AIDE MEMOIRE
Ghana
Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (P098538)
Implementation Support Mission
June 6-10, 2016
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. A World Bank team1 carried Implementation Support Mission for the Ghana Sustainable Land
and Water Management Project (SLWMP) during June 6-10, 2016 in Accra and selected project
locations in Northern Ghana. The mission objective was to review and support project implementation,
including in the field. The mission in particular followed up on findings and recommendations of the
recent Bank field visits to SLWMP activities in the Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR), the new
Government proposal to advance implementation of sub-projects scheduled for 2017, and the readiness
for implementation of the Second Additional Financing.
2. This Aide Memoire summarizes the mission’s key findings and recommendations approved by
the Bank Management. The draft aide memoire was reviewed at a wrap-up meeting of June 14, 2016
chaired by Hon. Mahama Ayariga, Minister, Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and
Innovation.
3. The Bank team sincerely thanks the Government of Ghana (GoG) counterparts: the Ministry of
Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI) as the coordinating Ministry for the
Project; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Wildlife Division (WD) and the Forest
Services Division (FSD) of the Forestry Commission; the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA);
and the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) for their excellent collaboration and
courtesies extended to the mission. The mission team gratefully acknowledges interactions with local
government officials and communities during the field visit. The Ministry of Finance representatives
did not participate in the mission. List of persons met by the mission is attached as Annex 1.
4. The Bank also appreciates the opportunity to introduce Dr. Asferachew Abate taking over on
July 15, 2016 the role of the Task Team Leader from Mr. Martin Fodor who has completed his
assignment to Ghana. Other Bank staff changes include new Task Team Leader for SLWMP Impact
Evaluation (IE) Mr. Paul Christiaan, and new IE field coordinator in Accra, Ms. Aurelie Rigaud.
CONTEXT
5. Project Development Objective (PDO) / Global Environment Objective (GEO). The
SLWMP PDO / GEO is to expand the area under sustainable land and water management practices in
1
The team included Martin Fodor (Senior Environmental Specialist, GENDR, outgoing Task Team Leader (TTL),
Asferachew Abate (Senior Environmental Specialist, GENDR, incoming TTL), Gayatri Kanungo (Senior Environmental
Specialist, GENDR, Co-TTL), Lesya Verheijen (Operations Officer, GENDR), Isabel Abreu (Environmental Specialist,
GENDR), Robert deGraft-Hanson (Senior Financial Management Specialist, GGODR), Charles Ashong (Senior
Procurement Specialist, GGODR), Lydia Sam (Procurement Assistant, GGODR), Charity Boafo-Portuphy (Program
Assistant, AFCW1), and Yesmeana Butler (Program Assistant, GENDR).
1
selected watersheds. The SWLMP is financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grants2 of
US$29.66 million and in-kind contribution by GoG equivalent to US$14.3 million.
6. Second Additional Financing (AF2). Ghana requested that its entire GEF-6 STAR allocation
be implemented by the World Bank as part of the Integrated Approach Program (IAP) on Food Security
(coordinated by the IFAD). This financing of US$12,768,832 was processed as Second Additional
Financing. Following the Bank approval in May 2016, the Grant Agreement is awaiting MoF
countersigning and effectiveness (since June 6, 2016). There are no effectiveness conditions. The
closing date was extended to November 30, 2020. Ghana is congratulated to delivering the the first IAP
child project through the final approval.
7. Components. The current Project has three components: Component 1 – Capacity building for
integrated spatial planning (US$0.94 million from GEF, implemented by SADA under the original
grant); Component 2 – Land and Water management (US$26.59 million from GEF) implemented by
EPA, MoFA, WD, and FSD); and Component 3 – Project management and coordination (US$2.13
million from GEF, implemented by MESTI).
KEY FINDINGS
8. Accelerated Scaling Up. Following the 1.5 time over-achievement of key targets (of land area
under SLM) last year, the Project requested to further accelerate scaling up of sub-project by shifting
approximately US$350,000 worth of subproject and inputs from 2017 to 2016. This was agreed and
reflected in the revised 2016 work plan. During the field visit, the mission noted good progress on the
ground and satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the project support. High demand for sub-projects in
new districts and communities continues in SLWM areas and CREMAs. The positive spillover effects
of good SLWM practices to non-beneficiary farmers who are replicating and learning from farmers
supported under the project (e.g. bunding, composting) was notable. At the same time, the mission
noted that the rains in the project area have started already and farmers are preparing land for planting,
while procurement of inputs is delayed. It was agreed that procurement of inputs will be prioritized to
ensure distribution of inputs on time and reduce the considerable potential risk to project performance
from delayed sub-projects.
9. Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR) Resettlement. The mission followed up on findings of two
Bank site visits to Gbele Reserve in March 2016 and April 2016. It was agreed that the completion of
the ongoing Government sponsored resettlement of Gbele community from inside to outside of the
reserve, while not caused by SLWMP, will be supported by SLWMP to avoid delays and associated
risks to the communities, Government, and the Bank. TORs for preparation of the RAP (based on the
update of the available resettlement documentation) was already prepared and cleared by the Bank. It is
expected that funding to support the Gbele resettlement completion will be made available by adjusting
the scope of other activities in Gbele Reserve.
10. Gbele Resource Reserve Civil Works. It was observed that the scope of the contract departed
from the project documentation and approved work plan (i.e. the planned construction of two game
viewing platforms was not included; instead of access tracks to the construction sites, a 10.5 km all-
season road with concrete culverts and partial gravelling is being built in place of existing access track,
with additional 3 km built greenfield), and one of the two waterhole construction sites, Malboba, was
2
Original grant of US$8.15 million approved on November 30, 2010; 1st AF grant (AF1) of US$8.75 approved on June 17,
2014, and 2nd AF grant (AF2) approved on May 20, 2016.
2
underwater, unsuitable for construction. In addition, these civil works started without the requisite
safeguards due diligence3. Finally, in early June, construction of staff housing in the Gbele Camp
commenced against the explicit disapproval of including this activity in the 2016 workplan, at the onset
of the rains, and without prior safeguards due diligence. It was agreed to (i) cease the civil works in
Gbele Reserve except works to complete and operationalize the first (Yelibi) waterhole before the full
rains, (ii) cease the commenced road works on Gbele – Yelibi section except measure to prevent soil
erosion and wastage of work already underway (e.g. complete ongoing construction of road structures
that would go to waste if left as is; (iii) add a simple, lockable access control gate at the new road at the
Gbele Camp location; (iv) cease the staff housing construction; and (v) complete safeguards due
diligence for these and other Gbele Reserve related works before considering resumption. The Gbele
civil works contract would be varied and/or re-negotiated to reflect this, with a view to identify
savings/capacity that could be conveniently utilized in other SLWMP Gbele Reserve related civil
works. The TORs for the preparation of the safeguards instrument was already prepared and cleared by
the Bank.
11. Improving Project Management. The mission noted the need to improve and tighten project
administration and contract management and better coordinate procurement team with substantive
departments. It was agreed to improve project management; ways of doing this were discussed, e.g. by
improving communication protocol, better informing and empowering management personnel on the
ground, and ensuring focal points more closely monitor situation in the field. The Wildlife Division
(WD) implemented activities in particular would benefit from improved project management and
monitoring.
12. Potential for IDA Financing and GEF-7. The mission discussed a possibility of adding IDA
financing to the SLWMP, tentatively in the amount of US$50 million (for delivery in FY2017). The
MESTI leadership is interested in pursuing this option, if IDA funds become available in the current
IDA cycle. Preliminary discussions on the use of GEF-7 resources were also conducted, where the
GOG indicated its interest with working with the World Bank in continuing the implementation of the
landscape approach in northern Ghana. The Project coordinator and the GEF Focal point made a
request for deeper discussions on the all the available GEF windows to see how the engagement with
the Bank could be enhanced.
13. Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF)4. Proposal for $3 million JSDF grant was prepared
by NGO Ricierca e Cooperazione under the auspices of WD to scale up SLWMP compatible activities,
e.g. ecotourism, in two districts (Sawla-Tuna-Kalba and Wa East) on western fringes of Mole National
Park within the Western Wildlife Corridor. Processing of this project proposal, if approved, will take
about a year and implementation capacities will need to be assessed by the Bank before a decision is
made on the implementing partner for this support.
