2

A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES

I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number: P-GM-AAA-001

Project Name: Participatory Integrated Watershed Management Project (PIWAMP)

Country: The Gambia

Lending Instrument(s): Nigeria Trust Fund (NTF) Loan Sector: OSAN Environmental Classification: Category II

Original Commitment Amount: NTF Loan: 4, 950, 000 UA; International Fund for Agricultural Develeopment (IFAD) 4, 948, 000; UA Government of The Gambia (GoTG): 1,160, 000 UA Amount Cancelled: NA

Amount Disbursed: NTF Loan: 4, 639, 268.06 UA; GoTG: 626,533.56 UA

Percent Disbursed: NTF Loan 93.7%; GoTG: 54 %

Borrower: Ministry of Finance: on behalf of Government of The Republic of The Gambia

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and Civil Society Organizations responsible for implementing project activities.] Ministry of Agriculture which was initially reffered to as the Department of State for Agriculture (DoSA); The Soil and Water Management Services (Former Soil and Water Management Unit), undertook surveys, design, construction and supervision of the bulk of agro-engineering /infrastructure works; The Department of Agriculture Services; National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI) undertook on-farm verification trials and the dissemination of New Rice for Africa (NERICA) seed; The Forestry Department implemented Agro-and Community Forestry activities. The Department for Livestock Services and the Department of Water Resources designed and supervised the construction of drinking watering troughs for livestocks; The Department of Planning was responsible for M&E and information collection, collation and dissemination. The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitored the implementation of the recommendations/mitigation of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP).

Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical assistance or other resources used in this project] International Fund for Agricultural Develepment (IFAD) is co-financing 4, 948, 000 UA for the Lowland development activities of the Project, part of the capacity building and the Project Management Unit (PMU); The Government of the Gambia contributes 1,160, 000 UA.

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com: N/A Appraisal Report Cleared: April 2004 Board Approval: 9th June 2004

Restructuring(s):

Original Date Actual Date Difference in months [Actual-Original]

The Gambia: Participatory Integrated Watershed Management Project Completion Report (PCR)

3

FFECTIVENESS 01/01/05 05/31/05 5,0

MID-TERM REVIEW 06/15/08 N/A

CLOSING 12/31/11 12/31/10 -12,2

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

All summary ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs 3

Achievement of Outcomes 4

Timeliness 4

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 4

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Supervision 4

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 4

Implementation 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 4

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director NA Franck Perrault

Sector Director Chukudinka Spencer Aly Abou-Sabaa

Sector Manager Sami Z. Moussa Ken Johm

Task Manager Driss Lekorchi Paxina Chileshe

4

PCR Team Leader Olagoke Oladapo

PCR Team Members

Paxina Chileshe (Natural Resources Management Officer)

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: -what development challenge the project addresses, -the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, -Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and -ongoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project. Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale. [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The project seeks to address the challenges of low agricultural productivity and environmental degradation problems (particularly on the upland) such as: loss of soils through wind and water erosion, declining soil fertility, loss of vegetation cover and increasing vulnerability to drought particularly in the farming zones where the high densities of population and stripping of vegetation cover for clearing land for cultivation are major causes of further resource degradation. The project addresses these challenges using the Village Land Use Management concept through the Village/Community watershed management plans. The GoTG seeks to address the environmental degradation and declining agricultural productivity challenges through its Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy for the period 2007-2015. The policy aims at increasing income of the majority of the rural poor whilst ensuring better management and development of the natural resources focusing on both the lowlands (which play an important role in irrigated rice and horticultural production) and the uplands that constitute the means for the majority of rural farmers to attain improved income and move towards household food security, The Project stems out of the successful implementation of the Lowland Agriculture Development Project (LADEP) which was financed by the Bank and IFAD; after which Government sent a request to the Bank and IFAD to expand the area of intervention to include uplands and also focus on integrated water resources management. The Bank's other on-going interventions in the agriculture sector include the Multi National NERICA dissemination project, the Farmer Managed Rice Irrigation Project and the Livestock and Horticulture Development Project and the Multinational Invasive Aquatic Weed Project whose performances are rated satisfactory.

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The Project's Development Objective is to increase land productivity and reduce soil erosion in a sustainable manner.

2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to achieving the Project Development Objective(s).

1. The Watershed Development component has four sub-components that comprise: a) lowland development; b) swamp

5

access; c) upland management and d) agricultural development. It involves the construction of infrastructure such as causeways and bridges to improve access to the agricultural land and the provision of inputs to the smallholder farmers such as fertilizers and seeds. 2. The Capacity Building component focuses on creating awareness about project activities to a wide range of stakeholders especially beneficiary communities and specific technical training to sustain project activities. 3. The Project Management component focuses on effective implementation of various activities by engaging various Service Providers and it undertakes procurement, financial management and the monitoring and evaluation of project activities.

3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

RELEVANT

a) Relevant to the country's development priorities

Agriculture contributes 33% to GDP and employs 73% of the population. GoTG recognises the importance of the sector and have a clear policy targeted at small scale farmers. The project is consistent with the national Agriculture and Natural Resources policy that targets smallscale farmers. 4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected timeframe

The objectives were clearly laid out in the appraisal report and effective implementation had shown that almost all objectives were achieved ahead of the set completion time. Some of the targets set were potentially underestimated while others were seemingly over estimated. 3

CONSISTENT

c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy

The project is in line with the Government Strategy for Poverty Alleviation II and the Country Strategic Paper (2002 - 2004) of the Bank for the Gambia and with the Gambia National Agriculture Investment Plan which is the GoTG's current effort in boosting national agricultural potential. 4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities

The Bank's overall goal is poverty reduction and pursuant of the the need to achieve MDG number 1 which deals with increasing the levl of food security among the local population. 4

4. Summarize the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add additional rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes if needed.

COMPONENTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS EXPECTED OUTCOMES INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED

Component 1: Watershed Development

Activity 1: Lowland Water Management schemes and improved Swamp access

Output 1:Early Millet/Sorghum: 1,048 tons; Maize: 318 tons; Upland Rice: 53 tons; Lowland rice:26,580 tons

Outcome 1: yield increase: upland rice fron 1 t/ha to 1.7 t/ha; Maize from1.2 t/ha to 1.8 t/ha ;Millet from 1.1 t/ha to 1.65 t/ha

Production of millet, sorghum, upland and lowland rice and maize

6

Activity 2: Uplands management and Conservation farming

Output 2: 1,800 km of contour bunds and 3,600 km of grass plantation; 120 gullies controlled; 120 km of causeways and bridges; 4,207 m of spillways constructed and 3,220 m upgraded

Outcome 2: Increase in amount of land recovered for and under cultivation. Increased yields and land under cultivation will improve the availability of food crops for local communities improving both their household food security and also incomes.

