The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...GEF-R2015-0014-2-Box39317… · OBSOLETE...

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: PAD1037

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED TRUST FUND GRANT

FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$7.0 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF CÔTE D'IVOIRE

FOR THE

OBSOLETE PESTICIDES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

August 7, 2015

Environment and Natural Resources Management Global Practice

Africa Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the

performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World

Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

i

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective July 8, 2015)

Currency Unit = Francs CFA (FCFA)

FCFA592.6 = US$1

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANADER

ASP

APV

AWPB

C2D

CEDEAO

CILSS

CBTP

CPF

CNRA

National Agency for Support to Rural Development (Agence Nationale

d’Appui au Développement Rural)

Africa Stockpiles Program

Provisional sale authorization (Autorisation provisoire de vente)

Annual Work Plan and Budget

Development and Debt Contract (Contrat Dette Développement) of the

French Government

Economic Community of the States of West Africa (Communauté

Économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest)

Community of States for the Fight against Desertification of the Sahel

(Communauté Inter-états pour la Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel)

Capacity Building and Training Plan

Country Partnership Framework

National Agricultural Research Council (Conseil national de recherche

agricole)

CQS

CSP

DA

DAF

DL

DPVCQ

EA

ECOWAS

Consultant’s Qualification Selection

Sahelian Pesticides Committee (Comité Sahélien des Pesticides, CSP)

Designated Account

Directorate of Financial Affairs (Direction de l’administration financière)

Disbursement Letter

Directorate for Crop Protection and Quality Control (of MINAGRI)

(Direction de la Protection des Végétaux et du Contrôle de la Qualité)

Environmental Assessment

Economic Community of West African States

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FBS

FCPF

FIP

Fixed Budget Selection

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Forest Investment Program

FM

FMS

GDP

Financial management

Financial Management Specialist

Gross Domestic Product

ii

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEO Global Environmental Objective

GIZ

GRS

German International Development Agency (Gesselschaft fur

Internationale Zusammenarbeit)

Grievance Redress Service

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

IC Individual Consultant

ICB International Competitive Bidding

IDA International Development Association

IFR Interim Financial Report

IGF

INS

IPAU

IPM

General Finance Inspection Office (Inspection Générale des Finances)

National Institute of Statistics (Institut National de la Statistique)

Integrated Projects Administration Unit

Integrated pest management

LCS Least Cost Selection

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MEF

Ministry of Economy and Finance (Ministère de l’Économie et des

Finances)

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture (Ministère de l’Agriculture)

MINESUDD

MIS

Ministry of Environment, Urban Health and Sustainable Development

(Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Salubrité Urbaine et du

Développement Durable)

Management information system

NIP

NSC

National Implementation Plan

National Steering Committee

OP

OP/BP

Obsolete pesticide

Operational Policy/Bank Procedure

PAD

PAO

PC

Project Appraisal Document

Professional Agricultural Organization

Pesticides Committee

PDO Project Development Objective

PEMFAR Public Expenditure Management and Accountability Review

PFM Public financial management

PIM

PMP

Project Implementation Manual

Pest Management Plan

POP Persistent organic pollutant

PPG Project Preparation Grant

PPP Public private partnership

PPR Post procurement review

PROFIAB

GIZ-funded Project for the Promotion of Agricultural Value Chains and

Biodiversity (Promotion des Filières Agricoles et de la Biodiversité)

PROGEP-CI

Côte d’Ivoire Obsolete Pesticides Project (Projet pour la gestion de

pesticides obsolètes en Côte d’Ivoire)

PSAC

Côte d’Ivoire Agricultural Sector Project (Projet d’appui au Secteur de

l’Agriculture de Côte d’Ivoire)

PSMS Pesticides Stock Management System

iii

QBS Quality-Based Selection

QCBS Quality- and Cost-Based Selection

RCI Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

RFP Request for Proposal

SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management

SBD Standard bidding document

SCD Systematic Country Diagnostic

SEP-REDD+

Permanent Executive Secretariat of the REDD+ (Secretariat Exécutif

Permanent-REDD+)

SOE Statement of expenditures

SSS Single Source Selection

TC

TORs

TTL

Technical Committee

Terms of reference

Task team leader

UNDP

UNEP

WAEMU

WB

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Économique et

Monétaire Ouest Africaine)

World Bank

Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop

Country Director: Ousmane Diagana

Senior Global Practice Director: Paula Caballero

Practice Manager: Benoît Bosquet

Task Team Leader(s): Douglas J. Graham and Salimata Follea

iv

CÔTE D’IVOIRE

Obsolete Pesticides Management Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1

A. Country Context ............................................................................................................ 1

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context ................................................................................. 2

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

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................................6

A. PDO............................................................................................................................... 6

B. Project Beneficiaries ..................................................................................................... 6

C. PDO Level Results Indicators ....................................................................................... 7

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................7

A. Project Components ...................................................................................................... 7

B. Project Financing ........................................................................................................ 10

C. Project Cost and Financing ......................................................................................... 10

D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design ................................................ 10

IV. IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................11

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 11

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 12

C. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 12

V. KEY RISKS ......................................................................................................................13

A. Overall Risk Rating and Explanation of Key Risks.................................................... 13

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................14

A. Economic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 14

B. Technical ..................................................................................................................... 15

C. Financial Management ................................................................................................ 16

D. Procurement ................................................................................................................ 17

E. Social (including Safeguards) ..................................................................................... 17

F. Environment (including Safeguards) .......................................................................... 18

v

G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered .......................................................................... 19

H. World Bank Grievance Redress .................................................................................. 19

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring .........................................................................20

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................25

Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................37

Annex 4: Implementation Support Plan ....................................................................................51

Annex 5: Incremental Costs Analysis ........................................................................................54

vi

.

PAD DATA SHEET

Cote d'Ivoire

Obsolete Pesticides Management Project (P131778)

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT .

AFRICA

0000009268

Report No.: PAD1037 .

Basic Information

Project ID EA Category Team Leader(s)

P131778 A - Full Assessment Douglas J. Graham, Salimata D.

Follea

Lending Instrument Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]

Specific Investment Loan Financial Intermediaries [ ]

Series of Projects [ ]

Project Implementation Start Date Project Implementation End Date

25-Aug-2015 30-Oct-2020

Expected Effectiveness Date Expected Closing Date

02-Nov-2015 30-Oct-2020

Joint IFC GEF Focal Area

No Persistent Organic

Pollutants

Practice Manager/Manager Senior Global Practice

Director Country Director Regional Vice President

Benoît Bosquet Paula Caballero Ousmane Diagana Makhtar Diop .

Borrower: Ministry of Economy and Finances

Responsible Agency: Ministry of Environment, Urban Health and Sustainable Development

Contact: George Kouadio Kouame Title: Directeur

Telephone No.: 22507764729 Email: [email protected] .

Project Financing Data(in USD Million)

[ ] Loan [ ] IDA Grant [ ] Guarantee

[ ] Credit [ X ] Grant [ ] Other

Total Project Cost: 10.80 Total Bank Financing: 0.00

Financing Gap: 0.00 .

vii

Financing Source Amount

Borrower 3.80

Global Environment Facility (GEF) 7.00

Total 10.80 .

Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual 0.50 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.90

Cumulative 0.50 1.90 3.30 4.70 6.10 7.00 .

Institutional Data

Practice Area (Lead)

Environment & Natural Resources

Contributing Practice Areas

Cross Cutting Topics

[ ] Climate Change

[ ] Fragile, Conflict & Violence

[ X ] Gender

[ X ] Jobs

[ ] Public Private Partnership

Sectors / Climate Change

Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)

Major Sector Sector % Adaptation

Co-benefits %

Mitigation

Co-benefits %

Agriculture, fishing, and forestry General agriculture,

fishing and forestry

sector

100

Total 100

I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information

applicable to this project. .

Themes

Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)

Major theme Theme %

Environment and natural resources

management

Pollution management and

environmental health

100

Total 100 .

viii

Proposed Global Environmental Objective(s)

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to improve the management of obsolete pesticides and

associated wastes in Côte d'Ivoire by the Government and other stakeholders. .

Components

Component Name Cost (USD Millions)

Regulatory and institutional framework 1.90

Management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes 6.50

Promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides 0.70

Project management 1.70 .

Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)

Risk Category Rating

1. Political and Governance Moderate

2. Macroeconomic Low

3. Sector Strategies and Policies Low

4. Technical Design of Project or Program Moderate

5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability Substantial

6. Fiduciary Moderate

7. Environment and Social Substantial

8. Stakeholders Moderate

9. Other

OVERALL Substantial .

Compliance

Policy

Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant

respects?

Yes [ ] No [ X ]

.

Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [ X ] No [ ] .

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No

Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X

Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X

Forests OP/BP 4.36 X

ix

Pest Management OP 4.09 X

Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X

Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X

Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X

Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X

Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 X

Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 X .

Legal Covenants

Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

Project Steering Committee 02-Dec-2015

Description of Covenant

I.A.1.a: To facilitate the carrying out of the Project, the Recipient shall create, not later than one (1)

month after the Effective Date, and then maintain, at all times during the implementation of the Project, a

national steering committee with mandate, composition and resources satisfactory to the World Bank

(“National Steering Committee”).


Maintenance of a project administration

unit X CONTINUOUS


I.A.2.a: The Recipient shall maintain, at all times during Project implementation, an administration unit

with mandate, composition and resources satisfactory to the World Bank, to be responsible for the

overall implementation of the Project.


Staffing of project administration unit 02-Feb-2016


I.A.2.b: The IPAU shall comprise, not later than three (3) months after the Effective Date and thereafter

at all times during Project implementation, a national Project coordinator, a procurement specialist, a

financial management specialist, an accountant, a communications specialist, a social development

specialist, an environmental specialist, and a M&E specialist.


Adoption of Project Implementation

Manual 02-Dec-2015


I.B.1: The Recipient shall prepare and adopt an implementation manual for the Project, no later than one

month after the Effective Date.


Submissions of annual work plans and

budgets X Yearly

x


I.C.1: No later than November 30 in each calendar year (or one month after the Effective Date for the

first year of Project implementation), the Recipient shall prepare and furnish to the World Bank a draft

annual work plan and budget for the Project for the subsequent calendar year of Project implementation,

of such scope and detail as the World Bank shall have reasonably requested.


Completion of obsolete pesticides

inventory 02-Nov-2016


I.D.1: The Recipient shall, not later than one (1) year after the Effective Date, complete the Obsolete

Pesticides Inventory.


Compliance with safeguard instruments X CONTINUOUS


I.D.1: The Recipient shall ensure that the Project is carried out in accordance with the Environmental and

Social Impact Assessment, including an Environmental and Social Management Plan, and a Safeguard

Manual.


External Auditor 02-May-2016


II.B.5: The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, appoint an external

auditor, with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the World Bank. .

Conditions

Source Of Fund Name Type

GEFU Authorization and ratification of Agreement Effectiveness

Description of Condition

Article III, 4.01 (a): The execution and delivery of this Agreement on behalf of the Recipient have been

duly authorized or ratified by all necessary governmental action.

Team Composition

Bank Staff

Name Role Title Specialization Unit

Douglas J. Graham Team Leader

(ADM

Responsible)

Senior

Environmental

Specialist

Task Team Leader GENDR

Salimata D. Follea Team Leader Natural Resources

Mgmt. Spec.

Co-Task Team

Leader

GENDR

Maurice Adoni Procurement

Specialist

Senior

Procurement

Specialist

Procurement

Specialist

GGODR

xi

Jean Charles Amon Kra Financial

Management

Specialist

Sr Financial

Management

Specialist

Financial

Management

Specialist

GGODR

Abdoulaye Gadiere Team Member Senior

Environmental

Specialist

Sr. Environmental

Specialist

GENDR

Aissatou Diallo Team Member Senior Finance

Officer

Disbursements WFALA

Andrea E. Stumpf Counsel Lead Counsel Legal Counsel LEGCF

Faly Diallo Team Member Financial Officer Senior Finance

Officer

WFALA

Lucienne M. M'Baipor Safeguards

Specialist

Senior Social

Development

Specialist

Social Safeguards GSURR

Mariame Bamba Team Member Program Assistant Team Assistant AFCF2

Marie Bernadette Darang Team Member Information

Assistant

Team Assistant GENDR

Melissa C. Landesz Safeguards

Specialist

Natural Resources

Mgmt. Spec.

Env. Safeguards GENDR

Extended Team

Name Title Office Phone Location

Gabriele Rechbauer Operation Specialist 33-624241938 France .

Locations

Country First

Administrative

Division

Location Planned Actual Comments

.

Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)

Consultants Required? Consulting services to be determined

1

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

A. Country Context

1. Between 1999 and 2011 the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (RCI) experienced a series of

political and economic crises. The upheavals, combined with poor governance, led to a

significant deterioration of living standards, following several decades of strong growth. The

annual economic growth rates during that period were among the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa

(averaging less than 2 percent). The most recent crisis followed the presidential election of

November 2010 and lasted until April 2011, with a heavy toll on livelihoods and the domestic

economy. Since mid-2011, the country has made significant progress in consolidating political

stability and is seizing the opportunity to tap its considerable social and economic potential.

2. The post-crisis economic recovery has proceeded at a rapid and sustained speed. Côte

d’Ivoire, with the active engagement of the international donor community, has embarked on an

ambitious and comprehensive program of reforms and investments aimed at leveraging its

considerable human capital, natural resources, and infrastructure endowments to spur robust,

broad-based, and sustainable economic growth. The country attained Heavily Indebted Poor

Countries (HIPC) Completion Point, and as a result, obtained significant debt relief in June 2012.

Since 2011, sound macroeconomic management combined with public and private investments

have underpinned improved economic growth. The economy grew at an average of 9.7 percent

from 2012 to 2013 before moderating to 7.9 percent in 2014. Public investment in infrastructure

(transport, energy, health, and education) and private investment in mining, agriculture, energy,

and housing have boosted domestic demand. The agricultural sector remains a key driver of

economic recovery. Inflation has remained low, stable, and resilient to global price volatility.

3. Côte d’Ivoire has a large, rapidly growing, and poor population. The country had a

population of 22.67 million in 2014. According to the National Institute of Statistics (Institut

National de la Statistique – INS), the annual population growth rate was estimated to be 2.6 percent

per year in 2013, down from 3.1 percent in 2009, but still among the highest in the world.1 Between

1985 and 2008, the estimated share of the population living below the poverty line more than

quadrupled, from around 10 percent to about 48.9 percent, marking a dramatic increase in the

depth and severity of poverty. Poverty is projected to decrease to 46.3 percent in 2015 as the

economy rebounds. Poverty continues to be overwhelmingly concentrated in rural areas, which

are home to 70 percent of poor households, with pronounced differences between the north and

the south.

4. Agriculture is a fundamental pillar of the Ivoirian economy, representing 24.3 percent of

GDP (2011)2. The majority of the poor continue to rely on agriculture, which occupies 46 percent

of the population.3 The country is the world’s largest producer of cocoa and among the most

important producers of cashews, bananas, pineapples, copra, palm oil, and rubber. Major reform

1 Institut National de la Statistique, 2015. Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitat 2014. 2 World Bank, 2015. African Development Indicators (on-line reference). 3 World Bank, 2015. Draft Country Partnership Framework for the Period FY16-FY19.

2

initiatives in recent years have most notably included key policy and institutional changes in the

cocoa sector, which have boosted producer income.

5. Intensive and widespread use of pesticides has been an important ingredient in the

impressive expansion of agriculture in Côte d’Ivoire. According to data compiled by the Ministry

of Environment, Urban Health and Sustainable Development (MINESUDD) and by the Ministry

of Agriculture (MINAGRI) as part of the preparation of this project, in 2014, commercial members

of CropLife-CI reported having commercialized 9,983 tons of pesticides for a value of FCFA48.3

billion (about US$81 million). This tonnage has tripled since 1995. It is estimated however that

CropLife-CI members accounted for only about 75 percent of the total quantity legally

commercialized in the country, giving an overall total of about 13,300 t/year. However, this

amount does not include illegal importations, which are estimated to represent 40 percent of the

total market for pesticides in Côte d’Ivoire suggesting a rough estimate of total pesticide use of

about 20,000 t/year. The principal uses of pesticides in the country are for cotton (about 50 percent

of the total quantity) and for cocoa (10 percent).

