC will be supported by the ASP-PCU. The ASP-SC will include representatives from all the participating countries and the ASP core partners, including: NGOs, UN specialized entities, regional organizations, and donor representatives and will be open for future partners to join.

PMUs will be the principal implementers of ASP-P1 through the individual country projects under Component 1. They will be hosted by government agencies serving as the ASP-P1 implementing agencies and guided by the respective NSCs.

TSU will be a provider and coordinator of technical expertise required for preparation and implementation of country cleanup and prevention activities. It will be responsible for results of Component 2 and be hosted by FAO. It will coordinate technical services of other partners, e.g., UNEP, WHO and the Basel Convention Regional Centers.

CCAME will manage provision of knowledge management, communications, awareness-raising and outreach activities across ASP. It will be responsible for the results of Component 3 and hosted by WWF and PAN-UK.

ASP-PCU will serve as the overall coordinator of ASP-P1 implementation and provide a Secretariat function for the ASP Steering Committee (ASP-SC). It is anticipated that following the successful completion of ASP-P1, or earlier, the ASP-PCU will be transferred to an African organization. NEPAD has been identified as a potential host. The ASP-PCU will be responsible for results of Component 4.

ASP Unit: The Bank will manage the relevant trust funds and supervise the implementation of activities funded through grant agreements for the seven countries, WWF, PAN UK, and the ASP-PCU. The Bank will monitor the achievement of the Project Development Objective (PDO) and ensure compliance to all fiduciary requirements as per grant agreements. The Bank will also supervise the DGF agreement with FAO. The Bank will not oversee the GEF grant agreement with FAO, as FAO has direct access to GEF resources as a GEF Executing Agency with expanded opportunities under OP14 on POPs. In order to perform these functions the Bank will establish a small ASP Unit comprising of a full time ASP Coordinator supported by Task Team Leaders (TTLs) in each of the seven countries responsible for routine day-to-day supervision of the relevant grant agreements.

19

All ASP-P1 Partners will follow a common set of policies and procedures pertaining to fiduciary management, evaluation, safeguards and communications. These policies and procedures are established in the implementation arrangements for each component and for each country operation. Annex 6 contains details about the institutional arrangements and ASP governance in general.

Conflict of Interest: Two partners have received grants for both project preparation and for project implementation, namely FAO and WWF. This approach has received policy clearance from the Bank’s Legal Department. The Bank team is satisfied that the work performed in project preparation by these entities was in fact performed in an objective manner, and that the tasks proposed for these entities during project implementation are necessary and reasonable and that they are suitable partners to perform those activities.

ASP Governance and Project Implementation Arrangements

20

2. Financing Partners

The financing partnership behind ASP-P1 and the formal and informal institutional partnership behind the ASP are a prominent aspect of Project implementation. The financing partners will use seven funding arrangements:

(a) GEF, ASP-P1’s largest contributor with US$25 million of funding will channel funding through the Bank (US$21.74 million) and FAO (US$3.26 million).

(b) Funding from the Government of Canada will be channeled through CIDA through a Bank managed Trust Fund (TF) directly to the recipient (Nigeria only).

(c) Discussion with the private sector will continue. CLl, representing an international consortium of private sector companies, has made an offer to provide technical assistance to participating countries and a financial contribution to the costs of disposal. The terms under which that contribution is to be provided are still under discussion.

(d) The Bank (DGF) - will provide funding support to support civil society-related activities via the PAN-UK, WWF, NEPAD and FAO.

(e) Bilateral donors, including the European Union (EU) and the Governments of Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland will channel their contributions through a multi-donor ASP Trust Fund.

(f) National Donors – initially Belgium, Finland, France, Japan and the Netherlands - will channel their contributions through bilateral arrangements with ASP-P1 countries. During Project implementation, the partners will actively pursue additional donors to expand the financing partnership for future operations.

(g) Additional funding for the project has been committed by the African Development Bank (AfDB).

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcomes/Results

Monitoring of Project activities and evaluation of their results in ASP-P1 will serve a dual function. First, it will facilitate tracking of progress toward the Project objectives. Second, it will facilitate learning and generation of knowledge necessary for the preparation of follow-on projects and the further implementation of ASP. Independent monitoring of disposal activities will be undertaken at the country level. Evaluation of the global units TSU, CCAME and ASP-PCU will be conducted by an Independent Monitor.

Monitoring indicators are described in section B2 and Annex 3. They reflect the Project focus on risk reduction from publicly-held obsolete pesticide stocks and contaminated sites. Data will come from two main sources: firstly, it will derive from individual country-level operations using standardized Project-wide methodologies for data collection and quality assurance. Inventories will provide the baseline data and set the detailed program of disposal operations for each of the countries. M&E for disposal operations is straight forward as progress of project implementation will be quantified through these pesticide inventories. The responsibility for data collection for Component 1 will rest with PMUs with assistance from the TSU. Secondly,

21

for Components 2, 3 and 4, data will come from standardized monitoring and reporting by the units providing support services - TSU, CCAME and ASP-PCU, respectively. Overall data synthesis will be consolidated by the ASP-PCU and reported to the ASP-SC for dissemination and review. The Bank will monitor the implementation of the Grant Agreements through routine supervision missions and review of M&E data.

4. Sustainability and Replicability

A key factor to Project sustainability is the prevention of a re-emergence of obsolete pesticide stockpiles at the conclusion of Project implementation. The inventory and clean-up of the existing stockpiles will do little to reduce the obsolete pesticide risks in the long term unless the ASP supports elements of effective pesticide management. The design of ASP-P1, therefore, integrates substantial activities on pesticide management and the prevention of their re-accumulation. These activities focus on four areas:

(a) the general regulatory and policy reform (pesticide registration, import controls, licensing, standards, regulations, procurement strategies and stock management, inter-sectoral cooperation, enforcement and others);

(b) the promotion of alternative pest control strategies, such as IPM and IVM through training, awareness raising and research;

(c) an increase in general public awareness of environmental health risks, and public disclosure of pesticide issues and training of pesticide distributors, users, agricultural extension staff and others, as well as an increase in the capacity of governments to safely and effectively manage pesticides and other chemicals; and

(d) promoting the development and involvement of local NGOs in pesticide safety, health risks and other environmental issues.

The combination of adequate institutional and regulatory capabilities, increased public awareness and understanding, and active and informed NGOs is meant to ensure the long term sustainability of the ASP reforms.

Replicability: The ASP-P1 has been designed to include replication and the preparation of follow-on projects. The next proposed project called ASP-P2 will be designed during implementation of ASP-P1.

5. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects

While the clean-up and disposal of obsolete pesticides is routinely undertaken safely, this project will be conducting removal operations in locations that are often dispersed, remote and present unique logistical challenges. Project implementation has been designed to operate through a partnership, which builds on the comparative advantages and experience of several key agencies, but successfully managing the partnership adds a further degree of complexity to the Project. The ASP-P1 is therefore rated “substantial risk”. The table below summarizes the specific risks and describes the appropriate mitigation measures which have been adopted to minimize their impact:

22

Risks Risk Mitigation MeasuresRisk Rating

with Mitigation

To Project Development/GEO S

The seven countries participating in ASP-P1 fail to substantially reduce the threat posed by obsolete pesticides due to pesticides remaining on site or inadequate clean-up and disposal operations.

Identify and quantify all publicly-held obsolete pesticides in each country at start-up.

Incorporate international standards and safeguards into the implementation of all the clean-up and removal operations.

Include substantial capacity building activities and technical support.

Provide flexibility in project implementation to accommodate changing circumstances.

If one or more of the country projects are not fulfilling the program objectives, ASP-P1 may accelerate the implementation of ASP-P2 countries.

M

To Intermediate Outcomes or Component Outcomes S

Component 1: Country clean-up and disposal operations fail to meet the full extent of country requirements for various reasons, including:

Failure to meet adequate safeguard requirements.

Inventory is inaccurate. Lack of government

implementation capacity and/or support.

Lack of public support or opposition by NGOs.

Inadequate resources due to the scale of the pesticide problem.

The ASP partnership breaks down.

Providing substantial support on safeguard issues.

Continuous technical support to the country projects from the TSU and international experts to ensure accuracy of the inventory.

Building government implementation capacity and providing mechanisms for close collaboration.

Engaging NGO’s directly in project implementation, especially in the monitoring of clean-up and removal activities.

Develop an effective public-disclosure strategy.

Undertaking detailed pesticide inventories to identify the scale of the pesticides problem and continuously seeking additional support and funding.

Ensuring good coordination, collaboration and information exchange. Annual project performance reviews will be conducted to ensure the project remains on track and that issues are resolved promptly and jointly.

S

Component 2: TSU becomes overwhelmed by the demand for technical support services.

The TSU has been designed based on the currently anticipated demand for services, but the structure and resources will be reviewed

M

23


with Mitigation

annually.

Component 3: CCAME is unable to assure NGO community of the soundness of project implementation, especially disposal.

The CCAME will fully engage NGOs through appropriate communications. Also, the component activities have been divided between WWF, PAN-UK and PAN-Africa to ensure adequate coverage at all levels.

S

Component 4: Project coordination becomes ineffective due to inadequate cooperation among the ASP partners.

The project coordination function has been developed in close collaboration with the partners and is designed to foster and maintain a healthy and active ASP partnership.

M

To the Overall Success of the Project S

Governments may reduce the priority of the obsolete pesticides problem and may continue to import and use cheap and toxic pesticides, (especially in emergencies, such as locust outbreaks).

Project implementation will be carried out through PMUs with financial and in-kind contributions from each government, which will ensure government buy-in throughout the program. Parallel efforts to strengthen policies, regulations and enforcement combined with training in IPM techniques will also improve the success of the prevention campaigns. Furthermore, close dialogue with donors and cooperation with the pesticide industry will lead to greater transparency and responsibility.

S

Donors may not devote sufficient resources to resolving the problem, which continues to worsen.

The ASP-P1 is already fully-funded. The ASP is a 10-15 year program, so successful implementation of the initial ASP-P1 project will encourage that GEF and other donors will continue to finance the subsequent operations and other donors are expected to join the partnership (several have already indicated their interest in participating).

M

There is reputational risk for the World Bank, GEF and the ASP donors/partners, especially in the case of accident or the possibility of under-delivery due to project complexity and/or cost overruns

In case of accident Bank donors may reduce support for the ASP.

Ensuring that the environmental and social safeguards are rigorously enforced.

Ensuring that emergency action plans are in place for each country.

Carefully managing the shared relationships between governments, public agencies and the private sector will reduce the risk of accidents and ensure that any issues arising are resolved collectively.

S

24


with Mitigation

Public opposition to the project’s disposal options may delay progress and result in pesticides continuing to be stockpiled.

M&E functions will identify specific risks as they arise. High visibility and disclosure of ASP activities will be maintained through the coordinated involvement of all the partners and stakeholders to ensure that methodologies are satisfactorily explained and that the overall project benefits remain clear and are adequately disseminated.

M

Environmental risks - ASP-P1 has a Safeguard ‘Category A’ rating due to the toxic nature of the obsolete pesticides being removed.

The environmental risks are principally related to the clean-up, transport and disposal operations in each country. However, the project design draws on a wealth of experience from existing projects in the region (e.g., Ethiopia) to define the methodologies to be used and the steps to be taken to ensure that impacts are properly mitigated and will fully incorporate the latest and strictest standards in dealing with and transporting toxic and hazardous wastes.

S

Overall Risk Rating S

H = High S = Substantial M = Moderate

6. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants

The GEF Grant Agreements will also contain a statement that the Bank and the Recipient agree that at no point during the Project will the Bank be responsible for execution of the Project activities, nor will the Bank have any legal custody or responsibility for the pesticide stocks inventories which are to be disposed of during the course of the Project. This would ordinarily go without saying, but this extra precaution is perceived as desirable in light of the small risk of a disposal contractor negligently disposing of stocks and that negligence causing harm to persons or property or damage to the environment.

25

Conditions for Negotiations

For ASP-P1 countries13:

(a) Establish a PMU or project management with appropriately qualified and experienced staff, on terms of reference, acceptable to the Bank; and

(b) Complete a Country Operational Manual, and Financial Management Manual (as part of the Country Operational Manual), in a form and substance to the satisfaction of the Bank.

Conditions for Disbursement for Disposal

(a) Complete a Country Project-specific Environment and Social Assessment (CESA), including an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to the satisfaction of the Bank.

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

1. Economic and Financial Analyses

ASP-P1 will essentially perform a public good in reducing the risk of contaminating the environment and therefore does not lend itself well to typical economic or financial analysis. In theory, the Project could be examined using cost-benefit analysis. However, a lack of reliable base data and the controversial aspects related to the valuation of human life make such an analysis impractical. It is expected that the benefits from reducing damage to the environment and to human health from pesticides will far exceed the costs associated with implementing ASP-P1. The Project will strive for maximum cost-effectiveness in all of its interventions and it will use risk reduction as the criterion to prioritize among them if necessary.

For GEF purposes, the preparation of the Project has included an incremental cost analysis for ASP-P1. This analysis (see Annex 9) provides a baseline and the incremental cost of achieving global benefits to address the issue of obsolete pesticides in seven African countries.

2. Technical

The project has prepared a Generic OM which spells out the technical, procurement, Financial Management (FM), M&E, and Safeguard requirements of ASP as well as the institutional arrangements. Each ASP-P1 country will be required to prepare its own country OM using the Generic OM as a template. In order to design and implement the most appropriate disposal strategies at the country level, the detailed technical options will be prepared during Project implementation once updated pesticide stockpile inventories have been completed. In principle, the technical design will be guided by a preference for cost-effective practices and compliance with international health, safety, and emission standards. The technologies selected for disposing of the stockpiles and wastes will be required to meet both the Stockholm Convention

13 Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria and Tanzania. These conditions have already been met for Tunisia and South Africa. Negotiations have been completed with South Africa and Tunisia.

26

Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practice (BAT/BEP) guidelines, and the appropriate Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management.

To identify standards, the Project will refer to and follow the recommendations and minimum standards described in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2003), in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (dioxins and furans) and those related to the Basel Convention for Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the Rotterdam Convention for Prior Informed Consent. The ASP-P1 will conduct a rigorous analysis of all available disposal technology schemes according to international standards for the industry, including additional criteria such as cost, safety, emissions, risks, etc. In practice, at least in the early stage of the project, this is expected to result in ASP-P1’s obsolete pesticide stocks and associated wastes being safeguarded and shipped overseas to be incinerated at high temperature in order to meet the above-mentioned requirements. Alternative disposal technologies will be identified for possible use at a later stage (see Annex 1, Section 2 for more details).

3. Fiduciary

Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

PMUs will be the principal implementers of ASP-P1 through the individual country programs under Component 1. They will be hosted by the government agencies serving as the ASP-P1 implementing agencies and guided by the NSCs. A generic risk for some countries is slow flow of funds if Government funding channels are used. To mitigate this risk, the use of Special Accounts (SAs) has been suggested. In South Africa, reimbursement and direct payment procedures will be used (see Annex 16)

FM system assessments were conducted for all participating countries, the WWF, PAN-UK, PAN-Africa and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), prior to ASP-P1. In summary, the conclusion of FM assessments is that, once the action plans are fully implemented, all implementing agencies included in the ASP will meet the minimum Bank FM requirements, in accordance with the Bank’s OP/BP 10.02. The FM risks for the individual countries involved in project implementation are rated moderate. FAO has previously been judged to be financially sound by the Bank, and is a regular partner in Bank-financed projects. The summary of the FM assessment is integrated in each Country Appraisal Report, while the detailed FM assessments for each implementing agency are located in the Project File.

To ensure acceptable accounting, financial reporting and audit standards, each country and global supporting units will maintain separate accounts for project funds and carry out annual audits in compliance with internationally acceptable annual standards. A FM Manual has been prepared as part of the OM. It specifies the financial reporting format so that the ASP-PCU can consolidate all financial reports from country projects and global components. The FM Manual will be tailored to each country's circumstances by the implementing agencies. However, the following areas will be uniform for consistency and consolidation purposes: (i) chart-of-accounts

27

will be the same for all countries; (ii) the project financial year will be the calendar year (January-December) for all; (iii) the FM Report (FMR) formats, content and reporting period will be uniform; and (iv) audit arrangements will be similar for all countries. Flow of funds arrangements and use of SAs are described for each country, as there are some differences from country to country. Annexes 7 and 8 discuss the specifics of FM and procurement arrangements.

Procurement: The primary responsibility for overseeing the implementation of procurement procedures will rest with the staff of the PMU. The Procurement Capacity Assessments of the PMUs were carried out during appraisal. Procurement Plans for the first 18 months have been developed by the ASP-P1 countries. Procurement Plans for South Africa and Tunisia are attached in Annex 16 and 17, respectively. Procurement Plans for the five other ASP-P1 countries are in the Project File. In order to further strengthen procurement, the following actions were proposed:

(a) a Project Launch Workshop is planned as part of the Project implementation and capacity building initiatives, especially in procurement;

(b) the PMU staff will attend training on procurement management to further improve their capacity;

(c) an OM with procurement implementation guidelines, specific to the country, will be prepared and adopted;

(d) monitoring of the procurement activities by the Bank bi-monthly; and

(e) periodic ex-post review by the Bank of contracts and purchases.

4. Social

ASP-P1 will deliver considerable social benefits by reducing risks to people from existing pesticide stockpiles and implementing measures to prevent recurrence of pesticide stock accumulation in the future. Due to the correlation between health and environmental risks and poverty, the delivery of benefits will likely be progressive, affecting the population at large and the poor in particular. Given the low level of awareness of the general population with regard to the consequences of exposure to contaminated sites and goods, their active participation and collaboration with the Project to carry out its objectives might be slow. However, the highly participatory modus operandi, started at an early stage of Project preparation and planned to continue during Project implementation, is expected to help mitigate this problem. Other supportive measures have been planned to sensitize the general population to this issue. They include awareness campaigns and training for pesticide distributors and users to help raise the level of awareness and encourage safe pesticide handling and alternative pest control.

5. Environment

ASP-P1 is essentially an extensive cleanup and contamination-prevention operation which will bring substantial environmental health benefits, both locally and globally, by removing obsolete pesticide stockpiles and (in exceptional cases) remediating contaminated sites. ASP-P1 does, however, carry some short-term high environmental risks, specifically as related to the removal

28

and transportation of obsolete pesticides and contaminated materials. These risks are discussed in greater detail in Annex 10 as part of a thorough consideration of the safeguards issues. During project implementation, Country Project-specific Environment and Social Assessments (CESAs) including the EMPs will be prepared by independent consultants as specified in the OM. Detailed inventories, site specific information including detailed digital photos and precise coordinates (GPS) of obsolete stocks and contaminated sites will need to be taken for CESA preparation. The CESA will be completed when the obsolete pesticide stockpile inventories and site characterizations in each country have been completed. Disposal and cleanup activities will begin after successful completion of the CESA.

6. Safeguard Policies

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [x] [ ]Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [x]Pest Management (OP 4.09) [x] [ ]Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [ ] [x]Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [x]Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [ ] [x]Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [x]Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [x]Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)14 [ ] [x]Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [x]

ASP-P1 was rated as environment category A and triggers Operational Policies (OP) 4.01 on EA and 4.09 on Pest Management. The key safeguard issues are associated with potential environmental and social impacts from dealing with highly toxic chemicals and remediation of contaminated sites.

The Project environmental and social impacts were assessed in a Framework Environmental Assessment and their mitigation measures were outlined in an Environmental and Social Management Framework. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was prepared based on these documents and will serve as guidance for the preparation of the respective CESA. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was disclosed prior to appraisal in all Project countries by the individual PMUs or their host agencies and in the InfoShop by March 17, 2004. The Project Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) was disclosed in July 2003. The Environmental and Social Assessment Summary Report was disclosed to the Board on October 3, 2004. A binding covenant in the Project legal document will be made, stating that each country will prepare a CESA early in Project implementation. Annex 10 discusses more specifically how ASP-P1 will ensure compliance with the safeguard policies.

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) is not triggered at this stage. Given the multi-country nature of the Project (seven countries), it is not feasible to prepare an umbrella framework for Project countries, due to their dissimilar legislation and policies related to land acquisition and

14 By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas.

29

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/CC209CF484469D2C8525672C007D07EE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/47D35C1186367F338525672C007D07AE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/5F511C57E7F3A3DD8525672C007D07A2?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/C6B0F62BE7A10B338525672C007D078B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/5DB8B30312AD33108525672C007D0788?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/72CC6840FC533D508525672C007D076B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/D3448207C94C92628525672C007D0733?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C12766B6C9D109548525672C007D07B9?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/97FA41A3D754DE318525672C007D07EB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C972D5438F4D1FB78525672C007D077A?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/0F7D6F3F04DD70398525672C007D08ED?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/383197ED73D421A385256B180072D46D?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/AA37778A8BCF64A585256B1800645AC5?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/55FA484A98BC2E68852567CC005BCBDB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/665DA6CA847982168525672C007D07A3?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/62B0042EF3FBA64D8525672C007D0773?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/71432937FA0B753F8525672C007D07AA?OpenDocument

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/47ByDocName/EnvironmentalAssessment

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/C4241D657823FD818525672C007D096E?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/9367A2A9D9DAEED38525672C007D0972?OpenDocument

displacement. Similarly, it is not practical and realistic to prepare a separate framework for each country, especially when there is no confirmed evidence that existing pesticide sites/storages will result in involuntary displacement or total or partial loss of livelihood.

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04): During project implementation, if a stock of obsolete pesticides, pesticide wastes or a contaminated site happen to be located in the proximity of a critical natural habitat(s), then such a situation would trigger OP 4.04 and would require that the EA process (OP 4.01) would identify such habitats within a proposed project’s area of influence and will take the necessary measures to avoid or minimize damage to natural habitats to the extent feasible.

7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness

Policy Exception: ASP-P1 requires no Bank policy exceptions.

Readiness Criteria:

ISSUES STATUS

Fiduciary All countries indicate high levels of compliance with FM requirements. Procurement plans exist for all countries.

Project Staffing PMU staff identified (and in South Africa and Tunisia in place).

Disclosure Requirements The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report disclosed in the countries and in the Bank InfoShop as of March 17, 2004.

Monitoring and Evaluation M&E indicators have been prepared and incorporated into the project design and implementation arrangements.

Co-Financing Agreements Signed

Co-financing arrangements confirmed and the majority of the funding secured.

30

ANNEXES

31

Annex 1: Africa Stockpiles Programme Background

1. Background

ASP-P1 will be the first in a series of projects to comprise the ASP. The envisaged 10-15 year program has been conceived and designed by a partnership composed of seven African countries (Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Tunisia), NGOs (e.g., WWF, PAN-UK and PAN-Africa), FAO, UNEP, WHO, and other international organizations including the AfDB, the African Union, the NEPAD Secretariat, the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, the Bank, and the private sector.

ASP has been designed to address the issue of an estimated 50,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides that are leaking into the environment, contaminating soil, water, air and food sources. These hazardous chemicals are an environmental health threat to the continent and often to poor communities who lack safe water supplies and who suffer from unsafe working conditions. Obsolete pesticide stockpiles exist in virtually all of the 53 countries of Africa. Within ASP a more specific sub-set of obsolete pesticides will be removed. They are known as POPs. They pose the most serious long term danger to human health and the environment because of their mobility, toxicity, bio-accumulation potential, and persistence. Obsolete pesticides are generally a mixture of different pesticides, some of which are POPs, and fall under the Stockholm Convention on POPs to which all seven participating ASP-P1 countries are parties.

Many African countries lack adequate technical, institutional and financial capacity to deal with these pesticides. This requires the implementation of regulations, enforcement and resources to manage the cleanup of contaminated wastes/sites and the destruction of obsolete pesticide stocks in an environmentally sound manner. They also suffer from weak import controls, inadequate storage and stock management and a lack of training and education on appropriate pesticide use, all of which contribute to the widespread misuse of pesticides. Lastly, there is also a lack of public awareness of the environmental health risks posed by POPs.

The criteria for selecting countries to participate in ASP-P1 include: ratification of the Stockholm Convention, which is a condition for accessing GEF financing; ratification of the Basel Convention for shipment of waste and, preferably, the ratification of the Rotterdam Convention; readiness to implement acceptable removal and prevention measures; and the availability of adequate financing.