Km of contour bunds, km of grass plantation, meters of spillways, km of cause ways and bridges; number of gullies constructed

Component 2: Capacity Building

Activity 1: Communities' sensitization, training and empowerment

Output 1: 40 sensitization workshops, 200 Awareness campaigns, 200 Training sessions in participatory approach, 27 Sessions in Gender issues and 8 PLARs held

Outcome 1: More communities with access to improved inputs and land for cultivation. Leading to increased yields, quality and quantity of crops produced.

Number of workshops, training sessions and awareness campaigns held

Activity 2: Training of service providers, staff and beneficiaries in soil water and farming conservation techniques and rangeland management

Output 2: 16 courses in Soil Water and Farming conservation techniques; Community forestry and Rangeland management techniques.

Outcome 2: Increase in number of staff with improved skills to support communities. Communities adopt improved techniques in production thus resulting in incaresed crop production.

Number of courses held and staff, service providers and benficiaries trained

Component 3: Project Management

Activity 1: Establishment and operation of Project management unit and systems

Output 1: Consultant services procured, project staff hired

Outcome 1: All consultancy services undertaken in a timely manner and enhance the implementation of the project and results achieved

Positions filled and number of consultants recruited and quality of outputs and reports submitted

Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation

Output 2: Project reporting procedures in place and implemented

Outcome 2: Information available to feedback and improve project implementation and lesson learning

Frequency, quality and number of reports submitted

5. For each dimension of the log. frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).

LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

7

LOGICAL

a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

The logical causal chain for most of the objectives are presented well in the framework apart from the increase in productivity of the land for the targeted crops. 3

MEASURABLE

b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

The objectives and outcomes are quantified in the logframe and measurable.Though the sources of information were not adequately assessed. 3

THOROUGH

c) States the risks and key assumptions

Most of the risks and assumptions were stated however implementation revealed that frequent changes especially in the removal/sacking of staff at the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance and PIU was a major risk which was not anticipated during the appraisal of the project but which actually affected implementation. 3

D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS

In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score will be auto-calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

Working Score

Share of Project Costs in percentage (as stated in Appraisal Report)

Weighted Score (auto-calculated) Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

720 km of Contour bunds ; 24.25 Km of Splliways; 76.77 km of Dikes; 30.06 km of Wooden Bridges; 200 km of Intervillage roads

195 Km of Contour Bunds; 33.15 Km of Spillways; 68 Km of Dikes; 14km of Bridges;191 Km of intervillage roads 3 40 1,2

Site development 6900 ha and input supply, 400 bags of fertilizers and 47 tons of seeds

Site development: 5800ha developed so far. 400 bags of fertilizers and 47 tons of seeds. 3 15 0,45

Buildings rehabilitated; office equipment, heavy equipment and plants and field vehicles

All the identified buildings were renovated and office and plant equipment and vehicles procured 4 25 1

40 sensitization workshops, 200 Awareness campaigns, 200 training sessions in participatory approach, 6 external trainings

36 senzitisation workshops; 105 awareness campaigns; 200 participatory training sessions; 4 external trainings (Masters level) 3 20 0,6

8

OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores] 3

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the auto calculated score 3

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

1. Using available monitoring data, assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score will be auto-calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

OUTCOMES

Working Score Expected Actual

Outcome 1: Yield increase: Upland rice from 1t/ha to 1.7t/ha; Maize from 1.2t/ha to 1.8t/ha ; Millet from 1.1t/ha to 1.65t/ha

Yield increases: Upland rice 1.4t/ha; Maize 1.5t/ha; Millet 1.3t/ha. The yield increases vary according to the method of data collection therefore averages are provided in this report. 3

Outcome 2: Total Crop Production from 4503MT - Total production will increase at least: by 344 MT of uplands rice; 5,900 MT of sorghum and millet; 3,000 MT of groundnut; 2,000 MT of maize;

Total crop production increased to 25573MT. Total production increase: 11,303 MT for rice; 5,267 MT of sorghum and millet; 4,064 MT of groundnut; 97 MT of maize; 3

Outcome 3 Cropped area increase from 17802ha to 24 700ha Cropped area increased to 23992.4ha 4

Outcome 4 Increase in percentage contribution to National Rice Production from 3.57

Rice production increased in project areas and as a result the contribution to the national rice production increased to 12.08% 4

OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores] 4

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the auto calculated score 4

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender).

9

The design of the project took cognisance of the fact that land availability is critical to the realisation of food security in the Gambia. Thus, the target beneficiaries in the lowland areas were mostly women, whilst in the uplands the target beneficiaries were mostly men based on the cultural responsibilities of crop cultivation in the Gambia. At completion, the interventions of the project benefitted more women and the number of beneficiaries of 20,000 households exceeded the targeted 12,000 households with over 52% (See annex) of the project beneficiaries being female. The female beneficiaries interacted with were very vocal and appreciated the interventions in their communities particularly as they were able to present proposals directly to the project just like the male community members. Some of the assistances offered by the project that the women folks benefiited from included dykes and spillways which made rice farms more assessible to the women farmers thus reducing the burden on the women in terms of exposure to water borne diseases while wading through flooded areas and also eliminating potential threats of death from drowning and risks of infants being exposed to health risks while accompanying their mothers in the rice fields.

3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.

The project has made significant gains in increasing the amount of land available for cultivation and also improving the yields of the targeted crops. The timely provision of inputs to the communities contributed to the achievement of the outcomes and thus the lack of a reliable distribution system and local centers to access inputs pose risks for the sustainability of the outcomes. The communities would require inputs that can be sourced independently based on the market for their products and their improved incomes. The lack of continued and improved access to markets for smallholder farmers also poses a risk to the sustainability of outcomes. The road network linking the farmers to market areas would need to be maintained on a routine basis. Continued social cohesion is necessary for the functioning of the associations and the cultivation of the newly accessible areas. The potential weakening of these sturctures also poses a risk for sustainability. The communities would also have to apply the skills developed during the capacity building activities of the project; the potential of farmers reverting to traditional farming practices is a risk to the sustaibaility of outcomes. In addition staff that have been trained would need to be retained within the Ministry of Agricuture and related Ministries to continue providing support to the farmers. The attrition of trained staff from the Ministry poses a risk to sustained outcomes from the technology transfer and capacity building.

