Language
Original
:
:
ENGLISH
FRENCH
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND
BUGESERA NATURAL REGION RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT
PROJECT (PAIR)
MULTINATIONAL RWANDA - BURUNDI
PROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT
Date: July 2009
Team Leader
Members
:
:
Sector Manager
Sector Director
Region Director
:
:
:
Appraisal Team
Mohamed OULD TOLBA, Agro-economist
OSAN.3
Mouldi TARHOUNI, Agricultural Engineer
Hany SHALABY, Principal Environmentalist
Rita N. BA, Senior Gender Expert
J. NYIRIMANA, Agronomist
Hamadi LAM, Agronomist, Consultant
Mohamed LABBEN, Financial Analyst, Consultant
Chiji OJUKWU
Aly ABOU-SABAA
D. GAYE
OSAN.2
OSAN.4
OSAN.2
RWFO
OSAN.1
ORPF
OSAN.1
OSAN
OREA
J. RIBEIRO, Principal Procurement Expert
K. LAAJILI, Agro-economist
J.M. OSSETE, Water Expert
L. RUGWABIZA, Economist
OSAN.1
OSAN.3
OWAS
RWFO.
,
Peer Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS1
Page
Currency Equivalents, Fiscal Year, Weights and Measures, Acronyms and Abbreviations,
Project Information Sheet, Executive Summary, Project Matrix
i - vi
I – STRATEGIC ORIENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Project Links with Country Strategy and Objectives ................................................................................. 1
Justification for the Bank’s Involvement.................................................................................................... 1
Aid Coordination ......................................................................................................................................... 2
II –
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
Project Goal ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Project Components..................................................................................................................................... 3
Irrigation Development Component ........................................................................................................... 4
Other Infrastructure Component ................................................................................................................. 4
Project Coordination and Management Component .................................................................................. 5
Technical Options and Alternative Options Studied .................................................................................. 5
Project Type................................................................................................................................................. 5
Project Cost and Financing Arrangements ................................................................................................. 5
Project Area and Beneficiaries.................................................................................................................... 7
Participatory Approach to Project Identification, Design and Implementation......................................... 7
Consideration of Bank Group Experience and Lessons in Project Design................................................ 7
Key Performance Indicators........................................................................................................................ 8
III – PROJECT FEASIBILITY ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1
3.2
Economic and Financial Performance ........................................................................................................ 8
Environmental and Social Impact ............................................................................................................... 9
IV – PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................... 11
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Implementation Arrangements.................................................................................................................. 11
Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 13
Governance ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Risk Management...................................................................................................................................... 14
Knowledge Development .......................................................................................................................... 15
V–
LEGAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................................... 15
5.1
5.2
5.3
Legal Instrument........................................................................................................................................ 15
Conditions Associated with the Bank’s Involvement............................................................................... 15
Compliance with Bank Policies ................................................................................................................ 16
VI – RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................................................... 16
LIST OF ANNEXES:
Page
APPENDIX I: Comparative Socio-economic Indicators of both countries .……………………… ……….......2
APPENDIX II: Table of ADB Portfolio in both countries…………… .……………………………………...2
APPENDIX III: Main Related Projects Financed by the Bank and Other Development Partners.… ……….....1
APPENDIX IV: Map of Project Area……………… ………… ………………………………………………1
1
Volume II is presented separately
i
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(June 2009)
UA 1
UA 1
UA 1
=
=
=
FBU 1839.49
FRW 877.915
USD 1.52642
FISCAL YEAR
1 July - 30 June
WEIGHT AND MEASURES
1 metric tonne
1 kilogramme (kg)
1 metre (m)
1 millimetre (mm)
1 kilometre (km)
1 hectare (ha)
=
=
=
=
=
=
2204 pounds
2.20 pounds
3.28 feet
0.03937 inch
0.62 mile
2.471 acres (= 10 000 m²)
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADB
ADF
BNR
BRB
CRPP
DFID
DPAE
EDPRS
ESIA
ESMP
EU
GTZ
IFAC
ISA
LWH
PAIR
PPF
PRSP
PSTA II
SESIA
UCM
UNDP
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
African Development Bank
African Development Fund
Rwanda National Bank
Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Regional Project Steering Committee
Department for International Development
Provincial Delegation of Agriculture and Livestock
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
Environmental and Social Management Plan
European Union
German Technical Cooperation
International Federation of Accountants
International Standards of Auditing
Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Program
Bugesera Rural Infrastructure Support Project
Project Preparation Facility
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
Agriculture Transformation Strategic Plan – Phase II
Strategic Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
Joint Coordination Unit
United Nations Development Programme
ii
Project Information Sheet
Client Information Sheet
RECIPIENTS
:
Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi
EXECUTING AGENCY
:
Joint Project Coordination Unit
Financing Plan
Source of Financing
Amount
Instrument
(UA Million)
ADF
30.00
TOTAL COST excluding taxes
30.00
Grants
ADB Key Financial Information
Grant currency
Interest type
Interest rate margin
Maturity
Grace period
NPV (baseline scenario)
ERR (baseline scenario)
UA
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
USD 24.07 million
22.9%
Duration – main stages (expected)
Approval of design note
Project approval
27 May 2009
23 September 2009
Effectiveness
Physical completion
Last disbursement
Maturity
Last repayment
1April 2010
30 June 2015
31 December 2015
Not applicable
Not applicable
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1
The overall objective of the Bugesera Natural Region Rural Infrastructure Support
Project (Bugesera PAIR) is to help reduce poverty in its impact area. Its specific objective is
to improve food security in Bugesera region by increasing agricultural production. PAIR
activities will begin in 2010 and will span six years. The project impact area is the crossborder region astride Rwanda and Burundi and particularly around Lakes Rweru and
Cyohoha and Akanyaru marshlands which are shared by both countries, as well as their
watersheds. The total project cost is estimated at UA 30 million (equivalent to FRW 26 340
million or FBU 55 185 million).
1.2
The population of the project area is estimated at 834 000 (274 000 for the district of
Bugesera in Rwanda and 560 000 for the Kirundo province in Burundi). The project will help
to improve the food security for that population by building irrigation infrastructure, access
roads and storage facilities, increasing agricultural production and conserving water and the
soil.
II.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Bugesera natural region suffers chronic food insecurity due to the scarcity of
land and severe soil erosion. The situation is worsened by high population density and growth
rate. To reverse the trend and create conditions for the cross-border region’s sustainable
development, it is necessary to develop rural infrastructure to boost agricultural production
while preserving and conserving its natural resources. This can only be achieved through
planned, coordinated and joint development actions by both countries. The Bugesera PAIR
addresses such a need.
III.
THE BANK’S VALUE ADDED
The Bank advised both Governments on issues relating to hillside irrigation in which
the countries have little experience. The preparation team reviewed and oriented the terms of
reference for the feasibility studies of this sub-component, even as it identified the necessary
technical assistance for its implementation. In that regard, it used the experience acquired by
the ADB in other African countries. The project preparation team capitalized on the Bank’s
experience in the development of watersheds and marshlands. Lastly, the preparation team
contributed the Bank’s expertise in institutional issues related to the implementation of
multinational projects and the design of cross-border projects.
IV.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The project will introduce a new hillside irrigation method and disseminate technical
and organizational knowledge on that method to its beneficiaries. The development of the
method will contribute to better mastery of water resource management and ensure greater
profitability of farm holdings by increasing and securing farm output.
iv
RESULTS-BASED PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
MULTINATIONAL: RWANDA-BURUNDI BUGESERA NATURAL REGION RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT PROJECT
Hierarchy of Objectives
1. PROJECT GOAL
Help to reduce poverty in
Bugesera region (Rwanda and
Burundi)
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE
Improve food security in
Bugesera region through a
sustainable increase in
agricultural production
Expected Outputs and
Timeline
IMPACTS (Long-term
Outputs)
Reduce the proportion of the
Bugesera population living
below the poverty line.
IMPACTS (Medium-term
Outputs)
Farmers’ income improves
The nutritional status of the
beneficiaries improves
Scope
(Target
Population)
Performance Indicators
Indicative Targets and Timeline
(Existence of Basic Data?)
Population of
Bugesera region (834
000)
Level of poverty in the project
area
Reduction of the proportion of the population
living below the poverty line from 60% to 40% in
2020
Population of
Bugesera natural
region estimated at
834 000
Income
Average income of direct beneficiaries increases by
about USD 1 600 per annum on project completion
Prevalence of acute
malnutrition
Agricultural production and
productivity increase
Agricultural production
Yield per hectare
The prevalence of acute malnutrition drops from
7.7% in 2009 in the project area to less than 2% on
project completion
Cereal production increases from 11 000 tonnes in
Year 1 to 18 000 tonnes in Year 3, then to 22 000
tonnes in Year 5 and 34 000 tonnes on project
completion
Vegetable production rises from 7 000 tonnes in
Year 1 to 8 000 tonnes in Year 3, then to 10 000
tonnes in Year 5 and 12 000 tonnes on project
completion
Market garden production increases from 86 000
tonnes in Year 1 to 106 000 tonnes in Year 3, then
to 126 000 tonnes in Year 5 and 146 000 tonnes on
project completion
Milk production goes up from 49 000 litres per day
to 51 520 litres per day on project completion (49
720 litres in Year 1, 50 620 in Year 2 and 51 520 in
Year 3)
Rice yields increase from 2 – 3 tonnes/ha in Year 1
to 5 – 6 tonnes/ha on project completion
Assumptions/Risks
Stability of both countries and successful
implementation of other poverty reduction
programmes of both countries
Risk of political instability in Burundi. This
risk is mitigated by the ongoing political
process and the commitment of the
international community in favour of
stability in the country.