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context

6. Major use of synthetic pesticides has been instrumental for the expansion of

agriculture in Côte d’Ivoire and its contribution to the national economy. However, the use of

large quantities of pesticides, especially if inappropriately managed, can have important adverse

impacts. Inappropriate selection and use of pesticides has economic costs to farmers. Dispersal of

pesticides into the environment (soil, water, and air) can cause unintended impacts on the fauna

and flora. Human health can be impacted both from residual pesticides in the environment and in

food crops as well as from direct contact with pesticides during their use or when in storage. Many

cases of deaths or illnesses due to pesticides have been anecdotally reported in Côte d’Ivoire4 but

detailed data on health impacts have not been compiled for the country. The World Health

Organization estimates that worldwide, about three percent of exposed agricultural workers suffer

from acute pesticide poisoning per year.5

7. Obsolete pesticides6 (OPs) and their associated wastes, the principal focus of this

project, PROGEP-CI7, represent a special challenge since, in the absence of adequate storage

or disposal options, they can have disproportionate impacts on the environment and on human

health over long periods of time. In some cases, they may be particularly toxic chemicals, now

banned for use in the country. The dearth of satisfactory data on obsolete pesticide stocks is a

4 Ouattara A., 2008. Des pesticides qui tuent leurs utilisateurs. http://ipsinternational.org/fr/_note.asp?idnews=4029.

Consulted June 2015. 5 GEF Secretariat, 2010, “Chemicals Strategy”, part of GEF-5 Focal area strategies, available at www.gefweb.org. 6 Obsolete pesticides are defined here as pesticides which cannot be used or reformulated for another purpose. A

product could be obsolete for a variety of reasons: i) banned because of its toxicity and high risk; ii) not approved for

use in Côte d’Ivoire; iii) expired, past its due date, or lacking an appropriate label; or iv) counterfeited or otherwise

fraudulent in origin. There is no standard internationally accepted definition of “associated wastes” although the

Stockholm Convention covers “Products and articles in use and wastes consisting of, containing, or contaminated with

any POPs chemical.” In this project, “associated wastes” are understood to be empty containers, equipment, or material

contaminated by obsolete pesticides. In general in this document, and for convenience, the term “obsolete pesticides”

should be understood to mean “obsolete pesticides and their associated wastes”. 7 Project acronym PROGEP-CI is from the project name in French: “Projet pour la gestion de pesticides obsoletes en

Côte d’Ivoire”.

3

fundamental difficulty. Preliminary inventories carried out during preparation of this project

clearly point to major quantities in uncontrolled public (and probably private) storage sites but

much more work is needed to complete an adequate national inventory. There are legal and

regulatory challenges due to inadequate or outdated regulations in areas as diverse as importation,

use, storage, transport, and disposal. Finally, there are economic barriers to controlling the problem

of obsolete pesticides as storage and disposal are expensive, such costs are not reflected in the

costs of the products, and little attention has been paid to finding long-term financial models and

partnerships with the private sector which could help cover storage or disposal costs.

8. A range of different governmental institutions have some degree of authority or

responsibility over different aspects of the challenge of managing obsolete pesticides, and adequate

coordination and allocation of responsibilities is problematic. Although the ministries responsible

for agriculture and environment are the principal players, also important are the authorities

responsible for customs, health, and trade. Annex 3 includes a more complete description of the

institutions responsible for pesticides in Côte d’Ivoire.

9. Côte d’Ivoire is a member of a number of West African inter-state initiatives which

have produced regulations or created institutional arrangements for the management of pesticides.

The initiatives are over-lapping and some have not come into effect. The RCI needs to play a role

in these organizations, to help harmonize pesticide-related initiatives and to bring national

regulations and procedures into line with them, where appropriate. These regional organizations

include:

Economic Community of the States of West Africa (ECOWAS or in French, Communauté

Économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, CEDEAO). ECOWAS has adopted the

Regulation N°C/REG.3/5/20088 of 18 May 2008 which harmonizes rules for approval of

pesticides across the member countries. Regulation 2/06/12 of 2012 established the West

African Pesticide Approval Committee (Comité Ouest Africain d’Homologation des

Pesticides).

Community of States for the Fight against Desertification of the Sahel (Communauté Inter-

états pour la Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel, CILSS). CILSS in 1992 created a

common regulation on approval of pesticides followed by a 1994 resolution, which created

the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (Comité Sahélien des Pesticides, CSP). Côte d’Ivoire is

part of CILSS but is not yet a member of the CSP. For that reason, it was not included in

an important project implemented by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and

financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) that has just begun implementation

and is very similar to the present project but is being carried out in Burkina Faso, Chad,

Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal.9

West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). In 2009 it adopted the

Regulation N°04/2009/CM/UEMOA to harmonize regulations related to approval,

commercialization, and control of pesticides in the member states. The regulation is not yet

8 http://www.agric.comm.ecowas.int/Reglementation/pesticides/

9 The project title is “Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides Including POPs and Strengthening Pesticide Management of

The Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de la Lutte Contre la Secheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS) Member States” and it is

a project of US$38.2 million of which $US7.45 million is the contribution from GEF.

http://www.agric.comm.ecowas.int/Reglementation/pesticides/

4

effective, pending the formal adoption of the Regional Pesticides Committee (Comité

Régional des Pesticides de l’Union).

10. RCI is party to a number of other international conventions and international

agreements, falling under the broader agenda of chemicals management. The country is a

signatory to and has ratified the following conventions and international agreements which are

particularly pertinent to pesticides management:

Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), www.saicm.org

adopted by Côte d’Ivoire in 2006.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), www.chm.pops.int,

signed and ratified by Côte d’Ivoire in 2003.

Rotterdam Convention on International Trade of Hazardous Chemicals Based on Prior-

Informed-Consensus (PIC), www.pic.int, ratified by Côte d’Ivoire in 2003.

Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their

Disposal, www.basel.int, ratified by Côte d’Ivoire in 2003.

Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and Control of Transboundary

Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa.

Côte d’Ivoire is member of the Organization of Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

since 1995 (https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/related-international-

agreements/toxic-chemicals-and-the-environment/bamako-convention).

International Code of Conduct of Pesticide Management, approved by the FAO Conference

in 2013 (www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/code).

11. With regard to the Stockholm Convention, in 2006, the country elaborated the National

Implementation Plan (NIP) to implement the Convention, financed by a grant from the GEF

through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The most important action

undertaken under the NIP was an inventory of POPs, including POPs pesticides, carried out in

2006 by MINESUDD, which however was very limited in scope, essentially covering only

Abidjan, due to civil strife. The poor quality of data collected in this study does not allow for any

realistic estimate of the amounts of obsolete pesticides or POPs pesticides in the country. A further

grant from the GEF, though the United Nations International Development Organization

(UNIDO), approved in July 2013, will allow for the updating of the NIP, but not for additional

inventories; as of March 2015, the consultative phase had been completed and a final report is

expected in late 2015.

12. Some projects and networks are tackling specific aspects of more efficient and

sustainable use of pesticides and this project draws on these efforts and has explicit parallel co-

financing agreements with several of them:

IDA-funded Côte d’Ivoire Agricultural Sector Project (Projet d’appui au Secteur de

l’Agriculture de Côte d’Ivoire, PSAC) which funds productivity enhancement (including

more rational and environmentally sustainable use of pesticides), market access, and sector

governance.

West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP), initiated by the Economic

Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and by the World Bank through a 10-year

series of projects, aims to contribute to a sustainable increase in productivity within the

http://www.pic.int/

http://www.basel.int/

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/related-international-agreements/toxic-chemicals-and-the-environment/bamako-convention

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/related-international-agreements/toxic-chemicals-and-the-environment/bamako-convention

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/code

5

national and regional priority sectors while supporting regional integration as a means of

achieving shared growth and poverty alleviation in West Africa, www.waapp-ci.org.

GIZ-funded project to promote agricultural value chains and biodiversity: PROFIAB

(Promotion des Filières Agricoles et de la Biodiversité).

CropLife Côte d’Ivoire is a member of CropLife Africa, a regional federation representing

the plant science industry and national associations, provides training and awareness

raising support to local farmers and the agricultural support organizations and entities,

http://croplifeafrica.org/.

13. The rationale for the Bank’s involvement in the sector is multifold. Most immediately,

it is imperative to stem ongoing and future impacts on the environment and human health that are

posed by leaking and inappropriately stored obsolete pesticides. Efforts to stem a future build-up

of obsolete pesticides, by encouraging alternatives to pesticides and better management of

synthetic pesticides where there are currently no alternatives, will reap economic benefits and

make Ivoirian agriculture more competitive and sustainable in the long-term.

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes

14. The project will assist the Government of Côte d’Ivoire in complying with its

commitments to a range of international conventions and treaties to which it is party and which

concern the management of chemicals, including pesticides and POPs. These have been noted in

the previous section. The project will contribute to the Government being able to comply with its

commitments under these international treaties and to play a more important role on the

international scene.

15. The project addresses issues on agricultural development which are noted in the World

Bank Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD).10 The SCD plays a central role in informing the

Country Partnership Framework (CPF) to be presented to the World Bank’s Board of Executive

Directors in FY16 and is focused on the development of skilled and competitive human capital as

the center of Côte d’Ivoire’s medium and long-term strategies to sustain long-term growth and

improve competitiveness. Higher agricultural production and diversification is a central tenet of

the proposed CPF. This proposed project is thus in line with the World Bank’s focus on the

agricultural sector and will be important to both minimize unintended negative impacts and to

optimize agricultural production. By addressing the health and income of poor farmers, who are

disproportionately impacted by adverse consequences associated with the use of obsolete

pesticides, the project is supportive of the World Bank corporate goals which are i) end extreme

poverty: reduce the percentage of people living on less than US$1.25 a day to 3 percent by 2030;

and ii) promote shared prosperity: foster income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population

in every country.

16. The higher-level objectives of the GEF as per the GEF-5 Chemicals Strategy11 is “to

promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to the

minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the global environment”. More

10 World Bank Group, 2015, From crisis to sustained growth, priorities for ending poverty and boosting shared

prosperity: Systematic Country Diagnosis (SCD) (draft document). 11 GEF Secretariat, 2010, “Chemicals Strategy”, part of GEF-5 Focal area strategies, available at www.gefweb.org.

http://croplifeafrica.org/

6

specifically, this proposed project is consistent with the GEF’s Objective 1 to “Phase out POPs

and reduce POPs releases”, and with 4 of the 5 expected outcomes: production and use of

controlled POPs chemicals phased out; POPs releases to the environment reduced; POPs wastes

prevented, managed, and disposed of and POPs contaminated sites managed in an environmentally

sound manner; and country capacity built to effectively phase out and reduce release of POPs.

Although the GEF strategy would imply a focus on POPs pesticides12, in practice this cannot be

effectively achieved except by addressing obsolete pesticides more broadly, of which POPs

pesticides are a part.

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

A. PDO

17. The Project development objective (PDO) is to improve the management of obsolete

pesticides and associated wastes in Côte d’Ivoire by the Government and other stakeholders. Other

stakeholders are understood to be key actors of non-governmental organizations and from the

private sector involved in importation, fabrication, use, storage, and disposal of pesticides.

B. Project Beneficiaries

18. Local beneficiaries. Obsolete pesticide stocks are often located in areas where local

communities are poor, uninformed, and most vulnerable to contamination. The major beneficiaries

of the project are expected to be poor rural or urban communities inadvertently living in the vicinity

of public (and to some extent private) obsolete pesticide stocks, which will see significant

reductions in exposure to dangerous chemicals. By supporting more efficient pesticide use and by

reducing the use of toxic classes of pesticides, farmers will benefit from reduced costs and from

reduced environmental and health impacts in areas where they live and work. Local beneficiaries

are estimated at 100,000 persons (of which half are female). Women form a disproportionate share

of the rural agricultural work force, and in poor rural areas, often use old pesticide containers for

water or food storage, exposing themselves and their families to contamination and poisoning.

19. Beneficiaries at the government level. National ministries responsible for health,

environment, customs, and agriculture will benefit from the project’s investments in the regulatory

and legal environment and in improving institutional coordination. Creating or improving basic

data management tools such as databases on pesticide use will help all agencies better carry out

their functions. Key beneficiaries are in the regional departments.

20. Private sector. Private sector interests involved in the production, transport, sale, and use

of pesticides will benefit from the project’s support to a revised regulatory framework and will

support their own interests in minimizing environmental impacts from pesticide use. CropLife-

Côte d’Ivoire represents the bulk of such private sector companies and their co-financing and

support of this project signals their interest in its success. Companies which will promote

integrated pest management will benefit from research and field testing under this project.

12 The fourteen POPs pesticides are: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex,

toxaphene, chlordecone, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, lindane, and

pentachlorobenzene.

7

21. Environmental beneficiaries. Reduced environmental pollution from pesticides will benefit

the environment in general, particularly animal or plant species sensitive to toxic or persistent

contaminants. Reduced water and soil contamination will benefit both human populations and the

environment. These benefits are global in that globally important biodiversity will be protected

both in situ and by reducing possibilities of transboundary contamination.

C. PDO Level Results Indicators

22. Key performance indicators (KPIs), defined at the level of the PDO, are the following:

Data on OPs and associated waste publicly accessible.

OPs and OPs waste destroyed, disposed, or contained in an environmentally sound manner

(World Bank core indicator); the two following are breakdown indicators.

OPs and associated waste safely contained at targeted sites.

OPs and associated waste safely disposed of.

Number of beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender (World Bank core indicator).

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Components

23. A detailed description of the proposed components and sub-components is included in

Annex 2 as well as an indication of activities to be supported under the project. More detailed

proposals and budgets are available in project files and will be used to constitute the detailed annual

work plans and budgets. The following is a brief summary of the proposed project structure. The

project funding that is noted below includes the GEF grant and the Government counterpart

funding. Parallel co-financing is detailed in Annex 5.

Component 1. Regulatory and institutional framework (US$1.5 million from the GEF and

US$0.4 million in Government counterpart funding)

24. This component will reinforce the regulatory framework governing the management

of pesticides by assisting the Government with new regulatory instruments or to modify/update

existing regulations and laws. It will additionally strengthen the institutional capacity of key

stakeholders, including those in Government and in the private sector, to play a role in the

management of obsolete pesticides. Specific training activities in technical areas and of local

beneficiaries would be included in other components, as pertinent. The component is divided into

two sub-components.

25. Sub-component 1.1. Strengthening the regulatory framework. Several major

improvements to the regulatory framework are needed. First and most important, the January 1989

decree relative to the approval, fabrication, sale, and use of pesticides needs to be modified to

update its texts and introduce an effective sanction regime. This decree needs to be expanded to

adequately address issues related to obsolete pesticides and their associated wastes. Additionally,

it would be desirable to prepare a decree, in accordance with the spirit of the polluter pays

8

principle, which imposes a cost recovery structure in relationship to the toxicity of the pesticide.

MINAGRI needs an ordinance (or a law) regulating the transportation, storage, and disposal of

obsolete pesticides and that provides for dissuasive sanctions. The project will finance the writing

of drafts, support necessary consultations with all key stakeholders, and support the Government

as needed for their passage and approval. All laws or regulations need to be harmonized with

regional laws.

26. Sub-component 1.2. Strengthening the institutional framework. This sub-component

aims to strengthen the institutional framework and the technical capacity of key actors and

stakeholders with a critical role in the management of pesticides. The role of the principal national

actors (including MINAGRI, MINESUDD, customs, laboratories, professional agricultural

organizations, and the private sector) involved in the management of pesticides and hazardous

waste are described in detail in Annex 2. The project, under this sub-component, would focus on

strengthening the technical capacity of key actors in and outside of government. Importantly, this

sub-component would also support the elaboration of a national strategy for the management of

obsolete pesticides and their associated wastes. This would require clear upfront definition of the

roles of each actor in the preparation of the strategy, preparation, public consultations, and

institutionalization of the strategy to ensure its sustainability. In addition, a sensitization and

information campaign about good management of obsolete pesticides will be developed and

implemented.

Component 2. Management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes (US$4.2 million

from the GEF and US$2.3 million in Government counterpart funding)

27. This component will support the efficient management of stocks of obsolete pesticides

and their associated wastes through three sub-components, which are described below. Annex

2 includes a summary review of pesticide management in the country and a review of current

knowledge about the status of obsolete pesticides. Under this component, one full-time technical

specialist will be contracted to support MINESUDD and another to support MINAGRI; these

consultants will be physically located in the respective ministries.

28. Sub-component 2.1. Pesticides inventory. The lack of information (type/substances,

quantity, and location) on obsolete pesticides in the country must be addressed through a

comprehensive national inventory, building on a preliminary survey carried out during the

preparation phase and taking advantage of an existing international inventory system, the

Pesticides Stock Management System (PSMS) of the FAO. The PSMS will inventory both

privately held and publicly held obsolete stocks. Under this sub-component, the project will also

support a study tour to Mali, contract an international expert to provide oversight on the inventory,

purchase equipment, and obtain better information on the pesticides market in the country (and the

relative prevalence of illegal pesticides). The data from the inventory will be linked to the pesticide

management information system (see Sub-component 2.3).

29. Sub-component 2.2. Storage and disposal of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes.

This sub-component is concerned with the elimination or safe storage of prioritized obsolete

pesticides and their associated wastes based on the findings from the inventory and following

9

international standards and regulations. No activities are planned under this sub-component for the

first year of the project, pending results of the inventory.

30. Sub-component 2.3. Pesticides management information system. This sub-component

will support the development of a pesticides management information system (MIS), its validation,

use, and administration. The MIS will need to be carefully designed to be as simple as possible, to

ensure dissemination of key information to the public, and to be sustainable both financially and

institutionally. The MIS should provide information on quantities and locations of obsolete

pesticides in the country, on progress in storing and disposing pesticides, and on importation and

trade of pesticides. The sub-component will support consultants and studies, data collection,

consultations, training, some equipment and connectivity costs on a declining cost sharing basis.

The MIS will need to link to the PSMS used in the inventory as well as linking to the national

environmental information system under development by MINESUDD.