2. Main Sector Issues to be addressed by ASP

Obsolete Pesticide Disposal and Management: ASP will support the identification, removal, transportation and safe disposal of obsolete pesticides and heavily contaminated soils and associated materials. There are currently no suitable facilities in Africa for the environmentally sound destruction of pesticides that meet the requirements of the Basel Convention and the Stockholm Convention. Hence, ASP will necessarily facilitate the disposal of the waste at

32

dedicated facilities outside Africa. The Project will also assess alternative destruction technologies which may be applied throughout the African continent in the future.

Technical Options: Several technology options are available for the disposal of hazardous wastes, such as obsolete pesticides. However, the number of technology options which are tried and tested and considered safe at all levels, including environmentally and economically, are relatively few. The ASP has therefore committed to choosing the disposal contractors for its first project through a call for qualified firms based on the highest international standards for disposal of hazardous wastes. These standards will encompass a varied set of factors ensuring, inter alia, experience in the developing country context; meeting international emissions and other environmental standards; and a proven track record in safe handling and transport of hazardous waste in compliance with international conventions. The cost-effectiveness of the offers will also be considered provided they are within the parameters established by the standards for disposal. A list of qualified firms will then be established and tenders will be offered among this pre-qualified group. By utilizing this "standards" approach, the ASP allows for the broadest range of disposal options to be considered (e.g., plasma arc, high temperature incineration, etc.) rather than pre-judging the available market, while ensuring that environmental safeguards are fully met. In addition, the ASP will fund a study (managed by the CCAME) in the first phase of the program to analyze the range of disposal options available to ensure the broadest selection of acceptable technologies are taken into account in subsequent phases of the program.

Contaminated Soils: The high risks for human health (e.g., cancers and birth defects) and the environment (e.g., contamination of water tables and streams) resulting from soils contaminated with pesticides, are well identified in some countries, e.g., in Mali. ASP-P1 will not commit to extensive remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils, other than in exceptionally high-risk situations due to the high costs and large quantities involved. However, the final decision in all cases would be site-specific and would depend in part on a clear understanding of site-specific risk assessments, the technological options available (e.g., containment or in-situ treatment), their feasibility and relative costs.

3. Prevention of accumulation of new stockpiles of obsolete pesticides

Pesticide Regulations: Improved pesticide regulations to ensure effective use and to facilitate international trade in agricultural produce are essential. Many African countries have regulations in place, but these are often either inadequate or not enforced. Furthermore, regulations may be in place for agricultural purposes but not for public health (e.g., mosquito control campaigns and pesticides for domestic use). ASP will help countries to review and improve their regulatory systems, including ensuring their compliance with international conventions.

Pesticide Procurement, Production and Imports: Inadequate procurement strategies on the part of governments, national agencies, donor agencies, development organizations, the private sector and other organizations are the principal cause of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides, often resulting in oversupply, stocking of unsuitable products, late delivery of products, and supply in inappropriate containers. ASP will utilize stakeholder committees to identify ways of

33

eliminating supply-driven pesticide procurement. In addition, the active involvement of donors and the pesticide industry in the ASP partnership will also help to prevent oversupply.

Pesticide Supply, Distribution and Use: Inadequate management of various components of the pesticide life cycle has contributed to the creation of obsolete stocks. There is a need to improve management of pesticides from the point of supply to the point of use and beyond, in terms of empty container and unused pesticide disposal. The ASP will provide governments with comprehensive guidance on strategies for the appropriate management of pesticide distribution, including information on international laws and best practice.

Pest Management in Crop Production: Heavy reliance on external inputs for crop production is a contributing factor to the creation of obsolete pesticide stocks. ASP will collaborate and coordinate its activities with the numerous agencies (e.g., FAO IPM Facility, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology) promoting the development and implementation of IPM strategies that reduce reliance on external inputs such as pesticides.

Control of Migratory Pests: A major source of pesticide accumulation has been through emergency donations for the control of locust invasions and the inappropriate management of such stocks. ASP will help bring together donors and specialized international agencies (e.g., FAO Locust Program) in order to address this problem. It will also coordinate activities with the current Africa Emergency Locust Project. Coordination between the two projects will initially be most prevalent in Mali (the only country currently participating in both projects). The Africa Emergency Locust Project will also contribute to the regional knowledge as well contributing to a key cross-cutting study under CCAME envisioned for ASP-P1.

Pest Management in Animal Health: In the second part of the 20th century, livestock owners in East and South Africa relied on “dipping” to control tick-borne diseases. This practice is slowly being replaced by non-dipping technologies, but numerous contaminated sites are found throughout rural Africa. Cleanup of these sites is not part of ASP-P1.

Pest Management in Public Health, Structural and Industrial Uses: Pesticides are also used in public health (e.g., DDT for malaria vector control), for the protection of buildings, roads, power lines and other structures, and in industry for the protection of materials from pest attack. ASP will involve bodies responsible for the regulation, supply and use of pesticides as stakeholders in national forums addressing obsolete pesticides.

Stakeholder Involvement: ASP aims to ensure that stakeholders are appropriately included in all relevant processes related to ASP supported activities. To that end, one of the criteria which countries must meet in order to engage with the ASP is demonstrable stakeholder involvement and the creation of stakeholder forums for the guidance of ASP country projects.

34

4. The 10-15 Year ASP Strategy

ASP aims to assist African countries in the environmentally sound elimination of obsolete pesticide stocks and implement measures to prevent the accumulation of future pesticides stocks. ASP’s main objectives are to:

(a) cleanup obsolete pesticide stockpiles and pesticide-contaminated material in an environmentally sound manner;

(b) support the development of prevention measures; and

(c) provide capacity-building and institutional strengthening on important pesticide related issues, including environmental health risks.

In order to implement these objectives, a number of guiding principles have been agreed upon:

(a) ASP will be available to all countries that meet certain basic criteria as part of their overall sustainable development strategies;

(b) activities will be country-driven;

(c) ASP will work in conjunction with existing activities related to prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides so as to prevent duplication;

(d) prevention of future accumulation is as important as disposal of existing stockpiles; and

(e) management and destruction of POPs will be in compliance with relevant international and regional regimes.

ASP will help ensure coordination of effort amongst the participating countries and help prepare a further eight countries for follow up ASP support in a planned ASP-P2. The key elements of this approach include:

(a) up-front approval of funds and commitments by donors to establish a predictable envelope of grant financing to which beneficiary countries have access;

(b) combining efforts and critical investment needed to promote higher political visibility and interest; and

(c) taking advantage of existing expertise and on-the-ground learning to replicate and transfer experiences throughout Africa in order to document the lessons learned and develop a participative POPs model which can be applied to other regions around the world.

35

5. The Partnership

The ASP partnership comprises seven selected country governments, FAO, WWF, PAN-Africa, PAN-UK, NEPAD, NGOs, international organizations, international institutions, private sector and donors. The agreed principles for implementation of ASP and the guidelines for association are as follows:

Partnership Principles for Implementation of ASP

1. The goal of ASP is the elimination of existing obsolete pesticide stockpiles throughout Africa and assistance in preventing their future accumulation. The Partnership recognizes the urgent need for disposal of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and remediation of sites and the equal importance of establishing sound prevention programs.

2. The Partnership operates within agreed principles and criteria, as defined by the institutional mechanisms of ASP (ASP-SC and ASP-PCU) and relevant requirements (e.g., adherence to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, Rotterdam Convention, and Basel Convention; EU quality standards on incineration; GEF and other donor conditions on use of funds).

3. The Partnership acknowledges and works to enhance linkages with related conventions and appropriate international institutions.

4. Partnership activities will be country driven and results focused.

5. Partnership activities will contribute to capacity building within the region and countries in which it operates.

6. The Partnership will enhance the sharing of expertise by each partner and provide strategic guidance on key issues to both national and international counterparts, while ensuring that due regard is given to avoidance of conflicts of interest.

7. The Partnership will operate in a transparent, trusting, and respectful manner both among partners and with other counterparts and stakeholders.

8. Project activities will be undertaken pursuant to agreed project principles, i.e., safety, legal, cost effective and environmentally and socially sustainable. ASP encompasses diverse activities and funding streams that can operate in parallel ways, regardless of fund source or management entity, as long as the funding or activities adhere to guidelines for their association with ASP and contribute to ASP’s overall objective.

9. Each partner accepts responsibility for activities undertaken through the Partnership and shall be accountable for its actions to ASP-SC.

36

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or Other Agencies

Bank Operations

The following table summarizes related Bank Projects.

BANK PROJECTS TARGETED SECTOR ISSUES PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Mali : Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project P035630 – ongoing

Building capacity for pesticide management including obsolete pesticide inventories and cleanup for US$617,000.

Implementation Progress: Satisfactory

Development Objective: Satisfactory

Honduras:Urgent Tracking and Disposal of Hazardous MaterialsFunded with US$730,000 through the Dutch Trust Fund (TF021813)April 1999 – August 2000Closed

Groundwater and breast milk testing in contaminated areas. Inventory and removal of 104 tonnes of obsolete pesticides and other toxic waste, including POPs, following Hurricane Mitch. Also awareness raising, capacity building and public information campaigns.

Not rated

Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, The Gambia:Africa Emergency Locust Project P092473 – on-going

Reducing the hardships imposed on people and the environment from current and future locust invasions. The project includes emergency locust management; emergency agriculture investments; and establishing early warning and response systems in 7 countries for a total project cost of US$73 million.

Satisfactory

Related Operations

The following table summarizes the related cleanup and prevention projects implemented by agencies other than the Bank.

AGENCY CLEANUP OR DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES

PREVENTION OR CAPACITY BUILDING AND AWARENESS

ACTIVITIESFAO Manage Ethiopia Pesticide Disposal Project

Initiate/coordinate national inventories of obsolete pesticide stockpiles. Initiate/formulate disposal projects for FAO member countries.

Awareness raising workshops on obsolete pesticides in affected countries and regions. Guidelines on prevention and management of obsolete pesticides.Guidance and support for prevention

37



ACTIVITIES

Supervise/monitor/follow up disposal and prevention operations in Ethiopia.

Removal and disposal of obsolete pesticides from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Seychelles, Yemen, and Zambia. Engage donors in action to resolve obsolete pesticide problems.

programs and strategies in FAO member countries.

Global IPM Facility; International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides; Pesticides Management Programme; Joint Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC); advice and support on pesticide regulation; regional programs on pesticides registration, e.g., Comité Permanent Inter Etat de Lutte contre la Sécheresse (CILSS), Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) member and co chair of IOMC working group on obsolete pesticides.

WHO

None.

Awareness raising through the WHO/ International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). Epidemiology of pesticides Poisoning Project on health impact of pesticides and the IPCS INTOX Project.

UNEP Chemicals Inventories Russian Federation.Financial support for FAO work in Latin America.

Stockholm Convention Secretariat.Awareness raising. IOMC participation. Partnership in Secretariat of Rotterdam Convention.

UNEP / WHO (GEF funded, Council approved 2005)

None.

“Demonstrating Cost-effective and Sustainability of Environmentally Sound and Locally Appropriate Alternatives to DDT for Malaria Control on Africa” - Regional (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Madagascar, Namibia, South Africa)

UNEP / FAO (GEF funded, Council approved 2005)

None.

“Reducing Dependence on POPs and other Agro-Chemicals in the Senegal and Niger River Basins through Integrated Production, Pest and Pollution Management” – Regional (Benin, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal)

UNIDO – Ethiopia, Nigeria Tanzania, UNEP – Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia

None. Support of NIP National Coordinators to strengthen links with NIP process.

38



ACTIVITIES

African Countries(South Africa, Botswana and others)

603 tonnes (Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland). Ethiopia – significant involvement and contribution “in kind” in disposal project management.

Improved pesticides regulation, IPM programs, reform of pesticide supply systems, engagement with international forums, e.g., Conventions, Sub-regional initiatives, e.g., CILSS pesticide registration program.

DANIDA Mozambique disposal facility investigated. None.

Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development

None.Southern African Development Coordination inventory.

Finnish Department for International Development Corporation

Nicaragua 1998 – carried out by Ekokem (Finnish disposal company). None.

GTZ Over 850 tonnes pesticide in Madagascar, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, and Zambia.

None.

Netherlands Funded FAO obsolete pesticides program since 1994. Funded national disposal programs in Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Senegal, Seychelles, Tanzania - Zanzibar, Yemen, and Zambia.Funded detailed inventory in Tanzania.

Support to the Global IPM Facility.

USAID / US Environmental Protection Agency

Contributed to disposal in Ethiopia, Niger, and Senegal.

Awareness raising and training for inventory taking.

CLI Financial support for destruction of stocks proven to be supplied by CLI member companies.

Technical Assistance (TA).

UNIDO

None.

Demonstration Project on non-combustion POPs destruction technology (Nigeria); Knowledge Sharing workshop on POPs for African NGOs (Arusha-Tanzania).

SecretariatBaselConvention

TA for the undertaking of the national inventory of obsolete pesticides in Mauritius.

Guidance on transboundary movement of obsolete pesticides. Technical guidelines on environmentally sound management of POPs (drafting stage). Awareness raising, policy making and training workshops.

39

PAN-UK Independent monitoring of Ethiopian Obsolete Pesticides Project.Engagement of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Pesticides Forum on obsolete pesticides issues. Capacity building for NGOs in developing countries. Contribution to awareness raising in developing countries and among donors.

Promotion of safe alternatives to pesticide use. Guidance/awareness raising on health and environmental impact of pesticides.Training of local NGOs in monitoring, disposal and prevention. Lobbying for Implementation of Conventions (e.g., on POPs and Rotterdam Convention).

PAN-Africa Publications and awareness raisingPAN-UK, Safe Environment Group and PAN-Africa liaise to develop regional, networked NGO capacity in addition to specific in-country capacity-building programs.Conferences and meetings on stockpiles in West African region.

Guidance/awareness raising across Africa on health/environmental impact of pesticides. Lobbying for implementation of Conventions (e.g., Stockholm Convention on POPs and Rotterdam Convention).

WWF Engagement with governments and NGOs on the implementation of the Stockholm Convention; Global Toxics Program.

Awareness-raising on issue of toxins and TA.

40

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring

1. Results Framework

PDO/GEO Outcome Indicators Use of Outcome InformationPDOElimination of publicly-held obsolete pesticide stockpiles and associated waste and reduction of future related risks.

Reduce risks to health and ecosystems from accidental leaks of POPs by helping selected African countries eliminate inventories of stockpiles of publicly-held pesticides and their associated waste and to help them avoid accumulating such stockpiles in the future.

GEOReduce the quantity of POPs materials in Africa that could potentially leak and damage ecosystems locally and globally.

Inventoried publicly-held obsolete pesticide stockpiles in 6 ASP-P1 countries eliminated15

(Goal = 100% removed).

Quantity of new publicly-held obsolete pesticide stockpiles(Goal = 0 stockpiles).

No further accumulation of publicly-held obsolete pesticide stocks(Goal = 0 additional stockpiles).

Outcome information will be utilized for the design of the subsequent phases of the Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP-P2, etc.) until all obsolete pesticide stocks have been removed from Africa.

Outcome information will also be very useful for developing similar multi-partner, multi-country projects in other regions.

15 Initial estimates have been provided by FAO and the countries which will be finalized as the first step of each country project within the first twelve months of implementation.

41

Intermediate ResultsOne per Component

Results Indicatorsfor Each Component Use of Results Monitoring

Component One:

Obsolete pesticide stocks identified accurately and disposed and prevention measures put in place.

Component One:

An inventory database in place in 7 ASP countries, accepted by the ASP partnership and being used and updated by government staff.

In case of accident, emergency plans successfully implemented.

Disposal contract completed in 6 ASP countries in line with national and international regulations.

Quantity of accumulation of new obsolete pesticide stockpiles minimized(Goal = 0 additional stockpiles).

Government adopts International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Distribution and Use16.

Component One:

Will define specific ASP-P1 disposal activities and will be used for future management of stocks.

16 The International Code of Conduct covers issues such as the labeling, tracking and licensing of pesticides.

42

Intermediate ResultsOne per Component

Results Indicatorsfor Each Component Use of Results Monitoring

Component Two:

Effective TA provided for implementation of project at the country level.

Component Two :

TSU fully funded and staffed by end of year 1.

Client satisfaction as determined by survey.

Preparation activities for ASP-P2 countries complete – national programs identified, selection conditions met, country counterparts in place and funding secured.

Component Two:

Annually: Feedback on the efficacy of TSU services.

Year 2- 4: Inform scope of future TSU support.

Component Three:

Capacity building for countries and cross-cutting for involvement of NGOs implemented effectively.

Component Three:

Strategic studies delivered, e.g., alternative disposal technologies and locust control issues assessed and adopted if ASP standards met.

NGO participation in project activities in all ASP-P1 countries participating in at least two of the following: awareness raising, monitoring, capacity building and communication.

Communication strategy implemented.

Component Three:

Contribute to design of future project components and activities.

Annually: Feedback on the efficacy of the CCAME services.

Component Four:

Effective coordination of all program components.

Component Four:

Monitoring reports delivered with sufficient data on time to GEF, donors and the Bank.

ASP-PCU moving to African organization within ASP-P1.

Component Four:

Annually: Feedback on the efficacy of the ASP-PCU services.

Mid-term: Inform preparation of follow-on projects and scope of future ASP-PCU support.

43

2: Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Outcome IndicatorsBaseLine (%)

Target Values Data Collection and ReportingYear

1Year

2Year

3Year

4Frequencyof Reports

Data Collection Instruments

Data Collection Responsibility

100% of inventoried publicly-held obsolete stocks in 6 ASP-P1 countries eliminated17. X18 0 40 90 100 Annually

Tracked using a risk analysis score developed by ASP

In-country: PMUASP-P1: TSU will consolidate for the ASP-P1

Results Indicatorsfor Each Component

Component One:Inventory database in 7 countries in place and being used by government staff.

0 75 100 100 100 Every 6 months

Bank Supervision missions TSU and ASP-PCU

CESA in 7 countries disclosed and activities implemented. 0 60 100 100 100 Every 6

monthsBank Supervision missions TSU and Bank

Quantity of new obsolete pesticide stockpiles, as per updated inventory X X X X 0 Annually Bank Supervision

missionsPMU, TSU and Bank

Disposal contract completed and in line with national and international regulation.

0 0 0 40 100 Annually

Database will be established in each country as a register of obsolete stocks

In-country: PMUASP-P1: TSU for consolidation ASP-wide

Government adoption of International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Distribution and Use.

0 0 20 50 100 Annually Annual reporting In-country: PMU

17 In Nigeria, regarding cleanup and disposal activities, only basic containment of obsolete pesticide stockpiles will be undertaken.18 This baseline is estimated at 5000 tonnes. This figure will be confirmed through the inventory which will be completed within the first six months of each country project. These results are to be adopted by the government and ownership of privately-held stocks transferred to the government.

44

Outcome IndicatorsBaseLine (%)

Target Values Data Collection and ReportingYear

1Year

2Year

3Year

4Frequencyof Reports

Data Collection Instruments

Data Collection Responsibility

Component Two:TSU fully funded and staffed. 0 100 100 100 100 Annually TSU Annual reports and

work plansTSU responsible for reporting

Level of client satisfaction as determined by survey. 0 70 80 85 85 Annually Client survey and

progress reports ASP-PCU

Preparation activities for ASP-P2 countries complete. 0 0 0 40 100 Annual after

mid-termTSU reporting and work plan review TSU and ASP-PCU

Component Three:Final strategic studies delivered, e.g., alternative disposal technologies and locust control issues.

0 25 50 50 100

Annually CCAME (WWF) reporting and work program

WWF

NGO participation in Project activities in at least two of the following; awareness raising, monitoring, capacity building and communication.

0 40 40 60 100

Initially every 6 months then annually

CCAME (PAN-UK) reporting and work program and supervision missions

PAN-UK and PAN-Africa

Communication strategy implemented.0 40 60 80 100

Annually CCAME (WWF) reporting and work program

WWF

Component Four: Reports delivered with sufficient data on time to GEF, donors and the World Bank.

0 70 80 85 85

Annually Client survey, progress reports ASP-PCU

ASP-PCU moving to African organization within ASP-P1. 0 0 40 80 100

Mid-term and final

Readiness survey on capacity assessment ASP-PCU

45

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description

1. Background

ASP-P1 consists of four components:

Component 1: Country Operations (GEF: US$21.74 million; Total: US$51.37 million).

This is the principal component of the project, encompassing a full range of cleanup and prevention activities for six of the seven selected African countries, Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, South Africa, Tanzania, and Tunisia. In Nigeria, regarding cleanup and disposal activities, only basic containment of obsolete pesticide stockpiles will be undertaken. This Component will receive the majority of support services provided by the remaining three components. This component also includes: (a) preparatory activities for ASP countries in the form of training, workshops and technical assistance; and (b) the preparation of ASP-P2 countries for future inclusion in the ASP.

The four sub-components are:

(a) Country Cleanup and Disposal Activities;

(b) Prevention Activities;

(c) Capacity Building; and

(d) Country Project Management and M&E.

Country Cleanup and Disposal Activities: Country PMUs will be trained and given technical support to carry out the inventory and related CESAs, including EMPs immediately after the Project launch. Each inventory will include a prioritization of storage and contaminated sites based on the level of risk they pose to populations and the environment. Inventories will also feed new data into the design of the cleanup and remediation operations in each country.

46

ASP-P1 Projects (Total: US$3.0 Million)

ASP-P1 will focus on seven countries: Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Tunisia.

Triggers on Movement from Project P1 to Project P2 and Beyond: An independent assessment of the overall program progress and of the lessons learned will help determine the readiness for moving from one Project to the next (P1 to P2, P3…). Elements of the assessment methodology to be applied would include (i) country level field results: number of countries, stages accomplished, tonnes of pesticides removed, effectiveness of preventive measures; and (ii) program level management: financial flows, provision of technical services, coordination of ASP partners and countries, resource mobilization and implementation of cross-cutting activities.

During the first year of ASP-P1 operations, an additional group of eight countries will be identified through consultation with ASP partners and prepared for inclusion in the follow-on Project, which will be called ASP-P2. There are currently twelve high-priority candidate countries: Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Lesotho, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan and Swaziland. US$3.0 million under ASP-P1 will be used to support this initiative and to encourage other donors to contribute to ASP-P2.

The selection of the eight countries to be included in ASP-P2 will depend on the following criteria:

(a) ratification of the Stockholm Convention (a GEF requirement) and the Basel Convention;

(b) level of readiness, country ownership and commitment (to be identified during preparation);

(c) assessment of the scale and scope of the pesticide problem;

(d) NIP process (existing or planned) giving a clear indication of country engagement;

(e) formal invitation for ASP assistance from the government concerned; and

(f) availability of adequate funding.

As and when sufficient funding is available for new countries to begin ASP operations, the Bank will prepare and submit for approval a follow-on project. ASP-P2 will then run in parallel with the ASP-P1 and contribute to the growing knowledge base on managing obsolete pesticides.

The design of ASP-P2 will be finalized in close collaboration and consultation with key partners and based on the lessons learned in ASP-P1. Under ASP-P1, countries were grouped together under a single umbrella project to take advantage of economies of scale in terms of technical assistance and training. Under ASP-P2, emphasis will also be put on greater flexibility to move ahead with countries as soon as they are ready (based on previously described criteria) to reduce preparation time.

47

Component 2: Technical Support (GEF: US$3.26 million; Total: US$4.31 million)

The objective of this component is to provide technical and monitoring support to the country operations under Component 1. Component 2 has four sub-components:

(a) provide technical assistance to countries in the development of the Country OMs and the completion of preparatory activities related to training and capacity building (GEF: US$0.06 million, Co-financing: US$0.38 million);

(b) provide technical assistance to the six countries to implement disposal operations (GEF: US$0.93 million; Co-financing: US$0.10 million);

(c) provide technical assistance to seven countries to build their capacity to prevent re-occurrence of the obsolete pesticide problem (GEF: US$0.93 million; Co-financing: US$0.54 million); and

(d) provide overall country M&E of country performance against agreed technical standards (GEF: US$1.3 million; Co-financing: US$0.03 million).

The TSU, which is hosted by FAO, will coordinate the technical input to country projects, and assure the technical quality of Country Projects and consolidate M&E data. The TSU will operate under the supervision of FAO in compliance with the rules and procedures of FAO.

The TSU will liaise directly with the country PMUs and closely with the Bank as per agreed work plans to ensure that the technical assistance needs of countries are met in a timely and efficient manner. The TSU will report on its progress and work plan to the ASP-PCU which in turn will consolidate activity reports for transmission to ASP donors and the ASP-SC. Because the Bank is responsible for the supervision of all GEF ASP country grants, the TSU and the Bank will work closely together to support countries.