Floods and droughts resulting from climate
change may cause a drop in production and
slow down water and soil conservation
actions.
A delay in the establishment of the UCM
and the recruitment of national staff in
Burundi may delay project start-up. This
risk is mitigated by the measures which will
be taken by the Governments to launch the
staff recruitment process before project
presentation to the Board of Directors.
v
Hierarchy of Objectives
3. ACTIVITIES
Expected Outputs and
Timeline
Scope
(Target
Population)
Performance Indicators
Indicative Targets and Timeline
(Existence of Basic Data?)
SHORT-TERM OUTPUTS
A. Development of Irrigation
A.1 Develop watersheds
A.2 Develop irrigation
infrastructure
A.3 Develop production
A.1 Lakes and marshlands
protected
A.2.1 Marshlands developed
A.2.2 Hillside irrigation
developed
A.3.1 Productive rice varieties
are introduced in the marshlands
A.3.2 Farmers receive cattle and
goats
A.3.3 Farmers receive goats
A.3.4 Farmers are organized into
cooperatives
B. Rural infrastructure
B.1. Rehabilitate rural roads
B.2. Set up storage facilities
C.
Coordination
and
management
C.1. Ensure project coordination
and management
Assumptions/Risks
B.1. Rural roads are rehabilitated
B.2. Storage facilities are set up
C.1 Project coordination and
management is guaranteed
Population of
Bugesera District
(Rwanda) and
Kirundo Province
(Burundi), 60% of
whom are women
A.1 Number of hectares
protected against erosion
A.2.1 Number of hectares of
marshlands developed
A.2.2 Number of hectares
developed for hillside irrigation
A.3.1 Number of hectares sown
with selected rice seeds
A.3.2 Number of cattle
distributed
A.3.3 Number of goats
distributed
A.3.4 Number of cooperatives
formed
A.1 8000 ha of watersheds protected on project
completion (1 000 ha in Year 2; 3 000 ha in Year 3;
4 000 ha in Year 4)
A.2.1 3 500 ha of marshlands developed on project
completion (500 ha in Year 1; 1 500 ha in Year 2; 1
500 ha in Year 3)
A.2.2 1 500 ha developed for hillside irrigation on
project completion (200 ha in Year 1; 600 ha in
Year 3; 700 ha in Year 4)
A.3.1 3 500 ha of marshlands use selected rice
varieties on project completion (500 ha in Year 1; 1
500 ha in Year 2; 1 500 ha in Year 3)
A.3.2 2 800 cattle are distributed to farmers on
project completion, including 50% to women (800
in Year 2; 1 000 in Year 3; 1 000 in Year 4)
A.3.3 8 000 goats are distributed to farmers on
project completion, including 60% to women (1000
in Year 2; 3000 in Year 3; 4000 in Year 4)
A.3.4 20 cooperatives are formed on project
completion, 50% of whose members and managers
will be women (5 in Year 1; 10 in Year 2 and 10 in
Year 3)
B.1. Kilometres of rural access
roads rehabilitated
B.2. Number of storage facilities
set up
B.1. 100 km of rural access roads rehabilitated: (20
km in Year 2; 30 km in Year 3; 50 km in Year 4)
B.2. 60 storage facilities are set up: (30 in Year 3; 30
in Year 4), including 50% for women’s
cooperatives. 2 silos are set up in Year 3.
C.1. Financial management,
procurement and monitoringevaluation are in place
C.1 The Project Coordination Unit submits
periodically satisfactory progress and audit reports
to the two Governments and to the Bank.
The high population density and growth rate
may exert increased pressure on farmland.
This risk is mitigated by soil conservation
measures developed by the project.
Farmers’ lack of experience and failure to
apply pump-irrigation methods may
jeopardize the success of this subcomponent. This risk is mitigated by the
recruitment of international technical
assistance to assist both countries in
implementing the component concerned and
by the very strong political commitment of
both countries in favour of hillside irrigation
as well as the prudent approach consisting in
the phased implementation of the subcomponent.
Coordination problems between the two
countries may hamper the implementation of
the project. This risk is mitigated by the
provisions of the Agreement between both
countries regarding project implementation.
vi
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
No.
ACTIVITIES
1.
Negotiations
2.
Grant approval
3.
4.
Signing of the Agreement between the
two countries
Recruitment of the Regional Coordinator
5.
Signature of Grant MOUs
6.
Preparation of the first annual budget
7.
Effectiveness
8.
Authorization of the first disbursement
9.
Recruitment of experts
10.
Issuance of bid invitation for works
11.
Bid reception and appraisal
12.
Approval of the bid opening report
13.
Signing of contracts
14.
Provision of services
15.
Mid-Term Review
16.
Completion report of countries
17.
Supervision missions
18
ADF completion report
19
Auditing
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BANK GROUP MANAGEMENT TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS CONCERNING A PROPOSAL FOR THE AWARD OF A GRANT TO THE REPUBLIC OF
RWANDA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BURUNDI TO FINANCE THE MULTINATIONAL SUPPORT
PROJECT FOR RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUGESERA NATURAL REGION
Management hereby submits the present report and recommendation concerning a
proposal for the award of an ADF grant of UA 14.98 million to the Republic of Rwanda and UA
15.02 million to the Republic of Burundi to finance the Multinational Support Project for Rural
Infrastructure Development in the Bugesera Natural Region.
I.
STRATEGIC ORIENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION
1.1
Project Links with Country Strategy and Objectives
1.1.1
Within the framework of Rwanda’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy (EDPRS), agriculture is one of the priority sectors expected to play a key role in
stimulating economic growth and reducing poverty. This role is outlined in the Agriculture
Transformation Strategic Plan – Phase II (PSTA II) which includes sub-programmes, among
which the intensification and development of sustainable agriculture through sustainable water
and soil management, agriculture and livestock integration, irrigation development and farmer
professionalization especially by strengthening their cooperatives. Project thrusts and planned
activities are in line with the two PSTA II sub-programmes mentioned above. Similarly, in
Burundi, the second priority thrust of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) namely
“promoting sustainable and equitable economic growth” gives centre stage to the development of
food crop (rice, maize, sorghum, beans, cassava, etc.) and livestock production as well as
sustainable natural resource management to combat rural poverty. The project is consistent with
these orientations.
1.1.2
The project is based on Pillar I of Rwanda’s Country Strategy Paper (CSP) “Support for
economic infrastructure enhancement” and on Pillar II of Burundi’s CSP “Contribute to
increasing job opportunities in rural areas through infrastructure development and targeted
interventions in the agricultural sector”. The development of agricultural support infrastructure
(irrigation, storage facilities, rural access roads, etc.) by the project is in line with the orientations
of the “Bank Group Mid-Term Strategy”. The project features on the indicative list of projects
planned for the period of ongoing CSPs for the two countries. The Ministers of Finance of both
countries have submitted to ADF a request for financing the project.
1.2
Justification for Bank’s Involvement
1.2.1
Bugesera region has suffered serious food insecurity for some years now. Due to
galloping population growth and increasing need for arable land, natural forests have been partly
destroyed leading to severe erosion. Soils washed from hillsides are deposited in lakes, silting
them in the process. These three factors (deforestation, erosion and silting of lakes), combined
with irregular and insufficient rainfall, contribute to falling agricultural output. Bugesera has
witnessed chronic famine and the population's standard of living of the population has
deteriorated sharply. Today, 60% of the population in Rwanda and about 90% of the population
2
in Burundi within the project area live below the poverty line, compared to a national average
poverty level of 56.9% and 67% in Rwanda and Burundi, respectively. This situation can worsen
irreversibly if steps are not quickly taken to develop and protect the ecosystems.
1.2.2
To overcome the above constraints, the Governments of Rwanda and Burundi decided
to design the Bugesera Rural Infrastructure Support Project. The multinational character of the
project finds justification in: (i) the use of the shared water resources of Lakes CYOHOHA and
RWERU and of the AKANYARU marshland: since these are shared resources, they must be
used in a concerted and joint manner; (ii) the urgent need to protect the ecosystems of these
zones: such protection should be done through water and soil conservation works which can only
be efficient if they are carried out on all the watersheds concerned and thus on both sides of the
border. In other words, the impact of ecosystem protection and conservation action can only be
significant if such conservation works are conducted in a synchronized and concurrent manner
by the two countries; (iii) both countries have prepared and will sign an agreement to implement
the project, thus demonstrating their commitment to ensure joint and concerted use of crossborder waters. Project implementation will benefit both countries. Were the activities envisaged
under the project to be carried out only in one of the countries, their impact would be limited in
terms of the conservation of the Nile basin ecosystems, in general, and the shared waters
between the two countries, in particular. Therefore, the project meets the eligibility criteria of the
Bank’s “Strategic and Operational Framework for Regional Projects”.