Component 3. Promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides (US$0.6 million from the GEF

and US$0.1 million in Government counterpart funding)

31. The management of obsolete stocks must also include measures to prevent their

continuing build-up. This in part can be achieved through an upstream reduction in the use of

synthetic and potentially dangerous pesticides. The promotion of integrated pest management

(IPM) can reduce the use of such pesticides by promoting biological pesticides and through

changes in agricultural practices while achieving additional benefits related to the health of rural

communities and the quality of the natural resources (soil, water, natural habitats and wildlife

species).

32. This component proposes investments in research, training, and education for a total

of about US$600,000. Investments in design and implementation of IPM alternatives will focus

on a selection of pilot areas in existing farms in the cotton and cocoa zones where pesticide use is

high, and will support the inclusion of IPM in educational curricula. As part of training and

capacity building for key actors and stakeholders who play a critical role in the management of

pesticides and as guidance for field demonstrations in pilot areas, a Pest Management Plan (PMP)

focused on IPM alternatives will be prepared during project implementation. The component will

contribute to IPM research and training efforts through a management committee for the pilot

demonstrations, communication program and curricula development for agricultural schools.

Component 4. Project management (US$0.7 million from the GEF and US$1.0 million in

Government counterpart funding)

33. This component includes financing to put in place an efficient management system

for the implementation of the project. The project will be managed by the Integrated Projects

Administration Unit (IPAU) which will be responsible for management of World Bank-financed

projects executed by MINESUDD. It includes support for key consultants and for the day-to-day

management of project activities such as monitoring and evaluation (M&E), financial

management, procurement, and audits. A detailed budget has been prepared and is available in the

project archives.

10

B. Project Financing

34. The project is financed by a grant of US$7.0 million from the Global Environment

Facility (GEF). The Government is contributing counterpart funding of US$3.8 million for a total

project cost of US$10.8 million. Parallel co-financing of US$24 million is provided by the private

sector (CropLife-Côte d’Ivoire) and several donor-financed projects as reported on in more detail

in the Incremental Costs Annex (Annex 5).

C. Project Cost and Financing

35. The following table summarizes the distribution of funds between the four components and

sub-components and between the funding sources. The only funding included here is the GEF

resources and the Government counterpart funding. The parallel co-financing is shown in Annex

5.

D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design

36. The Africa Stockpiles Program (ASP), a major multi-country initiative on obsolete

pesticides in Africa, funded by the World Bank and other partners including FAO, and other

similar initiatives supported by development partners, generated a number of important lessons,

noted below. An excellent summary13 of lessons learned in the management of obsolete pesticides

in Romania and Moldova reinforced these key lessons.

37. A national inventory system of tracking pesticides throughout their life-cycle is

critical. Ideally, the first step is to carry out an inventory of obsolete stocks in the country during

the preparation phase to avoid implementation delays and assist with planning. Subsequently, a

system needs to be established to regularly up-date the inventory to avoid future accumulation and

ensure sound management. This was the key lesson learned from Romania and Moldova.

13 Paun, M. C., V. Plesca, J. Vijgen, and R. Weber, 2014. Management and disposal of obsolete pesticide stock:

Case studies, Romania and the Republic of Moldova.

Costs % GEF % RCI %

Component 1: Regulatory and institutional framework 1,900,000 17.6 1,500,000 78.9 400,000 21.1

1.1 Strengthening the regulatory framework 400,000 3.7 300,000 75.0 100,000 25.0

1.2 Strengthening the institutional framework 1,500,000 13.9 1,200,000 80.0 300,000 20.0

Component 2: Management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes 6,500,000 60.2 4,200,000 64.6 2,300,000 35.4

2.1 Pesticides inventory 1,200,000 11.1 900,000 75.0 300,000 25.0

2.2 Storage and disposal of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes 4,800,000 44.4 2,900,000 60.4 1,900,000 39.6

2.3 Pesticides management information system 500,000 4.6 400,000 80.0 100,000 20.0

Component 3: Promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides 700,000 6.5 600,000 85.7 100,000 14.3

Component 4: Project Management 1,700,000 15.7 700,000 41.2 1,000,000 58.8

TOTAL COST 10,800,000 100.0 7,000,000 64.8 3,800,000 35.2

ComponentsCost (US$) Source of Funding

11

38. Under this project, a preliminary survey of stocks was carried out and a consultancy

prepared specific and detailed guidelines for the national inventory. However, the inventory itself

has been delayed and will be done as a matter of priority within six months into project

implementation. The project will further support a development of a database of obsolete

pesticides in synergy with other existing pesticide related data systems. Partnerships with the

private sector (CropLife-Cote d’Ivoire) and other development partners will assist with building

national capacity.

39. Activities to prevent new build-up of obsolete pesticide stocks are essential. Obsolete

pesticide projects have sometimes prioritized the elimination of stocks without sufficient attention

to activities and investments that will prevent the continued build-up of new stocks in the country.

40. The project includes resources for disposal and for securing storage sites, but the major

part of the project focuses on the measures needed to reduce the long-term build-up of new stocks.

These include both regulatory and institutional changes as well as training in proper use. An entire

component will pilot IPM alternatives to pesticides in cotton and cocoa as a first step in what will

have to be a long-term strategy to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides.

41. Strengthening of national technical and coordination capacity is key. In many

countries, absence or weakness of national technical and coordination capacity to carry out the

inventory, prioritization screening and risk assessment was a constraint to project implementation.

42. Weak technical and cross-sectoral coordination capacity in Côte d’Ivoire in pesticides

management is considered to be a high risk for the project and will indeed require substantive

investments. The project includes resources for training and development of capacity throughout

the design, in each component and sub-component as needed. In addition, the project will

strengthen existing institutional entities such as the National Pesticide Committee and other trade-

related entities to address adequately these issues across the entire life cycle of pesticide use.

43. Knowledge sharing and regional learning facilitates implementation. The problem of

obsolete pesticides is common to many countries. The use of experiences and knowledge related

to disposal, decontamination of sites and prevention across countries is often a cost-efficient option

to strengthen capacity, form partnerships and reduce implementation delays.

44. The project design has benefitted from experiences elsewhere. As part of the capacity

building efforts, the project will support development of learning exchanges with other countries,

particularly with neighboring Mali where a related World Bank-financed project is under

implementation (Mali Obsolete Pesticides Disposal and Prevention Project).

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

45. Annex 3 provides a complete overview of institutional and implementation

arrangements. In summary, MINESUDD is the implementing agency on behalf of the

Government of Côte d’Ivoire. MINAGRI is a critical partner of the project and will be technically

12

responsible for the oversight of several of the components or sub-components. Many other

ministries or governmental organizations are also involved in one way or another in the

management of obsolete pesticides. A National Steering Committee (NSC) will be critical to

ensure coordination and oversight of the project. A Technical Committee (TC) under the NSC will

bring together national technical experts in an advisory function.

46. MINESUDD is already implementing another Bank-financed project, the FCPF-

REDD+ Project (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility-Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and

Degradation), managed by the Permanent Executive Secretariat of the REDD+ (SEP-REDD+). To

facilitate implementation and to maximize cost effectiveness, this administrative unit will become

a single administrative unit within MINESUDD, called the Integrated Projects Administration Unit

(IPAU) to administer the two projects. All key staff will need to be in place within three months

of effectiveness. A draft Project Implementation Manual (PIM) has been prepared and a formal

non-objection from the World Bank for the final version will be required within one month of

effectiveness.

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation

47. Design of and support to capacity-building on M&E under the project aims to provide

sufficient and necessary information and data on obsolete pesticides to meet the needs and

demands for evidence-based policy formulation in the sector as well as to facilitate assessment

of progress against the PDO. The main issues relate to quality of data, especially validity and

reliability of data and their timeliness and in making critical information publicly available and

easily accessible. Annex 1 defines the project indicators at PDO and intermediate level, baselines,

targets, appropriate data sources as well as the responsibility for data collection. The Project

Implementation Manual includes an M&E manual with more detailed explanation of each

indicator, how it is defined, how it will be measured, and how it shall be interpreted.

48. A dedicated full-time Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) specialist will be one of the core

members of the IPAU (and will thus be working on both PROGEP-CI and on the FCPF-REDD+

Project). This person will maintain the projects’ data on all indicators and will coordinate the inputs

of the many actors who will be responsible for collection and interpretation of data, primarily

specialists of MINESUDD and MINAGRI.

C. Sustainability

49. The sustainability of efforts to reduce stockpiles of obsolete pesticides depends on

efforts to minimize the continuing build-up in the long-term of new stockpiles. This in turn depends

on putting in place an efficient management system of pesticides, reducing illegal use and

importation, improving the regulatory framework and capacity of key actors to carry out their

functions, building partnerships with the private sector, and on introducing economic incentives

for correct use, storage, and disposal of OPs and their wastes. The largest part of the project’s

resources are dedicated to these goals.

50. Additional elements of sustainability include the use of the PSMS as the core inventory

tool, taking advantage of a well-developed and sustainable information system for pesticides. At

13

the project management level, the administration of the project is intended to ensure the

sustainability and efficiency of MINESUDD’s management of projects.

V. KEY RISKS

A. Overall Risk Rating and Explanation of Key Risks

51. Two risks are considered as Substantial, which has led to an overall risk rating of

Substantial. Institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability is of concern because of

the low capacity of MINESUDD and MINAGRI, both technical and administrative. The extremely

long delays incurred during project preparation were in part due to limited capacity of

MINESUDD to technically prepare the project and to manage the preparation funds. As a

consequence, the project is structured so that the administration will be confided to a more

experienced Ministry unit, which is already implementing an ongoing World Bank-financed

project, the FCPF-REDD+ project. Technically, it is anticipated that extensive training to be

financed under the project will build up capacity of key actors in both MINESUDD and

MINAGRI, but this will remain a project risk.

52. Environmental safeguard risks are also rated as Substantial, in line with the Category

A (full assessment) classification and the real risks that are associated with the storage, transport,

and disposal of toxic substances. There may be risks with regard to public perception of potential

impacts from storage or disposal options. However, the project safeguard instruments have been

developed by the Recipient, borrowing heavily from standard mitigation approaches that have been

developed and successfully put into implementation over many years by FAO and other actors.

The residual safeguard risk is considered low.

Risk Category Rating

1. Political and Governance Moderate

2. Macroeconomic Low

3. Sector Strategies and Policies Low

4. Technical Design of Project or Program Moderate

5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability Substantial

6. Fiduciary Moderate

7. Environment and Social Substantial

8. Stakeholders Moderate

9. Other

OVERALL Substantial

14

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

A. Economic Analysis

53. Pesticides can be obsolete for different reasons (see definition footnote above in Section

I. B). The economic considerations of the development impact of the project differ for each type

of obsolete pesticide. If pesticides are obsolete because they are not approved and are then used

inappropriately for agricultural purposes, there is a potential agricultural production cost absorbed

by the farmer from the use of an inefficient or inappropriate product.

54. In the case of pesticides that are obsolete because they are banned (or not approved for

specific uses) due to their toxicity, the use of an unapproved product may have negative

environmental impacts on fauna and flora, on livestock, or on human health (all of which have

economic costs). When using unapproved or incorrect pesticides, the quality of the agricultural

products and health of the user/consumer may be affected adversely. If these pesticides are

inadequately stored, they are particularly problematic for impacts on human health and on the

environment, as these products may be leaking or directly contaminating people. If agricultural

land is contaminated, it may become unsuitable for other purposes, an additional opportunity cost.

55. If the pesticides became obsolete because they have been seized following

mismanagement or illegal use, there is an opportunity cost associated with the original

acquisition (by the farmer or the reseller) and there may be a replacement cost to procure new

products. In these cases, there are also costs associated with the state’s monitoring, detection, and

seizing of illegal products. There are also costs for the private sector that result from illegal

importations causing a loss of legitimate business opportunities.

56. Once obsolete pesticides are adequately stored, but not disposed of, they continue to

represent a cost for the national economy in a variety of ways. Management and storage of obsolete

stocks have costs in terms of building and maintaining storage facilities, which are recurring until

the products are disposed of adequately.

57. The potential costs above are difficult to calculate, as they are highly variable and

manifested only in some circumstances or are intangible (e.g., impacts on agricultural

production, costs of impacts on human health or deaths, or costs of controlling illegal activity).

The net benefits of this project should be positive and substantive. Most likely, the greatest

economic benefits will accrue from reduced morbidity and mortality and from more efficient

agricultural production due to optimized use of pesticides (even a small percent productivity

increase will constitute an important economic benefit, one that accrues annually into the future,

given the size of the agricultural sector in Côte d’Ivoire). The project’s major investment in

capacity building of governmental and non-governmental actors will have long-term benefits,

albeit difficult to quantify.

58. Due to the high costs of disposal (estimated at US$3900/metric ton)14 the project will be

able to cover complete elimination costs of an estimated 250 metric tons with GEF resources

14 This average unit cost includes large transportation costs to repackage the OPs and transport them to an approved

European incineration facility.

15

(additional tonnage will be covered with Government counterpart funds). Although expensive,

elimination of each metric ton of pesticides is particularly important for minimizing environmental

and human health costs as products prioritized for disposal will be the most toxic obsolete

pesticides.

59. Although only undertaken as a pilot activity, the project’s support of integrated pest

management (IPM) will produce economic benefits in a long-term perspective because of helping

to replace high costs of synthetic pesticides with lower-cost alternatives. This benefit will not

accrue during the lifetime of this project but the basis for a future expansion of IPM will have been

laid.

60. Public sector financing of this project is justified because it seeks to avoid environmental

and health impacts of poorly managed obsolete pesticide stocks which pose a hazard to the general

population and which are in many cases directly managed by the state. A contribution to better

management of pesticides will have important economic returns from a more efficient agricultural

sector. It should be noted also that, under a polluter pays principle, the private sector must also

absorb costs of improved management of stocks and the project will seek to achieve this goal

through improvements in the regulatory framework.

61. The World Bank’s value added for a project to manage obsolete pesticide stocks is

founded in the Bank’s long experience with similar projects in many countries of the World, such

as Mali, Morocco, Tanzania, Ethiopia, South Africa, Moldova, and Romania. During

implementation, the Bank will seek every possible opportunity to encourage South-South learning

from these initiatives and the incorporation of lessons learned.

B. Technical

62. The appropriate technical options for safe disposal of prioritized pesticides and

associated wastes will be prepared once the inventories have been completed. The technical

options will be in line with international health, safety and emission standards and in compliance

with both the Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques, Best Environmental Practice

(BAT/BEP) guidelines, and the appropriate Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention

Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management. Furthermore, the Project will refer

to and follow the recommendations and minimum standards described in the International Code

of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2003), in the Stockholm Convention

on persistent organic pollutants and those related to the Basel Convention for Control of

Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods

Code, and the Rotterdam Convention for Prior Informed Consent. The project will conduct a

rigorous analysis of all available disposal technology schemes according to international standards

for the industry, including additional criteria such as cost, safety, emissions, and risks. In practice,

at least in the early stage of the project, this is expected to result in obsolete pesticide stocks and

associated wastes being safeguarded to be incinerated at high temperature in order to meet the

above-mentioned requirements. Alternative disposal technologies will be identified for possible

use at a later stage.

16

C. Financial Management

63. Project implementation arrangements including financial management aspects build on

the Ministry’s recent experience in implementing Bank-financed operations. An assessment

of the Directorate of Financial Affairs (DAF), which uses the public financial management (PFM)

system for MINESUDD resource management, was conducted during project preparation to check

whether this directorate could manage the proposed project. The main findings arising from this

assessment conducted in May 2015 were as follows: (a) lack of familiarity of the financial

management (FM) team with Bank-financed project procedures and requirements; (b) lack of

coordination among the various programs implemented by the Ministry and inefficient use of the

limited human resources available; (c) the computerized system in place for budget execution and

financial reporting faces some challenges similar to those revealed in the second Public

Expenditure Management and Accountability Review (PEMFAR II) report. However, the

assessment revealed that some donor-financed projects, such as those of the World Bank, were

already being implemented by various specialized departments of the MINESUDD or stand-alone

units, each program having its own FM arrangements and procedures including disbursement and

financial reporting.

64. The second Public Expenditure Management and Accountability Review and the

Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability, undertaken in 2013, revealed significant

improvements in Côte d’Ivoire’s PFM system over the past three years, but also highlighted

critical areas in need of improvement. The assessments recommended improvements to address

the following key constraints: (a) the persistence of large arrears; (b) insufficient controls and

consolidation at different levels of government; (c) an inadequate macroeconomic framework to

forecast the level of revenues; (d) the absence of multi-year budgeting; (e) incomplete reporting

on budget execution; and (f) weak internal and external controls.

65. The FM team of the SEP-REDD+, which is the project coordination unit of the FCPF-

REDD+ under the MINESUDD, will form the core of the FM unit of the IPAU, to be

supplemented by additional consultants to be engaged under PROGEP-CI. Implementation of

PROGEP-CI will increase the demand on the IPAU, which will require more sophisticated control

systems and adequate staff, an effective internal audit function, a manual of procedures as part of

the overall PIM for the project, and an integrated information system and software.