Since the original project design, GEF has offered direct access to FAO for funding their POPs-related activities. Accordingly, FAO has now direct access confirmed for the TSU component of ASP and will therefore be presenting its own Project Brief to GEFSEC in a joint submission with the Bank.

FAO will build the capacity of countries to safely and effectively undertake disposal activities by providing training and quality assurance. The training plans will be adapted to the specific needs of each country and training activities will include: preparation of training material and conduction of training on:

Sub-component 1: Preparation of Country Operational Manuals (US$0.44 million)

This sub-component will support the seven countries to prepare Country OMs required for negotiations and to implement the project.

48

Sub-component 2: Preparation for Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides (US$1.04 million)

This sub-component will coordinate delivery of a range of services to support the preparation of country operations to dispose of obsolete pesticides and will include the following activities:

(a) support the design of strategies for the effective and safe disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks and associated waste, health and safety plans;

(b) support the development of obsolete pesticide inventories by providing training, material, information and technical support for field activities;

(c) support the development of the CESAs including the EMPs;

(d) contract preparation – the TSU will support countries in preparing technical specifications and carrying out technical evaluations for project managers, consultants and contractors for obsolete pesticide prevention and disposal activities. The Bank’s fiduciary responsibilities will not be infringed in this regard; and

(e) advise on alternative disposal options, targeted to specific country or site conditions.

Sub-component 3: Prevention of Accumulation (US$1.47 million)

The prevention sub-component will coordinate delivery of a range of services that are required to support country prevention activities. It will include the following activities:

(a) support legislative and regulatory reforms to enhance pesticide management;

(b) support the identification of weaknesses in the enforcement of legislation and enhance enforcement measures;

(c) support the design of enhanced pest management strategies to improve efficiencies and to reduce reliance on pesticides in various sectors; and

(d) support the design and implementation of appropriate container management strategies.

Sub-component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation of Country Implementation (US$1.36 million)

The activities under this sub-component include:

(a) support country project launch workshops and supervision support with the Bank at least twice per annum;

(b) support countries to implement the detailed M&E System and Enquiry System;

(c) support annual workshops for the PMUs on lessons learned; and

(d) support TSU Management, including overall coordination with other ASP units, administration of TSU activities, including procurement, reporting and financial administration.

49

Component 3: Cross-Cutting Activities Management Entity (CCAME) (Total: US$2.44 million)

The objective of this component is to support ASP-P1 knowledge management, build the capacity of local NGOs in pesticide-related matters and to identify alternative disposal technology and practices. This component will be implemented by WWF and PAN-UK. It comprises three sub-components:

(a) communications and knowledge management;

(b) NGO capacity building; and

(c) strategic studies.

The original plan to include a Competitive Grants component is not currently funded, but may be prepared and included in ASP-P2 programming as additional funds become available.

Sub-component 1: Communications and Knowledge Management (US$0.94 million) (WWF)

The sub-component will coordinate a number of cross-cutting activities, required for the success of the ASP. The activities include:

(a) Communications: The communication strategy will be further defined during project implementation. It will include the design and distribution of ASP folders/documents, managing the ASP website and a media outreach service (e.g., field visits for journalists, information dissemination campaigns). The Bank will also provide media outreach and communications support to WWF due to its global reach.

(b) Knowledge management: A knowledge and information management system will be designed and implemented to store and retrieve key documents and information.

(c) Treaty ratification and coordination with chemical convention activities (in addition to POPs destruction options): Countries which have not yet signed or ratified the Stockholm Convention will be supported to do so. This is required by the GEF as a condition for country participation in ASP. Countries will also be supported financially to ratify the Rotterdam, Basel, and Bamako Conventions. This activity will also support coordination with related chemical convention issues including: NIP, inventory coordination, PIC information exchange and trans-boundary movement of waste issues.

(d) Private sector funding: WWF will solicit private sector financial support for ASP in cooperation with the Bank and FAO.

50

Sub-component 2: NGO Capacity Building (US$1.10 million) (PAN-UK)

PAN-UK will lead these efforts in close coordination with PAN-Africa and WWF. The activities will include:

(a) NGO capacity building: NGO capacity to address pesticide management issues will be built through sharing lessons learnt at workshops, networking and coordination of NGO activities;

(b) preparing and disseminating operational guidelines for NGO involvement and training in ASP; and

(c) designing and implementing awareness raising activities and outreach program targeted at key stakeholders.

Sub-component 3: Strategic Studies (US$0.40 million) (WWF)

The sub-component will include preparation of strategic studies in close collaboration with regional partners on topics common to the entire project, such as environmentally sustainable locust control and the safe maintenance of emergency pesticide stocks for the control of locust outbreaks, malaria, dengue fever and other pest-vector diseases. Activities will include:

(a) identifying alternative disposal technologies for obsolete pesticides and remediation of contaminated soils and water resources; and

(b) identifying environmentally sound locust control strategies and the safe maintenance of emergency pesticide stocks for the control of locust outbreaks, malaria, dengue fever and other vector-born diseases.

Component 4: Project Coordination (US$2.44 million)

The objective of this component is to ensure overall coordination of the ASP-P1 including the other three components and their activities. The ASP-PCU will initially be hosted by the Bank. It is anticipated that following the successful completion of ASP-P1, or earlier, the ASP-PCU will be transferred to an African organization. NEPAD has been identified as a potential host. The Bank is channeling DGF funding to DBSA for capacity building activities of NEPAD and the secondment of staff for ASP-P1. The three components of the ASP-PCU include the following:

51

Sub-component 1: Governance and Coordination (US$0.60 million)

The ASP-PCU will be responsible for supporting the overall governance arrangements of the ASP including the ASP-SC. In addition, the ASP-PCU will coordinate the efforts of the partners to design subsequent ASP projects. The main activities under this sub-component will include:

(a) providing secretarial support for the ASP-SC;(b) coordinating preparation for ASP-P2;(c) ensuring effective management of ASP financial resources and maintaining an audit

regime in cooperation with the Bank; and(d) promoting ASP and liaising with donors and recipient countries.

Sub-component 2: Project Monitoring and Evaluation (US$0.55 million)

The ASP-PCU will establish and implement the overall ASP M&E system in order to ensure that the Project is successfully implemented to achieve the PDO and those resources are being used efficiently and effectively. It will do this through consolidating individual FMRs and monitoring Project progress against the project Results Framework and each component against its overall Project Results Framework and Workplan. It will provide bi-annually consolidated ASP progress reports and work plans with recommendations to the ASP-SC and to donors and partners for information.

Sub-component 3: ASP-PCU Management (US$0.72 million)

Funds from the MDTF will financially support the ASP-PCU in order for it to perform its central coordination functions. NEPAD will be provided with a capacity development grant from the DGF so that it will be prepared to take on increasing responsibility throughout the life of ASP-P1. The ASP-PCU will produce a bi-annual work plan and project progress report supported by a project FMR for the ASP-SC, and all other partners. The report will be based on the inputs provided from the various partners.

52

Annex 5: Project Costs

SUMMARY of the ASP-P1 FINANCING TABLE

ACTIVITY COMPONENT FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT19

(US$‘000s) TOTALS

COUNTRY PROJECTS

ETHIOPIA

GEFGovernmentBelgiumJapanFinland

1,770500

4,0701,1301,020

8,490

51,380

MALI

GEFMDTFGovernmentFFEMNetherlandsFAO

4,0402,0201,3801,000

22070

8,730

MOROCCO GEFGovernment

3,750710 4,460

NIGERIA GovtCanada

3802,290 2,670

SOUTH AFRICA GEFGovernment

1,73070 1,800

TANZANIAGEFGovernmentNetherlands

6,460380220

7,060

TUNISIAGEFGovernmentFFEM

4,000530630

5,160

Unallocated TF 10,000 10,000

ASP-P2 Preparation

MDTFDGF

2,770240 3,010

GLOBAL UNITS

ASP-PCU –Bank/NEPAD

MDTFDGF

1,150720 1,870

8,620TSU – FAODGFNetherlandsGEF (direct access)

410640

3,2604,310

CCAME – WWF MDTFDGF

1,1201,320 2,440

TOTAL: 60,000

19 GEF and MDTF amounts (except in the case of South Africa and Tunisia) are estimates that will be finalized prior to negotiations.

53

SUMMARY of ASP-P1 Donors

FACILITY DONOR AMOUNT(US$‘000s) CONDITIONS STATUS

GEF

World Bank (Implementing Agency)

21,740

25,000 None ConfirmedFAO (Implementing Agency)

3,2600

DevelopmentGrant Facility (DGF)

WB – FY05 1,5002,700 None Confirmed

WB – FY06 1,200

Trust Fund Canada 2,286 2,286 Nigeria Confirmed

Multi-DonorTrust Fund

EU 1,140

7,064

None Confirmed

Denmark 2,424 None Confirmed

Sweden 3,000 None On Board Approval

Switzerland 500 None Confirmed

Bi-LateralFinancing

Belgium 4,070

8,929

Only Ethiopia Confirmed

Finland 1,020 Only Ethiopia Confirmed

France (FFEM)Based on €1.00 = $1.25 1,625 Only Mali (1,000)

and Tunisia (625) Confirmed

Japan 1,134 Only Ethiopia Confirmed

The Netherlands 1, 081

Only Mali (220) andTanzania (220) andFAO/TSU (640)

Confirmed

Trust Fund African Development Bank 10,000 10,000

Only Tanzania and Mali and Nigeria and Ethiopia

Committed

FAO FAO 75 75 None Committed

ASP Participant Countries Governments 3,946 3,946 Co-Financing

(Cash & In-kind) At Execution

TOTAL ASP-P1 FUNDING: 60,000

54

Additional funding: Additional funding for the project is also anticipated from AfDB, as reflected in the preceding tables. A commitment letter has already been provided by AfDB offering US$10 million. AfDB funding will support country operations.

55

56

Additional funding 20

20 A commitment letter has been provided by the AfDB offering US$10 million, which increases the Project budget to US$60 million. AfDB funding will support country operations.

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements

1. Background

ASP-P1 institutional and implementation arrangements rely on close cooperation between the ASP partners. Overall coordination of the ASP will be the responsibility of the ASP-PCU. The country PMUs are responsible for implementation of component one. The TSU (hosted by FAO), and CCAME (hosted by WWF/PAN-UK) will support the countries in implementation through providing, inter alia, technical assistance, support for prevention activities and information dissemination. Overall coordination and oversight will be provided by the ASP-PCU, to be established initially in the World Bank and then moving to an African organization. (NEPAD is receiving DGF funds to build its capacity as a possible candidate). The ASP Unit at the World Bank provides continuous management of project activities and supervision of funds.

These arrangements are based on the comparative advantage of each partner and responds to the need to: ensure country implementation capacity and ownership; technical support for country project implementation; sound communication and NGO support; coordinated and effective implementation between the partners; and effective supervision and management of donor funds.

2. Implementation and Institutional Arrangements for Country Operations

In order to implement the country projects, countries will establish PMUs supported by National Steering Committees (NSC). These arrangements are described in brief detail below, and are elaborated upon in each Country OM.

2.1 National Steering Committee (NSC)

NSCs will include, at a minimum, representatives of relevant ministries and departments including the country’s Stockholm Convention NIP Coordinator. It is recommended to include, the organized NGO sector, the private sector and other key stakeholders. The NSCs will be chaired by a relevant head of department or Ministry of the recipient - usually environment or agriculture. The NSCs will initially meet at least quarterly but, once the Project is under way, they will meet every six months. The main functions of the NSCs will include:

(a) approving the annual and bi-annual work plans and progress reports prepared by the PMU;

(b) monitoring Project finances;

(c) supporting and coordinating government efforts to implement the Project; and

(d) monitoring and advising on Project implementation, including against the indicators contained in the Grant Agreement, and the EMP.

The NSC will report to the relevant Minister by, amongst other things, providing him or her with copies of the minutes of the NSC meetings.

65

2.2 Project Management Unit (PMU)

Each country operation will establish a PMU to implement the Project, although the name of the entity, and work program under which it will operate, will differ in each case, depending on the country’s circumstances. PMUs will be staffed either by seconded government officials who will devote 100% of their time to the PMU, or through work program agreements with government staff who will assign a proportion of their time to the PMU’s work. Typically, the PMU staffing structure will include the following positions: a Project coordinator; finance, procurement and administration officers; a management information system specialist; an institutional support specialist; and relevant technical specialists (e.g., an environmental safeguard specialist). Terms of reference (TORs) for these positions will be provided in the Country OM. Some of these posts may be supported by individual consultants where a need for them is identified. Technical support will also be provided by the TSU according to an agreed work plan.

PMU’s will be responsible for supporting and coordinating all technical aspects of Project implementation, described under the Country Operations Component (Annex 4); and Project management, including:

(a) coordinating project implementation within government and programming of external inputs, including from the TSU;

(b) ensuring sound FM and proper documentation of receipt and expenditure of funds, as well as the provision of external annual audit reports to the Bank;

(c) preparing the annual, bi-annual work plans and progress reports, mid-term review report and quarterly FMRs. The NSC and TSU will receive copies of the work plans, the progress reports and the mid term review. The ASP-PCU and the Bank will receive these reports together with the Quarterly FMRs;

(d) updating and implementing the 18 month procurement plan, and submitting it to the Bank for approval;

(e) project M&E, including updating of the management information system;

(f) ensuring preparation, approval and implementation of the CESA including an EMP, before disposal operations commence;

(g) updating the Country OM, and ensuring implementation of the Project according to the procedures contained in the Country OM; and

(h) ensuring that the Project is implemented in accordance with agreed occupational health and safety procedures.

66

Typical ASP PMU Structure

3. The ASP-Steering Committee (ASP-SC)

This will be an advisory structure to the ASP partners including the Bank and FAO. It will comprise of a membership of 10-15 persons representing: ASP core partners, including the seven ASP-P1 countries, NGOs, NEPAD Secretariat, AfDB, donors, key UN agencies and Convention Secretariats. The ASP-PCU will act as a secretariat to the ASP-SC. The ASP-SC will decide on its rules of procedures at its first meeting. The ASP-SC will meet once a year and will be responsible for:

(a) reviewing and advising on overall project implementation progress and work plans, including review of the overall annual ASP-P1 work plan and progress report and related financial status report prepared by the ASP-PCU;

(b) reviewing and advising on fund-raising progress; and

(c) advising on any other critical key issues important to successful implementation of the Project.

67

4. ASP-Project Coordination Unit (ASP-PCU)

The ASP-PCU will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the ASP between the partners and ensuring good governance. It will not be responsible for performing Bank supervision, nor will it fulfil the Bank’s fiduciary responsibilities. The Bank will initially host the ASP-PCU. The ASP-PCU will include a coordinator, a finance specialist, and an administrative assistant/information analyst. Selection of ASP-PCU staff will be on a competitive basis. The ASP-PCU will be assisted by a variety of consultants (e.g., independent M&E, logistical support staff, and facilitators for workshops).

The ASP-PCU will be responsible for the results of Component 4, Project Coordination. More specifically, the ASP-PCU will be responsible for:

(a) coordinating project implementation between the partners. It will do this by providing bi-annual ASP-P1 work plans and progress reports to the ASP-SC and the project partners;

(b) preparing consolidated FMRs for submission to the Bank;

(c) convening the ASP-SC;

(d) coordinating the design and preparation of the ASP-P2;

(e) coordinating a fund raising strategy between the partners;

(f) coordinating the independent M&E of the ASP-P1; and

(g) ensuring effective communication between the partners.

5. Technical Support Unit (TSU)

FAO will host the TSU and be responsible for providing high level technical support to countries as detailed in Annex 4. The FAO will provide the necessary internal controls to manage the TSU. The TSU will prepare its bi-annual work plans in cooperation with the seven countries as well as with the ASP-PCU and the Bank.

The TSU will submit bi-annual progress reports using the standard FAO format and containing (i) actual implementation of activities compared to the work plan; (ii) identification of problems and constraints; (iii) recommendations for corrective measures; and (iv) detailed work plan for the following reporting period. The TSU will also submit FMRs to the ASP-PCU in order to monitor project expenditures and budget forecasts.

The TSU will be coordinated by a senior specialist who will be responsible for budget management, operational activities, and staff management. An additional senior specialist will be posted in South Africa and will coordinate technical inputs to ASP-P1 countries. Other specialists will be recruited to coordinate M&E at the country level and prevention activities. The TSU will be supported by administrative assistants. In addition, the TSU will hire consultants as needed for specific tasks such as training and updating of manuals and guidelines.

68

The TSU coordinator will liaise with the ASP-PCU on programmatic issues and will maintain direct contact with ASP partners, donors and countries in order to ensure all technical issues are adequately addressed and technical inputs are coordinated. Within ASP-P1 the TSU will liaise directly with the PMUs ensuring that the needs of the countries for technical support are met in a timely and efficient manner.

6. Cross-Cutting Activities Management Entity (CCAME)

The CCAME will provide a support service, covering matters such as knowledge management, awareness-raising and strategic studies for the Project, as described in Annex 4. WWF and PAN-UK will execute this project function for ASP-P1, and will work closely with countries to support communication and knowledge management activities.

WWF staff will include a director, senior program officers, senior administrative assistant and a senior program officer who will be located in the WWF Africa regional office (all are part-time positions). WWF will mobilize their existing in-house capacity, e.g., WWF communications staff and staff from regional offices, and hire consultants for specific studies. PAN-UK will closely coordinate implementation of capacity building and communications activities with PAN-Africa. CCAME will submit bi-annual reports to the ASP-PCU.

7. ASP Unit

The Bank will establish an ASP Unit, supported by staff in MNA and Africa Regions, based on the current Project preparation team. The rationale for this is that the Project will comprise of six GEF Grant Agreements and four other trust fund agreements. This will entail support to different entities including the current seven countries with follow-up ASP-P2 support envisaged for another eight countries. In addition, the Project involves two Bank regions: MNA and Africa. The proposed ASP Unit will serve the following functions:

(a) coordinating Bank project supervision and compliance with fiduciary requirements and legal covenants, supporting project launch workshops, a mid-term review and production of the Implementation Completion Report;

(b) reporting to donors, establishing new trust funds and negotiating grant agreements;

(c) supporting the development of the ASP-PCU; and

(d) supporting the development of ASP-P2.

In order to support the above, a dedicated three person unit is required. This will comprise of a Coordinator, an operations officer and an Administrative and Client Support staff member. The ASP Unit will be supported by 60% of the time of a staff member from the Africa Region. The ASP Unit will also be supported part-time by identified FM staff from MNA and Africa Region Departments. Whilst the GEF Grant Agreements are being negotiated, the same Bank preparatory team will, where possible, be used for negotiating all agreements. For countries in the Africa Region, the negotiations packages will be cleared by the Africa Director Regional Integration and for MNA by the Country Director. As each country operation moves into project

69

implementation phase, the procurement, disbursement, FM, safeguards and country-specific TTL functions will be provided by the relevant country team staff, backed up by the ASP Unit. Project supervision will be initiated with workshops at Project launch, and followed up with six monthly project supervision missions. A mid-term review will be held and a project closure report produced. The ASP Unit will be based in Washington and will report to the Sector Director, MNSRE.

8. Monitoring and Evaluation

ASP’s aim is to continually improve its standards of operation and to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on human health and the environment. In addition, ASP-P1 aims to reduce the implementation costs of future country projects through the utilization of capacity developed during ASP-P1. Budgets for the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) functions have been allocated at the overall Program level and at the operational component levels in each country. The M&E responsibilities are fully described in the Generic OM and will be detailed for the individual countries with information about the budget allocation in the individual Country OMs. ASP M&E functions will take place at both the Program level and the Country level:

ASP Program Level: The TSU is responsible for the consolidation and management of all ASP-P1 M&E technical data. A TSU M&E Officer will work in close collaboration with the PMUs to ensure the M&E process is as simple and streamlined as technically possible. The TSU will complete two M&E missions annually. M&E reports will use standardized formats. Once complete, the reports will be passed to the M&E focal point within the PMU for review, consolidation and evaluation, including comparative evaluation within ASP-P1 countries. Budget for the TSU M&E officer, supervision missions, the development of an M&E system and training for Country PMUs are included in the FAO budget for the TSU. The TSU will publish technical M&E data on the Web and develop reports for the ASP-PCU. The ASP-PCU will also provide guidance to ASP-P1 countries on the M&E process for ASP’s financial aspects, including budget utilization, and actual costs versus budgeted costs. In addition, the ASP-PCU will be responsible for the final review of financial data and the consolidation of technical and financial reports to be forwarded to ASP-SC.

Independent Project Monitoring: The ASP-PCU will hire the international Independent Project Monitor in coordination with ASP Unit. US$200,000 has been allocated for this task as part of the ASP-PCU budget. In addition, the use of international and national NGO monitors will provide an important independent assessment of the project to improve timeliness and performance efficiencies. The TORs include review and evaluation strategies for enhancing national capacity. In particular, a yearly evaluation of the progress and management of the ASP will be prepared by the evaluator in advance of each meeting of the ASP-SC, and submitted to the ASP to facilitate its work. The evaluation will include an assessment of the quality of coordination of the various entities involved in managing ASP activities - the TSU, PCU, and CCAME, and the effectiveness of the programme in providing timely financial and technical assistance to the participating countries.

70

M&E in the ASP Unit: The ASP coordinator and staff involved in the day-to-day supervision and supervision missions continually monitor, evaluate, and record observations as part of program management for project implementation. Adequate GEF BB budget has been allocated to accomplish this task.

M&E at the Country-Level: At the country level, the PMUs will identify a country focal point for M&E activities and develop detailed M&E arrangements with budget allocations as part of their Country OM. Furthermore, the CCAME will be conducting continuous training workshops for local NGOs to build up their capacity in conducting monitoring operations at the local level. All M&E data collected at the country level will be submitted to the TSU and ASP-PCU for consolidation. This will allow the TSU to identify common problems and develop lessons learned for ASP-wide dissemination and use.

71

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements

Background

Financial management (FM) assessments have been carried out for all the recipients of Bank funds including for the seven countries, WWF and PAN-UK. As the Bank has recently undertaken a detailed financial assessment of the DBSA, for other projects, a brief desk top assessment was undertaken for this Project.

An overall ASP Framework OM which includes FM and disbursement requirements has been produced. Each country will customize the manual prior to negotiations to describe the FM and disbursement arrangements for the project. In addition, a generic FMR has been produced which will be customized by each recipient prior to negotiations, where FMR based disbursement will be used.

The FM arrangements for South Africa and Tunisia are detailed in Annex 16 and Annex 17, respectively. The detailed FM assessments for all recipient countries are available in the Project File.

Flow of Funds

Bank accounts and disbursement procedures: The total budget for the ASP-P1 is US$60 million. This will be funded from the GEF (US$25 million), through an ASP MDTF (US$7.06 million), dedicated trust funds and national donors who will channel their contributions through bilateral agreements with ASP-P1 countries. The Bank’s GEF portion of US$21.74 million and the MDTF will be managed and administered by the Bank according to existing policies and procedures, including disbursement methods and arrangements described below. FAO’s GEF Grant of US$3.26 million will be supervised by the GEFSEC. Each beneficiary country will access the funds of the MDTF after signing appropriate grant agreements in line with the Bank-Donor signed bilateral administration agreement.

The proceeds of the GEF Grants and MDTF will be disbursed in accordance with the Bank’s standard disbursement procedures currently in use, i.e., largely through transaction based disbursement using withdrawal applications supported by Statements of Expenditures. Direct payment may be used in some instances as discussed below. To expedite project financing and implementation, an advance will be made to each country project to cover approximately four months worth of project expenditures. These pertinent disbursement procedures will be described in the Disbursement Letters which each recipient will receive after signing Grant Agreements with the Bank. The letters will describe the applicable disbursement procedures and the authorized method for withdrawing funds. The counterpart funding requirements of each country will be provided by each national government.

As all the countries covered by ASP-P1 have sufficient experience with Bank financed operations and disbursement procedures, no major difficulties are expected in the flow of funds. Most of the countries will use Special Accounts (SAs) to finance project activities through GEF

72

funds. Local project accounts will be opened in some cases to channel counterpart funds from the state budget to the Project. This will not be required where the contributions are in kind. All accounts will be opened on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank. Withdrawal applications, submitted to the Bank, will include such supporting documentation as specified in the Disbursement Letter.

The following chart illustrates the flow of funds for the full ASP:

73

Detailed Financial Management Arrangements

Staffing Arrangements: Staffing arrangements have been discussed during Appraisal of the countries and will be further detailed prior to and during negotiations.