3
Ghanaian EIA regulations requires conducting an environmental impact assessment for all development activities within
protected areas; World Bank safeguards require preparation of an environmental assessment and environmental
management plan.
4
JSDF, administered by the World Bank, provides grant financing for innovative, multi-sector social poverty alleviation
programs, responding directly to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.
3
OTHER FINDINGS
14. Progress towards Achievement of PDO. PDO continues to be rated Satisfactory. The updated
project results framework was not available to the mission; it was agreed that it will be submitted to the
Bank by June 20, 2016 in time for the next Implementation Status Report (ISR).
15. Implementation Progress (IP) is rated Moderately Satisfactory based on the satisfactory
progress in the key areas with delays in WD and SADA implemented components. Planning for core
SLWM activities has been done in 46 communities and 2,062 subproject proposals were approved for
funding; demand continues exceeding available resources two-fold. Under the spatial development
activities, delays persist, with preparation of two pre-feasibility studies for large-scale water storage
investments now dropped in favor of a reconnaissance survey. Biodiversity activities implemented by
the WD, including the formation of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in the
Western Wildlife Corridor and improved management of the Gbele Resource Reserve, have advanced,
with implementation of first set of subprojects in CREMA Site 1 and CREMA formation activities in
Site 3 well advanced; however, the above mentioned issues with civil works in GRR are of concern.
Sustainable forest management activities implemented by the FSD in the eight target forest reserves
and areas adjacent to them are progressing on schedule, with fire sensitization and prevention activities
completed during the dry season, preparation of four Forest Management Plans ongoing 5, and
preparations for phase II enrichment planting and green fire break establishment in Ambalara and
Kulpawn Tribuataries Forest Reserves on schedule.
16. Safeguards Compliance is assessed as Moderately Unsatisfactory. The downgrade is due to
the activities taking place in GRR without the adequate due diligence and weak safeguards supervision
by the focal points. Project continues to fail to report on safeguards and implementation of the
Environmental Assessment and Management Plan. The detailed findings on safeguards in Annex 5.
17. High Interest in Project Support. The project received 3,470 subproject applications – of
which only 2,062 were approved, within the available funding envelope. These subprojects cover an
area of 2,368 hectares and include 5,881 beneficiaries.
18. Readiness for Implementation – AF2 grant. At the time of mission wrap up, the Grant
Agreement for 2nd AF to SLWMP was awaiting signature by the Minister of Finance. The grant will
become effective upon countersignature, following which the Designated Account for AF2 can be
opened. It is envisaged that some AF2 activities (e.g. district level activities in the two new districts of
West Gonja and Sawla-Tuna-Kalba will start around November 2016.
19. Revisions to Work Plan 2016. The GoG team requested to front load input support to
subprojects in the current year and proposed revising the WP2016 by shifting approximately
US$350,000 worth of subproject inputs from 2017 to 2016. This request was approved by the Bank. In
addition, the team has requested an addition of a budget of US$55,000 for community sensitization on
impact evaluation – these funds are proposed to be (i) freed up from the final project evaluation budget
line under AF1 – US$30,000 (as it will be financed under AF2 instead) and (ii) contingency under
component 2.3. A written request on this will be submitted to the Bank by June 20, 2016.
20. Progress Reporting. No written progress report received prior to the mission and no results
framework updates were provided. This is a departure from the much-appreciated practice of the
5
Bepona, Sissala North, Sissala Central, and Pudo Forest Reserves (FR)
4
project and did not allow mission take full stock of progress. The updated progress report will be
submitted to the Bank by June 30, 2016.
21. Disbursements. As of January 28, 2016 disbursements of the original Grant (TF097579) stand
at US$7,910,794.41 (97.06 percent), and of the AF grant (TF017090) at US$2,961,399.67 (33.84
percent). The mission encouraged the project team to complete disbursements and documentation for
the original grant, so that it can be closed soonest possible. A new Withdrawal Application for the AF1
grant needs to be submitted soonest as well.
22. Changes in Project Management Team in MESTI. MESTI informed the Bank of a change in
Project Management team – as of April 27, 2016, Mr. Richard Gyasi is a dedicated procurement officer
for the project to be assisted by Ms. Rosemary Darko, Procurement Assistant. Mr. Gyasi has extensive
experience in GoG procurement and will undergo procurement training at GIMPA on World Bank
procurement.
23. Impact Evaluation. Impact Evaluation (IE) of SLWM activities through randomized control
trials covering 100 communities commenced. It is expected that the IE will help determine (i) the
impact of SLWMP on environmental factors and farmers’ livelihoods; (ii) how the project can work
even better with use of small tools (like early notifications, excellence awards, etc.); and (iii) ways of
making PES most effective. A mission specifically on IE took place in early May 20166. A three day
training for district field staff on IE protocols was organized by the GOG team with support from the
Bank team. The next major task for the IE is to finalize the procurement of the survey firm for the
baseline survey. Expressions of Internet have been received and shorted firms have been identified –
next step is to issue Request for Proposal to the short listed firms. It is expected that the procurement
process will be completed by August 2016. The World Bank engaged a new IE field coordinator to be
based in Accra and she started working with the GOG team.
24. Synergies with New Donor Projects. The mission continued exploring synergies with other
projects supporting conservation / climate smart agriculture in Northern Ghana, in particular the
Adaptation Fund Project, financed by UNDP, which was launched in May 2016. The Adaptation Fund
project will use implementation modalities developed by GoG with the SLWMP support as possible. It
was agreed that the SLWMP Steering Committee will serve as a Steering Committee for the UNDP
project as well.
25. Promotion of SLWM – Documentation of Project Achievements. The Bank will help
mobilize additional funding resources for preparing a set of documentaries for capturing lessons learnt
under the project to be used for promotion of the SLWM. This is in addition to resources allocated
under the recipient executed grant already (under AF).
26. Financial Management (FM). Financial Management performance is assessed as Moderately
Satisfactory.
27. Per Diem / Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA). MESTI decided and Bank agreed that project
will use the new, October 6, 2015 Government DSA schedule issued by the Fair Wages and Salaries
Commission for all in-country travel of project personnel. This is an improvement to the original
6
From May 3rd to May 16th, Paul Christian (DECIE), Ty Turley (Brigham Young University), Daan Van Soest (Tilburg
University) and Aurelie Rigaud (DECIE), participated in an IE implementation mission to Ghana. The primary goal of the
mission was to oversee the implementation of experiment to test the Auction and TILI mechanisms for soliciting
participation in the PES mechanism according to the IE design
5
project DSA schedule reflecting the increased cost of living, and a measure that ensures DSA
consistency of this project with other Government activities.
28. Procurement. Procurement performance is assessed as Moderately Satisfactory. The mission
did not receive an updated procurement plan with information on actual status of procurement7. The
mission notes low level of cooperation between the procurement team and the substantive teams, which
impacts procurement efficiency and effectiveness. The detailed findings on procurement are included as
Annex 6.
PROGRESS BY COMPONENT
29. Component 1: activities under Component 1 progressed little in the last supervision period.
Completion of two pre-feasibility studies for large scale multi use water infrastructure, the only activity
outstanding under this component (financed by the original grant) was agreed to be dropped due to
insufficient funding and delays in identifying sites suitable for pre-feasibility studies, and substituted
with a reconnaissance survey. Detailed proposal with costing will be submitted for Bank review by
June 30, 2016.
30. Component 2.1: a planning exercise was completed in April 2016, involving all district
agriculture directors and extension officers in the project target areas. Due to high turnover at the
district director level (7 out of 10 district directors rotated out), the training included an additional day
for bringing these new directors fully on board. All 46 watershed management plans were prepared and
approved (5 communities in each of the “old” 88 districts and 3 communities in each of the “new” 29
districts). Subproject applications were received and assessed using the standard checklist (included as
Anne 7). A total of 3,470 applications were received, including 2,214 from new communities and 1,256
from old communities – of these 2,06210 were approved, including 1,862 in old communities and 200
for PES auctions only in old communities. A training on watershed management planning was
organized for 20 NGOs working in the project target area.