1.3
Aid Coordination
1.3.1
An aid coordination mechanism has been put in place in each of the two countries and is
operational. In Burundi, the Government has set up a National Aid Coordination Committee
endowed with a Permanent Secretariat and Thematic Working Groups, including an agriculture
working group. During its stay in the country, the Bank mission attended one of the meetings of
the latter group during which it presented the project. In Rwanda, Government organizes a
Forum of Development Partners every year. All donors, including those that are not actively
involved in Rwanda, are invited to the Forum. There is also a Development Partners
Coordination Group comprising Government and development partner representatives whose
role is to discuss the planning and implementation of development programmes and foreign aid
coordination. The Budget Harmonization and Support Group, which comprises donors
intervening in budget support, is a platform for discussion and harmonization of budget support
approaches. The Government and development partners jointly developed a performance
evaluation framework for monitoring the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper for the period 2008-2012. Lastly, the country has also set up a sectoral working
group on agriculture.
3
Table 1.1
Aid Coordination (in USD million)
Rwanda
Sector
Agriculture
Government
USD
M
%
30.0
Burundi
Contribution
Sector
GDP
Exports
Workforce
44%
71%
88%
Stakeholders – Annual Public
Expenditure for 2007-2008
Donors
46.2
ADF
34.6%
33.8
29.2
17.5
EU
IFAD
WB
25.3
21.9%
13.1%
7.2
Belgium
Aid Coordination Level
Existence of thematic working groups
Existence of an overall sector
programme
Role of the ADB in aid coordination
5.4%
Yes
Yes
Member
Agriculture
Government
USD M
%
41.2
Contribution
GDP
Exports Workforce
35%
90%
90%
Stakeholders – Annual Public
Expenditure for 2007-2008
Donors
42.5
EU
38.8
IFAD
35.0
WB
25.0
Belgium
10.6
Germany
3.0
France
1.8
Japan
2.1
Others
Aid Coordination Level
Existence of thematic working groups
Existence of an overall sector
programme
Role of the ADB in aid coordination
26.8
24.4
22.0%
15.7%
6.7%
1.9%
1.1%
1.3%
1.3.2
Many activities are being carried out within the Bugesera Natural Region under other
agricultural development projects financed by IFAD, WB, DFID, USAID, EU, CIDA, JICA,
Belgian Cooperation and Luxembourg Cooperation. The projects include: (i) in Burundi, the
Post-Conflict Rural Development Project in Kirundo Province (EU) and the Agricultural
Development Support Project in Kirundo Region (Belgian Cooperation); and (ii) in Rwanda, the
Support Project for the Agriculture Transformation Strategic Plan (IFAD/DFID), the Bugesera
Agricultural Development Support Project (ADF) and LWH (Land Husbandry, Water
Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Programme) financed by the WB, CIDA, USAID and JICA
now under preparation. The Bugesera PAIR will complement these projects.
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
The project objective is to enhance food security in the Bugesera region through
sustainable increase in agricultural production.
2.2
Project Components: the project will pursue its objective through the following
actions:
Yes
Yes
-
4
Table 2.1
Project Components
No.
Components
Cost (UA M)
1.
Irrigation
Development
19.66
2.
Other Rural
Infrastructure
5.49
3.
Project
Coordination and
Management
4.85
COMPONENT DESCRIPTION
ƒ Develop lake and marshland watersheds over a surface area of 8
000 ha (4 000 ha in each of the two countries);
ƒ Rehabilitate irrigation facilities over 3 500 ha of marshland (1
500 ha in Rwanda and 2 000 ha in Burundi);
ƒ Develop irrigation facilities in small hillside areas watered by
lakes (500 ha in Burundi and 1 000 ha in Rwanda);
ƒ Develop production (distribution of selected seeds, integration
of cattle and goat rearing with irrigated farming, organization of
farmers into cooperatives)
ƒ Rehabilitate 100 km of rural access roads (50 km in each of the
two countries);
ƒ Set up storage and processing facilities, and construct buildings.
ƒ Set up a Joint Project Coordination Unit
ƒ Strengthen already existing national structures in charge of
implementing the project in the two countries.
2.3
Irrigation Development Component: this component comprises the following
activities: (i) construction of lake-watered hillside irrigation facilities: based on the findings of
studies to be launched under PPF advance payments granted to the two countries, the project
envisages the development of a surface area of 1 000 ha around Lake Rweru for Rwanda and 500
ha around Lakes Cyohoha and/or Rweru in Burundi. The implementation of this activity will be
supported by a technical assistance mission in the two countries; (ii) rehabilitation of land-locked
marshland irrigation facilities: the project will develop an irrigation and drainage network on
three land-locked marshlands in Burundi (2000 ha) and one marshland in Rwanda (1500 ha). To
maximize returns from these marshlands, the size of irrigation networks will be such that the
schemes would be put under cultivation both during the rainy and dry seasons; (iii) development
of lake and marshland watersheds: the extent of soil and water quality deterioration and its
adverse effect on marshlands and lakes have compounded land degradation due to poor water
and soil conservation and the absence of upstream watershed erosion control. In that regard, the
project will seek to protect watersheds over a total surface area of about 8 000 ha around Lakes
Rweru and Cyohoha as well as marshlands. Developing the watersheds will further help to check
erosion and allow for more intensive cultivation of graduated terraces; (iv) development of
production: this entails popularizing the use of selected seeds within the framework of
agreements between research centres and the project, promoting the integration of cattle and goat
rearing with irrigated farming and providing support for farmers to be organized into
cooperatives.
2.4
Other Infrastructure Component : this component comprises: (i) the rehabilitation of
rural access roads (50 km per country); (ii) setting up farm produce storage facilities: the project
will finance the construction of ten grain storage facilities each with a capacity of twenty tonnes
and twenty storage facilities each with a capacity of fifty tonnes for farmers’ cooperatives in
Burundi as well as one 6 000-tonne silo in each of the two countries. These facilities will help
reduce post-harvest losses estimated at between 12% and 20%. Similarly, a seed storage centre
will be built in each of the countries; (iii) setting up produce processing facilities: the project will
finance the construction of one paddy rice hulling plant and 100 fanning and threshing mills as
5
well as two milk collection centres in each of the two countries; (iv) buildings: the project will
finance the construction of a cattle sanitary control post on the border between the two countries
as well as the extension of the offices of the Kirundo Provincial Department of Agriculture and
Livestock (DPAE) in Burundi.
2.5
Project Coordination and Management Component: the following structures will be
responsible for project coordination and management: (i) at the regional level: the Joint Project
Coordination Unit (UMC) and the Regional Project Steering Committee (CRPP); (ii) at the
national level, the Kirundo DPAE for Burundi and the Bugesera Agricultural Development
Support Project Implementation Unit (PADAB) for Rwanda. The project implementation
arrangements are outlined in Section IV below. The project will finance the technical assistance,
equipment as well as operational resources necessary for coordinating and implementing its
activities.
2.6
Technical Options and Alternative Options Considered: the two alternative options
considered and rejected are described below.
Table 2
Alternatives Considered and Rejected and Reason for Rejection
ALTERNATIVE OPTION
Adoption of hillside spray
irrigation
Development of the Akanyaru
marshland
2.7
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Irrigation of areas from the
pumping station that channels water
into a localised irrigation network
(drip irrigation)
Development of a surface area of
6000 ha.
REASON FOR REJECTION
High costs of maintaining equipment and
need for beneficiaries to have specific
equipment maintenance experience.
Adverse environmental impact according
to the SESIA.
Project Type
This intervention is designed in the form of a Multinational Investment Project with
capacity building activities.
2.8
Project Cost and Financing Arrangements
The total cost of the project is estimated at UA 30 million (USD 45.79 million), net of
taxes, with 77% in foreign exchange and 23% in local currency. The project cost summary,
financial breakdown and expenditure schedule are shown in Tables 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. The
ADF will finance the total cost of the project, excluding taxes (1/3 from country allocations and
2/3 from the multinational window). In keeping with the criteria of the “Policy on Expenditure
Eligible for Bank Group Financing”, the two countries are eligible for 100% financing of the
project from ADF resources.
6
Table 2.3
Summary of Estimated Cost by Component
COMPONENTS
Local
Currency
1. Irrigation development
2. Other rural infrastructure
3. Project coordination
BASE COST
Physical contingencies
Price escalation
TOTAL PROJECT COST
3.75
0.72
4.03
8.49
0.43
1.68
10.58
USD Million
Foreign Exch.
UA Million
Local
Forei
Currency
gn
Exch.