Accounting Policies and Procedures: It is required that the accounting of ASP-P1 follows the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as enunciated in the International Accounting Standards pronounced by the International Federation of Accountants. A cash basis of accounting is required by every PMU and the calendar year is January 1 through December 31. A Chart of Account will be drawn up using the cost tables of all participating countries.

Information System: The accounting records will initially be maintained using a conventional Excel spreadsheet. However, in some countries a specific computerized system will be designed or selected. As some of the SAs will be held in different currencies depending on the country, special guidance will need to be provided to all recipients to facilitate the consolidation of financial reporting across the Project.

Reporting and Monitoring: Monthly, quarterly and annual reports will be prepared by the unit in charge of FM within each PMU. At the end of each quarter, the following reports should be prepared and submitted to the Bank and ASP-PCU for consolidation no later than 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter:

(a) financial reports consisting of the sources and uses of funds, SOE withdrawal schedule, SA Statements when applicable (and reconciliation thereto) or direct payment schedules, statements of actual and budgeted expenditures, cash flow projections, etc.;

(b) physical progress reports; and

(c) procurement reports.

A consolidated FMR will be provided by the ASP-PCU to the Bank within 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter. In addition to the quarterly reports mentioned above, project financial statements should be prepared at the end of each financial year (December 31), incorporating these financial reports and a statement of the cash position for project funds from all sources, when applicable, a statement reconciling the balances of the various bank accounts to the bank balances and notes to the financial statements. FMRs will be prepared in the “Government of Atlantis” Sample from the Guideline to Borrowers.

Internal Audit: Internal audit arrangements are required for each project. Where the scope of financial transactions does not justify the existence of a dedicated internal audit, internal control will be required through management supervision and a clear separation of duties.

External Audit: External audits are required either by the auditor general of the recipient country or by an independent audit firm. The selection and appointment of the external auditor and TORs will be in accordance with the Bank’s guidelines.

74

Audited Project Financial Statements will be submitted to the Bank within six months after year end December 31.

In addition to expressing an opinion on the Project Financial Statements in accordance with International Standards on Auditing, the auditors will be required to comment on whether counterpart funds have been provided regularly and used in accordance with the Grant Agreements.

In addition to the audit report, the auditors will be expected to prepare management letters giving observations and comments, and providing recommendations for improvements in accounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the Grant Agreements.

Proposed Financial Management Action Plan: Detailed action plans are provided in each FM assessment in the Project File.

Supervision Plan: Supervision activities will include: review of financial projections or forecast for the Project, the procurement plan, the format and content of auditing arrangements, measures of physical progress, the criteria for following up variances between planned and actual costs and physical progress. At minimum, two supervision missions a year are required.

Financial Management Assessment of WWF and PAN-UK

WWF will implement a portion of the third project component, “cross-cutting activities”. Another portion of the component will be implemented by an NGO, PAN-UK, established and operating under the United Kingdom’s Companies Act 1985. No GEF funding will be made available to WWF and to PAN-UK; only MDTF and DGF totaling US$2.50 million. WWF will receive US$1.37 million and PAN-UK US$1.08 million. Each grant will be under US$1 million.

FM assessment: A sound FM assessment was undertaken for WWF, in anticipation of receipt of a GEF Grant. The detailed assessment is available on Project File. The overall finding of the assessment is that WWF presents a negligible to low risk as it has the necessary FM systems and staff in place and is familiar with Bank FM requirements. Similarly PAN-UK represents a low risk. The FM assessments are in the Project File.

Regarding the WWF component, the Vice President of Global Threats supervises the Director of the Toxics Program, who oversees the technical part of CCAME. The Director of the Toxics Program prepares the budget in consultation with the Program Administrator. The technical staff generates the expenditures in accordance with the scope of activities and the project budget. The budget and expenditures are reviewed, approved for payment, and monitored by the Program Administrator. This service also issues all the contracts initiated and requested by the technical staff. The Director of Strategic Funding Services approves the procurement plan before it is submitted to the Bank and oversees the compliance requirements for all the contracts (but not the current expenditures) issued under the Bank Agreement, and reviews them in case they are above the threshold of US$50,000. The Strategic Funding Services Financial Manager documents and prepares all financial reports for the project for submission to the Bank, manages the billings,

75

and oversees the audit of the project. WWF has already received Bank funds and is familiar with Bank procedures. An Action Plan is not required.

Financial Management Assessment of the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)

The DBSA will, on behalf of NEPAD Secretariat, receive approximately US$1.8 million in DGF and MDTF Grants with no one grant likely to be larger than US$0.6 million. The DBSA has been used as an implementing agent for larger Bank-financed projects in the past, the latest, and current, being the Municipal Financial Management Technical Assistance Project (MFMTA). The last FM rating for that project was ‘satisfactory to highly satisfactory’.

Financial Management Capacity: The DBSA has sufficient FM capacity and no additional staff will need to be hired for the additional work associated with the Project. The Program Manager at DBSA, also working for NEPAD, is an accomplished accountant, while the same accountant responsible for the MFMTA will be responsible for keeping project financial records and reporting. One part-time person will be required to maintain the project accounts. The identified accountant is already maintaining the books of an ongoing Bank project and is a qualified Chartered Accountant. They are familiar with DBSAs accounting system, “CORE”, which is satisfactory to the Bank.

Accounting System and Reporting: DBSA already has a comprehensive Accounting and Administrative Manual. DBSAs Chart of Accounts and Systems will be used for overall project accounting and reporting. A cursory review of the DBSAs internal control system indicated satisfactory levels of segregation of duties. Reporting is generally monthly and quarterly, and DBSA management will report in tandem with the other ASP countries’ reporting frequencies.

Internal Audit: DBSA has an Internal Audit Department comprising highly qualified staff which will be made available to the Project as and when requested for special reviews.

External Audit: The external auditor for the Project is still to be engaged, on terms satisfactory to the Bank. The Bank would not have an issue with the external audit being carried out as part of the NEPAD or DBSA Audit.

Conclusion: DBSA has the necessary infrastructure to handle the FM requirements for the various small project grants. Due to the existence of on-going Bank supported projects within DBSA, it has been deemed unnecessary to perform a full assessment of FM capacity within the DBSA.

76

Disbursement

Allocation of Grant Proceeds to Countries: The GEF Grants will be disbursed over a period of four years, or such period as may be agreed with the Bank.

Special Accounts: Whilst these arrangements will be reviewed for each country, prior to negotiations, the following is envisaged. In order to ensure timely provision of funds to finance eligible expenditures under the grants, the most of the ASP-P1 countries will each open a SA in commercial banks under terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank. The initial deposits into these accounts will be as indicated in the respective Grant Agreement with the five governments.

Project Accounts: Where required, to facilitate the timely provision of counterpart funds, governments will open and maintain project accounts in their respective currencies in commercial banks acceptable to the Bank.

Disbursement Procedures: Disbursement and withdrawal procedures are detailed in the Bank Disbursement Handbook. All disbursements will be governed by the conditions in the Grant Agreements and the procedures in the Disbursement Letter sent to the Grant Recipients and PMUs. These will include the remedies available to the Bank in cases of ineligible expenditures made from the SA, the SA remaining inactive, or when the reporting requirements are not complied with.

Disbursement Categories: The category “Disposal Services” was agreed upon between the Africa and MNA Region. The procurement process under “Disposal Services’’ would commence with a pre-qualification exercise similar to the one used for civil works, i.e., it would be an open application process and all applicants who can meet the pre-qualification criteria would be pre-qualified and subsequently invited to bid. Since the Bank has no off-the-shelf standard bidding documents for these “Disposal Services’’, it would be necessary to develop them based on other available documents, including the sample document “Procurement of Non-Consultant Services”.

Disbursement of Trust Fund Proceeds to DGF, to WWF, PAN-UK and to DBSA

These entities will receive DGF and MDTF grants. They will accordingly either open project accounts or sub-ledger accounts into which the once off tranches are expected to be disbursed for the DGF. MDTF grants will be disbursed according to normal Bank grant agreement procedures. Given the small sizes of the grants to these organizations, the specific disbursement requirements will be confirmed prior to the signing of the respective agreements.

77

Annex 8: Procurement

1. General

Procurement for ASP-P1 will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and International Development Agency (IDA) Credits” dated May 2004; and “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May 2004; and the provisions stipulated in each Grant Agreement. For each contract to be financed by the grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame will be agreed between the Recipient and the Bank and recorded in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least bi-annually, or as required, to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. Where applicable, the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents for goods and works and Standard Requests for Proposals for Consultants, as well as all standard evaluation forms, will be used throughout project implementation. Other bidding documents which do not follow Bank standards, including national bidding documents, may also be acceptable, provided they are reviewed by the Bank, prior to their first use21.

Advertising: A comprehensive General Procurement Notice will be published for all ASP countries prior to Board presentation, in the dgMarket online, and UN Development Business (UNDB) online. Extracts of this GNP will also be published in a national newspaper of each ASP country, as required by the Grant Agreement. In addition, a Specific Procurement Notice (SPN), to be published in dgMarket online and UNDB online for International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for goods and works, is required. Expressions of Interest (EOI) for consulting services with an estimated value in excess of US$200,000 will also be advertised in the same manner. All ICB and National Competitive Bidding (NCB) procurement of works and goods and all Requests for EOI will be advertised locally in each ASP country, as required by the grant agreement. Contract awards will also be published in UNDB and dgMarket, in accordance with the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines (para 2.60) and Consultants Guidelines (para 2.28).

Summary of Institutional Responsibility: The institutional responsibility for procurement for ASP-P1 countries have been agreed upon during appraisal.

Procurement of Works: Unless included specifically under Procurement of Disposal Services, other works procured under ASP-P1, will be limited to soil decontamination and upgrade of collection centers for obsolete pesticide stock storage in certain countries. Procurement of works (other than Disposal Services) is not expected in most of the countries. In general, all Works estimated to cost less then US$300,000 equivalent per contract shall be procured using NCB procedures satisfactory to the Bank in accordance with the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines. Small contracts estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent may be procured using Shopping Procedures (SP). For ICB, the Bank’s Standard Bidding Document (SBD) Procurement of Works will be used. For NCB, national or other bidding documents may be used, provided they have been reviewed by the Bank and found acceptable, before their first use.

21 The specific procurement arrangements for South Africa and Tunisia are detailed in Annex 16 and 17, respectively. The procurement arrangements outlined in this Annex are general guidelines. Specific procurement arrangements for the remaining countries will be finalized prior to negotiations.

78

Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project will include office equipment, computers, vehicles, field instruments (VHF radios, GPS, etc.), packaging, protective clothing, and specialty drum cleaning equipment. Contracts for goods estimated to cost less than US$250,000 may be procured using NCB. Contracts for goods estimated to cost less than US$100,000 may be procured using SP. For ICB, the Bank’s SBDs - Procurement of Goods will be used. For NCB, national or other bidding documents may be used, provided they have been reviewed by the Bank and found acceptable, before their first use. To the extent possible, goods will be grouped into contract packages estimated to cost the equivalent of US$250,000.

Direct Contracting for Goods and Works: Goods and works which are specialized or of a proprietary nature costing less than US$10,000 may, with the Bank’s prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.6 of the Guidelines.

Procurement of Disposal Services: Non-consulting services under this project include disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides, disposal of containers, and decontamination or disposal of soils (only in Mali). It may also include safeguarding of obsolete pesticides (repackaging) as well as their transport. Pre-qualification of service providers will be mandatory under the grant agreements, since these services are very specialized and require close familiarity with applicable international standards. A special pre-qualification document modeled after the Bank’s pre-qualification document for works will be developed and used. This pre-qualification document will reflect the standards for disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides and will be approved by the Bank. Only providers who can demonstrate they have the requisite capabilities and track record to comply with these standards will be pre-qualified and invited to bid. Providers may be single firms, or joint ventures. The FAO-TSU will provide technical support for the pre-qualification, bidding and execution of these specialized services. A special bidding document for disposal services modeled after the Bank’s trial edition of such document will be developed and used and furnished to the pre-qualified providers.

Selection of Consultants: Consulting services under this project include:

(a) surveys and studies for the selection of appropriate technologies for disposal of buried pesticides, for the disposal of contaminated containers and for the treatment or disposal of contaminated soils;

(b) developing environmental and social management frameworks, reviewing relevant legislation, conducting risk assessment of obsolete pesticides; and

(c) consulting services for database development, financial and technical audits, training course delivery, capacity building and awareness raising program. It is important to note that this procurement category will be reviewed, prior to negotiations, with each country. In the case of South Africa, the disbursement category “training and workshops” has a different financing percentage from consulting services.

The selection of consultants for contracts estimated to cost more than US$100,000 will follow the Quality and Cost Based Selection method (QCBS). The selection of consulting firms for contracts estimated to cost less than US$100,000 will follow the Consultants Qualifications Method (CQS). Services for assignments in which (i) teams of personnel are not required, (ii) no additional outside (home office) professional support is required, and (iii) the experience of

79

qualifications of the individual are the paramount requirement may be procured under contracts awarded to individual consultants, in accordance with the Section V of the Consultant Guidelines. For the selection of training, workshop, monitoring, evaluation and audit services below an estimated contract value of US$50,000, Quality-Based Selection will apply. All Single-Source Selections (SSS) will have to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 3.9-3.13 of the Guidelines. The appropriate selection method for each consulting contract will be recorded in the Procurement Plan according to the aforementioned thresholds.

Procurement Assessment of WWF: WWF will be responsible for providing cross-cutting support to the Project. It will draw on services from other parts of WWF as well as from other ASP partners. The DGF agreement between the Bank and WWF will follow the DGF procurement requirements. The MDTF agreement between the Bank and WWF will follow Bank Guidelines.

The Bank has undertaken a procurement assessment of WWF to assess their procurement capacities, types of proposed procurements and need identification of any existing staff whose salaries or portion thereof, will be paid from project funds, other than through the 10% overhead. The procurement procedures followed by WWF were found acceptable. The procurement requirements will depend on the requirements of the relevant trust fund and will if need be attached to the relevant trust fund agreement. The assessment findings, recommendations and specific agreements on the handling of procurement have been placed in the Project File. Briefly, WWF will be concerned with two types of procurement:

(a) consultants services will be procured for seven contracts. Six of them are under US$50,000 and one contract is estimated over US$100,000. Procurement will primarily be undertaken and supervised by the Global Toxic Chemicals Unit in WWF; and

(b) operating costs, which will include printing stationary, workshops, etc. It was agreed that WWF will produce a simple procurement plan for the first 18 months, which has been provided.

Procurement Assessment of DBSA: DBSA will be responsible for all the procurement activities of the ASP-PCU on behalf of the NEPAD Secretariat, for each successive year that a DGF or other grant may be provided. The procurement activities will be limited as the overall DGF budget for year one is under US$200,000. The main procurements will include: four individual consultants, to be recruited internationally and two short term consultant assignments to support M&E. DGF procurement rules apply.

An assessment of the capacity of the DBSA to implement procurement actions for the ASP-PCU has previously been carried out and the findings from that assessment can be summarized as follows.

(a) During the period 1997-1999, DBSA successfully administered PHRD Grant No. TF027018 amounting to US$1 million. All procurement under the Grant was carried out using the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. The total number of contracts handled was 12, including all contract management issues.

80

(b) During the period 2002-2004, DBSA, on behalf of the South Africa National Treasury, successfully handled all procurement activities (i.e., mainly selection of consultants) under the Municipal Financial Management TA Project (IBRD Loan 7146). The total amount of contracts awarded was over US$12 million using the QCBS method.

All procurement activities will be handled by a team of four professionals, who have adequate experience in handling Bank financed contracts. They will be responsible for handling all financial and accounting aspects of contract management. The overall project risk for procurement is low.

Training of ASP Implementing Agencies: In view of the procurement capacity shortfalls of most ASP implementing agencies, the Bank will conduct extensive project launch workshops, in line with the ASP OM. In addition, on-the-job procurement training and workshops will be part of every supervision mission, until capacities have reached a satisfactory level. Training will be provided either through the Bank’s own resources or through established training providers. Furthermore, the ASP generic OM was designed specifically to help in building capacity on a continual basis.

Procurement Plans: All ASP-P1 countries have developed Procurement Plans for the first 18 months of project implementation. However, since negotiations have been held with South Africa and Tunisia only, the PAD includes Procurement Plans for these two countries (Annex 16 and Annex 17, respectively). The Procurement Plans will be available at every ASP executing agency and other specified ASP websites. They will also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plans will be updated in agreement with the Country Project Team bi-annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.

81

ASP CCAME Procurement Plan of WWF:

1. Bank’s approval Date of the Procurement Plan - Original: November 20042. Date of General Procurement Notice - March 20053. Period covered by this Procurement Plan - July 2005 to December 2006

Goods and Works and non-consulting services: N/A

Selection of Consultants

Prior Review Threshold: Selection decisions subject to Prior Review by Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines Selection and Employment of Consultants:

Selection Method Prior Review Threshold Comments

1. Competitive Methods (Firms) Bid - Minimum 3 documentable contracts

None

2. Single Source (Firms) Previous use - selected by bid None

Short list comprising entirely of national consultants: N/A

Consultancy Assignments with Selection Methods and Time Schedule

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ref. No. Description of Assignment

Estimated Cost (US$) Selection

MethodReviewby Bank(Prior / Post)

Expected Proposals Submission Date

Comments

1. Web Site Hosting, Maintenance, Development and Expansion(company)

3,500 Previous Use

Post Year 1 3,500 for 6 months

2. Needs Assessment of an Interactive "Shareholders” Section of Web page(individual)

2,400 Bid - minimum 3 contracts

Post Year 2 2,400 for 6 months (600/day for 4 days)

3. Development of Information Management System(company)


Prior Year 1 51,000 for 18 months (600/day for 85 days)

4. Information System Updates and Maintenance(company)

18,000 Previous Use

Post Year 1 18,000 for 18 months (600/day for 30 days)

5. Prepare detailed report with recommendations, (company)


Prior Year 1 18,000 for 18 months (600/day for 30 days)

82

Publication of Results and Debriefing: Publication of contract awards would be required for all ICB, LIB, NCB, Direct Contracting and the Selection of Consultants for contracts exceeding a value of US$200,000. In addition, where pre-qualification has taken place, the list of pre-qualified bidders will be published. With regard to ICB, and LIB, and large-value consulting contracts, ASP beneficiaries would be required to assure publication of contract awards as soon as the Bank has issued its ‘no objection’ notice to the recommended award. With regard to Direct Contracting and NCB, publication of contract awards could be in aggregate form on a quarterly basis. All consultants competing for an assignment involving the submission of separate technical and financial proposals, irrespective of its estimated contract value, would be informed of the result of the technical evaluation (number of points that each firm received), before opening of the financial proposals and, if they have secured the minimum qualifying mark stated in the Request for Proposals, they would be invited to attend the opening of the financial proposals. The implementing agencies of ASP beneficiaries would be required to offer debriefings to unsuccessful bidders and consultants.

Fraud, Coercion and Corruption: All procuring entities as well as bidders, suppliers and contractors shall 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.

Frequency of procurement supervision: In addition to the review of ongoing procurement activities to be carried out during every Bank supervision mission of the Project, the capacity assessment of implementing agencies has indicated the need to visit the field units once every six months, in order to carry out a procurement review of procurement transactions on an ex-post basis, using a randomly selected sample of previously awarded contracts. At the same time, improvements in procurement capacity will be evaluated and the updated Procurement Plans will be reviewed. To the extent possible, these reviews would be conducted concurrently.

Table A: Project Costs by Expenditure Category(Estimates in US$ million equivalent)

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Countries TSU CCAME PCU TOTAL COSTS

1 Goods 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

2 Consulting Services 10.1 3.7 2.4 1.9 18.1

3 Disposal Services 23.4 0 0 0 23.4

4 Operational Costs 7.4 0.6 0 0 8.0

5 Unallocated 10.0 0 0 0 10.0

TOTAL COSTS 51.4 4.3 2.4 1.9 60.0

83

Annex 9: Incremental Cost Analysis

National Development Objectives of Participating Countries

The seven countries participating in ASP-P1 have, to varying degrees, adopted environment and development programs aimed at eradicating poverty, safeguarding human health, conserving the environment and building capacity of government and civil society to address these issues. In addition, ASP-P1 will support a further eight countries, to prepare for a second follow-on project called ASP-P2.

By addressing the problem of obsolete pesticides, countries will protect some of their most vulnerable inhabitants from potential chemical poisoning of water supplies, crops, animals and ecosystems. In addition the capacity of government and civil society to prevent recurrence of these problems will be built.

Whilst many African governments and agencies have begun to implement projects and programs to address the problem of obsolete pesticides, additional financial and technical resources are required from the international community to allow these efforts to be fully successful.

ASP-P1 Global Environmental Objectives

ASP-P1 will directly contribute to the GEO: Reduction of effects of POPs on the global environment. Specifically, ASP-P1 will address:




In ASP-P1, the GEF will support seven African countries (Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mali and Nigeria) to eradicate publicly-held stocks of obsolete pesticides and prevent their re-occurrence. An additional eight ASP-P2 countries (to be selected), will also be supported to prepare follow-on projects.

The problem of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and associated waste is not just a national problem. Scientific studies show that POPs are a global threat because they are persistent; they easily migrate through water and other means across national boundaries and even continents, and accumulate in living organisms far away from the original points of contamination.

In supporting ASP-P1, the international community will not only be supporting participating countries to eradicate a national threat to human health and the environment but an escalating global threat as well.

84

Baseline Scenario: The lack of comprehensive management strategies over the past 40 years, combined with the following factors have contributed to the current situation:

(a) product bans: banned pesticides that remain unused over time;

(b) inadequate storage and stock management: pesticides have a limited shelf life which is shortened if they are not stored properly;

(c) unsuitable products or packaging: poor product specifications, unavailability of required application equipment and lack of labels in foreign languages;

(d) donation or purchase in excess of need: excess products often deteriorate during storage;

(e) lack of co-ordination among donor agencies: duplicated, unsolicited or inappropriate donations;

(f) commercial/entrepreneurial interest: over-assessment of need, inappropriate product supply and corruption; and

(g) government policy: central procurement of pesticides and heavy subsidies for special programs like locust control, lack of record keeping and poor monitoring of the pesticide sector.

Obsolete pesticide stores can be found in numerous locations, and as a result of accumulation at various steps in pesticide distribution and use. Pesticides are often imported into Africa, although some may be manufactured on the continent. Following their manufacture and/or import into Africa, the pesticides are transported to wholesale storage and distribution sites. The pesticides are then sold and distributed to major users, retail stores and individual users. Major users, such as government agencies, major industries, or industrial farms, may then either store or apply the pesticides. Smaller retail stores will re-sell pesticides in smaller quantities to individual users, or store them for sale at a later date. Individual users may immediately apply the pesticides, or store them for later use. The potential exists at each of these sites (wholesale distributor site, major user, retail store and individual user) for pesticide obsolescence to occur.

Pesticides that are not sold prior to their expiration date become obsolete, and may be found within wholesale sites and in smaller stores. Pesticides that were purchased either by major users or by individual users and were not used may also become obsolete. Whilst individual users may own and store obsolete pesticides which may pose grave health risks. These sources are outside the scope of the Project and the environmental and social assessment.

Although the condition of pesticide stores vary from country to country, the overall condition of current stores (as confirmed by site visits in several countries) present serious human health and environmental risks. Although some countries have begun inventory, cleanup and disposal activities, many African pesticide stores have yet to be inventoried, let alone stabilized and subjected to remediation.

Storage sites may lack proper ventilation and pose serious health risks due to their proximity to houses and workplaces, their location on flood plains or near areas with high water tables. The risks posed by such stores include the risk of fire, and of contamination of local drinking water from infiltration through contaminated soils.

85

One of the greatest challenges facing ASP-P1 and project planners is the uncertainty surrounding the quantity and location of obsolete pesticide stores currently in Africa. Although several countries have completed initial and/or detailed inventories, many others have yet to gain a clear idea of the quantities, nature, locations and conditions of pesticide stores within their boundaries.

In many cases, pesticide containers have deteriorated and pesticides have escaped into the surrounding environment. One recent country report stated that “containers have deteriorated, corroded and started leaking, while bags have perished, spilling their contents on floors or directly on the soil.” Another report stated that “the stores themselves are often in poor condition and do not comply with FAO guidelines on pesticide storage.”