10

E. EC E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for technical assistance. [200 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The design of the PIWAMP was informed by the PCR and lessons learned from the Lowlands Agricultural Development Program (LADEP). The design was also based on the lessons learnt from interventions in the two extreme cases of floods in 1999 and drought in 2001-2002. A key lesson from LADEP was that an effective community-driven participatory approach commends community self-targeted activities geared towards local ownership. Therefore, the communities were committed to maintainance and repair of the water retention structures to contribute to project sustainability. Another significant lesson was that land conflicts were minimized by leaving land re-allocation to the communities themselves. Another lesson learned was that the project design has to conform to the existing situation in The Gambia and the project should critically assess and take into consideration the national capacity and the socio-political circumstances. For example the modes of procurement proposed for the project were well suited for the Gambian situation which facilitated smooth project implementation. The communities were consulted during the project design particularly given their expected role in implementation. The PIWAMP benefitted from thorough analyses of lessons learnt from LADEP and a baseline that was undertaken on production potential in the project areas. The Ministry of Agriculture provided data on productivity levels and IFAD was also involved in the design having co-financed the LADEP. The PMU was mostly retained from LADEP with beneficial experience in project implementation.

2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS

ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

REALISM

a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.

The technical complexity of the project was matched to the capacity of the Ministry for Agriculture and when necessary the capacity was supplemented with consultancy services.

4

11

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

Most risks were adequately analysed however some risks such as the constant changes at the Ministries and PIU level had deleterious effects on the implementation of the project.

3

USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS

c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

Although the Bank systems was used, the procurement modes selected were well fitted with the capacity and institutional arrangements existing within the Gambia which made implementation rather easy to follow.The procurement and financial management used by the project were introduced during the earlier implemented LADEP. However, the change of some personnel necessitated refresher training..

3

For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance: WORKING SCORE

Bank Borrower

CLARITY d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.

The roles and responsibilities were clearly stated in the appraisal report and agreed upon during the preparation and appraisal of the project. 4 4

PROCUREMENT READINESS

e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.

As mentioned earlier there was a carefully deisgned procurement plan. Also most of the civil works were undertaken by the Soil & Water Management Unit of the Ministry who undertoook the design of the works. All these were agreed to during the appraisal stage.

4 4

MONITORING READINESS

f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.

The Monitoring indiactors were clearly stated and agreed upon at appraisal. As part of the Mointoring plan the Ministry of Planing (Statistics divisions) were suported in the project with resources in addition to the recutiment of and M & E officer as part of the PMU.

3 3

BASELINE DATA h) Baseline data were available or are were collected during project design.

The rudimentary data available at design stage were upgraded with a detailed baseline survey implemented during the first year of the project . 3 3

12

F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [200 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]

The implementation of the project activities was ahead of schedule in most cases. The quality of construction work is very good as attested to by the site visits and the beneficiaries met during the visits. The consultants' performance was satisfactory albeit the deadlines were in some cases not adhered to. The Bank conducted regular supervision missions (in some instances joint supervisions with the co-financiers IFAD) and responded to issues and challenges faced during implementation to ensure timely execution of the activities. An example of this is the approval to purchase road grader machines, which according to the the project design were supposed to be hired but were not readily available. Joint supervison with IFAD broadened the skill mix in supervsions and added value to providing implementaion support to the Project.The technical skill mix in the supervision missions provided guidance and advice to enhance the implementation. The Borower oversight was provided through the Project Steering Committee (PSC) that met regularly throughout project implementation. The PSC provided strategic direction for the project and approved the community projects. The safeguards were not adequately adhered to mainly due to the late validation of the ESMP.

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

The PIWAMP was co-financed with IFAD. Each institution had clearly defined activities to finance and responsibilities.Thus the co-financing arrangements were very effective. The community participation was critical to the success of the project as it applied a community driven approach. The works were not very complex and were undertaken by Government agencies and are of very good standard. The perfomance of the Government agencies was satisfactory as well as the performance of the contractors that were engaged to undertake the works to supplement Government Agencies and Departments.

3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

The Bank is a major player in the Gambia agricultural sector. During the implementation of PIWAMP the Bank had harmonious working relationships with IFAD and FAO, the other key actors in the sector. Joint supervsion missions were conducted during the project implementation and activities to be financed by NTF and IFAD were clearly defined. Both IFAD and the Bank shared information on a regular basis and provided a common position in dealing with the Government on critical issues of implementation. Prior to changes made by IFAD in the supervison of the project (IFAD decided to undertake their own supervision of projects), the Fund engaged the Bank as its co-operating institution and during this stage, the rules and procedures of the Bank for procurement and disbursement were in use. Even with the change in policy the approach and systems adopted are similar and the two institutions maintain a common position in dealing with isssues raised by the GoTG or issues emerging during project implementation.

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

TIMELINESS a) Extent of project adherence to the original

Difference in months between

Most of the project activities were implemented within the 4

13

closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, score 4 between 12.1 to 24, score 3 between 24.1 to 36, score 2 beyond 36.1, score 1

original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disb. rate.

project timeframe and the high disbursement rate resulted in earlier completion of the project;12 months ahead of schedule.

-12,2

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

An Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) was developed for the project. However its implementation was not effectively supervised. 3

Fiduciary Requirements Reports were mostly submitted on time; in some cases the audit reports were submitted late. 3

Project Covenants The loan agreement was followed and conditions adhered to during the project implementation 4

c) Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions

The Bank conducted regular supervision missions though the skill mix was not always adequate as the mission teams were supervsing several projects simultaneously 3

d) Bank provided quality management oversight

The Bank responded to most issues within a satisfactory timeframe 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

The ESMP was not validated until year 4 of the project. However the activities were implemented during the project implementation as the plan was developed in year 2 and 3. 2

Fiduciary Requirements

Annual audits were conducted though these were in some instances submitted late. Procurement and Financial management rules were followed. 3

Project Covenants

Loan agreement were fulfilled on time, but during implementation the GoTG violated the provisons of the project covenants especially in the constant change in the Project Management team. Government appointed replacements for the coordinator without following a competitive process stated in the loan agreement. 2

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

On a constant basis the GoTG responded to the implementation of the various missions' recommendations though in some cases delays were experienced 3

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

Though the information was collected and regularly reported to the Project Steering Committee and the Ministry, the use in decision making seemed rather limited due to some of the internal politics within the Ministry. The synergies among on-going projects within the Ministry were not optimised. 3

14

G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY?