31. Component 2.2. Procurement of inputs for approved sub-projects was initiated. Due to high
demand, only sub-projects in new 46 communities were considered for approval, even if the Project
received 1,256 subproject proposals from “old” communities. An exception was made for communities
that had received support for composting in 2015 (they were considered for crop subprojects support to
demonstrate benefits of compost utilization).
32. Component 2.3. Impact evaluation is a key ongoing activity under this component; details on
its status are covered separately.
33. Component 2.4. WD: Since SKGK CREMA was inaugurated in January 2016 and now has an
approved management plan, the project provided financing to select livelihood support activities in the
SKGK communities (a complete list of approved support is included in the Aide Memoire of the
January 2016 supervision mission). CREMA by-laws for the SKGK CREMA have been submitted to
the Attorney General for approval. In Sites 2, 3a, 3b and 4 CREMA formation activities are ongoing,
7
This was subsequently submitted after the mission together with the revised work plan for No Objection.
8
Builsa South, Talensi, Bawku West, Kassena-Nankana West, Wa East, Sissala East, Sissala West, and West Mamprusi
9
Daffiama-Bussie-Issa and Mamprugu Moaduri
10
With a total area of 2,368 hectares; covering 5,881 beneficiaries (2,962 male and 2,919 female)
6
with draft management plans available and implementation of these plans envisaged to start around
December 2016. Status of activities in GRR is covered under key findings.
34. Component 2.4. FSD. The FSD conducted fire awareness and sensitization activities with
communities surrounding target forest reserves during the dry season, through community events and
radio adverts. Preparation of four FMPs11 is ongoing, with baseline data collected being conducted by
the FSD teams. Planning and preparation (including procurement of seedlings) for phase II enrichment
planting (400 ha in Ambalara and Kulpawn Tributaries FRs (400 ha in total) is ongoing; survival rates
for the enrichment planting in 2015 were fairly good, at 82 percent and beating up will be done during
this year’s season. Planning (including procurement of seedlings) for phase II green fire belt
establishment is ongoing; survival rates for the green fire belt establishment were high, at 90 percent,
thus minimal beating up will be required. All planting is done using community labor; besides, the
communities are allowed to plant annual crops in the green fire belts until the canopy closes – which
ensures better protection of these areas against fire and goodwill of the communities. Five new
communities will be involved in planting this year and they have been provided with appropriate
training. Carbon stock assessment for all target FRs was completed and final report produced.
AGREEMENTS REACHED AND ACTIONS/NEXTSTEPS
35. Information on status of actions agreed on during the previous mission is in Annex 6. The next
mission is tentatively scheduled for November 2016. The agreed next steps and actions are summarized
in the below table:
Action Responsibility Due date
Detailed proposal for remaining Component 1 activities SADA through June 30, 2016
MESTI
Submit updated Results Framework to Bank MESTI June 30, 2016
Submit Progress Report to Bank MESTI June 30, 2016
Halt the Gbele civil works (except as agreed) until safeguards WD June 30, 2016
compliance is achieved
Advise on measures to strengthen project management, MESTI Before next
especially for WD activities mission
Review the criteria provided by TCO in order to align it with the MESTI/EPA July 30, 2016
Environmental and Social Screening Checklist
Submit report on the implementation of the Safeguards MESTI/PIU July 30, 2016
Instruments
DISCLOSURE
The Bank and Republic of Ghana confirm their understanding and agreement to publicly disclose this
Aide-Memoire. The disclosure of this Aide Memoire was discussed and agreed to with project
11
Bepona, Sissala North, Sissala Central, and Pudo Forest Reserves (FR)
7
counterparts led by Hon. Mahama Ayariga, Minister, MESTI, at the wrap-up meeting that took place
on June 14, 2016 at MESTI, Accra.
ANNEXES
Annex 1. List of Persons Met by the Mission
Annex 2. Updated Results Framework
Annex 3. Status of Agreed Actions from the Previous Implementation Support Mission (January 2016)
Annex 4. Field Trip Report
Annex 5. Detailed findings on safeguards
Annex 6. Detailed findings on procurement
Annex 7. Report from Field Visit to Gbele Reserve and SADA pre-feasibility sites (April 2016)
8
Annex 1. List of Persons Met by the Mission
1. Fredua Agyeman, Project Coordinator, MESTI
2. UnaAng-Numbaala, Project Focal Point, SADA
3. Kingsley K. Amoako, Project Focal Point, MOFA
4. Isaac Charles Acquah Jnr, Project Focal Point, EPA
5. Charles Christian Amankwah, Project Focal Point, WD/FC
6. Edith Abruquah, Project Focal Point, FSD / FC
7. Kingsley K. Agyemang, Assistant Agricultural Officer, MOFA
8. Asher Nkegbe, Regional Director, EPA / TCO
9. Nathaniel Mii-Odai Laryea, Assistant Agricultural Officer, MoFA
10. Paola Dalla Stella, Sustainable Development Specialist, UNDP
11. Richard Gyasi, Procurement Officer, MESTI
12. Rosemary Darko, Procurement Assistant, MESTI
13. Jerry Adu, Quantity Surveyor, Contract Administrator, GIDA
Persons met during field visit
1. Francis Brobbey, District Manager, FSD, Lawra Forest District
2. Bennet Ntiamoah, FSD
3. Maurice Puotege. District Agricultural Extension Agent, Upper West District
4. Daari-Zema, Chairman, Community Watershed Management Team, Kulpong Community
5. Iddris Tahiru, Secretary, Community Watershed Management Team, Kulpong Community
6. Haruna Abbas Ahmed, Agricultural Extension Agent
7. Abubakori Mohammed Abubakari, Agricultural Extension Agent
8. Bashiru Kabore, Site Supervisor (Gbele camp), All Seasons Logistics
9. Bright Afelike, Foreman (Gbele camp)
10. Joseph Akualibillah, Contractor (GRR infrastructure contract), Budsom Company Limited
11. Bismark Tumanov, Foreman, Budsom Company Limited
12. Nanu Owusu-Ansah, Gbele Resource Reserve, Manager
13. Roger Amoah, Wildlife Division – Gbele
14. Asawa-Ayubi, Wildlife Division – Gbele
15. Yer Simon, Sissala West District
16. Edward Bawiisi, Agricultural Extension Agent, Sissala West District
17. Karim Bramani, Sissala West District
18. Musah Adamu, Secretary, CWMT, Duwie community, Sissala West District
19. Salifu Gbene, Chairman, CWMT, Duwie community, Sissala West District
20. Sala Issifu, Treasurer, CWMT, Duwie community, Sissala West District
21. Kaguah A. Albert, Desk Officer, SLWMP, Tumu District Agriculture Office
22. Daniel B. Kurinaah, District Director of Agriculture, Tumu
23. John Nauda Majani, Regional Manager, Sissala East District
24. Doris Nabare, District Director of Agriculture, Kassena Nankana West District
25. Ibhrahim Alidu, Desk Officer, SLWMP, Department of Agriculture
9
26. Kwame Oteng Awuah, District Manager, FSD, Lawra Forest District
27. Samuel Akortea, Assistant Regional Manager, FSD, Lawra Forest District
28. Mathias Kurewuyi, Secretary, SWMT, Akaa Achisongo community
29. Ibrahim Mahama, Schedule Officer, District Department of Agriculture, West Mamprusi
District
30. Ibhrahim Yahaya, District Director, Agriculture, West Mamprusi District
31. Abdulai Mumuni, Extension Agent, West Mamprusi District
32. Abraham Ayirkeh, Extension Agent, West Mamprusi District
10
Annex 2. Updated Results Framework
Project Development Objective: to expand the area under sustainable land and water management in selected watersheds.