Much of the difficulty in estimating the total quantity of obsolete pesticides (and the associated heavily contaminated soils and packaging) can be attributed to decades of varying degrees of record keeping and documentation of pesticide imports and stockpiling, as well as little to no detailed inventory assessment. Efforts to gain a detailed understanding of the nature and distribution of obsolete pesticide stores may be hampered by a number of factors, including: damaged, worn containers and leaked pesticides; missing or worn off labels; existence or location of small storage sites not recorded; remote location of some storage sites; and, no inventories at storage sites.

An additional difficulty in estimating the quantity of obsolete pesticides in Africa is the potential for fluctuations in the amount of obsolete pesticides within individual storage sites as useable pesticides pass their expiration dates and become obsolete. Where no inventories have yet been undertaken there is an urgent need to begin detailed inventories to help verify the status of the stock and the need for clean up and disposal. Such data is essential to program and project planners to ensure that the sites that pose the greatest environmental and human health risks are stabilized and cleaned up.

Despite the above difficulties, the following baseline scenario has been assembled for the countries involved in ASP-P1.

Component 1: Country Operations

This component is concerned with disposal of obsolete pesticides, prevention, capacity development and project management.

Between 1992 and 1998 the following disposal operations were successfully completed. Approximately 3,240 tonnes of obsolete pesticides were removed during this period (see table below).

86

Disposal operations in known African countries: 1991-1998

Successfully Completed Pesticide Disposal Operations in Africa 1991-1998

Year Country Product(s) Quantity (tonnes)

Agency Involved in Disposal

1991 Niger Dieldrin 60 USAID/GTZ/Shell 1991 Kenya Various 100 ICI, Twiga Chemicals1993 Uganda Dieldrin 50 FAO/UNCDF1993 Madagascar Dieldrin 70 GTZ

1993 Malawi Aerosol waste, contaminated soil 70 Shell

1994 Mozambique DDT/monocrotophos 160 GTZ

1994 South Africa Various 1,000 Government and Private Sector

1995 Tanzania Various products 280Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS)

1996 Tanzania DNOC 57 GTZ1997 Zambia Various products 360 FAO/DGIS/GTZ1997 Seychelles Various products 12 FAO/DGIS1997 Mauritania Dieldrin 200 GTZ/Shell

1997/98 Cote d'Ivoire Various, sludge, contaminated soil 821 Shell

Total 3,240

Between 1990 and 2004 approximately 4,340 tonnes of obsolete pesticides were disposed of with an estimated cost of US$15 million.

Regarding disposal operations, under the baseline scenario, all of Africa would probably spend no more than US$1 million to US$3 million on disposal operations per annum. This amounts to US$4 million to US$12 million over ASP-P1’s four-year project period. The amount of obsolete pesticide stocks which could be disposed of across Africa at the historical disposal cost of US$3,400 per tonnes is 300-900 tonnes per annum or 1,200 to 3,600 tonnes over a four-year period.

87

Approximate Disposal Figures for Africa per Annum

Obsolete Pesticides Disposal (Approximate Quantities & Costs)Year Tonnes US$1991 160 560,0001992 0 01993 190 665,0001994 160 560,0001995 280 980,0001996 57 199,5001997 572 2,002,0001998 821 2,873,5001999 0 02000 900 3,150,0002001 0 02002 1,200 4,200,000Total 4,340 15,190,000

Under the baseline scenario it is not entirely possible to estimate or know what resources would be devoted to the six GEF-supported countries (Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, South Africa, Tanzania and Tunisia) in ASP-P1 over the four year period for the safe disposal of obsolete pesticides. If, for demonstration purposes, 30 percent of the baseline resources for Africa were allocated to these countries, this would result in approximately US$1.3 million to US$4 million being devoted to the disposal of approximately 400 to 1,200 tonnes of obsolete pesticide over the four year project period (see table below). Since these six countries contain an estimated 4,850 tonnes of obsolete pesticide stocks, the threat to the local and global environment would remain.

Estimated Tonnes of Obsolete Pesticides in ASP-P1 Countries22

Country Tonnes of Pesticide Number of Sites Comment

Ethiopia 1,100 To be confirmed by inventory

Extensive clean up operation currently underway

Mali 400 76 Extensive soil and water contamination

Morocco 700 Approximately 225 None

Nigeria 500 To be confirmed by inventory

Project will not address disposal

22 This information has already been publicly disclosed as part of the Environment and Social Assessment Synthesis Report (please refer to page 22).

88

South Africa 250 To be confirmedExtensive clean up already undertaken and tentative inventory exists

Tanzania 1,200 To be confirmed by inventory None

Tunisia 1,200 128 pooled into 17 sites None

Total 5,350 - estimated 4,850 tonnes to be disposed of by ASP-P1 (Nigeria excluded)

Inventories to confirm quantity, number of sites and types of pesticide

In summary, baseline resources of US$4 million are assumed for the project duration for the ASP-P1 countries.

Component 2: Technical Support

Technical support and related project monitoring is currently provided on an ad hoc basis to countries through FAO, UNEP, WHO, Basel Convention Regional Centers and NGOs. Under the baseline scenario, this is not expected to amount to more than US$400,000 for the four-year period.

Component 3: Cross-Cutting Activities

This component is concerned with overall communication on ASP issues, NGO capacity building activities, country adoption of the various chemical conventions, and the assessment of new technologies for the disposal of obsolete pesticides. The baseline scenario for the cross-cutting activity support is somewhat hypothetical as no such unit would exist without ASP-P1. It is however assumed that some of these activities would conceivably take place without ASP at a funding level of US$200,000 over the four-year period.

Component 4: Project Coordination

This component is concerned with the overall coordination of effort to implement multi-country and multi-donor pesticide disposal and prevention activities. Under the baseline scenario no coordination mechanism would exist as this is a completely ASP-funded initiative. Nevertheless some form of ad hoc coordination and communication would probably take place between various entities involved in obsolete pesticide disposal and prevention operations. Therefore, a baseline budget of US$200,000 is assumed for the four years.

GEF Alternative

The objective of the GEF alternative is to achieve a quantum leap in efforts to eliminate obsolete pesticides in Africa and prevent their recurrence. This includes eliminating the most dangerous and difficult to dispose of pesticides, which represent a significant threat to human health, biodiversity and international waters.

89

With 50,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides in Africa and a baseline disposal rate of no more than 1,200 tonnes per annum, it will take over 41 years to dispose of all stocks, assuming no further growth. The proposed GEF alternative aims to tackle the problem within a 15-year period. It will achieve this by taking a continent-wide approach, applying lessons learned from past efforts, and building on existing initiatives. The ASP will be able to apply the volume and quality of resources necessary to provide a comprehensive solution to cleaning up and disposing of obsolete pesticides and dealing with the problem of contaminated soils. Specific outputs of the program will be country-based clean up and disposal operations, and in-country and region-wide pesticide management programs to prevent a recurrence of the problem. The GEF alternative therefore aims to support a comprehensive solution and will leverage significant co-financing to achieve this.

The GEF alternative is US$64.81 million. The GEF will provide US$25 million comprising of US$21.7 million channeled through the Bank and US$3.26 million provided directly to FAO. Additional co-financing has been leveraged including: US$7.06 million from the Bank MDTF to support Mali (contaminated soils), the ASP-PCU, preparation for ASP-P2 countries and support to the CCAME/ WWF activities; US$2.7 million from the DGF for the PCU, TSU CCAME and preparation of ASP-P2 countries; government contributions of US$3.95 million; US$4.07 million provided by Belgium to Ethiopia; US$2.29 million provided by Canada via CIDA to Nigeria; USS$1.13 million provided by Japan to Ethiopia; US$1.62 million provided by FFEM to Mali and to Tunisia; US$1.02 million provided by Finland to Ethiopia; and US$0.08 million co-financing provided by FAO to the TSU. US$10.00 million will be provided by the AfDB to a TF for allocation to Country Operations.

Component 1: Country Operations (7 countries) GEF alternative: US$55.37 million (GEF funding US$21.74 million)

GEF will provide incremental funding to ASP-P1 in six countries to address the issue of obsolete pesticides. Nigeria will fund its own participation in this component. The GEF will support another eight ASP-P2 countries to prepare projects. Under the GEF alternative, incremental funding will be provided to support in-country to:

(a) eliminate inventoried publicly-held obsolete pesticide stocks, soils and contaminated containers amounting to approximately 4,850 tonnes (GEF: US$16.24 million; Co- financing: US$7.47 million). Country inventories will identify the exact tonnes and if need be, the grant agreements will be amended to prioritize the removal of the obsolete pesticides above other activities;

(b) prevent accumulation of obsolete pesticides (GEF: US$2.37 million; Co-financing: US$3.12 million);

(c) provide capacity-building to governments to strengthen pesticide management and regulation (GEF: US$1 million; Co-financing: US$0.55 million);

(d) to support country project management (GEF: US$2.13 million; Co-financing: US$3.04 million); and

90

(e) support to eight ASP-P2 countries to prepare projects and to prevent obsolete pesticides from re-occurring (Co-financing: US$3.01 million).

Component 2: Technical Support Unit (FAO-TSU) GEF alternative: US$4.70 million (GEF funding US$3.26 million) Incremental funding will be made available to assist the TSU to:

(a) provide technical assistance to countries in the development of the Country OMs and the completion of preparatory activities related to training and capacity building (GEF: US$0.06 million; Co-financing: US$0.38 million);

(b) provide technical assistance to the six countries to implement disposal operations (GEF: US$0.93 million; Co-financing: US$0.10 million);

(c) provide technical assistance to seven countries to build their capacity to prevent re-occurrence of the obsolete pesticide problem (GEF: US$0.93 million; Co-financing: US$0.54 million); and

(d) provide overall country M&E of country performance against agreed technical standards (GEF: US$1.3 million; Co-financing: US$0.03 million).

Component 3: Cross-Cutting Activities (WWF) GEF alternative: US$2.65 million (GEF funding US$2.40 million)

Incremental funding will be made available to support three sub-components to:

(a) provide overall knowledge management and communication about the project (GEF: US$0 million; Co-financing: US$0.94 million);

(b) support to NGO involvement. (GEF: US$0 million; Co-financing: US$1.08 million);

(c) determine the best new technology choices for the disposal of obsolete pesticides for the second project, ASP-P2 (GEF: US$0 million; Co-financing: US$0.43 million).

Component 4: Project Coordination (Bank) GEF alternative: US$1.87 million (GEF funding US$0 million)

Incremental funding will be made available to support coordination among the seven ASP-P1 countries, the eight ASP-P2 countries, CCAME, TSU, the various governance structures and funders and donors, including the Bank. Incremental Co-financing will be used to:

(a) coordinate the provision of the overall ASP bi-annual work plan and progress report through inputs received from the various countries and global components;

(b) support the governance structures including the ASP-SC, which will review these reports and provide recommendations; and

(c) report on the findings of the independently commissioned M&E consultants.

91

Cost Summaries

All costs in US$ million

Baseline scenario

GEF Alternative

Increment Increment Increment

Component GEF Others Total

1. Country Operations

4.00 55.37 21.74 19.54 51.37

2. Technical Support

0.40 4.71 3.26 1.05 4.31

3. Cross-Cutting Activities

0.20 2.65 0 2.45 2.45

4. Project Coordination

0.21 2.07 0 1.87 1.88

Total 4.81 64.80 25.0 34.91 60.0

Incremental Cost Matrix

Component Cost Category

Cost(US$

million) Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

Component 1:

Country Operations

Baseline Total: 4.00

Sporadic country disposal operations remove up to 1,200 tonnes of obsolete pesticides against approximated 4,800 tonnes in six countries

Sporadic disposal and prevention operations provide minimal protection to the global environment

GEF Alternative Total: 55.37

Obsolete pesticides are disposed of and prevention measures introduced to safeguard local inhabitants and the surrounding environment

Disposal operations remove a potential trans-boundary threat to global ecosystems and prevention measures prevent recurrence of the problem

Increment Total: 51.37

Component 2:Baseline Total: 0.40 Technical support to country

disposal and prevention operations meet a small percentage of country demands

Technical support provides very limited protection to the global environment

92

Component Cost Category

Cost(US$

million) Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

Technical Support GEF

Alternative Total: 4.71

Technical support enables countries to fully implement disposal and prevention measures

Technical support enables countries to implement disposal and prevention measures to safeguard the global environment


Component 3:

Cross-Cutting Activities


Countries and NGO’s receive sporadic information about disposal and prevention activities and new related technologies

Due to low levels of cross-cutting support, knowledge and best practice is inadequately disseminated thereby having a limited positive impact on the global environment


Countries are readily able to access information on disposal and prevention activities and NGO’s are able to enhance civil society knowledge

Best practice information and knowledge is disseminated to countries and civil society thereby reducing the pesticide risk to the global environment


Component 4:

Project Coordination


Some ad hoc coordination disposal activities between countries and donors may take place

Some coordinated support to sporadic disposal and prevention operations takes place with marginal benefit for the global environment


Strong coordination takes place between countries and supporting agencies thereby enabling countries to implement best practice national disposal and prevention measures

A coordinated response takes place in seven African countries to remove a global pollution threat


TotalBaseline 4.80

GEF Alternative

64.81

Incremental Cost GEF Non-GEF Total

Full Project 25.00 35.0 60.0

Preparation 0.70 0.2 0.9

Grand Total 25.70 35.2 60.9

93

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues

Background

ASP-P1 triggers two safeguards policies: OP 4.01 on EAs because it has the potential to significantly impact the environment adversely; and OP 4.09 on Pest Management because it deals with obsolete pesticides and pesticide management. Compliance with the above two safeguards policies will be ensured as follows:

OP4.01 / BP401 on Environmental Assessment

ASP-P1’s potential adverse environmental impacts are principally related to pesticide storage, transportation, disposal and site remediation activities in country operations. Due to their significance, the project is classified as Category A and requires preparation of CESAs, including an EMP. Given the framework nature of the Project (under which the detailed technical design and location of the project country level activities take detailed shape only after completion of pesticide inventories during the Project implementation), the preparation of the CESA, including the EMP, takes place in two stages.

The Project environmental and social impacts were assessed in a Framework Environmental Assessment (FEA) and their mitigation measures were outlined in an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was prepared based on these documents and will serve as guidance for the preparation of the respective CESA including EMP. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was disclosed prior to appraisal in all Project countries by the individual PMUs or their host agencies and in the InfoShop by March 17, 2004. The Project Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet was disclosed in July, 2003. The Environmental and Social Assessment Summary Report was disclosed to the Board on October 3, 2004.

The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report provides guidance, screening procedures and information to those responsible for the detailed design, planning and implementation of the individual country operations. The guidance reflects the applicability and relevance of key international standards and agreements, as well as the Bank’s safeguard policies, including preparation of detailed EMPs (as part of the CESAs).

CESAs including the EMPs will be prepared during project implementation for specific country operations. It spells out the mechanisms that will allow the Bank to properly exercise its fiduciary responsibilities regarding the implementation of its safeguards policies, e.g., the need for a Bank-issued “No Objection” on the screening and priority ranking process, and on TORs for of individual cleanup operations. TORs for the preparation of the CESAs are provided in the generic OM. The countries have to specify in their Country OM how they will implement the CESAs.

The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report presents a framework of mitigation measures. Special attention was given to the following issues:

94

(a) disclosure of information in order to maximize the efficiency and the synergy of public and private efforts in dealing with pollution and safety hazards;

(b) emergency preparation and response plans, especially, during hauling and transport of hazardous products;

(c) the scope of the prevention activities in relation to pest management;

(d) the handling of contaminated areas in the vicinity of dwellings or other property, in particular, compensation issues in cases where cleanup would be impractical;

(e) the handling of contaminated wells and other water sources; and

(f) the need to take into consideration the entire "chain of custody" during sampling, transportation and disposal operations, irrespective of their geographical location.

The second stage will be the preparation of the CESAs. During project implementation, the PMUs will ensure that all individual cleanup operations are subject to the CESAs and that their specific adverse environmental impacts are adequately addressed through preparation and implementation of corresponding EMPs. The EMPs will reflect the applicable national or international standards, provisions of the Rotterdam, Basel and Stockholm Conventions and other relevant Codes of Practice and guidelines, requiring that contractors demonstrate experience and competence in removal and cleanup of hazardous materials and set requirements for quality control and technical supervision by the TSU. This will include requiring that the packaging, labeling, and transport of stocks and wastes comply with the internationally accepted standards and procedures found in the UN “Orange Book”. In addition, the technologies selected for disposing of the stockpiles and wastes will be required to meet both the Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practice (BAT/BEP) guidelines and the appropriate Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management.

All individual CESAs including the EMPs will be disclosed in ASP countries and in the InfoShop according to the Bank’s Policy on Disclosure of Information. Their preparation will involve adequate public participation in following the requirements of OP 4.01. The Bank and TSU will monitor their implementation following the procedures outlined in the OM.

Training on the preparation and implementation of CESA and risk assessments will be provided through the TSU and the Bank at start of project implementation, as described in the country OMs.

OP 4.09 on Pest Management

OP 4.09 requires preparation of a Pest Management Plan (PMP). The entire Project is dedicated to improve pesticide and pest management issues including prevention, cleanup and measures toward strengthening pesticide management, prevention of pesticide stockpiling and promotion of IPM. These activities are described in detail in this PAD and other project documents. The Project will promote awareness and improved regulations and better handling of pesticides and will also promote the adoption by countries of IPM policies. In addition to the EMP (prepared as part of the CESA) the Project documents will meet all PMP requirements. Hence, a stand alone PMP will not be prepared.

95

Additional Safeguard Considerations

Involuntary Resettlement: Although current information indicates that pesticides are usually stored away from people, the project may identify situations when proximity of pesticide stores to people would raise concerns for their health and safety during cleanup and disposal. Similarly, a need may arise during implementation to condemn certain sites or structures (e.g., warehouses, district back offices that might have been used for storage) as being too contaminated to merit cleanup.

Normally, such a situation would trigger OP/BP 4.12 and would require the preparation of a Resettlement Policy Framework. However, given the multi-country nature of ASP-P1, and the number of cleanup sites within each country, it is not feasible to prepare an umbrella framework for project countries given their dissimilar legislation and policies related to land acquisition and resettlement. Similarly, it is neither practical nor realistic to prepare a separate framework for each country, especially when there is no confirmed evidence that existing pesticide sites/storages will result in land acquisition or resettlement. Because of this particular situation, it has been decided not to trigger OP/BP 4.12 at this stage. Rather, a binding covenant in the Project legal document will be made, stating that each country will prepare a CESA prior to implementation of disposal activities. Each CESA will provide precise information and data on whether there are structures or sites or anything else that needs to be condemned or treated, resulting in involuntary resettlement, and acquisition, or total and partial loss of livelihood. In such a case, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) or several RAPs for affected sites will be prepared in compliance with OP/BP 4.12 by the government(s) concerned and cleared by the Bank. Each RAP will provide that, amongst other things, should any person be temporarily or permanently relocated as a result of project activities, compensation will be provided in accordance with the provisions of OP 4.12 and BP 4.12.

Natural Habitats: Although current information indicates that pesticides are usually stored away from any critical or other natural habitat, the Project may identify situations when proximity of pesticide stores to protected areas, important aquatic resources, or any terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems would raise concerns for their environmental health over time. During project implementation, if a stock of obsolete pesticides, pesticide wastes or a contaminated site happen to be located in the proximity of a critical natural habitat(s), then such a situation would trigger OP 4.04 and would require that the EA process (OP 4.01) would identify such habitats within a proposed project’s area of influence and will take the necessary measures to avoid or minimize damage to natural habitats to the extent feasible. If significant conversion or degradation of a non-critical natural habitat is needed to achieve a project’s key objectives, the project will include an evaluation of the alternatives to show there are no feasible alternatives as well as mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank.

96

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision

Project Schedule Planned Actual

PCN Review July 17, 2002

Initial PID to InfoShop August 1, 2002

Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) July 24, 2003

Appraisal Mission Departure23 April 2004 March 28, 2004

Negotiations24 July 2005 July 2005

Board Approval September 2005

Planned Date of Effectiveness October 2005

Planned Date of Mid-Term Review March 2008

Planned Closing Date November 2009

Prepared By:

ASP-P1 has been conceived and designed by a group of NGOs (WWF, PAN-UK and PAN-Africa), FAO, UNEP, and other international organizations, including the Bank and the private sector, in close collaboration with the ASP countries in Africa.

Preparation Assistance:

GEF, as the interim financing mechanism for the Stockholm Convention, has contributed preparation funding together with other financial or in-kind resources from other partner institutions - Canada and FAO Cooperative Program.

23 Appraisal missions were undertaken in the seven countries participating in ASP-P1, the first of which departed March 28, 2004 and the seventh mission ended May 1, 2004.24 Negotiations took place with South Africa (July 6-8, 2005) and Tunisia (July 13-15, 2005).

97

The current ASP Project Team includes the following staff and consultants:

NAME DEPARTMENT SPECIALTY

Maber, Steven MNSRE Senior Operations Officer (Task Team Leader)

Warner, Christopher AFTS1 Senior Env. Spec. (Liaison, Africa Region)

Abushakra, Hadi LEGMS Chief Legal Counsel

Adebowale, Modupe LOAG2 Senior Finance Officer

Allan, Christine MNSRE Operations Analyst (Portfolio Manager)

Bakayoko, Siaka MNACS Senior Financial Management Specialist

Brackmann, Stefanie MNSRE Environmental Specialist (TTL Back-up)

Chummun, Zakia MNSRE Language Program Assistant

Di Leva, Charles LEGEN Chief Counsel

Ebro, Kristyn ESDVP Communications Officer

Gorman, Steve ENVGC Lead Environmental Specialist

Kaniaru, Muthoni LEGAF Counsel

Kranz, Frederick MNACS Senior Procurement Specialist

Krishnakumar, V.S. ASPTC Manager

Lagnaoui, Abdelaziz ESDQC Senior Pest Management Specialist

Lotayef, Dahlia MNSRE Senior GEF Operations Coordinator, MNA

Mani, Angeline MNSRE Language Program Assistant

Melkonian, Hovsep LOAG2 Senior Finance Officer

Newton, Murray ENVMP Consultant

Olowo-Okere, Edward AFTFM Lead Financial Management Specialist

Opsal, Knut MNSRE Senior Social Development Specialist

Parish, Matthew T. LEGMS Legal Counsel

Tynan, Ellen ENVMP POPs/Environmental Specialist

98

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File

BANK ASSESSMENT

ASP-P1 Project Coordination Unit: Terms of Reference, Budget and Work Plan, February 2005

Framework Operations Manual Draft Financial Management Report Country Pre-Appraisal Reports Concept Paper for a Knowledge Management System for ASP Procurement Assessments for Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania,

Tunisia, DBSA, WWF Procurement Plans for Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia,

WWF Financial Management Assessments for Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa,

Tanzania, Tunisia, WWF, PAN-UK, DBSA Appraisal Aide Memoires for ASP-PCU, Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa,

Tanzania, Tunisia, and WWF Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report, March 17, 2004 Environmental Assessment - Executive Summary, October 2004 Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) Generic Operational Manual, May 2005 COSTAB Tables for ASP-P1, June 2005

OTHERS

Basel Convention, 2002: Technical Guidelines For Environmentally Sound Management of Persistent Organic Pollutant Wastes. Secretariat of the Basel Convention, United Nations Office at Geneva

Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Africa Stockpiles Programme, Obsolete Pesticides Project, Second Phase Country Report, February 2003

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO, 2001: Manual on Development and Use of FAO and WHO Specifications for Pesticides. First Edition. Prepared by the FAO/WHO

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 1. Prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East. First Consultation Meeting

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 2. Prevention of accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 3. Pesticide storage and stock control manual

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 4. Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries

99

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 5. Prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East. Second Consultation Meeting

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 6. Prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East. Third Consultation Meeting

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 7. Guidelines for the management of small quantities of unwanted and obsolete pesticides

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 8. Assessing soil contamination: a reference manual

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001: FAO Pesticides Disposal Series No 9. Baseline study on the problem of obsolete pesticide stocks

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2005: Technical Support Unit to the Africa Stockpiles Programme (Draft)

Helps, K, 2001: Ethiopia - Obsolete Pesticide Project. Project Health and Safety Manual Helps, K, 2002: Technical Issues – Liabilities and Risks for the ASP Kristensen, P. 2003: Concept Paper for a Knowledge Management System for the ASP Kristensen, P. and Rader, C., 2001: Strategic Management Approach. Conservation

International. PACT Publications Maroc Rapport – Programme Africain sur les Stocks de Pesticides Périmés, Janvier 2003 OECD, 1997: Report of the OECD Workshop On Pesticide Risk Indicators. Copenhagen, 21-

23 April 1997 Ottke, C., Kristensen, P. and Maddox, D.: Monitoring for Impact. World Resources Institute,

United Nations Environmental Program, Conservation International Terra Choice and Jacques Whitford: The Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) - Framework

Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), January 29, 2004

Terra Choice and Jacques Whitford: The Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) - Framework Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) – Executive Summary Report, January 29, 2004

Tunisie Rapport: Le Programme Africain pour l’Elimination de Pesticides Obsolètes (PASP, Mars 2003

United Republic of Tanzania, Obsolete Stockpile Programme, Obsolete Waste Disposal Project Country Report, February, 2003

World Bank, 2002: Toxics and Poverty: The Impact of Toxic Substances on the Poor in Developing Countries; Lyn Goldman and Nga Tran

World Bank, 2003: Proceeding from ASP Partners’ Meeting and Country Workshop, September 9 to 19, 2003

WWF Using Communications and NGO Awareness Raising to Build Capacity in Africa Through the Africa Stockpiles Programme, March 2005.