Date project reached 98% disb. Rate (or closing date if applicable) Date PCR was sent to pcr@afdb.org

Difference in months

WORKING SCORE (auto-calculated) if the difference is 6 months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1 is scored

31/12/2010 -1351,4333 4

2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [100 words maximum]

The initial data requirements were fowarded to the project prior to the PCR Mission. In addition GoTG conducted its own PCR by engaging a consultant.This was followed by a mission which among others visited the project sites and interacted with the intended beneficiaries. The mission collected vital information required which assisted in the production of this report. The findings of the mission and the Government led PCR are concurrent. The duration of the IFAD funded activities is 8 years and thus a mid term review was conducted in 2010. The comments from peer reviewers were received on time. The peer reviewers were Ms Rita Ba, Gender Specialist, OSAN.2; Mr Ignacio Tourino, ONEC.3; Ms Cam Do,Macro-Economist and Public Financial Management Specilist, OSGE.1; Mr Moses Abukari, IFAD;.Mr Jonas Chianu, Principal Agricultural Economist, OSAN.2

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The key lessons of implementation of this project include the need for a solid foundation for the take-off of the Project. Project staff should be carefully identified through competition and given appropriate training during the formal technical launch of the project. In addition, the Procurement system identified at appraisal should suit the national capacity requirements without compromising efficiency and economy. This allows for structured adherence to the Procurement Plans, which can thereafter be implemented to the letter. Another factor is the Bank support through field missions, which should proactively address the emerging issues during project implementation.The effective co-financing with IFAD was a positive lesson learnt from the project as activities were clearly defined for each institution's financing and also joint supervision missions were conducted when possible and communication maintained throughout the implementation period.The two institutions were able to commuicate the same message to the Government especially when the loan covenants were being contravened by the GoTG. Throughout the implementation of the project, an effective communication system between the PMU and the Bank ensures that matters requiring utmost urgency are quickly addressed. Sustainability mechanisms to ensure that beneficiaries maintain infrastructure should also be instituted in the project; in PIWAMP this was done through the establishment of groups such as Village Farmer Assoiciations and District Farmer Associations and Watershed Farmer Assosciations. The design should be flexible to allow adaptation in the early course of implementation. For the PIWAMP it was necessary to change the proposal to use labour to carry out land preapartion activities to the acquisition of necessary equipment. The Bank promptly reviewed this proposal and provided a no objection to the Project to acquire low loaders and other equipment which tremendously

15

assisted in the work of the project. In terms of ease of data collection, the systems identified were feasible on most parameters given the involvement of the Department of Planning and the national reporting on crop production, which was supported by the project. Despite all the positive lessons learned, there were some dark spots in the implementation of the project. More than three times arbitrary changes in the Project Management were made, which tended to contravene the loan agreements and without any explanation of incompetence or abuse of office by the officials. The changes adversely affected project implementation and the disbursements for activities. As the changes were done politically, very little could be done to anticipate them and thus measures to mitigate this risk could not be included. Another lesson learned is the fact that while using the relevant agencies to suport project activities are good and in line with Paris Declaration, in some instances during the implementation of this project the identified agencies lacked capacities and necessary resources to provide the support required of them. In this regard, the project was financing most of what was required of these institutions. In most cases the budget required was far more than what was envisaged.

I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

All working scores and ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs 3

Achievement of outcomes 4

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 4

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. 4

Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame. 3

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional strategy 4

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities 4

The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. 3

The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. 3

The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. 3

Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment. 4

Project design includes adequate risk analysis. 3

Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems were based on those already in use by government and/or other partners. 3

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. 4

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. 4

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during design. 3

Baseline data were available or were collected during design. 3

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 3

Supervision:

16

Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 3

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 4

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions. 3

Bank provided quality management oversight. 4

PCR was delivered on a timely basis 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 4

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 4

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal. 4

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon and baseline data are available or are being collected 3

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 4

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 2

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 2

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations. 3

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making. 3

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 4

J. PROCESSING

STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

17

Project Finances

1. Project Costs and Financing:

Project Financing by Components

Component Amount in Million Dalasis Amount in '000 UA

Capacity Building 151 3 875

Watershed Management 223 5 702

Project Mgt 48 1 224

Physical Contigencies 29 753

Price Contigencies 21 531

Total 472 12, 080

Project Financing by Source

NTF 194 4,95

IFAD 193 4,94

GoTG 45 1,16

Beneficiaries 40 1,03

Total 472 12,08

18

Annex 2.Chronology of ADB Preparation, Supervision and Completion missions.

AFDEP.

Appraisal Mission

November to December 2003 Messrs. Driss Lekorchi, Civil Engineer (Mission Leader); Harouna Dosso, Agronomist

Supervision Missions

11 to 23 September 2006

Mr M. Basalirwa, Senior Financial Analyst and Mr Abdul Kamara, Senior Agricultural Economist

17 June to 02 July 2007

Mr Mohammed El Tayeb, Principal Agricultural Economist, Ms Phoebe Mtambo, Senior Agronomist, Mr James Opio-Omoding, Senior Agricultural Economist

07 - 15 December 2007 Ms Phoebe Mtambo, Senior Agronomist and Mr Olagoke Oladapo, Senior

Agricultural Economist

26 May to 08 June 2008 Mr Olagoke Oladapo, Agricultural Economist, Mr Amadou Ba, Agricultural Economist

SNFO and Mr Mamadou Kane, IFAD Field Presence Officer

26 July to 08 August 2009 Mr Olagoke Oladapo, Agricultural Economist and Ms Paxina Chileshe, Senior

Analyst SLFO

08 to 19 February 2010 Mr Olagoke Oladapo, Agricultural Economist, Mr Timothy Mkandawire, Financial

Management Specialist and Ms Paxina Chileshe, Enviornmentalist

7 to 21 July 2010 Mr Ken B. Johm, Manager Natural Resources and Environment Management Division, Mr Timothy Mkandawire, Financial

Management Specialist and Ms Paxina Chileshe, Environmentalist

Completion Mission

15 to 28 November 2010 Mr Olagoke Oladapo, Agricultural Economist and Ms Paxina Chileshe, Natural

Resources Management Specialist

19

Bank Inputs

NDICATOR Rating

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Compliance with loan conditions precedent to entry into force 3

Compliance with General Conditions 2

Compliance with Other Conditions 2

B. PROCUREMENT PERFORMANCE

Procurement of Consultancy Services 0

Procurement of Goods and Works 1

C. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Availability of Foreign Exchange 3

Availability of Local Currency 0

Disbursement Flows 3

Cost Management 2

Performance of Co-Financiers 2

D. ACTIVITIES AND WORKS

Adherence to implementation schedule

Performance of Consultants or Technical Assistance 3

Performance of Contractors 0

Performance of Project Management 0

2

E. IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT

Likelihood of achieving development Objectives

Likelihood that benefits will be realized and sustained beyond project 3

Likely contribution of the project towards an increase in 3

Current Rate of Return 3

0

F. OVERALL PROJECT ASSESMENT

Current Supervision Average

Current Trend over time 1,78

2,45

20

Financial and Economic Analysis

Economic Analysis (ERR) and Financial Analysis, if appropriate Re-estimate the economic rates of return based on costs and benefits at completion, and compare with apprailsal estimates. Break down by components as appropriate. Analyze the sensitivity of the ERR to key assumptions. Present a financial analysis for project beneficiary entities.

