GEF PROJECT BRIEF

1. IDENTITY

PROJECT NUMBER: P067052PROJECT NAME: Mali: Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory

Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas, Mopti Region

DURATION: 6 yearsIMPLEMENTING AGENCY: World BankEXECUTING AGENCY: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)REQUESTING COUNTRY: MaliELIGIBILITY: Mali ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on

September 30, 1992GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK: OPs 1 and 2

2. SUMMARY

The proposed project is part of the IFAD-financed Sahelian Area Development Fund (SADeF) within the framework of the Flexible Lending Mechanism. Launched in 1999 for a ten-year period, SADeF aims at establishing, in three phases, a participatory and sustainable development process for the Sahelian regions of Mali. Its overall objective is to reduce poverty by improving incomes and living conditions for rural households, in particular by providing access to health services, education and food security. This goal should be met by empowering communities at the village level (or their associations/groups) to identify their own priority needs and design micro-projects to which the beneficiaries will contribute resources in cash or in kind. In its first phase (1999-2002), SADeF focused its actions in the regions of Ségou and Koulikoro. It set up the institutions and procedures for access to the Fund, provided micro-credit for socio-economic infrastructural development, and strengthened local capacities. Lessons learned during the first phase will form the basis for expansion into Mopti and Kayes regions during the Phase II (2003-2006) and Phase III (2007-2010).

The GEF intervention has been designed to complement and enhance the second and third phases of SADeF, and therefore has a proposed duration of 6 years to cover the entire period of SADeF’s activities in the Mopti Region. The Inner Delta of central Mali is a dynamic system, in which indigenous communities have developed integrated, sequential uses of the floodplain by different groups in connection with the inundation and recession of flood waters. The capacity to sustain the management of these environmentally fragile ecosystems is fast eroding. There is an urgent need to build on indigenous knowledge and promote sustainable land and water management practices for positive ecological, economic and social development. Recognising the socio-economic and environmental challenges and the unique character of the Delta ecosystems, the GEF/IFAD partnership through SADeF will seek to promote a local development process based on the sustainable management of natural resources . SADeF’s activities in the Mopti region aim at restoring and maintaining the ecological balance of the Delta, while, at the same time, increasing rural incomes and contributing to food security.

GEF resources will support planning and implementation of community-based management plans to restore, conserve and sustainably use the most threatened ecosystems with high concentrations of biodiversity or which provide critical ecological support services in the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones. GEF resources would be utilized, taking into consideration local cultural traditions, to promote the restoration and the long-term development of the significant agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential of the Delta and its transition zones and incorporate biodiversity considerations into these integrated production systems. These objectives will be achieved through: strengthening the

1

organizational, technical and financial capacities of the full-range of stakeholders (local communities and indigenous groups, decentralized government services, institutions at the national level) to design and implement integrated natural resources management plans; supporting the Government’s decentralization process in natural resources management; implementing national policies and strategies for sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation; developing and testing pilot activities; and dissemination of technical, social and legal innovations aimed at improving and protecting the environment. Experience gained and lessons learned in the Mopti region through this GEF-IFAD co-financing, and from other successful projects SADeF will be able to replicate and incorporate sustainable natural resources management (NRM) and biodiversity conservation activities into its other project areas. At the same time, other projects in Mali and in other Sahelian countries will benefit from these experiences.

The SADeF components are: (i) Strengthening capacity of local actors/Education-Information-Communication; (ii) Support to local development; (iii) Support to sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation; (iv) Support to decentralized financial services; and (v) Project management and coordination. In this blended programme, the GEF project “Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas, Mopti Region” will support: (i) capacity building and institutional strengthening in integrated ecosystem and sustainable natural resources management; (ii) community-based conservation and management of biodiversity at the most threatened ecosystems (hotspots) of national and global importance; (iii) restoration and development of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential through integrated natural resources management and biodiversity conservation; (iv) establishment of a system for the monitoring and evaluation of the state of biodiversity and natural resources of the Inner Niger Delta; and (v) project management and coordination.

3. COSTS AND FINANCING (US$MILLION)

GEF Financing:- Project : US $6 million- PDF : US $0.326 million - GEF subtotal : US $6.326 million

Co-financing:IFAD : US$ 11.93 millionGovernment and Beneficiaries : US$ 1.66 millionCo-financing sub-total : US$ 13.59 million

Total Project Cost : US $19.916 million

4. OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT

UPDATE ENDORSEMENT: Name: Yafong Berthe Title: Secretary GeneralOrganization: Ministry of Environment Date: 8 July 2003 (orig. endorsement 17/10/99)

5. IA CONTACT: EA CONTACT: Christophe Crepin Perin Saint AngeSenior Regional Coordinator, Africa Region Country Portfolio ManagerWorld Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, J6-177 IFAD, Via del Serafico, 107Washington, DC 20043 00142 RomeTel: (202) 473-9727 Tel. 39-06-54592448Fax: (202) 473-8185 Fax: 39-06-5043463ccrepin@worldbank.org p.saintange@ifad.org

2

ACRONYMS

ANICT Agence Nationale d'Investissement des Collectivés TerritorialesCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity CCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationCES/DRS Conservation des eaux et des sols/Défense et restauration des solsCSLP Cadre stratégique de réduction de la pauvreté (Strategic Framework for Poverty

Reduction)DEIS Delta Environmental Information SystemDNACP Direction nationale d'Assainissement et Côntrole des polutions (National

Directorate for Sanitation and Pollution Control)DNCN Direction nationale de la Conservation del la nature (National Directorate for

Nature Conservation)GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information SystemGTZ German Technical Cooperation IEC Information, Education and CommunicationIER Institut d'économie rurale (National Agricultural Research Institute)IFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIMP Integrated Management Plan IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute IRD Institut de recherche-développement (ex-ORSTOM- France)IUCN World Nature Conservation Union NEPAD New Partnership for the Development of AfricaNRM Natural Resources ManagementORM Office Riz MoptiOP Operational Programme (GEF)PAL Plan d'action local PNAE/PAN-CIDOPM Office Pêche Mopti (Mopti Fisheries Office)PAR Programmes d'action régionaux - PNAE/PAN-CID (Regional action programmes)PCAE Plans Communaux d'action environnementale (Community Environmental Action

Plans)PCU Project Co-ordination UnitPDC Plans de développement communaux (Community Development Plans)PNAE/PAN-CID Plan national d'action environnemental (National Environmental Action Plan)/

Programme d'actions nationaux pour la mise en œuvre de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification (National Action Programme to Combat Desertification)

PPIV Petits périmètres irrigués villageois (Village small-scale irrigation schemes)PRODEC Ten-year Education and Culture ProgrammePRODESS Ten-year Socio-Sanitary Programme SADeF Sahelian Area Development Fund (FODESA - Fonds de développement en zone

sahélienne)SDDR Schéma directeur du développement rural (Rural Development Master Plan) SNLP Stratégie nationale de lutte contre la pauvreté (National Strategy for Poverty

Reduction)STP/CIGQE Permanent Technical Secretariat of the Institutional Framework for the

Management of Environmental IssuesUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment Programme WAMU West African Monetary Union

3

A. PROGRAMME PURPOSE AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE

1. Programme Purpose and Phasing The project "Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas, Mopti Region", financed by GEF will be implemented within the framework of the “Sahelian Area Development Fund" (SADeF), financed by IFAD. SADeF aims at creating a participatory sustainable development process in the Sahelian regions of Mali (Kayes, Koulikoro, Ségou and Mopti). Its ultimate goal is to reduce the incidence of poverty in rural households by increasing incomes and improving living conditions, with particular attention given to the needs of women, and by expanding access to primary health care, functional literacy and household and village food security. This goal should be met by empowering communities at the village level (or their associations/groups) to identify their own priority needs and design micro-projects, in whose implementation they will contribute resources in cash or in kind.

SADeF is the first IFAD-financed project under the Flexible Lending Mechanism. Initiated in 1999, the project will be implemented over a 10-year period, divided into three phases of 3, 4 and 3 years, respectively; completion of one phase is subject to evaluation and confirmation that key benchmarks have been achieved before moving on to the next phase. During the first phase (1999-2002), SADeF focused its activities in the regions of Ségou (Ségou, Niono and Macina, where IFAD had previously supported the structuring of farmer organisations) and Koulikoro (Nara, Kolokani and Banamba). The main objectives were to: (i) set up the institutions, mechanisms and procedures for access to the Fund; (ii) ensure their workability; and (iii) allow some limited investment for the benefit of farmer organisations.

SADeF has thus supported the development of initiatives among grassroots rural communities, through: (i) the expansion of funds or village credit and savings schemes; (ii) the production, commercialisation and development of community infrastructure; and (iii) local institutional capacity building supporting the policy of decentralisation. The experience gained and lessons learnt during this first phase should serve as a basis for its expansion to new zones (Kayes, Mopti, San/Ségou) during the second phase (2003-2006). The various achievements will then be consolidated during the last phase (2007-2010).

GEF and IFAD are natural partners for the extension of SADeF activities into the Mopti region under the second phase. The Inner Delta of the Niger River, covering an expanse of 30 000 sq km., comprises four out of the eight “cercles” of the Mopti region (located in Sahelian areas and in the heart of Mali – see Map 1 in Appendix), and is one of the rare large inland deltas in the world. Characterised by diverse and complex ecosystems, it constitutes a unique refuge zone for a large number of paleo-arctic migratory birds and other wildlife, with several endemic and/or most often endangered species, such as manatees or hippopotami.

The Inner Niger Delta is also characterised by a rich historical and socio-cultural heritage; the town of Jenné, for example, is classified one of UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage sites. The Delta’s population of about 622,000 inhabitants is 90 percent rural and mostly dependent on natural resources for food and income. Major economic activities include livestock, fishing and agriculture, as well as logging, hunting and crafts. However, despite its natural potential, the area is considerably affected by rural poverty and inadequate access to primary infrastructure. The reasons for such are well known, these include degrading lands and soils, dwindling fisheries, unpredictable water resources flows, increased anthropogenic pressures and the threat of growing social and ecological vulnerability from climate change and loss of biodiversity. While these threats are global, their impacts are most severe in the Inner Niger Delta –among rural people and especially women living in poverty.

Recognising the socio-economic and environmental challenges and the unique character of the Delta’s ecosystems, SADeF will target its activities in the Mopti region on sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation. GEF and IFAD co-financing of SADeF interventions in

4

Mopti will focus on the linkages between poverty and environmental degradation and adopt an holistic approach to addressing their underlying causes.

Through strengthening the capacities of the wide range of stakeholders at the local (organisations/groups, traditional authorities, communes, users of the resources), regional (decentralised public authorities) and national levels, the GEF/IFAD partnership will promote a local development process centred on sustainable management of natural resources. The project will support development of community infrastructure, productive and environmental micro-projects; promote the development of community-based integrated management plans; develop and test pilot activities (technical, social and legal innovations) focused on NRM and biodiversity conservation; and identify, replicate and disseminate best practices. It will promote the removal of barriers to sustainable environmental management and support the development of a sound policy and regulatory environment by strengthening the government’s decentralization process and promoting the implementation of existing environmental policies, strategies and actions plans (National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Pastoral Charter, among others) at the regional and local levels. The project will furthermore support the Government of Mali’s efforts to develop a national wetlands policy and action plan. Through the experience gained and lessons learned in the Mopti region, SADeF will also be able to incorporate NRM into its other project zones. At the same time, other IFAD and donor projects will benefit from experiences and best practices for replication and upscaling. Overall, the project will contribute extensively to the generation of diffusion of key relevant knowledge for improved natural resources management.

GEF co-financing is therefore planned to last for six years, the duration of SADeF Phases II and III activities in the Mopti region. 2. Project Development GoalWith the creation of a community-based sustainable development process in the Sahelian regions of Mali (Koulikoro, Ségou, Kayes and Mopti), the overall development goal of SADeF is to: (i) reduce poverty and improve the living conditions among rural populations through sustainable management of natural resources; (ii) increase the incomes of the people, most particularly women and the poorest; and (iii) strengthen the capacity of farmer organisations and other stakeholders. The overall objective of the GEF resources is the restoration, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystems and their biodiversity in the Inner Delta of the Niger River and its transition zones.

3. Key Performance Indicators

The key performance indicators include: (i) increasing trend in the net income of participating households/communities relative to others in the project area; (ii) percentage of actors, disaggregated by gender, that have mobilized adequate co-financing for the micro-projects; (iii)  number of community infrastructure micro-projects completed; (iv) percentage of local management committees that demonstrated sound financial and organizational management skills; (v) number of organisations/members involved in natural resource management and biodiversity conservation; (vi) number of households/communities (not directly participating in the project) that have spontaneously adopted improved practices.

Key indicators for monitoring project impacts on biodiversity and land degradation include: (i)  increasing trend in number and distribution of water birds (crown crane, purple heron, cormorant), fish (tilapia, clarias), and mammals (manatee, hippopotami) (ii) number of hectares of ponds, bourgoutiéres, natural (flooded) forests, fishing reserves restored; (iii) number of hectares where the schedule of exploitation systems is rearranged to reflect physical/socio-economic conditions; (iv) number of integrated natural resource management plans adopted and implemented by communities; (v) quantities of local varieties/breeds produced; (vi) number of beneficiaries trained in natural resource management; (vii) number of Delta Environmental Information Reports disseminated.

5

The key performance indicators will be refined and agreed upon during Project Appraisal. Flexibility in the participatory monitoring and evaluation system that will be implemented by the Project will allow their further adjustment during project implementation as experience is gained and the results of the site-specific studies become available.

B. MALI'S STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1. IFAD Country Strategy Framework for Mali

a. IFAD’s Development Strategy for MaliIFAD’s development strategy in Mali is to finance rural development likely to have the greatest impacts on the rural poor and possibly acting as a catalyst for mobilising additional local and international resources for upscaling and replication. Its main objective is to support the Government of Mali in providing better living conditions for rural communities, by: (i) assuring food security for rural households as a basis for national food security; (ii) creating a participatory process for sustainable development involving grassroots communities or their organisations, especially through income-generating activities; (iii) raising rural household incomes by supporting the development of more productive economic activities; and (iv) promoting a more rational management of natural resources, taking into account Mali’s fragile agro-ecological conditions. Moreover, IFAD’s mandate in Mali gives priority to the poorest, most vulnerable communities who most often live in remote regions. To be successful, IFAD’s strategy focuses on the most important links between poverty, the environment and sustainable development. To this end, attention is also given to policies and institutions which can bring major benefits on all these fronts. Therefore, IFAD’s intervention is focused on the Sahelian and Saharan regions of the country. IFAD recognises the importance of partnerships. The strong collaboration which exists between IFAD, WB, BOAD, UNDP, FAO, WFP, GEF and others is an integral part of IFAD’s strategy. SADeF and the related GEF co-financing support these IFAD priorities.

b. IFAD’s Strategy on Natural Resources Management, Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction

IFAD, which recognises the strong causal connections between poverty and environmental degradation, has centred its poverty reduction strategy on environmental protection, more particularly in the marginal endangered and/or low potential agro-ecological zones. The GEF/IFAD partnership in Mopti meets at least the following three requirements: (i) empowering the rural poor; (ii) equitable access to natural resources and technology; and (iii) access to financial services and markets.

1. As to empowering the rural poor and their organisations, emphasis is placed in particular, on the one hand, on supporting local communities and strengthening of their organisational and technical capacity with a view to optimising the use of natural resources, and, on the other hand, on implementing a participatory approach so as to fully involve local populations and secure their rights to the management of resources on their own lands.

2. Concerning the equitable access to natural resources, IFAD seeks to ensure sustainable access to land and water and more particularly to: (i) promote rational cultural practices; (ii) encourage investments in improvement and conservation of resources by grassroots organisations. With respect to access to technologies, emphasis is placed on developing technologies requiring low external inputs, improved NRM techniques and diversification of economic activities, including through integration of livestock, agriculture and agroforestry.

3. With respect to access to financial services and markets, emphasis is placed on raising incomes of the rural poor so as to make possible sustainable improvements in NRM.

6

The GEF-IFAD partnership in Mopti is based on the willingness to integrate the major issues linked to land and natural resource degradation into development initiatives aimed at poverty reduction and productive activities. This co-financing should allow alleviation of the pressure on the Inner Niger Delta ecosystems (see Section C). Moreover, IFAD will support GEF in consolidation of its portfolio for land degradation and strengthening of capacity necessary for protection of the global environment.

2. World Bank Country Assistance Strategy

The Bank’s interventions in Mali are based on the country’s Strategic framework for Poverty Reduction (Cadre stratégique de lutte contre la pauverté - CSLP) which aims at creating the necessary conditions at national and local level to allow long term growth while ensuring that the poor take a lead role in the definition of their own development objectives and priorities. The Bank’s interventions are focused on four main areas: (i) human development; (ii) rural development and water; (iii) infrastructure provision; and (iv) private sector promotion and institutional reforms;

Within the framework of human development, the Bank is providing support through five projects focused on education, health and social development. Relevant to the IFAD-GEF financed SADeF programme is the Poverty reduction and local level support programme (PAIB - projet d’appui aux initiatives de base dans la lutte contre la pauvreté) which is a poverty reduction programme aiming at improving the living conditions of the population, strengthening their capacities and the capacities of the institutions in charge of poverty reduction in a wide sense.

The Bank is also providing substantial support in the area of rural development and water through a series of projects and programmes: (i) National Agricultural Research Project (PNRA), (ii) Support to Agricultural Marketing Programme (PAVCOPA), (iii) Support to Agricultural Services and Farmer’s Organisations (PASAOP). Two project aim at developing water management capacities: (i) Private Irrigation Promotion (PPIP) and (ii) National Rural Infrastructure Programme (PNIR). In addition, the Bank is currently preparing the Rural Community Development Project (PDRC), which is designed along the lines of the CDD programmes. Its objective is to provide support to the decentralisation process, in particular to strengthen capacities of the local level decision makers, including the communities and elected members.

The Bank is also providing support to infrastructure development (urban development, transportation and energy provision) and intervenes in the area of private sector promotion and institutional reforms.

Highly relevant to the SADeF GEF component is the Arid Rangeland Biodiversity Conservation Project, a transnational GEF financed programme which will be implemented in the Gourma region and which will aim at providing support to communes and communities to better manage biodiversity.

3. Global Operational Strategy/Programme Objective addressed by project

Mali ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 30 September 1992, the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) on 31 October 1995, and the Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) on 28 December 1994. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands came into force in Mali on 25 September 1997. The project contributes to national efforts to implement the CBD in that it promotes capacity-building, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources through adaptive management of grassland landscapes, and supports the agricultural biodiversity work programme and the knowledge, innovations and practices of local and indigenous communities.

GEF’s intervention in the Inner Niger Delta (Mopti region) and its transition zones aims at restoring, conserving and managing in a sustainable manner the biological resources and complex ecosystems located both in aquatic (freshwater) and in arid/semi-arid zones. The Mopti region is divided into two

7

great inter-dependent agro-ecological zones: an inundated area whose surface depends upon the rate of floods and recessions, and an exondated area consisting primarily of shrub and herbaceous savannah. The vegetative cover and soils in both the inundated and exondated areas are highly degraded. The areas are severely threatened by a number of climatic (drought) and anthropogenic factors which is reflected in many parts by an imbalance between carrying capacity and utilisation and a disruption in the reproductive cycle of species and ecosystems. The Inner Delta is unique because of its enclosed position within  an arid and semi-arid Sahelian zone. One of its characteristics is the significant seasonal and year-to-year variability of the flooded area. For a part of the year (January/February to July – the dry season), most of the inundated area is characterised by semi-arid ecosystems, outside the river branches, ponds and permanent lakes; in the flooded season (July/August to December/January), the flooded area can reach 30 000 sq km.

The GEF intervention furthers the objectives of the GEF focal area for biodiversity conservation and addresses the priorities of GEF Operational Programmes 1 (arid and semi-arid ecosystems) and 2 (coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems). Regarding conservation, the proposed project follows strategic axes which prioritise both (i) semi-arid African ecosystems, severely threatened by growing population pressure and overexploitation of natural resources, drought and desertification, and (ii)  threatened aquatic (freshwater) ecosystems. It aims, inter alia, to strengthen local, regional and national capacities in sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, supports the active involvement of local and indigenous communities in management decisions, and promotes the integration of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in land use planning and management. The project combines productive and socio-economic goals and that of combating land degradation and conserving biological diversity.

The project will also contribute to the attainment of objectives of Operational Programme 13 (conservation an sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity), as well as to the achievement of the goals on the new GEF Operational Programme 15, aimed at combating land degradation through sustainable land management. The GEF intervention in Mopti will, moreover, contribute to the objectives of other GEF focal areas: sustainable land management, international waters and climate change.

The project complies with the new GEF Strategic Priorities for the Focal Area of Biodiversity, especially Priority II Mainstreaming Biodiversity in the Production Landscapes and Sectors. The project specifically aims to promote the restoration and the long-term development of the significant agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential of the Delta and its transition zones and incorporate biodiversity and sustainable use considerations into these integrated production systems. In this respect, one of the main activities of the project will be to develop and implement demonstration activities with a high replication value.

The project also promotes the goals of Strategic Priority 1 Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas. There are three Ramsar sites in the Inner Niger Delta, two of which are located in the Mopti region. The areas are largely owned by the State, but villages within the site boundary have customary rights of exploitation over certain areas. While human use varies from site to site, local villages generally depend on the wetlands for drinking water, fishing, seasonal agriculture and livestock rearing/grazing. Outside the Ramsar areas parts of the Delta are irrigated for rice cultivation.

A participatory approach, involving the wide range of stakeholders from national to local levels, would be adopted in designing the site-specific integrated management plans. These plans would encompass the multiple use of the wetlands and adjacent areas (including the exondated areas). The project’s activities related to capacity building for long-term sustainability (see Component 1), catalyzing community and indigenous initiatives, and removing barriers support the objectives of Strategic Priority 1.

8

4. Relevant Sectoral and Sub-sectoral Context

Mali is a vast landlocked country in the heart of West Africa. It has a total area of 1,241,138 sq km, 60 percent of which is located in the Sahelian-Saharan zone. It is divided into eight administrative regions, besides the Bamako District (Kayes, Koulikoro, Sikasso, Ségou, Mopti, Timbuktu, Gao and Kidal), subdivided into 42 “cercles,” 701 communes, of which 19 are urban. Its population, 80 percent rural, is estimated at around 11 million (1999), with an average growth rate of 2.2 percent. Almost 90 percent of the population of Mali are concentrated on 30 percent of the territory, in the Kayes, Koulikoro, Sikasso, Ségou, Mopti regions and the Bamako District.

The economy is based essentially on the primary sector, which accounts for almost 50 percent of Malian GDP and over 60 percent of export earnings (mainly cotton, livestock and cereals). However, despite an annual growth estimated between five and six percent, the country is rated by UNDP among the most disadvantaged, with an average annual income per person of less than US$250 and a human development index of 0.4. Poverty affects almost two thirds of the overall population, of which 21 percent are very poor (CSLP, 2002). The Northern regions are among the poorest, with an incidence of poverty of 76.2 percent in Mopti (38.1 percent very poor), 76.8 percent in Timbuktu (26.1 percent very poor), 78.7 percent in Gao (11.1 percent very poor) and 92.8 percent in Kidal (3.6 percent very poor).

Crossed by the Senegal River to the west for 900 km and by the Niger River from west to east for over 1 600 km, Mali has a rich and varied natural potential, unique ecosystems of global interest, important agro-sylvo-pastoral and fishing resources and huge flood plains, particularly in the Sahelian et arid-semi-arid zones (Inner Delta, lake zone and Boucle du Niger in the Sahelian-Saharan zone). These resources, which constitute the productive base for the majority of rural populations, are all highly degraded due to a combination of climatic factors (recurrent droughts, irregular spatial and temporal rain patterns , climate aridification and isohyets displacement by 100 km to the South), and man-made factors related to increasing needs of the population and the persistence of extensive production systems (involving uncontrolled clearcutting for firewood and timber or cropland, lopping and overgrazing, bushfires, etc.).

All these factors have adversely affected the ecosystems, most particularly in the Sahelian and Sahelo-Saharan areas. In many parts, this results into a rupture between the resources and their exploitation/ utilisation and is a major constraint to sustainable development of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential.

The agricultural sector is characterised by rainfed systems (millet/sorghum), with often low and irregular yields, particularly in the Sahelian zone, as well as by more intensive commercial systems (rice crops especially in the Office du Niger schemes, with yields around five T/ha; cotton crops in the southern Sudan belt (CMDT zone), with a production on the order of 500 000 tons in 1999; this sector is now undergoing a financial crisis due in particular to slumping world cotton prices).

Besides these more intensive production systems, most of the systems are extensive, relying little on mechanisation or agricultural inputs and highly dependent upon rainfall. The increase in production, outside irrigated perimeters, is mainly attributable to surface extension, increasingly taking place on marginal land at the expense of sylvo-pastoral resources. The loss of vegetative cover, which exacerbates the effects of wind and water erosion, and destructive cultural practices have caused an important loss of soil fertility and a loss of arable land (including a decrease of flooded areas estimated from 30 to 50 percent over three decades). Moreover, one of the constraints for agricultural development is the isolation of many production zones.

It should also be noted that worrying signs of soil degradation can be observed in the intensive farming areas, including in the Office du Niger perimeters: alcalinization/salinisation, groundwater level rise by several meters, pollution by fertilisers and pesticides; and in the CMDT zone: severe decline in soil fertility, significant degradation of vegetative cover, uncontrolled use of fertilisers and pesticides, etc.

9

Mali’s livestock population was gradually reconstituted after the great droughts. In 2001, it was estimated at over 6 000 000 cattle, 13 000 000 goat /sheep and 300 000 camels. The livestock systems, for the most part extensive, vary according to the regions of the country, with transhumants breeding to the north and a better integration of livestock-crop systems in the south. In many parts, the degradation of pastures and plant cover, as well as reduced water sources, have led breeders and their herds to stay increasingly long periods of time around the semi-permanent or permanent water sources, resulting in considerable damage to natural resources (overgrazing, trimming etc.). This situation and the disappearance of many corridors, as well as hydro-agricultural management initiatives, have led to numerous conflicts between farmers and breeders.

Forestry resources, which differ widely from the Sudanese to the Sahelian-Saharan zones , are mainly harvested for fuelwood (including charcoal) and timber, crafts or collecting. The forests are all degraded, most particularly in the Sahelian zone, due to overlogging to meet domestic energy needs and to their uncontrolled and often illegal harvesting (agricultural encroachment, lopping, bushfires to regenerate grasslands, etc.), and also due to mortality stemming from climate aridification and droughts. Estimates are that at least 100 000 ha of forests are destroyed every year.

In Mali, legally protected areas extend over 6,115 sq. km, i.e. 3.8 percent of the national territory. They include:

· The Boucle du Baoulé Complex (3,500 sq. km), including four protected areas, i.e. the Boucle du Baoulé National Park (350,000 ha), which is Mali’s only national park, and three adjacent reserves, the Fina Reserve (136,000 ha), the Badinko Reserve (193,000 ha) and the Kongosambougou Reserve (92,000 ha);· The Douentza Elephant Reserve or Gourma Elephant Reserve (12,000 sq. km);· The Giraffe Reserve also called Ansongo-Ménaka Reserve (17,500 sq. km;· The Faya classified forest (800 sq. km); and· Approximately one hundred other classified forests (7,160 sq. km).

There are also three sites designated as wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites), with a surface area of 162,000 hectares. Located in the Inner Niger Delta, these are Lac Horo *18,900 ha), Séri, (40,000 ha) and Walado Debo/Lac Debo (103,100 ha). While human use varies from site to site, local villages generally depend on the wetlands for drinking water, fishing, seasonal agriculture and livestock rearing/grazing. Outside the Ramsar areas parts of the Delta are irrigated for rice cultivation. Drought and inadequate flooding are the principal threats to the wetlands, but the impact of dams and water diversion projects within the catchment area, overexploitation of the national resources (fish, water birds, firewood, overgrazing) is also significant.

As to food security, despite satisfactory coverage of food needs and national level of food security during good rainfall years, several major constraints remain, including vagaries of weather, considerable disparities among and within regions, poverty of a growing proportion of the rural population, low diversification and nutritional imbalance particularly noted among young children (chronic and acute malnutrition for 30 percent of children from 0 to five years of age).