100

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits

SOUTH AFRICA

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

P064438 2004 ZA-GEF Great Addo SIL (FY04) 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 0.00 5.05 1.13 0.00

P075997 2004 ZA-CAPE Action Plan (FY04) 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 7.85 1.23 0.00

P076901 2003 Municipal Financial Management TA 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.37 10.75 0.00

P052368 2002 ZA - MALOTI-DRAKENSBERG CONSERV. & DEV

0.00 0.00 0.00 7.93 0.00 6.40 4.21 0.00

P035923 1998 ZA-GEF Cape Penninsula SIL (FY98) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 0.00 0.17 12.28 0.00

Total: 15.00 0.00 0.00 34.73 0.00 32.84 29.60 0.00

SOUTH AFRICASTATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed PortfolioIn Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

1996 AEF Carosa Farm 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.00

1999 AEF Dargle Timbr 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

1999 AEF Foxtrot Meat 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00

1999 AEF IHS Techno 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00

2000 AEF Tusk 1.92 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.10 0.00 0.00

1995/96/99 AFLIFE 0.00 5.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.14 0.00 0.00

2002/04 African Bank 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 Bioventures 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.00 0.00

2004 City of Johannes 34.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 EDU LOAN 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 Hernic 27.44 4.70 1.86 0.00 10.43 4.70 1.38 0.00

2004 Mvela Gold 0.00 0.00 35.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.79 0.00

2002 NAMF 0.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00

2001 Printability 6.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

1995 SAFEF 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00

2000/02/03/04/05

SAHL 0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00

1999 SAPEF 0.00 25.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.91 0.00 0.00

2001 Spier 17.59 1.87 0.00 0.00 17.59 1.87 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 97.78 45.66 39.62 0.00 78.98 41.43 39.14 0.00

101

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

2005 DBSA Financing 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 EDU LOAN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 FirstRand BEE 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

Total pending commitment: 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00

102

TUNISIA

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

P088929 2005 TN-ICT Sector Development Project 13.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 12.56 -1.37 0.00

P078131 2005 TN-ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM/INDUSTRIAL

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.50 0.00 7.40 0.00 0.00

P082999 2004 TN-Education PAQSET II 130.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.69 27.19 0.00

P071115 2004 TN-EXPORT DEVELOPMENT II 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 37.78 1.42 0.00

P074398 2003 TN-MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT III 78.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.48 -0.06 0.00

P072317 2003 TN-NW Mountainous and For. Areas Dev. 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.34 6.82 0.00

P048315 2002 TN-Protected Areas Management Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 4.54 2.76 0.00

P064082 2001 TN-TRANSPORT SECTOR INVESTMENT

37.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.28 18.60 0.20

P048825 2001 TN-CULTURAL HERITAGE 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.71 7.93 0.00

P005750 2001 AGRIC. SUPPORT SVCS 21.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.35 5.75 0.00

P050945 2000 TN-Education PAQSET I 99.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.74 28.74 0.00

P035707 2000 TN-WATER SECTOR INVESTMENT PROJECT

103.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.96 6.84 0.00

P043700 1998 TN-TRANSPORT SECTOR INV 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.55 12.97 -0.00

P005731 1997 TN-GREATER TUNIS SEWERAGE 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.95 9.11 19.95 -2.43

Total: 679.79 0.00 0.00 13.83 7.20 482.49 137.54 - 2.23

TUNISIASTATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed PortfolioIn Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

2004 BIAT 0.00 0.00 55.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.06 0.00

1986/98 SITEX 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00

1998 Tuninvest 0.00 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.16 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 0.00 4.93 55.06 0.00 0.00 4.93 55.06 0.00

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

103

Annex 14: Country at a Glance

South Africa at a Glance

104

South Africa

PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE1983 1993 2002 2003

Domestic prices(% change)Consumer prices 12.3 9.7 8.9 6.0Implicit GDP deflator 18.5 13.1 10.1 5.9

Government finance(% of GDP, includes current grants)Current revenue 22.4 26.5 24.2 23.3Current budget balance 0.1 -4.6 1.0 0.2Overall surplus/deficit -4.6 -8.9 -1.1 -1.9

TRADE1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Total exports (fob) 20,966 28,034 35,471 32,179 Gold 8,912 6,872 4,046 3,667 Food, beverages, and tobacco 1,366 1,984 2,091 .. Manufactures 4,225 11,359 18,917 22,206Total imports (cif) 15,865 20,873 29,453 26,021 Food 663 774 983 4,225 Fuel and energy 1,136 951 1,461 4,225 Capital goods 2,627 3,547 4,960 4,894

Export price index (1995=100) .. 93 78 81Import price index (1995=100) .. 95 79 82Terms of trade (1995=100) .. 97 99 99

BALANCE of PAYMENTS1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Exports of goods and services 20,917 28,025 36,670 36,867Imports of goods and services 17,609 23,233 33,039 31,576Resource balance 3,308 4,792 3,631 5,291

Net income -3,494 -2,662 -2,748 -3,714Net current transfers 195 -641 -572 -961

Current account balance 9 1,489 310 616

Financing items (net) 291 1,240 -3,715 -615Changes in net reserves -300 -2,729 3,404 -1

Memo:Reserves including gold (US$ millions) 4,459 3,589 7,620 7,495Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$) 1.1 3.3 10.5 7.6

EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed .. 6,655 25,041 27,807 IBRD .. 0 13 16 IDA .. 0 0 0

Total debt service .. 0 4,692 4,116 IBRD .. 0 1 1 IDA .. 0 0 0

Composition of net resource flows Official grants .. 0 281 .. Official creditors .. 0 4 69 Private creditors .. 0 432 2,644 Foreign direct investment 69 11 739 .. Portfolio equity .. 2 -388 ..

World Bank program Commitments .. 0 15 0 Disbursements .. 0 5 3 Principal repayments .. 0 0 0 Net flows .. 0 5 3 Interest payments .. 0 1 1 Net transfers .. 0 5 2

Note: This table was produced from the Development Economics central database. 9/15/04

-2

-1

0

1

97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Current account balance to GDP (%)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Exports Imports

Export and import levels (US$ mill.)

0

5

10

15

98 99 00 01 02 03

GDP deflator CPI

Inflation (%)

G: 7,359

A: 16D: 195

F: 20,237

Composition of 2003 debt (US$ mill.)

A - IBRDB - IDA C - IMF

D - Other multilateralE - BilateralF - PrivateG - Short-term

105

Tunisia at a Glance

106

Tunisia

PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE1983 1993 2002 2003

Domestic prices(% change)Consumer prices .. 4.1 2.7 2.7Implicit GDP deflator 12.7 4.7 2.3 2.2

Government finance(% of GDP, includes current grants)Current revenue 30.3 27.6 24.8 23.8Current budget balance 5.7 4.8 4.7 4.3Overall surplus/deficit -4.2 -2.8 -3.1 -3.2

TRADE1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Total exports (fob) 1,860 3,746 6,857 8,027 Fuel 832 454 641 801 Agriculture 82 436 489 627 Manufactures 908 2,387 5,057 5,836Total imports (cif) 3,103 6,149 9,504 10,896 Food 434 417 798 694 Fuel and energy 347 455 846 1,130 Capital goods 795 1,515 2,086 2,224

Export price index (1995=100) .. 82 154 165Import price index (1995=100) .. 95 109 117Terms of trade (1995=100) .. 86 141 141

BALANCE of PAYMENTS1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Exports of goods and services 2,869 5,769 9,539 10,911Imports of goods and services 3,567 6,678 10,431 11,898Resource balance -698 -909 -893 -987

Net income -267 -971 -984 -1,046Net current transfers 387 597 1,130 1,295

Current account balance -578 -1,283 -746 -738

Financing items (net) 563 1,322 895 1,146Changes in net reserves 15 -39 -149 -408

Memo:Reserves including gold (US$ millions) 574 864 2,301 2,957Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$) 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.3

EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS1983 1993 2002 2003

(US$ millions)Total debt outstanding and disbursed 4,058 8,693 12,923 15,473 IBRD 434 1,595 1,464 1,779 IDA 67 54 35 33

Total debt service 638 1,352 1,445 1,594 IBRD 65 263 233 286 IDA 1 2 2 2

Composition of net resource flows Official grants 28 103 114 56 Official creditors 238 375 242 233 Private creditors 263 -98 867 771 Foreign direct investment 184 562 795 575 Portfolio equity 0 20 6 ..

World Bank program Commitments 144 189 112 0 Disbursements 90 248 117 251 Principal repayments 32 149 156 207 Net flows 57 99 -39 44 Interest payments 34 117 79 82 Net transfers 24 -18 -118 -38

Development Economics 9/23/04

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

097 98 99 00 01 02 03

Current account balance to GDP (%)

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Exports Imports

Export and import levels (US$ mill.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

98 99 00 01 02 03

GDP deflator CPI

Inflation (%)

G: 812 A: 1,779

D: 3,484

B: 33

F: 6,273

E: 3,092

Composition of 2003 debt (US$ mill.)

A - IBRDB - IDA C - IMF

D - Other multilateralE - BilateralF - PrivateG - Short-term

107

Annex 15: STAP Roster Technical Review

The problem of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides in Africa is enormous and would therefore require a comparable effort to get rid of. The insidious effects of such stockpiles encompass much more than just the location where it is stored. Walking on soil consisting of 14% DDT at one such a site in Tanzania really brings home the impact and environmental insult of this presence. Speaking with people living in the neighborhood further reinforces the urgency with which this problem needs to be addressed.

The presence of such dumps, created by unfortunate combinations of various factors and history, has left the African continent with a serious dilemma; on the one hand the development and poverty alleviation needs requires urgent attention. On the other hand, a seemingly passive stockpile creates the unfortunate impression that it can be relegated to a priority of secondary importance, as the short-term needs of the people of Africa is in many cases so desperate, that scarce funds are allocated elsewhere. Without this Project, the situation will hardly improve (most likely deteriorate even further), and is liable to become even more difficult and expensive to solve later on.

As correctly pointed out in the proposal under review, the effects of the stockpiles are as important impediment to further development, as its more direct effects on health and environmental damage. Just a cursory inspection of such sites show the absence of any tracks of small mammals on the polluted soil, and the tracks of insects leading up to their bodies, as they attempted to cross the site, but perished after a meter or so. The presence of owls is unknown in an otherwise very suitable habitat. But most concerning of all is that the people in the neighborhood of such sites, have become aware of all sorts health anomalies in themselves, their livestock and other domestic animals. Inspecting and analyzing water sources makes it abundantly clear that the levels of the pesticides are at unacceptable levels and might contribute, in part or in whole, to the observations related above.

The scope of the problem is vast, and so is the solution, as proposed by this Project. No doubt the implementers will face difficult, and sometime seemingly intractable problems. Africa is such a continent, and will frustrate, at times, the best made plans and intentions. From the proposal document is clear that the risks are well understood. I can only stress the need for understanding, support and commitment of the supervisory bodies to the implementing team. They truly face a huge challenge, but they will ultimately reap the gratitude of the African People.

It is my opinion that the urgency of this Project is such, that implementation should start as soon as possible.

108

POINTS REQUESTED BY TERMS OF REFERENCE

KEY ISSUES

1. Scientific and Technical Soundness of the Project

From experience, and the team has clearly made use of this source, this Project is scientifically feasible, and technically sound. All Projected activities have been done before, on a smaller scale, with various levels of success, in a number of African countries. It therefore requires no development of new technologies. The scale of this Project, although driven by individual countries or regional groupings where feasible, requires strong, flexible and adaptive program and Project management skills at all levels of implementation. Since this requirement is inherent in the planning, it will also contribute towards improving the capacity and skills of the personnel involved, especially those residing in the countries.

Changes in Scheduling

The problems encountered during collection and transports towards harbors will, in many cases, require the extension of schedules. This will be one of the most critical issues to be dealt with by management, as delays will affect shipping and destruction scheduling, and therefore costs. On the other hand, stockpiling the obsolete pesticides near shipping ports for too long creates its own environmental and social problems. This will need to be carefully monitored and reacted upon quickly when these issues arise, so that public opinion does not negatively impact on the Project.

Local Destruction

It is positive that this Project will investigate the feasibility of using local destruction facilities, if these become available. There are moves to create such capacity, although it might be too limited to handle the amounts involved in this Project.

Preventing Emergence of New Stockpiles

One of the issues that is central to this effort, is the prevention of accumulation of new stock. The conditions that have led to the creation of the current stockpile is fairly well understood, but it might be premature to assume that the same conditions are in place to day. The team has rightly pointed out that, although the known amount of inventoried stock is increasing, this might be an artifact of more and better inventories. When dealing with this issue, it might be necessary to investigate the current conditions, as well as possible future scenarios, relevant to the accumulation of new obsolete pesticide stocks.

The older types of pesticides are not being produced any more, or have only restricted production. These were in many cases relatively cheap products, which could be acquired at low cost, and therefore easily stockpiled. Except for DDT with a restricted legal use in many countries, the availability of many low-cost products is likely to decrease, and therefore its

109

contribution towards new stockpiles. Donations by donors are also subjected to much better criteria, and operate under better international regulations.

The newer types of pesticides are generally more expensive, and it might be considered that this will in itself, reduce the likelihood of it not being used, and therefore becoming part of the obsolete stockpile. These products sometimes have smaller package volumes, but higher toxicity, and might therefore create its own problems. I therefore suggest, that as part of this Project, an assessment be undertaken to investigate whether the conditions that have led to the initial stockpiling are still applicable, and if changed, how this would affect preventative measures to be promoted by the ASP. It is also probable that a certain amount of stockpile will always be present. It could therefore be argued that, as one of the environmental sustainability indicators, a certain value (to be identified), may not be succeeded.

Africa is not homogenous, and the conditions between countries and regions regarding new obsolete stocks will differ. This should obviously be taken into account. This aspect however, can easily be accommodated within the current plan (Annex 1, Project design summary. Project components / Sub-components, 1.4 "Pesticide import and production analysis and needs assessment), without unnecessary delay in implementation.

Site Cleanup Monitoring

Cleanup of sites, especially those far away from supporting infrastructure for specialist equipment, might, under certain conditions, benefit from the use of phyto-remediation. Although this might be a slower process, less maintenance is required.

It is to be welcomed that site monitoring will be done, after the site has been cleared. The storage histories are in many cases so vague, that the effects of unknown residual products in soil can still have long-term effects. We have modeled the slow release of herbicides from soil into streams for more than 15 years under certain soil and climate conditions. Such sites should therefore be catalogued and monitored.

Integrated Pest Management

The implementation of IPM is sometimes a difficult process. The intended encouragement of the ASP in this direction should take care that appropriate IPM techniques, proven under those conditions, be promoted.

2. Global Benefit / Drawbacks

It is clear that the elimination of the African stockpile will result in a global benefit. Not only will the source of water and soil contamination be removed, but also air pollution from a constant open source (such as soil and open packaging in many cases) will be reduced.

This reduction in stockpile would also improve the chances of international investment or tourism. This Project would therefore promote environmental health, quality of life, sustainable

110

agriculture and growth, as well as the improvement of the regional and global commons, as part of the World Bank's Environment Strategy.

I can see no global drawbacks, other than those captured in the risks.

3. GEF Context and Goals

Within the GEF, the OP14 is the current and valid structure, with a linkage to OP10, International Waters. Otherwise the GEF context is clear.

The risks are well known, and the proposal takes good cognizance of it. But the rewards are considerable as well. The phased approach will clearly assist in the mitigation of the risks, as the initial countries targeted, have already gone some way in inventories, management interventions and even limited but successful elimination. The experience gained from the early phases will, in all probability, reduce the risks during the following phases.

The application of some form of site specific Risk / Hazard Assessment protocols to specific cases might be considered. The stockpiles in certain countries might be so large, that a prioritization of sites could be used for scheduling, implementing different levels of cleanup and monitoring, as well as for the sites where stocks will be stored and packaged. Such a scheme, if decided upon, will have to take the environmental conditions prevalent in that region into account. Soil and climatic factors can differ radically from other regions of the world.

4. Regional Context

This is a continent wide problem. Although Africa is not the only continent with serious obsolete stockpile issues, the infrastructure conditions require and intensive approach for this Project to succeed. The implementation of NEPAD is a situation that could further be investigated, as to possible linkages and synergy, especially later on the Project life.

5. Replicability of Project in Other Areas

As stated above, this Project will require efforts and solution specific to Africa, but many aspects of this Project will also be relevant elsewhere. It will especially be the experience of the management side I believe, that will benefit regions elsewhere.

6. Sustainability of the Project

Skills transferred, as well as the prevention of the re-emergence of new obsolete stockpiles will measure the sustainability of this Project. In a certain sense therefore the bulk of this Project is not meant to be sustainable, as it has to eliminate a finite (but unknown) quantity as one endpoint. If sustainability of the Project beyond its life is to be measured, then a programme could be instituted that will measure stockpile indicators in some way (perhaps an index relating agricultural production and pesticide imports).

111

SECONDARY ISSUES

1. Linkages to Other Focal Areas

There are obviously a number of linkages with other focal areas, the most obvious one with OP10, but the others have been stated and well motivated in the text.

2. Linkages to Other Programs

Again, many of the linkages have been stated. Regional developments, especially NEPAD, will have to be taken into account. The possible establishment of analytical facilities (for Basel, PIC and POPs purposes) is another aspect that could contribute towards the strength of this Project.

3. Other Beneficial or Damaging Environmental Effects

The environmental risks are well indicated, and the mitigation measures identified. Although these risks are not small, the continuation of the present situation will exacerbate the current problem and associated risks, which in my opinion, is greater that those associated with the Project itself, largely due to the fact that the unmanaged current stockpiles becomes part of a managed programme.

4. Degree of Involvement of Stakeholders

The stakeholders have been adequately identified at all levels, on this scale of the Project. A concern would be the involvement of governments at levels higher than country level. Due to the many countries involved, not all can be represented, but consideration could be given to use structures such as SADC and NEPAD to achieve a manageable number, and still attain adequate representation.

5. Capacity-Building

There is likely to be considerable capacity building emanating from this Project. Capacity-building, without the possibility to become self-sustaining does not mean much, but in the context of development and efforts from other programmes relating to chemicals, I believe that the potential of the capacity generated by this Project will be of immense and long-term benefit to the people of Africa.

6. Innovativeness of the Project

The innovativeness of this Project will likely be in assuring adaptable and problem-solving capacity at all management levels, especially for a Project of this size. It will also place a considerable onus on the World Bank and GEF to be responsive to the requests and short-term requirements likely to be a feature of the Project.

112

Prof Henk BouwmanSchool for Environmental Sciences and DevelopmentPotchefstroom UniversityP Bag X 6001Potchefstroom 2520South Africa

Tel +27 18 299 2377Fax +27 18 299 [email protected]

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW

The Bank is in agreement with the points made by the Reviewer.

Recommendations will be further used when developing in more detail the cross-cutting activities component (e.g., the points on local destruction, prevention) and the country programs (e.g., site monitoring).

113

Additional Annex 16: South Africa Technical Annex

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA AFRICA STOCKPILES PROGRAMME – SOUTH AFRICA

CONTENTS

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE………………………..………………1081. Country and Sector Issue………………………………………..………….……………1082. Rationale for Bank Involvement…………………………………………………....……1083. Higher Level Objectives to Which the Project Contributes……………………...………109

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………..…..1101. Financing Instrument………………………………………….…………………………1102. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators………………..……………………1103. Project Components……………………………………………………………...………1104. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design………...…………………………1135. Alternative Considered and Reasons for Rejections………………..……………………113

C. IMPLEMENTATION……………………………………………………...…………..1131. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements…………………………………...……1132. Financing Partners…………………………………………………………………….…1143. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcome/Results…………………………………..…….1144. Sustainability and Replicability……………………………………………….…………1155. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects………………………………………1156. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants………………………………….………………115

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY……………………………………………………………..1161. Economic and Financial Analyses…………………………………………………….…1162. Technical…………………………………………………………………………………1163. Fiduciary…………………………………………………………………………………1174. Social…………………………………………………………………………..…………1225. Environment…………………………………………………………………………...…1226. Safeguard Policies…………………………………………………………………..……1237. Policy Exceptions and Readiness………………………………………………...………124

114

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE


The Project directly contributes to the Republic of South Africa’s (RSA) strategy to promote sustainable development.

The Project is part of the GEF Operational Strategy for eliminating Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as detailed in the PAD.

The ASP-P1 will assist the RSA in meeting the objectives of the Stockholm convention on eliminating persistent organic pollutants; of the strategic environmental assessments in the agriculture and tourism sectors, and that of the impacts of climate change on natural resource management.

Government acts and policies which directly support the project include the National Environment Act, South Africa’s national policies for the environment, environmental health legislation at local level and the national waste management strategy.

The RSA has already initiated preparatory activities under the National Implementation Plan, being supported by United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The RSA completed a preliminary inventory of obsolete pesticides across the country and officially established a Project Management Unit (PMU) within the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).

Preliminary inventory, conducted in preparation for the ASP-P1, identified obsolete stocks of about 250 tonnes at several sites. About 1,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides were disposed of following a 1994 effort by the National Department of Agriculture. In 2000, a Danish-funded follow-up survey recorded an additional 250 tonnes of obsolete pesticides.


The Bank, as GEF Implementing Agent, will support the ASP-P1 according to its comparative advantage. The rationale for Bank involvement, described in greater detail in the PAD, is threefold:

(a) The Bank as a GEF Implementing Agency has a responsibility to implement activities toward achievement of GEF operational programs. By implementing ASP-P1 in South Africa, together with the FAO, PAN-UK and WWF, the Bank will support the first large scale GEF-funded activity toward achieving objectives of the GEF Operational Program 14 (GEF OP14) for Reducing and Eliminating Releases of POPs, and support the role of GEF as the interim financing mechanism for the Stockholm Convention on POPs.

115

(b) The Bank has significant global experience in managing trust funds that mobilize the resources of multiple donors for a shared purpose and in convening the complex partnership needed to successfully implement the South Africa Country Project.

(c) The Bank has substantial and unique expertise in managing complex, multi-country and regional programs. It has also developed considerable experience in facilitating the interface between governments, NGOs and the private sector.



ASP-P1 will contribute to the RSA’s national objectives. In South Africa, ASP-P1 will contribute to the national development strategies in the areas of public health, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and especially strengthening of the agricultural and rural development sector. Specifically, ASP-P1 will address:

(a) Improving the quality of life in the poor communities by reducing environmental health risks;

(b) Improving environmental protection; and

(c) Enhancing the capacity of the agricultural sector to better manage crop pests.

ASP-P1 in South Africa will also consolidate various approaches to obsolete pesticide cleanup, generate practical lessons and produce practical tools that will facilitate its replication in other countries and regions.

ASP-P1 will contribute to the international efforts to eliminate persistent organic pollutants, improve management of toxic chemicals and promote alternatives to pesticide usage that include IPM and IVM. ASP-P1 obsolete pesticide disposal activities will be a direct implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the associated GEF Operational Program in South Africa as detailed in the PAD.

The ASP-P1 capacity building for pesticide management and disposal will enhance the overall capacity in South Africa for managing other toxic chemicals and hazardous waste in general. Significantly, ASP-P1 will promote the national trend toward IPM and utilization of alternative pest management practices.

116



The Financing Instrument is a Horizontal APL as described in the PAD.