Computation of Economic Net Present Value and Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) (in Dalasis)

Computation of Financial Net Present Value and Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)

Economic Analysis

Financial Analysis

Year Cost Benefit Net Benefit

Year Cost Direct

Benefits Other

Benefits Total Benefit Net Benefit

2010 282 328 3 177 244 3240873

2010 472 000 3 177 244 1048490 3857009 3 488 285

2011 247 653 3 768 596 3922568

2011 85 000 3 768 596 1243637 4349953 3 687 672

2012 303 106 8 190 662 8736933

2012 85 000 000 8 190 662 2702918 9834503 8 775 425

2013 357 580 8 651 233 9194534

2013 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10625550 9 744 961

2014 372 783 8 651 233 9180852

2014 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 11133357 10 760 574

2015 395 587 8 651 233 9160328

21

2015 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10611457 9 716 774

2016 429 793 8 651 233 9129543

2016 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 11076347 10 646 554

2017 481 102 8 651 233 9083364

2017 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 11025038 10 543 936

2018 558 066 8 651 233 9014097

2018 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10948074 10 390 008

2019 744 415 8 669 453 8866425

2019 85 000 000 8 669 453 2860919 10785957 10 041 542

2020 846 679 8 651 233 8754345

2020 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10659461 9 812 781

2021 1 106 431 8 651 233 8520568

2021 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10399709 9 293 277

2022 1 496 060 8 651 233 8169903

2022 85 000 000 8 651 233 2854907 10010080 8 514 021

2019 2 080 502 53 581 553 57067257

2023 85 000 000 53 581 553 17681913 69182964 67 102 462

2020 2 957 166 53 581 553 56278260

2024 85 000 000 53 581 553 17681913 68306300 65 349 135

NPV 218 319 849

NPV 247 867 407

I

IRR

38%

EIRR 22%

Key Assumptions The computation of Economic Internal Rates of Returns (EIRR) for this project is predicated on the following assumptions:

22

i. The output and input markets are perfectly competitive; therefore the analysis used market prices of non-traded products as the true reflection of opportunity cost. ii. The project has directly reached about 30000 beneficiaries and more are still being expected under the various schemes. iii. Shadow prices of traded goods are not significantly different from market prices in the Gambia. v. This methodology of comparing costs and benefits is the same for either an economic or a financial measurement of project worth. The only difference is in the definition of costs and benefits under the two analyses. For instance, in the economic analysis, interest on capital is not separated nor deducted from the gross revenue because it is part of total return to the capital available to the society as a whole. vi. For the purpose of this analysis, the economic analysis treats tax and subsidies as transfer payments. For financial analysis, such adjustments are unnecessary because taxes have been treated as costs and subsidies as revenues.vii) Areas under land cultivation incread by about 130% leading to incremenatal output in rice production. This accounted for the higher EIRR as against what was envisaged at appraisal.

23

Last Procurement Plan

General Country/Organisation: The Gambia

Project/Programme: Participatory Integrated Watershed Management Project

Loan No: 2200160000139

Implementing Agency, Adress: Ministry of Agriculture

Bank's Approval Date of Procurement Plan:

Date of General Procurement Notice:

Period Covered by these Proc. Plans:

G O O D S

Prior Review Threshold: Procurement decisions subject to Prior Review by the Bank as

stated in the Appraisal Report

Goods and Non-Consulting (see Note 1) Prior review

Procurement Method Threshold Comments

(UAequiv.)

1. ICB

2.

3. NCB

4.

5. Shopping

6.

24

BASIC DATA

Bid Documents Bidding Period Bid Evaluation Contract Award

Contract Implementati

on

Estimated Amount in UA(000)

Procurement Method

Pre-or Post Qualification

Dom/Reg. Preference (Y/N)

Prior or Post Review

Expected Date Issue of Bid Docs

Expected Bid closing Date

Plan vs. Actual

Transmission Bid Docs Date

No-objection Date

Bid Invitation Date

Bid Closing-Opening

Bid Evaluation Report

No-objection Date

Contract Amount in UA(000)

Contract Award Dat

Contract Signature Date

Start Date

End Date

7,000 Shortlisting Post No

Prior Review

17 March 2010

19 April 2010 Plan

10 March 2010

12 March 2010

17 March 2010

4 May 2010

11 May 2010

25 May 2010

7 000,00

1 June 2010

3 June 2010

15 June 2010

15 July 2010

Actual

10 March 2010

12 March 2010

17 March 2010

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

25

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

Plan

Actual

#VALEUR! Plan

7 000,00

0,00 Actual 0,00

26

Logframe

Narrative summary Objectively VerifiableIndicators Means of Verification Key Assumptions

SECTOR GOAL Reduced poverty and enhanced household food security.

- Incomes of lowland farmers increase by 129% from 1,574GMD by PY8 - Incomes of upland farmers increase by 28% from 3,593 GMD by PY8 - Lowland & Swamp production increased by 237% from 12, 584 MT by PY8. - Upland production increased by 32% from 2,122 MT by PY8. - Food import reduced by 25% by PY8.

- Depts of Statistics (ASRE, DOP, etc.) - DOSFEA & DOSA Reports - M&E Reports.

PROJECT OBJECTIVE Increased land productivity and reduced soil erosion on a sustainable manner.

-Lowland rice yield increase from 1.3 to 3.5 MT / ha by PY4; -Upland rice yield increase from 1.1 to 1.7 MT/ha by PY4; - Total production will increase at least: by 344 MT of uplands rice; 5,900 MT of sorghum and millet; 3,000 MT of groundnut; 2,000 MT of maize; and 31,000 MT of Lowland and Swamp rice by PY8.

- Annual statistics on crop outputs and M &E Progress Reports. - Supervision reports/Progress Report/MTR. - Beneficiaries Assessments/MTR/ PCR.

- Government priority to address food security is maintained. - Marketing arrangements are efficient and prices of crops remain steady.