Generally speaking, access of rural populations to basic social services is totally inadequate. With respect to health, the rate of health coverage in a 15 km radius is estimated at only 59 percent. Also, a strong correlation exists between the high rate of child mortality (238 ‰), and such factors as difficulty of access to drinking water, water-borne diseases or poor hygienic conditions. The most common diseases are malaria, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases and cardio-vascular diseases. The incidence of AIDS is estimated at 3-4 percent.

With respect to education, the rate of primary school attendance was estimated at 57.8 percent in 1999-2000. In 1997-98, the percentage of children in secondary schools - general, technical and professional -

10

was 7.3 percent, while that for higher education was 2.1 percent. On the other hand, despite rapidly expanding literacy centres, adult literacy rates remain very low - 29.1 percent in 1998 (48.3 percent for men vs. 12.1 percent for women).

5. Government Strategy/Key Policy Context

c. General Policy FrameworkIn 1998, Mali adopted the National Strategy for Poverty Reduction (SNLP), followed by the Strategic Framework for Poverty Reduction (CSLP) in 2002. The latter includes the goals defined by the New Partnership for the Development of Africa (NEPAD). The Strategic Framework is aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable populations and serves as a common and unique reference framework for actions and programmes supported by development partners. It is based on the following strategic axes: (i) enhancement of the economic, political, legal, social and cultural environment for the benefit of the poor; (ii) promotion of income-generating activities and self-employment for the poor; (iii) improvement in access of the poor to financial services and other inputs of production; (iv) improvement in access of the poor to education and training, as well as to primary health care, nutrition, drinking water and sewerage.

CSLP’s objectives draw upon the results of the exercise "Vision Mali 2025". In particular, the CSLP aims at reducing by about 15 percent the incidence of poverty by 2006, reaching a sustained annual economic growth rate of 6.7 percent and attaining food security and safeguarding the environment, through better production systems and sustainable NRM. It furthermore aims to reach a school attendance rate of 73 percent in 2004 (59 percent for girls), an adult literacy rate of 50 percent and the development of basic infrastructure by promoting access to health, communications and energy sectors, etc.

Decentralisation became effective in Mali with the creation of 703 communes throughout the country, 49 “cercle” councils, eight regional assemblies and one district assembly for Bamako, an association of municipalities and the establishment of support tools for implementation of the decentralisation policy. In particular, this includes “l'Agence Nationale d'Investissement des Collectivés Territoriales” (ANICT) and the Communal Councils. This should be accompanied by the transfer of a number of responsibilities (including NRM) and means of action from the State to local authorities (underway). This is aimed at empowering populations and decentralised authorities to manage their own socio-economic development. The institutions of decentralisation are shown in Figure 1 below (CSLP, 2002).

As mentioned in the CSLP, despite the efforts made towards decentralisation, its impact on the living conditions of communities and their participation in the decision-making process is still imperceptible. One constraint is the inadequate institutional capacity of decentralisation structures, which does not allow them to play a role in terms of design, implementation and monitoring of coherent development programmes, the inadequate or slow transfer of authority and resources by the State is another constraint.

11

Figure 1. Decentralisation levels and bodies (CSLP, 2002)

The update of the Rural Development Master Plan (Schéma directeur du développement rural - SDDR) - updated in 2001 and adopted in 2002 - takes into account national trends and ongoing policy and program formulation and review processes, including decentralisation, subregional integration (WAMU) and interaction with other sub-sector policies, such as the Water Resources Master Plan, the ten-year socio-sanitary programme (PRODESS), the ten-year education and culture programme (PRODEC), as well as the requirements for improved natural resource management (NRM) on which most rural populations rely for productive activities.

d. Environmental and Natural Resource Management PolicyIn 1998, Mali adopted the National Environmental Action Plan/National Action Programmes for implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (PNAE/PAN-CID), which were prepared jointly. The PNAE/PAN defines the national environmental policy and nine priority national programmes and constitutes the "guiding framework for planning and effective and sustainable management of all environmental issues". Its adoption was followed by a donor Round Table in May 1999, which emphasised, inter alia, desertification control and conservation of wetlands biodiversity, in particular in the Inner Niger Delta of the Niger River.

Furthermore, its participatory development process also resulted in the formulation of regional action programmes (PAR) and in the pilot formulation of local action programmes (PAL). The GEF intervention meets the major PAR goal in the Mopti region, i.e. to fight degradation of the agro-sylvo-pastoral areas through rational national resources management. To incorporate environmental issues into community development plans (PDC). With support from the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), the STP/CIGQE prepared a guide in 2002 for participatory development and adoption of community environmental action plans (PCAE). This guide is now in its pilot phase of implementation and is summarised in Appendix 4.

Mali prepared a National Strategy for Biological Diversity (completed) in 2000) and related regional strategies, including the Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mopti Region (1999). Specific objectives include:

Improve knowledge of the priority ecosystems; Conserve the priority natural ecosystems and agrobiodiversity; Develop in situ conservation in the region;

12

Strengthen institutional capacities in conservation of priority ecosystems and agrobiodiversity;

Organise fishing activities and fish marketing; Organise hunting and protect water birds; Promote the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Strategy; Create income-generating activities.

The Government of Mali is in the initial stage of formulating a National Wetlands Policy which would consist of a strategy and a plan of action. With assistance from Wetlands International, the Ramsar Convention and the Netherlands government, a national workshop was held in June 2003 to bring the various ministries, institutions, regional and local authorites together to lay out the framework for its development. It is expected to be completed in late 2004 or early 2005.

Finally, as to international treaties and conventions on environmental and natural resource management to which Mali has adhered, the project will contribute, inter alia, to implementation of: (i) the RAMSAR Convention on Internationally Important Wetlands (three RAMSAR sites are located in the Inner Delta, two of which in the Mopti region - see Section C); (ii) the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Birds; (iii) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); (iv) the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD); and (v) the Agreement on the Conservation of Africa-Eurasia Migratory Waterbirds.

e. Legislative Framework for Environmental and Natural Resources Management

Since the beginning of the 1990s, Mali has passed several important laws and regulations on environmental protection and participatory management of natural and forest resources. The State has also recognised the competence of decentralised authorities and of rural populations in terms of management/protection of natural resources on their territory. Law 96-050 defines the natural public domain of local authorities, now comprising all State public structures based on their territory for which the State has devolved conservation and management powers. The Law also stipulates that local authorities are responsible for the management, development, conservation and safeguarding of the ecological balance in their jurisdiction. Consequently, local authorities are also responsible for elaborating area development plans that should specify the various land uses - forestry, agricultural, pastoral, fauna, fish farming, mining and habitat - and their respective importance.

The Forestry Code was revised to promote the empowerment of local stakeholders and to support the decentralisation process. Another important development is the Pastoral Code. Adopted in 2002, the Pastoral Code aims to clarify the rights and responsibilities of farmers and pastoralists and to foster negotiation of access rights among the various user groups. Based upon regional diagnostics and revision of the “Code domanial” which recognises customary rights, the new Pastoral Code considers the specific needs of transhumants and tends to reconcile modern law, customary law and the sustainable management of pastoral resources jointly with the local communities and the breeders.

f. Institutional Framework for Environment and Natural Resources Management

The focal point for environmental management is the Ministry of Environment, consisting of two national technical directorates, the National Directorate for Nature Conservation (DNCN) and the National Directorate for Sanitation and Pollution Control (DNACP), as well as the Permanent Technical Secretariat of the Institutional Framework for the Management of Environmental Issues (STP/CIGQE).

The DNCN is responsible for Mali’s protected area system and has a decentralised structure at the regional (regional Directorates) and local levels (outposts in “cercles”). It is the only structure in the Mopti region that ensures follow-up and co-ordination of environment-related activities. At the regional level, it should be noted that the human and logistical resources capacities of these structures and of the

13

decentralised authorities are very weak. A group of NGOs for sustainable NRM has also been created and is supported by various donors.

STP/CIGQE, created in 1998, has several functions, including (i) monitoring implementation of PNAE/PAN-CID, (ii) ensuring consistent environmental conservation measures; and (iii) mobilising funds. It should also ensure that research, training and communication are promoted to protect the environment. STP/CIGQE is furthermore responsible for conventions, treaties, and international agreements and, as such, has primary responsibility for Mali’s three Ramsar sites in the Inner Niger Delta. Since it does not have an on-the-ground presence, STP/CIGQE, in principle, relies on support from the DNCN which does have decentralized services.

Co-ordination between Government and development partners in environmental issues was institutionalised in 2000 with the creation of a consultative Government-Development Partners Commission, particularly to follow up on recommendations of the Round Table on Environment (1999). A Niger River Agency, an inter-ministerial structure responsible for co-ordination and environmental monitoring of the whole Niger River Basin in Mali, was recently created (end 2002), but is not yet operational.

6. Sector Issues to be addressed by the Project

The GEF intervention will support implementation of a number of key policies and strategies for environmental protection and NRM, as well as priority activities defined in the National Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation and the Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mopti Region. It will furthermore support the development of the National Wetlands Policy through its collaborative linkages and sharing of site specific information and experiences with the Ministry of Environment and its decentralized services, Wetlands International, IUCN, Walia and other local NGOs, local stakeholder groups. It would also contribute to strengthening Mali’s protected area system through its collaboration with the Boucle du Baoulé project (an IFAD/UNDP-GEF initiative currently under formulation) and the World Bank-GEF Gourma project.

This strategy is incorporated into the framework for implementation of the PNAE/PAN-CID and contributes more specifically to the goals of the National Programme for Natural Resources Management. It will also contribute to the National Programme for the Management of Environmental Information, intended to create a system for monitoring and managing environmental information based upon a geographical information system (GIS), and to the Information, Education and Communication in Environment (IEC) National Programme, as well as to the Programme monitoring implementation of international conventions.

Furthermore, GEF will support the decentralisation process and, more particularly, the integration of environmental concerns, sustainable NRM and biodiversity conservation into the community development plans (PDCs), through participatory development and adoption of community environmental action plans (PCAEs). It will also contribute to organisational and institutional capacity building of the different structures responsible for environmental protection and NRM at the various levels.

GEF will support implementation of a number of key processes aimed at attaining food security, alleviating poverty and local capacity building to reach the ultimate goal of sustainable development. Through its intervention, GEF will cover the incremental costs of these activities in realising global environmental benefits. The actions on the regional level in Mopti should bear primarily on:

Alleviation of rural poverty by sustainably enhancing the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential on which rural populations depend for their livelihoods, by disseminating sustainable management techniques and by strengthening local actors’ organizational, technical and financial capacities, with a view to improved NRM at the different levels

14

Restoration and conservation of fragile ecosystems affected by climatic and manmade pressures, through preparation and implementation of management plans for the most vulnerable sites, to halt the trend in natural resource degradation and the disappearance of natural wildlife habitats, while developing the socio-economic conditions of the local communities

Support to the decentralisation process, to the planning necessary for incorporating participatory and sustainable environmental/NRM into local development plans and strengthening the consultation frameworks at the local, regional and national levels

Support for implementation of national and regional environmental and NRM, policies and strategies particularly those related to biodiversity conservation and wetlands protection, focussing on the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones for their preservation and participatory and sustainable management.

C. PROJECT AREA AND RATIONALE FOR THE GEF/SADeF INTERVENTION

1. Description of the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Zonesa. Situation

The project area covers the Inner Niger Delta1, a vast wetland of almost 30 000 sq km, and its transition zones (for herds passing through on their way in and out of the Delta). It is one of the largest inner deltas in the world. Due to its particular location and dynamics in a Sahelian, arid-semi-arid zone, it is unique on the continent and in the world. It includes three RAMSAR sites and serves as a refuge for a high number of paleo-arctic migratory birds, as well as for endemic and/or threatened animal species, such as manatees or hippopotami.

The Mopti region covers an area of 79 017 sq km, or 6.34 percent of the national territory, with a total population of 1.475 million. The major part of the region is in the Sahelian zone, with annual rainfall varying from 150 mm in the north to 550 mm in the south. The region is divided into eight “cercles” (108 communes, five of which urban, and 2 018 villages).

The project area covers four out of eight “cercles” in the region (Mopti, Ténenkou, Jenné and Youwarou) for a total area of 31 000 sq km, 45 rural communes et three urban communes (see map 1). It has an approximate population of 622 000 (42 percent of the region), excluding seasonal populations (pastoralists, fishermen, agricultural labour). Endowed with a great cultural richness, the area is home to several ethnic and socio-cultural groups, including: settled Peul pastoralists (who increasingly practice farming), agro-pastoralists (Rimaïbé, Bambara, Sonraï, Soninké), agro-fishermen (Bozo, Somono), as well as transhumants pastoralists and fishermen2.

From a natural resources perspective, the Mopti region is divided into two great inter-dependent agro-ecological  zones:

An inundated area , comprising part of the Mopti, Tenenkou, Jenné and Youwarou “cercles,” corresponding to the Inner Delta or central Delta of the Niger River, whose surface depends upon the rate of floods and recessions;

1 The Inner Niger Delta extends on a rectangle-shaped area oriented SW-NE, 400-450 km long and 100-150 km wide between Ké-Macina - San to the South and Timbuktu to the North. The Delta is divided into four zones: middle Bani, « Delta mort » (fossil valley partly re-flooded at the Markala dam for development of over 60,000 ha of Office du Niger rice crops), central Delta (approx.18-20,000 sq km) and lake zone (Timbuktu region - 9,900 sq km).

2 Characteristics of the four circles are detailed in background document n0 1.

15

An exondated area, for the most part to the east of the region (Gourma area), made up of the Koro, Bandiagara, Bankass “cercles,” as well as part of the Jenné, Mopti, Youwarou and Tenenkou “cercles.” It includes a mountainous or rocky part (Plateau de Bandiagara – Pays Dogon, Chaîne du Gandamia, Mts Hombori) and lowlands (including the Seno Bankass, Koro, Seno-Mango, Séno-Mondoro, South Gourma and Mema plains).

b. Dynamics of the Delta Ecosystem The Inner Niger Delta, a vast area of wetlands in the sub-desert Sahelian zone, is characterised by very fluctuating dynamics both in terms of extent and timing. In a normal year, flooding starts in July and extends until November or December. Formed by a vast complex network of flood plains, tributaries, defluents, lakes and ponds, its average slope is often less than 2 cm/km, which normally results in very slow run-off. The Inner Niger Delta’s inundated area is subject to significant seasonal and annual fluctuations, which depend on the level and duration of floods, in turn conditioned by the amount and regularity of flows from the upper Niger and its Bani tributary (137 000 sq km) which flows into the Niger river in the vicinity of Mopti. The average river flow after the confluence is 676 m3/s, with an average low in May of 76.4 m3/s and average peaks of 2 000-2 100 m3/s in August -September1 (HYDRONIGER, 1979-2000). In a normal year, the Delta would receive about 50 to 55 billion cubic meters of water.

From the various studies conducted on the Inner Delta, including by IRD/ORSTOM, it has emerged that the maintenance and development of the natural resources (water, soils, fauna, flora) on one hand, and the extent of flooded areas, on the other, are both strongly linked to: (i) the river dynamics upstream which depends on the rainfall patterns and dam management2, determining the magnitude of the floods and (ii) the functioning itself of the Inner Delta which in turn determines run-off, infiltration and evaporation. According to Olivry (1995), the inundated area varies from 9 500 sq km in 1984 (drought year and maximum flow deficit) to 35 000 sq km in 1967 (peak observed between 1965 and 2000). Losses measured when leaving the Delta compared to entries amount to 47 percent for wet years (more important flooded area and evaporation) and 30 percent for dry years.

Figure 2 below provides a schematic of the seasonal dynamics of the Delta’s flooded area and illustrates the alternating periods of high floods, periods of recession and periods where the Inner Niger Delta is dry (except for branches of the river, semi-permanent or permanent lakes and ponds). During this period, basically the dry season (February/March to July), the whole Delta is subject to intense wind erosion, sand siltation and desertification.

This process is exacerbated by the decrease in flood level, by climate aridification, by the presence of dunes, especially upstream, as well as by significant degradation of soils and vegetative cover. All these factors have resulted in significant hydro-rainfall deficits, constant decline of inundated areas (around 30 to 50 percent), increased seasonal variations and insufficient groundwater replenishment.

1 These stream flows show significant year-to-year variations, with for example in 1984 (very poor year), for an average yearly flow of 404 m3/s, a low of 46,3 m3/s in May, 272 m3/s in July, 776 m3/s in August, 1,110 m3/s in September, 1,290 m3/s in October and 571 m3/s in November; in 1994 (high flood year), for an average yearly flow of 1,060 m3/s, a recorded low of 74,3 m3/s in May, 549 m3/s in July, 1,470 m3/s in August, 2,480 m3/s in September, 3,080 m3/s in October and 2,870 m3/s in November.

2 According to a recent study (Hassane et al., 2000), while at all times there are important fluctuations in the river flow depending on rainfall, the level of the inundated areas is also linked, in particular in low water conditions, to the management of reservoirs upstream (Sélingué and Markala dams).

16

Figure 2. Seasonal Flooding Dynamics in the Inner Delta (In Wetlands et al., 2002)

c. Biological Diversity of Global Interest in the Inner Niger Delta1

Vegetation Types

While the Inner Niger Delta is found in a Sahelian zone (with Sudanese characteristics in the south and Sahelian-Saharan traits in the north), the presence of water and temporary floodplains have favoured the development ecosystems particular to the Delta. Vegetation types or associations are varied and original; they are found in terraces and are dependent upon the water height, submersion time and nature of soils. Considering the high seasonal and inter-annual variability of flooding, their distribution is not static, but constantly changes with the presence of water. The common traits of this combination of original ecosystems include: (i) a relatively poor number of species, even if some or their associations are unique and of global interest, (ii) a very high productivity in terms of biomass , and (iii) a very good adaptation to great seasonal and continued changes in water level.

In general terms, vegetation in inundated areas can be distinguished from vegetation in exondated areas bordering flood plains.

In inundated areas , depending on water depth, several situations occur:

1. In deep water and silty valley bottoms (river beds, its tributaries/defluents and centre of large lakes and ponds), aquatic vegetation is nearly non-existent due to currents, water depth and/or lack of transparency. During recession, the vast areas of silty soils are covered by rare and low vegetation, dominated by grasses.

2. “Bourgoutières” are found in long and deep flooded areas (six to seven months, two to five meters) along the branches of the river, ponds and lakes. They are dominated by Echinocloa stagnina (“bourgou”), a highly productive fodder species (15 to >25 T of dry matter/ha) and much appreciated by cattle and aquatic fauna, including manatees and hippopotami. Other

1 PDF-B Study: Identification of potential sites for the project and local plans already drawn up in the four inundated circles of the Inner Delta (INACO, 2003). Niger River Inner Delta. Ecology and sustainable management of natural resources. Mali-pin publication. Wetlands International, Sévaré/RIZA, Rijkswaterstaat, Lelystad/Altenburg & Wymenga ecological consultants, Veenwouden, 2002.

17

related grasses are Voscia cuspidata, Uricularia inflexa, U. reflexa, Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce). They used to cover extremely vast areas but several tens of thousands of hectares have disappeared today due to the combined effect of droughts, overgrazing, competition with agricultural crops and the increasingly intensive harvesting of “bourgou” for sale.

3. Waterlily ponds are found in the more shallow inundation zones (five months, 1.2 to 1.8 metres) and are characterised by Nymphaea, rooted aquatic plants with floating leaves. Local populations collect tubers for consumption. They are also jeopardised by declining inundated areas.

4. “Orizaies” are found in areas where flooding never lasts more than three months and reaches a maximum water depth of two metres. The dominant vegetation is traditional or wild rice (Oriza longisminata) and other grasses (Acriceras amplectens, Panicum subalbidum, etc.). Wild rice constitutes a traditional food resource and an important example of agrobiodiversity. However, there has been a shift from “orizaies” to recession crops or paddy crops (both uncontrolled and controlled flooding).

5. In the highest parts like the sandy levees and along small ponds, vetiver grass systems represent a transition zone between deep-flooded and shallow or non-flooded areas. They play a significant role in bankside stabilisation. The main species are Vetivera nigritana (Vetiver, also used for handicrafts, including the making of mats) and Mimosa pigra, an invasive shrub, used as a spawning and breeding place for fish.

6. Flooded forests (up to two to three metres) can be considered as the most original type of vegetation in the Delta: they are either open or closed and are dominated essentially by Acacia kirkii and Ziziphus mauritiana. They act as key nesting places for important migratory birds by forming an impenetrable web during the flooding period. The droughts, poor floods and overexploitation have nonetheless resulted in the loss of huge parts of these forests1, many of which are made of dead wood or replaced by glacis or dunes.

Vegetative cover in exondated areas inside or immediately outside of the Delta varies according to weather conditions. In the south, east and west, it consists of shrub or herbaceous savannah with Parkia biglobosa, Calotropis procera, Diosporos mespilformis (whose wood is sacred and protected), Borassus aethiopum and Acacia seyal. To the north the sub-desert environment has very poor vegetation, including some typical species, such as Boscia senegalensis, Acacia albida and Hyphaene thebaica (Doum palm, largely overexploited for crafts) and a Panicum sp-based discontinued herbaceous carpet (rainy season pastures).

Generally speaking, both the vegetative cover and soils in exondated and inundated areas are highly degraded. And, while the restoration/development potential is still relatively significant, it is severely threatened by a number of climatic and anthropogenic factors: decrease of rains and floods, water and wind erosion, sand siltation of river beds, feeder channels and ponds, uncontrolled deforestation and overtapped natural resources in and out of the Inner Delta. This situation is reflected in many parts by an imbalance between carrying capacity and utilisation and a disruption in the reproductive cycle of species and ecosystems.

Wildlife Resources Just as for the vegetative cover, the spatial and time dynamics of the Delta’s ecosystems is of critical importance to the richness of wildlife: avifauna, fish fauna, land and aquatic mammals. In fact, the existence of many vegetation associations on limited areas – the area surrounding a pond, for example, can host five to six different plant types – guarantees the availability of food sources for piscivore , 1 Only two closed flooded forests are left (Akka-Goun and Dentaka, for which a management plan has

been drawn with the support of IUCN. Beyond Lake Débo towards Nianfunké, forests were plentiful, 14 of which were classified between 1945 and 1950 to protect the river and its defluents. They are now all degraded with many standing dead trees, as in the Farimaké forest.

18

benthivore, insectivore and granivore birds and serves as a spawning site for a number of species. Abundant food sources are particularly important during the pre-migratory stage. Moreover, in times of unfavourable climate (ecostress), the Delta’s lakes and large ponds serve as shelter for bird populations from less favourable Sahelian areas.

As to the avifauna, the Delta constitutes a hibernation site for paleo-arctic migratory birds, including the summer teal (Anas quequedula), the northern pintail (A. acuta) or the Northern shoveler (A. clypeata). It is also a breeding site for several species of afrotropical birds, including the fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), the spur-winged goose (Paleopterus gambiensis) or the comb duck (Sarkidiorius melanotos).

The richness and diversity of the Delta’s avifauna are of global importance: the Delta is estimated to shelter over 350 bird species1, including 103 water bird species surveyed from 1998 to 2001. Every year, it supports over one billion birds, mostly paleo-arctic and coming from more than 80 countries (over 250 000 individuals were counted by a partial census carried out in February 1998).

The Inner Delta’s global importance is confirmed also by the fact that: (i) for 27 species, such as the long-tailed Cormorant (Phalacrocorax africanus) and several species of herons, including the night heron and the purple heron, the Delta’s population represents at least one percent of the global population2; (ii) 73 Delta waterbird species (of which the most famous is the crowned crane or Balearica pavonina) are considered as vulnerable (uncommon, rare or threatened)3. The loss of habitats but also intensive and very profitable hunting of some of these birds has an adverse impact on several of these species protected by international Conventions. Removals for trade already reached about 200 000 - 400 000 birds every year in the eighties (Sanogho, 1988), with an average sale price of 800 FCFA/bird. This situation persists despite various actions conducted by international NGOs (Walia, IUCN, Wetlands International).

The Inner Delta is also an excellent fish spawning and breeding area. In 1954, the Delta’s ichtyofauna consisted of 138 species, 58 races, 26 families, all belonging to the osteichtyes family (teleosteens), including 24 considered to be endemic, which show original traits and/or are adapted to flooding or drought conditions. The surveyed species include Protopterus anneciens, Clarias, Distichodus, Alestes, Tilapia, Lates nitolicus, etc. The species distribution depends on the river seasonal fluctuation and water depth. It is characterised by important lateral migratory (from the riverbed to the floodplains during the flood) and longitudinal movements (along the river). Productivity varies from year to year, ranging from 15-25 to 75 kg/ha, showing the great adaptability of species to seasonal and inter-annual variations.

Despite monitoring by l'Office Pêche Mopti (OPM) on the 24 ponds, few data are available on the current status and diversity. At the very most, the decline in captures (from 100 000-200 000 T/year in the 70s to 60 000-70 000 T/year now) and the use by fishermen of nets with increasingly small mesh at least indicate a decline in the size of fish. Besides, it is known that the low flooding of past years and the proliferation of fish farming or agricultural dams have a very negative impact on a number of species which are endangered or extinct.

Due to less favourable climatic conditions and growing anthropogenic pressure, many natural habitats have been destroyed and several great Delta reptiles and mammals decimated, such as Kobus kob, Gazella dama, Pantera leo, now extinct. Other protected species are badly threatened, including manatees (Trichechus senegalensis), and hippopotami (Hippopotamus amphibius), due to their competition with human activities. The other species still present but at risk include the warthog 1 Census made since the 70s, including by IUCN. The most recent census, although partial, was made

by Wetlands in the Walado-Débo, Korientzé and Mopti-Debo areas.2 Under criterion 6 of the RAMSAR Convention, a wetland should be considered internationally

important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbirds.

3 Under criterion 2 of the RAMSAR Convention, a wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.

19

(Phacochoerus aethiopicus), the crocodile (Crocuta crocuta) and the red-fronted gazelle (Gazella rufifrons).

Sites of Particular Importance The Inner Delta includes three RAMSAR (wetland) sites of global importance (actively protected by IUCN, Wetlands International, etc.), two of which are located in the Mopti region (Lake Walado-Débo, 103,100 ha - Youwarou and Mopti “cercles;” Séri Plain, 40 000 ha – Tenenkou “cercle”) and one in the Timbuktu area (Lake Horo, 18,900 ha). In the Youwarou “cercle,” there are seven classified forests, all degraded, which cover a total area of 7 946 ha. The Delta has also several sacred forests.

The Walado Debo/Lac Debo site is part of one of the major Sahelian wetlands and is composed of an extensive floodplain area containing seasonally inundated lakes (Walado Debo and Lac Debo), ponds and river channels. It is of international importance for wintering waterbirds that migrate to breed in the Palearctic region. It is also one of the major dry season refuges for a huge number of afrotropical bird species, in particular during years of deficient rainfall. Counts taken in 1992 identified, for instance, over 15 000 glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) and 25 000 black-tailed godwits (Limosa limosa), 140,000 Anas acuta; 991 Sarkidiornis melanotos, among many others.

The Séri plain is an extensive floodplain complex on the left bank of the Diaka River, forming part of the Inner Niger Delta. The numerous ponds of the Séri Plain serve as habitats for both paleo-arctic and afrotropical birds and the endangered West African manatee (Trichechus senegalensis).

Lake Horo is a seasonally variable freshwater lake within the Iner Niger Delta, but it is separated from the river by a dam and a sluice gate. The site is very important for breeding and wintering waterbirds. In particular, the wetland harbours a breeding colony of African spoonbills (Platalea alba) and over 50 percent of the West African population of Aythya nyroca.

These wetland areas are largely owned by the State, but villages within the site boundaries have customary rights of exploitation over certain areas. While human use varies from site to site, local villages generally depend on the wetlands for drinking water, fishing, seasonal agriculture and livestock rearing/grazing. Outside the Ramsar areas parts of the Delta are irrigated for rice cultivation. Drought and inadequate flooding are the principal threats to the wetlands, but the impact of dams and water diversion projects within the catchment area, overexploitation of the national resources (fish, water birds, firewood, overgrazing) is also significant.

In years with good rainfall in the Guinea mountains, the source of the Niger, these wetland areas are flooded between August and January, thereafter the area of wetlands shrinks gradually until the rains return. There has been a declining trend in the flood level over the last two decades. Prior to regulation, Lake Horo, contained at least some water throughout the dry season in years of good rainfall, but dried out completely by April in dry years. Now the sluice linking the lake with the Niger is opened in mid-November (earlier in years with poor rainfall) to all the lake to fill.