2.46
14.47
0.47
4.23
2.64
1.28
5.56
19.99
0.28
1.00
1.10
2.08
6,93
23.07
Total
22.09
6.46
1.95
30.51
1.53
3.17
35.21
25.84
7.17
5.98
39.00
1.95
4.85
45.79
Total
16.93
4.70
3.92
25.55
1.28
3.18
30.00
%
For.
Exch
.
85
90
33
78
78
66
77
%
Basic
Cost
66
18
15
100
5
12
117
Table 2.4
Summary of Estimated Cost by Expenditure Category
USD
Local
Currency
7.01
3.75
0.23
3.04
1.48
8.49
0.43
1.68
10.58
EXPENDITURE
CATEGORY
INVESTMENT
Works
Goods
Services
Operation
Base cost
Physical contingencies
Price escalation
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Million
Foreign
Exch.
29.72
21.13
6.78
1.82
0.79
30.51
1.53
3.17
35.21
Total
36.73
24.88
7.01
4.84
2.27
39.00
1.95
4.85
45.79
Local
Cur.
4.59
2.46
0.15
1.99
0.97
5.56
0.28
1.10
6.93
UA Million
Foreign
Exch.
19.47
13.84
4.44
1.19
0.52
19.99
1.00
2.08
23.07
Total
% For.
Exch.
% Base
Cost
24.06
16.30
4.59
3.17
1.49
25.55
1.28
3.18
30.00
81
85
97
37
35
78
78
66
77
94
64
18
12
6
100
5
12
117
Total
% Total
Table 2.5
Sources of Financing
SOURCES
UA Million
Foreign
Local
Exch.
Cur.
ADF – Grant to
Rwanda
ADF – Grant to
Burundi
Total
Total
USD Million
Foreign
Local
Exch.
Cur.
11.62
3.36
14.98
17.74
5.13
22.87
49.9
11.45
23.07
3.57
6.93
15.02
30.00
17.48
35.21
5.45
10.58
22.93
45.79
50.1
100.0
Table 2.6
Expenditure Schedule by Component (UA Million)
COMPONENTS
1. development
2. Rural infrastructure
3. Project coordination and
management
TOTAL
2010
1.65
0.43
2011
7.75
0.43
2012
6.69
3.88
2013
3.48
0.75
2014
0.05
-
2015
0.05
-
TOTAL
19.66
5.49
0.93
3.01
0.84
9.03
0.83
11.40
0.84
5.07
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.75
4.85
30.00
7
2.9
Project Area and Beneficiaries
The project area comprises the Bugesera natural region that bestrides Rwanda and
Burundi, and especially around the two major cross-border lakes (Rweru and Cyohoha) and the
Akanyaru marshland shared between the two countries. The area covers Bugesera District
(Rwanda) and Kirundo Province (Burundi). The population of the region is estimated at 834 000
(274 000 in Bugesera District and 560 000 in Kirundo Province). Project activities will mainly be
targeted at (as direct beneficiaries of the project) the sectors and/or councils adjacent to the two
shared lakes and the common marshland. Thus, for Rwanda, of the fifteen sectors that make up
the Bugesera District, only ten will be covered by the project. They are: Nyarugenge, Ruhuha,
Ngeruka, Kamabuye, Rweru, Shyara, Musenyi, Ntarama, Mareba and Gashora. Other projects
with similar activities are being implemented in the remaining districts. In Burundi, the project
covers eight councils in the area, namely Kirundo, Bugabira, Busoni, Vumbi, Ntega, Gitobe,
Bwambarangwe and Giteranvi. In Burundi, according to the Kirundo Provincial Regional
Development Plan, per capita income dropped by 48% from USD 210 in 1993 to USD 110 in
2001. In Rwanda, the survey carried out in 2000 by the NGO “Save the Children” revealed that
60% of the poor in Bugesera lived on a monthly income of between FRW 2 000 and FRW 9 000.
Basically, the Bugesera natural region is an agricultural area. The average size of farms is about
0.75 ha.
2.10
Participatory Approach to Project Identification, Design and Implementation
The project identification, preparation and appraisal phases were carried out with the
active involvement of all stakeholders, especially the direct beneficiaries of the project, farmers’
cooperatives, local authorities, and relevant government departments in the two countries.
Financial and technical development partners involved in the rural sector were also consulted
and involved in reflections on possible areas of synergy. During project appraisal, a public
consultation, at which the two Governments, beneficiaries and NGOs were well represented, was
organized in each of the two countries, thereby enabling various stakeholders to be informed
about project activities, its environmental and social impact as well as the mitigative measures
agreed upon to protect the environment and natural resources. Studies on the implementation of
marshland development activities, creation of hillside irrigated areas and watershed development
will be conducted in a participatory manner to ensure that the design of planned activities
addresses the needs of beneficiaries as much as possible. Consultations with partners and
beneficiaries during the project preparation process helped to abandon the development works
originally planned for the Akanyaru marshland and to better factor in the environmental risks
connected with the development of hillside irrigation.
2.11
Consideration of Bank Group Experience and Lessons in Project Design
2.11.1 The analysis of project/programme implementation, portfolio and completion report
reviews in the two countries helped to draw useful lessons for enhancing project quality and
performance. The project design took into account the above lessons, especially the need to: (i)
conduct implementation studies prior to project start-up in order to avoid having to extend
project implementation timeframes; (ii) strengthen project supervision and the capacity of project
8
management structures in the fiduciary domain; (iii) prioritize the participatory approach in order
to better identify the real needs of beneficiaries and guarantee sustainability; (iv) ensure that
projects actually start immediately following Board approval (reduce the period between project
approval and effectiveness, draw up a procurement plan before the approval of the project by the
Board, etc.).
2.11.2 By taking into consideration all these aspects, this project intends to attach great
importance to capacity building and knowledge transfer. During the project preparation stage,
special attention was given to institutional capacity assessment. The project supported the
preparation of baseline studies through financing under the PPF mechanism. Experience shows
that it is necessary to conduct such studies before project implementation to ensure better project
performance during the implementation phase. The sustainability of investments in irrigation
schemes is a major concern. In that regard, it is necessary to provide beneficiaries of these
facilities with the relevant technical and managerial skills. Thus, the project will support groups
and cooperatives especially in financial management and acquisition of best practices and
methods for agricultural activities, water and soil preservation and conservation. The project will
also support the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities based on the resultsbased logical framework. The presence of the Bank’s field office in Rwanda will significantly
improve project implementation performance. Lastly, the following arrangements have been
made with the two Governments to ensure that the project starts immediately upon its approval
by the Board: (i) as earlier indicated, PPF resources already granted to the two countries will be
used to quickly conduct implementation studies and prepare bidding documents; (ii) the project
will be implemented at the national level by existing structures; (iii) the project implementation
agreement between the two countries will be signed before the end of July 2009 and the process
for the recruitment of a Regional Coordinator (male or female) and his/her team will start
immediately following the signing of the said agreement; (iv) the procurement plan for the first
eighteen months is under finalization and will be examined and approved during negotiations;
(v) focal points are appointed by the two Governments to manage activities connected with the
project, pending the setting up of the Joint Coordination Unit (UCM). They will be supported by
the current PADAB Coordinator for Rwanda and the current Director of the Kirundo DPAE for
Burundi.
2.12
Key Performance Indicators
The main performance indicators as per the project logical framework are: (i) income;
(ii) prevalence of malnutrition; (iii) production of cereals, legumes, market garden produce and
milk; (iv) number of hectares protected against erosion; (v) number of hectares of marshlands
developed; (vi) number of hectares of hillsides irrigated; and (vii) number of kilometres of rural
access roads developed.
III.
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
3.1
Economic and Financial Performance
3.1.1
The economic analysis was made based on the reference price method and the
comparison of the “no-project” and “project” situations. Economic and financial performance
9
was assessed on a twenty-year life span for investments. Project costs include investments made,
of which physical contingencies, maintenance and repair costs, and production costs (seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural works, etc.) The localised irrigation option was examined and
rejected due to its high cost. The analysis was based on three farming models: farms on
developed marshlands, hillside farms irrigated using water from lakes and farms on watersheds
developed under the project. The additional income generated for the various types of farms are
estimated at USD 3 400, USD 2 300 and USD 850 per ha, respectively. Rural households will
benefit from such additional income and will use it to pull themselves out of poverty.
3.1.2
The financial and economic rates of return are shown below. The economic benefits of
the project accrue from increased agricultural output (23 000 tonnes of cereals, 5 000 tonnes of
legumes and 60 000 tonnes of market garden produce), easy access between production areas
and markets and construction of storage facilities. Mention can also be made of other project
benefits that are not easily quantifiable, such as soil erosion control, protection of vulnerable
ecosystems especially in the Akanyaru marshland, and strengthening the capacity of farmers’
cooperatives.
3.2
ERR (baseline scenario): 18.9% - NPV amount: 16.2
USD million
FRR (baseline scenario): 17.5% - NPV amount: 12.1
USD million
Environmental and Social Impact
Environment
3.2.1
This project is classified under Environmental and Social Category I. It was the subject
of a Strategic Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (SESIA) that was reviewed by the
Bank’s relevant departments and its summary published on the Bank’s website on 31/12/2008.