The Project Development Objective for ASP-P1 is derived from the Programme’s overall goal: The Government of South Africa will eliminate 250 tonnes of inventoried publicly-held obsolete pesticides stockpiles and associated wastes, and implement measures to reduce and prevent future related risks. This will be achieved through the implementation of four distinct project components:


The project comprises of four inter-related components described below:

1. Clean up and Disposal;

2. Prevention of Accumulation;

3. Capacity Building; and

4. Project Management.

Component A: Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides (US$0.73 million)

Within this component, the project will undertake a detailed inventory of obsolete pesticide stocks, carry out an obsolete pesticide risk and technological assessment, prepare an environmental and social management plan, and subsequently proceed with the environmentally sound disposal of all existing stocks of obsolete pesticides.

(a) Undertake a detailed pesticide inventory: A full national inventory of obsolete pesticide stocks will be compiled by Government of South Africa. The Government of South Africa will prepare the Country-project Environmental and Social Assessment (CESA) to support safeguarding, disposal technology assessment, procurement specifications for disposal and actual disposal of materials. The inventory will be undertaken with the support of all key stakeholders in the pesticide life cycle, sector by sector. The TSU will provide training of trainers and guidelines for physically undertaking the inventory and identifying information needed to support the compilation of a CESA as discussed below. A database will be designed and training provided to a DEAT data base official. The Inventory will also identify stocks which may become obsolete in the near future.

(b) Produce a CESA including an EMP: Concurrently and as a part of the national inventory, a CESA and an EMP will be produced by consultants for the priority publicly held obsolete pesticide stocks to be disposed of. The CESA will include a risk assessment and the risk mitigation measures considered to minimize potential

117

impacts during clean up and repackaging operations, the proposed storage locations for the repackaged materials and the mitigation requirements for the transportation of the materials. Working in collaboration with the Inventory Task Team, a National Register of contaminated sites will be developed. The CESA process will run concurrently with the inventory process. Training on inventory taking and CESA preparation will be provided to the Inventory Task Team by the TSU and World Bank Safeguard specialists.

(c) Safeguard obsolete stockpiles and associate waste: The obsolete pesticide stocks, identified for disposal by the project, will be safeguarded according to CESA requirements incorporating National and TSU guidelines. Activities include: (i) repackaging of stocks as required; (ii) verification of stocks prior to transportation; (iii) transportation of repackaged stocks to collection centers for interim, safe and secure storage; (iv) selection and upgrading of a series of interim collection points to national and international standards for safe storage of obsolete pesticides; (v) on-going interim storage of stocks pending disposal; and (vi) centralization at a final major storage location.

(d) Undertake a technological assessment of disposal options for the inventory and disposal activities: A technological assessment will be undertaken for identifying the best conventional and accepted disposal methods for the identified obsolete pesticides. The technology assessment will comprise the following key elements: (i) development of a matrix of obsolete pesticides to be disposed of based on the inventory; (ii) a review of current national laws and regulations concerning disposal of pesticides, as well as international standards adopted by the TSU at programme level; (iii) a national workshop for all stakeholders to present currently available disposal options operating in South Africa for the waste streams to be covered under this disposal component of the ASP (including inter alia container recycling); (iv) an assessment of available technologies operating in South Africa against the minimum standard for disposal set by the TSU at the ASP programme level (the assessment will be limited to the disposal options currently operating at a full scale level in South Africa; emerging or pilot scale technologies may be included as background information, but the focus will be on technologies which may be used by the Project in South Africa within the project implementation time frame. Based on these activities a technical assessment report will be compiled. .

(e) Disposal: All the obsolete pesticides collected under this project will be disposed of from the central collection site to an appropriate disposal facility (ies). Disposal of all stocks will be in compliance with national regulations, international conventions and any additional requirements as set by the TSU and the Bank. Only pre-qualified bidders, approved by the Bank in cooperation with the TSU and South Africa will be eligible to bid on contracts to dispose of the obsolete pesticides.

118

Component B: Prevention of Accumulation (US$0.45 million)

Activities in this component aim at preventing the recurrence of the accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks. Efforts toward changing the behavior of the many related actors will primarily focus on capacity building, regulations and controls, pesticide management practices and awareness raising. This component will specifically:

(a) Raise awareness about activities to be undertaken. Awareness raising activities will be undertaken to inform potential holders of obsolete pesticides about the project and disposal options. The awareness raising activities will focus on the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive communications strategy which also identifies and targets key stakeholder groups.

(b) Review regulations, laws and enforcement and prepare revisions. A review will be undertaken of all relevant laws, proclamations and regulations pertaining to pesticides. Key National Department of Agriculture and Provincial agricultural staff will be provided with refresher training on pesticide regulation and enforcement.

(c) Prepare a draft IPM strategy and initiate four pilot projects. A draft IPM strategy will be developed and discussed with key stakeholders. In addition four key pilot projects will be initiated.

(d) Review pesticide management practices and prepare a revised training plan. Current pesticide management practices in South Africa will be reviewed to establish a baseline. The critical factors preventing more effective management of pesticides in South Africa, such as cost, awareness and other priorities, will be identified. A training plan will be developed by the government so that key government staff can address these issues.

Component C: Capacity Building (US$0.34 million)

Capacity building activities in South Africa will include the following.

(a) Strengthen the project management skills of the PMU; and

(b) Training program and workshops.

Component D: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$0.28 million)

The prevention of stockpiling of obsolete pesticides is a multi-institutional effort, and as such, the Project Management Unit’s (PMU) principal role is to ensure that relevant activities in the sector are well-coordinated, complement each other and develop strategic benefits. The PMU will rely on continuous M&E efforts to ensure that appropriate actions are taken within the various stakeholder agencies. The PMU will also coordinate fundraising efforts in order to continue expanding the prevention activities of the Project. This component will specifically:

(a) Establish a PMU at DEAT. The support to the PMU under this sub-component is to supervise the key project activities. The PMU will comprise of a Project Manager, a Disposal Coordinator, a Prevention Coordinator, DEAT line function Financial

119

Management and Procurement Specialists, and an Administration Assistant/Information Officer. In addition the PMU will be supported by two technical advisors, the Technical Advisor for Disposal and the Technical Advisor: Prevention.

(b) Support the further design and implementation of a project M&E system. This sub-component will support the further design and implementation of a project monitoring and evaluation system based on TSU guidelines. Overall project M&E will be the responsibility of the Project Manager supported by the Disposal Coordinator and Prevention Coordinator. The Disposal Coordinator will lead on ensuring that the CESA is undertaken and an environmental mitigation plan adopted and implemented. The Disposal Coordinator will design and implement the detailed monitoring and evaluation system for the disposal activities supported by the CESA and FAO guidelines, as well as complying with all local regulatory requirements.


The lessons learned are all addressed in the framework PAD.


Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection have been detailed in the PAD.

C. IMPLEMENTATION


In South Africa, the overall project executing agency will be the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). DEAT will assume all implementation and fiduciary responsibilities spelled out in the Grant Agreement and coordinate participation of other government departments and the private sector in the project.

DEAT will host a PMU responsible for project implementation on a day-to-day basis. The PMU will be largely financed by the Government of South Africa and lead positions will include: Project Coordinator, Prevention Coordinator and a Disposal Coordinator. Existing DEAT staff will be allocated to provide procurement and financial management functions.

DEAT will form a National Steering Committee (NSC), which will include senior representatives from the Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Land Affairs and Agriculture, Health, Labor, Transport, Trade and Industry, and Provincial Environmental Departments. The NSC will be chaired by the Director General of DEAT or her nominee.

In addition to the NSC, a multi-stakeholder forum may be convened and chaired by the Director General of DEAT. The forum will have an advisory role and will include NGOs involved in environmental activities, pesticide sector representatives, farmers’ organizations and other interested or affected parties.

120


The financing partnership behind the South Africa Country Project will use the following funding arrangements:

(a) GEF, ASP-P1’s largest contributor with US$1.7 million of funding will channel funding through the Bank;

(b) The Bank (Development Grant Facility) - will provide funding to support civil society-related activities via the PAN-UK, WWF, NEPAD and FAO; and

(c) South Africa has allocated US$0.70 million as co-financing to the ASP-P1 South Africa Country Project.

The costs for the South Africa Country Project are detailed in Annex 5 in the PAD.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcome Results

The PMU will be responsible for M&E specific to the country.

Common set of Indicators: A common set of indicators has been included as part of the design of the ASP-P1. The RSA will report against these indicators allowing ASP-P1 to report progress against the global objectives of risk reduction from stocks of obsolete pesticides and prevention of accumulation.

Indicators Specific to the South Africa Country Project: In order to have a common understanding of the expectation of the ASP-P1 South Africa Project, a result framework specific to ASP-P1 South Africa is detailed in the Country Operational Manual.

The South Africa Country Project’s Indicators are as follows:

(a) Inventory database of Publicly Held Obsolete Pesticides stocks in place and being used by the PMU and the Recipient’s government staff;

(b) Completion of CESA, and implementation of the measures contained therein;

(c) Inventoried Publicly Held Obsolete Pesticides stocks disposed of, as a result of the completion of the Disposal Services contract(s) in accordance with national and international laws and regulations;

(d) Legal and regulatory framework for pesticide management improved, including measures to strengthen compliance with the Basel Convention and the Rotterdam Convention;

(e) The training program under Part D of the Project is implemented and the knowledge so acquired is being used by PMU and Recipient’s government staff; and

(f) The PMU is functional and its operation is satisfactory to the Bank.

121


A key factor to Project sustainability is the prevention of a re-emergence of obsolete pesticide stockpiles at the conclusion of Project implementation. The inventory and cleanup of the existing stockpiles will do little to reduce the obsolete pesticide risks in the long term unless the South Africa Country Project supports elements of effective pest management strategies, pesticide procurement and pesticide stock management. The design of ASP-P1 in South Africa, therefore, integrates substantial activities on pesticide management and the prevention of their re-accumulation. These activities focus on four areas:

(a) The general regulatory and policy reform (pesticide registration, import controls, licensing, standards, regulations, procurement strategies and stock management, inter-sectoral cooperation, enforcement and others);

(b) The promotion of alternative pest control strategies, such as IPM and IVM through training, awareness raising and research;

(c) An increase in general public awareness of environmental health risks, and public disclosure of pesticide issues and training of pesticide distributors, users, agricultural extension staff and others, as well as an increase in the capacity of governments to safely and effectively manage pesticides and other chemicals; and

(d) Promoting the development and involvement of local NGOs in pesticide safety, health risks and other environmental issues.

The combination of adequate institutional and regulatory capabilities, increased public awareness and understanding, and active and informed NGOs in South Africa is meant to ensure the long term sustainability of the Project.


The critical risks and possible controversial aspects of the Project are summarized on Section 5 of the PAD, outlining risks, risk mitigation measures and risk rating.


The South Africa GEF Grant Agreements contains a statement that the Bank and the Recipient agree that at no point during the Project will the Bank be responsible for execution of the Project activities, nor will the Bank have any legal custody or responsibility for the pesticide stocks inventories which are to be disposed of during the course of the Project. This would ordinarily go without saying, but this extra precaution is perceived as desirable in light of the small risk of a disposal contractor negligently disposing of stocks and that negligence causing harm to persons or property or damage to the environment.

122


For ASP-P1 country projects, the conditions for negotiations are as follows:

(a) Establish a PMU with appropriately qualified and experienced staff, on terms of reference acceptable to the Bank; and


Both conditions have been met for the RSA and RSA negotiations have been officially finalized.





ASP-P1 South Africa Country Project will essentially perform a public good in reducing the risk of contaminating the environment and therefore does not lend itself well to typical economic or financial analysis. For further details refer to Section D1 of the PAD.

For GEF purposes, the preparation of the Project has included an incremental cost analysis for ASP-P1. This analysis (see PAD, Annex 9) provides a baseline and the incremental cost of achieving global benefits to address the issue of obsolete pesticides in seven African countries.

2. Technical

The South Africa Project has prepared a Country Operational Manual (OM) which spells out the technical, Procurement, Financial Management (FM), M&E, and Safeguard requirements of ASP-P1 as well as the institutional arrangements to implement the project. In order to design and implement the most appropriate disposal strategies at the country level, the detailed technical options will be prepared during Project implementation once updated pesticide stockpile inventories have been completed. In principle, the technical design will be guided by a preference for cost-effective practices and compliance with international health, safety, and emission standards. The technologies selected for disposing of the stockpiles and wastes will be required to meet both the Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practice Guidelines, and the appropriate Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of Chemicals.

To identify standards, the Project will refer to and follow the recommendations and minimum standards described in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of

123

Pesticides (FAO, 2003), in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (dioxins and furans) and those related to the Basel Convention for Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the Rotterdam Convention for Prior Informed Consent. The ASP-P1 will conduct a rigorous analysis of all available disposal technology schemes according to international standards for the industry, including additional criteria such as cost, safety, emissions, risks, etc. In practice, at least in the early stage of the project, this is expected to result in South Africa’s obsolete pesticide stocks and associated wastes being safeguarded, packaged and shipped overseas to be incinerated at high temperature in order to meet the above-mentioned requirements.

3. Fiduciary

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A Financial Management (FM) assessment was conducted for the RSA and was found satisfactory to the Bank.

Bank accounts and disbursement procedures: The total budget for the ASP-P1 for South Africa is US$ 1.7 million. The Bank’s GEF Trust Fund will be managed and administered by the Bank according to existing policies and procedures, including disbursement methods and arrangements described below.

Reimbursement and Direct Payment: The Governments of South Africa will use the Reimbursement and Direct Payment Disbursement methods, whereby they will fund project activities and submit quarterly reimbursement claims to the Bank, or request for direct payments to suppliers and consultants for invoice amounts above specified thresholds.

The proceeds of the GEF Grants will be disbursed in accordance with the Bank’s standard disbursement procedures currently in use, i.e., largely through transaction based disbursement using withdrawal applications supported by Statements of Expenditures. Direct payment may be used in some instances as discussed below. To expedite project financing and implementation, an advance (SA) will be made to each country project to cover approximately four months worth of project expenditures. These pertinent disbursement procedures will be described in the Disbursement Letters which each recipient will receive after signing Grant Agreements with the Bank. The letters will describe the applicable disbursement procedures and the authorized method for withdrawing funds. The counterpart funding requirements of each country will be provided by each national government.

South Africa will use its own resources to pre-finance project activities and submit, on a quarterly basis reimbursement claims to the Bank. For invoices above the equivalent of US$150,000 South Africa may choose to request the Bank to make direct payments to suppliers and consultants. Withdrawal applications, submitted to the Bank, will include such supporting documentation as specified in the Disbursement Letter.

It was agreed that reimbursed funds would flow into the Reconstruction and Development Programme account and then into a sub-ledger of the DEAT current account.

124

Staffing Arrangements: The PMU will carry out the day to day activities of the project supported by the Project Manager, two Component Managers for Prevention and Disposal and the Project Accountant and Procurement Managers. The Accounting and Procurement staff will be drawn from line staff within the ministry and will dedicate 25% of their time to the needs of the project. The Accounting Officer for the project will be the DEAT Chief Finance Officer.

SOE THRESHOLDS:

Less than: US$500,000 for worksUS$150,000 for goodsUS$100,000 for consulting firmsUS$50,000 for individual consultants

Internal audit: Internal audit functions for the Project will be performed by the government’s internal auditors. This internal audit is assessed as well established and reliable.

External Audit: External audits are required either by the auditor general of the recipient country or by an independent audit firm. Negotiations agreed that the Government Auditor General will be responsible for auditing the project as per norm for Bank supported projects. Audited Project Financial Statements will be submitted to the Bank within six months after year end December 31.

The auditors will be required to express an opinion on the Project Financial Statements in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. In addition to the audit report, the auditors will be expected to prepare management letters giving observations and comments, and providing recommendations for improvements in accounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the Grant Agreements.

Disbursement Categories: The table below sets forth the Categories of items to be financed out of the proceeds of the GEF Trust Fund Grant, the allocation of the amounts of the GEF Trust Fund Grant to each Category and the percentage of expenditures for items so to be financed in each Category:

125

Category Amount of the GEF Trust Fund Grant Allocated

(US$)

% of Expenditures to be Financed

(1) Goods 100,000 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory

costs); and 80% of local expenditures for other items produces locally

(2)Works 45,000 100% of foreign expenditures, 80% of local expenditures

(3) Consultant Services 470,000 100% of foreign expenditures, 83% of local expenditures

(4) Disposal Services 685,000 100% of foreign expenditures, 83% of local expenditures

(5) Workshops and Training

105,000 100%

(6) Operating Costs 50,000 80%

(7) Unallocated 245,000

TOTAL 1,700,000

PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS

The Directorate of Supply Chain Management under DEAT will be responsible for procurement. For ICB, the Bank’s SBDs - Procurement of Goods will be used. For NCB, national or other bidding documents may be used, provided they have been reviewed by the Bank and found acceptable before their first use.

Procurement of Goods and Works

Goods procured under this project will include office equipment, computers, vehicles, field instruments (e.g., VHF radios and GPS), packaging materials, protective clothing and specialty drum cleaning equipment. To the extent possible, goods will be grouped into contract packages estimated to cost the equivalent of US$250,000.

National Competitive Bidding: Goods estimated to cost less than US$100,000 and works estimated to cost less than US$500,000 may be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of National Competitive Bidding in accordance with procedures acceptable to the Bank.

Shopping: Goods estimated to cost less than US$30,000 equivalent per contract and works estimated to cost less than US$50,000 equivalent per contract may be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Shopping procedures in accordance with paragraph 3.5 of the Guidelines.

126

Direct Contracting: Goods which are specialized or of a proprietary nature or are required for an emergency costing less than US$5,000 and works costing less than US$10,000 may, with Bank’s prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.6 of the Guidelines.

Procurement of Disposal Services

Non-consulting services under this Project include disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides and disposal of containers. It may also include safeguarding of obsolete pesticides (repackaging) as well as their transport. Pre-qualification of service providers will be mandatory under the grant agreements, since these services are very specialized and require close familiarity with applicable international standards. A special pre-qualification document, modeled after the Bank’s pre-qualification document for works, will be developed and used. This pre-qualification document will reflect the standards for disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides and will be approved by the Bank. Only providers who can demonstrate that they have the requisite capabilities and historical record to comply with these standards will be pre-qualified and invited to bid. Providers may be single firms or joint ventures of several firms. The FAO-TSU will provide technical support for the pre-qualification, bidding and execution of these specialized services. A special bidding document for disposal services modeled after the Bank’s trial edition of such document will be developed, used and furnished to the pre-qualified providers.

Procurement of Consultants

Consulting services under this project include:

(a) Surveys and studies for the selection of appropriate technologies for disposal of buried pesticides, for the disposal of contaminated containers and for the treatment or disposal of contaminated soils;

(b) Developing environmental and social management frameworks, reviewing relevant legislation, conducting risk assessment of obsolete pesticides; and

(c) Consulting services for database development, financial and technical audits, training course delivery, capacity building and awareness raising programme.

Quality-based Selection: Services consisting of training workshops, monitoring and evaluation, and audits, estimated to cost less than US$50,000 per contract, may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.2 through 3.4 of the Consultant Guidelines.

Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications: Services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 per contract may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Consultant Guidelines.

Single Source Selection: Services for tasks in circumstances which meet the requirements of paragraph 3.10 of the Consultant Guidelines for Single Source Selection may, with the Bank’s prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.9 through 3.13 of the Consultant Guidelines.

127

Individual Consultant: Services for assignments that meet the requirements set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 5.1 of the Consultant Guidelines may be procured under contracts awarded to individual consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5.2 through 5.3 of the Consultant Guidelines. Under the circumstances described in paragraph 5.4 of the Consultant Guidelines, such contracts may be awarded to individual consultants on a sole-source basis.

Services for assignments in which (i) teams of personnel are not required, (ii) no additional outside (home office) professional support is required, and (iii) the experience of qualifications of the individual are the paramount requirement may be procured under contracts awarded to individual consultants, in accordance with the Section 5 of the Consultant Guidelines.

In cases other than those provided above, consultants’ services shall be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Quality- and Cost-based Selection (QCBS). The appropriate selection method for each consulting contract will be recorded in the Procurement Plan according to the aforementioned thresholds.

Procurement Plan: An eighteen (18) month procurement plan has been agreed upon during negotiations (please refer to the end of this Annex).

In addition to the procurement methods of Shopping and Consultant Qualifications that will be used during the first eighteen (18) months of Project implementation that are identified in the eighteen (18) month Procurement Plan, it is anticipated that the following additional methods will be utilized over the course of the Project: International Competitive Bidding, National Competitive Bidding, Shopping, Direct Contracting, Quality-Based Selection, Single Source Selection and Individual Consultants.

Summary Assessment of Agencies Capacities to Implement Procurement:

(a) The overall responsibility for procurement (planning and contracting) rests with DEAT, who will follow the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines;

(b) Procurement of civil works (very small contracts), goods and the selection of consultants will be carried out by the Directorate of Supply Chain Management within DEAT;

(c) A Procurement Officer will be responsible for supporting the Project i.e., including updating the Procurement Plan, keeping the procurement records and managing the procurement process including monitoring of performance to contracts requirements;

(d) Prior to Negotiations, DEAT must confirm that they will follow the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines (concluded)

(e) The procurement risk is average.

128

4. Social

ASP-P1 in South Africa will deliver considerable social benefits by reducing risks to people from existing pesticide stockpiles and implementing measures to prevent recurrence of pesticide stock accumulation in the future. Due to the correlation between health and environmental risks and poverty, the delivery of benefits will likely be progressive, affecting the population at large and the poor in particular. Given the low level of awareness of the general population with regard to the consequences of exposure to contaminated sites and goods, their active participation and collaboration with the Project to carry out its objectives might be slow. However, the highly participatory modus operandi, started at an early stage of Project preparation and planned to continue during Project implementation, is expected to help mitigate this problem. Other supportive measures have been planned to sensitize the general population to this issue. They include awareness campaigns and training for pesticide distributors and users to help raise the level of awareness and encourage safe pesticide handling and alternative pest control.

5. Environment

ASP-P1 is essentially an extensive cleanup and contamination-prevention operation which will bring substantial environmental health benefits, both locally and globally, by removing obsolete pesticide stockpiles in South Africa. ASP-P1 does, however, carry some short-term high environmental risks, specifically as related to the removal and transportation of obsolete pesticides and contaminated materials. During project implementation, Country Project-specific Environment and Social Assessments (CESAs) including the EMPs will be prepared by independent consultants as specified in the OM. Detailed inventories, site specific information including detailed digital photos and precise coordinates (GPS) of obsolete stocks and contaminated sites will need to be taken for CESA preparation. The CESA will be completed when the obsolete pesticide stockpile inventories and site characterizations in South Africa have been completed. Disposal and cleanup activities will begin after successful completion of the CESA.


Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [x] [ ]Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [x]Pest Management (OP 4.09) [x] [ ]Cultural Property (OP 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [ ] [x]Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [x]Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [ ] [x]Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [x]Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [x]Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)25 [ ] [x]Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [x]


129






















The Project environmental and social impacts were assessed in a Framework Environmental Assessment and their mitigation measures were outlined in an Environmental and Social Management Framework. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was prepared based on these documents and will serve as guidance for the preparation of the respective CESA. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was disclosed prior to appraisal in South Africa and in the InfoShop by March 17, 2004. The Environmental and Social Assessment Summary Report was disclosed to the Board on October 3, 2004. A binding covenant in the Project legal document will be made, stating that the RSA will prepare a CESA early in Project implementation.

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) is not triggered at this stage. Given that none of the presently identified storage sites will require any involuntary displacement or new land acquisition, or total or partial loss of livelihood.