The management of these sites is very weak and needs to be strengthened. The development of a national Wetlands Policy and action plan will be an important initiative that will bring together the wide range of stakeholders at the national, regional and local levels. There are also a number of ongoing and planned initiatives, such as those of IUCN which has 20 years experience in Youwarou (Lac Debo) and Dentaka in community-based restoration and management of the flooded forests and bourgoutières, and Wetlands International (Western Sahelian wetlands and floodplains programme), with which the project will collaborate.

In addition to these nationally and internationally recognised wetland sites, there are many other sites of particular interest in terms of their biodiversity and ecological services they provide in turn threatened by climatic and anthropogenic pressures, such as the Korientzé lake.. Through a participatory approach, the project will seek to characterise these sites and development site-specific integrated management plans.

20

These plans would address the multiple access, use, management, control and monitoring of the wetlands and adjacent areas.

d. Dynamics of the Farming SystemsAs to its agro-pastoral use, it is generally believed that the Delta is 75 percent agro-pastoral (including 10 percent in exundated area), 21 percent purely pastoral, the remaining four percent being left for permanent waters. It should be noted that these indicative percentages do not take into account (i) activities like fishing, hunting or harvesting1, (ii) increasing overlapping of different farming systems, or (iii) the needs of the wildlife which are also dependent upon the Delta’s natural resource base.

The dualism and the variability of the geographical space between the inundated and exundated areas and movements between the two explain the interdependence between availability of resources and production or exploitation systems by local populations and/or wildlife. In fact, although degraded, the exondated area is open and relatively accessible at any time. It serves as winter pasture, has many ponds and sites valued for micro-nutrient-rich salt treatments.

The Inner Delta’s inundated area is only accessible during recession and is navigable by canoe and pinasse (motorised boats) during the high water months. It harbours rich "bourgoutières" valuable during transhumants cycles. It also offers excellent fishing and farming opportunities.

The Delta is also interesting for its agricultural biodiversity, as it is considered, for example, an important source of diversity and a centre of domestication of African rice (Oryza glaberrima steud). There is the traditional (wild) rice and also over 20 varieties of rice cultivated by local producers. At the national level, at least 215 varieties of Oryza glaberrima have been identified.

Moreover, the Delta harbours native breeds of farm animals of particular importance, including the Macina wool sheep (in the flooded area of the Delta), the only wool-producing breed in West Africa and known for its wool production, and the Delta’s peul zebu, a sub-species of the Macina peul zebu, known for its great resistance to wet environments.

The region’s economy is essentially based on livestock (almost 30 percent of the country’s livestock is found in the region, not counting the transhumants herds), fisheries (70 000 T/year, 200 000 - 300 000 fishermen) and agriculture (rainfed millet; uncontrolled flooding rice – 150 000 ha/year; controlled flooding rice – 50,000 ha of ORM crops; PPIV – 1 500 ha). For several centuries, the combination of these three major activities2 has conferred important annual cyclical movements to the region, which should be well understood:

annual and cyclical movements of transhumants cattle between exondated and inundated areas for pasturing, between the two are the transition zones (holding areas), which receive the herds before they enter and after they leave the Delta;

significant movements of fishermen along the fishing zones depending on the flooding and water recession;

transfer of the agricultural workforce in the Delta for rice and flood recession crops.

Livestock and fishing are traditional economic activities of the Delta. More recently, the introduction of agriculture and the installation of rice perimeters have left their mark on the Inner Delta as well. Figure 3 below shows the interaction between the different exploitation systems over time and their succession depending on floodwater seasonal variations. 

1 Harvesting of wood products (Diospiros mespiliformis, Calotropis procera, Acacia nilotica, Commiphora africana and Combretam micrantum) and grass products (incl. Nymphae tubers) is a significant source of income (in particular fruits, pharmacopeia, etc.).

2 To which should be added harvesting of forest resources, tourism (Djenné, Dogon,...) and handicrafts.

21

Livestock systems in the region, besides household sedentary livestock, are mostly extensive and based upon transhumance between the Delta and exundated areas according to well-established traditional rules, including:

common movement of herds driven by herdsmen; existing transhumance trails or "burti", rest areas for animals or "billé" and watering and

pasturing points; programmed organisation of the transhumance into and out of the Delta with specific

points and fords for the animals.

Generally, the rights to pasture, particularly the Dina promulgated under the former Peul empire (and which still persists to a certain extent), have long constituted the social/land-tenure basis for management of resources and space in the Delta: exploitation of bourgoutières for payment to the native populations of a traditional duty ("tolo") by allochtonous pastoralists. Every year, a conference of the “bourgoutières” unites all the structures at the regional level interested in the movements of herds and the main dioros1. This consultative meeting establishes the dates for access to the delta and for departure of the animals from the delta (crossing dates) and sets regulatory requirements for conflict management.

The overall number of cattle entering the Delta every year is estimated to be about 1.250 million heads and the density during the intensive grazing period at 30 cattle/ha (25 sheep-goats /ha). At present, the two major problems are the degradation of pastures and the reduction of water sources in exondated areas. This induces animals to enter earlier and stay longer in the Delta , which no longer allows the necessary growth and reproduction cycle of bourgoutières. Further, the harvesting and sale of bourgou, increasingly widespread, is indeed very profitable (average income per hectare estimated from 160 000 to 400 000 FCFA/ha). This emerging activity contributes in turn to disrupt the growth cycle of the pastures and the carrying capacity of the bourgoutières.

As to fishing activities, the first fishing occupants in the Delta are the Bozo (founders of the first sites and seasonal migrants), later followed by the Somono (more sedentary). These two ethnic groups also used to practice subsistence farming at times of low waters. Presently, most have become agro-fishermen, both fishing and raising rice. They also own some cattle, which they entrust to herdsmen. This shift has been also favoured by the reduction in fisher migrations and their settlement in areas favourable to rice cropping.

Like the pastures, the fisheries are still community-managed by "maîtres des eaux" (water masters). For instance, traditionally, ponds and channels in Youwarou are managed by the Bozo (inland water master) while the Somono (river master) is in charge of the river. Decreasing floods and fishery resources tend to exacerbate conflicts among ethnic groups, as well as between fishermen, farmers and pastoralists for exploitation of the Delta’s resources.

1 Dioro: Peul word. Refers to the pastures manager and chief pastoralist, traditional function specific to the Niger River Inner Delta.

22

Figure 3. Calendar of floods and of the various agricultural activities in the Inner Delta of the Niger River (In Projet d'appui à l'ORM, 2001)

23

In the Mopti region, agricultural systems usually combine extensive rainfed crops in exondated areas (millet, sorghum, cowpea) with low and uncertain yields, and irrigation/flooding-based systems (rice, recession crops). The arable land potential is enormous (rich floodplains) in the Delta and reported to be several hundred thousand hectares. After the great droughts, the development and intensification of agriculture has emerged as an alternative to ensure food security and that of livestock herds, which had been largely decimated. In Mopti, the development of rice and vegetable farming has contributed to altering the modes of natural resource exploitation and transforming the extent of flooded areas with the shift from bourgoutières and open spaces to closed spaces.

In flooded areas, there are several cropping systems depending on the level of water control: recession crops in ponds and lakes and in the Delta floodplains (rice, maize, sorghum), whose surface and yield are variable depending on the flood; uncontrolled flooding rice crops, estimated at around 150 000 ha/year along the river and around ponds and lakes (with low and uncertain yields of 600 to 800 kg/ha); controlled flooding crops in the rice-growing schemes, with low yields, on average one T/ha (50 000 ha managed with the help of “Office Riz Mopti”); and irrigated small-scale village schemes (PPIV, of which about 1 500 ha are managed), where cultural techniques are more intensive (total water control, motor pumps) and allow double cropping (rice, vegetable crops) and rice yields of over five T/ha.

The extension and clearing of areas for rice cropping inside the Delta is widespread and detrimental to the forestry resources and/or bourgoutières1. This extension has resulted in many conflicts and problems in the present management of the Delta. Moreover, it should be noted that most systems are extensive and uncertain and that cultural practices are not environmentally friendly (excessive clearings, non-compliance with protection standards, unorganised dykes, etc.).

2. Existing ConstraintsThe above analysis indicates that the Inner Delta of the Niger River has unique ecosystems of global interest and a huge agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential developed by the various socio-professional groups. These important resources are now jeopardised by conflicts of interest over the exploitation of natural resources inside and outside of the Delta by men and animals. Until recently, various customary rights allowed for a relatively harmonious succession of exploitation modes (herds entering and leaving the Delta) and equitable user rights depending on the water level, carrying capacity of natural resources, fish stocks and farming opportunities. These various farming systems were relatively flexible – albeit interdependent – and generally adjusted to seasonal and inter-annual flood and resources fluctuations.

Major Dysfunctions in the Present Management of the Inner Delta and its Transition Zones

Traditionally, relationships between native and allochtonous populations were marked by continuous exchanges between exondated and inundated areas. At present, the decline of flooded areas both in terms of extent and timing, climate aridification, overexploitation of natural resources, depletion of water sources and pastures in exondated areas, accompanied by a strong population pressure, have significantly contributed to the disruption of these relationships.

All these factors have resulted in a series of transformations and failures in the space-time management of natural resources in the Inner Delta and its transition zones, leading to growing human and animal pressure on an increasingly smaller area with irregular space and time limits. Among the major dysfunctions giving rise to many conflicts are:

1. Low and erratic seasonal and year-to-year flooding, exacerbated some years by inadequate dam management upstream 

1 The shift from « bourgoutières » to rice fields was indeed confirmed by satellite imaging, particularly on the Kakagnan territory (Courel, 1992).

24

2. Climate aridification and droughts which have induced a high mortality of wood species and undermined natural ecosystems, including sites of global interest

3. Loss of many natural habitats and heavy threats to endemic species and/or species of local, national or global interest, including migratory water birds, manatees, hippopotami

4. Degradation of vegetative cover and soils in exondated areas and disappearance of migratory corridors for cattle

5. Disruption of the schedule for occupying space in the Delta and its transition zones and increased competition for the same space: early herd occupancy of the bourgoutières and prolonged stays around water sources; strong competition for space and overlapping of activities and systems of production (livestock, fishing, agriculture, hunting,...)

6. Degradation, even loss of many bourgoutières, traditional fish breeding places, natural forests

7. Disruption of customary rights, and traditional land tenure systems, economic and political changes in traditional management and decision-making power (including cattle owners1), with an ensuing growing number of divergent and individual interests adversely affecting the community; alteration of territorial and land tenure issues and questioning of traditional management modes2

8. Inadequate knowledge of the rich ecosystems and the state of natural resources; inadequate mechanisms for monitoring/evaluation

9. Inadequate institutional capacity for NRM, especially in decentralised authorities and civil society; inadequate incorporation of the environmental dimension into development policies and plans at the communal and regional levels

10. Poverty of most populations, in particular women, youth and transhumant herders, which is a major constraint to NRM

11. Inadequate processing/marketing structures for certain products (e.g., fish products, with significant waste).

3. Poverty and Target Groups Macroeconomic performance in Mali in general, and in Mopti in particular has not managed to stem the incidence of poverty, which has continually worsened in the last 10 years. Poverty thus affects almost two thirds of the population of Mali (63.8 percent, or 6.7 million people), including 21 percent who live in extreme poverty. The situation is also characterised by spatial and gender gaps. Poverty is higher in rural settings than in urban areas (76 percent vs. 30 percent), higher in northern than in southern areas, higher among women than among men.

Evolution of the Incidence of Poverty in Percentage of the Population

1989 1994 1996 1998 1999

41 68.8 71.6 69 64.2Source: ODHD.

1 Before the great droughts, the Peuls were the owners of transhumant herds. Since the devastating droughts, reconstituted transhumant herds now belong up to 33 % to shepherds, the rest being divided between agro-pastoral communities (58 %), traders (8 %) and wage-earners (1 %). 

2 This explains why drought periods often reveal these new imbalances, individualized interests and the emergence of different economic and social strategies.

25

Mali suffers from inadequate basic social infrastructure in education, health and access to drinking water. The country is thus faced with an imbalance between population dynamics and growth, and development of social infrastructure. Morbidity and mortality rates are very high (the infant mortality rate is 111 ‰ and maternal mortality 577 per 100 000 live births). This situation is due to a poor rate of health coverage (59 percent), insufficient skilled socio-sanitary personnel, inadequate access to drinking water (49 percent) and poor hygiene and sanitation conditions (only eight percent of households have access to adequate excreta disposal infrastructure). Illiteracy rates are still very elevated (71 percent) with significant gender disparities (52 percent for men and 88 percent for women).

Women are more affected by poverty than men since they experience a number of economic, social and legal biases which hinder development of their capacities. They receive less education (higher illiteracy rate, lower school attendance rates for girls), have difficult access to land tenure, to productive resources (agricultural equipment, credit) and to information.

As mentioned above, the Mopti region has one of the highest incidences of poverty in the country with over three quarters of its rural population living below the poverty line, and an almost equal proportion of poor and extremely poor. Generally speaking, the area has the lowest social indicators. The school attendance rate is considerably lower than the national average, as well as the literacy rate: on average, there are eight villages for one primary school and only 19.4 percent of villages have a literacy centre. As far as health is concerned, the Mopti region experiences one of the highest mortality rates for children under five years of age. The infant/child mortality rate is 1.3 times greater than the national average. Although the unemployment rate is the lowest, under-employment affects over one third of the labour force. Access to potable water is also very low: almost half of the population doesn’t have access to drinking water and most water sources are at more than 15 minutes distance. The number of wells in the region is 730 for 2 064 villages.

The target groups of the SADeF programme are the rural populations of Ségou (Ségou, Niono and Macina), Koulikoro (Nara, Kolokani and Banamba) and Mopti (Mopti, Jenné, Tenenkou, Youwarou). A priority for the future intervention will be to better target the poorest social groups living in the villages, i.e. women and youth, outsiders, caste families, transhumant pastoralists, to allow them access to resources, technologies, information, training and decision-making so that they take part in their socio-economic development. (See also Section E.3 Beneficiaries and Benefits).

D. PROJECT RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

1. Justification The above analysis has emphasised the issues of sustainable development and the major environmental challenges to overcome to allow the unique ecosystems of the Inner Niger Delta to continue to play a medium and long-term role in the Sahelian area. Besides the need to restore and preserve ecosystems of national and global interest, it should be recalled that the natural resources represent the productive base of the great majority of rural communities in the region.

In view of this situation, there is an urgent need to take all possible steps jointly with the relevant actors (sedentary, transhumant or seasonal, decentralised authorities, administrative and customary authorities, civil society and development partners), to reverse the process of degradation and ensure sustainable development. This should be done by:

Restoring the natural equilibrium and preserving unique ecosystems, including natural habitats for wildlife, through compliance with management rules and drawing up of management plans for more vulnerable or remarkable sites and implementation of protection measures

26

Restoring and developing the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fishing production potential of the Inner Niger Delta, including its transition zones, through regeneration of its bourgoutières, protection of the banks and silting control and improvement of production systems.

Alleviating pressure on resources, through capacity building in sustainable and concerted management of natural resources and development of income-generating micro-projects.

Improving the living conditions and incomes of the local populations and fostering the emergence of groups and financing schemes allowing for support and sustainability of NRM actions.

Creating an enabling policy, regulatory, and institutional environment for the sustainable management of the Delta that would facilitate the implementation of existing national environmental policies and legislation, incorporate NRM and biodiversity considerations into sectoral plans and policies, and development appropriate policies and regulations where they are lacking.

Improving processing/marketing of products derived from the Delta, in particular fishery products, and developing alternative income-generating activities to reduce pressure on natural resources.

Enhancing monitoring of the state of resources in the Delta and its transition zones and promoting implementation of various priority programmes in environmental protection and biodiversity conservation at national, regional and local levels.

The GEF/IFAD partnership is synergetic and brings together various dimensions that are important for poverty alleviation and the sustainable development of the Mopti region. It will take into account the following factors: : (i) major environmental issues; (ii) the need to improve the lives and livelihoods of local populations for sustainable NRM and to take into account of their priority needs; and (iii) the need for capacity building in planning, including for the incorporation of the environmental component into local development plans and the creation of systems/structures for monitoring the state of natural resources in the Inner Delta and its transition zones.

2. Project Design Approach With this intervention in the Mopti region, and in particular in the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones, GEF and SADeF respond to the region’s greater challenges and issues in environmental protection and socio-economic development. There are several important guiding principles in the GEF intervention:

Participatory and multi-disciplinary approach . Past implementation of projects for natural resource or environmental management has shown that to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem conservation and management, a minimum of three conditions should be met, i.e., (i) a close involvement and empowerment of local actors, in particular populations, from identification/design to implementation and monitoring/evaluation of management and development actions on their territory. This includes also their concrete participation (financial, material, in kind or labour) in the execution of actions and assumption of recurrent costs; (ii) enhancement of their technical, organisational and financial capacities to facilitate assumption and sustainability of management and/or development work; and (iii) adoption of a multi-disciplinary integrated approach, taking account of both sustainable development goals and environmental challenges and priority needs of populations so as to avoid the bias inherent to the sectoral approach. The project will strive to meet these conditions through information, awareness raising/advocacy, training, organisational capacity building around NRM and grassroots development, as well as creation of local planning, execution and monitoring/evaluation mechanisms adapted to the financing of actions involving all relevant actors.

Interdependence/coupling of incentive or productive measures with environmental actions . Natural resource user communities, which the project will seek to involve in their sustainable management,

27

have basic socio-economic needs, which are often of more concern to them than longer-term challenges. These needs are often neglected or cannot be taken care of by traditional environmental projects. This situation gives rise to frustrations when communities are often required to make a considerable human investment without immediate compensation. The project will seek to avoid this trap by creating a clear link between NRM and ecosystem restoration/protection activities and the traditional financial support activities financed through SADeF, i.e., community-based and productive micro-projects, as well as support to decentralised financial services. This is a unique opportunity for these two complementary funding sources to ensure success and sustainability of socio-economic development and environmental protection/management actions.

Indigenous knowledge, enhancement of technical and methodological assets and development of local capacity and know-how. Many methodological and technical assets have been developed by different projects in terms of rehabilitation, natural resource protection and management or support to financial services and implementation of income-generating micro-initiatives, either in Mali or in the sub-region. However, while local communities can easily appropriate these assets, unfortunately they are rarely known beyond the scope of a project. The project will reinforce and disseminate these various assets and tools by adapting them to the specific conditions of the Delta. Also, it will promote information and experience sharing with similar projects and areas. At the same time, it will capitalise on the local know-how of populations and their knowledge of their environment. Recognition and utilisation of this know-how , as well as its dissemination beyond the Delta, will ensure that these skills are not lost with the ongoing social changes.

Seeking synergies and creating partnerships . Considering the extended area and the magnitude of environmental and socio-economic challenges, the project cannot act alone but should necessarily identify synergies with other stakeholders, both those involved in environmental management and in rural development. This consultation/synergy of actions should allow (i) harmonising the modes of intervention; (ii) avoiding duplication; and (iii) creating partnerships in order to maximise the complementarity of activities in the same area.

Decentralised implementation . Considering the variety of situations and the isolated nature of many sites and village communities in the inland Niger Delta, a centralised execution that would impose a rigid framework cannot be considered: it could not reflect site-specific conditions, nor ensure ownership of activities by local actors. The project will establish a structure and grassroots decentralised mechanisms (“cercle,” commune and village for project implementation). Finally, the project will be implemented by local actors (populations, decentralised authorities, civil society, technical structures, others) to guarantee local capacity development and strengthening.

Flexibility of execution . In such a dynamic context as the Delta, the conditions for implementation of activities cannot be foreseen in advance and may undergo significant changes during the life of the project. The project should be set up with sufficient flexibility to take into account these changes and adapt swiftly the implementation tools and processes as needed.

Replicability . The success of the project would only be partial if it remained restricted to its project areas and to the Delta and did not aim at wider application of its results. The project will disseminate the results and lessons learned beyond the Mopti region, at the national, regional, even international levels. The replicability issue will be taken into account from the start, especially during elaboration of the development tools.

Concerning the choice of priority sites for intervention, the project will foster flexibility and ensure, prior to any intervention, full commitment of the local populations and actors to the objectives defined in terms of sustainable management of natural resources and restoration/conservation of ecosystems in

28

the Delta. A number of selection criteria were identified to help the project team in the choice of the priority areas for intervention. In a geographical area as vast as the Inner Niger Delta, the project, although aimed at improving the environmental condition of the whole region, must focus on a defined number of priority sites and project areas. These sites will be selected according to certain criteria reflecting both environmental and social factors (See also Section E.2).

3. GEF/IFAD SADeF Development ObjectiveIFAD through SADeF aims at establishing, in three phases, a participatory and sustainable development process for the Sahelian regions of Mali. Its overall objective is to alleviate poverty by improving incomes and living conditions for rural households, in particular by providing access to health services, education and food security. This goal should be met by empowering communities at the village level (or their associations/groups) to identify their own needs and design micro-projects to which the beneficiaries will contribute resources in cash or in kind. In its first phase (1999-2002), SADeF focused its actions in the regions of Ségou and Koulikoro. It set up the institutions and procedures for access to the Fund, provided micro-credit for socio-economic infrastructural development, and strengthened local capacities. The experience gained and lessons learnt during this first phase will serve as a basis for its expansion to new zones (Kayes, Mopti, San/Ségou) during the second phase (2003-2006). The various achievements will then be consolidated during the last phase (2007-2010).

GEF and IFAD are natural partners for the extension of SADeF activities into the Mopti region under the second phase. The Inner Delta of the Niger River, reaching an expanse of 30 000 sq km, covers four out of the eight “cercles” of the Mopti region (located in Sahelian areas and in the heart of Mali – see Map 1 in Appendix) and is one of the rare large inland deltas in the world. Recognising the socio-economic and environmental challenges and the unique character of the Delta area’s ecosystems, the GEF Alternative will focus its activities in the Mopti region on sustainable development and management of natural resources through an integrated ecosystem approach. GEF resources will allow SADeF to take into account the linkages between poverty and environmental degradation and adopt an holistic approach to addressing their underlying causes.

The GEF Alternative will promote a participatory, local development process that would empower communities at the village level to design, plan and manage micro projects and productive activities that meet their own needs, as well as restore and safeguard their fragile environment. Local conventions will be developed, formalizing the consensus of all the actors in the management and use of the resources for each specific project area. These conventions would be based on traditional systems for resource management and conflict resolution. While the project will support the government’s decentralization process in the area of natural resources management, it also recognizes the importance of sound policies, programmes and institutions at the national and regional levels to providing an enabling environment at the local level. The GEF Alternative will therefore reinforce this linkage, particularly through its capacity-building activities, and will also seek to influence sectoral plans and programmes (upstream) that cause adverse impacts on the Delta (such as the dams ).

Specifically, the GEF Alternative will strengthen the capacities of the wide range of stakeholders at the local (organisations/groups, traditional and local authorities or “communes”, users of the resources), regional (decentralised public authorities) and national levels in sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation. It will support the development of community infrastructure, productive and environmental micro-projects; promote the development and implementation of community-based integrated management plans; and identify, replicate and disseminate best practices. It will promote the removal of barriers to sustainable environmental management and support the development of a sound policy and regulatory environment by strengthening the government’s decentralization process and promoting the implementation of existing environmental policies, strategies and actions plans (National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Pastoral Charter, among others) at the regional and local levels. The project will furthermore support the Government of Mali’s efforts to

29

develop a national wetlands policy and action plan and strengthen its protected areas system. Through the experience gained and lessons learned in the Mopti region, SADeF will also be able to incorporate NRM into its other project zones.

The five components of SADeF in the second phase (and most probably in the third phase) are the following:

(a) Component 1: Strengthening capacity of local actors/Information-Education-Communication (IEC). This component aims to strengthen the local ownership processes of communities and their institutions, in order to allow them to have better control over their environments (economic and political environments, but also ecosystems in the Mopti region), in decision-making and financing of activities. Therefore, the idea is to reinforce the social capital specific to each region so that it can fully meet its social (management of community investments), economic (creation of income-generating activities and management of markets) and political (taking part in identification, planning and implementation of local development policies/programmes) functions.

The capacities of the rural poor and their organisations should be strengthened to allow them to access social services, basic infrastructure, technologies and economic opportunities (markets and financial services). Implementation of an Information, Education and Communication Strategy (IEC) will be a cross-cutting element closely linked with capacity building at all levels of project intervention. In Mopti, besides its traditional activities, SADeF, in partnership with GEF, will support activities, which will integrate issues related to environmental management, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem monitoring and support to an organisational framework centred on NRM.

(b) Component 2: Support to local development. SADeF has defined a typology of micro-projects in order to meet the specific needs of populations and villages. The typology includes: (i) community projects, providing for basic infrastructure allowing villagers to access basic public services, such as drinking water, water for cattle, access routes to the village and communal buildings; (ii) productive projects, including small-scale irrigation schemes, vegetable and rice perimeters ensuring a sustainable income to beneficiaries, income-generating activities providing vulnerable groups (women and youth) a steady income for low investment; and (iii) productive environmental projects aimed at protecting and restoring natural resources, including stabilisation of river banks, silt removal from feeder channels of ponds and lakes, management of ponds and forests, regeneration of “bourgoutières.” This component will support GEF’s natural resources management initiatives in Mopti.

(c) Component 3: Support to sustainable Natural Resources Management and biodiversity conservation in the Mopti region – This is the primary area of support of the GEF intervention Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Delta of the Niger River. This component will focus on the participatory and sustainable management of natural resources and on the conservation of biodiversity. It aims at the sustainable development of the Inner Niger Delta (inundated area) and its transition zones (exundated areas) and considers the inter-dependence and seasonal migratory movements between these two inter-related areas. The three sub-components specific to GEF are detailed below (see Section E.1).

(d) Component 4: Support to decentralised financial services. This component intends to facilitate access of rural populations in the project area to decentralised financial services, better adapted to their needs. To this end, the creation of microfinance institutions, such as credit and savings schemes, is planned. These activities will be introduced in Mopti only in the third year.

30

(e) Component 5: Project Co-ordination and Management. Co-ordination and management of SADeF is based on the following principles: a single structure at the national level in order to facilitate relations with the Government and external partners; full management autonomy on the regional level; allow beneficiaries to gradually assume responsibility for programme management; operate under private law conditions; light and flexible organisation. Changes will be made during the second phase to improve performance and adapt the project to GEF evolution and co-financing/expansion of project areas (Mopti, Kayes).

E. DESCRIPTION OF GEF SUB-COMPONENTS

1. GEF Components

The overall objective of the GEF resources is the restoration, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystems and their biodiversity in the Inner Delta of the Niger River and its transition zones. GEF-IFAD funding are complementary and will provide important synergies that will ensure the success and the future sustainability of SADeF operations in Mopti, particularly in the area of sustainable natural resources management. GEF resources will, in effect, provide an essential dimension that will lead to the restoration and conservation of the biological balance in a region whose ecosystems are of global importance and whose complex production systems are tied to flood and flood recession.

Through the experience gained and lessons learned in the Mopti region through this GEF-IFAD co-financing, SADeF will also be able to incorporate NRM and biodiversity conservation considerations into its other project zones. GEF co-financing is planned to last for six years and the GEF resources will cover the incremental costs necessary for achieving global environmental benefits during the second and third phases of SADeF.

The sub-components and activities to be provided with GEF resources are described below, under the relevant SADeF component.

Component 1: Strengthening capacity of local actors/Information-Education-Communication (IEC)

Sub-component: Capacity building and institutional strengthening in integrated ecosystem and sustainable natural resources management

This sub-component component will build on and complement the capacity building and Information-Education-Communication (IEC) activities of the SADeF programme (using IFAD funds), which include: the organisational and technical strengthening of the SADeF management institutions, the decentralised authorities, the peasant organisations, the village communities, the decentralised technical services of the Government, etc. GEF resources would be utilized to incorporate natural resource management and biodiversity awareness-raising and training activities into the IEC strategy and training activities that would be developed with IFAD resources. GEF resources will furthermore focus on addressing some of the key barriers contributing to unsustainable NRM practices and biodiversity loss and to developing the institutional, managerial, technical and financial capacities to improve all aspects of management. GEF resources would be utilized to:

strengthen the organisational, technical and financial capacities of the full-range of stakeholders (national, regional and local levels) in integrated ecosystem and natural resources management. Training and capacity-building at the local level will be given particular emphasis to ensure the participation of the local and indigenous groups in the design and implementation of the project

31

site/ecosystem action plans and the management and monitoring of the activities that promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

support the Government of Mali’s decentralisation process in the area of environmental management and biodiversity conservation through the preparation of Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) for incorporation into the Community Development Plans (PDCs); and

create an enabling policy and regulatory environment and promote the incorporation of sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity considerations into sectoral plans and policies.