This study was presented in a public consultation in Burundi (Bujumbura, on 6 June 2009) and in
Rwanda (Kigali, on 17 June 2009). The SESIA was also presented to the institutions in charge of
the environment in both countries for validation. The SESIA recommends that specific Category
1 environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) should be undertaken for each of the
activities earmarked under the project. The costs of such activities will include measures for
mitigating potential negative impacts. In that regard, the appraisal mission stressed the following
points: (i) it is necessary to conduct the above ESIAs prior to feasibility studies, or concurrently
with them, so that the ESIAs can inform the feasibility studies on environmental risks; (ii) the
ESIAs should present alternative options based on the degree of environmental risk and climate
change; (iii) the ESIA team should comprise a pedologist, a hydrologist and a climate change
expert (3 key functions for lake and marshland studies); and (iv) a validation workshop should be
organized to close the ESIAs with environmental validity and compliance certificates issued for
both countries. The orientation given to these studies as well as discussions with different sector
officials (environment, agriculture, irrigation) during the project appraisal stage will help to
strike a balance between the conservation of natural ecosystems and agricultural activities in a
bid to ensure good environmental governance.
10
Adapting to Climate Change
3.2.2
With regard to climate change, the project will be implemented in a region that
witnesses variations in climate, especially in rainfall, both in inter-annual terms and mediumterm trends, leading to some severe droughts over the last decade. Considering that the project
includes measures aimed at regulating irrigation water inputs and harvesting rainwater, it can be
concluded that for the irrigated area, at least, the project is actually a vulnerability reduction
initiative. Most of the project investments contribute to helping Rwanda and Burundi adapt to
climate change. Hillside or marshland irrigation activities will protect the agricultural sector
against periods of extreme drought. Project activities relating to rain and surface water
management and, consequently, the management of underground water, are adequately
consistent with the water strategy of the two Governments, which aims at guaranteeing the
integrated and sustainable use of these resources.
Gender Issues
3.2.3
According to estimates, women account for up to 70% of agricultural workforce in the
region. They play a key role in agricultural production, including stock raising, in the two
countries. Women manage nearly 30% of the farms and are well represented (60%) in
reforestation, soil and water conservation works. As such, women will be the key target of the
project and will benefit from its positive spin-offs. The project will also carry out
sensitization/training activities for women and youths aimed at promoting non-agricultural
income-generating activities. Both women and youths will also receive training in management.
To diversify sources of income and meet the food needs of the population, the project will
promote income-generating activities such as market gardening and fruit tree farming. Women
and children will benefit from improved nutrition thanks to increased availability of various
foodstuff. Women and youth communities will be involved in the management of infrastructure
and will assume leadership positions in the running of, and cooperation with, local authorities
and Grassroots Community Organizations (GCOs) as well as Farmers’ Organizations (FOs), in
order to promote participatory management in their localities.
Social Issues
3.2.4
An estimated 834 000 people will benefit directly or indirectly from the positive fallouts
of this project. The increase in agricultural activities and output will help to create more job
opportunities in rural areas, increase the income of the target population and reduce poverty.
Women and children will benefit from improved nutrition status thanks to increased availability
of various foodstuff. The conduct of works (marshland development, rural access roads, etc.) and
increased output will lead to the creation of new opportunities for the development of trade in
farm produce and inputs, and hence to an overall improvement of the region’s economy. The two
Governments have also embarked on land reforms with the support of technical partners and
donors (DFID, Belgian Cooperation, IFAD). These reforms are aimed at clarifying the status of,
and securing, land ownership through land registration and enabling women and other vulnerable
groups to have access to land. The population of the project area will benefit from these reforms.
11
Forced Resettlement
3.2.5
The project will entail neither the displacement nor resettlement of the population of the
project area.
IV.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
Implementation Arrangements
4.1.1
A project implementation agreement has been prepared and will be signed by the two
countries before the end of July 2009. This agreement, which was reviewed by various Bank
departments, provides for the establishment of the following institutions: (i) A Joint
Coordination Unit (UCM): this Unit will be responsible for implementing joint activities. It will
particularly be in charge of planning, coordination, relations with the CRPP and organization of
its meetings, administrative and financial management, auditing, project monitoring and
evaluation, drafting of progress reports, supervision of national units and relations with the ADF.
The UCM will comprise a Coordinator assisted by regional experts (director of administration
and finance, monitoring and evaluation officer, an accountant, an accounting clerk, and support
staff); (ii) a Regional Project Steering Committee (CRPP) which will comprise the Governor of
Kirundo (Burundi) and the Mayor of Bugesera (Rwanda), as well as two representatives of civil
society. The CRPP will be presided over by the Ministers of Agriculture of the two countries. Its
role will be to give the project the necessary orientations for achieving its objectives, approve
annual work plans and budgets, validate progress reports, examine and solve any major problem
that may arise during project implementation. The relevant departments of both countries will be
represented on the CRPP which will meet quarterly. Administratively, the UCM will be attached
to the CRPP and its Coordinator will sign a performance contract with the Regional Steering
Committee.
4.1.2
In the two countries, project activities will be implemented by existing structures: (i) the
Kirundo Provincial Department of Agriculture and Livestock (DPAE) for Burundi: located in the
project area, this structure will see its capacity strengthened with the recruitment, using ADF
resources, of a national expert in charge of coordinating the project, an international expert with
proven experience in project management and an international irrigation expert as well as
national experts in various other fields (environment, procurement, monitoring and evaluation,
accounting and administration); (ii) for Rwanda, the Implementation Unit in charge of PADAB
(Bugesera Agricultural Development Support Project), currently ongoing with ADF financing in
the same area, will also be responsible for the implementation of the project in the country. It
will be backed by national expertise in different fields (environment, monitoring and evaluation,
gender and information technology). The two national coordinators will sign performance
contracts with their respective Governments.
4.1.3
Procurement Arrangements: all procurements of goods, works and services financed by
ADF, will be in accordance with Bank Rules of Procedure for the Procurement of Goods and
Works or Bank Rules of Procedure for the Use of Consultants, as appropriate, using Bank
standard bidding documents. The DPAE for Burundi and the PADAB Implementation Unit for
Rwanda will be responsible for awarding contracts for the procurement of goods, works and
12
services for activities implemented in each of the two countries. The UCM will be responsible
for awarding contracts for joint activities. The appraisal team prepared a first draft of the
Procurement Plan (PP) which will be reviewed and finalized during negotiations. Table 4.1
summarizes the procurement methods.
Table 4.1
Threshold Values for Procurement Methods and Review
Expenditure category
1. Works
2. Supplies
4. Services
- Consulting firms
- Individuals
Key
:
Maximum Contract
Amount (UA)
> 600 000
<600 000
ICB
LCB
Contracts/Projects Subject to Prereview (à priori)
All contracts
All contracts
> 200 000
Between 20 000 and 200 000
<20 000
ICB
LCB
Local Procedures
All contracts
All contracts
Post-Review
-
QCBS
Others
TOR and short list (SL) of all contracts
All contracts
Procurement Method
ICB = International competitive bidding; LCB = Local competitive bidding; QCBS = Quality and Cost-Based
Selection Method; TOR = Terms of reference.
4.1.4
Disbursement Arrangements: The resources of the two grants will be disbursed in
accordance with ADF rules and procedures. Requests for disbursement will be prepared by the
two national project implementation units and forwarded to the Bank by the Joint Project
Coordination Unit after verification and validation. The project will use the direct payment
method and the special account method. The direct payment method will be used in settling
contracts of high amounts relating to works, goods and services, signed with contractors,
suppliers and service providers. The special account or revolving fund method will be used for
settling the procurement of goods and services of low amounts, as well as the operating costs of
the Joint Project Coordination Unit (UCM) and the two national project implementation units.
4.1.5
The project will open a special account for the Kirundo Provincial Department of
Agriculture and Livestock (DPAE) at the Bank of the Republic of Burundi (BRB) into which the
grant funds for Burundi will be deposited. A special account for the PADAB Project
Management Unit at the Rwanda National Bank (BNR) will receive the ADF grant funds for
Rwanda. Lastly, the UCM will open a third special account at the Rwanda National Bank (BNR).
Fifty percent (50%) of the funds in the third account will come from the ADF grant to Burundi
and 50% from the ADF grant to Rwanda. These three special accounts will be financed through
initial deposits based on half-yearly expenditure schedules for activities approved beforehand by
the Bank. They will be replenished periodically upon submission of requests and after
justification of the use of at least 50% of the previous transfer and 100% of earlier requests, in
accordance with Bank procedures. The three structures will open current bank accounts in central
banks for transactions in local currencies.
4.1.6
A certified and independent auditing firm will be recruited in accordance with Bank
procedures to carry out the annual audit of project accounts as consolidated at UCM level.