66. Based on the findings of the Bank’s capacity assessment as well as the conclusions of

various PFM diagnostic reports taking into account the key areas for improvement described

above, the IPAU will undertake the following measures to mitigate foreseen risks and

strengthen their financial management capacity: (a) recruit, on a competitive basis, one

experienced FMS familiar with Bank FM procedures as well as one assistant accountant; (b)

acquire multi-projects accounting software; (c) finalize the FM procedures manual; and (d)

delegate the responsibility for internal audits of the project to the General Finance Inspection

Office (Inspection Générale des Finances, IGF). Project resources will be allocated to the IGF to

enhance its capacity to do so. Having in place appropriate staff within the IPAU within three

months of effectiveness is a legal covenant under the project.

17

D. Procurement

Assessment of the capacity of the agencies to implement procurement

67. An assessment of the SEP-REDD+ procurement capacity and its recent experience in

managing the FCPP-REDD+ Bank-financed project was carried out and was deemed

adequate for execution of procurement aspects of the PROGEP-CI. The assessment evaluated

the following: (a) experience in procurement, (b) staff capacity, (c) capacity of filing of

procurement documents, and (d) the existence of an implementation manual on procurement. The

assessment concluded that the SEP-REDD+ capacity was acceptable to the Bank based on its

implementation of FCPF-REDD+ and as such will have sufficient capacity for project

implementation, assuming a number of mitigation measures are in place to overcome the identified

capacity constraints.

68. Guidelines. The procurement for the proposed project will be carried out in accordance

with the World Bank guidelines summarized in the following sources: (a) Guidelines:

Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits

and Grants (January 2011, revised July 2014) and (b) Guidelines: Selection and Employment of

Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers (January

2011, revised July 2014). Côte d'Ivoire's procurement code and regulations generally do not

conflict with World Bank guidelines. However, certain diverging provisions in Côte d’Ivoire’s

code (related to the use of point systems and re-bidding when at least three bids have not been

submitted) will not be permitted for national competitive bidding.

69. Procurement documents. Procurement will be carried out using the Bank's Standard

Bidding Documents (SBDs) for all International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for goods and works

and for Standard Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for the selection of consultants through competitive

procedures. The Recipient will develop standard documents based on the Bank’s SBDs for

National Competitive Bidding (NCB) for goods and works and the Bank's RFP for the selection

of consultants through methods other than Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS), with

modifications that will be submitted to the World Bank for prior approval.

70. Pending actions. To enhance SEP-REDD+ procurement capacity to implement the

project, the following recommendations in advance of project launch are made: (a) the recruitment,

within three months of effectiveness, of one procurement specialist familiar with Bank

procurement policies and procedures and (b) the adoption, within one month of effectiveness, of

the project implementation manual detailing the procurement procedures specific to the project.

Both of these requirements are the subject of legal covenants in the Grant Agreement. As such, the

following areas will be specified: the various procurement methods or consultant selection

methods, any activities requiring pre-qualification, estimated costs of activities, prior review

requirements, and procurement calendar. The procurement plan will be updated at least annually

or more frequently as required to reflect actual project implementation needs and capacity.

E. Social (including Safeguards)

71. The project’s overall social impact is expected to be highly positive because it will

reduce the risks of exposure to dangerous chemicals and potential poisonings, especially in poor

18

rural or urban communities inadvertently living in the vicinity of public (and to some extent

private) obsolete pesticide stocks. The project will provide training and capacity building for key

actors and stakeholders who play a critical role in the management of pesticides. The project does

not trigger social safeguards. The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) confirmed

that the project will not trigger the Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement as pesticides

will be stored in mobile containers or in areas in the public domain. The project will verify the

land status of any site where the project might intervene.

F. Environment (including Safeguards)

72. The project aims to stem ongoing and future impacts on the environment and human

health that are posed by leaking and inappropriately stored obsolete pesticides. This focus on

safeguarding and safely disposing of obsolete pesticide and associated waste stocks as well as

reducing the risk caused by pesticide pollution is expected to have significant positive

environmental impacts. However, the project is categorized as Category A (Full Assessment)

because the handling, transportation, and elimination of highly toxic chemicals like POPs carry

significant risks. The management of obsolete pesticides includes the collection, repackaging,

transportation, temporary storage, and elimination of stocks as well as risk reduction actions in

pesticide polluted sites (e.g., site decontamination). At each stage, accidents or mishandling of OPs

could lead to major adverse, possibly irreversible, environmental and social impacts. The project

triggers OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment and OP/BP 4.09 Pest Management and two

safeguards instruments were prepared: (1) an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

(ESIA) has been developed, including an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP).

The ESIA focuses on 2 districts, Soubré and Bingerville, and includes, in the ESMP, the

procedures (and institutional arrangements) to follow to screen subsequent sites once the inventory

is completed in the first year of the project and to carry out the necessary environmental work.

ESIAs and/or ESMPs produced as a result of screening subsequent sites will be submitted to the

World Bank for prior review and approval. (2) A Safeguards Manual that covers best practices and

standards for the management of pesticides under the project including removal from targeted

sites, transportation, temporary storage, and/or disposal. As part of the contracting clauses

approved through the ESMP, the disposal company must implement the best practices and action

plan in the Safeguards Manual, which includes emergency measures in case of leakages, awareness

raising and occupational safety cautions.

73. As noted above, the project triggers OP/BP 4.09 Pest Management. Component 3 aims

to promote a range of strategies and investments to reduce usage of chemical pesticides (and

particularly POPs pesticides) by supporting alternative strategies, such as IPM. The project will

not procure pesticides nor support the use of any hazardous chemicals. A PMP focused on IPM

alternatives will be prepared during project implementation as part of training and capacity

building to key actors and stakeholders who play a critical role in the management of pesticides

and as guidance to field demonstrations in pilot areas.

74. The ESIA and the Safeguards Manual were consulted upon, validated by the Bank and

subsequently disclosed in-country and at the InfoShop on April 2, 2015.

75. No part of the project related to the management of obsolete pesticides and involving

any possible environmental or social safeguard issues (i.e., collection, repackaging, transportation,

19

temporary storage, and elimination of stocks) will be undertaken until the comprehensive national

inventory of obsolete pesticides has been substantially completed (covering at least three quarters

of the country’s 31 regions) as well as necessary safeguard measures as prescribed in the project’s

safeguard instruments, satisfactory to the Bank.

76. The IPAU will be responsible for the implementation of the safeguards instruments. The IPAU also implements the Bank’s FCPF-REDD+ project; the unit will engage both an

environmental and social specialist who will work on both projects. Annex 3 presents details of

the IPAU institutional arrangements.

G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered

77. No other safeguards policies are triggered.

H. World Bank Grievance Redress

78. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected by a World

Bank (WB) supported project may submit complaints to existing project-level grievance redress

mechanisms or the WB’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints

received are promptly reviewed in order to address project-related concerns. Project affected

communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the WB’s independent Inspection

Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of WB non-compliance

with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have

been brought directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an

opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s

corporate Grievance Redress Service (GRS), please visit www.worldbank.org/grs. For information

on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit

www.inspectionpanel.org.

http://www.worldbank.org/grs

20

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

.

Country: Cote d'Ivoire

Project Name: Obsolete Pesticides Management Project (P131778) .

Results Framework .

Global Environmental Objectives .

PDO Statement

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is the same as the Global Environmental Objective. The PDO is to improve the management of obsolete

pesticides and associated wastes in Côte d'Ivoire by the Government and other stakeholders.

These results are at Project Level .

Global Environmental Objective Indicators

Cumulative Target Values

Indicator Name Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 End Target

Data on OPs and associated wastes publicly

accessible

(Percentage)

0 0 0 50 60 80 80

OPs & OPs waste destroyed, disposed or

contained in environmentally sound manner

(Metric ton) - (Core)

0 0 0 10 90 250 250

OPs and associated waste safely contained at

targeted sites

(Metric ton - Sub-Type: Breakdown)

0 0 0 10 40 100 100

OPs and associated waste safely disposed of

(Metric ton - Sub-Type: Breakdown) 0 0 0 0 50 150 150

21

Direct project beneficiaries

(Number) - (Core) 0 0 0 20,000 50,000 100,000 100,000

Female beneficiaries

(Percentage - Sub-Type: Supplemental) -

(Core)

0 0 0 50 50 50 50

.

Intermediate Results Indicators

Cumulative Target Values

Indicator Name Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 End Target

National strategy for management of OPs

and associated wastes implemented

(Scale)

0 0 0 1 2 3 3

Pesticides Committee functional

(Scale) 1 1 1 2 3 3 3

Effective regulatory framework for obsolete

pesticides and associated wastes

(Scale)

0 0 1 1 2 3 3

Inventory of obsolete pesticides and

associated wastes

(Scale)

0 1 2 2 3 3 3

MIS on obsolete pesticides and associated

wastes established and functional

(Scale)

0 0 1 2 2 3 3

Implementation of pilots on alternatives to

chemical pesticides

(Scale)

0 0 1 1 2 3 3

.

22

Indicator Description .

Global Environmental Objective Indicators

Indicator Name Description (indicator definition etc.)

Data on OPs and associated wastes publicly accessible Core OP data set (regulatory information and on total amounts in country and amounts

safely stored and disposed) to be defined at project outset and the proportion shared on

a government web site to be measured during project. The target amount is less than

100 percent because some private sector data will have limitations in terms of being

made publicly available.

OPs & OPs waste destroyed, disposed or contained in

environmentally sound manner

This indicator measures the amount of obsolete pesticides and associated waste

destroyed, disposed of or contained in environmentally sound manner (metric tons)

under the project. The baseline for this indicator is zero. The indicator is disaggregated

into the following two sub-indicators.

OPs and associated waste safely contained at targeted

sites

Metric tons of OPs and wastes contained safely so as to avoid environmental

contamination or impacts on human health.

OPs and associated waste safely disposed of Metric tons of OPs and waste destroyed in a manner consistent with the project

environmental and social safeguard frameworks.

Direct project beneficiaries Direct project beneficiaries are those benefitting from safeguarding/disposal of OPs

and associated waste thereby resulting in reduced health or environmental risks or

benefiting economically from improved use of pesticides. Supplemental Value:

Female beneficiaries (percentage).

Female beneficiaries Based on the assessment and definition of direct project beneficiaries, this

supplemental indicator specifies the percentage of the beneficiaries that are female.

Intermediate Results Indicators

Indicator Name Description (indicator definition etc.) Frequency Data Source / Methodology Responsibility for Data

Collection

National strategy for

management of OPs and

associated wastes

implemented

A scale of 0 to 3 will be used to measure

the degree to which the strategy is

prepared, implemented, and is effective,

addressing the performance of the

Government and other stakeholders. Scale

Annual. MINESUDD data and

independent analysis of

system functionality by an

international consultant.

MINESUDD.

23

is 0=no progress (baseline); 1 = strategy

has been developed; 2 = infrastructure and

logistics in place to permit

implementation; and 3 = strategy budgeted

and under implementation.

Pesticides Committee

functional

Functionality is defined using a scale of 0

to 3 (details to be defined in the

implementation manual). Briefly, 0 = PC

not meeting regularly, and not functional;

1 = PC meets at least twice a year, with

well-defined mandate, but not exercising

its responsibilities; 2 = PC exercising its

functions (product approvals, policy

decisions, etc.) and members understand

their roles but PC is limited in its

effectiveness because of capacity

constraints; 3 = PC is fully functional

adequately exercising its responsibilities.

Annual. Review of minutes and

outputs of PC and

independent analysis of

their functionality by an


MINAGRI.

Effective regulatory

framework for obsolete

pesticides and associated

wastes

Effectiveness will be measured on a scale

of 0 to 3 (details on what constitutes an

adequate regulatory framework to be

defined in the monitoring manual), as

proposed in GEF Tracking Tool. Briefly, 0

= Regulatory framework for OPs

inadequate or lacking; 1 =

Legislative/regulatory measures drafted or

revised; 2 = Legislative/regulatory

measures adopted but not enforced; 3 =

Legislative/regulatory measures

implemented/enforced with corresponding

budget.

Annual. Review of regulatory

framework changes and

independent analysis by an


MINAGRI with assistance

of MINESUDD.

Inventory of obsolete

pesticides and associated

wastes

Effectiveness of the inventory (covering at

least 75 percent of estimated obsolete

pesticide stocks in the country), an

indicator from the GEF Tracking Tool,

Annual. Review of reports from the

inventory.

MINAGRI.

24

will be rated on a scale of 0 to 3 (details

will be defined in the PIM). Briefly, 0 =

Inadequate inventory data and no

formulated plans; 1 = Implementation

methodology developed and costed and

procurement underway; 2 = Inventory

underway; 3 = Inventory substantially

completed and data incorporated into OP

databases.

MIS on obsolete pesticides

and associated wastes

established and functional

Progress toward a database on obsolete

pesticides and associated wastes will be

measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (details will

be defined in the implementation manual).

Briefly, 0 = No existing MIS on OPs and

no existing strategy; 1 = Strategy for

information management formulated with

detailed methodology and procurement

underway; 2 = MIS functional and

populated with pertinent data; 3 = MIS

functional, sustainable, being used, and

data publicly available.

Annual. Review of custom and

routine reports generated by

the MIS and analysis of

data quality.

MINESUDD and

MINAGRI.

Implementation of pilots on

alternatives to chemical

pesticides

Progress toward conceiving and

implementing two pilot projects for

development of alternatives to chemical

pesticides will be measured on a scale of 0

to 3 (details will be defined in the

implementation manual). Briefly, 0 = No

pilots underway and plans not yet

formulated; 1 = Pilot project proposals

developed, consulted, costed, and

procurement underway; 2 = Pilot projects

underway and preliminary results

available; 3 = Results available and

disseminated appropriately.

Annual. Review of project reports

and independent analysis.

MINAGRI.

25

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

CÔTE D’IVOIRE: Obsolete Pesticides Management Project

1. The Project development objective (PDO) is to improve the management of obsolete

pesticides and associated wastes in Côte d’Ivoire by the Government and other stakeholders.

2. A number of technical background documents were prepared by MINESUDD during

project preparation, which provide more details on the components as well as other aspects of

project design. The background documents (all are in French) relating to technical design of the

project are the following:

Financial Manual, Manuel général de procédures, administratives, comptables et

financières

Monitoring and Evaluation System Design, Conception du système de suivi et évaluation

du projet

Environmental and Social Impact Study, Etude d'impact environnemental et social (EIES)

Obsolete Pesticides Management Manual, Manuel du plan d'action de gestion des

pesticides obsolètes

Institutional and Regulatory Assessment, Etude du cadre institutionnel, législatif,

réglementaire et renforcement des capacités (Cabinet Conseil CAREN AGRO)

Obsolete Pesticides and Associated Wastes, Inventory Study Etude sur l’inventaire des

pesticides obsolètes et déchets associes (Cabinet Conseil CAREN AGRO)

Study on the Design and Implementation of a Pesticides Management Database, Etude

pour la conception et la réalisation d’une base de données de gestion de pesticide (Cabinet

Conseil CAREN AGRO)

Proposed Plan for the Promotion of Alternatives to Pesticides, Proposition d’un plan de

promotion des alternatives aux pesticides

Detailed Project Evaluation Plan, Plan d’action détaille (document d’évaluation du projet)

(Cabinet Conseil CAREN AGRO)

Component 1. Regulatory and institutional framework (US$1.5 million from the GEF and

US$0.4 million in Government counterpart funding)

3. This component will reinforce the regulatory framework governing the management

of pesticides by assisting the Government with new regulatory instruments or to modify/update

existing regulations and laws. It will additionally strengthen the institutional capacity of key

stakeholders, including those in Government and in the private sector, to play a role in the

management of obsolete pesticides. Specific training activities in technical areas and of local

beneficiaries would be included in other components, as pertinent. The component is divided into

two sub-components. Note that the project funding indicated for the components and sub-

components includes the GEF grant and the Government counterpart funding. Parallel co-

financing is detailed in Annex 5.

26

Sub-component 1.1. Strengthening the regulatory framework (US$0.3 million from the GEF


4. A comprehensive review of national laws and regulations that are pertinent to the

management of pesticides as well as details on proposed investments to be made under the project

to improve the regulatory framework are included in background studies in project files. These

revisions need to include those that are required because of the country’s ratification of various

international conventions and agreements. The following sections provide a summary of existing

regulatory instruments, their shortcomings, and proposed priorities under the project.

5. Principal existing regulatory instruments:

Decree 89-02 of January 4 1989 related to the approval, fabrication, sale, and use of

pesticides. This decree abrogated the Decree 74-388 of 7 August 1974 related to the

approval of pesticides and incorporated additional information on the approval of

pesticides, certification of sellers and users of pesticides, and to incorporate FAO

recommendations.

Law N° 88-650 of 7 July 2008 (modified by the Law N° 89-521 of 11 May 1989) related

to the commerce of agricultural products.

Ordinance N°159/MINAGRI of 21 June 2004 forbidding the use of certain active

substances in the manufacture of pesticides.

Law N° 96-766 of 3 October 1996, the Environmental Code, which emphasizes measures

of protection of biodiversity and natural resources. This law is accompanied by the Decree

N° 96-894 of 8 November 1996 which details procedures for environmental impact

assessments.

6. The principal weakness of the existing regulatory framework with respect to

pesticides in general is the obsolete nature of the instruments. There is no specific

consideration of POPs, despite the country having ratified the Stockholm Convention on POPs.