Specifically, the GEF resources will support:

(i) environmental education and awareness-raising in the area of natural resource management (NRM), biodiversity conservation, integrated ecosystem management, and participatory approaches. The approach and activities are described in Components 3 below. As one of the initial activities of SADeF in the Mopti region, IFAD funds would be utilized to develop an IEC strategy and action plan. GEF will provide the incremental resources to bring NRM and biodiversity conservation and an integrated ecosystem approach into the IEC strategy.

(ii) development and adoption of participatory techniques in priority setting, problem solving, design and implementation of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation programmes and activities on an integrated ecosystem basis;

(iii) organisation of key stakeholders for biodiversity conservation and NRM. Collaborative mechanisms involving the full-range of stakeholders at the different levels (villages, communes, “cercles,” regions) will be established to ensure the participatory decision-making and management of the selected project sites/ecosystems;

(iv) training needs assessment. In light of the weak institutional and human resources capacities in the Mopti region in the design and management of NRM activities, a needs assessment will be conducted as one of the start-up activities in order to identify existing capacities and weaknesses and design an appropriate training programme. This programme will be phased over the life of the project, and would build on the training activities in the organization, financial, and management activities foreseen under SADeF-IFAD, as well as link to the extent possible with the training activities of other related ongoing and planned activities, such as those of IUCN, Wetlands International, and the World Bank-GEF Arid Rangeland Biodiversity (Gourma) project and the proposed GEF/UNDP/IFAD Boucle de Baoulé Project. Special emphasis will be placed on building collaboration among the projects particularly for training that would be carried out at the national level and at the level of the decentralized technical services.

(v) training of local communities and indigenous groups (including transhumant pastoralists) in the planning, management and implementation of actions plans and in the various technical fields linked to the protection and sustainable management of the natural resources of the Delta (soil and water conservation techniques, controlled non-grazing areas, integrated cropping/livestock/fisheries techniques, sustainable fisheries management, improved rangeland management, etc.). Activities related to the in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity and the promotion of indigenous crop varieties and livestock breeds will be given particular attention.

32

(vi) strengthening the capacity of key sectoral ministries involved in natural resource management (such as Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Water) and their decentralized units to integrate biodiversity and conservation aspects into sectoral plans and policies and into sustainable development programmes. Special attention will be focused on strengthening the human resource and institutional capacities of the Nature Conservation Service(s) in Mopti to plan and manage NRM activities and projects.

(vii) support to the decentralisation process through the preparation of Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) for incorporation into the Community Development Plans (PDCs) for at least 40 communes. Preference will be given to providing assistance in the priority areas and project sites, and links should be made to the integrated management plans and site-specific action plans under Components 1 and 2 above. The PCAEs will be validated by the communities and stakeholders at workshops.

(viii) development of a Strategy and Action Plan for Conservation and Sustainable Management of the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas. This strategy would build on the priorities established in the NBSAP, including the Mopti biodiversity conservation strategy (1999). The strategy would layout a framework and structure for the sustainable management of the Delta using a landscape/integrated ecosystem approach and guide the development of appropriate site-specific management plans. It would take into consideration ecological considerations, traditional use and current management practices. « hotspots » and priority areas for conservation and sustainable use would be identified and demarcated, including areas for strict protection because of the important ecological and other (sacred forests) services they provide. It is envisaged that a number of studies would be commissioned to provide critical information for the development of the strategy, as well as to verify key assumptions. A workshop inviting the full-range of stakeholders from the national, regional, commune and local levels would be organized to validate and adopt the strategy. Collaboration would be established with IUCN, Wetlands International, Walia, IRD, WWF, community-based organizations and other institutions and organizations that have a long tradition of working in the Delta.

(ix) creating an enabling policy and regulatory environment through: promoting the implementation of existing, sound environmental policies and strategies (NBSAP, Pastoral Charter, etc.) at regional, commune, village and local levels; incorporating NRM and biodiversity considerations into sectoral plans and programmes; collaborating in the development of new policies (National Wetlands Policy); supporting the Mali’s protected area management system by maintaining close collaboration between GEF, World Bank, UNDP and IFAD for the development of an observatory for impact monitoring and for creating an institutional framework for effective management and environmental protection policies.

(x) strengthening of an existing institution or establishment of another structure for the long-term planning and management of the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones. The institutional framework is linked to the Strategy and Action Plan (above). In this respect, the recent decision of the Government of Mali to create the Niger River Agency will be followed closely. The stated goal of the Agency would be to preserve the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the delta, to avert negative impacts from both natural and man-induced changes, and to strengthen capacities for integrated management.

(xi) organisation of local and regional workshops to facilitate the participation of the wide range of stakeholders on the planning and management of the project’s activities, including the verification of studies and demonstration activities. They would serve as a means of distilling best

33

practices and disseminating results. These workshops will also promote discussion on key issues related to the sustainable management of natural resources, the promotion and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity, and the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems of global interest within the Delta.

Component 2 : Support to Local Development

SADeF components 2 Support to Local Development and 3 Support to Sustainable Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation are inextricably linked. Component 2 is the baseline, and without the GEF resources SADeF would not have entered the Mopti region with NRM as its point of entry. The traditional SADeF activities would most likely have continued without any support to NRM activities, and may not have been extended to the Mopti region. The GEF alternative complements the SADeF programme’s support for local development in the Mopti region by catalysing support for in situ conservation of threatened biodiversity of global interest and more rational management of the Delta’s natural resource base. Without the GEF resources the SADeF programme would not offer its support for community-based natural resource activities in the region. Thus, the GEF resources both complement the SADeF component for support to local development and constitute the basis for its component 3 on management of natural resources.

It was agreed at the stakeholders workshop in March 2003 that priority would be given in the Mopti region to financing micro-projects that would support the implementation of natural resource management and biodiversity conservations activities, including alternative income-generating activities that would reduce pressure on the natural resources. GEF supported activities are described under component 3 below.

Component 3 : Sustainable Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation

GEF resources will be utilized to support three sub-components. They are :

Restoration and development of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential through integrated natural resources management and biodiversity conservation;

Community-based conservation and management of biodiversity at the most threatened ecosystems (hotspots) of national and global importance; and

Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system on the state of biodiversity and natural resources of the Inner Niger Delta

The project will promote a community-based approach and will build on the experience gained by, and complement the work of IUCN, Wetlands International, IRD and other instutitions with long experience in the Inner Niger Delta or in other similar ecosystems. PDF-B resources were utilized to commission a local NGO to conduct a preliminary inventory of potentially manageable sites. The draft report includes information on the characteristics of zones and potential sites, a survey of existing local plans, and identifies potential interventions for their management. This inventory will serve as one of the base documents for the more detailed diagnostics that will be conducted during the first year of the full-scale project.

The criteria for site selection were agreed at the brainstorming workshop that was held in Mopti in March 2003 (section E.3 of the Project Brief). On the basis of this information, the workshop also identified preliminary project areas at the level of each “cercle” (see Annex 2 for description of the sites) for restoration and development of the ago-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential. Project sites will be

34

selected that contain a high concentration of biodiversity of national and global significance, or play a critical role in water regulation, nutrient recycling or other ecological processes that sustain human livelihoods. Sub-component 3.1 (Restoration and development of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential through integrated natural resources management and biodiversity conservation) will focus on these larger project areas. Within these zones, there are Ramsar and other critical ecosystems (hotspots) that may not (yet) have been formally designated as protected areas. These critical ecosystems would be the focus of Sub-component 3.2 below.

A participatory approach, involving the wide range of stakeholders from national to local levels, would be adopted in designing the site-specific integrated management plans. These plans would encompass the multiple use of the wetlands and adjacent areas. Priority will be given to those sites and interventions that have also been identified in, and address the priorities of, the Community Development Plans and related Community Environmental Action Plans. Linkages between and among communities concerned would be developed, as well as between local, regional and national levels, would be developed.

Sub-component 3.1 Restoration and development of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential through integrated natural resources management and biodiversity conservation

Despite its high productivity (fisheries, livestock, agriculture), the Delta remains one of the poorest areas of Mali. The Inner Delta of central Mali is a dynamic system, in which indigenous communities have developed integrated, sequential uses of the floodplain by different groups in connection with the inundation and recession of flood waters. Building on indigenous knowledge and experience in the management of these ecosystems, complex and innovative land and water management practices have evolved over time that have produced unique systems. Until recently, the natural resources have been sustainably managed and adapted to adjust to environmental and manmade stresses and changes, contributing to enhancing rural livelihoods, food security, and ecosystem resilience. These systems are rich in biodiversity, including biodiversity important to agriculture, within and between species, as well as at the ecosystem and landscape levels. The integrated management practices have furthermore maintained important ecosystem services (soil and water conservation, biodiversity conservation, water regulation and quality, carbon sequestration) and contributed to the high productivity of the Delta. This human-environment interaction has resulted in a culturally diverse and rich system, whose social organizations and customs, including conflict resolution, have also evolved with the changing ecosystem/landscape.

The balance is now threatened, and the system is no longer adjusting to environmental and man-made pressures. Recurrent droughts have reduced the extent and duration of the floods, sedimentation prevents adequate flooding, increased population pressure has resulted in over-exploitation of the resources, and conflicts over resource use have increased.

This sub-component is therefore designed to promote the restoration and the long-term development and community-based management of the significant agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential of the Delta and its transition zones and to incorporate biodiversity and sustainable use considerations into these integrated production systems, building on indigenous knowledge and cultural traditions for natural resource management. The aim of this component is to restore and maintain the ecological balance of the Delta, while, at the same time, increasing rural incomes and contributing to food security.

Priority sites for action were identified at the Mopti workshop and are discussed in section E.3 below and in Annex 2. Project sites will be selected that contain a high concentration of biodiversity of national and global signifance, or play a critical role in water regulation, nutrient recyling or other ecological processes that sustain human livelihoods. In addition, this component would adopt a landscape/integrated

35

ecosystem approach (hence, the Delta AND its transitions zones) and would focus on those areas with high agricultural potential (agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry) and which are presently under threat.

SADeF (IFAD funds) will make its matching contribution for the involvement of the village communities/groups/populations by financing priority social/community micro-projects of a productive nature or NRM activities which have been included in the Community Development Plans. Such micro-projects/activities could include: small-scale commercial activities, rice productive/small-scale irrigation, vegetable production schemes, rangeland improvement, water management for livestock, improved stoves (for smoking fish), nurseries/forest plantations for firewood, mechanical dredging of ponds, de-silting of ditches, fencing of transit corridors and trails, etc. All of these actions will be designed for the sustainable development of the villages/communes involved, improving living conditions and raising the incomes of the rural population while easing the pressure on the natural resources and the seriously threatened ecosystems of global interest.

GEF and IFAD support is also envisaged to cover some of the natural resources management and biodiversity conservation activities included in the PDCs of the communes that are not directly targeted. SADeF will, however, ensure that the financed activities provide benefits, as a matter of priority, to the village communities and groups involved in the natural resource management/ restoration and sustainable development activities.

The following activities would be implemented with GEF support :

(i) Information/awareness-raising campaign – As for Component 1 above, environmental training and awareness-raising would precede the participatory selection of sites and any on-the-ground activities. The IEC activities would, inter alia, raise awareness about the importance and benefits of biodiversity conservation, challenges of reversing the degradation process and long-term natural resources management, integrated ecosystem approach. These activities would be designed to promote commitment and buy-in of the local populations and stakeholders to attain the objectives sought.

(ii) Mapping and inventorying the priority areas, conducting miscellaneous complementary studies and carrying out targeted research to fill in gaps in information. A baseline study of the dynamics of the ecosystems and the state of the natural resources in the priority areas would be among the studies conducted. Special attention will be given to studying the carrying capacity of the ecosystem with respect to utilization of the resources and population growth. Given the economic importance of fisheries production and rich biodiversity of the fisheries resources, a study will be conducted, for example, to better understand the ecological links between flooded forests, bourgou areas, fish production, and water birds. Supplementary studies analysing the socio-economic conditions at selected project sites (ecosystems) and surrounding villages, the users of the resources and their methods of exploitation, land tenure systems, constraints to sustainable natural resource management, approaches to conflict resolution, etc., would also be conducted. The proposed studies and surveys will make it possible to establish a baseline and define the constraints and major types of priority activities to be in consultation with the local people and resource users. With this baseline, it will be easier to understand the dynamics of the ecosystems and their exploitation in time and in space. These studies will become the baseline for allowing effective project monitoring and for measuring the impact of the project activities on the status of the resources, as well as on rural livelihoods and conditions. The studies would also help to identify appropriate incentive measures that would encourage integrated sustainable management of the natural resources, including the adoption of new and innovative practices.

36

(iii) Participatory planning (with the local populations and actors concerned) of the activities to be undertaken for restoration of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries production potential and community-based management of the sites. The development and implementation of integrated ecosystem action plans for the management of the project sites, implementation of project activities, monitoring and evaluation would be agreed through a consultative process. Integration of the ecosystem/site action plans into the Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) (prepared under Component 1 above).

(iv) Integration of the ecosystem/site action plans into the Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) which will be prepared under Component 1 above.

(v) Development and implementation of pilot demonstration activities with a high replication value. The project would support and strengthen the integrated natural resource management systems that have evolved over time. Building on indigenous knowledge and the integrated approaches that have evolved, resource utilization, conservation, restoration technologies will be developed and tested in the selected project sites. Results and best practices will be disseminated and could be introduced in other areas of Mali or in other semi-arid/arid zones of Africa where integrated and sequential approaches to the management of the floodplains have been developed by communities. Potential activities could include: soil conservation and erosion control measures, improved rangeland management, the protection and the reintroduction of local species through in situ conservation, support to local cultivators’ production, distribution and exchange of seeds of traditional landraces, assisting pastoral communities in the conservation of traditional animal breeds, improved fisheries management, among others. Other activities that could be carried out to restore the productive potential of the sites could include the regeneration of the bourgoutières, restoration of the natural forests (Acacia albida or doumeraies), protection of the riverbanks by replanting them with vetiver, marking out the transit corridors with the aid of Euphorbia balsamifera cuttings, etc.

(vi) Promotion and development of alternative sources of income that would reduce the pressure of the biological, land and water resources of the Delta and its transition areas. GEF resources would supplement IFAD-funded micro-projects to develop new income-generating activities.

(vii) Identification, development and testing of incentive measures for the adoption of environmentally friendly practices that preserve the resource to meet future needs, as well as conserve the unique biological resources base (including indigenous plant and animal, domesticated and wild resources), traditions, and cultural richness of the Delta. The objective of the proposed interventions is to change resource user’s attitude and behaviour. In the implementation of the activities in Components 1 and 2, the positive and perverse incentives which affect changing behaviour will be studied. Land tenure systems, economic viability of improved integrated systems, and the cost of conservation measures would affect an individual’s/community’s decision-making to adopt sustainable/improved NRM activities and biodiversity conservation measures.

Sub-component 3.2 Community-based conservation and management of biodiversity at the most threatened ecosystems (hotspots) of national and global importance

This sub-component aims to conserve and sustainably manage six of the most threatened sites («hotspots ») in the Inner Niger Delta in central Mali. The sites would be limited in size, contain a high concentration of biodiversity of national and global signifance, or play a critical role in water regulation, nutrient recycling or other ecological processes that sustain human livelihoods. Potential threatened sites

37

include, inter alia: the flooded forests, mainly populated by the Acacia kirkii; havens for large populations of migratory birds; a number of water bodies or traditionally protected ponds (including existing Ramsar sites) which are indispensable for the reproductive cycles of several dozen species of fish; areas containing threatened species, such as manatees. The criteria for site selection were agreed at the brainstorming workshop that was held in Mopti in March 2003 (see section E.3.a below). Priority would be given to those sites which have been identified as « hotspots » within the larger project areas that would be the focus of Sub-component 3.1 and are described in Annex 2.

To achieve this objective, GEF resources would support the development and implementation of integrated management plans for the conservation and sustainable use of the resources, in close consultation with the populations and stakeholders most directly involved. The sites would be identified in a participatory manner through broad-based consultation with the key stakeholders concerned, among which are the indigenous populations and users, the local authorities and the traditional chiefs responsible for natural resource management, and the decentralised authorities.

Site selection will be preceded by an information/awareness-raising campaign at all the potential sites1

and priority project areas. The awareness-raising activities will be directed at familiarizing the wide range of stakeholders and users of the resources of the uniqueness of this important ecosystem and the significance of its land, water, plant and animal resources (of which many are endemic and/or of global interest) for their livelihoods. The threats to the ecological balance of the system and the importance of conserving its biodiversity, including biodiversity important to agriculture, and the need to take a holistic approach to managing these complex systems, would be highlighted. The information campaign would be designed in such a way as to raise the awareness of the stakeholders of the value – intrinsic and economic – of conserving the natural resource base and its biodiversity and to enlist their active support in carrying out and sustaining the project’s activities.

As co-financing, SADeF (IFAD funds) will finance priority socio-community micro-projects (Component 2) of a productive nature or important NRM activities that have been included in the Community Development Plans. Such activities could include the mechanical dredging of the ponds, the de-silting of the channels requiring machinery, alternative livelihood activities that could reduce over-exploitation of the resources, etc. All these actions will contribute to the sustainable development of the villages/communes and to raising the living conditions and incomes of the rural populations. They will also help to ease the pressure on natural resources and the seriously threatened ecosystems of global interest.

Specifically, the GEF activities would support :

(i) Selection and demarcation of the project sites:

(ii) Inventories and complementary studies, including a study of the dynamics of the ecosystems at site level and their carrying capacity;

(iii) Participatory diagnostics, taking into account in particular the different stakeholders, the users/their methods of exploitation, the surrounding village and site-level socio-economic conditions, land tenure, constraints on sustainable management, etc. These studies will make it possible to establish the baseline state of each of the sites, which would be utilized for subsequent monitoring and evaluation of the project’s activities and measurable impacts on the status of the resources (see also Component 4). They will also make it possible to define the conditions and

1 The list of the sites identified during the implementation of the PDF-B could serve as the basis for discussions with the local populations and stakeholders.

38

incentive measures that are necessary to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the NRM activities.

(iv) Development of Integrated Management Plans (IMPs) for six selected sites, including a refuge area for protection of manatees (see below). These IMPs will be developed in close consultation with all the actors and stakeholders concerned and subsequently validated and tested at the local level. The IMPs would multiple use of these critical ecosystems and their adjacent areas and, inter alia, layout the framework (including policy and regulatory aspects) for the long-term restoration, conservation and sustainable use of the sites, identify potential activities to be undertaken and resources required, establish financing arrangements (including contributions in cash or in kind from the local populations and other stakeholders), lay out an implementation programme and timetable, develop monitoring and evaluation plans. Among the activities that could be envisaged are : the regeneration of the bourgoutières and natural forests; eliminating alien species such as Mimosa pigra (which invades the bourgoutiéres); reintroducing/promoting local plant varieties and animal breeds; introducing erosion protection/management measures; setting up controlled non-grazing areas on parts of the sites identified for strict conservation, etc.

(v) Establishment of a protected area for the West African manatee. In close consultation and partnership with local communities, communes, regional and national authorities, the project would conduct a feasibility study on the establishment of a protected area/national park for the protection of the West African manatee and its habitat. The study would cover, inter alia, legal, regulatory and land tenure aspects, types of use (strict protection, multiple use, low impact visits), boundary demarcation, infrastructure requirements, operational plans, environmental and other assessments, identification of key indicators for monitoring and evaluation, economic feasibility, potential income-generating activities (for example, opportunities for ecotourism). GEF resources would also cover the activities required for the site to be designated as a protected area, if agreed at the local, regional and national levels, and the development of a management plan;

(vi) Adoption and validation of the IMPs at the communal level. The IMPs would be integrated with the Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) (see Component 3 below). An appropriate organisational framework (site or inter-site management committees) would be established and local agreements, which are required by law to establish contractual relations for managing operations among all parties, would be prepared and signed;

(vii) Implementation of the IMPs. The IMPs and related project activities would be implemented and tested in up to six sites. Adequate monitoring of the project activities and impacts and flexibility in implementation are important elements of the project design in order to adjust activities as experience is gained are important elements of the approach. Best practices and lessons learned would be disseminated and could facilitate expansion to other sites (for which it might be necessary to identify additional sources of co-financing).

Sub-component 3.3: Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system on the state of biodiversity and natural resources of the Inner Niger Delta

A phased approach will be taken in the third sub-component dealing with monitoring and evaluation of the resources of the Delta. In the initial phases, the component will establish and strengthen capacity for monitoring and evaluation of environmental impacts within the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) for SADeF-GEF. This capacity will coordinate the various studies and surveys necessary for building baseline data on Delta resources and developing the basis for a future geographic information system (GIS). It will also evaluate existing/planned databases and information systems, design a strategy for developing a unified system, and ensure co-ordination with the other development partners in the field. In

39

the subsequent phases, in coordination with other development partners in Mali, the component will develop a dynamic environmental information system to manage natural resource data specific to the Inner Delta and its transition zones. This Delta Environmental Information System (DEIS) will be an effective tool for decision-makers at the local and regional levels for sustainable and coordinated management of their natural resources and ecosystems.

The establishment of this DEIS will be part of the implementation of the National Environmental Information Management Programme (a priority programme of Mali’s national environmental protection policy) and will strengthen the national programme with respect to its application in the Mopti region, in particular in the Inner Delta. Implementation of the national programme, the responsibility of the STP/CIGQE, will also be based on a national GIS, which will rely on technical and financial support from the French Cooperation. Building on this effort, the GEF would bring additional value to this environmental information system at the regional level. The DEIS will also strengthen the new Niger River Agency (the Inter-Ministerial Committee that has just been created but is not yet operational). It will appraise, update or strengthen the partial databases that already exist at the Mopti Fisheries Office (OPM), which is responsible, in particular, for monitoring fish catches, the National Agricultural Research Institute (IER) and the IRD/ORSTOM.

Activities planned for the early phases, building capacity for environmental monitoring and evaluation in the PCU and in relevant resource persons in Mopti, will include the following:

(i) performing various complementary surveys and studies needed to develop and put into operation the environmental information monitoring and management system for the Inner Niger Delta, including identifying specific impact indicators to make it possible to monitor the state of resources in terms of flooding and exploitation rates, etc.;

(ii) designing a strategy for establishment of the GIS database, in partnership with other development partners, and bearing in mind existing tools and achievements. This will particularly include the acquisition of GIS tools and air photographs and/or satellite images;

(iii) conducting a training needs assessment and training resource persons in GIS and data collection techniques.

In subsequent stages, and following the creation of a permanent environmental monitoring facility based in Mopti, activities will include the following:

(iv) support for establishment of (i) a monitoring and evaluation system at different levels (sites, villages/inter-village, commune/inter-commune, “cercle,” region) and (ii) a permanent organisational framework for monitoring the state of the resources and defining the conditions for its long-term operation, in coordination with the regional and national technical structures;

(v) regular publication/dissemination of a report on the state of the natural resources of the Inner Delta, including information on flooding, species count, etc.;

(vi) wide dissemination of the achievements in order to extend the actions, and for the restoration and conservation of the biodiversity and the sustainable management of the natural resources of the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones.

This environmental monitoring facility will complement the organisational framework and be fully integrated into the management and monitoring structures planned for sustainable management of the

40

Inner Niger Delta (see Component 3). It will furthermore support the project’s monitoring and evaluation activities as described in Component 5 below and in Annex 5.

Component 4. Support to Decentralized Financial Services

This component will evolve over time. The final methodology to be adopted will have to be consistent to IFAD's guidelines on rural micro-finance which emphasize capacity building and strengthening linkages between the formal sector institutions and informal group savings and credit schemes. The institution model will be flexible for the Mopti region, as the demand for financial services is very diverse even among poor and remote communities. Some communities may require access to more capital than local savings allow, and the essential activity may be to foster linkages with upstream financial institutions with a much larger capital base. Under this project, it is likely that support could take a variety of forms from intense training of microfinance institutions, so they may become viable partners to strengthening these institutions to increase their rural outreach.

No GEF increment is foreseen is support of this component, although a possible positive impact on the biodiversity of the Delta may result from taking environmental aspects into consideration in the activities supported by decentralized financial services.

Component 5. Project Management and Co-ordination

Co-ordination and management of SADeF is based on the following principles: a single structure at the national level in order to facilitate relations with the Government and external partners; full management autonomy on the regional level; allow beneficiaries to gradually assume responsibility for programme management; operate under private law conditions; light and flexible organisation. Changes will be made during the second phase to improve performance and adapt the project to GEF evolution and co-financing/expansion of project areas (Mopti, Kayes).

Management. At the National level, SADeF falls under the lead agency, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries. However, the Ministry has an implementation agreement with the Association National Pour le Developpement du Sahel. The Associations, operating under private law conditions, recruit a Programme Coordination Team for the National level and to coordinate linkages between the Regional Coordination Units in each of the four regions (Ségou, Kayes, Koulikoro, and Mopti). At the National level, the Programme Coordination Team is headed by a Coordinator supported by a Financial Controller, an M&E Specialist and an Assistant. Each Project Coordinating Unit in each Region has a complement of staff comprised of a Regional Director; a Financial Controller; a Sustainable Agriculture and Fisheries Environment Facilitator; a Capacity-building Management and Training Officer; and an M&E Officer. The regional PCUs report to the Associations through the National Coordination Team. It is foreseen that the PCU to be established in Mopti will remain throughout the project implementation period.

Within the Mopti PCU, the GEF team will be given the essential roles of supporting and strengthening (i) the implementation of the natural resources management and biodiversity conservation policies and strategies at all levels (national, regional and local); (ii) the establishment of an appropriate organisational framework to guarantee environmental monitoring and the long-term management of the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones; and (iii) local/regional structures (decentralised authorities, agents of the Nature Conservation Services, populations) in planning and implementing the conservation of biodiversity of global interest and the sustainable management of natural resources, whose exploitation is the main source of food and income. The GEF team will also support the installation of SADeF in Mopti, ensuring that the natural resources management objectives are incorporated into all support activities. It

41

could also strengthen the SADeF structures, if necessary, that have been set up in other regions (Ségou, Koulikoro) in order to take greater account of the environmental challenges.

Coordination. Considering the priority attributed to natural resources management in the Mopti region, the GEF component will operate under the authority of the Ministry of Environment, which is responsible for implementing and monitoring environmental and biodiversity protection/conservation policies and in close collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries. Therefore, even though it is incorporated within SADeF, the GEF team will be closely linked to the Nature Conservation Services, as well as the other technical services at the regional level, to ensure their involvement in implementation and the sustainability of the GEF activities. The GEF team will also seek synergies and partnership arrangements with other environmental projects in the region.

Composition of the GEF team. The GEF team will be assisted by an international expert recruited for three years, a specialist in the participatory approach and NRM in wetlands, whose role will be to ensure that the various support activities are properly launched and given sound technical co-ordination. The expert’s presence is justified by the complexity of the ecosystems in the project area and by the need to define an adequate organisational framework that will make it possible to attain the objectives specific to the Mopti region. The expert will be supported by a Deputy National Coordinator having the same profile (who will take over in the fourth year), a socio-economist, a monitoring and evaluation specialist, who will be in charge of the GIS (all of whom will be recruited by tender for the duration of the project), and by local support staff (two secretaries, one accountant, drivers). Vehicles (4x4) and travelling costs (including those of the staff of the technical facilities and others) will also be provided to guarantee effective support for and monitoring of the various activities.

As mentioned above, in the field the GEF team will be backstopped by agents of the local Nature Conservation Service (one per “cercle”), who will be trained and equipped with motorcycles and boats. In order to assure close monitoring and eventual hand-over from the GEF team to the management committees/populations/decentralised authorities, village facilitators for each site and project area managed will be recruited. These facilitators will be trained and will work closely with the local agents of the Nature Conservation Service. They will also be provided with logistical support (motorcycles and fuel).