Project audit reports, including the audited financial statements, a table of resources and
application of funds, briefs on financial statements and supporting documents of financial
13
transactions on the three special accounts, shall be forwarded to the Bank no later than six
months following the close of the accounting year on 30 June. The project audit will be
conducted for all project implementation structures in accordance with the IFAC’s international
standards of auditing (ISA), and the Bank’s exhaustive terms of reference which will be
communicated to the project. The project shall procure a procedure manual from the very first
year of implementation. The TORs of the Consultant who will be responsible for this activity
were prepared during the appraisal mission.
4.2
Monitoring and Evaluation
The project intends to set up a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. A study
of the baseline case comprising a socio-economic survey of the project area and the design of its
monitoring and evaluation system will be financed under PPF advance payments (granted to both
countries for project preparation). The study findings will be available before effective project
start-up. Two other surveys similar to the initial one will be undertaken at mid-term and at
project completion. The monitoring and evaluation system will use the findings of these surveys.
Monitoring and evaluation officers will be recruited by the UCM and National Units. Table 4.2
below shows the key reports to be drafted in the course of project implementation.
Table 4.2
Key Reports
Subject
Physical and financial progress report of
the project with procurement schedules
Financial Audit Reports for each fiscal
year (1 July - 30 June)
Action Plan and Annual Budget
comprising project yearly activities and
budgets
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
Completion Report
4.3
Structure in charge
UCM
UCM
UCM
UCM
UCM and ADF
Date
Every six months: on the 30th of the month
following the end of the semester
By 31 December of the year following the
fiscal year
31 March of the year preceding the fiscal
year
June of the project’s third year
Project Completion
Governance
4.3.1
The conflict that rocked Burundi for more than fifteen years seriously disorganized the
country’s administration and weakened its capacity. Since 2004, the Government has been
making efforts in collaboration with its partners, including the World Bank, to redress the
situation and improve governance. Considerable progress has been made in terms of the legal
and regulatory framework, development of management tools and setting up of audit institutions.
Although significant efforts are still to be deployed in governance, there have been positive
changes.
4.3.2
The Government of Rwanda has developed a political and socio-economic governance
action plan comprising decentralization, corruption control and public sector management
reforms. To that end, good governance monitoring institutions have been put in place. A new
procurement code has been adopted with the establishment of the Rwanda Public Contracts
Regulatory Board (ARMPR). Budget monitoring and audit rules, both at the central and local
levels, have been adopted. The decentralization reform will enable the population to participate
in development and empower local communities in planning and managing project activities.
14
4.4
Sustainability
The project will enhance the experience both countries have acquired in managing
marshlands by strengthening the capacity of government departments and farmers’ cooperatives.
Project sustainability is also contingent on the beneficiaries bearing irrigation costs (beneficiaries
will be organized into associations). Members will make their contributions through annual
levies set by the management committee of each association. Every year, each association will
review its budget by including its actual maintenance and repair needs, which will enable it to fix
the rate of levies paid by its members. These levies will be paid into the coffers of the association
at the close of each farming season. Already entrenched in the management of marshlands, the
project will strengthen this practice through specific training programmes for association
management committees of associations. This is a guarantee for ensuring the sustainability of the
infrastructure. The project will closely monitor hillside pump irrigation, which is not widely used
in the two countries. It will recruit an irrigation specialist in each of the two countries to support
the authorities and beneficiaries for the proper management of irrigation networks and better
organization of irrigators, including setting up a system for collection of levies to finance
maintenance activities. The project will also organize a specific training programme for the
pump operator (irrigation network manager) of each association to strengthen their technical
capacity especially in the maintenance of water pumping equipment. It should be noted that in
schemes of this nature where productivity is quite high, maintenance costs will be moderate
because the sites to be irrigated are near water and the difference in height between the water
body and the plots to be irrigated is not much. The maintenance of rural access roads will be
entrusted to the road maintenance programme of each country especially since the stretch of road
envisaged under this project is short (50 km per country).
4.5
Risk Management
The risks facing the project are related to: difficulty for farmers to master pumpirrigation techniques, a situation which in the long run could lead to a reduction in the surface
area open for cultivation and thus defeat project objectives; lack of coordination between the two
countries in project implementation; increased pressure on land due to high population density
and growth rate; and delay in setting up the UCM and recruiting staff for Burundi, leading to late
project start-up. These risks will be mitigated through the following actions: (i) national project
units will be assisted by two irrigation engineers with proven experience in irrigation design and
organizing farmers. The agricultural policies of the two countries for developing irrigation and
the planned enforcement of appropriate legislation to promote this method of harnessing water
constitute another factor for the success of irrigation. Lastly, the implementation of this subcomponent will be done cautiously, which will first entail equipping two sites of about 100 ha
each (one site per country) and putting them under cultivation before starting development works
for the entire surface area envisaged. These sites will further serve as demonstration plots for
future irrigators in the project area; (ii) the provisions of the project implementation agreement
between the two countries and especially the establishment of the UCM and the CRPP will limit
coordination-related problems; (iii) the risk of pressure on land will be mitigated through water
and soil conservation activities in watersheds, the practice of cattle housing (stabling), utilization
of organic matter for soil fertilization, training and supervision of farmers; (iv) the risk of delay
15
in setting up the UCM and recruiting staff will be mitigated by the measures the two
Governments will take to launch the process for staff recruitment before the project is presented
to the Board.
4.6
Knowledge Development
The development of hillside irrigation and the mastery of new irrigation techniques by
farmers will help to popularize the new know-how among beneficiaries and engineers in
government departments of both countries. This will certainly have a huge impact on agricultural
output and farmers’ income in future.
V.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
5.1
Legal Instrument
The legal framework of the project will be a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Republic of Rwanda and the ADF and a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Republic of Burundi and the ADF. The MOUs thus signed to the satisfaction of the three parties
in form and substance, will include the usual terms and conditions.
5.2
Conditions associated with the Bank’s Involvement
A.
Conditions precedent to entry into force: entry into force of the Grant
Memoranda of Understanding shall be subject to their signature by donors and the
ADF, in accordance with the General Conditions Applicable to Grant MOUs
entered into by the Fund.
B.
Conditions precedent to the first disbursement: the first disbursement of grant
resources shall be subject to fulfilment by the donees of the following conditions:
(i)
Provide to the ADF evidence that the two countries have, in accordance
with the procedure in force, notified the other Nile Basin Initiative member
countries of their decision to implement the project;
(ii)
Provide to the ADF evidence of recruiting the UCM Coordinator, the
Director of Administration and the accountant;
(iii) Provide to the ADF evidence of recruiting the Kirundo DPAE Coordinator,
the accountant and the procurement specialist whose qualifications and
experience would first have been deemed satisfactory by the Fund. This
condition is specific to the grant to Burundi;
(iv) Provide to the ADF evidence of opening a special account for the Joint
Coordination Unit and a special account for each of the national units.
16
5.3
Compliance with Bank Policies
The project is in line with the Bank’s policy on support for rural infrastructure
development, protection and sustainable management of natural resources, and regional
integration.
VI.
RECOMMENDATION
Bank Management recommends that the Board of Directors approve the grant proposal
of UA 14.98 million to the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and a grant proposal of UA
15.02 million to the Government of the Republic of Burundi for the purpose and in accordance
with the conditions set out in this report.
APPENDIX I
Page 1/2
Rwanda
COMPARATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Develo- Developing
ped
Countrie Countrie
78,0
98,0
59,0
84,0
80,0
53,0
1,3
275,0
89,0
81,0
27,0
2 675
1,8
287,0
782,0
99,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
0,3
19,0
99,0
93,0
0,1
3 285
6,3
Education Indicators
Gross Enrolment Ratio (%)
Primary School
- Total
Primary School
- Female
Secondary School - Total
Secondary School - Female
Primary School Female Teaching Staff (% of Total)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Total (%)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Male (%)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Female (%)
Percentage of GDP Spent on Education
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2003
2003
2003
2006
147,4
148,4
18,1
17,1
53,4
...
...
...