One worrisome consequence of this inadequate regulatory attention is that organochlorine POPs

such as DDT15, chlordane, and heptachlor, which are all banned in Europe and North America,

continue to be sold and used in Côte d’Ivoire and in the region (as confirmed in preparatory work

for this project). Other weaknesses that need to be addressed are the lack of adequate regulations

to control fraudulent imports, lack of regulations that govern the disposal of pesticides, and no

regulations governing pesticide residues in foods. The fines foreseen in the January 1989 decree

are of a very general nature and not considered dissuasive nor useful. The 2012 decree on the

principle of polluter pays does not cover pesticides.

7. Several major improvements to the regulatory framework are needed. First and most

important, the January 1989 decree related to the approval, fabrication, sale, and use of pesticides

needs to be modified to update its texts and introduce an effective sanction regime. This decree

needs to be expanded to adequately address issues related to obsolete pesticides and their

associated wastes. Additionally, it would be desirable to prepare a decree, in accordance with the

15 DDT refers to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, a powerful organochlorine pesticide with well documented negative

environmental impacts, due to its toxicity and potential for bioaccumulation.

27

spirit of the polluter pays principle, which imposes a cost recovery structure in relationship to the

toxicity of the pesticide. MINAGRI needs an ordinance regulating the transportation, storage, and

disposal of obsolete pesticides, and possibly a new law on pesticides. To respond to health

emergencies resulting in part from pesticide poisoning, the country needs an anti-poison center,

which could be established by decree. Finally, the Government could create by decree a special

brigade of MINAGRI charged with the application of pesticide regulations.

8. For priority new regulatory instruments or revisions of existing documents, the project

will finance the writing of drafts, support necessary consultations with all key stakeholders, and

support the Government as needed for their passage and approval.

Sub-component 1.2. Strengthening the institutional framework (US$1.2 million from the

GEF and US$0.3 million in Government counterpart funding)

9. This sub-component aims to strengthen the institutional framework and the technical

capacity of key actors and stakeholders with a critical role in the management of pesticides.

The role of the principal national actors involved in the management of pesticides and hazardous

waste are described in the following paragraphs.

10. Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI). This Ministry is responsible for government

agricultural policy. Through its Directorate for Crop Protection and Quality Control (DPVCQ), it

is responsible for the management of pesticide use. In addition, approvals of specific pesticides for

specific uses and provisional sale authorizations (APVs) are done through MINAGRI ordinances,

once proposed by the Pesticides Committee. DPVCQ has numerous weaknesses. It lacks personnel

and resources and there are no structures in place in the country (other than those in the private

sector) to manage or oversee the elimination of pesticides or hazardous chemicals.

11. Ministry of Environment, Urban Health and Sustainable Development (MINESUDD).

Environmental protection is the responsibility of MINESUDD. The Ministry designates the

national focal points for key international conventions such as the Stockholm Convention on POPs,

and the Conventions of Basel, Rotterdam, and SAICM. The management of obsolete pesticides as

hazardous wastes and their impacts on the environment fall under the authority of MINESUDD.

12. CropLife-Côte d’Ivoire. This private sector association groups the major companies that

operate in Côte d’Ivoire and which import, formulate, and sell pesticides. They carry out a range

of activities such as training of sellers and users of pesticides. Indeed, a training certificate issued

by CropLife-CI is a required document for formal recognition by the Government of a seller or

applier of pesticides.

13. Professional Agricultural Organizations (PAOs). The PAOs are associations created to

defend the interests of producers, such as for example for cotton, cocoa, palm oil, etc. They are

organized in a national association called ANOPACI (Association Nationale des Organisations

Professionnelles Agricoles de Côte d’Ivoire). Within the PAOs, there are major gaps in the training

and knowledge of pesticides users, particularly at the local level. There is a marked lack of

knowledge about the dangers of certain products (inattention to labels or instructions). Users rarely

use protective measures (masks, gloves, etc.). Widespread illiteracy in rural areas is contributory.

28

14. Pesticides Committee. The Pesticides Committee (PC) is a multi-agency government

committee responsible for the review of pesticide issues in the country and specifically responsible

for approving the sale and use of specific products for specific uses. Members include the

ministries responsible for agriculture, public health, education, scientific research, industry and

private sector development, economy and finances, commerce, transportation, defense, internal

security, and environment. The chairmanship of the Committee is assured by MINAGRI and the

Permanent Secretariat by DPVCQ. The Pesticides Committee sometimes lacks adequate capacity

to collect and analyze pertinent information and make decisions about pesticide approvals. The

presence of numerous non-approved distributors and importers in the country is evidence of a lack

of efficient oversight. The Committee is in need of training and more resources.

15. Customs agents. Significant importations of illegal pesticides into the country, primarily

across the terrestrial borders, account for an estimated 40 per cent of pesticides in use in the

country. It will therefore be critical to increase the capacity of customs agents to detect and halt

the flow of illegal products.

16. National laboratories. They provide expertise for the analysis of pesticides and for

analyses for the presence of pesticide contaminants in the environment or in humans. In part due

to the destruction of many facilities during the recent periods of civil strife, major investments are

needed to upgrade the equipment and capacity of selected laboratories. The background documents

prepared for this project provide extensive information on existing laboratories and on their current

capacities and needs.

17. Many other government actors are involved to some degree in the management of

chemical pesticides. The following table summarize the roles of government institutions.

Responsibilities of ministries and other government agencies with regard to pesticides management

Ministry Importation Production Storage Transport Distribution/

marketing

Disposal

Environment X X X X X X

Health X X X X X X

Agriculture X X X X

Employment X X X X

Commerce

X X X X

Industry X X X X

Finance X X X X X X

Interior Defense

Justice X X X X X X

Customs X X

Foreign Affairs X

29

18. In summary, the investments of the project under the institutional strengthening sub-

component (detailed investment plans have been prepared) would focus on:

(a) Preparation and implementation of a national strategy for the management of

obsolete pesticides and associated wastes.

(b) Preparation and implementation of a project communications strategy.

(c) Building the capacity of the members of the Pesticides Committee to carry out their

responsibilities, including in-depth evaluations of pesticides as part of their

procedures to approve a pesticide for a given use.

(d) Building the capacity of Government personnel for the management of obsolete

pesticides, including personnel of MINESUDD, MINAGRI, the National

Agricultural Research Council (CNRA), the National Agency for Support to Rural

Development (Agence Nationale d’Appui au Développement Rural, ANADER),

Customs, and of other agencies as appropriate.

(e) Training on safe use of pesticides for farmers and for actors involved in the

detection of illegal use or trade or inappropriate storage of pesticides, including: (i)

the design and validation of a training plan, (ii) the preparation of training modules;

(iii) the acquisition of field kits, and (iv) the carrying out of said training.

(f) Capacity building of laboratories for analysis of pesticides, including: (i) an

assessment of existing capacity in terms of human resources and equipment; (ii) the

acquisition of equipment for selected laboratories; and (iii) the carrying out of

specialized training for laboratory personnel.

(g) Promotion of public-private partnerships for management of obsolete pesticides

and associated wastes and strengthening of existing partnerships.

(h) Strengthening of collaboration and cooperation between national and international

organizations on issues related to management of obsolete pesticides.

Component 2. Management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes (US$4.2 million

from the GEF and US$2.3 million in Government counterpart funding)

19. This component will support the efficient management of stocks of obsolete pesticides

and their associated wastes through three sub-components, which are described below,

following a summary review of pesticide management in the country and a review of current

knowledge about the status of obsolete pesticides.

Overview of the management of pesticides in Côte d’Ivoire

20. In Côte d’Ivoire, large quantities of chemical pesticides are used, almost entirely

synthetic pesticides, and are essential for sustaining the outputs of the agricultural sector.

Pesticides used include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, acaracides (for control of mites),

nematicides (for control of nematode worms), and rodenticides. Other types of pesticides are used

in non-agricultural settings and include molluscicides and products for controlling mosquito larvae

for malaria control. The pesticides used in the country belong to a number of chemical families

30

such as organophosphates, carbamates, synthetic pyrethrinoids, sulfonyl compounds, and triazines.

A small proportion are POPs, which is not a chemical classification but rather a classification based

on their toxicity and persistence in the environment. All POPs are currently banned in Côte d’Ivoire

so it is very difficult to obtain information on their use. They continue to be illegally traded and

used and some were widely used before they were banned, and may thus be present as obsolete

stocks.

21. Most approved pesticides are used for the following crops: cotton (17 percent of the

number of approved products), bananas and pineapples (15 percent), cocoa (10 percent), vegetable

crops (10 percent), and rice (6 percent). Rubber and palm oil cultures primarily rely on herbicides.

About 8 percent of the products used are for public health purposes16.

22. The importation, formulation, reconditioning, and distribution of pesticides is

assured by about 400 companies that are registered with MINAGRI as either resellers (245) or

applicators (154), as of the end of 2011 (MINAGRI/DPVCQ, 2012). In general, the pesticide

distribution and sales network is highly developed in the country, particularly in the south.

23. The pesticides market is currently estimated to represent about 20,000 metric

tons/year. MINAGRI data for 2014 indicate sales of legally fabricated and imported pesticides to

be 13,300 t/year. However, MINAGRI surveys of pesticides actually being sold and used indicates

that about 40 per cent of the entire pesticide market in the country is illegal (and that 80 per cent

of these products were being illegally imported from neighboring countries17), the remainder being

repackaged obsolete stocks. The inclusion of illegal pesticides gives an overall estimate, albeit

approximate, of a total annual market of about 20,000 t/year.

24. As required by the January 1989 decree on pesticides (see description of regulatory

framework above), every pesticide used must have received a formal approval (“homologation” in

French) or have received a provisional sales authorization (APV, for “autorisation provisoire de

vente” in French). The approval is specific for one use of a product, for example on a crop such as

cotton. Approval is for a period of 5 years, which can be renewed, whereas an APV is only valid

for 2 years and cannot be renewed. Special use authorizations can be granted to research

laboratories or research stations for products that are not approved or do not have an APV.

25. The approval of a pesticide is proposed by the Pesticides Committee (see description

above). The Committee is also responsible for the approval of resellers and appliers of pesticides.

The table below presents the number of product approvals and approvals of resellers and appliers

that have been granted by the Committee up until the end of 2011.

16 Annuaire des pesticides, DPVCQ, 2012. 17 Abidjan.net, 18 May 2013.

31

List of approved pesticides, resellers, and appliers as of the end of 2011

Type of product or actor Number Percentage (%)

Insecticide or acaracide 392 48.5

Fungicide 119 15.0

Herbicide 229 28.0

Growth regulator 30 4.0

Nematicide 22 3.0

Rodenticide 13 2.0

Molluscicide 4 0.5

TOTAL APPROVED PESTICIDES 809

Reseller 245

Applier 154

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPROVED

PROFESSIONALS

399

Source : Catalogue phytosanitaire 2011, DPVCQ, MINAGRI/Côte d’Ivoire.

26. A large number of international databases on pesticides (background documentation

provides further information on these databases) are in occasional use in Côte d’Ivoire. However

there is only one comprehensive information source on pesticides that is maintained in the country,

lodged at MINAGRI. The “Système d’information phytosanitaire de la Côte d’Ivoire”18

(ISYSPHYT) is an attractive website with useful but limited resources and is not a database that

can be consulted to obtain specific information on pesticides, crops, or obsolete stockpiles. There

is widespread agreement that the lack of computerized information in the country is a major

impediment to improving the management of pesticides.

27. A separate database focused on the management of hazardous chemicals, including

certain pesticides and POPs, needs to be developed at MINESUDD, linked to the national

environmental information system now under development but linked to related databases held by

MINAGRI.

Information on the status of obsolete pesticides

28. It is difficult to provide quantitative information on obsolete pesticides in RCI

because of their illicit nature and the lack of reliable inventory data. We define obsolete

pesticides as pesticides which cannot be used or reformulated for another purpose. A product could

be obsolete for a variety of reasons: i) banned because of its toxicity and high risk; ii) not approved

for use in Côte d’Ivoire; iii) expired, past its due date, or lacking an appropriate label; or iv)

counterfeited or otherwise fraudulent in origin. As noted above, we can estimate that about 6,000

t/year are illegally imported but in addition, an unknown proportion (estimated by MINAGRI to

be about 5 percent) of legal pesticides would also fall into the category of obsolete because when

used they are already expired, are employed for non-approved uses, or have been illegally

repackaged. In total, there is thus about 6,700 t/year of obsolete pesticides that are marketed and

used by farmers. These obsolete pesticides are thus not stockpiled anywhere but are being

commercially sold throughout the country and are being used by farmers on a rolling basis.

18 The web site can be found at http://isysphyt.org/index.php.

32

29. A preliminary survey of obsolete pesticides was undertaken in early 2015 as part of

the preparation of this GEF-financed project, with financing from its Project Preparation Grant

(PPG). This survey was intended to measure quantities of obsolete pesticides that are in storage

either in private or public sites. Because of high costs and omnipresent needs, in general farmers

do not stockpile obsolete pesticides, but the survey produced some anecdotal information on their

use. Some obsolete pesticides in Côte d’Ivoire have been seized by the government and are stored

in publicly managed sites. This amount is in fact quite small because of the lack of storage sites,

lack of training of government agents, unclear regulatory framework, and strong incentives to

recycle seized pesticides into the market. The pre-inventory financed by the project (full results in

project files) suggested a total of about 20 t of obsolete pesticides currently stockpiled in publicly

managed stocks. The survey was only carried out in five of the country’s 30 regions (Marahoué,

Goh, Nawa, Gboklè, and Poro), due to severe time and financial restrictions. This will need to be

expanded upon with project financing but the data obtained are nonetheless of interest. Obsolete

pesticides were found, either being sold or products that have been seized and stored. Such

pesticides for sale were often to be found in the weekly village markets or were readily available

at authorized resellers. Full results are available in project files but the quantitative data are too

partial to be considered as reliable. A few summary points can be made.

30. Non-approved or banned products. A large number of such products were found on the

market, for the most part imported from neighboring countries. They were found in all areas of the

country visited but particularly in the east, centre-west, and in the north. The most commonly

found products were herbicides (paraquat and glyphosate). Organochlorine pesticides included

most notably lindane.

31. Non-acceptable labels. Pesticides falling under this category included products where all

information on the label was only in English. Other products lacked any label at all.

32. Containers in poor condition. As a general observation, most pesticides were found to be

stocked under poor conditions. This was also the case for illegal pesticides that have been seized

or are now in storage. Such confiscated stocks were almost all stored in inappropriate sites or even

in the open air (e.g., seized pesticides stored at ANADER sites in Abidjan) and inappropriate

conditions, for lack of any well-constructed storage sites and equipment.

33. The CILSS project on obsolete pesticides (referenced above) produced the following

estimates of obsolete pesticides in several Sahelian countries. The amounts of obsolete pesticides

were in public stocks. These values are generally higher than in Côte d’Ivoire due in part to large

amounts of pesticides having been donated for locust control, and then having gone unused.

Inventory of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes, October 2013

Country Pesticides (metric t) Empty containers

(metric t)

Contaminated materials

(fertilizers and seeds)

(metric t)

Burkina Faso 100 7 60

Mauritania 165 40 0

Niger 150 10 15

Senegal 20 0 0

Total 435 57 75

Source: CILSS Project documentation

33

34. The estimates presented here of the quantities of obsolete pesticides in the country

are only indicative and further work will be needed in the national inventory work to better

document the extent and nature of the problem. Clearly however, the quantities of obsolete

pesticides are quite large, which is to be expected given the size of the country, the importance of

the agricultural sector, and ineffective border controls.

Sub-component 2.1 Pesticides inventory (US$0.9 million from the GEF and US$0.3 million

in Government counterpart funding)

35. The lack of information on obsolete pesticides must be addressed through a

comprehensive national inventory, building on a preliminary survey carried out during the

preparation phase and taking advantage of existing international systems. The project will use the

Pesticides Stock Management System (PSMS) of the FAO, a comprehensive inventory database

and inventory methodology in wide use in Africa. Since obsolete pesticides as defined in this

project includes illegal materials that are being actively sold and used, the national inventory must

necessarily better document use patterns and pesticide origins, as well as investigating private and

public stocks of pesticides. The principal phases and activities are described below:

a) Study tour to Mali to allow key MINAGRI and MINESUDD agents to become familiar

with FAO’s PSMS and to understand that country’s approach to obsolete pesticides (Mali

is also supported by a World Bank GEF-financed project on obsolete pesticides).

b) Recruitment of an international consultant to provide oversight and advice for the inventory

(and other key parts of the project).

c) Training activities on PSMS.

d) Acquisition of equipment such as computers, GPS, cameras, and personal protective gear.

e) Carry out field inventory of obsolete pesticide stocks and associated wastes, both of

publicly held and privately held stocks.

f) To the degree not covered by the PSMS database, collect additional information on

obsolete pesticides that are being imported, marketed, and used in Côte d’Ivoire.

g) Entry of information into databases. Building on the management information system

(MIS) supported elsewhere in the project, the inventory information will need to be

processed and entered into the PSMS or other databases as needed.

h) Establishment of priorities for future investments based on clearly established criteria of

potential for negative impacts on human health or the environment, cost, and type of

pesticide.

i) Periodic updating, at least through the lifetime of this project, of information in the

inventory.

j) Establishing the sustainability of the inventory through a combination of regulatory

interventions, assuring long-term financing, and through allocation of responsibilities to

different stakeholders.