PROJECT OUTPUTS 1) Capacity Building - Communities sensitised, trained and empowered - Service providers, staff and beneficiaries trained 2) Watershed Development - Lowland Water Management schemes and Swamps - Uplands management and Conservation farming - Integrated water management - Nurseries and Community Forestry management - Livestock water supply and market infrastructure

1) Capacity Building - Groups: 40 sensitization workshops, 200 Awareness campaigns, 200 Training sessions in participatory approach, 27 Sessions in Gender issues and 8 PLARs held. - In service: 12 courses each held in Land use mapping, Soil & water conservation and Conservation farming; 6 courses each held in PRA, Forest and livestock management; 3 courses held in Gender analysis; 24 courses held in Adaptive research and 2 in Seed multiplication. One 10 days Study tour and AMTA training organized. - Farmers: 16 courses each held in Soil Water and Farming conservation techniques; as well as in Community forestry and Rangeland management techniques. 125 farmer to farmer field visits organized. - One HIV/Aids and one Malaria campaigns organized. - Equipment acquired. - Rehabilitation of Jenoi Training Center. 2) Watershed Development - Incremental crop production by PY 8 of: Early Millet/Sorghum: 1,048 tons; Maize: 318 tons; Upland Rice: 53 tons; Lowland rice:26,580 tons. - By PY6: 1,800 km of contour bunds and 3,600 km of grass plantation realised; 120 no. gullies controlled; 120 km of causeways and bridges executed; 4,207 m of spillways constructed and 3,220 m upgraded. - 3 buildings rehabilitated - Increase in forest cover of 1,150 ha by PY6; 5 nurseries established. - 15 no. water points improved by PY6 - Spot rehabilitation of 100 km of village roads by PY6.

- Project Progress Reports - Annual work Plans - Supervision Reports - Ditto - Ditto

- Extension services are effective. - - Farmers are willing to participate in training programs. - Improved seed is available to farmers at affordable prices and availability of inputs on time. - Communities willing to participation in maintenance works.

27

3) Project Management -Project management established and operational - M&E - Impact Assessment

3) Project Management - IWMP and LADEP Project Management co-ordinated - Consultant services procured, project staff hired; - Project reporting procedures in place and implemented - Project progress reports, audits and MTR are on time and in line with Bank procedures. - Performance of consultancy is satisfactory (throughout the project life). - Goods are procured timely and in alignment with Bank guidelines (throughout project life).

- Audit Reports - Procurement Reviews.

COMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES 1) Capacity Building - Mobilise, sensitise and train communities - Train extension staff - Provide support to SWMU - Provide support to NARI - Provide support to DOP - Provide support to NARI - Provide support to DAS - Provide support to NEA - Provide support to FD 2) Watershed Development - Prepare community action plans - Implement soil and water conservation works; - Enhance conservation farming; - Increase horticulture and livestock production; - Develop Forestry and rangelands; 3) Project Management - Recruitment of project staff and establishment of agreement with participating organisations/service providers; - Procurement of vehicles, motorbikes and office supplies; - Prepare reports and conduct audit; - Undertake mid-term review

Project Financing (in million UA) Source F.E L.C Total NTF 0.681 4.265 4.945 IFAD 2.228 2.720 4.948 GOTG 0.00 1.160 1.160 Beneficiaries 0.00 1.032 1.032 Total 6.985 5.100 12.085 2. Budget (in million UA) Capacity Building 3.875 Watershed Development 5.702 Project Management 1.224 Total Base cost 12.085 Human Resources Staff No. T.A. No. 3 3. Time 6 years (2005-2010)

- Project reports - Quarterly progress reports - Supervision Reports. - Audit Reports - Procurement Reviews.

- Extension staff and other resources available. - PMU adequately staffedand appointed/trained staff retained. - Consultants with good performance.

28

Additional Annexes

Project Outcomes

The project interventions increased access to markets and other social amenities such as schools and health facilities, swamps and opened up areas in the lowland for cultivation. While the upland targeted both gender, lowland interventions were biased towards women who constitute the majority in the lowland ecologies. The increased aceess to cosial maenities result in improved community health and more children having easier access to schools by reducing the time it takes for them to reach their facilities. Capacity building interventions were conducted for field staff, communities and grassroot structures such as Village Farmer Associations and District Farmer Associations. The impact of the above is reduction of soil erosion, enhanced access and area expansion with increased production. The project also realized some unanticipated benefits including greater cohesion in project beneficiary communities to request for project services and to subsequently provide labour during infrastructural development for watering points, inter-village roads, contour bonds and gully plugs. Lessons for subsequent projects

A good understanding of AfDB rules and procedures by key project personnel on procurement and disbursement through training in-country is critical for smooth project implementation. Developing effective communication channels with beneficiaries and all stakeholders during design, monitoring and implementation engenders greater awareness, ownership of intervention and sustainability of achievements. Right from the inception of projects, focus needs to be made on developing sustainability mechanisms to ensure that beneficiaries maintain infrastructure with continued stream of benefits. In the maintenance of installed infrastructure it is essential that beneficiaries are fully involved and in the driver’s seat in order to sustain the gains made by the project. The work needs to have appropriate equipment; heavy work particularly in upland and heavy clay soils requires machinery to relieve beneficiaries of too much drudgery and labour. Timely disbursement of funds is very important especially when activities (all civil works) are conducted on a seasonal basis, consequently delayed funds and allowances, negatively affects program output. Where multiple stakeholders are involved in the implementation of a project, it is prudent that each of the collaborating partners is prescribed with clear roles and responsibilities to avoid conflicts and duplication of efforts during implementation. This can be done through signing of Memorandum of Agreements.

Project Outputs Watershed development

This component had four sub-components that comprise lowland development, swamp access, upland management and agricultural development. The activities are being implemented by various institutions that have signed memoranda of understanding with the project. The key achievements when compared to the set project targets include construction of 692 (840) gully control structures; building of 157.8 km (720 km) contour bunds; improvement of 191.5 km (200 km) inter-village roads, vertiver nurseries 6 (6); village (tree) nurseries 5 (5); and 15 (15) watering points. The low achievement in the contour bunds is due to the limited demand for these structures by the communities. However there appears to be a trend of increased demand for the contour bunds following the success in various communities.

Capacity building This component focused on creating awareness about project activities to a wide range of stakeholders’ especially

beneficiary communities and specific technical training to sustain project activities. The main achievements (compared to targets at appraisal) under this component include the formation of 50 (140) Village Farmer Associations, formation of 5 (32) District Level Farmer Association, the holding of 37 sensitization sessions and undertaking 23 rural participatory appraisal and 6 HIV/Aids and malaria campaigns. The Farmer Associations are to in some cases introduce and in other cases enhance community planning to empower the communities to analyze their particular situations and prioritize their options for solutions. The associations are also a means of ensuring sustainability. The group formation is still work in progress given that the PIWAMP will continue with IFAD funding up to 2014.