3,8
99,6
92,1
43,5
40,8
47,5
38,0
29,0
47,0
4,5
106,0
103,0
60,0
58,0
51,0
21,0
15,0
27,0
3,9
101,0
101,0
101,5
101,0
82,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
5,9
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Rwanda
2008
39,6
120,4
51,2
64,3
61,7
37,6
4,5
315,8
83,0
83,1
25,2
2 436
2,4
3,5
Africa
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
Rwanda
2008
2,7
31,9
38,7
65,0
37,9
23,0
2,8
397,0
89,0
99,0
22,5
1 750
4,1
Population Grow th Rate (%)
2007
2007
2007
2005
2006
2005
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
2005
2006
2005
Africa
2007
Health & Nutrition Indicators
Phy sicians (per 100,000 people)
Nurses (per 100,000 people)
Births attended by Trained Health Personnel (%)
Access to Safe Water (% of Population)
Access to Health Serv ices (% of Population)
Access to Sanitation (% of Population)
Percent. of Adults (aged 15-49) Liv ing w ith HIV/AID
Incidence of Tuberculosis (per 100,000)
Child Immunization Against Tuberculosis (%)
Child Immunization Against Measles (%)
Underw eight Children (% of children under 5 y ears
Daily Calorie Supply per Capita
Public Ex penditure on Health (as % of GDP)
2007
1,2
0,5
27,4
8,0
53,9
101,5
25,8
67,5
80,3
20,1
8,6
48,5
72,3
2,5
9
75,0
2006
0,3
2,5
16,6
16,7
47,7
94,3
24,3
76,7
67,5
11,0
10,4
7,1
8,8
1,6
450
61,0
Rwanda
2006
2,3
3,3
40,9
3,4
79,5
99,3
24,2
54,5
55,6
35,7
13,0
83,9
137,4
4,6
683,0
29,7
0
2006
2,9
4,2
42,9
2,4
83,8
93,4
25,5
46,7
48,3
44,2
16,9
111,0
185,3
5,8
750
20,0
500
2005
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2005
2006
1000
2004
Demographic Indicators
Population Grow th Rate - Total (%)
Population Grow th Rate - Urban (%)
Population < 15 y ears (%)
Population >= 65 y ears (%)
Dependency Ratio (%)
Sex Ratio (per 100 female)
Female Population 15-49 y ears (% of total populatio
Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Total (y ears)
Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Female (y ears)
Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000)
Crude Death Rate (per 1,000)
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000)
Child Mortality Rate (per 1,000)
Total Fertility Rate (per w oman)
Maternal Mortality Rate (per 100,000)
Women Using Contraception (%)
GNI per capita US $
1500
2005
54 658
1 226,3
74,4
49,6
38 579
54,6
44,9
0,911
n.a.
…
2005
80 976
5 523,4
44,0
23,0
2 405
45,6
39,7
0.694
n.a.
25,0
2004
30 323
985,7
39,2
32,5
1 226
42,3
41,1
0,482
n.a.
34,3
2004
2008
2008
2008
2007
2005
2005
2006
2006
2005
26
10,0
18,5
380,0
320
50,5
51,2
0,433
165
56,8
2003
Basic Indicators
Area ( '000 Km²)
Total Population (millions)
Urban Population (% of Total)
Population Density (per Km²)
GNI per Capita (US $)
Labor Force Participation - Total (%)
Labor Force Participation - Female (%)
Gender -Related Dev elopment Index Value
Human Dev elop. Index (Rank among 174 countries
Popul. Liv ing Below $ 1 a Day (% of Population)
2003
Africa
2003
Rwanda
2002
Year
Africa
Infant Mortality Rate
( Per 1000 )
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Note :
UNAIDS; UNSD; WHO, UNICEF, WRI, UNDP; Country Reports
n.a. : Not Applicable ; … : Data Not Available;
Rwanda
Africa
last update : mars 2009
2008
Sources : ADB Statistics Department Databases; World Bank: World Development Indicators;
11,6
-0,2
…
12,3
2007
9,9
0,4
…
1,9
2006
6,0
0,7
10,9
1,0
2005
35,1
3,9
9,0
0,1
2004
2005-08
2000-08
2000-08
2005-08
2003
Environmental Indicators
Land Use (Arable Land as % of Total Land Area)
Annual Rate of Deforestation (%)
Annual Rate of Reforestation (%)
Per Capita CO2 Emissions (metric tons)
APPENDIX I
Page 2/2
Burundi
COMPARATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Year Burundi
Africa
Develo- Developing
ped
Countrie Countrie
103,2
98,4
14,3
12,1
55,3
...
...
...
5,1
99,6
92,1
43,5
40,8
47,5
38,0
29,0
47,0
4,5
106,0
103,0
60,0
58,0
51,0
21,0
15,0
27,0
3,9
101,0
101,0
101,5
101,0
82,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
5,9
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
2008
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2003
2003
2003
2006
2008
Education Indicators
Gross Enrolment Ratio (%)
Primary School
- Total
Primary School
- Female
Secondary School - Total
Secondary School - Female
Primary School Female Teaching Staff (% of Total)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Total (%)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Male (%)
Adult Illiteracy Rate - Female (%)
Percentage of GDP Spent on Education
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
2007
287,0
782,0
99,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
0,3
19,0
99,0
93,0
0,1
3 285
6,3
2008
78,0
98,0
59,0
84,0
80,0
53,0
1,3
275,0
89,0
81,0
27,0
2 675
1,8
2007
39,6
120,4
51,2
64,3
61,7
37,6
4,5
315,8
83,0
83,1
25,2
2 436
2,4
2007
6,5
75,9
33,6
71,0
80,0
41,0
2,0
367,0
97,0
99,0
68,0
1 682
1,0
Burundi
Africa
2007
2005
2005
2005
2006
2004
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
Health & Nutrition Indicators
Phy sicians (per 100,000 people)
Nurses (per 100,000 people)
Births attended by Trained Health Personnel (%)
Access to Safe Water (% of Population)
Access to Health Serv ices (% of Population)
Access to Sanitation (% of Population)
Percent. of Adults (aged 15-49) Liv ing w ith HIV/AID
Incidence of Tuberculosis (per 100,000)
Child Immunization Against Tuberculosis (%)
Child Immunization Against Measles (%)
Underw eight Children (% of children under 5 y ears
Daily Calorie Supply per Capita
Public Ex penditure on Health (as % of GDP)
Population Growth Rate (%)
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
2006
1,2
0,5
27,4
8,0
53,9
101,5
25,8
67,5
80,3
20,1
8,6
48,5
72,3
2,5
9
75,0
Africa
2006
0,3
2,5
16,6
16,7
47,7
94,3
24,3
76,7
67,5
11,0
10,4
7,1
8,8
1,6
450
61,0
Burundi
2005
2,3
3,3
40,9
3,4
79,5
99,3
24,2
54,5
55,6
35,7
13,0
83,9
137,4
4,6
683,0
29,7
0
2005
4,0
6,7
44,2
2,5
89,1
96,2
23,9
49,9
51,3
47,1
15,4
97,9
166,1
6,8
480,0
19,7
500
2004
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2005
2002
1000
2005
Demographic Indicators
Population Grow th Rate - Total (%)
Population Grow th Rate - Urban (%)
Population < 15 y ears (%)
Population >= 65 y ears (%)
Dependency Ratio (%)
Sex Ratio (per 100 female)
Female Population 15-49 y ears (% of total populatio
Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Total (y ears)
Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Female (y ears)
Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000)
Crude Death Rate (per 1,000)
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000)
Child Mortality Rate (per 1,000)
Total Fertility Rate (per w oman)
Maternal Mortality Rate (per 100,000)
Women Using Contraception (%)
GNI per capita US $
1500
2004
54 658
1 226,3
74,4
49,6
38 579
54,6
44,9
0,911
n.a.
…
2004
80 976
5 523,4
44,0
23,0
2 405
45,6
39,7
0.694
n.a.
25,0
2003
30 323
985,7
39,2
32,5
1 226
42,3
41,1
0,482
n.a.
34,3
2003
28
8,9
10,5
318,2
110
51,5
48,6
0,378
172
36,2
2003
2008
2008
2008
2007
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2002
Basic Indicators
Area ( '000 Km²)
Total Population (millions)
Urban Population (% of Total)
Population Density (per Km²)
GNI per Capita (US $)
Labor Force Participation - Total (%)
Labor Force Participation - Female (%)
Gender -Related Dev elopment Index Value
Human Dev elop. Index (Rank among 174 countries
Popul. Liv ing Below $ 1 a Day (% of Population)
Burundi
Africa
Infant Mortality Rate
( Per 1000 )
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9,9
0,4
…
1,9
Sources : ADB Statistics Department Databases; World Bank: World Development Indicators;
UNAIDS; UNSD; WHO, UNICEF, WRI, UNDP; Country Reports
Note : n.a. : Not Applicable ; … : Data Not Available;
11,6
-0,2
…
12,3
Burundi
2006
6,0
0,7
10,9
1,0
2005
30,0
9,0
19,0
…
2004
2005-08
2000-08
2000-08
2005-08
2003
Environmental Indicators
Land Use (Arable Land as % of Total Land Area)
Annual Rate of Deforestation (%)
Annual Rate of Reforestation (%)
Per Capita CO2 Emissions (metric tons)
Africa
last update : mars 2009
APPENDIX II
Page 1/2
Table of ADF Portfolio in Rwanda
Project Name
I.
COUNTRY ALLOCATION
A.
Agriculture and Natural Resources
1.
2.
3.
Dairy Cattle Farming Support Project (PADBEL)
Forest Management Support Project (PAFOR)
Environmental Management Institutional Support Project
(PAIGER)
4.
Inland Lakes Integrated Development and Management Project
(PAIGELAC)
5.
Inland Lakes Integrated Development and Management Project
(PAIGELAC)
6.
Bugesera Agricultural Development Support Project (PADAB)
Total Agriculture and Natural Resources
B. Infrastructure
B.1 Transport
7.
Road Infrastructure Project (PIR)
Road Infrastructure Project (PIR)
8.
Gitarama-Ngororero-Mukamira Road Project
Butare-Kitabi-Ntendezi Road
S/Total Transport
B.2 Water Supply and Sanitation
9.