34

Sub-component 2.2. Storage and disposal of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes

(US$2.9 million from the GEF and US$1.9 million in Government counterpart funding)

36. This sub-component is concerned with the elimination or sound storage of prioritized

obsolete pesticides and their associated wastes. The project would financially support the

storage or disposal of publicly held stocks. Depending on the conclusions of the National Strategy,

privately held stocks of obsolete pesticides could be eligible for support to finance storage and

disposal assuming appropriate cost recovery mechanisms. The exact nature of the investments

under this sub-component will depend on the outcomes of the inventory phase. The costs of storage

and/or disposal are highly sensitive to the exact nature of the pesticides and their physical location.

Investments that would be supported include the following:

a) Preparatory activities: site visits of stockpiles, programming of activities, preparation of

personnel, consultation and information campaigns with local communities, and carrying

out of necessary environmental impact studies.

b) Reconditioning of stocks of OPs: repackaging of liquid or solid pesticides, repackaging of

associated wastes, decontamination of empty containers, equipment, and other waste

(recycling where possible).

c) Transportation of repackaged OPs and wastes: permits, loading, unloading, and

transportation itself (possibly including specialized vehicles if determined to be necessary).

d) Safe storage at sites (possibly these could be mobile containers if this option proves to be

cost-effective and environmentally secure). This will include preparation costs, equipment

costs, possible site constructions, maintenance, and security.

e) Elimination of OPs and associated wastes where this is considered safe after completion of

appropriate safeguard studies and assuming delivery of appropriate permits. Disposal sites

could be in Côte d’Ivoire or potentially in other countries (in which cases additional

measures and budgets would be needed to ensure permitting and transportation). Disposal

methods, which would differ by class and toxicity of pesticide, could include high-

temperature incineration.

Sub-component 2.3 Pesticides management information system (US$0.4 million from the

GEF and US$0.1 million in Government counterpart funding)

37. Based on the inventory data, this sub-component will support the development of a

management information system (MIS), its validation, use, and administration. About

US$300,000 are allocated to these activities. A MIS for OPs and associated waste will need to be

linked to existing databases in the country and to the PSMS that will be used during the inventory

phase. The MIS will need to be carefully designed to be as simple as possible, to ensure

dissemination to the public of key information, and to be sustainable both financially and

institutionally. The MIS should provide information on quantities and locations of obsolete

pesticides in the country, on progress in storing and disposing pesticides, and on importation and

trade of pesticides. The sub-component will support consultants and studies, data collection,

consultations, training, some equipment and connectivity costs on a declining cost sharing basis.

The MIS also needs to be linked to the national environmental information systems, now under

development by MINESUDD.

35

Component 3. Promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides (US$0.6 million from the GEF


38. The management of obsolete stocks must also include measures to prevent their

continuing build-up. This in part can be achieved through an upstream reduction in the use of

synthetic and potential dangerous pesticides. The promotion of integrated pest management (IPM)

can reduce the use of such pesticides by promoting biological pesticides and through changes in

agricultural practices while achieving at the same time additional benefits related to the health of

rural communities and the quality of the natural resources (soil, water, natural habitats and wildlife

species).

39. The promotion of alternatives to pesticides in Côte d’Ivoire is an imposing task that

will require a mobilization of considerable resources, regulatory changes, research, and major

multi-generational long-term investments in training and capacity building. This will be well

beyond the possibilities of this project, which aims only to jumpstart the use of IPM by supporting

pilot field demonstrations and some training and capacity building.

State of knowledge of alternatives to pesticides

40. Thus far IPM is its infancy in Côte d’Ivoire. The following are some of the most

important barriers to more widespread adoption:

Doubts of farmers about the efficiency of new methods and their lack of training;

Efficiency of some biopesticides available on international markets may indeed be limited

because of climatic constraints;

Small budgets allocated to research and the development of nationally suitable

biopesticides;

Absence of an approval process (and associated legislation or regulations) for

biopesticides;

Limited infrastructure for the storage and distribution of biopesticides; and

Lack of financial incentives for IPM.

41. This component proposes investments in research, training, and education for a total

of about US$600,000 of GEF funding. Investments in design and implementation of IPM

alternatives will focus on a selection of pilot areas in existing farms in the cotton and cocoa zones

where pesticide use is high, and will support the inclusion of IPM in educational curricula. As part

of training and capacity building to key actors and stakeholders who play a critical role in the

management of pesticides and as guidance to field demonstrations in pilot areas, a PMP focused

on IPM alternatives will be prepared during project implementation. The component will

contribute to IPM research and training efforts through a management committee for the pilot

demonstrations, communication program and curricula development for agricultural schools.

42. The following investments will be supported:

a) Establishment of a management committee for the pilot field demonstrations (identification

of members and definition of their roles, support to the committee).

36

b) Identification of field demonstration areas in the cotton zone and in the cocoa zone of the

country (selection of sites and their characterization).

c) Diagnosis of current pesticide use at each selected site.

d) Selection of producers for inclusion in the demonstrations.

e) Conception of training modules and their implementation.

f) Strengthening and training of actors supporting farmers at the selected sites.

g) Design and implementation of communication programs.

h) Provision of stakeholders with appropriate safety gear and equipment, if needed.

i) Preparation of a Pest Management Plan (PMP), acceptable to the Bank, focused on IPM

alternatives.

j) Carry out field demonstrations of IPM alternatives at each site.

k) Carry out M&E at each site.

l) Development of curricula for including IPM in agricultural schools and to build capacity

of the next generation of Ivoirian farmers.

Component 4. Project management (US$0.7 million from the GEF and US$1.0 million in

Government counterpart funding)

43. This component includes financing to put in place an efficient management system

for the implementation of the project within MINESUDD. It includes support for key

consultants of the Integrated Project Administrative Unit (IPAU), complementing staff already in

place for another World Bank funded project (FCPF-REDD+ Project). This component will also

support other project management activities such as M&E, financial management, disbursements,

procurement, internal audits, and external audits.

37

Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements


Project organizational and implementation arrangements

1. MINESUDD will be the World Bank’s main RCI counterpart, as the project

Implementing Agency. However, given that national responsibility of pesticides is partially under

MINAGRI, the two Government agencies will work in close collaboration to ensure achievement

of project development objectives. The Minister of MINESUDD will designate a PROGEP-CI

Director within the Ministry who will work in close coordination with the Director of Agriculture

at MINAGRI to provide overall technical and policy guidance to the project coordinator to be

recruited and paid with project funds (or to be nominated by the Minister of MINAGRI, in which

case the person would not be paid with project funds).

2. National Steering Committee (NSC): A NSC will be established by inter-ministerial

decree, chaired by MINESUDD and co-chaired by MINAGRI and composed of the following

members or their representatives:

• Minister in charge of Environment;

• Minister in charge of Agriculture;

• Minister in charge of Health;

• Minister in charge of Commerce;

• Minister in charge of Industry;

• Minister in charge of Transport;

• Minister in charge of Scientific Research;

• Minister in charge of the Economy and of Finances;

• Minister in charge of the Interior;

• Minister in charge of Water and Forests;

• Minister in charge of Mining;

• Minister in charge of Budget.

3. The NSC will be responsible for: (i) providing overall oversight of project

implementation; (ii) advising on the annual work plans and budget; (iii) advising on the annual

procurement plan; and (iv) reviewing the project annual implementation performance and

overseeing the implementation of corrective actions when necessary. The NSC will meet once a

year for ordinary meetings and extraordinary meetings will be held if needed. The operational

costs of these meetings could be financed by the project.

4. Technical Committee (TC): Two technical committees will be established, reporting to

the NSC: (i) a TC for the FCPF-REDD+ project and; (ii) a TC for the PROGEP-CI. Each TC will

be responsible for providing technical advice to the NSC on the quality of documents submitted

for NSC review. The PROGEP-CI TC will be made up of senior technical staff from the national

institutions that are members of the NSC, a representative of each financial partner of the project,

key members of the current Pesticides Committee, representatives of Croplife-CI, the PAOs, and

38

of civil society. The TCs will meet at least once a year and at least one month before the NSC

meetings.

5. Integrated Projects Administration Unit (IPAU): Under the supervision of Project

Directors to be named by the Minister, the IPAU will be established and headed by the current

project coordinator of the FCPF-REDD+ and a coordinator to be nominated or recruited for

PROGEP-CI (see the organizational chart). The IPAU will be composed of the following units: (i)

a procurement unit staffed with two procurement specialists; (ii) a financial management unit

composed of one FMS and two accountants; and (iii) a technical unit composed of an M&E

specialist, an environmental specialist, a social development specialist and a communication

specialist.

6. The IPAU will be responsible for the day to day administration of the project. The

FCPF-REDD+ project is currently staffed with (i) a procurement specialist; (ii) an accountant; and

(iii) a monitoring and evaluation specialist. A communication specialist and a social development

MINESUDD

Project Directors

National Steering Committee

REDD+

COORDINATOR PROGEP-CI

COORDINATOR

Technical Assistant MINAGRI

Technical Assistant MINESUDD

Technical Committee

PROCUREMENT UNIT

REDD+ Procurement Specialist

PROGEP-CI Procurement

Specialist for PROGEP-CI

FM UNIT

FMS

REDD+ Accountant

PROGEP-CI Accountant

TA UNIT

M&E Specialist

Social Development Specialist

Environment Specialist

Communication Specialist

39

specialist are also being recruited and these three technical specialists, paid by the FCPF-REDD+

project, will be responsible for both projects. The IPAU will be reinforced with the following staff

paid with PROGEP-CI funds: (i) a FMS responsible for FM aspects of both projects; (ii) an

accountant responsible for PROGEP-CI related accounts who will work in close collaboration with

the FCPF-REDD+ accountant – they will be under the supervision of the FMS; and (iii) an

environmental specialist responsible for ensuring diligent implementation of environmental

safeguards instruments of both projects. In addition, a project coordinator would be recruited (or

this person would be nominated by the Minister and would not be recruited by the project, as noted

above). The PIM will clarify reporting and financing of different project staff to ensure

transparency and accountability in the use of project funds.

7. Technical Assistants at MINAGRI and MINESUDD: In addition to the IPAU staff, the

PROGEP-CI may recruit and finance the salaries of two technical assistants respectively based at

MINAGRI and MINESUDD. They would work closely with their respective Directors to ensure

timely delivery of project technical activities and would report to the newly recruited PROGEP-

CI project coordinator.

8. The functions of the IPAU will include: (i) preparation of annual work plans; (ii)

supervision of overall progress and evaluation of project impacts; (iii) accounting and financial

administration of project funds; (iv) procurement of goods and services; (v) ensuring due diligence

of project environmental and safeguards instruments; and (vi) arranging for a financial audit to be

performed annually.

9. Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Detailed implementation and institutional

arrangements of the project, including detailed ToRs of each project staff can be found in the

project implementation manuals prepared by the Government. Importantly, the PIM also details

how the project will support MINAGRI for those activities which fall under their authority. To

ensure transparency and clarity in the use of project funds for hiring the various consultants, the

PIM will include a section on cost sharing between projects and reporting and supervision

arrangements.

10. Administration of upcoming MINESUDD projects, including the FIP (Forest

Investment Program) and the Emissions Reduction Program in the Agriculture Sector, could also

fall under the responsibility of the IPAU for efficiency and economy of scale purposes, assuming

satisfactory performance of the unit. The IPAU would be reinforced as needed to take on new

projects.

Financial Management and Disbursement

Overall summary

11. Project implementation arrangements including financial management aspects build

on the Ministry’s recent experience implementing Bank-financed operations. An assessment

of the Directorate of Financial Affairs (DAF), which uses the public PFM system for MINESUDD

resource management, was conducted during project preparation to check whether this directorate

could manage the proposed project. The main findings arising from this assessment conducted in

May 2015 were as follows: (a) lack of familiarity of the FM team with Bank-financed project

40

procedures and requirements; (b) lack of coordination among the various programs implemented

by the Ministry and inefficient use of the limited human resources available; (c) the computerized

budget execution and financial reporting system in place faces some challenges similar to those

revealed in the PEMFAR II report. However, the assessment revealed that some donor-financed

projects, such as those of the World Bank, were already being implemented by various specialized

departments of the MINESUDD or stand-alone units; each program having its own FM

arrangements; procedures including disbursement and financial reporting.

12. The second Public Expenditure Management and Accountability Review and the

Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability, undertaken in 2013, revealed significant

improvements in Côte d’Ivoire’s PFM system over the past three years, but also highlighted

critical areas in need of improvement. The assessments recommended improvements to address

the following key constraints: (a) inadequate macroeconomic framework to forecast the level of

revenues; (b) absence of multi-year budgeting; (c) incomplete reporting on budget execution; and

(d) weak internal and external controls and follow up on audit recommendations.

13. Based on the findings of this assessment as well as the conclusions of various PFM

diagnostic reports, and taking into account the key areas for improvement described above, this

project’s FM assessment concluded that the IPAU would have the capacity to manage the project

assuming key measures are put in place. The FM arrangements for the project have thus been

designed with consideration for the country current situation while taking into account the OP/BP

10.00 which describes the overall FM Bank policies and procedures.

14. It was agreed that the FM team of the SEP-REDD+ already in place will manage the

overall FM aspects of PROGEP-CI during the first months of the project while the rest of the

IPAU team is being recruited. Implementation of PROGEP-CI will increase the demand on the

FM team, which will require more sophisticated control systems and adequate staff, an effective

internal audit function, a manual of procedures as part of the overall PIM for the project, and an

integrated information system and software.

15. Pending actions. As such, the IPAU will undertake the following measures to mitigate

foreseen risks and strengthen their capacity: (a) recruit, on a competitive basis, one experienced

FMS familiar with Bank FM procedures as well as one accountant; (b) acquire multi-projects

accounting software; (c) finalize the FM procedures manual; and (d) delegate the responsibility

for internal audits of the project to the General Finance Inspection Office (Inspection Générale des

Finances, IGF). Project resources will be allocated to the IGF to enhance its capacity to do so,

including needed operating costs.

Detailed FM and disbursement arrangements

16. Use of country systems. The FM arrangements of the Bank-financed operations in Côte

d’Ivoire are guided by the Instruction No 192/MEF/CAB/DGBF/DAS-SDSD signed by the

Minister of Finance on September 22, 2008. These Instructions established a partial use of country

FM systems. They allow for the assignment of public accountant to each Bank-financed project

and a financial controller responsible for prior reviews of supporting documents for all payments

related to the project. These project FM arrangements are considered acceptable to the Bank,

41

having been improved over time. The FM arrangements of the proposed project will follow the

same approach as the FM arrangements in place for ongoing projects in the country.

17. Justification for the use of a ring-fenced financing mechanism and use of the FM team

of the IPAU. The World Bank and other donors’ assessments, notably the PEMFAR I and PEFA

completed in 2008, highlighted a number of shortcomings in the areas of human resources,

economic governance and public expenditure management. With the support of the international

community, the Government has undertaken a series of PFM reforms since 2009 that have begun

to improve FM performance. The Government and the donors have prepared a general strategic

plan for PFM reforms19 to follow up on the remaining PEFMFAR II recommendations and the

other diagnostics completed. Given the fragility of the fiduciary environment, the Government has

requested the use of a ring-fenced financing mechanism for the FM aspects of this project, similar

to the other Bank-financed projects in the country.

18. There are no overdue audit reports or IFRs in the sector at the time of preparation

of this project. For efficiency purposes, a team composed of the FCFP-REDD+ FM staff,

complemented by additional staff, will form the IPAU FM team. In order to avoid delays in the

project implementation, the FM aspects of the project will be handled during the first months by

the FM team of the SEP-REDD+. The assessment carried out in May 2015 revealed that the SEP-

REDD+ has acceptable FM systems in place to manage the funds of the proposed project. The

overall FM performance was deemed satisfactory and the FM risk rated substantial.

19. Risk assessment, mitigation and financial covenants. Poor governance and corruption

are challenges in some sectors given the context of a post-conflict politically fragile country. The

main weaknesses facing this project are however the lack of familiarity and previous experience

of IPAU staff with Bank FM procedures. Effective implementation of FM mitigation measures,

effective oversight by the National Steering Committee and the involvement of national PFM

actors and audit institutions will help mitigate overall risks identified at the country, project and

control levels. An FM action plan has been developed to mitigate these risks (see below).

Assessment of the risks that the project funds will not be so used is an important part of the

financial management assessment work. The risk features are determined over two elements: (i)

the risk associated to the project as a whole (inherent risk), and (ii) the risk linked to a weak control

environment of the project implementation (control risk). The content of these risks is described

below:

20. Financial covenants are the standard covenants as described in the legal documents and aim to maintain project accounts in accordance with sound accounting practices, audit

requirements and records well-kept and secured. The dated covenants (in bold) are detailed in the

FM action plan:

19 Strategic Framework for PFM reforms in Côte d’Ivoire (Schema Directeur de réformes des Finances Publiques en

Côte d’Ivoire), April & June 2014 mission by World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and African Development

Bank.