29

The Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP) PIWAMP was designed to build on the successful experience of the previous IFAD/AfDB funded Lowlands Agricultural Development Programme (LADEP). Recognising that the current extent of land degradation in The Gambia has both local and global environmental consequences, agreement was reached between the Government, the AfDB and IFAD that incremental grant funding should be sought from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to complement the GoTG/IFAD/AfDB investment in PIWAMP. The request was initiallly made in 2007, however the processing and preparation of the projects was complted in 2009. GEF approved the project in January 2010. The Board approved the incremental financing in October 2010. The incremental financing project is the "Sustainable Land Management Project" (SLMP) and will be implemented for four years until 2014, when the IFAD activities are expected to be completed. The SLMP is aimed at ensuring that PIWAMP activities contribute to the realisation of optimal global environmental benefits, including reducing land degradation, conserving biodiversity and improving the adaptive response to climate change. GEF financial support will be made available to support the community-based watershed/landscape management planning process in a limited number of selected communities in all six Agriculture Regional Directorates (ARDs). As there are insufficient funds available to work with more than a few communities in each ARD, an agreed set of targeting criteria will be used at project inception to select the specific areas in which the GEF supported community-based watershed/landscape management planning will be undertaken. The GEF component will maintain the same targeting approach as the PIWAMP. Priority target group is poor smallholders dependent on traditional upland crops and lowland rice cultivation as their main source of livelihood. In the lowlands, the primary target group will be women, whereas, for upland conservation farming, it will be men, women and youths.

Crops Cultivated 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rice

471,24 2531,49 6441,11 8181,66 9890

Groundnut

1677,29 2929,95 3216,57 5371,57 5741

Early Millet 1380,45 2411,43 2647,33 4420,95 4725

Late Millet 643,34 1123,8 1233,74 2060,3 2202

Sorghum 182,42 318,67 349,84 584,22 624,4

Sesame 156,31 273,04 299,75 500,57 535

Cotton (only in 2009)

0 0 0 150 150

Maize 36,52 63,79 70,04 116,96 125

Total 4547,57 9652,17 14258,4 21386 23992

30

Area Cultivated 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rice 565,49 3037,79 7729,33 9817,99 11868

Groundnut 1677,29 2929,95 3216,57 5371,57 5741

Early Millet 1380,45 2411,43 2647,33 4420,95 4725

Late Millet 611,17 1067,61 1172,05 1957,29 2091,9

Sorghum 182,42 318,67 349,84 584,22 624,4

Sesame 46,89 81,91 89,93 150,17 160,5

Cotton (only in 2009) 0 0 0 225 225

Maize 40,17 70,17 77,04 128,66 137,5

Total 4503,88 9917,53 15282,1 22656 25573

31

Beneficiaries Data

Western Region

No Village C/pounds H/Holds

Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Berefet 72 75 480 538 1018

2 Bintang

312 320 632

3 Bonto 50 87 327 375 702

4 Bujinga 14 23 93 95 188

5 Bulanjorr

197 217 414

6 Bullock

1168 1216 2384

7 Faraba Banta

1304 1467 2771

8 Faraba Sutu 121 212 843 860 1703

9 Gibanack

41 43 84

10 Gunjur

Beending

428 556 984

11 Gunjur

Sambuya

42 58 100

12 Jamburr/Farato

4262 4292 8554

13 Jonerr

64 64 128

14 Kabifita 15 Kallimu 13 114 58 56 114

16 Kandongku

209 249 458

17 Kayimu Bintang

154 183 337

18 Kanjabina

76 61 137

19 Kantimba

20 Kanwali /Kalimu

202 207 409

21 Karanai

64 71 135

22 Kayanga

85 88 173

23 Kuloro

1008 1077 2085

24 Mannina

104 109 213

25 Ndemban Chapichun

480 538 1018

26 Ndemban Jola 72 75 480 538 1008

27 Niji

125 113 238

28 Pirang

1034 1046 2080

29 Pirang

32 32 64

32

North Bank Region

No Village C/pounds H/Holds

Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Aljamdou

381 467 848

2. Alkali Kunda

377 405 782

3. Bakang

221 225 446

4. Bakindiki

472 481 953

5. Bally Mandinka 52 52 292 328 620

6. Bambali 93 143 536 608 1144

7. Banni 62 146 530 642 1172

8. Buniadou

315 376 691

9. Chamunding Ya

52 50 102

10. Darsilami 94 99 521 543 1064

11. Darusalaam

203 201 404

12. Dibba Kunda Fula 28 37 150 150 300

13. Gunjur 54 78 459 645 1104

14. Illiasa

445 505 950

15. India

232 290 522

16. Jajarri

280 379 659

17. Jammeh Kunda

257 286 543

18. Jinack 49 85 320 367 687

19. Jumansarr-kuta/koto

302 330 632

20. Kanikunda Suba 21. Kanikunda Tenda

205 226 431

22. Katchang 23 24 82 110 192

Berending

30 Sibanor 378 600 1434 1589 3023

31 Sintet 150 213 408 450 858

32 Sohm 55 96 409 363 772

33 Somita 251 268 1062 1138 2200

34 Sutusinjang 173 174 586 622 1208

35 Wassadou 58 102 435 384 819

18006 19015 37011

33

23. Kerewan 130 226 753 960 1713

24. Kerr Amadou 498 770 1793 2196 3989

25. Kerr Ousman Busso

75 86 161

26. Kerr Selleh

231 241 472

27. Kinteh Kd Janneh

67 73 140

28. Kuntaya 65 115 395 529 924

29. Lamin

489 544 1033

30. Makka B. Maane

361 478 839

31. Malick Nana

249 269 518

32. Ndawen

170 186 356

33. Ngayen Sanjal

63 82 145

34. Nyang Kunda

941 1162 2103

35. Pakau Njou 11 19 66 87 153

36. Pallen

596 583 1179

37. Salikenne

543 543 1086

38. Sami

1390 1761 3151

39. Sarr Kunda

455 398 853

40. Sika 72 149 552 639 1191

41. Sinchu Pallen

231 240 471

42. Sinchu Pallen

231 240 471

43. Sitanunku 98 100 360 424 784

44. Suwarreh Kunda

510 654 1164

45. Tambana 43 75 367 402 769

46. Touba Kolong 98 141 534 593 1127

18054 20984 39038

34

Central River Region (N) No Village C/pounds H/Holds Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Boiram 143 492 810 954 1764