Drinking Water Supply and Electricity Programme (DWSE)
Drinking Water Supply and Electricity Programme (DWSE)
Drinking Water Supply and Electricity Programme (DWSE)
10. Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme
(DWSS)
Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme
(DWSS)
S/Total Water Supply and Sanitation
Total Infrastructure
C. Human Development
C.1 Education
11. Primary Education and KIST Strengthening (Education III)
12. Support for Skills Development in Science & Technology
13. Budget Support to the Education Sector
S/Total - Education
C.2 Health
14. Support to AIDS Control Programme
S/Total Health
C.3 Social Sector
Total Human Development
D.
Amount
(UA M)
Amount
Disbursed
(UA M)
Approval
Date
Effectiveness
Date
31 Oct. 00
14 Nov. 01
2 Sept. 01
18 Nov. 02
13.26
7.48
98.2%
84.0%
1
9 July 01
2 June 04
0.99
99.0%
13.76
6 Oct. 04
26 Jan. 06
3.10
22.6%
1
10
48.16
6 Oct. 04
24 July 06
26 Jan. 06
22 Nov. 06
0.13
0.52
25.48
13.0%
5.2%
52.9%
13.5
1.5
15.2
16.0
46.2
8 Oct. 03
8 Oct. 03
20 Dec. 04
25 March 09
28.70
2 March 05
2 March 05
17 April 07
9.15
0.61
8.31
0.00
18.07
67.8%
40.4%
54.7%
39.1%
11.77
1
6
9 July 03
9 July 03
9 July 03
26 Jan. 05
26 Jan. 05
26 Jan. 05
4.77
0.43
1.14
40.5%
42.6%
19.0%
4
17 Dec. 03
1 April 05
3.58
89.4%
9
31.77
77.97
17 Dec. 03
1 April 05
7.70
17.61
35.68
85.6%
55.4%
45.8%
20.78
6.0
15
41.78
2 Dec. 98
12 Nov. 08
21 June 06
4 Dec. 00
18.49
0.00
8.00
26.49
89.0%
53.3%
63.4%
2
2
22 July 01
1 June 04
1.99
1.99
99.5%
99.5%
28.48
65.1%
0.00
22.30
22.3
63.2%
111.9
54.5%
1.19
10.19
71.4%
66.6%
0.00
0.00
11.38
11.6%
13.5
8.9
7 Feb. 07
43.78
Disbursement
Rate (%)
Multi-Sector
15. Competitiveness & Business Development (Phase II)
16. Poverty Reduction Strategy Support III (PRSS III)
Total Multi-sector
S/Total Country Allocation
II.
17.
18.
19.
MULTINATIONAL
ISAKA – Kigali Railway
Mayange - Nemba Road Project (20km)
Burundi-Rwanda (Nyamitanga-Ruhwa-Ntendezi-Mwityazo
(Section Cyangugu-Ntendezi-Mwityazo) Road
NELSAP:
S/Total Multinational
GRAND TOTAL
5.0
30.3
35.3
29 Dec. 08
6 May 09
13 May 09
205.2
1.66
15.3
20 Oct. 04
20 Sept. 06
50.62
30.47
98.05
16 Dec. 08
27 Nov. 08
303.26
19 Jan. 07
123.32
40.7%
APPENDIX II
Page 2/2
Table of ADF Portfolio in Burundi
Sector
ENVIRONMENT
Watershed Development Project
(PABV)
Amount
Approved
(UA M)
9.0
Approval
Date
25 /03/2006
Effectiveness
Date
7/04/2006
Closure
Date
Amount
Disbursed
(UA M)
Disbursement
Rate (%)
31/12/2011
4.6
51.7%
31/12/2010
2.2
19.16%
31/12/2011
0.307
4.2%
31/12/2010
5.08
51.83%
31/12/2009
10.4
69.9%
30/09/2009
2.1
100%
30/12/2009
7
58%
31/12/2010
0.45
29.8%
WATER AND SANITATION
Rural Water Infrastructure
Rehabilitation and Extension
Project
12.0
14 /12/2005
7.3
08/09/2006
9.8
13/12/2004
13/01/2006
ENERGY
Electrical Infrastructure
Rehabilitation and Extension
Project
17/07/2007
SOCIAL SECTOR
Multi-sector Socio-economic
Reintegration Project
1/10/2005
TRANSPORT
Kirundo-Gasenyi Road
14.9
20/09/2006
30/10/2006
MULTI-SECTOR
Institutional Capacity Building
Project
2.1
07/07/2004
29/11/08
GOVERNANCE
Economic Reform Support
Programme II
Governance Structure Support
Project
12.0
25/11/2008
1.5
08/12/2004
26/11/08
28/06/2005
APPENDIX III
RWANDA - BURUNDI
MAIN RELATED PROJECTS FINANCED BY THE BANK AND OTHER DONORS
Rwanda
Project Name
Bugesera Agricultural
Development Support Project
(PADAB)
Donors
UA 10 million/ADB
Dairy Cattle Farming Support
Project (PADEBL)
UA 13.5 million/ADB
Rwanda Seed Sector Support
Belgium
Lux Development
Luxembourg
Agricultural Transformation
Support Project (PAPSTA)
IFAD/DFID
Land
Husbandry,
Water
Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation
Program (LWH)
WB/JICA/CIDA/USAID
under preparation except
for the part financed by
JICA which is underway.
Remarks
The project started in October 2006 and
baseline studies are being finalized;
PADAB and Bugesera PAIR are being
implemented in the same region but in
different districts; their activities are
complementary.
The project started in 2001 and the project
completion report was prepared in June
2009. Lessons from this project were taken
into consideration in the design of the
Bugesera PAIR.
The project will strengthen the seed sector
which is a real constraint to the
development of agricultural production.
The Bugesera PAIR could benefit from the
outputs of this project in the development
of its production zones.
Implemented in the Bugesera District;
lessons from this project will be taken into
consideration in the implementation of the
irrigation sub-component.
Project under implementation; experience
acquired in the development of watersheds
under this project is taken into account in
the design of the Bugesera PAIR.
A phased programme of USD 200 million.
There is need for synergy between this
programme and the project.
Burundi
Project Name
Post-Conflict Project for
Development ( PPCDR)
Rural
Kirundo Province Agricultural
Development Support Project
(PADAPK)
Cost/Donors
Euro 66 million
Euro 3.5 million/
Belgium
Remarks
The project covers the following domains:
food security, road rehabilitation, and
institutional capacity building. PPCDR and
PAIR are financing the same type of
activities
and
are
geographically
complementary.
The project covers the same area as
Bugesera PAIR; there is need for
complementarity between both projects.
PADAPK provides essentially institutional
support while PAIR also makes productive
investments.
APPENDIX IV
MAP OF PROJECT AREA
Project Areas
This map has been provided by the staff of the African Development Bank exclusively for the use of the readers of the report to which it is
attached. The names used and the borders shown do not imply on the part of the ADB Group and its members any judgment concerning the
legal status of a territory nor any approval or acceptance of these borders.
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Probable Date of Board Presentation:
25 September 2009
ADF/BD/WP/2009/112/Corr.1
22 September 2009
Prepared by: OSAN
Original: English only
FOR CONSIDERATION
MEMORANDUM
TO
:
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM
:
Cecilia AKINTOMIDE
Acting Secretary General
SUBJECT :
MULTINATIONAL RWANDA - BURUNDI: PROPOSAL TO AWARD A UA
14.98 MILLION ADF GRANT TO RWANDA AND A UA 15.02 MILLION ADF
GRANT TO BURUNDI TO FINANCE THE BUGESERA NATURAL REGION
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT PROJECT
CORRIGENDUM – ENGLISH VERSION ONLY*
Please find below a corrigendum to the above-mentioned document.
In table 4.1, column 3, the acronym LCB is replaced by NCB (National Competitive
Bidding).
In paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 the words « Memorandum of Understanding » or “MoU” are
replaced by « Protocol of Agreement ».
In paragraphs 5.2(A) the word “donors” is replaced by “Recipients” and “General
Conditions Applicable to Grant MoUs entered into by the Fund” is replaced by “General Conditions
Applicable to Protocols of Agreement for Grants of the African Development Fund”.
In paragraphs 5.2 (B) the word “donees” is replaced by “Recipients”.
Attach:
cc:
The President
Mr. A. ABOU-SABAA
Mr. C. OJUKWU
Mr. M. OULD TOLBA
Mr. M. TARHOUNI
Mr. H. SHALABY
Ms. R.N. BA
Mr. J. NYIRIMANA
SCCD:C.H.
* Questions on this document should be referred to:
Director
OSAN
Division Manager
OSAN.1
Agro-Economist
OSAN.3
Agricultural Engineer
OSAN.2
Principal Environmentalist
OSAN.4
Gender Expert
OSAN.2
Agronomist
RWFO
Ext. 2037
Ext. 2292
Ext. 2452
Ext. 2235
Ext. 3006
Ext. 2590
Ext. 6064