42

Financial Management (FM) Action Plan

Issue/Topic Remedial action recommended Responsible

body/person

Completion date

Staffing Appointment of one experienced FMS

familiar with Bank FM procedures

MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+

3 months after

project

effectiveness

Appointment of one accountant familiar

with Bank FM procedures

MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+

3 months after

project

effectiveness

Assignment of a public accountant and a

financial controller (civil servants) as required

by the Instructions 192 (under revision)

MEF 3 months after

project

effectiveness

Information system

accounting software

(i) Acquisition and installation of

multiproject accounting software for the

project and training of the users

MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+

3 months after

project

effectiveness

Internal control Finalization of the FM procedures manual MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+

1 month after

effectiveness

Internal auditing Formal agreement with the Inspection

Générale des Finances (IGF) to manage the

internal audit function of the project and to

conduct periodic reviews of the project

transactions

MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+ and

MEF

3 months after

project

effectiveness

External auditing Appointment of the external auditor

completed and contract signed

MINESUDD /

SEP-REDD+

6 months after

project

effectiveness

21. Budget execution planning. The IPAU will prepare a consolidated annual work plan and

budget (AWPB) for implementing project activities. The work plan and budgets will identify the

activities to be undertaken and the role of respective parties in implementation. The AWPB will

provide detailed information on the amount allocated to each implementing entity per activity

showing unit costs and quantities. The AWPB will be submitted to the National Steering

Committee for advice, and thereafter to the Bank for approval no later than 30 November of the

year preceding the year the work plan should be implemented.

22. Accounting systems. An integrated financial and accounting system and associated

software will be put in place and used by the IPAU FM unit. The project code and chart of accounts

will be developed to meet the specific needs of the project and documented in the manual of

procedures being drafted. The prevailing accounting policies and procedures in line with the West

African Francophone countries accounting standards (SYSCOHADA) currently in use in Côte

d’Ivoire for ongoing Bank-supported operations will be applied. The accounting systems and

policies and financial procedures used by the project will be documented in the project’s

administrative, accounting, and financial manual.

23. Internal Control and Internal Auditing: The internal control system aims to ensure (i)

effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (ii) reliability of financial reporting, and (iii)

compliance with applicable laws and regulations. For the purpose of this project, the Project

Implementation Manual, to be finalized, will describe work processes, information flow,

authorization and delegation of authority, timing, job descriptions, controls, compliance with

project objectives, micro and macro rules and regulations. Application of the procedures set up in

43

the manual will be mandatory for all staff at all levels. In addition to the procedures manual, all

rules of the DAF of MINESUDD that do not conflict with the manual will also apply to the project.

24. There is no formal internal audit department or unit within the DAF of the

MINESUDD. All the accounting works performed by the DAF team are overseen by the Direction

Générale du Tresor et de la Comptabilité Publique (DGTCP). All the expenditure cycles from

commitment to payment of invoices as well as expenditure supporting documents are scrutinized

by the financial controller and the public accountant assigned to MINESUDD in line with the

government PFM system. This arrangement, which applies to all Bank-supported projects in Cote

d’Ivoire under the Instruction No 192/MEF/CAB/DGBF/DAS-SDSD signed by the Minister of

Finances on September 22, 2008, will be used for this project.

25. In addition to this, the MEF will provide financial support for the strengthening of

the internal audit function of the project. In line with the Instruction 192, the Inspection

Générale des Finances (IGF), the government internal audit department under MEF, will conduct,

on a quarterly basis, reviews of project expenditures including physical verifications of acquisition

of works, goods and services. All deficiencies or circumvented practices identified will be

communicated by the IGF in a timely manner to the Minister, the National Steering Committee

and the IPAU for immediate corrective action as appropriate. One copy of such report will be

communicated to the Bank.

26. Financial reports. Consolidated unaudited Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) will be

prepared every quarter in a format and content agreed with the Bank and submitted to the Bank 45

days after the end of the quarter. The quarterly IFR includes the following financial statements: (i)

statement of sources of funds and project revenues and uses of funds; (ii) statement of expenditures

classified by project components and or disbursement category (with additional information on

expenditure types and implementing agencies as appropriate), showing comparisons with budgets

for the reporting quarter, the year and cumulatively for the project life; (iii) cash forecast; (iv)

explanatory notes; (v) Designated Account activity statements. The IFRs will report on the

financial status of all activities of the project.

27. In compliance with International Accounting Standards and Bank requirements, the

project will produce annual financial statements. These include: (i) a Balance Sheet that shows

Assets and Liabilities ; (ii) a Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds showing all the sources of

Project funds, expenditures analyzed by project component and or category; (iii) a Designated

Account Activity Statement; (iv) a Summary of Withdrawals using statement of expenditures

(SOE), listing individual withdrawal applications by reference number, date and amount; and (v)

Notes related to significant accounting policies and accounting standards adopted by management

and underlying the preparation of financial statements. The financial statements will constitute the

entry point of the external auditor’s annual diligences.

28. External Audits. The Chamber of Accounts (Supreme Audit Institution) faces some

capacity constraints. Therefore, the project accounts will be audited by a qualified and experienced

external auditor (audit firm) recruited on terms of references acceptable to the Bank. The project

accounts will be audited on an annual basis. The annual audited financial statements together with

44

the auditor’s report and management letter covering identified internal control weaknesses will be

submitted to the Bank no later than six months after the end of each fiscal year.

Funds Flow and Disbursement Arrangements

29. Designated Account and Project Accounts: One (1) Designated Account (DA)

denominated in FCFA will be opened at the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and

will be managed by the Department of Public Debt (Direction de la Dette Publique-DDP) to

receive advances for project expenditures eligible for project financing. The funds will then be

transferred into the Project Account opened in a commercial bank acceptable to the Bank. The

Project Account will be managed by the public accountant assigned by MEF in coordination with

the FMS of the IPAU. Interest income on the Project Account will be deposited into a specific

account opened in a commercial bank.

30. Disbursement methods: Upon project effectiveness, transaction-based disbursements will

be used. An initial advance up to the ceiling of the DA (FCFA 250 million) will be made into the

designated account and subsequent disbursements will be made on a monthly basis against

submission of Statements of Expenditures (SOEs) or records as specified in the Disbursement

Letter (DL) reporting on the use of the initial/previous advance. Thereafter, the option to disburse

against submission of quarterly unaudited IFR (also known as Report-based disbursements) could

be considered subject to the quality and timeliness of the IFRs submitted to the Bank and the

overall FM performance and arrangements as assessed in due course. In the case of the use of the

report-based disbursement, the DA ceiling will be equal to the cash forecast for two quarters as

provided in the quarterly unaudited IFR. If and when IFRs are used as the basis of disbursements,

the contents and format will be revised to include disbursement-related information. In addition to

the “advance” method, the option of disbursing the funds through direct payments to a third party,

for contracts above a pre-determined threshold for eligible expenditures (e.g. 20 percent of the

DAs ceiling), will also be available. Another acceptable method of withdrawing proceeds from the

GEF grant is the special commitment method whereby the Bank may pay amounts to a third party

for eligible expenditures to be paid by the Recipient under an irrevocable Letter of Credit (LC).

31. Disbursement of funds to beneficiaries, contractors, suppliers and implementing

agencies: The IPAU will make payments to implementing agencies, contractors, suppliers and the

contracting agencies in regard to the specified activities in the components of the project. Payments

will be made in accordance with the payment modalities, as specified in the respective

contracts/conventions. The financial controller and the IPAU may also consider the findings of the

internal audit function (under responsibility of IGF) while approving the payments. The financial

controller and the FM team will reserve the right to verify the expenditures ex-post, and refunds

might be requested for non-respect of contractual clauses. Misappropriated activities could result

in the suspension of financing for a given entity.

32. When a UN agency is used as implementing agency or a supplier, upon signing of the

Memorandum of Understanding between the government and UN agency, application for

withdrawal of proceeds will be prepared by the IPAU and submitted to the Bank. The special

World Bank disbursement procedures will be used to establish a “Blanket Commitment” to allow

the amount to be advanced. Funds withdrawn from the GEF grant account will be deposited

45

directly into the UN bank account provided by the UN agency for the project activities to be

implemented by the UN agency. The amount advanced will be documented through the quarterly

unaudited Interim Financial Reports as actual expenditures incurred by the UN agency.

33. Disbursement categories. The table below specifies the categories of Eligible

Expenditures that may be financed out of the proceeds of the Financing (“Category”), the

allocations of the amounts of the Financing to each Category, and the percentage of expenditures

to be financed for Eligible Expenditures in each Category:

Disbursement Categories

Category Amount of the

Financing Allocated

(expressed in US$)

Percentage of

Expenditures to be

Financed

(inclusive of Taxes)

Goods, works, non-consulting services,

consultants’ services, Operating Costs and

Training under the Project

7,000,000.00 100%

TOTAL AMOUNT 7,000,000.00

34. Local taxes. Funds will be disbursed in accordance with project categories of expenditures

and components, as shown in the Financing Agreement. Financing of each category of

expenditure/component will be authorized at 100 percent inclusive of taxes as per the current

Country Financing Parameters approved for Côte d’Ivoire.

35. Implementation support plan: FM implementation support will be conducted over the

project’s lifetime and will be done on a risk-based approach. Supervision will focus on the status

of the financial management system to verify whether the system continues to operate well and to

ensure that expenditures incurred by the project remain eligible for GEF funding. It will comprise

inter alia, the review of audit reports and IFRs, advice to task team on all FM issues. Based on the

current risk assessment, at least two supervision missions per year are envisaged. An

implementation support mission will be carried out before effectiveness to ensure project

readiness. To the extent possible, mixed on-site missions will be undertaken with procurement,

M&E and disbursement colleagues and will cover the activities implemented by PROGEP-CI as

well as those contracted to other implementing agencies. The supervision intensity will be adjusted

over time taking into account the project FM performance and FM risk level.

Procurement

36. Guidelines: The procurement for the proposed project will be carried out in accordance

with: (a) the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting

Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants” dated January 2011 (revised July 2014);

and (b) “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA

Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011 (revised July 2014). In

general, Côte d’Ivoire’s procurement code and regulations do not conflict with Bank guidelines.

46

However, provisions related to the use of point systems and re-bidding when at least three bids

were not submitted will not be applied for national competitive bidding.

37. The Recipient shall ensure that the project is carried out in accordance with the provisions

of the “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by

IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants”, dated October 15, 2006 and revised in January 2011

(“Anti-Corruption Guidelines”).

38. Procurement Documents: Procurement shall be carried out using the Bank’s Standard

Bidding Documents (SBDs) for all International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for goods and works

and for Standard Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the selection of consultants through

competitive procedures. The Recipient will develop standard documents based on the Bank’s

SBDs for National Competitive Bidding (NCB) for goods and works and the Bank’s RFP for the

selection of consultants through methods other than Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS),

with modifications that will be submitted to the Bank for prior approval.

39. The different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-

qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the

Recipient and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least

annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in

institutional capacity.

40. Advertising procedures: The General Procurement Notice, Specific Procurement Notices,

Requests for Expression of Interest, results of the evaluations, and contract awards should be

published in accordance with the above-cited procurement guidelines. The Recipient will keep a

list of received responses from potential bidders interested in the contracts.

41. For ICB and requests for proposals that involve international consultants, the contract

awards shall be published in the United Nations Development Business (UNDB) online within

two weeks of receiving the Bank’s “no objection” to the recommendation of contract award. For

Goods, the information to publish shall specify: (a) name of each bidder who submitted a bid; (b)

bid prices as read out at bid opening; (c) name and evaluated prices of each bid that was evaluated;

(d) name of bidders whose bids were rejected and the reasons for their rejection; and (e) name of

the winning bidder, and the price it offered, as well as the duration and summary scope of the

contract awarded. For Consultants, the following information must be published: (a) names of all

consultants who submitted proposals; (b) technical points assigned to each consultant; (c)

evaluated prices of each consultant; (d) final point ranking of the consultants; and (e) name of the

winning consultant and the price, duration, and summary scope of the contract. The same

information will be sent to all consultants who submitted proposals. The other contracts should be

published in the national gazette periodically (at least, quarterly) and in the format of a summarized

table covering the previous period with the following information: (a) name of the consultant to

whom the contract was awarded; (b) the price; (c) duration; and (d) scope of the contract.

47

Procurement methods

42. Procurement of Works. The works to be financed by GEF funds would include only the

construction of storage facilities for obsolete pesticides. Contracts of works estimated to cost

US$10,000,000 equivalent or more per contract shall be procured through ICB; there will be no

such contracts under this project. Contracts estimated to cost less than US$10,000,000 equivalent

may be procured through NCB. Contracts estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent per

contract may be procured through shopping procedures. For shopping, contracts will be awarded

following evaluation of bids received in writing on the basis of written solicitations issued to

several qualified suppliers (at least three). The award would be made to the supplier with the lowest

price, only after comparing a minimum of three quotations open at the same time, provided the

supplier has the experience and resources to execute the contract successfully. For shopping, the

project procurement officer will keep a register of suppliers updated at least every six months.

43. Procurement of Goods. The Goods to be financed by GEF funds would include: office

furniture, equipment, and supplies; vehicles; specialized equipment for handling pesticides;

software; and a variety of other small goods. Similar Goods that could be provided by the same

vendor would be grouped in bid packages estimated to cost at least US$1,000,000 per contract and

would be procured through ICB. Contracts estimated to cost less than US$1,000,000 equivalent

may be procured through NCB. Goods estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per

contract may be procured through shopping procedures. For shopping, the condition of contract

award shall be the same process as described above for procurement of works.

44. Selection of Consultants. The project will finance Consultant Services for activities such

as: engineering designs and supervision of works, surveys, environmental and social safeguards

studies, provision of specialized services, technical and financial audits, training and workshop

facilitators, etc.

45. Consultant firms will be selected through the following methods: (a) QCBS; (b)

selection based on the Consultant’s Qualification (CQS) for contracts which amounts are less than

US$300,000 equivalent and for specialized studies and research which require a specific expertise;

(c) Least Cost Selection (LCS) for standard tasks such as financial and technical audits, costing

less than US$300,000; (d) Selection under a Fixed Budget; (e) Single Source Selection, with prior

agreement of the Bank, for services in accordance with the paragraphs 3.10 to 3.12 of Consultant

Guidelines. Individual Consultants (ICs) will be hired in accordance with paragraph 5.1 to 5.4 of

Bank Guidelines; Sole source selection of individual consultants may be used only with prior

approval of the Bank.

46. Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$300,000

equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines, if a sufficient number of qualified

individuals or firms are available. However, if foreign firms express interest, they would not be

excluded from consideration.

47. Procurement of consulting services other than consulting services covered by

consultant Guidelines: those might include designing, editing and printing project promotion

48

supports; providing logistical support such as car rentals for field visits, travel services and

logistical support for workshops. LCS or shopping will be used in these cases.

48. Training, Workshops and Conferences. Trainings (including training material and

support), workshops and conferences, will be carried out based on a Capacity Building and

Training Plan (CBTP) to be approved as part of the Project’s Annual Work Plan and Budget

(AWPB). The CBTP shall include: (a) particulars of the Training envisaged; (b) the criteria for

selection of the personnel to be trained, and such personnel, if known; (c) the selection method of

the institution or individuals conducting such Training; (d) the institution conducting such

Training, if known; (e) the purpose and justification for such Training; (f) the location and duration

of the proposed Training; and (g) the estimated cost of such Training. The Recipient will be

requested to include a brief reporting on such activities in the Project’s semi-annual progress

reports summarizing completed activities under the CBTP and their outcomes, as regards the

attainment of the project development objective.

49. Operational Costs. Operational costs which may be financed by the project are the

incremental expenses incurred for implementing project activities by participating agencies. They

include facility services (electricity, internet, utilities), vehicles operation and maintenance,

maintenance of equipment, communication costs, and supervision costs (i.e., transport,

accommodation, and per diems). They will be procured using the procedures specified in the

Project Implementation Manual.

Assessment of the capacity of the agencies to implement procurement

50. An assessment of the SEP-REDD+ procurement capacity and its recent experience in

managing the Bank-financed project (FCPP-REDD+) was carried out and was deemed

adequate for project execution. The assessment evaluated the following: (a) experience in

procurement, (b) staff capacity, (c) capacity of filing of procurement documents, and (d) the

existence of an implementation manual on procurement. The assessment concluded that the SEP-

REDD+ capacity was acceptable to the Bank based on its implementation of FCPF-REDD+ and

as such will have sufficient capacity for project implementation as it becomes the IPAU, assuming

a number of mitigation measures are in place to overcome identified capacity constraints.

Mitigation measures

51. To enhance procurement capacity within the IPAU to implement the project, the

following recommendations in advance of project launch are made: (a) the recruitment of one

procurement specialist and (b) the adoption of the project implementation manual specifying

procurement procedures specific to the project. As such, the following areas will be specified: the

various procurement methods or consultant selection methods, any activities requiring pre-

qualification, estimated costs of activities, prior review requirements, and procurement calendar.