Reporting and supervision arrangements. Supervision arrangements will contribute directly or indirectly to the monitoring and evaluation of the SADeF programme and the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources component (see below and Annex 5). These arrangements include: (i) formal and informal information meetings with all stakeholders to be organised regularly, at various levels; (ii) monthly and quarterly reporting by the PCU; and (iii) bi-annual progress reporting at commune, circle and national. It also concerns external supervision arrangements by IFAD, such as: (i) regular supervision missions which will be organised twice a year with the objective to identify technical implementation as well as financial management and loan disbursement issues; (ii) follow-up mission which will ensure that recommendations are implemented; (iii) IFAD/Government of Mali joint mid-term reviews to be organised at the end of each implementation cycle; (iv) annual project implementation review for GEF; (v) IFAD/Government of Mali joint mid-term reviews to be organised at the end of each implementation cycle; and (vi) IFAD completion mission to be organised at the end of the SADeF-GEF project life.

One of the annual missions will be programmed to coincide with the annual review meeting at which all stakeholders review progress and agree planning for the forthcoming year. The second mission will be timed to coincide with thematic and diagnostic studies to examine specific aspects of impact and link impacts to programme interventions. Technical specialists on this mission team will provide technical assistance support for the studies thus developing a full understanding of programme progress.

42

 An innovation of SADeF will be a post-completion evaluation as the Programme will be long term, running over at least 20 years within which IFAD - GEF provides funding over an initial period of ten and six years respectively. As IFAD supported activities in a given community will be completed in 4-5 years, the effectiveness and impact of the processes and activities could be assessed. The mechanisms for carrying out the milestone review will be developed at the annual review meeting. It is therefore proposed that IFAD send a post completion review mission to participate in the review in order to learn about sustainability and long term impacts and programme success.

Monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation would be carried out to measure: (a) project performance; and (b) environmental impacts (biological, geo-physical, socio-economic indicators. Regarding the monitoring of project activities and performance, a monitoring and evaluation system will be put in place in the Project Coordination Unit. A preliminary monitoring and evaluation plan can be found in Annex 5. This will be further refined and tested during Year 1 of the project by the monitoring and evaluation specialist of the GEF team in the Project Co-ordination Unit. The M&E plan would be consistent with both IFAD and GEF procedures, and will be comprised of both internal and external evaluation procedures, both at the project and ecosystem levels. The M&E expert will identify more precise project performance and impacts indicators (biological, geo-physical, socio-economic indicators). The monitoring and evaluation system will be also linked to the DEIS, which will be developed for the monitoring of the state and management of the Delta ecosystems in the Mopti region (see sub-component 3.3 above).

Experience has shown that community-based, demand driven programmes are best monitored with decentralised participatory monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems that integrate continuous evaluation with ongoing programme planning, development of annual work programmes and budgets, adjustments to programme design and intensive programme supervision. Besides this decentralised approach, which is the key feature of the system to be developed, the SADeF-GEF M&E system will be based on two other basic concepts: (i) a participative and demand-driven logframe approach where communities will take a lead role in the definition of the programme’s activities and in the finalisation of the M&E system, and (ii) a flexible learning approach, where both, programme activities and M&E can be adjusted based on lessons learnt during programme implementation. The M&E system will be adapted to ensure that the specific requirements of GEF are also covered, including the definition of a baseline and the identification of clearly measurable indicator. Also, complementary with decentralised participatory M&E, coordination mechanisms set up under the project will ensure that data collected and analysed from various ongoing studies and surveys feed into a dynamic environmental information system. Through these combined approaches and systems, decision-makers will be able to access validated and reliable information to guide and effectively coordinate management of natural resources and ecosystems.

The monitoring and evaluation systems will capture the effectiveness of interventions over time. Adequate flexibility, through annual work planning and budgeting, will enable prompt attention to be given to delays if any are introduced. Through active participatory processes in place, and stakeholder involvement in work planning and implementation, the risks of delays are minimised. The intensity of efforts will be made as from Year 3 when minimum capacity requirements are in place for long term sustainability. Supervision missions will focus on implementation effectiveness and identify areas where delays arelikely to ensure impact by the end of the six year implementation period.

43

2. Component Financing

ComponentsCosts (US$million)

IFAD Government/Beneficiaries

GEF TOTAL

1. Capacity Building/Information/CommunicationCapacity Building for NRM

3.63 0.18 2.00 5.81

2. Support to Local Development 3.30 3.303. Support for NRM-GEF Initiatives in Mopti

Conservation of Threatened EcosystemsDevelopment of Potential of the Delta and its

Transition Zones Monitoring and Evaluation System

1.27 2.80 4.07

4. Support to Decentralised Financial Services 2.50 - 2.505. Management and Co-ordination 2.50 0.21 1.20 3.91

TOTAL 11.93 1.66 6.00 19.59

3. Priority Project Areas

a. Selection Criteria for Priority Sites and Project Areas

In such a huge geographical area as the Inner Delta of the Niger River, it is quite obvious that, even though the GEF project is designed to improve the environmental state of the whole region, it must focus on a specific number of priority sites and project areas. To do this, a number of criteria have been defined reflecting environmental as well as social factors. These selection criteria for the GEF project areas (which were discussed at the GEF/SADeF workshop in March 2003 in Mopti) are:

1. The presence of known users/stakeholders: participatory management can only be envisaged on sites where populations and users exist and are known in advance.

2. The presence of at least two different activities: the coexistence of different economic activities based on the natural resources of one and the same limited geographical area is specific to the Delta: it reflects the abundance and the diversity of the local natural resources and makes it possible to establish synergies between the activities.

3. The willingness of the local populations to invest in sustainable resources management and to resolve conflicts related to natural resources management. While recognising that it is impossible to find sites/areas where there are no conflicts, the project must avoid sites where serious and persistent conflicts are likely to block the development of the NRM activities.

4. Complementarity with other development partners in the area: to maximise the impact at the regional level, all duplication must be avoided.

5. Accessibility of sites/areas: in order for the support and monitoring activities to be smoothly implemented and also to foster the dissemination of results and the exchange of experiences, the selected sites/areas must be accessible for at least part of the year by means of transport at a reasonable cost.

6. More specifically, for the ecosystem management and conservation activities, environmental criteria (such as the presence of diversified animal and plant life, the presence of endemic species

44

and particular and fragile ecosystems, representativeness in terms of the diversity of the ecosystems of the Delta) must also be included.

b. Priority Project Areas

Several priority areas (each one measuring between 80 000 and 150 000 ha) were identified at the level of each “cercle” at the GEF/SADeF workshop (Mopti, March 2003). They take account of the aforementioned criteria and also of the complementarity between flood areas and transition zones. They are presented in detail in Annex 2 and shown on Map 2. These large areas can be divided as follows:

Transition Zones : Fakala (Cercle de Djenné), Méma Dioura (Cercle de Ténenkou) and Méma Farimaké (Cercle de Youwarou)

Agro-sylvo-pastorale areas : Pondori (Cercle de Djenné), Koubaye, Galandjiri (Cercles de Mopti)

Areas with large bourgoutières : Femaye (Cercle de Djenné), Kotia (Cercles de Mopti and Ténenkou), Walado Debo (Cercle de Youwarou)

Doumeraies areas : Lake Korientzé (Cercle de Youwarou), Kareri (Cercle de Ténenkou)

Starting with the basic assumption that there will be an equal share among the “cercles” and complementarity with the other development partners, the GEF project could initially concentrate on the following major priority areas: (i) Méma Farimaké (Cercle de Youwarou); (ii) Pondori (Cercle de Djenné); (iii) Kotia (Cercle de Mopti); and (iv) Kareri (Cercle de Ténenkou). This choice will be confirmed when the project is being implemented following the information/awareness-building sessions. This by no means excludes other project areas or more specifically targeted actions in other parts of the Delta depending upon any needs or priorities that are subsequently defined.

4. Beneficiaries and Benefits

As already stated (see Section C.3) the target beneficiaries of IFAD operations in Mali are the poorest and most vulnerable rural populations, namely at the village level, women and young people, low caste families, non-residents and transhumant pastoralists. The Mopti region, which is 90 percent rural, is one of the regions with the highest poverty levels in Mali. The four “cercles” to which GEF/SADeF will give priority coverage have a population of about 622 000. This population comprises numerous different ethnic groups: Bozo, Somono, Peul, Dogon, Soninké, Bambara, Sonraï, Maure, Mossi, Bellah and Tamacheq.

The main beneficiaries in the Inner Niger Delta and in its transition zones are the sedentary populations and the indigenous populations that depend for their livelihood on the natural resources of the Delta. There are six socio-economic groups among these users/exploiters and their families:

the transhumant pastoralists: Peul, Tamacheq and Maure in the north; the agro-pastoralists: Peul, Rimaibé, Bellah; the agro-fishers: Bozo, Somono, Sorko; the sedentary/non-sedentary crop farmers: Bambara, Sonraï, Rimaibé, Soninké (Marka); the transhumant fishers; the traders and artisans.

Analysis of the dynamics of the natural resource farming systems and methods in the Delta shows that these different socio-economic groups are trying to adapt to the new ecological conditions. They are increasingly diversifying their activities and at the present time they are in a "re-composition" phase, with the emergence of a new category of agro-pastoralists-fishers category, which is adding itself to or

45

superimposing itself upon the other groups. This mixture of production functions has excellent chances of developing, and of eventually becoming the only alternative for survival in the Delta. But this situation is likely to increase pressure on what are already over-exploited resources in numerous places, as well as the disputes over land tenure for rights of access to these resources.

In order to reduce this risk, it is essential that the project take into account this new land occupancy dynamic and support all the social groups in order to ensure compliance with the rules for rational management of natural resources and for the sustainable restoration/conservation of unique ecosystems. To do this, the GEF/IFAD partnership will ensure that (i) land tenure conflicts are prevented, (ii) alternative sources of income are developed in order to reduce pressure on the natural resources and (iii) production systems and techniques are improved.

There are many benefits from the GEF/IFAD co-financing. The most important benefits at the local level are improved living conditions and incomes (namely, poverty alleviation), increased productivity of production systems and strengthened food security. Other benefits, which also have links to national and international levels, are the improved management of natural resources, the safeguarding of threatened ecosystems and the incorporation of conservation and management rules into local and regional planning.

At the local and regional levels the following may be added: (i) support to the decentralisation process by strengthening institutional capacities (including support for the establishment of an adequate organisational framework for managing and monitoring the resources of the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones); (ii) support for implementation of policies, strategies and legislation for managing natural resources, combating desertification and conserving biodiversity; (iii) contribution to the socio-economic development of the region.

5. Global Benefits of GEF Resources

Through its activities aimed at promoting the restoration, conservation and sustainable use of natural habitats and critical ecosystems of the Inner Niger Delta, the GEF Alternative will provide multiple global benefits. Many of these ecosystems host indigenous plant and animal species that are threatened, as well as provide refuge for wildlife and for migratory birds on the African-Asian flyway. The project will also contribute to maintaining the dynamics of the Delta ecosystem, which is unique in the world, and to restoring its biological equilibrium. In addition to conserving biodiversity in arid, semi-arid and freshwater ecosystems, benefits will also accrue in the areas of sustainable land management, reduction of carbon emissions (greenhouse gases), and protection of international waters.

The global benefits of the activities financed by GEF resources are detailed in the incremental cost analysis (see Annex 3). They may be briefly summarised as follows:

the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of global significance (endangered species such as the West African manatee, indigenous plant varieties, among others);

the critical habitats for migratory birds and breeding areas for endemic species of fish;

in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity (for example, floating African rice culture and Macina wool-bearing sheep; local cultivars; aquatic biodiversity) through enhancement of traditional integrated agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries systems ;

the rehabilitation and reduction of land degradation (improved soil fertility and soil biodiverisity, reduce soil erosion); the restoration of soils and natural resources, rehabilitation of natural forests/reduction in deforestation; reduction of carbon emissions;

46

reduced sedimentation and improved water quality thereby improved water regulatory services and reduced degradation of the international waterway (Niger River); and

the multiplication of long-term benefits applicable to other sites through the dissemination and

the replication of the approach and tools for sustainable restoration of similar ecosystems.

6. Stakeholder Involvement

This process of partnership and coordination was initiated with GEF PDF-B resources, and a SADeF-GEF Steering Committee was established in Mopti. A workshop was held in March 2003, attended by more than fifty stakeholders from the Mopti region, to brainstorm and agree on the GEF components, criteria for project site selection, complementarity between IFAD and GEF financing, and guidelines to be for their work in Mopti. GEF resources will be utilized to deepen and expand upon the coordination mechanisms that have already been developed; regular workshops at the local and regional levels are already planned.

SADeF is designed as an active and participatory support programme for promoting development initiatives in the regions by involving all the local stakeholders. Regional associations, which are responsible for annual activity programmes, are made up of representatives of the main local institutions (farmer organisations, NGOs, Chambre Régionale d'Agriculture), and are headed by a representative from a farmer association responsible for directing local development. SADeF intends to strengthen local processes of decentralisation, planning and ownership by the communities and their institutions (socio-professional organisations, traditional authorities, elected representatives and communal councillors). Its support is designed to enable them to improve their control over their own environments, decisions and financing.

In the Mopti region, the GEF co-financing offers SADeF the opportunity to integrate environmental degradation/regeneration and natural resources management as the starting point for local and sustainable development planning. The participatory approach which will be developed is designed to make the local stakeholders and populations accountable in the whole process of planning, implementation and monitoring/evaluation of the natural resources management and development actions at the local level. These actions will be identified by the people themselves, who will be organised into groups or Management Committees. Local populations will be closely involved in site selection, the diagnostic of the sites/interventions zones, the planning and implementation of the activities, as well as in monitoring and evaluation.

The development and implementation of integrated ecosystem action plans for the management of the project sites, design and implementation of project activities, monitoring and evaluation would be agreed through a consultative process. This will also make it possible to define the conditions and incentive measures that are necessary to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the natural resource management and biodiversity conservation measures. The integrated management plans and activities, and related monitoring and management structures, will be validated in the PCAEs and eventually incorporated into the PCDs. The plans will be subject to the legal and administrative formalities required to make them official documents

Building on IUCN experience in Akka-Goun and Dentaka (Youwarou), local conventions will be developed, formalizing the consensus of all the actors in the management and use of the resources for each specific project area. These conventions would be based on traditional systems for resource management and conflict resolution. Protocols will also be developed with the local management committess that would give them responsibility for project’s rural development activities.

47

GEF/IFAD co-financing will also be designed to set up an original organisational framework tailored to meet the specific features of Mopti, centred around the management of natural resources and sustainable development at the different levels. This framework will be based on the involvement of all the stakeholders, the establishment of partnerships and seeking synergies with all the other parties involved.

Local agents of the Nature Conservation Service and village facilitators recruited and trained by the project will facilitate the establishment of local Committees for the management of natural resources and the implementation of the project activities. Village facilitators will serve as a link between local communities, the GEF teams, and the SADeF regional association in Mopti. They will ensure that all the project activities are adequately carried out and are coherent with the village infrastructure and other activities implemented by SADeF.

7. Lessons Learned and Reflected in GEF/SADeF

The lessons learned in the first phase of the SADeF Programme in Mali and incorporated into the formulation of the second phase comprise: (i) the need to strengthen capacities of the local people and local stakeholders at the decentralised level to plan their own development activities and guarantee their sustainability; (ii) the efforts made to disseminate information and to communicate so that the project can act as a development catalyst; (iii) the need to support the ongoing process of decentralisation and communal/local development planning; (iv) the need to make provision for specific measures to ensure the inclusion of vulnerable groups (including women and young people) in the project.

The IUCN Project to Support Wetland Management in the Inner Delta of the Niger River is an example of a successful project (even though limited in terms of area) with respect to biodiversity conservation in the Delta. The results of this project show the need to: (i) establish a climate of trust between the communities and technical services in order to guarantee the viability of jointly managed systems; (ii) respect the value of traditions when laying down rules for sustainable management; and (iii) incorporate the importance of managing and regulating land tenure conflicts to ensure the success of conservation efforts; (iv) incorporate a component on monitoring of ecological and socio-economic indicators to measure project progress and impact on natural resource management; (v) link with national level to influence policy and regulatory environment; and (vi) analyse the carrying capacity of the ecosystem in relations to resource use and population pressure. The project will draw on these successes and the traditional management systems at the sites and project areas in order to involve all the local stakeholders in the processes of designing and implementing the activities and supporting the strengthening of mechanisms for conflict prevention and management.

The evaluations of the GEF projects will be used for implementing this project. They emphasise in particular the importance of the following factors: (i) efforts made for conservation of biodiversity in situ must stress the importance of easing the socio-economic pressures in peripheral areas; (ii) the need to define the initial state (baseline) of the biodiversity in the project area before any action is taken to evaluate results and impacts; (iii) strengthening capacities must be done after a prior assessment of needs of the target groups.

48

8. Co-ordination with other Projects Financed by GEF, IFAD, the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and Other Donors

During implementation, the GEF project will seek to ensure coordination and synergy with several other projects, including the following:

The GEF/World Bank (WB) Project for the Biodiversity Conservation in Arid Rangelands (Gourma), co-financed by the Fonds français pour l'environnement mondial (FFEM). Part of the project area is east of the Mopti region. Major synergies are envisioned with this project, particularly in respect of the following: (i) awareness-building and strengthening know-how and capacities for biodiversity management; (ii) biodiversity conservation in arid ecosystems (transition zones covered by this project); (iii) the integration of biodiversity/natural resources into community planning and development. The value added by the present project in the Delta lies, among other things, in the fact that it has to do with far more complex ecosystems and productive activities. Moreover, it will also finance activities to develop the productive potential of the natural resources. Contacts have already been made with the WB project management team at the national level. Coordination procedures will be established at the level of the Mopti region.

The GEF/UNDP/World Bank regional project Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River. This projects aims at strengthening regional and national institutional capacities, and to address land and water degradation and management issues in the Niger River Basin. It builds on initiatives and activities which area already under implementation at the national and sub-Basin levels strengthening the institutions; or it provides the necessary knowledge and tools for good resource management practices. Linkages will be developed with this project in the area of capacity building and land and water management (particularly with the microgrant-supported demonstration projects).

The UNDP/IFAD/GEF Boucle de Baoulé Project is in the early stages of preparation. The WB-GEF Gourma project, the IFAD-GEF Inner Niger Delta, and the proposed UNDP/IFAD/GEF Boucle de Baoulé Project have the potential to form a programmatic triangle, whereby they could jointly contribute towards strengthening Mali’s projected area management system. The potential for administrative and environmental policy development and capacity building (with the multiplier effects) from each of these projects is great. It could also become an exemplary project for effective donor collaboration at field level. In addition to collaboration, particularly at the national level, in capacity building and environmental policy development/strengthening and regulatory framework, other areas for effective linkages include monitoring and evaluation, impact assessment, knowledge sharing and diffusion of best practices.

The GEF/UNEP/UNDP Project for the Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Restoration of Degraded Grazing Lands in Arid and Semi-arid Zones of Africa and the GEF/UNEP/UNDP Regional Programme on Desert Margins covering nine countries including Mali, whose experiences could be of benefit to the present GEF project in Mopti.

The GEF/WB/UNDP Domestic Energy Project, whose results in terms of forest management and conservation could be exploited, particularly with regard to community management of forested areas and the exploitation of commodity lines, taking into account the supply and demand for fuel wood.

The GEF/UNEP Regional Projects for (i) Community Management of Small Farmer Genetic Plant Resources in Arid and Semi-arid Zones of Sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) Conservation of Grasses and Associated Arthropods for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Africa, and the IER/IPGRI/FAO/IFAD Project on Participatory Development of in situ Conservation

49

Strategies and for the Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources in Pre-desert Zones of Mali, whose results in relation to agricultural biodiversity conservation will be used for the GEF-Mopti project, which will make its contribution by focusing its efforts particularly on floating African rice and Macina wool-producing sheep. During its implementation, contacts will be established with the GEF/UNDP Project for the in situ Conservation of Indigenous Ruminants in West Africa (currently being formulated).

As far as community environmental planning is concerned, the capacity strengthening activities of the project will be based on the Methodological Guide for preparing the PCAE developed by the Permanent Technical Secretariat (STP/CIGQE) under the Project to Support Implementation of the CCD financed by German Cooperation, which also supported the development of a guide to preparing PCAEs, which will be profitably used at Mopti.

Project activities could also contribute to the Programmes to Prevent Silting and Soil and Water Degradation in the Niger River Basin, to be financed by the European Union (in progress), the African Development Bank (just beginning) and the GEF/UNDP/WB (being formulated).

The project will also learn from other GEF projects for the integrated management of ecosystems in countries of the sub-region, such as the GEF/WB Programme for the Integrated Community Management of Ecosystems, the Sub-programme of Community Action in Niger and the WB Project for Integrated Management of Sahelian Plainland Ecosystems in Burkina Faso.

Lastly, in addition to these major projects/programmes, in the field the project will encourage partnership with other partners present in the area, particularly Wetlands International, whose activities focus on providing training for wetland management and monitoring aquatic bird species in the Delta, and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which focuses on the sustainable management and restoration of flooded forests. Collaboration would be established with the Wetlands International regional project, particularly the component “Western Sahelian wetlands and floodplains: wetlands, people and biodiversity in the Western Sahel”.

F. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

1. Implementation

SADeF reports to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, and more specifically to the National Directorate for Support to Rural Areas (NDSRA), which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the agreements and procedures applicable to the SADeF Programme. It monitors and supervises, jointly with IFAD, SADeF’s execution and is responsible for controlling, evaluating and conducting the technical and financial audits.

As the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the GEF project, a co-operative agreement will be concluded between both the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, and the National Association for the implementation of the GEF/SADeF in Mopti. In order to guarantee the joint monitoring of activities in Mopti, a Steering Committee will be established at the national and regional levels.

As far as implementation is concerned, SADeF works through two types of structures:

(i) a National Association (ANDES - National Association for the Development of the Sahel), which is more specifically responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the Programme, and

50

(ii) regional management associations and agencies (AREG), which are responsible at the level of their own region for drawing up annual work programmes, selecting the villages, approving requests for support from the villages or groups within villages, managing the advance accounts, monitoring and implementing the activities in conjunction with service providers and beneficiaries. These associations (which are made up of between five and seven members, including the director and the financial director, recruited by tender) are linked to the National Association.

In the case of Mopti, the development of PCAEs and their integration into the PDCs will serve as the basis for all project activities. The establishment of the AREG must therefore take into account both the fact that IFAD is not currently involved in the region and the particular character of GEF co-financing, which gives priority to local planning/implementation of natural resource management activities and biodiversity conservation. The AREG will be comprised primarily of representatives of the local Committees for the management of natural resources to ensure a close link between support to local development (micro-projects) and sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation activities. This link will provide an additional guaranty of success of the IFAD-GEF partnership in the Mopti region. The modalities for accessing funding for micro-projects financed by SADeF will be defined by this AREG, in consultation with the local communities and decentralized services. The level of commitment and involvement of the beneficiaries in the NRM and biodiversity conservation activities will be an important consideration in designing these modalities.

The team managing and co-ordinating the GEF activities, comprising several experts whose presence is justified by the highly complex nature of the regional ecosystems, will support the establishment of an appropriate regional association for the region and definition of its specific roles. This team will help to strengthen it and will support all the structures and stakeholders in the region (technical services, groups, populations, etc.) in implementing the policies and strategies and incorporating the environmental dimension into planning and development at the regional and local levels. It will also put into place a permanent framework and bring it into operation to manage the natural resources and protect the ecosystems of the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones.

The GEF team will be supported and backstopped by agents of the local Nature Conservation Service (one per “cercle”), who will be trained and equipped with motorcycles and boats. In order to assure close monitoring and eventual hand-over from the GEF team to the management committees/ populations/decentralised authorities, village facilitators for each site and project area managed will be recruited. These facilitators will be trained and will work closely with the local agents of the Nature Conservation Service. They will also be provided with logistical support (motorcycles and fuel).

2. Management and Coordination

In the second and third phases SADeF, which was originally designed to be a participatory support programme to promote local level development initiatives, should strengthen its support for decentralisation, local development planning and ownership of activities by the communities and their institutions.

As already recalled above, in the Mopti region the GEF financing should enable SADeF to incorporate into its support an essential environmental restoration/conservation and sustainable natural resources management dimension. In this way the joint GEF/IFAD financing will seek to trigger a local development process based on the consideration that natural resources management forms the basis for long-term development. To do this, GEF/SADeF will implement a participatory approach, which will essentially be based on: (i) informing/sensitising the largest number of people regarding the major

51

challenges raised with regard to natural resources management and biodiversity conservation in the Inner Niger Delta and its transition zones, and (ii) strengthening the technical, financial and organisational capacities of all the stakeholders involved, particularly the local population. This approach will make it possible to involve them in the process of identification, planning, implementation and monitoring/evaluation and adjustment of restoration/management and development activities.

The GEF/IFAD partnership for providing joint financing, on the one hand, of the environmental activities and, on the other, the social-community or productive activities (support for the implementation of income-generating micro-projects, support to decentralised credit systems, etc.) is the key to the success of the sustainable development of the Delta area. The participation and partnership process with the various stakeholders that will be put into practice will make it possible to gradually structure the SADeF regional agency in Mopti. Existing associations actively involved in managing natural resources as well as those, which will be put into place with the support of GEF, will act as a direct line for setting up the regional association/agency.

This approach, which is based on the principle that natural resources management is the ideal and priority point of entry for the sustainable development of the Delta zone, completes the approach proposed by SADeF. In such a sensitive region as Mopti, whatever is done must take sustainable natural resource use into account, in order to ensure that all the environmental investments and the socio-economic structures are successful.

The GEF project will also develop special relations with the nature conservation services and the decentralised authorities, which will support creation of an organisational framework and permanent co-ordinated and sustainable management structure for the Delta, working jointly with them and with other parties involved in the region (NGOs, research, etc.). This structure will benefit from the environmental monitoring system that will be developed with GEF support.

The steering committee set up in Mopti under the framework of PDF-B to support the preparation of this project will be strengthened and enlarged in order to reflect the new thinking. Moreover, GEF/SADeF will support the creation or the strengthening of frameworks for co-ordination with all the development partners involved at different levels, in order to encourage the exchange of information and co-ordinate all the natural resources management-related activities, and those designed to foster the socio-economic development of the Mopti region.

Furthermore, workshops for discussion and/or validation will be regularly organised in order to strengthen links between the GEF, IFAD and the other development partners and actors, along the lines of the workshop which was organised in March 2003. That workshop, which was attended by about fifty people, including the representatives of the decentralised authorities, made it possible to refocus and expand the activities that had initially been planned for the Mopti region and to define priority areas for action.

G. SUSTAINABILITY AND RISKS

1. Sustainability

Emphasis has been placed on laying a solid foundation for the adoption of an holistic approach and new and innovative sustainable natural resource management practices by strengthening capacities, ensuring stakeholder participation and ownership, identifying and testing new techniques, among others. Sustainability (including financial sustainability) should be achieved by demonstrating direct economic

52

benefits and improved living conditions from sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation.

The project will achieve sustainability by promoting a multi-disciplinary and participatory approach for planning, management, monitoring and evaluation of the activities, starting with the selection of the priority areas for intervention. The proposed techniques for restoration, conservation and management of natural resources will be simple and easily adopted by the local populations. These techniques will make use of indigenous knowledge and understanding of the Delta and build on the traditional, integrated management systems and uses of the Delta that have evolved over the centuries. In addition, the local actors will benefit from training and inter-village exchanges, as well as the recruitment of village facilitators, who will assure a link between the local technical agents and the GEF team. Over the course of the project, new techniques will be identified and tested in the different priority systems with a view to their replication in other areas. Strong linkages will be developed and maintained with other GEF and IFAD initiatives in the country and the region to build on the knowledge base.

The project was furthermore designed to support the process of political decentralisation underway in Mali. For this reason, all the activities with respect to restoration/conservation of biodiversity and natural resources management will be undertaken in the context of Community Environmental Action Plans, which will be prepared and adopted by decentralised authorities and integrated into the Community Development Plans. Experience gained in incorporating the PCAEs into local development planning will be replicated throughout Mopti and other regions of Mali. Project-financed technical training and capacity building activities will strengthen the Nature Conservation Service and other decentralised technical services from ministries concerned (Water, Agriculture) in the planning and management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation programmes and projects.