2. Dankunku 140 141 510 615 1125

3. Fass Abdou 330 358 688

4. Ja Koto 21 154 144 156 300

5. Jamara 179 192 371

6. Jarreng 163 245 564 1030 1962

7. Kerewan D Hubai 281 284 656

8. Kerr Katim 239 337 576

9. Kudang 264 362 1009 1101 2110

10. Makka Mbayen 203 257 460

11. Malick Nana

12. Mamud Fanna 677 786 1463

13. Njaai Kunda 51 90 329 403 723

14. Njoben 104 228 840 984 1824

15. Nyameng Kunda 134 137 271

16. Papa 89 113 202

17. Pateh Sam 100 173 726 677 1403

18. Pinnai 109 148 257

19. Santangto Hurumang 14 107 138 142 280

20. Sapu 141 128 269

21. Sare Ngai 282 300 582

22. Sinchu Gundo 218 255 473

23. Sotokoi 86 113 409 488 897

8361 9845 18656

Central River Region (S)

No Village C/pounds H/Holds

Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Ali Fatim *

2. Ballangharr Nderry 1152 2017 7909 8231 16140

3. Bantanto Ker Sulay 29 51 214 201 415

4. Batty Ndarr 56 98 326 463 789

5. Chamen 83 145 579 586 1165

35

6. Doobo 313 344 657

7. Fass 50 100 417 385 802

8. Jamwelly 117 158 275

9. Jareng K Mamud 11 20 20 60 159

10. Jarreng Ndawen *

11. Jarumeh Koto 581 584 1165

12. Karantaba Tenda 78 110 188

13. Karantaba Torro 183 202 385

14. Kaur

15. Kayai 7 11 51 44 95

16. Kujew 17 21 80 93 173

17. Kuntaur Fula Kd *

18. Kuntaur Jakaba 73 98 390 407 791

19. Kunting 85 143 614 530 1144

20. Manjaharr

21. Manna 30 41 168 157 325

22. Pallang Mandinka 69 82 151

23. Sami Madina 322 344 666

24. Sitakoto 28 42 192 200 392

25. Tandi Mandinka 215 233 448

26. Touba Jakaba 384 407 791

27. Yonna 182 221 403

13404 14042 27519

36

Lower River Region

No Village C/pounds H/Holds

Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Badume 196 236 432

2. Bajana 36 55 202 243 444

3. Bambako 40 79 132 173 305

4. Barrow Kunda 165 289 1226 1089 2314

5. Boidel 18 26 99 108 207

6. Bureng *

7. Bureng Junction 75 300 687 721 1408

8. Dumbuto 333 397 730

9. Generri 72 111 491 397 888

10. Jail 65 142 495 642 1137

11. Jakoto 144 156 300

12. Jalamberre 312 331 643

13. Jamarr 5 18 32 36 68

14. Janneh Kunda 52 88 319 392 711

15. Jassobo 138 143 286

16. Jassung 317 284 601

17. Jattaba 72 133 380 461 841

18. Jenoi 117 334 542 574 1076

19. Jiffaong 105 139 496 616 1112

20. Jiffin 41 59 201 278 479

21. Jiroff 58 76 330 311 641

22. Jula Kunda 148 172 320

23. Kanni Kunda 102 137 496 601 1097

37

24. Karantaba 49 138 447 445 892

25. Kiaf 123 184 617 856 1473

26. Kulli Kunda 47 51 241 287 528

27. Kundong Numu Kd 70 76 146

28. Kwenella 152 228 806 1019 1825

29. Manduar 49 71 273 310 583

30. Massembe 53 73 455 511 966

31. Nema Kuta 45 48 120 142 262

32. Nioro Jataba 71 125 450 554 1004

33. Pakaliba 448 539 987

34. Pakalinding 169 1037 889 1148 3040

35. Sandeng 99 126 225

36. Sankandi 48 73 282 302 584

37. Sankuya 696 808 1504

38. Si Kunda 85 125 445 558 1003

39. Sitahouma 19 29 129 139 268

40. Soma 554 828 5461 5589 11050

41. Sutukung 86 150 577 628 1205

42. Tonia Taba 91 222 546 682 1228

20767 23080 44813

38

Upper River Region

No Village C/pounds H/Holds

Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

1. Chamoi 56 99 358 438 796

2. Danpha Kunda 252 441 1635 1898 3533

3. Sabi 359 629 2383 2652 5035

4. Sare Alpha 161 282 1044 1214 2258

5. Tamba Sangsang

509 594 1103

5929 6796 12725

Total 179762

Female 93762 52%

Male 84521 47%

39

List of People Met

Supporting Documents Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy 2007-2015 Crop Data Report December 2010 PIWAMP Quarterly reports Aide memiores from Supervision Missions

List of People met During the Mission

Honorable Kalifa Kambi Deputy Minsiter of Agriculture

Mr Alphu Marong Permanent Secretary 1 Minsitry of Agriculture

Mr Mod Ceesay Director, Loans and Debt Ministry of Finance

Mr Baboucarr Njie Central Project Coordination Unit

Mr Badou Bojang Chairman

Mr Omar Bojang Secretary

Mr Abou Marong Community member

Mr Binta Tourey Community member

Mr Juju Kassama Vice President

Mr Jai-ba Bojang Committee member

Ms Sajo Bojang Committee member

Ms Mabinta Bojang Committee member

Ms Saine-ba Bojang Committee member

Ms Abie Bojang Committee member

Mr Momodou Jallow Committee member

Mr Lamin Jawara Supervisor, Gibanack

Mr Alpha Darbo Animal Traction Officer

Mr Buba Manjang School Principal - sibanor Middle school

Mr Landing Jarju Livestock Committee member- Pirang

40

APPENDIX 1

Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

2 Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.

41

LIST OF ANNEXES

Mandatory

1. Project Costs and Financing a. Project costs by component b. Financing by sources of funds

2. Bank Inputs. List the key team members, and their specialties, during preparation and supervision. Provide a consolidated list of Preparation, Supervision and Completion Missions in chronological order. Provide the date and ratings of the last supervision report.

3. Economic Analysis (ERR) and Financial Analysis, if appropriate Re-estimate the economic rates of return based on costs and benefits at completion, and compare with apprailsal estimates. Break down by components as appropriate. Analyze the sensitivity of the ERR to key assumptions. Present a financial analysis for project beneficiary entities.

4. Procurement Plan. Please attached the most recent Procurement Plan

5. List of Supporting Documents

Optional

6. Project Narrative. Key factors not covered in the main template that affected the design and implementation of the project. Such factors, both positive and negative, could include: climate and weather, political changes, contractual or personnel matters, technical issues, procurement processes, and interactions with other partners. If any of these factors is significant enough to affect the evaluation ratings, it should be noted in the template with a reference to this annex.