Baseline June Target Values
Core
Unit 2016 (Cumulative)
Indicator
of Measure Jan 2016 2017 2018 2019
2010 2020
2016
PDO Level Results Indicators
PDO Indicator 1: Ha 0 3,090 3,090 4,000 7,000 10,000 14,000 15,000
Land area where sustainable land and water
management practices have been adopted as a result of
the project
PDO Indicator 2: Number 0 9,388 9,388 10,500 14,000 20,000 28,000 30,000
Land users adopting sustainable land management
practices as a result of the project
PDO Indicator 3: Management Effectiveness Score 0 –
according to the Management Effectiveness Tracking 100
Tool score in:
- Gbele Resource Reserve 45 74 - - - 77 - 80
- Sanyiga Kasena Gavara Kara Corridor Site 28 42 - - - 44 - 47
(CREMA Site 1)
- Sumboru Bechausa Corridor Site (CREMA Site 2) 21 18 - - - 22 - 30
- Moagduri Wuntanluri Kuwesaasi Corridor Site 21 19 - - - 24 - 30
(CREMA Site 3a)
- Bulsa Yening Corridor Site (CREMA Site 3b) 21 19 - - - 24 - 30
- Gbele-Mole Corridor Site (CREMA Site 4) 21 18 - - - 22 - 30
Indicator Four: Number 0 24,224 tbc 30,000 36,000 45,000 52,000 60,000
Direct project beneficiaries
of which female (Percent) 0 40 tbc 40 40 40 40 40
11
Intermediate Results Indicators
Component 1: Capacity Building for Integrated Spatial Planning
IR Indicator 1.1: Yes / No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -
Integrated spatial development framework produced
for Northern Savannah zone
IR Indicator 1.2: Number 0 0 0 2 2 2 - -
Pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large-scale
multi-purpose water storage investments
Component 2: Land and Water Management
IR Indicator 2.1: Number 0 72 118 172 208 244 244
Communities with Community Watershed
Development Plans consistent with the Watershed
Development Planning Manual
IR Indicator 2.2: Number 0 98 tbc 144 194 238 282 282
Demonstration plots established in the target
watersheds
IR Indicator 2.3: Number 0 9 9 54 70 98 98 98
Targeted CREMA communities adopting management
plans according to criteria defined in CREMA
agreements
IR Indicator 2.4: Yes/No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -
A study on feasibility of sustaining SLWM activities
through PES market mechanism
IR Indicator 2.5: Ha 0 449 449 840 890 990 1,060 1,060
Area reforested [within target forest reserves]
IR Indicator 2.6: Ha 0 42,844 42,844 72,716 72,716 72,716 72,716 72,716
Forest area brought under management plans12
IR Indicator 2.7: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index n/a -0.13 - n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.13
Index (NDVI) in target areas
IR Indicator 2.8: Community governance structures Number 0 115 tbc 161 275 311 347 347
established, trained and operational
- CREMA Executive Committees Number 3 tbc 3 5 5 5 5
- Community Watershed Management Teams Number 72 118 118 172 208 244 244
- CREMA Resource Management Committees Number 40 tbc 40 98 98 98 98
North, and Sissili Central planned for 2016 to be completed by year end.
12
IR Indicator 2.9: Number 0 0 0 410 450 660 660
Forest users trained
- Forest users trained - Female Number 0 0 205 425 330 330
IR Indicator 2.10: Beneficiaries13 that feel project Percentage 0 0 - - - 50 - 70
investments reflected their needs – breakdown by:
- Beneficiaries that feel project investments reflected Number 0 - - - 5,200 - 8,540
their needs - female
- Beneficiaries that feel project investments reflected Number 0 - - - 7,800 - 12,810
their needs – male
- Total beneficiaries – female Number 0 - - - 10,400 - 12,200
- Total beneficiaries – male Number 0 - - - 15,600 - 18,300
IR Indicator 2.11. New areas outside protected areas Ha 0 39,107 39,107 187,422 187,422 266,134 417,299 417,299
managed as biodiversity-friendly 14
IR Indicator 2.12. Number 0 0 0 0 1,200 2,200 2,600 3,000
Smallholder households supported in coping with the
effects of climate change [in 76 communities covered
under AF2]
Component 3. Project Management and Coordination
IR Indicator 3.1: Project M&E system providing Yes/No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
required reports and data in a timely manner
13
Calculations for this indicator are based on the following data: 208 target communities at mid-term point and 244 target communities at EOP, with an average
of 125 beneficiaries per communities (of which 40% - 50 beneficiaries – are female)
14
Site 1 – current status; Site 3 – by end of 2016; Site 2 – by end of 2018; Site 4 – by end of 2019.
13
Annex 3. Status of Actions Agreed during the Previous Implementation Support Mission
(January 2016)
Status of actions agreed during previous implementation support mission is as follows:
Action Responsibility Due date Status
Submit draft ToRs for two prefeasibility studies SADA & PCU February 5, Done,
(Component 1) for Bank No Objection 2016 revisions
requested
Provide action plans for expediting implementation of PCU February 5, Done
activities experiencing delays: (i) pre-feasibility 2016
studies (Component 1); (ii) civil works in GRR
(Component 2); (iii) inauguration of CREMA 3 and
finalization of formation of CREMAs 2 and 3
Provide final versions of Forest Management Plans February 5, Done
produced with project support to date as well as 2016
reports of community consultations
Provide a final report on feasibility of sustaining PCU February 5, Done
SLWM through PES 2016
Provide summary reports on sub-projects realized in PCU February 29, Outstanding
2015 2016
Provide a copy of the contractor’s contract for civil WD through February 5, Done
works in Gbele Resource Reserve PCU 2016
Provide passwords for GIS M&E system access to EPA through February 10, Done
Bank and GoG team members PCU 2016
Submit a safeguards report EPA through February 15, Outstanding
PCU 2016
Submit an updated progress reporting, including PCU February 15, Done
reporting on expenditures to date 2016
Submit next regular IFR PCU February 29, Done
2016
Submit a revised TOR for IE baseline study PCU February 29, Done
2016
Provide a final Spatial Development Framework for SADA February 29, Done
the SADA zone through PCU 2016
Provide outputs of completed assignments (e.g. soil PCU As available
carbon mapping, ecotourism strategy, Spatial
Development Framework, soil fertility data, results for
demonstration activities, etc.) and place these outputs
in the public domain (disclose)
14
Annex 4. Field Trip Report
36. Three mission members carried out a field trip with the Project team. A separate field trip report
with list of persons met in the field is being placed on file. The key observations from the field trip
were as follows.
37. CREMA community beneficiaries in Site 1 (SKGK) are implementing the CREMA
management plans and expressed support for expansion of activities. Feedback from beneficiaries in
Site 1 also indicated that the CREMA governance structure is operational and meaningful. There was
appreciation and understanding, including from participating women groups, of the support provided
for alternative livelihoods (bee keeping, shea butter processing etc.) and its implications for future
sustainability and self-reliance. The mission visited the Takorayiri community which has a long-
standing request15 for support towards a small bridge to allow an alternative vehicular access to the
community as the currently used access transects the river, destroying the river bank, the feeding
ground streams and the riverine protection plantings established with project support. The mission team
considers the request feasible and likely to qualify for project support.
38. For SLWM subproject support, communities indicated satisfaction and pride in adopting the
practices and being able to transfer knowledge to other participating and non-participating
communities. The mission in particular noted the repeated requests for the beating up in tree planting
subprojects and provision of supplemental seedlings, owing to plant viability issues in many target
areas.
39. Visits to the Kulpawn Tributaries and Bepona Forest Reserves provided evidence that
enrichment planting and green fire break establishment have taken place successfully. The forest
district officer from the Navrongo forest district reported much lower incidence of fires in 2015 as
compared to 2014 (9 ha in total as compared to 161 hectares), which he attributes, at least partially, to
the fire sensitization and prevention activities supported by the project and community involvement in
the FR activities.
40. While positive results were noted on the SLWM and CREMA related interventions, the works
in the GRR are of concern, In particular relating to the works for the waterholes (Yelibi and Malboba),
a three kilometers of the road strip, and construction of staff housing (5 units in the WD Gbele camp) as
mentioned earlier.
15
The community has been requesting this bridge since 2013; the Project Steering Committee visited the site in November
2014 and recommended approval of this support, which, however, is outside of the originally envisaged PES modalities.
Further discussion is needed.
15
Annex 5. Detailed Findings on Safeguards
1. Safeguards Performance. Compliance with safeguards is Moderately Unsatisfactory. The
downgrade is due to the activities taking place in GRR without the adequate due diligence and
under weak supervision as well as lack of reporting on safeguards for the project in general.