Frequency of procurement reviews and supervision

52. The World Bank’s prior and post reviews will be carried out on the basis of thresholds

indicated in the following table. The World Bank will conduct supervision missions every

semester and annual Post Procurement Reviews (PPRs); with the ratio of post review at least one

49

to five contracts. The World Bank may also conduct an independent procurement review at any

time until two years after the closing date of the project.

53.

Procurement and Review Thresholds

Expenditure Contract Value Procurement Contract Subject to

Category (Threshold) Method Prior Review

US$

1. Works

≥ 10.000.000 ICB All < 10.000.000 NCB The two first contracts

< 200.000 Shopping

No threshold Direct contracting

2. Goods ≥1 000,000 ICB All

<1 000,000 NCB The two first contracts

<100,000 Shopping

No threshold Direct contracting All

3. Consultants

Firms ≥300,000 QCBS; QBS; LCS; FBS All contracts

<300,000 QCBS; QBS; LCS; FBS, CQ The first contract

Individuals ≥100,000 EOI All contracts

<100,000 Comparison of 3 CVs The first contract

(Selection

Firms &

Individuals

No threshold Single Source All

All consultant terms of reference regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior

review.

Procurement Plan

54. For each contract, the procurement plan will define the appropriate procurement

methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, the

prior review requirements, and the time frame. The procurement plan was confirmed during

negotiations. The procurement plan will be updated at least annually, or as required, to reflect the

actual project implementation needs and capacity improvements. All procurement activities will

be carried out in accordance with approved original or updated procurement plans. All

procurement plans should be published on the Bank’s website, according to the Guidelines.

50

Monitoring & Evaluation

55. Design of and support to capacity-building on M&E under the project aim to provide

sufficient and necessary information and data on obsolete pesticides to meet the needs and

demands for evidence-based policy formulation in the sector as well as to facilitate assessment

of progress against the PDO. The main issues relate to quality of data, especially validity and

reliability of data and their timeliness and in making critical information publicly available and

easily accessible. Annex 1 defines the project indicators at PDO and intermediate level, baselines,

targets, appropriate data sources as well as the responsibility for data collection. The Project

Implementation Manual includes an M&E manual with more detailed explanation of each

indicator, how it is defined, how it will be measured, and how it shall be interpreted.

56. A dedicated full-time Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) specialist will be one of the

core members of the IPAU (and will thus be working on both PROGEP-CI and on the REDD+

Project). This person will maintain the project data on all indicators and will coordinate the inputs

of the key actors who will be responsible for collection and interpretation of data, primarily

specialists of MINESUDD and MINAGRI and of the IPAU technical assistance unit.

51

Annex 4: Implementation Support Plan


Strategy and Approach for Implementation Support

1. The strategy for implementation support (IS) has been developed based on the nature

of the project and its risk profile. It will aim at making implementation support to the client more

flexible and efficient, and will focus on implementation of risk mitigation measures defined during

project preparation.

Procurement. Implementation support will include: (i) providing training to the IPAU staff as

needed, (ii) reviewing procurement documents and providing timely feedback to the IPAU,

(iii) providing detailed guidance on the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines to the IPAU, and (iv)

monitoring procurement progress against the detailed Procurement Plan.

Financial management (FM). Supervision will review the project’s FM system including but

not limited to, accounting, reporting, and internal controls.

Environmental safeguards. The Bank’s Safeguard Specialists in the project task team will

supervise the implementation of the environmental safeguards instruments developed during

project preparation and will provide guidance to the MINESUDD as needed. The Bank’s

Environmental Specialist based in the Abidjan country office will also provide training on the

Bank’s safeguards policies and procedures for the project implementation team of the IPAU

as well as for the technical team at MINESUDD.

Anti-Corruption. The Bank team will supervise the implementation of the agreed anti-

corruption guidelines, and provide guidance in resolving any issues identified.

2. Most of the Bank team members are based in Côte d’Ivoire country office to ensure

timely, efficient, and effective implementation support to the client. Formal implementation

support missions and field visits will be carried out semi-annually. Detailed inputs from the Bank

team and partners are outlined below:

Technical inputs. In terms of pesticides management, technical inputs will be provided to

MINESUDD and to MINAGRI and other key stakeholders by the team’s senior environmental

specialists who have a strong pesticides management background.

Fiduciary requirements and inputs. Training will be provided by the Bank’s FMS and

Procurement Specialist as needed to IPAU staff. Both are based in the Abidjan country office

to provide timely support. Formal supervision of FM will be carried out semi-annually, while

procurement supervision will be carried out on a timely basis as required by the client.

52

3. Based on the outcome of the FM risk assessment, the following implementation

support plan is proposed. The objective of the implementation support plan is to ensure that the

project maintains a satisfactory FM system throughout the project’s life.

Financial Management Implementation Support Plan FM Activity Frequency

Desk reviews

Interim financial reports review. Quarterly

Audit report review of the project. Annually

Review of other relevant information such as interim internal control

systems reports.

Continuous as they become

available

On site visits

Review of overall operation of the financial management system. Annual with field visits at the local

level

(Implementation Support Mission)

Monitoring of actions taken on issues highlighted in audit reports,

auditors’ management letters, and internal audit and other reports.

As needed

Transaction reviews (if needed), As needed

Capacity building support

Financial management training sessions During implementation and as and

when needed.

Financial review of the MINESUDD corporate finance. Input is required from a financial

specialist for regular review of the financial status to verify compliance of financial covenants.

This exercise will be done through semi-annual review.

Safeguards. Inputs from an environment specialist are required given the environmental

impacts of the project. Capacity building will be required on environment monitoring and

reporting. Field visits are required on a semi-annual basis.

Operational and technical support. The task team leader (TTL) and co-TTL will provide

timely implementation support on all operational aspects through regular videoconference and

audio meetings, as well as coordinating with the client and Bank team members. The TTL and

co-TTL will lead two formal field visits a year and, as needed, conduct targeted missions to

resolve operational and technical issues. To ensure that annual work plans and implementation

support and supervision action plans will be carried out as planned, the country office based

Sr. Environmental Specialist will be responsible for close follow-up of project activities.

53

4. The main focus areas for implementation support are summarized in the tables below.

Implementation Support Focus Areas Time Focus Resource Estimate Partner Role

First 12

months Financial management (FM) training and supervision 4 SWs n.a.

Procurement training and supervision 4 SWs n.a.

Environmental training and supervision 4 SWs n.a.

Project implementation support and coordination 8 SWs n.a.

Pesticides management and support to pesticides and associated

wastes inventory 4 SWs n.a.

1260

months Pesticides and associated wastes management 20 SWs n.a.

Environment and social monitoring and reporting 20 SWs n.a.

FM disbursement and reporting 20 SWs n.a.

Procurement supervision 20 SWs n.a.

Project implementation support and supervision coordination

and M&E

40 SWs

n.a.

Note: SW = staff week.

n.a. Not applicable.

Staff Skill Matrix

`Skills Needed Number of Staff Weeks Number of Trips Comments

Pesticides Management 4 SWs annually Fields trips as required Country office based

Environmental management 4 SWs annually Fields trips as required Country office based

Financial management 4 SWs annually Fields trips as required Country office based

Procurement management 4 SWs annually Fields trips as required Country office based

M&E and project operations and

technical advice

8 SWs annually Two annually Washington based

54

Annex 5: Incremental Costs Analysis

CÔTE D’IVOIRE: OBSOLETE PESTICIDES PROJECT

Fit with GEF Strategic Priorities

1. The project responds to the GEF’s higher-level objectives as per the GEF-5

Chemicals Strategy20 which is “to promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their

life-cycle in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and

the global environment”. More specifically, this proposed project is consistent with the GEF’s

Objective 1 to “Phase out POPs and reduce POPs releases”, and with 4 of the 5 expected outcomes:

production and use of controlled POPs chemicals phased out; POPs releases to the environment

reduced; POPs wastes prevented, managed, and disposed of, and POPs contaminated sites

managed in an environmentally sound manner; and country capacity built to effectively phase out

and reduce releases of POPs. Although the GEF strategy would imply a focus on POPs pesticides,

in practice, this cannot be effectively achieved except by addressing obsolete pesticides more

broadly, of which POPs pesticides are a part.

2. The project’s approach with respect to incrementality and cofinancing, is presented

below, starting with the Baseline Scenario, followed by the Alternative Scenario, with GEF

financing.

Baseline Scenario

3. The baseline scenario is constituted by a small number of initiatives and projects that

are tackling major questions related to the management of obsolete pesticides and strategies to

prevent their continuing build-up. These investments constitute the parallel co-financing for the

project. They are presented below and the table at the end of this annex links the parallel co-

financing with each specific component and sub-component.

4. The Government of Côte d’Ivoire is directly financing few or no initiatives directly

tackling the issue of obsolete pesticides. However, all of the projects and initiatives noted below

involve funds that are managed by or are being directed by the Government, so could just as easily

have been considered as Government financing of the Baseline Scenario.

5. Croplife-Côte d’Ivoire is a partnership between the Government and the private sector

concerned with the fabrication, distribution, and use of pesticides. They are leading a number of

innovative efforts for recycling of containers, training programs for pesticide users, and for

carefully managed storage and disposal. In their co-financing letter, they have indicated an amount

of US$2.0 million which will be spent by the organization and its member companies in

coordination with the project’s components 2 and 3. The table has assumed the amount can be

allocated as US$1.5 million for Component 2 and US$0.5 million for Component 3.

20 GEF Secretariat, 2010, “Chemicals Strategy”, part of GEF-5 Focal area strategies, available at www.gefweb.org.

55

6. The World-Bank financed Agricultural Sector Project is a major constituent of the

Baseline Scenario. The project is implemented by MINAGRI. The World Bank funding of

US$50.0 million includes US$26.2 million of grant and US$23.8 million of credit financing. As

indicated in their co-financing letter, they estimate at US$14.0 million the amount of project

financing that is directly supportive of the Obsolete Pesticides Project, given their major

investments in support to the main agricultural supply chains in the country (principally cocoa)

and in options to reduce pesticide use. The table below estimates a split of this co-financing

between Component 1 (US$1.0 million), Component 2 (US$7.0 million) and Component 3

(US$6.0 million).

7. GIZ is supporting an important project called PROFIAB. Their co-financing letter

indicates a support to this project of US$6.0 million but in fact, part of the project is more directly

concerned with biodiversity conservation and only a smaller part with more sustainable agriculture

and reduced pesticide use. For purposes of this analysis, it has thus been estimated that PROFIAB

is providing US$2.0 million of support for Component 3.

8. Finally, the French Government’s program of debt relief, C2D (Contrat Dette

Développement) is another major player supporting this project’s overall goals of better uses of

pesticides in agricultural environments. Their co-financing letter indicates a co-financing for this

project of US$6 million, for Component 2. It is provided through MINAGRI’s Project to Support

Agricultural Value Chains in Côte d’Ivoire (Projet d’Appui à la Relance de Filières Agricoles de

la Côte d’Ivoire, PARFACI).

GEF Alternative

Project Development Objective, incorporating Global Environmental Objective (GEO)

9. The joint PDO/GEO of the Côte d’Ivoire Obsolete Pesticides project is “to improve

the management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes in Côte d’Ivoire by the Government

and other stakeholders”. This objective is to be achieved through the implementation of the

following components (see Annex 2 for a more detailed description).

GEF-financed activities

10. Component 1. Regulatory and institutional framework. This component will reinforce

the regulatory framework governing the management of pesticides by assisting the Government to

propose new regulatory instruments or to modify/update existing regulations and laws. It will

additionally strengthen the institutional capacity of key stakeholders, including those in

Government and in the private sector, to play a role in the management of obsolete pesticides.

Specific training activities in technical areas and of local beneficiaries would be included in other

components, as pertinent. The component is divided into two sub-components.

11. Component 2. Management of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes. This

component will support the efficient management of stocks of obsolete pesticides and their

associated wastes through three sub-components which are described in Annex 2.

12. Component 3. Promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides. The management of

obsolete stocks must also include measures to prevent their continuing build-up. This in part

56

can be achieved through an upstream reduction in the use of synthetic and potential dangerous

pesticides. The promotion of integrated pest management (IPM) can reduce the use of such

pesticides by promoting biological pesticides and through changes in agricultural practices while

achieving at the same time additional benefits related to the health of the farmer and its family and

the quality of the natural resources (soil, water, natural habitats and wildlife species).

13. Component 4. Project management. This component includes financing to put in

place an efficient management system for the implementation of the project. It includes

support for key consultants and for the day-to-day management of project activities such as M&E,

financial management, procurement, and audits.

Incremental Cost

14. The baseline cost (see table below) for activities that are co-financing the Obsolete

Pesticides Project is US$24.0 million and the GEF alternative is estimated at US$34.8 million,

resulting in an incremental cost assumed by the GEF of US$7.0 million, plus Government

financing of US$3.8 million.

Incremental Cost Matrix

Component Category

Estimated

Expenditures

(US$ millions)

Local Benefit Global Benefit

1. Regulatory

and

institutional

framework

Baseline

scenario PSAC: 1.0

Through its support to the

government and to major

institutions supporting the

agricultural sector PSAC

will help improve the

regulatory and institutional

framework across a range

of agricultural areas. This

will benefit local farmers.

Global benefits under the

Baseline Scenario are limited

to none.

GEF

alternative

GEF: 1.5

RCI: 0.4

Others: 1.0

GEF financing for better

regulatory oversight of

pesticides and more

coherent institutional

structures will bring local

benefits such as reduced

costs and reduced health

impacts.

Better regulatory oversight,

and particularly better

coordination with

international partners and

neighboring countries will

help reduce global levels of

dangerous POPs pesticides

and transboundary movement

of such products.

Increment 2.2

2. Management

of obsolete

pesticides and

associated

wastes

Baseline

scenario

Croplife: 1.5

PSAC: 7.0

C2D: 6.0

These various investments

under the baseline scenario

will help support better

management of pesticides

in specific cultures

(although not at a national

scale and not in a

coordinated way). Local

benefits to farmers will be

largely economic.

All investments in better

managing pesticide use will

result in global environmental

benefits but these will be

relatively limited compared

to those under the GEF

alternative that will directly

target the most problematic

pesticides.

57

GEF

alternative

GEF: 4.2

RCI: 2.3

Others: 14.5

GEF financing will bring

incremental local benefits

in terms or reduced

economic and health costs.

The most significant global

benefits of the project will be

associated with this

component which will invest

directly in the management

(storage and/or disposal) of

the most dangerous POPs

pesticides, reducing real or

potential contamination at a

regional or even global scale

Increment 6.8

3. Promotion of

alternatives to

chemical

pesticides

Baseline

scenario

Croplife: 0.5

PSAC: 6.0

PROFIAB: 2.0

Local benefits of

promoting alternatives to

pesticides and of promoting

IPM will perhaps be

economic (alternative

methods may not however

be less expensive, at least

in early stages of adoption).

Global benefits under the

Baseline Scenario are limited.

GEF

alternative

GEF: 0.6

RCI: 0.1

Others: 8.5

Incremental local benefits

from the GEF financing

supporting field

demonstration projects in

IPM will be relatively

minor, due to the pilot

nature of the investments.

As for the local benefits,

global benefits will be limited

due to the pilot nature of the

investments. In the future, as

IPM becomes more

mainstreamed, hopefully in

part due to this project,

replacement of dangerous

pesticides by other products

will bring global

environmental and health

benefits.

Increment 0.9

4. Project

management

Baseline

scenario N/A N/A N/A

GEF

alternative

GEF: 0.7

RCI: 1.0

N/A N/A

Increment 1.9

Total

Baseline

Scenario

Croplife: 2.0

PSAC: 14.0

PROFIAB: 2.0

C2D: 6.0

GEF

Alternative

GEF: 7.0

RCI: 3.8

Others: 24.0

Increment 10.8

Role of Co-financing

15. The table below provides a breakdown of how the project financing and co-financing

is distributed by component. The overall total of parallel co-financing is US$24.0 million

(excluding the Government’s cash contributions).

58

Indicative parallel co-financing by component and sub-component (US$ 000)

Component/Source GEF Govt.

(cash)

CropLife-

CI

PSAC GIZ C2D Total

Co-fin.

Total

Comp. 1 1,500 400 1,000 1,000 2,900

Sub-comp. 1.1 300 100 200 200 600

Sub-comp. 1.2 1,200 300 800 800 2,300

Comp. 2 4,200 2,300 1,500 7,000 6,000 14,500 21,000

Sub-comp. 2.1 900 300 400 400 1,600

Sub-comp. 2.2 2,900 1,900 1,100 1,000 1,000 3,100 7,900

Sub-comp. 2.3 400 100 6,000 5,000 11,000 11,500

Comp. 3 600 100 500 6,000 2,000 8,500 9,200

Comp. 4 700 1,000 0 1,700

Total 7,000 3,800 2,000 14,000 2,000 6,000 24,000 34,800

Note: The “Total co-financing” column includes the parallel co-financing from other sources but excludes the Government cash contribution. The parallel co-

financing is estimated by sub-component for Components 1 and 2; the figures will be validated during project implementation at the time of the preparation of

annual work plans and budgets and in consultation with the project partners.

The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...GEF-R2015-0014-2-Box39317… · OBSOLETE...

Documents

Transcript of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...GEF-R2015-0014-2-Box39317… · OBSOLETE...