Baseline studies of the physical environment and socio-economic conditions will be completed before each project activity to assure the full commitment of local populations and beneficiaries, as well as the absence of any underlying conflicts with respect to natural resources management, which could present an obstacle to the success of the activities. In this regard, the project would respect and reinforce the use of traditional conflict resolution measures, where possible, and design and support the use of other conflict management methods, where appropriate.

The project will study incentive measures and best practices for enhancing the economic benefits of biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of farming systems. In addition, as a means of promoting their sustainability, micro-projects will be selected and formulated by village associations and groups, and an adequate level of in kind or cash co-financing from the associations/groups is one of the conditions for approval. Another condition is the link between financing of micro-projects and involvement of beneficiaries in the implementation of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation activities. The importance of alternative livelihoods has been recognized, and one of the project’s activities will be to identify alternative income-generating activities. IFAD support to micro-projects will also provide lessons learned that may be replicated.

The project’s establishment of a functioning facility for monitoring the state of resources of the Delta (through the DEIS) and the training of necessary resource personnel at the regional level in Mopti will permit, over the long term, better control of the causes of degradation in the sustainable management and conservation of this wetland area of global importance. In the baseline studies noted above, key socio-economic and environmental quality indicators will be identified and monitored throughout the life of the project. In this way, the DEIS will serve as an important tool both for project management decisions and mid-course adjustments, as well as for the development of other programmes and projects in the Delta.

53

The results achieved and lessons learned will be validated and documented in the form of brief technical notes, which will be widely disseminated and discussed throughout the region. Lessons learned will be disseminated as well at workshops, other donors projects meetings/workshops, in other regions, etc.

2. Replicability

All the activities proposed for GEF financing are designed to ensure replicability, not only at the level of the project area, but also in other regions of Mali or elsewhere in the sub-region (including other wetland areas in the sub-region, such as the north of Burkina Faso). The project will build on indigenous knowledge and traditions and the successful experiences – technological and methodological - of IUCN, Wetlands International and other actors with long experience in the Inner Niger Delta or similar ecosystems, with a view to replicating and scaling up. The lessons learned from IUCN’s experience in developing the integrated management plans for Akka-Goun and Dentaka will be particularly relevant. Stakeholders and decision-makers (local, regional and national) will be fully involved in the identification, planning and management of the project interventions which will ensure their ownership and uptake to foster the following: (i) sound natural resource management and environmental policies at national level ; (ii) integration of natural resources management and biodiversity conservation into Community Development Plans; and (iii) creation of a socio-economic environment which is favorable to sustainable development.

The project will develop an information and knowledge sharing system which will be able to document and share effective processes initiated or successfully implemented. A mid-term review of the SADeF II is envisaged at the end of 1994. This is likely to correspond to a review of initial development and progress to date for GEF activities after one year of implementation (assuming project start-up January 2004). As the SADeF covers the whole of the Sahelian zone of Mali promising initiatives will be quickly internalised and replicated in other regions notably Kayes, Koulikoro, and Ségou. Furthermore as IFAD finances interventions in similar dry semi arid zones in Niger, Chad, and northern Nigeria, lessons learned will also communicated and shared with other IFAD projects in the region. Links will be further strengthened with the World Bank and the African Development Bank to facilitate replication and upscaling of promising opportunities in other areas/countries.

3. Risks

In the field, the implementation of natural resource and biodiversity conservation measures do not give rise to particular risks apart from those relating to the climatic uncertainties which condition the success of the physical operations in the field, but they are difficult to control. Apart from these climatic risks, there are also the following: (i) risks linked to land tenure issues, and to the difficulty of preparing and implementing common programmes involving one or several village communities (collective sites); (ii) the inadequate mobilisation of the people to undertake work to restore and protect the natural resources on the village lands, which could cause their planning, implementation and monitoring/sustainability efforts to fail; (iii) the inadequate account taken of transhumants or semi-sedentary herders, who do not particularly have the same objectives as the sedentary populations in a typically pastoral zone with a strong agro-pastoral character.

In order to attenuate these risks, and before any management work is undertaken, socio-economic forecasts must be made in order to better understand all of the constraints, the land use dynamics and the various interests at stake in terms of natural resources management. Furthermore, before the beneficiary populations can be supported (with micro-projects, decentralised financial systems, etc., financed by SADeF) they must commit themselves formally and do so within the framework of a clearly defined partnership, specifying all the undertakings of the various parties concerned and the procedures for implementation.

54

Measures will be taken in advance and in conjunction with the various users to prevent conflicts, mainly relating to water, land or grazing land access. The rules for setting up controlled non-grazing areas and for guarding and managing the developed and restored sites must be defined and agreed upon by all the users and widely disseminated. Alternative solutions to prevent conflict arising between herders, fishers and farmers, or between the sedentary and the transhumant populations, will be defined on the basis of consensus if necessary.

Environmental impact assessment. As a demand-driven program SADeF has a wide menu of options including expansion of rural financial services, grassroots institutional development, development of production, marketing and social infrastructure (schools, health centres, irrigation and soil and water conservation schemes, micro-dams, wells as well as agricultural, forestry, livestock and fisheries development). The baseline program has been subject to an environmental screening and scoping exercise and is classified as Category "B" (projects without significant adverse environmental impacts) in accordance with IFAD's procedures and criteria for environmental assessment and classification. Hence, baseline interventions would not induce any significant alteration in the physical and biological components of the ecosystem. Potential negative environmental impacts will be systematically identified and addressed through adequate mitigation measures and strong capacity building. Moreover, the project intends to raise awareness on best practices for natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in a participatory manner and establish an environmental monitoring and evaluation system that would help to monitor the project's impacts and mitigate for negative effects over time and across space to ensure sustainability of the program's operations

With regard to the GEF/IFAD partnership and co-financing, the main risks relate to (i) the inadequate cohesion of the GEF and IFAD projects and (ii) the premature establishment of a regional SADeF association in the Mopti region before the beneficiary populations are properly organised to carry out the natural resource management activities. Unless this is taken into account there is a risk that the local development activities supported by SADeF may precede, condition or are implemented without any direct linkages with the natural resource and biodiversity conservation activities.

In order to pre-empt these risks, co-financing mechanisms must be clearly defined taking into account the specificities and environmental challenges that are inherent in the Inner Delta of the Niger River and its transition zones. The organisational framework in Mopti (including the SADeF regional association/agency) will be gradually put into place and be based on organising the rural people and local stakeholders around biodiversity conservation and natural resource management as the basis for the sustainable socio-economic development of the region. The GEF team, once this framework has been put in place, will be able to effectively support the choice of SADeF operations in the project areas.

55

ANNEXES

Map 1. The Inner Niger Delta in the Mopti Region

Annex 1. Logical Framework

Annex 2. Brief Description of the Priority Project Areas (and Map 2)

Annex 3. Incremental Cost Analysis

Annex 4. Guide for Preparing a PCAE - Summary

Annex 5: Participatory Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation (PPME)

Annex 6. STAP Roster Review and IFAD Response

56

Map 1. The Inland Delta in the Mopti Region

57

ANNEX 1. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Description Performance Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions/Risks

Development Goal

Poverty reduction through improvement in living conditions, sustainable management of natural resources, increase in incomes of the rural population, especially the poorest, and strengthening of capacity of community organisations and stakeholders of the SADeF programme

Socio-economic indicators of the populations dependant on natural resources (farmers, fishers, ...)

Mechanisms clearly defined between natural resource management (NRM) actions and socio-economic support activities

Periodic evaluation reports

Participatory workshops

Commitment of local population/ communities to the objectives of NRM

Project Objective

Restoration, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystems and biodiversity in the Inner Delta of the Niger River and its transition zones

Number and distribution of water birds (crown crane, purple heron, cormorant), fish (tilapia, clarias) and mammals (manatees, hippopotami, gazelles)

Extent (number of hectares) and state of flood plain forests and bourgoutières inventoried

Periodic census of water birds, fishes and mammals

Periodic inventory and monitoring of the state of flood plain forests and bourgoutières

Absence of extreme climatic and flood conditions

Recognition of the value of local methods/techniques and know-how and availability of tools for NRM to local populations

ResultsSix priority sites of local, national and global interest in the Inner Delta of the Niger River restored and conserved

Number of sites identified, characterised, and restored by local communities

Number of hectares restored and/or conserved by local communities

Number of NRM plans adopted and implemented by local communities

Diagnostic studies and mapping of sites

Periodic impact studies and monitoring of the state of natural resources

Evaluation of NRM plans and their implementation

Integration of NRM plans into the local development plans

58

Results (cont.) Performance Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions/Risks

The economic potential of the natural resources (agro-sylvo-pastoral, fishing), including agricultural biodiversity, of the Delta restored, developed and managed sustainably

Number of hectares/ponds (pastures, fishing reserves, forests, etc.) restored, where productivity of soils/flood zones sustainably improved by local communities

Number of hectares where the schedule of exploitation systems is rearranged to reflect physical/socio-economic conditions

Number of NRM plans adopted and implemented by local communities

Quantities of local varieties/breeds (e.g. African rice, Macina sheep) produced

Periodic evaluation reports on NRM plans

Periodic studies of impacts on and monitoring of natural resources

Annual statistics on agricultural production

Inventory of local varieties and breeds

NRM is a community priority and is integrated into the local development plans

Interest and commitment of local population in the conservation and economic value of local varieties and breeds

The organisational, technical and financial capacities for NRM of local stakeholders strengthened

Number of organisations/members involved in NRM and biodiversity conservation

Number of beneficiaries of NRM training

Evaluation reports on the workshops/training in NRM

Local population/organisations are interested/involved in NRM

Environmental information collected, evaluated and disseminated to strengthen biodiversity conservation and NRM

Extent of EISD database on environmental information

Number of EISD reports disseminated

DEIS annual reports

Activities/Components1. Strengthening capacity for NRM Information/awareness on major

NRM issues Support to the decentralisation

process of NRM: local environmental action plans

Technical training and organisational strengthening

Strengthening of mechanisms for prevention and management of land tenure conflicts

US $ allocated and disbursed Number of community environmental

action plans developed and integrated into Community Development Plans

Number of training sessions, number of participants

Same as above Community

Development Plans

Willingness of local populations/ stakeholders to participate in training

59

Activities/Components (cont'd.) Performance Indicators Means of Verification Assumption/Risks2. Restoration and sustainable

management of the economic potential of the natural resources through integrated NRM

Inventory of priority zones, technical and socio-economic studies

Planning, identification and implementation of NRM actions

Identification and implementation of actions for conservation of traditional agricultural varieties and local animal breeds

Definition of conditions for access to other SADeF activities

US $ allocated and disbursed Number of NRM actions implemented Number of agricultural biodiversity

micro-projects implemented

Project budget reports Annual project reports Project monitoring and

evaluation reports

Commitment and involvement of all users of the sites

Communities involved prepare their local environmental action plans and integrate them into their local development plans

3. Conservation and sustainable management of the most threatened sites in the Delta

Identification and assessment of priority sites

Preparation, validation and implementation of site NRM plans

Definition of conditions for access to other SADeF activities

US $ allocated and disbursed Number of sites identified Number of site NRM plans prepared

and implemented

Project budget reports Annual project reports Project monitoring and

evaluation reports

Commitment and involvement of all users of the sites

Communities involved prepare their local environmental action plans and integrate them into their local development plans

4. Establishment of a system for monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity/natural resources

Establishment of a Delta Environmental Information System (DEIS)

Establishment of a permanent structure for environmental monitoring based in Mopti

Dissemination of information produced by the DEIS, lessons learned, etc.

US $ allocated and disbursed Number of stakeholders using the

database Number of reports completed

Same as above Commitment of development partners (French Co-operation, World Bank) to establish national EIS

5. Project management and coordination

US $ allocated and disbursed Supervision reports M&E reports

60

ANNEX 2. BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE PRIORITY AREAS

A. Introduction

In such a vast geographic area as the Inland Delta of the Niger River, it is obvious that the GEF project, while aiming at improving the environmental status of the whole region, must focus its efforts on a clearly-defined number of priority project areas and sites. To do this, a number of criteria have been identified reflecting both environmental and social factors (see Section E.2). The various priority zones set out below are shown on Map 2.

B. Priority Project Areas

Several priority zones (each one covering between 80 000 and 150 000 ha) were defined in each “cercle” at the GEF/SADeF workshop (Mopti, March 2003). They take into account the following criteria and the complementarity between flooded areas and transition zones. They are shown in Map 2. These large areas can be divided up as follows:

- Transition Zones: Fakala (Cercle of Djenné), Méma Dioura (Cercle of Ténenkou) and Méma Farimaké (Cercle of Youwarou)

- Agro-sylvo-pastorale areas: Pondori (Cercle of Djenné), Koubaye, Galandjiri (Cercles of Mopti)

- Large bourgoutières areas: Femaye (Cercle of Djenné), Kotia (Cercles of Mopti and Ténenkou), Walado Debo (Cercle of Youwarou)

- Doumeraies areas: Lake Korientzé (Cercle of Youwarou), Kareri (Cercle of Ténenkou)

1. FAKALA TRANSITION ZONE

The FAKALA transition zone (named after the former canton) lies along the national Sévaré - Ségou - Bamako road between the municipality of Sio (Soufouroulaye) in the Mopti “cercle” and Madiama in the Djenné “cercle.” To the north-west it borders on the municipalities of Bandiagara. This vast area of about 400 000 ha is both a pre-Delta area and attached to the Dogon plateau. It comprises about 60 villages and at all times hosts the transhumant Peul camps.

Table 1: Characteristics of the FAKALA Transition Zone

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of grass fodder resources

- Serious degradation of bush cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds

- Water and wind erosion

- Agricultural pressure on the land

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Heavy harvesting of timber resources by foresters and charcoal-makers

- Declining rainfall

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through

- Timber and charcoal harvesters

- Suppliers of Djenné and Sévaré

- PAIB Project

- RESA Project

- PADER/Mopti Project

- Projet de Plate Forme Multi fonctionnelle

- Decentralised co-operation with French towns (Mulhouse, St Etienne, ...)

61

This is a transition zone par excellence, which hosts an average of 400 000 head of cattle and 150 000 sheep/goats in transit through the crossing points at the Bani River to go to the bourgoutières in the “cercles” of Mopti, Djenné and even Ténenkou and Youwarou. The main activities are agriculture (irrigated cropping and dry-cropping), herding and fishing. However, because of the demographic pressure, the area holds many weekly farmer's markets/fairs which sustain a wide range of profitable trading activities.

Map 2. The Priority Project Areas.

62

2. PONDORI AREA

The Pondori Basin lies below Djenné, continuing southwards to the large Mid-Bani-Niger region. It is estimated to be 120 000 ha in size with some 60 villages of the communes in the “cercle” of Djenné (Djenné, Pondori, Ouro Ali, Mougna). Pondori is an agro-sylvo-pastoral zone, formerly rich in fish resources. Today, the various production systems in the area are in crisis because of the degradation of natural resources.

Table 2: Characteristics of the Pondori Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of grass fodder resources

- Serious degradation of bush cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds

- Serious pressure on fisheries resources

- Water and wind erosion

- Agricultural pressure on the land

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Heavy harvesting of timber resources by foresters and charcoal-makers

- Overfishing

- Native and non-native farmers

- Naïve and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through

- Timber and charcoal harvesters

- Suppliers of Djenné

- CARE Mali Project

- Projet de Plate Forme Multi fonctionnelle

- Decentralised co-operation with French towns (Vitré, ...)

- PDR/ San Project

Since the series of drought years, this zone is suffering from many constraints: (i) the channels have silted up and have been filled, and the branches of the Bani and the Niger which supply water to Pondori have silted over; (ii) the migration routes are seriously degraded because of demographic pressure, heavy overgrazing and the large number of crop lands; (iii) serious pressure from the goat herds on the timber in the zone; (iv) continuous damage caused to the fields accompanied by conflicts between the farmers and the herders. The Pondori zone has been partly taken into account by the PDR Project of San and some of its partners.

3. FEMAYE - MANGARI AND YONGARI AREA

The Femaye, Mangari and Yongari area lies in three communes: Taga, Kewa and Oura Ali. This large area which used to be productive is facing very serious impoverishment-related problems with resource depletion. Moreover, the check dam being built at Talo upstream of Pondori is causing considerable concern to the people living in the Djenné “cercle.”

The Femaye-Mangari-Yongari zone is about 150 000 ha in size and possesses composite, rich and complementary lands:

- Agricultural land with many populations of Acacia albida;- Deep bourgoutières lands with paddy fields at Yongari and Mangari, which makes this

zone good for livestock and good rice yields;- Deep ponds and branches of the river which are good for fishing.

63

Table 3: Characteristics of the Femaye-Yongari-Mangari Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of bourgoutières

- Serious degradation of bush cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds

- Serious pressure on fisheries resources

- Serious pressure on agricultural areas

- Serious pressure on timber and bush cover

- Agricultural pressure on the land

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of timber/wood

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through

- Indigenous fishers

- Suppliers of Djenné and Sofara

- CARE Mali Project

- Projet de Plate Forme Multi fonctionnelle

- Decentralised co-operation with French towns (Vitré, ...)

- PDR/ San Project

4. KOUBAYE AREA

Situated in the central part of the Delta, the Koubaye area is a large agro-sylvo-pastoral zone covering approximately 300 000 ha, running along the left bank of the Niger River and its various branches. It comprises about 60 villages and is shared among five communes in the “cercles” of Ténenkou and Mopti. This zone is very rich in natural resources. The Koubaye area plays an important role in regulating the movements of livestock within the Delta. It constitutes a migration route with large numbers of “billés” (camps in which transhumant herders stay) and can hold the livestock until the date permitting access to the end-point zone of Waladou Débo. This zone, which is subject to intense livestock pressure, can handle the transit of about 400 000 head of cattle.

64

Table 4: Characteristics of the Koubaye Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of bush populations

- Serious degradation of grass cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious agricultural pressure on the area

- Settlement of people and animal herds

- Agricultural pressure on rice and crop lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of timber and fire wood for the city of Mopti

- Pressure on fisheries resources

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through and settling in the area

- Non-native populations in the area

- Exploiters of the area coming from the commune of Mopti

- Government technical services

- No other development partners

5. KOTIA AREA

The Kotia area lies in the central part of the Delta, like Koubaye, and covers about 100  000 ha, about 50 villages, comprising several communes of Ténenkou, Mopti and Youwarou. This large area, previously highly productive and rich in natural resources, is now encountering very serious problems of resource depletion.

Table 5: Characteristics of the Kotia Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of bourgoutières

- Serious degradation of bush cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious pressure on fisheries resources

- Serious pressure on the agricultural zones

- Serious pressure on the timber/bush cover

- Agricultural pressure on the lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of fisheries

- Cutting of bourgou, which is dried and sold

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Native and non-native fishers

- Exploiters coming from the exondated zone and Dogon plateau

- PACRM Project

- Projet de Plate Forme Multi fonctionnelle

- NGOs Wetlands International, AFAR, Walia

The Kotia area is also the last one to "evacuate" livestock before entry into the last bourgoutières linked to Waladou Débo. Furthermore, Kotia, in which various migrant groups of farmers have settled, is being

65

gradually abandoned. The following table sets out the features of the area. Nevertheless, it still possesses composite, rich and complementary lands:

- Agricultural lands, in which several zones have high rice yields, particularly traditional rice, which makes Kotia one of the leading rice-producing areas in the Delta;

- Areas of deep bourgoutières with over-harvesting of various kinds, which is threatening the miracle plant of the Delta. Bourgou is uprooted, dried and exported to the commune of Mopti;

- Fisheries in several ponds and river branches;

- Deep ponds, making the conservation of migratory birds possible, including certain threatened species, particularly the crowned crane.

6. LAKE KORIENTZE AREA AND TRANSITION ROUTES

The Korientzé Lake area and its neighbouring routes is a huge agro-sylvo-pastoral region comprising the area of the lake and the branches of the Koli-koli and the transition routes often rich in doumeraies. This area covers about 120 000 ha, comprising communes of three “cercles,” Mopti, Youwarou and Douentza. The Lake Korientzé area is a "pilot" region as far as bourgou culture is concerned.

This zone comprises about 40 villages and is marked by sharp differences among routes:

Lands with branches of the river and ponds that are being used profitably for the rational harvesting of bourgoutières;Agricultural lands which are expanding increasingly, invading the Delta and its transition zones;Sylvo-pastoral lands which are rich in doumeraies populations, heavily harvested to produce matting, basket-making and wickerwork products.

Table 6: Characteristics of the Lake Korientzé Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of some bourgoutières, but well-developed areas of bourgoutières

- Serious degradation of bush cover and doumeraies

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious pressure on fisheries resources

- Serious pressure on the agricultural zones

- Agricultural pressure on the lands rice crops

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure on the migration routes

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of fisheries

- Overexploitation of doumeraies

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Native and non-native fishers

- Exploiters of timber and wood, both native and foreign

- Women of the area and from Douentza who haravest les doumeraies

- Government technical services

- Support of several NGOs, including NEF

66

7. KARERI DOUMERAIES AREA

Lying to the south-west of the Diaka, a branch of the Niger River, this is a transition zone for animals before they cross the Diafarabé area. It is a vast area about 80 000 ha in size, partly covering three communes of the “cercle” of Ténenkou (Diafarabé, Dia and Dioura). It comprises about 30 villages.

The Kareri doumeraies area plays an important part in the return and regulation of livestock movements towards the Delta bourgoutières. It is subject to heavy livestock pressure, of about 400 000 head of cattle. Moreover, the area is used by the local populations to harvest the doum leaves, which are used for weaving mats and wickerwork products.

Table 7: Characteristics of the Kareri Doumeraies Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of doumeraies

- Serious degradation of bush and grass cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious agricultural pressure on the area

- Agricultural pressure on the lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of doumeraies for weaving mats

- Overexploitation of wood

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Local populations, especially women, who exploit the doumeraies

- Exploiters of the area coming from Diafarabé, Tenenkou and Dia

- Government technical services

- No other development partners

8. MEMA DIOURA AREA

The Méma Dioura area is a huge pastoral zone centred around the commune of Dioura. Despite its huge size of about 250 000 ha, it comprises about 30 villages and some 20 settlements of nomadic populations. Situated to the northwest of the “cercle,” this area, rich in grazing lands and water sources, serves as a buffer zone for the pasture lands at Nampala (Ségou region) and Léré (Tumbuktu region). From the pastoral point of view, it plays a double role:

- As a transition zone for the herds that remain around the ponds before the time when they descend into the Delta;

- Winter grazing lands throughout the whole of the wintering period.

67

Table 8: Characteristics of the Mema Dioura AreaState of Natural

ResourcesCauses of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of natural resources

- Serious degradation of bush and grass cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds

- Degradation of agricultural lands

- Population pressure on the area with settlement of nomad populations- Overexploitation of doumeraies

- Agricultural pressure on the lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of wood for the cities of Tenenkou and Niomo

- Native farmers and forest exploiters

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Exploiters of the forests from outside of the area

- Government technical services

- No other development partners

The zone is also rich in doumeraies, which results in over-harvesting like in Méma Farimaké by the women to make matting and wickerwork products. Méma Dioura is the home to about 300 000 head of cattle and 400 000 sheep and goats during wintering. The area has now become a refuge for about 6 000 nomads, who have settled in settlements made sustainable following the period of rebellion.

9. GALANJIRI AREA

The Galanjiri area is an agro-sylvo-pastoral zone, partly lying in the ”cercle” of Ténenkou, Djenné and Mopti. It lies beyond the Diaka branch and is about 80 000 ha in size and is a transit point for livestock after their access to the Delta after crossing Diafarabé. It comprises about 40 villages and a marked diversity of migration routes: lands with the river branches and ponds over-fished; sylvo-pastoral lands with bush cover increasingly destroyed by the goatherds who travel through the zone; and bourgoutières varying in depth.

Table 9: Characteristics of the Galanjiri Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of bourgoutières

- Serious degradation of bush cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious degradation of fisheries resources

- Serious degradation of agricultural areas

- Agricultural pressure on the lands for rice crops

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure on the migration routes

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of wood

- Native farmers and forest exploiters

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Native and non-native fishers

- Exploiters of wood, both native and from outside of the area

- Government technical services

- No other development partners

68

10. WALADOU DEBO AREA

The Waladou Débo area is the zone par excellence for evacuation of livestock from the region. It is at the final end centred around Lake Débo. It is a vast lacustrian zone which constitutes a small inland sea. It measures about 450 000 ha and comprises about seven communes in the “cercles” of Youwarou, Ténenkou and Mopti, with 50 villages. However, it still has composite, rich and complementary lands:

- Agricultural lands with several areas with high rice paddy yields, particularly traditional rice;

- Deep bourgoutière zones with areas that still produce the richest and most beautiful bourgou (Echinocloa stagnina) in the region and indeed in the whole of West Africa;

- Water bodies, including several ponds and river branches that make Waladou Débo the most productive region for fisheries;

- Forest cover on the many islands and islets in the zone, where there are certain species including the Acacia kirkii;

- Fairly deep water bodies, which are refuges for the manatees, a species under serious threat in the zone.

Like the Kotia area, Waladou Débo also possesses RAMSAR sites and areas with a concentration of migratory birds. Several species of birds are found in the ponds of Waladou Débo. Migrant groups of exploiters (farmers, herders, fishers, soft fruit producers) have also settled in Waladou Débo.

Waladou Débo is an NRM zone par excellence but also an area that supports the local development of the people. For it is necessary to urge the populations to live with and off the resources, without destroying them irreversibly.

Table 10: Characteristics of the Waladou Debo Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Rich in bourgoutières, but areas of degradation

- Serious degradation of bush cover at the periphery

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds and canals

- Serious pressure on the fisheries resources

- Serious pressure on the agricultural areas

- Serious pressure on the timer and brush resources- Threats to manatees, hippopotami and birds

- Agricultural pressure on the lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure on the migration routes

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of fisheries

- Cutting of bourgou, which is dried and sold

- Uncontrolled exploitation of birds

- Native and non-native farmers

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Native and non-native fishers

- Exploiters coming from the exondated zone and the dogon plateau

- PACRM Project

- Projet de Plate Forme Multi fontionnelle

- NGOs Wetlands International, AFAR, Walia

69

11. MEMA FARIMAKE AREA

The Méma Farimaké area is a vast agro-pastoral zone centred around the communes of Youwarou (Dogo, Gathy and Youwarou). It is also a transition zone for transhumant livestock, covering about 200 000 ha, with about 30 villages and about ten settlements of nomadic populations. The area has ponds and branches of the river, and it is good for flood recession cropping and rainfed cropping when the rainfall is good. In terms of pastoral resources, Méma Farimaké is an excellent migration route. It plays a double role:

- A transition zone for the herds that remain around the ponds before the time to descend into the Delta;

- A winter grazing zone during winter.

The area is also rich in doumeraies, with the result that it is over-harvested as in Méma Dioura by women to make matting and wicker products. Méma Farimaké has about 300 000 head of cattle and 400 000 sheep and goats during winter. It has subsequently become a refuge for about 4 000 nomadic inhabitants, who have settled in settlement communities following the period of rebellion.

Table 11: Characteristics of the Mema Farimake Area

State of Natural Resources

Causes of Degradation Stakeholders Involved Other Actors in Zone

- Serious degradation of natural resources

- Serious degradation of bush and grass cover

- Drying up and filling in of temporary ponds

- Degradation of agricultural lands

- Populations pressure on the area with the settlement of nomadic populations - Overexploitation of doumeraies

- Agricultural pressure on the lands

- Serious population pressure

- Livestock pressure

- Illegal pruning of trees by goats herds

- Overexploitation of wood for the cities of Ténenkou and Niono

- Native farmers and forest exploiters

- Native and non-native herders and transhumant flocks passing through the area

- Forest exploiters from outside the area

- Government technical services

- No other development partners

70

ANNEX 3. INCREMENTAL COSTS

A. Introduction

This annex1 analyses the costs and benefits of the SADeF programme in the Mopti region based on the concept of calculating the "incremental costs" of GEF. It begins by recalling the development objectives and the baseline of SADeF and other partners contributing to it. It then studies the global environmental objective and the GEF alternative that has been proposed to complete the baseline. Lastly, the enclosed table details the incremental costs and benefits expected from the GEF alternative.