2. Sub-projects screening. The Project prepared a list of approved SLWM options that are supported
by the Project; these are part of the Sub-Projects Guidelines. These SLWM options are judged to
have a clear environmental benefit and are acceptable from the environmental safeguards
viewpoint. The Technical Coordination Office (TCO) of the EPA is responsible for screening all
incoming sub-project proposals for their compliance with the approved list – any sub-project
proposal activity found to be inconsistent with the approved options is rejected. An assessment of
environmental and social safeguards take place, however, the criteria provided by TCO is of
narrower scope compared to the Environmental and Social Screening Checklist, approved as part of
Sub-Project Guidelines Section 5, for which there is no evidence of its use. Mission recommended
that Project Team reviews the criteria provided by TCO in order to align it with the Environmental
and Social Screening Checklist, by July 30, and provides evidence of the use of such a checklist for
screening.
3. Reporting. Mission noted the lack in reporting on the implementation of the Safeguards
Instruments by PIU. An updated report will be provided by July 30, 2016, with details on: (a) Role
of EPA/TCO in assessing environmental impacts, identifying mitigation measures and monitoring
compliance with safeguards instruments; (b) measures taken in furtherance of the Safeguard
Instruments (EAMP, RPF, PMP), (c) conditions, if any, which interfere or threaten to interfere with
the smooth implementation of such Safeguard Instruments; and (d) remedial measures taken or
required to be taken to address such conditions and to ensure the continued efficient and effective
implementation of such Safeguard Instruments. On what mitigation measures are concerned the
team will provide information on the mitigation measures that have been applied in general, and
also on the specific ones related to: (a) use of pesticides, (b) Forest Management Plans, (c)
construction of water holes in Gbele Reserve, (d) construction of dug-outs and, (e) measures in
places to ensure that contractors abide to the environmental and social clauses.
4. Safeguards supervision by Project team. As part of the project and sub-project supervision,
compliance with safeguards procedures is assessed by the Project team. For that, DADUs collect
data on implementation of agricultural SLM subprojects and reports on safeguards issues related to
implementation of subprojects; EPA monitors agricultural chemical use; and Forest Services
Division ensures that safeguards provisions are followed in management plans and SFM activities.
Regional Wildlife Division role in ensuring that safeguards provisions are followed in the activities
taking place in GRR is not satisfactory. A grievance and conflict resolution system is in place,
being DADUs and the WSMTs the contact points. So far no grievances have been registered.
5. Training. In addition to general environmental awareness, EPA and TCO undertook sensitization
on the application of safeguards procedures among all the 46 new communities in 2016, during
watershed management planning. Also, during visits to farms, Extension Officers deliver
information on safeguards. Training on appropriate use of pesticides is part of the Project’s
extension efforts.
6. Safeguards Supervision. (i) March 15-22, 2016, field assessment of the ongoing resettlement of
the Gbele community; (ii) April 20-21, 2016, field assessment of GRR project activities; and (iii)
16
June 8, 2016, field assessment as part of this Implementation Supervision Mission. The GRR
supervision mission in April noted that project activities were being implemented without the
documented prior due diligence required by either the Ghana environmental regulations or the
World Bank safeguard policies. The mission suggested and that Government team agreed that the
civil works on the Malboba water point and the access road between the Yelibi and the Malboba
water point should stop until adequate due diligence is in place. Given the nature of the project and
its sensitive ecological setting, Project will undertake an environmental assessment including
detailed environmental and social management plan, as per ToR cleared by the Bank (ToR received
on the 9th of June) to develop an Environmental and Social Impact Framework (ESIF), as per Ghana
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The ESIF
will cover assessment of all activities taking place in or around GRR under the project as well as the
assessment of the environmental impacts of the Gbele community resettlement. The mission noted
during the field visit that some civil works such as culverts are still ongoing.
7. Additional activities starting without safeguards due diligence. During the June 7 – 10, 2016
supervision mission, Mission noted that the construction of the GRR staff house started, without
clearance from the Bank, nor prior due diligence. It was agreed the construction would halt until
due diligence is carried out, and activity included in the approved annual work plan.
8. GRR activities reporting. The February 2016 progress report for GRR Improvement Project
issued by GIDA as the supervising engineer on March 21, 2016 is the latest report availed to the
Bank. As per GRR staff, GIDA has not been to the site since April, even if supervision should take
place monthly. Bank had indicated (following the April field visit) the need to provide reports on
site visits by WD Management and EPA and on implementation of the environmental and social
mitigation measures laid out in the environmental and social management plan. Mission noted the
lack of all these reports.
9. Gbele Resettlement. Both the March and April missions noted that Resettlement of the Gbele
community from the inside to outside the Reserve has been under planning and implementation by
the government agencies over several decades but yet to be completed. Currently, construction of
the resettlement housing has been stalled for over a year due to insufficient funds. The resettlement
efforts is currently under risk of failing agreements following the delays and increasing pressure
and encroachment on the long-identified resettlement lands. Although the Bank is not funding this
resettlement process, the current SLWM project supports activities within the Gbele reserve from
which the community is being resettled and its poor handling may result in adverse social impacts
and reputational risk to the Bank. It was agreed that the SLWM project should support the
Government on the resettlement implementation as per OP4.12, including updating the existing
Gbele resettlement socio-economic survey to a good Resettlement Plan. The TOR for updating the
RAP has been cleared by the Bank (as a part of ESIF TORs). Possible ways of reallocating funding
to free up resources for resettlement were discussed.
10. ESIF/RAP ToRs. Considering the recent safeguards performance shortcomings, the Bank strongly
recommends the ESIF/RAP consultancy also includes tasks of updating the original safeguards
frameworks (for environment and for resettlement) to improve their usefulness, and re-training
project personnel to improve their application and use.
11. Buffer zone management. The March mission noted that revegetation and protection of the
riparian buffer zone may restrict cultivation by farmers who previously farmed along the river.
Considering that this is planned for scaling up, the project team need to ensure measures to consult
17
with and document consultations with land users beyond the Tindanas. Sub-project screening and
appraisal by the TCO should also capture key information as the size of land acquired out of the
total land holding of the affected farmer for confirmation that the affected person still has adequate
alternative land for cultivation and will not suffer a substantial loss. The current Participatory
watershed Management Development Plans does not explicitly screen for and document these
issues. Bank social safeguards specialists are available to advise on good practice in carrying and
documenting consultations.
18
Annex 6. Detailed Findings on Procurement
1. General: The objective of the mission was to (i) review status of procurement carried out by the
project (ii) review and agree on outstanding procurement (iii) discuss procurement challenges and
propose solution (iv) examine procurement documentation to ensure conformity with agreed Bank data
management procedures. All of the above is to ensure that the project stays on track for all activities to
be completed before project closure. The mission noted that the implementing agency adheres to the
legal framework, the financing agreement and the PAD governing the project.
2. Procurement: Out of a total of 17 planned procurements, (16%) have been completely
executed; (47%) are ongoing contracts, (12%) are at the pre-contract stage, while (24%) of the planned
procurements are yet to be initiated. Total amount committed to date is US$1,294,900, representing
(59.4%) of the projected amount of US$2,249,000. The breakdown for the various categories are as
follows: Good: 10 activities were planned but only 1 No. is completed; 7No.are at pre-contract stage
and 2 No. are yet to be initiated. Consultancy Services: 6 No. was planned, 3No.successfully completed
with 3No.initiated and on-going. Non-Consultancy: 2No.planned and fully completed. The Bank
observed a more than 50% achievement but requested the project to work to speed up implementation
in order to complete all procurements before project closure.
3. Procurement Process: The project adheres to the general principles of procurement as outlined
in the PAD and the procurement Guidelines. The PIM which also outlines the processes and
procedures to undertake procurement is also followed. However, there is no evidence that awards are
cleared by concurrent approving authorities (in line with GPPA Act 663, in the case of Post Review
procurement) of the agency, before award notifications are made. Evaluation of an individual
consultant was also not thoroughly compiled. The Bank team reminded the project that post review
procurements requires that the approving authority must approval all awards of contracts before the
winner is notified. This way, the approving authority is taking responsibility of the procurement
undertaken. The mission would like to reiterate the following:
4. Prior and Post Review: With regards to Post Reviews, the project must follow Bank
procurement method and applicable modifications before clearance with the appropriate concurrent
approving authority of the Borrower procurement system for award of contracts. On the other hand for
Prior Review procurements, all reviews and clearances – No Objections, are the sole responsibility of
the Bank, per the Bank Procurement Guidelines in the Legal agreement. It is, however, expected that all
correspondence to the Bank for Prior review must be authorized by the Entity.