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04): During project implementation, if a stock of obsolete pesticides, pesticide wastes or a contaminated site happen to be located in the proximity of a critical natural habitat(s), then such a situation would trigger OP 4.04 and would require that the EA process (OP 4.01) would identify such habitats within a proposed project’s area of influence and will take the necessary measures to avoid or minimize damage to natural habitats to the extent feasible

130



Readiness Criteria:

ISSUES STATUS

Fiduciary All countries indicate high levels of compliance with FM requirements. Procurement plans exist for all countries. Done

Project Staffing PMU staff identified and in place. Done

Disclosure RequirementsThe Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report disclosed in the countries and in the Bank InfoShop as of March 17, 2004. Done

Monitoring and Evaluation

M&E indicators have been prepared and incorporated into the project design and implementation arrangements. Done


Co-financing arrangements confirmed and the majority of the funding secured. Done

131

SOUTH AFRICA

18 Month Procurement Plan

132

133

Additional Annex 17: Tunisia Technical Annex

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA AFRICA STOCKPILES PROGRAMME - TUNISIA

CONTENTS

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE………………….…..….…..………1281. Country and Sector Issue…………………………….…………...……….……………1282. Rationale for Bank Involvement…………………………………………….……….…1283. Higher Level Objectives to Which the Project Contributes…………….………........…129

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION…………………………………….….…………....…..…1301. Financing Instrument………………………………………….….…………...…..……1302. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators…………….…..…………….……1303. Project Components……………………………………………….………..…....…..…1304. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design………...………………..………1315. Alternative Considered and Reasons for Rejections……………......………..…………131

C. IMPLEMENTATION…………………………………….…………..…….…….……1321. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements…………………………………….…1322. Financing Partners…………………………………………………………..….………1323. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcome/Results………………………..……….……..1334. Sustainability and Replicability………………………………………………..……….1335. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects……………………………..………1346. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants………………………………………...………134

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY………………….…………………………..……...………1351. Economic and Financial Analyses…………………………………………..……….…1352. Technical………………………………………………………………………..………1353. Fiduciary………………………………………………….………………….…………1364. Social…………………………………………………….……………………...………1405. Environment……………………………………….…………………….…….………..1406. Safeguard Policies……………………………………………………….…….………..1417. Policy Exceptions and Readiness………………………………….………….……...…142

134

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE


The Project directly contributes to the Government of Tunisia’s (GoT) strategy to increase competitiveness of agriculture while enhancing social and environmental sustainability as described in the Tunisia CAS, Outcome 1.4. The Project will contribute to safeguarding natural resources, including land and water conservation and reduce risks to human health.

The Project is part of the GEF Operational Strategy for eliminating Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as detailed in the PAD.

The ASP-P1 will assist the GoT in meeting the objectives of the Stockholm convention on eliminating persistent organic pollutants; of the strategic environmental assessments in the agriculture and tourism sectors, and that of the impacts of climate change on natural resource management.

Several government policies on the environment and sustainable development support this proposed Project. The National Strategy for the Protection of Environment defines priority areas and actions to be undertaken under the National Implementation Plan (NIP) and the National Action Plan for the Environment.

The GoT has already initiated preparatory activities under the National Implementation Plan, being conducted by United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). The GoT completed a preliminary inventory of obsolete pesticides across the country and officially established a Project Management Unit (PMU) within the Department of Solid Wastes at the National Environmental Protection Agency.

Preliminary inventory, conducted in preparation for the ASP-P1, identified large quantities of obsolete stocks at several sites. This preliminary inventory identified 128 sites with estimated stocks of 1,200 tonnes. The GoT recently pooled all the inventoried obsolete stocks into 17 secured sites.

The GoT has several important policy instruments governing the management of pesticides, toxic and solid wastes.


The Bank, as GEF Implementing Agent, will support the ASP-P1 according to its comparative advantage. The rationale for Bank involvement, described in greater detail in the PAD is threefold:

135

(a) The Bank as a GEF Implementing Agency has a responsibility to implement activities toward achievement of GEF operational programs. By implementing ASP-P1 in Tunisia, together with the FAO, PAN-UK and WWF, the Bank will support the first large scale GEF-funded activity toward achieving objectives of the GEF Operational Program 14 (GEF OP14) for Reducing and Eliminating Releases of POPs, and support the role of GEF as the interim financing mechanism for the Stockholm Convention on POPs.

(b) The Bank has significant global experience in managing trust funds that mobilize the resources of multiple donors for a shared purpose and in convening the complex partnership needed to successfully implement the Tunisia Country Project.

(c) The Bank has substantial and unique expertise in managing complex, multi-country and regional programs. It has also developed considerable experience in facilitating the interface between governments, NGOs and the private sector.



ASP-P1 will contribute to the GoT’s national objectives. In Tunisia, ASP-P1 will contribute to the national development strategies in the areas of public health, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and especially strengthening of the agricultural and rural development sector as described in the Tunisia CAS outcome 1.4. Specifically, ASP-P1 will address:




ASP-P1 in Tunisia will also consolidate various approaches to obsolete pesticide cleanup, generate practical lessons and produce practical tools that will facilitate its replication in other countries and regions.

ASP-P1 will contribute to the international efforts to eliminate persistent organic pollutants, improve management of toxic chemicals and promote alternatives to pesticide usage that include IPM and Integrated Vector Management (IVM). ASP-P1 obsolete pesticide disposal activities will be a direct implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the associated GEF Operational Program in Tunisia as detailed in the PAD.

136

The ASP-P1 capacity building for pesticide management and disposal will enhance the overall capacity in Tunisia for managing other toxic chemicals and hazardous waste in general. Significantly, ASP-P1 will promote the national trend toward Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and utilization of alternative pest management practices.



The Financing Instrument is a Horizontal APL as described in the PAD.


The Project Development Objective for ASP-P1 is derived from the Programme’s overall goal: The Government of Tunisia will eliminate inventoried publicly-held obsolete pesticides stockpiles and associated wastes, and implement measures to reduce and prevent future related risks.

This will be achieved through the implementation of four distinct project components:


Component A: Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides (US$3.90 million)

Within this component, the project will undertake a detailed inventory of obsolete pesticide stocks, carry out an obsolete pesticide risk assessment, and prepare an environmental and social management plan, and finally the environmentally sound disposal of all existing stocks of obsolete pesticides. This component will specifically:

(a) complete detailed stock inventories;

(b) produce a Country-project Environmental and Social Assessment (CESA) including an Environmental Management Plan (EMP);

(c) dispose of obsolete pesticides including contaminated containers.

Component B: Prevention of Accumulation (US$0.40 million)

Activities in this component aim at preventing the recurrence of the accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks. Efforts toward changing the behavior of the many related actors will primarily focus on capacity building, regulations and controls, pesticide management practices and awareness raising. This component will specifically:

137

(a) strengthen existing regulatory system for pesticide control;

(b) promote ongoing IPM efforts, particularly with small scale farmers;

(c) promote certified organic agricultural production;

(d) develop a communication campaign to raise awareness about pesticide impact and opportunities created by IPM; and

(e) upgrade pesticide storage facilities.

Component C: Capacity Building (US$0.23 million)

Capacity building activities in Tunisia will include the following.

(a) risk assessment of soil contamination;

(b) assessment of laboratory needs; and

(c) training programme in pesticide storage management and Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

Component D: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$0.60 million)

The problem of obsolete pesticide prevention is a multi-institutional effort, and as such, the Project Management Unit’s (PMU) principal role is to ensure that relevant activities in the sector are well-coordinated, complement each other and develop strategic benefits. The PMU will rely on continuous Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) efforts to ensure that appropriate actions are taken within the various stakeholder agencies. The PMU will also coordinate fundraising efforts in order to continue expanding the prevention activities of the Project. This component will specifically establish:

(a) a PMU at ANPE;

(b) a National Steering Committee (NSC); and

(c) a M&E system.


Lessons Learned have been detailed in the PAD.


Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection have been detailed in the PAD.

138

C. IMPLEMENTATION


In Tunisia, the PMU has been established within the Département des Déchets Solides (DDS) of the Agence National de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. ANPE has obtained obsolete pesticide related expertise by implementing a toxic waste programme called the Programme National de Gestion des Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES). Staffing of the PMU will draw on the technical expertise of personnel experienced in PRONAGDES implementation, who will be assisted by a Technical Advisor recruited under ASP-P1. The PMU will be in charge of overall project coordination and M&E of the Country Project. The PMU will also prepare the national program, coordinate training, and supervise research related to the Project.

The PMU will be guided by the National Steering Committee (NSC), representing a broad range of representatives of different government ministries and agencies.

National Steering Committee: A National Steering Committee (NCS) consisting of 10 agencies has been formed and will be responsible for overseeing the successful execution of the project. The NSC includes representatives of all interested Ministries; such as Agriculture and Water Resources, Environment and Sustainable Development, Public Health, Industry, Finance, Trade and Tourism. The NSC also counts the participation of specialized and directly interested agencies and organizations such as ANPE, International Center for Environmental Technology, Tunisian Union, NGOs, farmer’s associations, professional associations, and focal points for the Stockholm Convention.


The financing partnership behind the Tunisia Country Project will use the following funding arrangements:

(a) GEF, ASP-P1’s largest contributor with US$4.0 million of funding will channel funding through the Bank.

(b) The Bank (Development Grant Facility) - will provide funding to support civil society-related activities via the PAN-UK, WWF, NEPAD and FAO.

(c) National Donors – France (French Facility for Global Environment -FFEM) - will channel their contributions (US$0.63 million) through bilateral arrangements with the GoT.

(d) The GoT has allocated US$0.550 million as co-financing to the ASP-P1 Tunisia Country Project.

139

The costs for the Tunisia Country Project are detailed in Annex 5 in the PAD.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcome Results

The PMU will be responsible for M&E specific to the country.

Common set of Indicators: A common set of indicators has been included as part of the design of the ASP-P1. The GoT will report against these indicators allowing ASP-P1 to report progress against the global objectives of risk reduction from stocks of obsolete pesticides and prevention of accumulation.

Indicators Specific to the Tunisia Country Project: In order to have a common understanding of the expectation of the ASP-P1 Tunisia Project, a result framework specific to ASP-P1 Tunisia is detailed in the Country Operational Manual.

The Tunisia Country Project’s Indicators are as follows:

(a) Inventory database of publicly held obsolete pesticide stocks in place and being used by the PMUs and the GoT’s staff;

(b) Completion of CESA and implementation of each CESAs measures;

(c) Inventoried publicly held obsolete pesticide stocks disposed of, as a result of the completion of the Disposal Services contracts in accordance with national and international laws and regulations;

(d) Legal and regulatory framework for pesticide management improved, including measures to strengthen compliance with the Basel Convention and the Rotterdam Convention;

(e) IPM Strategy developed;

(f) Training programme is implemented and the knowledge so acquired is being used by PMU and government staff; and

(g) PMU is functional and operating satisfactorily.


A key factor to Project sustainability is the prevention of a re-emergence of obsolete pesticide stockpiles at the conclusion of Project implementation. The inventory and cleanup of the existing stockpiles will do little to reduce the obsolete pesticide risks in the long term unless the Tunisia Country Project supports elements of effective pest management strategies, pesticide procurement and pesticide stock management. The design of ASP-P1 in Tunisia, therefore, integrates substantial activities on pesticide management and the prevention of their re-accumulation. These activities focus on four areas:

140

(a) the general regulatory and policy reform (pesticide registration, import controls, licensing, standards, regulations, procurement strategies and stock management, inter-sectoral cooperation, enforcement and others);

(b) the promotion of alternative pest control strategies, such as IPM and IVM through training, awareness raising and research;

(c) an increase in general public awareness of environmental health risks, and public disclosure of pesticide issues and training of pesticide distributors, users, agricultural extension staff and others, as well as an increase in the capacity of governments to safely and effectively manage pesticides and other chemicals; and

(d) promoting the development and involvement of local NGOs in pesticide safety, health risks and other environmental issues.

The combination of adequate institutional and regulatory capabilities, increased public awareness and understanding, and active and informed NGOs in Tunisia is meant to ensure the long term sustainability of the Project.


The critical risks and possible controversial aspects of the Project are summarized on Section 5 of the PAD, outlining risks, risk mitigation measures and risk rating.


The Tunisia GEF Grant Agreements contains a statement that the Bank and the Recipient agree that at no point during the Project will the Bank be responsible for execution of the Project activities, nor will the Bank have any legal custody or responsibility for the pesticide stocks inventories which are to be disposed of during the course of the Project. This would ordinarily go without saying, but this extra precaution is perceived as desirable in light of the small risk of a disposal contractor negligently disposing of stocks and that negligence causing harm to persons or property or damage to the environment.


For ASP-P1 country projects, the conditions for negotiations are as follows:

(a) Establish a PMU with appropriately qualified and experienced staff, on terms of reference acceptable to the Bank; and


Both conditions have been met for the GoT and negotiations have been officially finalized.

141





ASP-P1 Tunisia Country Project will essentially perform a public good in reducing the risk of contaminating the environment and therefore does not lend itself well to typical economic or financial analysis. For further details refer to Section D1 of the PAD.

For GEF purposes, the preparation of the Project has included an incremental cost analysis for ASP-P1. This analysis (see PAD, Annex 9) provides a baseline and the incremental cost of achieving global benefits to address the issue of obsolete pesticides in seven African countries.

2. Technical

The Tunisia Project has prepared a Country Operational Manual (OM) which spells out the technical, Procurement, Financial Management (FM), M&E, and Safeguard requirements of ASP-P1 as well as the institutional arrangements to implement the project. In order to design and implement the most appropriate disposal strategies at the country level, the detailed technical options will be prepared during Project implementation once updated pesticide stockpile inventories have been completed. In principle, the technical design will be guided by a preference for cost-effective practices and compliance with international health, safety, and emission standards. The technologies selected for disposing of the stockpiles and wastes will be required to meet both the Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practice Guidelines, and the appropriate Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of Chemicals.

To identify standards, the Project will refer to and follow the recommendations and minimum standards described in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2003), in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (dioxins and furans) and those related to the Basel Convention for Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the Rotterdam Convention for Prior Informed Consent. The ASP-P1 will conduct a rigorous analysis of all available disposal technology schemes according to international standards for the industry, including additional criteria such as cost, safety, emissions, risks, etc. In practice, at least in the early stage of the project, this is expected to result in Tunisia’s obsolete pesticide stocks and associated wastes being safeguarded, packaged and shipped overseas to be incinerated at high temperature in order to meet the above-mentioned requirements.

142

3. Fiduciary

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A Financial Management (FM) assessment was conducted for the GoT and was found satisfactory to the Bank.

Special Account: The GoT will use a Special Account (SA) to finance project activities with GEF funds. A SA will be opened at the Central Bank of Tunisia. This SA will receive an initial advance and will be subsequently replenished using withdrawal applications by the executing agency. Counterpart funds will be deposited in the ANPE commercial bank account.

SOE Thresholds: Less than US$250,000 for goods, US$100,000 for consulting firms and US$50,000 for individual consultants.

Staffing Arrangements: The PMU, within DDS, will rely on ANPE constituents, such as the Permanent Secretary of the Procurement Commission, the Administrative and Financial Department and accounting services. DDS is an implementing entity for other Bank Projects. ANPE, where the PMU will be located has a FM team already in place.

Accounting Policies and Procedures: ANPE does not rely on public accounting rules, but rather on general accounting rules used by the private sector.

Internal Audit: A Financial Comptroller is controlling ex-ante all the expenditures. This internal control is progressively moving to an internal audit (annual programme of specific technical and financial controls). It is recommended to pay particular attention to this internal control during supervision missions.

External Audit: Although ANPE already has an external auditor, the Project will be audited by the Contrôle Général des Finances (Government Audit Directorate) within the Ministry of Finance, which will be responsible for the audits of all donor-financed projects. ANPE’s auditor will still be required to review the audit of the project during their own assignment. The last audit report of ANPE was qualified. Recommendations have been made on strengthening internal audit, implementation of an analytical accounting system and implementation of an Integrated FM System.

Financial Management Reporting: The accounting period for Tunisia will follow the period beginning January and ending December of each year. The PMU will coordinate the project activities and will be responsible for consolidating and processing all reimbursement claims, as well as submitting consolidated quarterly FMRs to the Bank. The format of the FMRs was agreed during appraisal and is consistent with Bank Guidelines (Sample 1 of the Bank Guideline for Borrowers dated November 30, 2002).

Progress Reports will be submitted each year to the Finance Ministry, which will forward them to the PCU. Consolidated quarterly FMRs should correspond with the annual financial

143

statements that will be audited and submitted to the World Bank. In addition, monthly bank reconciliation statements for the Special Accounts will be prepared and forwarded.

Disbursement: Disbursements under the ASP-P1 will be made on a transaction basis, using SOEs. The PMU will send withdrawal applications to the Bank for direct payments to suppliers and consultants. For replenishment of the SA, the PMU will issue and send a withdrawal application to the Bank. Supporting documents will be maintained by the PMU and made available to the Bank’s visiting missions and auditors as required.

Disbursement Categories: The table below sets forth the Categories of items to be financed out of the proceeds of the GEF Trust Fund Grant, the allocation of the amounts of the GEF Trust Fund Grant to each Category and the percentage of expenditures for items so to be financed in each Category:

CategoryAmount of the

GEF Trust Fund Grant Allocated

(Expressed in US$)

% of Expenditures

to be Financed

(1) Goods 100,000 100%

(2) Consultant Services, audit, training and workshops

100,000 100%

(3) Disposal Services 3,150,000 100%

(4) Operating Costs 250,000 100%

(5) Unallocated 400,000

TOTAL 4,000,000

PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS

ANPE, under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, will be responsible for procurement within ASP-P1 Tunisia.

For ICB, the Bank’s SBDs - Procurement of Goods will be used. For NCB, national or other nidding documents may be used, provided they have been reviewed by the Bank and found acceptable before their first use. For NCB, national or other bidding documents may be used, provided they have been reviewed by the Bank and found acceptable before their first use.

144

Procurement of Works: Procurement of works (other than Disposal Services) is not expected in Tunisia.

Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project will include office equipment, computers, vehicles, field instruments (e.g., VHF radios and GPS), packaging materials, protective clothing and specialty drum cleaning equipment. To the extent possible, goods will be grouped into contract packages estimated to cost the equivalent of US$250,000.

National Competitive Bidding: Goods estimated to cost less than US$250,000 per contract may be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of National Competitive Bidding in accordance with procedures acceptable to the Bank.

Shopping: Goods estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Shopping procedures in accordance with paragraph 3.5 of the Guidelines.

Direct Contracting: Goods which are specialized or of a proprietary nature costing less than US$10,000 may, with Bank’s prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.6 of the Guidelines.

Procurement of Disposal Services: Non-consulting services under this Project include disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides and disposal of containers. It may also include safeguarding of obsolete pesticides (repackaging) as well as their transport. Pre-qualification of service providers will be mandatory under the grant agreements, since these services are very specialized and require close familiarity with applicable international standards. A special pre-qualification document, modeled after the Bank’s pre-qualification document for works, will be developed and used. This pre-qualification document will reflect the standards for disposal of obsolete and buried pesticides and will be approved by the Bank. Only providers who can demonstrate that they have the requisite capabilities and historical record to comply with these standards will be pre-qualified and invited to bid. Providers may be single firms or joint ventures of several firms. The FAO-TSU will provide technical support for the pre-qualification, bidding and execution of these specialized services. A special bidding document for disposal services modeled after the Bank’s trial edition of such document will be developed, used and furnished to the pre-qualified providers.

Procurement of Consultants: Consulting services under this project include:

(a) surveys and studies for the selection of appropriate technologies for disposal of buried pesticides, for the disposal of contaminated containers and for the treatment or disposal of contaminated soils;

(b) developing environmental and social management frameworks, reviewing relevant legislation, conducting risk assessment of obsolete pesticides; and

(c) consulting services for database development, financial and technical audits, training course delivery, capacity building and awareness raising programme.

145

Quality-based Selection: Services consisting of training workshop, monitoring and evaluation and audits, estimated to cost less than US$50,000 per contract, may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.2 through 3.4 of the Consultant Guidelines.

Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications: Services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 per contract may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Consultant Guidelines.

Single Source Selection: Services for tasks in circumstances which meet the requirements of paragraph 3.10 of the Consultant Guidelines for Single Source Selection may, with the Bank’s prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.9 through 3.13 of the Consultant Guidelines.

Individual Consultants: Services for assignments that meet the requirements set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 5.1 of the Consultant Guidelines may be procured under contracts awarded to individual consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5.2 through 5.3 of the Consultant Guidelines. Under the circumstances described in paragraph 5.4 of the Consultant Guidelines, such contracts may be awarded to individual consultants on a sole-source basis. In cases other than those provided above, consultants’ services shall be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Quality- and Cost-based Selection (QCBS).

The appropriate selection method for each consulting contract will be recorded in the Procurement Plan according to the aforementioned thresholds.

Procurement Plan: An 18 month procurement plan has been agreed upon during negotiations (please refer to the end of this Annex).

In addition to the procurement methods of Shopping and Consultant Qualifications that will be used during the first 18 months of Project implementation that are identified in the 18 month Procurement Plan, it is anticipated that the following additional methods will be utilized over the course of the Project: International Competitive Bidding, National Competitive Bidding, Shopping, Direct Contracting, Quality-Based Selection, Single Source Selection and Individual Consultants.

146

Summary Assessment of Agencies Capacities to implement procurement:

(a) ANPE will be responsible for procurement.

(b) The national legislation on procurement, with some exceptions, is generally in line with the Bank’s guidelines. These exceptions are elaborated in the draft Country Procurement Assessment Report (June 2004) which is still under review by Government.

(c) ANEP has limited experience of procurement under Bank’s Procurement Guidelines.

(d) ANPE appointed a staff member for procurement and after specific procurement training the officer will be able to handle procurement under the project in a satisfactory manner.

The overall procurement risk is average to high.

4. Social

ASP-P1 in Tunisia will deliver considerable social benefits by reducing risks to people from existing pesticide stockpiles and implementing measures to prevent recurrence of pesticide stock accumulation in the future. Due to the correlation between health and environmental risks and poverty, the delivery of benefits will likely be progressive, affecting the population at large and the poor in particular. Given the low level of awareness of the general population with regard to the consequences of exposure to contaminated sites and goods, their active participation and collaboration with the Project to carry out its objectives might be slow. However, the highly participatory modus operandi, started at an early stage of Project preparation and planned to continue during Project implementation, is expected to help mitigate this problem. Other supportive measures have been planned to sensitize the general population to this issue. They include awareness campaigns and training for pesticide distributors and users to help raise the level of awareness and encourage safe pesticide handling and alternative pest control.

5. Environment

ASP-P1 is essentially an extensive cleanup and contamination-prevention operation which will bring substantial environmental health benefits, both locally and globally, by removing obsolete pesticide stockpiles in Tunisia. ASP-P1 does, however, carry some short-term high environmental risks, specifically as related to the removal and transportation of obsolete pesticides and contaminated materials. During project implementation, Country Project-specific Environment and Social Assessments (CESAs) including the EMPs will be prepared by independent consultants as specified in the OM. Detailed inventories, site specific information including detailed digital photos and precise coordinates (GPS) of obsolete stocks and contaminated sites will need to be taken for CESA preparation. The CESA will be completed when the obsolete pesticide stockpile inventories and site characterizations in Tunisia have been completed. Disposal and cleanup activities will begin after successful completion of the CESA.

147


Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [x] [ ]Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [x]Pest Management (OP 4.09) [x] [ ]Cultural Property (OP 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [ ] [x]Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [x]Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [ ] [x]Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [x]Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [x]Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)26 [ ] [x]Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [x]


The Project environmental and social impacts were assessed in a Framework Environmental Assessment and their mitigation measures were outlined in an Environmental and Social Management Framework. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was prepared based on these documents and will serve as guidance for the preparation of the respective CESA. The Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report was disclosed prior to appraisal in Tunisia on April 6, 2004 and in the InfoShop by March 17, 2004. The Environmental and Social Assessment Summary Report was disclosed to the Board on October 3, 2004. A binding covenant in the Project legal document will be made, stating that the GoT will prepare a CESA early in Project implementation.

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) is not triggered at this stage. Given that none of the presently identified storage sites will require any involuntary displacement or new land acquisition, or total or partial loss of livelihood.

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04): During project implementation, if a stock of obsolete pesticides, pesticide wastes or a contaminated site happen to be located in the proximity of a critical natural habitat(s), then such a situation would trigger OP 4.04 and would require that the EA process (OP 4.01) would identify such habitats within a proposed project’s area of influence and will take the necessary measures to avoid or minimize damage to natural habitats to the extent feasible.


148























Readiness Criteria:

ISSUES STATUS

Fiduciary All countries indicate high levels of compliance with FM requirements. Procurement plans exist for all countries.

Project Staffing PMU staff identified and in place.

Disclosure RequirementsThe Environmental and Social Assessment Synthesis Report disclosed in the countries and in the Bank InfoShop as of March 17, 2004.

Monitoring and Evaluation

M&E indicators have been prepared and incorporated into the project design and implementation arrangements.


Co-financing arrangements confirmed and the majority of the funding secured.

149

TUNISIA – 18 Month Procurement Plan

150

151

152

Maps

153

154