B. The Baseline

1. The Development Objective

Considering the difficult socio-economic situation prevailing in the Mopti region, the Government's development objectives give priority to poverty reduction, improvement in living conditions and incomes of local people, and achievement of food security. Furthermore, these actions take into account the devolution of central Government powers to the decentralised authorities under the framework of decentralisation. Several programmes and projects are supporting these processes and development at the regional level. The ones described below constitute the "baseline" for the purposes of this analysis.

The main tool used by the central Government to promote sustainable socio-economic development in the Mopti region is the Programme to Support Rural Communes in the Mopti Region (PACR-M). This programme assists the decentralised authorities in preparing their development plans. Under the PACR-M, a Fund for Support to Local Environmental Governance (FAGEL) has been set up as a pilot scheme, with financing from the UNCDF and UNDP, in order to finance environmental micro-projects in 20 communes of the region.

Furthermore, the implementation of the Community Development Plans (PDCs) is being supported by l'Agence nationale d'investissement des collectivités territoriales (ANICT). With regard more specifically to biodiversity protection, the IUCN is currently preparing a project for the management/restoration of the flooded forests and other important sites for biodiversity (about one million CHF is scheduled to be provided by the Swiss Co-operation). This project should consolidate the results of previous IUCN operations in the Delta. The NGO Walia also plans to implement a project focusing on environmental communication to protect the crowned cranes, a characteristic species of the Delta that is seriously threatened. Lastly, the implementation of the national environmental information monitoring programme should be supported at the national level by the French Co-operation.

After 2003-2004 these programmes will be complemented by the extension of SADeF to the Mopti region, co-financed by the Government of Mali and IFAD. SADeF is planning to broaden its activities into the Mopti region during its second and third phases (2003-2006 and 2007-2009, respectively). In addition to strengthening local capacities and supporting village communities through social-community and productive micro-projects, SADeF will also include a component for decentralised financial services to improve access to credit in rural areas, as well as a programme coordination and management component.2

1 It is based on the analysis of the environmental situation in the Interior Delta of the Niger and its holding zones (see Section C) and proposals for the SADeF extension phase and the activities scheduled within the framework of the GEF co-financing facility.)

2 In addition to these programmes included in the baseline for the purposes of this analysis there are other projects and programmes that are being (or will be) implemented nation-wide, and even at the regional level parallel to SADeF. However, these projects do not place a specific stress on environment/natural resource management, and for this reason they have not been included in the baseline. One exception should probably be made for the World Bank Rural Community Development Project (PDRC) which, among other things, will support investment and environmental monitoring in Mali. However, the PDRC is still being prepared, and it is

71

2. Financing

Aggregate baseline financing in the Mopti region (2004-09 proposed for GEF co-financing) may be estimated at US$16.28 million, made up as follows:

- SADeF (IFAD/Government/beneficiaries): US$11.93 million- PACR-M, including FAGEL: US$1.32 million during 2004-09- ANICT: US$1.86 million (0.62 million/yr)- Walia: US$0.06 million - IUCN: US$1.11 million (0.37million/yr).

For the purposes of the detailed ICA, however, only IFAD, Government and beneficiary support has been considered as these are the only funds being channelled directly through the project.

3. Benefits

The baseline activities should make it possible to provide substantial support to the socio-economic development of the Mopti region and particularly the four “cercles” involved in the Inland Delta. This development will be brought about by strengthening the local development capacities of the communes and rural communities, raising living standards in the rural communities, increasing rural incomes and strengthening food security. The implementation of the baseline projects could also help to reduce pressure on the natural resources of the Delta, thereby helping to conserve its biodiversity of global importance.

However, the baseline actions which are geared to economic and social development will not be sufficient to reverse current environmental degradation processes, over-exploitation of natural resources and loss of the unique biodiversity of the Delta. One might envisage a negligible amount of investment being devoted more specifically to natural resources management, since natural resources constitute the productive base and the main source of food and incomes for the majority of the population in the Delta.

Even if local environmental conservation/management actions would be undertaken at a number of priority sites, the vast majority of the threatened ecosystems in the Delta would not likely benefit from integrated protection/management. There is equally certain to be little spontaneous activity directed to biodiversity conservation or sustainable natural resources restoration/ management with respect to traditional production systems. Furthermore, the activities to strengthen the capacities of the communes and communities are likely to give inadequate attention to incorporating environmental aspects into environment planning (particularly because of their long-term impacts), as well as to strengthening capacities for natural resources management. The development plans designed on this basis would remain incomplete because they will not take into account the unique environmental aspects of the Delta essential to sustainable development.

Lastly, it should be noted that the baseline would not improve the current low level of environmental awareness of the local communities. Neither would it make up for the constant shortage of data on the ecosystems and natural resources of the Delta, which currently hampers efforts to ensure their rational use and management.

Unless the environment is taken into greater account, there is a risk that : (i) the process of degradation of the Delta's ecosystems, threatening conservation of its biodiversity, particularly the migratory birds, will continue; (ii) traditional systems of agro-sylvo-pastoral and fish management/production will continue to erode, leading to a loss of agricultural biodiversity; (iii)  the processes of deforestation, erosion and soil

too early at this stage to estimate what financial contribution it will make to the baseline. Another project by Wetlands International should also be mentioned. This is currently under preparation and should deal mainly with monitoring migratory birds.

72

degradation will continue at an alarming rate, thereby contributing to carbon emissions and the degradation of an international waterway (the Niger River).

C. GEF Alternative

1. Global Environmental Objective

The Inland Delta of the Niger River offers a complex of natural habitats that are unique in the whole of West Africa and serve as a refuge for a very large number of birds, fishes and other wild animals. Its range of different and highly productive ecosystems, ponds, vétivéraies, orizaies, bourgoutières, flooded forests, etc., which are home to more than a hundred species of paleo-arctic and tropical African birds, 138 species of fish and certain rare mammals, such as the manatee. Three sites in the Delta have been designated by Mali as RAMSAR sites, wetlands of international importance. The traditional integrated agro-sylvo-pastoral and fishing systems of the Delta are also unique because they have adapted to the specific environmental conditions of the area. Integrated, sequential uses of the floodplain by different groups in connection with the inundation and recessions of flood waters, and complex and innovative land and water management practices have evolved over time. Lastly, the Delta is considered to be the main centre of diversity of floating African rice and the cradle of the Macina wool-bearing sheep, the only wool-bearing breed in West Africa (see Section C).

This vast potential is under serious threat from climatic conditions and human pressure. Unless immediate action is taken throughout the whole of the region, the flooded areas and the recession areas, the Inland Delta runs the risk of rapidly losing a major proportion of its biological wealth. The global environmental objective of the proposed project is the integrated and participatory restoration, conservation and management of the ecosystems and natural resources of the Inland Delta and the flood recession areas surrounding it (the transition zones). The project will include the in situ conservation of the ecosystems of severely threatened sites of global interest, natural resources management and development of sustainable agro-sylvo-pastoral and fish production systems, including exploitation of agro-biodiversity. In addition to biodiversity conservation, the project will contribute to achieving global environmental objectives with respect to international waters, soil degradation and carbon sequestration.

2. The GEF Alternative

In order to achieve these global environmental objectives, an alternative line of actions has been proposed to complete the baseline. This GEF alternative aims to implement an "improved" SADeF programme, incorporating the activities relating to ecosystem and natural resources management. The "improved" SADeF programme is designed both to deal with the immediate socio-economic needs of the local population and the longer-term challenges of sustainable ecosystem conservation/ management by and for the communities that depend on them. The GEF financing will be used more specifically to strengthen Components 1, 2 and 5 of the SADeF (IFAD) programme. SADeF Component 3 corresponds generally to the proposed project (see the table of supplemental costs below).

Component 1. Capacity Building

This group of activities will complete the capacity-building activities and the Information-Education-Communication (IEC) activities of the SADeF programme (using IFAD funds): the organisational and technical strengthening of the SADeF management institutions, the decentralised authorities, the peasant organisations, the village communities, the decentralised technical services of the Government, etc. The GEF financing will be used to support the communes in the Delta in preparing their own community environmental action plans and integrating them into the community development plans. After conducting an advance needs assessment, GEF will also finance the strengthening of the technical capacities of the people and the local technical agents in ecosystem and natural resources management, as well as organisation of the stakeholders for managing natural resources/biodiversity and establishment

73

of frameworks for co-operation. The environmental awareness-building/ communication will be achieved by means of organised workshops. Moreover, the GEF funds will be used to develop a Strategy and Action Plan for the conservation of biodiversity and management of natural resources for the Delta, to reinforce the regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in the Mopti region and establish a permanent structure to manage the resources of the Inland Delta. GEF resources will furthermore be utilized to promote the incorporation of sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity considerations into sectoral plans and policies and to strengthen the national policy and regulatory environment. The GEF financing for this group of activities will total US$2.00 million, to complement the US$3.63 million financed by IFAD.1, and US$0.18 million from Government and beneficiaries.

Component 2. Support for Local Development and Component 3 Support for Natural Resources Management/GEF Activities

SADeF components 2 and 3 are inextricably linked. Component 2 is the baseline, and without the GEF resources SADeF would not have entered the Mopti region with NRM as its point of entry. The traditional SADeF activities would most likely have continued without any support to NRM activities, and may not have been extended to the Mopti region. For this reason, Component 3 could be considered the GEF alternative for Component 2. The GEF alternative in this case complements the SADeF programme’s support for local development in the Mopti region by catalysing support for in situ conservation of threatened biodiversity of global interest and more rational management of the Delta’s natural resource base. Without the GEF resources the SADeF programme would not offer its support for community-based natural resource activities in the region. Thus, the GEF resources both complement the SADeF component for support to local development and constitute the basis for its component on management of natural resources.

The GEF alternative is based specifically on three areas of activity described below. GEF financing for this group of activities is US$2.8 million, with IFAD support (from Component 2) amounting to US$3.30 million, and US$1.27 million from Government and beneficiaries.

Component 3. Sustainable Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation

Sub-component 3.1 Restoration and development of the Agro-sylvo-pastoral and Fish Potential of the Delta and its Transition Zones through Integrated Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation

These activities are designed to promote the restoration and long-term development of traditional productive sectors in the Mopti region, livestock, fishing and agriculture, in order to enhance productivity and thereby ease pressure on the ecosystems. This would be achieved by incorporating biodiversity and sustainable use considerations into the integrated productions systems, building on indigenous knowledge and cultural traditions in natural resources management, capacity building and improving knowledge and understanding of sustainable natural resources management and the complex Delta system. The GEF financing will be used to characterise the large pre-defined project areas and to define and implement management/restoration actions (bourgoutières regeneration, riverbank fixing, etc.). The GEF financing will be used for in situ conservation and for strengthening integrated traditional systems of the agro-sylvo-pastoral and fish production, including their endemic species such as Macina wool-bearing sheep and African rice. In order to ensure that all sustainable development aspects of the communities concerned are taken into account, they will also benefit from micro-projects and other socio-economic support financed by IFAD.

NB: The contribution of the beneficiaries (in kind) accounts for about 30 to 40%, depending upon the type of activity.1 Calculated on the basis of the detailed SADeF costs for capacity strengthening, including all the

specific costs for Mopti and one-third of the common costs (80% of the costs being paid for by IFAD). Subsequently, these costs were divided by 4 in order to find the annual costs.

74

Sub-component 3.2 Sustainable Conservation and Management of Biodiversity in the Most Seriously Threatened Ecosystems (Hotspots) of Local, National and Global Importance

The activities will aim at the preparation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation of integrated management plans (IMPs) by the grassroots communities for at least six sites that have been identified as priorities because of their biodiversity. To strengthen the complementarity between the activities being financed by GEF and the other protection/conservation activities in progress in the region, the sites will be selected taking into account the presence of other development partners on the potential sites. The preparation of the IMPs will be preceded by an information/awareness-building campaign and by carrying out a baseline survey of the state of the sites. Implementation will be performed by a Management Committee and accompanied by the establishment of a monitoring/evaluation and impact assessment system. The plans will define the rules for management/conservation and the types of actions to be performed, such as the creation of controlled no-grazing areas, supervised protection, restoration of natural habitats, etc. In order to ensure that all the sustainable development aspects of the communities involved are taken into account, these communities will also benefit from micro-projects and other socio-economic support financed by IFAD.

Sub-component 3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of the State of Biodiversity and Natural Resources of the Inner Niger Delta

The GEF alternative will put in place an environmental information management and monitoring system for the Inland DEIS, based on establishing a dynamic database and a GIS and providing training in the technical skills needed to use them at the regional level. This support will strengthen implementation of the national environment information monitoring programme which should be financed at the national level by French Co-operation. The GEF financing will also be used to disseminate the results and the lessons learned from the project, in order to encourage its replicability. The GEF financing for this group of activities will total US$0.42 million. It will complement and catalyse the EIS/GIS activities scheduled at the national level with French funding.

Component 4: Support to decentralised financial services. This component intends to facilitate access of rural populations in the project area to decentralised financial services, better adapted to their needs. To this end, the creation of microfinance institutions, such as credit and savings schemes, is planned. These activities will be introduced in Mopti only in the third year.

Component 5. Project Management

These activities will ensure effective and efficient implementation, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of the environmental and NRM activities. The GEF resources will be used to set up a coordination team to manage the activities financed by GEF funds, support local stakeholders in environmental/NRM activities and interface with the other environmental partners in the area. The GEF financing for this group of activities will total US$1.2 million (including equipment, facilities, investments and co-financed operating costs), which will complement the baseline funding for the management of the SADeF programme (US$2.5 million by IFAD and US$0.2 million by the Government).

3. Benefits

The GEF alternative will produce the same domestic benefits as the baseline (see above) but it will place them in a longer-term perspective, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the development actions. Some new domestic benefits will also be produced, firstly, from the investment in rational ecosystem management, which will enhance the productivity of the natural resources and contribute in this way to socio-economic development and increasing rural livelihoods. Then the GEF alternative will strengthen

75

the capacities and increase the knowledge of the local stakeholders regarding natural resources management. In the environmental field, the GEF alternative will support the implementation of environmental policies and legislation, particularly national biodiversity and desertification strategies, as well as the Pastoral Charter. It will also facilitate implementation of the Community Environmental Action Plans (PCAEs) and thereby support the policy of decentralisation.

The global benefits of the GEF alternative will come from its contribution to the conservation, restoration and rational use of the variety of ecosystems in the Inland Delta. A participatory and integrated management of these ecosystems, and the restoration of the productive potential of the areas surrounding it, will guarantee the survival of this unique complex and make it possible to conserve and enhance its biodiversity of global value. Moreover, by attributing particular importance to the in situ conservation of the traditional integrated agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries systems, and their indigenous species, the GEF alternative will support the protection of agriculture biodiversity. By stressing the participation of all the populations and local stakeholders in the activities being proposed, the GEF alternative will guarantee a fairer and more balanced sharing of the biodiversity benefits and increase the value of traditional systems of community management. Through its capacity-building activities and by building on indigenous knowledge and traditions, the GEF alternative will increase knowledge and understanding of the sustainable natural resources management and the unique Delta system. By facilitating the establishment of the environmental information system, the GEF alternative will contribute to providing knowledge about local, regional, national and international biodiversity and the ecological services provide by the Inner Delta system. Lastly, by promoting sustainable natural resources management techniques, the GEF alternative will prevent and rehabilitate land degradation (improve soil fertility and soil biodiversity, reduce erosion) and prevent deforestation, thereby making a major contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions, as well as reduce sedimentation and improve water quality thereby alleviating degradation of international waterways (Niger River).

The global benefits described above will not only be limited to the Delta, because the dissemination of the results and the lessons learned by the project will ensure that the approach can be repeated in other ecosystems suffering from similar pressures.

4. Costs

The incremental costs and benefits of the baseline activities and the GEF alternative are detailed in the table below.

ComponentsCosts (US$million)

IFAD Government/ Beneficiaries

GEF

Capacity Building/Information/CommunicationCapacity Building for NRM 3.63 0.18 2.00Support to Local Development 3.30Support for NRM-GEF Initiatives in Mopti

Conservation of Threatened Ecosystems Development of Potential of the Delta and its Transition ZonesMonitoring and Evaluation System

1.27 2.80

Support to Decentralised Financial Services 2.50 -Management and Co-ordination 2.50 0.21 1.20

TOTAL 11.93 1.66 6.00

76

Annex A: Incremental Cost Analysis

SADeF Component US$millions

National Benefits Global Benefits

1. Strengthening Capacities/Information, Education, CommunicationBaseline SADeF-IFAD Government Beneficiaries

Total 3.63 3.63--

Strengthened local institutions, particularly communes, small farmers' organisations and village associations and their technical and managerial capacity for socio-economic issues

Support for a participatory development process Support for implementation of the decentralisation

policy

Very limited

GEF Alternative SADeF-IFAD Government Beneficiaries

Total 5.81 3.630.18-

The above-mentioned benefits plus the following: Strengthened local technical, planning and

management capacity for environment/natural resources management

Support for implementation of the decentralisation policy in relation to the environment

Support for implementation of the national biodiversity strategy

Adoption of an integrated approach to ecosystems and their management

An improved strategic framework for conservation of the biodiversity of the Delta

Integration of ecosystem/biodiversity management issues into community development plans

Improved technical and organisational capacity of local stakeholders for identifying, formulating and implementing ecosystems/biodiversity conservation/management actions

Greater awareness of local populations with respect to biodiversity conservation

Incremental Cost 2.00

77

2. Support for Local Development1

Baseline SADeF-IFAD Government Beneficiaries

Total 3.95 3.30 0.40 0.25

Poverty reduction, increased rural incomes, enhanced food security, improved living conditions as a result of supporting social/community infrastructure and local level productive investments

Very limited

GEF alternative is Component 3 Support for NRM-GEF Initiatives in Mopti The aforementioned

activities under Component 2 above

SADeF-IFAD Government Beneficiaries

Development of the agro-silvo-pastoral and fish potential by improved natural resources management

Rational management and conservation of threatened sites of local, national or global interest

Monitoring and evaluation of the state of biodiversity and natural resources

Total 7.37

3.30 0.44 0.83

The above-mentioned benefits plus the following: Support for sustainable economic development of

the Delta and its transition zones by rational management of the ecosystems and their natural resources and strengthened integrated production systems suited to local conditions.

Support for implementing environmental policies/legislation, particularly the national biodiversity and desertification strategies and the 'Pastoral Charter'

Sustainable management and conservation of a representative number of threatened sites of global interest because of their biodiversity

Less pressure on the ecosystems in the Delta thanks to the improved natural resource productivity in the flooded and flood recession areas

Exploiting traditional knowledge and local capacity by reviving community ecosystem management systems 

Participation of local populations in defining and implementing biodiversity conservation actions and more equitable sharing of the benefits of ecosystems/biodiversity management

Conservation in situ of agricultural biodiversity thanks to the strengthening of traditional, integrated production systems and conservation of indigenous species

Reversing trends in the degradation of soil and international waters and of carbon emissions by adopting sustainable NRM techniques and restoring ecosystems

Local populations and stakeholders at the local, regional, national and international levels will have a better understanding of the ecosystems and biodiversity in the Delta and their sustainable management 

Dissemination of an approach and tools for protection of biodiversity usable in other regions under similar pressures.

1 Component 2, Support for Local Development and Component 3, Natural Resources Management are inextricably linked. Component 2 is the baseline and without the GEF resources SADeF would not have entered the Mopti region with NRM as its point of entry. The traditional SADeF activities would most likely have continued without any support to NRM activities. For this reason, Component 3 could be considered the GEF alternative for Component 2.

78

Incremental Cost 2.80

79

4. Decentralised Financial ServicesBaseline SADeF-IFAD

Total 2.50 2.50

Poverty reduction, increased rural incomes, improved food security and better living standards thanks to easier access to credit at the village level

Very limited

GEF alternative SADeF-IFAD

Total 2.50 2.50

Possible positive impact on the biodiversity of the Delta by taking better account of environmental aspects in activities supported by decentralised financial services

Incremental Cost A qualitative improve-ment that is difficult to calculate

5. Coordination and Management Baseline SADeF-IFAD Government

Total 2.65 2.50 0.15

Effective management of SADeF's traditional activities 

Very limited

GEF alternative Management of the

"improved" SADeF programme

SADeF-IFAD Government Beneficiaries

Total 3.91

2.50 0.21-

Effective management of SADeF's traditional activities

Improved management of expanded NRM and biodiversity conservation activities 

Effective support for and monitoring of ecosystems/ biodiversity management activities by a sufficiently large, qualified, motivated and equipped team

Better coordination development partners in the environmental sector in the Delta

Incremental Cost 1.20

80

TOTAL PROJECT COSTBaseline 12.73GEF Alternative 19.59Incremental and Government beneficiary contribution in support of GEF-financed activities

0.86

GEF Incremental Cost 6.00

81

ANNEX 4. GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PCAE - SUMMARY

The methodological Guide for Preparation of a Community Environmental Action Plan (PCAE) was produced by the Ministry of the Environment with German support to assist the local authorities and support structures in conducting community environmental planning. It was completed in September 2002 and is now being tested in the pilot communes.

The Guide defines the PCAE as the set of priority actions designed to resolve and prevent over a given period natural resource and environmental degradation problems at the commune level. Stress is placed on integrating the PCAE into the Community Development Plan, for which it must become the main framework of environmental concerns and ensure the sustainability of the actions undertaken.

The process proposed is based on a participatory approach involving all the groups of stakeholders - grassroots communities as the beneficiaries, the local authorities (prime contractors), private operators (intermediaries, service providers, contractors) and the central Government as the umbrella organisation and the development partners (support/advice, financing, legal control). The planning is divided into four phases, each with several steps:

1. Programming preparation: The first step is for the Communal Council to define the main guidelines for environmental management, followed by an information and awareness-building campaign to guarantee the participation of the whole of the communal population. The co-ordinator/survey teams are then set up and trained in participatory planning.

2. Diagnostic: A participatory diagnostic is conducted at the level of each village/hamlet to determine the present environmental situation and identify the environmental activities which are needed. The technical and financial feasibility of the solutions chosen is then analysed with the support of central Government technical services and private operators.

3. Preparation of the PCAE. The first step is to invite all the stakeholders to a communal planning workshop where the problems and the proposed solutions are examined in order to establish the priorities of the PCAE. A small working team is then appointed to produce a first draft of the PCAE.

4. Approval of the PCAE. A second communal workshop is then organised to discuss the proposed PCAE, which is then debated and adopted by the Communal Council and endorsed by the Prefect. The PCAE is given back to the people by the representatives of the Communal Council through village assemblies, in order to guarantee their commitment to its implementation.

For each step, the Guide details the objectives, the prime contractors and principals, the participants, the duration, the expected results, the procedures and the tools. It also contains standard documents and formats such as the analysis tables.

According to the Guide, the PCAEs must provide a realistic and viable benchmark for community environmental management. The proposed content consists of:

- the general situation in the commune, conditions of the natural environment, living conditions- the desired situation, and the constraints to be removed, the main problems and their solutions- foreseeable development actions, their impacts and mitigation measures- the monitoring and evaluation procedures

83

- sub-programmes and implementation measures, detailing for each sub-programme (management of the rural environment; management of the urban environment; information, education and communication; regulatory measures and local rules), the objectives, strategies, results, indicators, activities, responsible officials and costs.

84

Annex 5. PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION

EXPERIENCE FROM PREVIOUS IFAD PROJECTS

Experience from the SADeF Phase I, underlines the need to strengthen the capacity of government agencies and communities to monitor and evaluate their own and implementing agencies performance. Experience indicates that the problems lie not only in the design but also in the implementation of M&E arrangements. The M&E system for those projects was traditionally structured with a top-down approach excluding the target communities from the design and implementation of M&E systems. An additional weakness was the lack of response to technical issues and problems identified by the M&E system during supervision missions, which largely focused on disbursement and organisational issues. With SADeF supported projects already active in two regions of Mali some standardisation of procedures including mainstreaming M&E to improve effectiveness would, enable experiences to be shared and allow comparisons to consolidate learning for future projects.

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME FEATURES THAT AFFECT M&E

Decentralised M&E. M&E in Mali has traditionally been centralised and while this centralised approach served well for prescriptive projects, it has now been recognised by all stakeholders that community based, demand driven projects are best monitored with decentralised M&E which is highly participatory and in which integrates continuous evaluation with ongoing project planning, development of annual work plans and budgets, adjustments to project design and project supervision. These principles will be incorporated in the M&E design for Biodiversity Conservation and to the extent possible to the Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas.

New Demand Driven Programme Approach. SADeF and the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas have been designed using the logframe approach. It has four major components besides Programme Management. The first component, Capacity building, is essentially a process intended to enable the successful implementation of three components, support to local development through micro-projects (CDF) which will fund community driven development; support to NRM and biodiversity conservation; and support to decentralised financial services. The actual activities to be funded by the CDF will be determined by the communities themselves so that it will only become apparent as the programme proceeds what is to be monitored and evaluated. Even the first capacity building component will be largely driven by the communities and the needs of the organisations who will act as service providers to them so that Finalisation of M&E will be a participative process.

Flexible Learning Approach. Such a flexible programme requires a similarly flexible approach to M&E. The programme will require many adjustments during its life including to its M&E. It is therefore essential to create an M&E system that incorporates learning opportunities which support planning and design optimisation. It is also important to recognise that both the programme design concept and the M&E system are relatively new to Mali and certainly at the local level through which SADeF will largely operate.

85

GUIDING ELEMENTS OF SADEF MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The following elements, which draw on the M&E designs of SADeF I and other IFAD projects in the sub-region, will guide implementation and activities of the PCU officers, specialist consultants providing technical assistance and local commune staff at community level:

Focus on the Goal. All of the implementing partners, including primary stakeholders will collect data on impact and meet regularly to consider if impacts can be seen and whether they meet expectations. Thus SADeF, PCU and communes as well as communities will all self monitor and jointly evaluate.

Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation. M&E is an integral part of the participatory planning process for community activities so will be a continuous process. To highlight this, M&E activities will be described as participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation (PPME).

Enhancing Monitoring and Evaluation of Gender and Age Differentiated Impact. Most issues to be addressed under SADeF, particularly gender, age and poverty, are best measured with qualitative participatory methods. Communities and other stakeholders will be supported to identify, collect and evaluate qualitative data and indicators in a gender, age and social class disaggregated manner. Quantitative and qualitative measures, disaggregated for gender, age and target group participation, will be used in the M&E process.

Monitoring and Assessing Impact on Capacity Building and Strengthening. The PPME system has to monitor and assess the impact of capacity building in community-driven development activities both at community and service provider levels. Service providers will self monitor under the guidance of the PCU M&E staff. Evaluation of their performance will be at two levels, firstly by the PCU for programme management and supervision and more importantly in participatory workshops to determine client satisfaction with service provider performance. It will monitor the increases in communities’ capacity to plan and implement their own activities and emphasise the need for community participation in the M&E process. Clear systems will be put in place for tracking staff performance, equipment use and flow of funds. Project management will have quick and easy access to information about project progress.

PPME as a Learning Process. PPME activities of SADeF will be a learning processes in which all key stakeholders (involved agencies and target vulnerable groups) will regularly and openly discuss progress and problems to help maximise programme performance. The PPME system will provide data and analysis that helps the SADeF stakeholders to critically assess progress and any issues that concern them. Information about project progress will be shared regularly with all stakeholders through appropriate presentation. Project reports will inform about successes and failures and how improvements will be made.

An Evolving Process. The SADeF PPME system is not a static process and will be adjusted during the life of the Programme as circumstances change. Therefore during implementation, further technical assistance will be necessary to ensure that the PPME approach and system continues to fit management needs, and that feedback follows both the internal changes in the direction of SADeF activities, and the external circumstances that might impinge on the Biodiversity Conservation and Participaoty Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas. Studies will be undertaken to explain any emerging problems.

M&E PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The programme’s Logframe will serve as the terms of reference of the SADeF M&E System. This is based on :

86

1. Performance Questions – these look broadly at what the project should be achieving and will provide good evaluation of impacts that cannot be monitored using simple quantitative indicators.