5. Procurement Planning: The procurement plan that was submitted for review does not include
sub project activities that have been agreed in the Work Plan and Budget (WP&B). The project team
informed the Bank that they are working to incorporate them in the plan and submit an update for
review and clearance. Bank team advised the project to work earnestly to include all agreed activities
while the duration of activity, method and amount should be realistically updated before sending to the
Bank for review and clearance. The Bank team also advised that the actual timelines of activities that
have been completed should be populated as this is not seen on the plan that was submitted. It was
however noted that most of the activities on the plan have not started due to delay in receiving sub
project inputs from beneficiary agencies.
6. Records Keeping: Filing has improved significantly. Procurement documents are filed
coherently to give a systematic trail of the procurement cycle and events. However, previous
recommendation of ensuring that each contract is filed separately has not been followed. Also, there
19
were no financial records (payment vouchers, invoices and other payment records) on the procurement
files. The Bank team advised the procurement team to liaise with the Accounts department to secure
copies of such documents and place them on the procurement files to tell the full story and not give
room for reviewers to ask questions.
7. Procurement of External Auditor: The procurement process for the appointment of an
external auditor commenced and progressed as originally planned per the procurement plan, but the
Bank procurement procedures were not entirely followed, thus the process had to be curtailed upon the
advice of the Bank to appoint the Ghana Audit Service (GAS) as project auditors instead of engaging
private accounting firms preselected by the GAS.
8. Publication of Contract Award: It was noted during the mission that contract awards were not
published in the local newspaper, Public Procurement Authority website or in United Nations
Development Business (UNDB) for ICB. The project was advised that publication of award is
mandatory as stated in (Appendix 1 of both guidelines - Consultant/Procurement of Goods, Works and
Non-Consulting Services Guidelines, dated January 2011 and revised July, 2014). All contract awards
for Goods, Works, Consultancy and Non-Consultancy Services are to be published. Copies of such
publications must be put on procurement file as evidence of the publication.
9. Procurement Arrangements: Project implementation is still mainstreamed and being
implemented by Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI). All
procurements are undertaken by MESTI on behalf of the beneficiary agencies. Input from the agencies
sometimes delay the procurement process. The Project was advised to work with the focal persons at
the agencies to get technical people to assist with details of their demands.
Contract Administration: The current arrangement of Contract Management is the responsibility of
MESTI as implementers of the project. Overall, contract administration is satisfactory but MESTI has
to ensure that necessary sanctions are applied when goods are not delivered on time as stipulated in the
contract. Contract completion for an Individual consultant could not be assessed since completion
certificate as well as copies of final output reports were not on file. The Bank advised the project to
keep complete and proper records.
10. Variation of Contract: The project team brought to the attention of the Bank team a pending
variation order (VO) to be undertaken on an ongoing contract (Construction of Waterhole). Reason for
the variation is that some of the activities in the contract are no longer needed and other activities
would have to be introduced in order to achieve the objective of the project. The Bank stated that since
the procurement is a post review procurement, the approving authority that signed off the current
contract has the responsibility of signing off on the variation order. The Project is advised to prepare
detail documentation and provide reason for the VO and associated cost to enable the approving
authority to make informed decision on the VO. The Bank further indicated that all contracts, have
Conditions of Contract, covering how VOs must be handled contractually – and therefore VOs must
adhere to the conditions of contract stated in the contract document. Basically, variations may include:
(a) changes to the quantities of any item of work included in the Contract (however, such changes do
not necessarily constitute a Variation), (b) changes to the quality and other characteristics of any item
of work, (c) changes to the levels, positions and/or dimensions of any part of the Works, (d) omission
of any work unless it is to be carried out by others, (e) any additional work, Plant, Materials or services
necessary for the Permanent Works, including any associated tests on completion, boreholes and other
testing and exploratory work, or (f) changes to the sequence or timing of the execution of the Works.
20
The Contractor shall not make any alteration and/or modification of the Permanent Works, unless and
until the Engineer instructs or approves a Variation. The Bank advised that if the project would like to
vary due to the conditions of the contract, it must do a cost analysis to ascertain the cost of the items to
be taken out as well as of those to be added. When each of these costs is known, the project would be in
a better position to decide on the variation.
11. Procurement Staffing: The project continues to have two procurement officers undertaking
procurement at MESTI. Due to the volume of activities with the coming into effect of the second
additional finance, the Bank agreed with the project to sponsor these two officers to attend the
upcoming Procurement of Works, Goods and Consultancy training in GIMPA. It is expected that the
training would sharpen their skills to undertake procurement in a more efficient and effective manner
and also avoid delays in the implementation of the project. Meanwhile, the Bank is strongly advising
the procurement officers to study and imbibe the Bank Procurement Guidelines, the procurement
provisions in the PAD and the PIM so they can deliver adequately as these are referred to in the
Financing legal Agreement, which governs procurement under the project. Ignorance of this is no
excuse!!
12. Post Procurement Review (PPR). The Bank engaged a Consultant to undertake a Post
Procurement Review of the project. He has conducted the field work and shared the draft report with
the project. He is yet to finalize the report and submit to the Hub Coordinator for clearance. After
clearance, the Hub Coordinator would share with the TTL and the project by the last week of June,
2016. The Bank team requested the project to take note of the findings and recommendations and
ensure to work to implement all recommendations.
13. Overall Procurement rating: From the above, the overall procurement risk rating remains
SUBSTANTIAL and the performance rating MODERATELY SATISFACTORY, and the
applicable Prior Review and Procurement Methods threshold in respect of Substantial Risk rating is
shown below
All-National
Prior Review Threshold Procurement Method Threshold Shortlist of
Consultants
Consultants ICB NCB Shopping
IT Systems+ Goods + Goods + Goods +
Individua
RISK RATING Works Goods Non Con. Firms Works Non Con. Works Non Con. Works Non Con.
ls
Serv Serv Serv Serv
≤$0.3 Mil (All)
SUBSTANTIAL ≥$10 Mil ≥$1 Mil ≥$1 Mil ≥$0.5 Mil ≥$0.2 Mil ≥$15 Mil ≥$3 Mil <$15 Mil <$3 Mil <$0.2 Mil <$0.1 Mil ≤$0.5 Mil (Engr+
Contract Spn)
21
Annex 7. SLWMP Field Visit to Gbele Resource Reserve, SADA pre-feasibility sites, and Mole
National Park
Back to Office Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENTS
April 20, 2016
Martin Fodor, Sr. Environmental Specialist, TTL
Intro
Selected sites were visited during a field visit (Mission) April 18-22, 2016 by Martin Fodor, Sr.
Environmental Specialist, TTL, with colleagues from WD, SADA, GIDA, AESL, and Ricerca
Cooperazione (RC). Numerous meetings and discussions were held, for which the Mission is very
grateful. Special thanks to MESTI PIU and Focal Points for flexibility and efficiency of organizing the
visit.
Gbele Waterholes
Overall
Encouragingly, the civil works for establishing the watering points were observed finally fully
underway, with contractor (BUDSOM Company Limited) mobilized and construction (started
December 27, 2015) and engineering supervision ongoing at the site. The app. $436,000 contract was
signed in October 2015 for eight months duration, aiming for completion of works during the dry
season. Getting the works underway after multiyear delays and back and forth changes in procurement
approaches is a significant progress, catching up after 4 years with the PAD which envisaged bid
opening for these works in 2012. There are several important issues, however, that the Project needs to
address in connection with the Gbele project.
22
View of the Yelibi dyke from downstream; no gabions laid yet to prevent riverbed scouring.
23
View of the Yelibi dyke from left bank; coffer dam visible upstream of the dyke under construction.
Project Management and Ownership
Findings: The works are implemented by a local contractor with engineering supervision provided by
permanent site-based GIDA staff with periodic oversight by GIDA Regional Director from Wa. The
civil works contractor was procured by the MESTI Project Implementation Unit in Accra as was the
GIDA supervision contract. The immediate proponent and beneficiary of the civil works, Gbele
Resource Reserve (RR) Management, monitors the situation on the ground but appears to have only
limited role in holistically driving and supervising of the project’s timely implementation as set out in
the SLWMP project documentation.
Recommendation: The Gbele RR Management should take full ownership of the project and have full
picture of how it was planned to be implemented. In particular, GRR Management should take lead in
prompting more frequent joint GIDA – Contractor – Gbele RR Management -- (and EPA) site
meetings (the second of which (since October 2015!) the Bank was kindly allowed to participate on
April 20); have and understand the complete contract document to gauge the implementation progress,
have and understand technical drawings of the works (a copy of drawings was available on site), have
and understand the detailed works schedule vis a vis the forecsted onset of the rains, have and ensure
implementation of environmental, health and safety and social mitigation measures, understand the
correspondence between physical progress and disbursement of payments (payments reported at only
30%), and be otherwise empowered to take responsibility for making the project happen as planned in
the SLWMP project documents and as per the national and Bank’s safeguards requirements.
Timing of Works
Findings: The key civil works are located within the riverbed, and planned (for environmental, safety,
and engineering reasons) to be implemented only in the dry season during zero or minimal flow.
Recommendation: With the delayed start of the civil works, and anticipated early onset of the 2016
rains as indicated by early arrival of rains elsewhere, it is essential that the work schedule is re-
examined and adjusted (in agreement with GIDA, Contractor, and WD) for the actually forecasted start
of the 2016 rains plus an adequate time cushion to complete the works and demobilize before any
significant flows occur. WD or GIDA should establish (based on the professional weather forecasting
advice) the likely onset of rains / flow as a departure point for revised work schedule / planning.
24
Gbele civil works Work Schedule; majority of time is scheduled for road construction.
Health and Safety
Casual laborers on site were observed working (concrete works, stone masonry, earth works) with no
PPE. Laborers included minors (children). No drinking water was provided to the labor force as per the
contract. There appeared limited awareness on the side of GIDA and WD on what the contractual
obligations of the contractor were with respect to health and safety.
Recommendation: Project should instruct both GIDA and the Contractor in writing to ensure full
compliance with Ghana safety and labor laws as well as the corresponding World Bank safeguards
policies. It is recognized that local rural work and employment practices may vary from those
sanctioned by the Government and the World Bank, and not all child labor is necessarily considered
harmful, however, the Project needs to ensure that the agreed, rather than the local, norms are followed.
GIDA and WD should read all clauses of the contract and ensure these are followed, and reported on in
the periodic progress reports. The contractor gets paid to provide PPE, water and meet other contractual
obligations. It is important that the supervision effort ensures that he really delivers on these clauses as
per the contract.
25
Barefoot boy working on site of Yelibi crossing construction.
26
Casual labor with no PPE working on the Yelibi crossing construction.
Environmental and Social Due Diligence (Safeguards)
Findings: The project appears implemented without the documented prior due diligence required by
either the Ghana environmental regulations or the World Bank safeguard policies. Since the works are
taking place in a gazetted protected area, the Mission understands they are subject to Environmental
Assessment as per Schedule 5 of the Ghanian EIA Legislative Insturment. It appears, however, that no
prior due diligence (Environmental Assessment and Environmental Management Plan) report is
available. There is some understanding by GIDA, Contractor and WD that some mitigation measures
such as minimizing tree removal, no blasting, no night work, no lubricant or fuel storage on site, dry
season-only work were discussed and agreed with the contractor etc., but these are not documented,
explicitly monitored, or reported on, and the contract includes only general clauses with respect to
protection of the environment. The EPA liaison officer in Tumu and the EPA Regional Director in Wa
were unaware of the project and not involved in its permitting or monitoring its environmental
management on the ground. A report on implementing safeguards requirements of SLWMP pertaining
also to the Gbele project had been requested by the Bank and is now overdue.
Recommendation: MESTI PIU should ensure full compliance of the Gbele project with the EPA and
World Bank safeguards requirements, and ensure that requisite permits, approvals (EPA) and disclosure
(World Bank) are in place as soon as possible, best completed or underway by the upcoming formal
27
World Bank mission in early June 2016. PIU should review the legal documents (Grant Agreement),
PAD, EAMP, and seek guidance from the responsible EPA regulatory office and World Bank as
needed to ensure satisfactory compliance. Based on the nature of the project and its sensitive ecological
setting, it would seem appropriate that an Environmental Assessment (under EPA regulations) and
Environmental Assessment including detailed Environmental and Social Management Plan (under
World Bank safeguards policy OP 4.01) be prepared. It is important that prior due diligence includes
informed consultations on the project with interested stakeholders, including local communities of
Gbele and Dasima, and Ghanian conservation NGOs, and that it is based on accurate project
description, and informed by the objectives of Gbele Reserve establishment and objectives of its
current management plan. EPA offices in Tumu and Wa should supervise project implementation as
required by Ghana environmental regulations and participate in site meetings with GIDA, Contractor,
and WD.
Project Description
Findings: Based on the SLWMP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the World Bank approved the
Gbele works as activity consisting of two waterholes / watering points and two wildlife viewing
platform. The waterholes were to be established using environmentally sensitive, labor intensive
construction methods by means of spillover / spillway dykes across the Kulpawn River bed to elevate
water levels and cause permanent ponding. The dykes were to be constructed to allow passage on the
crown at low flow levels. Game / bird viewing platforms were to be constructed at the waterholes.
The contracted works, however, exclude the game viewing platform, but include construction of
permanent approximately 13 km (10 km plus 3 km brand new) graveled feeder road to the dykes
designed apparently for all-season vehicular crossing. These road works are a part of a plan to establish
nearly 60 km (58.5 km) of all-season graveled feeder road network (partially through upgrading of
existing seasonal tracks and partially constructed anew) across the Gbele RR connecting the Wahabu
and Gbele WD camps on the Southern and Northern ends of the reserve and enabling year round
vehicular access across the reserve. The road construction represents the majority of the time allocation
in the contract work schedule (14 weeks) compared to the waterholes construction (8 weeks), and
account for about 30% of the overall contract cost (based on preliminary BOQs). Road construction is
not included (or even mentioned) in either the PAD or the approved Work Plan, and neither are the
plans for establishing the feeder road system. From fiduciary perspective, it thus remains to be seen
whether this is activity is actually eligible for financing under SLWMP. From safeguards perspective, it
remains to be seen (from the outstanding prior environmental due diligence and consultations) whether
bisecting a reserve by a permanent, in parts brand new road all weather road is a preferred project
alternative.
Recommendation: The Project should be given an opportunity to explain deviations from the Project
documents and Workplan. Accurate project description, rationale and assessment of potential positive
and adverse impacts associated with road construction across the reserve need to be included in the
outstanding environmental due diligence study (EIA including detailed ESMP) submitted to EPA and
28
the World Bank for approval and disclosure. Construction of the second dyke/ second crossing –
Malboba (to the currently road-less area) should be not commence until prior due diligence (EIA) is
concluded, and considering the selected site is already a large natural waterhole, it should conceivably
be left for such time when there are no greater development priorities. Construction of the new 3 km
section of the road between the first dyke/ crossing – Yelibi, which was already cleared, should cease
until the same time, except, perhaps limited measures to control erosion from the recent clearing. The
upcoming EIA should present the road construction proposed under SLWMP as a part of the greater 60
km road system, and be clear on cost-effectiveness and conservation benefits of road system vis a vis
other priority meausures (resettlement). The entire contract should be re-examined vis a vis the
financing needs elsewhere (to complete the Gbele resettlement), outstanding environmental
compliance, and early onset of rains, and possibly re-oriented away from road and second waterhole
construction towards completion of Gbele resettlement.
Newly cleared road.