2. Target Indicators – specify more precisely what the project will achieve.

3. The performance questions to be answered and the target indicators and their means of verification, developed in the Logframe, will be used to guide those involved in the SADeF’s M&E tasks to develop the questions to be asked about programme performance, identify ways to answer them and communicate the information generated to SADeF management. The scope of the M&E will be focused on clearly defined and agreed upon indicators, relating to each level of the objective hierarchy. The logframe is not static but will be revised annually in the light of lessons learned. The first revision will form part of the start-up activities during which extensive stakeholder consultation will involve stakeholders in project design to:

Inspire them to identify, manage and control their own development aspirations and so empower themselves;

Ensure the project goals and objectives will be relevant and as a result meet the real needs of the rural poor;

Ensure the project strategy is appropriate to local circumstances; Build the partnerships, ownership and commitment needed for effective programme

implementation.

At this stage in project design the focus is on clear goals, purposes and outputs rather than over-specifying activities. These have been considered during the design process and used to develop the programme costings and budget. However, at this stage they are only indicative so that the design process will be best served by elaborating them through participatory stakeholder consultation as part of the programme start-up process.

The programme’s management information system (MIS) will collect and communicate data in terms of SADeF physical outputs, activities and processes (activity and output levels) on a routine basis. The M&E system will concentrate on information on SADeF’s higher-level outcomes and achievement of objectives. At the activity and output levels, it is easier to monitor progress with quite simple quantitative indicators. But at the development objective and goal levels, the need to look at outcomes and impact, requires more complex quantitative, compound and qualitative indicators. These need to be further developed, discussed and refined during project implementation with all project stakeholders, including beneficiaries to ensure they are well focused, useful and meaningful and that they continue to be so throughout the life of the programme.

Monitoring will focus on regular information gathering and data collection and the frequent checking of short-term progress, also including some analysis of that data to form an overall sense of progress. If regular monitoring reveals that things are not going as expected, it may be necessary to undertake a thorough evaluation to understand why and know what changes can be made.

Evaluation will be periodic and ask more fundamental questions about the overall progress and direction of SADeF. It will not just be something ‘done to’ the project by outside specialists, rather it will also be an ongoing internal process of periodic questioning and reflection. Evaluation, in its broadest, simply means to assess or judge the value or worth of something. It means having a questioning attitude.

87

A PARTICIPATORY LEARNING APPROACH TO M&E

The M&E of SADeF will be a learning processes in which all key stakeholders (involved agencies and beneficiaries) participate in order to help maximise project performance. In the end, it is the people involved in SADeF who will make it succeed or fail. The M&E system will provide the data and analysis that can help the different stakeholders involved in SADeF to critically discuss progress and any issues that concern them. Listening carefully to the views of different participating agencies and farmer groups about what is working, what is not working and hearing their reasons for why problems exist and how to improve things is critically important.

The SADeF M&E system - as the MIS - is not a static tool. It will be adjusted during the life of the programme as circumstances change. During implementation, therefore, further assistance will be necessary to ensure that the M&E continues to fit management needs, and that feedback follows both the internal changes in the direction of SADeF activities, and the external circumstances that might impinge on SADeF and the the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas. Internally, the feedback mechanism will need to adjust, for example, to changes in the way that new microprojects are developed, to households’ responses to new microprojects, and to the opportunities created by new NRM interventions. External feedback will mean adjusting information gathering to cover new areas, for example, if new markets appear, credit becomes viable, or other economic and political factors become relevant.

The further refinement of the M&E system will be addressed in three ways:

M&E start-up workshops of the programme will be organised in PY 1 and early PY 2 to and will bring together all stakeholders involved in the programme to firstly agree on the principles of PPME and then to define the indicators to be used for M&E activities, determine the detailed nature and timing for evaluation studies and finalise the reporting format for monitoring achievement of objectives. For the purpose of environmental M&E, a specific baseline study will be carried, based on which, specific environmental impact indicators will be derived

Annual SADeF workshop organised by the PCU will include on their agenda a review of the M&E System.

At the local level, provision is made for annual planning workshops where the M&E System will be adapted to suit the particular characteristics and needs of each participating commune.

INFORMATION-GATHERING REQUIREMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE M&E SYSTEM

Monitoring mechanisms and Key Information Sources are:

a) Direct ObservationField observations by programme staff and staff of service providers

b) PPME Pre and post intervention community needs assessment PRAs Participatory impact monitoring Beneficiary / environmental impact assessments Participatory M&E reporting Annual Review Workshops by Beneficiaries Community AWPBs

88

c) External Studies Sample household / farm surveys (baseline, mid-term, end of IFAD funding period and three

years later) Supervision reports, mid-term review programme completion report and post-completion report Analysis of local economic activity (baseline, mid-term, end of funding period and three years l

ater) Special studies including evaluation of sample micro-projects

d) Secondary Data Analysis of relevant government statistics Annual Work Programmes and Budgets for Federal Government, State Governments and Local

Governments. Communal Environmental Action Plans (PCAE)

INTERNAL SELF-EVALUATION PROCESSES

Participatory Self-Monitoring and Evaluation. The Learning Aspect. The process of SADeF M&E will be part of an overall approach to learning. Involving community members in identifying how they view and judge the programme will be a valuable learning exercise both for SADeF / commune staff and the community. It will help the community to better understand SADeF and it will help SADeF to better understand community needs and expectations. It will also provide a foundation for a participatory approach to reviewing progress and learning from successes and failures at a later stage.

Community-based Self-Monitoring Groups. Community-based self-monitoring groups will be active partners in monitoring and evaluating SADeF performance. PCU field staff will form these groups, trained and mobilised will follow the pilot testing closely, so as to familiarise himself with the methodology and to be able to identify appropriate ways to adapt the model to the specific SADeF monitoring needs. The methodological process and the adapted group model will be replicated, starting from PY2.

Following appropriate training, key PCU field staff will assume regular responsibility of forming and training SADeF community based self-monitoring groups. In the initial stages, the field staff will meet with the group very frequently, to jointly establish and agree upon the indicators to be used to monitor, not only SADeF activities, but also effects these activities will have over time on the wider household food security and living conditions at community level. Methods of recording the data will also be defined and agreed upon between the group members with the field-staff’s facilitation.

Once the group has been fully established, self-monitoring meetings will be held once a month. The results of these meetings will be recorded by the PCU field staff and brought to fortnightly meetings at the PCU. Minutes of the meetings will also be discussed at monthly Progress Review Meetings at the PCU and results of the discussions will be fed back to the self-monitoring groups. Important developments, constraints and ideas for improvements – as expressed by these community-based groups – will be included in the quarterly monitoring reports for the SADeF.

The quality of participation determines the extent of learning. There may be many other ways of involving beneficiaries in SADeF M&E activities. While exploring these further, programme staff should keep in mind that participation alone is not sufficient for good project M&E. What is important is the quality of the participation. Ideally, the programme’s M&E will be based on critical questioning and thinking. This can only happen when good information is available and when differing perspectives

89

between community members, field staff and SADeF officers are openly discussed. Good participation must involve dialogue and discussion, rather than assuming one perspective is necessarily correct.

To encourage communities to take an active role in M&E activities, it is important to explain clearly what participatory M&E will require from them in terms of efforts and time investment. Project staff should be aware of the phenomenon of “participation fatigue”, i.e. that local people might be bored with participation if it does not lead to results. Therefore, serious thought should go into finding ways to compensate beneficiaries for the time and effort they invest to participate. Basic financial compensation may include paid meals during M&E sessions and reimbursed accommodation and transport costs incurred. The best motivation, however, for local people to recognise the value of participating in the M&E activities is to see that their voices have been heard and have made a difference to the project. This can be insured by appropriate feedback from SADeF of what the project has done in response to local people’s opinions on project progress.

EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS (ONGOING AND IMPACT EVALUATIONS)

Milestone Evaluations. In addition to continuous monitoring with annual evaluations, SADeF Phase II will have four milestones at which major evaluation will be carried out: at Baseline in PY 1; at Mid-term at the end of PY 2; at Withdrawal scheduled for the end of PY4 three years after withdrawal at the end of Programme year 7

SADeF will not carry out classical large-scale surveys at these milestones but will use mainstream monitoring mechanisms as described above to obtain data on the following key target indicators by community:

Household level indicators: Real per capita household income Number of households below the poverty line; Level of household nutrition Number of productively employed women. Infant mortality rate. Incidence of water-borne disease Soil fertility Levels/ crop yields Level of post harvest incomes Level of community skills Presence/ extent of pro-active maintenance programmes Levels of intra and inter community conflict

Environmental/ecosystem level indicators: Size / age of captured fish Availability of timber / fuel/ NTFPs Surface of restored flood plain forests Surface of restored and newly planted bourgoutières Number of hectares/ponds restored Number / distribution of water birds, fish species and mammals Number of NRM plans adopted and implemented Date of herd entry into / exit from the transition areas Number of animals entering the transition areas

90

Each participating commune will obtain baseline information as a part of the initial Preliminary Development Assessment carried out to select target communities. Information at mid-term, withdrawal and post withdrawal will be collected through PRAs.

It is proposed that an early activity for community groups working with the community driven development teams will be to undertake a community census of all community members as a training / issues identification exercise. This will build on information collected in the village inventory. From this census, the PCU staff will identify a small cross section of households in the village for which case studies will be prepared and then updated over the life of activities to quantify and highlight changes occurring in the villages due to the programme interventions. It is more practical in case studies to identify the improvements that come from programme activities rather than outside factors such as weather. The village inventory will be updated each year as part of the planning process and also additional indicators identified by village groups can be added as required.

The communes will be responsible for the full implementation and management of all surveys, including supervision of fieldwork, spot-checking, data cleaning, entering, analysis and final report writing. Those communes who have limited capacity in survey implementation will contract the work to external consultants, approved by the SADeF-PCU.

Qualitative Impact Studies

The impact evaluations, following up on the baseline data collection, will establish what changes have taken place in target communities but they will not be sufficient to establish the degree to which changes may be attributed to SADeF interventions. Evidence for linkages between the programme and the farmers will be elicited through focused impact studies, designed and conducted under the responsibility of SADeF-PCU during programme implementation.

Starting from PY1, the SADeF-PCU will develop a set of rapid, small-scale topical studies examining key areas of effects and impact on the target population so as to track the benefits that are delivered as well as major unintended changes introduced. The studies will use low-cost methods, based on participatory evaluation techniques (including PRA/PLAs), involving self-measurement, focus group interviews, structured discussions, feedback sessions at field days. The emphasis will be on exploring causal relationships and problem-investigation rather than aiming to conduct statistically representative surveys to describe broad adoption trends - this kind of information should be covered by the MIS. The studies will be repeated periodically over the programme life in order to provide a reflection of change over time in the target population.

SADeF-PCU will finalise the choice of topics to be covered by the studies in the Annual Participatory Review Workshops. The PCU will then identifying study areas, methodology, division of studies between service providers, training needs and reporting schedule. So far as possible special studies will be integrated with supervision missions such that such missions make a direct contribution to and are fully involved in Programme M&E. Some mission members will be selected for technical skills needed for the studies.

The study programme for PY 2 will be reviewed and agreed at the SADeF M&E Start-up Workshop in early PY 2. By then, SADeF-PCU will also have prepared a resource manual for field staff on the recommended methods for conducting evaluation impact studies for SADeF and the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas. It is not anticipated that every M&E or field staff will conduct all the surveys proposed, but that studies will be done on a representative basis so that selected M&E staff and local communes identify villages / communities - with a comparative advantage in addressing a specific topic -

91

will undertake a particular study on behalf of several villages / commune / cercles or a region or agro-ecological zone, and the results shared between circles.

An M&E staff time schedule will be prepared by PCU as part of the annual work plan in PY2 showing the allocation of resources proposed between core surveys and local problem-specific surveys. Core surveys will not take up more than 50% of PCU staff time. Market price surveys will be conducted on a monthly basis only.

The involvement of institutes or universities with relevant expertise and possibly experience of similar studies for SADeF, will be considered for the implementation of the studies, under the direct management of SADeF-PCU.

92

The following are indicative of the type of diagnostic and evaluation studies that will be considered:

Table 1: Indicative Diagnostic StudiesTitle: Purpose:

Timing:

Attitudes of Communities to Community Based DevelopmentTo explore the perceptions of non-participating communities of bottom-up development and their reasons for wanting/ not wanting to participate in SADeF.Conducted every two or three years

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

Technical / technological Preference of Farmers / fishermen / livestock keepers. To explore the different criteria farmers / livestock keepers / fishermen use in their adoption of new and modification of traditional technologies, including importance attached to the productivity, storability, nutrition content, compatibility with other crops, disease and pest resistance, medical and socio-cultural values, as well as importance of environment and management of natural resources. Conducted every two or three years.

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

The Role of local leaders, PCU staff and service providers. To assess how effectively local leaders and PCU support staff and other service providers act as communicators of new technology and as variety disseminators; how selection, age, gender, education and other factors may affect the way they perform as technology disseminators. Conducted in Year 1 and every three years thereafter.

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

Natural Resource Management Techniques. To explore the various ways that resource poor farmers maintain the natural resource base, soil fertility and biodiversity and whether the performance characteristics of these practices are appropriate for such farmers.A one-off study.

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

Financial Viability of Selected Interventions, especially Decentralised financial services. A series of case studies to examine the financial viability of the various technologies introduced through SADeF, in order to determine their attractiveness to the target population, including agriculturalist, fishermen, food processing groups and women. Also to examine the operation of savings groups and other revolving funds, the viability of formal and informal credit systems and the vulnerability of users.To be conducted as required.

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

Consumption Patterns and Nutrition Effects. To record food consumption patterns and using anthropometric measurements of children under 5 years to track the nutritional effects of increased food or fisheries production. The study would involve measuring over a period of time changes in height and weight against age, and comparing the results with given norms for rural populations in Mali. Conducted every two years.

Title: Purpose:

Timing:

Role of Women and Gender. To examine the factors which affect the successful formation, operation and productivity of a small sample of women’s groups. Two case studies, at the beginning and end of the programme, combined with routine financial monitoring of a larger number.

Title: Purpose:Timing:

Natural Resource Management – FisheriesTo monitor catch effort, age, size and species mix of catch.Annual

Title: Purpose:

Natural Resource Management – AgricultureTo monitor crop yields and soil fertility.

93

Timing: AnnualTitle: Purpose:

Timing:

Environmental Impact. To monitor the side-effects of changes in natural resource management.Case study of selected sites combined with regular monitoring where necessary.To be conducted every two or three years from year five onwards

Title:Purpose:

Timing:

Biodiversity dynamics of the ecosystemsTo better understand the ecological links between floods and recessions and the development of flooded forests, bourgou areas, fish production and size, water birds, livestock entry/exit from transition zones etc.To be conducted as required

94

ANNEX 6. STAP Roster Review

Project Number:

Project Name: Mali: Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta of the Niger River

STAP Reviewer: Dr. PAMO TEDONKENG EtienneProfessor Range and Environmental ScienceUniversity of Dschang, F.A.S.A., P.O. Box: 222. Dschang-Cameroon

Date: 03 June to 07 June 2003

Key Issues:

1. Scientific and Technical Soundness of the Project: A good description of the complex Inner Niger Delta of the Niger River and particularly the prevailing environmental condition has been provided. From the prevailing condition project design drawn upon current theory and practice of Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology has been developed. It fundamentally reflects the scientific approach to perceive the environment from the ecosystem perspective and to shift management scale to that of a whole ecosystem. It equally reflects the current scientific approach of environmental education and awareness – raising of local communities for a sound restoration, conservation and sustained management of natural resources on the technical side and a shift from decentralized approaches to natural resources management even in a complex environment with participatory mechanisms with resident communities on the social side.

2. Identification of Global Environmental Benefits and / or Draw backs of the Project. The major benefits resulting from this project is the restoration, conservation and rational use of the unique and complex ecosystem of Inner Niger Delta and improvement of the living condition and income (poverty alleviation), increased productivity and strengthened food security. Related to that will be the protection of migratory birds and original fish population of global importance, restoration of soils and protection of local agricultural biodiversity through sustainable production system and finally safeguarding of a threatened ecosystem and the incorporation of conservation and management rules into local and regional planning. Sustainable management and biodiversity conservation methods will be assessed and considered for other similar ecosystems outside the project site. Local communities will be among the direct beneficiaries of the total economic value of biodiversity restoration whose conservation will allow sustainable economic activities. However there is a wide range of activities to be undertaken in the area and it is not clear whether the basic skills in the domain are available for sustained implementation.

3. Fit of the Project within the context of the Goals of IFAD Operational Strategies Program Priorities and relevant convention. The project is designed in such a way as to globally improve the living conditions of the rural population through restoration and sustained management of natural resources and increase the income, particularly of the poorest as well as strengthen the capacity of farmer organisations and other stakeholders. These fall within the

95

overall goal of IFAD’s strategy in Mali of empowering the rural poor, ensuring equitable access to natural resources using grassroots organisations and access to financial services and markets. The ecosystem approach adopted here is consistent with the guidelines approved in the framework of the convention on Biological Diversity and this addresses some of the priorities of GEF Operational programmes. Potential effects on Climate Change and on international water are anticipated and taken into consideration and this fall within the objectives and provisions of Climates and Land Degradation Conventions.

4. Replicability of the project: The project as designed represents a useful experiment in poverty alleviation strategy and improvement of the living conditions of the rural population through sustainable management of natural resources, increased income and strengthening the capacity of farmer organisations in a rather complex ecosystem while capitalising on and exploiting the technological and methodological achievement as well as local know – how. Sites were selected on rigorous criteria and are representative of a various environmental context. Thus, the strategies used as well as the results derived can be replicable where similar conditions are found; and since it focus on altering the natural resource degradation trend, restore it, insure their conservation and sustained management, it creates a global socio-economic context which is favourable to it sustainable development. The duration of the project allows for meaningful lessons and experiences to be derived and disseminated not only in Niger but even in West and Central Africa sub regions. The regions has various types of wetland in various stages of degradation and lessons learned from this project will be of great value to those areas.

5. Sustainability of the Project. The project will last for six years while this period remain relatively short to develop and integrate new long lasting way of dealing with natural resources and oriented towards biodiversity restoration and conservation particularly in such a complex ecosystem as the Inner Delta of Niger, recognised above all to be of global interest and subject to powerful external pressure, it is enough to set up a firm basis of new strategies and approaches. The project has a built in mechanism for generating financial resources, administrative and political support, which are critical for its sustainability. Participatory approach integrated into the scheme allows for association of all stakeholders in the various levels, phases, activities and establishment of a clearly defined partnership arrangement in order to insure a more rational management of natural resources. Revenue generation from restoration/conservation and improved production system as well as alternative activities is critical in this respect to improve local populations living conditions and secure their continued full adhesion to the new strategies. The project has the support of the national and local communities. The duration of financial commitment of the donor agency supporting the project as well as the establishment of permanent and operational structure responsible for implementing policies, strategies and enacting legislation for natural resources management and biodiversity conservation of the Inner Delta and its transitions zones is an additional advantage for the sustainability of the project.

Secondary Issues:

6. Linkage to other Focal Areas. The project as developed has link with biodiversity conservation, reduction of land water degradation. Linkage appears also with National Action Plan on Climate Change, Regional Programme on Desert Margins, Domestic Energy Project, Programme for Integrated Community Management of Ecosystems, Integrated Management of Sahelian Plain land Ecosystems.

7. Other beneficial effects. Training of man power, land and water use, economic development issues in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation measure, awareness – raising in the area of natural resource management, organisation of stakeholders for biodiversity

96

conservation, establishment of monitoring and evaluation system are part of the project activities and will constitute additional benefits for the various participating actors. NGOs will equally benefit from most of these activities.

8. Stakeholder Involvement. During PDF-B development process and the March 2003 workshop, a major effort was made for adequate involvement of stakeholders. This was surely critical for an acceptable definition of the selection criteria for the various project areas. The project continues to emphasize on the integrated participatory planning and decision making of the stakeholders, which enables them to improve their control over their own environments, and decision and accountable for the whole process of planning implementation and monitoring/evaluation of the natural resources management and development action at the various level.

9. Capacity building. This is critical for this particular ecosystem. The scope and mainly the complexity of this environment require proper planning and implementation of capacity building in the areas related to environmental preservation, restoration, ecosystem monitoring and support to organisational framework centered around natural resource management. It is planned to be usefully completed with the strengthening of the technical capacities of the people and the local technical agents in ecosystem and natural resource management as well as organisation of the stakeholders for managing natural resources/biodiversity and establishment of frameworks for co-operation. Detail approaches on how this capacity building will be carried out to meet the project goals remain to be seen.

10. Innovativeness of the project. As it has been noted, this project is clearly innovative in seeking to apply current science and practice in the biological, ecological, social and institutional aspects of natural resource management. The ambition to carry out in such a complex and specific ecosystem, the listed activities is not without risks, however, by extending the work over such long periods, the odds are high for success.

Specific comments:

1. Project management capacity. The project is carried out in a complex and highly diversified environment comprising different vegetation types in inundated or exondated areas, wildlife resources (avifauna, fish reptiles and mammals) which has prompt to the creation of three RAMSAR wetland sites of international importance. The dysfunction in the present management of the Delta an its transition zones has led to the development of large number of activities which are fundamental to alleviate poverty and improve living condition among rural population through sustainable management of natural resources and increase their incomes while strengthening the capacity of farmers organisations and other stakeholders. However it is not clear who or where all the needed human resource to carry out the ground work in all these communities will come from or how they will be practically trained. This can be a potentially serious drawback and there must obviously be a sequenced series of training activities to build the cadres necessary for implementing all the diverse activities. If it was not the case it might be a serious bottleneck preventing a smooth project delivery. It would be seriously helpful to have a flow chart showing how the project planners envision building this capacity over a schedule consistent with plans for project implementation.

There are specific concerns about the project implementation:

2. 6 – GEF/SADeF’s development objectivesSADeF’s overall objective(a) Strengthening capacity of local actors/information/communication.

97

It is not clear how this will be done or by who when it is said “Therefore the idea is to reinforce the social capital……functions”.Second paragraph “The capacities of the rural poor…opportunities.” By who and how?

3. Component 1.Second paragraph, “….GEF resources would support the development and implementation of integrated management plans….”. What are the component of the integrated management plans and how would they be developed and implemented? Does it concern only the framework for the long term restoration, conservation and sustained use of the sites? I believe this section has to be rewritten and more detail provided on how to carried out this activity. In the last paragraph, it is explain that "co financing will finance socio-community micro projects of productive nature or important NRM activities ... alternative livelihood activities that could reduce over-exploitation of the resources..." but no indication is given to what these alternative livelihood activities might be?

4. Component 2.(v) This sentence needs more explanation “….Building on indigenous knowledge and the integrated approaches that has evolved…”. It is not clear what is being considered. In the same paragraph it is stated “…Potential activities could include: soil conservation and erosion control measures, improved rangeland management…”. All these are complex activities which need long term research work even on a very small area. How could this be implemented? is it from on site work or from work carried out elsewhere? and how would these result adapt here? How would the regeneration of the bourgoutière or of the forest be implemented. Would it be natural or artificial?(vi) It is stated that promotion of alternative source of income would reduce the pressure of the biological, land and water resource. What are those alternative source of income?. I believe for such activities we have to identified the type of pressure exerted by local population on natural resource and why. From these observations it is possible to suggest and develop the type of alternative attractive activities which will prevent them from exerting such a pressure . Removing the pressure will then definitely set the stage for the resumption of the restoration process if it a sustainable activity and have a full cooperation of the local population.

5. Component 3.The last paragraph “organisation of local and regional workshops”. This has to be carried out at which interval or frequency? This must be set in relation to the anticipated available information to be delivered.

6. Logical frameworkProject objective: Performance indicator. I assume that at the beginning of the project base line information will be collected and data or information such as number of hectare and state of floodplain, forest and bourgoutières that accrue from the project activities compared to that.

Activities. It is not clear what “ US $” means? Is that indicate the increase in income as the result of the implementation of that activities?

Activities 3: I am not sure that the fact that a community has a local action plans implies that it is being implemented. It seems more appropriate in the in general to always have indicators to evaluate the scope of adoption and implementation of the action plan.

The difficult socio economic conditions of the Inner Delta of Niger ecosystem and its transition zones with a huge agro-sylvo-pastoral and fisheries potential has prompted the design

98

on solid scientific basis of this project. The project is a biodiversity conservation project. However detail alternative measures to reduce the scope of the current pressure on fragile natural resource remain to be developed in detail. This is critical for a successful implementation of the project. The project’s result will be of value for global lessons learnt in poverty alleviation in rural areas through restoration, conservation and sustainable management of a complex and fragile ecosystem resource.

I hope that some of the few remarks made will be useful in shaping some practically oriented activities of this outstanding and challenging project and experience derived from other part of Africa will be very helpful for its implementation. I hope to continue contributing on its implementation.

99

ANNEX 5 (Cont'd.) IFAD Responses to GEF STAP Reviewer Comments

Reviewer Comments and IFAD Response

A. KEY ISSUES

A.1. Identification of Global Environmental Benefits and/or Drawbacks of the Project

A wide range of activities are to be undertaken in the area, and it is not clear whether the basic skills are available for sustained implementation

In light of lack of the capacity and weak institutional structure, Component 3, specifically focused on capacity-building, institutional strengthening, and awareness-raising, has been developed. The purpose of the component is twofold: (i) to strengthen the organizational, technical and financial capacities of the full-range of stakeholders (national, regional, local levels); and (ii) to support the Government of Mali’s decentralization process in the area of environmental management and biodiversity conservation. Lessons learned during SADeF Phase I will be applied to Phase II and III activities. Particular attention has been given to monitoring and evaluation systems which will be able to note progress to date, introduce changes, as needed over time to address both recurring and emerging issues linked to limited basic skills. Supervision missions will assess and report on skill development and its impact on sustainability.

A.2. Sustainability

Six years is a relatively short period to develop and integrate innovative natural resource management and biodiversity conservation techniques that will last, although a sound basis for implementing the new strategies can be established. The importance of alternative income-generating activities was highlighted.

IFAD agrees that the duration of the project is short in terms of achieving significant changes in key environmental indicators, but it should be sufficient to note a positive trend. Emphasis has been placed on laying a solid foundation for the adoption of an holistic approach and new and innovative sustainable natural resource management practices by strengthening capacities, ensuring stakeholder participation and ownership, identifying and testing new techniques, among others. Sustainability (including financial sustainability) should be achieved by demonstrating direct economic benefits and improved living conditions from sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. The project will study incentive measures and best practices for enhancing the economic benefits of biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of farming systems. In addition, as a means of promoting their sustainability, micro-projects will be selected and formulated by village associations and groups, and an adequate level of in kind or cash co-financing from the associations/groups is one of the conditions for approval. Another condition is the link between financing of micro-projects and involvement of beneficiaries in the implementation of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation activities. The importance of alternative livelihoods has been recognized, and one of the project’s activities will be to identify alternative income-generating activities. IFAD support to micro-projects will also provide lessons learned that may be replicated. The monitoring and evaluation systems will capture the effectiveness of interventions over time. Adequate flexibility, through annual work planning and budgeting, will enable prompt attention to be given to delays if any are introduced. Through active

100

participatory processes in place, and stakeholder involvement in work planning and implementation, the risks of delays are minimised. The intensity of efforts will be made as from Year 3 when minimum capacity requirements are in place for long term sustainability. Supervision missions will focus on implementation effectiveness and identify areas where delays arelikely to ensure impact by the end of the six year implementation period.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

B.1. Project Management Capacity

It is not clear whom and or from where all the needed human resources to carry out the activities at local level will come. This is a potentially serious drawback and a sequenced series of training activities to build the cadres is necessary.

Component 3 on capacity-building has been revised to reflect better the wide range of training and activities foreseen to strengthen capacities and the synergies and complementarity between IFAD and GEF-financed activities in this area. The description of organizational aspects at local (community, group) level has been strengthened in the section on implementation arrangements.Component 1

What are the components of the integrated management plans and how will they be developed?

The first step would be the participatory identification of priority areas for action. Once the sites have been identified, a diagnostic will be carried out, including the status of the resources, uses, threats, socio-economic aspects. The integrated management plans will be site specific, and the potential interventions will be identified and the integrated management plans developed, in close consultation with the local population and users of the resources.

Component 2

What are the activities and how will they be adapted and implemented?

As for Component 1 above, the activities undertaken would be site-specific and identified with the local communities and actors concerned.

Promotion of alternative sources of income would reduce the pressure on the biological, land and water resources.

IFAD agrees. Alternative income-generating activities will be studied and tested (see Sustainability above).

101