Note: It must be noted that the second waterhole – Malboba, is proposed to be constructed at a site of a
natural waterhole – a several hundred meters long, deep section of the main Kulpawn river bed, which,
judging from the aquatic life observed during the short visit (turtles, fish) during the dry season is of
29
permanent nature. The same water body is observable on Google Eearth imagery. The Project should be
given an opportunity to explain the logic of constructing a waterhole where a natural one exists already,
3 km from another one, particularly since the explanation provided during the visit – that this is to
create a 3 km long body of water for tourist fishing and canoeing – is new and different from the
original rationale for waterholes construction, and merits consideration vis a vis the remoteness and
extremely low visitation to Gbele (40 persons per year). The ESIA should capture this logic. The EMP
should elaborate on work methods proposed for constructing a concrete dyke across a sizeable body of
water (presumably requiring construction of upstream and downstream coffer dams and dewatering of
the riverbed between them), and how impacts on aquatic life will be avoided during de-watering of the
riverbed.
View downstream at the proposed Malboba waterhole construction site on Kulpawn River.
30
View upstream at the proposed Malboba watehole construction site on Kulpawn River.
31
View downstream at the proposed Malboba waterhole construction site on Kulpawn River.
Progress Reporting
Findings: The February 2016 progress report for Gbele Resource Reserve Improvement Project issued
by GIDA as the supervising engineer on March 21, 2016, is reported as the second such report. The
first one has not been availed to the Bank. The report states in the Introduction that “the intervention is
to improve the accessibility throughout the game reserve, boost tourism in the area, provide source of
drinking water for the animals, and generate income for the government”. It also states that “as of the
last reporting month, much works have not been done by the contractor”, and that “the pace of works is
slow”. The report assesses overall progress of physical works as 38% completed, 62% outstanding.
Recommendation: The report quality, completeness (and possibly doubling the frequency would benefit
from multiple improvements including the following: (i) report against the agreed work plan / timeline
(currently missing); (ii) include financial reporting (payments made, % of contract value disbursed)
(currently missing); (iii) report on contractual clauses particularly PPE use, accidents and incidents (a
leg injury to a casual worker from falling boulder, treated on site, was reported to the Bank the
BUDSUM Foreman but not mentioned in the progress report); (iv) report on % of material delivered to
site (it where it says that gravel stockpiling has begun, indicated what volume / % of the required
32
amount has been stockpiled) (currently missing); (v) report on the machinery and workforce mobilized
on site (currently missing); (vi) expand photographic appendix; (vii) report results of test that
Contractor is contractually obligated to carry out but which are not taking place (see contract)
(currently missing); (vii) report on site visits by WD Management, EPA, Financiers, etc. (currently
missing); (viii) report on implementation of the environmental and social mitigation measures laid out
in the environmental and social management plan and environmental clauses in the contract (currently
missing). SLWMP should kindly submit all future progress reports to the Bank for information.
Gbele Resettlement
Findings: Resettlement of the Gbele community from the inside to outside the Reserve has been a
protracted stop and go effort traceable back several decades, at least to the failed 1988 resettlement
attempt (ref Gbele Resettlement Project, June 2007). Proper completion of the resettlement is reported
key to effective management of the Gbele Reserve, but it is at risk of unraveling agreements amidst the
delays and growing land pressure on the long-identified resettlement land. In addition, while the
resettlement is not funded by the Bank, it is taking place in the area of a Bank funded project, and its
current handling may constitute a reputational risk to the Bank.
Recommendation: The completion of resettlement should be prioritized with consideration to good
resettlement practices and Bank policy on Involuntary Resettlement. Incremental resources for key
missing pieces of proper resettlement – including updating the Resettlement Plan, demarcation and
acquiring of the resettlement farmland, compensation of the host community (Dasima) for the land,
completion of resettlement housing, provision of social services and transition support – should be
identified elsewhere in the Project (subject to eligibility) and WD. The ongoing civil works contract for
Gbele roads and waterholes works – which should not continue in the absence of EIA/EMP -- should
be examined for the potential variation in favor of completing the resettlement housing. A Resettlement
Plan should be prepared (based on the updated of the 2007 document) alongside the EIA/EMP for the
civil works.
Community Dugouts at Sentie and Dasima
Findings: Sites for the two community dugouts to be constructed outside Gbele Reserve to reduce the
livestock watering pressure on the reserve were identified by Clark (the brain father of the Gbele
waterholes), and visited, for the first time together with WD and the Bank, by the Design outfit, AES
Ltd. (Architectural and Engineering Services Limited, and entity servicing Government’s projects).
Representatives of the beneficiaries did not take part in the site visit and meeting.
Recommendation: Considering this activity has been much delayed, and that the construction was
supposed to be completed by April 2016, the Project should be given an opportunity to explain another
apparent delay, and provide a revised schedule for their design and construction (including the
environmental due diligence, possibly handled on the basis of a checklist (like in GSOP) and folded
into the upcoming ESIA. Considering the absence of the dugouts is reported to result in watering of
estimated 10 – 15 thousand cattle during the dry season inside the Gbele Reserve, it would seem of
high conservation priority to finish the dugouts as soon as possible. The construction of the Dasima
33
dugout, serving the Dasima (host) and Old Gbele (resettlement) communities, will also be highly
compatible with the completion of the Gbele resettlement.
Site of proposed Sentie community dugout.
34
Site of proposed Dasima community dugout.
Gbele Camp rehabilitation
Findings: Gbele Camp of WD, constructed nine years ago, is suffering from structural damage and bat
infestation, and is proposed for rehabilitation and expansion under SLWMP. Advancement of
construction of additional rooms in Gbele from the 2017 Work Plan to 2016 Work Plan was requested
by WD but not approved by the Bank as the WD limited implementation capacity should prioritize
outstanding community oriented items before advancing anything else. Bank requested additional
discussion on this with the Project. Based on information from the site visit, the new construction
appears to be slotted in the absence of Bank approval, thus running a risk of ineligible expenditure.
Recommendation: Project should be given opportunity to revisit the issue, clarify the WD plans (which
make good sense as the construction of new staff housing will enable staff to vacate the current staff
housing for the duration of its renovation; WD should document how the expanded staff housing fits
the staffing plans, GRR management plans and budget.
35
Gbele Camp structural damage inspected by AESL.
SADA Multipurposes Water Infrastructure Pre-Feasibility Study Sites
Findings: Bank participated in the apparently first effort of SADA to locate the proposed two (new)
sites in the landscape after the original two sites were found to be under development already during
the years this activity has been planned under SLWMP but not implemented. Some sites were
eventually found after considerable difficulties, but it is not clear whether these were the sites to be
studied, and on what basis were these proposed for the feasibility study. In addition, there is several
orders of magnitude difference between the typical cost of pre-feasibility study (several hundred
thousand to several million USD) and the Project cost / budget estimate (of USD 60,000). Finally, it is
unclear whether SADA as a coordinating agency without particular expertise in multipurpose water
infrastructure development is well placed to drive the pre-feasibility development vis-a-vis other
Government agencies who have technical expertise competitive advantage in the field (e.g. Volta River
Authority, GIDA).
Recommendation: Considering the difficult prospects of deriving a useful output from this activity and
the inadequate budget, remove this activity from SLWMP. This would require restructuring the Project
accordingly (together with other adjustments that may be agreed, e.g. on pooling the DAs). Dropping
the laggard activities which have been lowering the SLWMP performance as measured by the Results
Framework indicators would likely allow the Project to reach Highly Satisfactory performance.
36
Proposed multipurpose water infra site at Dolepare River (left bank tributary of Black Volta, right
side of the picture) confluence with Black Volta (view upstream).
37
Proposed multipurpose water infra site at Koubily (spelling unclear) on Black Volta, view from left
bank.
38
Tiger fish from Black Volta (all resemblances to the TTL are incidental).
Coordinates of Visited Locations
Sentie Dugout Location: N10° 38.941' W2° 02.995' (10.649582, -2.049817)
Dasima Dugout Location: N10° 38.332' W2° 14.279'
Yelibi Crossing Location: N10° 29.600' W2° 10.907'
Malboba Crossing Location : N10° 29.090' W2° 10.757'
Minor crossing (stream crossing): N10° 30.928' W2° 12.572'
SADA site 1 Dolepare River: N10° 05.038' W2° 47.317'
SADA site 2 Koubily: N9° 35.563' W2° 46.212'
39